Engineering Practice

Recommended Fluid Velocities in Pipelines

The recommended velocities for fluids' transportation must be updated per
to obtain the optimum value of the pipe diameter in the current economic co
Alejandro Anaya Durand. Jesus TABLE 2. VARIABLES INVOLVED IN EQUATIONS (1) AND (2)
Soto Estrada and Nayeli Cabrera Parameter _____ Description____ Unit
Delgado Dwt Optimal diameter of pipeline in
National Autonomous University of Vrivnm Recommended velocity ft/s
Mexico CUNAM) Cost of electricity S/kWh
a Volumetric flow ft3/s

T
o arrive at the optimum diam­ h Operating hours per year it
eters for pipes, the heuristic J4l Fluid viscosity cP
criteria of recommended ve­ ii. Density of fluid ib/ft3
locity has been used in the F Dimensionless
Slope of logarithms of costs per it versus pipe dia.
past. However, the values used as Fractional annual depreciation on pipeline %
criteria are not updated frequently,
b Fractional annual maintenance %
despite changes and fluctuations in F, Factor lor installation %
the economy. Because the recom­ X Unit cost of t ft of 1 -in.-dia. pipe S/It in.
mended velocities are likely out of
£ Efficiency of pump and motor %
date, the resulting pipe diameter val­ TABLE 3. COST OF ELECTRICITY IN 2017 TABLE 4. VALUES FOR EQUATION (1)
ues can be far from reality. Month S/kWh Parameter Value
In the article “Updating the rules January 0.0657 0.0678
for pipe sizing” [7], an update of the February 0.0663 It 8760
recommended velocity was pre­ March 0.0674 a 0,1
sented, based on the energy costs April 0.0660 b 0.045
from 2008. This analysis showed May 0.0681 F, 0.17
July 0.0733
that the recommended velocities £ 0.75
Average 0.0678
are highly sensitive to energy and O 0.557
material costs. In this article, the
recommended velocities have been TABLE 5. VALUES OF PARAMETERS X AND P' BY TYPE OF MATERIAL
updated based on 2017 prices for Parameter Aluminum A106 Gr. B A53 Cr. B Brass Sch. Cu-Ni Class A312 304L
energy and current prices for highly Sch. 40 Sch. 80 Sch.STD 40 200 Sch. 40S
used materials in the industry. X, S/((t*in.) 19.92 27.02 2.39 30.70 20-40 20.50
F 0.713 0.450 1.266 0.898 1.116 0.898
Optimizing the pipe diameter
Given the uncertainty of fossil fuel de­
TABLE 6. CALCULATION DATA FOR LIQUID TABLE 7. CALCULATION DATA FOR VAPOR
pletion and the volatility in its prices,
PHASE PHASE
there is a growing general necessity
T,°F .ELIb/ft
l
3
McCP T, °F p , Ib/fl3 Me. CP
to optimize processes in an effort to
32.0 64.04 1.750 225.5 0047 00123
locate economic alternatives where 50.0 63.58 .300 248.0 0046 0.0128
operating and investment costs con­ 60.0 63.30 .120 3000 0043 0.0140
verge to a minimum that increases 80.0 62.81 0.858 392.0 0038 0.0161
efficiency. One way to reduce costs 122.0 61.69 0.544 550.0 0032 00197
in process plants is to optimize the 150.0 60.93 0.426 6260 0030 00215
variables that affect the transport of 212.0 59.18 0.279 800.0 0026 00254
fluids. For example, pumping sys­ 220.0 58.94 0.267 1,000.0 0022 00299
tems (pumps, motors, pipes and fit­ 2250 58.79 0.260 1,100.0 0.021 00322
tings) represent a high operational 225.4 58.78 0.259 1,200.0 0019 00345
cost; they account for between 25
and 50% of energy use in certain plant operations. This cost is directly velocities and compare what was
related to the diameter of the pipe. published 10 years ago [7] to 2017,
TABLE 1.OPTIMUM EQUATION As presented below, the opti­ Equation (1) is used. It is presented
32 CrQ2R*hft( mization of pipe diameters can be in Ref. 2. For the calculation of the
Dopt “
P'(a + b)(F, + 1)XF (1) accomplished using equations that recommended velocities, Equation
Q relate the recommended velocity of (2) is used. As shown in Equations
vr(
(2) fluids and the cost of energy. (1) and (2) and Table 1, velocities are
To determine the recommended intrinsically related to the properties

