- ~ ~ ...

,<1E. P~,-

1;'123

'- The

two-K method predicts.

This is a new technique that requires only two constants, plus the Reynolds number and fitting diameter, to predict the head loss in an elbow, valve or tee. It is accurate evenJor large-diameter and alloy fittings, and at low Reynolds numbers.
William B. Hooper, Monsanto Co,

'Forcing a fluid through a pipe fitting consumes energy, which is provided by a drop in pressure across the fitting, This pressure drop-or head loss-is caused by friction between the fluid and the fitting wall and by creation of turbulence in the body of the fluid, The loss due to wall friction is best handled by treating the fitting as a piece of straight pipe, of the same physical length as the fitting. All common prediction methods, and the two-K method, do this. But each method predicts the remaining "excess" head loss a different way,

"

'-

Equivalent

length

The equivalent-length method adds some hypothetical length of pipe to the actual length of the fitting, yielding an "equivalent length" ofpipe (Le) that has the same totalloss as the fitting, The unfortunate drawback to this simple approach is that the equivalent length for a given fitting is not constant, but depends on Reynolds ~:rlUmber and roughness, as well as size and geometry. Therefore, use of the equivalent-length method requires consideration of all these factors. The excess head loss in a fitting is due mostly to turbulence caused by abrupt changes in the direction and speed of flow. Thus it is best to predict this loss by using a velocity-head approach.

With this background, consider a square elbow, The entering fluid experiences a pipelike frictional head loss as it llaves clown the jnlet leg, At the turn, the flow stops abruptly and starts in a new direction. Since the inlet velocity vector has no component in the outlet direction, all of the inlet kinetic energy is lost. Thus, this part of the loss in a square elbow is clase to one velocity head, The remaining losses are the frictional losses in the turn and the outlet lego The total head loss in the elbow)s the sum of the frictional and directional losses. The excess head loss (!1H) is less than the tbtal by the amount of frictional loss that would be experienced by straight pipe of the same physical length. (Of course, the actual frictional loss in the fitting will be different than the loss in a pipe.) The excess loss in a fitting is normally expressed by a dimensionless "K factor": !1H = KHd

The two- K method K is a dimensionless factor defined as the excess head

loss in a pipe fitting,expressed in velocity heads. In general, it does not depend on the roughness of the fitting (or the attached pip) or the size of the system, but it is a function of Reynolds number and of the exact geometry of the fitting. The 'two-K method takes these dependencies into account in the following equation: K =.K1/NRe where: K1 K for the fitting at NRe = 1 Koo = K for a large fitting at NRe = 00 ID Internal dia. of attached pipe, in. + K,,(l + l/ID)

Velocity head
The amount of kinetic energy contained in a stream is the velocity head. An equivalent statement is that the velocity head is the amount of potential ener'gy (head) necessary to accelerate a fluid to its flowing velocity. For example: Pressure gages on both sides of a gradual, friction-free pipe entrance would show that the pressure in the flowing fluid is lower than the pressure in the feed tank by one veloci,ty head. (This is why an eductor works.) The potential (pressure) energy of the fluid in the tank is not lost; it has been converted to kinetic energy. The number of velocity heads (Hd) in a flowing stream is calculated directly from the velocity of the stream (v): Hd

= =

How NRe and fitting size affect K

Why two Ks, when the literature usually reports a single K value? Most published K values apply to fullydeveloped turbulent flow. This is convenient because K is independent of NRe when NRe is sufficiently high. However, K starts to rise as NRe decreases toward 1,000, and becomes inversely proportional to NRe when NRe is below 100,
AUGUST 24, 1981

"-'

= v2/2g
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

96

'-

~1ead losses in pipe fittings

"\",...-

--

\......-

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

AUGUST

24,

1981

97

...' 3.,
TWO-K METHOD

..

100 '" 60 -g 40 ID
..r::

"-

' .2

~ 20
ID

"

I 1I

1 11

T :]

~
'

IIIIIII:::JI:Ii

10

",

Data pointsfor short-radiuselbows[2J, Curvo is two-K prediction, with K, = 800 and K== 0.40.

>...

---

From [3,4]

.. From [1]

Two-K method (K. [6] = 0.20) "'r..( New Crane method ,

K-factor method [5]

>.

