Correlate Pressure Drops through Fittings

Silverberg, Peter; Ron Darby Texas A&M University . Chemical Engineering ; New York  Vol. 106, Iss. 7, 
(July, 1999): 101.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT
 
Calculating flowrate through long, straight pipes is easy using standard equations. Real piping systems, on the
other hand, have valves and fittings that make the task harder. The energy loss has to be calculated for each
fitting, using a loss coefficient to adjust the equations. The system's energy loss is then the sum of the losses of
pipes and fittings. The classical correlations for fittings are based on limited data. They do not accurately reflect
the dependence of loss coefficients on both Reynolds number and fitting size. As a consequence, engineers tend
to use obsolete correlations that lead to inaccurate results. A three-constant correlation if presented for the loss
coefficient that closely fits the recommendations from a recent AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety
Guidelines.

FULL TEXT
 
Calculating flowrate through long, straight pipes is easy using standard equations. Real piping systems, on the
other hand, have valves and fittings that make the task harder. The energy loss has to be calculated for each
fitting, using a loss coefficient to adjust the equations. The system's energy loss is then the sum of the losses of
pipes and fittings.
The classical correlations for fittings are based on limited data. They do not accurately reflect the dependence of
loss coefficients on both Reynolds number and fitting size. As a consequence, engineers tend to use obsolete
correlations that lead to inaccurate results.
The older methods fall short because they use one or two constants to characterize a loss coefficient. This article
presents a three-constant correlation for the loss coefficient that closely fits the recommendations from a recent
AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety Guidelines [1].
Flow in piping systems
The generalized steady-state Bernoulli equation is used to analyze flow in piping systems. This is written so as to
apply between any two points (1, 2) in a flowing stream, where D represents the change in a parameter.
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
Each term of the equation represents a component of energy per unit mass of the fluid. Equivalent forms of the
equation can be written with each term representing a ``pressure'' component, by multiplying the equation by r, or
an equivalent ``head'' component, by dividing the equation by g.
Loss coefficients
Each element of the system that dissipates energy (e.g., pipe sections, valves, fittings, contractions and
expansions) contributes to the friction loss. This is commonly expressed in terms of the dimensionless ``loss
coefficient'', Kf, for each of these elements.
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
For example, the loss coefficient for a section of pipe of length, L, is related to the Fanning friction factor, f, by:
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
A host of methods have been used to evaluate the loss coefficient for valves and fittings. The descriptions below

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 8

are condensed from Ref. 2.
Single-constant loss coefficient
Many handbooks and textbooks list representative values of the loss coefficient, Kf, for specific types of valves
and fittings. These values are usually adequate for initial estimates in conditions of fully turbulent flow.
However, the loss coefficient (just as does the friction factor) depends on the Reynolds number of the flow. The
values of Kf at low Reynolds numbers can be significantly greater than those at high Reynolds numbers.
Furthermore, valves and fittings do not scale exactly. The loss coefficient for a 1/4-in. valve, for example, is not the
same as that for a 4-in. valve.
The equivalent L/D method
A simple way to characterize the loss coefficients of valves and fittings is the ``equivalent L/D'' method. The basic
concept is that there is a length of pipe of the same diameter as the fitting, that exhibits the same friction loss as
the fitting. Many books and handbooks tabulate (L/D)eq for various fittings. These are used in Equation 3, along
with the pipeflow value of f to determine the loss coefficient.
The nature of the turbulent or laminar flow field within a valve or a fitting is generally quite different from that in
straight pipe. That implies an uncertainty when estimating the effect of Reynolds Number on the loss coefficients.
(Remember, f is a function of NRe.) This method also does not properly account for the lack of exact scaling for
valves and fittings.
Crane method
The most popular source of information for loss coefficients in valves and fittings is the extensive tabulation in the
Crane Technical Manual [3]. The Crane method uses the product of two constants. One is the fully-turbulent
friction-factor for clean, Schedule 40, commercial-grade steel pipe. The second is the (L/D)eq of the fitting. This
method provides a somewhat better estimate for the effect of geometry, but does not reflect any Reynolds number
dependence.
Hooper's 2-K method
Hooper proposed the 2-K (two constants) Method [4,5] to overcome both of the shortcomings of the Crane Method.
It depends on the Reynolds number and partially adjusts for scaling differences. The two constants are tabulated
by Hooper [4, 5] and Darby [2]. This is the 2-K equation:
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
Each of the above methods gives comparable values for typically sized fittings under conditions of fully turbulent
flow. However, the Hooper 2-K Method is the most general, and is applicable to the widest range of conditions.
Values reported in the recent CCPS Guidelines [1], indicate that the scaling term in the 2-K equation does not
accurately represent the effect of scaling the size of the fitting. These data were culled from eight widely used
sources and shed new light on the non-linear nature of scaleup. All dimensions of a given valve or fitting do not
scale linearly as the fitting size varies (i.e., all the dimensions of a 6-in. valve or elbow are not six times those of a
similar 1-in. valve or elbow). The expression recommended in Reference 1 is:
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
The values of Km are similar to K1 of the 2-K method. The values of Kn depend on fitting size. These are shown in
Table 1 [1].
Data fitting
Table 1 lends itself to condensing the data into one equation. This 3-K (three constants) equation turns out to be
an excellent fit.
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
The values of the three constants (Km, Ki, and Kd) are listed in Table 2. The Km values are the same as those in
Table 1 since this is a modification of Hooper's Method. The fourth column is the statistical accuracy of the fit, r2.
Figures 1 and 2 show the data and the Equation 6 fit using the constants in Table 2. The agreement is seen to be
excellent for all fittings except for the ball valves. For ball valves the correlation is reasonably good. Warning:
Square tees are always Kn = 1.20, so there is no scaling effect.