52 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM DECEMBER 2018

Cost of electricity. cents/kWh
u3

TABLE 9. VARIATION OF MATERIAL COSTS

2008-2017
4A

X, S/ft-in. Variation,
rs>

Parameter
K
"1

2008 2017
A53 Gr. B 6.61 2.39 176.6
Sch. STD
A312-304L 30.70 20.50 49.8
LC

Sch. 40S
Aluminum 22.26
cn-

19.92 11.7
Sch. 40
o>

Brass Sch. 32.3 30.70 5.2

40
6.2
m un m m to to to to
used for the calculation for the liq­
uid phase. And for each tempera­
ture mentioned in Table 6, the rec­
FIGURE 1. The graphs shows the average cost of electricity tor the U.S. for 2015-2017
ommended velocities in the vapor
phase were obtained, also with vary­
TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF BASE DATA IN THE LAST TEN YEARS
ing density (Figure 4) and viscosity
A53 Gr. B A312 Gr. 304L Aluminum Brass
Parameter Sch. STD Sch. 40S Sch. 40 Sch. 40 (Figure 5), for each material.
2008 2017 2008 2017 2008 2017 2008 2017 The order of recommended ve-
x S/tt-in. 6.61 2.39 30.70 20.50 22.26 19.92 32.3 30.70 locities, from greatest to least, is
C, USD/ 0.070 0.068 0.070 0.068 0.070 0.068 0.070 0.068 the following for both phases (liquid
KWh and vapor): Brass schedule-40 and
It h 8760 8760 8760 8760 8760 8760 8760 8760 copper-nickel class 200 > Stainless
l* + fl 0.200 0.145 0.200 0.145 0.200 0.145 0.200 0.145 steel A312 grade 304L, Schedule-
II 0-170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0 170 0 170 408 > Carbon steel A106 grade B,
f 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.75 schedule-80 > Aluminum sched-
0 ft-tys 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 ule-40 > Carbon steel A53 grade B,
of the fluid and a series of economicticular. The materials analyzed are schedule-STD.
parameters, including energy costs, listed below: The order above indicates that the
pipe materials and other operational • Aluminum schedule-40 most expensive materials will have
criteria. All variables are given in • Brass schedule-40 the highest recommended velocities
Table 2. • Carbon steel A106 grade B, and the smallest diameters, and vice
schedule-80 versa. However, it is important that,
U.S. energy cost variation • Carbon steel A53 grade B, sched- with regard to the service being han­
Because the determination of opti­ ule-STD dled, the most appropriate material
mum diameter is strongly related to • Copper-nickel class 200 is selected.
the cost of energy, Figure 1 shows • Stainless steel A312 Grade 304L,
the variations in the cost of electric­ schedule-40S. Analyzing changes in velocities
ity for the industrial sector in the last Table 5 shows the values of X and To compare the data obtained here
two years and Table 3 shows the P by the type of material analyzed, with the costs over the last ten
average cost of electricity in recent These were obtained from pipe years, four materials were selected
months [3]. Figure 1 indicates that quotes found on Internet sources and analyzed in both cases:
the price of electric power in the and from Producer Price Indexes • Aluminum schedule-40
U.S. has remained technically con­ (PPI) [4], • Brass schedule-40
stant, with a maximum variation of • Carbon steel A53 grade B, sched-
10.0% compared to the average. To Calculation protocol ule-STD
obtain the cost of electric power (Ce)The behavior of the recommended • Stainless steel A312 grade 304L,
needed for Equation (1), the cost of velocities was compared using the schedule-40S
electric power for the U.S. industrial density and viscosity at different Table 8 shows the influence of the
sector was averaged from Janu­ temperatures, for each of the mate- change in energy and material costs
ary to July 2017. That information is rials, keeping the pressure constant over the last ten years, and Table 9
shown in Table 2. at 19.10 psia. The fluid used for the shows the comparison between the
Table 4 shows the values of the calculation was water. costs of materials over the same
parameters to be used in Equation Table 6 shows the values used in time period,
(1). In addition, values of parametersthe calculations for the liquid phase. The results of the comparative
X and P were obtained for six of the For each temperature mentioned in analysis of recommended velocities
most commonly used materials in Table 5, the recommended velocities show that, although the costs of en-
the chemical and petrochemical in­ in the liquid phase were obtained for ergy (3.24% in the last ten years) and
dustries. The costs of these materi­ different densities (Figure 2) and dif- the materials studied have decreased
als were obtained from international ferent viscosities (Figure 3) for each (Table 9), the recommended velocities
suppliers and were analyzed in par- material. Table 7 shows the values have increased, making the optimum

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM DECEMBER 2018 53

 Density of liquids Density of vapor
11.0 110.0
10.0 100.0
9.0 90.0
$ 8.0 $ 80.0
7.0 70.0
* 6.0 > 60.0
5.0 50.0
40 40.0
57 5 58.8 60.0 61.3 62.5 63.8 65.0 0.015 0.020 0.25 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050
Density (lb/ft3) Density (lb/ft3)
•Cu-Ni Class 200 Brass Sch.40 Brass Sch.40 Cu-Ni Class 200
—•—A312Gr.304LSch40S Aluminum Sch.40 A312 Gr 304L Sch 40S * Aluminum Sch.40
•A106Gr. BSch 80 A53 Gr BSch STD A106 6r. B Sch 80 — A53 Gr, B Sch.STD

FIGURE 2. The graph shows the recommended velocity versus density of liquids
FIGURE 3. The graph shows recommended velocity versus density of vapors

Viscosity of liquids Viscosity of vapor

11.0 110.0
10.0 100.0
9.0 90.0
£
8.0
&
r-
:
B 7.0 70.0
6.0 -4 60.0
5.0 •=*=* 50.0 4C
It ~ _________________________
4.0 40.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0.011 0.015 0.019 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.035
Viscosity (cp) Viscosity (cp)
Cu-Ni Class 200 Brass Sch.40 Brass Sch.40 Cu-Ni Class 200
A312 Gr. 304L Sch 40S Aluminum Sch.40 A312 Gr. 304L Sch 40S Aluminum Sch.40
A106Gr.BSch. 80 A53 Gr. B Sch.STD A106Gr.BSch 80 A53 Gr. B Sch.STD

FIGURE 4. The graph shows recommended velocity versus viscosity of liquids FIGURE 5. The graph shows recommended velocity versus viscosity of vapors

diameters of the pipes decrease by ft/s is obtained, as shown in Figure ft/s is obtained, as shown in Figure
up to 35.0% compared to 2008. 6. The cross-section area for these 6. The cross-section area for these
The above result is due mainly conditions is the following: conditions is the following:
to two factors. Required efficiency S = Q / vrecom = 1.625 / 4.95 = S = Q / v recom 1.625 / 8.88 =
of pumps and motors increased 0.3285 ft2 0.1830 ft*
from 50 to 75%. This is because This cross-section is reasonably This cross-section is reasonably
at present, the design of pump­ close to that of a 8-in. dia. pipe for close to that of a 6-in. dia. for this
ing equipment follows the require­ this material (S = 0.3474 ft2). Com­ material (S = 0. 2006 ft2). Com­
ments established in standards paring the recommended velocity paring the recommended velocity
such as American Petroleum Insti­ value that would be obtained with value that would be obtained with
tute standard 610, which indicates the same data ten years ago (4.38 the same data ten years ago (7.50
that operation must be as close as ft/s), it is observed that the rec­ ft/s), it is observed that the rec­
possible to the best efficiency point ommended velocity increased by ommended velocity increased by
(BEP), which is the flow at which the13.0% and with it, the area of the 18.0% and with it, the area of the
pump system is operating its high­ cross-section increases: cross-section increases:
est efficiency. S = Q / v.... = 1.625 / 4.38 = S = Q / vrecom = 1.625 / 7.50 =
Depreciation and maintenance 0.3710 ft2 0.2166 ft2
factors have decreased because Since this value is higher, it is nec­ As in the first example, the value of
more control exists over mainte­ essary that the tube diameter is 10- the section is greater, so it is neces­
nance procedures and standards, soin. dia. (S = 0.5475 ft2) to achieve thesary that the diameter of the tube is
plants can operate for longer times. required value. 8-in. dia. (S = 0.3474 ft2) to achieve
the required value.
Example calculation 1 Example calculation 2
For this example, the following infor­For this example, the following infor­Concluding remarks
mation and values are used: mation and values are used: Revised values for the recom­
• The pipe material is carbon steel • Pipe material: Stainless steel A312mended fluid velocities in this article
A53 grade B, schedule-STD Grade 304L, Schedule-40S have proved to be highly sensitive to
• Fluid is water at 60°F • Fluid: water at 60°F energy and material costs. However,
• Flow (Q): 1.625 ft3/s • Flow (Q): 1.625 ft3/s there are two main factors related to
• Density (p): 50.0 lb/ft3 • Density (p): 30.0 lb/ft3 the increase in recommended fluid
Using this information, a recom­ Using this information, a recom­ velocities and the decrease in optimal
mended velocity (v ...... ) of 4.95 mended velocity (v ra on ) of 8.88 diameters: increase in the required
54
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM DECEMBER 2018
 Recommended fluid velocities. 2008 to 2017 costs Recommended fluid velocities. 2008 to 2017 costs
(Aluminum schedule-40) (Brass schedule-40)
9,0
Recommended fluid velocities

Recommended fluid velocities

12.0

oo <o
tn

<n
■o-
q

S
£ CD

S:;-

s
q
£
p
b

b
o
o

3-
5

Aluminum Ced. 40 2017 Aluminum Ced. 40 2008 Brass Sch. 40 2017 Brass Sch. 40 2008

Recommended fluid velocities. 2008 to 2017 costs Recommended fluid velocities. 2008 to 2017 costs
(Stainless steel A312 grade 304L. schedule-405) (Carbon steel A53 grade B. schedule-STD)
Recommended fluid velocities

Recommended fluid velocities

10.0 7.0

Ot
O

in
cc

J
O

UTS
U W A ft Of Ul O)

r
q
o

" J
S
q

C
q

“J
jl
r-j

3S

B
:
o

o
“S
I

<1:
-

A312 304L Ced. 40S 2017A312 304L Ced. 40S 2008 A53 Gr. B Ced STD 2017A53 Gr B Ced. STD 2008

FIGURE 6. Recommended fluid velocities, 2008-2017 are plotted here

o
efficiency of pumping equipment Monthly: www.eia.gov/electricity Jesus Antonio Soto Estrada
(Rosa Amarilla #149-7. Col. Mo-
and decrease in the depreciation 4. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017. www.Ms.gov.
lino de Rosas, C.P. 01470, Alvaro
and maintenance factors. It is impor­ 5. Kem, Donald 0., "Process Heat Transfer." Edit. Continen­ Obregon, Mexico City, Mbxico;
tal. Mexico, 1999.
tant to remember that these factors Phone: +52 (55) 55 3513 0521:
6. Branan, Carl R„ "Rules of thumb for chemical engineers' E-mail: jesus_ase@holmail.com)
have changed due to the application Gulf Professional Publishing 2002. is a chemical engineer with five
of stricter standards, focused on the 6. Crane Corp.. "Flow of Fluids Through valves. Fittings and years of work experience on proj­
efficient use of resources. In general Pipe" Technical Paper No. 410.2009. ects in the chemical and petro­
chemical sectors in the areas of
terms, recommended fluid velocities 7. ANSI/API Standard 610. "Centrifugal pumps for petro­ processes and quality management, and is a chemical
have increased up to 35% due to leum, petrochemical and natural gas industries' 11th ed.,
engineering master's student in process engineering
the decrease in the cost of materials September 2010. at UNAM.
since 2008. 9.McMaster-Carr, 2017. www.mcmaster.com Nayeli Cabrera Delgado (Gran-
The analysis serves as a guide forAuthors jas Ave. #617, Mexico City,
Azcapotzalco, Mexico 02519:
the management of fluids at differ­ Alejandro Anaya Durand Phone: +52 55 61 11 92 64:
ent conditions, while maintaining the (Parque Esparia No. 15b Col.

t
Email: nayeli.cabrera@comuni-
Condesa, C.P. 06140, Mexico;
integrity of the pipes. So it is impor­ Email: durand@hotmail.com) is a
dad.unam.mx) is a chemical en­
gineer with seven years ot work
tant to continue updating the recom­ professor of chemical engineering
experience in the petroleum and
mended fluid velocities to consider at the National University of Mex­ environmental sector, taking part
fluctuations in energy and material ico (UNAM), and has over 55 years of different relevant projects for
experience in project and processdiverse Mexican institutions in the areas ot process,
costs used at least every five years, engineering. He retired from Insti­quality and management. She is a third-semester
and maintain an optimal design. ■ tute Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP) master's degree student in chemical engineering in
Edited by Scott Jenkins in 1998 after holding top positions. For 50 years he the hasarea of process engineering at UNAM. She had
been an educator in chemical engineering in severaltaken relevant courses related to the environment and
universities in Mexico, and presently he is also a consul­
oil sector at UNAM and Complutense University of Ma­
References tant at several engineering companies. He has pub­ drid. She led an engineering work team to finish a
1. A. Anaya Durand, Anaya A. and others,lished over the
Updating 250rules
papers related to engineering and edu­
project to revamp two hydrodesulfurization units. She
cation; is a Fellow of the AlChE; a member of National
for pipe sizing. Cfiem.Eng .vti. 117, no 1. p.48.2010. is an active member of Mexican Institute of Chemical
Academy of Engineering; and has received the main
2. Skelland. A.H.P., "Non-Newtonian flow and heat transfer." Engineers (IMIQ).
chemical engineering awards Mexico. He holds a M.S.
Wiley. New York. 1967. in project engineering from UNAM.
3. US Energy Information Administration. Electric Power

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM DECEMBER 2018 55