PressureDropinPipeFittingsandValves

ADiscussionoftheEquivalentLength(Le/D),ResistanceCoefficient
(K)andValveFlowCoefficient(Cv)Methods
CopyrightHarveyWilsonKatmarSoftware
October2012
If you are looking for a calculator to perform pipe sizing and pressure drop calculations please
jumptotheAioFlopage.

Contents
1.Introduction
2.Background
3.TheThreeMethodsforMinorLossDetermination

3.1Theequivalentlengthmethod(Le/D)
3.2Theresistancecoefficient(K)method
3.3Thevalveflowcoefficient(Cv)
3.4Comparisonoftheequivalentlength(Le/D)andtheresistancecoefficient(K)methods

3.4.1Effectofpipematerial
3.4.2Effectoffittingsize
3.4.3Effectofflowregime(ReynoldsNumber)
3.4.4Effectoffittingroughness

3.5Conversionsbetweentheresistancecoefficient(K)andthevalveflowcoefficient(Cv)

4.TheCrane"2frictionfactor"MethodforDeterminingtheResistanceCoefficient(K)
5.Accuracy
6.Conclusion
7.References

1.Introduction
Thesizingofpipesforoptimumeconomyrequiresthatengineersbeabletoaccuratelycalculatetheflowrates
andpressuredropsinthosepipes.Thepurposeofthisdocumentistodiscussthevariousmethodsavailableto
supportthesecalculations.Thefocuswillbeonthemethodsforcalculatingtheminorlossesinpipesizingand
toconsiderinparticularthefollowingaspects:

theadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachmethod

ReynoldsNumberandtheflowregime(turbulentvslaminar)
thefittingsize
theroughnessofthefitting
theroughnessoftheattachedpiping
convertingdatafromonemethodtoanother

2.Background
Over the years excellent progress has been made in developing methods for determining the pressure drop
whenfluidsflowthroughstraightpipes.Accuratepipesizingproceduresareessentialtoachieveaneconomic
optimum by balancing capital and running costs. Industry has converged on the DarcyWeisbach method,
whichisremarkablysimpleconsideringthescopeofapplicationsthatitcovers.
TheDarcyWeisbachformulaisusuallyusedinthefollowingform:

Equation(1)expressesthepressurelossduetofrictioninthepipeasahead(h L )oftheflowingfluid.
ThetermsanddimensionsinEquation(1)are:
hL

headoffluid,dimensionislength

Moodyfrictionfactor(alsocalledDarcyWeisbachfrictionfactor),dimensionless

straightpipe,dimensionislength

insidediameterofpipe,dimensionislength

averagefluidvelocity(volumetricflow/crosssectionalarea),dimensionislength/time

accelerationduetoearth'sgravity,dimensionislength/time2

The dimensions in Equation (1) can be in any consistent set of units. If the Fanning friction factor is used
insteadoftheMoodyfrictionfactorthenmustbereplacedby4.
In long pipelines most of the pressure drop is due to the friction in the straight pipe, and the pressure drop
caused by the fittings and valves is termed the "minor loss". As pipes get shorter and more complicated the
proportionofthelossesduetothefittingsandvalvesgetslarger,butbyconventionarestillcalledthe"minor
losses".
Overthelastfewdecadestherehavebeenconsiderableadvancesintheaccuratedeterminationoftheminor
losses,butasofnowtheycannotbedeterminedwiththesamedegreeofaccuracyasthemajorlossescaused
byfrictioninthestraightpipe.Thissituationisaggravatedbythefactthattheserecentdevelopmentshavenot
filteredthroughtoalllevelsofengineeringyet,andtherearemanyolddocumentsandtextsstillaroundthat
use older and less accurate methods. There is still considerable confusion amongst engineers over which are
thebestmethodstouseandevenhowtousethem.
Unfortunately one of the most widely used and respected texts, which played a major role in advancing the
stateoftheart,hasaddedtothisconfusionbyincludingerrorsandbadlywordeddescriptions.(Seesection4
below)
Nevertheless, by employing the currently available knowledge and exercising care the minor losses can be
determinedwithmorethansufficientaccuracyinallbutthemostcriticalsituations.

3.TheThreeMethodsforMinorLossDetermination
The3methodswhichareusedtocalculatetheminorlossesinpipesizingexercisesaretheequivalentlength
(Le/D), the resistance coefficient (K) and the valve flow coefficient (Cv), although the Cv method is almost
exclusively used for valves. To further complicate matters, the resistance coefficient (K) method has several
levels of refinement and when using this procedure it is important to understand how the K value was
determined and its range of applicability. There are also several definitions for Cv, and these are discussed
below.
ForallpipefittingsitisfoundthatthelossesareclosetobeingproportionaltothesecondterminEquation(1).
This term (v2/2g) is known as the "velocity head". Both the equivalent length (Le/D) and the resistance
coefficient(K)methodarethereforeaimedatfindingthecorrectmultiplierforthevelocityheadterm.
3.1Theequivalentlengthmethod(Le/D)
Thismethodisbasedontheobservationthatthemajorlossesarealsoproportionaltothevelocityhead.The
Le/D method simply increases the multiplying factor in Equation (1) (i.e. L/D) by a length of straight pipe
(i.e. Le) which would give rise to a pressure drop equivalent to the losses in the fittings, hence the name
"equivalentlength".Themultiplyingfactorthereforebecomes(L+Le)/D.
In the early stages of a design when the exact routing of the pipeline has not been decided, the equivalent
lengthcanbeestimatedasabroadbrushallowancelike"add15%tothestraightlengthtocoverthefittings".
However,ifthedesigniscompleteandadetailedtakeoffofthefittingsisavailableamoreaccuratecalculation
of the minor losses is possible by using experimentally determined equivalent lengths for each of the fittings
andvalves.
Ithasbeenfoundexperimentallythatiftheequivalentlengthsforarangeofsizesofagiventypeoffitting(for
example,a90longradiusbend)aredividedbythediametersofthefittingsthenanalmostconstantratio(i.e.
Le/D)isobtained.Thismakesthetabulationofequivalentlengthdataveryeasy,becauseasingledatavalueis
sufficienttocoverallsizesofthatfitting.Sometypicaldataisshowninthetablebelowforafewfrequently
usedfittings:
FittingType

Le/D

Gatevalve,fullopen

Ballvalve,fullbore

Ballvalve,reducedbore
Globevalve,fullopen

25
320

90screwedelbow

30

90longradiusbend

13

45screwedelbow

16

45longradiusbend

10

WeldedTee,thrurun

10

WeldedTee,thrubranch

60

TableofEquivalentLengthsforPipeFittings
(Cleancommercialsteelpipe)
Thisdataisforillustrationonlyandisnotintendedtobecomplete.ComprehensivetablesofEquivalentLength
Valuesforsteelandplasticpipeareavailableinanotherofourarticles.
NotethatthisfortuitoussituationofhavingaconstantLe/Dforallsizesdoesnotapplytosomefittingssuchas
entrancesandexits,andtofittingssuchaschangesindiameterandorificesbothofwhichinvolvemorethan
oneboresize.
The equivalent length method can be incorporated into the DarcyWeisbach equation and expressed in
mathematicalformas:

Notethattheexpression(Le/D)isalsomultipliedbytheMoodyfrictionfactor, because it is being treated

justasthoughitwereanadditionallengthofthesamepipe.
The pipe length, L, in Equation (2) is the length of thestraightpipeonly. Some authors recommend that L
include the flow distance through the fittings but this is wrong. The (Le/D) factor is based on the overall
pressuredropthroughthefittingandthereforeincludesanypressuredropduetothelengthoftheflowpath.
The error is small and usually well within the tolerance of the data, so trying to measure all the flow path
lengthsisjustawasteoftime,aswellasbeingtechnicallywrong.
Theapplicabilityoftheequivalentlength(Le/D) data to the laminar flow regime will be considered in section
3.4.3below.
3.2Theresistancecoefficient(K)method(sometimescalledthe"losscoefficient"method)
This method can be incorporated into the DarcyWeisbach equation in a very similar way to what was done
abovefortheequivalentlengthmethod.Inthiscaseadimensionlessnumber(K)isusedtocharacterisethe
fittingwithoutlinkingittothepropertiesofthepipe.Thisgivesriseto:

Note that in this case the sum of the resistance coefficients (K) is not multiplied by the Moody friction
factor. Early collections of resistance coefficient (K) values (for example the 3 rdEdition of Perry's Chemical
Engineers'Handbookin1950)gavesinglevaluesforeachtypeoffitting,withtheintentionthatthevaluebe
applicable to all sizes of that fitting. As more research was done it was found that in general the resistance
coefficient (K) decreased as the fitting size increased, and when the Hydraulic Institute published the "Pipe
FrictionManual"in1954thecoefficientsweregivenintheformofgraphscoveringawiderangeofsizes.
UpuntilthatpointintimethederivedKvalueswereforuseinthefullyturbulentflowregimeonly,andthe
3 rd Edition of Perry's Handbook makes specific mention of the nonapplicability of the data to laminar (or
viscous)flow.
Thevalvemanufacturer,CraneCompany,hadbeenproducingtechnicalinformationforflowcalculationssince

1935andlaunchedtheirTechnicalPaperNo.410"FlowofFluidsthroughValves,FittingsandPipe"in1942.
Since then this document has been regularly updated and is probably the most widely used source of piping
designdataintheEnglishspeakingworld.The1976editionofCraneTP410sawthewatershedchangefrom
advocatingtheequivalentlength(Le/D)methodtotheirownversionoftheresistancecoefficient(K)method.
This is widely referred to in the literature as the "Crane 2 friction factor" method or simply the "Crane K"
method.Craneprovideddataforanextensiverangeoffittings,andprovidedamethodforadjustingtheKvalue
forthefittingsize.Unfortunatelythiswelcomeadvanceintroducedasignificanterrorandmuchconfusion.The
detailsoftheCranemethod,plustheerrorandsourceoftheconfusionarediscussedseparatelyinsection4
below.
By the time the 4 thEdition of Perry's Handbook was published in 1963 some meagre data was available for
resistancecoefficientsinthelaminarflowregime,andtheyindicatedthatthevalueofKincreasedrapidlyas
the Reynolds Number decreased below 2000. The first comprehensive review and codification of resistance
coefficientsforlaminarflowthatIamawareofwasdonebyWilliamHooper(1981).InthisclassicpaperHooper
described his twoK method which included the influence of both the fitting size and the Reynolds Number,
usingthefollowingrelationship:

In this Equation K is the "classic" K for a large fitting in the fully turbulent flow regime and K1 is the
resistance coefficient at a Reynolds Number of 1. Note that although the K's and Re are dimensionless the
fittinginsidediameter(D)mustbegivenininches.
TheadvancesmadebyHooperweretakenastepfurtherbyRonDarbyin1999whenheintroducedhisthreeK
method. This is the method used in the AioFlo pipe sizing calculator. The threeK equation is slightly more
complicatedthanHooper'stwoKbutisabletofittheavailabledataslightlybetter.Thisequationis:

InEquation(5)thefittingdiameter(D)isagaindimensional,andmustbeininches.Possiblybecauseofthe
significantincreaseincomputationalcomplexityovertheequivalentlength(Le/D)andCraneKmethods,the
twoKandthreeKmethodshavebeenslowtoachievemuchpenetrationinthepipingdesignworld,apartfrom
theiruseinsomehighendsoftwarewherethecomplexityishiddenfromtheuser.Also,bothofthesemethods
sufferedfromtypographicerrorsintheiroriginalpublicationsandsomeeffortisrequiredtogetreliabledatato
enabletheiruse,addingtothehesitationforpipedesignerstoadoptthem.
ThisslowtakeupofthenewmethodsisreflectedinthefactthatHooper'sworkfrom1981didnotmakeitinto
the7 thEditionofPerry'sHandbookin1997(whichstilllisted"classic"Kvalueswithnocorrectionforsizeor
flow regime). However, it is only a matter of time until some multiK form becomes part of the standard
methodologyforpipesizing.
TheperformanceofthetwoKandthreeKmethodscanbecomparedoverarangeofpipesizesbyconsidering
waterflowingthroughastandardradius90degreeelbowataratetogiveapressuredropinstraightpipeof
thesamediameterof3psiper100ft.Forthisexercisethecoefficientsforthetwoformulasweretakenas
HoopertwoK:K1=800,K=0.25
DarbythreeK:Km=800,Ki=0.091,Kd=4.0

PipeSize
inch

2K
KValue

3K
KValue

Diff%
(2K3K)

1/4

1.096

0.743

38.4

1/2

0.715

0.574

21.9

3/4

0.593

0.516

13.8

0.501

0.463

8.0

0.379

0.392

3.3

0.336

0.355

5.7

0.315

0.333

5.7

0.293

0.304

3.9

0.282

0.287

1.7

10

0.276

0.274

0.6

12

0.271

0.264

2.6

14

0.269

0.260

3.7

16

0.267

0.253

5.4

18

0.265

0.247

7.0

20

0.264

0.242

8.4

24

0.261

0.234

11.0

30

0.259

0.224

14.5

36

0.257

0.217

17.0

TableComparingKValuesforHooper2KandDarby3KMethods
(Valuesareforstdradius90degbendinturbulentflow)
This table shows that for piping sizes between 1" and 24" as typically used in process plants the differences
between these two methods are small. What little experimental data has been published shows larger
variationsthanthedifferencesbetweenthesetwomethods,andsuggeststhatboththesemethodsareslightly
conservative.
3.3Thevalveflowcoefficient(Cv)
Asthenamesuggests,thismethodispredominantlyusedincalculationsforvalves,butaswillbeseenlaterin
this article it is easy to convert between Cvand resistance coefficient (K) values so it is possible to define a
Cvforanyfitting.
Bydefinition,avalvehasaCvof1whenapressureof1psicausesaflowof1USgallonperminuteofwaterat
60F(i.e.SG=1)throughthevalve.Sincethepressuredropthroughavalveisproportionaltothesquareof
theflowratetherelationshipbetweenCv,flowrateandpressuredropcanbeexpressedas:

Thisisadimensionalformulaandthedimensionsmustbeinthefollowingunits
Q

volumetricflowrateinUSgallonperminute

pressuredropinpsi

SG

specificgravityofliquidrelativetowaterat60F

InBritainasimilarexpressionisusedtodefineaCvwhichisgivenintermsofImperialgallons per minute,

but using the same units for pressure drop and SG as in the USA. Great care has to be taken when using
Cvvaluesfromvalvemanufacturers'catalogstoascertainwhichbasiswasusedinthedefinition.
In continental Europe valves were traditionally rated with a valve coefficient designated as Kv. This is also a
dimensionalformulaandtheunitsareasdefinedbelow:

Q'

volumetricflowrateincubicmetresperhour

P'

pressuredropinkgf/cm

SG'

specificgravityofliquidrelativetowaterat15C

However,anupdateddefinitionisalsousedinEuropewhichhasfinallybroughtthevalvecoefficientintothe
modern era with SI Units. At present this definition is not widely used, but as more and more contractual
documentsencouragetheuseofSIUnitsitcanbeexpectedtogrowinpopularity.Thiscoefficientiscalledthe
"AreaCoefficient"andiswrittenasAv.Itsdefinitionis:

Q"

volumetricflowrateincubicmetrespersecond

P"

pressuredropinpascal(N/m)

densityofliquidinkg/m

3.4Comparisonoftheequivalentlength(Le/D)andtheresistancecoefficient(K)methods
Asmentionedearlier,boththesemethodsuseamultiplierwiththevelocityheadtermtopredictthepressure
drop through the fitting. There is therefore no real difference between the two and provided that accurate
characterizingdataforthefittingisused,bothmethodscangiveequallyaccurateresults.
BycomparingEquations(2)and(3)wecanseethattheconstantsforthetwomethodsaredirectlyrelatedby:

Thus, in any specific instance where all the fluid and piping details are known it is possible to get an exact
conversionbetweentheconstantsforthetwomethods.However,whenengineerstalkofcomparingthesetwo
methods the real questions are related to how a K value or an Le/D value obtained under one set of
circumstances can be employed under a different set of circumstances. These changed circumstances relate
mainlytopipematerial,fittingsize,flowregime(ieReynoldsNumber)andtheroughnessofthefittingitself.
3.4.1Effectofpipematerial
Theroughnessofthepipingattachedtothefittinghasnoinfluenceonthepressuredropthroughthefitting.
However, because the equivalent length (Le/D) method expresses the pressure drop through the fitting in

terms of the pressure drop through the attached piping, the pipe roughness does affect the length of piping
thatwouldhaveapressuredropequivalenttothefitting.Thisisbestillustratedwithanexample:
Aflowrateof150USgpmthrougha3"globevalvewithaCvof105(USunits)wouldresultinapressuredrop
of 2.05 psi (using Equation (6)). This pressure drop would not be affected by the roughness of the pipe
attached to it. If the piping were galvanized steel with a roughness of 0.006" the pressure drop in the pipe
wouldbe2.72psiper100ft.Thelengthofgalvanizedpipingthatwouldgiveanequivalentpressuredroptothe
valvewouldbe75ft,givinganLe/Dratioof290.IfthepipingweresmoothHDPEwitharoughnessof0.0002"
thepressuredropinthepipewouldbeonly1.89psiper100ftandthelengthofHDPEpipingthatwouldgive
anequivalentpressuredroptothevalvewouldbe108ft,givinganLe/Dratioof420.
InordertobeabletousetheequivalentlengthmethodasgiveninEquation(2)theLe/Dvaluesusedshould
strictlyberelevanttotheroughnessofthepipinginuse.Inpracticethedifferencesareoftennotimportant
because of the "minor" nature of the pressure drop through the fittings. In the example given here the
differenceis44%,andifthisappliestotheminorlosswhichis(say)15%oftheoveralllosstheeffectiveerror
inthepipelinepressuredropisonly7%andthiscouldwellbewithintheoveralltoleranceofthecalculation.
Nevertheless,itisbesttobeawareofhowreportedLe/Dvalueswereobtainedandtowhatpipingtheycanbe
applied.UnfortunatelytheLe/Dvalueslistedintextsdonotusuallymentionthepipingmaterial,butinmost
casesitwillbecleancommercialsteelpipe.Theinabilityoftheequivalentlengthmethodtoautomaticallycope
withchangesinpiperoughnessisadisadvantageofthismethod.
The resistance coefficient (K) method is totally independent of the pipe roughness and the material of the
attachedpipingisirrelevantwhenthismethodisusedtocalculateminorlosses.
3.4.2Effectoffittingsize
Insection3.1itwasnotedthatithasbeenfoundthattheLe/Dratioremainsalmostconstantforarangeof
sizesofagiventypeoffitting.Ontheotherhand,itwasnotedinsection3.2thatingeneraltheresistance
coefficient(K)valuesdecreaseswithincreasingfittingsize.FortherelationshipofK/=Le/DfromEquation(9)
toapplyitmustmeanthatK/remainsconstant,orthatKandchangeatthesamerate.Thisobservation
wasthebasisoftheCraneKmethodandisdiscussedfurtherinsection4below.
When using the equivalent length method, the (Le/D) ratio is multiplied by the friction factor and since the
friction factor decreases as the pipe size increases the term (Le/D) decreases accordingly. This makes the
equivalent length method largely selfcorrecting for changes in fitting size and makes it very suitable for
preliminaryorhandcalculationswhereultimateaccuracyisnotthemaingoal.
ThebestavailablemethodavailableatpresenttoaccommodatechangingpipesizesappearstobeDarby's3K
method.Thismethodpredictsresistancecoefficientsslightlyhigherthansomeoftheolderdatathatdidtake
fittingsizeintoaccount(forexample,theHydraulicInstitute"PipeFrictionManual")butbecauseitisgivenin
algebraicformitismucheasiertouseinmodernspreadsheetsandcomputerprogramsthanthegraphicaldata
presentedintheolderdocuments.
Asanillustration,consider2"and20"longradiusbendsinacleancommercialsteelpipeline.Atfullyturbulent
flowtheresistancecoefficient(K)calculatedbytheDarbymethodwouldbe0.274forthe2"bendand0.173
forthe20".Thisisa37%decrease.IftheequivalentlengthiscalculatedfromtheseKvaluesandfromthe
Moodyfrictionfactorforcleancommercialsteelpipethenthe2"bendhasan(Le/D)valueof13.8andthe20"
bend has value of 14.0 a change of just over 1% and a strong recommendation for the equivalent length
method.

3.4.3Effectofflowregime(ReynoldsNumber)
Theearly"classic"Kvaluesweremeasuredunderfullyturbulentflowconditions.Thisistheflowregimemost
oftenusedinindustrialapplicationsanditwasanunderstandableplacetostartaccumulatingdata.Butitwas
observed that at lower Reynolds Numbers in the transition zone between Re = 4,000 and fully developed
turbulentflowtheKvaluesdidincreasesomewhat.Whentheinvestigationswereextendedintothelaminar
regimeverylargeKvalueincreaseswerefound.
Continuing with the example of the long radius bends, at a Reynolds number of 100 the Darby 3K method
predictsthatboththe2"andthe20"L.R.bendswouldhaveKvaluesof8.2.Thisisahugeincreaseoverthe
turbulentflowsituation.Itshouldberememberedthoughthatinthelaminarflowregimevelocitiestendtobe
verylow,makingthevelocityhead(v2/2g)lowandsincethepressuredropiscalculatedastheproductoftheK
valueandthevelocityhead,theeffectoftheincreaseinKispartiallyoffsetandthepressuredropcanbelowin
absoluteterms.
Again,theequivalentlengthscanbecalculatedfromtheseKvaluesandtheMoodyfrictionfactorstogivean
(Le/D)ratioandthisturnsouttobe12.8forbothbends.Thissmallchangeinthe(Le/D)ratiocomparedwith
thosefoundinsection3.4.2,despitesuchalargechangeinReynoldsnumber,furtherreinforcestheequivalent
lengthmethodasaveryusefultechniqueforpreliminaryandnonmissioncriticalcalculations.
Thereisanotherconsiderationoftheflowregimethatarisesoutofengineeringconvention,ratherthanfrom
fundamentals. Strictly, the velocity head (the kinetic energy term in the Bernoulli equation) should be
expressedas(v2/2g).Thecorrectionfactor,,isrequiredbecausebyconventionthevelocityistakenasthe
averagevelocity(i.e.v=flowrate/crosssectionalarea).Inreality(averagevelocity)2isnotequalto(average
ofv2)andthecorrectionfactorisusedtoavoidhavingtointegratetogetthetrueaverage.Inturbulentflow
isverycloseto1andinlaminarflowithasavalueof2.
It was stated in section 2 above that to calculate the pressure drop in straight pipe the velocity head is
multipliedbythefactor(L/D).ThereisnointheDarcyWeisbachformula(Equation(1)),sowhatdowedo
for laminar flow? The answer is that by engineering convention the effect of is absorbed into the friction
factor.Wecouldincludeanduseafrictionfactorthatisonlyhalftheusualvalue,buttokeepthearithmetic
easyisabsorbedintothefrictionfactor,,andthevelocityheadistakenas(v2/2g).
A similar thing is done with the resistance coefficients (K values) for pipe fittings. We define the K values to
includethevalueofjusttokeepthearithmeticeasy.
Thereisoneexceptionwhenitcomestominorlosses.Whatisoftencalledthe"exitloss",butwhichismore
accuratelytheaccelerationloss,isthekineticenergyinthestreamissuingfromthedischargeofthepipe.This
energyislostandisequaltoonevelocityhead.Thereisnowayofgettingawayfromitthathereyouhaveto
usethecorrectvalueoftogetthe"exitloss"correct.TheonlyalternativewouldbetodefineittohaveaK
valueof2inlaminarflow,butitwouldthenappearthatinlaminarflowyoulose2velocityheads.
Inpracticethisisusuallynotimportant.Inlaminarflowthevelocityislowenoughthatonevelocityheadis
insignificantandevenifdoubledwithanvalueof2,itisstillinsignificant.TheKvaluesoffittingsinlaminar
flowcangointothehundreds,oreventhousands,andonemeaslylittle2.0isn'tgoingtobotheranybody.
3.4.4Effectofthefittingroughness
The main causes of the pressure losses in pipe fittings are the changes in direction and cross sectional area.
Bothofthesechangesresultinaccelerationofthefluidandthisconsumesenergy.Therewillofcoursebesome
influenceofthefrictionbetweentheinnersurfaceofthefittingandthefluidonthepressuredropthroughthe

fitting,butitneedstobeseenincontext.StickingwiththeexampleoftheL.R.bend,theflowpaththrough
thebendcanbecalculatedtobeapproximately2.5timestheinsidediameterofthepipe.
Theequivalentlengthofalongradiusbendisusuallytaken(perhapsabitconservatively)as16.Iftheoverall
pressuredropisequivalenttoapipelengthof16diameters,andthepressuredropduetotheactualflowpath
length(whichisaffectedbytheroughness)isequivalenttoonly2.5diametersthenitcanbeseenthatasmall
changeinthewallfrictioninsidethebendwillhaveaverysmalleffectonthetotalpressuredrop.Inahigher
resistancefittinglikeaglobevalveorstrainertheeffectofthefrictionisevenless.
Experimental work on flow in bends has shown that the roughness does have a measurable impact on the
pressure drop. But the experimental work also shows that there are measurable differences in the pressure
dropthroughsupposedlyidenticalfittingsfromdifferentmanufacturers.Becausethedifferencesaresmall,all
the generally accepted methods have ignored the roughness in the fitting and have rather selected slightly
conservativevaluesfor(Le/D)and(K).
3.5Conversionsbetweentheresistancecoefficient(K)andthevalveflowcoefficient(Cv)
InordertobeabletoconvertbetweenKandCvvaluesitisfirstnecessarytorearrangeEquations(3)and(6)
tobeinsimilarunits.Equation(3)isintheformofaheadoffluidwhileEquation(6)isinpressureterms.The
relationP=ghcanbeusedtobringthetwoequationsintoequivalentforms.Similarly,thevelocitytermin
Equation(3)canbesubstitutedbyvolumetricflow/areaandtheareacanofcoursebeexpressedintermsof
thepipediameter.Onceallthesetransformations,andafewunitconversions,havebeendonetherelationship
becomes:

whereDisininchesandCvisbasedonUSgallons.

4.TheCrane"2frictionfactor"MethodforDeterminingtheResistanceCoefficient(K)
ThereisnodoubtthattheCraneTP410"FlowofFluidsthroughValves,FittingsandPipe"manualhasplayeda
majorroleintheimprovementinthequalityofhydraulicdesignsforpipingoverthelast7decades.Inpointing
outsomeoftheweaknessesoftheCranemethodthissectionisnotaimedatdetractingfromtheenormous
contributionmadebyCrane,butrathertohighlightthoseareaswherethestateofthearthasadvancedinthe
meantimeandwhereengineersinvolvedinpipeflowrate,pipesizingandpipepressuredropcalculationscan
takeadvantageofmoreaccuratemethodsnowavailable.
Prior to 1976, Crane TP 410 used the equivalent length method for calculating the pressure drops through
fittings. The switch to using resistance coefficients (K) was made because they believed that the equivalent
lengthmethodresultedinoverstatedpressuredropsinthelaminarflowregime(whichispartiallytrue).
Cranefoundthatinfullyturbulentflowconditionstheresistancecoefficient(K)formanyfittingsvariedwith
pipediameteratexactlythesamerateatwhichthefrictionfactorforcleancommercialsteelpipevariedwith
diameter.ThisisshowninFigure214ofCraneTP410(1991).Infullyturbulentflowthefrictionfactor Tisa

functionof/D(i.e.roughness/diameter)only,andsinceisfixedbytheassumptionofcleancommercialsteel
pipe Tbecomesafunctionofpipesizeonly.Craneneverstatedthatlowervaluesof Tin larger pipes were
thecauseofthedecreaseintheresistancefactorK,butitiscommonforpeopletoforgetthatcorrelationdoes
notimplycausation.
Itisdifficulttounderstandwhy,butCranebelievedthattheresistancefactors(K)thatweredeterminedinthis
waywouldbeconstantforallflowratesforagivensizeoffitting.Thiswasastrangeconclusiontocometo
becausedataforlaminarflowhadstartedappearingfromaround1944,andby1963itwaswellenoughknown
andacceptedtobementionedinthe4 thEditionofPerry'sChemicalEngineers'Handbook.
Cranetookadvantageoftherelationshipbetweentheequivalentlength(Le/D)andresistancecoefficient(K)as
shown in Equation (9) above to determine the new K values from their previously determined and reported
equivalentlength(Le/D)values.The(Le/D)valuesthathadbeenaccumulatedbyCranehadallbeenmeasured
underconditionsoffullyturbulentflow,andexpressedintermsoflengthofcleancommercialsteelpipe.They
therefore used T, the Moody friction factor for fully turbulent flow in clean commercial steel pipe of the
applicablediametertoconverttheequivalentlength(Le/D)valuestoresistancecoefficient(K)values.
TheTP410manualmakesitveryclearthattheresistancecoefficient(K)valuesaretoberegardedasconstant
for all flow rates, and that only the friction factor for fully turbulent flow in clean commercial steel
pipe Tshouldbeusedintheconversionfromtheoldequivalentlength(Le/D)values.Thiswasbecausethey
believedthattheequivalentlength(Le/D)valuesthattheyhaddeterminedpreviouslywerevalidonlyforfully
turbulentflow,butthatoncetheywereconvertedtoresistancecoefficient(K)valuestheywereapplicabletoall
flows.
Althoughthelinkbetweenequivalentlength(Le/D)andresistancecoefficient(K)wasclearlystatedtobe T,
manyengineerstookittobejust,orthefrictionfactorintheconnectedpipingandtheseengineersusedthis
relationship to generate K values for use in smooth pipe and for lower Reynolds Numbers. Although both of
thesecasesareincontradictiontowhatCraneintended,oneisavalidcalculationwhiletheotheriswrong.This
istheconfusionbetweencorrelationandcausationmentionedearlier.
As was shown above in section 3.4.1, when working with smooth pipe the resistance coefficient (K) for the
fitting remains the same but the equivalent length (Le/D) changes. It is therefore wrong to take the Crane
(Le/D)valuesandusethelowerfrictionfactorinsmoothpipetogeneratealowerresistancecoefficient(K)from
Equation(9).Connectingafittingtoasmoothpipedoesnotdecreasetheresistanceofthefitting.
Ontheotherhand,itwasshowninsection3.4.3thatatlowerReynoldsnumbersboththefrictionfactorand
thefittingresistancecoefficient(K)increase,whiletheequivalentlength(Le/D)ofthefittingremainsconstant.
ItisthereforeavalidcalculationtotaketheCrane(Le/D)valuesandtousetheactualfrictionfactoratthe
lower flow rate to generate a new (higher) resistance coefficient (K) value, although this is not how Crane
intendedtheirmethodtobeused.
Inessence,CranetookEquation(2)andmodifieditbyapplyingtheactualfrictionfactor,,inthepipetothe
pipeflow(whichisobviouslytherightthingtodo)whileapplyingthefrictionfactorforfullyturbulentflowin
cleancommercialsteelpipe, T,totheequivalentlengthsofthefittings.ThisisshowninEquation(11):

ThisiswhytheCranemethodissometimescalledthe"twofrictionfactor"Kmethod.Thisalsoresultedinsome

engineers developing the misunderstanding that the T friction factor was somehow directly associated with
thefitting,andbecausethefittinghadafrictionfactoritalsohadaroughness.Youwillfindstatementslike
"Youmustnotmixthefrictionfactorforafittingwiththefrictionfactorofapipe"intheengineeringforumson
theinternet,bearingtestamenttothebeliefthatfittingssomehowhavefrictionfactors.Craneneverintended
peopletoassociatefrictionfactorswithfittings,butCrane'sintentionshavebeenmisunderstoodbymany.
Theresultoftheswitchfromtheequivalentlength(Le/D)methodtotheresistancecoefficient(K)methodwas
(apartfromtheconfusioncaused)thatwhilethe(Le/D)methodmayhaveoverstatedpressuredropsslightlyin
the laminar flow regime, the new constant K value method horribly understated them. The examples in
sections3.4.2and3.4.3showhowtheresistancecoefficient(K)foraL.R.bendcanincreasefromaround0.2
to 8.2 when the Reynolds Number drops to 100. Fortunately this error is usually not significant in practice
becausethepressuredropsthroughthefittingstendtobeasmallpartoftheoverallpressuredrop,andalarge
errorinasmallportionbecomesasmallerroroverall.
WhenCranefirstpublishedtheirpipingdesignguidelinesin1935,industrialpipingwasmanufacturedalmost
exclusivelyfromcarbonsteelandtheCranemethodswereaimedatprovidingreliabledesignmethodsforthat
pipe. Also, the overwhelming majority of industrial pipe flow is in the turbulent flow regime. Crane certainly
succeeded in establishing a comprehensive and accurate design method for turbulent flow in steel pipe. In
moderntimeswiththeeverincreasinguseofsmoothplasticandhighalloypipeitisessentialthatengineers
fully understand the design methods they use, and that they employ the right method for the problem at
hand.Therightmethodsareavailableinthe2Kand3Kresistancecoefficientmethodsdiscussedearlier,and
itistimeforthepipingdesignworldtobreakwiththepastandtoembracethenewmethods.

5.Accuracy
Muchofwhathasbeensaidabovecouldbeseentoimplythatdeterminingthepressurelossesinpipefittingsis
anexactscience.Itisnot.Veryfewsourcesofequivalentlength(Le/D)orresistancecoefficient(K)valuesgive
accuracyoruncertaintylimits.AnotableexceptionistheHydraulicInstitute'sEngineeringDataBook.Atthe
verybesttheuncertaintywouldbe10%andingeneral25to30%isprobablyamorerealisticestimate.
Standardfittingslikeelbowsandteesvaryfrommanufacturertomanufacturerandatoleranceof25%should
beassumedincalculations.Precisionengineereditemslikecontrolvalvesandmeteringorificeswillofcourse
have much tighter tolerances, and these will usually be stated as part of the accompanying engineering
documentation.
Anareathatneedsparticularcareisusinggenericdataforproprietaryitems.Manyofthedatatablesinclude
valuesforproprietaryitemslikegate,globe,butterflyandcheckvalves,strainersandthelike.Theactualflow
datacanvaryverywidelyandvariationsof50%to+100%fromgenericdatacanbeexpected.

6.Conclusion
Atsomepointinthepasttheequivalentlength(Le/D)methodofdeterminingthepressuredropthroughpipe
fittingsgainedthereputationofbeinginaccurate.ThiswasquitelikelyaresultofCranedroppingthismethodin
favour of the resistance coefficient (K) method. Recently this attitude has changed in some circles, and
hopefullytheanalysisdoneabovewillhelpconvincemoredesignengineersthattheequivalentlength(Le/D)
methodisactuallyveryusefulandsufficientlyaccurateinmanysituations.However,thismethoddoessuffer
fromtwoseriousdrawbacks.Thesearethenecessityofdefiningthepressuredroppropertiesofthefittingin
terms of an arbitrary external factor (i.e. the attached piping) and the inability of this method to cope with
entrances,exitsandfittingswithtwocharacteristicdiameters(e.g.changesindiameterandorifices).Forthese
reasonstheresistancecoefficient(K)methodisthebetterroutetoaccurateandcomprehensivecalculations.

Darby's3Kmethodhasthecapabilityoftakingthefittingsizeandtheflowregimeintoaccount.Thequantity
ofdataavailableisgraduallyincreasingandisnowroughlyequivalentinscopetotheCraneTP410database.
AlreadysomeofthehigherendsoftwarehasswitchedtousingDarby'smethod,anditcanbeexpectedthat
withtimeitwillbecomemorewidelyused.
ThedatainCraneTP410remainsaveryvaluableresource,butitshouldbeusedwithanunderstandingofits
rangeofapplicability.Fortunatelythisdataisatitsmostaccurateinthezoneoffullyturbulentflow,whichis
where most piping operates. The errors introduced by this method when the flow rate is below the fully
turbulentregimecanbelargerelativetothelossesinthefittingsthemselves,butsincetheseareoftenasmall
partoftheoveralllossestheerrorsareofteninsignificant.Asalways,anappreciationfortheaccuracyofthe
methodsbeingemployedenablestheengineertoachieveasafeandeconomicaldesign.

7.References
CraneCo.FlowofFluidsThroughValves,FittingsandPipe.TechPaper410,1991
Darby,R.ChemEngJuly,1999,p.101
Darby,R.ChemEngApril,2001,p.127
Hooper,WB.ChemEngAug24,1981,p.97
HydraulicInstitute,PipeFrictionManual,NewYork1954
HydraulicInstitute,EngineeringDataBook,2 nded,1991
Perry,JH."ChemicalEngineers'Handbook",3 rded,McGrawHill,1950
Perry,RHandChilton,CH."ChemicalEngineers'Handbook",4 thed,McGrawHill,1963
Perry,RHandGreen,DW."ChemicalEngineers'Handbook",7 thed,McGrawHill,1997