Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Economic pipe size is an important factor in project design and analysis for any piping system. In the
industrial ammonia refrigeration industry, where energy usage by, and maintenance of, the mechanical
refrigeration system is often one of the largest operating costs, a flexible method for analysis to
minimize the total life-cycle cost of a piping system is desirable.
A method for determining a minimum header life-cycle cost has been developed to meet this need.
Through broad-based piping labor and materials data aggregated by RSMeans (a company that
aggregates construction cost data), data on energy usage by equipment in ammonia refrigeration
systems, and well-established calculations for pressure drop in piping, the method produces a series
of results that allow comparison of life-cycle costs for several pipe sizes in the same service. The
method is flexible enough to apply over a large range of conditions and pipe sizes and is suitable for
incorporating into an automatic software calculation package.
© IIAR 2017 1
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Introduction
What does not currently exist is a detailed method, based on verifiable and easily
updatable data, to look at and compare the life-cycle cost of several pipe sizes side
by side, with sufficient flexibility to fit a wide variety of circumstances. Some data do
exist, in many forms, but few are specifically applicable to ammonia refrigeration in
general, and those that are specific are based on assumptions that may or may not be
true.
History
The history of economic pipe size calculation spans the history of industrial piping
itself. A landmark work on the subject was written by Nolte and published in 1978.
This work, of course, builds on the work of others, but is essentially a compendium
of the knowledge current at the time of writing. Nolte’s approach was based on the
premise that, for most metallic piping materials, costs could be scaled by assuming
them proportional to diameter to the 1.5 power, and the work cites studies from the
era that show this to be true. In the absence of the ubiquitous personal computer,
such an approach was convenient, because it allowed fairly rapid calculation without
the need for extensive knowledge of the project or system.
Life-cycle costs in Nolte’s work were based on factors that could be used to adjust
the results from the base formulas. This allowed flexibility to adjust to changing
conditions. The underlying philosophy of the method also recognized that when an
optimum lay between two pipe sizes, moving upward to the next pipe size is not
always the best choice from an economic standpoint.
Much of Richards’ efforts focused on the assertion that the installed cost of piping
is a constant and is proportional to the diameter and length of a particular section.
Thus, Richards’ method applied simple scaling, based on pipe diameter, to find
and compare installed cost of a section (1984). This was in direct contrast to
Nolte’s earlier published work. The reasons for this are not now known, but such
assumptions may prove unnecessary in the presence of the data available today.
The method considered here will avoid making any assumptions regarding scaling
through the use of published data for many pipe sizes.
Given the wide availability of real cost data for piping and lingering questions on
fundamental concepts in previous IIAR efforts to determine economic pipe size in
industrial ammonia refrigeration piping, an opportunity exists to investigate a data-
based approach that removes some of the assumptions from calculating an economic
ammonia refrigeration pipe size.
The revised approach, which builds on the previous work (particularly that done by
Richards) while avoiding some of its pitfalls, uses as its basis a set of assumptions,
much like the previous work, but that rely more heavily on data to compare available
choices for pipe diameter.
The assumptions necessary to perform the analysis are laid out as follows:
1. First cost for any pipe size and schedule may or may not be linearly scalable
with pipe diameter. Therefore, data on the components of first cost are necessary
to guess the aggregated first cost of the representative pipe section accurately.
These components include the following items:
a. Metallic pipe cost, based on diameter and wall thickness;
b. Labor cost for welded piping;
c. Material and labor costs of insulation; and
d. Material and labor costs of paint and coatings (where applicable).
3. The present value sum of items 1 and 2 that results in the lowest present value is
the best economic pipe size.
No method can be a true and complete model for the real cost of ownership for
any particular section of pipe, but these steps represent an approximation based on
the maximum expected flow within that pipe section. Not only are conditions in
any particular section unlikely to be exactly those of the engineering analysis, but
providing more than a guess of what energy costs will be at any point in the future
is not possible. This is an inherent and unavoidable limitation of an economic pipe
size analysis. Therefore, making reasonable assumptions about ownership cost is
considered sufficient, so long as they are uniformly applied in the analysis.
With regard to first cost, other project costs might certainly skew the analysis. Items
such as varying welding techniques (Gas Metal Arc Welding vs. Gas Tungsten Arc
Welding for root pass), shop fabrication versus field fabrication, and nondestructive
examination could all affect the outcome. However, such factors differ from those
included in the analysis in that, at least at present in the refrigeration industry, they
are not considered standard for field-erected systems. In addition, their costs can vary
widely on a case-by-case basis (i.e., based on the skill of the GTAW welder, number
of joints observed using Non-Destructive Examination, [NDE], etc.). It also bears
mentioning that separate data for these particular items, based on many steel pipe
diameters and wall thicknesses, are not currently available.
Other items that are not considered in the analysis, with explanations of the decision
to exclude them, are as follow:
• Pipe supports (including wind and seismic bracing)
• The range in support techniques and costs is too vast to encompass within the
scope of the analysis. The adequacy of any support arrangement is affected by
a huge number of factors that can’t be envisioned at the level of granularity
involved in sizing a pipe. Industrial refrigeration headers are rarely supported
in a single-pipe-single-support arrangement.
• Varying pipe size by one standard size up or down is unlikely to appreciably
affect budgetary costs for piping supports and would likely not show up as a
measurable impact on cost.
• Valves
• Header piping in typical industrial ammonia plants does not contain a
significant number of valves, if any, other than those in isolating accumulator
and recirculator vessels, which are outside the scope of the analysis.
• Energy users other than pumps and compressors
• Costs for running air units and condensers, while pertinent in an overall
system cost analysis, will have little or no bearing on an individual economic
pipe size compared with that of the compressor and pump energy.
• Identification for piping
• The number and type of labels used in industrial refrigeration piping varies
widely based on location (roof vs. indoors) and arrangement and is assumed
not to be a controlling factor for a general pipe sizing analysis of adjacent-size
piping comparisons.
The listed items are not expected to skew the analysis in any appreciable way based
on a single stepwise change in pipe size.
With these framework assumptions in place, and assuming that sufficient data can be
obtained for those items included for consideration, then a straightforward analysis
becomes possible. This analysis consists of determining the listed material and
labor costs and summing these with cost of energy, as a net present value, absorbed
throughout the lifetime of the system by a section of piping (through pressure
loss). This sum can be compared with that calculated for adjacent pipe sizes so
that the user can see the net present cost of ownership of the section of piping is in
comparison with other sizes and choose the best one.
Of course, economic pipe size based on the listed factors cannot replace specific
engineering analysis for the project. The method demonstrated here is only intended
to help in determining the proper sizing of horizontal header piping. Branch piping,
vertical risers, and the like are subject to other constraints with regard to pipe size.
The following considerations should be observed when using the analysis:
1. The inputs provided by a user to obtain a result based on economic pipe size
cannot guarantee a working system. Where considerations other than simple
operating cost based on maximum load weigh more heavily on the design,
engineers must attend to these considerations. Operation of the process,
available pressure drop, future flexibility of the plant, and a host of other factors
can affect the final choice of pipe size for any given header.
3. The proposed method does not determine whether the section being analyzed
is appropriate for the design pressure, design temperature, and arrangement to
ensure that allowable stresses in accordance with the applicable piping code
are not exceeded. Engineers should be cautious in analyzing only sections
appropriate for the intended service.
4. While pipe sizes selected through use of this method are typically within normal
acceptable limits for flow, pipe sizes may be economically attractive while being
subject to hammer, erosion, choked flow, or cavitation. The user must evaluate
such conditions separately.
allow individual users to tailor their insulation costs to high degree, it avoids
complexity and error in attempting to parse out the insulation costs to a fine
level of detail, for which most users will not be willing to sacrifice ease of use.
• Ammonia properties will be obtained from REFPROP version 9.12 (Lemmon, et al,
2013).
• Energy rates are used as an input to the calculation only as a simple, average $/
kWh rate. Considerations such as demand charges are assumed to be built into
this average rate.
• The charge per kWh is also not adjusted year over year for inflation in this
analysis. This may or may not reflect future energy costs, which are unknowable.
• Concerning pressure drop, installation labor, pipe material costs, and insulation
costs, the analysis considers a 100-ft section of pipe. This fixes the number of
welds and the section length and allows an equal comparison of two or more
sizes.
• Net present value is compounded annually.
• Compressor energy has been calculated using the following assumptions:
• Oil-flooded screw compressor,
• Externally oil cooled, and
• No suction or discharge superheat or pressure drop.
These assumptions were used with two manufacturers’ software programs
to generate energy curves based on the brake-horsepower per ton (BHP/TR)
values for various suction temperatures. The results have been averaged, and a
mathematical equation generated to allow BHP/TR calculations to be performed
within the analysis and used to generate energy penalties based on varying
pressure drops. A saturated condensing temperature of +85°F (for ammonia,
not considering other refrigerants) is used as an average value. In a range of
+75°F to +95°F saturated condensing temperature, BHP/TR results for a
range of suction temperatures, when compared with an assumed condensing
temperature of +85°F, have a maximum of +20% error at 95°F and -18% error
at 75°F for a single-stage (no economizer) compression process and a maximum
of +10% at +95°F and -8.4% at +75°F for two-stage intercooled arrangement
at a fixed intermediate temperature of +20°F. These results suggest that the use
of an average condensing temperature is appropriate within the accuracy of the
calculations. See Table 11 in the Appendix for compressor horsepower values
that may be used with suction temperatures for this analysis and for curve fits
suitable for use in a software package. Note that curve fits are based on the ratio
of suction to discharge pressure, not temperature.
• Compressor motor efficiency has been assumed at 95%.
• Power consumption for liquid lines is based on calculated hydraulic horsepower
at the given operating temperature divided by an assumed pump efficiency (60%)
and motor efficiency (95%).
• Given that safety factors would be uniformly applied as a multiplier for a total
unit cost of ownership for each pipe size, which would only serve to exaggerate
calculated differences, safety factors are not considered.
Analysis
1. Mass flow rate: This can be either directly input or determined from mass
flow required for a particular heat absorption and service (evaporator suction,
compressor suction, liquid feed, compressor discharge, etc.);
2. Flow type:
a. Liquid,
b. Vapor, or
3. Pipe material;
These inputs form the basis of any calculation for optimum pipe size.
Step 2 – Size the baseline case (pressure drop and power consumption)
1. For liquid piping, less than or equal to 2.00 psi drop through a 100-ft section of
piping;
2. For vapor and two-phase piping at temperatures above -20°F, less than or equal
to 0.50 psi pressure drop through a 100-ft section of piping; and
3. For vapor and two-phase piping at temperatures at or below -20°F, less than or
equal to 0.25 psi pressure drop through a 100-ft section of piping.
Note that these baseline limits do not always provide for a base case that is within
one size of the most economical pipe size for the service, but this is heavily
dependent on usage, energy rates, and system life, the combination of which is
difficult to correct for on the front end of the analysis.
Where
Where
P is the density 8
v is the velocity
in the pipe
D is the “hydraulic diameter,” in this case the pipe diameter
M is the dynamic viscosity
Ρ
is
the
density
𝑣𝑣 is
the
velocity
in
the
pipe
D
is
the
“hydraulic
diameter,”
in
this
case
the
pipe
diameter
Both the Reynolds number Μ
and
the friction factor are dimensionless. The user must
is
the
dynamic
viscosity
be careful to employ units that are consistent and that cancel to ensure the correct
results. Ρ is
the
dBoth
the
Reynolds
number
and
the
friction
factor
are
dimensionless.
