TECHNICAL HANDBOOK

PIPE LOOP OR EXPANSION JOINT?

For some applications, the choice is obvious.

For most, however,
the decision can only be made after an
evaluation of a
variety of factors, not the least of which is the
economic one.
A piping system subjected to temperature fluctuations
will change in length if free to do so. If not free, it will
exert reactive forces and moments on the equipment to
which it is attached. When the magnitude of such a
reaction would be unacceptable, flexibility must be
designed into the piping system.
Before the development of the expansion joint, flexibility
was provided by piping configurations that promoted
bending. A loop was commonly included in a long run of
straight pipe. In recent years, expansion joints have often
been installed instead of pipe loops for a variety of
reasons.
The decision factors
Both the pipe loop and the expansion joint will safely
accommodate cyclic thermal movements, while retaining
pressure integrity. The choice for a particular system may
be obvious because of space limitations. In many cases,
either will do the job with equal effectiveness and
reliability. Too often, the choice is based on personal
preference or on the “we did it that way before” principal.
The economic aspect, which should be paramount, often
is ignored.
3. The fluid is abrasive and flows at high velocity.
4. The available supporting structure is not adequate for
the size, shape or weight of a pipe loop.
5. A pipe loop may be impractical, as in low-pressure,
large-diameter piping.
6. The construction schedule does not allow for the
additional work hours required to install a loop and its
supporting structure.
For any of the following reasons, a pipe loop may be the
more appropriate choice:
1. Directional changes are built into the pipe’s routing.
2. The pocket in the pipe run that would be created by an
expansion joint cannot be tolerated.
3. An expansion joint would be impractical, as in
small-diameter, high-pressure piping.
4. Corrosive attack of the bellows element would be a
problem.
5. Expansion joints are not permitted by the applicable
code.

The expansion joint most commonly installed in long

piping runs is designed so that the pressure is external
to the convolutions (Figure 1). This type of construction
makes longer axial movements possible than could
normally be accommodated with an internally pressurized
expansion joint. Inherent in this design are internal guide
rings, a full-thickness cover, self-draining convolutions
and insensitivity for flow direction. No lubrication or
packing is required. A drain connection can be installed
to remove sediment or condensate, or both.

Pipe loops have proven to be a safe and reliable way of

dealing with thermal expansion. Three typical loop
configurations are shown in Figure 2.

1. Space is inadequate for a pipe loop of sufficient

flexibility.

2. A minimum pressure drop through the line and the

absence of fluid turbulence are essential for process or
operating purposes.

