Many folks calculate 4 times greater head loss (or 4 times less) than the actual friction loss.

This comes from

confusion between Moody and FanningFriction factors. Some friction factor graphs are for Moody Friction factor,
which is 4 times Fanning friction factor. That is, f = 64/Re is Moody and f = 16/Re is Fanning.

Be careful with your hydraulic calcs. It is easy to mix the two and calculate 400% greater (or 25% less) head
loss. The calculation for head loss in feet is:

using Moody Friction factor -

h(friction) = f(M) * (L/D) * v^2 / (2 * g)

using Fanning Friction factor -

h(friction) = 4*f(F) * (L/D) * v^2 / (2 * g)

where,
h(friction) = head loss by friction in feet
f(M) = Moody Friction factor
f(F) = Fanning Friction factor
L = length in feet
D = pipe inside diameter in feet
v = velocity in ft/s
g = 32.174 ft/s^2, acceleration due to gravity

The Colebrook-White equation is an iterative method that calculates Fanning friction factor.
f(F)^2 = 1 / ( -4 * Log(eps / (3.7 * D) + 1.256 / (Re * f(F) )

where,
eps = pipe roughness in feet
Re = Reynold's number

There are two common friction factors in use, the Darcy and Fanning friction
factors. The Darcy friction factor is also known as the DarcyWeisbach
friction factor or the Moody friction factor. It is important to understand
which friction factor is being described in an equation or chart to prevent
error in pressure loss, or fluid flow calculation results.

The difference between the two friction factors is that the value of the Darcy
friction factor is 4 times that of the Fanning friction factor. In all other
aspects they are identical, and by applying the conversion factor of 4 the
friction factors may be used interchangeably.
f=4fFf=4fF

Unless stated otherwise the Darcy friction factor is used in this article.

Colebrooks Equation

Also known as the Colebrook-White Equation. This equation was developed

taking into account experimental results for the flow through both smooth
and rough pipe. It is valid only in the turbulent regime for fluid filled pipes. It
is widely accepted and most of the relationships discussed in this article are
merely explicit approximations for this relationship. Due to the implicit
nature of this equation it must be solved iteratively. A result of suitable
accuracy for almost all industrial applications will be achieved in less than 10
iterations.

The Colebrook equation may be calculated as foll

Churchill Equation

The Churchill equation combines both the expressions for friction factor in
both the laminar and turbulent flow regimes. It is accurate to within the error
of the data used to construct the Moody diagram. This model also provides an
estimate for the intermediate (transition) region, however this should be used
with caution.

The Churchill equation shows very good agreement with the Darcy equation
for laminar flow, accuracy through the transitional flow regime is unknown,
in the turbulent regime a difference of around 0.5-2% is observed between
the Churchill equation and the Colebrook equation.

PRESSURE LOSS FROM FITTINGS EQUIVALENT

LENGTH METHOD

SUMMARY

Fittings such as elbows, tees and valves represent a significant component of

the pressure loss in most pipe systems. This article details the calculation of
pressure losses through pipe fittings and some minor equipment using the
equivalent length method. The strength of the equivalent length method is
that it is very simple to calculate. The weakness of the equivalent length
method is that it is not as accurate as other methods unless very detailed
tabulated data is available.

DEFINITIONS
D : Internal diameter of pipe

(L/D)eq : Equivalent length of pipe

R/D : Ratio of elbow radius to pipe diameter

INTRODUCTION

The equivalent length method (L/D ratio) allows the user to describe the
pressure drop through a fitting as a length of pipe. In theory the pressure drop
through the fitting is equivalent to the pressure lost through a certain length
of piping at that corresponding flow rate.

The most accurate way to use this method is when tabulated data is available
for fittings at the given size, roughness and Reynolds Number for which the
pressure drop is unknown. When using an equivalent length that was
determined from a fitting of a different size the method relies on the
assumption that as pipe size changes the fitting size retains the same relative
proportions. This is rarely the case however, and as such some error is
introduced in the pressure drop that results. Similarly the roughness and
Reynolds Number are likely to be different from the conditions under which
the fitting was characterised and error will be introduced.

Typically as the fittings size increase the flow coefficient (L/D ratio)
decreases, thus at pipe sizes larger than those at which the fittings equivalent
length was determined the pressure drop will be over-estimated. At smaller
pipe sizes than those at which the equivalent length was estimated the
pressure drop will be under-estimated.

The advantage of the equivalent length method is that it is very simple to

calculate. All pipe runs and fittings can be summed up to make one total
length, and the pressure loss calculated from this length.

There are several alternative methods for calculating pressure loss from
fittings, such as:

Excess Head (K-Method)

2K Method

3K Method
For a discussion of which method is most appropriate see this summary of
methods for estimating pressure loss from fittings.

VALUES FOR THE EQUIVALENT LENGTH OF PIPE

FOR VARIOUS FITTINGS

Typical valves for the equivalent length of pipe for various fittings are shown
in the table below.

After summing these equivalent lengths as appropriate for your hydraulic

system, you may simply calculate the pressure drop for the resulting length of
pipe.

Fitting Types (L/D)eq

Standard Radius (R/D = 1) 30

90 Elbow Curved, Threaded
Long Radius (R/D = 1.5) 16

Standard Radius (R/D = 1) 20

Long Radius (R/D = 2) 17

90 Elbow Curved, Flanged/Welded
Long Radius (R/D = 4) 14

Long Radius (R/D = 6) 12

 1 weld (90) 60

90 Elbow Mitered 2 welds (45) 15

3 welds (30) 8

Standard Radius (R/D = 1) 16

45 Elbow Curved. Threaded
Long Radius (R/D = 1.5)

1 weld 45 15
45 Elbow Mitered
2 welds 22.5 6

threaded, close-return (R/D = 1) 50

180 Bend flanged (R/D = 1)

all types (R/D = 1.5)

threaded (r/D = 1) 60

threaded (r/D = 1.5)

Tee Through-branch as an Elbow
flanged (r/D = 1) 20

stub-in branch

threaded (r/D = 1) 20

Tee Run-through flanged (r/D = 1)

stub-in branch

45, full line size, = 1 55

Angle valve
90 full line size, = 1 150
 Globe valve standard, = 1 340

branch flow 90

Plug valve straight through 18

three-way (flow through) 30

Gate valve standard, = 1 8

Ball valve standard, = 1 3

Diaphragm dam type

Swing check valve Vmin = 35[ (lbm/ft3)]-1/2 100

Lift check valve Vmin = 40[ (lbm/ft3)]-1/2 600

Hose Coupling Simple, Full Bore 5

EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PRESSURE LOSS

USING EQUIVALENT LENGTHS

This example demonstrates how to use the equivalent length method to

calculate the pressure loss through simple pipe and fitting arrangement. The
example uses water in system of standard weight carbon steel pipe. Note that
for this example we consider a flat system, with no elevation changes.
System details

Pipe Size : DN100 (4")

Pipe Diameter : 102.3 mm

Pipe Length : 50 m

Fittings : 3 x 90 long radius (R/D = 2) elbows

Fluid Velocity : 3 m/s

Fluid Density : 1000 kg/m3

Friction Factor : 0.018

Calculation

Using the table of fittings and equivalent lengths above we find that the
equivalent length for the 90 elbow is 12 pipe diameters.

Leq=17102.3 mm=1.739 m

Taking the pipe length and number of elbows we calculated the equivalent
length of the pipe work for pressure loss purposes.

Leq=50+31.739=55.217 m

Using the equation for pressure loss in pipe:

p=fDL2V2

p=0.018102.3/100055.2172100032

p=43.7 kPa