The
user
must
be
careful
to
ensity
𝑣𝑣 is
the
vunits
that
elocity
in
athe
re
cponsistent
ipe
and
that
cancel
to
ensure
the
correct
results.
Flow in a D
pipe is is
a tspecial
he
“Flow
hydraulic
in
a
pdipe
case iameter,”
of the in
this
is
a
sReynolds
pecial
case
case
of
tthe
number, he
Rpeynolds
ipe
and diameter
number,
where theand
mass where
flow the
m
isass
flow
is
known,
it
ca
Μ is
the
drewritten
ynamic
viscosity
as
follows:
known, it can be rewritten as follows:
Both
the
Reynolds
number
and
the
friction
ABCCDEFG factor
are
dimensionless.
The
user
must
be
careful
to
employ
:∙ ∙8
,I ∙J
units
that
are
consistent
and
that
cancel
H∙ to
ensure
L∙MNOO#PQR
the
correct
results.
(3)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = K
=
(3
; ;∙8∙S
Flow
in
a
pipe
is
a
special
case
of
the
Reynolds
number,
and
where
the
mass
flow
is
known,
it
can
be
As isrewritten
apparentas
from follows:
As
is
apparent
Equation (3), the from
Equation
pipe diameter(3),
the
must pipe
be
diameter
estimated must
bto
e
ecalculate
stimated
to
a calculate
a
Reynolds
n
Reynolds number. ThisThis
ABCCDEFG
complicates
the
complicates the
method
method
bby
y
forcing
forcing an
aan
dditional
additional calculation,
but
is
necessary
to
begin
the
a
calculation,
:∙ ∙8
,I ∙J
but is necessary to begin the analysis. H∙ As
an
example,
L∙MNOO#PQRassume
a
header
pipe
is
required
to
carry
400
tons
of
refrigeration
(TR)
of
+0°F
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = = K
(3)
; ;∙8∙S recirculated
ammonia
liquid
at
a
3:1
overfeed
rate.
The
properties
of
ammonia
in
Table
1
apply.
As anAs
example, assume
is
apparent
a header
quation
(3),
tpipe is required
he
pipe
diameter
mtoust
carry 400 tons
be
estimated
to
of
from
ETable
1.
Properties
of
saturated
liquid
ammonia
at
+0°F
refrigeration
calculate
a
Reynolds
number.
(TR) This
of +0°F recirculated
complicates
ammonia
the
method
liquid
by
forcing
at a 3:1calculation,
an
additional
overfeed brate. ut
is
nThe properties
ecessary
to
begin
of
the
analysis.
ammonia in Table 1 apply. Temperature
(°F)
0.0
As
an
example,
assume
a
header
pipe
is
required
to
carry
400
tons
of
refrigeration
(TR)
of
+0°F
Saturated
pressure
(psi)
30.40
recirculated
ammonia
liquid
at
a
3:1
overfeed
2 rate.
The
properties
of
ammonia
in
Table
1
apply.
Liquid
density
(lb/ft )
41.34
Temperature (°F) 0.0
Liq.
dynamic
viscosity
(lbm/ft-‐s)
Table
1.
Properties
of
saturated
liquid
ammonia
at
+0°F
1.402e-‐04
Saturated pressure (psi) 30.40
Liq.
enthalpy
(BTU/lb-‐R)
112.61
Liquid density (lb/ft
Temperature
(°F)
) Vapor
enthalpy
(BTU/lb-‐R)
2
41.34 0.0
681.39
Liq. dynamic
Saturated
viscosity (lbm/ft-s)
pressure
(psi)
1.402e-04 30.40
Liq. enthalpy (BTU/lb-R)
Liquid
density
(lb/ft2)
112.6141.34
VaporLiq.
enthalpy
dynamic
(BTU/lb-R) As
a
f irst
viscosity
(lbm/ft-‐s)
g uess
f or
p ipe
1.402e-‐04
681.39 diameter,
assume
that
a
2
in.
schedule
40
pipe
is
chosen.
The
internal
di
of
this
pipe
is
2.067
in.
With
this
information
and
that
in
Table
1,
calculating
the
Reynolds
numb
Table 1.Liq.
enthalpy
Properties of(BTU/lb-‐R)
saturated liquid ammonia at +0°F 112.61
possible.
The
mass
flow
can
Vapor
enthalpy
(BTU/lb-‐R)
be
calculated
as
follows:
681.39
1**^_` Pc Pc
As a first guess for pipe diameter, assume
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = that a 2 in.
400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇× schedule
× 40 pipe is chosen.
×3 = 421.96
Mab∙_3 de".-fg""1.d" ^_` Mab
The internal
As
a
first
gdiameter of dthis
uess
for
pipe
pipe ais
iameter,
2.067
ssume
in.a
With
that
this information
2
in.
schedule
and that
40
pipe
is
chosen.
The
iin Tablediameter
nternal
of
this
pipe
the
1, calculating is
2.067
Reynolds The
in.
WRith
eynolds
number number
can
this
information
then
and
is possible. be
that
The in
cmass
alculated
Table
1flow per
Equation
,
calculating
can bethe
(R3).
eynolds
nas
calculated umber
is
possible.
The
mass
flow
can
be
calculated
as
follows:
follows: 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×421.96
1**^_`𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅×= Pc 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Pc = 370,786
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇× 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×3 = 421.96 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
60𝑠𝑠
Mab∙_3 de".-fg""1.d" ^_` Mab
0.0001402 ×2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
The
Reynolds
number
can
then
be
calculated
per
Equation
(3).
With
the
Reynolds
number
determined,
the
pipe
roughness
provides
the
final
piece
of
informati
needed
to
determine
the
friction
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×421.96 factor.
For
steel
pipe,
the
average
roughness
is
0.0002
ft
(0.002
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 370,786
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
Technical Paper #6 9
0.0001402 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠© ×2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖×
IIAR 2017
12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
×𝜋𝜋×
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
15
With
the
Reynolds
number
determined,
the
pipe
roughness
provides
the
final
piece
of
information
Vapor
enthalpy
(BTU/lb-‐R)
681.39
As
a
first
guess
for
pipe
diameter,
assume
that
a
2
in.
schedule
40
pipe
is
chosen.
The
internal
diameter
of
this
pipe
is
2.067
in.
With
this
information
and
that
in
Table
1,
calculating
the
Reynolds
number
is
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
possible.
The
mass
flow
can
be
calculated
as
follows:
1**^_` Pc Pc
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇× × ×3 = 421.96
Mab∙_3 de".-fg""1.d" ^_` Mab
The
The
Reynolds
Reynolds
number
number
canbe
then
can
then
be calculated
calculated
per(3).
per
Equation
Equation (3).
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×421.96
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 370,786
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
0.0001402 ×2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
With
the
Reynolds
number
determined,
the
pipe
roughness
provides
the
final
piece
of
information
needed
With tthe o
determine
Reynolds the
numberfriction
factor.
determined,For
steel
the
pipe,
pipe the
aroughness
verage
roughness
provides is
0.0002
ft
(0.0024
the final piece in.).
of information needed to determine the friction factor. For steel pipe, the average
9
roughness is 0.0002 ft (0.0024 in.).
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1 2.51
= −2 log"* 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
𝑓𝑓 3.7 371,315 𝑓𝑓
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1
With
f
implicit
in
the
equation,
calculating
2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2.51
= −2 logt"* he
friction
factor
+via
the
Colebrook
equation
requires
an
iterative
p rocess.
T his
i s
d one
𝑓𝑓
b y
f irst
s lightly
r 3.7 the
equation
ewriting
371,315 i n
t 𝑓𝑓
he
f orm:
With ƒ implicit in the equation, calculating the friction factor via the Colebrook
equation requires an iterative process. This is done by first slightly
g1 rewriting the
With
f
implicit
in
the
equation,
calculating
the
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
friction
factor
via
the
Colebrook
equation
requires
an
equation in the form:𝑓𝑓 = −2 log 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 2.51
iterative
process.
This
is
done
by
first
slightly
"* rewriting
the
equation
in
the
form:
3.7 371,315 𝑓𝑓
g1
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
A
friction
factor
can
now
b𝑓𝑓e
g=uessed
2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2.51
−2 (log start
with
"*
0.02)
and
+plugged
into
the
right
side
of
the
equation.
3.7
The
next
step
is
to
solving
for
f
on
the
left
side,
then
use
the
371,315 𝑓𝑓 back
into
the
right
side
and
result
to
plug
continue
this
process
until
the
error
is
within
acceptable
limits
(four
significant
figures
is
assumed
acceptable
A
in
this
friction
factor
case).
can
now
be
guessed
(start
with
0.02)
and
plugged
into
the
right
side
of
the
equation.
The
next
step
factor
A friction is
to
solving
can now for
f
obe
n
the
guessedleft
side,
(startthen
uwith
se
the
0.02) result
and
to
plug
pluggedback
into
into the
the
right
right side
side
and
Performing
this
iteration,
the
liquid
friction
factor
is
revealed
to
be
0.02109.
With
this
information,
continue
of the equation.this
process
The until
next
the
error
stepis
iswithin
acceptable
to solving for lƒimits
on (the four
left
significant
side, then figures
is
athe
use ssumed
result
calculating
the
liquid
pressure
drop
in
a
100-‐ft
section
of
piping
is
now
possible.
acceptable
in
this
case).
to plug back into the right side and continue this process until the error is within
The
Darcy
equation
acceptable limits is
(four
commonly
used
to
cfigures
alculate
isfriction
loss
for
liquid
laminar
athis
nd
turbulent
flow
Performing
this
iteration,
the
significant
liquid
friction
assumed
factor
is
revealed
to
bacceptable
e
0.02109.
Win
ith
this
icase).
nformation,
(Lindeburg
2001).
It
has
the
form
of
calculating
the
liquid
pressure
drop
in
a
100-‐ft
section
of
piping
is
now
possible.
Performing #w9 I
this
iiteration, the liquid friction factor isfor
revealed to be a0.02109. With this
The
ℎ#e=
Darcy
quation
s
commonly
used
to
calculate
friction
loss
liquid
laminar
(4)
nd
turbulent
flow
18x
information,
(Lindeburg
calculating
2001).
theof
liquid pressure drop in a 100-ft section of piping is now
It
has
the
form
Where
possible.
#w9 I
ℎ# =
(4)
hf 18x
is
the
head
loss
(in
length
dimensions)
𝑓𝑓 is
the
friction
factor
Where
L
is
the
equivalent
length
of
the
pipe
section
hf
𝑣𝑣 is
the
hvelocity
ead
loss
(in
length
dimensions)
16 D
𝑓𝑓 is
the
fpriction
ipe
diameter
factor
© IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6
g
L
is
the
eacceleration
due
to
quivalent
length
of
gtravity
he
pipe
section
𝑣𝑣 is
the
velocity
D
is
the
pipe
diameter
371,315 𝑓𝑓
g1
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
g1
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2.51
A
friction
factor
2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓 =be
2.51
can
now
g−2
uessed
log"* (start
2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
with
0.02)
+and
plugged
into
the
right
side
of
th
𝑓𝑓 = −2 log"* +
3.7 371,315
The
next
step
3.7
is
to
solving
371,315for
f
on
t𝑓𝑓
he
left
side,
then
use
the
result
𝑓𝑓
to
plug
back
into
the
r
continue
this
process
until
the
error
is
within
acceptable
limits
(four
significant
figures
is
a
A
friction
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe factor
cfor
Sizein
acceptable
an
now
Ammonia
this
be
gRefrigeration
case).
uessed
(start
Piping
with
0.02)
and
plugged
into
the
right
side
of
the
eq
A
friction
factor
can
now
be
guessed
(start
with
0.02)
and
plugged
into
the
right
side
of
the
equation.
