Feature Report

Short-Cut Piping Costs

This method saves TABLE 1. STRAIGHT RUN PROCESS PIPING —
BASE COSTS AND BARE MODULE INSTALLED PRICES
precious time in Pipe type Sched- CP·a
ule
FM·a Pipe Field Equipment,
Base cost pipe, Material Racks, installa- engineering,
CBM·a
Total bare
FBM·a
Instal-

preparing estimates for flanges, and

preparation,
$/m
Factor $/m tion, $/m contractor’s
expenses,
$/m
module cost,
$/m
lation
factor

pre-design and other Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80

5-cm nominal diameter — pressures up to 10 barg
3.63 0.3 14.77 9.89 15.74 44.03 3.4

approximated analyses Chlorinated polyvinyl-

chloride (CPVC)
80 9.35 0.7 14.77 9.89 15.74 49.75 3.9

Carbon Steel 40 12.83 1.0 11.05 11.24 16.25 51.36 4.0

Stainless 304L 10 19.92 1.6 11.95 11.24 17.99 61.10 4.8
Gael D. Ulrich and Stainless 316L 10 25.67 2.0 11.95 11.24 18.74 67.60 5.3
Palligarnai T. Vasudevan Lined carbon steel 40
• Rubber 29.20 2.3 19.41 14.05 22.20 84.86 6.6
University of New Hampshire
• Conventional plastic 61.68 4.8 20.91 14.05 26.98 123.62 9.6

E
• Fluorocarbon 126.07 9.8 19.41 14.05 31.94 191.48 14.9
ngineers often need to predict • Glass 127.42 9.9 22.36 14.05 34.14 197.98 15.4
the cost of piping and pipefitting Fiberglass-reinforced 63.33 4.9 19.41 14.05 26.23 123.02 9.6
associated with a process unit. plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20 10 112.13 8.7 12.41 11.58 27.73 163.84 12.8
Even though detailed prices are
Monel 10 140.42 11.0 12.11 11.24 29.98 193.75 15.1
available, finding and organizing them Hastelloy C-276 10 195.07 15.2 13.17 12.14 37.47 257.84 20.1
takes time and costs money. For those Titanium 10 127.81 10.0 14.08 13.04 32.22 187.16 14.6
needing a quick method of approxima- Zirconium 10 388.29 30.3 14.08 13.04 58.45 473.86 37.0
tion (such as for a pre-design estimate), 10-cm nominal dia. — pressures up to 10 barg
a short-cut piping cost method is pre- Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80 9.41 0.4 14.77 12.59 17.99 54.76 2.1
Chlorinated polyvinyl- 80 26.62 1.0 14.77 12.59 19.48 73.47 2.8
sented in this article. For convenience chloride (CPVC)
and compactness, the relevant equa- Carbon Steel 40 25.85 1.0 11.49 14.61 20.69 72.64 2.8
tions and data lists are superimposed Stainless 304L 10 39.69 1.5 12.40 14.61 23.23 89.94 3.5
on the same diagram as the base cost Stainless 316L 10 49.63 1.9 12.41 14.61 23.98 100.63 3.9
curves (p. 48). The method of the chart’s Lined carbon steel 40
• Rubber 49.97 1.9 24.30 16.86 28.89 120.02 4.6
compilation and other background de-
• Conventional plastic 132.23 5.1 26.98 16.86 38.22 214.30 8.3
tails are described below. • Fluorocarbon 239.81 9.3 24.30 16.86 48.37 329.34 12.7
Lindley and Floyd [1] reported de- • Glass 215.41 8.3 30.35 16.86 48.32 310.95 12.0
tailed data for more than 30 types of Fiberglass-reinforced 91.43 3.5 24.30 16.86 33.72 166.31 6.4
piping in three diameters (2, 4 and 6 plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20 10 232.83 9.0 12.85 15.06 43.47 304.21 11.8
in., essentially equivalent to 5, 10 and
Monel 10 324.09 12.5 12.55 14.61 51.71 402.97 15.6
15 cm. nominal dia.) and two types of Hastelloy C-276 10 557.37 21.6 13.62 15.96 77.94 664.89 25.7
installation: Titanium 10 282.15 10.9 14.52 17.31 51.71 365.70 14.1
1. Simple straight runs such as those Zirconium 10 1017.76 39.4 14.52 17.31 125.15 1174.75 45.4
used to convey raw materials from 15-cm nominal dia. — pressures up to 10 barg
storage to a process module Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80 16.84 0.4 17.94 14.39 21.73 70.90 1.7
Chlorinated polyvinyl- 80 51.55 1.2 17.94 14.39 25.48 109.36 2.6
2. Complex systems such as the chloride (CPVC)
plumbing associated with a distilla- Carbon Steel 40 42.40 1.0 12.37 17.09 25.79 97.65 2.3
tion column or heat exchanger Stainless 304L 10 63.51 1.5 13.28 17.09 28.48 122.36 2.9
That database is, no doubt, valued by Stainless 316L 10 80.90 1.9 13.28 17.09 29.98 141.24 3.3
many who prepare detailed definitive Lined carbon steel 40 0.0
• Rubber 58.15 1.4 30.06 19.67 33.98 141.86 3.3
cost estimates. We likewise found it
• Conventional plastic 215.34 5.1 35.22 19.67 51.71 321.94 7.6
useful to construct our short-cut chart, • Fluorocarbon 359.90 8.5 30.06 19.67 64.45 474.08 11.2
which is applicable to the same set of • Glass 373.16 8.8 37.77 19.67 69.13 499.72 11.8
piping sizes and materials. Fiberglass-reinforced 152.43 3.6 30.06 19.67 43.84 246.00 5.8
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20 10 364.58 8.6 13.73 17.76 59.20 455.27 10.7
Simple, straight pipe runs
Monel 10 912.96 21.5 13.43 17.09 113.91 1057.39 24.9
Consider a simple system made of Hastelloy C-276 10 750.98 17.7 14.49 18.89 100.42 884.78 20.9
standard piping suitable for pressures Titanium 10 415.52 9.8 15.40 20.68 68.95 520.55 12.3
up to 10 barg at ambient tempera- Zirconium 10 1168.91 27.6 15.40 20.68 144.64 1349.64 31.8

44 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

 NOMENCLATURE
CBM·a Bare module price of piping material Dact Bare pipe actual outside diameter, cm Fp
Pressure factor, dimensionless
”a”, i.e., its total contribution to the FBM·a Bare module installation factor for L
Pipe length, m
capital cost of a process material “a“ (ratio of bare module p
Internal pipe pressure, barg (bars gage)
module, $/m installed cost to purchase price of car- S
Design stress of pipeline material,
CBM·Ins Bare module price of piping bon steel), dimensionless bara (bar absolute)
insulation, $/m of pipe length FM·a Material factor for material “a“ t Pipe wall thickness, cm
CP·a Base cost or purchase price of (quotient of base cost CP·a for piping topt Optimum insulation thickness, cm
piping material “a“ prepared for material divided by CP·cs the base cost ∆T Difference between pipe temperature
transport to an installation site, $/m of carbon steel pipe having the same and ambient, °C
D, Dnom Bare pipe nominal diameter, cm diameter), dimensionless

TABLE 2. COMPLEX PIPING SYSTEMS —

BASE COSTS AND BARE MODULE INSTALLED PRICES �������������

������������� �������
Pipe type Sched- CP·a FM·a Pipe Field Equipment, CBM·a FBM·a ��� �������
ule Base cost Material Racks, instal- engineering, Total bare Instal-
pipe, flanges, Factor $/m lation, contractor’s module lation

�
and prepara- $/m expenses, cost, $/m factor
tion, $/m $/m
5-cm nominal diameter — pressures up to 10 barg ������������
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80 18.42 0.4 7.62 23.27 29.11 78.42 1.7 ����������
Chlorinated polyvinyl- 80 26.09 0.6 7.62 23.27 30.43 87.40 1.9
chloride (CPVC) ��
Carbon Steel 40 46.67 1.0 19.56 23.44 50.79 140.45 3.0 � �� ���
Stainless 304L 10 71.96 1.5 19.88 23.44 53.13 168.41 3.6 ���������������������
Stainless 316L 10 83.62 1.8 19.88 23.44 52.83 179.77 3.9
Lined carbon steel 40 FIGURE 1. To obtain an installed price
• Rubber 80.31 1.7 25.88 25.85 40.48 172.53 3.7 for any either complex or straight-run pip-
• Conventional plastic 204.03 4.4 29.04 25.85 50.85 309.77 6.6 ing, simply multiply the appropriate value
• Fluorocarbon 329.87 7.1 25.88 25.85 60.38 441.99 9.5 from this figure by the installation factor,
• Glass 294.49 6.3 31.67 25.85 61.90 413.92 8.9 FBM·a, for that material
Fiberglass-reinforced 180.23 3.9 25.88 25.85 49.18 281.15 6.0
plastic (FRP)
ture.1 To prepare carbon steel pipe
Alloy 20 10 325.92 7.0 20.03 23.55 72.84 442.34 9.5
Monel 10 285.72 6.1 19.94 23.44 69.32 398.42 8.5
for straight runs, it is normally cut to
Hastelloy C-276 10 420.80 9.0 20.28 23.55 87.31 551.93 11.8 length (typically 6 or 12 m) in a shop
Titanium 10 356.52 7.6 20.62 23.66 86.78 487.58 10.4 where flanges are welded at each end.
Zirconium 10 763.40 16.4 20.62 23.66 120.88 928.56 19.9 These “thimbles” are sandblasted,
10-cm nominal dia. — pressures up to 10 barg painted and otherwise made ready for
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80 36.91 0.5 7.62 27.93 40.02 112.48 1.4
transport to the plant site.2 In 1993,
Chlorinated polyvinyl- 80 66.59 0.8 7.62 27.93 42.04 144.18 1.8
chloride (CPVC) Lindley and Floyd reported the price
Carbon Steel 40 80.62 1.0 30.48 28.19 75.16 214.45 2.7 for such preconditioned, Schedule 40,
Stainless 304L 10 139.64 1.7 30.79 28.19 79.89 278.50 3.5 5-cm (2 in.) nominal dia., carbon-steel
Stainless 316L 10 164.25 2.0 30.79 28.19 82.21 305.44 3.8 pipe to be $1,711 for a 500-ft long
Lined carbon steel 40
(152.4-m) section. This corresponds
• Rubber 111.29 1.4 45.12 32.60 61.34 250.35 3.1
• Conventional plastic 382.20 4.7 50.59 32.60 84.23 549.62 6.8
to a base price of $11.23/m in 1993
• Fluorocarbon 588.56 7.3 45.12 32.60 98.70 764.98 9.5 dollars. For this article, we escalated
• Glass 486.91 6.0 57.02 32.60 100.72 677.25 8.4 numbers to mid-2003 dollars by mul-
Fiberglass-reinforced 267.92 3.3 45.12 32.60 74.38 420.02 5.2 tiplying all 1993 data by 400 (the CE
plastic (FRP)
Plant Cost Index [CE PCI] for mid
Alloy 20 10 732.76 9.1 30.94 28.24 124.25 916.20 11.4
Monel 10 706.76 8.8 30.86 28.19 123.58 889.38 11.0
2003) and then dividing it by 350 (the
Hastelloy C-276 10 1072.30 13.3 31.19 28.36 165.55 1297.39 16.1 CE PCI for 1993). The resulting 5-cm
Titanium 10 765.74 9.5 31.53 28.52 145.87 971.67 12.1 carbon-steel base price in mid-2003
Zirconium 10 1852.97 23.0 31.53 28.52 238.46 2151.49 26.7 dollars is $12.83/m, the value shown
15-cm nominal dia. — pressures up to 10 barg in the third row of Table 1.
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80 65.26 0.5 10.46 32.17 49.01 156.90 1.3
To update data in this article to a
Chlorinated polyvinyl- 80 127.78 1.0 10.46 32.17 54.07 224.49 1.8
chloride (CPVC)
1. Ranges of suitable temperatures vary widely,
Carbon Steel 40 124.18 1.0 39.57 32.51 95.16 291.42 2.3 depending on type of pipe. Some conventional
Stainless 304L 10 262.43 2.1 39.47 32.51 104.02 438.42 3.5 plastic pipe is limited to 65°C (service tem-
Stainless 316L 10 313.44 2.5 39.47 32.51 108.67 494.08 4.0 peratures for specific polymers can be found in
Dennis [2] or in Perry [3], Tables 10-15, 10-16,
Lined carbon steel 40 10-17, and 28-22). Copper and aluminum tubing
• Rubber 137.44 1.1 58.20 39.34 73.46 308.45 2.5 are not normally recommended above 150°C.
• Conventional plastic 635.69 5.1 64.64 39.34 114.40 854.07 6.9 Carbon steel is suitable to 500°C if protected
from oxidation. Stainless steels and nickel al-
• Fluorocarbon 919.33 7.4 58.20 39.34 132.25 1149.12 9.3 loys serve up to 600°C under favorable circum-
• Glass 785.32 6.3 73.35 39.34 135.41 1033.42 8.3 stances. Limits for titanium and glass-lined
Fiberglass-reinforced 506.23 4.1 58.20 39.34 101.66 705.43 5.7 pipe are 315°C and 232°C respectively (Perry
plastic (FRP) [3], pages 10-96 and 10-99).
Alloy 20 10 1171.58 9.4 39.62 32.59 173.04 1416.83 11.4 2. Some of those preparation steps could be con-
sidered installation expenses rather than part
Monel 10 1610.63 13.0 39.53 32.51 216.73 1899.40 15.3 of base pipe cost. We included them in the base
Hastelloy C-276 10 1685.59 13.6 39.87 32.73 227.37 1985.57 16.0 cost to place all pipe on the same footing, because
Titanium 10 1368.80 11.0 40.21 32.96 209.80 1651.76 13.3 some types come from the factory as thimbles
already prepared for the field with no need for
Zirconium 10 2714.46 21.9 40.21 32.96 317.23 3104.85 25.0 cleaning, painting, or welding.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006 45

 Feature Report
year after 2003, multiply your result
by the overall CE PCI for the more
recent time period and then divide by
400 (the value for mid 2003). For ex-
ample, per the final Dec. 2005 index
(the most up to date CE PCI as of this
issue, p. 84) the ratio is approximately
476/400 or 1.19.
Meanwhile, installation includes
transport to the site, pipe rack con-
struction, pipe assembly, equipment
rental, labor and contractor fees. The
sum of updated costs for these activities
reported by Lindley and Floyd yields
an installed bare-module value equal
to $51.40/m for 5-cm dia., Schedule 40,
carbon steel pipe. Installed cost divided
by the base price ($51.40/m ÷ $12.80/
m) yields a bare module (installation)
factor FBM·cs of 4.0.3 Installation fac-
tors for 14 other types of piping were
computed via the same procedure and
are listed in Table 1. (Values quoted
above for carbon steel can be found in
the carbon steel row of the 5-cm-pipe
sub-table.) Material factors, FBM·a
(where subscript “a” denotes material
of construction), are equal to the base
cost, CP·a (again, where subscript “a”
denotes material of construction), for
each type of piping divided by CP·cs, the
base cost of carbon steel pipe having
the same diameter.
Complex piping systems
Complex piping systems were ana-
lyzed by an approach similar to that
used for straight pipe runs. Lindley
and Floyd assumed a layout averag-
ing one fitting (elbow or tee) every 3
m and one valve every 7.5 m. They did
not include purchase and installation
of valves in their tally, however, be-
cause they felt that valve prices vary
too widely to be included in data in-
tended for definitive estimates.
Valves can be included in a pre-
liminary estimate like the one in this
article, where limits of precision are
broader. Bare module costs for complex
pipe systems, valves included, were de-
termined by using Lindley and Floyd’s
assumption of 2.5 fittings for every
valve and our estimate that a valve
3. Based on Guthrie’s capital-cost estimation tech-
nique [4, 5], where installed cost of equipment in
a bare process module is equal to purchase cost
multiplied by bare module factor. Subscript “cs”
denotes material of construction (carbon steel in
this case).
46 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006
TABLE 3. MATERIAL FACTORS FOR SELECTED CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS AND COMPONENTSe
Material Pipec Metal Process vessels, Pumpsa Heat exchang-
plated etc. a,b ers a,b
Carbon steel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Aluminum 1.5
Copper/Brass 1.8 1.4
Rubber-lined steel 1.6 1.3 1.4
Stainless, 304 1.7 1.7 2.8 1.7
Stainless, 316 2.0 2.0 2.9 1.8
Alloy 20 8.6 5 6.1 5.2
Titanium 9.8 13-35 10.7 8.7
Monel 12 20 9.0 3.3 7.3
Hastelloy C-276 15 15 12.5 10.1
Zirconium 26 11 8.7
a. Holland and Wilkinson (Perry [3], page 9-74)
b. Yau and Bird [6]
c. This study, average of all data in Tables 1 and 2
d. McMaster-Carr [7] catalogue
e. Because of labor, installation factors are not the same as material factors. The material factor for
titanium, for example, is about 10 times that of carbon steel. The ratio of installed costs, on the other
hand, is usually between 3 and 5 because much of the expense involves labor, which is basically the
same for both materials. Because of ambiguity in some data sources, some numbers in this list may
be ratios of installed costs rather than ratios of purchase prices (the definition of FM in this article)
costs four times as much as the average ter (Figure 1).6 There are two lines: one
fitting. Results are contained in Table for straight runs, the other for complex
2. By way of explanation, consider each piping networks. This requires only six
column of that table briefly: data points from Tables 1 and 2; for
• Base costs, valves included, are straight-run and complex carbon-steel
listed in column three4 piping in three diameters.
• FM·a material factors (ratios of CP·a
to CP·cs), are listed in column four Different materials of
• Pipe rack costs (unaffected by the construction and installation
presence of valves) were drawn di- Two simple curves for carbon steel
rectly from Lindley and Floyd5 pipe in Figure 1 serve as the launch-
• Columns six and seven, Field installa- ing point from which installed costs
tion, and Equipment engineering and of many types and sizes of pipes will
contractor fees, were revised by as- be estimated. To obtain an installed
suming that reported differences be- price for any type of pipe, one simply
tween complex and straight-run pipe multiplies the appropriate value from
were due to fittings. These differences Figure 1 by the installation factor for
were increased by 40% to account for that material. For example, the in-
valves and added back to original stallation factor from Table 2 aver-
straight-run prices for each pipe size ages about 3.5 for Type 304 stainless-
and type steel pipe in complex networks. This
• After these adjustments, total bare yields a mid-2003 cost for 8-cm dia.
module price CBM·a is simply the 304-stainless-steel piping associated
sum of the costs. Installation factors with process equipment of $240/m
FBM·a were derived as the quotient (CP·cs of $68/m from Figure 1 for 8-cm
of CBM·a and the base cost of carbon pipe in a complex network, multiplied
steel CP·cs by 3.5). For a straight run, where the
In the preparation of a cost chart, CP·cs installation factor (Table 1) is 4.0,
is plotted versus nominal pipe diame- the mid-2003 price in 304 stainless
is $84/m (CP·cs of $21/m from Fig-
4. Costs of pipe, flanges, and routine fittings were ure 1 for 8-cm dia., straight-run pipe
listed by Lindley and Floyd. To estimate the added
effect of valves, prices for fittings were multiplied times 4.0). To predict costs for the
by 1.6 (0.4 valves per fitting at four times the same piping in a project planned for
price). Sandblasting and painting charges were
not changed. Shop fabrication expenses were in- the future, one would multiply these
creased by 40% to allow for valves. These were
summed to give Base Cost, valves included.
6. The chart employs log-log coordinates, since
5. Adjusted to mid 2003 prices and normalized capital costs usually follow the six-tenths rule,
per meter of pipe length. producing a straight line when plotted.
 EXAMPLE– PIPELINE COST ESTIMATE

O
wners of a steam boiler are considering a plant expansion.
No change is planned for the boiler module itself, but its
fuel-oil storage tanks are to be relocated. This will require a
new fuel-feed pipeline, 65 m in length. Construction is expected to
occur in 2006. Estimate the cost of running the new line.
An operator pumps fuel from storage to the feed drum once every
shift for a period of 15 minutes, requiring a flow of 3.9 liter/s.
Perry [3], page 6-14, suggests an optimum flow velocity in the
range of 1.8–2.4 m/s for this situation. Nominal-3.8-cm standard
pipe will suffice (1-1/2 in., Schedule 40, 4.1-cm actual inside di-
ameter, 4.8 cm OD).a, b
A corrosion checkc confirms common experience that almost any
of the metals covered by the short-cut chart (p. 48) will contain
the fuel without corroding. Carbon steel, the current metal, has
served for many years, and maintenance people tell us that sur-
face conditions inside the pipe are like new. Otherwise, weather
exposure on the outside has required periodic repainting and
other maintenance.
According to the short-cut chart (p. 48), the base cost CP·cs for
nominal 3.8 cm pipe (straight run) is $11.50/m. For carbon steel
with material and pressure factors of unity, FBM•cs for straight-run
a. At 2.4 m/s, the calculated diameter is 4.5 cm. Optimum pipe diame-
ters/flow velocities from Perry [3] assume continuous pumping of fluid. A
rigorous analysis of batch transfers like this one will push the optimum
to a slightly smaller diameter and a higher velocity
b. We must, of course, choose a diameter that is commercially available.
Standard U.S. nominal pipe sizes are denoted by ticks on the horizontal
axis of the short-cut chart, p. 48.
c. See, for example, Table 4-1a, Ulrich and Vasudevan [8]
pipe is calculated to be 4.9 from Equation (3). Thus, the mid-
2003 bare-module cost of uninsulated pipe is 4.9  $11.50/m
= $56/m.
The pipe must be traced to maintain its temperature at 95°C.
From Equation (5), the optimum insulation thickness is found to
be 2.6 cm. With this value for topt and 4.8 cm for Dact, we find
an additional cost of $22/m for insulation. Thus, the total bare
module cost in 2003 dollars is $78/m or $5,100 for a 65-m
run. Based on a projected CE Plant Cost Index of 485, the 2006
predicted price is $5,100  485/400 = $6,200.
Past experience with the old line suggests that we might save
in maintenance dollars and aggravation if we make the line of
Schedule 10, Type 304 stainless steel. In this case, FM is 1.5,
leading to a value of 5.5 for FBM. Uninsulated pipe cost is 5.5 
$11.50/m = $63/m. With insulation at $22/m, the bare module
cost is $85/m or $5,525 in 2003 dollars; $6,700 in 2006. The
difference is slight enough to seriously consider stainless steel.
A more experienced engineer notes that even though Sched-
ule-10 or light-wall pipe is adequate for the pressure and expo-
sure, it may not tolerate abused. A heavier wall stock would be
safer. She suggests using 304 stainless steel, Schedule-40 pipe.
Since this is the wall thickness in alloy piping denoted for high
pressure service, we can estimate its price by using a pressure
factor of 1.6 in the equation for FBM. Doing so, we find FBM
for Schedule 40, 304-stainless-steel pipe is 6.5. Its 2006 bare
module price is $7,600 for the 65 m line. ❒
d. A large fraction of industrial safety/pollution incidents is caused by
vehicles puncturing outdoor pipelines and storage tanks

results by the ratio of the future CE
PCI to 400. In mid 2007, for instance,
current trends suggest a CE PCI of
500. Thus, mid-2007 prices would be
25% greater than those cited in this
example.
To make things easier for spread-
sheet formulation, we gain generality
and consistency with a minor loss of
precision by using equations to calcu-
late installation factors. For straight-
runs, Equation (1) yields factors for all
three diameters that, on average, fall
within ±5% of those listed in Table 17
FBM⋅a = 11.6 D −0.84 + 1.13 FM ⋅a
(1)
The following equation does almost as
well for complex networks in Table 2
FBM⋅a = 2.0 − 0.024 D − 0.001D2 + 1.22 FM⋅a
−0.011D ⋅ FM⋅a − 0.015 D ⋅ ( FM⋅a )
−2
(2)
With these equations, a list of mate-
rial factors, and two cost curves, one
can estimate bare module prices for
straight-run and complex piping sys-
tems in 15 materials and all diameters
between 5 and 15 cm.8, 9 For context,
7. Two thirds of the calculations fall within plus
or minus 5%. None differs by more than 20%
from original data.
8. For a few materials in Tables 1 and 2, FM·a
varies erratically from one pipe size to another.
This stems from the data source where Hastel-
loy C-276, for example, is reported to cost 70%
more than Monel in 10-cm pipe but 15% less in
15-cm pipe. Except for a few discrepancies like
this, relative prices in Lindley and Floyd’s tables
change only slightly and consistently with diam-
Table 3 lists material factors for vari-
ous piping materials alongside values
that have been published throughout
literature for other types of equip-
ment. Values for alloy plate, pumps,
heat exchangers, process vessels, and
so on, are included.
High pressure service
By an analysis similar to that just
described, pressure factors can be de-
rived to predict bare module prices of
heavier pipe. Lindley and Floyd in-
cluded data for seven piping materials
rated for up to 40 barg pressure. These
higher pressure piping costs can be
predicted via Figure 1 if equations for
FBM are revised by replacing FM in
each case with the product FM·Fp.
Straight-run piping systems:
FBM⋅a = 11.6 D –0.84 + 1.13 FM ⋅a ⋅ Fp
(3)
Complex piping networks:
2
FBM⋅a = 2.0 – 0.024 D − 0.001D + 1.22 FM⋅a ⋅ Fp
( )
−2
−0.011D ⋅ FM⋅a ⋅ Fp − 0.015 D FM⋅a ⋅ Fp
(4)
eter. The act of smoothing data with a general
correlation like the one we are building might
actually improve their reliability.
9. Pipe made from premium metals, because of
greater strength and smaller corrosion allow-
ance, can be lighter than carbon steel. Thin-wall
(schedule 10) stainless steel and alloy piping
serves at pressures up to 10 barg, for example,
in service where schedule 40 would be required
if made from carbon steel. Schedule 40 alloy pipe
can often be used at pressures up to 40 barg.
where FM values are those listed in
Columns 4 of Tables 1 and 2, and
Fp = 1.0 for pressures less than 10 barg
Fp = 1.6 for 10 to 40 barg pressure
Insulation costs
With the information assembled thus
far, one can quickly estimate installed
prices for simple and complex net-
works from Figure 1 for fifteen differ-
ent types of pipe between 5 and 15-cm
nominal dia. at pressures up to 40
barg. The approach is even more use-
ful if it is extended to include the cost
of insulation, which is necessary in
most chemical process applications.
Finding the optimum thickness of
pipe insulation is discussed in Chap-
ter 7 of Ulrich and Vasudevan [8].
Based on that analysis using 2003
energy prices, one finds the optimum
insulation thickness to be10
0.20
topt = 0.85 Dnom ⋅ ∆T 0.65
(5)
where
topt = optimum insulation thickness,
cm
Dnom = bare pipe nominal diameter,
cm
∆T = the difference between pipe tem-
perature and ambient, °C
With thickness known, the 2003 cost
10. Steam-traced pipe based on energy costs of
$3.80/GJ. For other energy prices, electrical trac-
ing, and different circumstances, see Ulrich and
Vasudevan [8], Chapter 7 or Perry [3], Tables 11-
21 and 11-22.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006 47

 Feature Report

THE SHORT-CUT METHOD FOR PIPING COSTS

Using data from this chart (right) and the

�����������������������������
table (below), these equations can be used to ��������������������������������
quickly estimate costs for 15 different piping �����������������������������������
materials of 5–15-cm dia. at pressures up to ���
40 barg.
�������������

�������������� �������
�������
CBM = FBM ⋅ CP⋅cs + CBM⋅Ins

(
CBM⋅Ins = 1.13 ⋅ topt Dact + topt )
For straight-run piping systems:
������������
FBM⋅a = 11.6 D –0.84 + 1.13 FM ⋅a Fp ����������
���������
��������
For complex piping networks: �����
������
���� ���� �� ������ �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� ���
FBM⋅a = 2.0 – 0.024 D − 0.001D2 + 1.22 FM ⋅a ⋅ Fp ��
������ ������ ��� ���
( )
−2 � �� ���
−0.011D ⋅ FM ⋅a ⋅ Fp − 0.015 D FM ⋅a ⋅ Fp �����������������������������

MATERIAL FACTORS [FM]

Piping type Straight-run Complex Piping type Straight-run Complex
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 0.4 0.5 Fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) 4.0 3.8
Chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) 0.9 0.8 Alloy 20 8.8 8.5
Carbon steel 1.0 1.0 Titanium 10.2 9.4
Type 304 stainless steel 1.5 1.8 Monel 15.0 9.3
Type 316 stainless steel 1.9 2.1 Hastelloy C-276 18.2 12.0
Carbon-steel pipe lined with: Zirconium 32.4 20.4
-rubber 1.9 1.4
PRESSURE FACTORS Fp
-conventional plastic (cp) 5.0 4.7
-fluorocarbon plastic (fp) 9.2 7.3 Less than 10 barg 1.0
-glass 9.0 6.2 10 to 40 barg 1.6

of purchasing and installing insula-
tion can be calculated from
(
CBM⋅Ins = 1.13 ⋅ topt Dact + topt ) pipe to be proportional to mass — a
(6)
where Dact is actual bare-pipe outside
diameter, cm
The cost chart
Finally, we have the information to
prepare a refined, comprehensive cost
chart. In composing it, let us consider
basic capital cost concepts and revisit
the lines in Figure 1. (With creative
insight, these curves might be ex-
trapolated with confidence outside the p⋅ D (8)
t=
5–15 cm range.) 2(0.9 S − 0.6 p)
First, one would expect the cost of With typical design-stress values S
falling in the range of 1,000 bara and
variation on π·D·t·L. Accordingly, for at pipe internal pressures of 40 barg
pipes of different diameter made from or less, the second term in the denom-
the same material, their base cost inator’s parenthetical expression can
ratio would be be disregarded. Thus, wall thickness
CP 1⋅a D1 ⋅ t1 is directly proportional to pressure
= and diameter. For pipes of the same
CP 2⋅a D2 ⋅ t2
(7) material designed to handle the same
The relevant design expression that pressure, thickness ratio is, therefore,
relates wall thickness to material equal to diameter ratio.
strength, pressure, and diameter is11: t1 D1 (9)
=
11. See Ulrich and Vasudevan [8], p. 95. t2 D2

References 2. Dennis, G., Picking the Best Thermoplastic

1. Lindley, N.L. and J.C. Floyd, Piping Systems:
How Installation Costs Stack Up, Chem.
Eng., pp. 94-100, January, 1993. (This com-
prehensive study is more than 10 years old,
near the limit recommended for scaling with
inflation factors. No major technological or
productivity changes have occurred with pip-
efitting in the interim, however, so escalated
numbers reported here are considered valid
for today’s use.)
Lining, Chem. Eng., pp. 122-124, October,
1998.
3. Perry, J. H., D.W. Green, and J.O. Maloney,
“Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook,”
7th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
4. Guthrie, K.M., Data and Techniques for Pre-
liminary Capital Cost Estimation, Chem.
Eng., pp. 114-142, Mar. 24, 1969.
5. Guthrie, K.M., “Process Plant Estimating,
Evaluation and Control,” Craftsman, Solano
Beach, California, 1974.
6. Yau, T. and K.W. Bird, Know which Reactive
and Refractory Metals Work for You, Chem.
Eng. Prog., 88, pp. 65-69, February, 1992.
7. McMaster-Carr Catalogue 106, McMaster-
Carr Supply Company, New Brunswick, N.J.,
2000, www.mcmaster.com.
8. Ulrich, G.D. and P.T. Vasudevan, “Chemical
Engineering Process Design and Economics,
A Practical Guide,” 2nd Ed., Process Publish-
ing, 2004, ulrichvasudesign.com.

48 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006


Substituting Equation (9) into Equa-
tion (7) suggests that piping cost should
be proportional to diameter squared:
2
CP 1⋅a D1 ⋅ t1  D1 
= =
CP 2⋅a D2 ⋅ t2  D2  (10)
According to Equation (10), cost plot-
ted against diameter on a log-log chart
should have a slope of two.
A quick check of Figure 1, however,
reveals a slope much closer to one.
This deviation from theoretical is
caused by other factors included in
base cost. Some of these (shop labor,
etc.), vary less with diameter than
do materials alone. As diameter in-
creases, however, the labor compo-
nent should diminish, causing the
slope to drift toward two. As diameter
decreases, on the other hand, labor
will become dominant and the slope
will approach zero. This suggests that
the two lines in Figure 1 should be
curved, with slopes approaching zero
at small diameter and two at large
diameter.
A closer look at Figure 1 revels that
the data points are actually represented
much more accurately by a curved line
than a straight one. In the final short-
cut cost chart (p. 48), curves for both
simple and complex piping systems
are drawn to pass through the center
of each data point and asymptotically
approach the limiting slopes zero and
two. This graph, along with relevant
data and equations summarized next
to it, are all that is needed to prepare a
quick estimate of piping costs12.
For an illustrative example of how to
use the chart and equations to estimate
piping costs, see the box, p. 47. ■ Email: vasu@unh.edu) where
Edited by Rebekkah Marshall
12. Cost data derived from the short-cut chart are
compared with the data used to create it on pp.
355 and 356 of Reference [8]. Standard deviations
average less than ±15% in most cases. The largest
variances match anomalies in data mentioned ear-
lier. Most errors are overestimates by the correla-
tion, especially for the smallest diameter pipe.
Authors
Gael D. Ulrich (34R Pren-
tiss St., Cambridge, MA
02140-2241; Email: gael.
ulrich@comcast.net) is pro-
fessor emeritus of chemical
engineering at the University
of New Hampshire, where he
joined the faculty in 1970. He
worked at Atomics Interna-
tional Div. of North American
aviation and Cabot Corp. prior
to entering teaching. He holds
a B.S.Ch.E. and an M.S.Ch.E. from the University
of Utah and an Sc.D. from the Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology. For the past thirty years, he
has consulted for a number of corporations and
presided over a small contract research firm for
ten. Material in this article was extracted from
Reference [8] published with coauthor P. T. Va-
sudevan in 2004.
Palligarnai T. Vasudevan
is professor of chemical en-
gineering at the University
of New Hampshire (Chemi-
cal Engineering Department,
Kingsbury Hall, Rm W301, 33
College Road, Durham, NH
03824; Phone: 603-862-2298;
he joined the faculty in 1988.
He worked for a large petro-
chemical company for seven
years prior to entering teaching. For the past 15
years, he has worked in the areas of catalysis and
biocatalysis. He is currently collaborating with
researchers in Spain in the areas of hydrode-
sulfurization and enzyme catalysis. Vasudevan
holds a B.S.Ch.E. from Madras, India, a M.S.Ch.
E. from SUNY at Buffalo and a Ph.D. in chemical
engineering from Clarkson University.

PRESSURE RELIEF FOR

ALMOST ANY APPLICATION
O
ver pressure conditions threaten productivity at the most
inopportune time. Late at night, the weekend, a holiday.
Your process needs safety protection and emergency service.
At Continental Disc Corporation, our professionals
are trained and on-call for situations like
these. They’ll ask the right questions and
proceed into emergency production and
shipping. You’ll get the protection you
need in your time of need. Call it
24/7/365 Emergency Service.
Let us be your pressure-relief partner.

• Rupture Discs • Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valves

• Flame/Detonation Arresters • Pilot Operated Valves
3160 West Heartland Drive
• Blanket Gas Regulators
Liberty, MO 64068-3385
(816) 792-1500 Come see us at ACHEMA, Booth N48-N50
www.contdisc.com
email: pressure@contdisc.com CERTIFICATIONS:

Emergency Service • Design/Sizing Services • Inventory Management • Training Seminars

Circle 25 on p. 72 or go to adlinks.che.com/5827-25
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006 49