www.pipeflow.co.

uk

Pipe Flow Expert Fluid Flow and Pressure Loss Calculations Software

Verification of Calculation Results

Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification

Table of Contents – Results Data: Systems Solved by Pipe Flow Expert
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................4 Case 01: Petroleum - Oil Pipeline Pressure Loss ................................................................................. 5 Case 02: Gasoline - Transport over 15 km ...........................................................................................6 Case 03: Water - Pumping with Two Pumps in Parallel ........................................................................ 7 Case 04: Water - Three Reservoir Problem.......................................................................................... 8 Case 05: Water - Flow Rate at 40 psi Outlet Point................................................................................ 9 Case 06: Water - Small Network with Loop ........................................................................................ 10 Case 07: Water - Gravity Flow Network - Initial and Increased Demands ........................................... 11 Case 08: Water - Find Pump Head Required ..................................................................................... 12 Case 09: Water - Turbine Power Available - in 20 psi outlet leg.......................................................... 13 Case 10: Water - Eight Pipe Network with Pumps and Local Losses .................................................. 14 Case 11: Water - Eight Pipe Network with Two Pumps and a Turbine ................................................ 15 Case 12: Water - Nineteen Pipe Network ........................................................................................... 16 Case 13: Water - Net Positive Suction Head Available - Example 1 & 2 ............................................. 17 Case 14: Water - Net Positive Suction Head Available - Example 2.................................................... 18 Case 15: Water - Net Positive Suction Head Available - Example 4.................................................... 19 Case 16: Water - Friction Loss and Pump Head Calculation............................................................... 20 Case 17: Water - Large Diameter Cast Iron Pipe................................................................................ 21 Case 18: SAE 10 Oil - Pressure Loss per Mile ................................................................................... 22 Case 19: Water - Spray Rinse System ............................................................................................... 23 Case 20: Water - Flow at a Junction .................................................................................................. 24 Case 21: Water - Three Reservoir Problem 2 ..................................................................................... 25 Case 22: Bespoke Fluid - Inclined Pipe Friction Loss ......................................................................... 26 Case 23: Water - Pressure Loss around a Loop ................................................................................. 27 Case 24: Bespoke Fluid - Head Required for flow of 20 l/sec ............................................................. 28 Case 25: Ethanol - Laminar Flow ....................................................................................................... 29 Case 26: Water - Asbestos Cement Pipe Friction Loss ...................................................................... 30 Case 27: Lubrication Oil - Laminar Flow Example 1 ........................................................................... 31 Case 28: Lubrication Oil - Laminar Flow Example 2 ........................................................................... 32 Case 29: Water - Bernoulli’s Theorem................................................................................................ 33 Case 30: Water - Reynolds Number for Smooth Wall Pipe ................................................................. 34 Case 31: Water – Flow Through Reduced Port Ball Valve .................................................................. 35 Case 32: SAE 10 Lube Oil - Laminar Flow in Valves .......................................................................... 36 Case 33: SAE 70 Lube Oil - Laminar Flow in Valves .......................................................................... 37 Case 34: SAE 70 Lube Oil - Laminar Flow in Valves .......................................................................... 38 Case 35: Water - Flat Heating Coil ..................................................................................................... 39 Case 36: Water - Power Required for Pumping .................................................................................. 40

2

Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification

Case 37: Air – Flow Through 100m Lengths of Steel Pipes ................................................................ 41 Case 38: Air – Flow Through 100ft Lengths of Steel Pipes ................................................................. 42 Case 39: Air - Isothermal Flow Through a Pipe .................................................................................. 43 Case 40: Air - Pressure Loss Due to Mass Flow Rate ........................................................................ 44 Case 41: Carbon Dioxide – Flow Through a Pipe ............................................................................... 45 Case 42: Water - Nine Pipe Network with Pressure Regulating Valve(PRV) ....................................... 46 Case 43: Water -Eight Pipe Network with Pressure Regulating Valve(PRV) ....................................... 47 Case 44: Water -Ten Pipe Network with Back Pressure Valve(BPV) .................................................. 48 Case 45: Water – Sixty Five Pipe Network - 36 Loops – 5 Pumps ...................................................... 49 Case 46: Water – Sixty Three Pipe Network - 30 Loops – 5 Pumps.................................................... 52 Case 47: Water – Twenty Eight Pipe Network - 3 Pumps ................................................................... 55 Case 48: Water – Twenty Seven Pipe Network - 3 Pumps ................................................................. 57 Case 49: Water – Fifty One Pipe Network - 30 Loops – 5 Pumps ....................................................... 59 Case 50: Water – Fourteen Pipe Network - With PRV ........................................................................ 61 References ........................................................................................................................................ 63

3

food and beverage. pharmaceutical. Flow and Pressure Loss Calculations produced by the Pipe Flow Expert software can be verified by comparison against published results from a number of well known sources. Friction Loss is calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach method. general engineering. including most process fluids.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Introduction Pipe Flow Expert is a software application for designing and analyzing complex pipe networks where the flows and pressures must be balanced to solve the system. The information in this document provides a general description of a published problem. which provides accurate results for non-compressible fluids. Friction Factors are calculated using the Colebrook-White equation. 4 . the Pipe Flow Expert Results Data and a commentary on the results obtained. the Reference Source. power generation. water and wastewater processing Pipe Flow Expert is currently used by engineers in over 75 countries worldwide. the Published Results Data. If the calculated pressure drop in the system is greater than 10% but less than 40% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry points then the Darcy-Weisbach equation will give reasonable accuracy provided that the calculations are repeated using the average density of the fluid in the pipeline system. education. petrochemical. The Pipe Flow Expert Results Data compares very favorably with the published results data for each of the 50 cases that are listed. chemical processing. This method also provides satisfactory results of reasonable accuracy for compressible fluids (gases) when the pressure drop in the system is less than 10% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry points. We have clients in a variety of industries including aerospace. mining.

02078 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. P. The rounding of the fluid velocity to 2 decimal places in the published data accounts for the slight differences with Pipe Flow Expert.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 01: Petroleum . E.930 57130 4.pfe Problem description: Find head loss in one mile of NPS16 (0..85 specific gravity and 10 cSt viscosity. hd) Reynolds Number Fluid Velocity (ft/s) Friction factor Published data 29. Example 6. Result Comparison: Data Item Head Loss (ft.76 0.E. McGraw-Hill. Fluid data: Petroleum oil with a 0.908 57129 4. Page 335.Oil Pipeline Pressure Loss Reference: Piping Calculations Manual.0208 Pipe Flow Expert 29. Shashi Menon. 5 .250 inch wall thickness) pipeline at a flow rate of 4000 barrel/h.761 0.16 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_01_Petroleum_Oil_Pipeline_Pressure_Loss. 2005.

P. Calculate the pump pressure needed to deliver a flow rate of 990 m³/h. E. The delivery point is 200 m above the start of the pipeline. McGraw-Hill. Result Comparison: Data Item Pump Pressure Required (kPa) Reynolds Number Fluid Velocity (m/s) Friction factor Published data 1792 1215768 Not stated 0. A delivery pressure of 4 kPa has to be maintained at the delivery point. 2005.520 0.736 specific gravity and 0. Fluid data: Gasoline with a 0.17 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_02_Gasoline_Transport_Over_15km..492 1215767 1. Example 6.013 Pipe Flow Expert 1800.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 02: Gasoline .013 read from the Moody diagram.Transport over 15 km Reference: Piping Calculations Manual. The Pipe Flow Expert program uses a friction factor calculated to more decimal places which accounts for the slight difference in the pump pressure required.pfe Problem description: A DN500 (10mm wall thickness) steel pipe is used to transport gasoline of a 15km distance. The published text uses a friction factor value of 0. Shashi Menon. 6 . Page 337.6 cSt viscosity.E.01329 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.

22 159. Page 24.01912 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Larock.424 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 03: Water .5 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_03_Water_Pumping_With_Two_Pumps_in_Parallel. 7 . Watters.015 inch. Bruce E. The pipeline is 6000 ft long is 18 inch diameter and has equivalent sand grain roughness e = 0. Two three stage Ingersoll-Dresser 15H277 pumps are used in parallel to pump the fluid. Gary Z. Calculate the flow rate and pump head required.01917 Pipe Flow Expert 6685. Rowland W. Jeppson. Fluid data: Water at 59° F (assumed).4 0. Result Comparison: Data Item Flow rate gpm (US) Pump Head Required (ft) Friction factor Published data 6680 159. 2000.Pumping with Two Pumps in Parallel Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems.pfe Problem description: Water is transferred from a reservoir at 1350 ft elevation to a reservoir at 1425 ft elevation. CRC Press LLC. Example problem 2.

Bruce E.pfe Problem description: Three water reservoirs are connected by three pipes.0622 Pipe Flow Expert 0. 2000. Example problem 2. 85 m and 60 m.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 04: Water .0622 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. The elevation of the common junction is unspecified. Page 26. The pipe from the middle reservoir to the common junction is 1500 m long and has an internal diameter of 250 mm The pipe from the common junction to the low reservoir is 3000 m long and has an internal diameter of 250 mm. The pipe from the high reservoir to the common junction is 2000 m long and has an internal diameter of 300 mm. 8 . Gary Z. There is an external demand of 0. Result Comparison: Data Item Flow rate leaving highest reservoir (m³/s) Flow rate leaving middle reservoir (m³/s) Outflow from Common Junction (m³/s) Flow rate entering lowest reservoir (m³/s) Published data 0.1023 0.0600 0.7 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_04_Water_Three_Reservoir_Problem.1022 0.5 mm.0600 0.0200 0. The water surface elevations of the reservoirs are 100 m. CRC Press LLC. Rowland W. Watters. All pipes have an internal roughness of 0.06 m³/s at the common junction of the pipes. Fluid data: Water at 10° C. Calculate the flow rate leaving or entering each reservoir. Larock.0200 0.Three Reservoir Problem Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. Jeppson.

4372 0. CRC Press LLC. Result Comparison: Data Item Flow rate in 8” diameter pipe (ft³/s) Flow rate leaving 6” diameter pipe (ft³/s) Published data 1. Bruce E. Calculate the flow rate in the 8” diameter pipe and the flow rate from the outlet of the 6” diameter pipe. Jeppson. 2000.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 05: Water .17 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_05_Water_Flow_Rate_At_40psi_Outlet_Point. Rowland W.Flow Rate at 40 psi Outlet Point Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. An off-take at the joint between the two pipes removes 0. The pressure at the outlet from the 6” diameter pipe is 40 psi. Page 218.938 Pipe Flow Expert 1.9372 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.5 ft³/s of water from the pipeline.pfe Problem description: A pipeline consists of two cast iron asphalt lined pipes. Larock. One pipe is 8” diameter x 3000 ft long and the other pipe is 6” diameter x 3500 ft long. Example problem 5. Watters. 9 . Gary Z. The water source has a surface elevation of 165 ft.438 0. Fluid data: Water at 62° F.

Bruce E.5. (ft) 500.8244 0.7020 47. CRC Press LLC.100 0. Gary Z.6 49.1 48.16 10.73 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Watters.0499 42. 2000. Larock. Calculate the flow rate and head loss in each pipe.96 11.3693 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 Published data HGL. A water source has a surface elevation of 500 ft.Small Network with Loop Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems.2 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_06_Water_Small_Network_With_Loop.98 15.474 0.276 0.83 447.0 464.824 0.65 458. Jeppson. Page 185.0 42.2500 Pipe Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 3 Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Published Head Loss (ft) 23.95 11.6424 49. (lb/in²) n/a 54.97 15.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 06: Water .0 476.7 47.21 2. Rowland W.4744 0. At each node in the pipe network water is removed from the system.00 476.7 460.17 10.04 464. (lb/in²) n/a 54. (ft) 500.94 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 Published Press.40 5.2756 0.1120 48.67 460.8 447.94 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 23. (Assumed) Result Comparison: Pipe Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 3 Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Published Flow (ft³/s) 2.39 5.7756 0. Example problem 5.7 458. 10 .4 Pipe Flow Expert Press. Fluid data: Water at 50° F.7 Pipe Flow Expert HGL.pfe Problem description: A small pipe network comprises 6 Cast Iron (Asphalt Dipped) pipes.21 2.776 0.1000 0. Calculate the pressure and Hydraulic Grade Line at each node.249 Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 2.