The
next
step
is
to
solving
for
f
on
the
left
side,
then
use
the
result
to
plug
back
into
the
right
The
next
step
is
to
solving
for
f
on
the
left
side,
then
use
the
result
to
plug
back
into
the
right
side
and
Performing
continue
this
iteration,
this
process
until
the
tehe
liquid
rror
is
wfithin
riction
factor
is
rlevealed
acceptable
to
b
imits
(four
e
0.02109.
significant
With
tihis
figures
inf
s
assu
continue
this
process
until
the
error
is
within
acceptable
limits
(four
significant
figures
is
assumed
calculating
acceptable
the
in
this
liquid
pressure
drop
in
a
100-‐ft
section
of
piping
is
now
possible.
case).
acceptable
in
this
case).
The Darcy equation is commonly used to calculate friction loss for liquid laminar and
The
Darcy
Performing
equation
this
iteration,
is
tche
ommonly
used
to
liquid
friction
calculate
factor
friction
to
is
revealed
loss
be
f0or
liquid
W
.02109.
laminar
and
ith
this
turb
informa
Performing
turbulentthis
flowiteration,
(Lindeburg the
liquid
2001). friction
It fhas
actor
theis
revealed
form of to
be
0.02109.
With
this
information,
(Lindeburg
calculating
the
l2iquid
001).
pIressure
t
has
the
form
drop
in
oaf
100-‐ft
section
of
piping
is
now
possible.
calculating
the
liquid
pressure
drop
in
a
100-‐ft
section
of
piping
is
now
possible.
I
The
Darcy
equation
#w9 is
c
ommonly
used
to
calculate
friction
loss
for
liquid
laminar
and
turbulen
ℎ# = friction
The
Darcy
equation
is
commonly
used
to
calculate
18x l (4)
oss
for
liquid
laminar
and
turbulent
flow
(Lindeburg
2001).
It
has
the
form
of
(Lindeburg
2001).
It
has
the
form
of
Where
#w9 I
Where #w9 I ℎ# =
ℎ# =
hf
18x (4)
18x is
the
head
loss
(in
length
dimensions)
hf is the head loss (inWhere
length 𝑓𝑓dimensions)
is
the
friction
factor
Where
ƒ is the friction factor hf L
is
the
equivalent
length
of
the
pipe
section
is
t he
is
hthe
ead
loss
(in
length
dimensions)
velocity
ofd𝑣𝑣imensions)
hf is
the
head
loss
(length
in
length
L is the equivalent 𝑓𝑓 the pipe fsection
D
is
the
riction
factor
𝑓𝑓 is
the
friction
factor
is
the
pipe
diameter
v is the velocity L
g
is
the
e quivalent
length
doue
f
tthe
L
is
the
equivalent
length
of
the
pipe
sis
the
acceleration
ection
o
gpravity
ipe
section
D is the pipe diameter
𝑣𝑣 is
the
velocity
𝑣𝑣 is
the
velocity
is
the
pipe
diameter
D
g is the acceleration due to gravity is
the
pipe
diameter
D
The
v elocity
is
tm ust
be
calculated
to
dgetermine
ravity
friction
loss.
Using
the
mass
flow,
pipe
diam
is
the
acceleration
due
g
he
acceleration
due
to
g
to
gravity
density,
velocity
can
be
calculated
as
The velocity must be calculated to determine friction loss. Using the mass flow, pipe
L∙yNOO#PQR "
diameter, and density, velocity can be
The
velocity
𝑣𝑣m= calculated
ust
∙ as
to
determine
friction
loss.
Using
the
mass
flow,
pipe
diamete
be
cIalculated
The
velocity
must
be
calculated
to
determine
friction
8 lS oss.
Using
: the
mass
flow,
pipe
diameter,
and
density,
velocity
can
be
calculated
as
density,
velocity
can
be
calculated
as
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
L∙yNOO#PQR " 4×421.96 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
L∙yNOO#PQR " 𝑣𝑣 = ∙
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 7.291
𝑣𝑣 = ∙
8I S : 𝑣𝑣 = × = 438.0
(5)
I 8 S : (5) 1
0.02967𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×𝜋𝜋 41.34𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 above
flow
of
400
For
the
TR
at
3:1
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
4×421.96 recirculation
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 rate
in
a
100-‐ft
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 section
of
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
pipe,
the
frictio
4×421.96 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑣𝑣 = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 438.0 = 7.291
𝑣𝑣 = be
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × = 438.0 = 7.291
1
0.02967𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×𝜋𝜋 41.34𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
0.02967𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 ×𝜋𝜋 41.34𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
For
t10
he
above
flow
of
400
TR
at
3:1
recirculation
rate
in
a
100-‐ft
section
of
pipe,
the
friction
lo
For
the
above
flow
of
400
TR
at
3:1
r
ecirculation
rate
in
a
100-‐ft
section
of
pipe,
the
friction
loss
would
be
be
For the above flow of 400 TR at 3:1 recirculation rate in a 100-ft section of pipe, the
friction loss would be 10
10
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29 )
ℎ# = 𝑠𝑠 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 1
𝑠𝑠
The
Darcy
equation
produces
a
result
with
dimensions
of
length,
which
must
be
converted
to
pressure.
Head
Theloss
can
bequation
Darcy e
converted
to
pressure
produces loss
via
with
a result Equation
(6),
dimensions of length, which must be
converted
∆𝑝𝑝 = to pressure. Head loss can be converted to pressure loss via Equation
ℎ ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔
(6)
(6),
#
The
Darcy
equation
produces
a
result
with
dimensions
of
length,
which
must
be
converted
to
pressure.
Head
loss
can
be
converted
to
pressure
loss
via
Equation
(6),
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29 )1
ℎ# = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑠𝑠 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29 ) 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
∆𝑝𝑝 = ℎ# ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔
ℎ# = 𝑠𝑠 = 2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2
10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
(6)
(6)
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑠𝑠 1
2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 11
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 equation
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 roduces
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ a𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
result
w 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1dimensions
of
length,
which
∆𝑝𝑝 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34 - ×32.2 1p× The
D arcy
× ith
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29
1
= 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 must
be
converted
to
)
The
Darcy
equation
produces
Head
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
loss
cw
a
result
an
be
ith
𝑠𝑠
dimensions
32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
converted
oto
∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
f
lpength,
ressure
144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
ℎ#which
=loss
vmia
ust
Equation
be
converted
(6),
to
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 p𝑠𝑠ressure.
= 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Head
l oss
c an
b e
c onverted
t o
p ressure
l oss
v ia
E quation
( 6),
2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 1
Notice
that
in
U.S.
customary
units,
an
additional
∆𝑝𝑝 = ℎ# ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔
factor
to
correct
for
lbf
vs.
lb
is
required.
Clearly,
a𝑠𝑠s
a
baseline
case
o
Notice f
that
2=
psi/100
ℎin U.S. ft,
acustomary
2
in.
pipe
is
uunits, ndersized.
additional The
process
factor must
be
torepeated
wfor ith
2lbf
1/2
in.
lb
∆𝑝𝑝 # ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔
The
Darcy
an equation
produces
a
result
correct with
dimensions
vs. (6)
is which
must
be
conve
o1f
length,
diameter
pipe,
the
results
of
which
show
a
calculated
pressure
drop
of
1.161
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 psi.
This
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓pressure
𝑠𝑠 the
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙fits
required. Clearly, as a baseline Head
case loss
of
∆𝑝𝑝 can
= 2 b10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34
e
converted
psi/100 ft, ato
2pressure
in.- pipe ×32.2 loss
is 1vundersized.
ia
× Equation
(6),
The
× = 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
criterion
of
being
the
smallest
pipe
size
with
a
p𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ressure
drop
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 less
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1or
e𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
than
qual
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓to
1 2
p 𝑠𝑠si
per
100
∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
process must∆𝑝𝑝 be=repeated 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34
equivalent
ft,
and
thus
2
1/2
in.
pipe
is
chosen
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
with 2 1/2 in.base
×32.2
as
-∆𝑝𝑝
the
=
diameter ×
1case.
pipe, × the results of which show
= 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
ℎ#𝑠𝑠×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔
32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
a calculated pressure drop Notice
of that
1.161 in
U.S.
psi. customary
This pressure units,
an
fits additional
the criterion factor
to
of correct
being for
the
lbf
vs.
lb
is
required.
Cle
This
pNotice
ressure
drop
in
cU
an
bsizee
used
baseline
to
caalculate
caase
of
2
psi/100
n
haydraulic
ft,
tao
2c
iorrect
n.
pipe
for
pis
ower
ulbf
ndersized.
Talculated
he
p𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 rocess
must
be
a
repeated
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 with
2
1
smallest that
pipe .S.
customary
with units,
pressure drophless
dditional
orsepower.
factor
∆𝑝𝑝 than
= or Pump
10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34 equal to can
v2s.
psi b
bis
e
l𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 rcequired.
per
×32.2 100 equivalent
×
p𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
er
Clearly,
∙ 𝑠𝑠a1s
× = 2.91𝑝𝑝
Equation
(7).
case
of
2
psi/100
fdiameter
baseline
t,
a
2
in.
ppipe
ipe,
is
tuhe
results
of
The
ndersized.
which
show
maust
process
calculated
be
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - pressure
repeated
1 d232.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
w𝑠𝑠ith
rop
1/2
oif
n.
1∙.161
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 p144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
si.
This
1 pressure
ft, and thus 2 1/2 in. pipe is chosen as the base case.
diameter
pipe,
the
results
ocriterion
f
which
sohow
f
being
the
smallest
a
calculated
pipe
sdize
pressure
rop
woith
f
1a.161
pressure
psi.
This
drop
less
than
pressure
otr
he
fits
equal
to
2
psi
per
10
∆Ä×yNOO#PQR
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃o=
criterion
f
being
t:he
smallest
equivalent
Notice
pipe
size
t hat
ft,
waith
i n
nd
at
hus
U .S.
c ustomary
2
1/2
din.
pressure
rop
pipe
u nits,
is
tchan
less
hosen
a n
a dditional
or
eaqual
s
the
to
base
f actor
p(7)
case.
2
psi
t o
er
100
c orrect
for
lbf
vs.
lb
is
requ
This pressure
equivalent
ft,
and
drop thus
2can
1/2
ibe n.
pused baseline
ipe
is
cto case
calculate
hosen
as
othe
f
2
bphydraulic
si/100
ase
ft,
a
horsepower.
case.
2
in.
pipe
is
undersized.
Pump power The
process
can must
be
repeated
Using
the
This
p ressure
diameter
d rop
c an
,
power
pconsumption
b e
u sed
ipe,
the
results
t o
c alculate
in
tohe
f
w1hich
h
00-‐ft
show
ydraulic
h orsepower.
a
calculated
section
of
p2ressure
P ump
1/2
in.
drop
power
of
1c.161
an
bpe
si.
calculaThis
be pcalculated
reviously
calculate
per Equation information
(7). sample
piping
This
is
pressure
drop
can
be
used
to
ccriterion
Equation
( 7).
alculate
hoydraulic
f
being
thhe
orsepower.
smallest
pPipe
ump
power
size
with
ac
an
be
calculated
pressure
drop
less
per
than
or
equal
to
2
ps
Equation
(7).
equivalent
∆Ä×yNOO#PQR ft,
and
thus
2
1/2
in.
pipe
is
chosen
as
the
base
case.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1 =
(7)
1.161 1 ×421.96
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∆Ä×yNOO#PQR 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 : ℎ𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =
× This
1pressure
× d× rop
can
be
used
=to
calculate
h=
0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝 ydraulic
0.03858𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
horsepower.