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 8

Example
All four methods will be compared for a sample problem. An open tank contains 15 ft of water. The tank drains
through a piping system containing ten 90-deg elbows, 10 branch-tees, eight gate valves and 100 ft of pipe. All
common Schedule 40 pipe diameters from 1 to 12 in. will be used to calculate the resulting flowrates.
The top surface of the tank and the discharge are both at atmospheric pressure. An entrance loss factor of 1.5 will
account for the tank-to-pipe transition and the kinetic energy change. Equation 2 will be used for ef losses.
Equation 7 is Equation 1 rearranged to solve for flowrate:
(This equation is not available electronically. Please see the July, 1999 issue.)
The calculations use Equations 3, 4, 6 and the Constant Kf method. The solution is iterative, since both the friction
factor, f, and the 2-K and 3-K fitting losses depend on the Reynolds number, which depends on the flowrate. The
Fanning friction factor can be obtained from the Moody diagram or the Churchill equation [7]. The results are
tabulated in Table 4. The Reynolds Number is the one corresponding to the flowrate from the 3-K method of
Equation 6.
It is apparent that the results depend on the calculation method. The single-constant method over-predicts at low
flows and small diameter and then under-predicts at larger diameters. The (L/D)eq method over-predicts at small
diameters and then under-predicts at higher sizes. The 2-K method is higher in flowrate for all diameters but is
more in error at higher diameters.
NOMENCLATURE
D = diameter of pipe, ft
ef = irreversible energy dissipated between points 1 and 2, ft-lbf/lbm
f = Fanning friction factor*
g = Gravitational acceleration, 32 ft/s2
ID = inner dia of pipe, in.
Kd = A component of Kn, Equation 6, in.0.3
Kf = Loss coefficient*
Ki = A component of Kn, Equation 6*
Km = Constant used in Equation 5*
Kn = Constant used in Equation 5*
K1 = Constant used in Equation 4*
Ky = Constant used in Equation 4*
L = length of pipe section, ft
NRe = Reynolds Number*
Q = Flowrate, ft3/s
V = Velocity, ft/s
Vi = Characteristic velocity through the loss element, ft/s
-w = external work done on the fluid between points 1 and 2, ft-lbf/lbm
a = factor to account for deviation from plug flow*
DP = Change in fluid pressure, lbf/ft2
DZ = Change in elevation, ft
r = density, lbm/ft3
r2 = Linear correlation coefficient*
*Dimensionless parameter
Illustration
Illustration: FIGURE 1. (above) &FIGURE 2. (below). The 3-K correlation is an extremely good
fit of loss coefficients for long and short
elbows, both 90-deg and 45-deg
Illustration

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 8

Illustration: FIGURE 3. (above) and FIGURE 4. (below). The 3-K correlation is an extremely good fit for tees and gate
valves, and an adequate fit for ball valves

(available online)

TABLE 1. FITTING LOSS COEFFICIENTS [1]

Nominal size, in. 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2

Fitting Km

90-deg elbow r/D = 1.0 850 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.40 0.38

90-deg elbow r/D = 1.5 850 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.27

45-deg elbow r/D = 1.0 450 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.27

45-deg elbow r/D = 1.5 450 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18

Gate valve open, full-port 300 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06

Ball valve open, full-port 130 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.07

Forged branch tee 850 1.15 1.06 0.99 0.87 0.81

Square branch tee 850 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

Line tee 150 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.19

Nominal size, in. 3 4 6 8 10 12 and

up

Fitting

90-deg elbow r/D = 1.0 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.26

90-deg elbow r/D = 1.5 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18

45-deg elbow r/D = 1.0 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18

45-deg elbow r/D = 1.5 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12

Gate valve open, full-port 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 8

Ball valve open, full-port 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03

Forged branch tee 0.72 0.67 0.59 0.55 0.51 0.49

Square branch tee 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

Line tee 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.09

All the coefficients are Kn, except for the first column of Km values

(available online)