50 0.2 703. When the additional flow is being supplied to meet the fire suppression requirement calculate the pressure at the node where the 900 US gpm leaves the network. This result agrees with the published text.15 17. Example problem 12.4 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_07_Water_Gravity_Flow_Network.3 996. CRC Press LLC.0 Published Press. (ft) 1020. Rowland W.90 Published data HGL.Initial and Increased Demands Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems.7 478.5 1000. the pressure and HGL (Hydraulic grade line) at each node point.0 996. Gary Z. 2.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 07: Water . The full analytical results for situation where the increased flow rate of 900 US gpm is delivered are not published.08 0. however the text notes that the new pressure head at the outlet point with this increased flow rate has fallen to 127.12 11.08 0. For the initial flow condition calculate the flow rate and head loss for each pipe.49 0. 2000. Jeppson.0 61.33 59.1776 17.57 59. Initially the outflow demands of the network are 580 US gpm.0947 59. 1.82 61.0 11.50 1000.19 3.00 1004.05 Pipe Flow Expert Press.19 3.80 ft.4 996.95 478. Pipe Flow Expert reports the new pressure at N3 as 127. Fluid data: Water at 50° F (assumed). (lb/in²) 17. Watters.88 388.90 Pipe Flow Expert HGL.61 8.5911 59.49 11 . Larock.31 996.00 996.01 7.33 62.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from two elevated reservoirs to various outlet points in a pipe network.18 703.8 ft.3411 62.5 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 15. the flow direction in pipe P5 will be reversed due to the change in pressures at N4 and N6.07 59. Published Flow (US gpm) 1447. Page 437. When the increased outlet flow is occurring. 630 US gpm and 490 US gpm. (ft) 1020.0 389.Gravity Flow Network .15 Pipe Flow Expert (US gpm) 1446.0 1004.1740 Pipe Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 3 Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 Published Head Loss (ft) 15. Result Comparison: Pipe Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 3 Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.02 7. A new situation arises where the demand at one outflow point must be increased from 450 US gpm to 900 US gpm to meet a need for fire suppression. 450 US gpm. (lb/in²) 17.3411 59. Bruce E.61 8.39 996.

0001 ft³/s (smallest allowable value). 2000. Larock.000 – 49. The highest reservoir has a surface elevation of 100 ft. (5° C Assumed) Result Comparison: Data Item Pump head required (ft) Published data 51.631 (100. A pump supplies water from the lowest reservoir to the system. Bruce E. Gary Z. When all out flow demands are being met calculate the pump head required to supply the network without any flow entering or leaving the highest reservoir.pfe Problem description: A small pipe network connects two reservoirs which have different water surface levels. 12 . A flow control valve was placed on the pipe leading to the highest reservoir. Fluid data: Water at 41° F. Jeppson. Rowland W. to represent the requirement that zero flow should occur in this pipe the flow control flow rate was 0.0 Pipe Flow Expert 50. The differential head introduced by the flow control valve was subtracted from the fixed 100 ft head added to the system to obtain the actual head that would be required from actual pump that would be installed in the system.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 08: Water . Page 220.Find Pump Head Required Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. At each node in the pipe network water is removed from the system.30 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_08_Water_Find_Pump_Head_Required. Watters. Example problem 5. CRC Press LLC. To model this situation in Pipe Flow Expert a fixed head increase pump was used to add 100 ft hd to the system.369) Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. The main water source (lowest reservoir) has a surface elevation of 90 ft.

2000.37 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_09_Water_Turbine_Power_Available. Result Comparison: Data Item Flow rate from 40 psig outlet point (ft³/s) Head available to be recovered by a turbine (ft) Published data 0. while the outlet flow and pressure demand are still being met? Fluid data: Water at 50° F (assumed). 1.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 09: Water . Larock.3 Pipe Flow Expert 0. This outlet point must provide water at 40 psig pressure.9728 403. Page 222. Bruce E. 13 . A further outlet at 200 ft elevation provides 1. 2.pfe Problem description: Water is pumped from a reservoir with a 500 ft surface elevation to an outlet point at 600 ft elevation. An outlet at 450 ft elevation provides 0.5 ft³/s of water at 0.0 psig. Jeppson. Watters. What head could be recovered by a turbine positioned in the 20 psig outlet leg. CRC Press LLC. Example problem 5.13 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.Turbine Power Available . Rowland W.0 psig.in 20 psi outlet leg Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. Gary Z. Calculate the flow rate available from the 40 psig outlet point.0 ft³/s of water at 20.976 403.

185 Pipe Flow Expert 0.Eight Pipe Network with Pumps and Local Losses Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems.0429 0. Gary Z. 2000.0762 0.pfe Problem description: A network of 8 interconnected pipes delivers water from two reservoirs to outlet demands at various pipework junctions.1830 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.1032 0. The network has two closed loops and one open loop.6 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_10_Water_Eight_Pipe_Network_With_Pumps_And_Local_Losses. two globe valves and a meter. Rowland W. The network includes 2 pumps.037 0. Calculate the flow rate in each individual pipe.043 0.0371 0. Bruce E. Larock. Example problem 4.103 0.014 0.107 0.078 0. Fluid data: Water at 15° C (assumed).0570 0. Watters. Page 100.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 10: Water . 14 . CRC Press LLC.1068 0.055 0.0139 0. Result Comparison: Data Item Q1 Flow rate (m³/s) Q2 Flow rate (m³/s) Q3 Flow rate (m³/s Q4 Flow rate (m³/s Q5 Flow rate (m³/s Q6 Flow rate (m³/s Q7 Flow rate (m³/s Q8 Flow rate (m³/s) Published data 0. Jeppson.

90 294.033 0. Page 115.0958 0.217 0.168 296.78 23.1779 0.924 15. Example problem 4.19 93.10 37.83 Pipe Flow Expert 8.506 109.30 Pipe Flow Expert 0.719 41.45 109. The Pipe Flow Expert results are based on outflows from node 4 and node 5 as shown in the calculation input table. CRC Press LLC.811 Data Item Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Head Loss (m) Data Item HGL (m) HGL (m) HGL (m) HGL (m) HGL (m) HGL (m) Published data 8. Fluid data: Water at 20° C (assumed).856 36.0270 0.9 47.30 303.2179 0. Result Comparison: Data Item Q1 Flow rate (m³/s) Q2 Flow rate (m³/s) Q3 Flow rate (m³/s Q4 Flow rate (m³/s Q5 Flow rate (m³/s Q6 Flow rate (m³/s Q7 Flow rate (m³/s Q8 Flow rate (m³/s) Data Item N1 Pressure N2 Pressure N3 Pressure N4 Pressure N5 Pressure N6 Pressure Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Calculate the pressure and the hydraulic grade line at each node point.Eight Pipe Network with Two Pumps and a Turbine Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. A booster pump is used get the water over hills which are at a higher elevation than the source. Jeppson.3308 0.396 305.87 27.025 m³/s the calculation input table shows a value of 0.010 Published data 416.008 89.966 28.147 0.177 0.025 m³/s. Rowland W.02 90. Calculate the flow rate & head loss in each pipe.050 m³/s the calculation input table shows a value of 0.462 76.0100 Pipe Flow Expert 416. 2000.0330 0.39 76.80 40.112 15.89 Published data 117.83 5.327 15 .277 275.83 35.865 Pipe Flow Expert 117.00 272.93 15.050 m³/s.116 5.1479 0. Bruce E.027 0.314 6.pfe Problem description: Water is pumped from a single source around a network of 8 interconnected pipes.14 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_11_Water_Eight_Pipe_Network_With_Turbine. A turbine is placed in the system to recovery the extra head after the water has been moved over the hill crest.330 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 11: Water .192 48. (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) Published data 0. Gary Z.55 6. Larock.181 93. The outflow from node 5 is shown as 0.796 23.116 35. 1. 2. The network has one closed loops and one open loop. The reference contains a printing error on the network diagram: The outflow from node 4 is shown as 0.02 15.095 0. Watters.

87 0.29 15.20 64.8349 2.50 0. CRC Press LLC.9034 65.9343 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.0001 1.1717 0.89 81.1808 71.17 0.38 Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 5.97 Pipe Flow Expert (lb/in²) 69.42 1.2999 2.5028 0.24 Published Press.33 0.30 2. Page 423. 2000.65 3.59 1.2468 70.5142 65.04 0.68 9.29 13.4275 75.97 1.41 2.29 15.60 13.60 13.3.50 65.30 2.89 4.4291 0.06 11. Fluid data: Water at 50° F (assumed).28 10.22 0.55 0.4121 71.33 1. (lb/in²) n/a 76.13 5.4035 0.26 10.5450 0. Bruce E.19 21.69 64.59 1.4217 1.4062 2.71 22. Result Comparison: Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 Published Flow (ft³/s) 5.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from two reservoirs to a nineteen pipe network.83 2.19 21.9112 1.34 10. Find the flow rate and head loss for each pipe.41 0.0423 0. Find the pressure at each node point.00 7.8667 0.67 9.39 71.15 71.40 75.06 11. Watters.32 1. The pipes are connected at twelve node points.95 12.41 0. Out flows from the network occur at each node point.65 3.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 12: Water . (lb/in²) 69.95 12.90 4.00 1.9223 81.89 65.92 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 24.34 10. Larock.2 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_12_Water_Nineteen_Pipe_Network. Jeppson.96 0. Gary Z.70 22.61 n/a 67.2423 Pipe Flow Expert (lb/in²) n/a 76.00 7.30 2.91 1.9720 1.40 0.6406 n/a 67.1287 5.96 0. Example problem 12.3333 0.24 70.43 0.97 Published Press.Nineteen Pipe Network Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems.2159 64.2214 0.7123 64. Rowland W. 16 .93 0.3985 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 Node N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 Published Head Loss (ft) 24.9298 0.30 13.

Result Comparison: Data Item Example 1 NPSH available (ft.92 Published data 40. The friction loss through the suction line is assumed as 2. This allows the HGL at the node where the pump has been located to be used for comparison with the published suction head available. hd) Suction Lift (ft.26 7.969 psia.90 HGL at pump Pipe Flow Expert 40. Fluid data: Water at 68°F at sea level. The pressure on the surface of the fluid is atmospheric.969 psia. Find the NPSHa and the suction head available. not calculated. 17 . To model these situations in Pipe Flow Expert a pipe diameter and flow rate was chosen and then the pipe length was varied until the frictional loss through the pipes of 2. hd) Suction Head (ft.08 (positive) Pipe Flow Expert 20. hd) Published data 20. Example No 2: The water source is 10 ft above the pump.Net Positive Suction Head Available . 1994.07 HGL at pump Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. hd) Data Item Example 2 NPSH available (ft. The pressure on the surface of the fluid is atmospheric.26 -12. These are very simple examples where the friction loss through the pipes is assumed. Example No 1: The water source is 10 ft below the pump. 14.92 ft hd was obtained. Example No 1 and Example No 2 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_13_Water_Net_Positive_Suction_Head_Available. Find the NPSHa and the suction lift required.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 13: Water .26 12.Example 1 & 2 th Reference: Cameron Hydraulic Data . 14. Page 1-13.92 ft head in all cases. The discharge pipework was modeled with a similar pipe size and a 10 ft lift on the discharge side of the pump.pfe Problem description: A pump is used to deliver water to a distribution system. Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps.26 7. 18 Edition.

