You are on page 1of 4

Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 335–338

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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 [5]
since first optimization model [1] 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 
[2]. 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 [8] 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 [1], 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 [9]
internal surface.
 = 0.11Rr0.25 (4)

Eq. (4) can also be obtained from Altshul’s equation [10]


 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
Vp Gp
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 = Jpfr (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 [3].
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 [1] 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 [1] 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 [11], 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. [11] 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)
[1] 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- [2] 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 . [3] M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engi-
neer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
4. Conclusions [4] S.M. Walas, Chemical Process Equipment – Selection and Design, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston, 1990.
[5] 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.
[6] F.M. White, Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999.
cost can be significantly higher than 20% of plants investment cost [7] 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. [8] 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-
[9] 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 [10] 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.
[11] 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.