Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
$QDO\VLVRIGLIIHULQJPHWKRGVIRU
IULFWLRQKHDGORVVFDOFXODWLRQ
3HGUR-RUJH3LQKR7RQ\*RUGRQ
(1) pjpinho@fe.up.pt
University of Porto, Faculty of Engineering, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Porto, Portugal
(2) tonygordon@iapmo.org
International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials, Brussels, Belgium
$EVWUDFW
Pipe sizing of water supply systems for buildings is done in each country according
to its respective regulations, standards or codes that may however differ significantly, in
criteria and methodology, from one country to another. One of the subjects that has
different approaches in the design of these systems is the calculation of the friction head
loss that occurs through the pipes. On this particular matter, this paper intends to
analyse the most usual procedures and to seek any eventual differences that may result
from their application.
.H\ZRUGV
Water supply systems; pipe sizing; friction head loss
,QWURGXFWLRQ
In the last Symposium of CIB/W62 it was presented an extensive description of
several “official” methods concerning the pipe sizing of water supply systems [1]. The
referred work has listed the main criteria and procedures of each of those methods. In
the brief comparison that was done, there were focused different aspects such as peak
flow rate calculation, velocity limits, residual pressures and head loss estimation.
In this paper it will be studied, more detailedly, this last subject. Considering that, in
the methods mentioned above, we may find different equations or graphs to compute the
friction head loss, the basic question is to know how close are their results. To make this
comparison there were taken some reference methods that will be described in the next
section. The analysis was done over two kinds of pipes, representing each one a certain
B6 1/16
type of interior roughness – copper as smooth surface pipes and galvanised steel as
rough surface pipes.
In each case it was studied a broad interval of different pipe diameters. Their
characterization is presented in tables 1 and 2, being ED and ID, respectively, the
external and internal diameters. From the second table, where it is expressed a diameter
tolerance for galvanised steel, it was used the less favourable value, the lower one, in
the following calculations.
For each diameter there were also analysed several conditions of flow, having been
established certain values of the flow velocity. The values adopted are between 0,5 and
3,0 m/s, according to the limits defined in many of the methods used in here.
7DEOH&RSSHUSLSHV%6WDEOH;
ED (mm) 15,0 18,0 22,0 28,0 35,0 42,0 54,0 67,0 76,1 108,0 133,0 159,0
Thickness (mm) 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,5 2,0
ID (mm) 13,6 16,4 20,2 26,2 32,6 39,6 51,6 64,6 73,1 105,0 130,0 155,0
7DEOH*DOYDQLVHGVWHHOSLSHV',1%6
)ULFWLRQKHDGORVVFDOFXODWLRQ
For this study it was considered a theoretical, straight pipe system, of 100 m length.
Over this system there were admitted several hypothesis of pipe materials, diameter
B6 2/16
sizes and flow velocities as previously described. In the friction head loss calculation,
for the purpose of comparison, there were chosen five methods that are listed in table 3.
The corresponding equations and their respective parameters are further described.
7DEOH0HWKRGVXVHGIRUIULFWLRQKHDGORVVFDOFXODWLRQ
country method
0HWKRGRI&ROHEURRN:KLWH[2, 3]
Formula of Colebrook-White:
N
= −2 log10 ' +
1 2,51 (2)
λ 3,7 Re λ
8'
Re = (3)
υ
B6 3/16
The formula of Colebrook-White was solved by iteration, using an initial λ of 0,02 and
requiring that |λi+1-λi|<0,0001.
0HWKRGRI)DLU:KLSSOH+VLDR[4]
0HWKRGRI)ODPDQW[5, 6, 7]
0HWKRGRI/DPRQW[8]
The BS 6700, which defines Lamont’s formula for smooth pipes, does not present any
similar equation for rough pipes. In this case, the friction head loss for galvanized steel
B6 4/16
pipes was calculated through the graph of figure 1, obtained from the Institute of
Plumbing [9].
0HWKRGRI+DUULV[10]
The methodology studied is the one defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code [11]. The
formulas used in here are presented by Cyril Harris and they correspond to the graphs
included in the UPC for friction head loss calculation.
5HVXOWV
The study that was carried on and the results that were achieved are summarized in
the tables and figures included in the appendices. Tables 4 and 6 express the main data
necessary to this analysis, concerning respectively copper pipes and galvanized steel
pipes. For a clear understanding, some data, such as internal diameters and flow rates,
required in the stages of intermediary calculation, has been purposely omitted in here.