This allows the HGL at the node where the pump has been located to be used for comparison with the published suction head available.969 psia. The discharge pipework was modeled with a similar size pipe and a 10 ft lift on the discharge side of the pump.08 7. Note: The vapor pressure of the boiling fluid is equal to the fluid surface pressure.08 (positive) Pipe Flow Expert 7.Example 2 th Reference: Cameron Hydraulic Data .08 7. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_14_Water_Net_Positive_Suction_Head_Available. so the pressure on the fluid surface does not add to the NPSHa. not calculated.92 ft hd. To model this situation in Pipe Flow Expert pipe diameters and pipe lengths similar to the pipes used in NPSHa examples 1 & 2 were used. Page 1-14.08 HGL at pump Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. hd) Published data 7. 18 . Result Comparison: Data Item NPSH available (ft. Find the NPSHa and the suction head available. The friction loss through the suction line is assumed as 2.92 ft head. The pressure on the surface of the fluid is atmospheric.pfe Problem description: A pump is used to deliver water to a distribution system.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 14: Water . hd) Suction Head (ft. The flow rate was allowed to vary to suit the specified frictional pressure loss. Example No 3. 18 Edition. 1994. The fluid is boiling water at 212°F. A fixed head pump was used to add 2. The water source is 10 ft above the pump. Fluid data: Water at 212°F at sea level. 14.Net Positive Suction Head Available . Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps. This is a very simple example where the friction loss through the pipes is assumed.

Example No 4.Net Positive Suction Head Available . A fixed head pump was used to add 2.69 (positive) Pipe Flow Expert 7. 18 Edition. hd. with specific gravity of 0. hd) Suction Head (ft.09 318. 1994.92 ft head. This allows the HGL at the node where the pump has been located to be used for comparison with the published suction head available. not calculated. hd) Published data 7.90 psig. Page 1-15. Find the NPSHa and the suction head available. The fluid is contained in a closed vessel which is under pressure. Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps. Result Comparison: Data Item NPSH available (ft. The pressure on the surface of the fluid is 119.8904 and a vapor pressure of 134. This is a very simple example where the friction loss through the pipes is assumed.92 ft hd. To model this situation in Pipe Flow Expert pipe diameters and pipe lengths where chosen so that the flow rate chosen gave a frictional loss through the suction pipes of 2. The friction loss through the suction line is assumed as 2. The water source is 10 ft above the pump. 19 .pfe Problem description: A pump is used to deliver water to a distribution system.34 HGL at pump Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.Example 4 th Reference: Cameron Hydraulic Data .Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 15: Water .60 psia.08 317. The discharge pipework was modeled with a similar size pipe and a 350 ft lift on the discharge side of the pump.92 ft. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_15_Water_Net_Positive_Suction_Head_Available. Fluid data: Water at 350°F.

35 1. Result Comparison: Data Item Suction Lift (ft. 20 . An exit condition to the discharge tank. A gate valve. Find the total suction lift. 1994. The total system head (to be added by the pump). The water source is approximately 5 ft below the pump. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_16_Water_Friction_Loss_And_Pump_Head_Calculation.pfe Problem description: A pump is used to deliver water at a flow rate of 200 US gpm through a 1250 ft long pipeline. hd) Discharge Fittings Loss (ft.272 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. hd) Published data 5.38 1. Page 3-9.Friction Loss and Pump Head Calculation th Reference: Cameron Hydraulic Data . The pipeline friction calculation has to include for: A foot valve and strainer. The discharge tank is approximately 275 ft above the pump.52 295 Pipe Flow Expert 5. Fluid data: Water at 68°F (Assumed). The head loss of the fittings on the discharge line.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 16: Water . Two long radius elbows. A swing check valve. hd) Total System Head (ft.54 295. Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps. 18 Edition. Friction – Head Loss – Sample Calculation.

pfe Problem description: A 96” new cast iron pipe has a frictional pressure loss of 1. M.5420 1.0124 Pipe Flow Expert 395. when carrying water at 60°F.5 ft.. 21 .Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 17: Water . Cheng Liu.50 0. hd per 1000 ft of length. Ph. Page 209.01247 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.Large Diameter Cast Iron Pipe Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. (ft.64 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_17_Water_Large_Diameter_Cast_Iron_Pipe. Jack B.5 0. Result Comparison: Data Item Flow capacity (ft3/s) Pressure loss per 1000 ft. McGraw-Hill. hd) Friction factor Published data 397 1. Evett. . Calculate the discharge capacity of the pipe. 1989. Example problem 9.S. -5 2 /s Fluid data: Water at 60°F (v = 1. D.21 x 10 ft ).

1989. Page 211.Pressure Loss per Mile Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. Example problem 9.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 18: SAE 10 Oil . Jack B.038 Pipe Flow Expert 241. (psi) Reynolds number Friction factor Published data 244 5035 0. Calculate the pressure loss per mile of pipe. Ph. Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure loss per mile. D. M. Cheng Liu.pfe Problem description: A 6” wrought iron pipe carries SAE 10 oil at 68°F.S.03766 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Fluid data: SAE 10 at 68°F.68 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_18_SAE_10_Oil_Pressure_Loss_Per_Mile.3314 5047 0. 22 .. Evett. McGraw-Hill..

0574 0.pfe Problem description: Water is pumped from a single source around a spray rinse pipe network.1219 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 19: Water . Result Comparison: Data Item AB Flow rate (m³/s) BG Flow rate (m³/s) GH Flow rate (m³/s HA Flow rate (m³/s BC Flow rate (m³/s CF Flow rate (m³/s FG Flow rate (m³/s GB Flow rate (m³/s) CD Flow rate (m³/s) DE Flow rate (m³/s) EF Flow rate (m³/s) FC Flow rate (m³/s) Published data 0.056 0. which provides more accurate results than those obtained by using the Hazen Williams equation. Calculate the flow rate each individual pipe.0962 0. Out flow demands are specified at 4 points of the network. M. McGraw-Hill. Fluid data: Water at 20° C (assumed). Ph. Jack B.064 Pipe Flow Expert 0. Cheng Liu.120 0. The published results are based on the Hardy Cross method which has been used to balance the flow around the loops. Assume C = 120 for all pipes.0818 0.0646 0.085 0.0574 0.064 0.5 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_19_Water_Spray_Rinse_System. The published text is based on a solution using the empirical Hazen-Williams equation to calculate friction head losses.0781 0.215 0. The Pipe Flow Expert results have been based on calculations using the Darcy-Weisbach equation. 23 .1818 0.0646 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.044 0.S. D. Example problem 13. Page 322.185 0.080 0.2182 0.0426 0.056 0.095 0. The Pipe Flow Expert results have been rounded to 3 decimal places for comparison purposes.0962 0. Evett.095 0. 1989..Spray Rinse System Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics..

McGraw-Hill.0000 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. 24 .0104 +0. Result Comparison: Data Item Q1 Flow rate (m³/s) Q2 Flow rate (m³/s) Q3 Flow rate (m³/s) Q4 Flow rate (m³/s) Pressure at Junction (kPa) Published data +0.Flow at a Junction Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 20: Water . 1989.. Ph. Calculate the flow rate in each individual pipe. Flow away from the junction has been indicated by a negative flow rate value. Evett. Cheng Liu. Example problem 13. Note: The flow balance to and away from the junction is maintained. Flow to the junction has been indicated by a positive flow rate value.0294 assumed in the published text. D. Fluid data: Water at 10° C (assumed).pfe Problem description: Four cast iron pipes connect at a junction.0181 500 Pipe Flow Expert +0. M.0104 +0.0181 -0.. The pressure at the end of each pipe which is not connected to the junctions are: P1 = 800 kPa P2 = 400 kPa P3 = 600 kPa P4 = 200 kPa The internal roughness of the cast iron pipe has been set to 0.0182 500.S. Jack B. Calculate the pressure at the junction.250 mm to simulate the friction factor of 0.23 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_20_Water_Flow_At_A_Junction.0182 -0.0104 -0.0104 -0. Page 339.

Result Comparison: Data Item Pipe 1 Flow rate (l/s) Pipe 2 Flow rate (l/s) Pipe 3 Flow rate (l/s) HGL at Junction (m hd) Published data -77. Calculate the flow rate in each individual pipe. The internal pipe roughness is 1... The internal pipe roughness is 3. Evett.Three Reservoir Problem 2 Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. Calculate the HGL at the pipe junction. Pipe 3 connected to the highest reservoir is 200 mm diameter x 1000 m long. Cheng Liu.0 mm.7 m. Flow to the junction has been indicated by a positive flow rate value.8 +46.S.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 21: Water . 25 . Page 309.11 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_21_Water_Three_Reservoir_Problem_2. Flow away from the junction has been indicated by a negative flow rate value. Note: The flow balance to and away from the junction is maintained. the calculation is halted at this point. D. Fluid data: Water at 10° C (assumed). Pipe 2 connected to the middle reservoir is 200 mm diameter x 300 m long.7 19.0 mm. Ph.pfe Problem description: Three reservoirs with fluid surface elevations of 15 m. 20. then calculate the three flow rates. Example problem 12. The internal pipe roughness is 1.0 mm.0 m.2 +31.7 Pipe Flow Expert -78. If the flow rates are not balanced the elevation of the pipe junction is adjusted and the calculation is repeated. The method of solution proposed in the text is to assume an elevation for the pipe junction. Jack B. 25 m and 28 m are connected by 3 pipes Pipe 1 connected to the lowest reservoir is 300 mm diameter x 600 m long.0 m and 19. M.009 19.671 +46. Only three iterations of the node elevation are used in the text 19. 1989. McGraw-Hill.811 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.662 +32.

.0 Flow Direction From lower point to upper point Pipe Flow Expert -23.. Assume flow direction from the upper point to the lower point. Fluid data: Fluid density as stated above. Result Comparison: Fluid density 30 lbs/ft³ Data Item Pipe Friction head (ft) Published data -23.pfe Problem description: An inclined pipe connects two points at which the fluid pressure is 20 psi and 30 psi. M.S. 1989. diameter and internal roughness of the pipe are unspecified.Inclined Pipe Friction Loss Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. The elevation of the 20 psi point is 25 ft above the elevation of the 30 psi pressure. diameter and internal roughness of the pipe have no effect on the Pipe Friction Head in this example. Cheng Liu.0 Pipe Flow Expert Correctly reversed flow direction of the pipes Fluid density 100 lbs/ft³ Data Item Pipe Friction head (ft) Published data 10.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 22: Bespoke Fluid .6 Pipe Flow Expert Confirmed flow direction of the pipes Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Jack B. Ph. pipe length and internal roughness values were used in the Pipe Flow Expert calculations to ensure that these factors did not effect the calculations. McGraw-Hill. therefore if the pipe characteristics are changed the flow rate in the pipe will change. Page 190. the difference in elevations and the density of the fluid in the pipe. 2. 1. The flow rate in a particular pipe must produce a frictional loss equal to the pressure difference between the two points. Evett. In each case Pipe Flow Expert solved the individual pipe calculation by finding and using a different flow rate which would produce the identical Pipe Friction Head. If the fluid density is 30 lbs/ft³ calculate the friction loss in the pipe. D. Check the direction of the flow. The pipe friction head is dependant on the pressure difference. Several different pipe diameters. If the fluid density is 100 lbs/ft³ calculate the friction loss in the pipe.125 Pipe Flow Expert Files: Case_22_Bespoke_Fluid_Inclined_Pipe_Friction_Loss_Part_1. 26 . The length. Example problem 8.pfe Case_22_Bespoke_Fluid_Inclined_Pipe_Friction_Loss_Part_2. Check the direction of the flow.6 Flow Direction From upper point to lower point Pipe Flow Expert 10. The length.

Page 280. 1989.3602 93..2 93. -5 2 Fluid data: Water at 68°F (µ= 2. Ph. 27 . Evett.7492 Pipe Flow Expert 88.9151 0. M. Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure at 3200 ft downstream (psig) Pressure leaving the loop (psig) Flow rate around upper loop (ft3/s) Flow rate around lower loop (ft /s) 3 Published data 88. The flow rate and pressure entering the loop are specified.3508 0.3491 0. Example problem 11.Pressure Loss around a Loop Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. Jack B.9 0.11 x 10 lb · s/ft ). Find the pressure at a point in the pipework 3200 ft downstream of the loop.7509 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.S. The portion of the loop with larger pipe sizes will handle a greater portion of the total flow rate passing through the loop..Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 23: Water .pfe Problem description: A pipe system contains a loop of unequal size pipes. McGraw-Hill. D. Cheng Liu.7 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_23_Water_Pressure_Loss_Around_A_Loop.

