2017 Technical Paper 6

Technical Paper #6
Method for Determining

Best Economic Pipe Size for
Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Robert A. Sterling, P.E.

Ammonia Refrigeration Foundation
Abstract
Economic pipe size is an important factor in project design and analysis for any piping system. In the
industrial ammonia refrigeration industry, where energy usage by, and maintenance of, the mechanical
refrigeration system is often one of the largest operating costs, a flexible method for analysis to
minimize the total life-cycle cost of a piping system is desirable.
A method for determining a minimum header life-cycle cost has been developed to meet this need.
Through broad-based piping labor and materials data aggregated by RSMeans (a company that
aggregates construction cost data), data on energy usage by equipment in ammonia refrigeration
systems, and well-established calculations for pressure drop in piping, the method produces a series
of results that allow comparison of life-cycle costs for several pipe sizes in the same service. The
method is flexible enough to apply over a large range of conditions and pipe sizes and is suitable for
incorporating into an automatic software calculation package.
© IIAR 2017 1
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe Size for Ammonia Refrigeration Piping
Introduction
The ammonia refrigeration industry currently uses various methods to determine

appropriate pipe sizes for a given service. These range from rules of thumb to table
sizing to, in some cases, sophisticated proprietary calculation software that provides
much information regarding a selected pipe size and its performance in the specified
service.
What does not currently exist is a detailed method, based on verifiable and easily
updatable data, to look at and compare the life-cycle cost of several pipe sizes side
by side, with sufficient flexibility to fit a wide variety of circumstances. Some data do
exist, in many forms, but few are specifically applicable to ammonia refrigeration in
general, and those that are specific are based on assumptions that may or may not be
true.
In light of these circumstances, an updated method has been proposed for

determining a lowest-life-cycle-cost pipe size for ammonia refrigerant piping.
The scope of this method is applicable within a bounded set of rules, which will
be described later in this paper. The method is intended as a tool for use by the
industrial refrigeration industry where such a tool is desired and is thus intended
to be relatively simple for use by a wide audience. The approach is stepwise, and
although it involves significant data lookup and calculation, it is well suited for
performing with a computer.
History
The history of economic pipe size calculation spans the history of industrial piping
itself. A landmark work on the subject was written by Nolte and published in 1978.
This work, of course, builds on the work of others, but is essentially a compendium
of the knowledge current at the time of writing. Nolte’s approach was based on the
Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 3

2017 IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
premise that, for most metallic piping materials, costs could be scaled by assuming
them proportional to diameter to the 1.5 power, and the work cites studies from the
era that show this to be true. In the absence of the ubiquitous personal computer,
such an approach was convenient, because it allowed fairly rapid calculation without
the need for extensive knowledge of the project or system.
Life-cycle costs in Nolte’s work were based on factors that could be used to adjust
the results from the base formulas. This allowed flexibility to adjust to changing
conditions. The underlying philosophy of the method also recognized that when an
optimum lay between two pipe sizes, moving upward to the next pipe size is not
always the best choice from an economic standpoint.
Specific to the industrial ammonia refrigeration industry, Richards (1984) began

research on the topic of economic pipe size in the early 1980s. ASHRAE published
other research regarding refrigerant pipe sizing in general (not specific to ammonia;
Richards 1984) much earlier than this, but focused on pressure drop above other
factors.
Much of Richards’ efforts focused on the assertion that the installed cost of piping
is a constant and is proportional to the diameter and length of a particular section.
Thus, Richards’ method applied simple scaling, based on pipe diameter, to find
and compare installed cost of a section (1984). This was in direct contrast to
Nolte’s earlier published work. The reasons for this are not now known, but such
assumptions may prove unnecessary in the presence of the data available today.
The method considered here will avoid making any assumptions regarding scaling
through the use of published data for many pipe sizes.
4 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Need for an Updated Approach
Given the wide availability of real cost data for piping and lingering questions on
fundamental concepts in previous IIAR efforts to determine economic pipe size in
industrial ammonia refrigeration piping, an opportunity exists to investigate a data-
based approach that removes some of the assumptions from calculating an economic
ammonia refrigeration pipe size.
It was therefore determined that research be undertaken to provide such an

approach. The advantages of doing so include
• Removing some simplifying assumptions from the process of determining
economic pipe size and replacing them with data;
• Allowing a comparison to be made between the proposed data-based method and
existing results, at least for ammonia refrigeration piping specifically; and
• Allowing the ready application of such a method to the use of computers to
calculate specific results based on various inputs; this is not an extreme departure
from the previously available methods, but is certainly a necessary outcome of the
vast increase in the use of cost data over the previous methods.
With these advantages in mind the work was undertaken.
Development of the Method
The revised approach, which builds on the previous work (particularly that done by
Richards) while avoiding some of its pitfalls, uses as its basis a set of assumptions,
much like the previous work, but that rely more heavily on data to compare available
choices for pipe diameter.

The assumptions necessary to perform the analysis are laid out as follows:
1. First cost for any pipe size and schedule may or may not be linearly scalable
with pipe diameter. Therefore, data on the components of first cost are necessary
to guess the aggregated first cost of the representative pipe section accurately.
These components include the following items:
a. Metallic pipe cost, based on diameter and wall thickness;
b. Labor cost for welded piping;
c. Material and labor costs of insulation; and
d. Material and labor costs of paint and coatings (where applicable).
2. Energy consumption through pressure loss in a section of piping can be

calculated based on the inlet conditions and assumed mass flow rate through
the section. This may be similar to the approach in Richards (1984), but the
details of Richards’ analysis are not available as background to understand the
foundation of those results. The background on how the actual values for this
effort are calculated is presented in detail within this paper.
3. The present value sum of items 1 and 2 that results in the lowest present value is
the best economic pipe size.
No method can be a true and complete model for the real cost of ownership for
any particular section of pipe, but these steps represent an approximation based on
the maximum expected flow within that pipe section. Not only are conditions in
any particular section unlikely to be exactly those of the engineering analysis, but
providing more than a guess of what energy costs will be at any point in the future
is not possible. This is an inherent and unavoidable limitation of an economic pipe
size analysis. Therefore, making reasonable assumptions about ownership cost is
considered sufficient, so long as they are uniformly applied in the analysis.
With regard to first cost, other project costs might certainly skew the analysis. Items
such as varying welding techniques (Gas Metal Arc Welding vs. Gas Tungsten Arc
Welding for root pass), shop fabrication versus field fabrication, and nondestructive

examination could all affect the outcome. However, such factors differ from those
included in the analysis in that, at least at present in the refrigeration industry, they
are not considered standard for field-erected systems. In addition, their costs can vary
widely on a case-by-case basis (i.e., based on the skill of the GTAW welder, number
of joints observed using Non-Destructive Examination, [NDE], etc.). It also bears
mentioning that separate data for these particular items, based on many steel pipe
diameters and wall thicknesses, are not currently available.
Other items that are not considered in the analysis, with explanations of the decision
to exclude them, are as follow:
• Pipe supports (including wind and seismic bracing)
• The range in support techniques and costs is too vast to encompass within the
scope of the analysis. The adequacy of any support arrangement is affected by
a huge number of factors that can’t be envisioned at the level of granularity
involved in sizing a pipe. Industrial refrigeration headers are rarely supported
in a single-pipe-single-support arrangement.
• Varying pipe size by one standard size up or down is unlikely to appreciably
affect budgetary costs for piping supports and would likely not show up as a
measurable impact on cost.
• Valves
• Header piping in typical industrial ammonia plants does not contain a
significant number of valves, if any, other than those in isolating accumulator
and recirculator vessels, which are outside the scope of the analysis.
• Energy users other than pumps and compressors
• Costs for running air units and condensers, while pertinent in an overall
system cost analysis, will have little or no bearing on an individual economic
pipe size compared with that of the compressor and pump energy.
• Identification for piping
• The number and type of labels used in industrial refrigeration piping varies
widely based on location (roof vs. indoors) and arrangement and is assumed
not to be a controlling factor for a general pipe sizing analysis of adjacent-size
piping comparisons.

The listed items are not expected to skew the analysis in any appreciable way based
on a single stepwise change in pipe size.
With these framework assumptions in place, and assuming that sufficient data can be
obtained for those items included for consideration, then a straightforward analysis
becomes possible. This analysis consists of determining the listed material and
labor costs and summing these with cost of energy, as a net present value, absorbed
throughout the lifetime of the system by a section of piping (through pressure
loss). This sum can be compared with that calculated for adjacent pipe sizes so
that the user can see the net present cost of ownership of the section of piping is in
comparison with other sizes and choose the best one.
Of course, economic pipe size based on the listed factors cannot replace specific
engineering analysis for the project. The method demonstrated here is only intended
to help in determining the proper sizing of horizontal header piping. Branch piping,
vertical risers, and the like are subject to other constraints with regard to pipe size.
The following considerations should be observed when using the analysis:
1. The inputs provided by a user to obtain a result based on economic pipe size
cannot guarantee a working system. Where considerations other than simple
operating cost based on maximum load weigh more heavily on the design,
engineers must attend to these considerations. Operation of the process,
available pressure drop, future flexibility of the plant, and a host of other factors
can affect the final choice of pipe size for any given header.
2. A means to determine whether or not to decrease pipe size based on a smaller

design load downstream of a branch takeoff in the header is not available with
the level of detail proposed here. This is a complex notion depending on how
the reduction is to be constructed and the cost of associated labor and materials.
The method cannot provide guidance to determine how to proceed in such cases.
Information is available in Nolte (1978), but may be antiquated.

3. The proposed method does not determine whether the section being analyzed
is appropriate for the design pressure, design temperature, and arrangement to
ensure that allowable stresses in accordance with the applicable piping code
are not exceeded. Engineers should be cautious in analyzing only sections
appropriate for the intended service.
4. While pipe sizes selected through use of this method are typically within normal
acceptable limits for flow, pipe sizes may be economically attractive while being
subject to hammer, erosion, choked flow, or cavitation. The user must evaluate
such conditions separately.
Prior to demonstrating the analysis method, some expanded commentary on the

guiding principles of the analysis is appropriate. The following details are pertinent to
explaining the exact approach undertaken here:
• Material cost and labor hours for welded piping:
• The RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data Book contains data for
welded steel water distribution piping, in ASTM A53/ASTM A106 and 304
SS materials. While the way that individual refrigeration contractors manage
quality and inspection is unknowable, the case is made here that water
distribution piping, which would presumably fall under the purview of ASME
B31.9-2008, is quite similar to ammonia piping with respect to how the latter
is fabricated using ASME B31.5-2013 rules. In fact, many contractors that weld
ammonia refrigerant piping and hot and cold water utility water piping use
the same procedures and assembly techniques for both. In addition, chilled
water piping for refrigeration falls under the requirements of ASME B31.5, and
such piping is likely aggregated into the RS Means numbers. Requirements
for welded piping in ASME B31.9 are well aligned with those in ASME B31.5,
with the only major difference being acceptance of defects where a small
amount of lack of fusion is acceptable under ASME B31.9, but no lack of
fusion is acceptable in ASME B31.5. Both standards handle weld preparation,
tacking, etc., in the same way, and both require visual examination only.
These data are therefore considered appropriate for industrial ammonia piping

in accordance with ASME B31.5. In addition to this reasoning, the notes in RS

Means specifically state that any mechanical discipline (including heating and
air conditioning) can use the piping data.
• Carbon steel and 304 stainless steel pipes are the only materials considered.
• Material pricing and labor hours in RS Means represent a national average,
which is in the interest of the analysis (the intent is that the analysis be
general, industry-wide, and for the United States).
• RS Means numbers on labor may be somewhat conservative when considering
long, branchless header runs, as welds (or threaded couplings) are assumed
to be on 10 ft centers instead of the 20 ft centers common in industrial
refrigeration systems. However, when considering typical runs of piping
containing branches, the extra welds can account for those real-world piping
arrangements and so are deemed appropriate here.
• Labor hour values have embedded in them the handling, setting, preparation,
and fitting costs, which can vary based on pipe schedule. The available
data are broken down by pipe schedule, so these numbers can be accurately
referenced and little or no extrapolation is necessary. Numbers used in the
analysis will reflect the absence of pipe supports (raw numbers include clevis
supports, but factors are provided for removing these component costs).
• Insulation costs:
• The RS Means data book also provides piping insulation data for mechanical
piping. While the insulation types common in industrial refrigeration
(polystyrene and polyisocyanurate) are not specifically listed, data are
available for calcium silicate, which, for the purposes of this paper, has
been chosen as a substitute in the absence of other data. These data, along
with additional cost and labor data for aluminum jackets (vinyl will not
be considered because most header piping is located outdoors and uses
aluminum jacket), will be used to provide cost comparisons for insulation.
The information is presented in the RS Means data book with limited size
ranges for insulation thickness. Therefore, while this will neither provide a
solution sensitive to temperature and thickness suitable for every user, nor

allow individual users to tailor their insulation costs to high degree, it avoids
complexity and error in attempting to parse out the insulation costs to a fine
level of detail, for which most users will not be willing to sacrifice ease of use.
• Ammonia properties will be obtained from REFPROP version 9.12 (Lemmon, et al,
2013).
• Energy rates are used as an input to the calculation only as a simple, average $/
kWh rate. Considerations such as demand charges are assumed to be built into
this average rate.
• The charge per kWh is also not adjusted year over year for inflation in this
analysis. This may or may not reflect future energy costs, which are unknowable.
• Concerning pressure drop, installation labor, pipe material costs, and insulation
costs, the analysis considers a 100-ft section of pipe. This fixes the number of
welds and the section length and allows an equal comparison of two or more
sizes.
• Net present value is compounded annually.
• Compressor energy has been calculated using the following assumptions:
• Oil-flooded screw compressor,
• Externally oil cooled, and
• No suction or discharge superheat or pressure drop.
These assumptions were used with two manufacturers’ software programs
to generate energy curves based on the brake-horsepower per ton (BHP/TR)
values for various suction temperatures. The results have been averaged, and a
mathematical equation generated to allow BHP/TR calculations to be performed
within the analysis and used to generate energy penalties based on varying
pressure drops. A saturated condensing temperature of +85°F (for ammonia,
not considering other refrigerants) is used as an average value. In a range of
+75°F to +95°F saturated condensing temperature, BHP/TR results for a
range of suction temperatures, when compared with an assumed condensing
temperature of +85°F, have a maximum of +20% error at 95°F and -18% error
at 75°F for a single-stage (no economizer) compression process and a maximum
of +10% at +95°F and -8.4% at +75°F for two-stage intercooled arrangement

at a fixed intermediate temperature of +20°F. These results suggest that the use
of an average condensing temperature is appropriate within the accuracy of the
calculations. See Table 11 in the Appendix for compressor horsepower values
that may be used with suction temperatures for this analysis and for curve fits
suitable for use in a software package. Note that curve fits are based on the ratio
of suction to discharge pressure, not temperature.
• Compressor motor efficiency has been assumed at 95%.
• Power consumption for liquid lines is based on calculated hydraulic horsepower
at the given operating temperature divided by an assumed pump efficiency (60%)
and motor efficiency (95%).
• Given that safety factors would be uniformly applied as a multiplier for a total
unit cost of ownership for each pipe size, which would only serve to exaggerate
calculated differences, safety factors are not considered.
Analysis
With this explanation of background materials complete, the analysis can be

demonstrated. As mentioned previously, a stepwise approach is used. It is described
as follows.
Step 1 – Define analysis parameters
The following parameters are required for input to the analysis:
1. Mass flow rate: This can be either directly input or determined from mass
flow required for a particular heat absorption and service (evaporator suction,
compressor suction, liquid feed, compressor discharge, etc.);
2. Flow type:
a. Liquid,

b. Vapor, or
c. Two-phase (with overfeed rate specified by user);
3. Pipe material;
4. Energy cost (per kWh);
5. Hours of operation per year;
6. Labor cost (per hour); and
7. Assumed rate of inflation (on a yearly basis).
These inputs form the basis of any calculation for optimum pipe size.
Step 2 – Size the baseline case (pressure drop and power consumption)
Determine an appropriate baseline size based on a guess for allowable pressure

drop in a horizontal header. For this analysis, this baseline is determined using the
following limits:
1. For liquid piping, less than or equal to 2.00 psi drop through a 100-ft section of
piping;
2. For vapor and two-phase piping at temperatures above -20°F, less than or equal
to 0.50 psi pressure drop through a 100-ft section of piping; and
3. For vapor and two-phase piping at temperatures at or below -20°F, less than or
equal to 0.25 psi pressure drop through a 100-ft section of piping.
Note that these baseline limits do not always provide for a base case that is within
one size of the most economical pipe size for the service, but this is heavily
dependent on usage, energy rates, and system life, the combination of which is
difficult to correct for on the front end of the analysis.