(7)
Pump
power
can
b
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙: 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
41.34 - Using
the
p reviously
c alculate
i nformation
𝑠𝑠 consumption in the 100-ft sample sample
section
o
,
p ower
c onsumption
i n
t he
1 00-‐ft
Equation
(7).
550
Using the previously 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 calculate information , power
Using
the
previously
calculate
piping
is
information
,
power
consumption
in
the
100-‐ft
sample
section
of
2
1/2
in.
section
This
result
of 2 1/2 in. piping
is
its
he
ideal
hydraulic
horsepower
consumed
is 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃by
∆Ä×yNOO#PQR
=this
section
o
f
piping.
It
must
be
divided
by
piping
:
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
the
assumed
efficiencies
of
the
pump,
motor,
a1.161 nd
power
f actor
×421.96 t o
give
the
true
e1stimated
144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 consumption
ℎ𝑝𝑝
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 Using
= t he
p reviously
c alculate
×
i nformation
× ,
p ×
ower
c onsumption
= 0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 0.038
of
power
at
the
meter. 1.161
1 ×421.96 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 60𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 in
the
100-‐ft
sample
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 piping
× is
1 × 41.34 × - = 0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 0.03858𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
550
𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
41.34 is
t-aken
to
be
6𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
For
this
analysis,
pump
efficiency
0%.
Motor
efficiency
550
is
taken
to
be
95%.
The
actual
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑠𝑠
power
consumption
then
becomes
This
result
is
the
ideal
h1.161 ydraulic
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙horsepower
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙consumed
1by
this
section
of
piping.
It
must
be
div
×421.96
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ℎ𝑝𝑝
This
result
is
the
ideal
hydraulic
the
ahssumed
orsepower
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
efficiencies
= of
tb
consumed
he
y
tphis
ump,
s𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 motor,
ection
of
ap× nd
power
iping.
I1t
m ×fust
actor
b t×
e
d o
ivided
give
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓the
rue
=
by
∙ t𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝
estimated
con
ÑQR4Ö
41.34 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
𝑃𝑃
the
=
Éassumed
efficiencies
of
of
power
thydraulic
he
pump,
at
m the
otor,
meter.and
p ower
factor
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 to
- give
(8)
550
This result
η η Ñà á A is the ideal horsepower consumed by tthis he
true
section estimated
consumption
of piping. It 𝑠𝑠
of
must power
beat
divided
the
meter. by
the assumed
For
this
aThis
nalysis,
efficiencies
result
pump
is
the
of theis
pump,
efficiency
ideal
hydraulic
taken
to
motor,
be
60%.
and
horsepower
cM
power
otor
onsumed
factor
efficiency
by
this
is
to too
f
bpe
taken
section
95%.
It
Tm
iping.
heu
Where
give
For
this
the true estimated
analysis,
consumption
power
pump
efficiency
ics
onsumption
taken
the
to
bof
assumed
epower
e
6then
at ethe
bMecomes
0%.
otor
fficiencies
meter.
officiency
f
the
is
taken
pump,
to
bae
motor,
nd
95%.
The
power
actual
factor
to
give
the
true
estim
ηpower
Ä c Pump
e
onsumption
fficiency
t hen
b ecomes
of
p ower
a t
t he
m eter.
ÑQR4Ö
ηMFor Motor
e fficiency
𝑃𝑃É =
this analysis, ÑQR4Ö pump efficiency áisAtaken to be 60%. Motor efficiency is taken to be
η η Ñà
PF
𝑃𝑃Power
É = η Fηactor
(typically
taken
For
ats
his
1)
analysis,
pump
efficiency
is
taken
to
be
60%.
Motor
efficiency
is
taken
to
be
9
(8)
95%. The actual á A Ñà power consumption then becomes
Where
power
c onsumption
t hen
b ecomes
Where
ÑQR4Ö
11
ηÄ Pump
𝑃𝑃É =efficiency
ηá ηA Ñà (8)
ηÄ Pump
efficiency
ηM Motor
efficiency
ηM Motor
efficiency
PF
Where
Power
Factor
(typically
taken
as
1)
PF
Power
Factor
(typically
taken
as
1)
18
ηÄ© IIAR Pump
2017 efficiency
Technical Paper #6
11
ηM Motor
efficiency
11
PF
Power
Factor
(typically
taken
as
1)
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Where
ηp Pump efficiency
ηm Motor efficiency
PF Power Factor (typically taken as 1)
0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃É = = 0.091ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 0.06768𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.6×0.95
This
is
the
power
consumed
in
this
section
of
piping
at
full
load.
It
can
be
used,
along
with
the
system’s
estimated
This is the usage
power and
lifetime,
consumed to
calculate
in thisasection
net
present
value
of
at
of piping the
full energy
load. consumed
It can be in
tused,
he
section
over
t he
l ife
o f
t he
s ystem
i n
S tep
3 .
along with the system’s estimated usage and lifetime, to calculate a net present value
of the energy consumed in the section over the life of the system in Step 3.
Vapor
Pressure
drop
in
vapor
lines
incurs
an
energy
cost
at
the
compressor,
much
like
liquid
line
pressure
drop
incurs
a
pump
energy
penalty.
This
requires
a
pressure
drop
calculation
for
vapor
lines,
very
similar
to
that
of
liquid.
Vapor
Vapor
lines
differ
from
liquid
in
that
the
fluid
is
compressible.
The
Darcy
equation
is
considered
adequate
Pressurein
drop cases
in
where
vapor the
lines
pressure
incurs drop
an is
<energy
10%
of
the
cost absolute
at theinlet
pressure
and
compressor, much the
Mlike ach
number
is
liquid<0.3
(Lindeburg
line pressure 2001).
drop
However,
incursconsidering
a pumpthe
flow
limits
energy penalty.established
previously
This requires afor
vapor
lines
pressure drop
(limits
on
pressure
drop
to
0.5
psi/100
ft
in
vapor
lines
above
-‐20°F
and
0.25
psi/100
ft
in
vapor
lines
-‐
calculation for vapor lines, very similar to that of liquid.
20°F
and
below),
the
Darcy
equation
will
provide
satisfactory
results
down
to
a
temperature
of
approximately
-‐80°F,
arguably
well
below
industrial
refrigeration
applications
for
ammonia.
Vapor lines differ from liquid in that the fluid is compressible. The Darcy equation
Note
that
pure
vapor
flow
will
be
based
on
saturated
(suction)
and
superheated
(discharge)
conditions,
is considered adequate in cases where the pressure drop is <10% of the absolute
again
using
the
Colebrook
equation
to
find
the
friction
coefficient,
f.
The
process
of
determining
inlet pressure and the Mach number is <0.3 (Lindeburg 2001). However, considering
pressure
drops
in
vapor
lines
then
becomes
quite
similar
to
that
in
liquid
lines.
the flow limits established previously for vapor lines (limits on pressure drop to 0.5
Table
2.
Saturated
ammonia
vapor
properties
at
-‐30°F
psi/100 ft in vapor lines above -20°F and 0.25 psi/100 ft in vapor lines -20°F and
below), the Darcy
Temperature
(°F)
equation will provide-‐30
satisfactory results down to a temperature
Saturated
of pressure
(-80°F,
approximately psia)
arguably well below
13.89
industrial refrigeration applications for
3
Density
(lb/ft )
ammonia. 0.05268
Enthalpy
(btu/lb)
670.10
Dynamic
viscosity
(lbm/ft-‐s)
5.390E-‐6
Note that pure vapor flow will be based on saturated (suction) and superheated
Entropy
(btu/lb-‐R)
1.581
(discharge)ated (for suction)
Const.
pressure
specific
heat
and conditions,
0.51768
again using the Colebrook equation to
(BTU/lb-‐R)
(60°F,
14.7
psia)
Const.
volume
specific
heat
0.39217
(BTU/lb-‐R)
(60°F,
14.7
psia)
Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 19
Using
the
same
process
discussed
under
the
liquid
piping
calculation,
the
pressure
drop
can
be
determined
for
a
vapor
flow.
In
this
case,
assume
a
mass
flow
rate
of
350.0
lb/min
of
saturated
vapor
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
find the friction coefficient, ƒ. The process of determining pressure drops in vapor
lines then becomes quite similar to that in liquid lines.
Using the same process discussed under the liquid piping calculation, the pressure
drop can be determined for a vapor flow. In this case, assume a mass flow rate
of 350.0 lb/min of saturated vapor generated in a bank of flooded blast cell coils
being fed with +0°F pumped liquid (corresponding to a heat absorption rate in the
evaporator of 977.2 TR). To initiate the calculation, Reynolds number, friction factor,
and velocity are determined using the information listed in Table 2 for saturated
ammonia vapor at -30°F. The initial guess of pipe size is given as 12 in. standard
weight, which has an internal diameter of 12.0 in. (1.0 ft). The Reynolds number is
calculated from Equation 3.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
1,377,965
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
0.000005390 ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Following
Reynolds
number,
the
friction
factor
f
is
determined
using
Equation
1
(starting
with
an
estimate
Following of
0.02,
Reynolds three
iterations
number,are
sufficient
the friction to
factor
find
the
f ais
nswer
in
this
case).
determined using Equation 1
(starting with an estimate of 0.02, three iterations are sufficient to find the answer in
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1 2.51
this case). = −2 log"* 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + , 𝑓𝑓 = 0.01445
𝑓𝑓 3.7 1,377,965 𝑓𝑓
20 The
velocity
is
determined
next
using
Equation
© IIAR 5:
2017 Technical Paper #6
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑣𝑣 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × = 8,459 = 140.99
1 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 4×350 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
1,377,965
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 0.000005390 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠 =
1,377,965
Method for Determining Best Economic 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 Size for Ammonia
Pipe ×𝜋𝜋×
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓Refrigeration 60𝑠𝑠 Piping
0.000005390 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ×𝜋𝜋× 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Following
Reynolds
number,
the
friction
factor
f
is
determined
using
Equation
4×350 1
(starting
with
an
Following
Reynolds
number,
the
friction
factor
f
is
d𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 etermined
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
using
Equation
1
(starting
with
an
=
1,377,965
estimate
of
0.02,
three
iterations
are
sufficient
to
find
the
answer
in
this
case).
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
estimate
of
0.02,
three
iterations
are
sufficient
to
find
the
0.000005390 answer
in
this
case).
×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1 0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 2.51
1 = −2 log"*Following
12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
4×350
Reynolds
+ number,
2.51 the
friction
, 𝑓𝑓 = f0.01445
actor
f
is
d
etermined
using
Equation
1
(starting
w
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =𝑓𝑓 = −2 log"* 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =0.01445
1,377,965
3.7 + 1,377,965
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 of
0.02,
three
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
estimate
𝑓𝑓 , 𝑓𝑓 =
re
sufficient
to
f
ind
the
answer
in
this
case).
iterations
a60𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓 0.000005390 3.7×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× 1,377,965 ×𝜋𝜋× 𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1 2.51
Following
R eynolds
n umber,
t he
f riction
f actor
The
velocity
is
determined
next
using
Equation
5:
f
i s
d = −2 log"* 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
etermined
u sing
E quation
1
(starting
+ with
an
, 𝑓𝑓 = 0.01445
The
The velocity
velocity
estimate
of
0is
isthree
determined
determined
.02,
next
next
using
iterations
using Equation
are
sEufficient
quation
5to
𝑓𝑓 5:
:
find
the
3.7
answer
in
this
case).