TABLE 2. 3-K CONSTANTS FOR LOSS COEFFICIENTS (EQ. 6)

Fitting Km Ki Kd r2

90-deg elbow, r/D = 1.0 850 0.096 3.64 0.9983

90-deg elbow, r/D = 1.5 850 0.069 3.49 0.9959

45-deg elbow, r/D = 1.0 450 0.064 3.95 0.9981

45-deg elbow, r/D = 1.5 450 0.0466 3.43 0.9958

Gate valve, open,

full-port 300 0.0114 4.91 0.9748

Ball valve, open,

full-port 130 -0.086 -2.50 0.9239

Forged branch tee 850 0.0683 13.21 0.9970

Line tee 150 -0.082 -4.18 0.9968

(available online)

TABLE 3. CONSTANTS USED IN VARIOUS LOSS COEFFICIENT EXPRESSIONS

Governing equation Tables 3 4 4

Fitting type/Constant K (L/D)eq K1 Ky

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 8

 90-deg elbow, r/D = 1.0 0.75 30 800 0.4

90-deg elbow, r/D = 1.5 0.45 20 800 0.2

45-deg elbow, r/D = 1.0 0.35 16 500 0.2

45-deg elbow, r/D = 1.5 0.20 10 500 0.15

Gate valve, open, full-port 0.17 8 300 0.10

Ball valve, open, full-port 0.17 8 300 0.10

Forged branch tee 1.0 60 500 0.70

Line tee 0.4 20 200 1.10

(available online)

TABLE 4. RESULTS FROM THE EXAMPLE

Flow rates, gal/min NRe

Governing equation Tables 3 4 6 6

1.049 0.31 0.17 0.14 0.13 393

1.610 0.73 0.49 0.48 0.42 830

2.067 1.21 0.92 0.96 0.82 1,252

4.026 4.59 3.16 4.55 3.78 2,970

6.065 10.4 7.65 12.6 10.0 5,240

8.125 18.7 14.3 25.8 19.9 7,740

10.25 29.8 23.6 45.1 33.9 10,500

12.25 42.5 34.5 68.6 50.9 13,100

Pipe dia., in.

References
1. AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, ``Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems'', pp.
265-268, New York, 1998.
References

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 8

2. Darby, R., ``Chemical Engineering Fluid Mechanics'', pp. 196-201, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1997.
References
3. Crane Co., ``Flow of Fluids through Valves, Fittings and Pipe'', Crane Technical Manual No. 410, New York, 1982.
References
4. Hooper, W. B., The Two-K Method Predicts Head Losses in Pipe Fittings, Chem. Eng., 88, 17, p. 97-100, August
24, 1981.
References
5. Hooper, W. B., Calculate Head Loss Caused by Change in Pipe Size, Chem. Eng., pp. 89-92, November 7, 1988.
References
6. Perry, R. H., and Green, D. W., ``Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook,'' 7th ed., p. 6-18, McGraw-Hill, 1997.
References
7. Churchill, S. W., Friction-factor Equation Spans All Fluid-flow Regimes, Chem. Eng., pp. 91-92, 84, 24, Nov. 7,
1977.
AuthorAffiliation
Ron Darby received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering from Rice University, and has been on the
chemical engineering faculty at Texas A&M, College Station, TX 77843, since 1965 (Phone: 409-845-3301, Fax: 409-
845-6446, E-mail: r-darby@tamu.edu). He is a Fellow of the AIChE, a member of the Soc. of Rheology and ASEE and
is a registered Professional Engineer in Texas. He is presently director of the Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety
Center, and director of the Accelerated B.S./Master's Industry program in Chemical Engineering at Texas A&M.
Author of two textbooks and numerous technical papers, he has received awards for excellence in teaching as well
as for his research publications.

DETAILS

Subject: Flow control; Estimating techniques; Chemical process industries; Pipes; Correlation
analysis

Classification: 8640: Chemical industry, includes rubber &plastics; 5310: Production planning
&control

Publication title: Chemical Engineering; New York

Volume: 106

Issue: 7

Pages: 101

Number of pages: 0

Publication year: 1999

Publication date: July, 1999

Section: Design

Publisher: Access Intelligence LLC

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 8

 Place of publication: New York

Country of publication: United S tates, New York

Publication subject: Chemistry, Engineering--Chemical Engineering

ISSN: 00092460

Source type: Trade Journals

Language of publication: English

Document type: PERIODICAL

Accession number: 01873112

ProQuest document ID: 194424001

Document URL: http://proxy.lib.odu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/194424001

?accountid=12967

Copyright: Copyright 1999 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Last updated: 2016-11-19

Database: ABI/INFORM Collection,SciTech Premium Collection

LINKS

Database copyright  2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 8