Nominal Pipe Size and Diametre Nominal

  • Thread starter Thread starter TSN79
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pipe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of 'Diameter Nominal' (DN) or 'Nominal Pipe Size' (NPS) in relation to pipe dimensions, exploring the historical context, manufacturing standards, and the implications of these terms on practical applications. Participants express curiosity about the discrepancies between nominal sizes and actual measurements, as well as the challenges posed by varying standards across different regions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that nominal sizes are loosely related to actual dimensions, with examples like a 2-inch galvanized steel pipe having an inside diameter of about 2 1/8 inches.
  • Others suggest that historical manufacturing practices have led to the current standards, which are difficult to change due to established infrastructure.
  • A participant mentions that pipe sizes are based on equivalent internal diameters, which are more relevant for flow rate considerations.
  • There is a discussion about how the transition to stronger materials allowed for thinner walls, necessitating changes in internal diameters while keeping threading consistent.
  • Some participants express frustration with the complexity of different measurement systems, particularly in the context of UK and metric standards.
  • A humorous anecdote illustrates the confusion that can arise from differing measurement systems, even among experienced professionals.
  • One participant highlights the inconsistency in pipe dimensions, specifically mentioning the differences between PVC and CPVC pipes.
  • Another suggests that working with tubing might be preferable to avoid the complications of looking up wall thicknesses and outer diameters in tables.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the historical and practical implications of nominal pipe sizes, with no clear consensus on the best approach to understanding or addressing the discrepancies in measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of current standards and the historical context that has led to the existing nomenclature and practices, but do not resolve the complexities involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to professionals in engineering, plumbing, and manufacturing, as well as those studying standards in mechanical design and construction.

TSN79
Messages
422
Reaction score
0
I'm wondering about the the term 'Diametre Nominal', or 'NPS' as it's called in the US. I've realized that pipes that are identified by "nominal" names are only loosely related to the actual dimensions. For instance, a 2-inch galvanized steel pipe has an inside diameter of about 2 1/8 inches and an outside diameter of about 2 5/8 inches. I find this "inaccuracy" very strange. And another thing, most DN measures are relatively even numbers like 15, 20, 25, 40, 50 and so on. But then there is also a 32 in there which totally breaks the "even-ness"! That puzzle's me the most! If someone has a good explanation to my wonderings I would be grateful :)
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Unfortunately, we American's are insane and we like making things hard for ourselves. I'm sorry but that's the best answer I can give. I have found that things like this are governed by the "olden days" and were set due to ease of manufacturing and once a standard is set, its hard to change. If you don't like my answer I suggest you try www.eng-tips.com. Its a great resource for questions like this.
 
Pipe sizes are based on the equivalent internal diameter, because you normally care about the flow rate. Lead pipes had thicker walls because lead isn't as strong, so when we switched to copper the external diameter reduced. because the wall thickness was reduced.
 
Admittedly, there is a lot of old ways that are still in use today because of the cost or difficulty in changing the infrastructure. One of the issues that clouds things for American pipe sizes is that the early days didn't use all of the schedule sizes we have today. The old ways of stating wall thickness was based on a word description versus the current method which relates to the maximum stress. The new pipe schedule numbering was an effort to make some sense of things.

I put this topic up there with why a lumber 2x4 is really 1.5 x 3.5
 
What mgb_phys said jives with what I remember reading a year or so ago, that things changed when they switched to stronger materials and could get by with thinner walls. But they needed to keep the threading the same so that for example all 2" pipes would still mate together ... that meant changing the I.D. rather than the O.D.
 
Redbelly98 - that makes more sense, I must have had it the wrong way round.
It's even worse in the UK, there's metric, BA and Whitworth!
In France+Germany an adjustable wrench is known as an 'English', because if you are working on any british equipement you never know what the bolts are.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the time a coworker and I needed to loosen a nut on his car. We went into the lab, grabbed a variety of wrenches (in 1/16" increments) thinking one of them just had to fit. Walked out to the parking lot, determined that the correct size was in between 3/8" and 7/16". Back we go into the lab, hunting for a 13/32" wrench. (Not sure why we didn't just grab an adjustable, probably we had tried it and the space was too small to fit one in there.)

We couldn't find a 13/32, so we went to one of the technicians who was also a whiz with cars, to ask if he had a 13/32 wrench. He look at us blankly. "A 3/8 is too small, and a 7/16 is too big", we told him. "Oh," he said, "sounds like you need a 10 mm".

He was right. We grabbed a 10mm from the set of metric wrenches we kept in the lab, and that did the trick. The weird thing was, we were 2 Ph.D. physicists who needed to be reminded about thinking in metric!
 
The weird thing was, we were 2 Ph.D. physicists who needed to be reminded about thinking in metric!

Classic demonstration of the difference between engineers and physicists.:smile:
 
How long ago was this? I thought all cars had been metric for quite some time now.
 
  • #10
How long ago was this? I thought all cars had been metric for quite some time now.

Way to rub it in Fred. :smile:
 
  • #11
Hey... I'm still working on machines with Whitworth fasteners.
 
  • #12
www.mcmastercarr.com

These guys usually have a decent description of what is what when it comes to mechanical fasteners, pipe threads, etc.

One of the ones that gets me is the difference in diameter between PVC and CPVC pipe. Just ridiculous.
 
  • #13
I guess the moral of the story is that, if you don't want to look up wall thicknesses and ODs in a table (like you have to with pipes), try to work with tubing whenever possible.
 
  • #14
FredGarvin said:
How long ago was this? I thought all cars had been metric for quite some time now.

About 5 years ago. Not sure how old the car was at the time, but it was a Honda or Toyota which should have been a dead giveaway to us.

(If we had some kind of "Duh..." smiley/emoticon, I'd put one here.)
 

Similar threads

Underground pump vault airflow considerations
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Automotive New In tube end forming practices -- Can I downsize and then upsize a pipe end?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Shear Strength of an Erected Pipe
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Graduate Question about making a coaxial magnetic field in a pipe
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Volume of air from psi and diameter of pipe?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
Torque required to rotate steel pipe on rollers
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
Air line gauge in a T fitting, error vs flow
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Writing: Input Wanted Generation Ship SFV Exodus: Revised Designs
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
How to Choose the Right Materials for a Cost-Effective Compost Tumbler Design?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Fluid mechanics of water in a pipe
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K