1,377,965 𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓-- 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑣𝑣 = 4×350
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 8,459 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 140.99 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
1 𝑣𝑣 = 11 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚×𝜋𝜋 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
× 0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 2.51
= 8,459 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =, 140.99 𝑠𝑠
= −21log 1The
1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓"* ×𝜋𝜋 velocity
is
d+etermined
n𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓 E=
ext
using
0.01445
𝑠𝑠 5:
quation
𝑓𝑓 3.7 1,377,965 𝑓𝑓
As
a
final
check
of
the
adequacy
of
the
Darcy
equation,
the
Mach
number,
the
ratio
of
the
actual
velocity
As
a
final
check
of
the
adequacy
of
the
Darcy
equation,
the
Mach
number,
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 the
ratio
o-f
the
actual
velocity
to
the
speed
of
sound
in
the
fluid,
a,
is
checked
to
ensure
that
it
4×350
is
less
t𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
han
or
equal
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 to
0.3.
To
simplify
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
As
to
the
sfinal
peed
ocheck
f
sound
in
the
the
adequacy
fluid,
a,
is
checked
tDarcy
o
ensure
𝑣𝑣 =it
is
1less
that
than
×
or
equal
=the
to
0.3.
T8,459 implify
= 140.99
o
sratio
the
caalculation,
the
aof ssumption
of
ideal
gof as
the
behavior
is
uequation,
sed,
allowing
the
1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×𝜋𝜋 1t Mach
he
M ach
number,
n
0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 umber
t o
b e
a djusted
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
The
cvalculation,
the
elocity
is
dtetermined
he
assumption
next
ouf
sing
ispeed
deal
Equation
gas
behavior
5:
is
used,
allowing
the
Mach
number
to
be
adjusted
of theonly
based
actual velocity
on
absolute
to the
temperature
from
of the
sound
reference.
in the The
fluid,
speed
o a,f
sisound
checked in
an
ideal
to ensure
gas
is
that
based
only
on
absolute
temperature
As
f𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
rom
the
a
final
reference.
check
of
the
Tahe
speed
oof
f
tshe
dequacy
ound
in
aen
quation,
Darcy
ideal
gas
is
Mach
number,
the
ratio
of
the
the
it is less than or equal to 4×3500.3. To simplify- the calculation, the assumption of ideal gas
â3 ∗ _ _å to
the
speed
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓of
sound
in
the
f𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 luid,
a,
is
checked
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 to
ensure
that
it
is
less
than
or
equal
to
0.
behavior 𝑎𝑎 = is â3used, ∗_ _
𝑣𝑣 = 1 the
allowing 1 Mach × number=to8,459 be adjusted = 140.99 based
only on absolute (9)
𝑎𝑎 = yã _
å 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 the
×𝜋𝜋calculation,
0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 the
assumption
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚of
ideal
gas
b𝑠𝑠ehavior
is
used,
(9)
allowing
the
Mach
number
t
temperatureyã from_the reference. based
The only
speed
on
absolute
of sound in an ideal
temperature
from
gas the
ris eference.
The
speed
of
sound
in
an
ideal
g
As
a
final
check
of
the
adequacy
of
the
Darcy
equation,
the
Mach
number,
the
ratio
of
the
actual
velocity
Where
Where
to
the
speed
of
sound
in
the
fluid,
a,
is
checked
to
â3 ensure
∗_ _åthat
it
is
less
than
or
equal
to
0.3.
To
simplify
K is
t he
r atio
o f
s pecific
h eats
a𝑎𝑎t
t=he
r eference
t (9)
emperature,
5M 20
ach
R
number
to
be
adjusted
the
calculation,
K is
tthe
he
aratio
ssumption
o f
s of
ideal
pecific
h gas
eats
a btehavior
t
he
r yã is
u_sed,
eference
t allowing
the
emperature,
5 20
R
R* is
the
universal
gas
constant,
1.986
BTU/lbmol-‐R
based
only
on
is
R* absolute
t he
u temperature
niversal
g as
c from
the
onstant,
1 reference.
.986
B The
speed
of
sound
in
an
ideal
gas
is
TU/lbmol-‐R
MW is
the
molecular
weight
Where
of
the
gas
Where MW is
t∗he
molecular
weight
of
the
gas
T is
â3the
_ r_ eference
temperature,
520
R
å
T 𝑎𝑎 = is
the
reference
temperature,
K 520
Ris
the
ratio
of
specific
heats
at
the
reference
t(9)
emperature,
520
R
TA Is
yã the
absolute
_ temperature
of
the
flowing
vapor
T isIs
the
the
aratio
bsolute
oftspecific
emperature
R* of
the
flowing
vapor
gas
In
Kthis
case,
the
heats as
atis
the the
reference
universal
constant,
1.986
temperature, 520 BTU/lbmol-‐R
R
A
speed
of
sound
is
calculated
Where
In
tR*
his
case,
the
s peed
o f
s ound
is the universal gas constant, 1.986 i s
c alculated
MW a s
is
the
mBTU/lbmol-R
olecular
weight
of
the
gas
T is
t he
r eference
temperature,
520
R
MWK isis
the
the
rmolecular
atio
of
specific
0.51768 weight 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵of
heats
at
tthe gas
he
reference
temperature,
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 520
R
0.51768 ×1.986 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 T ×520𝑅𝑅×778.17
Is
the
absolute
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓t𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
emperature
∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 430𝑅𝑅 of
the
flowing
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓vapor
T R* 𝑎𝑎isis
=the 0.39217
the
ureference
niversal
×1.986 temperature,
gas
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙A ∙1𝑅𝑅.986
constant,
520 R
BTU/lbmol-‐R
×520𝑅𝑅×778.17 × = 1,288
0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
In
this
∙ 𝑅𝑅 the
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 430𝑅𝑅 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙case,
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙speed
∙ 𝑠𝑠 of
sound
1 is
calculated
× 520𝑅𝑅as
= 1,288 𝑠𝑠
TA MW 𝑎𝑎Is= is
the
the
m absolute
olecular
wtemperature eight
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
17.03 of
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
the
g×as
of the
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠flowing
1 vapor 520𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠
17.03 × 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
T is
the
reference
temperature,
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 520
32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙R
∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
TA 0.51768 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Is
the
absolute
temperature
of
the
flowing
vapor
×1.986 ×520𝑅𝑅×778.17
In this
The
Mach
case,number
theof
speed
the
vapor
of sound
flow
is
tis hen
calculated
determined
as as
0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 430𝑅𝑅 = 1,288
The
Mach
In
this
number
case,
of
the
the
speed
of
vsound
apor
filow
s
calculated
s
𝑎𝑎 =
is
then
daetermined
as
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 520𝑅𝑅
140.99 17.03 ×
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑀𝑀 = 140.99 = 0.109
0.51768 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑀𝑀 =
1,288 = 0.109
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
×1.986
1,288
×520𝑅𝑅×778.17 430𝑅𝑅 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑎𝑎 = 0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
The
Mach
∙ 𝑅𝑅number
of
the
vapor
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 flow
× is
then
determined
= 1,288 as
This
result
is
well
below
the
0.3
maximum
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 Mach
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 number
∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 for
applying
these
520𝑅𝑅 equations.
𝑠𝑠
This
result
is
well
below
the
0.3
17.03 maximum
Mach
× number
for
applying
these
equations.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 140.99
13
𝑀𝑀 = = 0.109
13
1,288
The
Mach
number
of
the
vapor
flow
is
then
determined
as
This
result
is
well
below
the
0.3
maximum
Mach
number
for
applying
these
equations.
140.99
𝑀𝑀 = = 0.109
13
1,288
Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 21
This
result
is
well
below
the
0.3
maximum
Mach
number
for
applying
these
equations.
is
the
molecular
weight
of
the
gas
T is
the
reference
temperature,
520
R
TA Is
the
absolute
temperature
of
the
flowing
vapor
In
this
case,
the
speed
of
sound
is
calculated
as
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
0.51768 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
×1.986 ×520𝑅𝑅×778.17
𝑎𝑎 = 0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 430𝑅𝑅 = 1,288 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 520𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠
17.03 ×
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
The Mach number of the vapor flow is then determined as
The
Mach
number
of
the
vapor
flow
is
then
determined
as
140.99
𝑀𝑀 = = 0.109
1,288
This
result
is
well
below
the
0.3
maximum
Mach
number
for
applying
these
equations.
This result is well below the 0.3 maximum Mach number for applying these
13
equations.
The pressure drop can then be determined in the section using Equation 4 multiplied
The
pressure
drop
can
then
be
determined
in
the
section
using
Equation
4
multiplied
by
the
density
and
by the density and gravitational acceleration.
gravitational
acceleration.
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.01445×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(140.99 ) 32.2 1
∆𝑝𝑝 = ℎ# 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 = 𝑠𝑠 ×0.05268 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 × 𝑠𝑠 1 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 0.1633𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
2×1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 32.2
𝑠𝑠 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
13.89 − 0.1633 g*.2*"f= 8.509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
13.89 g*.2*"f 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 0.95 − 0.53567 ×977.2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
166.51 166.51 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
This
section
of
piping
c=auses
an
increase
10.84ℎ𝑝𝑝 in
power
consumption
in
the
system,
as
shown
above.
This
can
= 8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
be
used
in
later
steps
to
provide
a
net
present
value
of
the
increased
power
consumption
over
the
life
of
As
with
the
pump
power
for
recirculated
liquid,
this
must
be
divided
by
the
assumed
system
efficiency
the
system
that
can
be
compared
with
that
of
other
sizes.
of
the
drive
motor,
here
assumed
at
0.95.
22 Note
that
although
the
given
information
8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 f©
or
IIAR
the
f2017
low
lists
+0°F
as
the
intermediate
temperature,
Technical Paper the
#6
power
consumption
listed
assumes
+20°F.
This
difference
is
considered
acceptable
and
should
not
be
= 8.509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.95
interpreted
as
skewing
the
analysis,
both
because
the
error
is
not
particularly
large
(Jekel
and
Reindl
2008)
and
because
This
section
all
ccauses
of
piping
ompared
pipe
sizes
an
increase
in
w ill
be
u
power
sed
with
the
isn
ame
consumption
the
scystem,
orrelations.
as
shown
above.
This
can
ammonia.
The
power
consumption
difference
for
this
pressure
drop
can
then
be
calculated
using
the
pressure
ratios
of
the
nominal
and
reduced
suction
pressure,
using
the
curve
fits
shown
in
the
notes
for
T able
11.
Assuming
an
overall
85°F
condensing
temperature
(166.51
psia)
the
difference
can
be
calculated
as
Deleted:
Table
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
13.89 − 0.1633 g*.2*"f 13.89 g*.2*"f
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 − 0.53567 ×977.2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
166.51 166.51 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
= 10.84ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
As with the pump power for recirculated liquid, this must be divided by the assumed
As
with
the
pump
power
for
recirculated
liquid,
this
must
be
divided
by
the
assumed
system
efficiency
system efficiency of the drive motor, here assumed at 0.95.
of
the
drive
motor,
here
assumed
at
0.95.
8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
= 8.509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.95
This
section
of
piping
causes
an
increase
in
power
consumption
in
the
system,
as
shown
above.
