Equivalent method

One of the most basic calculations performed by any process engineer,

whether in design or in the plant, is line sizing and pipeline pressure loss.
Typically known are the flow rate, temperature and corresponding viscosity
and specific gravity of the fluid that will flow through the pipe.
These properties are entered into a computer program or spreadsheet
along with some pipe physical data (pipe schedule and roughness factor)
and out pops a series of line sizes with associated Reynolds Number,
velocity, friction factor and pressure drop per linear dimension. The pipe
size is then selected based on a compromise between the velocity and the
pressure drop. With the line now sized and the pressure drop per linear
dimension determined, the pressure loss from the inlet to the outlet of the
pipe can be calculated.
Calculating Pressure Drop
The most commonly used equation for determining pressure drop in a
straight pipe is the Darcy Weisbach equation. One common form of the
equation which gives pressure drop in terms of feet of head is given below:
Eq. (1)

The term

is commonly referred to as the Velocity Head.

Another common form of the Darcy Weisbach equation that is most often
used by engineers because it gives pressure drop in units of pounds per
square inch (psi) is:
Eq. (2)
To obtain pressure drop in units of psi/100 ft, the value of 100 replaces L in
Equation 2.

The total pressure drop in the pipe is typically calculated using these five
steps.
1. Determine the total length of all horizontal and vertical straight pipe
runs.
2. Determine the number of valves and fittings in the pipe. For example,
there may be two gate valves, a 90o elbow and a flow thru tee.
3. Determine the means of incorporating the valves and fittings into the
Darcy equation. To accomplish this, most engineers use a table of
equivalent lengths. This table lists the valve and fitting and an
associated length of straight pipe of the same diameter, which will
incur the same pressure loss as that valve or fitting. For example, if a
2" 90o elbow were to produce a pressure drop of 1 psi, the equivalent
length would be a length of 2" straight pipe that would also give a
pressure drop of 1 psi. The engineer then multiplies the quantity of
each type of valve and fitting by its respective equivalent length and
adds them together.
4. The total equivalent length is usually added to the total straight pipe
length obtained in step one to give a total pipe equivalent length.
5. This total pipe equivalent length is then substituted for L in Equation 2
to obtain the pressure drop in the pipe.
See any problems with this method?
Relationship between K, Friction Factor, and Equivalent Length
The following discussion is based on concepts found in reference 1, the
CRANE Technical Paper No. 410. It is the author's opinion that this manual
is the closest thing the industry has to a standard on performing various
piping calculations. If the reader currently does not own this manual, it is
highly recommended that it be obtained.
As in straight pipe, velocity increases through valves and fittings at the
expense of head loss. This can be expressed by another form of the Darcy
equation similar to Equation 1:

Eq. (3)
When comparing Equations 1 and 3, it becomes apparent that:
Eq. (4)
K is called the resistance coefficient and is defined as the number of
velocity heads lost due to the valve or fitting. It is a measure of the following
pressure losses in a valve or fitting:

Pipe friction in the inlet and outlet straight portions of the valve or
fitting

Changes in direction of flow path

Obstructions in the flow path

Sudden or gradual changes in the cross-section and shape of the

flow path

Pipe friction in the inlet and outlet straight portions of the valve or fitting is
very small when compared to the other three. Since friction factor and
Reynolds Number are mainly related to pipe friction, K can be considered
to be independent of both friction factor and Reynolds Number. Therefore,
K is treated as a constant for any given valve or fitting under all flow
conditions, including laminar flow. Indeed, experiments showed1 that for a
given valve or fitting type, the tendency is for K to vary only with valve or
fitting size. Note that this is also true for the friction factor in straight clean
commercial steel pipe as long as flow conditions are in the fully developed
turbulent zone. It was also found that the ratio L/D tends towards a
constant for all sizes of a given valve or fitting type at the same flow
conditions. The ratio L/D is defined as the equivalent length of the valve or
fitting in pipe diameters and L is the equivalent length itself.
In Equation 4, f therefore varies only with valve and fitting size and is
independent of Reynolds Number. This only occurs if the fluid flow is in the
zone of complete turbulence (see the Moody Chart in reference 1 or in any

textbook on fluid flow). Consequently, f in Equation 4 is not the same f as in

the Darcy equation for straight pipe, which is a function of Reynolds
Number. For valves and fittings, f is the friction factor in the zone of
complete turbulence and is designated ft, and the equivalent length of the
valve or fitting is designated Leq. Equation 4 should now read (with D being
the diameter of the valve or fitting):
Eq. (5)
The equivalent length, Leq, is related to ft, not f, the friction factor of the
flowing fluid in the pipe. Going back to step four in our five step procedure
for calculating the total pressure drop in the pipe, adding the equivalent
length to the straight pipe length for use in Equation 1 is fundamentally
wrong.
Calculating Pressure Drop, The Correct Way
So how should we use equivalent lengths to get the pressure drop
contribution of the valve or fitting? A form of Equation 1 can be used if we
substitute ft for f and Leq for L (with d being the diameter of the valve or
fitting):

Notice that use of equivalent length and friction factor in the pressure drop
equation is eliminated, although both are still required to calculate the
values of K1. As a matter of fact, there is nothing stopping the engineer
from converting the straight pipe length into a K value and adding this to
the K values for the valves and fittings before using Equation 7. This is
accomplished by using Equation 4, where D is the pipe diameter and f is
the pipeline friction factor.
How significant is the error caused by mismatching friction factors? The
answer is, it depends. Below is a real world example showing the
difference between the Equivalent Length method (as applied by most
engineers) and the K value method to calculate pressure drop.