0 19. D. The difference in fluid levels needed to supply a flow rate of 20 l/s can be found by subtracting the pressure introduced by the flow control valve from the difference in the fluid levels. The flow rate of fluid entering the tank with the lowest fluid level is 20 l/s.243) 1. Specific gravity = 0. All pipes have different diameters and different inner roughness values and carry different flow rates.pfe Problem description: A pipe system connects two tanks in which the fluid levels are different. Evett.90 Pipe Flow Expert 48. M.Head Required for flow of 20 l/sec Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics.000 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.115 (pipe 1) and 0.S. A flow control valve was added to the pipe which carries the total flow.114 read from a chart to calculate the head loss for both pipes 1 and 3.243 m = 48. McGraw-Hill.. e. Find the difference in fluid levels between the two tanks. Cheng Liu. The flow rate setting of this control valve was 20 l/s. 100 m – 51. Two pipes connected to the tank with the highest fluid level join together at some point and the combined flow from these two pipes is carried by a third pipe towards the tank with the lowest fluid level. Example problem 11. 1989. Ph. Pipe Flow Expert calculates individual friction factors for each pipe from the Colebrook-White equation.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 24: Bespoke Fluid . -3 Fluid data: µ = 5 x 10 Pa · s. The published text uses a friction factor of 0.757 m 28 . but the total fluid head difference in the system is very similar to the published text.9 Result Comparison: Data Item Difference in fluid level (m) Flow rate in pipe 1 (l/s) Flow rate in pipe 2 (l/s) Combined flow rate pipes 1 & 2 (l/s) Published data 49.g.894 18. Page 286. The calculated friction factors are 0. This gives a slightly different calculated head loss for each pipe..90 18.17 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_24_Bespoke_Fluid_Head_Required_For_Flow_Of_20_Litres_Per_Sec.113 (pipe 2). To model this system using Pipe Flow Expert a difference of 100 m between tank fluid levels was used.06 1.106 20.757 (100 -51. Jack B.

60 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. The published text does not list an inner roughness for the pipe. The flow in this problem is laminar. with 0. 29 .8 m of pipe dipping into the lower tank. Cheng Liu.54 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_25_Ethanol_Laminar_Flow. -3 3 Fluid data: Ethanol at 20°C (µ= 1.S.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 25: Ethanol . Calculate the flow rate between the tanks. D.Laminar Flow Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics.046000 mm and 0.. Ph. 1989. Two pipes with different inner roughness values (0. Evett. McGraw-Hill.59 Pipe Flow Expert 7. so the friction factor is independent of the inner roughness of the pipe.2 m long. M. Page 207. Jack B.pfe Problem description: Ethanol at 20°C is transferred from an upper tank to a lower tank via a 2 mm pipe. density = 788 kg/m Result Comparison: Data Item Flow from upper tank (l/hr) – Pipe 1 Flow from upper tank (l/hr) – Pipe 2 Published data 7.000001 mm) were used in the Pipe Flow Expert model to ensure that the variation in the inner roughness of the pipe did not affect the flow rate calculation..59 7. The pipe is 1.60 7. Example problem 9.20 x 10 Pa · s). The calculated Reynolds number of 883 indicates that the flow type is well within the laminar flow range.

425 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Result Comparison: Data Item Reynolds number Fluid Velocity (m/s) Total Head Loss in pipe (m.9 x 10 3. SIHI Group.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 26: Water . 1998. Example of Head Loss Calculation Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_26_Water_Asbestos_Cement_Pipe_Friction_Loss.Asbestos Cement Pipe Friction Loss Reference: Basic Principles for the Design of Centrifugal Pump Installations. Page 134.183 16.4 5 Pipe Flow Expert 487458 3. The pipe designation is DN200.pfe Problem description: Water flows along a 400 m long asbestos cement pipe at the rate of 360³/h. hd) Published data 4. Fluid data: Water at 10°C. 30 .2 16. Find the head loss in the pipe. SIHI-HALBERG.

Find the pressure drop per 100 meters. density = 897 kg/m 3 Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure drop per 100 meters (bar g) Reynolds number Published data 1.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 27: Lubrication Oil .63 825 Pipe Flow Expert 1. 31 . Crane Co.6277 824 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Page 3-12. 1999. Example 1 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_27_Lubricating_Oil_Laminar_Flow_Example_1. viscosity = 450 Centipoise.pfe Problem description: A 6” diameter schedule 40 steel pipe carries lubricating oil of density 897 kg/m³ and viscosity 450 Centipoise. Fluid data: Lubricating Oil.Laminar Flow Example 1 Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410M.

Page 3-12.64 lb/ft 3 Result Comparison: Data Item Flow rate (gpm US) Fluid velocity (ft/s) Reynolds number Pressure drop per 100 feet(psi) Published data 115 5. Crane Co. 1988. viscosity = 95 Centipoise.40 Pipe Flow Expert 115 4.00 1100 3.pfe Problem description: A 3” diameter schedule 40 carries SAE 10 lube oil at a velocity of 5. density = 54.991 1092 3.Laminar Flow Example 2 Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410.0 ft/s Find the flow rate and the pressure drop per 100 feet. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_28_Lubricating_Oil_Laminar_Flow_Example_2.3665 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Fluid data: Oil.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 28: Lubrication Oil . Example 2. 32 .

937 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. 1999. The change in elevation across the system is 22. The pressure difference is obtained by subtracting the outlet pressure from the inlet pressure.044 1.Bernoulli’s Theorem Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410M. Page 4-8.0 meters. The system was modeled in Pipe Flow Expert with a fluid surface pressure of 3.pfe Problem description: A piping system consisting of 4” and 5” diameter schedule 40 steel pipe carries water at a flow rate of 1500 l/min. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_29_Water_Bernoullis_Theorem.94 Pipe Flow Expert 2. Crane Co.3734) 3.3725 bar g.00 bar g at the inlet to the system. Fluid data: Water at 15°C Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure difference across the system (bar) Fluid velocity in 4” diameter pipe (m/s) Fluid velocity in 5” diameter pipe (m/s) Published data 2.6266 (3.04 1.60 3. 33 .Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 29: Water . The outlet node had a resulting pressure of 0. Example 4-14. Find the fluid velocity in the 4” and 5” steel pipes and the pressure difference between the inlet and outlet points of the system.000 – 0.

34 . The published text friction factor has been read from a chart for water at 60°F. Fluid data: Water at 80°F Result Comparison: Data Item Reynolds number Friction factor Published data 89600 0.pfe Problem description: A 70 foot long 2” diameter plastic pipe (smooth wall) carries water at 80°F. Page 4-1. 1988.Reynolds Number for Smooth Wall Pipe Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410. The flow rate is 50 gpm (US). Pipe Flow Expert uses the same fluid density and viscosity as the published text to calculate the Reynolds number.0182 Pipe Flow Expert 89702 0. Find the Reynolds number and the friction factor.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 30: Water . Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_30_Water_Reynolds_Number_For_Smooth_Wall_Pipe. Crane Co.0188 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably. Example 4-1.

If the chart is read accurately the friction factor is 0. Example 4-6. A new valve fitting was created in Pipe Flow Expert to model the flanged ball valve as this item is not included in the database of standard valves and fittings. Crane Co.0195. As a final check in the published data the friction factor is read as from a chart as less than 0. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_31_Water_Flow_Through_Reduced_Port_Ball_Valve.pfe Problem description: A 200 foot long 3” diameter steel pipe (schedule 40) carries water at 60°F.018 (assumed) Pipe Flow Expert 8. The head of fluid in the supply tank is 22 ft.307 191.4%. 1988.40 173201 0. 35 .0195 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results differ by around 2. However the text concludes that difference in the assumed friction factor and the friction factor read from the chart is small enough so as not to require any further correction.5 196 Not calculated 0. The piping includes 6 standard 90° elbows and a flanged ball valve with a conical seat.02. Find the fluid velocity in the pipe and the rate of discharge.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 31: Water – Flow Through Reduced Port Ball Valve Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410. The published data uses an assumed friction factor of 0. Page 4-3. Fluid data: Water at 60°F Result Comparison: Data Item Fluid Velocity in Pipe (ft/s) Rate of Discharge (gpm US) Reynolds Number Friction factor Published data 8.018 for a 3” diameter steel pipe.

Page 4-4. The published data results are for the first initial assumption of velocity. Example 4-7 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_32_SAE_10_Lube_Oil_Laminar_Flow_In_Valves. Find the fluid velocity in the pipe and the rate of discharge. The head of fluid in the supply tank is 22 ft. The piping includes 6 standard 90° elbows and a flanged ball valve with a conical seat.pfe Problem description: A 200 foot long 3” diameter steel pipe (schedule 40) carries SAE 10 Lube Oil at 60°F. Pipe Flow Expert performs numerous iterations to find a solution which is accurate to within 0. A new valve fitting was created in Pipe Flow Expert to model the flanged ball valve as this item is not included in the database of standard valves and fittings.062 (1st Iteration) Pipe Flow Expert 5.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 32: SAE 10 Lube Oil . 1988. Fluid data: SAE 10 Lube Oil at 60°F Result Comparison: Data Item Fluid Velocity in Pipe (ft/s) Rate of Discharge (gpm US) Reynolds Number Friction factor Published data 5. The published text acknowledges that the problem has two unknowns and requires a trial and error solution.05840 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results differ by around 3%.Laminar Flow in Valves Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410.0004 ft head pressure loss. Crane Co.13 118 1040 (1st Iteration) 0.271 121.46 1096 0. 36 .

20112 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 33: SAE 70 Lube Oil .20 Pipe Flow Expert 2.Laminar Flow in Valves Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410. Fluid data: SAE 70 Lube Oil at 100°F Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure Loss (ft head) Reynolds Number Friction factor Published data 2. Crane Co.pfe Problem description: A 200 foot long 8” diameter steel pipe (schedule 40) carries SAE 70 Lube Oil at 100°F. The piping includes an 8” globe valve.8675 318 0. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_33_SAE_70_Lube_Oil_Laminar_Flow_In_Valves.85 318 0. Page 4-4. Example 4-8. 1988. 37 . The flow rate is 600 barrels per hour. Find the pressure loss in the pipe and the valve.

Crane Co. Example 4-9.00 psi g at the inlet to the system. 1988. The piping includes a 5” gate valve and a 5” angle valve.43.60 718 0.6 9. Fluid data: SAE 70 Lube Oil at 100°F Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure Loss (psi) Fluid velocity in pipe (ft/s) Reynolds Number Friction factor Published data 56.000 . Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_34_SAE_70_Lube_Oil_Laminar_Flow_In_Valves.Laminar Flow in Valves Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 34: SAE 70 Lube Oil .08903 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably. The flow rate is 600 gpm (US). Find the fluid velocity and the pressure loss across the system. Page 4-5. 38 . The pressure difference is obtained by subtracting the outlet pressure from the inlet pressure.622 719 0.6014 (100.3986) 9.pfe Problem description: A piping system consisting of 5” diameter steel pipe (schedule 40) carries SAE 70 Lube Oil at 100°F.089 Pipe Flow Expert 56. The outlet node had a resulting pressure of 43. The system was modeled in Pipe Flow Expert with a fluid surface pressure of 100.3986 psi g.

Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_35_Water_Flat_Heating_Coil.1559 (1. Find the pressure loss across the heating coil.8441 bar g. 39 . The outlet node had a resulting pressure of 0. Page 4-6. The bends of the heating coil have a 100 mm radius.354 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.024 0. Fluid data: Water at 80°C Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure Loss (bar) Reynolds Number Friction factor Fluid Viscosity (Centipoise) Published data 0. 1999.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 35: Water .8441) 131072 0. The 100 mm radius bends in the pipe were modeled in Pipe Flow Expert using two long pipe bend fittings. The system was modeled in Pipe Flow Expert with a fluid surface pressure of 1.Flat Heating Coil Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410M. The pressure difference is obtained by subtracting the outlet pressure from the inlet pressure. Crane Co.00 bar g at the inlet to the system.152 133000 0. Example 4-11.350 Pipe Flow Expert 0.000 – 0.02396 0.pfe Problem description: A heating coil manufactured from 1” diameter steel pipe (schedule 40) is supplied with 60 l/min of water at 80°C.

Find the discharge head required from a pump and the horse power required for pumping if the pump efficiency is 70%. (HP) Published data 421 15. 40 .233 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably. Fluid data: Water at 70°F Result Comparison: Data Item Discharge Head (ft) Power Required at 70% pump efficiency.Power Required for Pumping Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410. a gate valve and four standard threaded elbows are incorporated in to the piping system. Crane Co. Example 4-15. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_36_Water_Power_Required_for_Pumping. A globe lift check valve.2 Pipe Flow Expert 420.pfe Problem description: 100 US gallons per minute of water at 70°F is to be pumped through a piping system made from 3” diameter steel pipe (schedule 40). .Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 36: Water . Page 4-9. 1988.458 15.

640 0. 100 m long 1-1/2” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe. 41 .0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe.6854 0.000 20. 100 m long 3. If the pressure drop in the pipes is greater than 10% but less than 40% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry point then the calculations would need to be repeated using the average density of the fluid in the pipeline system. Appendix B-14.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe. 100 m long 2-1/2” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe.800 10.pfe Problem description: Compressed air at 7 bar gauge and 15°C flows through 100 meter long schedule 40 steel pipes.0436 0. then the results may be considered to be reasonably accurate.682 0.6900 0.264 2. 100 m long 2.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 37: Air – Flow Through 100m Lengths of Steel Pipes Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410M.000 Compressed Flow m³/min 0.101 1. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_37_Air_Flow_Through_100m_Lengths_Of_Steel_Pipes.685 0.1979 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably. Fluid data: Air at 7 bar gauge and 15°C Result Comparison: Pipe Details 1.528 4.046 3. 100 m long Free Air m³/min 0. Find the pressure drop in each of the pipes.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe.044 0.000 32. Since the calculated pressure drop in the system is less than 10% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry point.197 Pipe Flow Expert Pressure Drop (Bar) 0.793 Published Pressure Drop (Bar) 0. Crane Co.6391 0. 1999.000 30. (The flow rates would need to be increased slightly to maintain the same mass flow rate). If the pressure drop in the pipes is greater than 40% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry point then the Darcy-Weisbach equation is not suitable and Pipe Flow Expert should not be used to analyze the system.

Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 38: Air – Flow Through 100ft Lengths of Steel Pipes Reference: Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410. 100 m long 10. Since the calculated pressure drop in the system is less than 10% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry point. Find the pressure drop in each of the pipes.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe.086 4.2741 1. Appendix B-15. Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_38_Air_Flow_Through_100ft_Lengths_Of_Steel_Pipes.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe.918 0.21 1.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe. (The flow rates would need to be increased slightly to maintain the same mass flow rate). If the pressure drop in the pipes is greater than 40% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry point then the Darcy-Weisbach equation is not suitable and Pipe Flow Expert should not be used to analyze the system.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe.0” Diameter Schedule 40 Steel Pipe. 100 m long 6. Fluid data: Air at 100 psi gauge and 60°F Result Comparison: Pipe Details 4. Crane Co.5099 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.33 0.9275 0. 100 m long Free Air ft³/min 650 14000 16000 24000 28000 Compressed Flow ft³/min 83. If the pressure drop in the pipes is greater than 10% but less than 40% of the pressure at the compressible fluid entry point then the calculations would need to be repeated using the average density of the fluid in the pipeline system. 1988. 100 m long 8.505 Pipe Flow Expert Pressure Drop (psi) 0.pfe Problem description: Compressed air at 100 psi gauge and 60°F flows through 100 feet long schedule 40 steel pipes.0857 4.3460 0.3 1794 2051 3076 3588 Published Pressure Drop (psi) 0. 42 . 100 m long 12. then the results may be considered to be reasonably accurate.

0097 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably. The average density of the air has been used in the Pipe Flow Expert Calculation. Page 237. M..0095 this is used to estimate the weight of flow as 14. D.3 psig) the pressure at the end of the section is 65 psia (50.. The pipe surface is smooth and the flow is isothermal.3 psig).0097.S. McGraw-Hill.0097 Pipe Flow Expert 14. Fluid data: Air at 65°F at an average density of 73. Jack B. 43 .5 3030000 0. Evett. The published text assumes an initial friction factor of 0. Calculate the weight flow rate of the air.Isothermal Flow Through a Pipe Reference: Theory and Problems of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics.0095 / 0. Cheng Liu. The new friction factor is compared to the initially assumed friction factor value and is taken as confirmation of the previously calculated weight of flow. R V Giles. 1993. The Pipe Flow Expert program uses the Darcy-Weisbach equation to determine flow rates and pressure loss in pipes. Example problem 11.8 psig) Result Comparison: Data Item Weight of Flow (lb/sec) Reynolds Number Friction Factor Published data 14. The pressure at the start of a 550 ft long horizontal pipe section is 82 psia (67.5 psia (58.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 39: Air . The weight of flow is then used to recalculate the friction factor as 0.pfe Problem description: Air at temperature of 65°F flows through a pipe with 6” internal diameter.6702 3071488 0. Ph.5 lb/sec.1 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_39_Air_Isothermal_Flow_Through_A_Pipe. Where the system includes compressible fluids and the pressure loss is greater than 10% of the entering pressure the calculations need to be carried out using the average fluid density to obtain an accurate result.

The flow is isothermal.. The published text assumes an initial friction factor of 0. Fluid data: Air at 80°F at an average density of 90 psig Result Comparison: Data Item Pressure Loss (psi) Weight of Flow (lb/sec) Friction Factor Published data 20.E.6265 0. The pipe is horizontal and 1000 ft long.Pressure Loss Due to Mass Flow Rate Reference: Piping Calculations Manual.01988 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably. The initial velocity of the air is 50 ft/sec.020 this is used together with the mass flow rate to estimate the fluid pressure at the end of the pipe.52 0.8 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_40_Air_Pressure_Loss_Due_To_Mass_Flow_Rate. Example 5.6265 lb/sec. E.6265 lb/sec the flow rate in the pipe has been adjusted to use the average flow velocity that will be present in the pipe.020 Pipe Flow Expert 20.6266 0.3626 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 40: Air . A further iteration involving the new fluid pressure at the end of the pipe provides the published result. P. The Pipe Flow Expert program uses the Darcy-Weisbach equation to determine flow rates and pressure loss in pipes. 44 . Shashi Menon. Page 265. McGraw-Hill. 2005. The average density of the air has been used in the Pipe Flow Expert Calculation. In order to maintain the flow rate of 0. Where the system includes compressible fluids and the pressure loss is greater than 10% of the entering pressure the calculations need to be carried out using the average fluid density to obtain an accurate result. Calculate the pressure loss in the pipe.pfe Problem description: Air at temperature of 80°F and a pressure of 100 psig flows into a steel pipe with 2” internal diameter. The weight of flow is calculated from the fluid data and the initial velocity as 0.

Fluid data: Carbon Dioxide at 100°F Result Comparison: Data Item Weight of Flow (lb/sec) Reynolds Number Friction Factor Published data 25. Example problem 16.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 41: Carbon Dioxide – Flow Through a Pipe Reference: 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics.0285 which is used to estimate the weight of flow as 25. 1989. Page 483.0285 Pipe Flow Expert 25. Cheng Liu..024”). The pressure at the start of a 120 ft long horizontal pipe section is 160 psig the pressure at the end of the section is 150 psig.3 lb/sec. 45 .pfe Problem description: Carbon Dioxide at temperature of 100°F flows through a pipe with 6” internal diameter. M.002 ft (0.S.. Evett. Ph. The flow is isothermal. D. Jack B. The Colebrook-White equation is usually considered to be more accurate than a value read from a Moody Chart. The new Reynolds Number is greater than the initial assumption of the Reynolds Number and is taken as confirmation of the previously calculated weight of flow. The pipe internal roughness is 0.78 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_41_Carbon_Dioxide_Flow_Through_A_Pipe. Calculate the weight flow rate of the air.5343 6242864 0. The published text assumes an initial Reynolds Number greater than 1000000 and a friction factor of 0.0284 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.3 5000000 0. The Pipe Flow Expert program uses the Colebrook-White equation to determine friction factors. The weight of flow is then used to recalculate the Reynolds Number as 5000000. McGraw-Hill.

1942 0. Rowland W.0002 (pipe reversed) 0. The network includes 2 pumps.0633 0.1175 0.pfe Problem description: A network of 9 interconnected pipes delivers water from two reservoirs to outlet demands at various pipework junctions.585 m fluid 149.58 m fluid 149.000 m Pipe Flow Expert 0.0343 0.0343 (same as Q5) 6.0658 0.18 m fluid 3. Example problem 4.0018 0.0657 0. Jeppson.1125 -0.9 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_42_Water_Nine_Pipe_Network_With_Pressure_Regulating_Valve(PRV).1169 0.0328 0.175 m fluid 3.0672 0.head added Pump 2 . Bruce E.0328 6.0772 0. Page 106. Fluid data: Water at 20° C (assumed). CRC Press LLC. The network has two closed loops and one open loop. Result Comparison: Data Item Q1 Flow rate (m³/s) Q2 Flow rate (m³/s) Q3 Flow rate (m³/s Q4 Flow rate (m³/s Q5 Flow rate (m³/s Q6 Flow rate (m³/s Q7 Flow rate (m³/s Q8 Flow rate (m³/s) Q9 Flow rate (m³/s) Pump 1 . Gary Z.0792 0.Nine Pipe Network with Pressure Regulating Valve(PRV) Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. The reference text reports flow as negative values where an incorrect flow direction has been assumed. Calculate the flow rate in each individual pipe and the pump heads added to the system. Pipe Flow Expert correctly identified that pipe 2 was drawn with the wrong flow direction in the design schematic.000 m Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. two globe valves and a meter. The pressure at a node 8 is controlled by a pressure regulating valve set to 14. 2000. Watters. Larock.head added HGL at PRV Node Published data 0.1131 0. 46 . This pipe was reversed and the flow was reported as positive value.5827 psig (equivalent to 149 m head of water as specified in the example text).Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 42: Water .1967 0.

Watters.1092 1.00 ft 31. Page 67.04 0. The pressure at a node where two pipes join is controlled by a pressure regulating valve set to 8.1359 47 . Jeppson.96 0.078 ft fluid 55. Fluid data: Water at 20° C (assumed).1 (Node 3 in text) 15.1 (Node 1 in text) 20. Published data 1.000 ft 31. this pipe was reversed and the flow was reported as positive value. The network includes a pump. Larock.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 43: Water -Eight Pipe Network with Pressure Regulating Valve(PRV) Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. CRC Press LLC. Example figure 4.01 0.1537 20.0072 0.07 0.1023 20. The reference text notes that the flow direction of pipe 3 has been reversed from the input data.07 0.1092 15.0323 59. Bruce E. 2000.6 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_43_Water_Eight_Pipe_Network_With_Pressure_Regulating_Valve(PRV). Result Comparison: Data Item P1 Flow rate (ft³/s) P2 Flow rate (ft³/s) P3 Flow rate (ft³/s) P4 Flow rate (ft³/s) P5 Flow rate (ft³/s) P6 Flow rate (ft³/s) P7 Flow rate (ft³/s) P8 Flow rate (ft³/s) Pump .9677 0. Rowland W. Calculate the flow rate in each individual pipe and the pump head added to the system.1 ft fluid 55. Pipe Flow Expert correctly identified that pipe 3 was drawn with the wrong flow direction in the design schematic.0697 0. Gary Z.11 1.04 (same as P6) 59.89 0.0323 0.0697 0.8908 0.2 (Node 4 in text) Pipe Flow Expert 1.2 (Node 2 in text) 20. The elevation of the PRV node is 35 ft.head added HGL at PRV Node N7 Pressure at Node N2 (psi) Pressure at Node N3 (psi) Pressure at Node N4 (psi) Pressure at Node N6 (psi) Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.pfe Problem description: A network of 8 interconnected pipes delivers water from two reservoirs to outlet demands at two pipework junctions.6527 psig.

Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification

Case 44: Water -Ten Pipe Network with Back Pressure Valve(BPV)
Reference: Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems, 2000, CRC Press LLC, Bruce E. Larock, Rowland W. Jeppson, Gary Z. Watters, Page 70, Example figure 4.10 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_44_Water_Ten_Pipe_Network_With_Back_Pressure_Valve(BPV).pfe Problem description: A network of 10 interconnected pipes delivers water from three reservoirs to outlet demands at six pipework junctions. The network includes a pump. The pressure at a node where two pipes join is controlled by a back pressure valve set to 12.2583 barg. The elevation of the BPV node is 70 ft. Calculate the flow rate in each individual pipe and the pump head added to the system. Fluid data: Water at 10° C (assumed). Result Comparison: Data Item P1 Flow rate (m³/s) P2 Flow rate (m³/s) P3 Flow rate (m³/s) P4 Flow rate (m³/s) P5 Flow rate (m³/s) P6 Flow rate (m³/s) P7 Flow rate (m³/s) P8 Flow rate (m³/s) P9 Flow rate (m³/s) P10 Flow rate (m³/s) Pump - head added HGL at BPV Node N10 Pressure at Node N2 (kPa) Pressure at Node N4 (kPa) Pressure at Node N5 (kPa) Pressure at Node N6 (kPa) Pressure at Node N6 (kPa) Pressure at Node N6 (kPa) Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably. Pipe Flow Expert correctly identified that pipe 5 and pipe 6 were drawn with the wrong flow direction in the design schematic. These pipes were automatically reversed and the flows were reported as positive values. The reference text schematic shows the elevation of node N2 as 150 m however the input reference table correctly identifies the elevation as 140.0 m. Published data 0.102 0.004 0.091 0.006 0.009 0.015 0.035 0.065 0.014 0.006 (same as P4) 34.88 m fluid 195.00 m 580.7 (Node 1 in text) 539.2 (Node 2 in text) 579.0 (Node 3 in text) 695.6 (Node 4 in text) 555.3 (Node 5 in text) 683.8 (Node 6 in text) Pipe Flow Expert 0.1024 0.0036 0.0910 0.0057 0.0093 0.0153 0.0353 0.0653 0.0140 0.0057 34.879 m fluid 195.000 m 581.468 539.595 578.62 695.622 555.355 684.158

48

Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification

Case 45: Water – Sixty Five Pipe Network - 36 Loops – 5 Pumps
Reference: Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks, 1976, Publisher Ann Arbor Science, Rowland W. Jeppson, Example problem 9 page 102 -105 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_45_Water_Sixty_Five_Pipe_Network.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from five reservoirs to a sixty five pipe network. The pipes are connected at twenty nine node points. The network contains 5 pumps. Out flows from the network occur at each node point. Find the flow rate and head loss for each pipe. Find the pressure and Hydraulic Grade Line at each node point.

Fluid data: Water at 68° F (assumed). Result Comparison: ● = Pipe Flow Expert reversed pipe direction and reported flow as positive Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Flow (ft³/s) 11.6100 3.1800 2.1800 1.5000 2.2200 -1.1900 0.3000 -0.6800 0.4900 -1.4300 2.6300 2.0600 10.0000 0.9300 1.4900 1.8900 1.5400 1.4700 2.7500 2.7100 -0.2600 -1.4500 -1.7700 -1.7100 Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 11.6678 3.1977 2.1977 1.5105 2.2297 ● 1.1832 0.3435 ● 0.6815 0.5227 ● 1.4369 2.5934 2.0434 10.0153 0.9915 1.5165 1.8706 1.4564 1.4479 2.6483 2.6213 ● 0.2347 ● 1.3867 ● 1.6930 ● 1.6543 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Head Loss (ft) 82.15 14.20 9.23 23.43 26.31 2.87 0.18 3.60 0.73 3.42 7.68 11.10 25.67 1.89 5.33 11.07 3.78 3.44 7.22 7.04 0.18 4.21 4.03 5.74 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 82.72 14.36 9.37 23.73 26.54 2.81 0.22 3.63 0.83 3.41 7.43 10.84 27.18 2.13 5.45 10.84 3.36 3.32 6.68 6.55 0.13 3.82 3.69 5.38

49

Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification

P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 P 46 P 47 P 48 P 49 P 50 P 51 P 52 P 53 P 54 P 55 P 56 P 57 P 58 P 59 P 60 P 61 P 62 P 63 P 64 P 65 Node (text ref) N1 (n/a) N2 (1) N3 (2) N4 (3) N5 (4) N6 (5) N7 (6) N8 (7)

0.5800 2.0900 -2.1000 0.0700 1.1800 2.7300 1.1400 -0.9200 4.7200 3.5100 0.7100 -1.9500 -2.7200 0.8800 -0.4300 -3.7200 1.0500 -1.0000 -0.8600 -0.5000 -0.4000 1.4500 1.4300 0.3500 2.5500 1.4500 4.2500 9.0300 1.2400 -3.0200 3.2700 -1.2100 -0.2200 -1.2200 0.9200 -0.8000 1.8000 6.2500 -5.1400 2.8000 7.0000 Published Press. (lb/in²) n/a 104.1 97.9 89.6 92.7 87.3 88.0 84.2

0.5754 2.0714 2.0788 ● 0.0215 1.1620 2.7061 1.1336 ● 0.8902 4.7299 3.4865 0.7081 ● 1.9297 ● 2.6946 0.8638 ● 0.3945 ● 3.6904 1.0307 ● 0.9867 ● 0.8424 ● 0.5016 ● 0.3940 1.4231 1.4013 0.3338 2.5328 1.4442 4.2282 9.0850 1.2792 ● 3.0119 3.2911 ● 1.1875 ● 0.2030 ● 1.1934 0.9094 ● 0.7840 1.7840 6.2912 ● 5.0355 2.7569 6.7261 Pipe Flow Expert (lb/in²) n/a 103.2956 97.0825 88.7000 91.8113 86.4400 87.1278 83.1641

P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 P 46 P 47 P 48 P 49 P 50 P 51 P 52 P 53 P 54 P 55 P 56 P 57 P 58 P 59 P 60 P 61 P 62 P 63 P 64 P 65 Node (text ref) N1 (n/a) N2 (1) N3 (2) N4 (3) N5 (4) N6 (5) N7 (6) N8 (7)

1.71 19.84 18.13 0.02 3.26 21.37 20.22 1.88 28.18 28.34 8.01 22.30 14.28 0.85 0.13 21.31 2.40 4.25 1.63 1.72 0.90 4.75 4.87 0.79 17.59 4.21 13.38 26.61 3.32 24.63 18.65 1.55 0.08 3.78 1.17 1.15 4.23 12.87 19.47 16.80 23.88 Published HGL. (ft) Fluid Surface 390.2 376.0 366.7 363.9 366.6 363.3 374.2

1.70 19.48 17.78 0.00 3.16 20.95 20.04 1.73 28.28 27.86 7.82 21.81 13.98 0.81 0.11 20.88 2.30 4.09 1.56 1.68 0.85 4.55 4.68 0.72 17.33 4.13 13.20 26.86 3.48 24.37 18.83 1.49 0.07 3.62 1.13 1.10 4.16 13.00 18.62 16.61 26.56 Pipe Flow Expert HGL (ft) 300.0000 388.7500 374.3900 365.0100 362.2000 364.7900 361.3800 372.2200

50

0335 82. We have assumed that the text calculations were based on 12” diameter for this pipe.6200 339.3 346.6 77.5 340.9100 341.0068 77.8 319.7600 361.2 376.2096 70. We believe that the text reports the flow direction of these two pipes incorrectly. the flow direction of this pipe is drawn correctly.0000 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.3 81.6659 76.9 80. The reference text indicates that the flow in pipe P27 is negative.1 347.0 76.3498 80.9 340.4 82.6100 345.0000 400. and only performs six iterations to find an approximate result.1 369.8246 n/a 80.4 348. However the flow direction of pipe P28 is drawn opposite to the actual flow direction and should be reported as a negative value in the text.7 77.5100 341. Pipe Flow Expert reversed the flow direction of the pipes indicated with ‘●’ automatically.0433 80.0 333.0000 344.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 77. The schematic diagram lists pipe P63 as 10” diameter.8 362.0653 91.9 363.0 93.8 91.2838 86. and reported the flow rates in these pipes as a positive value. The reference text indicates that the flow direction in a pipe is opposite to the direction shown on the schematic diagram by reporting the flow as negative value.0900 366.4300 360.1 342.8700 280.4956 n/a n/a n/a N9 (n/a) N10 (8) N11 (11) N12 (12 N13 (9) N14 (10) N15 (20) N16 (13) N17 (14) N18 (15) N19 (16) N20 (25) N21 (17) N22 (24) N23 (18) N24 (23) N25(19) N26 (22) N27 (21) N28 (n/a) N29 (26) N30 (27) N31 (28) N32 (29) N33 (n/a) N34 (n/a) N35 (n/a) Fluid Surface 372.3 351.7812 78.2898 92. 51 .3 Fluid Surface Fluid Surface Fluid Surface 350.47 ft hd.941 ft³/s with a pressure loss of 29.6000 340.4700 345.6200 339.1029 91.0800 343.9 79.3631 77. The correlation for flows and pressure losses in many other pipes is also lost.5 75.0 77.4500 366.2 81. Hence the reference text was not solved with a 10” diameter for pipe P63.9918 83.9158 76.2 316.1492 75.4781 74. this appears to be a printing error.0355 ft³/s with a pressure loss of 18.7 92. but this is listed as a positive value.0000 370.6100 318.2 78.3 342.0000 300.7 83.0600 346.9 345. Pipe Flow Expert uses the more accurate Darcy-Weisbach equation and converges to within a pressure balance tolerance of 0.7200 150.65 n/a 80.1 347.3 368.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification N9 (n/a) N10 (8) N11 (11) N12 (12 N13 (9) N14 (10) N15 (20) N16 (13) N17 (14) N18 (15) N19 (16) N20 (25) N21 (17) N22 (24) N23 (18) N24 (23) N25(19) N26 (22) N27 (21) N28 (n/a) N29 (26) N30 (27) N31 (28) N32 (29) N33 (n/a) N34 (n/a) N35 (n/a) n/a 79.14 ft³/s with a pressure loss of 19.3670 81.3800 373.1 82.59 ft hd.7400 349. Pipe Flow Expert reports: Flow 5. The published results for pipe P63 are: Flow 5.62 ft hd for a 12” diameter pipe. These flow and pressure loss values cannot be reconciled with a 10” diameter pipe.1 71.8 87.0619 79.0000 315. The reference text uses a linear approximation to calculate head losses.8621 79.1400 341.000145 psi.8550 95.4700 332.5 78.0 341.1 364.8 343.6 96. If the system is solved using a 10” diameter for pipe P63 the flow is 3.8900 363.