6 4

"

~ 2 .2 -g 1.0 ID
..r:: 0.6

. ",

>.0.8 ". '. I ~0.6

~ 1.0

r- 1---

.2 0.4

'"
"' ID

0.4 0.6

..

o'

"'O

1---. ..!..I---

x w 0.2

~ (.) 0.4
.

..r:: I ~ 0.2 ID (.) x w 0.1 0.2 I I

-..'

..

0.1 10

100 Reynolds

1,000 number

10,000 (NRe)

100,000

1.0 2 4 6 810 20 Internal da. of elbow (ID), in.

40 60 80

The two-K method tits head-Ioss data tor laminar, transitional and turbulent flow

Fig.1

Size ot elbow affects K

Fig.2

" J~

""

Constants tor two-K method

Fitting type Standard (RID = 1), screwed Standard (RID = 1), flanged/welded Long-radius (RID = 1.5), all types 90 1 Weld Mitered 2 Weld elbows 3 Weld (RID=1.5) l' 4 Weld I 5 Weld (90 ,angle) , (45 angles) (30 angles) (22% angles) (18 angles)

Kl -800 800 800

-- .

Koo

...--

Elbows 45

-.

1,000 800 800 800 800 500 500 500 500

.. """ 1.15 0.35 0.30 0.27. 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.60. 0.35 0.30 I 0.70 0.40 0.80 1.00

0.40 0.25 0.20

Standard (RID = 1), all types Long-radus (R ID = 1.5), all types Mtered, 1 weld,45 angle Mitered, 2 weld, 22% angles Standard (RID = 1), screwed Standard (RID = 1), flanged/welded Long radus (RID = 1.5), all types Standard, screwed Long-radius, screwed Standard, flanged or welded Stub-in-type branch
Screwed Flanged or welded StUb-in-type branch Full lne size, {3= 1.0 Aeduced trim, {3= 0.9 Aeduced trm, {3= 0.8

Fig. 1 is a plot of K vs. NRe for short-radius elbows [2]. Note that the two-K expression, with 800 for Kl and 0.40 for Koo,fits the points accurately in all flow regimes. In this case, Kl has no effect on the predicted K at NRe above 10,000; Koois negligible below an NRe of 50. Theoretically, K should be the same for all fittings that are geometrically similar. In fact, smaller fittings are more sensitiye to surface roughness and have more abrupt changes in cross-section. Thus K is greater for smaller fittings of a given type. The l/ID correction in the two- K expression accounts for the size differences: K is higher for small sizes, but nearly constant for large sizes. Fig. 2 is a plot of K 1.5) elbows vs. pipe size data for long-radius (R/ D [1,3,4]. The salid line shows how the two-K correlation fits these points; the other liDes are correlations that will be discussed later.

/ -./

180

1,000 1,000 1,000

Recommended

values
/

Used as elbow Tees Aunthrough tee Gate, ball, plug

500
800 800 1,000 200 150 100
300 500 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,000 800 1,500 1,000

- 0.10
0.10 0.15 0.25

0.50 0.00

The table lists values of Kl and K"" derived from plots of K vs. NRe and size (similar to Fig. 1,2). The reader is encouraged to keep this and use it, because it is the heart of the two-K method. Three special cases are not listed in the table because the size correction of the two-K equation does not apply to them. The following equation applies to pipe entrances, exits and orifices:

K = Kl/ NRe + Koo

The constants are (Koo is the "classc" K):

.;

Globe, standard Valves Globe, angle or Y-type . Dlaphragm, dam type Butterfly Lift Check Swing Tilting-disk Use RID

- - .2,000 10.00
1.50 0.50
values for RID

4.00-1 2.0 2.00 0.25

1. Pipe entrances (Fig. 3): K1 160; K" 0.50 for "normal" entrance, and 1.0 for "Borda" entrance. 2,. Pipe exit: K1 O; Koo 1.0.

3. Orfice: K1 is variable; K" 2.91 (1 - (32) ((1/{34) - 1), where {3is the ratio of orfice da. to pipe inside da.
"-""

Note:

= 1.5

=5

pipe bends, 45 to 180.

Two-K vs. equivalent

length
when the equivalentand easier to use? This
..

Use appropriate tee values for flow through crosses.