Figures 2 and 3 were done through the reference method. The first is for copper and
the second is for galvanized steel pipes. Through these two figures it can be analyzed
the behaviour of each material and inferred the differences between smooth and rough
pipes. Figures 4 and 5 were obtained from the tables 5 and 7. To be more expressive and
to serve as an example they were built for a flow velocity of 2 m/s. These curves give us
an idea of how spread are the results and a view of the diameters’ influence on the
amplitude of those differences.
B6 5/16
The last table presents a brief analysis of the friction head loss achieved for different
materials, which nominal diameters could be eventually considered, in practice, as
hydraulically equivalents.
B6 6/16
&RQFOXVLRQV
The results obtained allow us to take a few conclusions. The first comment that can
be made is that it is obvious, from figures 2 and 3, that friction head loss increases with
the flow velocity and decreases with the pipe diameter. In detail, it can be pointed that
the influence of the flow velocity over the friction head loss is not significant for large
diameters but for the small ones, very common inside buildings, it is enormous. For
example, in the range of small diameters, if a velocity limit of 3 m/s is assumed, for
instance, rather than 1m/s, the friction head loss in copper pipes gets an increase of
about 0,20 to 0,65 m/m (for φ42 and for φ15 mm, respectively). These values become
even greater if we take galvanized steel pipes. Being though, it looks that it would be
wise, in the design of water supply systems, to establish different limits of velocity
according to the range of pipe diameters.
From figures 4 and 5 we can get some differences between the methods studied.
These figures were drawn for a flow velocity of 2 m/s, which is inside the common
limits adopted almost everywhere. Through the first figure we can conclude that these
methods are very close from each other. The only exception is the american method,
which appears to be far away from the others – a further analysis of it would be
advisable to confirm the results here presented. Apart the exception that was mentioned,
it can be said that, for smooth pipes, there are meaningless differences between the
studied methods for friction head loss calculation.
For galvanized steel pipes and for rough pipes in general, it is clear that these
methods are not equivalent. Even though, some comments can be made about their
particularities. In here, almost all the curves cross the reference line of Colebrook-
-White, existing some values below and some others far above that line. The brazilian
method and the american method present a significant deviation from the Colebrook-
-White method for pipe diameters above 1 ¼”. Despite this difference, its impact is
reduced because it occurs in the range of large diameters where the friction head loss is
low. Another line that deserves special attention is Flamant’s curve which course is
quite parallel to the reference curve. A closer look to table 7 show us, however, that
these two curves have different distances according to the velocity being considered.
Compared to Colebrook-White’s, the results from Flamant represent an increase of
about 40% for a flow velocity of 0,5 m/s and of approximately 15% for a flow velocity
of 2,0 m/s.
At last, a view on table 8. This table includes three parts, corresponding each one to a
certain common pipe diameter. In each of these parts it was considered a specific flow
rate and several pipe materials that are normally accepted by plumbing trade as having
the same pipe size. As we can see, despite this similarity of nominal diameters, there are
in fact great differences in their internal diameters, that gives rise to greatly varying
velocities and, consequently, to very different friction head losses. In the pipe sizing
design it is though quite important to specify both nominal and internal pipe diameters
in order to avoid any mistake in the construction phase that may later affect the pipe
system behaviour and the residual pressures available.
B6 7/16
5HIHUHQFHV
1. Pinho, P. J.; Abrantes, V., 3LSHVL]LQJRIZDWHUGLVWULEXWLRQV\VWHPV2YHUYLHZDQG
FRPSDULVRQ RI GLIIHUHQW PHWKRGRORJLHV, Proceedings of the “Water Supply and
Drainage for Buildings” CIB/W62 Symposium, (1999), Edinburgh.
2. Novais Barbosa, J., 0HFkQLFDGRV)OXLGRVH+LGUiXOLFD*HUDO, Porto Editora, Vol. 2,
(1986), Porto.
3. DIN 1988, 'ULQNLQJZDWHUVXSSO\V\VWHPV, DIN, Part 3, (1988), Berlin.
4. Projeto NBR 5626/1997, ,QVWDODomRSUHGLDOGHiJXDIULD, Associação Brasileira de
Normas Técnicas, (1997), Rio de Janeiro.
5. DTU nº 60.11, 5qJOHV GH FDOFXO GHV LQVWDOODWLRQV GH SORPEHULH VDQLWDLUH HW GHV
LQVWDOODWLRQVG¶pYDFXDWLRQGHVHDX[SOXYLDOHV, CSTB, (1988), Paris.
6. Pedroso, V., 5HJUDV GH GLPHQVLRQDPHQWR GRV VLVWHPDV SUHGLDLV GH GLVWULEXLomR GH
iJXD H GH GUHQDJHP GH iJXDV UHVLGXDLV GRPpVWLFDV H SOXYLDLV, LNEC, (1997),
Lisboa.