0210 0. Rowland W.3 8.727 44.0351 -0.0211 0.0118 0.0148 ● 0.683 163.0243 0.254 147.0118 0.6 19.0164 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Head Loss (m) 201.265 88.337 20. Fluid data: Water at 68° F (assumed). Result Comparison: ● = Pipe Flow Expert reversed pipe direction and reported flow as positive Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Flow (m³/s) 0.0092 0. Find the pressure and Hydraulic Grade Line at each node point.9 165.9 150.0024 0.0791 0.0781 0.0208 0. Publisher Ann Arbor Science.292 8.845 28.172 67.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from five reservoirs to a sixty three pipe network.0212 0.1 27.0034 0.0254 0.0027 0.0 16.196 0.0260 0.1 10.0136 0.468 46. 1976.0105 0.0163 0.5 48.701 79.0106 0.3 117.097 27.4 7.0280 0.2 27.5 86.0035 0.0089 0.848 115.0077 0.0148 -0.0296 0.0107 0.0166 Pipe Flow Expert (m³/s) 0.464 28. The pipes are connected at thirty three node points.0270 0.2 68.4 63.0092 0.655 52 .0077 0.0164 0.395 6.0081 0.5 27.7 45.0348 ● 0. Find the flow rate and head loss for each pipe.0153 0.0154 0.0132 0.085 62. Out flows from the network occur at each node point.0090 0. Example problem 10 page 105 -109 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_46_Water_Sixty_Three_Pipe_Network.0273 0.8 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (m) 208.0 78.0274 0.0299 0.1 91.0107 0.3 0.669 10.0869 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 46: Water – Sixty Three Pipe Network .1 5. Jeppson.30 Loops – 5 Pumps Reference: Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks. The network contains 5 pumps.413 54.244 4.0886 0.203 162.083 14.151 83.1 53.0238 0.808 37.4 166.0078 0.1 38.

297 12.0210 ● 0.84 7.077 55.94 29.0020 0.0137 -0.3 336.6 3.0139 -0.7 24.27 4.5 Published HGL.0003 0.0165 0.0051 0.2 0.00 289.9 267.4 12.469 11.1 284.78 0.40 3.1 36.60 5.114 285.0047 0.0299 -0.610 322.0072 0.0002 0.510 54.0116 0.6 0.1276 Published Press.90 15.0222 0.67 337.2 58.60 7. (m) Fluid Surface 308.902 0.09 P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 P 46 P 47 P 48 P 49 P 50 P 51 P 52 P 53 P 54 P 55 P 56 P 57 P 58 P 59 P 60 P 61 P 62 P 63 Node (text ref) N1 (n/a) N2 (1) N3 (2) N4 (4) N5 (3) N6 (5) N7 (6) N8 (7) N9 (8) N10 (9) 29.0062 0.169 336.0137 ● 0.311 37.1 39.0078 0.7 11.396 3.0167 0.916 57.10 53 .0003 0.0214 -0.934 92.60 255.0238 0.463 266.952 2.0450 0.2 54.242 241.0148 0.8 45.80 280.2 6.40 339.5 3.7 37.285 15.0548 0.1301 ● 0.0119 0.0 82.1306 -0.0167 0.0274 0.732 7.0072 0.19 261.602 12.0002 0.20 1.0046 0.201 24.189 93.0 54.0061 -0.34 9.83 80.00 309.0061 ● 0.808 25.826 27.023 36.3 287.60 262.0116 0.073 14.0042 0.40 29.0140 ● 0.537 55.1 55.0286 0.4 15.50 16.0071 0.0056 0.0210 0. (m hd) n/a 8.0135 -0.132 44.0805 -0.0210 0.91 285.0119 0.0073 0.0065 0.0078 0.14 6.0078 0.6 1.95 289.9 7.40 0.5 31.0094 0.0056 0.00 347.0052 0.0096 0.0237 0.373 11.0 93.8 12.0547 0.540 31.0219 0.0277 0.0165 0.898 38.4 14.0135 ● 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 P 46 P 47 P 48 P 49 P 50 P 51 P 52 P 53 P 54 P 55 P 56 P 57 P 58 P 59 P 60 P 61 P 62 P 63 Node (text ref) N1 (n/a) N2 (1) N3 (2) N4 (4) N5 (3) N6 (5) N7 (6) N8 (7) N9 (8) N10 (9) 0.025 0.963 0.0239 0.054 42.20 281.2 43.298 3.7 94.1 3.1273 Pipe Flow Expert (m hd) n/a 9.0450 0.0078 0.83 281.0043 0.0031 0.689 82.729 288.6 11.10 281.0280 0.64 7.12 1.0299 ● 0.30 349.099 6.0020 0.7 25.0219 0.755 Pipe Flow Expert HGL (m) 500.0236 0.00 29.29 254.0031 0.8 297.7 240.0148 0.0274 0.0806 ● 0.50 286.0222 0.664 298.0287 0.5 322.125 1.0109 0.8 27.0109 0.1 0.

The reference text indicates that the flow direction in a pipe is opposite to the direction shown on the schematic diagram by reporting the flow as negative value.35 19.10 45. The pressure at the node is calculated as 80.57 n/a 3.04 n/a 13.10 14.65 4.68 N11 (10) N12 (11) N13 (12) N14 (n/a) N15 (13) N16 (14) N17 (31) N18 (15) N19 (n/a) N20 (16) N21 (17) N22 (18) N23 (21) N24 (n/a) N25(19) N26 (20) N27 (22) N28 (30) N29 (32) N30 (33) N31 (n/a) N32 (24) N33 (23) N34 (25) N36 (26) N37 (28) N38 (29) N39 (n/a) 377.34 -2.40 10. Pipe Flow Expert results are based on an elevation of 200 m for Node 6.30 11.70 15.90 Fluid Surface 275.10 284. The correlation of the HGL values is very good. Using an elevation of 200 m the HGL is calculated as 280.36 10.95 480.49 258.60 22.25 14.33 9.84 m.90 259.3 m and pressure at node N6 as 1.30 Fluid Surface 277.48 18.20 8.30 81.07 21.93 n/a 5.20 270.60 28.25 12.00 273.88 15.64 228. this value also appears to be incorrect due a printing error.0045 m³/s leaving node N14.30 -37.00001 bar.30 88.45 5.20 374. The reference text indicates that the out flow from node N14 is 0.27 284. Pipe Flow Expert reversed the flow direction of the pipes indicated with ‘●’ automatically.69 n/a 7.80 274.90 n/a 13.83 284.34 m hd.57 540.10 301.60 302.30 45.37 257. indicating an elevation of 280 m at this node.50 0.39 269.20 210.80 Fluid Surface 174.60 30.61 44.42 80.37 530.50 8.80 12.50 260. The reference text uses a linear approximation to calculate head losses. which closely agrees with the published HGL of 281.32 n/a 13.26 24.40 11. 54 .11 314.20 20.60 230. The sum of flows in the pipes entering and leaving node N14 indicate a flow rate of 0.80 -37.40 24.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification N11 (10) N12 (11) N13 (12) N14 (n/a) N15 (13) N16 (14) N17 (31) N18 (15) N19 (n/a) N20 (16) N21 (17) N22 (18) N23 (21) N24 (n/a) N25(19) N26 (20) N27 (22) N28 (30) N29 (32) N30 (33) N31 (n/a) N32 (24) N33 (23) N34 (25) N36 (26) N37 (28) N38 (29) N39 (n/a) 17.045 cfs (should be cms).73 600.21 7.40 425.20 14.00 173.20 n/a 14.70 315.67 87. As this node is completely surrounded by pipes which do not connect to atmosphere the change in elevation does not affect the flow rate through other pipes in the system. The reference text lists the HGL at node N6 as 281. The close correlation of the calculation results indicates that the reference text calculations were based on 0.90 Fluid Surface 273.40 284.37 170.50 -51.27 274. and hence the results for pressure at this node are affected by the change in elevation. However the reference text lists the elevation of this node at 200 m.78 -51.40 171.60 24.84 m hd.65 17.36 209.30 n/a 7. and reported the flow rates in these pipes as a positive value.78 24. Pipe Flow Expert uses the more accurate Darcy-Weisbach equation and converges to within a pressure balance tolerance of 0.24 267.73 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare favorably.10 25.50 8.30 5.0045 m³/s leaves this node.50 268.20 10.80 14.30 18.69 44.10 24.0 m for this node.00 273.57 0.42 420.00 277.

76 -0.31 8.86 1.10 43.98 11.0873 0.20 9.85 0.09 3.7743 ● 2.89 46. Find the flow rate and head loss for each pipe.62 9.2691 ● 0. 1976.87 55 .27 2.44 -0.77 0.2993 2.86 60.1872 2.98 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_47_Water_Twenty_Eight_Pipe_Network. Jeppson.74 0. Result Comparison: ● = Pipe Flow Expert reversed pipe direction and reported flow as positive Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Flow (ft³/s) 2.5250 ● 3.6378 0.92 9.2752 ● 0. The network contains 3 pumps.55 -3.00 29.3188 1.12 56.90 7.40 7.1187 0.34 0.91 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 5.94 -1.50 51.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 47: Water – Twenty Eight Pipe Network .87 36.75 9.20 45.32 1.0575 3. Fluid data: Water at 59° F (assumed).37 0.90 8.19 29.6239 1.3 Pumps Reference: Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks.18 0.17 3. Out flows from the network occur at several node points.80 -2.07 35. Rowland W.76 30.14 7.73 7.60 23.15 -0.58 0.60 30.70 0.11 43.04 1. The pipes are connected at sixteen node points.8590 ● 2.6514 ● 0.64 0.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from two reservoirs to a twenty eight pipe network.54 1.2655 ● 0.6247 ● 0.88 -2.35 2.01 6.07 -0.90 6.33 0.83 21.38 59.45 -0.3078 3.71 8.6677 1.91 8.73 1.1551 1. Publisher Ann Arbor Science.41 11.68 8. Find the Hydraulic Grade Line at each node point.7701 ● 1.7953 0.65 3.3791 ● 0.5792 0.17 0.4644 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Head Loss (ft) 6.71 26.41 Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 2.10 10.29 -0.2 0. Example problem 6 page 95 .84 6.28 37.

743 ft/sec and 5.9259 6. Pipe Flow Expert reversed the flow direction of the pipes indicated with ‘●’ automatically.16 1398.35 -2.9597 147.01 3. it will be noted that the results are around the same order of magnitude for the vast majority of the pipes. (ft hd) not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published not published Pipe Flow Expert (psig) 162. The relative roughness factors are 0.1091 134.2865 126.94 1271.0010 and 0.53 1339.39 6.91 0.02 1347.000145 psi. Pipe Flow Expert uses the more accurate Darcy-Weisbach equation and converges to within a pressure balance tolerance of 0.2799 125. The reference text indicates that the flow direction in a pipe is opposite to the direction shown on the schematic diagram by reporting the flow as negative value. (ft) 1365 1359 1347 1348 1357 1346 1316 1270 1321 1329 1339 1347 1392 1354 1361 1354 Pipe Flow Expert HGL (ft) 1365. The reference text uses the Hazen Williams method with a linear approximation to calculate head losses.66 0. There are differences in the flow rate and head loss calculations for each pipe.5224 133. 56 .5139 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 Published HGL.9766 130.86 1355.82 1328.1495 119. Although the flow and head loss results may not agree to the normal expected accuracy.84 6.0822 126.59 1348.4355 117.8708 112.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 6.97 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 Published Press.79 1363.0015 respectively.33 0.60 0.34 1359.36 1347. The flow and head loss differences are due to errors produced by the Hazen Williams empirical approximation formula.94 Commentary: The published HGL data and the calculated results compare favorably. but when comparing the published results from these pipes it can be seen that the fluid velocities are 3.9860 137. and reported the flow rates in these pipes as a positive value.4699 P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 30. used to produce the reference text results.0189 106.5587 146.6991 129.83 1317.43 36.69 1332.21 7. Hence the use of the same ‘C’ factor will produce a degree of error in the published flow and head loss calculations.3220 ● 2. The same ‘C’ factor is used for pipes P1 and P2.0356 3.25 1348. indicating that the calculated pressures at the nodes must be similar to un-published pressures obtained in the reference calculation.31 8.042 ft/sec respectively.66 1355. The correlation of the HGL values is good.27 1357.9337 128. Given these comparisons it is obvious that these pipes cannot have the same friction factor. The Hazen Williams formula uses an arbitrary factor ‘C’ to estimate the head loss based on a particular flow rate.