This
can
be
This used
in
later
of
section steps
piping to
provide
causes a
net
anpresent
value
increase inopower
f
the
increased
consumptionpower
consumption
in the system,over
tas
he
life
of
the
system
that
can
be
compared
with
that
of
other
sizes.
shown above. This can be used in later steps to provide a net present value of the
Note
that
although
increased powerthe
given
information
consumption overfor
the
the flow
life oflists
the+0°F
as
the
that
system intermediate
temperature,
can be compared with the
power
that of consumption
other sizes. listed
assumes
+20°F.
This
difference
is
considered
acceptable
and
should
not
be
interpreted
as
skewing
the
analysis,
both
because
the
error
is
not
particularly
large
(Jekel
and
Reindl
2008)
and
because
all
compared
pipe
sizes
will
be
used
with
the
same
correlations.
Note that although the given information for the flow lists +0°F as the intermediate
The
aforementioned
temperature, the cpower
orrelation
for
energy
usage
consumption listed in
tassumes
he
section
+20°F.
is
only
suitable
This fdifference
or
suction
lines.
is
Discharge
considered acceptable and should not be interpreted as skewing the analysis,oboth
l ine
e nergy
a lso
r equires
t he
u se
o f
s implifying
a ssumptions.
G iven
t he
c omplexity
f
varying
suction
temperatures
and
discharge
temperatures,
an
approximation
is
used
here
such
that,
for
because the error is not particularly large (Jekel and Reindl 2008) and because all
pressure
ratios
of
suction
to
discharge
less
than
0.2,
assume
that
power
increases
by
0.02
hp/psi.
For
compared
pressure
pipe
ratios
sizes will
of
suction
be used
to
discharge
of
with
0.2
or
the same
greater,
correlations.
assume
that
power
increases
by
0.01
hp/psi.
Two-‐Phase
Flow
The aforementioned correlation for energy usage in the section is only suitable for
suction lines. Discharge line energy also requires the use of simplifying assumptions.
14
Given the complexity of varying suction temperatures and discharge temperatures, an
approximation is used here such that, for pressure ratios of suction to discharge less
than 0.2, assume that power increases by 0.02 hp/psi. For pressure ratios of suction
to discharge of 0.2 or greater, assume that power increases by 0.01 hp/psi.
Two-Phase Flow
The pressure drop for two-phase flow cannot be treated the same as a single-phase
flow. The accuracy of one method versus another is outside the scope of this analysis,
and rather than attempt to prove a case for which one should be used, a method has
simply been chosen and will be uniformly applied to all two-phase flows.
Where
For an example -20°F wet suction flow of 400 TR, at a recirculation rate of 3:1
(returning 2 parts liquid, 1 part vapor) in a 100-ft section of 10 in. schedule 40
pipe (Di =10.02 in. or 0.835 ft with an internal area of 0.5476 ft2), the following
calculation determines the Friedel liquid-phase pressure drop. Mass flow has been
calculated based on saturated pumped liquid from a -20°F recirculator.
0.079
𝑓𝑓w = *.12 = 0.004954
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
411.286
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.079
𝑓𝑓w = 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
× *.12 = 0.004954
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 60𝑠𝑠
411.286
0.000162𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
×
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 60𝑠𝑠
0.000162
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 411.286 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
∆𝑝𝑝w = 4×0.00496 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × × ×
0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 1 2×42.23 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠 1 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 -
100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 411.286 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
∆𝑝𝑝w = 4×0.00496 = 0.0009503
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × × ×
0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
2×42.23 - 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
The
calculated
liquid
pressure
drop
is
used
with
the
Friedel
multiplier.
This
multiplier
is
calculated
by
use
= 0.0009503
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
of
the
following
family
of
equations.
The
calculated
liquid
pressure
drop
is
used
with
the
Friedel
multiplier.
This
multiplier
is
calculated
by
use
3.24𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
1
Φ = 𝐸𝐸 +
of
the
following
family
(14)
#Ö 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹o𝐻𝐻f
∙ equations.
0.045
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 0.035
1 yNOO#PòôöFö 3.24𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
I
Φ
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹#Ö
ü =
= 𝐸𝐸 + I 0.045
(14)
(15)
x8ë :𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
†𝐻𝐻 ∙ 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 0.035
I : #
yNOO#Pòô
𝐸𝐸 ü= =1 − 𝑥𝑥 1 +IöFö𝑥𝑥 1
ï °
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (16)
(15)
x8ë :† : # ° ï
= 𝑥𝑥1*./e
𝐹𝐹 =
𝐸𝐸
*.11L
− 𝑥𝑥11 −+𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 1 ï
°
: # (17)
(16)
:° #ï
: *.f" ; *."f ; *./
𝐻𝐻 =
𝐹𝐹
ï
= 𝑥𝑥 *./e ° *.11L °
1 − ;ï
(18)
(17)
:° 1 − 𝑥𝑥
;ï
g" I
yNOO#Pòô
ô "gô öFö 8ë
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
𝜌𝜌ü w== + ¢:
(19)
(20)
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 60𝑠𝑠
0.000162
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1
100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 411.286 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
∆𝑝𝑝wIIAR
2017 = 4×0.00496 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy1Equipment Expo, San ×Antonio, TX × ×
0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1
2×42.23 - 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
= 0.0009503
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
The
calculated
The calculated liquid pressureliquid
droppis ressure
used dwith
rop
is
the used
Friedelwith
tmultiplier.
he
Friedel
mThis
ultiplier.
multiplierThis
multiplier
is
calcu
is calculated byof
use the
offollowing
family
ofamily
the following f
equations.
of equations.
3.24𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
Φ#Ö 1 = 𝐸𝐸 +
(14)
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 ∙0.045 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 0.035
I
yNOO#Pòô
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ü =
(15)
öFö
x8ë :† I
: #
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − 𝑥𝑥 1 + 𝑥𝑥 1 ï °
(16) :° #ï
𝐹𝐹 = 𝑥𝑥 *./e 1 − 𝑥𝑥 *.11L
(17)
: *.f" ; *."f ; *./
𝐻𝐻 = ï °
1− °
: ;
(18)
° ï ;ï
I
yNOO#Pòô 8
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊w = öFö ë
(19)
¢: †
ô "gô g"
𝜌𝜌ü = +
(20)
:° :ï
Where
Where
G is
the
acceleration
due
to
gravity
G ρL
is the acceleration is
the
due liquid
density
to gravity
ρL ρG
is the liquid is
the
vapor
density
density
ρG μL
is the vapor is
the
liquid
dynamic
viscosity
density
μL μG
is the liquid is
the
vapor
dynamic viscositydynamic
viscosity
μG Di
is the vapor is
the
internal
dynamic viscosity diameter
of
the
pipe
Di is Massflux tot
diameter
the internal is
the
sum
of
of
the
the
pipe
liquid
and
vapor
mass
flows
divided
by
flow
area
Massfluxtot is the sum x
of the is
the
liquid liquid/vapor
and vapor quality
mass(between
0
and
1by
flows divided )
flow area
x σ
is the liquid/vapor is
the
quality
surface
(between
tension
0 and 1)
σ is
the surface tension
Table 3. Properties for two-‐phase ammonia flow at 400TR, 3:1 recirculation rate
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
(°F) -‐20.0
-20.0
Saturated
Saturated pressure
pressure (psia)
(psia) 18.28
18.28
3
Liquid
density
(lb/ft )
3 42.23
Liquid density (lb/ft ) 42.23
Liq.
dynamic
viscosity
(lbm/ft-‐s)
0.0001616
Liq. dynamic viscosity 3 (lbm/ft-s) 0.0001616
Vapor
density
(lb/ft )
3 0.06810
Vapor density (lb/ft ) 0.06810
Vap.
dynamic
viscosity
(lbm/ft-‐s)
5.500E-‐6
Vap. dynamic viscosity
Vapor
quality
(ratio
of
vapor
(lbm/ft-s) 0.3333
5.500E-6
Vapor quality (ratio of vapor
mass
to
total
mass
in
the
control
mass to total mass in the control volume) 0.3333
Surface tension (lbf/ft)
volume)
0.002267
Surface
Table 3. tProperties
ension
(lbf/ft)
for two-phase ammonia 0.002267
flow at 400TR, 3:1 recirculation rate
Thevarious
The
various factors
factors
in Equations
in
Equations
14 through
14
through
20
may
be
20 may bewcalculated
calculated
within
ith
the
properties
the properties
Table
3.
Performing
in Table 3. these
calculations,
Performing these calculations,
g"
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
411.286 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀îQî = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 750.7
0.5479𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
(750.7 )1 ×0.8350𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊w = × = 8,809
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠 1
0.002267 ×0.2037 - ×32.20
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
*.f" *."f *./
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
42.23 0.000005500 0.000005500
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
𝐻𝐻 = 1− = 178.52
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
0.06810 - 0.0001616 0.0001616
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
0.079
𝑓𝑓x = *.12 = 0.002128
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
751.07 ×0.8350𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 60𝑠𝑠
0.000005500 ×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
17
Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 27
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
42.23
- ×0.002128
1 1 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − 0.3333 + 0.3333 = 30.483
0.06810 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×0.00496
42.23 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×0.002128
-
𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 -
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − 0.33331 + 0.33331 = 30.483
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 0.06810
1 ×0.00496
751.07 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 -
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ü = × = 140.53
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1 3,600𝑠𝑠 1
32.2 1 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×
751.07 0.2037
𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ü = 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1 × 3,600𝑠𝑠 1 = 140.53
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 42.23𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 - ×0.002128
32.21 1 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×
1 0.2037 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡
3.24×0.3876×178.5
𝐸𝐸 = 1Φ −#Ö0.3333 𝑠𝑠= 30.44 ++ 0.33331 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - = 30.483
0.045 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙0.035 = 161.07
140.53
8
0.06810 - ×0.00496 809
3.24×0.3876×178.5 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
1
Φ
With
the
calculated
Friedel
factor,
#Ö = 30.44 +
multiplying
the
liquid
0.045 friction
pressure
= 161.07
drop
to
attain
the
overall
140.53 1
88090.035
pressure
drop
of
the
flow
is
now
possible.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
With the calculated Friedel factor, 751.07multiplying the liquid friction
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1 pressure drop to
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
With
the
calculated
F𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
riedel
ü = f actor,
m ultiplying
t he
l iquid
f riction
1 ×p ressure
1
d=
rop
to
attain
the
overall
140.53
attain the overall pressure drop
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 of the flow is now
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 possible. 3,600𝑠𝑠
pressure
drop
of
the
flow
∆𝑝𝑝 i= s
32.2
n∆𝑝𝑝
ow
Φ
possible.
2
×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓× 0.2037 ×161.07
w𝑠𝑠 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 0.0009503 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
2
- = 0.153𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
3.24×0.3876×178.5
The
resulting
pressure
∆𝑝𝑝 ∆𝑝𝑝 Φ𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓criterion
=fits
drop
= 0.0009503 ×161.07 = 0.153𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Φ#Ö 1wthe
= 30.44 + for
piping
at
2this
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
0.045
temperature
0.035
for
pressure
= 161.07
drop
per
100
ft
140.53
8809
of
piping
not
to
exceed
0.25psi
as
a
baseline
case.
Pressure
drop
for
this
flow
through
an
8
in.
pipe
The
resulting
exceeds
ressure
ft.
drop
fits
the
criterion
for
bpaseline
iping
at
ize
this
for
temperature
for
pressure
dthe
rop
per
100
ft
With
the
0c.25
psi/100
alculated
Friedel
Therefore,
factor,
m1ultiplying
0
in.
is
the
the
liquid
fsriction
this
p two-‐phase
ressure
drop
tfo
low.
attain
overall
of
The piping
not
to
exceed
resulting pressure 0.25psi
drop as
afits
baseline
the criterion case.
