TABELAS PARA CALCULO DE PERDAS DE CARGASENAIs< —_ Mecanica dos Fluidos LAGES Velocidades Recomenddveis para fluidos As velocidades de fluidos no interior de tubulacdes sto pré-estabelecidas em functio da experiéncia acumulada respeitando-se limites econdmicos, de corrostio, energia consumida pela bomba para o recalque, etc. Abaixo estdo tabelas relativas a velocidades econémicas de fluidos. TABELAT _FLUIDO (liguido) ‘Velocidade econdmica (avs) || _ Material da Tubulacao |Agua’ } : ~ servigos gerais, 0.9025 ago = rede industrial 0,9 a 2.2 ago Bombas: - linha de suecao 0.9a22 ago -linha derecalque 2,1.43,0 ago 15 | rev. de borracha 12 FF 18 ago 18 aco LS. ago. FLUIDO (liquido) ICloroférmio | 18 IHidréxido de sédio - solugao até 30% 18 - solugao de 30 a 50% 15 ~ solugdo de 50 a 73% 12 leo lubrificante 18 Cleo combustivel Por outro lado, sabemos que para o escoamento de gés perfeito até cerca de 75 m/s 0 escoamento é considerado como incompressivel, dai a tabela abaixo.SENAIs_ — Mecdnica dos Fluidos AGES TABELA IT [_FLUIDO - gas ou vapor_f Velocidade economica (nvs) J[_Material da Tubulagio_ i ago aco rev. de borracha nic ; cobre @ ago Didxido de enxofre ago Etileno ago [Hidrogénio ago) Gas natural Vapor d’agua ~ 0a 30 psi-sat - 30 a 150 psi-sat on] superaquecido ~acima de 150 psi - linhas curtas Apés o preestabelecimento do material e da velocidade econdmica, calcula-se 0 didmetro da tubulagéo como mostramos a seguir. Através do diémetro calculado pela equacéo abaixo, consultando uma tabela normalizada, especificamos o diémetro nominal, Q=Axy =x lax KY Devemos salientar que dependendo da fonte de consulta encontramos certas variagées das velocidades econémicas, para ilustrar o mencionado, apresentamos na tabela Tabela III as velocidades recomendadas pela Alvenius Equipamentos Tubulares S/A ena Tabela IV os valores recomendados para linhas de recalque curtas recomendados pela Companhia Sulzer.SENAI;< — Mecanica dos Fluidos LAGES TABELA IIT Fluido Velocidade (m/s) = [Agua - redes em cidades 1a3 - redes industriais 2a4 - alimentagao de caldeiras 4a8 ~ sucgaio de bombas 075018 |Agua salgada IC 15425 [Ar comprimido 1520 Vapor - até 2 kefvem® saturado 2040 -de2a10kgficm™ 40.80 - mais de 10 kgfcm™ 80 a 200 Hidrocarbonetos liquidos em instalacées| iindustriais = linhas de succao - linhas de recalque [Hidrocarbonetos gasosos em instalacdes| industriais [Acetileno |Aménia - liquida Bas [Hidrogénio ICloro - liquide - gas Soda caustica ~ 0a 30% - 30a 50% - 50a 75% \Cloreto de sédio ICloreto de Calcio [Tetra-Cloreto de carbono |Acido sulfiirico TABELA IV ‘VELOCIDADES MAXIMAS EM L. DE RECALQUE CURTAS, 5.0 60 75 100 150 13 14 1.80 2.20 25 40 141 38.9Ss EN. A I MECANICA DOS FLUIDOS sc TABELAS LAGES Viscosidade Cinemdtica A tabela abaixo apresenta valores da viscosidade cinemitica, para diferentes temperaturas, dos Iiquidos mais frequentemente utilizados na pratica do dia-a-dia. Estes valores so os que se utilizam na equagao de Colebrook-White ou no diagrama de Moody. Ligquido Temp. (°c) Visc. Cinem. (x10 m*/s) Agua Agua Agua Agua Agua do mar s 1,61 Agua do mar 4s 1,22 Agua do mar 25 0,97 Alcool metilico 20 0,727 Asfalto 120 1600 Azeite 38 423 Benzol 20 0,744 Gasolina 20 0.6 Glicerina ° 8310 Glicerina 20 1180 Glicerina 40 223 Leite 20 1,13 Gleo bruto dens. 0,855 30 5.5 Oleo bruto dens. 0,855 40 as Oleo bruto dens. 0,855 60 3,5 Oleo bruto dens. 0,855 80 2.7 Oleo bruto dens. 0,855 100 21 Oleo bruto dens. 0,855 120 a7 Gleo bruto dens. 0/855 150 1s Gleo comb. dens. 0,940 30 400 Oleo comb. dens. 0,940 40 180 Oleo comb. dens. 0,940 60 60 Oleo comb. dens. 0,940 80 25 Oleo comb. dens. 0,940 100 B Oleo comb. dens. 0,940 120 8 Sleo comb. dens. 0,968 40 1200 Oleo comb. dens. 0,968 60 300 Sleo comb. dens. 0,968 80 80 Sleo comb. dens. 0,968 100 35 leo comb. dens. 0,968 120 18,5 Oleo comb. dens. 0,968 150 10 Oleo de algodio 38 38 Oleo de baleia 3a 38 6leo de Linhaga 38 30 Gleo de soja 38 35 6ieo sag-10 20 20 Sleo sAE-10 30 45 Oleo SAR-10 40 30 Gleo SAE-10 60 4s leo SAR-10 80 10 Ole SAE-10 100 5 leo SAB-10 120 3 Seo saz-30 20 250 leo sAE-30 30 130SEN. iA I MECANICA DOS FLUIDOS sc TABELAS LAGES Liquide Temp. (°C) Vise. cil (x10 m/s) leo SAE-30 40 leo SAE-30 60 Oleo SAE-30 80 leo SAE-30 100 leo SAE-30 120 leo SAE-90 40 Tetracloreto carbono 20 Nota: valores extraidos de Kreith, Lencastre, Simon. Viscosidade Cinemé 1Pas = 1,000 centipoise [cP] = 3.600 kg/m.h = tkg/m.s = 0.101972 kgf.s/m? 1Ns/m? = 10 poise [P] = 10° centiestoke [cSt] = 10,000 cm*/s [Stoke] = 3.600 m?/hMecanica dos Fluidos 114 Dados de Tubos pe =~ [as] et ete p= tain] Wo soeo6 nT 2 ee 2088 aa [ase [as [33 fe 26,64 38 or 75 XS ‘Schedule 4,071 27,94 33,98 9,07E-04 281 7, 14-03 284 ae 516 62 2.681 15,24 35,84 3:08 7426-08 J 8.56 | 2229 6.02 70226 | 821€03 40,Mecanica dos Fluidos 214 Dados de Tubos Area] Eepessura [ex J tnt | interna | de Parede Schedule ee a [ee fn ES | [ iossefaeas [ices [ao 128.3 1,29E-02 6,55 21,75 124.4 22E-02 21 79,4 [ices iasenr | on [a eel ee [40s | 2acen | maz [oz | os _| [res [ace | z062 [ona | J [“toass | zere0 | ve20 | oar | | [“ioose | zane-02 | —se00 [rs] [100] [as = [0 - Sear p aaeo | e Ben] seco [aes] ar [soir [ase | aie [zee | [asoss [asses [voz [ese || ET [res [amen [a7 [es P| a [ars [sree | 76 | mee P|Mecanica dos Fluidos 3/4 Dados de Tubos oroeaa | oir | 007 vires | 7.92602 | 1905) 197.02 masz | eaiec2 | 1519 Hisar [ee Tm] mom | etic | Bebe [cot [am [mm | [om] . 552 TI 3302 | esee02 | 127 107.27 339,76 | _9,07E-02 7.92 67.87 344,94 | 9346-02 5.33 46,02 325,42 | 8326-02 40,48 364 (60) 40 120 40 20 20 40 30, 20 (60. (20 20 60. 40, 20. (00. 20 ; 3655 20.96 "8 1666 = 27 3402 2836 8 1427 =Mecanica dos Fluidos 414 Dados de Tubos = ee a . 