216 _Atscction I, total pressure loss depends on the shape ofthe entry: ‘Total pressure immediately downstream of the entrance equals the difference between the upstream pressure, which is zer0 (atmo- spheric pressure), and loss through the iting. Static pressure of ambien airs ero; several diameters downstream, stati pressure is negative, equal tothe sum of the total pressure (negative) and the velocity pressure (always postive) System resistance to airflow is noted by the total pressure grade line in Figute 7. Sections 3 and 4 include fan system effect pressure losses. To obtain the fan static pressure requirement for fan selection where fan total pressure is known, use Pe Pe-Pow un fan state pressure, Pa fan otal pressure, Pa fan outlet velocity pressure, Pa FLUID RESISTANCE Duet system losses are the irreversible transformation of ‘mechanical energy into heat. The two types of losses are 1) fection losses and (2) dynamic losses. FRICTION LOSSES Friction losses are de to fluid viscosity and result from momen- tum exchange between molecules (i laminar flow) or between in- dividual particles of adjacent fluid layers moving at different velocities (in turbulent flow). Friction losses occur along the entire duct length. Darey and Colebrook Equations For fluid flow in conduits, friction loss can be calculated by the Darey equation tone pr? {= ction for, dimensionless = duct length, m Dy = hydraulic diameter [Equation (24), mm P= velocity, ms = density, kgm? Inthe region of laminar flow (Reynolds numbers less than 2000), the friction factor i afunetion of Reynolds number only. For completely turbulent flow, the friction factor depends on Reynolds number, duct surface roughness, and intemal protuber- ances (e.g. joints). Between the bounding limits of hydraulically smooth behavior and fully rough behavior isa transitional rough- ness zone where the friction factor depends on both roughness and Reynolds number. In this transitionally rough, turbulent zone, the fiction factor fis calculated by Colebrook’s equation (Colebrook 1938-1939). This transition curve merges asymptotically into the ‘curves representing laminar and completely turbulent flow: Because Colebrook’s equation cannot be solved explicitly for fuse iterative techniques (Behls 1971), tof material absolute roughness factor, am Re = Reynolds umber 251 a9) Red) 2009 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI) Reynolds number (Re) may be calculated by using the following equation, Dv Ton 20) ‘where v= knemati viscosity, m2 For standard air and temperature between 4 and 38°C, Re canbe caleulated by 6.4 DY a Roughness Factors Roughness factor listed in Table | are recommended for use ‘with Equation (19). These values include not only material, but also duct construction, joint type, and joint spacing (Griggs and Khodabakhsh-Sharfabad 1993) [delcik et al. (1994) summarize roughness factors for 80 materials, including metal tubes: conduits ‘made from concrete and cement; and wood, plywood, and glass tubes, ‘Swim (1978) conducted tests on duct liners of varying densities, surface treatments, transverse joints (workmanship), and methods of attachment to sheet metal ducts. Results suggested using 4.6 mm for spray-coated liners and = 1.$ mm for liners with a facing material adhered onto the air side. In both cases, the rough- ‘ness factor includes resistance offered by mechanical fasteners, and assumes good joints. Liner density daes not significantly influence flow resistance, Figure 8 or Equation (22) (Abushakra eal. 2002, 2004; Culp and Cantell 2009) provides pressure loss correction factors for com pressed flexible ducts ranging in size from 150 to 400 mm, Flexible ‘ducts exhibit considerable variation in pressure los, which ean be in the +15 to 25% range, because of differences in manufacturing, ‘materials, test setup (compression over the full ength of duc), inner liner nonuniformities, installation, and draw-through or blow~ ‘through applications. Pressure drop corretion factors should be Table 1 Duct Roughness Factors Ron Duct Mater G Tincoated carbon sa, clean (Moody 1944) Smooth (0.08 mim. PVC plastic pipe Swim 1982) (0.01 to ‘003 man) Aluminum (Hutchinson 1983) 0.08 to ‘006 mn) Galvanized ste, longitudinal seams, 200 mm Medium- 009 sos (Griggs cal 1987) (008 0 0.10.mm) smooth Galvanized sel, continuously rolled, spiral Scans, 3000 mn joints ones 1979) (0.0610 012 mm) Galvanized ste, sia seam with 1,2, and 3 ibs, 3600 mm joints (Griggs et al. 1987) (0.09 00.22 mm Galvanized ste, ongiudinal seams, 760 mm Averge 0.18 sits (Wright 1948) (0.15 mm) Galvanized ste, spiral, comagated, 3600 mm Medium- 09) Sots (Kulkamiet al 2009) (074mm) rough ious glass det, iid "ious glass det ines, air side with facing material (Swi 1978) (8 mm) Flexible det, fbi and wie, fll extended Fibrous glas dct ie, arse spray coated Rough 30 (Swim 1978) (4.6100) Flexible det, metalic (121921 mm whoa fully extended Conczete (Moody 1944) (1.3 193.0 mm)