header. For 6.
this Labor cost
analysis, (per
this hour); ias nd
baseline determined using the following limits:
7. Assumed rate of inflation (on a yearly basis).
1. For liquid piping, less than or equal to 2.00 psi drop through a 100-‐ft section of piping;
These
2. For inputs
vapor and form the basis
two-‐phase of any
piping at ctemperatures
alculation for aobove
ptimum pipe
-‐20°F, size.
less than or equal to 0.50 ps
pressure drop through a 100-‐ft section of piping; and
Step
2017 IIAR 2 – Size
Natural the baseline
Refrigeration Conferencecase &(pressure
Heavy Equipmentdrop Expo,
and pSan ower Antonio, consumption)
TX
3. For vapor and two-‐phase piping at temperatures at or below -‐20°F, less than or equal to 0.
Determine an appropriate baseline size based on a guess for allowable pressure drop in a h
pressure drop through a 100-‐ft section of piping.
header. For this analysis, this baseline is determined using the following limits:
Note that these baseline limits do not always provide for a base case that is within one size of the m
Liquid 1. For liquid piping, less than or equal to 2.00 psi drop through a 100-‐ft section of pip
economical pipe size for the service, but this is heavily dependent on usage, energy rates, and syste
2. For vapor and two-‐phase piping at temperatures above -‐20°F, less than or equal to
life, the combination of which is difficult to correct for on the front end of the analysis.
pressure drop through a 100-‐ft section of piping; and
Liquid pressure Liquid
drop is based on vpure
3. For apor aliquid flow, without
nd two-‐phase piping at flashing.
temperatures Liquid at or flow is-‐20°F, less than or eq
below
determined by first using
Liquid the dColebrook
pressure pressure equation
drop
rop is based otn
hrough ato find
100-‐ft
pure liquid flow, sthe friction
ection factor,
of pflashing.
without iping. ƒ. The
Liquid flow is determined by fir
Colebrook equation
using has
the Cthe form:equation to find the friction factor, 𝑓𝑓. The Colebrook equation has the form:
olebrook
Note that these baseline limits do not always provide for a base case that is within one size
economical
" pipe size
+ for the service, but this is heavily dependent on usage, energy rates, a
1.2"
=
life, t −2
he c log ,
ombination
"* +f which is (1)
o (1)
difficult to correct for on the front end of the analysis.
# -./ 34 #

Where Where Liquid
Liquid pressure drop is based on pure liquid flow, without flashing. Liquid flow is determine
𝑓𝑓 using tis
he the friction feactor
Colebrook quation to find the friction factor, 𝑓𝑓 . The Colebrook equation has the
ƒ is the friction 𝜖𝜖 factoris the pipe roughness (in units of length)
+
ε is the pipe roughness
D (inpipe
is t"he units of length)
diameter (in same
1.2"units as roughness)
= −2 log"* , +
D is the pipe Re
diameteris t(in he
# R eynolds
same units number
-./ roughness)
as 34 #
Re Note that tnumber

is the Reynolds he Colebrook equation is implicit for the friction factor, f. Despite this, it is the most wid
Where
used equation for finding the friction factor and is suitable for all Reynolds numbers (Lindeburg 200
Note that the Colebrook 𝑓𝑓

equation
The Colebrook isis implicit
requires
the friction
forfactor
the calculation the of tfriction factor,
he Reynolds ƒ. Despite
number for the fthis,
low in itquestion. The Reyno
𝜖𝜖 is the pipe roughness (in units of length)
number
is the most widely usedis equation
the ratio ofor
f inertial
finding forces
theto friction
viscous ffactor
orces and
and is gisiven by
suitable for all
D is the pipe diameter (in same units as roughness)
Reynolds numbers (Lindeburg 89:2001).
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =Re is the Reynolds number (2)
;
Note that the Colebrook equation is implicit for the friction factor, f. Despite this, it is the m
The Colebrook requires the ecalculation
Where used of thethe
quation for finding Reynolds number
friction factor and ifor the flow
s suitable for ain
ll Reynolds numbers (Linde
question. The Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and is
The Colebrook requires the calculation of the Reynolds number for the flow in question. Th
given by number is the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and is given by
8
89:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = ;
(2)
Where
Where
P is the density 8
v is the velocity in the pipe
D is the “hydraulic diameter,” in this case the pipe diameter
M is the dynamic viscosity

Ρ
is the density
𝑣𝑣 is the velocity in the pipe
D is the “hydraulic diameter,” in this case the pipe diameter
Both the Reynolds number Μ
and
the friction factor are dimensionless. The user must
is the dynamic viscosity
be careful to employ units that are consistent and that cancel to ensure the correct
results. Ρ is the dBoth the Reynolds number and the friction factor are dimensionless. The user must be careful to
ensity
𝑣𝑣 is the vunits that
elocity in athe
re cponsistent
ipe and that cancel to ensure the correct results.
Flow in a D
pipe is is
a tspecial
he “Flow
hydraulic
in a pdipe
case iameter,”
of the in this
is a sReynolds
pecial case
case of tthe
number, he Rpeynolds
ipe
and diameter
number,
where theand
mass where
flow the m
isass flow is known, it ca
Μ is the drewritten
ynamic viscosity
as follows:
known, it can be rewritten as follows:
Both the Reynolds number and the friction
ABCCDEFG factor are dimensionless. The user must be careful to employ
:∙ ∙8
,I ∙J
units that are consistent and that cancel
H∙ to ensure L∙MNOO#PQR
the correct results.
(3)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = K
= (3
; ;∙8∙S

Flow in a pipe is a special case of the Reynolds number, and where the mass flow is known, it can be
As isrewritten
apparentas from follows: As is apparent
Equation (3), the from Equation
pipe diameter(3), the
must pipe be
diameter
estimated must bto
e ecalculate
stimated to a calculate a Reynolds n
Reynolds number. ThisThis ABCCDEFG
complicates the
complicates the method
method bby
y forcing
forcing an aan
dditional
additional calculation, but is necessary to begin the a
calculation,
:∙ ∙8
,I ∙J
but is necessary to begin the analysis. H∙ As an example,
L∙MNOO#PQRassume a header pipe is required to carry 400 tons of refrigeration (TR) of +0°F
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = = K
(3)
; ;∙8∙S recirculated ammonia liquid at a 3:1 overfeed rate. The properties of ammonia in Table 1 apply.
As anAs example, assume
is apparent a header
quation (3), tpipe is required
he pipe diameter mtoust
carry 400 tons
be estimated to of
from ETable 1. Properties of saturated liquid ammonia at +0°F refrigeration
calculate a Reynolds number.
(TR) This
of +0°F recirculated
complicates ammonia
the method liquid
by forcing at a 3:1calculation,
an additional overfeed brate. ut is nThe properties
ecessary to begin of
the analysis.
ammonia in Table 1 apply. Temperature (°F) 0.0
As an example, assume a header pipe is required to carry 400 tons of refrigeration (TR) of +0°F
Saturated pressure (psi) 30.40
recirculated ammonia liquid at a 3:1 overfeed 2 rate. The properties of ammonia in Table 1 apply.
Liquid density (lb/ft ) 41.34
Temperature (°F) 0.0
Liq. dynamic viscosity (lbm/ft-‐s)
Table 1. Properties of saturated liquid ammonia at +0°F 1.402e-‐04
Saturated pressure (psi) 30.40
Liq. enthalpy (BTU/lb-‐R) 112.61
Liquid density (lb/ft
Temperature (°F) ) Vapor enthalpy (BTU/lb-‐R)
2
41.34 0.0
681.39
Liq. dynamic
Saturated viscosity (lbm/ft-s)
pressure (psi) 1.402e-04 30.40
Liq. enthalpy (BTU/lb-R)
Liquid density (lb/ft2) 112.6141.34
VaporLiq.
enthalpy
dynamic (BTU/lb-R) As a f irst
viscosity (lbm/ft-‐s) g uess f or p ipe 1.402e-‐04
681.39 diameter, assume that a 2 in. schedule 40 pipe is chosen. The internal di
of this pipe is 2.067 in. With this information and that in Table 1, calculating the Reynolds numb
Table 1.Liq. enthalpy
Properties of(BTU/lb-‐R)
saturated liquid ammonia at +0°F 112.61
possible. The mass flow can
Vapor enthalpy (BTU/lb-‐R) be calculated as follows:
681.39
1**^_` Pc Pc
As a first guess for pipe diameter, assume
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = that a 2 in.
400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇× schedule
× 40 pipe is chosen.
×3 = 421.96
Mab∙_3 de".-fg""1.d" ^_` Mab
The internal
As a first gdiameter of dthis
uess for pipe pipe ais
iameter, 2.067
ssume in.a With
that this information
2 in. schedule and that
40 pipe is chosen. The iin Tablediameter
nternal
of this pipe the
1, calculating is 2.067
Reynolds The
in. WRith
eynolds
number number can
this information then
and
is possible. be
that
The in cmass
alculated
Table 1flow per Equation
, calculating
can bethe (R3).
eynolds nas
calculated umber is
possible. The mass flow can be calculated as follows:
follows: 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×421.96
1**^_`𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅×= Pc 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Pc = 370,786
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇× 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×3 = 421.96 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
Mab∙_3 de".-fg""1.d" ^_` Mab
0.0001402 ×2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
The Reynolds number can then be calculated per Equation (3).
With the Reynolds number determined, the pipe roughness provides the final piece of informati
needed to determine the friction 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×421.96 factor. For steel pipe, the average roughness is 0.0002 ft (0.002
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 370,786
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
Technical Paper #6 9 0.0001402 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠© ×2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖×
IIAR 2017
12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
×𝜋𝜋×
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
15

With the Reynolds number determined, the pipe roughness provides the final piece of information
Vapor enthalpy (BTU/lb-‐R) 681.39

As a first guess for pipe diameter, assume that a 2 in. schedule 40 pipe is chosen. The internal diameter
of this pipe is 2.067 in. With this information and that in Table 1, calculating the Reynolds number is
possible. The mass flow can be calculated as follows:
1**^_` Pc Pc
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇× × ×3 = 421.96
Mab∙_3 de".-fg""1.d" ^_` Mab
The
The Reynolds
Reynolds number
number canbe then
can then be calculated
calculated per(3).
per Equation Equation (3).
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×421.96
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 370,786
0.0001402 ×2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
With the Reynolds number determined, the pipe roughness provides the final piece of information
needed
With tthe o determine
Reynolds the
numberfriction factor.
determined,For steel the
pipe,
pipe the aroughness
verage roughness
provides is 0.0002 ft (0.0024
the final piece in.).
of information needed to determine the friction factor. For steel pipe, the average
9
roughness is 0.0002 ft (0.0024 in.).

0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1 2.51
= −2 log"* 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
𝑓𝑓 3.7 371,315 𝑓𝑓
1
With f implicit in the equation, calculating 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2.51
= −2 logt"* he friction factor
+via the Colebrook equation requires an
iterative p rocess. T his i s d one 𝑓𝑓
b y f irst s lightly r 3.7 the equation
ewriting 371,315 i n t 𝑓𝑓
he f orm:
With ƒ implicit in the equation, calculating the friction factor via the Colebrook
equation requires an iterative process. This is done by first slightly
g1 rewriting the
With f implicit in the equation, calculating the 0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
friction factor via the Colebrook equation requires an
equation in the form:𝑓𝑓 = −2 log 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 2.51
iterative process. This is done by first slightly
"* rewriting the equation in the form:
3.7 371,315 𝑓𝑓
g1
A friction factor can now b𝑓𝑓e g=uessed 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2.51
−2 (log start with
"*
0.02) and
+plugged into the right side of the equation.
3.7
The next step is to solving for f on the left side, then use the 371,315 𝑓𝑓 back into the right side and
result to plug
continue this process until the error is within acceptable limits (four significant figures is assumed
acceptable
A in this
friction factor case).
can now be guessed (start with 0.02) and plugged into the right side of the equation.
The next step factor
A friction is to solving
can now for f obe
n the
guessedleft side,
(startthen uwith
se the
0.02) result and
to plug
pluggedback into
into the the
right
right side side
and
Performing this iteration, the liquid friction factor is revealed to be 0.02109. With this information,
continue
of the equation.this process The until next
the error
stepis iswithin acceptable
to solving for lƒimits
on (the four left
significant
side, then figures is athe
use ssumed
result
calculating the liquid pressure drop in a 100-‐ft section of piping is now possible.
acceptable in this case).
to plug back into the right side and continue this process until the error is within
The Darcy equation
acceptable limits is (four
commonly used to cfigures
alculate isfriction loss for liquid laminar athis
nd turbulent flow
Performing this iteration, the significant
liquid friction assumed
factor is revealed to bacceptable
e 0.02109. Win
ith this icase).
nformation,
(Lindeburg 2001). It has the form of
Performing #w9 I
this iiteration, the liquid friction factor isfor
revealed to be a0.02109. With this
The ℎ#e=
Darcy quation s commonly used to calculate friction loss liquid laminar (4)
nd turbulent flow
18x
information,
(Lindeburg calculating
2001). theof liquid pressure drop in a 100-ft section of piping is now
It has the form
Where
possible.
#w9 I
ℎ# = (4)
hf 18x
is the head loss (in length dimensions)
𝑓𝑓 is the friction factor
Where
L is the equivalent length of the pipe section
hf
𝑣𝑣 is the hvelocity
ead loss (in length dimensions)
16 D
𝑓𝑓 is the fpriction
ipe diameter
factor © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6
g
L is the eacceleration due to
quivalent length of gtravity
he pipe section
𝑣𝑣 is the velocity
D is the pipe diameter
371,315 𝑓𝑓
g1
g1
0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2.51
A friction factor
2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓 =be 2.51
can now g−2
uessed
log"* (start 2.067𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
with 0.02) +and plugged into the right side of th
𝑓𝑓 = −2 log"* + 3.7 371,315
The next step 3.7
is to solving
371,315for f on t𝑓𝑓
he left side, then use the result 𝑓𝑓
to plug back into the r
continue this process until the error is within acceptable limits (four significant figures is a
A friction
Method for Determining Best Economic Pipe factor cfor
Sizein
acceptable an now
Ammonia
this be gRefrigeration
case). uessed (start Piping
with 0.02) and plugged into the right side of the eq
A friction factor can now be guessed (start with 0.02) and plugged into the right side of the equation.
The next step is to solving for f on the left side, then use the result to plug back into the right
The next step is to solving for f on the left side, then use the result to plug back into the right side and
Performing
continue this iteration,
this process until the tehe liquid
rror is wfithin
riction factor is rlevealed
acceptable to b
imits (four e 0.02109.
significant With tihis
figures inf
s assu
continue this process until the error is within acceptable limits (four significant figures is assumed
calculating
acceptable the
in this liquid pressure drop in a 100-‐ft section of piping is now possible.
case).
acceptable in this case).
The Darcy equation is commonly used to calculate friction loss for liquid laminar and
The Darcy
Performing equation
this iteration, is tche
ommonly used to
liquid friction calculate
factor friction to
is revealed loss
be f0or liquid W
.02109. laminar and
ith this turb
informa
Performing
turbulentthis
flowiteration,
(Lindeburg the liquid
2001). friction
It fhas
actor
theis revealed
form of to be 0.02109. With this information,
(Lindeburg
calculating the l2iquid
001). pIressure
t has the form
drop in oaf 100-‐ft section of piping is now possible.
I
The Darcy equation
#w9 is c ommonly used to calculate friction loss for liquid laminar and turbulen
ℎ# = friction

The Darcy equation is commonly used to calculate
18x l (4)
oss for liquid laminar and turbulent flow
Where #w9 I
Where #w9 I ℎ# =
ℎ# = hf
18x (4)
18x is the head loss (in length dimensions)
hf is the head loss (inWhere length 𝑓𝑓dimensions)
is the friction factor
Where
ƒ is the friction factor hf L is the equivalent length of the pipe section
is t he
is hthe
ead loss (in length dimensions)
velocity
ofd𝑣𝑣imensions)
hf is the head loss (length
in length
L is the equivalent 𝑓𝑓 the pipe fsection
D is the riction factor
𝑓𝑓 is the friction factor is the pipe diameter
v is the velocity L g is the e quivalent length doue
f tthe
L is the equivalent length of the pipe sis the acceleration
ection o gpravity
ipe section
D is the pipe diameter 𝑣𝑣 is the velocity
𝑣𝑣 is the velocity
is the pipe diameter D
g is the acceleration due to gravity is the pipe diameter
D
The v elocity
is tm ust be calculated to dgetermine
ravity friction loss. Using the mass flow, pipe diam
is the acceleration due g
he acceleration due to
g to gravity
density, velocity can be calculated as
The velocity must be calculated to determine friction loss. Using the mass flow, pipe
L∙yNOO#PQR "
diameter, and density, velocity can be
The velocity
𝑣𝑣m= calculated
ust ∙ as to determine friction loss. Using the mass flow, pipe diamete
be cIalculated
The velocity must be calculated to determine friction
8 lS oss. Using
: the mass flow, pipe diameter, and
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
L∙yNOO#PQR " 4×421.96 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
L∙yNOO#PQR " 𝑣𝑣 = ∙ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 7.291
𝑣𝑣 = ∙ 8I S : 𝑣𝑣 = × = 438.0
(5)
I 8 S : (5) 1
0.02967𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×𝜋𝜋 41.34𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 above flow of 400
For the TR at 3:1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
4×421.96 recirculation 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 rate in a 100-‐ft
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 section of 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
pipe, the frictio
4×421.96 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑣𝑣 = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 438.0 = 7.291
𝑣𝑣 = be 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × = 438.0 = 7.291
1
0.02967𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×𝜋𝜋 41.34𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
0.02967𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 ×𝜋𝜋 41.34𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
For t10 he above flow of 400 TR at 3:1 recirculation rate in a 100-‐ft section of pipe, the friction lo
For the above flow of 400 TR at 3:1 r ecirculation rate in a 100-‐ft section of pipe, the friction loss would
be
be
For the above flow of 400 TR at 3:1 recirculation rate in a 100-ft section of pipe, the
friction loss would be 10
10

𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29 )
ℎ# = 𝑠𝑠 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 1
𝑠𝑠
The Darcy equation produces a result with dimensions of length, which must be converted to pressure.
Head
Theloss can bequation
Darcy e converted to pressure
produces loss via with
a result Equation (6),
dimensions of length, which must be
converted
∆𝑝𝑝 = to pressure. Head loss can be converted to pressure loss via Equation
ℎ ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔 (6) (6),
#
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1

∆𝑝𝑝 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34 ×32.2 × × = 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑠𝑠 1 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
Notice that in U.S. customary units, an additional factor to correct for lbf vs. lb is required. Clearly, as a
baseline case of 2 psi/100 ft, a 2 in. pipe is undersized. The process must be repeated with 2 1/2 in.
diameter pipe, the results of which show a calculated pressure drop of 1.161 psi. This pressure fits the
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29)
ℎ# = 𝑠𝑠 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
2017 IIAR2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2
Natural Refrigeration𝑠𝑠Conference
1 & Heavy Equipment Expo, San Antonio, TX
The Darcy equation produces a result with dimensions of length, which must be converted to pressure.
Head loss can be converted to pressure loss via Equation (6), 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29 )1
ℎ# = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑠𝑠 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29 ) 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
∆𝑝𝑝 = ℎ# ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔 ℎ# = 𝑠𝑠 = 2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2
10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (6) (6)
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑠𝑠 1
2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 11
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 equation 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 roduces 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ a𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 result w 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1dimensions of length, which
∆𝑝𝑝 = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34 - ×32.2 1p× The D arcy × ith 0.02109×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(7.29
1
= 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 must be converted to
)
The Darcy equation produces Head 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
loss cw
a result an be
ith 𝑠𝑠
dimensions 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
converted oto ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
f lpength,
ressure 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
ℎ#which =loss vmia ust Equation
be converted (6), to 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 p𝑠𝑠ressure. = 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Head l oss c an b e c onverted t o p ressure l oss v ia E quation ( 6), 2×0.17225𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 1
Notice that in U.S. customary units, an additional ∆𝑝𝑝 = ℎ# ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔 factor to correct for lbf vs. lb is required. Clearly, a𝑠𝑠s a
baseline case o
Notice f that
2= psi/100
ℎin U.S. ft, acustomary
2 in. pipe is uunits, ndersized. additional The process factor must be torepeated wfor ith 2lbf 1/2 in. lb
∆𝑝𝑝 # ×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔 The Darcy an equation produces a result correct with dimensions vs. (6) is which must be conve
o1f length,
diameter pipe, the results of which show a calculated pressure drop of 1.161 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 psi. This 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓pressure 𝑠𝑠 the 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙fits
required. Clearly, as a baseline Head case loss of
∆𝑝𝑝 can
= 2 b10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34
e converted
psi/100 ft, ato 2pressure
in.- pipe ×32.2 loss
is 1vundersized.
ia
× Equation (6), The
× = 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
criterion of being the smallest pipe size with a p𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ressure drop 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 less 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1or e𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
than qual 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓to 1 2 p 𝑠𝑠si per 100 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
process must∆𝑝𝑝 be=repeated 10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34
equivalent ft, and thus 2 1/2 in. pipe is chosen 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
with 2 1/2 in.base
×32.2
as -∆𝑝𝑝
the =
diameter ×
1case. pipe, × the results of which show
= 2.91𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
ℎ#𝑠𝑠×𝜌𝜌×𝑔𝑔 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
a calculated pressure drop Notice of that 1.161 in U.S. psi. customary
This pressure units, an fits additional the criterion factor to of correct
being for the
lbf vs. lb is required. Cle
This pNotice
ressure drop in cU
an bsizee used baseline
to caalculate caase of 2 psi/100
n haydraulic ft, tao
2c iorrect
n. pipe for pis ower
ulbf ndersized. Talculated
he p𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 rocess must be
a repeated
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 with 2 1
smallest that pipe .S. customary
with units,
pressure drophless
dditional orsepower.
factor
∆𝑝𝑝 than
= or Pump
10.132𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×41.34 equal to can
v2s. psi b bis e
l𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 rcequired.
per
×32.2 100 equivalent
×
p𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
er
Clearly, ∙ 𝑠𝑠a1s
× = 2.91𝑝𝑝
Equation (7). case of 2 psi/100 fdiameter
baseline t, a 2 in. ppipe ipe,
is tuhe results of The
ndersized. which show maust
process calculated
be 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - pressure
repeated 1 d232.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
w𝑠𝑠ith rop
1/2 oif n.
1∙.161
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 p144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
si. This
1 pressure
ft, and thus 2 1/2 in. pipe is chosen as the base case.
diameter pipe, the results ocriterion f which sohow f being the smallest
a calculated pipe sdize
pressure rop woith f 1a.161
pressure
psi. This drop less than
pressure otr he
fits equal to 2 psi per 10
∆Ä×yNOO#PQR
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃o=
criterion f being t:he smallest equivalent Notice
pipe size t hat
ft, waith i n
nd at hus U .S. c ustomary
2 1/2 din.
pressure rop pipe u nits,
is tchan
less hosen a n a dditional
or eaqual
s the to base f actor
p(7)
case.
2 psi t o
er 100 c orrect for lbf vs. lb is requ
This pressure
equivalent ft, and drop thus 2can 1/2 ibe n. pused baseline
ipe is cto case
calculate
hosen as othe
f 2 bphydraulic
si/100
ase ft, a horsepower.
case. 2 in. pipe is undersized. Pump power The process can must be repeated
Using the This p ressure
diameter d rop c an
, power pconsumption b e u sed
ipe, the results t o c alculate
in tohe
f w1hich h
00-‐ft show ydraulic h orsepower.
a calculated
section of p2ressure P ump
1/2 in. drop power
of 1c.161
an bpe si.
calculaThis
be pcalculated
reviously calculate per Equation information (7). sample
piping This
is pressure drop can be used to ccriterion Equation ( 7).
alculate hoydraulic f being thhe orsepower.
smallest pPipe ump power
size with ac an be calculated
pressure drop less per than or equal to 2 ps
Equation (7). equivalent ∆Ä×yNOO#PQR ft, and thus 2 1/2 in. pipe is chosen as the base case.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1 = (7)
1.161 1 ×421.96
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∆Ä×yNOO#PQR 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 : ℎ𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = × This 1pressure × d× rop can be used =to calculate h=
0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝 ydraulic
0.03858𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 horsepower. (7) Pump power can b
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙: 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
41.34 - Using the p reviously c alculate i nformation
𝑠𝑠 consumption in the 100-ft sample sample section o
, p ower c onsumption i n t he 1 00-‐ft
Equation (7). 550
Using the previously 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 calculate information , power
Using the previously calculate piping is
information , power consumption in the 100-‐ft sample section of 2 1/2 in.
section
This result of 2 1/2 in. piping
is its he ideal hydraulic horsepower consumed is 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃by
∆Ä×yNOO#PQR
=this section o f piping. It must be divided by
piping :
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
the assumed efficiencies of the pump, motor, a1.161 nd power f actor
×421.96 t o give the true e1stimated
144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 consumption ℎ𝑝𝑝
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 Using = t he p reviously c alculate ×
i nformation × , p ×
ower c onsumption = 0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 0.038
of power at the meter. 1.161 1 ×421.96 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 60𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 in the 100-‐ft sample
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 piping × is 1 × 41.34 × - = 0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 0.03858𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 550
𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
41.34 is t-aken to be 6𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
For this analysis, pump efficiency 0%. Motor efficiency 550 is taken to be 95%. The actual
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑠𝑠
power consumption then becomes This result is the ideal h1.161 ydraulic 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙horsepower 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙consumed 1by this section of piping. It must be div
×421.96
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ℎ𝑝𝑝
This result is the ideal hydraulic the ahssumed orsepower 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
efficiencies = of tb
consumed he
y tphis ump, s𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 motor,
ection of ap× nd power
iping. I1t m ×fust
actor
b t×
e d o ivided
give 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓the rue =
by ∙ t𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝
estimated con
ÑQR4Ö
41.34 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
𝑃𝑃
the =
Éassumed
efficiencies of of power
thydraulic
he pump, at m the
otor, meter.and p ower factor 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 to - give (8) 550
This result
η η Ñà á A is the ideal horsepower consumed by tthis he true section estimated consumption
of piping. It 𝑠𝑠
of
must power beat divided
the meter. by the assumed
For this aThis
nalysis, efficiencies
result pump
is the
of theis pump,
efficiency
ideal hydraulic taken to motor,
be 60%. and
horsepower cM
power
otor
onsumed
factor
efficiency
by this is
to too f bpe
taken
section 95%. It Tm
iping. heu
Where
give
For this the true estimated
analysis, consumption
power
pump efficiency ics onsumption
taken
the to bof
assumed epower
e 6then at ethe
bMecomes
0%. otor
fficiencies meter.
officiency
f the is taken
pump, to bae
motor, nd 95%. The
power actual
factor to give the true estim
ηpower
Ä c Pump e
onsumption fficiency
t hen b ecomes of p ower a t t he m eter.
ÑQR4Ö
ηMFor Motor e fficiency 𝑃𝑃É =
this analysis, ÑQR4Ö pump efficiency áisAtaken to be 60%. Motor efficiency is taken to be
η η Ñà
PF 𝑃𝑃Power
É = η Fηactor (typically taken For ats his
1) analysis, pump efficiency is taken to be 60%. Motor efficiency is taken to be 9
(8)
95%. The actual á A Ñà power consumption then becomes
Where power c onsumption t hen b ecomes
Where ÑQR4Ö
11 ηÄ Pump
𝑃𝑃É =efficiency

ηá ηA Ñà (8)
ηÄ Pump efficiency ηM Motor efficiency
ηM Motor efficiency PF Where
Power Factor (typically taken as 1)
PF Power Factor (typically taken as 1)
18 ηÄ© IIAR Pump
2017 efficiency Technical Paper #6
11 ηM Motor efficiency
11

Where
ηp Pump efficiency
ηm Motor efficiency
0.05173ℎ𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃É = = 0.091ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 0.06768𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.6×0.95

This is the power consumed in this section of piping at full load. It can be used, along with the system’s
estimated
This is the usage
power and lifetime,
consumed to calculate
in thisasection
net present value of at
of piping the
full energy
load. consumed
It can be in tused,
he section
over t he l ife o f t he s ystem i n S tep 3 .
along with the system’s estimated usage and lifetime, to calculate a net present value
of the energy consumed in the section over the life of the system in Step 3.
Vapor
Pressure drop in vapor lines incurs an energy cost at the compressor, much like liquid line pressure drop
incurs a pump energy penalty. This requires a pressure drop calculation for vapor lines, very similar to
that of liquid.
Vapor
Vapor lines differ from liquid in that the fluid is compressible. The Darcy equation is considered
adequate
Pressurein drop cases in
where
vapor the lines
pressure
incurs drop an is <energy
10% of the
cost absolute
at theinlet pressure and
compressor, much the Mlike ach number
is
liquid<0.3 (Lindeburg
line pressure 2001). drop
However,
incursconsidering
a pumpthe flow limits
energy penalty.established previously
This requires afor vapor lines
pressure drop
(limits on pressure drop to 0.5 psi/100 ft in vapor lines above -‐20°F and 0.25 psi/100 ft in vapor lines -‐
calculation for vapor lines, very similar to that of liquid.
20°F and below), the Darcy equation will provide satisfactory results down to a temperature of
approximately -‐80°F, arguably well below industrial refrigeration applications for ammonia.
Vapor lines differ from liquid in that the fluid is compressible. The Darcy equation
Note that pure vapor flow will be based on saturated (suction) and superheated (discharge) conditions,
is considered adequate in cases where the pressure drop is <10% of the absolute
again using the Colebrook equation to find the friction coefficient, f. The process of determining
inlet pressure and the Mach number is <0.3 (Lindeburg 2001). However, considering
pressure drops in vapor lines then becomes quite similar to that in liquid lines.
the flow limits established previously for vapor lines (limits on pressure drop to 0.5
Table 2. Saturated ammonia vapor properties at -‐30°F
psi/100 ft in vapor lines above -20°F and 0.25 psi/100 ft in vapor lines -20°F and
below), the Darcy
Temperature (°F) equation will provide-‐30
satisfactory results down to a temperature
Saturated
of pressure (-80°F,
approximately psia) arguably well below
13.89 industrial refrigeration applications for
3
Density (lb/ft )
ammonia. 0.05268
Enthalpy (btu/lb) 670.10
Dynamic viscosity (lbm/ft-‐s) 5.390E-‐6
Note that pure vapor flow will be based on saturated (suction) and superheated
Entropy (btu/lb-‐R) 1.581
(discharge)ated (for suction)
Const. pressure specific heat
and conditions,
0.51768
again using the Colebrook equation to
(BTU/lb-‐R) (60°F, 14.7 psia)
Const. volume specific heat 0.39217
(BTU/lb-‐R) (60°F, 14.7 psia)

Using the same process discussed under the liquid piping calculation, the pressure drop can be
determined for a vapor flow. In this case, assume a mass flow rate of 350.0 lb/min of saturated vapor
find the friction coefficient, ƒ. The process of determining pressure drops in vapor
lines then becomes quite similar to that in liquid lines.
Temperature (°F) -30

Saturated pressure (psia) 13.89
Density (lb/ft3) 0.05268
Enthalpy (btu/lb) 670.10
Dynamic viscosity (lbm/ft-s) 5.390E-6
Entropy (btu/lb-R) 1.581
Const. pressure specific heat 0.51768
(BTU/lb-R) (60°F, 14.7 psia)
Const. volume specific heat 0.39217
(BTU/lb-R) (60°F, 14.7 psia)
Table 2. Saturated ammonia vapor properties at -30°F
Using the same process discussed under the liquid piping calculation, the pressure
drop can be determined for a vapor flow. In this case, assume a mass flow rate
of 350.0 lb/min of saturated vapor generated in a bank of flooded blast cell coils
being fed with +0°F pumped liquid (corresponding to a heat absorption rate in the
evaporator of 977.2 TR). To initiate the calculation, Reynolds number, friction factor,
and velocity are determined using the information listed in Table 2 for saturated
ammonia vapor at -30°F. The initial guess of pipe size is given as 12 in. standard
weight, which has an internal diameter of 12.0 in. (1.0 ft). The Reynolds number is
calculated from Equation 3.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1,377,965
0.000005390 ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
Following Reynolds number, the friction factor f is determined using Equation 1 (starting with an
estimate
Following of 0.02,
Reynolds three iterations
number,are sufficient
the friction to factor
find the f ais
nswer in this case).
determined using Equation 1
(starting with an estimate of 0.02, three iterations are sufficient to find the answer in
1 2.51
this case). = −2 log"* 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + , 𝑓𝑓 = 0.01445
𝑓𝑓 3.7 1,377,965 𝑓𝑓

20 The velocity is determined next using Equation
© IIAR 5: 2017 Technical Paper #6
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑣𝑣 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × = 8,459 = 140.99
1 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 4×350 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1,377,965
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 0.000005390 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠 = 1,377,965
Method for Determining Best Economic 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 Size for Ammonia
Pipe ×𝜋𝜋×
1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓Refrigeration 60𝑠𝑠 Piping
0.000005390 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ×𝜋𝜋× 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Following Reynolds number, the friction factor f is determined using Equation 4×350 1 (starting with an
Following Reynolds number, the friction factor f is d𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 etermined
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
using Equation 1 (starting with an = 1,377,965
estimate of 0.02, three iterations are sufficient to find the answer in this case). 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 60𝑠𝑠
estimate of 0.02, three iterations are sufficient to find the 0.000005390 answer in this case). ×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× ×𝜋𝜋×
1 0.0024𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 2.51
1 = −2 log"*Following 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
4×350
Reynolds + number,
2.51 the friction
, 𝑓𝑓 = f0.01445
actor f is d etermined using Equation 1 (starting w
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =𝑓𝑓 = −2 log"* 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =0.01445
1,377,965
3.7 + 1,377,965
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 of 0.02, three 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
estimate 𝑓𝑓 , 𝑓𝑓 =
re sufficient to f ind the answer in this case).
iterations a60𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓 0.000005390 3.7×12.0𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖× 1,377,965 ×𝜋𝜋× 𝑓𝑓
1 2.51
Following R eynolds n umber, t he f riction f actor
The velocity is determined next using Equation 5: f i s d = −2 log"* 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
etermined u sing E quation 1 (starting
+ with an , 𝑓𝑓 = 0.01445
The The velocity
velocity
estimate of 0is isthree
determined
determined
.02, next
next using
iterations using Equation
are sEufficient
quation 5to 𝑓𝑓 5:
: find the 3.7
answer in this case). 1,377,965 𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
4×350 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓-- 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑣𝑣 = 4×350
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 8,459 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 140.99 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
1 𝑣𝑣 = 11 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚×𝜋𝜋 12.00𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
× 0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 2.51
= 8,459 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =, 140.99 𝑠𝑠
= −21log 1The
1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓"* ×𝜋𝜋 velocity is d+etermined n𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓 E=
ext using 0.01445
𝑠𝑠 5:
quation
𝑓𝑓 3.7 1,377,965 𝑓𝑓
As a final check of the adequacy of the Darcy equation, the Mach number, the ratio of the actual velocity
As a final check of the adequacy of the Darcy equation, the Mach number, 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 the ratio o-f the actual velocity
to the speed of sound in the fluid, a, is checked to ensure that it 4×350
is less t𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
han or equal 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 to 0.3. To simplify 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
As
to the sfinal
peed ocheck
f sound in the
the adequacy
fluid, a, is checked tDarcy
o ensure 𝑣𝑣 =it is 1less
that than ×
or equal =the
to 0.3. T8,459 implify = 140.99
o sratio
the caalculation, the aof ssumption of ideal gof as the
behavior is uequation,
sed, allowing the
1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×𝜋𝜋 1t Mach
he M ach number,
n
0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 umber t o b e a djusted
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
The cvalculation,
the elocity is dtetermined
he assumption next ouf sing
ispeed
deal Equation
gas behavior 5: is used, allowing the Mach number to be adjusted
of theonly
based actual velocity
on absolute to the
temperature from of the sound
reference. in the The fluid,
speed o a,f sisound
checked in an ideal to ensure
gas is that
based only on absolute temperature As f𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
rom the
a final reference.
check of the Tahe speed oof f tshe
dequacy ound in aen quation,
Darcy ideal gas is Mach number, the ratio of the
the
it is less than or equal to 4×3500.3. To simplify- the calculation, the assumption of ideal gas
â3 ∗ _ _å to the speed
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓of sound in the f𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 luid, a, is checked 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 to ensure that it is less than or equal to 0.
behavior 𝑎𝑎 = is â3used, ∗_ _ 𝑣𝑣 = 1 the
allowing 1 Mach × number=to8,459 be adjusted = 140.99 based
only on absolute (9)
𝑎𝑎 = yã _ å 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 the ×𝜋𝜋calculation,
0.05268𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 the assumption 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚of ideal gas b𝑠𝑠ehavior is used, (9) allowing the Mach number t
temperatureyã from_the reference. based The only speed
on absolute of sound in an ideal
temperature from gas the ris eference. The speed of sound in an ideal g
As a final check of the adequacy of the Darcy equation, the Mach number, the ratio of the actual velocity
Where
Where
to the speed of sound in the fluid, a, is checked to â3 ensure
∗_ _åthat it is less than or equal to 0.3. To simplify
K is t he r atio o f s pecific h eats a𝑎𝑎t t=he r eference t (9)
emperature, 5M 20 ach
R number to be adjusted
the calculation,
K is tthe
he aratio
ssumption o f s of ideal
pecific h gas
eats a btehavior
t he r yã is u_sed,
eference t allowing the
emperature, 5 20 R
R* is the universal gas constant, 1.986 BTU/lbmol-‐R
based only on is
R* absolute
t he u temperature
niversal g as c from the
onstant, 1 reference.
.986 B The speed of sound in an ideal gas is
TU/lbmol-‐R
MW is the molecular weight Where of the gas
Where MW is t∗he molecular weight of the gas
T is
â3the _ r_ eference temperature, 520 R
å
T 𝑎𝑎 = is the reference temperature, K 520 Ris the ratio of specific heats at the reference t(9) emperature, 520 R
TA Is
yã the absolute
_ temperature of the flowing vapor
T isIs the
the aratio
bsolute oftspecific
emperature R* of the flowing vapor gas
In Kthis case, the heats as atis
the the reference
universal constant, 1.986
temperature, 520 BTU/lbmol-‐R
R
A
speed of sound is calculated
Where
In tR*
his case, the s peed o f s ound
is the universal gas constant, 1.986 i s c alculated MW a s is the mBTU/lbmol-R
olecular weight of the gas
T is t he r eference temperature, 520 R
MWK isis the
the rmolecular
atio of specific
0.51768 weight 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵of
heats at tthe gas
he reference temperature,
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 520 R
0.51768 ×1.986 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 T ×520𝑅𝑅×778.17
Is the absolute 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓t𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
emperature
∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 430𝑅𝑅 of the flowing 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓vapor
T R* 𝑎𝑎isis
=the 0.39217
the ureference
niversal ×1.986 temperature,
gas 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙A ∙1𝑅𝑅.986
constant, 520 R
BTU/lbmol-‐R
×520𝑅𝑅×778.17 × = 1,288
0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
In this ∙ 𝑅𝑅 the 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 430𝑅𝑅 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙case, 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙speed
∙ 𝑠𝑠 of sound
1 is calculated
× 520𝑅𝑅as = 1,288 𝑠𝑠
TA MW 𝑎𝑎Is= is the
the m absolute
olecular wtemperature eight 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
17.03 of 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
the g×as of the
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠flowing
1 vapor 520𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠
17.03 × 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
T is the reference temperature, 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 520 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙R ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
TA 0.51768 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Is the absolute temperature of the flowing vapor ×1.986 ×520𝑅𝑅×778.17
In this
The Mach case,number theof speed
the vapor of sound
flow is tis hen calculated
determined as as
0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 430𝑅𝑅 = 1,288
The Mach
In this number
case, of the
the speed of vsound
apor filow
s calculated s 𝑎𝑎 =
is then daetermined as 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 520𝑅𝑅
140.99 17.03 ×
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑀𝑀 = 140.99 = 0.109
0.51768 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑀𝑀 = 1,288 = 0.109 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
×1.986 1,288
×520𝑅𝑅×778.17 430𝑅𝑅 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑎𝑎 = 0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
The Mach ∙ 𝑅𝑅number of the vapor 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 flow × is then determined
= 1,288 as
This result is well below the 0.3 maximum 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 Mach 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 number ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 for applying these 520𝑅𝑅 equations. 𝑠𝑠
This result is well below the 0.3 17.03 maximum Mach × number for applying these equations.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 140.99
13 𝑀𝑀 = = 0.109
13 1,288

The Mach number of the vapor flow is then determined as
This result is well below the 0.3 maximum Mach number for applying these equations.
140.99
𝑀𝑀 = = 0.109
13 1,288

is the molecular weight of the gas
T is the reference temperature, 520 R
TA Is the absolute temperature of the flowing vapor
In this case, the speed of sound is calculated as
0.51768 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
×1.986 ×520𝑅𝑅×778.17
𝑎𝑎 = 0.39217 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 430𝑅𝑅 = 1,288 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 520𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠
17.03 ×
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
140.99
𝑀𝑀 = = 0.109
1,288
This result is well below the 0.3 maximum Mach number for applying these
13

equations.
The pressure drop can then be determined in the section using Equation 4 multiplied
The pressure drop can then be determined in the section using Equation 4 multiplied by the density and
by the density and gravitational acceleration.
gravitational acceleration.
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.01445×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(140.99 ) 32.2 1
∆𝑝𝑝 = ℎ# 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 = 𝑠𝑠 ×0.05268 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 × 𝑠𝑠 1 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 0.1633𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
2×1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 32.2
𝑠𝑠 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
The pressure drop ics an acceptable

then be dtetermined
o the baseline criterion
in the section fu or pressure
sing Equation drop (although
4 m ultiplied tbhe
y tche
alculation
density ais nd
not shown
gravitational
The pressure here, 1drop
0 in. pisipe
acceleration. does not allow
acceptable to the for abaseline
0.25 psi ocriterion
r less pressure
for pressuredrop in the drop
100-‐ft sample
(although
section), and therefore 12 in. pipe is the baseline size for the mass flow and temperature in question.
the calculation is not shown here, 10𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓in. pipe does not allow for 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 a 0.25 psi or less
0.01445×100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×(140.99 )1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
pressure
Note
∆𝑝𝑝 t=hat ℎ#t𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌drop
he in the
p=revious 100-ft sample
calculation 𝑠𝑠 ×0.05268
is for a ssection),
aturated and therefore
suction line. ×The m12 𝑠𝑠 1 fpipe
in.
ethod or
× is the=baseline
calculating pressure
0.1633𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
drop
sizein for a sthe
uperheated
mass flow discharge
and ltemperature
2×1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×32.2 ine would be exactly the same, using
in question. 32.2superheated properties for
𝑠𝑠 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
ammonia.
The pressure drop is acceptable to the baseline criterion for pressure drop (although the calculation is
Note
The thatconsumption
power the previous calculation
difference for this ispressure
for a saturated suction
drop can then line. The
be calculated method
using for
the pressure
not shown here, 10 in. pipe does not allow for a 0.25 psi or less pressure drop in the 100-‐ft sample
ratios
calculating of the nominal
pressure and drop
reduced in sauction
superheatedpressure, discharge using the curve
linefits
would shown be in texactly
he notes the for Tsame,
able
section), and therefore 12 in. pipe is the baseline size for the mass flow and temperature in question.
11. A ssuming a n o
using superheated properties for ammonia.verall 8 5°F c ondensing t emperature ( 166.51 p sia) t he d ifference c an b e c alculated as Deleted:
Note that the previous calculation is for a saturated suction line. The method for calculating pressure
g*.2*"f g*.2*"f
drop i𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
n a superheated 13.89line
discharge − 0.1633 would be exactly he same, u13.89
t0.53567 sing superheated 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 properties for
=
The power consumption difference 0.53567 −
for this pressure drop can then be𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ×977.2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
calculated
ammonia. 166.51 166.51
using the pressure=ratios 10.84ℎ𝑝𝑝 of =the8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
nominal and reduced suction pressure, using the
The
curve fits shown in the notes forthis
p ower c onsumption d ifference f or Table pressure
11. Assuming drop can then anboverall
e calculated 85°F using the pressure
condensing
As w ith t he p ump p ower f or r ecirculated l iquid, t his m ust b e d ivided
ratios of the nominal and reduced suction pressure, using the curve fits shown in the notes for b y t he a ssumed s ystem efficiency
T able
temperature
of t he d rive m (166.51
otor, h ere apsia)
ssumed the
a t difference
0 .95. can be calculated as
11. Assuming an overall 85°F condensing temperature (166.51 psia) the difference can be calculated as Deleted:
8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
13.89 − 0.1633 g*.2*"f= 8.509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 13.89 g*.2*"f 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 0.95 − 0.53567 ×977.2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
166.51 166.51 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
This section of piping c=auses an increase
10.84ℎ𝑝𝑝 in power consumption in the system, as shown above. This can
= 8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
be used in later steps to provide a net present value of the increased power consumption over the life of
As with the pump power for recirculated liquid, this must be divided by the assumed system efficiency
the system that can be compared with that of other sizes.
of the drive motor, here assumed at 0.95.
22 Note that although the given information 8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 f©
or IIAR
the f2017
low lists +0°F as the intermediate temperature,
Technical Paper the #6
power consumption listed assumes +20°F. This difference is considered acceptable and should not be
= 8.509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.95
interpreted as skewing the analysis, both because the error is not particularly large (Jekel and Reindl
2008) and because
This section all ccauses
of piping ompared pipe sizes
an increase in w ill be u
power sed with the isn ame
consumption the scystem,
orrelations.
as shown above. This can
ammonia.
The power consumption difference for this pressure drop can then be calculated using the pressure
ratios of the nominal and reduced suction pressure, using the curve fits shown in the notes for T able
11. Assuming an overall 85°F condensing temperature (166.51 psia) the difference can be calculated as Deleted: Table
13.89 − 0.1633 g*.2*"f 13.89 g*.2*"f
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 − 0.53567 ×977.2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
166.51 166.51 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
= 10.84ℎ𝑝𝑝 = 8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
As with the pump power for recirculated liquid, this must be divided by the assumed
As with the pump power for recirculated liquid, this must be divided by the assumed system efficiency
system efficiency of the drive motor, here assumed at 0.95.
of the drive motor, here assumed at 0.95.
8.084𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
= 8.509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.95
This section of piping causes an increase in power consumption in the system, as shown above. This can
be
This used in later of
section steps
piping to provide
causes a net
anpresent value
increase inopower
f the increased
consumptionpower consumption
in the system,over tas
he life of
the system that can be compared with that of other sizes.
shown above. This can be used in later steps to provide a net present value of the
Note that although
increased powerthe given information
consumption overfor the
the flow
life oflists
the+0°F as the that
system intermediate temperature,
can be compared with the
power
that of consumption
other sizes. listed assumes +20°F. This difference is considered acceptable and should not be
interpreted as skewing the analysis, both because the error is not particularly large (Jekel and Reindl
2008) and because all compared pipe sizes will be used with the same correlations.
Note that although the given information for the flow lists +0°F as the intermediate
The aforementioned
temperature, the cpower
orrelation for energy usage
consumption listed in tassumes
he section +20°F.
is only suitable
This fdifference
or suction lines.
is
Discharge
considered acceptable and should not be interpreted as skewing the analysis,oboth
l ine e nergy a lso r equires t he u se o f s implifying a ssumptions. G iven t he c omplexity f varying
suction temperatures and discharge temperatures, an approximation is used here such that, for
because the error is not particularly large (Jekel and Reindl 2008) and because all
pressure ratios of suction to discharge less than 0.2, assume that power increases by 0.02 hp/psi. For
compared
pressure pipe
ratios sizes will
of suction be used
to discharge of with
0.2 or the same
greater, correlations.
assume that power increases by 0.01 hp/psi.
Two-‐Phase Flow
The aforementioned correlation for energy usage in the section is only suitable for
suction lines. Discharge line energy also requires the use of simplifying assumptions.
14
Given the complexity of varying suction temperatures and discharge temperatures, an
approximation is used here such that, for pressure ratios of suction to discharge less
than 0.2, assume that power increases by 0.02 hp/psi. For pressure ratios of suction
to discharge of 0.2 or greater, assume that power increases by 0.01 hp/psi.
Two-Phase Flow
The pressure drop for two-phase flow cannot be treated the same as a single-phase
flow. The accuracy of one method versus another is outside the scope of this analysis,
and rather than attempt to prove a case for which one should be used, a method has
simply been chosen and will be uniformly applied to all two-phase flows.

2017 IIAR Natural
The Refrigeration
pressure drop for tConference
wo-‐phase f&low
Heavy Equipment
cannot Expo,the
be treated Sansame
Antonio,
as a TX
single-‐phase flow. T
of one method versus another is outside the scope of this analysis, and rather than attemp
case for which one should be used, a method has simply been chosen and will be uniforml
two-‐phase flows.
The pressure drop for two-‐phase flow cannot be treated the same as a single-‐phase flow. The accur
The method presented here is that of Friedel as presented in Thome (1984). The
of one method The mvethod ersus paresented nother is o hutside
ere is tthat he socope of this
f Friedel as paresented
nalysis, and in Trhome
ather t(han attempt to prov
21984). The pressure
pressure drop is case assumed for wassumed to be
hich one tso the liquid
hould be liquid pressure
used, paressure drop
method multiplied
has m simply been by a factor, Φfr .
be the drop ultiplied by cahosen
factor, and
Φfrw 2 ill be uniformly applied
. The pressure drop due
The pressure
The drop for tdrop
pressure wo-‐phase due flow
to cannot bis
friction e tcalculated
reated the same using as aEquation single-‐phase 10. flow. The accuracy
The pressure drop for two-‐phase two-‐phase flow f
c lows.
annot
calculated b e t reated
using t he s ame a s a s ingle-‐phase f low. T he a ccuracy
of one method versus another is outside the scope oEf quation
this analysis, 10. and rather than attempt to prove a
of one method versus another is outside the scope of this analysis, and rather than attempt to prove a
case for which one should The be um ethod
sed, a mpethod resented has shimply
ere is bthat 2 ocf
een Friedel
hosen and as wpresented in Thome
ill be uniformly (1984).
applied to aTll he pressure drop is
case for which one should be used, a method ∆𝑝𝑝 has =simply
∆𝑝𝑝w Φb𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓een (10)
chosen and will be uniformly applied to all
two-‐phase flows.
two-‐phase flows. assumed to be the liquid pressure drop multiplied by a factor, Φfr . The pressure drop due to friction 2
calculated Where using Equation 10.

The method presented here is that of Friedel as presented in Thome (1984). The pressure drop is
The method Where presented here is that of Friedel as presented in Thome (1984). The pressure drop is
assumed to be the liquid pressure drop mΔp ultiplied 2 by a factor, Φfr2. The pressure drop due to friction is
assumed to be the liquid pressure d∆𝑝𝑝 rop =m∆𝑝𝑝 wL Φ𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 b
ultiplied is
y tahe pressure
factor, Φfr2. dThe rop pfor the total
ressure mdass
drop ue ftlow flowing
o friction is as liquid only (10)
calculated using Equation 10.
0. pressure Φ fr is t he t wo-‐phase m ultiplier
2
calculated ΔpuLsing Equation is 1the drop for the total mass flow flowing as liquid only
Where The l iquid-‐phase pressure drop is calculated as follows:
2
Φ ∆𝑝𝑝fr2= ∆𝑝𝑝w Φ𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓2 is the two-phase multiplier (10)
∆𝑝𝑝 = ∆𝑝𝑝w Φ𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ΔpL is the pressure dwrop for the total 1m"ass flow flowing (10)
as liquid only
∆𝑝𝑝 w = 4𝑓𝑓 w 8 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 îQî 1:
Where
Where The liquid-phase pressure Φfr
2
is the two-‐phase ëmultiplier ï
drop is calculated as follows:
The liquid-‐phase pressure drop is calculated as follows:
ΔpL is the pressure drop for Where the total mass flow flowing as liquid only
ΔpL is the pressure drop for the total mass flow flowing as liquid only
Φfr2 is is tthe
2
he two-‐phase multiplier ∆𝑝𝑝w = 4𝑓𝑓
w
fL w 8ë 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
1 "
(11) (11)
Φfr two-‐phase multiplier is the liquid îQîfriction 1:ï factor (as calculated in Equation 12)
The liquid-‐phase pressure drop is calculated as follows:
The liquid-‐phase pressure drop is calculated L as follows: is the length of the section
Where " Di is the internal diameter of the pipe
Where w
∆𝑝𝑝w = 4𝑓𝑓w w 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀îQî11 " (11)
∆𝑝𝑝w = 4𝑓𝑓w 8 ë 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀îQî 1: ρL
ï is the liquid density (11)
8ë fL 1: ï is the liquid friction factor (as calculated in Equation 12)
Massfluxtot is the total mass flows divided by flow area
Where ƒL is the liquid friction L is the length factorof (as the calculated
section in Equation 12)
Where
is the length D is t
ofl(iquid
the he i nternal d iameter o f t he p ipe
L fsection
i
fL is the liquid friction f The
actor as c riction factor
alculated i n E is given
quation 1 by
2)
fL is the liquid friction ρLf actor (as is tche liquid diensity
alculated
L Di is the length is the f tinternal
oMassflux
he section diameter of n theEquation 12)
pipe
L is the length of the section tot is the 𝑓𝑓 total mass
=
*.*/f
f flows
or R e > 2d,000
ivided by flow area
Di ρL is thediameter
is the internal liquid density of the pipe 34 ñ.Ió
w
Di
is the internal diameter of the pipe
ρ Massflux is the is the
liquid density total
liquid mass friction flows divided by
8ë flow area
ρL L is the
totliquid dThe ensity factor yNOO#Pòô
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
is given öFö by

Massflux is the total mass flows divided by flow area ;
Massfluxtottot is the total mass flows divided *.*/f b y f low a rea
ñ.Ió for
The liquid friction factor 𝑓𝑓w is = given byRe > 2,000 (12)
The liquid friction factor is given by Where
34
The liquid friction factor is given by yNOO#PòôöFö 8ë
*.*/f 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = fL
; is t he liquid friction factor (as calculated in Equation 12) (13)
𝑓𝑓w = *.*/f for Re > 2,000 for Re > 2,000 (12) (12)
𝑓𝑓w = 34ñ.Ió for Re > 2,000
ñ.Ió
𝜇𝜇 is the liquid dynamic viscosity (12)
34
yNOO#PòôöFö 8ë
Where Di Is the internal diameter of the pipe
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =yNOO#PòôöFö 8ë (13)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = ; (13) Massfluxtot Is the sum of the liquid and vapor mass flows (13) divided by flow area
; fL is the liquid friction factor (as calculated in Equation 12)

Where 𝜇𝜇 is the liquid dynamic viscosity
Where For an example -‐20°F wet suction flow of 400 TR, at a recirculation rate of 3:1 (returning 2
Di Is the internal diameter of the pipe
fL is the liquid friction f part v(apor)
actor as calculated in a 100-‐ft in Esquation
ection of 10 in. schedule 40 pipe (D =10.02 in. or 0.835 ft with an in
12)
fL is the liquid friction Massflux factor tot (as
Is tche sum of the liquid and vapor mass flows divided iby flow area
2alculated in Equation 12)
𝜇𝜇 is the liquid dynamic viscosity 0.5476 f t ), t he f ollowing c alculation determines the Friedel liquid-‐phase pressure drop. M
𝜇𝜇 is the liquid d ynamic viscosity
D Is the internal diameter been of cthe
alculated
pipe based on saturated pumped liquid from a -‐20°F recirculator.
Di i Is the internal For an example
diameter of the -‐20°F
pipe wet suction flow of 400 TR, at a recirculation rate of 3:1 (returning 2 parts liqu
Massfluxtot Is the sum of the liquid and vapor mass flows divided by flow area
Massfluxtot Is the sum of part
the vliquid
apor) ain a v1apor
nd 00-‐ft m section
ass flows of 1d0 in. schedule
ivided by flow 4a0 rea pipe (Di =10.02 in. or 0.835 ft with an internal ar
215
0.5476 f t ), t he f ollowing c alculation d etermines t he Friedel liquid-‐phase pressure drop. Mass flow h
For an example -‐20°F wet suction flow of 400 TR, at a recirculation rate of 3:1 (returning 2 parts liquid, 1
For an example -‐20°F wet suction
24 been calculated
flow of 400 based
TR, © aot IIAR
n
a sraturated 2017 pumped
ecirculation rate olf iquid 3:1 (freturning
rom a -‐20°F
2 prarts
ecirculator.
Technical liquid, 1 #6
Paper
part vapor) in a 100-‐ft section of 10 in. schedule 40 pipe (Di =10.02 in. or 0.835 ft with an internal area of
part vapor) in a 100-‐ft section of 10 in. schedule 40 pipe (Di =10.02 in. or 0.835 ft with an internal area of
0.5476 ft22), the following calculation 15 determines the Friedel liquid-‐phase pressure drop. Mass flow has
0.5476 ft ), the following calculation determines the Friedel liquid-‐phase pressure drop. Mass flow has
been calculated based on s aturated pumped liquid from a -‐20°F recirculator.
been calculated based on saturated pumped liquid from a -‐20°F recirculator.
Where
ƒL is the liquid friction factor (as calculated in Equation 12)

μ is the liquid dynamic viscosity
Di Is the internal diameter of the pipe
Massfluxtot Is the sum of the liquid and vapor mass flows divided by flow area
For an example -20°F wet suction flow of 400 TR, at a recirculation rate of 3:1
(returning 2 parts liquid, 1 part vapor) in a 100-ft section of 10 in. schedule 40
pipe (Di =10.02 in. or 0.835 ft with an internal area of 0.5476 ft2), the following
calculation determines the Friedel liquid-phase pressure drop. Mass flow has been
calculated based on saturated pumped liquid from a -20°F recirculator.
0.079
𝑓𝑓w = *.12 = 0.004954
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
411.286
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.079
𝑓𝑓w = 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
× *.12 = 0.004954
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 60𝑠𝑠
411.286
0.000162𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
×
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 60𝑠𝑠
0.000162
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 411.286 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
∆𝑝𝑝w = 4×0.00496 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × × ×
0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 1 2×42.23 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠 1 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 -
100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 411.286 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
∆𝑝𝑝w = 4×0.00496 = 0.0009503 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × × ×
0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1 144𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1
2×42.23 - 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
The calculated liquid pressure drop is used with the Friedel multiplier. This multiplier is calculated by use
= 0.0009503 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
of the following family of equations.
The calculated liquid pressure drop is used with the Friedel multiplier. This multiplier is calculated by use
3.24𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
1
Φ = 𝐸𝐸 +
of the following family (14)
#Ö 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹o𝐻𝐻f ∙ equations.
0.045
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 0.035
1 yNOO#PòôöFö 3.24𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
I
Φ
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹#Ö
ü =
= 𝐸𝐸 + I 0.045
(14)
(15)
x8ë :𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
†𝐻𝐻 ∙ 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 0.035
I : #
yNOO#Pòô
𝐸𝐸 ü= =1 − 𝑥𝑥 1 +IöFö𝑥𝑥 1 ï °
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (16)
(15)
x8ë :† : # ° ï
= 𝑥𝑥1*./e
𝐹𝐹 =
𝐸𝐸
*.11L
− 𝑥𝑥11 −+𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 1 ï °
: # (17)
(16)
:° #ï
: *.f" ; *."f ; *./
𝐻𝐻 =
𝐹𝐹
ï
= 𝑥𝑥 *./e ° *.11L °
1 − ;ï (18)
(17)
:° 1 − 𝑥𝑥
;ï
Technical Paper *.f" ; *."f

#6
:ïyNOO#Pòô I ; *./ © IIAR 2017 25
öFö 8ë
𝐻𝐻
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊=w =:
°
1 − ;
°
(18)
(19)
° ¢:;†ï ï
g" I
yNOO#Pòô
ô "gô öFö 8ë
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
𝜌𝜌ü w== + ¢: (19)
(20)
0.000162
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1
100𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 411.286 1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
∆𝑝𝑝wIIAR
2017 = 4×0.00496 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Natural Refrigeration Conference & Heavy1Equipment Expo, San ×Antonio, TX × ×
0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 0.5476𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1
2×42.23 - 32.2𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
= 0.0009503 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
The calculated
The calculated liquid pressureliquid
droppis ressure
used dwith
rop is
the used
Friedelwith tmultiplier.
he Friedel mThis
ultiplier.
multiplierThis multiplier is calcu
is calculated byof
use the
offollowing family ofamily
the following f equations.
of equations.
3.24𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
Φ#Ö 1 = 𝐸𝐸 +
(14)
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 ∙0.045 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 0.035
I
yNOO#Pòô
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ü =
(15)
öFö

x8ë :† I
: #
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − 𝑥𝑥 1 + 𝑥𝑥 1 ï °
(16) :° #ï
𝐹𝐹 = 𝑥𝑥 *./e 1 − 𝑥𝑥 *.11L
(17)
: *.f" ; *."f ; *./
𝐻𝐻 = ï °
1− °
: ;
(18)
° ï ;ï
I
yNOO#Pòô 8
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊w = öFö ë

(19)
¢: †
ô "gô g"
𝜌𝜌ü = + (20)
:° :ï
Where
Where
G is the acceleration due to gravity
G ρL
is the acceleration is the
due liquid density
to gravity
ρL ρG
is the liquid is the vapor density
density
ρG μL
is the vapor is the liquid dynamic viscosity
density
μL μG
is the liquid is the vapor
dynamic viscositydynamic viscosity
μG Di
is the vapor is the internal
dynamic viscosity diameter of the pipe
Di is Massflux tot diameter
the internal is the sum of
of the
the pipe
liquid and vapor mass flows divided by flow area
Massfluxtot is the sum x of the is the
liquid liquid/vapor
and vapor quality
mass(between 0 and 1by
flows divided ) flow area
x σ
is the liquid/vapor is the quality
surface (between
tension 0 and 1)
σ is the surface tension
Table 3 shows the properties of ammonia for this flow.

16


Table 3 shows the properties of ammonia for this flow.
Table 3. Properties for two-‐phase ammonia flow at 400TR, 3:1 recirculation rate
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
(°F) -‐20.0 -20.0
Saturated
Saturated pressure
pressure (psia)
(psia) 18.28 18.28
3
Liquid density (lb/ft ) 3 42.23
Liquid density (lb/ft ) 42.23
Liq. dynamic viscosity (lbm/ft-‐s) 0.0001616
Liq. dynamic viscosity 3 (lbm/ft-s) 0.0001616
Vapor density (lb/ft ) 3 0.06810
Vapor density (lb/ft ) 0.06810
Vap. dynamic viscosity (lbm/ft-‐s) 5.500E-‐6
Vap. dynamic viscosity
Vapor quality (ratio of vapor (lbm/ft-s) 0.3333
5.500E-6
Vapor quality (ratio of vapor
mass to total mass in the control mass to total mass in the control volume) 0.3333
Surface tension (lbf/ft)
volume) 0.002267
Surface
Table 3. tProperties
ension (lbf/ft)
for two-phase ammonia 0.002267
flow at 400TR, 3:1 recirculation rate

Thevarious
The various factors
factors in Equations
in Equations 14 through
14 through 20 may be 20 may bewcalculated
calculated within
ith the properties the properties
Table 3.
Performing
in Table 3. these calculations,
Performing these calculations,
g"
0.3333 1 − 0.3333 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙

𝜌𝜌ü = + = 0.2037
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 -
0.06810 - 42.23 -
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
411.286 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀îQî = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 750.7
0.5479𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
(750.7 )1 ×0.8350𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊w = × = 8,809
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3600𝑠𝑠 1
0.002267 ×0.2037 - ×32.20
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1
*.f" *."f *./
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
42.23 0.000005500 0.000005500
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
𝐻𝐻 = 1− = 178.52
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
0.06810 - 0.0001616 0.0001616
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠
𝐹𝐹 = 0.3333*./e 1 − 0.3333 *.11L

= 0.3876
0.079
𝑓𝑓x = *.12 = 0.002128
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
751.07 ×0.8350𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
0.000005500 ×
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
17
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
42.23
- ×0.002128
1 1 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − 0.3333 + 0.3333 = 30.483
0.06810 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×0.00496
42.23 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×0.002128
-
𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 -
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − 0.33331 + 0.33331 = 30.483
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 0.06810
1 ×0.00496
751.07 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 -
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ü = × = 140.53
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1 3,600𝑠𝑠 1
32.2 1 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×
751.07 0.2037
𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ü = 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 1 × 3,600𝑠𝑠 1 = 140.53
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 42.23𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 - ×0.002128
32.21 1 ×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓×
1 0.2037 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡
3.24×0.3876×178.5
𝐸𝐸 = 1Φ −#Ö0.3333 𝑠𝑠= 30.44 ++ 0.33331 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 - = 30.483
0.045 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙0.035 = 161.07
140.53 8
0.06810 - ×0.00496 809
3.24×0.3876×178.5 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
1
Φ
With the calculated Friedel factor,
#Ö = 30.44 +
multiplying the liquid
0.045 friction pressure = 161.07
drop to attain the overall
140.53 1 88090.035
pressure drop of the flow is now possible. 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
With the calculated Friedel factor, 751.07multiplying the liquid friction
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1 pressure drop to
With the calculated F𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
riedel
ü = f actor, m ultiplying t he l iquid f riction 1 ×p ressure
1
d=
rop to attain the overall
140.53
attain the overall pressure drop
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 of the flow is now
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 possible. 3,600𝑠𝑠
pressure drop of the flow
∆𝑝𝑝 i= s 32.2
n∆𝑝𝑝
ow Φ
possible.
2
×0.835𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓× 0.2037 ×161.07
w𝑠𝑠 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 0.0009503 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
2
- = 0.153𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
3.24×0.3876×178.5
The resulting pressure ∆𝑝𝑝 ∆𝑝𝑝 Φ𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓criterion
=fits
drop = 0.0009503 ×161.07 = 0.153𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Φ#Ö 1wthe
= 30.44 + for piping at 2this
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
0.045
temperature
0.035
for pressure
= 161.07 drop per 100 ft
140.53 8809
of piping not to exceed 0.25psi as a baseline case. Pressure drop for this flow through an 8 in. pipe
The resulting
exceeds ressure ft. drop fits the criterion for bpaseline
iping at ize
this for
temperature for pressure dthe
rop per 100 ft
With the 0c.25 psi/100
alculated Friedel Therefore,
factor, m1ultiplying 0 in. is the
the liquid fsriction this
p two-‐phase
ressure drop tfo low.
attain overall
of
The piping not to exceed
resulting pressure 0.25psi drop as afits
baseline
the criterion case. Pressure for piping drop for atthis flow
this through an 8 for
temperature in. pipe
pressure
Again, as 0w d rop o f
ith ptsi/100 t he
he pressure f low i s n ow p ossible.
drops calculated for bdaseline
ry vapor flow,
exceeds .25 ft. Therefore, 10 in. is the size for tthis
his ptwo-‐phase
ressure drop
flow. can
be used with the
pressure
numbers or drop
equations per i100 ft of piping
n T able 11 not toincreased
to determine exceed 0.25psi p ower c as a baseline
onsumption a t t case.
he Pressurefor
compressors Deleted:
2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Again,
drop
the flow afor
s listed.
with
this the
Aflow ssuming ∆𝑝𝑝
pressure
through =
85°F ∆𝑝𝑝
drops Φ
w an c𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
saturated =
alculated 0.0009503
8 in.condensing
pipe for dexceeds
ry vcapor ×161.07
flow,
0.25this
ondition, psi/100 = 0.153𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
pressure
ft. dTherefore,
rop can be u10 sed in.
with
isthe
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖2
numbers
the baseline or equations
size for in Tthis
able 11 two-phaseto determine flow.increased power consumption at the compressors for Deleted:
g*.2*"f g*.2*"f
The
the frlow
esulting
listed. pressure
Assuming 18.8
drop
85°F −
fits t0.153
he criterion
saturated for piping
condensing at this 18.8
condition, temperature for 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
pressure drop per 100 ft
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 − 0.53567 ×400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 2.50ℎ𝑝𝑝
of piping not to exceed 0.25psi 166.51 as a baseline case. Pressure d166.51 rop for this flow t𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇hrough an 8 in. pipe
Again,0as
exceeds .25
with the
= pressure
ft. T18.8
1.86𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 − 0.153 drops g*.2*"fcalculated for dry
size f18.8
vapor flow,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
g*.2*"f this pressure drop
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =p0.53567
si/100 herefore, 10 in. is the − baseline
0.53567 or this two-‐phase flow.
×400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 2.50ℎ𝑝𝑝
can be used with the numbers 166.51 or equations in Table 166.51 11 to determine 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 increased
These laiquid,
Again, s w dtry
ith he vapor,
p ressure a
= 1.86𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 nd d t wo-‐phase
rops c c
alculated alculations
f or d m
ry v ust
apor tfhen b
low, te r epeated
his p f or
ressure d the csan
rop izes immediately
be used with the
power consumption at the compressors for the flow listed. Assuming 85°F saturated
adjacent t o t he b aseline c ase.
numbers or equations in T able 11 to determine increased power consumption at the compressors for Deleted:
condensing
These liquid, condition,
dry vapor, and two-‐phase calculations
the flow listed. Assuming 85°F saturated condensing mcust then be repeated for the sizes immediately
ondition,
Table 4 s hows t he
adjacent to the baseline case. r esults o f t his a nalysis f or a ll t hree f low types. The power consumption will be used Deleted:
in Step 3 to calculate a present-‐value 18.8 − 0.153 l ifecycle
g*.2*"fcost for the piping sections
18.8 g*.2*"f analyzed
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (vapor piping is used
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Table 4
as the shows
example = 0.53567
tfhe
low results
for those of this analysis for all
calculations). −three
0.53567 flow types. The power consumption ×400𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇w= ill 2.50ℎ𝑝𝑝
be used Deleted:
166.51 166.51 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
in Step 3 to calculate a present-‐value lifecycle cost for the piping sections analyzed (vapor piping is used
= 1.86𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Table 4. Comparison of pressure drop and energy consumption for liquid, vapor, and two-‐
as the example flow for those calculations).
phase flows
These liquid, dry vapor, and two-‐phase calculations must then be repeated for the sizes immediately
adjacent to the baseline case.
phase flows Line Size Pressure Drop (psi/100 Power Consumption
ft) (kW)
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis for all three flow types. The power consumption will be used Deleted:
Liquid
in Step 3 Line Size a present-‐value
to calculate Pressure Dlifecycle rop (psi/100
cost for the Power Consumption
piping sections analyzed (vapor piping is used
2 in. schedule 40 2.911
ft) 0.1696
(kW)
as t2 he example
1/2 in. schedule flow f4or 0 those calculations). 1.161 © IIAR 2017 0.06767
28 Liquid Technical Paper #6
3 in. schedule 40
2 0.380
2.911 0.02216
0.1696
2 1/2 in. schedule 40 1.161 0.06767
phase flows
18 3 in. schedule 40 0.380 0.02216
These liquid, dry vapor, and two-phase calculations must then be repeated for the
sizes immediately adjacent to the baseline case.
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis for all three flow types. The power
consumption will be used in Step 3 to calculate a present-value lifecycle cost for
the piping sections analyzed (vapor piping is used as the example flow for those
calculations).
Line Size Pressure Drop (psi/100 ft) Power Consumption (kW)

Liquid
2 in. schedule 40 2.911 0.1696
2 1/2 in. schedule 40 1.161 0.06767
3 in. schedule 40 0.380 0.02216
Vapor
10 in. Std (schedule 40) 0.4118 21.75
12 in. Std (schedule 40) 0.1633 8.509
14 in. Std (schedule 40) 0.1085 5.634
Two-Phase
8 in. schedule 40 0.404 8.727
10 in. Std (schedule 40) 0.153 3.263
12 in. Std (schedule 40) 0.0682 1.448
Table 4. Comparison of pressure drop and energy consumption for liquid, vapor, and two-phase flows
Step 3 – Determine first costs
The analysis now only requires that first costs be determined, along with a present
value of the power consumption of each piping section, to determine a best economic
size for each case. These costs are determined in accordance with the rules stated
earlier.

Tables 12 through 15 provide information for determining first costs associated with
the piping chosen in Step 2. These costs are essentially summed from the tables and
used to provide the first cost for each size in each service.
As an example, assume that all three pipe sizes for the vapor piping shown in
Table 4 are of carbon steel, are schedule 40, and are insulated with 3-in. insulation
with aluminum jacket. From Table 12, Table 14, and Table 15, the following can be
developed to sum these costs.
Table 5 assumes an all-inclusive labor rate (labor, burden, etc.) of $50/hour for
piping assembly and $40/hour for insulation labor. As mentioned previously, material
costs are taken directly from the data source, RS Means, and are assumed to be U.S.
national averages. Note that all costs are assumed to be for a 100-ft length, so all
costs from respective tables are multiplied by 100.
Note also that the insulation jacket is based on jacket inside diameters of 21 in., 23
in., and 24 in. for the 10 in., 12 in., and 14 in. pipes respectively (pipe OD plus 2X
insulation thickness of 3 in.). In the interest of a concise table, labor and materials
for painting of the piping are included in the piping numbers.
Insul. Total
Line Pipe Insul. Insul. Total
Pipe Pipe Insul. Jacket Labor Total First
Size Labor Labor Jacket Mat’l
Mat’l Cost ($) Cost Cost Cost Cost ($)
(in.) Hours Hours Labor Cost ($)
($) ($)
10 A53B $6,080 88 $2,400 21.3 $425 17.2 $8,905 $5,940 $14,845
12 A53B $8,312 111.14 $2,650 22.9 $474 17.8 $11,436 $7,185 $18,621
14 A53B $10,282 144 $3,000 24.6 $499 18 $13,781 $8,904 $22,685
Table 5. First costs for vapor piping comparison
This comparison is straightforward and needs now only the energy costs from the
pressure losses calculated in Step 2 to give a picture of the cost of ownership for each
segment of piping. Note that, for this limited data set, first costs do not appear to

track linearly with pipe size. Using the 10 in. pipe as a baseline, while size increases
20% and 40% respectively to 12 in. and 14 in., the first costs increase 24% and 52%.
However, this is not enough information to determine whether the behavior is or is
not roughly linear.
Step 4 – Determine present value of energy costs
For this portion of the analysis, four pieces of information are required to calculate
the present value of the energy costs used by the system:
1. Yearly hours at the assumed condition,
2. Life of the system (years),
3. Energy cost per kWh, and
4. Inflation rate.
The choice of a value for item 1 is difficult at times, given that the design of a
system pipe size is always for peak loading, but in many situations, peak load
only occurs for a few days per year, such as in distribution centers where load is
heavily dependent on ambient conditions. In process applications, peak load in a
particular header may occur each day for one or two full shifts. Particular care must
be exercised in choosing the yearly run time as this value has the largest chance of
skewing the analysis.
As an example, the pure vapor flows given previously (in Step 2) are analyzed here
with the assumption that these loads are from processing equipment running for 16
hours per day, 6 days per week. This provides a value for yearly run time of 4,992
hours and can be considered an extreme loading case.

4. Inflation rate.
The choice of a value for item 1 is difficult at times, given that the design of a system pipe siz
for peak loading, but in many situations, peak load only occurs for a few days per year, such
distribution centers where load is heavily dependent on ambient conditions. In process appl
peak load in a particular header may occur each day for one or two full shifts. Particular care
exercised in choosing the yearly run time as this value has the largest chance of skewing the
As an example, the pure vapor flows given previously (in Step 2) are analyzed here with the
that these
The following will be given loads ato
as inputs re fthe
rom lifecycle
processing
costequipment
analysis:running for 16 hours per day, 6 days per we
provides a value for yearly run time of 4,992 hours and can be considered an extreme loadin
• A system life of 25 years,
• An annual inflation The
ratefollowing
of 4%, wandill be given as inputs to the lifecycle cost analysis:
• A cost of energy of $0.11/kW.
• A system life of 25 years,
• An annual inflation rate of 4%, and
The net present value of the system can then be determined as follows.
• A cost of energy of $0.11/kW.
The net of

The present value of a series present
monetary value ovalues,
f the system can then be yearly
compounded determined
is givenas follows.
in
Equation 21. The present value of a series of monetary values, compounded yearly is given in Equation 21
"§a • g"
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝐴𝐴î (21)
a∙ "§a •
Where
Where
PW is the present worth of an alternative
I is the annual inflation rate
PW is the present worth of an alternative
N is the system life in years
I is the annual inflation rate
T is the year of interest in the sum
N is the system lifeAin years
is the yearly cost of energy (see Development of the Method)
t
T is the year of
interest in the sum
At is the yearly cost of energy (see Development of the Method)
20

The multiplier on the right side of the equation is easily calculated, although tables of
The are
such values multiplier on the right in
also compiled side
variousof the eresources
quation is e(e.g.,
asily calculated,
White etalthough tables
al. 1998). Forof asuch
4%values are
inflation also
rate,compiled
the PWin factor
various resources (e.g., White et al. 1998). For a 4% inflation rate, the PW factor for a
for a 25-year series of annual cash flows is 15.6221. The
25-‐year series of annual cash flows is 15.6221. The present value of the energy cost (At) for the three
present value of the energy cost (At) for the three alternative vapor pipes becomes
alternative vapor pipes becomes
$*.""
(21.75𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘×4,992ℎ𝑟𝑟× )×15.6221 = $186,580.36 (10 in. schedule 40 pipe)
âã∙ßÖ
$*.""
(8. 509𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘×4,992ℎ𝑟𝑟× )×15.6221 = $72,993.67 (12 in. schedule 40 pipe)
âã∙ßÖ
$*.""
(5.634𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘×4,992ℎ𝑟𝑟× )×15.6221 = $48,330.75 (14 in. schedule 40 pipe)
âã∙ßÖ
Clearly, from these results, where energy cost and system life are relatively high, the cost of ownership
favors a larger pipe. T able 6 compares total cost of ownership for the vapor pipe alternatives in
question.
Table 6. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 25-‐year system life, 4,992 hr/yr,
$0.11$/kWh
Size First Cost Present Value of Total Cost of the
Energy Cost Alternative
10 in. $14,845 $186,580 $201,425
Clearly, from these results, where energy cost and system life are relatively high, the
cost of ownership favors a larger pipe. Table 6 compares total cost of ownership for
the vapor pipe alternatives in question.
Size First Cost Present Value of Energy Cost Total Cost of the Alternative
10 in. $14,845 $186,580 $201,425
12 in. $18,621 $72,994 $91,615
14 in. $22,685 $48,331 $71,016
Table 6. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 25-year system life, 4,992 hr/yr, $0.11$/kWh
The cost of ownership falls rapidly with increased pipe size in this particular case.
However, note that a lower peak-load duty, lower lifecycle, or lower energy costs
can skew the analysis. With the same piping and load, but for a 15-year system life
and loads near peak for only 1/8 of the year’s operating hours (1,095) (Table 7), the
results still favor the 14 in. pipe section (total the cost is essentially identical to that
of a 12” pipe section). Note that the present value factor for a 15-year life at 4% is
11.1184.
10 in. $14,845 $29,128 $43,973
12 in. $18,621 $11,395 $30,016
14 in. $22,685 $7,545 $29,525
Table 7. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 15-year system life, 1,095 hr/yr, $0.11/kWh
If the same analysis is performed with the cost of energy lowered to $0.08/kWh, the
favorable pipe diameter changes to 12 in., as shown in Table 8.

10 in. $14,845 $21,184 $36,029
12 in. $18,621 $8,288 $26,909
14 in. $22,685 $5,487 $28,172
Table 8. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 15-year system life, 1,095 hr/yr, $0.08/kWh
Clearly, in this particular scenario, the breakeven point between 12 in. schedule 40
and 14 in. schedule 40 piping is around $0.11/kWh. In reality, peak load operation
for even 1/8 of the hours in a year is likely to be a high estimate for many facilities,
but quite low for continuous process operations (like spiral freezers, plate freezers,
and cooling tunnels), and careful consideration of the process is necessary to ensure
the yearly operating hours are realistic.
To broaden the exercise a bit further, Table 5 can be expanded by adding the first cost
for 16 in. pipe, again with 3 in. insulation, with the 4,992 hr/yr, 25-year life inputs
applied (see Table 9).
Insul.
Line Pipe Insul. Insul. Total Total Total
Pipe Pipe Insul. Jacket
Size Labor Labor Jacket Mat’l Labor First
Mat’l Cost ($) Cost Cost
(in.) Hours Hours Labor Cost ($) Cost ($) Cost ($)
($)
10 A53B $6,080 88 $2,400 21.3 $425 17.2 $8,905 $5,940 $14,845
12 A53B $8,312 111.14 $2,650 22.9 $474 17.8 $11,436 $7,185 $18,621
14 A53B $10,282 144 $3,000 24.6 $499 18 $13,781 $8,904 $22,685
16 A53B $11,931 166.14 $3,300 26.7 $550 18.6 $15,781 $10,119 $25,900
Table 9. First costs for vapor piping comparison, 25-year system life, 4,992 hr/yr, $0.11/kWh,
including 16 in. diameter
The pressure drop and energy costs for a 16 in. pipe with 977 TR of -30°F dry vapor
are 0.0604 psi and 3.641 kW (using the methods described in Step 2). Expanding
Table 6 to include 16 in. pipe, the lifecycle cost comparison is shown in Table 10.

10 in. $14,845 $186,580 $201,425
12 in. $18,621 $72,994 $91,615
14 in. $22,685 $48,331 $71,016
16 in. $25,900 $23,265 $49,165
Table 10. Summary of vapor piping lifecycle cost, 25-year system life, 4,992 hr/yr, $0.11$/kWh
Clearly, on a heavily used process pipe, investment in a large header provides ample
payback and should be considered where conditions are favorable, such as in the
aforementioned case. In plants with diverse loads, installation of large pipes may
not be the correct approach for every header in the plant, but can certainly be cost-
effective for certain targeted areas of heavy use.
The aforementioned methodology provides a clear, stepwise means of comparing the

economic impact of increasing or decreasing pipe size. While the particular items
shown may or may not reflect actual economic conditions for any particular project,
its importance lies in the ability of a user, armed with the proper information, to use
engineering judgement to ascertain what sizes may provide the highest economic
benefit to the end user. Clearly, a “cheap” project has the potential to cost a great
deal of money over the life of the system.
While the “best economic” pipe, chosen in accordance with the criteria presented
cannot always be used in situations where operational considerations require other
pipe sizes, the method is acceptable under various conditions to aid the designer in
providing the best lifecycle cost plant to the owner/end user.

Conclusion
A method of analysis for economic pipe sizing in ammonia headers was developed,
and examples were provided illustrating its use. It was shown that the economic pipe
size depends heavily on the cost of energy and the anticipated system usage and life.
While the exact examples provided may not be applicable to any particular
installation, they are indicative of what results the analysis can have based on
varying certain parameters.
Work still remains in determining, for real systems, what anticipated life and
operating hours make sense in a general analysis, but such is outside the scope of
this analysis. Guidelines for these parameters may be discussed and agreed upon by
those using the method.
The analysis is limited by the available data, which are in the Appendix. Additional
options for the analysis become available with additional data, but the methodology
of the analysis remains as presented.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME B31.9, Building Services Piping,

2008 Edition, Chapter VI.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME B31.5, Refrigerant Piping and Heat
Transfer Components, 2013 edition, Chapter VI.
Jekel, T.B., and Reindl, D.T. (2008). “Two-stage compression.” ASHRAE Journal,
August, pp. 46–51.

Lindeburg, M.R. (2001). Mechanical engineering reference manual for the PE exam,
11th Edition, Professional Publications, Inc., Belmont, CA, pp. 17-1–17-40, 18-6–18-7.
Nolte, C.B. (1978). “Least annual cost” In Optimum Pipe Size Selection, 1st Edition,
Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal, Germany,pp. 11–31.
Richards, W.V. (1984). “Practical pipe sizing for refrigerant vapor lines.” IIAR Annual
Conference, San Francisco, CA, pp. 39C–65C.
RSMeans Facilities Construction Cost Data Book (2012), 27th Annual Edition.
Norwell, MA, RSMeans.
Thome, J.R. (2004). Wolverine engineering data book III, Ch. 13. ORGANIZATION,
LOCATION, pp. 13-5–13-6. Wolverine Division of UOP.
White, J.A., et al. (1998). Principles of engineering economic analysis, 4th Edition.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 110, 418.
Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., and McLinden, M.O. (2013). NIST standard reference
database 23: Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP,
Version 9.11. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference
Data Program, Gaithersburg, MD.

Appendix
Compressor Horse Power Values (BHP/TR)

Temperature Single Stage Two-Stage
-60°F - 3.078797
-55°F - 2.835703
-50°F - 2.617779
-45°F - 2.421913
-40°F - 2.245435
-35°F - 2.086041
-30°F - 1.941745
-25°F 2.314706 1.810824
-20°F 2.072987 -
-15°F 1.861748 -
-10°F 1.676574 -
-5°F 1.513767 -
0°F 1.370212 -
+5°F 1.24328 -
+10°F 1.130746 -
+15°F 1.030716 -
+20°F 0.941579 -
+25°F 0.861953 -
+30°F 0.790659 -
Table 11. Compressor power at various saturated suction temperatures

Notes:
1. Common saturated condensing temperature is +85°F.
2. 1. Two-stage values are calculated at a +20°F intermediate temperature.

Common saturated condensing temperature is +85°F.
1.
2. Common saturated
Two-‐stage condensing
values are calculated taemperature is +85°F. temperature.
t a +20°F intermediate
3. 2. The curve fit used toalculated
generate the single-stage power values within the
3. Two-‐stage
The curve fvit alues
used atre
o gcenerate at saingle-‐stage
the +20°F intermediate temperature.
power values within the temperature ranges
3. temperature
The curve
listed fit uranges glisted
sed tao re
is (pressures enerate isthe
(pressures
single-‐stage
in absolute):
are in absolute):
power values within the temperature ranges
listed is (pressures are in absolute):
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃. g*.e"L
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.34321 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃. g*.e"L
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.34321 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
4. The curve fit used to generate the two-‐stage power values within the temperature ranges listed
4. 4. The
The curve
curve ffit used
it aure
is (pressures sed to
in to
generate
generate
absolute): the tthe two-stage
wo-‐stage power powervalues wvalues
ithin the within the temperature
temperature ranges listed
is (pressures
ranges listedais re (pressures
in absolute): are in absolute):
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃. g*.2*"f
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃. g*.2*"f
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.53567 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
5. These curve fits provide for an R2 value above 0.996.
2
5. These curve fits provide ufsed or ain
s R1an value asia,
bove 0.996.
5. 6. These
The discharge
curve fits pressure
provide for 66.51
R2 pvalue which
above represents
0.996.a saturated condensing
6. The d ischarge p
temperature of +85°F ressure u sed i s 1 66.51 p sia, w hich r epresents a saturated condensing
temperature
6. 7. The
The discharge of pressure
table values +a85°F
nd curve used fits are isfor
166.51 psia,
the raw which
shaft power represents a saturated
at the compressor shaft and do not
7. The table
include m values
otor e and curve
fficiency o fpits
r are ffactor.
ower or the raw shaft power at the compressor shaft and do not
condensing temperature of +85°F
include motor efficiency or power factor.
7. The table values and curve fits are for the raw shaft power at the compressor
shaft and do not include motor efficiency or power factor.

40
Raw Raw Separate
Material Labor Final
Assumed Material Labor Welding Final Labor
Size Schedule Subtraction Subtraction Material
Material Cost, (hours/ Labor (hours/ft)
Factor Factor Cost ($/ft)
($/ft) ft) (hours/ft)
0.5 80 A106 Gr B 9.95 0.131 0.31 0.54 0.0593 6.8655 0.11956
0.75 80 A106 Gr B 11.5 0.14 0.28 0.49 0.0696 8.28 0.141
1 80 A106 Gr B 13.65 0.157 0.28 0.49 0.08 9.828 0.16007
1.25 80 A106 Gr B 18.05 0.188 0.28 0.49 0.0842 12.996 0.18008
1.5 80 A106 Gr B 28 0.208 0.28 0.49 0.0889 20.16 0.19498
2 80 A106 Gr B 33.5 0.262 0.21 0.4 0.1067 26.465 0.2639
2 40 A53 Gr B 12.35 0.262 0.09 0.21 0 11.2385 0.20698
2.5 40 A53 Gr B 21 0.34 0.09 0.21 0 19.11 0.2686
3 40 A53 Gr B 25.5 0.372 0.09 0.21 0 23.205 0.29388
4 40 A53 Gr B 35 0.432 0.05 0.12 0 33.25 0.38016
5 40 A53 Gr B 38 0.5 0.05 0.12 0 36.1 0.44
© IIAR 2017
6 40 A53 Gr B 50.5 0.667 0.05 0.12 0 47.975 0.58696
8 40 A53 Gr B 55 0.828 0.05 0.12 0 52.25 0.72864
10 40 A53 Gr B 64 1 0.05 0.12 0 60.8 0.88
12 40 A53 Gr B 87.5 1.263 0.05 0.12 0 83.125 1.11144
14 40 A53 Gr B 106 1.6 0.03 0.1 0 102.82 1.44
16 40 A53 Gr B 123 1.846 0.03 0.1 0 119.31 1.6614
18 40 A53 Gr B 144 2.182 0.03 0.1 0 139.68 1.9638
20 40 A53 Gr B 169 2.667 0.03 0.1 0 163.93 2.4003
22 40 A53 Gr B 200.8016 2.8335 0.03 0.1 0 194.777552 2.55015
24 40 A53 Gr B 235 3 0.03 0.1 0 227.95 2.7
Table 12. Carbon steel pipe material and labor (RSMeans)
Technical Paper #6
Notes:
1. For labor and materials listed for sizes ½ in. through 2 in., schedule 80, the raw
labor and materials represent those of threaded A106 Gr B piping.
2. Material and labor subtraction factors represent
a. For Schedule 80 piping, deletion of the coupling and hanger.
b. For Schedule 40 piping, deletion of the hanger.
This is necessary due to data availability, in that RS Means does not present
data specifically for piping that is assembled with socket-welded couplings as is
common in the refrigeration industry. Note that these factors are a percentage of
the raw numbers presented.
3. Separate welding labor factors are intended to add back in labor for welding
schedule 80 piping together, which is assumed to be butt welding labor. Note
that RS Means presents this as hours/joint, where in Table 12, it is presented as
hours per ft with an assumed joint spacing of 10 ft.
4. Final material and labor costs, as listed in the last two columns of Table 12, are
those used in the analysis.

Raw Raw Final Final

Material Labor
Assumed Material Labor Material Labor
Size Schedule Subtraction Subtraction
Material Cost, (hours/ Cost (hours/
Factor Factor
($/ft) ft) ($/ft) ft)
0.5 10 A304 10 0.128 0.09 0.22 9.1 0.09984
0.75 10 A304 10.2 0.142 0.09 0.22 9.282 0.11076
1 10 A304 10.25 0.16 0.04 0.15 9.84 0.136
1.25 10 A304 11.75 0.176 0.04 0.15 11.28 0.1496
1.5 10 A304 13.15 0.193 0.04 0.15 12.624 0.16405
2 10 A304 16.1 0.239 0.04 0.15 15.456 0.20315
2.5 10 A304 21 0.314 0.03 0.08 20.37 0.28888
3 10 A304 25.5 0.348 0.03 0.08 24.735 0.32016
4 10 A304 31 0.381 0.03 0.08 30.07 0.35052
5 10 A304 40.5 0.457 0.03 0.08 39.285 0.42044
6 10 A304 49.5 0.6 0.03 0.04 48.015 0.576
8 10 A304 86.5 0.727 0.03 0.04 83.905 0.69792
10 10 A304 121 0.96 0.03 0.04 117.37 0.9216
12 10 A304 151 1.143 0.03 0.04 146.47 1.09728
Table 13. Stainless steel pipe material and labor (RSMeans)
Notes:
1. Material and labor subtraction factors represent deletion of the hanger in the
raw data.

Thickness of Insulation 1-1/2" 2" 3"
Pipe Size Pipe OD Materials Labor Overall Materials Labor Overall Materials Labor Overall
(rounded to ($/ft) (Hrs/ft) Size ($/ft) (Hrs/ft) Size ($/ft) (Hrs/ft) Size
1/2")
0.5 1 2.95 0.1 4 4.67 0.11 5 8.45 0.139 11
Technical Paper #6
0.75 1 3 0.1 4 4.92 0.11 5 8.5 0.139 11
1 1.5 3.28 0.1 4.5 5.2 0.11 5.5 8.6 0.139 11.5
1.25 1.5 3.53 0.103 4.5 5.55 0.114 5.5 8.7 0.145 11.5
1.5 2 3.79 0.103 5 5.8 0.114 6 8.75 0.145 12
2 2.5 4.18 0.107 5.5 6.1 0.119 6.5 9.05 0.152 12.5
2.5 3 4.56 0.107 6 7.3 0.119 7 10.65 0.152 13
3 3.5 4.76 0.11 6.5 7.35 0.123 7.5 10.75 0.16 13.5
4 4.5 5.5 0.119 7.5 8.5 0.128 8.5 13.7 0.168 14.5
5 5.5 6.2 0.123 8.5 0.7 0.133 9.5 14.85 0.178 15.5
6 6.5 6.35 0.133 9.5 10.6 0.139 10.5 16.7 0.178 16.5
8 8.5 8.4 0.152 11.5 12.6 0.152 12.5 19.9 0.188 18.5
10 11 11.15 0.168 14 15.85 0.168 15 24 0.213 21
© IIAR 2017
12 13 13.2 0.178 16 17.6 0.178 17 26.5 0.229 23
14 14 14.95 0.188 17 19.35 0.188 18 30 0.246 24
16 16 16.7 0.2 19 21.5 0.2 20 33 0.267 26
18 18 18.5 0.213 21 23.5 0.213 22 36 0.291 28
20 20 23 28.5 0.246 24 43 0.32 30
22 22 25 32 0.267 26 46.5 0.356 32

24 24 27 32.5 0.291 28 50 0.4 34
Table 14. Insulation material and labor (RSMeans)
Notes:
1. The labor and material numbers listed in Table 14 are for calcium silicate with no fabric mesh.
43
2. Jacket materials and labor are not included. See Table 15.
Jacket ID Materials ($/ Labor Jacket ID Materials ($/ Labor

(in.) ft) (hr/ft) (in.) ft) (hr/ft)
3 0.82 0.089 20 4.99 0.18
3.5 0.94 0.093 20.5 5.12 0.182
4 1.06 0.097 21 5.25 0.184
4.5 1.19 0.102 21.5 5.375 0.185
5 1.31 0.107 22 5.5 0.186
5.5 1.43 0.112 22.5 5.6 0.188
6 1.55 0.119 23 5.7 0.19
6.5 1.67 0.122 23.5 5.825 0.1915
7 1.79 0.125 24 5.95 0.193
7.5 1.92 0.13 24.5 6.08335 0.2038
8 2.04 0.132 25 6.2058 0.2061
8.5 2.17 0.134 25.5 6.32825 0.2084
10 2.54 0.143 26 6.4507 0.2107
10.5 2.66 0.145 26.5 6.57315 0.213
11 2.78 0.15 27 6.6956 0.2153
11.5 2.9 0.152 27.5 6.81805 0.2176
12 3.02 0.155 28 6.9405 0.2199
12.5 3.14 0.16 28.5 7.06295 0.2222
13 3.27 0.162 29 7.1854 0.2245
13.5 3.395 0.1625 29.5 7.30785 0.2268
14 3.52 0.163 30 7.4303 0.2291
14.5 3.64 0.165 30.5 7.55275 0.2314
15 3.76 0.167 31 7.6752 0.2337
15.5 3.885 0.1675 31.5 7.79765 0.236
16 4.01 0.168 32 7.9201 0.2383
16.5 4.13 0.17 32.5 8.04255 0.2406
17 4.25 0.172 33 8.165 0.2429
17.5 4.335 0.173 33.5 8.28745 0.2452
18 4.42 0.174 34 8.4099 0.2475
18.5 4.58 0.176 34.5 8.53235 0.2498
19 4.74 0.178 35 8.6548 0.2521
19.5 4.865 0.179
Table 15. Insulation jacket labor and materials (RSMeans)

Notes:
1. For noninteger ID sizes above 12.5 in., data are interpolated from whole sizes.
2. Data are only available for aluminum jacket up to 24 in. jacket ID. Larger IDs are
generated using the following curve fits:
a. Material cost = 0.2449 x ID + 0.0833, ID in in.
b. Labor hours = 0.0046 x ID + 0.0911, ID in in.
Size Range Material Cost ($/ft) Labor Hours

One Coat (Insulated Piping)
1–4 in. 0.12 0.013
5–8 in. 0.31 0.026
10–12 in. 0.31 0.039
14–16 in. 0.42 0.052
Two Coats (Uninsulated Piping)
1–4 in. 0.2 0.021
5–8 in. 0.41 0.042
10–12 in. 0.61 0.062
14–16 in. 0.82 0.082
Table 16. Material and Labor for Painting of Piping (RSMeans)
Notes:
1. Values are for brush-on painting of piping.
2. The assumption of one coat being for insulated piping denotes a prime coat
without a top coat where insulation is used. A second coat of paint is assumed
where piping remains uninsulated.

Notes:

2017 Technical Paper 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Technical Paper 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Paper #6

Method for Determining

Robert A. Sterling, P.E.

The ammonia refrigeration industry currently uses various methods to determine

In light of these circumstances, an updated method has been proposed for

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 3

Specific to the industrial ammonia refrigeration industry, Richards (1984) began

4 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Need for an Updated Approach

It was therefore determined that research be undertaken to provide such an

With these advantages in mind the work was undertaken.

Development of the Method

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 5

2. Energy consumption through pressure loss in a section of piping can be

6 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 7

2. A means to determine whether or not to decrease pipe size based on a smaller

8 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Prior to demonstrating the analysis method, some expanded commentary on the

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 9

in accordance with ASME B31.5. In addition to this reasoning, the notes in RS

10 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 11

With this explanation of background materials complete, the analysis can be

Step 1 – Define analysis parameters

The following parameters are required for input to the analysis:

12 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

c. Two-phase (with overfeed rate specified by user);

4. Energy cost (per kWh);

5. Hours of operation per year;

6. Labor cost (per hour); and

7. Assumed rate of inflation (on a yearly basis).

Determine an appropriate baseline size based on a guess for allowable pressure

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 13

Re Note that tnumber

Note that the Colebrook 𝑓𝑓

14 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ 𝑠𝑠 1 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1

Temperature (°F) -30

The pressure drop ics an acceptable

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 23

calculated Where using Equation 10.

ƒL is the liquid friction factor (as calculated in Equation 12)

Technical Paper *.f" ; *."f

Table 3 shows the properties of ammonia for this flow.

26 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

0.3333 1 − 0.3333 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙

𝐹𝐹 = 0.3333*./e 1 − 0.3333 *.11L

Line Size Pressure Drop (psi/100 ft) Power Consumption (kW)

Step 3 – Determine first costs

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 29

30 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Step 4 – Determine present value of energy costs

1. Yearly hours at the assumed condition,

2. Life of the system (years),

3. Energy cost per kWh, and

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 31

The net of

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 33

34 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

The aforementioned methodology provides a clear, stepwise means of comparing the

Technical Paper #6 © IIAR 2017 35

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME B31.9, Building Services Piping,

36 © IIAR 2017 Technical Paper #6

Technical Paper .f" ; ."f

𝐹𝐹 = 0.3333./e 1 − 0.3333 .11L