CFM and PSI Requirements for Abrasive Blasting 80' Steel Pipe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) and PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) requirements for a dust collection system in the context of abrasive blasting 48" diameter steel pipes that are 80' long. Participants explore the relationship between PSI and CFM, the conversion to standard conditions, and the implications of different definitions of standard conditions for airflow calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant queries the impact of PSI on CFM and the effects of creating negative air inside the pipe on CFM requirements.
  • Another participant suggests converting flow conditions to SCFM (Standard Cubic Feet per Minute) to facilitate comparisons with dust collection system vendors, noting that the flow will expand more than expected due to not being at atmospheric pressure.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of a universally accepted definition of SCFM, with various participants mentioning different standards for temperature and humidity.
  • Some participants indicate that while there are common standards, there is no definitive, universally accepted standard for designing blowers and similar equipment.
  • Participants discuss the importance of stating assumptions regarding pressure and temperature in calculations, acknowledging that different models may yield varying results.
  • One participant reflects on the variability of standards based on application and environment, suggesting that empirical testing may be necessary to address uncertainties.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a lack of consensus on a definitive standard for SCFM and the implications of different assumptions in calculations. There are competing views on what constitutes a standard condition, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best practices for airflow calculations in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the absence of universally accepted definitions for SCFM and the variability in assumptions regarding standard conditions, which may affect the calculations and comparisons made by participants.

CSI GIL
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am currently getting setting up a project where we will be abrasive blasting 48" dia steel pipe in 80' lenghts utilizing robotic equipment producing 1600 CFM @ 160 PSI. We are endevouring to identify the CFM requirements for our dust collection system which will be required at one end of the pipe.

So my question is; what impact does the PSI have on CFM and as we will be creating negative air inside the pipe, what impact will the increased velocity have on the CFM requirements?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Basically what you'll need to do is convert your flow conditions of 1600 cfm @ 160 psi to standard conditions, i.e. SCFM. That is the same flow if you were to expand it to ambient environmental conditions. Once you do that, then you can go to your dust collection system vendor and give them your flow in SCFM. They should also rate their equipment in SCFM. That way you are able to compare apples to apples and get the proper ventilation system.

It gets a bit tricky when dealing with flows like this because each machine gives a spec based on certain conditions. The robotic equipment make the assumption that your overall delta P for the flow will be 160 psi to atmosphere. Well, you're now not going to atmosphere. You're going a bit less. That will actually drive the CFM number up a bit because the flow will be allowed to expand a bit more. You'll still have the same mass flow, but volumetric flow will go up a bit. That is why using a reference state is so important.
 
Calculating Airflow in a Fan

I am trying to calculate the airflow in my current system and cross reference that with the airflow that I should be producing from the information from the manufacturer. The problem is the only information I have to go off on is the amps given off by the equipment and the HP of the motor.

Any assistance would be appreciated
 
FredGarvin said:
Basically what you'll need to do is convert your flow conditions of 1600 cfm @ 160 psi to standard conditions, i.e. SCFM. That is the same flow if you were to expand it to ambient environmental conditions. Once you do that, then you can go to your dust collection system vendor and give them your flow in SCFM. They should also rate their equipment in SCFM. That way you are able to compare apples to apples and get the proper ventilation system.

It gets a bit tricky when dealing with flows like this because each machine gives a spec based on certain conditions. The robotic equipment make the assumption that your overall delta P for the flow will be 160 psi to atmosphere. Well, you're now not going to atmosphere. You're going a bit less. That will actually drive the CFM number up a bit because the flow will be allowed to expand a bit more. You'll still have the same mass flow, but volumetric flow will go up a bit. That is why using a reference state is so important.
Thing is I've never been able to find a definition of SCFM that everyone agrees with. Some claim, as I remember, the air should be like 68° F, 36% Relative Humidity measured at sea level (Ah! a trip to the ocean). Others say the RH should be zero and still others 50%, on and on. Hmm, makes me wonder what 'Standard' really means. Do you happen to know what the actual standard is?
 
You are correct that there are many different versions of what a standard day is. The one that I have seen most often is 14.696 psi, 60°F and 0% RH. The thing is is that it is an easy calculation to do and that you simply need to coordinate with any supplier as to what standard they are using.
 
Agree ... obviously you have to use the same calculation the vendor uses but I was wondering if there is a standard written in stone anywhere that is appropriate for designing blowers and such. I have a lot of military standards from when I was designing Apache's but not one for that and I don't have access to IHS any more.
 
Nope. Unfortunately there is no accepted, set-in-stone standard. It is silly. The one thing I have never done is to see what the deviation in results is by going to all the different versions.
 
Tagline said:
Thing is I've never been able to find a definition of SCFM that everyone agrees with...Hmm, makes me wonder what 'Standard' really means...

As long as you define what pressure and temperature you are using in your calculation, then it doesn't matter (assuming they're reasonable values that simulate the specific enviorment you are in). Different mathematical models of the same natural phenomenon will naturally produce different results (similar, but not the exact same). So long as you state your assumptions, in this case, which STP you are using, I think you'll be ok.

Most people use whatever STP they are governed by. I use either ISO or NIST. However, I've seen different STP's within the NIST numbers. So, like I said, just make sure you state your assumptions in your results clearly.
 
FredGarvin said:
Nope. Unfortunately there is no accepted, set-in-stone standard. It is silly. The one thing I have never done is to see what the deviation in results is by going to all the different versions.

I can see why you've never tested different basic assumptions. Guess there's not many manufacturing companies or engineering firms located at sea-level ... well ... less you are from Louisiana maybe.

Could be the reason for no 'written-in-stone' basic assumptions is because they would, I think, depends on the application and the operating environment. For example: a blower to be used in an SR71 Blackbird would be based on much different assumptions than, say, a blower in a steel mill. Hard to get around actual test data being the best solution to nagging uncertainty I guess.
 
  • #10
stewartcs said:
As long as you define what pressure and temperature you are using in your calculation, then it doesn't matter (assuming they're reasonable values that simulate the specific enviorment you are in). Different mathematical models of the same natural phenomenon will naturally produce different results (similar, but not the exact same). So long as you state your assumptions, in this case, which STP you are using, I think you'll be ok.

Most people use whatever STP they are governed by. I use either ISO or NIST. However, I've seen different STP's within the NIST numbers. So, like I said, just make sure you state your assumptions in your results clearly.

Yep, like I always say: Good engineers make good guesses.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Atmospheric humidity for water production.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K