×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Friction loss
3

Friction loss

Friction loss

(OP)
Dear Friends,

I would like to get a clarification in calculating friction loss in a PVC pipe of 100m length.Using the formula

      hfs = 4f L/D x V*2/2 X g,

Q = 30cub.m/h
L = 100m
D = 51.4mm (ID of UPVC pipe)
Kin.Viscosity of Water @ 30deg.C = 0.801 cSt  

Results i got are as follows

V = 4.018119 m/sec
Re = 258164.17
f = 0.003509

And finally the head loss per 100m pipe is 22.50m.

But friction loss chart provided by the pipe manufacturer shows 19.88m for same diameter & flow.

So i applied Hazen Williams equ. but the result was 28m.

 I would like to know was there anything wrong in my calculation ?

Please throw me some light.

RE: Friction loss

There may be nothing necessarily wrong with any of your "calculations", though I suspect the "manufacturer may have assumed that the pipe will be hydraulically smoother in your application (than you did by the various approaches).  A fact that is not intuitively obvious to many folks in general is that very small pipes result in quite high and perhaps non-obvious head losses.

RE: Friction loss

Friend:

I believe you’ve got the Fanning equation written wrong.  It should be:

hL = (4f) (L) (v2 / (D) (2g)

Where,
hL = loss of static pressure head due to fluid flow, in feet of fluid
4f = 4 times the Fanning Friction Factor = the Darcy Friction Factor (dimensionless)
D = internal diameter of pipe, in feet
L = length of pipe, in feet
v = mean velocity of flow, feet per second
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2

My next comment is a question.  What is your Friction Factor and how did you come up with it?  It is not a result unless you generate it with a relationship like Churchill’s, Chen, Serghides, etc.  If you generated it with one of these equations, what absolute roughness did you employ for your PVC?  The big difference in your “results” could be the absolute roughness assumed.

I would not rely on the Hazen-Williams relationship as giving you an acceptable level of accuracy as compared to the Fanning (or Darcy) equation(s).

I don’t know what roughness you used, but if you resort to the US Hydraulic Institute tables for water pressure drop, and look up under 132 gpm (30 cm/hr) and 2.067 inches ID (instead of 51.4mm  = 2.023 in.), I get 28.8 ft/100 ft (28.8 m/100 m).  This is with a relative roughness of 0.00087 – which is probably much higher than one would expect for PVC.  Therefore, I would say your calcs are OK.

I haven’t done a detailed Darcy calculation since I just want to check if you’re in the “neighborhood” of the expected answer.  And I think that’s really all you want.  The real answer is to be found in the real, accurate roughness value that your PVC has.

I hope this helps you out.

RE: Friction loss


It is not uncommon to find deviations of ±20% for ΔPf estimations among designers using different formulas. Therefore, it is futile to use so many significant figures.

For example, it has been established that the Darcy-Weisbach equation is an empirical one, valid for water at 15.6oC (60oF) and average flow velocities below 3 m/s.

Besides, the smaller the pipe the larger the rugosity ratio.
For a commercial polyethylene pipe (I don't have for PVC) the surface roughness ε ~ 0.1 mm with a ratio ε/D ~ 0.002, what would it be for a drawn PVC tube ?

As for myself, I'd take the ΔPf results with a pinch of salt, in particular if there is dissolved air that may be released along the way.

RE: Friction loss

As Mr. Montemayor has pointed out, your friction factor is wrong, but only slightly. For rigid PVC pipe I use an absolute roughness of 0.005 mm, which would give you a Fanning friction factor of 0.00394 and a friction pressure drop of 25.2 metre water. My software uses a slightly modified Churchill relationship to calculate the friction factor, but I have checked it against the plot in Perry and get the same number.

For practical purposes, there is not much difference between your answer and mine.

If you assume a perfectly smooth pipe you get a friction head of 23.8 metre water, so I would say that your supplier is being overly optimistic. I have experienced similar "propaganda" from plastic piping suppliers here in South Africa, and claims are made that you will save energy (or even get away with a smaller pipe) if you use plastic instead of steel. As Mr. Montemayor has calculated, with a roughness value applicable to commercial steel pipe your pressure drop would be 28.8 m H2O, which is hardly any more than the 25.2 I calculated for PVC pipe. And with larger pipes the relative differences between plastic and steel would be even smaller.



Katmar Software
Engineering & Risk Analysis Software
http://katmarsoftware.com

RE: Friction loss

I think the experts who followed my admittedly quite simplistic post gave you some very good advice.  One other thing you might check is in general installing pvc pipe to service with a flow velocity of 4 m/sec (13+ ft/sec)?? -- I believe many authorities, perhaps at least outside your "manufacturer"?, might also judge this some risky business.    

RE: Friction loss


To Mr Montemayor, I think I found a schönhait's failure in your message, cubic meter shouldn't be written cm (used for centimeter) but cubm, or meter3 or better m3. Agree ? smile

RE: Friction loss

25362 makes a good point regarding the expected accuracy for pressure drop calcs. I would hope to be within 20% for friction in straight pipe, but it must be recognised that there is no single "right" answer. The situation gets worse when you introduce fittings and valves and aging pipe. If it weren't for these problems we engineers would not have jobs - the accountants would do the calcs themselves and "right-size" us.