Pressure
for piping drop
for
atthis
flow
this through
an
8
for
temperature in.
pipe
pressure
Again,
as
0w d rop
o f
ith
ptsi/100
t he
he
pressure
f low
i s
n ow
p ossible.
drops
calculated
for
bdaseline
ry
vapor
flow,
exceeds
.25
ft.
Therefore,
10
in.
is
the
size
for
tthis
his
ptwo-‐phase
ressure
drop
flow.
can
be
used
with
the
pressure
numbers
or
drop
equations
per i100 ft of piping
n
T able
11
not toincreased
to
determine
exceed 0.25psi p ower
c as a baseline
onsumption
a t
t case.
he
Pressurefor
compressors
Deleted:
2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Again,
drop
the
flow
afor
s
listed.
with
this the
Aflow ssuming
∆𝑝𝑝
pressure
through =
85°F
∆𝑝𝑝
drops
Φ
w an c𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
saturated
=
alculated
0.0009503
8 in.condensing
pipe for
dexceeds
ry
vcapor
×161.07
flow,
0.25this
ondition,
psi/100 = 0.153𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
pressure
ft. dTherefore,
rop
can
be
u10 sed
in.
with
isthe
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖2
numbers
the baseline or
equations
size for in
Tthis
able
11
two-phaseto
determine
flow.increased
power
consumption
at
the
compressors
for
Deleted:
g*.2*"f g*.2*"f
The
the
frlow
esulting
listed.
pressure
Assuming
18.8
drop
85°F
−
fits
t0.153
he
criterion
saturated
for
piping
condensing
at
this
18.8
condition,
temperature
for
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
pressure
drop
per
100
ft
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 − 0.53567 ×400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 2.50ℎ𝑝𝑝
of
piping
not
to
exceed
0.25psi
166.51 as
a
baseline
case.
Pressure
d166.51 rop
for
this
flow
t𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇hrough
an
8
in.
pipe
Again,0as
exceeds
.25
with the
= pressure
ft.
T18.8
1.86𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
− 0.153 drops g*.2*"fcalculated for dry
size
f18.8
vapor flow,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
g*.2*"f this pressure drop
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =p0.53567
si/100
herefore,
10
in.
is
the
− baseline
0.53567 or
this
two-‐phase
flow.
×400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 2.50ℎ𝑝𝑝
can be used with the numbers 166.51 or equations in Table 166.51 11 to determine 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 increased
These
laiquid,
Again,
s
w dtry
ith
he
vapor,
p ressure
a
= 1.86𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
nd
d t wo-‐phase
rops
c c
alculated
alculations
f or
d m
ry
v ust
apor
tfhen
b
low,
te
r epeated
his
p f or
ressure
d the
csan
rop
izes
immediately
be
used
with
the
power consumption at the compressors for the flow listed. Assuming 85°F saturated
adjacent
t o
t he
b aseline
c ase.
numbers
or
equations
in
T able
11
to
determine
increased
power
consumption
at
the
compressors
for
Deleted:
condensing
These
liquid,
condition,
dry
vapor,
and
two-‐phase
calculations
the
flow
listed.
Assuming
85°F
saturated
condensing
mcust
then
be
repeated
for
the
sizes
immediately
ondition,
Table
4
s hows
t he
adjacent
to
the
baseline
case.
r esults
o f
t his
a nalysis
f or
a ll
t hree
f low
types.
The
power
consumption
will
be
used
Deleted:
in
Step
3
to
calculate
a
present-‐value
18.8 − 0.153 l ifecycle
g*.2*"fcost
for
the
piping
sections
18.8 g*.2*"f analyzed
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (vapor
piping
is
used
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Table
4
as
the
shows
example
= 0.53567
tfhe
low
results
for
those
of
this
analysis
for
all
calculations).
−three
0.53567 flow
types.
The
power
consumption
×400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇w= ill
2.50ℎ𝑝𝑝
be
used
Deleted:
166.51 166.51 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
in
Step
3
to
calculate
a
present-‐value
lifecycle
cost
for
the
piping
sections
analyzed
(vapor
piping
is
used
= 1.86𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Table
4.
Comparison
of
pressure
drop
and
energy
consumption
for
liquid,
vapor,
and
two-‐
as
the
example
flow
for
those
calculations).
phase
flows
These
liquid,
dry
vapor,
and
two-‐phase
calculations
must
then
be
repeated
for
the
sizes
immediately
Table
4.
Comparison
of
pressure
drop
and
energy
consumption
for
liquid,
vapor,
and
two-‐
adjacent
to
the
baseline
case.
phase
flows
Line
Size
Pressure
Drop
(psi/100
Power
Consumption
ft)
(kW)
Table
4
shows
the
results
of
this
analysis
for
all
three
flow
types.
The
power
consumption
will
be
used
Deleted:
Liquid
in
Step
3
Line
Size
a
present-‐value
to
calculate
Pressure
Dlifecycle
rop
(psi/100
cost
for
the
Power
Consumption
piping
sections
analyzed
(vapor
piping
is
used
2
in.
schedule
40
2.911
ft)
0.1696
(kW)
as
t2
he
example
1/2
in.
schedule
flow
f4or
0
those
calculations).
1.161
© IIAR 2017 0.06767
28 Liquid
Technical Paper #6
3
in.
schedule
40
2
0.380
2.911
0.02216
0.1696
Table
4.
Comparison
of
pressure
drop
and
energy
consumption
for
liquid,
vapor,
and
two-‐
2
1/2
in.
schedule
40
1.161
0.06767
phase
flows
18
3
in.
schedule
40
0.380
0.02216
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
These liquid, dry vapor, and two-phase calculations must then be repeated for the
sizes immediately adjacent to the baseline case.
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis for all three flow types. The power
consumption will be used in Step 3 to calculate a present-value lifecycle cost for
the piping sections analyzed (vapor piping is used as the example flow for those
calculations).
The analysis now only requires that first costs be determined, along with a present
value of the power consumption of each piping section, to determine a best economic
size for each case. These costs are determined in accordance with the rules stated
earlier.
Tables 12 through 15 provide information for determining first costs associated with
the piping chosen in Step 2. These costs are essentially summed from the tables and
used to provide the first cost for each size in each service.
As an example, assume that all three pipe sizes for the vapor piping shown in
Table 4 are of carbon steel, are schedule 40, and are insulated with 3-in. insulation
with aluminum jacket. From Table 12, Table 14, and Table 15, the following can be
developed to sum these costs.
Table 5 assumes an all-inclusive labor rate (labor, burden, etc.) of $50/hour for
piping assembly and $40/hour for insulation labor. As mentioned previously, material
costs are taken directly from the data source, RS Means, and are assumed to be U.S.
national averages. Note that all costs are assumed to be for a 100-ft length, so all
costs from respective tables are multiplied by 100.
Note also that the insulation jacket is based on jacket inside diameters of 21 in., 23
in., and 24 in. for the 10 in., 12 in., and 14 in. pipes respectively (pipe OD plus 2X
insulation thickness of 3 in.). In the interest of a concise table, labor and materials
for painting of the piping are included in the piping numbers.
Insul. Total
Line Pipe Insul. Insul. Total
Pipe Pipe Insul. Jacket Labor Total First
Size Labor Labor Jacket Mat’l
Mat’l Cost ($) Cost Cost Cost Cost ($)
(in.) Hours Hours Labor Cost ($)
($) ($)
10 A53B $6,080 88 $2,400 21.3 $425 17.2 $8,905 $5,940 $14,845
12 A53B $8,312 111.14 $2,650 22.9 $474 17.8 $11,436 $7,185 $18,621
14 A53B $10,282 144 $3,000 24.6 $499 18 $13,781 $8,904 $22,685
Table 5. First costs for vapor piping comparison
This comparison is straightforward and needs now only the energy costs from the
pressure losses calculated in Step 2 to give a picture of the cost of ownership for each
segment of piping. Note that, for this limited data set, first costs do not appear to
track linearly with pipe size. Using the 10 in. pipe as a baseline, while size increases
20% and 40% respectively to 12 in. and 14 in., the first costs increase 24% and 52%.
However, this is not enough information to determine whether the behavior is or is
not roughly linear.
For this portion of the analysis, four pieces of information are required to calculate
the present value of the energy costs used by the system:
4. Inflation rate.
The choice of a value for item 1 is difficult at times, given that the design of a
system pipe size is always for peak loading, but in many situations, peak load
only occurs for a few days per year, such as in distribution centers where load is
heavily dependent on ambient conditions. In process applications, peak load in a
particular header may occur each day for one or two full shifts. Particular care must
be exercised in choosing the yearly run time as this value has the largest chance of
skewing the analysis.
As an example, the pure vapor flows given previously (in Step 2) are analyzed here
with the assumption that these loads are from processing equipment running for 16
hours per day, 6 days per week. This provides a value for yearly run time of 4,992
hours and can be considered an extreme loading case.
The
choice
of
a
value
for
item
1
is
difficult
at
times,
given
that
the
design
of
a
system
pipe
siz
for
peak
loading,
but
in
many
situations,
peak
load
only
occurs
for
a
few
days
per
year,
such
distribution
centers
where
load
is
heavily
dependent
on
ambient
conditions.
In
process
appl
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
peak
load
in
a
particular
header
may
occur
each
day
for
one
or
two
full
shifts.
Particular
care
exercised
in
choosing
the
yearly
run
time
as
this
value
has
the
largest
chance
of
skewing
the
As
an
example,
the
pure
vapor
flows
given
previously
(in
Step
2)
are
analyzed
here
with
the
that
these
The following will be given loads
ato
as inputs re
fthe
rom
lifecycle
processing
costequipment
analysis:running
for
16
hours
per
day,
6
days
per
we
provides
a
value
for
yearly
run
time
of
4,992
hours
and
can
be
considered
an
extreme
loadin
• A system life of 25 years,
• An annual inflation The
ratefollowing
of 4%, wandill
be
given
as
inputs
to
the
lifecycle
cost
analysis:
• A cost of energy of $0.11/kW.
• A
system
life
of
25
years,
• An
annual
inflation
rate
of
4%,
and
The net present value of the system can then be determined as follows.
• A
cost
of
energy
of
$0.11/kW.
"§a • g"
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝐴𝐴î
(21)
a∙ "§a •
Where
Where
PW is
the
present
worth
of
an
alternative
I is
the
annual
inflation
rate
PW is the present worth of an alternative
N is
the
system
life
in
years
I is the annual inflation rate
T is
the
year
of
interest
in
the
sum
N is the system lifeAin years
is
the
yearly
cost
of
energy
(see
Development
of
the
Method)
t
T is the year of
interest in the sum
At is the yearly cost of energy (see Development of the Method)
20
The multiplier on the right side of the equation is easily calculated, although tables of
The
are
such values multiplier
on
the
right
in
also compiled side
variousof
the
eresources
quation
is
e(e.g.,
asily
calculated,
White etalthough
tables
al. 1998). Forof
asuch
4%values
are
inflation also
rate,compiled
the PWin
factor
various
resources
(e.g.,
White
et
al.
1998).
For
a
4%
inflation
rate,
the
PW
factor
for
a
for a 25-year series of annual cash flows is 15.6221. The
25-‐year
series
of
annual
cash
flows
is
15.6221.