7. Tentúgal Valente, J.; Piqueiro, F., &iOFXORGHSHUGDVGHFDUJDHPFDQDOL]Do}HVGH
DEDVWHFLPHQWRGHiJXD, Jornadas Técnicas “Os Serviços Municipalizados e o novo
regulamento de águas e esgotos”, (1989), Porto.
8. BS 6700:1987, 'HVLJQLQVWDOODWLRQWHVWLQJDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRIVHUYLFHVVXSSO\LQJ
ZDWHUIRUGRPHVWLFXVHZLWKLQEXLOGLQJVDQGWKHLUFXUWLODJHV, BSI, (1987), London.
9. 3OXPELQJ (QJLQHHULQJ 6HUYLFHV 'HVLJQ *XLGH, The Institute of Plumbing, (1988),
Essex.
10. Harris, C., 3UDFWLFDO 3OXPELQJ (QJLQHHULQJ, American Society of Plumbing
Engineers, (1998), Westlake Village.
11. 8QLIRUP3OXPELQJ &RGH ,OOXVWUDWHG 7UDLQLQJ 0DQXDO, International Association of
Plumbing & Mechanical Officials, (1994), Walnut.
12. W3f, 'LUHFWLYHV SRXU O¶pWDEOLVVHPHQW G¶LQVWDOODWLRQV G¶HDX, Société Suisse de
l’Industrie du Gaz et des Eaux, (1992), Zurich.
$SSHQGLFHV
Included further are the remainder tables and figures mentioned in the text.
B6 8/16
)LJXUH± )ULFWLRQKHDGORVVIRUJDOYDQL]HGVWHHOSLSHV[9]
DFFRUGLQJWRWKH,QVWLWXWHRI3OXPELQJ
B6 9/16
7DEOH)ULFWLRQKHDGORVVIRUFRSSHUSLSHV
B6 10/16
7DEOH&RPSDULVRQEHWZHHQYDOXHVRIWDEOHDQG&ROHEURRN:KLWH
VHVWLPDWLRQ
B6 11/16
7DEOH)ULFWLRQKHDGORVVIRUJDOYDQLVHGVWHHOSLSHV
B6 12/16
7DEOH&RPSDULVRQEHWZHHQYDOXHVRIWDEOHDQG&ROHEURRN:KLWH
VHVWLPDWLRQ
B6 13/16
120
100
P
80
3 m/s
P
V
V
R
O
60
G
D
H
K
Q
R
L
W
F 40
L
U
2 m/s
I
20
1 m/s
0
15,0 18,0 22,0 28,0 35,0 42,0 54,0 67,0 76,1 108,0 133,0 159,0
GLDPHWHUVPP
vel.=0.5 m/s vel.=1.0 m/s vel.=1.5 m/s vel.=2.0 m/s vel.=2.5 m/s vel.=3.0 m/s
)LJXUH &RSSHUSLSHV
)ULFWLRQKHDGORVVHVREWDLQHGWKURXJK&ROHEURRN:KLWH¶VIRUPXOD
120
100
3 m/s
P
80
P
V
V
R
O
60
G
D
H
K
Q
R
2 m/s
L
W
F
L
40
U
I
20
1 m/s
0
1/2 3/4 1 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 3 4 5 6
GLDPHWHUVLQ
vel.=0.5 m/s vel.=1.0 m/s vel.=1.5 m/s vel.=2.0 m/s vel.=2.5 m/s vel.=3.0 m/s
)LJXUH *DOYDQLVHGVWHHOSLSHV
)ULFWLRQKHDGORVVHVREWDLQHGWKURXJK&ROHEURRN:KLWH¶VIRUPXOD
B6 14/16
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
I
H
U
+
L
1,1
+
1,0
0,9
0,6
15,0 18,0 22,0 28,0 35,0 42,0 54,0 67,0 76,1 108,0 133,0 159,0
GLDPHWHUV PP
)LJXUH &RSSHUSLSHV&RPSDULVRQRIIULFWLRQKHDGORVVHVREWDLQHG
WKURXJKGLIIHUHQWIRUPXODV&ROHEURRN:KLWHWDNHQDVUHIHUHQFH
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
I
H
U
1,1
+
L
+
1,0
0,9
0,6
1/2 3/4 1 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 3 4 5 6
GLDPHWHUV LQ
)LJXUH *DOYDQLVHGVWHHOSLSHV&RPSDULVRQRIIULFWLRQKHDGORVVHVREWDLQHG
WKURXJKGLIIHUHQWIRUPXODV&ROHEURRN:KLWHWDNHQDVUHIHUHQFH
B6 15/16
7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRIYDULRXVSLSHPDWHULDOV
B6 16/16