4445 1,55E- 6,35 70,52 10 A ST a Se wes tae | es fe eT [are28 [icra [ef | [ss aacor [ma [aan | ro [coer [vcore a fo [sore [amcor [ass | wee | [csiroo—[ a ceor | soca fess [0 [saree [ameor | see swee | [00 [sare [accor [sos isi | | 0 [saee | 2scor | mae | asec [| I BE Ea ETA.P. Martins Distribuidora de Acgos Ltda. Fones: 957-6456 957-0404 Telex: (011) 61218 APMX martins DIMENSOES IDENTIF.) | DIMENSOES IDENTIF. | | DIMENSOES IDENTIF. E : i : OOS ; é é reans O10 BW | von BW | ron) i nimmim a/m kgm & mim mim mim tga & nim mim mim gin & Ector. Ite Exter, nt Inter ~~ aa 2m 9g so 120,20 278 sm © 372 798 392080 x8 a0 12, ose xs 00 rie 990 082180 15.90 210 too. war 10 \1200 2a 0s sto 0 ea aloe W718 1078 920 130 x8 a0 765 4.75 1,56 160, 155,60 33 37D 154.08 maa 0 % GX 88 a8 sae 6.38 wat xs 00 ve (var)nw we oe se ee ‘° 0747 at US 2400 70 298 Q 2,87 1,88 STO 40 688 2 (s«") am at xo *” » 28 os Es : : 26,66 3,98 2,80 STD 40 15.08 100, 80 song 490 455 (923x880 828 v0 100 “20,68 6,96 4,23 160 aoe “o 120 1522 909 84s 0s na 40 201 10 Fs (FN am ag sm eas amo xs 80 ’ ¥ we 28 ie 700 50,98 as 5 es a7 an so fa 70 ~~ 12,70 81,45 XS. 60 “0 oes meso 1026 11482100 5 oe tas io tees 08 10 aa 9.54 5 ae 25.91 20387 10 0 20 3s) 540 st a i 2 at Sek TAT XS 0 | « 207.08 0.08 ~ 2 ose 87k 11,10 160 304,80 9,52 40) aie thor 1241 as eee en e “o 62.71 5.16 862 ST 40 uastisn ear 0 100] FroiN mm 99 701 140-5 00 sea ar ° 120 so90 as so 180 eer ti 0 490 402 2087 238 pete i 10 ne 549 1120 sw aero as ve 10 rae 762 1825.8 25720 9.32 10 ~ see inate use 530 0 7 see2 15.24 2785 918 pa a » > we 06 560.82 2 7 Grr)ore an an am m8 wee 8 * 7 020 1270 7 eens 5 85,0 aas.at 15.19 «0 bal e738 ase aan XS 00 am88 19.05 oI bl is490 92.08 19.19 2627 120 ore 23.82 10 a7g2 19349 9940 160 300,02 27,79 120 80,06 17.12 40.98 XXS 292,30 91.75 0 ann 100A.P. Martins Distribuidora de Agos Ltda. Fones: 957-6456 957-0404 martins Telex: (011) 61218 APMX 7 DIN 2440 DIN 2448 CoSey mim mim mim tom O6Oe™ nie! mim mim Exter. inter, Parede 168 75338 7.060 ms 40 7,800 a 2.amim 45 10.700 4143 108.3 Me 4.0 10,300 1307 130.0 Me 45 11.700 yes 155.4 preneel 40° 11,000 219i 206.5 rere 45° 12:100 Me ae 45 14,200 amin 424 10745 16.900 2855.6 18.500 tes moo 48 ico a ts Eo tore 3 3 ios be ano ont OR nm mie : om 51.0 185.7 3.3 25,900 so ert aes s mo ea ta somo s os ier ea soa ae ies tr sano a 8 2055 83 33.200 Me te aro mo ‘0 mes sae | | one ‘som mi cae | | ove ‘aioe TUBOS MECANICOS BITOLAS STANDARD Fornecemos cortados na medida oaneTeS) Pe, RRSP] [PRM] Cas, Some) [RRM ao, [aa caner®| eo] ncaa | [ita] Cbs] mcnaas | | WAMGRS Peae, | Sour =m "ono| "rn = 5 Te soe | ee ee 38 me 388 m8 8 wet aE 75x43 0 Tex 6 38288 ms $ HS Hiss 38 mg 388 BIg 38 mg | a 38:88 Es 8 mre |S 38-88 rae ta Teen | es 38:88 i 8 ra] 8 ane 39-88 ag 8 he | 84 BEL 38:88 wns 3a =n] ei Bg 339 90x63 20 32x 9 | 60,9 x 30-60 Bue 38288 cera 2a ‘ine | os sie B ne | Ss ue 38:88 Bie a ue | Ss eee 7 eee [ae Boa 38:38 ita 38 ISH | Be sare 38:88MECANICA DOS FLUIDOS TABELAS Rugosidade Equivalente A tabela abaixo apresenta valores da rugosidade equivalente para os materiais mais usualmente empregados na fabricagdo de tubos. Estes valores so os que se utllizam na equa¢ao de Colebrook-White ou no diagrama de Moody. Material do tubo Rug. equiv. (m) Aco comercial 0, 000060 Ago galvanizado 0,.000160 Aco com ferrugem leve 0000250 Aco com grandes incrustagées 0,.007000 Ago com cimento centrifugado 0,.000100 Ago revestido com asfalto 0,,000600 Aco rev. c/esmalte, vinil, epoxi 0,000060 Aluminio 0,.000004 Conereto muito rugoso 0, 002000 Conereto rugoso 0,,000500 Conereto liso 0, 000100 Concreto muito liso 0, 000060 Conereto alisado, centrifugado 0,.000300 Concreto liso, formas metélicas 0,000120 Ferro fundido asfaltado 0,000122 Ferro galvanizado 0,000150 Ferro fund. no revestido novo 0, 000500 Ferro fund. com ferrugem leve 0,001500 Ferro fund. c/cim. Centrifugado 0, 000100 Fibrocimento 0,.000100 Manilha ceramica 0, 000300 Latéo cobre 0000007 Plasticos 0, 000060 Rocha (galeria) no revestida 0, 350000 Nota: valores extraidos de Assy, Jardim, Lencastre, Quintela, Simon, Tullis.Relative Roughness of Pipe Materials and Friction Factors For Complete Turbulence Pipe Diameter, in inches 1 2 3 456 810 20 30 40 5060 80 100 200 300 07 RIVETED STEEL 02 a 3 a8 ia 016 i 014 Relative Roughness — 012 00003} 20002] 909 000 om ° eo 98 o 2 Q e 3 oss 98 8 me ge! 28 (2 228228 8 2S ees Pipe Diameter, in millimetres ~ f~ For Complete Turbulence, Rough Pipes7 ee Te se Tie Ree Reynolds Numiber= 2 ae Problem: Determine the fvction factor far a east 250mm int, dlam, at a Reynolds number flow of 30, Solution: The relative roughness (see page A-23) Then, the fasion iatoe CaO: oe 810 ENE ved J 7 MOREL > 00,008 ie Fer other forms xt he hy eqclon, te nage 8: Adupied Trom dita extracted from ae alice 18. - edig jepsoummieg jo adA Auy 203 ssemse.4 wouai2 “be ANWHD Gdid GN SONILLia "SSAA Jo SSIISINSLOVEWHO MOTa GNY SOIN Td 40 S3/1u340s TVOISAHE v XIONadavValores de K, obtidos experimentalmente PECAS QUE OCASIONAM A PERDA K ‘Ampliagao gradual Bocais Comporta aberta Controlador de vazao Cotovelo de 90° Cotovelo de 45° Crivo | Curva de 90° Curva de 45° Curva de 22,5° Entrada normal em canalizagao Entrada de borda Pequena derivagao Jungao ~ Medidor Venturi Redugdo gradual Registro de Angulo aberto Registro de gaveta aberto Registro de globo aberto Té, passagem direta Té, passagem delado Té, saida de lado 7,30 Té, saida bilateral ~ 7,80 Valvula de pé 1,75 Valvula de retengao 2,50 Velocidade 1,00Valores de K, obtidos experimentalmente ESTREITAMENTO BRUSCO K= 4/9(1-B/A) Reentrante ou de borda Normal k=1.0 K=05 Forma de sino Redugao k=0,05 k= 0,10 rea Al _v T Area B | DIAFRAGMA DE PAREDE an anal I a | (PLACA DE ORIFICIO)Valores de K, obtidos experimentalmente ALARGAMENTO BRUSCO DE SECAO Mi] K= 4/9(1-BiAY 29 SAIDA DE CANALIZAGAO K= 1,06 a 1,10 K=1,0 ALARGAMENTO GRADUAL DE SEGAO 7 20° 40° [ 60° | | 80° 120° a 0.42 ee REDUCAO GRADUAL K=0,04a0,15CURVAS, 15 oon 6 |e ~ a 0,17 0,42 0.90 | 1,10 | 1,20 JOELHO OU COTOVELO , 7 alzi/sais/lalalala Die) 4) 8)/2)/8 4/8 | 2 |ooaal A | | (0,948 |0,856 0,740] 0,609] 0,466/0,315|0,159 | | 2,06 5.62 17.0 97.8 a = Area de abertura de passagem A= rea da tubulagao1.11.16 METODO DO COMPRIMENTO EQUIVALENTE Uma canalizagao que possui ao longo de sua extensao diversas singularidades, equivale sob o ponto de vista de perda de carga, a um encanamento retilineo de comprimento maioi sem singularidades. © método consiste em adicionar 4 extenso da canalizagao, para efeito de calculc comprimentos tais que correspondam a mesma perda de carga que causariam a singularidades existentes na canalizacao. valvula de reten¢ao valvula gaveta cotovelo S0° cotovelo 90° valvula de pé v —=————— | F A, G,U 1 __ Comprimento Equivalente Utilizando a formula de Darcy - Weisback, tem-se:Coiprimentos equivalentes a perdas localizadas. (Expressos em metros de canalizacao retllinea)* A eR fa bg g a Sk aid 2 8 ee Pee EG aiad 2 a es fe ee ee oe DIAMETRO o a SuasiioFF AAS ves Bag = = i \es EL Bi al i 13 % 03 04 O05 02 O2 03 02 02 04 01 49 26 03 10 1,0 36 04 14 16 19 Me 04 06 O07 03° 03 O04 02 03 05 01 67 36 04 14 14 $6 05 16 24 25 1 05 07 08 04 03 05 02 03 O7 02 82 46 05 V7 AT 7.307 24 32 321% 1 O7 09 41 05 04 06 03 04 og 02 13° 56 07 23 23 100 09 27 40 3% 1% | 09 4 143° (06 OF O07 03 05 10 03 134 67 09 28 28 16 40 32 48 50 2 41 14 47 08 06 09 04 OF 15 04 W485 14 35 35 14.0 48 42 64 6 2% | 143 1,7 20 09 06 1,0 05 og 19 04 210 10.0 1.3 43°43 17.0 1952 84 75 3 146 21 25 12 1,0 1306 4a 22 05 0 130 16 52 52 200 22 63 o7 100 4 24 28 34 13 41,3 16 O07 1,8 32 07 MO 170° 21 67 67 230 32 64 12,9 125 5 2737 4219 16 21 09 20 40° 09 43,0 210 27 84 84 300 40 104 161 150 6 34 43 49 23 19° 25 it 25 501.1 510 26.0 34 100 100 390 50 125 193 200 8 4355 64 30 24 33 15 35 60 14 670 HO 43 130 130 520 60 160 250 20 10 | 55 67 79 38 30 41 18 48 75 17 85,0 430 68 160 160 650 7,5 200 320 300. 12 61 79 95 46 36 48 2, 55 90 21 1020 51.0 61 19.0 190 78.0 90 240 36.0 14 7395 44 54 25 62 24 o o_ 7, 0 22,0 90.0 28.0 45.0 * Os valores indicados para registros de globo, aplicam-se também &s torneiras, valvulas para chuveiros e valvulas de descarya, SVQVZITVDO01 SVGUAd V SSLNATWAINDA SOLNSWINdWOD ZEEETE. Saida Bilateral Te, ( Saida Lateral ou Cotovelo Reto ) ENTRADA DE BORDA (Reduzido % ov Gotovelo 80°) JP entrana wormat Sth | NN EER i VS 1e | ts (Reduzido % ou 1 COTOVELO 45° Cotovelo de 90° J _ aio medio) . R ~J fe of TE, Passagom dicta ov woe Corona da OOo onae) REGISTRO DE GAVETA som 300m 20m wan 4am 30m 20m 02m oam 909 mm 00mm s1mm x80 2000 200m ponm 125mm 150m sam- Estimate - friction factor = accurately Here is a very accurate equation ~for calculating the friction factor directly, without trial-and-error. T.K. Serghides, Ken- McGee Chemical Corp. — The Colebrook equation is a widely used method for _redicting /, the friction factor for fluid flow:* : 1 e/D , 2.51 ~20 wee ($3 m7) a) “where € is the absolute pipe roughness (fi), D is the ~-aternal diameter of the pipe (ft), and Re is the Reynolds “umber for flow You cannot solve the Colebrook equation directly, as he friction factor appears on both sides. To solve it "~-equires trial-and-error or a graph—which are difficult to \program. Or you can use one of several approximate lutions that are explicit in f, and therefore can be Solved directly S This article presents two new approximations, based ‘1 numerical solution of the Colebrook equation. Both “Rbpear to be more accurate than any of the other pub- shed approximations. ~-he friction-factor equations This explicit friction-factor equation is valid for transi ynal and turbulent flow (Re > 2,100) at any relative “roughness (€/D) (B= A? _)-* = @-eeta) ® D . 12) vere 4 = 201g (YP 4 2) a = ~20 105 (2 + 254) [Note that dhe used here isthe Dare factor with which tional head lost, Day be cakuled se Absa Here, length wi veloay A "be the ravcnal coast 8) ——SEENTEALENG 2,100 and any value of €/D: 1 (d= 4.781) _)-* f = (1701 - 4g AB)? where: 2.0 log (LP + 2 fd 37 B= ~2.0log a ~ 63Absolute deviation, % : Average, Maximury 9 sjornen2 fa wn } os 267 fe 038s 7 5.16 556 Ee 0.138 osa7 0.208 oso 0027 ose | | 10 ‘Only for points within equation’stimits How accurate are the equations? ‘The table shows the accuracy of Eq. 2 and $ over atest matrix of 70 points, and compares these accuracies with those of seven other explicit approximations of the Colebrook equation: '™ Moody equation [3], which is valid for 4,000 < Re < 107 and €/D < 0.01: f= 5.5 X 10-3 (1 + (2X 10# €/D + 10°/Re)") (4) % Wood equation [4], which is valid for Re > 4,000 and all €/D: f= 0.094(€/D)°* + 0.53(€/D) + BB(€/D) Rew (8) where: a= ~1.62(€/D)* = Jain equation [5], which is valid for 5,000 < Re < 107 and 0.00004 < €/D < 0.05: 1.14 — 2.0 log (€/D + 21.25/Re™) (6) ™ Churchill equation [6], which is valid for all values of Re and €/D: f= 8(8/Ro! + 1A + BY) he @ where: 4 (2.457 In ((7/Re)"9 + 0.27€/D))"" B (37,530/Re)'® ™ Chen equation [5], which is valid for all values of Re and €/D: u f soses ~20ton( 595-82) © ps 58806 wheres 4 = log (-AZBEE. 5 8508. ™ Zigrang and Sylvester equations [5], which are valid for 4,000 < Re < 108 and 0.00004 < €/D < 0.05: 204 @ 64 Ener oe fa ) 00) e 302) og (YP 4 18 ~ the tes matrix i 70 points: 10 relative Cena values by 7 Reynolds numbers. The values of €/D are: ~ 0.00004, 0.00005, 0.0002, 0.0006, 0.0015, 0.004, 0.008, 0.015, 0.03 and 0.05. The values of Re are: 2,500, 4,000, 30,000, 10°, 108, 107 and 10%. ~ ‘The measure of deviation (E) is the fractional differ- cence between the equations friction-factor value and the” numerical solution of the Colebrook equation: . E=|f-//fl an, where / is the Colebrook friction factor as calculated numerically, and /* is the approximation. This compari- son is similar to the one performed by Zigrang and~ Sylvester [5], but it covers the critical zone (2,100 < Re_ < 4,000) in addition. ‘The result? As the table shows, the maximum devi-= ation of Eq. 2 from the numerical solution of Eq. 1 is omly_ 0.023%, and the average deviation is a hundred or more times smaller than that of Eq. 4 ~ 10. For Eq. 3, the~ ‘maximum deviation is only 0.2%, and while the average deviation is not as low as that of Eq. 2, it is lower than those of the other equations. ~ Note that the figures for Eq. 4—6 involved only thos points for which those equations were claimed to be valid. Eq. 9 and 10 are numerical solutions of Eq. 1, s_ they were evaluated over all 70 points in the matrix. ~2.0 log where: 4 = log Conclusion Eq. 2 appears to approximate the Colebrook equatior more accurately than other explicit friction-factor equa— tions. Eq. 3 is not quite as accurate, but is still better tha the other equations looked at here, and is easier to use ‘Mark Lipowiez, Edit References 1, Henig P. “Elements of Numerical Analysis," John Wiley & Sons, Nev York, 1964, 2. Series, , K., Kerstivesoltion by direct substation, Chem. Eig Sept 8 1082. 