The
present
value
of
the
energy
cost
(At)
for
the
three
present value of the energy cost (At) for the three alternative vapor pipes becomes
alternative
vapor
pipes
becomes
$*.""
(21.75𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘×4,992ℎ𝑟𝑟× )×15.6221 = $186,580.36
(10
in.
schedule
40
pipe)
âã∙ßÖ
$*.""
(8. 509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘×4,992ℎ𝑟𝑟× )×15.6221 = $72,993.67
(12
in.
schedule
40
pipe)
âã∙ßÖ
$*.""
(5.634𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘×4,992ℎ𝑟𝑟× )×15.6221 = $48,330.75
(14
in.
schedule
40
pipe)
âã∙ßÖ
Clearly,
from
these
results,
where
energy
cost
and
system
life
are
relatively
high,
the
cost
of
ownership
favors
a
larger
pipe.
T able
6
compares
total
cost
of
ownership
for
the
vapor
pipe
alternatives
in
question.
Table
6.
Summary
of
vapor
piping
lifecycle
cost,
25-‐year
system
life,
4,992
hr/yr,
$0.11$/kWh
32 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6
Size
First
Cost
Present
Value
of
Total
Cost
of
the
Energy
Cost
Alternative
10
in.
$14,845
$186,580
$201,425
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Clearly, from these results, where energy cost and system life are relatively high, the
cost of ownership favors a larger pipe. Table 6 compares total cost of ownership for
the vapor pipe alternatives in question.
Size First Cost Present Value of Energy Cost Total Cost of the Alternative
10 in. $14,845 $186,580 $201,425
12 in. $18,621 $72,994 $91,615
14 in. $22,685 $48,331 $71,016
Table 6. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 25-year system life, 4,992 hr/yr, $0.11$/kWh
The cost of ownership falls rapidly with increased pipe size in this particular case.
However, note that a lower peak-load duty, lower lifecycle, or lower energy costs
can skew the analysis. With the same piping and load, but for a 15-year system life
and loads near peak for only 1/8 of the year’s operating hours (1,095) (Table 7), the
results still favor the 14 in. pipe section (total the cost is essentially identical to that
of a 12” pipe section). Note that the present value factor for a 15-year life at 4% is
11.1184.
Size First Cost Present Value of Energy Cost Total Cost of the Alternative
10 in. $14,845 $29,128 $43,973
12 in. $18,621 $11,395 $30,016
14 in. $22,685 $7,545 $29,525
Table 7. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 15-year system life, 1,095 hr/yr, $0.11/kWh
If the same analysis is performed with the cost of energy lowered to $0.08/kWh, the
favorable pipe diameter changes to 12 in., as shown in Table 8.
Size First Cost Present Value of Energy Cost Total Cost of the Alternative
10 in. $14,845 $21,184 $36,029
12 in. $18,621 $8,288 $26,909
14 in. $22,685 $5,487 $28,172
Table 8. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 15-year system life, 1,095 hr/yr, $0.08/kWh
Clearly, in this particular scenario, the breakeven point between 12 in. schedule 40
and 14 in. schedule 40 piping is around $0.11/kWh. In reality, peak load operation
for even 1/8 of the hours in a year is likely to be a high estimate for many facilities,
but quite low for continuous process operations (like spiral freezers, plate freezers,
and cooling tunnels), and careful consideration of the process is necessary to ensure
the yearly operating hours are realistic.
To broaden the exercise a bit further, Table 5 can be expanded by adding the first cost
for 16 in. pipe, again with 3 in. insulation, with the 4,992 hr/yr, 25-year life inputs
applied (see Table 9).
Insul.
Line Pipe Insul. Insul. Total Total Total
Pipe Pipe Insul. Jacket
Size Labor Labor Jacket Mat’l Labor First
Mat’l Cost ($) Cost Cost
(in.) Hours Hours Labor Cost ($) Cost ($) Cost ($)
($)
10 A53B $6,080 88 $2,400 21.3 $425 17.2 $8,905 $5,940 $14,845
12 A53B $8,312 111.14 $2,650 22.9 $474 17.8 $11,436 $7,185 $18,621
14 A53B $10,282 144 $3,000 24.6 $499 18 $13,781 $8,904 $22,685
16 A53B $11,931 166.14 $3,300 26.7 $550 18.6 $15,781 $10,119 $25,900
Table 9. First costs for vapor piping comparison, 25-year system life, 4,992 hr/yr, $0.11/kWh,
including 16 in. diameter
The pressure drop and energy costs for a 16 in. pipe with 977 TR of -30°F dry vapor
are 0.0604 psi and 3.641 kW (using the methods described in Step 2). Expanding
Table 6 to include 16 in. pipe, the lifecycle cost comparison is shown in Table 10.
Size First Cost Present Value of Energy Cost Total Cost of the Alternative
10 in. $14,845 $186,580 $201,425
12 in. $18,621 $72,994 $91,615
14 in. $22,685 $48,331 $71,016
16 in. $25,900 $23,265 $49,165
Table 10. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 25-year system life, 4,992 hr/yr, $0.11$/kWh
Clearly, on a heavily used process pipe, investment in a large header provides ample
payback and should be considered where conditions are favorable, such as in the
aforementioned case. In plants with diverse loads, installation of large pipes may
not be the correct approach for every header in the plant, but can certainly be cost-
effective for certain targeted areas of heavy use.
While the “best economic” pipe, chosen in accordance with the criteria presented
cannot always be used in situations where operational considerations require other
pipe sizes, the method is acceptable under various conditions to aid the designer in
providing the best lifecycle cost plant to the owner/end user.
Conclusion
A method of analysis for economic pipe sizing in ammonia headers was developed,
and examples were provided illustrating its use. It was shown that the economic pipe
size depends heavily on the cost of energy and the anticipated system usage and life.
While the exact examples provided may not be applicable to any particular
installation, they are indicative of what results the analysis can have based on
varying certain parameters.
Work still remains in determining, for real systems, what anticipated life and
operating hours make sense in a general analysis, but such is outside the scope of
this analysis. Guidelines for these parameters may be discussed and agreed upon by
those using the method.
The analysis is limited by the available data, which are in the Appendix. Additional
options for the analysis become available with additional data, but the methodology
of the analysis remains as presented.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME B31.5, Refrigerant Piping and Heat
Transfer Components, 2013 edition, Chapter VI.
Jekel, T.B., and Reindl, D.T. (2008). “Two-stage compression.” ASHRAE Journal,
August, pp. 46–51.
Lindeburg, M.R. (2001). Mechanical engineering reference manual for the PE exam,
11th Edition, Professional Publications, Inc., Belmont, CA, pp. 17-1–17-40, 18-6–18-7.
Nolte, C.B. (1978). “Least annual cost” In Optimum Pipe Size Selection, 1st Edition,
Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal, Germany,pp. 11–31.
Richards, W.V. (1984). “Practical pipe sizing for refrigerant vapor lines.” IIAR Annual
Conference, San Francisco, CA, pp. 39C–65C.
RSMeans Facilities Construction Cost Data Book (2012), 27th Annual Edition.
Norwell, MA, RSMeans.
Thome, J.R. (2004). Wolverine engineering data book III, Ch. 13. ORGANIZATION,
LOCATION, pp. 13-5–13-6. Wolverine Division of UOP.
White, J.A., et al. (1998). Principles of engineering economic analysis, 4th Edition.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 110, 418.
Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., and McLinden, M.O. (2013). NIST standard reference
database 23: Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP,
Version 9.11. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference
Data Program, Gaithersburg, MD.
Appendix
Notes:
© IIAR 2017
6 40 A53 Gr B 50.5 0.667 0.05 0.12 0 47.975 0.58696
8 40 A53 Gr B 55 0.828 0.05 0.12 0 52.25 0.72864
10 40 A53 Gr B 64 1 0.05 0.12 0 60.8 0.88
12 40 A53 Gr B 87.5 1.263 0.05 0.12 0 83.125 1.11144
14 40 A53 Gr B 106 1.6 0.03 0.1 0 102.82 1.44
16 40 A53 Gr B 123 1.846 0.03 0.1 0 119.31 1.6614
18 40 A53 Gr B 144 2.182 0.03 0.1 0 139.68 1.9638
20 40 A53 Gr B 169 2.667 0.03 0.1 0 163.93 2.4003
22 40 A53 Gr B 200.8016 2.8335 0.03 0.1 0 194.777552 2.55015
24 40 A53 Gr B 235 3 0.03 0.1 0 227.95 2.7
Table 12. Carbon steel pipe material and labor (RSMeans)
Technical Paper #6
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Notes:
1. For labor and materials listed for sizes ½ in. through 2 in., schedule 80, the raw
labor and materials represent those of threaded A106 Gr B piping.
This is necessary due to data availability, in that RS Means does not present
data specifically for piping that is assembled with socket-welded couplings as is
common in the refrigeration industry. Note that these factors are a percentage of
the raw numbers presented.
3. Separate welding labor factors are intended to add back in labor for welding
schedule 80 piping together, which is assumed to be butt welding labor. Note
that RS Means presents this as hours/joint, where in Table 12, it is presented as
hours per ft with an assumed joint spacing of 10 ft.
4. Final material and labor costs, as listed in the last two columns of Table 12, are
those used in the analysis.
Notes:
1. Material and labor subtraction factors represent deletion of the hanger in the
raw data.
Technical Paper #6
0.75 1 3 0.1 4 4.92 0.11 5 8.5 0.139 11
1 1.5 3.28 0.1 4.5 5.2 0.11 5.5 8.6 0.139 11.5
1.25 1.5 3.53 0.103 4.5 5.55 0.114 5.5 8.7 0.145 11.5
1.5 2 3.79 0.103 5 5.8 0.114 6 8.75 0.145 12
2 2.5 4.18 0.107 5.5 6.1 0.119 6.5 9.05 0.152 12.5
2.5 3 4.56 0.107 6 7.3 0.119 7 10.65 0.152 13
3 3.5 4.76 0.11 6.5 7.35 0.123 7.5 10.75 0.16 13.5
4 4.5 5.5 0.119 7.5 8.5 0.128 8.5 13.7 0.168 14.5
5 5.5 6.2 0.123 8.5 0.7 0.133 9.5 14.85 0.178 15.5
6 6.5 6.35 0.133 9.5 10.6 0.139 10.5 16.7 0.178 16.5
8 8.5 8.4 0.152 11.5 12.6 0.152 12.5 19.9 0.188 18.5
10 11 11.15 0.168 14 15.85 0.168 15 24 0.213 21
© IIAR 2017
12 13 13.2 0.178 16 17.6 0.178 17 26.5 0.229 23
14 14 14.95 0.188 17 19.35 0.188 18 30 0.246 24
16 16 16.7 0.2 19 21.5 0.2 20 33 0.267 26
18 18 18.5 0.213 21 23.5 0.213 22 36 0.291 28
20 20 23 28.5 0.246 24 43 0.32 30
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Notes:
1. The labor and material numbers listed in Table 14 are for calcium silicate with no fabric mesh.
43
2. Jacket materials and labor are not included. See Table 15.
2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
Notes:
1. For noninteger ID sizes above 12.5 in., data are interpolated from whole sizes.
2. Data are only available for aluminum jacket up to 24 in. jacket ID. Larger IDs are
generated using the following curve fits:
Notes:
2. The assumption of one coat being for insulated piping denotes a prime coat
without a top coat where insulation is used. A second coat of paint is assumed
where piping remains uninsulated.
Notes: