Liquids Handling

Pumping System
Head Estimation
These spreadsheets highlight losses,
uncertainties, and value of power used,
James Anthony helping you optimize pumping system
Lockwood Greene
designs and save on operating costs.

T
O DESIGN A PUMPING SYSTEM WELL, YOU suction friction head hfs consumed on the way to the pump.
need to accurately estimate the total head, available
suction total head, driver power, and energy cost. hts = hus – hfs (3)
You can estimate these quantities and their uncertainties
for pumping systems with as many as 12 piping runs using a The discharge total head is the discharge friction head hfd
spreadsheet I’ve written for centrifugal pumps or a compan- consumed on the way to the destination, plus the destination
ion spreadsheet for positive displacement pumps, both of usable head hud.
which are available at www.cepmagazine.org (1). The spread-
htd = hfd + hud (4)
sheets handle flows in all Reynolds number regimes — turbu-
lent, intermittently turbulent, and laminar — for fluids for The usable head is sum of the elevation head hue, the pres-
which the viscosity and density can be taken as constant sure head hup, and the velocity head huv.
along a given piping run.
In this article I will describe the formulas in the hu = hue + hup + huv (5)
spreadsheets, give tips on choosing input values, and
review a sample calculation. The usable head is also the destination usable head hud
minus the source usable head hus, and its components are
Formulas defined similarly. Here, the subscript “d” stands for “destina-
First I’ll cover the formulas used to calculate total head, tion” and the subscript “s” stands for “source.”
usable head, friction head, uncertainties, the piping complexi- hu = hud – hus (6)
ty factor, available suction total head, power required, and
hue = hued – hues (7)
energy cost.
The total head ht that a pump provides is the usable head hup = hupd – hups (8)
hu plus the friction head hf. huv = huvd – huvs (9)

ht = hu + hf (1) The source usable head is the sum of the source elevation
head, the source pressure head, and the source velocity head.
The total head is also the discharge total head htd minus
the suction total head hts. hus = hues + hups + huvs (10)
ht = htd – hts (2)
The source elevation head equals the source elevation zs,
The suction total head is the source usable head hus minus the which is the elevation of the source fluid above the eye of

40 www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 CEP

the pump impeller.
hf = hfe + hfp + hff (18)
hues = zs (11)
The friction head is also the suction friction head hfs plus
The source pressure head is the head due to the source pres- the discharge friction head hfd, and its components are defined
sure ps above the source fluid. This depends on the liquid similarly. Here, the subscript “s” stands for “suction” and the
density ρ, given the gravitational acceleration g. subscript “d” stands for “discharge.”

hups = ps/ρg (12) hf = hfs + hfd (19)

hfe = hfes + hfed (20)
The source velocity head is the head due to the velocity at
the source vessel or branch. This depends on the volumetric hfp = hfps + hfpd (21)
flow q and the source diameter ds. hff = hffs + hffd (22)
2
⎛ ⎞ The equipment, instrument, and piping specialty heads
⎜ q ⎟ are generally available as known pressure drops at given
⎜ 2⎟ flows and densities. In preliminary design, you might
⎜ π ⎛ ds ⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎠ ⎟ allow a 10 psi pressure drop for a heat exchanger, control
⎝ 2 ⎠
huvs = (13) valve, or spray nozzle; in detailed design, you generally
2g know the pressure drop of a piece of equipment, an
instrument, or a piping specialty component at conditions
In this expression, the velocity head (2) is calculated from
the average flow without multiplying by the kinetic energy close to those in the pumping system. If the pumping sys-
correction factor α, which is said to be approximately 1.07 tem conditions exactly match the known conditions, you
for turbulent flow and is exactly 2 for laminar flow (3), can use the known conditions directly.
because α can be safely neglected when calculating total If the pumping system conditions don’t exactly match
heads of pumping systems. At optimum flow velocities, α the known conditions, you can usually count on the num-
is close enough to 1 to allow α to be omitted without ber of velocity heads of the component — its k value —
changing the total head (4). At lower velocities, the veloci- staying about the same, because two conditions will usual-
ty head approaches zero before α increases enough to ly be met. First, the component’s characteristic variation in
change the total head. head with the Reynolds number Re usually is more like
The destination usable head hud, destination elevation that of a fitting or valve than it is like that of straight pipe.
head hued, destination pressure head hupd, and destination Second, the component flows will usually stay within a
velocity head huvd are determined by the destination eleva- flow regime where k varies little, which is the case either
tion zd, destination pressure pd, liquid density, flow, and in the turbulent regime (Re > 5,000) (5) or at the high end
destination diameter dd.
of the laminar regime (500 < Re < 2,100) (5, 6). (Re is
defined in Eq. 28.) Then, you can safely extrapolate from
hud = hued + hupd + huvd (14) the known pressure drop ∆p0, known flow q0, and known
hued = zd (15) density ρ0 to the head at a new flow q.

hupd = pd/ρg (16) hfe = (∆p0/(ρ0g))(q/q0)2 (23)

2
⎛ ⎞ The straight pipe head of a given pipe run hfp is calculated
⎜ q ⎟ from the Fanning friction factor f, length l, diameter d, and
⎜ 2⎟ velocity v (5).
⎜ π ⎛ dd ⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎠ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
huvd = (17) hfp = (4f l/d) v2/2g (24)
2g
The Fanning friction factor is estimated from the relative
The friction head hf is the sum of the equipment, instru- equivalent sand roughness ∆r and Re using Chen’s relatively
ment, and piping specialty head hfe, the straight pipe head hfp, accurate explicit representation of the Colebrook equation
and the fitting and valve head hff. for turbulent flows (7) and using Churchill’s interpolating for-

CEP www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 41

Liquids Handling

For an exit:
mula for intermittently turbulent flows and laminar flows (8).
2
For Re > 5,000: ⎛ ⎞
⎜ q ⎟
⎜ 2⎟
⎛ ⎛ ∆ r − 5.042 × ⎞⎞
–2
⎜ π⎛ d⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎠ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ 3.7065 ⎟⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Re h ffx = (31)
f = 0.25⎜ –2 log⎜ ⎟⎟ (25) 2g
⎜ log⎛ ∆ r 5.8506 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
1.1098
⎜ +
⎜ ⎜ ⎜⎝ 2.8257 Re 0.8981 ⎟⎠ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠ The increaser head or reducer head of a given reducer is
estimated from the inlet Fanning friction factor f1, inlet and
outlet diameters d1 and d2, inlet velocity v1, and inlet
For Re ≤ 5,000:
Reynolds number Re1 (10).
For Re1 > 4,000:
⎡⎛ 8 ⎞
12

f =2× +
⎢⎣⎝ Re ⎠ 2
⎛ ⎛ d ⎞ 2⎞ v 2
h ffi = (1 + 3.2 f1 )⎜1 − ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎟ 1
1
3
⎤ (32)
⎝ ⎝ d2 ⎠ ⎠ 2 g
– 12
⎛⎛ ⎞
16
⎛ ⎞⎞ 2
⎥
⎜⎜ ⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ ⎛ 37, 530 ⎞ ⎟
16
⎥
⎜ ⎜ 2.457 ln ⎜ 7 +
⎝ Re ⎠ ⎟
0.9 ⎟⎟ ⎥ (26)
⎜⎜ ⎜⎛ ⎞ + 0.27 ∆ r ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎥ For Re1 ≤ 4,000:
⎝⎝ ⎝ ⎝ Re ⎠ ⎠⎠ ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎛ ⎛ d ⎞ 4⎞ v 2
h ffi = 2⎜1 − ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎟ 1 (33)
The relative equivalent sand roughness is calculated from the ⎝ ⎝ d2 ⎠ ⎠ 2 g
absolute equivalent sand roughness ε and the diameter.
For all Re1:
∆r = ε/d (27)

60 ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ d1 ⎞ ⎞v2
4
The Reynolds number is calculated from the density, diame- ⎛
h ffr = ⎜ 0.1 + ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎟ 1 (34)
ter, velocity, and viscosity µ. ⎝ Re 1 ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ d2 ⎠ ⎠ 2g

Re = ρdv/µ (28) The heads for other fittings and for valves other than throt-
tling control valves are estimated from Re, d, and v using the
The fitting and valve heads are the entrance and exit heads constants km, ki, and kd (11), the constants k1 and kinf (9), or
hffn and hffx, increaser and reducer heads hffi and hffr, and heads constant k values (12–14).
for other fittings and for valves other than throttling control
valves hffo. ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞
The entrance head is estimated from the Reynolds num- ⎜k ⎜ kd ⎟ ⎟ v 2
ber and the velocity (9). The exit head — defined logically h ffo = ⎜ m + ki ⎜1 + 0.3 ⎟ ⎟ (35)
⎜ Re ⎜ ⎛ d ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ 2g
here as the velocity head lost to friction when the exiting ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ in. ⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎝
flow discharges above the liquid surface or enters a vessel
below the liquid surface — is calculated from the flow and
the exit pipe diameter. ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞
For a flush entrance: ⎜ k1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎟ v2
h ffo =⎜ + kinf ⎜1 + ⎟⎟ (36)
⎜⎜ Re ⎜ ⎛ d ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ 2g
v2 ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ in. ⎠ ⎠ ⎟⎠
h ffn = ⎛ + 0.50⎞
160
(29)
⎝ Re ⎠ 2g

For a dip pipe entrance: hffo = kv2/(2g) (37)

The term d/in. is the dimensionless diameter; when d = 2 in.,

v2
h ffn = ⎛ + 1.0⎞
160
(30) for example, d/in. = 2 in./in. = 2. The constants used in the
⎝ Re ⎠ 2g
spreadsheets are listed in Table 1.

42 www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 CEP

 The uncertainties in straight pipe heads and in fitting and than one when the piping is relatively free of fittings and
valve heads are estimated as percentages of the heads (14). valves (16). Typical values for Fc are 0.25 for a utility sup-
The uncertainty percentage estimates used in the spreadsheets ply line outside battery limits, 0.5 for a straight pipe run,
are listed in Table 1. 1 for normal piping, 2 for a typical manifold, and 4 for a
The piping complexity factor Fc is calculated from the complex manifold.
diameter, straight pipe head, head for other fittings and for The available suction total head htsa is the suction total
valves other than control valves, entrance head, exit head, head (Eq. 3) minus the vapor pressure head hv (2, 17). The
velocity, Fanning friction factor, and length l (15). vapor pressure head is calculated from the vapor pressure
pv and the liquid density.
( )
d h fp + h ffo − h ffn − h ffx g
−1 htsa = hts – hv (39)
2
2v f l
Fc = 1 (38)
hv = pv/ρg (40)
0.347⎛ ⎞ + 0.216
d 2
⎝ in. ⎠
The pumping power Pp is calculated from the density,
estimated total head (Eq. 1 or 2), and flow.
The piping complexity factor is greater than one when the
piping is relatively dense with fittings and valves, and less Pp = ρghtq (41)

Table 1. Fitting and valve constants and uncertainties.

Item 3k Constants (11) 2k Constants (9) Uncertainties (14)

km ki kd k1 kinf Value Used Ref. Value if Different
Straight Pipe ±10% –5%, +10%
Elbows
90-deg long radius, r/D = 1.5, flanged 800 0.20 ±30%
90-deg long radius, r/D = 1.5, threaded 800 0.071 4.2 ±25%
90-deg standard radius, r/D = 1, flanged 800 0.091 4.0 ±35%
90-deg standard radius, r/D = 1, threaded 800 0.14 4.0 ±40% for ≤2 in. ±40% for <2 in.
±20% for >2 in. ±20% for >2 in.
Increasers ±50% No value given
Reducers ±50%
Tees
Branch flow, flanged 800 0.28 4.0 ±35%
Branch flow, threaded 500 0.274 4.0 ±25%
Run-through, flanged 150 0.017 4.0 ±35%
Run-through, threaded 200 0.091 4.0 ±25%
Valves
Ball 300 0.017 4.0 ±50% for flanged No value given
±25% for threaded No value given
Butterfly 800 0.25 ±50% for flanged No value given
±25% for threaded No value given
Check, swing-type 1,500 0.46 4.0 ±30% –80%, +200% for flanged
±30% for threaded
Diaphragm 1,000 0.69 4.9 ±50% for flanged No value given
±25% for threaded No value given
Gate 300 0.037 3.9 ±50% for flanged
±25% for threaded
Globe 1,500 1.70 3.6 ±25%

CEP www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 43

Liquids Handling

The brake horsepower Pb is the pumping power divided might be just 70% of the values used for pump rating. So
by the pump efficiency ηp. the total head that the system will actually need in order
to operate might be around 90% of the rating estimate,
Pb = Pp/ηp (42) and might stay that way for years — maybe for the life-
time of the system. Besides that, the pump will very like-
The energy cost present value e is calculated from esti- ly deliver a little more head than the rated head. In a
mates of the fraction of time the pumping system is run- throttled system, the extra head will need to be taken up
ning at design conditions t, brake horsepower, driver or by the throttling valve. In an unthrottled system, the flow
motor efficiency ηd, utility rate r, real interest rate i, and will need to increase also. Such excesses in head and
design life n (18). flow waste energy.
You can provide for uncertainty, wear, and future
requirements easily enough without using a flow safety
Pb (1 + i ) n − 1
e=t r ( 43) factor. The uncertainty is often provided for, to some
ηd i(1 + i ) n extent, by allowances for corrosion in heat exchangers
and in piping, which often provide more conservative
When comparing different design options, it’s best to com- safety margins than turn out to be needed for a given sys-
pare their total costs, including both capital and operating tem. Wear is greatest for slow, low-flow, high-head
costs. Since the capital costs are present values, it makes pumps of soft construction that handle abrasive flows;
sense to convert the operating costs to present values. The for systems susceptible to wear, wear can be managed by
operating cost that is largest and that can be estimated the choosing pumps of suitable construction or by restoring
most accurately is the energy cost. You can convert the internal clearances, if needed over time (19). Future
energy cost to a present value using the equation above by capacity increases can be provided for by installing larg-
entering the long-term stock market real return as the real er impellers. When you make reasonable plans to provide
interest rate, entering the present utility rate, and entering for future needs, and you match present designs to pres-
the presently-allowed depreciation life, or by entering bet- ent needs, you’ll get guaranteed savings up front.
ter estimates if available. The present value of the operat- You’ll need to run the highest temperature case rou-
ing cost for different design options tells you how much tinely. Temperature-induced changes in the density and
capital cost you are justified in spending for different viscosity do not change the total head much, but temper-
design options. ature-induced changes in the vapor pressure can affect
the available suction total head substantially.
Choosing input values Increased densities at lower temperatures decrease the
You should choose the flow for the rating case so that pressure head and friction head, but increase the power.
it’s the maximum flow needed in the near term, with no Although the total head usually doesn’t change much, the
safety factor. power does — it increases almost directly with the density.
If the rated flow exceeds the near-term need, the oper- Increased viscosities at lower temperatures increase the
ating cost rises quickly. Increasing the flow by 10% friction head, but so little that for low-viscosity flows,
increases the friction head by 21% in turbulent flow, and order-of-magnitude estimates of viscosity are normally all
by 10% even in laminar flow. that are needed. Consider the system in the Figure at start-
If the rated flow is too high, the reliability falls also, up, taking the pump’s head as approximately constant. For
because wear increases and pump internal recirculation this low-viscosity system, reducing the temperature by
increases. Wear increases because the pump produces 190°C increases the viscosity 250 times but reduces the
more head and, in unthrottled systems, produces more flow only by 1/2. For high-viscosity systems with viscosi-
flow. Recirculation increases because the flows at the ties exceeding 100 cP, though, reducing the temperature
lower-flow operating points become lower fractions of increases the viscosity faster, and as a result, more accurate
the rated flow. Recirculation is more of a problem for estimates of viscosity are needed.
pumps that have higher heads per stage, because it begins Increased vapor pressures at higher temperatures
closer to the rated flow and builds more quickly to dam- decrease the available suction total head significantly.
aging levels. For both water and heptane, the increase in the vapor
When a pumping system is operated, the source level pressure head with temperature is on the order of 2% per
might be 5 ft higher than the value used for pump rating, degree F. Because of this, you need to be careful to iden-
and the like-new heat exchanger and straight pipe heads tify the maximum temperature.

44 www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 CEP

 An effective vapor pressure for dissolved gas must be needs just 5 psi at full flow, where a globe valve with a
entered in many cases (20): more tortuous flow path needs 10 psi (26). A variable
• For systems with air dissolved in water supplied speed drive uses about the same power as a fixed speed
from above the pump, and similar systems, you can drive when running at the rated flow and head, but uses
ignore the dissolved gas. less power when running at lower-flow operating points
• For systems with a single dissolved gas at a low pres- or lower-head operating points.
sure, or for steam-stripping systems, you can enter the A spray nozzle that has seven times more orifices,
source-vessel pressure as the effective vapor pressure. each 50% smaller, needs just 10 psi to atomize a given
• For systems with a low-solubility inert gas and low flow to a given average droplet size, whereas a spray
levels of a high-solubility component, like ammonia nozzle with fewer large orifices needs 40 psi (27).
wash systems, you can enter the low-solubility inert gas’s After entering the diameter of a pipe run, compare the
pressure as the effective vapor pressure. resulting velocity to the guidelines listed in the spread-
• For systems with air dissolved in water lifted from sheets. Although guidelines vary, suction velocities are
below the pump, or systems with a single dissolved gas best kept in the neighborhood of 3 ft/s for subcooled liq-
at a higher pressure, you can explicitly calculate an uids or 1.5 ft/s for boiling liquids upstream of the pump
effective vapor pressure following the procedure suction reducer. The slow velocity and the reducer act to
described in Ref. 20. straighten the flow entering the pump, which ensures that
• For systems with more than one major dissolved- the pump can deliver its rated performance and best reli-
gas component, such as synthesis-gas systems, you will ability. Guideline discharge velocities for water-like flu-
need a process simulation estimate of the effective ids vary from 6 ft/s in carbon steel piping to 10 ft/s in
vapor pressure. stainless steel piping. For intermittent processes operated
You can avoid entrained gas problems in most services only one third of the time at rated flow, optimum veloci-
by eliminating pockets that trap gas (21). You can usually ties are 50% higher.
avoid problems in other services by eliminating gas Check the absolute equivalent sand roughness data in
sources, by venting pumps (22), or by choosing pumps the spreadsheets for guidelines on your piping type and
designed to accommodate entrained gas (23). surface condition. For the conditions of the sample calcu-
For pump rating, make the source elevation the lowest lation, a change from the like-new condition to a typical
level in normal operation. Make the destination elevation moderately-corroded condition would have increased the
the highest level in normal operation, or make it the nozzle straight pipe head by 80%.
height if the destination is a top nozzle. Make the destina- Note the calculated piping complexity factor to check
tion elevation the piping high point, if this is what you the reasonability of fitting and valve counts.
need to do in order to make sure that the pump can get the Given a preliminary pump selection, compare the avail-
flow started. Make the source pressure the lowest pressure able suction total head to the required suction total head
in normal operation and the destination pressure the highest htsr. For most pumps, it’s safe to choose a suction total
pressure in normal operation. head ratio htsa/htsr of 1.3 or more. For a 3,600-rev/min
To reduce operating costs, consider selecting equip- pump with an inlet nozzle diameter greater than 6 in. or
ment, instrument, and piping specialty components that for an 1,800-rev/min pump with an inlet nozzle diameter
have lower pressure drops, At 100 gal/min, every 5 psi greater than 10 in., it’s safe to use a suction total head
of pressure drop has a present value of $1,000, given a ratio of 2.5 or more (28).
75% pump efficiency, 90% motor efficiency, 0.05 $/kWh Estimate the brake horsepower and the energy cost pres-
average power cost, 100% onstream time fraction, 10-yr ent value using the pump efficiencies given by the spread-
design life, and 6%/yr real interest rate. sheets (29) or entering a pump efficiency, and using the rea-
When applicable (24), a compact heat exchanger that has sonable values listed in the spreadsheets for driver or motor
ribbed surfaces might need a pressure drop of only efficiency (30), utility rate (31), real interest rate (32), and
5 psi to transfer heat without significant fouling, while a con- design life (33), or using better estimates if available.
ventional tubular heat exchanger that has smooth surfaces When pumps are quoted, compare the efficiencies and
might need to be allowed 10 psi, and even then might experi- motor sizes of the quoted pumps to the pump efficiency
ence significant fouling. When operation is intermittent, the and brake horsepower in the spreadsheets and check
optimum pressure drops are considerably higher — more like whether either the more-efficient of the pumps or premium
20 psi for a compact heat exchanger (25). motors would save enough energy to make a larger invest-
A rotary control valve with a fairly straight flow path ment worthwhile.

CEP www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 45

Liquids Handling

Heater

Ele
va
tio i
n= ps
48
ft 13
Suction Drum ft
13.5 .5
= 15
psi
10 tion
ft va
Ele
30
n. ft
4i
10
ft
n.
4i Ele
ft ia. va
24 .d tio
f t -in 4-i n=
10 18 n. 12
ft Orifice Sc
3 h. ft
40
Discharge Vessel
Ele ft
ter
va
tio = 12
He
a n ion 40
=2
va
t h.
ft Sc
Ele -in
.
t 6
5f
i
ps ft
5.2 15
P= 4-in. Control Valve
Ele
va
tio
n=
1.5 on
ft cti ft
Su 1.5
n.
4-i ion
=
t
va
Ele

3-in. Discharge

■ Figure. Example pumping system (34).

Pump
Centerline

Sample calculation one 4-in. × 3-in. increaser, five gate valves, 20 standard
In the Figure, a centrifugal pump transfers gas oil radius elbows, and a 4.026-in.-dia. exit pipe where the
from a suction drum to another vessel. Table 2 shows the velocity head is lost. The discharge line is a little simpler
inputs and the results. than normal piping.
I took the rated flow to be 250 gal/min, with no safety fac- The rated total head is 83 ±3 ft. The usable head is
tor. The fluid temperature is 555°F; ρ is 64.87 lb/ft3; µ is 0.6 40% of the total head and the friction head is 60% of the
cP; zs is 14 ft; ps is 13 psig. I took the source diameter ds to be total head. The available suction total head is 76 ft. At
100 in., which is much larger than the pump suction line. All the spreadsheet-estimated pump efficiency of 66%, the
the piping is flanged schedule 40 carbon steel. I took its brake horsepower is 8.3 hp. If the pump is onstream all
absolute equivalent sand roughness ε to be 0.2 mm, which is but 11 days a year (t = 97%), and if the motor efficiency
the value listed in the spreadsheet for corroded steel pipe car- is 90%, the utility rate is 4.45 ¢/kWh, the design life is
rying oil. The suction line diameter is 6 in. and its length is 39 9.5 yr, and the real interest rate is 6%/yr, then per Eq. 43,
ft. The line has one flush entrance, five standard radius the present value of the lifetime energy cost is $19,000.
elbows, one gate valve, one strainer, and one 6-in. × 4-in.
reducer. I took the strainer’s number of velocity heads k from Conclusion
Ref. 14 to be 0.88. The suction line is of normal complexity. The methods described here will help you be sure of the
On the discharge side, zd is 46.5 ft and pd is 13.5 psig. magnitude of the head losses due to corrosion and be sure of
I took the destination diameter dd to be 100 in., which the magnitude of the uncertainties in your head estimates, so
again is much larger than the pipeline. The orifice plate, you won’t have to use safety factors you don’t need.
control valve, and heat exchanger pressure drops are Since you can quickly estimate operating energy
1.52 psi, 5.2 psi, and 10 psi, respectively. The discharge costs, you’ll find it easier to evaluate variable speed
line diameter is 4 in. and its length is 177 ft. The line has drives that can save up to 80% of energy costs, or

46 www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 CEP

 Table 2. Worksheet for single suction and single discharge (1). †

Atmospheric pressure 14.7 psia

Fluid Gas Oil
Case Preliminary Design Rating
Pipeline Suction Discharge Overall
Flow 250 gal/min 250 gal/min 250 gal/min
Temperature 555 °F 555 °F 555 °F
Density 64.87 lb/ft3 64.87 lb/ft3 64.87 lb/ft3
Viscosity 0.6 cP 0.6 cP 0.6 cP
Vapor pressure psia 0.0 psia
Total head 76.1 ±0.1 ft 159.5 ±2.6 ft 83.4 ±2.7 ft
Usable head 75.5 ft 109.1 ft 33.6 ft
Elevation of source or destination above pump 14.0 ft 14.0 ft 46.5 ft 46.5 ft 32.5 ft
Pressure at source or destination 13 psig 61.5 ft 13.5 psig 62.6 ft 1.1 ft
Velocity head 0.0 ft 0.0 ft 0.0 ft
Dia. of source or destination vessel or branch 100 in. 100 in.
Friction head 0.6 ±0.1 ft 50.4 ±2.6 ft 51.0 ±2.7 ft
Equipment, instruments, and piping specialties 0.0 ft 37.1 ft 37.1 ft
Sizing basis flow 250 gal/min 250 gal/min
Sizing basis pressure drop psi 16.7 psi
Sizing basis density 64.87 lb/ft3 64.87 lb/ft3
Straight pipe 0.2 ±0.0 ft 7.8 ±0.8 ft 8.0 ±0.8 ft
Nominal size 6 in. 4 in.
Schedule 5S, 10S, 40S, 80S, PTFE, Tube, - 40S 40S
Diameter 6.065 in. 4.026 in.
Corroded or like new Corroded Corroded
Roughness 0.2000 mm 0.2000 mm
Relative roughness 0.00130 0.00196
Velocity 2.8 ft/s 6.3 ft/s
Reynolds number 225,743 340,073
Fanning friction factor 0.0055 0.0060
Length, ft 39 ft 177 ft
Fittings and valves 0.4 ±0.1 ft 5.5 ±1.8 ft 6.0 ±1.9 ft
Complexity factor (0.5 simple, 1 normal, 2 complex) 1.6 0.7
Flanged or welded, or threaded Flanged Flanged
Elbows
Long radius, r/D=1.5
Standard radius, r/D=1 5 0.2 ±0.1 ft 20 4.1 ±1.4 ft 4.3 ±1.5 ft
Entrance ki = 0.5 if flush, 1 if dip pipe 0.5 0.1 ft 0.1 ft
Exit pipe diameter if exit velocity head is lost 4.026 in. 0.6 ft 0.6 ft
Increasers 1 0.4 ±0.2 ft 0.4 ±0.2 ft
Inlet diameter 6.065 in. 3 in.
Outlet diameter 6.065 in. 4.026 in.
Inlet relative roughness 0.00130 0.00262
Inlet velocity 2.8 ft/s 11.3 ft/s
Inlet Reynolds number 225,743 456,377
Inlet Fanning friction factor 0.0055 0.0064
Reducers 1 0.1 ±0.0 ft 0.1 ±0.0 ft
Inlet diameter 6.065 in. 4.026 in.
Outlet diameter 4.000 in. 4.026 in.
Inlet velocity 2.8 6.3 ft/s
Inlet Reynolds number 225,743 340,073
Tees
Branch-flow
Run-through
Valves
Gate 1 0.0 ±0.0 ft 5 0.4 ±0.2 ft 0.4 ±0.2 ft
Globe
Other fitting or valve k value 0.88 0.1 ft 0.1 ft
Available suction total head 76.1 ±0.1 ft
Brake horsepower 8.3 ±0.3 hp
Pumping power 5.5 ±0.2 hp
Pump efficiency 66 %
Energy cost present value 18,527 ±608 $
Fraction of time at design conditions 97 %
Motor efficiency 90 %
Power cost 0.0445 $/kWh
Facility design life 9.5 yr
Real interest rate 6 %/yr

† Underlines prompt users to enter values, such as fitting quantities, or to check values suggested by the spreadsheet. Calculated values of pumping system heads are shown at the
right in the “Suction” and “Discharge” columns and are summarized in the “Overall” column. The spreadsheets include additional header lines, valve types, and optional and explanatory
worksheets that are not shown in this table.
Liquids Handling

Literature Cited

1. Anthony, J. M., “Pumping System Head Estimate,” v. 1.0, the Ninth International Pump Users Symposium,” Turbomachinery
02CEP_P.xls and 02CEP_PD.xls, available via Laboratory, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M Univ.,
www.cepmagazine.org (2005). College Station, pp. 51–60 (1992); available at
2. Perry, R. H., et al., Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 7th ed., www.gouldspumps.com/ download_files/Technews/desconsi.pdf.
McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 10-22 (1997). 24. Raju, K. S. N., and J. Chand, “Consider the Plate Heat
3. Perry, R. H., et al., p. 6-7. Exchanger,” Chem. Eng., 87 (16), pp. 133–144 (Aug. 11, 1980).
4. Streeter, V. L., “The Kinetic Energy and Momentum Correction 25. Jenssen, S. K., “Assessment of Heat Exchanger Data,” in Cichelli,
Factors for Pipes and Open Channels of Great Width,” Civil M., “Heat Transfer – Storrs,” Chem. Eng. Prog. Symposium Series,
Engineering, 12 (4), pp. 212–213 (1942). 56 (30), AIChE, New York, pp. 195–201 (1960).
5. Perry, R. H., et al., p. 6-10. 26. Baumann, H. D., “Control Valve Primer: A User’s Guide,”
6. Perry, R. H., et al., p. 6-17. Instrument Soc. of America, Research Triangle Park, NC (1991).
7. Chen, N. H., “An Explicit Equation for Friction Factor in Pipe,” 27. Lefebvre, A. H., “Atomization and Sprays,” Hemisphere, New York, pp.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 18 (3), pp. 296–297 (1979). 157, 204 (Merrington and Richardson correlation) (1989).
8. Churchill, S. W., “Friction-Factor Equation Spans All Fluid-Flow 28. Budris, A. R., “Designing Pump Piping,” Chem. Processing, 65 (8),
Regimes,” Chem. Eng., 84 (24), pp. 91–92 (Nov. 7, 1977). pp. 33–37 (Aug. 2002); available at www.chemicalprocessing.com/
9. Hooper, W. B., “The Two-K Method Predicts Head Losses in Pipe Web_First/cp.nsf/ArticleID/CBOH-5CZJW3.
Fittings,” Chem. Eng., 88 (17), pp. 96–100 (Aug. 24, 1981). 29. Branan, C., “Rules of Thumb for Chemical Engineers,” Gulf
10. Hooper, W. B., “Calculate Head Loss Caused by Change in Pipe Publishing, Houston, TX, p. 80 (1994).
Size,” Chem. Eng., 95 (16), pp. 89–92 (Nov. 7, 1988). 30. National Electrical Manufacturers Assn., “Energy Management
11. Darby, R., “Correlate Pressure Drops Through Fittings,” Chem. Guide for Selection and Use of Fixed Frequency Medium AC
Eng., 108 (4), pp. 127–130 (April 2001); 108 (12), pp. 8–10 Squirrel-Cage Polyphase Induction Motors,” NEMA Standards
(Nov. 2001). Publication MG 10-2001, National Electrical Manufacturers
12. Perry, R. H., et al., p. 6-18. Association, Rosslyn, Virginia, p. 9 (2001); available at
13. Crane Valve, “Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe,” www.nema.org/DocUploads/57D634E6-FF3C-4492-
Technical Paper No. 410, pp. A-27 to A-29 (1988). B3D73108C1E4F02D/MG10.pdf.
14. Hydraulic Institute, “Hydraulic Institute Engineering Data 31. U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States:
Book,” 2nd ed., Hydraulic Institute, Cleveland, OH, pp. 25, 47, 2003,” 123 ed., U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, p. 572 (2002);
and 77–79 (1990). available at www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/energy.pdf.
15. Brown, G. S., “How to Predict Pressure Drop before Designing the 32. Siegel, J., “The Rise in Stock Valuations and Future Equity Returns,”
Piping,” Chem. Eng., 94 (4), pp. 85–86 (Mar. 16, 1987). The Journal of Management Consulting, 5 (1), pp. 9–19, Denver, CO
16. Hooper, W. B., “Predict Fittings for Piping Systems,” Chem. Eng., (June/July 2002); available at www.jeremysiegel.com/
89 (10), pp. 127–129 (May 17, 1982). view_article.asp?p=233.
17. Perry, R. H., et al., p. 10-23. 33. Internal Revenue Service, “How To Depreciate Property,”
18. Perry, R. H., et al., p. 9-13. Publication 946, Cal. No. 13081F, pp. 93–102 (2002); available at
19. Karassik, I. J., “Centrifugal Pumps and System Hydraulics,” Chem. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p946.pdf.
Eng., 89 (10), pp. 84–106 (Oct. 4, 1982). 34. Kern, R., “How To Size Piping for Pump-Discharge Conditions,”
20. Chen, C. C., “Cope with Dissolved Gases in Pump Calculations,” Chem. Eng., 82 (11), pp. 113–120 (May 26, 1975).
Chem. Eng., 100 (10), pp. 106–112 (Oct. 1993). 35. Xenergy, Inc., “United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems
21. Goulds Pumps, “Goulds Pump Manual, 6th Ed.,” Goulds Pumps, Market Opportunities Assessment,” U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE),
Seneca Falls, New York, pp. 607–611 (1995); available via Washington, DC, pp. 13–17, 56–59 (1998); available at
http://www.gouldspumps.com/cattechnews.ihtml?pid=76&last- www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/ pdfs/mtrmkt.pdf.
catid=46&step=4. 36. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Resource
22. Doolin, J. H., “Centrifugal Pumps and Entrained-Air Problems,” Dynamics Corp., “Improving Pumping System Performance:
Chem. Eng., 70 (1), pp. 103–106 (Jan. 7, 1963). A Sourcebook for Industry,” DOE, Office of Industrial
23. Cappellino, C. A., et al., “Design Considerations and Application Technologies, Motor Challenge Program, Washington, DC (1999);
Guidelines for Pumping Liquids with Entrained Gas using Open available at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/pdfs/pump.pdf.
Impeller Centrifugal Pumps,” in Bailey, J. C., Ed., “Proceedings of

unequal-size or same-size parallel pumps that can save

JAMES ANTHONY is a process engineer with Lockwood Greene (1000 Des
up to 50%, or retrofit pumps that can save up to 25%, or Peres Rd. Suite 100; St. Louis, MO 63131; Phone: (314) 919-3208; Fax:
larger pipe sizes and lower-head components that can (314) 919-3201; E-mail: [email protected]). He has experience in the
save up to 20% (35, 36). chemical, food and beverage, and pharmaceutical industries, and has
written for CEP demonstrating the use of mathematical calculation
By improving pumping systems, a typical plant will save ener- software for mass transfer and fluid-flow problems (Nov. 2001). He has
gy worth at least $700,000 — that is, $90,000/yr (35) over a 10-yr a BS in chemical engineering from the Univ. of Missouri – Rolla and an
design life (33) at an average 6%/yr real interest rate (32). MS in mechanical engineering from Washington University. He is a
CEP registered professional engineer in Missouri and a member of AIChE.
Your plant should be saving this much, too.

48 www.cepmagazine.org February 2005 CEP