3. Daugherty, Rand Ingersoll, A.C, “Fld Mechanics with Engine Ing Applcasone®” McGriw-Hil, New York, 1958, 4. Jeppson. R.W, “Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks, ence, Ann Aibor, Mich, 1977 Ann ab Sees eps RAT 6. Churchill §.W., Friton-Eactor equation spans all fid-ow regimes; Chem: Eng, Now. 7, 1977 The author “TK. Serghides it» production rrimendent with Kew McGee Fsnical Corp. P.O. Bor 367, Trowa= ‘3502, where he sapere Fotos ae Suhr ls sy he woke a en a cle Me Sergey care Secs a to Se Cet ME and the Instrument Soe ofto concentrade (saturade nas condigdes normais) contendo dxidos de nitrogénio. &m temperaturas elevades dé-se @ pirdlise (decomposigéo térmica) do acide ni- trico, liperando-se varios tipos de éxidos de nitrogénio (NO,) todos eles ge sosos e erradamente conhecidos por "fumes nitrosos”. mule Brute HN - PROPRIEDADES FISICAS E CUIMICAS Vapor Gxidos de Nitregénio Vapor Oxidos de Nitrogénio Paso Molecular Densidade 15,67/15,6°C (60°/60°F) Viecosidade @ 20° C, 96% Vascosidace a 20° 1» 80 Ponto ce ebuligéo a 760 mmHg de retregée a 76,47 clubilicace em ague Pressao de vapor Calor especificc Formula Estrutural incolor ou amarelo ineolor incoler ou marrom escuro picante suave ao picante 63,02 1,802 (vide gréfico) 1,18 cp 120,5? C ponto azeotrépico a 68% com d= infinita vide tebela vide gréficoLows 0,70 US) / 2000 LIBRAS tows too GALAG ( 0,88 30 ae TEMPERATURA GAAS CELSIUS oe a ae 2100 | wooo fe c 2 | woo g 3 200 ° { ° | s00 a | } } 600 (ae zo0* Rao ato" HzO eee a a TEMPERATURA © GSAUS FAHAENHEMT Grafico 2 - Pe: 0 = Acido Suifurica Espe { METAC CUBICO / TONELADA, xe osnaunl] METRO cUBICOoF uauiDo é t 5 o. “4 2 rg 2 -ese. | £ = i z z bower § 0". SOLIDO { us e ime sou | eons a (SONCENTRAGAO, 23 Grafico 3 - Ponto de congelamento de solugdes de Acido Sulturico so | we Lao = a | S | ‘ lie € é Liew £ = | é 5 te § i Low wo 2 8) 80S PERCENTAGEM EM PESO DE SOS LIVRE (% OLEUM) Gratico 4 - Temperatura de congelamento, Oleum6300. ——— 00" sor 300" : Tso. 00", / 90° 3 2 300" aso P00" ae ats ow vy nea 160. ° PERGENTAGEM EM 8150 aGaaO SULEuRIGO Goalie 8 Ponte de eb fe Acide Setter tein pow 190"zoe wwe aoa? z0? aoe Bre Me! 3z wi -43°C(UO7FD seecuis0er) seccsoer) SONGENTRACAO #. Grafico @ - Viscosidade do Acido SulfiriceEM CENTIPOISE fico 9 - ‘scosidade do Oleum‘OH WW OvSS3ua PERCENTAGEM LIVRE DE SO 5 Grafico 10 - Press4o de Vapor do Oleum2 a aoee(setri—/ * proercunen | 93212009) soi N \ a to0.28 KoaL3 & foyer 3 4 8 | tg 8 2 F 3 |___ 3 3 [es 3 8 ° » '§ 3 toms $3 4 aa $ ty pa x § Fess & rt eg S=StSH=-4g y e fb BG 8 £22 B20 z " otote tft 5 egogco8h BS eeeRlss | od = Peete” i 9988565555 1 z Sozezeeane2 ' ts Ltbtrretebi tare 1 sages sees eet os on ' a r “| A I EF dott td 4 & 8 8 g & de VEnAvu aa maL 20 FL L c E a 140TEMPERATURA % io Ie 2030S IPD LO GRAUS BAUME Sfico 2 - DENSIDADE DE SOLUGGES DE SODA CAUSTICA A VARIAS TEMPERATURAS FONTE: INTERNATIONAL CAITICAL TABLESDENSIDADE Kg/I TEMPERATURA °C - DENSIDADE DE SOLUGOES AQUOSAS DE SODA CAUSTICA DENSIDADE BE8 oO : a z ; 3 a e * & § 8 a: 3 8 : 2F 3S : 8 « 8 zg s Gra § gasiogiinaa - aavaisoosiA geaess e 8cp. VISCOSIDADE. a8ec(uoer) 54°C(130°F) 66°C (150°F) ° 10 2 408 Dw CONCENTRAGAO % Grafico 8 - Viscosidade do Acido SulfuricoSSEVSEOSSSE SE eB esl ly 0606-11 VISCOSITY, mPa's | bon tase VISCOSITY OF CAUSTIC SODA SOLUTIONS AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES AND CONCENTRATIONS Source: VISCOSITY, mPa's ‘Approved by the Pulp Bleaching Committee of the Pulp Manufacture Division J J ° "TAPPL Industrial Chemical Division, Allied Chemical Corp.ERR ree dm eh eh re he hem ee. ae PHISC Matetia.s iS hosnisit Hise 6 explosion ~ wis pee < entirely oF Type 316 Stainless itmay Suwo, ant Hammered. Parmps used for chlorate solutions ipped wish a water seal at the packing gland j. water pressure above the internal pressure of faz, end Gaskets woot Tope 316 Stainless Sel is se 2S Aluminum will go servce. AF conngiereay insulated trea of orevens ecnteaiven corsoston. Orcinary steel 5 yeurs and may be used uf the hagher Tialascnance is not objectimable. cither che secel or aluminum lines, ry rubber connections at the sank car should not contain any fabric regnaced with chlorate. ass have given satislactory service ia Guie vaives ate usually preferced 10 plig as readily as the globe «ype The rubber hose wed io might become usually Valees made of: or 20 3 45 so 70 30 30) 13° TEMPERATURE OF SOLUTION- DEOREES CENTICRADE (EINE Ace IS FOR SATURATED SOLUTIONS) Figure 23. Grams par liter — specific gravity — temperature curve for sodium chlorate solutionsthe chemi eed fopplaccer, more dexible units came about versiied consinuows bleaching plants. rugged sceam-jacketed evaporator yes it many modern bleacheries “C" Hooker Evaporator 1 available in sizes and capac- fer wide range 2es plugging of ‘of conceol equipment, GLASS WOOL COKE THRU V4 MESH BENre aoe of) fa YY Oe aos ; | —— “ || ij {OOCSOG: ' | ; | CSCCOS™ il | ee ; Le RiuE OAS 10 f B QUID CHLORINE .3 System for a pulp bleachery Figure 13. Hooker Chlerine Handi rinse Tempperarure Conttolier Shutod Valve Brow Coneéol Valve Bresaute Reducing Valve Gace Valves Fine Pressure Gages 5. Presure Swatch Hooker Tye "C" Chlorine Evaporator Ch Aor Compressor & Choier Assembiy As Vanes a ck Valves. Gir Signal Tank 3 exe One 23Designing plant piping Typically, process piping costs 20% of the total investment in a process plant. Energy usage plus continued maintenance add additional costs. Clearly, sound sizing practices can have a substantial impact on overall plant economics. Larry L. Simpson and Martin L. Weirick, Union Carbide Corp. Ci Although