Compression Fittings VS. Weld Fittings

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the choice between compression fittings and welded fittings for a stainless steel piping system designed to carry CO2 for incubators in an in-vitro fertilization application. Participants explore the advantages and disadvantages of each fitting type, including concerns about leakage, installation ease, and code compliance.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that compression fittings are easier to assemble but may have leakage issues, while butt-welded fittings provide a more secure connection but require precise welding techniques.
  • One participant suggests that if the material is toxic or flammable, welded connections are preferable, while compression fittings may suffice for non-toxic applications at lower pressures.
  • Another participant raises the importance of code requirements for the specific application, indicating that compliance may influence the choice of fittings.
  • Concerns are expressed about the potential hazards of using compression fittings if leakage occurs, prompting questions about the performance of socket-weld fittings as an alternative.
  • Participants discuss the calculation of pressure loss in the pipeline, with various methods and software mentioned for estimating pressure drop based on flow rate and pipe dimensions.
  • There are differing calculations of pressure loss, with some participants confirming similar results while others express uncertainty about their methods and results.
  • Discussions include the density of CO2 at specific conditions and its impact on flow calculations, with participants sharing their approaches to determining velocity and pressure loss.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best fitting type, as multiple competing views remain regarding the suitability of compression versus welded fittings, as well as the accuracy of pressure loss calculations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential for missing assumptions in the calculations, dependence on specific definitions of flow conditions, and unresolved mathematical steps in the pressure loss estimations.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in piping systems, fluid dynamics, and fitting selection for industrial applications may find this discussion relevant.

ameeno97
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I need to install 4 bar stainless steel piping system (40 meters length, 20 Tee, 40 Elbow) . do you recommend using compression fittings or welded fittings.

I know that compression fittings is easy to assemble but they have leakage problems.

Butt-Welded fittings on the other hand would make leakage-free pipeline but it need precise TIG (GTAW) welding (to have high quality welding orbital TIG welding is used) and if the welding is performed manually (by welder) it I may end-up with fittings been misaligned to the pipeline.

So what do you recommend?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Is your material toxic or flammable? If so, go with the welded connections.

If not, compression should be fine, especially at only 4 bar pressure.

Carefully follow manufacturer recommendations for compression fittings (e.g. hand tighten then tighten another 1.25 turns, ensure the tube is fully installed in the fitting, and so on).

I would stick with name brand compression fittings. Some of the other stuff on the market has poor hardening coatings on the ferrules and degraded chemical resistance.
 
You haven't mentioned what the particular application is for this stainless piping system. There might be code requirements which must be satisfied.
 
The stainless steel pipeline is carrying CO2 for Incubators (In-Vitro Fertilization) through roughly 50 meters with approximately 30 bends. The flow rate is about max 70 Lpm, Is there any code for this?

Would using compression fittings be a hazard if any leakage occurs?

Does Socket-Weld fittings perform well? I hope so as they are easier to weld than Butt-Weld fittings?


Also, Could you advise the tube diameter to be used (fluid: CO2 , Piping material : stainless steel tubes 316L, equivalent length:40 meters , Flow Rate : 70 Liters)
 
Compression fittings should work - install per manufacturers guidelines as I mentioned above.

Socket weld performs good and is faster than butt weld.

For diameter, check pressure drop at your flow. Start with a line size that gives a velocity around 60 to 120 ft/sec.

Dual rated 316/316L is a good choice and easy to buy.
 
ameeno97 said:
Is there any code for this?
If in the US, use ASME B31.3.

I'd agree that compression fittings are fine, socket weld is even better but not required.
 
Thank you all for assistance

I have estimated the pressure drop through the pipeline and it is within the acceptable loss range and it was about 36 Kpa loss (less than 10% for 400 KPa).

I have used Darcy equation since I stated that the pressure drop would not exceed 10% of the inlet pressure (400 KPa) and I guess this would give a good estimation

I need someone that could enhance these results so I could proceed. could you please estimate the pressure loss for this system:

Gas : Carbon Dioxide
Inlet Pressure : 430 KPa (4.3 Bar)
Total equivalent length : 70 meters
Flow Rate : about 70 Lpm (2.47 scfm)
Temp. : 25 C
Pipe material: Stainless steel 316L
Pipe Outer Diameter : 12.7 mm
Pipe Wall Thickness : 0.89 mmPlease advise, Is this or I should use bigger size?
 
Last edited:
I calculated a value close to your number of 36 kPa. Your velocities are reasonable also.
 
edgepflow said:
I calculated a value close to your number of 36 KPa. Your velocities are reasonable also.
I was wrong my results for OD=12.7mm and thickness=0.89 was Pressure loss= 6.8 KPa

36KPa pressure loss is for OD=9.53mm and thickness=0.89Could I know how did you calculate it? do you use software, or you just calculated it manually?

I am using pipe flow expert v5.12 , Is there another better software that has more functions?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
ameeno97 said:
I was wrong my results for OD=12.7mm and thickness=0.89 was Pressure loss= 6.8 KPa

36KPa pressure loss is for OD=9.53mm and thickness=0.89


Could I know how did you calculate it? do you use software, or you just calculated it manually?

I am using pipe flow expert v5.12 , Is there another better software that has more functions?
I use formulas from Crane Technical Paper 410 and the Cameron Hydraulic Data Handbook.

For OD = 12.7mm, t = 0.89 mm, what velocity did you get? What density did you use?
 
  • #11
edgepflow said:
I use formulas from Crane Technical Paper 410 and the Cameron Hydraulic Data Handbook.

For OD = 12.7mm, t = 0.89 mm, what velocity did you get? What density did you use?


Density of CO2 at T=25C and P=420 KPa is 9.25 Kg/m3

calculated velocity = 2.52 m/s

pressure loss=6.8 KPa
 
  • #12
I think your velocity of 2.52 m/s is low. You listed your flows as 70 Lpm (2.47 scfm). These volume flows are equal, so your value of 70 Lpm is standard conditions? If so, use the density at standard conditions to figure your velocity from mass flow.
 
  • #13
edgepflow said:
I think your velocity of 2.52 m/s is low. You listed your flows as 70 Lpm (2.47 scfm). These volume flows are equal, so your value of 70 Lpm is standard conditions? If so, use the density at standard conditions to figure your velocity from mass flow.

Here is what I did :

Firstly I converted the 70 Lpm to scfm (@1 Bar T=20C) to acfm (actual flow @4.2 Bar T=25C) these results in :

70 Lpm = 2.47 scfm

2.47 scfm@1 Bar = 0.52 acfm@4.2 Bar

Density using Ideal gas equation : P=rho*R*T

CO2:

P=4.2 Bar
T=25C = 298 Kelvin
R=189.9

==> rho = 9.25 Kg/m3

then I used Pipe Flow Expert solver (using Darcy equation) then I have got:

ID = 12.7 -(2*0.89) =10.92 mm
rho=9.25 Kg/m3
Inlet Pressure = 4.2 Bar
stainless steel surface roughness=0.045mm
length = 70m

==> velocity = 2.52 m/sec
mass flow = 0.0022 Kg/sec
friction loss= 6.38 KPa
 
  • #14
Using an actual flow of 0.52 acfm and flowing conditons of 4.2 bar @ 25C, I was able to match your numbers. In my first calc, I fouled up the denisty.
 
  • #15
edgepflow said:
Using an actual flow of 0.52 acfm and flowing conditons of 4.2 bar @ 25C, I was able to match your numbers. In my first calc, I fouled up the denisty.


Could you please attach the equation that you are using (do not write it as it will appear as talisman) or just type of the page number (Crane Technical Paper / Cameron Hydraulic Data Handbook).
 
  • #16
ameeno97 said:
Could you please attach the equation that you are using (do not write it as it will appear as talisman) or just type of the page number (Crane Technical Paper / Cameron Hydraulic Data Handbook).
See Equation 1-4 in Crane TP 410, 25th Printing or Page 3-3 of Cameron Hydraulic Data 19th Edition. They are both the Darcy-Weisbach equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
19K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
16K
Replies
2
Views
8K