An Example
The fluid being pumped is 94% Sulfuric Acid through a 3", Schedule 40,
Carbon Steel pipe:
Table 1: Process Data for Example Calculation
Mass Flow Rate, lb/hr
63,143
Volumetric Flow Rate, gpm
70
3
Density, lb/ft
112.47
S.G.
1.802
Viscosity, cp
10
o
Temperature, F
127
Pipe ID, in
3.068
Velocity, ft/s
3.04
Reynold's No
12,998
Darcy Friction Factor, (f) Pipe
0.02985
Pipe Line ?P/100 ft
1.308
Friction Factor at Full Turbulence (ft) 0.018
Straight Pipe, ft
31.5

Table 2: Fitting Date for Example Calculation

K1, 2 =
Quantity Total Leq Total K
Fittings Leq/D1 Leq2, 3
ft (L/D)
90o Long Radius Elbow
20
5.1
0.36
2
10.23
0.72
Branch Tee
60
15.3
1.08
1
15.34
1.08
Swing Check Valve
50
12.8
0.90
1
12.78
0.90
Plug Valve
18
4.6 0.324
1
4.60 0.324
4
5
5
3" x 1" Reducer
None 822.68 57.92
1 822.68 57.92

Total

865.63 60.94

Notes:
1. K values and Leq/D are obtained from Reference 1.
2. K values and Leq are given in terms of the larger sized pipe.
3. Leq is calculated using Equation 5 above.
4. The reducer is really an expansion; the pump discharge nozzle is 1"
(Schedule 80) but the connecting pipe is 3". In piping terms, there are
no expanders, just reducers. It is standard to specify the reducer with
the larger size shown first. The K value for the expansion is
calculated as a gradual enlargement with a 30o angle.
5. There is no L/D associated with an expansion or contraction. The
equivalent length must be back calculated from the K value using
Equation 5 above.

Table 3: Pressure Drop Results for Example Calculation

Typical Equivalent

K Value Method
Length Method
Straight Pipe ?P, psi
Not Applicable
0.412
Total Pipe Equivalent Length ?P, psi
11.734 Not Applicable
Valves and Fittings ?P, psi
Not Applicable
6.828
Total Pipe ?P, psi
11.734
7.240

The line pressure drop is greater by about 4.5 psi (about 62%) using the
typical equivalent length method (adding straight pipe length to the
equivalent length of the fittings and valves and using the pipe line fiction
factor in Equation 1).
One can argue that if the fluid is water or a hydrocarbon, the pipeline
friction factor would be closer to the friction factor at full turbulence and the
error would not be so great, if at all significant; and they would be correct.

However hydraulic calculations, like all calculations, should be done in a

correct and consistent manner. If the engineer gets into the habit of
performing hydraulic calculations using fundamentally incorrect equations,
he takes the risk of falling into the trap when confronted by a pumping
situation as shown above.
Another point to consider is how the engineer treats a reducer when using
the typical equivalent length method. As we saw above, the equivalent
length of the reducer had to be back-calculated using equation 5. To do
this, we had to use ft and K.
Final Thoughts on K Values
The 1976 edition of the Crane Technical Paper No. 410 first discussed and
used the two-friction factor method for calculating the total pressure drop in
a piping system (f for straight pipe and ft for valves and fittings). Since then,
Hooper2 suggested a 2-K method for calculating the pressure loss
contribution for valves and fittings. His argument was that the equivalent
length in pipe diameters (L/D) and K was indeed a function of Reynolds
Number (at flow rates less than that obtained at fully developed turbulent
flow) and the exact geometries of smaller valves and fittings. K for a given
valve or fitting is a
Combination of two Ks, one being the K found in CRANE Technical Paper
No. 410, designated KY, and the other being defined as the K of the valve
or fitting at a Reynolds Number equal to 1, designated K1. The two are
related by the following equation:
K = K1 / NRE + K? (1 + 1/D)
The term (1+1/D) takes into account scaling between different sizes within
a given valve or fitting group. Values for K1 can be found in the reference
article2 and pressure drop is then calculated using Equation 7. For flow in
the fully turbulent zone and larger size valves and fittings, K becomes
consistent with that given in CRANE.
Darby3 expanded on the 2-K method. He suggests adding a third K term to
the mix. Darby states that the 2-K method does not accurately represent

the effect of scaling the sizes of valves and fittings. The reader is
encouraged to get a copy of this article.
The use of the 2-K method has been around since 1981 and does not
appear to have "caught" on as of yet. Some newer commercial computer
programs allow for the use of the 2-K method, but most engineers inclined
to use the K method instead of the Equivalent Length method still use the
procedures given in CRANE. The latest 3-K method comes from data
reported in the recent CCPS Guidlines4 and appears to be destined to
become the new standard; we shall see.
Conclusion
Consistency, accuracy and correctness should be what the Process Design
Engineer strives for. We all add our "fat" or safety factors to theoretical
calculations to account for real-world situations. It would be comforting to
know that the "fat" was added to a basis using sound and fundamentally
correct methods for calculations.