the literature on pipe sizing is massive, reflecting its importance, sizing remains a somewhat intractable technology. Piping-flow phenomena are fre- quently complex and often not well understood. Never- theless, engineers and technicians too often size piping by rules of thumb, ignoring sound sizing principles. Before undertaking any sizing calculation, the de- signer first decides what basis to use. The decision is often a difficult one; it might be the economic trade-off between operating-energy cost and piping investment, the so-called economic or optimum size, or it might be peculiar to a particular process situation. The designer should avoid rules of thumb where possible. ‘Many of the tools that were the backbone of the sizing art ten years ago are now becoming obsolete as a result of improved calculation tools, and because of the trend toward metrication. Small card-programmable calculators, first introduced four years ago, have freed many designers from laborious calculations and tedious charts and nomographs associated with pipe sizing These calculators have become highly sophisticated and are more suitable for line sizing than any other tool currently available, including large computers. Line-sizing practice is also being influenced by the gradual shift toward metrication. This change causes us to rethink many of the practical parameters etched in our minds. It makes dimensional equations obsolete, forcing us to derive new equations or to think and work with dimensionally consistent equations. This article reflects this trend by incorporating dimensionally con- sistent equations. Dimensional equations will be so noted and most will be presented with multiple sets of English and metric units. [A conversion factor (¢,) may be needed in some of the pressure-drop equations, but such equations will be flagged with an asterisk.] Sizing economics and limitations When economical sizing is mentioned, some engi- neers immediately think of balancing energy and in- vestment costs to minimize an annualized cost. It is better to think of economical sizing in a broader con- text, because there is usually ane best and most econom- ical size and that size may have nothing to do with energy consumption. For example, pipe sizes to and from fixed-pressure utility headers do not affect plant energy consumption. Yet in a given application there is a minimum size that will give satisfactory operation, and is therefore the most economical size. The term “economical sizing” is too ingrained in our literature to change, but the designer should constantly strive for economical sizes in the broader sense. ‘One rational approach to pipe sizing involves first determining if pipe size affects plant energy consump- tion. If so, optimum sizing should be given further consideration. If not, it should be totally ignored, and another rational basis selected. In either case, the fol- lowing sizing limitations should be considered: Pressure-drop availability ‘Two-phase flow patterns Drain-piping design Erosion corrosion Noise and cavitation Flow distribution Transient and vibration phenomena Piping expansion and support Many techniques are available for estimating an optimum diameter or velocity. The more sophisticated techniques {36] contain correlated piping costs and complex analytical expressions for explicit estimation of diameter, given the cost factors, flowrate, and physi cal-property data. This is a good approach, but due to the complexity, average parameters are usually used and an economical velocity is selected from a table of velocity versus fiuid density. In 1974, the authors [42] developed an alternative method for economical sizing of piping in turbulent flow. Instead of estimating the pipe size that would minimize an annualized cost, we estimated the flowrate range for which a given size would function most eco- nomically. This approach has several advantages over the conventional: First, discrete sizes avoid rounding-off of the estimated diameter. Second, actual pipe costs can be used instead of correlated costs. Third, tables of ‘economical Rlowrate ranges can be prepared to reflect the economic impact of piping complexity, materials of construction, and control-valve pressure drop. Finally, the egonomic tables can be easily updated. Since pressure loss through piping and fittings is aEconomic piping ranges for Plant X, based on the Wop parameter, which reflects energy usage Table | oration: Plant x ‘Location Plont x Piping configuration: | Complex Piping configuration: Complex Material Carbon stool Material: Stainfas steoh Without control valve Without control valve Nominal pipe Actua pipo Nominal pipe Actual pipe UDi(in) “EDv(md WOPTMIN, WoRTMAX, "'ED.fin)” “TD. (ind) WOPT MIN, _WOPT MAX. 15 1.6100 ° 1498 18 1.6820 ° 1683 20 2.0670 1498 2461 20 2.1870 1683 2963 30 3.1880 2461 5575 30 3.2800 2963 402 40 4.1880 5575 12302 40 42600 e402 13288 60 6.2490 12302 22279 60 6.4070 13288 27899 80 8.2490 22279 36865 80 8.4070 27899 54578 100 wose4o 36865 61300 10.0 10.4520 4578 83761 120 12.2500 61309 98122 120 124380 83761 151287 140 435000 98122 112788 140 136240181287 151612 160 15.5000 112788 168791 160 1.6240 © 181612 197188, 180 175000168791 212979 180 1762400 197188, 233701 200 3915000212979 250563 200 y98640 233701 276417 240 735000 25562 380367 20 235000 276417 361967 With controt valve 15 1.6100 ° ver 15 1.6820 ° 1334 20 2.0670 1187 1981 20 2.1870 1334 2349 30 3.1880 1951 4420 30 3.2600 2349 5077 40 ‘1820 4420 9757 40 44.2600 5077 10538 60 6.2490 9757 17670 60 64070 10538 22130 80 8.2490 17670 2242 80 407022130 443300 100 tossao 29242 42637 109 10.4820 43300 esas? 120 12250048637 77054 120 12.4380 68857 120081 140 135000 77854 30483 140 136240 120051 120298 160 15.5000 89493 133923 160 166240 120298 186462 180 175000133923 168905 180 176240 156462 185433 200 195000 168095 198802 200 195640 185433 219368 240 235000198802 301828 240 23.5000 219348 237200 2. Complex i of mated 100 f of pipe 22 anges (15010) Vasve cone re incuded b. Simple Blof materia 404 of pine