- Heat transfer enhancement in micro channel heat sink using nanofluid
- Fluid Flow in Hdpe
- Pressure Drop2016
- cfdlab1
- ILLINOIS TRANSIENT MODEL.pdf
- Wellbore Calculations
- RO size
- Lab Report - Turbulence
- Hello!
- Pump Project Report_2
- E17
- Steam Line Sizing Rev 1 (1)
- fluids-notes
- Frp Piping Design Manual - Sep-06
- Spring Identification for Portable Safety Relief Valves
- Physics of Fluids Volume 17 Issue 2 2005 [Doi 10.1063%2F1.1852581] Thompson, Mark C.; Hourigan, Kerry -- The Shear-layer Instability of a Circular Cylinder Wake
- 2141906
- Bleninger-Internal Diffuser Hydraulics
- MECH3321 Syllabus Spr'17
- Fluid Mechanics Classical
- r07a12301-Process Engineering Principles
- ChE 2O04 Course Outline Winter 2014_R4
- b2522721x_ir
- Thermal Syllabus
- Full Text 01
- Prediction of Power-Law Fluid Flow through an Eccentric Annulus with Inner Cylinder in Rotation using k-ω Turbulence Model
- ESSS Numerical Analysis
- Fluids Lab #2 - Final Draft.pdf
- Chap5
- 50508_pref.pdf
- 00b4951b6b4c9a6d1d000000
- Trenchless World 2013-06 Unpiggable Pipelines1
- SolidWorks Motion
- Pivot Table Tutorial
- Scholarship Procedure English
- GMAT Exam Success
- Career Opportunities Abroad
- New Microsoft Office Word Document (5)
- Belt
- Seminar of Study in Germany
- 9 ICMS Instructions for Authors
- Sheet Metal Hints
- Lec 14
- Magnesium
- ASME JMD
- EC10a
- FEEDCON - Lesson 10 - Classical Design in the s Domain
- 2010 Stray Losses in Power Transformer Tank Walls and Construction Parts Miljavec Kralj Univ Ljubljana ICEM[1]
- Project Report 31
- ANNALS-2011-3-46[1]
- Automotive Technology Lab 5
- 2010 Stray Losses in Power Transformer Tank Walls and Construction Parts Miljavec Kralj Univ Ljubljana ICEM[1]
- ++Hataman Bekhonid++
- Lecture 5
- your_face
- 55-218[1]
- Lecture 02
- Ce Lec05(Ocms)
- Ali Salman 01

**Piping System Design Project
**

FALL 2009

Nick Helmuth, Alex Kaufman, and Steve Bray

Dr. Sommers

Miami University

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

December 11, 2009

Introduction

A design team was assembled to determine the minimum lifetime cost of a coolant

system, which draws water from a nearby lake and cools off a fossil fuel power plant’s

condensers. This system, when simplified, involves a pipeline that spans a distance of 890 meters

and a pump that pulls water through this pipeline. The purchase and installation costs of this

pipeline are a function of the pipe’s diameter, while the pump cost is a function of the pump’s

efficiency. Thus, a “life cycle cost” analysis was used to determine the lower purchase,

installation, and operation cost of this entire system over its lifetime of fifteen years.

Several specifications were given to the design team to help with the “life cycle cost”

analysis of the system. Included in this specification sheet was a list of pipe surface roughness

values. This pipeline of this coolant system was unfortunately infested with “zebra” clams that

increase the pipe surface roughness each quarter of a year. These values as given are: 0, 4, 9, and

14 mm for their respective quarter. Due to this rapidly increasing surface roughness, the pipeline

is cleaned annually in order to return the pipe surface roughness back to a value of 0. These

changes in pipe surface roughness not only cause the need for cleaning, but the pump draws an

increasing amount of power throughout each year since the pump must supply a constant flow

rate of water of 3164 GMP.

The project goals are to determine an optimal pipe size for the coolant pipe and to select a

suitably efficient pump, both of which are selected based on the minimal lifetime cost to

purchase, install, and operate. Also, it is necessary to determine the maximum cooling capacity

of this system, being that the EPA stipulates that the water’s temperature cannot change by more

than 6ºC before it is returned to the nearby lake.

Background

In order to effectively determine an optimal pipe size and select a suitable pump to draw

water through this pipeline, a “life cycle cost” analysis was conducted, as previously stated. This

approach, when correctly employed, will show the intersection of an increasing pipeline cost and

a decreasing pump cost, both in respect to an increasing pipe size. This type of approach is

essentially an effective method for selecting the minimum combination of material costs and

energy costs.

To carry out this method, a minimal background in pipe flow characteristics is necessary.

A short summary of the important pipe flow characteristics leads to four subjects: friction factor,

Reynolds Number, major losses, and minor losses. The important notes on these four topics are

that the velocity of a fluid in a fully-developed flow is zero at the pipe wall since the fluid

particles are subjected to frictional forces. The friction factor, a dimensionless number used to

categorize the level of this friction force, determines the effects that the pipe wall surface has on

the fluid. The total amount of “energy” that is lost from friction at the pipe walls is called head

loss and is divided into two categories. Major losses reflect the lost “energy” along sections of

straight pipe, while minor losses reflect the lost “energy” along various pipe components. Lastly,

Reynolds Number is a dimensionless value that classifies fluid flow. It is a function of the fluid

velocity, pipe size, and fluid properties. This important value helps determine whether a fluid

flows either laminar or turbulent.

Approach

Analysis of the “life cycle cost” was conducted using Microsoft Excel, a powerful tool

capable of computing a large number of simultaneous operations. It was set up to take a given

pipe diameter, perform numerous calculations, and result in a total cost of materials, installation,

and operation for three different pumps; each of these pumps is rated at a different efficiency.

This was done by using both the system specifications and knowledge of pipe flow.

An important characteristic of pipe flow is that the cross-sectional area of a pipe and the

fluid velocity are inversely related, where:

Since the volumetric flow rate was given and the area is a function of the pipe diameter, the fluid

velocity was able to be calculated. This calculated value was essential to determining Reynolds

number, a dimensionless value that classifies fluid flow based on fluid velocity, where:

Once computed in Excel, the Reynolds Number value was used in the Haaland Equation. This

simplified version of the Colebrook Equation is used to estimate a friction factor, f. The Haaland

Equation is given by:

where є is the given pipe surface roughness for each quarter, respectively. As previously stated,

the lost “energy” in the pipeline is proportional to this estimated friction factor, where:

Not only is this value helpful in determining a loss of pressure along a pipeline, but it is crucial

to computing work of the pump. The work done by a pump is a function of many variables, but

simplifications were done after a few assumptions were made. The first assumption was that

velocity did not significantly change between the pipe inlet and outlet. Similarly the pressure was

assumed to not significantly drop between the pipe inlet and outlet. These two assumptions were

possible because they are much small in value compared to the changes in elevation and head

loss of the system. Thus, once simplified, the work done by the pump was given by:

where the change in elevation was specified as an increase of 7 meters. The estimation of work

done by the pump made it possible to compute the power consumed by the pump, where:

The amount of power consumed by each of the three pumps was used to determine an operating

cost over a period of 15 years for respective pump. Knowledge of the cost of electricity,

$0.09kW/hr, and the total number of days for each quarter over a lifetime of 15 years, 1370 days,

were essential in this estimation for total operating cost for each respective pump.

After each operating cost was found for each pump, the material and installation cost of

the pipe itself was determined. This cost, which is a function of pipe diameter in inches, was

given by:

Since this value does not depend on the pump efficiency, the cost of the pipe for a given

diameter was complied together to yield a total for both the pump operation and pipe costs.

Lastly, the pump costs were added to the operation costs and pipe costs, to yield a “life

cycle cost.” It should be noted that the cost of each pump was dependent upon the efficiency of

the pump.

Analysis

After the previously presented approach was carried out successfully, it became possible

to illustrate the intersection of the pump operating costs with the pipe materials and installation

cost. As shown in figure 1, the decreasing pump costs and increases pipe costs intersect within

close values of each other.

Figure 1

To more accurately predict the total “life cycle cost,” the pump costs and pipe costs were

added together to yield a graph with a local maximum. As shown in figure 2, each local

minimum for a given pump correlates to a diameter of pipe and a total costs if that pump was

selected for the system

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

0.28 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.51

C

o

s

t

(

$

)

Pipe Diameter (m)

Pump Costs and Pipe Costs

Pump 1

Pump 2

Pump 3

Pipe Cost

Figure 2

After a pipe with a diameter of 0.33 meters and a pump with an efficiency of 84% were

selected as optimal purchases, some analysis was conducted on the cooling system with these

parameters. This analysis included the determination of the power required to run the selected

pump. Being that power is dependent upon the pipe surface roughness, the power requirements

varied between the four quarters. The pump requires 17.99kW, 23.71kW, 27.41kW, and

30.73kW, respectively. The pressure drop over the length of the pipe similarly is dependent upon

the pipe surface roughness, where pressure drops as pipe surface roughness increases. The

pressure drop over the length of the pipe is 7.14kPa, 31.21kPa, 46.80kPa, and 69.78kPa,

respectively. Lastly, the maximum cooling capacity of the cooling system was investigated

because EPA stipulates that the water must not return to the nearby lake at a temperature change

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

0.28 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.51

C

o

s

t

(

$

)

Pipe Diameter (m)

Total Cost of Cooling System

Pump 1 and Pipe

Pump 2 and Pipe

Pump 3 and Pipe

greater than or equal to 6ºC. Thermodynamic knowledge made this computation possible, where

the maximum cooling capacity is a function of the mass flow rate, specific heat of the fluid, and

specified temperature change. When analysis was completed, it was determined that the

maximum cooling capacity is 270,913 kJ per second. This extraordinarily high cooling capacity

is the resultant of a very high flow rate.

The sensitivity of the previously presented analysis is somewhat significant. Several

simplifications were done, as stated in the approach, to allow for the project to be completed with

the limited number of specifications. This was most prevalent when computing the work done by

the pump, where it was suggested that the changes in fluid velocity and pressure were

insignificant compared to head loss and elevation changes. This limited number of specifications

also led to several estimations, including an estimation for the nearby lake’s water temperature.

Since temperature is directly related to fluid density, a temperature different than assumed, 20ºC,

could potentially have a significant effect. It should be noted that the previously presented

analysis, as a whole, was conducted under reasonable parameters to reduce the level of

sensitivity.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis conducted on the cooling system, it is recommended that the

highest efficient pump be purchased, Pump 3. It is also recommended that a pipe size of 0.33

meters (13 inches) be purchased as well. If this recommendation is followed, the “life cycle cost”

can be minimized to a value of $825,692 over a span of 15 years.

Appendix

Purchase Costs Operation Costs Total Costs

Pipe

Diameter (m)

Pipe

Diameter (in) Pipe

Pump

1

Pump

2 Pipe 3 Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3

0.08 3 $49,927 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $773,253,266 $601,419,207 $451,064,405 $773,359,193 $601,538,634 $451,241,332

0.10 4 $71,466 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $140,839,497 $109,541,831 $82,156,373 $140,966,963 $109,682,797 $82,354,840

0.13 5 $96,072 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $38,730,979 $30,124,095 $22,593,071 $38,883,051 $30,289,667 $22,816,143

0.15 6 $123,745 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $13,813,036 $10,743,473 $8,057,604 $13,992,781 $10,936,717 $8,308,349

0.18 7 $154,484 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $5,939,738 $4,619,796 $3,464,847 $6,150,221 $4,843,780 $3,746,331

0.20 8 $188,289 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $2,968,448 $2,308,793 $1,731,595 $3,212,738 $2,566,582 $2,046,884

0.23 9 $225,161 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $1,691,556 $1,315,655 $986,741 $1,972,718 $1,610,316 $1,338,903

0.25 10 $265,100 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $1,085,557 $844,322 $633,242 $1,406,658 $1,178,923 $1,025,342

0.28 11 $308,106 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $774,513 $602,399 $451,799 $1,138,619 $980,005 $886,905

0.30 12 $354,178 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $604,402 $470,091 $352,568 $1,014,580 $893,768 $833,746

0.33 13 $403,316 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $506,358 $393,834 $295,376 $965,675 $866,651 $825,692

