Is My Calculation for Pressure Loss in German Pipework Accurate?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating pressure loss in German pipework for hot water heating systems, specifically using a 76mm carbon steel pipe for a 200kW biomass wood pellet boiler. The user employs a flow rate of 2.38 l/s over a 250m equivalent length, referencing a resistance chart that indicates a DeltaP of 42 Pa/m. Key calculations involve converting DeltaP from Pa/m to kPa/m for pump sizing, resulting in a total resistance of 10.5 m/head. Clarifications on the transfer rate and its physical meaning are also sought, particularly regarding the relationship between power, speed, and energy transfer in the context of pipework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fluid dynamics principles, particularly in heating systems.
  • Familiarity with pressure loss calculations in pipework.
  • Knowledge of resistance charts and their application in pump sizing.
  • Basic concepts of energy transfer in hydraulic systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the calculation of pressure loss in different pipe materials, focusing on carbon steel.
  • Learn about the implications of flow rates on pump selection and system efficiency.
  • Study the conversion of pressure units, specifically from Pa/m to kPa/m.
  • Investigate the principles of energy transfer in closed pressurized systems.
USEFUL FOR

Plumbers, HVAC engineers, and anyone involved in the design and optimization of heating systems using various pipe materials.

vespak
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
My sincere apologies if this is not the right place however I will pose the problem: Being a humble plumber rather than a physicist I am used to calculating pressure loss in copper pipework for hot water heating systems by determining the required flow rate kW/h / specific heat x delta T. Looking on my resistance chart measured in m/head and by selecting a pipe size that is suitable for the index circuit multiplying the total equivalent length by the resistance figure given in the chart (which I have always assumed to be in kPa/m) to give me the m/head calculation to select the right size pump. Sorry I know that's all very basic. I now have to deal with a new type of German pipework that has completely different values in the pressure loss chart and I just want to know if I am making the right assumptions. I need a pipe size that will give me a flow rate of 2.38 l/s over an equivalent pipe length of 250m (district heating main flow/return for a 200kW biomass wood pellet boiler. The value line I am looking at for 76mm carbon steel pipe reads as follows:
Q(w) (kg/h) v (m/s) DeltaP (Pa/m)
200000 8598.5 0.59 42

I have made the following assumptions:
Q=energy and so given the value v 0.59 m/s equals a transfer rate of 20kW x 0.59m/s
My 2.38 l/s x 3600 = 8568 l/h which is the same as kg/h and is the nearest equivalent I can find on the chart.
v is just above the acceptable level for the slowest movement of heating water even though it is a closed pressurized system
DeltaP in Pa/m is converted to kPa/m to give me the total resistance to calculate my pump size: 250m*0.042=10.5 m/head
If this is all completely wrong or just in the wrong place please feel free to express your opinions to that effect however I would be grateful for some helpful direction.
Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is totally unfamiliar - but unless someone with specific knowledge can step in, I'll give it a go.
flow rate in kW/h / specific heat x delta T makes sense - that would be the volume of water required to transfer that amount of heat energy per second.

However - I baulk at
'given the value v 0.59 m/s equals a transfer rate of 20kW x 0.59m/s' (I think you meant 200kW)

I'm not clear on what transfer rate means in this context - you have a power multiplied by a speed - that is energy-per-second multiplied by metres-per-second. That doesn't give a result that means anything to me physically. But if it were divided instead of multiplied, you would have energy-per-meter - that is the total energy in a length of pipe . That sounds like a useful thing to know? (roughly 339 kilowatt-seconds per meter)

Am I helping or hindering? :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K