1976.99 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_48_Water_Twenty_Seven_Pipe_Network.2177 1. The network contains 3 pumps.04 6.09 27.02 0.88 4.96 6.78 13.60 32. Pipe P28 has been removed from the network. Rowland W. Result Comparison: ● = Pipe Flow Expert reversed pipe direction and reported flow as positive Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Flow (ft³/s) 2.30 1.89 0.09 3.16 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 5.43 14.09 7.37 1.6520 1.5807 0. Find the pressure and Hydraulic Grade Line at each node point.25 2.06 Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 2.4186 ● 1.46 6.43 0.63 15.8466 1.90 -0.09 -0.3 Pumps Reference: Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks.72 1.60 1.62 -0.38 15.10 7.46 14. Fluid data: Water at 59° F (assumed).6704 2.76 0.90 13.65 0. Publisher Ann Arbor Science.72 -2.35 13.60 2.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 48: Water – Twenty Seven Pipe Network .18 -1.6302 0. Example problem 6 page 98 . Jeppson.47 19.55 0.36 12.6890 ● 1. Find the new flow rate and head loss for each pipe.21 31.7181 0.7497 ● 1.57 -0.77 12.83 26.73 12.01 0.79 32.66 30.49 16.92 -1.8191 ● 0.89 28.96 1. Out flows from the network occur at several node points.44 24.95 10.7613 1.5202 0.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from two reservoirs to a twenty seven pipe network.43 -1.90 1.71 2.19 1.1881 ● 0.52 0.06 2.77 0.54 0.30 7.4082 0.96 1.85 22.3203 1.10 20.52 3.57 1.9917 ● 0.1576 ● 1.5938 ● 0.7740 ● 0. The pipe network is based on the twenty eight pipe network in case 47.25 0.9390 0.0958 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 Published Head Loss (ft) 6.1514 0. The pipes are connected at sixteen node points.40 57 .31 -0.75 10.9757 0.78 0.40 1.83 1.

00 146.0010 and 0.0577 126.443 ft/sec respectively. but when comparing the published results from these pipes it can that the fluid velocities are 3.00 150.00 133.7888 closed P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 13.1898 118. Pipe Flow Expert uses the more accurate Darcy-Weisbach equation and converges to within a pressure balance tolerance of 0.00 166. The flow and head loss differences are due errors produced by the Hazen Williams empirical approximation formula.74 1457.5929 152. Pipe Flow Expert reversed the flow direction of the pipes indicated with ‘●’ automatically.1475 128.00 139. and reported the flow rates in these pipes as a positive value.00 127.00 121.00 118.81 closed 4.96 1346.01 1339. it will be noted that the results are around the same order of magnitude for the vast majority of the pipes.3772 125.45 5.4143 162.00 Pipe Flow Expert (psig) 162.0015 respectively.6282 150. The reference text uses the Hazen Williams method with a linear approximation to calculate head losses.00 161.00 160.27 closed Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 Published Press.49 1329.1749 133. Although the flow and head loss results may not agree to the normal expected accuracy.8793 128.97 Commentary: The published node pressure and HGL data compare favorably with the calculated results.5688 3.84 0.56 0.55 3.4494 122.91 1338.1254 166.718 ft/sec and 5.51 1345.28 1472.4560 5.7029 Node N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 Published HGL.5873 146.34 1459. The same ‘C’ factor is used for pipes P1 and P2. (ft hd) 163.00 128.00 150.03 1322.5856 161.000145 psi.02 1339.41 1359.58 1307.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 4.0209 140. Given these comparisons it is obvious that these pipes cannot have the same friction factor. The relative roughness factors are 0. (ft) 1365 1359 1345 1345 1353 1327 1319 1303 1332 1336 1338 1342 1470 1457 1458 1455 Pipe Flow Expert HGL (ft) 1365.06 1353.00 125. There are differences in the flow rate and head loss calculations for each pipe.00 126.21 0. Hence the use of the same ‘C’ factor will produce a degree of error in the flow and head loss calculations.39 closed 15. The Hazen Williams formula uses an arbitrary factor ‘C’ to estimate the head loss based on a particular flow rate.70 1459.78 0.3307 134.53 1343.00 134. 58 . The reference text indicates that the flow direction in a pipe is opposite to the direction shown on the schematic diagram by reporting the flow as negative value. used to produce the reference text results.

60 0.4878 10.74 1.49 3.02 1.5530 ● 4.7661 4.18 2.22 4.9235 ● 4. 1976.23 18.91 0.35 1.96 19. Jeppson.81 12.20 17.10 0.42 0.43 0.28 1.55 11.56 -4.2943 4.02 0.7728 ● 4.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from two reservoirs to a fifty one pipe network.28 1.31 2. Result Comparison: ● = Pipe Flow Expert reversed pipe direction and reported flow as positive Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 Published Flow (ft³/s) 20.93 0.1935 2.15 3.70 26. Publisher Ann Arbor Science.3198 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 Published Head Loss (ft) 5.31 Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 20.70 26.3548 1.40 -1. Fluid data: Water at 68° F (assumed).29 4. Example problem 8 page 99-101 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_49_Water_Fifty_One_Pipe_Network.11 0.06 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 49: Water – Fifty One Pipe Network .3548 ● 6.3989 ● 1. Rowland W.03 0.40 20.11 -3.90 14.5530 4.31 3.4794 4.22 4.76 -4.35 -6. The network contains one pump.10 0.30 Loops – 5 Pumps Reference: Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks.76 1. Find the flow rate and head loss for each pipe.92 -4.23 18.76 -1.50 10. Out flows from the network occur at 27 of the node points.58 11.4805 ● 6.1712 2.06 0.0552 1.47 -6.3982 20.56 4.78 11.23 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 5.6960 4.83 12.97 19. The pipes are connected at thirty two node points.6011 0.25 59 .58 0.77 11.16 2.60 0.19 17.91 14.69 4.0530 2.06 2.1276 ● 3.76 4.8387 14.50 3.7618 ● 1.09 0.28 2.16 3.50 4.31 3.83 14.

There are no published values for pressures and HGL values at the node points.90 7.61 5.01 5. The reference text indicates that the out flow from node N14 is 4.57 13. These outflows appear to have been interchanged.7313 ● 8.10 4. and reported the flow rates in these pipes as a positive value.63 7.8288 3.45 27.01 1. The close correlation of the calculation results indicates that the reference text calculations were based on these ‘corrected’ outflow values stated above.4630 27.07 3.50 1.00 ft³/s leaves this node. probably due to be a printing error.7402 ● 8. The Pipe Flow Expert system is based on these ‘corrected’ outflow values.82 -12.62 16.75 0.08 27.9790 17.67 1.6570 20.3445 30.07 0.02 0.18 57. the sum of flows in the pipes entering and leaving node N21 indicate a flow rate of 4.18 7.02 1.33 12.04 8.23 -2.12 18.07 27.19 7.76 0.77 8.1121 4.58 13.74 8.6119 ● 5.2477 3.3311 ● 10.11 18.2285 ● 2.11 -2.61 0.39 65.98 17.60 9.82 10.61 16.26 7.00 ft³/s leaves this node.07 Commentary: The published data and the calculated results compare very favorably.83 -0.44 3.24 3.1184 ● 2. and that the out flow from node N21 is 3.05 3.79 8.89 5.8288 ● 12.49 1.82 3.16 10.32 -10. The reference text only lists the elevations for the fluid surface of the 3 reservoirs.19 2.8599 8.97 8.61 -5.39 3.00 5.6175 1.57 12.07 10.37 12. Using the published flow rate results. 60 .06 6.3808 12.5690 P 24 P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 P 46 P 47 P 48 P 49 P 50 P 51 10.62 0.61 5.3825 3.97 8.62 1.80 8. As all the other nodes are completely surrounded by pipes which do not connect to atmosphere a change in elevation of these nodes would not affect the flow rate through the pipes in the system.8498 ● 0.90 7.3460 3.34 30.24 3.00 ft³/s.1941 57.73 -8.81 10.60 9.05 0.73 -8.27 7.55 2.65 1.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification P 24 P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 P 46 P 47 P 48 P 49 P 50 P 51 2.3341 12.1980 2.85 8.62 7.6314 7.0210 0.63 20.5666 12.1677 10.06 6.03 8. the sum of flows in the pipes entering and leaving node N14 indicate a flow rate of 3.89 5.38 65.00 ft³/s. Pipe Flow Expert reversed the flow direction of the pipes indicated with ‘●’ automatically.45 3.63 7. The reference text indicates that the flow direction in a pipe is opposite to the direction shown on the schematic diagram by reporting the flow as negative value.

60 393. pipe P5 has been split into two pipes of equal length.42 0. Rowland W.60 393. (ft) 417.63 19. The downstream pressure at the node leaving the PRV is greater than the PRV setting.1636 0. therefore the PRV acts a check valve. so that the PRV can be positioned halfway along the original pipe length as shown in the reference text.20 closed Pipe Flow Expert HGL (ft) 417.22 0.40 0. (ft hd) Not stated Not stated Pipe Flow Expert (ft³/s) 0.0000 0.71 0. Publisher Ann Arbor Science.5000 0.84 n/a Published Press.13 1.08 Pipe Flow Expert Head Loss (ft) 2. Find the Hydraulic Grade Line values upstream and downstream of the PRV.09 2.0464 1.pfe Problem description: Water is supplied from a reservoir to a fourteen pipe network.71 2. The network contains a pressure reducing valve.40 1.25 0.00 1.89 Pipe Flow Expert File: Case_50_Water_Fourteen_Pipe_Network_withPRV.2536 0. The network contains a pump. 1976.05 1.44 0.40 0. Example problem 2 page 88 .25 0.21 n/a Published HGL.26 6. Fluid data: Water at 68° F (assumed).06 2.27 6.0000 0.9071 Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 Node N1 N2 Published Head Loss (ft) 2.79 0. Find the new flow rate and head loss for each pipe. Out flows from the network occur at eight node points.17 0.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Case 50: Water – Fourteen Pipe Network .37 2.16 3.7068 0.00 0.1296 1.00 6.0000 1.2464 0.16 0. Jeppson.00 6. pipe head losses and HGL data compare very favorably with the calculated results.05 0.37 1.01 1. Result Comparison: Pipe P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 Node N4 N8 Published Flow (ft³/s) 0.73 2.00 0. In the Pipe Flow Expert model.3704 2.7932 0.8364 closed Pipe Flow Expert (psig) 50.09 2.50 0.55 2. 61 .1636 3.04 Commentary: The published flow rates.06 0.With PRV Reference: Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks.06 2.8793 61.00 1.56 2.63 19.

The reference text list the length of pipe P1 as 1000 ft. This is most likely a printing error.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification Since the pressure at node N8 downstream of the PRV is higher than the PRV pressure setting. Pipe P15 has then been closed in the Pipe Flow Expert model to represent this situation.44 ft (as stated in the reference text) can only be applicable to a pipe 500 ft long. The flow rate of 0. 62 . the PRV will close and act as a check value preventing back flow in the pipe. Pipe Flow Expert reports that this is the case.50 ft³/s with a head loss of 2.

Evett Ph. 2500 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill R V Giles. P. Crane Co. 9.Pipe Flow Expert Results Data Verification References 1. Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks. McGraw-Hill E. 1988.E 2. Cheng Liu M. Evett Ph. 1999. Shashi Menon. 2000. SIHI-HALBERG 6. 7. Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems. 1976. Cameron Hydraulic Data . D. Jack B. D. Jeppson. Piping Calculations Manual. Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410. 1994. 2005. Rowland W. Basic Principles for the Design of Centrifugal Pump Installations. Rowland W. Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps 4.S. 1989. Larock. 1993. Crane Co. CRC Press LLC Bruce E. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.. Gary Z. Theory and Problems of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. Flow of Fluids – Technical Paper No 410M. 18 Edition. Cheng Liu M. Jeppson. SIHI Group. Watters 3. 8. 1998. 5..S. th 63 . McGraw-Hill Jack B.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful