You are on page 1of 4

# Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 335–338

## Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Short communication

## Economic optimization of pipe diameter for complete turbulence

Srbislav B. Genić a,∗ , Branislav M. Jaćimović a , Vojislav B. Genić b
a
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kraljice Marije 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
b
Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Pariske komune 22, 11070 Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Paper deals with the model for economic optimization of pipe diameter for complete turbulence. The
Received 3 October 2011 proposed new model for economic optimization of pipe diameter is based on simple economic balance
Received in revised form 24 October 2011 approach. The model covers the region of complete turbulence (so called rough pipe ﬂow). Final result
Accepted 30 October 2011
estimates somewhat different pipe diameter values than the widely cited Genereaux equation for smooth
pipe ﬂow.
Keywords:
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Pipeline
Optimal diameter
Complete turbulence

## 1. Introduction Most commonly used equation in engineering practice for cal-

culation of “Darcy–Weisbach” friction factor is the Colebrook’s
Pipe cost optimization is a subject discussed more than once, equation 
since ﬁrst optimization model  was published in 1937. This opti-  
mization model was derived for turbulent ﬂow in hydraulically 1 Rr 2.51
 = −2 log +  (3)
smooth pipes. Later, in 1940, model was broadened for laminar ﬂow  3.7 Re 
. Discussion on cost optimization of the pipelines is a topic that
will always be actual, because the cost of the pipeline can reach which is valid for Newtonian ﬂuids in range Re = 4000–108 and
more than 20% of plants costs in chemical engineering [3,4] and Rr = 0–0.05.
much more in district heating systems, natural gas or oil trans- For high Reynolds numbers friction essentially becomes  inde-
portation. pendent of Re. This ﬂow region, characterized with ReRr /8 >
Generally friction factor in pipes depends on Reynolds number 70, often called complete turbulence, or (wholly) rough ﬂow, or ﬂow in
(hydraulically) rough pipes, is frequently encountered in commercial
vD 4V 4G pipe ﬂows [6,7].
Re = = = (1) Moody chart  graphically presents Colebrook’s equation (3)
 D D
usually in log–log coordinates. If we take the look at Moody chart,
presented in Fig. 1, in linear–linear coordinates, we can conclude
and relative pipe roughness that the region of complete turbulence occupies the major part of
the diagram (shaded region above the dashed line ReRr /8 >
ε 70). This means that the Genereaux equation , based on the
Rr = (2)
D optimization of the ﬂow in hydraulically smooth pipes, cannot be
applied to the major part of the Moody chart, so it is necessary to
where v (m/s), is the average ﬂuid velocity; D (m), is the pipe inter- develop a new optimization model for complete turbulence.
nal diameter;  (kg/m3 ), is the ﬂuid density;  (Pa s), is the ﬂuid The optimization model for complete turbulence that will be
viscosity; V (m3 /s), is the ﬂuid volumetric ﬂow rate; G (kg/s), is the presented in this paper is based on the Shifrinson’s friction factor
mass ﬂow rate of ﬂuid; ε (m), is the absolute roughness of pipe equation 
internal surface.
 = 0.11Rr0.25 (4)

## Eq. (4) can also be obtained from Altshul’s equation 

 68
0.25
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 11 3302360; fax: +381 11 3370364.
 = 0.11 Rr + (5)
E-mail address: sgenic@mas.bg.ac.rs (S.B. Genić). Re

0378-7788/\$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.10.054
336 S.B. Genić et al. / Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 335–338

## The power required for ﬂuid pumping (P, W) is given by

Nomenclature
Vp Gp
P= = (9)
a amortization E E
b maintenance costs (annual)
Cc annual capital cost (USD/year) where p (Pa), is the pressure drop; E is the overall efﬁciency of
Ce operational cost (USD/year) pump, compressor or ventilator.
cen cost of energy (USD/(W h)) Pressure drop is calculated as the sum of friction pressure drop
D pipe internal diameter (m) (pfr , Pa) and minor pressure losses (pml , Pa)
E efﬁciency
p = pfr + pml (10)
F factor that includes the cost of valves, ﬁttings and
erection Friction pressure drop is
J ratio of minor pressure losses and friction pressure
drop L  v2 L 8G2 8 LG2
k, K, m, M, x, X parameters pfr =  = = 2 (11)
D 2 D 2 D4  D5
L pipe length (m)
G mass ﬂow rate (kg/s) Minor pressure loss can be estimated as head losses or by equiv-
P power (W) alent lengths. In further analysis minor pressure losses will, simply,
Pc pipe purchase cost (USD) be taken into account by
Re Reynolds number
Rr relative pipe roughness (m) pml = Jpfr (12)
V volumetric ﬂow rate (m3 /s)
where J is the ratio of minor pressure losses and friction pressure
v average ﬂuid velocity (m/s)
drop.
Y plant attainment (h/year)
Pressure drop than becomes
Greek symbols 8 LG2
p pressure drop (Pa) p = (1 + J) (13)
2 D5
ε absolute roughness of pipe internal surface (m)
 density (kg/m) Strictly speaking Eq. (13) applies only to non-compressible
 viscosity (Pa s) isothermal ﬂow. In engineering practice this equation can be
 friction factor accepted to compressible ﬂow if total pressure drop is less than
10% of the initial pressure .
Subscripts Annual operational cost of pipeline is
fr friction
ml minor loss Ce = Ycen P (14)
rpf rough pipe ﬂow
spf smooth pipe ﬂow that becomes

Ycen (1 + J)L G3
Ce = 8 (15)
2 ED5 2
by letting Re→ ∞, so the general form of friction factor can be writ-
where Y (h/year), is the plant attainment (annual operating hours or
ten as
hours of operation per year); cen (USD/(W h)), is the cost of pumping
 ε m energy.
 = MRrm = M (6)
D After involving (6) in (15), for region of complete turbulence
operational cost can be expressed as
2. Pipe optimization model based on economic criteria for
8MYcen (1 + J)L m G3
complete turbulence Ce = ε (16)
2 ED5+m 2
Total pipe cost consists of two parameters: capital cost and oper- Total annual pipe cost is
ational cost. The most economic pipe diameter will be the one
which gives the lowest annual cost. C = Cc + Ce (17)
Pipe purchase cost can be expressed by
and, since C depends only on D, the optimum economic pipe diam-
Pc = XDx L (7) eter can be found by

where L (m) is the pipe length and X and x are the parameters that dC
=0 (18)
depend on the type of pipe material and pipe wall thickness (pipe dD
schedule).
i.e.
Annual capital cost (Cc , EUR/year) of pipeline is calculated using
dCc dCe
Cc = XDx L(1 + F)(a + b) (8) =− (19)
dD dD

where F is the factor that includes the cost of valves, ﬁttings and After solving (19) for D, minimum cost (or economically opti-
erection; a is amortization or capital charge (annual); b presents mized) pipe diameter is
the maintenance costs (annual).
8(5 + m)M (1 + J)Ycen G3
In this paper the cost of pump (or compressor) is considered as 5+m+x
Drpf = εm 2 (20)
independent of D.  2 XxE(1 + F)(a + b) 
S.B. Genić et al. / Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 335–338 337

Table 1
Absolute roughness of pipes (uncertainty is given in brackets) [4,6,7].
1/(5+1.472+0.25)
Material – condition ε (mm) [(8(5 + 0.25)0.11/2 )ε0.25 ]

## CS – commercial, new 0.046 (±30%) 0.616

CS – riveted 3.0 (±70%) 0.720
CS – rusted 2.0 (±50%) 0.709
Iron – cast, new 0.26 (±50%) 0.657
Iron – wrought, new 0.046 (±20%) 0.616
Iron – galvanized, new 0.15 (±40%) 0.644
Iron – asphalted cast 0.12 (±50%) 0.638
Wood stave 0.18–0.91 0.648–0.688
Concrete 0.3–3.0 0.661–0.720

## 3. Discussion: comparison of the minimum costs for rough Table 2

Characteristic parameter in Eq. (21).
and smooth pipes
 (Pa s) 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5
Genereaux equation  for smooth pipes can be expressed in 8(5−0.16)0.16
1/(5−0.16+1.472)

0.16
0.821 0.775 0.731 0.690
the form of: 40.16 2−0.16

## 8(5 − k)K (1 + J)Ycen G3−k

5−k+x
Dspf = k 2 (21)
4k 2−k XxE(1 + F)(a + b) 
Using this simpliﬁcation Eq. (20) becomes
and it was derived using friction factor relation
1/6.722
 = KRe−k (22) (1 + J)Ycen G3
Drpf = 0.665 (23)
XxE(1 + F)(a + b) 2
Genereaux  derived parameters K = 0.16 and k = 0.16 “on the
safe side of the data on the von Karman plot”, meaning that fric- The inﬂuence of viscosity in Eq. (21) can be estimated for car-
tion factor calculated using these values is greater than the one bon steel (x = 1.472, Table 2) and averaged value for characteristic
calculated using (3) with Rr = 0. parameter is
According to 2008 prices, presented in , parameters in Eqs.
(20) and (21) for carbon steel pipes are X = 124.6, x = 1.472 and
 8(5 − 0.16)0.16 1/(5−0.16+1.472)
0.16 = 0.754
F = 6.5. 40.16 2−0.16
Eqs. (20) and (21) can be simpliﬁed if we take the average values
for εm and k for common range of ε and  in engineering prac- so the minimum cost Eq. (21) becomes
tice. For carbon steel (CS), iron and other “rough” pipes absolute 1/(5−0.16+1.472)
roughness is listed in Table 1 and average value of characteristic (1 + J)Ycen G3−k
Dspf = 0.754 (24)
parameter, for Shifrinson’s m = 0.25, is XxE(1 + F)(a + b) 2
 8(5 + 0.25)0.11 1/(5+1.472+0.25)
ε0.25 = 0.665 Durand et al.  adopted the following characteristic values
2 for other parameters: a + b = 0.2, Y = 365 × 24 = 8760 h/year, E = 0.5,

## Fig. 1. Moody chart in linear coordinates.

338 S.B. Genić et al. / Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 335–338

Table 3
Different values for optimal pipe diameter obtained for ﬂow in rough and smooth pipes.

## G (kg/s) Water,  = 1000 kg/m3 G (kg/s) Air,  = 1.2 kg/m3

Drpf (mm) vrpf (m/s) Dspf (mm) vspf (m/s) Drpf (mm) vrpf (m/s) Dspf (mm) vspf (m/s)
1 41 0.76 38 0.88 0.01 39 7.02 40 6.50
2 56 0.82 52 0.94 0.02 53 7.57 55 6.97
5 84 0.91 79 1.03 0.05 80 8.36 83 7.64
10 114 0.98 107 1.11 0.1 109 9.01 114 8.18
20 155 1.05 147 1.19 0.2 148 9.71 156 8.77
50 234 1.16 221 1.30 0.5 222 10.72 235 9.61
100 319 1.25 302 1.39 1.0 303 11.55 321 10.30
200 434 1.35 413 1.49 2.0 413 12.45 438 11.04
500 653 1.49 624 1.64 5.0 621 13.74 662 12.10
1000 890 1.61 852 1.75 10.0 846 14.81 904 12.97

cen = 0.0716 USD/(kW h). Using these values and J = 0.5, for carbon The optimum pipe diameter for given ﬂow rate is the result of an
steel pipes, characteristic members in Eqs. (20) and (21) are economic balance between capital and energy costs. In this paper
 (1 + J)Ycen
1/(5+1.472+0.25) the new model was developed for the optimization of pipe diam-
= 0.476 eter in case of complete turbulence. It was shown that there is the
XxE(1 + F)(a + b) difference between well known and widely cited Genereaux equa-
and tion (21) for ﬂow in smooth pipes and newly developed equation
 (1 + J)Ycen
1/(5+1.472−0.16) (20) for complete turbulence.
= 0.454
XxE(1 + F)(a + b) Acknowledgement
After involving these values in (23) and (24) the optimal pipe
diameter for ﬂow in rough pipes is We thank the Ministry of Science and Technological Develop-
0.446 −0.298 0.446 0.148
ment of Serbia for partial support of this study through the Project
Drpf = 0.32G  = 0.32V  (25) of Energy Efﬁciency.
while for ﬂow in smooth pipes optimal diameter is
References
Dspf = 0.34G0.450 −0.317 = 0.34V 0.450 0.133 (26)
 R.P. Genereaux, Fluid-ﬂow design methods, Industrial and Engineering Chem-
Eqs. (25) and (26) slightly differ one from another, and for the istry 29 (1937) 385–388.
ﬂow of cold water and ambient air calculated values of pipe diam-  B.R. Sarchet, A.P. Colburn, Economic pipe size in the transportation of vis-
eters for rough pipes Drpf and smooth pipes Dspf are presented in cous and nonviscous ﬂuids, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 32 (1940)
1249–1252.
Table 3, as well as corresponding velocities vrpf and vspf .  M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engi-
neer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
4. Conclusions  S.M. Walas, Chemical Process Equipment – Selection and Design, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston, 1990.
 C.F. Colebrook, Turbulent ﬂow in pipes with particular reference to the transi-
Major part in HVAC, oil and gas industry, chemical plant, etc. is tion region between the smooth and rough pipe laws, Journal of the Institution
always connected with the ﬂuid transportation. Since the pipeline of Civil Engineers 11 (4) (1939) 133–156.
 F.M. White, Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999.
cost can be signiﬁcantly higher than 20% of plants investment cost  D.W. Green, R.H. Perry, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, McGraw-Hill,
the choice of pipe diameter (i.e. ﬂuid velocity) is of the great impor- New York, 2008.
tance.  L.F. Moody, Friction factors for pipe ﬂow, Transactions of the ASME 66 (8) (1944)
671–684.
Nowadays piping design involves the usage of software pack-
 B.L. Shifrinson, New method for district water system optimization, Heat and
ages that enable relatively quick estimation of capital piping costs, Power 2 (1937) 4–9.
without accounting its operating costs. This is the reason that  A.D. Altshul, P.G. Kiselev, Hydraulics and Aerodynamics, Stroisdat Publishing
engineers still prefer to use simple equations for economically opti- House, Moscow USSR, 1975.
 A.A. Durand, M.J. de Villafranca Casas, A.S.G. Cornejo, D.J. Carranza, F.J.P. Román,
mized pipe costs (so-called rules-of-thumb) that can provide more R.G.S. Suárez, J.S. Espinoza, L.F. Villalobos, V. de la Parra, Updating the rules for
accurate solution and speed up hand calculations. pipe sizing, Chemical Engineering 116 (1) (2010) 48–50.