PROCESS DEPARTMENT REPORT – No.

1/2024

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN (ENCH3ED)

PIPELINE NETWORK DESIGN

GROUP II
PIPELINE NETWORK DESIGN: PUMPING A MIXTURE OF
BENZENE AND SOME UNREACTED COMPOUNDS FROM LOW
PRESSURE SEPARATOR V-903 TO BENZENE DISTILLATION
COLUMN T-901

by
Abel Zwane
Student number: 220003136

Date: 15 October 2024

Distribution: Mr C.A Baah

Process Designs Associates LTD

King George Avenue
Durban
4001

This design report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course
ENCH3ED in the curriculum for the degree BscEng (Chem) at the University of KwaZulu-
Natal.

0|Page
 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

PIPELINE NETWORK DESIGN

by

Abel Zwane

I hereby declare that this design and the associated report is my own work (except where
formally acknowledged in the section headed “acknowledgement”)*

Student Number: 220003136……… Signature: ………………….

Date: 15 October 2024……………….

1|Page
Abstract

This report entails the design of a pipeline network system for distribution of a mixture of
Benzene and some unreacted compounds in a plant that focusses on Benzene production.
This mixture of Benzene with some unreacted compounds, namely Hydrogen, Methane and
Toluene, is to be distributed from a low-pressure phase separator V-903 to a Benzene
distillation column T-901. V-903 is situated at a distance of 1320 m away from T-901. The
mixture, however, enters a heat exchanger E-903 along the pipeline 1225 m from V-903
before it moves on to T-901 which is 95 m away from it. The fluid properties of the mixture
were obtained at their worst conditions (extrema) as suggested by Perry’s Chemical
Engineers Handbook, which are the temperatures and pressures maintained for the mixture
along the pipeline. Given a mass flowrate of 11.5 tonne/hr as per Design Statement 2024, a
volumetric flowrate of 14.46 m3/hr is found. A velocity of 1.7038 m/s is used for the pipe and
an area of 0.0023569 m2. Carbon steel was selected to be the ideal choice for material of
construction of the pipeline, and from ASME/ANSI B36.10/19, the outside and internal
diameters of the 2-inch nominal bore, standard schedule pipe selected were 60.325 mm and
54.787 mm respectively with a wall thickness of 2.769 mm. From the various sources which
induce head losses on the pipe system, a total head loss of 46.38 m was recorded. In
countering the head loss, the 32-200 type pump was selected corresponding to the maximum
flowrate and the total head loss. This pump incurs an NPSH of 1.2 m, however the NPSH
available was found to be 36.60 m which overcomes the required NPSH greatly. Due to the
considerably low head loss, only one pump was used along the pipeline network. The pump
which has an impeller diameter of 206 mm operates at 6.25 kW, 2593.28 rpm and has an
efficiency of 37 %.

2|Page
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background Information .................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Statement ............................................................................................................1
1.3 Objectives .......................................................................................................................1
1.4 Scope of Project .............................................................................................................1
2.Design Results ...............................................................................................................2-3
3. Discussion .....................................................................................................................4-6
4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….7
5. Recommendations ...........................................................................................................8
6. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................8
7Appendices .......................................................................................................................9
7.1 Appendix A: Nomenclature ..........................................................................................9
7.2 Appendix B: References ...............................................................................................10
Sketch of Pipeline………………………………………………………………………….11
7.3Appendix C: Sources of DATA……………………………………………………….12
7.4 Appendix D: Sample calculations…………………………………………………….14

3|Page
Introduction
Background Information
The design of pipeline networks plays a pivotal role in effectively conveying fluids either in
gas or liquid form which are essential in industries. Pipeline design includes selecting the
route traversed by the pipe, determination of the quantity of fluids and/or solids to be
transported, and the operational velocity, the calculation of pressure gradient, selection of
pumps and other equipment. The determination of pipe thickness and material of construction
(the possibility of utilizing stainless steel, carbon steel, concrete, PVC pipe or cast iron. It
also includes engineering economic analysis and market analysis to determine the most
conducive system. In every design project, the safety, leakage and damage prevention,
government regulations, and environmental concerns must be heeded.
Project statement
This pipeline design at hand, which is required by Process Designs Associates LTD, is one
focusing on the transportation of a mixture of Benzene with some unreacted compounds. The
mixture is to be transported along a distance of 1.32 km from a low-pressure separator to a
distillation column this occurs in a Benzene Production Plant. The mixture, however, enters a
heat exchanger E-903 along the pipeline 1225 m from V-903 before it moves on to T-901
which is 95 m away from it
Report Objectives
The purpose of this work is to determine the total pressure drop across the system and the
appropriate pump size. The velocity of the fluid through the pipe and the diameter of the pipe
to be used are also specified. In addition, a thorough review of the materials of construction
of the pipes is also presented. Also shown are the sizes of the control valves used to regulate
the flow and their materials of construction. The location of pumps, control valves and
various accessories along the pipeline is also determined.
Scope of the Project
The company operates under several equipment standardization policies for the purpose of
operational flexibility and minimized spare part stock holdings for maintenance of the
equipment. Thus, the pump must be selected from the homologous series of standard
chemical pumps manufactured by the KSB Company to comply with the DIN 24 256 and
ISO 2858 standards. (Baah, 2024).

4|Page
Design Results
Table 1.1: Preliminary design results

PIPELINE SPECIFICATIONS
Location of Pipeline Durban, South Africa
Fluid to be Transported Mixture of Benzene with Hydrogen,
Methane and Toluene
Normal Average Flowrate 14.46 𝑚3 /ℎ𝑟
ASME Pipe Size Nominal Bore 2-Inch 10S
Outer Diameter 0.0603 m
Inner Diameter 0.05478 m
Wall Thickness 0.002769 m
Material of Construction Carbon Steel
Length of Pipeline 1320 m
Length of Pipe Segments 12 m
Number of Pipe Segments 1 084
Method of Pipe Segment Connection Coupling
Maximum Total Head Loss in Pipeline 46.38 m
PUMP SPECIFICATIONS
Pump Type KSB CPK/HBK 32-200
Impeller Diameter 0.206 m
Pump Inlet Diameter 0.05 m
Pump Outlet Diameter 0.032 m
Maximum Speed 2900 rpm
Operating Speed 2593.28 rpm
Efficiency 37 %
Power Input 8.74 kW
Power Output 6.25 kW
NPSHr 1.2 m
NPSHa 36.60
Number of Pumps Needed 1

5|Page
Results continued…

Pump Curves
85

75
60%
65 80%
Head loss (m)

55 10%

45 Original pump curve at

2900 rpm
35 No valve

New pump curve @

25
2593.28 rpm

15

5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Q (m3/hr)

Figure 1.1: Pump and system characteristic curves

Figure 1.2: Pipeline Map of fittings

6|Page
Discussion

The primary objective of this project was to design a pipeline network for distribution of a
mixture of benzene along with hydrogen, methane and toluene from the Low-pressure phase
separator (V-903) to Benzene distillation column (T-901). Along 1225 m of the pipeline
between the two vessels there exists a number of fittings, a heat exchanger and an elevation
of 2.25 m. The mixture consisted of liquid benzene and toluene while having trace amounts
of hydrogen and methane remaining. Due to this, the hydrogen and methane properties
contributed minimal amounts to the mixture. When determining the worst-case temperature
conditions for the design of the pipeline, viscosity was the main property to look at in the
liquid state. Temperature and viscosity are inversely proportional thus it was decided that
designing the system at its lowest recorded temperature would thus give the highest possible
viscosity the pipeline should experience. It should also be noted that the same properties were
used after the heat exchanger, this is to keep the worst-case conditions in mind even though
the mixture will be heated in reality when passing though the heat exchanger. The properties
can be found in Appendices.

The mass flow rate of the mixture was found to be 3.19 kg/s. The Pipe size chosen for the
pipeline was the Nominal Bore 2-Inch 10S. This was chosen using the ASME pipe standards.
The outer diameter of the pipe was 60.325 mm and the inner diameter was 54.787 mm with a
wall pipe thickness of 2.769 mm. (MATERIALS SELECTION, 1994) The 2.769 mm is greater than
the recommended 2.5 mm of corrosion allowance for carbon steel pipes. Standard pipe sizes
were chosen as they are easier to procure and cheaper to purchase than custom made pipes. The
velocity within the pipe needed to fall within the range for hydrocarbons of 1-3 m/s, this was
achieved as the flowrate was found to be 1.7038 m/s. (Sinnott, 2005) This means the pipe size
chosen was appropriate.

The choice of the pipe material was based on several factors namely the corrosiveness of the
mixture being transported, the cost of material and strength and durability. The material chosen
was Carbon steel ASME B36.10 grade A. When looking at the mixture composition none of
the components had any corrosive aspects to it thus corrosion defence internally was not a
concern and corrosion due to weathering on the outside of the pipe is an easily dealt with
problem. There are several techniques that can be implemented to prevent corrosion due to
weathering such a coating to protect from the elements or adding a sacrificial metal to the
outside. The pipe could also be galvanized which while more costly would give a permanent

7|Page
protection than normal coatings (Corrosion in Carbon Steels – IspatGuru, 2023). These techniques
are relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of using an alternative material such as stainless
steel which is fairly expensive compared to carbon steel and will prove adequate protection
from any corrosion due to weather conditions. Carbon steel was also chosen due to its strength
and durability, the material is durable giving it longevity and thus minimizing the cost of repair
and replacement. The strength of carbon steel is also important as the pipeline will be under
high pressure and experience vibrations and shocks while in use. Carbons steel also has several
advantages compared to stainless steel such as it being easier to work with in terms of welding
and machining. (The Carbon Steel Advantage - FedSteel.com, 2014). Carbon steel fittings are also
widely available at a cheaper cost than stainless steel fittings.

The control valve selected was the DN 40 1.5 Inch which was situated right after the pump.
The control valve was chosen as it was within the range of 0.5-1 times the size of the pipeline
diameter with the diameter of the control valve port being 47.8 mm. The control valve type
selected was an equal percentage valve, these are more suitable in liquid streams which are
under higher pressure drops. The control valve was set to be 60% open at normal flow rates
and 80% open at maximum flowrates. The Cv values for the control valve at 10%, 60% and
80% were determined and used to determine the head losses associated with these percentage
openings. The different head losses these percentage openings had on the system can be
observed in figure 1.2 in results at its various open positions (system curves).

The total overall head loss was determined for the maximum flow rate as 58 m. It should be
noted that the maximum flow rate used the 80% open control valve position while the normal
flow rate used the 60% open control valve position. These total head losses were determined
by summing the head losses of the skin friction, fitting, heat exchanger, control valve and
changes in elevation. These head losses and respective flow rates were used to determine the
pump used in the pipeline. Using figure 1.4 in appendix C the pump determined was the KSB
32-200 pump (2900 rpm, 50Hz) with an impeller size of 206 mm.

When looking at figure 1.4 and using the maximum flowrate head loss and maximum flowrate
it can be seen that there are a number of different pump sizes that may have been applicable.
In-order to determine which pump was the most efficient calculations were done and the power
input for each of the options were determined. This would make it easy to see that the KSB 32-
200 pump was the most efficient power wise and thus would be the cheapest to run.

8|Page
The pump chosen when operating at 2900 rpm and maximum flow would provide a max head
of 58 m. This is greater than the head loss required for the desired flowrate. In-order to
prevent wastage of power, the pump speed needed to be operated at a lower speed. Affinity
laws were then utilised used to determine the pump speed which was to be optimal, a value of
2593. 28 rpm was obtained. When looking at figure 1.1 it can be seen that the pump curves
match the Head loss curves at the operating points for maximum and normal flowrate this
shows the affinity law calculations were accurate and can be trusted. Due to the relatively low
head losses experience by the system, there was only 1 pump required by the system, more
pumps would have increased the capital cost of the system while also increasing the
operational costs and risk of breakdowns.

The Pump required a NPSHr known as Net positive suction head required of 1.2 m in order to
operate safety refer to figure 1.4. The Net positive suction head available (NPSHa) was
determined to be 36.60 m when the pump was placed 5 m away from the low-pressure phase
separator (V-903). This means the NPSHa > NPSHr and the pump will operate correctly at the
selected placement. This calculation is done to prevent any cavitation from occurring within
the pump which would damage the internals as well as the impeller itself. The Affinity laws
were again used to determine actual power out and thus the power required to run the pump
using the pump efficiency known as the power in. The power in for the maximum flow rate
was 8.74 kW and the power output was found to 6.25 Kw.

9|Page
Conclusion

From this presented design report, the following conclusions can be drawn:

 Low carbon steel was determined to be the ideal material of construction for this pipeline
design because of easy application of paints and coatings for corrosion protection and
readily available locally while at an affordable cost.
 Stream properties were taken at the worst-case scenarios as this ensured, that the pipeline
can still be fully functional even under the worst environmental conditions.
 A 2-inch schedule 10S pipe size was considered in this system to maintain the fluid
𝑚
velocity of 17038 𝑠 54.787 mm standard diameter, outside diameter of 60.325 mm, and a
thickness of 3.9 mm were used for the pipeline
 A DN−40, nominal 1 ½-inch control valve was utilized. The operating condition for this
design was set at 60% open.
 The total head loss experienced by the system, at the required flowrate, was 46.38 𝑚.
 NPSH available was greater than NPSH required (1.2 m) for the chosen pump, thus
preventing cavitation.
 The operating flowrate of 14.46 m3/hr was used to perform calculations at operating
conditions and pipe sizing was conducted using this flowrate.
 32 – 200 series with an impeller of 206 mm, 37% operating efficiency, 6.25 kW power
delivered and 1.2 m required NPSH was selected using the total system head loss of 46.38
m and the operating flowrate.

10 | P a g e
Acknowledgement

In the compilation of this report, I would like to acknowledge my lecturer for the Chemical
Engineering Design module, Mr C Baah who has been of great assistance and offered
valuable advice during the course of the module.

Recommendations

The pump expansion and contraction losses were quite insignificant to make a notable
difference on the head loss due to losses; hence the inlet and outlet diameters of the pump
should be estimated to be of the same size as the pipe diameters and be connected using
flanges. The velocity should be used to limit the rate of corrosion of the material. A freedom
to choose material with high fabrication costs should be permitted to allow for selection of
stainless steel. This would result in a very long-life span of the pipes, hence, a cost-effective
design.

11 | P a g e
APPENDIX A: Nomenclature

Table A1: Nomenclature

SYMBOL DEFINITION UNITS

A Pipe cross-sectional area m2
Di Pipe diameter m
f Friction Factor Dimensionless
g Gravitational acceleration m/s2
Ht Total head loss m
hf Head loss due to fittings m
hl Head loss due to pipe length m
hs Suction piping head loss m
L Line Length m
𝑚̇ Mass flow rate kg/hr

NPSHA Net positive suction head Available m

NPSHR Net positive suction head Required m

P Pressure Pa
𝑄̇ Volumetric Flow Rate m3/hr
Re Reynolds number Dimensionless
SG Specific gravity Dimensionless
T Temperature °C
n Pump speed rpm
𝑢 Velocity m/s
GREEK LETTERS
Symbol Definition Units
ε Pipe absolute roughness m
µ Viscosity Pa-s
ρ Density kg/m3

12 | P a g e
Appendix B: References

ENCH3ED DESIGN STATEMENT 2024 LECTURER: Mr C. A. Baah

Sinnott, R. K., 2005. Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering Series: Chemical
Engineering Design. 4th ed. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/asme-steel-pipes-sizes-d_42.html [Accessed: 06
October 2024]

https://www.octalsteel.com/steel-pipe-dimensions-sizes/ [Accessed: 04 October 2024]

Perry, R. H. & Green, D. W., 2008. Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook. 8th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Brater, E. F., King, H. W., Lindell, J. E. & Wei, C. Y., 1996. Handbook of Hydraulics. 7th ed.
New York: McGraw - Hill Company.

PARCOL, n.d. HANDBOOK FOR CONTROL VALVE SIZING. [Online] Available at:
http://www.parcol.com [Accessed 06 October 2024].

Process piping engineering, 2015. Most Common types of Steel in Process Piping Industry.
[Online] Available at: https://www.theprocesspiping.com/common-types-steel-process-
piping-industry/ [Accessed 04 October 2024].

Richard , W. M., 1996. Flow Measurement Engineering Handbook. 3rd ed. s.l.:McGraw-Hill
Education.

Sinnot, R. K., 2005. Chemical Engineering Design. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.

The green book, 2019. Water Pump and its Uses. [Online] Available at:
http://www.thegreenbook.com/water-pump-and-its-uses.htm [Accessed 4 October 2024].

ToolBox Engineering, 2003. ASME/ANSI B36.10/19 - Carbon, Alloy and Stainless Steel
Pipes - Dimensions - Metric Units. [Online] Available at:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/asme-steel-pipes-sizes-d_42.html [Accessed 04 October
2024].

13 | P a g e
A sketch of the Pipeline Network

Figure 1.3: A sketch showing the pipeline propagation path for the mixture

14 | P a g e
Appendix C: Graphs of Source Data

Figure 1.4: Pump series (32-200), NPSHR, and Power curves (KSB pumps)

15 | P a g e
Figure 1.5: K values useful for fittings head loss

Figure 1.6: Pipe friction vs Reynolds number plot for finding friction factor

16 | P a g e
Appendix D: Sample Calculations

Fluid properties
The following physical properties of the mixture were obtained at their extrema as given in
the relevant streams, namely stream 18 and stream 10:

Table D1 -Physical properties of fluid evaluated at worst-case scenario (Aspen Hysys V12.1)

Property Stream Temperature Pressure Density Viscosity

3
Magnitude [℃] [bar] [kg/m ] [Pa-s]
Lowest 18 38 2.9 851.35 4.906915x10-4
Highest 10 90 2.6 794.37 2.7694x10-4

The mixture contains Hydrogen, Methane, Benzene and Toluene in different proportions.
Mixing rules were used in order to calculate the properties of the mixture in the above table.
Calculations were as follows:

Finding the mole fractions at first:

0.02
𝑛𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑛 = = 0.00014
0.02 + 0.88 + 106.3 + 35.0

0.88
𝑛𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 = = 0.00619
0.02 + 0.88 + 106.3 + 35.0

106.3
𝑛𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑒 = = 0.748
0.02 + 0.88 + 106.3 + 35.0

𝑛 𝑇𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑒 = 1 − 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠

= 1 − 0.00014 − 0.00619 − 0.748

𝑛 𝑇𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑒 = 0.2461

Density of the mixture was calculated using the following equation:

1
ρmix = 𝑥 where 𝑥𝑖 represents mass fractions
Σ( 𝑖 )
𝜌𝑖

The viscosity of the mixture was determined using the Gambill method as outlined below
(Gambill, 1959).

1/3 1/3 1/3

𝑣mixture = 𝑥𝑎 𝑣𝑎 + 𝑥𝑏 𝑣𝑏

17 | P a g e
The use of the available properties to calculate the maximum head losses are
summarized below:

• Highest flowrate – use of the smallest density of the available streams.

• Largest optimal diameter – use of the smallest density of the available streams.

• Largest skin friction head loss – use of the smallest Reynolds Number, thus making use

of the smallest density and the largest viscosity of the available streams.

• Largest heat exchanger head loss – use of the smallest density of the available streams.

• Largest control valve head loss – use of the largest specific gravity (therefore the largest

density) and the use of the smallest density (in the head loss formulae) of the available

streams

Calculation of volumetric flowrates

Given that the total mass flow rate for stream 18 = 11.5 tonne/h (Design Statement, 2024)

1000
𝑚̇ = 11.5 × 3600 = 3.19 kg/s

𝑚̇ 3.19
𝑄𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = = 794.37 = 0.0040158 𝑚3 /𝑠 = 14.46 m3/hr
𝜌

Determining the pipe diameter

𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 [𝑚𝑚] = 293𝑚̇𝑚𝑖𝑥 0.53 𝜌 −0.37

𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 = 293(3.19 )0.53 (794.37)−0.37 = 45.80𝑚𝑚

Consequently a 2-inch 10S pipe was chosen with outer diameter = 60.325 mm, inner
diameter = 54.787 mm 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 2.769 m
Table 2- Details of the pipe selected for the system (ASME document)

Carbon steel (mm) (m)

Outer Diameter 60.325 0.0603
Inner Diameter 54.787 0.05478
Wall Thickness 2.769 0.002769

18 | P a g e
Calculation of velocity

𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑦, 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎:

𝜋 𝜋
𝐴𝑐 = 4 × 𝑑𝑖 2 = 4 × (0.005478)2 = 0.0023569 𝑚2

𝑄 0.0040158
𝑢= = = 1.7038 𝑚/𝑠
𝐴 0.0023569
This velocity lies within the recommendation of 1-3 m/s in pipeline systems (Coulson &
Richardson)
Selection of the control valve
The control valve chosen was the DN (40) as it had the closest pipe diameter to the selected
pipe size.
Table 3- Cv values (Emerson-Fischer Controls, 1987)

Control Valve Cv Values (Up Flow)

DN 40 Diameter(mm) 10% 60% 80% 100%
47.8 1.54 13.793 22.6 33.4

Head loss calculations

There are different sources which induce head losses on the pipeline network, and these have
to be accounted for. The sources are head loss due to friction, fittings, control valve, elevation,
and this particular pipeline also contains a heat exchanger E-903 along its path whose head loss
is also accounted for.
Friction head losses
𝜌𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖 794.37 × 1.7038 × 0.05478
𝑅𝑒 = = = 151096.69
𝜇 4.906915 × 10−4

Note: the absolute roughness chosen for carbon steel was found to be 𝜀 = 45 × 10−6 𝑚
(https://www.pumpfundamentals.com/download-free/pipe_rough_values.pdf)

𝜀 2.185 𝜀 14.5 −2
𝑓 = {−1.737 ln [0.269 − ln (0.269 + )]}
𝑑 𝑅𝑒 𝑑 𝑅𝑒
−2
2.185 45 × 10−6 14.5
𝑓 = {−1.737 ln [0.269 × − ln (0.269 × + )]}
151096.69 0.05478 151096.69

=0.0051865
𝐿 × 𝑢2
ℎ𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑓
𝑑 × 2𝑔

1320 × 1.70382
ℎ𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = (0.0051865) = 18.49 𝑚
0.05478 × 2(9.81)

19 | P a g e
Fittings Head losses

Table D2: K-values are from http://www.metropumps.com/ResourcesFrictionLossData.pdf

Loss name n K values Sum

90-degree bends 22 0.57 12.54
45-degree bends 11 0.30 3.3
Venturi meters 7 1.05 7.35
Tee junctions 6 0.38 2.28
Gate valves 4 0.15 0.6
Pump Contraction 1 0.2984 0.2984
Pump expansion 1 2.7789 2.7789
Pipe exit 1 1 1
Pipe entrance 1 0.5 0.5
Sum 30.6473

The pump contraction and expansion were calculated as follows: an angle 𝜃 of 30° was
interpolated from (Brater et al., 1996).
𝜃 𝑑 2 𝜃 𝑑 2
0.8 𝑠𝑖𝑛( 2 )[1−(𝑑1 ) ] 2.6 𝑠𝑖𝑛( 2 )[1−(𝑑1 ) ]
2 2
𝐾𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑑 4 and 𝐾𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑑 4
( 𝑑1 ) (𝑑1 )
2 2

NOTE: 𝑑1 represents smaller diameter and 𝑑2 represents larger diameter.

where: 𝑑𝑖 = 0.05478 𝑚 ; 𝐷𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.065 𝑚 and 𝐷𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 0.04 𝑚 (Brater et
al., 1996)
30 0.05478 2
0.8 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( ) [1 − ( ) ]
2 0.065
𝐾𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = 0.2984
0.05478 4
( )
0.065
30 0.04 2
2.6 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( 2 ) [1 − (0.05478 ) ]
𝐾𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = 2.7789
0,04 4
( )
0.05478
The K value for venturi meter was calculated as follows:
1
𝐾𝑉𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 =
𝐶𝑑 2
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑑 = 0.975(Orifice, Nozzle and Venturi Flow Rate Meters, 2020)
1
= = 1.0519
(0.975)2

20 | P a g e
Fittings head loss
This fittings head loss was determined at the normal flowrate
𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 1.70382
ℎ𝐿 = ∑ 𝐾𝑖 = (30.6473)×( 2×9.81 ) = 4.53 m
2𝑔

Heat exchanger head loss

∆𝑃𝑡 22500
ℎ𝐻𝐸𝑋 = = = 2.89 𝑚
𝜌𝑔 794.37 × 9.81
Elevation head loss
ℎ𝑠 = 2.25 m (height of inlet to T-901 above V-903 and E-903)
Control valve head loss
Head losses due to control valves are calculated at 10 %, 60% and 80% valve openings. For
calculation purposes, the head losses due to control valves were calculated at a 60% valve
opening (corresponding to flow up) through a DN-40, nominal 2-inch control valve 𝐶𝑉
=13.793

𝑄𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 (𝑚3 /𝑠) ×15850.3231= 0.0040158 ×15850.3231 = 63.65 𝑔𝑝𝑚

𝑆𝐺 0.85135
∆𝑃𝑐𝑣 = = = 18.13 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎
𝐶 2
13.793 2
( 𝑄𝑣 ) ( 63.65 )

18.13 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎 × 6894.7573 = 125001.10 𝑃𝑎

∆𝑃𝐶𝑉 125001.10
ℎ𝐶𝑉 = = = 16.04 𝑚
𝜌𝑔 794.37 × 9.81

Total head losses

ℎ 𝑇 = ℎ 𝐶𝑉 + ℎ𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 + ℎ𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + ℎ𝐻𝐸𝑋 + ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

ℎ 𝑇 = 16.04 + 4.53 + 18.49 + 2.89 + 2.25 = 44.2 m

Overall Head loss

Given the following values from Design Statement 2024, the total pump head loss is obtained
by using the Bernoulli equation:

P1 = 2.9 bar = 290 kPa, P2 = 2.6 bar = 260 kPa; z2 -z1 =2.25 (elevation): v2 = 0 and v1
calculated to be 1.7038 m/s

P2−P1 𝑣22−𝑣12
ℎ𝑝(𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚) = + + (𝑧2 − 𝑧1 ) + ℎ 𝑇
ρg 2𝑔

21 | P a g e
 260−(−290) (0)2 −(1.7038)2
=(794.37)(9.81) + + 2.25 + 44.2 = 46.38 𝑚
2(9.81)

Pump selection
The pump selected was the KSB-32-200 with a flowrate of 14.46m3/hr, efficiency of 37 %, and
power of 8.74 kW
NPSH Calculations
NOTE: The NPSH required for the 32-200 Pump was found to be 1.2 m
The NPSH available was determined in the following manner:
𝑃𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐿 𝑢2
𝑁𝑃𝑆𝐻𝑎 [𝑚] = + 𝐻𝐿𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑆𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − − 8𝑓 ( ) ( )
𝜌𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝑑𝑖 2𝑔

Vapour pressure was obtained to be 14853.29 𝑃𝑎 from (Aspen Hysys V12.1) and the pump was
assumed to be placed at 5 m from the V-903 exit before any fittings

290000 14853.29 5 1.70382

𝑁𝑃𝑆𝐻𝑎 [𝑚] = + 1.75 − − 8(0.00428) ( )( )
794.37(9.81) 794.37(9.81) 0.05478 2(9.81)

𝑁𝑃𝑆𝐻𝑎 [𝑚] = 𝟑𝟔. 𝟔𝟎 𝒎

Therefore, it is suitable to place the pump at 5 metres away from the exit of V-903 since the
NPSHa > NPSHr.
Affinity Laws
Correction for pump speed during normal flow rate is determined using the following
formula:
𝐻2 𝑛2 2
=( )
𝐻1 𝑛1
46.38 𝑛2 2
=( )
58 2900
𝑛2 = 2593.28 rpm

Correction for power

Correction for the pump power output is determined using the following formula:
𝑃2 𝑁2 3 𝑃2 2593.28 3
=( ) =( )
𝑃1 𝑁1 8.74 2900
𝑃2 = 6.25 kW
The total power required by the pump was computed by obtaining the efficiency of the pump from
Figure 1.3:
𝑃2 6.25
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = = = 16.89 𝑘
𝜂 0,37

22 | P a g e