It is true that the Darcy-Weisbach equation is an empirical one, but (as I have posted here before) it reflects work of true genius and is one of the outstanding achievements of engineering. The restrictions 25362 mentions (water at 15.6oC and average flow velocities below 3 m/s) do not apply to D-W. The equation takes changes in density, viscosity and velocity into account. I think you are confusing this equation with that of Hazen Williams, which does have severe restrictions. D-W also takes into account any changes in roughness (or rugosity ratio).


Katmar Software
Engineering & Risk Analysis Software
http://katmarsoftware.com

RE: Friction loss

25362:

Your impeccable scrutiny detected my metida de pata resulting from my haste to finish the post by simply using ad hoc abbreviations.  I certainly agree that you can’t equate volumetric flow rate units with velocity units.  My only excuse is that I’ve been divorced from the metric system for quite some time now and never really got involved with SI units at all.  Does this mean I’m prohibited from entering Metric Heaven?

On a more serious note, I thoroughly agree with you and Harvey on the accuracy to be expected from such fluid flow calculations.  We can only prediict with accuracy with what we guess to be the internal surface conditions of a pipe that is differentially getting worse in roughness.  A margin of 15% inaccuracy is not a surprise to me with this type of application - it all depends what the local conditions, the timining, and the application are.

Saludos

RE: Friction loss


My impression is that there are at least two factors afecting results in determining ΔPf by the various equations, beside inaccuracies in pipe dimensions and fluid physical properties:

1. The value of the friction factor "f", as clarified by the experts. "f" is frequently estimated using the Colebrook equation which is said to be within 10-15% of experimental.

2. The exponent of the flow rate in ΔPf = K.Qn has been found to vary in the range 1.9-2.1 or wider.

I wonder whether point (2) could be the reason of the discrepancy between the results offered by the pipe manufacturer and those estimated by friend81 ?

RE: Friction loss

(OP)
Montemayor

thanks for ur comments.

but the equation i applied was Darcy Weisbach & not fannings equations ,hence i derived f value by using the formula

f = (0.0791/Reynolds No)power 0.25.

Any comments

RE: Friction loss

I don't recall seeing that one.  What's the name of that formula?

Since Hl = f * L/D * V^2/2/g,

I think you got lucky approximating the accepted results and that the formula only "works" when,

(0.0791/Re)^(1/4) = Hl * D/L  * 2 * g /V^2,

Which I believe would be for cases where Re is equal to 1E+6.  At lower turbulent flows, your friction factor could be up to about 50% too high, at higher velocities, its 20% too low and getting lower.  For laminar flow, forget it.

Using a conventional formula when possible would make it easier for you and other engineers to check your work.

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Friction loss

To friend81

Your formula for "f" is similar to the Blasius (1913) equation for turbulent flow in hydraulically smooth pipes. That equation for the Darcy friction factor is:

f = 0.3164/Re0.25

But its validity is up to about Re~105.

For a wider range up to and including Re~107 there are modified formulas, for example:

f = (0.3164/Re0.25) (1+2.32×10-6 Re)0.125

RE: Friction loss

Friend81:

The form I cited:

hL = (4f)(L)(v2/(D)(2g)

is, in reality the Famous Darcy formula – but with “f” being the Fanning Friction Factor.  As you probably know, there is a BIG difference between the Darcy (a.k.a., “Moody”) Friction Factor and the Fanning Friction Factor.  The Darcy Friction Factor is equal to 4 times the Fanning Friction Factor.

From page 1, Chapter 1, of the Crane Technical Paper #410 we read, “The Darcy formula is also known as the Weisbach formula or the Darcy-Weisbach formula; also, as the Fanning formula, sometimes modified so that the friction factor is one-fourth the Darcy friction factor.”  The reason for the factor of 4 is that Fanning used a hydraulic radius instead of a straight radius in that version.  In my well-worn and beaten-up copy of TP #410 I find a note I wrote many years ago: “The Fanning Friction Factor does not apply to formulas here unless multiplied by 4.”  That was a Lesson Learned many years ago.

As Katmar has stated so many times in the past, the Darcy version is an ingenious tool worthy of engineering respect.  The Darcy formula can be derived rationally by means of dimensional analysis; however, one variable in the formula (the Friction Factor) must be determined empirically.  This has led, as 25362 points out, to a variety of favorite equations for “f”.  I prefer to revert to a physical value – the absolute roughness measurement – as a means to derive the Friction Factor by applying the Colebrook relationship or one of its explicit variants (Churchill, Chen, Serghides, etc. ) since the Colebrook equation is an implicit one that seems to have been derived by an aspirin manufacturer.

All calculations (and assumptions) of the Friction Factor are based on experimental or empirical values and, as such, represent the variances and “inaccuracies” detected by actual field measurement.  However, although I know in my heart that there will be an inaccuracy in my resulting calculations, nothing can predict the actual, real, instantaneous field conditions at any one time in a given application – and much less after operations have taken place over a period of time.  Only at the initial startup can we ever have any hopes of “nailing” the values of “f”.  And after that happens the values starts generally to degenerate to a worse state due to corrosion, contamination, fouling, etc.

So all we can hope to have is a general, average value subject to fluid properties, cleanliness, and maintenance.

RE: Friction loss

But then its no problem, as you can usually measure the head loss and flow then backcalculate to get a very good f  to design for new heads and flow capacities.  Many times I have found (esp.) gas systems where the pipe had better roughness than the recommended new steel pipe roughness value of 0.0018 used to design the system.  I have had to use a values of 0.0007 to 0.0009 to get close to the measured flows in some systems.

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Friction loss


Great advice. A star is the proper reward.

RE: Friction loss


BigInch:

You've provided an excellent and salient comment to an interesting and excellent subject.  Your comment provides what I failed to insert in my attempt to explain where the friction factor "resides" and the need to fully understand and deal with it on a practical basis.

There's a lot more to fluid mechanics than just "cranking away" with equations and generating numbers.

Thanks.

RE: Friction loss

I didn't realize it was such a profound statement, but glad you're all happy with it.  Knowing the host of inaccuracies surrounding hydraulics, of which roughness is probably the least in comparison to stepping up the flowrate over design, bringing on 2 additional wells, or simply outright fouling with wax, etc., I just prefer to work with conservative data, or with actual data, if it is available.

And clarifying somewhat...  make that "design of a new pipeline using 0.0018", a figure which is actually supposed to approximate the roughness of a steel pipe after 5 years of operation.

(Actually I think we had so much sand in those gas lines, we were continuously blasting them clean winky smile

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Friction loss


BigInch, somewhere I've read that "practice" teaches that in conventional carbon-steel pipes the friction factor doubles in ~25 years for light HC gases, ~15 years for medium distillates, and 10 years for residual streams. Any comment ?

RE: Friction loss

As a general rule, it looks like it is reasonable, however I'd hate to try to make such a general correlation.  In pipelines, I've seen it vary between systems.  Gathering systems are rougher than mid sections of major transmission lines.  

If you double a roughness, that's probably a very good number to use for design.  I typically use 0.0018 for steel, which seems to be just short of 2 times what comes from the mill and gives reasonable values for pipelines, since we don't count up all the angles and get the equivalent pressure drops for a million tiny little pipe bends anyway and, given the rest of the uncertainties, average temperatures and viscosities, densities over 1000 miles or so, somehow it gets pretty close no matter how old or new the pipeline is.  For specific segment flows, I usually find roughness is always smaller than that value, unless there is some other problem with wax, hydrates, nothing to do with the actual roughness value of the pipe material that was choosen at design time.

All things considered, for pipelines the actual roughness value used gets pretty diluted in the end.

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Friction loss

(OP)
Thanks for all your experised comments finally i got the value closer to the manufacturer declared, by using the Blasius formula for Re~10^7,

f= 0.0008+{0.05525/(Re)^0.257}.

here i have taken the exact pipe diameter as 51.4mm and
Kinm.Viscosity of water as 0.000001 at 20deg.Celsius,

finally the frictionloss i got is 20.359m



RE: Friction loss

I have seen operational data for a 24" gas pipeline in the north sea that pshows the opposite og 23362's postulate: That the relative roughness decreases over time. Iniitally the dP was faily well predicted but over time the dP has dropped when comparing to expected so that the roughness have been adjusted from the traditional 0.05 mm (1/500 of an inch i belive?) to about half 0.025. For new pipelines installed by modern technology i have come to use this value as the default - because the original data for the 0.05 mm is quite old and relates more to "plant piping" than long pipelines with few fitting and very precise welding.

Best regards

Morten

RE: Friction loss

Morten,

I like it.  Converting from 0.05 mm to 0.001969 (big)inches that would tend to confirm what I have found - you need to reduce the recommended design roughness by 50% (see above 7 Dec 06 9:13), but that is still supposedly only roughness of the pipe wall and should be irrespective of the number of bends and fittings or if its plant piping or pipeline pipe.

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Friction loss

Yes (and no): In plat piping (especially old plat i would think) fitting meant many weldings and screwed in parts. This would be "summed up" in a higher absolute roughness - at least that what i have come to believe. I only use the lower value for pipelines. Its rare that i do calculations for plant anyway.

Best regards

Morten

RE: Friction loss

I thought I was saying that's for the pipe only, so add the equivalent lengths for valves and fittings, both for pipelines and plant piping, or are you saying the higher roughness includes the equivalent lengths?

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Friction loss

No (at least thats not what i meant) but usually i would not add a seperate equvalent length for a welding - but surely the pipe must be sligthly more irregular just here?

For plant piping there must be a fairly large number of weldings- at leat compared to a pipeline. Thats why i think that 0.05 is OK for plant but too high for pipelines.

Best regards

Morten

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources