0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
171 просмотров3 страницы
This technical handbook discusses when to use a pipe loop or expansion joint to accommodate thermal expansion in piping systems. It provides factors to consider for both options, including space limitations, flow characteristics, code restrictions, and economics. Cost analyses tables allow estimating material and labor costs for loops and comparing annual costs of pumping through a loop versus using an expansion joint. An example problem demonstrates performing an economic analysis to determine the most cost-effective flexibility option for a given hot water piping system.
Исходное описание:
TECHNICAL HANDBOOK - PIPE LOOP OR EXPANSION JOINT?
This technical handbook discusses when to use a pipe loop or expansion joint to accommodate thermal expansion in piping systems. It provides factors to consider for both options, including space limitations, flow characteristics, code restrictions, and economics. Cost analyses tables allow estimating material and labor costs for loops and comparing annual costs of pumping through a loop versus using an expansion joint. An example problem demonstrates performing an economic analysis to determine the most cost-effective flexibility option for a given hot water piping system.
This technical handbook discusses when to use a pipe loop or expansion joint to accommodate thermal expansion in piping systems. It provides factors to consider for both options, including space limitations, flow characteristics, code restrictions, and economics. Cost analyses tables allow estimating material and labor costs for loops and comparing annual costs of pumping through a loop versus using an expansion joint. An example problem demonstrates performing an economic analysis to determine the most cost-effective flexibility option for a given hot water piping system.
For some applications, the choice is obvious. For most, however, the decision can only be made after an evaluation of a variety of factors, not the least of which is the economic one.
3. The fluid is abrasive and flows at high velocity.
4. The available supporting structure is not adequate for the size, shape or weight of a pipe loop. 5. A pipe loop may be impractical, as in low-pressure, large-diameter piping.
A piping system subjected to temperature fluctuations
will change in length if free to do so. If not free, it will exert reactive forces and moments on the equipment to which it is attached. When the magnitude of such a reaction would be unacceptable, flexibility must be designed into the piping system.
6. The construction schedule does not allow for the
additional work hours required to install a loop and its supporting structure.
Before the development of the expansion joint, flexibility
was provided by piping configurations that promoted bending. A loop was commonly included in a long run of straight pipe. In recent years, expansion joints have often been installed instead of pipe loops for a variety of reasons.
1. Directional changes are built into the pipes routing.
The decision factors
Both the pipe loop and the expansion joint will safely accommodate cyclic thermal movements, while retaining pressure integrity. The choice for a particular system may be obvious because of space limitations. In many cases, either will do the job with equal effectiveness and reliability. Too often, the choice is based on personal preference or on the we did it that way before principal. The economic aspect, which should be paramount, often is ignored.
For any of the following reasons, a pipe loop may be the
more appropriate choice:
2. The pocket in the pipe run that would be created by an
expansion joint cannot be tolerated. 3. An expansion joint would be impractical, as in small-diameter, high-pressure piping. 4. Corrosive attack of the bellows element would be a problem. 5. Expansion joints are not permitted by the applicable code.
The expansion joint most commonly installed in long
piping runs is designed so that the pressure is external to the convolutions (Figure 1). This type of construction makes longer axial movements possible than could normally be accommodated with an internally pressurized expansion joint. Inherent in this design are internal guide rings, a full-thickness cover, self-draining convolutions and insensitivity for flow direction. No lubrication or packing is required. A drain connection can be installed to remove sediment or condensate, or both. Pipe loops have proven to be a safe and reliable way of dealing with thermal expansion. Three typical loop configurations are shown in Figure 2. 1. Space is inadequate for a pipe loop of sufficient flexibility. 2. A minimum pressure drop through the line and the absence of fluid turbulence are essential for process or operating purposes.
2400 Longhorn Industrial Drive, New Braunfels, Texas 78130
Because actual costs are always changing, factors are presented for determining the costs of piping material and labor in a simplified analysis. The material and labor cost factors provided in Tables 1 and 2 are based on nominal 8-in.-dia. standard-weight ASTM A53 Grade B seamless pipe having a material cost of $1 O/ft [2] - i.e., all the other material-cost and all the labor-cost factors listed in the tables are relative to this single cost. If the current cost of the nominal 8-in-dia. standard-weight ASTM A53 Grade B seamless pipe were still $10/ft, all the cost factors in Tables 1 and 2 would be very close to actual costs in dollars.
If none of these reasons apply to a particular piping
design, either a pipe loop or an expansion joint could be selected. In such a case, the final decision should be based on economics. To compare the pipe loop with the expansion joint on an economic basis, one must consider more than just the first cost of the materials. The analysis should also include the cost of labor to cut, bevel, fit and weld pipe and elbows, as well as the cost of labor to fabricate a supporting structure. In addition to these first ones, any continuing annual costs associated with loops or expansion joints must be included. For example, the annual costs associated with pumping a liquid, such as hot water, around a loop rather than through an expansion joint can be significant. Each of these cost factors is presented in a simplified manner to aid the engineer in preparing a simple annual cost comparison between pipe loops and expansion joints.
If, however, this 8-in.-nominal-dia. pipe were now to cost
$15/ft, for example, the current cost in dollars for material and labor could be approximated by adding all the applicable factors for material and labor, and multiplying this sum by 1.50. Thus, knowing the current cost of the nominal 8-in.-dia. standard weight ASTM A53B seamless pipe, one can quickly estimate the material and labor costs for pipes of other materials and sizes. The following example demonstrates this approach: The U-bend pipe loop being considered would consist of 20 ft of 12-in. standard-weight A106B pipe and four short-radius elbows. The current cost of 8-in. standard weight A53B seamless pipe is $18/ft. What would be the approximate cost of the loop? Using Tables 1 and 2, the cost of the pipe loop is estimated as follows: Material cost - For pipe, $19.78 x 20 ft = $395.00; for elbows, $194.90 x 4 = $779.60. This total is $1,175.20. Labor cost- For flame-cutting PIPE TO length, $12 , 25) x 2 = $24.50; for beveling pipe ends, $9.75 x 4 = $39.00; for butt-welding pipe to elbows, $67.00 x 4 = $268.00; for butt-welding elbow to elbow, $67.00 x 1 = $67.00; for radiographing girth welds, $0. This total comes to $398.50.
Page 2
Material and labor costs total $1,573.80. Multiplying this figure
by 1.8 (to adjust the Table 1 factor for 8-in. A53B pipe for the present higher cost of $18/ft) gives a grand total of $2,833.
Annual cost of pumping through a loop
Because the annual cost of pumping a fluid through a pipe loop can be significant, it should be a part of an economic comparison. This cost results from the greater horsepower required to overcome the loops head loss, which would not be present with the straight through construction of an expansion joint. The resistance, or head loss, in a pipe loop is assumed to consist of the loss due to curvature and the frictional loss due to length [3]. To account for the curvature and frictional losses, a pipe loop can conveniently be
Combining these equations into an annual pumping cost
formula:
Here, Ca = annual cost of pumping, $; W = mass flow rate,
lb/h; 0 = volumetric flow rate, gal/min; f = friction factor, a function of Reynolds number and the character of the pipe wall (approximate values for fully turbulent liquid flow through smooth pipe are listed in Table3); L = equivalent length, ft (determined by means of the equations previously provided); u = utilization factor, % (i.e., the percentage of time that the system will be in operation during a year); c = average cost of electricity, $/kWh; e = pump and motor efficiency, % (normally 70- p = density of the pumped fluid, lb/ft; and d = pipe 1. D., in.
Sample problem - pipe loop vs. expansion joint
A decision on whether to install a pipe loop or an expansion joint can be resolved on the basis of economics. Hot water at 150 psig and 3000 F is to be distributed at a flow rate of 1,459,000 lb/h through nominal 12-in.-dia. standard-weight A106B pipe. The loop would be a short radius U-bend having a width of 12 ft (i.e., h = 12 ft). Both the pipe run and loop would be horizontal. An externally pressurized single-bellows expansion joint would cost $4,200. The cost of electricity averages $0.06/ kWh. The system is expected to be in operation an average of 16 h/d. The loop supporting structure would cost $500. The minimum rate of return, plus taxes and insurance, is 20%. Determine the most economical approach to provide the needed pipe-system flexibility.
described in terms of equivalent length (L), which is calculated
as follows: For short-radius elbows of U-bend and square-bend types, L = 2h + 11 6D; of the Z-bend type, L = 2h + 174D.
As previously calculated, the piping material and labor costs
for the loop add up to $2,833. The loop support costs an additional $500. The equivalent length of the U-bends is 2(12) + 116(l) = 140 ft. Via the pumping-cost equation, the annual cost of pumping hot water through the loop would be: (1,459,000)1(0.013)(140)(0.67)(0.06)1 (627,300) (0.70) (57.3)2( 12)5, or $633/yr.
For long-radius elbows of the U-bend and square bend types,
L = 2h +74D; of the Z-bend type, L = 2h + 111D.
The tabulation in Table 4 shows that, while on the basis of
purchase costs the expansion joint is more expensive, it is 35% less expensive based on total annual costs.
Here, h is the height (or, if horizontal, the width) of the loop,
ft, and D is the pipe I.D., ft. These equivalent lengths are based on an LID ratio of 30 for short-radius elbows and 20 for long-radius elbows [3].
References
The standard method for calculating head loss in straight
pipe is by the Darcy equation:
Horsepower requirements are calculated via:
1 . Design of Piping Systems, The M. W. Kellogg Co., Wiley,
New York, 1956, p. 210. 2. Weaver, R., The Pipers Pocket Handbook, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, 1979. 3. Flow Of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe, The Crane Co., New York, 1979. 4. Crocker, S., Piping Handbook, ed. R. C. King, McGrawHill, New York, 5th ed., 1978.