et Manges ra} Piping configurations used as bares for cost estimates developed in the text Fig. 36 weak function of the kinematic viscosity of the fluid, we selected the kinematic viscosity of water as,a basis, and developed a dimensional flowrate parameter [Warn W/p?!? (units of do/mabyney*”)] that depends primarily on energy usage. The Wopp Parameter, correlated against the net present value of piping and pumping costs, allowed us to explore the economic impact of different configurations, materials of construction, and locations. Table I shows a typical set of economic Wopp ranges at Plant X. Several factors can affect economical line size: Economic analysis—Plant startup assumed to be one year after the purchase of piping. Piping configuration—Two different configurations—a complex one, Fig. (a), and a simple one, Fig. 1(b)—as bases for cost estimates. ‘Materials of construction—Cost estimates for two differ- ent material specifications prepared for each piping configuration. Physical properties—A ten-fold increase in the kine- matic viscosity will decrease the Wopp(min)/Wopp(max) numbers by 3 to 5%. Control valves—In a controlled pipeline, it is necessary TEERINGTDESRUOOR ISURAPRIL 3, 7B(con't) Table 1 —— Location: Plant x Location Piping contiguration: Simple Piping configuration: Material: Carbon steel Without contro! valve Nominal pipe Actual pipe 10.in.)_1.D.{ind— WOPT MIN. WOPT MAX. WOPT MIN. WOPT MAX. 15 1.6100 ° 997 ° 1186 20 2.0670 997 2621 1186 2876 30 3.1880 2621 086 2876 469 40 4.1880 5086 yo494 5469 10925 60 6.2490 10494 18065 10925 22525 80 8.2490 18065 39788 22825 47801 10.0 10.3440 33788 54967 47801 69913 120 12.2500 54967 4489 120 12.4380 69913 114765 149 13.5000 Basso 90062 140 136240114765, 125561 160 15.6009 ‘90062 131294 160 156240 © 125561 155743 180 175000131294 148068 18.0 176240 185743 187019 200 195000148065 196713 200 195640 187019 218498 240 235000196713, 298867 280 235000 218498, 306086 With contro! valve With contro! valve 15 18100 ° 729 18 1.8820 ° 940 20 2.0870 789 2077 20 2.1570 940 27 30 3.1880 2077 4030 30 3.2600 279 4335 40 4.1880 4030 8319 40 4.2600 4335, 8661 60 6.2490 8319 14321 60 6.4070 3661 17858 80 8.2490 14321 26791 20 8.4070 17858 37911 109 103440 26791 43591 100 10.4820, 37011 ‘55451 12.0 12.2500 43591 67016 120 12.4380 ‘55451 1042 1490 13.5000 67016 71437 140 19.6240 1042 99608 16.0 15.5000 71437 104141 160 15.6260, 99606 123548 18.0 175000104141 117455 180 17.6260 123548 148359 20.0 395000117485 156044 200 19.5640, (148359 173331 240 23.5000 186044 234698 240 235000 © 173331 242829 for the control valve to take a considerable percentage of the total frictional pressure drop [40]. (The “with control vaive” cases shown in Table I assume 50% of the total pressure drop occprs across the valve.) Insulation—Insulation of pipelines tends to increase capital investment and decrease optimum pipe size. Insulating a line would tend to shift the Wop(min)/ Wops(max) range upward for a particular line size. No examples of the effect have been included in the table. Location—Separate sizing tables are prepared for cach location to incorporate plant-to-plant variations in labor, material, energy, and overhead costs. Inflation—Cost indices and/or revised costs are used to periodically update the tables. Correction factors—The Wopp{tnin)/Wopq(max) tables are based on 8,000 h/yr operation and a 70% hydrau- liccpump efficiency. The actual Wopp parameter can be corrected for operating hours and pump efficiency by multiplying the Wopy by: i solier, [20% JY? Hyde ticeny mite [2%] ba aerion and Operating time factor, [ #/2t operation: d Operating ti Af Bao Example of economical line-sizing Economical sizing of a line used in batch operation is outlined below: 40,000 Ib/h Fluid properties Non-corrosive hydrocarbon with, a viscosity of 0.5 cP and a density of 51 1b/ft?. (The flow will be curbulent.) Operating h/yr 6,000 h/yr Pump efficiency 70% Control valve None Flowrate Line description Approximately 200 ft of line with 4 elbows, one shutoff valve and 2 tees Material of construction Carbon steel with 300-Ib flanges Location Plant X Insulation None Initial Wop 40,000/(51)*/ = 2909 Corrected Wop (6000 2009 x ($8 THARAICAT, ENGINFERING/DESRBOOK BSUETAPRGL 3, 7B 7At this point, engineering judgment must come into play. First, check the sizing figures in Table I that best represent the conditions. At Plant X (with carbon steel, simple configuration, and no control valve), Wopr = 2,640 falls within the 3-in. nominal diameter range of Wopx{min) = 2,510 and Wopx(max) = 5,430. But note that: | The calculated Wopp = 2,640 is close to the Wopy(min) = 2,510 for 3-in. pipe. ™ The actual line configuration has fewer fittings and is simpler than the simple configuration used in the tabulation. ® The actual line will require 300-Ib flanges, but the simple configuration costs are based on 150-Ib flange construction. ‘The simpler configuration and more expensive mate- rials of construction tend to lower the Wops(min)/ Wopx{max) values, so net present costs for the two-inch and the three-inch line are very similar. The two-inch Tine seems slightly more economical because of differ- ‘ences between the actual line and the one on which the table was based. Use and misuse of sizing rules of thumb There is a bewildering number of rules of thumb for selecting pipe size. They take the form of suggested bases such as “use 2 to 4 psi per 100 ft,” or limitations such as “use 6 ft/s maximum velocity.” It is best to ignore such rules unless you understand the underlying reasons for them. Using the second ex- ample to illustrate the difficulty that can arise, consider the sizing of a Schedule 40 line for 70 gpm of water. In two-inch piping the water velocity would be 6.7 ft/s; in three-inch, it would be 3 ft/s. The designer is left wondering what problems would be encountered if he selected the smaller and probably less expensive alternative. Often he won't want to take a chance, and will use the three-inch size because it satis- fies the totally arbitrary rule he has learned. If he really knew the economics and the possible problems with velocities, he might realize that even 1.5-inch piping would be acceptable, with an installed cost of only one third that of the three-inch pipe. Moreover, situations arise where the 1.5-inch pipe would actually perform better. Rules of thumb should be viewed only as guidelines or selection aids, not as inviolate laws. They represent the experience developed by other designers, making them no more than helpful references to past practice. In this context, the engineer should consider the follow- ing guidelines: W Select a sound sizing basis; avoid rules of thumb. ™ Consider special piping configurations or flow phenomena that might alter the selection. = Use short-cut pressure-drop estimating techniques for small piping only (less than six-inch), or when pres- sure drop is unimportant. ™ Avoid sizes not stocked in plant stores (e.g., 3% inch). ‘= With small piping (e.g., one-inch), consider need for larger piping to ensure adequate support. fh turbulent flow, recognize that straight-pipe friction will usually dominate total frictional losses in 38 SH small piping, and fitting losses will usually dominate the total in large piping. Avoid the “equivalent length” concept for turbu- lent flow through large-diameter fittings and for all laminar-flow fittings, Avoid the use of valves (except control valves) that differ from line size. "Use a design frictional pressure-drop approxi- mately 1.3 times greater than the value calculated for new pipe, to allow for uncertainty of estimate and for pipe aging. Lower multipliers (<1.3) can be used with high-quality estimates in non-fouling services. Turbulent hydraulics Probably more than 90% of all chemical processing operations involve turbulent flow, and piping is no exception. Both single-phase and multiphase piping flows are usually at high Reynolds numbers where viscosity effects are much less important than inertial effects; consequently, many turbulent phenomena de- pend primarily on the density times square of velocity (er). ‘As with other processing equipment, piping must be integrated into the total system. Pressure changes must meet allowable limits, or these changes must be esti- mated, in order to specify other equipment. Thus, re- gardless of the sizing basis, the designer must work with flowrate, pressure drop, and diameter. For convenience, think of piping hydraulics in terms of the Bernoulli equation: AP/p + A(V?)/2 + gAZ + E=0 ay Here, with the AP referring to the downstream minus upstream value, the E term, usually positive and repre- senting the rate of irreversible conversion of mechanical energy into thermal energy or heat, is sometimes called head loss, friction loss or frictional pressure drop. Ignoring this factor would imply no energy usage in piping. The equation assumes a flat velocity profile, a steady-state operation, and an incompressible fluid. Expressed as frictional pressure drop for pipe and fittings: pE = (fl/d + 3K, eV2/2 (2% This equation is particularly useful for analyzing plant piping because it divides the frictional loss into Reyn- olds number (DVp/u.), dependent pipe friction (L/D), and individual loss coefficients (K;). The p¥?/2 term is, a velocity head; K, represents the number of velocity heads. With this approach, fittings can also be included in the calculations by adding their “hydraulic equiva lent length” to the actual pipe length, remembering that many fittings have hydraulic behavior that ap- proximates constant K, values. Table III presents a compilation of K, values. Even with a very simple piping system such as that depicted in Fig. 2, the Bernoulli equation will cause confusion if not interpreted correctly. With 300 gpm of water flowing through 4-in. Schedule 40 pipe, the ve- locity amounts to 7.6 ft/s and the velocity head is 0.37 mers ag for wse with English unit ‘can be shown tha the (178) term (Eq. 1) should be multiplied by 2 for laminat ow and by 1.06 for turbulent How (om the "1/7 power tule") ‘Dimensional forms of Eq, 2 ate given in Table 1 Q) oodDimensional forms for the equation that is used in calculating frictional pressure drop Table 11 ———$—$—$—$—— — ————————________ Presuire drop, Reynolds number, and velocity, Friction factor Flowrste A, oF ot Ne LO He Ut Nyy <2,000, #=64/%py oa a “ (# * 2x,) a (Ul HN qq 22000, £* [2 10959 (0.27 «/D + (7/N% py 9-8))~2 * esx) 420 cap 4 pe “Ref. (10] wD oF fe Units and constants Conventional units Metric units (Gi HAP, iN] ai cy TR fn0160°F] bor bar fa Tar wa) toh | (gpm) | wih} gpm | actin) | eas (ud | kas (oo8) ° ; i in in. in, mm mm ™ ™ “ te ft tt tt ft m m m m a | teres |r| were | wore | are kgm | _ka/m? | gi? | afm? a e ° e P ep | mPastePl] master) | Pas Pas v fs fs fs | AS geymin ms mis mis ms ay pai psi ft | ft | into | ber ber fa | om a” [2709x10-7),.201% 10-5) 4.031x10-£|2.503x 10-| g1g2732 [2.106 x 108| 8.106 | osios | 0.08265 > 12 12 12 12 12 1000 | 1000 1 1 ¢ ears | soes | 6316 | sos | 379.0 |27xt0s| 1273 | 1273, 1273 @ | esos | osoas | 500s | o4oes | taga |nazax ioe) i278 | 12a | 3273 e 9266 | 9.266 | 6435x0] 64.25xp|1204¢x105| 2x10 | axis] 2 | 19.610 abeda Constants L. Pipe length Hy Velocity head D Pipe diameter AP, Frictional pressure drop W Mass flowrate F Weisbach friction factor 2° Volumetric flowrate € Pipe roughness Hy Frictional hea loss ge Reynolds number Fluid viscosity K’ Number of velocity heads Velocity > Fluid density psi, or 0.89 feet of water. Writing the Bernoulli equation between the tank and pump suction, one would con- clude that the actual static head at the pump suction would be (using K, values given in Table III): 6 ~[@.1 + 0.6 +05 + 0.7 + 1)(0.89)] = 34 ft head where: valve K, = 0.1; 2 elbows = 0.6; entrance = 0.5; straight pipe = 0.7 (assumed); velocity head = 1 (AP2/2¢—from the Bernoulli equation). ‘Thus the head at the pump suction nozzle is 3.4 ft of water (about 1.4 psi) above that at the tank liquid level. A static-pressure or static-head instrument would me: ure such a value, Of the head change, 0.89 feet is expended in generating the 7.6 ft/s velocity and is the recoverable energy contained in the flowing stream. The Hydraulic Institute Standards [25] include this velocity head as additional head in the calculation of psita (net positive suction head available). Since NPsHA represents the liquid head plus velocity head above the vapor pressure at the pump suction nozzle, 34 + 0.89 4.3 feet of water ‘The point being made regarding the Bernoulli veloc- ity head is subtle and usually unimportant, but it does cause confusion and can lead to errors that can be avoided if the distinction between actual pressure drop and frictional loss is understood. —SHEMIGAT ENGINEERING, iNG/DESRBOOK TSSUEAPRIL 3, 147 psia 100°C “Schedule 40 Tine Pump suction piping used in NPSH example Fig. 2 t. co)Preis br ~ K, values (velocity heads) used for calculating the head losses through various fittings ~ _ Screwed 90° el Globe valve Seow 20 Ko 7 6! $3 = tos us - ‘ ~ K ~ 6 - S| rn - ° Fane Line re ~ Flanged 90° flow o 2 Gaevle mf : : Soom 4 ~ eet, 5 = oe iH « 00] : 0 . og LHI : ie 08 1 ° x 0.2 - 08 f : 0s \ ~ Branch «ol C - tr i 7 Contraction 0.04) 0.03! Flanged 9% 94 610 Ke Olt) ~~ Squore-edged niett24} os OS | Regular sereved 45%et - ’ oof a orn _ CER : coos | CT Berane fA 03 . : og mt ep Inward projecting pipe (26) a - Enlargement . Long radius flanged 45% = = 08 - oa K-10 7 of A = Flush (12) < ee fe Se a % ol a \ : 00 a 1 2 4 6 ea . - oe 028 ° - aoa 02 » a a0 a be c — ’ - 009 all ameter are ameter arti inte j ossue naa bons on laity in sale poe * ea - based on main pie for oie. [40] a pees = Fork, se abie — “Sap-oaed a iter, vsed on ater at tt 32) | - + - 4- Lr 2 4 6 10 20 > gl 2 ~ ae valve - Serewed Sree 1 Flanged return bend oa 03 K oa 1 out 46 2 . Table II Fremngtcton arrestee 174 ++} y+ O40E 3 EES os Bozo 7-025 Total dimen * ev et ears | trithoi5E yh GS SB ome ‘$00 Byer tor 10 10 a hg 150 m0 Reynolds number, Ng 2 eS BS ot 5 08] \ ia Tos ony O26 4 BO BO 700 120 140 60 780 Bde Head loss in circular miters 12, tai 19} 08} K os oa] 02} 0-70 20 30 40 80 60 70 80 90 0, dea. Plug cock valve [19] Butterfly valve [79] © 3 098 10" 028 2 tse aor 73 oo 2080 0 0 is anale between pipe ani and plug cock axis 8 i angle between pipe axis a Mapper pate 41 ‘CHENICAT ENGINEERING DESRWOOR BSUETAPRIC TP‘Surface roughness of various pipes and tubes Table 1V — Miller (321, Moody (34) Kutatoladze (291 Tobing Deawn 0.0001 0.0028 | 0.00006 | 0.0015 CCean, seariess 0.00006- 0.0004} 0,0015-0.01 Glass 0.0001 0.0025 0.00006~-0.0004 | 0.0015-0.01 Stool New 0.001 0025 | 00018 0.048 0.0025 0.06 Light rust 001 0.25 Deserated saturated steam 0.008 02 _Condensate (neavy rust) 0.035 03 Conerote ‘Smooth 0.001 002s | ore 03 0.03 og Precast oot 0.25 Rough 002 os 012 30 038 99 Cast Iron Uncoated 0.008 018, 01 0.25 0.12 os Coated 0.008 18, 0.005 0.12 Wood Birch veneer 0.001-0.002 | 0.025-0.05 Pine veneer 0.004 on Rough 0.038 09 Galvanized ‘Smooth finish 0.001 0.025 Normal finish 0.008 0.15 0.006 18 Of the many methods developed for estimating liq- uid-handling frictional losses, three have withstood the test of time. Of these, the friction-factor method given in Eq, (2) is the best. It applies to rough and smooth pipe and to laminar and turbulent flow. To use’it, one must estimate the Reynolds number and relative roughness (see Tables IV and V) and find a friction factor from a chart or from equations such as those given in Table I. The pressure drop can be estimated explicitly with this method, but diameter or flowrate necessitate a trial-and-error calculation, or the use of a special chart. As a historic sidelight, at least three friction factors have been introduced since the 19th century. Weisbach can be credited with the velocity-squared resistance law [37], and his resistance coefficient became known as the Darey-Weisbach friction factor. Using this same resist- ance coefficient, Blasius originated the “friction-factor vs, Reynolds-number” diagram that later became known as the Stanton diagram. However, the Stanton, diagram friction factor amounts to one eighth of the Weisbach friction factor. The Fanning friction factor, one fourth of the Weisbach friction factor, is the most common one found in chemical engineering literature. In engineering literature as a whole, the Weisbach friction factor has probably gained wider use because of the popularity of the Moody diagram [34]. Weisbach is used throughout this paper because it offers a slight computational advantage over the other coefficients in, hydraulic calculations. In turbulent flow, its value will range from roughly 0.008 to 0.04. Often the designer 42 “GHENTTGAT ENGINTERING/BESRRGOK must decipher the friction factor when using different literature sources. ‘The Hazen-Williams equation frequently helps in estimating hydraulic losses for water flow: H, = 0A Q/C)-*9L/D48 Q) In this equation, H, represents feet of water (at approxi- mately 60°F); Q, in gpm; L, in feet; and D, in inches. The coefficient, C, varies from about 60 for corroded pipe to 150 for smooth tubing; a value of 130 is some- times used for new, clean steel. Other values for specific applications are available elsewhere [6]. Satisfactory for many applications, this method should be avoided with high C values that could produce frictional-loss esti- mates lower than those for hydraulically smooth pipe. ‘The Manning equation applies widely to open chan- nel flow [9] and to large closed conduits. With the same units given above, the equation becomes Hy = 13.20°L Q2/D 3 O Manning's n varies from <0.01 for smooth tubing to roughly 0.04 for highly corroded pipe; n = 0.009 can be used for steel pipe at high Reynolds numbers. The equation suffers from many of the same drawbacks as the Hazen-Williams equation but, in a different form, it has proven a very convenient tool for open-channel hydraulics calculations. Laminar and transitional pressure drop ‘At Reynolds numbers less than 2,000, liquids lose the turbulent characteristics usually associated with pipe SUETAPRIL 31) ee a ~—