0.36 14 $455,522 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $447,304 $347,903 $260,927 $958,826 $872,925 $843,449

0.38 15 $510,793 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $410,372 $319,178 $239,384 $977,165 $899,472 $877,177

0.41 16 $569,132 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $386,514 $300,622 $225,467 $1,011,646 $939,254 $921,598

0.43 17 $630,537 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $370,661 $288,292 $216,219 $1,057,198 $988,329 $973,756

0.46 18 $695,008 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $359,862 $279,893 $209,919 $1,110,870 $1,044,401 $1,031,928

0.48 19 $762,547 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $352,342 $274,044 $205,533 $1,170,889 $1,106,090 $1,095,080

0.51 20 $833,152 $56,000 $69,500 $127,000 $347,002 $269,890 $202,418 $1,236,153 $1,172,542 $1,162,569

- Heat transfer enhancement in micro channel heat sink using nanofluidUploaded bykunlecornelius
- Fluid Flow in HdpeUploaded byVaniya Goel
- Pressure Drop2016Uploaded byadarsh_arya_1
- cfdlab1Uploaded bymithunsingh90
- ILLINOIS TRANSIENT MODEL.pdfUploaded byGustavo Larenze
- Wellbore CalculationsUploaded bybaskr82
- RO sizeUploaded byMichael Haise
- Lab Report - TurbulenceUploaded byCamelia Radulescu
- Hello!Uploaded byIgor Petkovski
- Pump Project Report_2Uploaded byerassy101
- E17Uploaded byOmarWael
- Steam Line Sizing Rev 1 (1)Uploaded bythiruvilan
- fluids-notesUploaded byErnest Odhiambo
- Frp Piping Design Manual - Sep-06Uploaded bySabir Nasim
- Spring Identification for Portable Safety Relief ValvesUploaded byOtis Arms
- Physics of Fluids Volume 17 Issue 2 2005 [Doi 10.1063%2F1.1852581] Thompson, Mark C.; Hourigan, Kerry -- The Shear-layer Instability of a Circular Cylinder WakeUploaded byManu K Vasudevan
- 2141906Uploaded byapi-278652209
- Bleninger-Internal Diffuser HydraulicsUploaded byJulio Tovar
- MECH3321 Syllabus Spr'17Uploaded byjohn79673370
- Fluid Mechanics ClassicalUploaded bybookdigit
- r07a12301-Process Engineering PrinciplesUploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- ChE 2O04 Course Outline Winter 2014_R4Uploaded bycesagg
- b2522721x_irUploaded byStefan Stanca
- Thermal SyllabusUploaded byvsasaank
- Full Text 01Uploaded byشيماء الهاشمي
- Prediction of Power-Law Fluid Flow through an Eccentric Annulus with Inner Cylinder in Rotation using k-ω Turbulence ModelUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- ESSS Numerical AnalysisUploaded bybestie123456789
- Fluids Lab #2 - Final Draft.pdfUploaded byRabia Soni
- Chap5Uploaded byvatsansri3787
- 50508_pref.pdfUploaded bywearplay

- 00b4951b6b4c9a6d1d000000Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Trenchless World 2013-06 Unpiggable Pipelines1Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- SolidWorks MotionUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Pivot Table TutorialUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Scholarship Procedure EnglishUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- GMAT Exam SuccessUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Career Opportunities AbroadUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- New Microsoft Office Word Document (5)Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- BeltUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Seminar of Study in GermanyUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- 9 ICMS Instructions for AuthorsUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Sheet Metal HintsUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Lec 14Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- MagnesiumUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- ASME JMDUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- EC10aUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- FEEDCON - Lesson 10 - Classical Design in the s DomainUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- 2010 Stray Losses in Power Transformer Tank Walls and Construction Parts Miljavec Kralj Univ Ljubljana ICEM[1]Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Project Report 31Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- ANNALS-2011-3-46[1]Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Automotive Technology Lab 5Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- ++Hataman Bekhonid++Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Lecture 5Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- your_faceUploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- 55-218[1]Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Lecture 02Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Ce Lec05(Ocms)Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai
- Ali Salman 01Uploaded byMuhammad Junaid Yusfzai