Why use the two-K method length method is more familiar?

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AUGUST 24, 1981

98

s. "5-

"1:

N omenclature
'"

'--

D f fT g Hd !:lH ID K K1
Koo

Inside pipe dia., ft

Moody friction factor (f

= 64/

NRe for

laminar

flow) "Standard" friction factor for head loss in fitting Acceleration due to gravity, 32.17 ft/s2 Velocity head, ft of fluid Head loss, ft of fluid Inside pipe dia., in. Excess head loss for a fitting, velocity heads K for fitting at NRe = 1, velocity heads K for very large fitting at NRe = 00, velocity heads Length of pipe, including tings, ft physical length of fit-

Le NRe n !:lP R/ D v
(:J

Equivalent length of a fitting (Le = K D/f), Reynolds number for flow (N Re = pD V/Jl)

ft

Number of fittings of a given type Pressure drop (!:lP = p!:lH/144), psi

Bend radius of an elbow divided by inside dia. of pipe Fluid velocity, ft/s Rati of orifice dia. to pipe inside dia. Roughness of pipe wall, ft Viscosity of fluid, Ib/ft-s Density of fluid, Ib/ft3

Jl p'

Two-K
..........-

method

Form: !:lH = K Hd; K = K1/NRe + Koo(l+ l/ID) Find K for fittings: Fittings
90 elbows Tees (side outlet) Gate val ves Totals n 6 2 2 K1 800 800 500 nK1 4,800 1,600 1,000 7,400
Koo nKoo

K-factor method [5] Form: !:lH= ((./L/D) + K) lid

Find K for fittings Fittings 90 elbows Tees (side outlet) Gate val ves Exit Total Find K for straight pipe: = 0.937 (given) and exit: n 6 2 2 1 K 0.22 0.44 0.03 1.0 nK

0.20 0.80 0.15

1.20 1.60 0.30 3.10

1.32 0.88 0.06 -1.00 3.26

,
"'-"

K = 7,400/1,210,000+ 3.10(1 + 1/15.624) = 3.305

Find K for exit and straight
K

pipe: = 0.937 for pipe

= 1.0

for normal

exit; K =fL/D

K =fL/D Find head loss:

Find head loss:

!:lH = K Hd

!:lH = K Hd

= 8.15
""-'

= (3.305 +
ft

1.0+ 0.937)(1.554)

= 6.52

(3.26 + 0.937)( 1.554) ft

Old equivalent-Iength ,method [1] Form: !:lH= (fLe/D) Hd

Find equivalent lengths:
Fittings 90 elbows Tees (side outlet) Gate val ves Exit Straight Total Le Find head loss: pipe n 6 2 2 1 Le 42 89 9 89 nLe 252 178 18 89 -100 637 ft

N ew Crane method [6]

Form: !:lH= ((./L/D) + K) Hd
fT for this system is 0.013 (p. A-26) Find K for fittings and exit:

Fittings 90 elbows Tees (side outlet) Gate valves Exit

Total Find K for straight pipe:

K= 20fT K = 60fT K = 8fT

K 0.260 0.780 0.104 1.00

n 6 2 2 1

.4.328

nK 1.560 1.560 0.208 -1.00

!:lH= (fLe/D)Hd
= (0.0122X (637/1.302))(1.554)

K =fL/D Find head loss:

= 0.937 (given)

'--

= 9.28

ft

!:lH = ((./L/D) + K) Hd = (0.937 + 4.328)(1.554) = 8.18 ft

I
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AUGUST 24, 1981

99

~
TWO-K METHOD

:,!

K~ = 0.5

-; =~.~
~

I
I

Tank

Tank Inward-projecting (Borda) entrance

I
I

PiDe and fittin;s:

6 long-radius (R/D = 1.5) elbows 2O~~-:~ side-outlet6-~.~c;;; tees ~ st:nl;~-steel piDe

...

'--"""

Normal, square-edged entrance

I ~
Fig.3

~
Given {

iii r::::= . '"Ciii

~-

:. :
Fig.4

Pipe-entrance K values do not depend on diameter

Pipe layout tor examples

classic method, in which each type of fitting has one "equivalent length," is reliable for 1-6 in. carbon-steel piping in normal runs (see the dashed line in Fig. 2). In large, complex alloy systems, the method could predict head losses 1.5-3 times toa high. That means oversized pumps and a large waste of energy and capital. In laminar flow, on the other hand, it could predict head losses a whole arder of magnitude toa low. The equivalent-length, concept al so contains a booby trap for the unwary. Every equivalent length has a specific friction factor (i) associated with it, because the equivalent lengths were originally developed fram K factors by the formula Le = K D/! This is why the latest version of the equivalent-length method (the 1976 edition of Crane Technical Paper 410 [6]) properly requires the use of two friction factors. The first is the actual friction factor for flow in the straight pipe (1), and the second is a "standard" friction factor for the particular fitting (ir). Thus the two-K method is as easy to use as the updated equivalent-length method. And the results are as accurate. What about the widely-used K-factor graphs published by the Hydraulic Institute? (See [5] for a good presentation of these graphs.) The graphs are good for 1-8 in. pipe in fully turbulent flow (see dotted line in Fig. 2), but extrapolation to larger sizes can cause errors. For example, the K-factor line in Fig. 2 shows a K of 0.075 for a 36-in. elbow, but the actual K is about 0.200. Of course, these charts greatly underestimate laminar head losses, and should not be used for NRe below 10,000. Example Consider a 16-in. Sch lOS stainless-steel system as shown in Fig. 4. The system contains 100 actual ft of pipe; 6 long-radius (normal for most systems) elbows; 2 side-outlet tees; 2 gate val ves and an exit into a tank. The fluid has a viscosity of 1 cP, a specific gravity of 1, and is flowing at 10 ft/s. What is the head loss through this system? Let us first calculate and convert the given data to get the needed information: p
/l

ID = 15.624 in. for Sch lOS pipe D = 15.624/12 = 1.302 ft NRe = (10)(1.302)(62.43)/(6.72 X 10-4)

Hd = v2/2g = 102/64.34= 1.554ft of fluid

= 1,210,000'-"

from the Colebraok equation:J = 0.0122. Thus, 1 L/ D (0.0122)(100)/(1.302) 0.937 (this is the K value for the pipe itself). The four boxes (on p. 99) show how to calculate the total head loss by the two-K method and three other methods. The results: 1. Two-K method: D.H = 8.15 ft. 2. Old equivalent-length method: D.H 9.28 ft (14% high).

= 0.00005

ft for stainless

pipe,

we can find1

'"
/

3. X-factor

method:

D.H

4. Revised Crane method: D.H 8.18 ft. Note that flow was fully turbulent in this example. For laminar flow, the equivalent-length and K-factor methods would have been off considerably more.
Mark Lipowicz, Editor

6.52 ft (20%

low).

References

1. Freeman, J. R., "Experiments Upon the Flow of Water in Pipe and Pipe '--'" Fittings," American Soco of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1941. 2. Kittridge, C. P., and Rowley, D. S., Resistance Coefficients for Laminar and Turbulent Flow through %Inch Valves and Fittings, Trans.ASME, 79 (Nov. 1957), p. 1759. 3. Pigott, R. J. S., Pressure Losses in Tubing, Pipe and Fittings, Trans.ASME, 72 (July 1950), p. 679. 4. Pigott, R. J. S., Losses in Pipe and Fittings, Trans.ASME, 79 (Nov. 1957), p. 1767. 5. Simpson, L L, Sizing piping for process plants, Chem.Eng., J une 17, 1968, p. 192. 6. "Flow of Fluid through Valves," Crane Technical Paper 410, 15th printing, Crane Co., Chicago, 1976.

The author
William B.
Hooper is a Monsanto

= 1 X 62.43 = 62.43 lb/ft3 = 1 X 6.72 X 10-4 = 6.72 X

10-4 lb/ft-s

Fellow in the Corporate Engineering Dept. of Monsanto Co., 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., Sto Louis, MO 63166. He functions primarily as a processdesign consultant in the Monsanto Chemical Intermediates Co., where he is currently involved in designing a maleic anhydride planto Past assignments have included acrylonitrile, styrene, methanol and ethylene plants. Mr. Hooper holds a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the University ofOklahoma. He is a member of A.I.Ch.E. and is a registered professional engineer in Missouri.

-.1

100

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AUGUST 24. 1981

- --"