2400 Longhorn Industrial Drive, New Braunfels, Texas 78130

Phone: (830)629-8080 FAX (830)629-6899 www.myej.net email: info@myej.net

Page 1

If none of these reasons apply to a particular piping
design, either a pipe loop or an expansion joint could be
selected. In such a case, the final decision should be
based on economics.
To compare the pipe loop with the expansion joint on an
economic basis, one must consider more than just the
first cost of the materials. The analysis should also
include the cost of labor to cut, bevel, fit and weld pipe
and elbows, as well as the cost of labor to fabricate a
supporting structure.
In addition to these first ones, any continuing annual costs
associated with loops or expansion joints must be’
included. For example, the annual costs associated with
pumping a liquid, such as hot water, around a loop rather
than through an expansion joint can be significant. Each
of these cost factors is presented in a simplified manner
to aid the engineer in preparing a simple annual cost
comparison between pipe loops and expansion joints.
Material and labor costs
Because actual costs are always changing, factors are
presented for determining the costs of piping material
and labor in a simplified analysis. The material and labor
cost factors provided in Tables 1 and 2 are based on
nominal 8-in.-dia. standard-weight ASTM A53 Grade B
seamless pipe having a material cost of $1 O/ft [2] - i.e.,
all the other material-cost and all the labor-cost factors
listed in the tables are relative to this single cost. If the
current cost of the nominal 8-in-dia. standard-weight
ASTM A53 Grade B seamless pipe were still $10/ft, all the
cost factors in Tables 1 and 2 would be very close to
actual costs in dollars.
If, however, this 8-in.-nominal-dia. pipe were now to cost
$15/ft, for example, the current cost in dollars for material
and labor could be approximated by adding all the
applicable factors for material and labor, and multiplying
this sum by 1.50. Thus, knowing the current cost of the
nominal 8-in.-dia. standard weight ASTM A53B seamless
pipe, one can quickly estimate the material and labor
costs for pipes of other materials and sizes.
The following example demonstrates this approach:
The U-bend pipe loop being considered would consist of
20 ft of 12-in. standard-weight A106B pipe and four
short-radius elbows. The current cost of 8-in. standard
weight A53B seamless pipe is $18/ft. What would be the
approximate cost of the loop?
Using Tables 1 and 2, the cost of the pipe loop is estimated
as follows:
Material cost - For pipe, $19.78 x 20 ft = $395.00; for elbows,
$194.90 x 4 = $779.60. This total is $1,175.20.
Labor cost- For flame-cutting PIPE TO length, $12 , 25) x
2 = $24.50; for beveling pipe ends, $9.75 x 4 = $39.00; for
butt-welding pipe to elbows, $67.00 x 4 = $268.00; for
butt-welding elbow to elbow, $67.00 x 1 = $67.00; for
radiographing girth welds, $0. This total comes to $398.50.
Page 2
Material and labor costs total $1,573.80. Multiplying this figure
by 1.8 (to adjust the Table 1 factor for 8-in. A53B pipe for the
present higher cost of $18/ft) gives a grand total of $2,833.
Annual cost of pumping through a loop
Because the annual cost of pumping a fluid through a pipe
loop can be significant, it should be a part of an economic
comparison. This cost results from the greater horsepower
required to overcome the loop’s head loss, which would not
be present with the straight through construction of an
expansion joint. The resistance, or head loss, in a pipe loop
is assumed to consist of the loss due to curvature and the
frictional loss due to length [3]. To account for the curvature
and frictional losses, a pipe loop can conveniently be
described in terms of equivalent length (L), which is calculated
as follows:
For short-radius elbows of U-bend and square-bend types, L
= 2h + 11 6D; of the Z-bend type, L = 2h + 174D.
For long-radius elbows of the U-bend and square bend types,
L = 2h +74D; of the Z-bend type, L = 2h + 111D.
Here, h is the height (or, if horizontal, the width) of the loop,
ft, and D is the pipe I.D., ft. These equivalent lengths are
based on an LID ratio of 30 for short-radius elbows and 20
for long-radius elbows [3].
The standard method for calculating head loss in straight
pipe is by the Darcy equation:
Horsepower requirements are calculated via:
Combining these equations into an annual pumping cost
formula:
Here, Ca = annual cost of pumping, $; W = mass flow rate,
lb/h; 0 = volumetric flow rate, gal/min; f = friction factor, a
function of Reynolds number and the character of the pipe
wall (approximate values for fully turbulent liquid flow through
smooth pipe are listed in Table3); L = equivalent length, ft
(determined by means of the equations previously provided);
u = utilization factor, % (i.e., the percentage of time that the
system will be in operation during a year); c = average cost
of electricity, $/kWh; e = pump and motor efficiency, %
(normally 70- p = density of the pumped fluid, lb/ft’; and d =
pipe 1. D., in.
Sample problem - pipe loop vs. expansion joint
A decision on whether to install a pipe loop or an expansion
joint can be resolved on the basis of economics. Hot water
at 150 psig and 3000 F is to be distributed at a flow rate of
1,459,000 lb/h through nominal 12-in.-dia. standard-weight
A106B pipe. The loop would be a short radius U-bend having
a width of 12 ft (i.e., h = 12 ft). Both the pipe run and loop
would be horizontal.
An externally pressurized single-bellows expansion joint
would cost $4,200. The cost of electricity averages $0.06/
kWh. The system is expected to be in operation an average
of 16 h/d. The loop supporting structure would cost $500.
The minimum rate of return, plus taxes and insurance, is
20%. Determine the most economical approach to provide
the needed pipe-system flexibility.
As previously calculated, the piping material and labor costs
for the loop add up to $2,833. The loop support costs an
additional $500. The equivalent length of the U-bends is 2(12)
+ 116(l) = 140 ft. Via the pumping-cost equation, the annual
cost of pumping hot water through the loop would be:
(1,459,000)1(0.013)(140)(0.67)(0.06)1 (627,300) (0.70)
(57.3)2( 12)5, or $633/yr.
The tabulation in Table 4 shows that, while on the basis of
purchase costs the expansion joint is more expensive, it is
35% less expensive based on total annual costs.
References
1 . “Design of Piping Systems,” The M. W. Kellogg Co., Wiley,
New York, 1956, p. 210.
2. Weaver, R., “The Piper’s Pocket Handbook,” Gulf Publish-
ing Co., Houston, 1979.
3. “Flow Of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe,” The
Crane Co., New York, 1979.
4. Crocker, S., “Piping Handbook,” ed. R. C. King, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 5th ed., 1978.
Page 3