Equivalent Lengths

A Process Design Engineer’s Perspective on Using Equivalent

Lengths of Valves and Fittings in Pipeline Pressure Drop
Calculations
One of the most basic calculations performed by any process
engineer, whether in design or in the plant, is line sizing and pipeline
pressure loss. Typically known are the flow rate, temperature and
corresponding viscosity and specific gravity of the fluid that will flow
through the pipe. These properties are entered into a computer
program or spreadsheet along with some pipe physical data (pipe
schedule and roughness factor) and out pops a series of line sizes with
associated Reynolds Number, velocity, friction factor and pressure
drop per linear dimension. The pipe size is then selected based on a
compromise between the velocity and the pressure drop. With the line
now sized and the pressure drop per linear dimension determined, the
pressure loss from the inlet to the outlet of the pipe can be calculated.
Calculating Pressure Drop
The most commonly used equation for determining pressure drop in
a straight pipe is the Darcy Weisbach equation. One common form of
the equation which gives pressure drop in terms of feet of head is
given below:

is commonly referred to as the

The term
Velocity Head.

Another common form of the Darcy Weisbach equation that is most

often used by engineers because it gives pressure drop in units of
pounds per square inch (psi) is:

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (1 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

To obtain pressure drop in units of psi/100 ft, the value of 100

replaces L in Equation 2.
The total pressure drop in the pipe is typically calculated using
these five steps. (1) Determine the total length of all horizontal and
vertical straight pipe runs. (2) Determine the number of valves and
fittings in the pipe. For example, there may be two gate valves, a 90o
elbow and a flow thru tee. (3) Determine the means of incorporating
the valves and fittings into the Darcy equation. To accomplish this,
most engineers use a table of equivalent lengths. This table lists the
valve and fitting and an associated length of straight pipe of the same
diameter, which will incur the same pressure loss as that valve or
fitting. For example, if a 2” 90o elbow were to produce a pressure
drop of 1 psi, the equivalent length would be a length of 2” straight
pipe that would also give a pressure drop of 1 psi. The engineer then
multiplies the quantity of each type of valve and fitting by its
respective equivalent length and adds them together. (4) The total
equivalent length is usually added to the total straight pipe length
obtained in step one to give a total pipe equivalent length. (5) This
total pipe equivalent length is then substituted for L in Equation 2 to
obtain the pressure drop in the pipe.
See any problems with this method?
Relationship Between K, Equivalent Length and Friction Factor
The following discussion is based on concepts found in reference 1,
the CRANE Technical Paper No. 410. It is the author’s opinion that
this manual is the closest thing the industry has to a standard on
performing various piping calculations. If the reader currently does
not own this manual, it is highly recommended that it be obtained.
As in straight pipe, velocity increases through valves and fittings at
the expense of head loss. This can be expressed by another form of the
Darcy equation similar to Equation 1:

When comparing Equations 1 and 3, it becomes apparent that:

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (2 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

K is called the resistance coefficient and is defined as the number of

velocity heads lost due to the valve or fitting. It is a measure of the
following pressure losses in a valve or fitting:
● Pipe friction in the inlet and outlet straight portions of the valve
or fitting
● Changes in direction of flow path

● Obstructions in the flow path

● Sudden or gradual changes in the cross-section and shape of the

flow path
Pipe friction in the inlet and outlet straight portions of the valve or
fitting is very small when compared to the other three. Since friction
factor and Reynolds Number are mainly related to pipe friction, K can
be considered to be independent of both friction factor and Reynolds
Number. Therefore, K is treated as a constant for any given valve or
fitting under all flow conditions, including laminar flow. Indeed,
experiments showed1 that for a given valve or fitting type, the
tendency is for K to vary only with valve or fitting size. Note that this
is also true for the friction factor in straight clean commercial steel
pipe as long as flow conditions are in the fully developed turbulent
zone. It was also found that the ratio L/D tends towards a constant for
all sizes of a given valve or fitting type at the same flow conditions.
The ratio L/D is defined as the equivalent length of the valve or fitting
in pipe diameters and L is the equivalent length itself.
In Equation 4, ¦ therefore varies only with valve and fitting size and
is independent of Reynolds Number. This only occurs if the fluid flow
is in the zone of complete turbulence (see the Moody Chart in
reference 1 or in any textbook on fluid flow). Consequently, ¦ in
Equation 4 is not the same ¦ as in the Darcy equation for straight pipe,
which is a function of Reynolds Number. For valves and fittings, ¦ is
the friction factor in the zone of complete turbulence and is designated
¦t, and the equivalent length of the valve or fitting is designated Leq.
Equation 4 should now read (with D being the diameter of the valve or
fitting):

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (3 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

The equivalent length, Leq, is related to ¦t, not ¦, the friction factor of
the flowing fluid in the pipe. Going back to step four in our five step
procedure for calculating the total pressure drop in the pipe, adding the
equivalent length to the straight pipe length for use in Equation 1 is
fundamentally wrong.
Calculating Pressure Drop, The Correct Way
So how should we use equivalent lengths to get the pressure drop
contribution of the valve or fitting? A form of Equation 1 can be used
if we substitute ¦t for ¦ and Leq for L (with d being the diameter of the
valve or fitting):

The pressure drop for the valves and fittings is then added to the
pressure drop for the straight pipe to give the total pipe pressure drop.
Another approach would be to use the K values of the individual
valves and fittings. The quantity of each type of valve and fitting is
multiplied by its respective K value and added together to obtain a
total K. This total K is then substituted into the following equation:

Notice that use of equivalent length and friction factor in the pressure
drop equation is eliminated, although both are still required to
calculate the values of K1. As a matter of fact, there is nothing
stopping the engineer from converting the straight pipe length into a K
value and adding this to the K values for the valves and fittings before
using Equation 7. This is accomplished by using Equation 4, where D
is the pipe diameter and ¦ is the pipeline friction factor.

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (4 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

How significant is the error caused by mismatching friction factors?

The answer is, it depends. Below is a real world example showing the
difference between the Equivalent Length method (as applied by most
engineers) and the K value method to calculate pressure drop.
An Example
The fluid being pumped is 94% Sulfuric Acid through a 3”,
Schedule 40, Carbon Steel pipe:
Mass Flow Rate, lb/hr: 63,143
Volumetric Flow Rate, gpm: 70
3
Density, lb/ft : 112.47
S.G. 1.802
Viscosity, cp: 10
Temperature, oF: 127
Pipe ID, in: 3.068
Velocity, fps: 3.04
Reynold's No: 12,998
Darcy Friction Factor, (f) Pipe: 0.02985
Pipe Line DP/100 ft. 1.308
Friction Factor at Full Turbulence (¦t): 0.018
Straight Pipe, ft: 31.5

K1, 2 = ¦t
Fittings Leq/D1 Leq2, 3
(L/D)
Quantity Total Leq Total K
90o Long Radius
20 5.1 0.36 2 10.23 0.72
Elbow
Branch Tee 60 15.3 1.08 1 15.34 1.08
Swing Check
50 12.8 0.9 1 12.78 0.9
Valve
Plug Valve 18 4.6 0.324 1 4.6 0.324
3” x 1” Reducer4 None5 1222.55 86.1 1 822.68 57.92
TOTAL 865.633 60.944

Notes:
1. K values and Leq/D are obtained from reference 1.
2. K values and Leq are given in terms of the larger sized pipe.
3. Leq is calculated using Equation 5 above.
4. The reducer is really an expansion; the pump discharge nozzle is
1” (Schedule 80) but the connecting pipe is 3”. In piping terms,
there are no expanders, just reducers. It is standard to specify
the reducer with the larger size shown first. The K value for the

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (5 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

expansion is calculated as a gradual enlargement with a 30o

angle.
5. There is no L/D associated with an expansion or contraction.
The equivalent length must be back calculated from the K value
using Equation 5 above.
Typical Equivalent K Value
Length Method Method
Straight Pipe DP, psi Not applicable 0.412
Total Pipe Equivalent
11.322 Not Applicable
Length DP, psi
Valves and Fittings DP, psi Not applicable 6.828
Total Pipe DP, psi 11.322 7.24
The line pressure drop is greater by about 4.1 psi (about 56%) using
the typical equivalent length method (adding straight pipe length to the
equivalent length and using the pipe line fiction factor and Equation 1).
One can argue that if the fluid is water or a hydrocarbon, the
pipeline friction factor would be closer to the friction factor at full
turbulence and the error would not be so great, if at all significant; and
they would be correct. However hydraulic calculations, like all
calculations, should be done in a correct and consistent manner. If the
engineer gets into the habit of performing hydraulic calculations using
fundamentally incorrect equations, he takes the risk of falling into the
trap when confronted by a pumping situation as shown above.
Another point to consider is how the engineer treats a reducer when
using the typical equivalent length method. As we saw above, the
equivalent length of the reducer had to be back-calculated using
equation 5. To do this, we had to use ¦t and K. Why not use these for
the rest of the fittings and apply the calculation correctly in the first
place?

Final Thoughts - K Values

The 1976 edition of the Crane Technical Paper No. 410 first
discussed and used the two-friction factor method for calculating the
total pressure drop in a piping system (¦ for straight pipe and ¦t for
valves and fittings). Since then, Hooper2 suggested a 2-K method for
calculating the pressure loss contribution for valves and fittings. His
argument was that the equivalent length in pipe diameters (L/D) and K
was indeed a function of Reynolds Number (at flow rates less than that
obtained at fully developed turbulent flow) and the exact geometries of
smaller valves and fittings. K for a given valve or fitting is a
combination of two Ks, one being the K found in CRANE Technical

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (6 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

Paper No. 410, designated KY, and the other being defined as the K of
the valve or fitting at a Reynolds Number equal to 1, designated K1.
The two are related by the following equation:
K = K1 / NRE + KY (1 + 1/D)

The term (1+1/D) takes into account scaling between different sizes
within a given valve or fitting group. Values for K1 can be found in
the reference article2 and pressure drop is then calculated using
Equation 7. For flow in the fully turbulent zone and larger size valves
and fittings, K becomes consistent with that given in CRANE.
Darby3 expanded on the 2-K method. He suggests adding a third K
term to the mix. Darby states that the 2-K method does not accurately
represent the effect of scaling the sizes of valves and fittings. The
reader is encouraged to get a copy of this article.
The use of the 2-K method has been around since 1981 and does
not appear to have “caught” on as of yet. Some newer commercial
computer programs allow for the use of the 2-K method, but most
engineers inclined to use the K method instead of the Equivalent
Length method still use the procedures given in CRANE. The latest
3-K method comes from data reported in the recent CCPS Guidlines4
and appears to be destined to become the new standard; we shall see.
Conclusion
Consistency, accuracy and correctness should be what the Process
Design Engineer strives for. We all add our “fat” or safety factors to
theoretical calculations to account for real-world situations. It would
be comforting to know that the “fat” was added to a basis using sound
and fundamentally correct methods for calculations.

NOMENCLATURE
D = Diameter, ft
d = Diameter, inches
¦ = Darcy friction factor
¦t = Darcy friction factor in the zone of complete turbulence
g = Acceleration of gravity, ft/sec2
hL = Head loss in feet
K = Resistance coefficient or velocity head loss
K1 = K for the fitting at NRE = 1
KY = K value from CRANE
L = Straight pipe length, ft
Leq = Equivalent length of valve or fitting, ft

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (7 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]

Equivalent Lengths

NRE = Reynolds Number

DP = Pressure drop, psi
n = Velocity, ft/sec
W = Flow Rate, lb/hr
r = Density, lb/ft3
REFERENCES
1. Crane Co., “Flow of Fluids through Valves, Fittings and Pipe”,
Crane Technical Paper No. 410, New York, 1991.
2. Hooper, W. B., The Two-K Method Predicts Head Losses in
Pipe Fittings, Chem. Eng., p. 97-100, August 24, 1981.
3. Darby, R., Correlate Pressure Drops through Fittings, Chem.
Eng., p. 101-104, July, 1999.
4. AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, “Guidelines for
Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling systems”, pp. 265-268,
New York, 1998.
By Phil Leckner, Chief Content Manager (read the author's Profile)
[email protected]
ChE in
Feature For Your ChE in Alternative Proc. Eng. As I
Everyday Archives
Articles Information Medicine Energy See It
Life

Resource Software Physical Message

Take a Tour Search Email/FAQ
Center Corner Props Board
Submit
Book Corner Sitemap Feedback Staff Main Page
Article

Link to This Site Advertise Become an Associate Terms of Use

This site is maintained by Christopher M. A. Haslego,BSChE, an Alumnus of West Virginia University. All
rights reserved 2001© Email:Webmaster

http://www.cheresources.com/eqlength.shtml (8 of 8) [07/25/2001 9:39:52 PM]