Jump to content



Featured Articles

Check out the latest featured articles.

File Library

Check out the latest downloads available in the File Library.

New Article

Product Viscosity vs. Shear

Featured File

Vertical Tank Selection

New Blog Entry

Low Flow in Pipes- posted in Ankur's blog

Pump Suction Sizing

#breizh #bobby strain

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
| More

#1 Process1990

Process1990

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 27 March 2017 - 04:52 PM

Hi everyone 

If anyone can help me with this example in API 14E (EXAMPLE A2 PUMP SUCTION PIPING DESIGN)

I had highlighted the part i can not understand (hf & the number 0.433 where did it come from) .

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File  Doc1.pdf   382.56KB   42 downloads


#2 Bobby Strain

Bobby Strain

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,529 posts

Posted 27 March 2017 - 07:24 PM

The formula simply converts the pressure drop in psi to feet of liquid. Were you asleep in class when this was discussed?

 

Bobby



#3 Napo

Napo

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 07:33 AM

Process1990,

 

Bobby has reason, is a simple conversion, I attached you the factor.

 

Napo.

Attached Files



#4 Process1990

Process1990

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

Bobby,

If you just bothered to calculate the final result 0.09 you'll find it will be 0.128 not 0.09 .

So please tell me about that .

Napo, 

Many thanks to you .

 

 

Regards 



#5 MTumack

MTumack

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 02:26 PM

It would appear that the specific gravity has been taken into account on the numerator in lieu of the denominator (or proper order of operations was not preformed) of the calculation in that version of the text.

 

0.046 * 0.825 / 0.433 = 0.0876 =~ 0.09

 

Not sure if it is correct in my copy, but seems like an arithmetic error.



#6 Saml

Saml

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 301 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 02:41 PM

Hey Process.

Take it easy.

Bobby is like the Grouchy Smurf in this village. He has a very good heart and is one of the most valuable contributors to this forum.

And yes. It appears that you stumbled into an error in the standard.  However it is not what you asked in your first question.

 

Cheers.



#7 Process1990

Process1990

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 02:57 PM

Smal,

Do not worry . Bobby is an old man and we all have to respect him. :D 

 

MTumack,

Thanks . But I agree with Smal that it's an error . 

 

 

Best Regards



#8 Bobby Strain

Bobby Strain

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,529 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 03:31 PM

You will soon learn that I don't do calculations or check any work. I just offer advice.

 

Bobby



#9 Art Montemayor

Art Montemayor

    Gold Member

  • Admin
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 03:52 PM

Process1990:

 

These comments are not meant as a criticism or put down to your query, but rather to address your comment to Bobby Strain and to let all know that I’m moving this thread to the Student Forum, since you are clearly a student and this topic is clearly also not related to Chemical Process Simulation.

 

Although Bobby’s response may not be sufficiently detailed to you, it is nevertheless completely rational and correct with respect to answering the basic query:

 

The math displayed is nothing more than a conversion of fluid density per foot of fluid height to obtain a static head.  We know the fluid gravity, so we need the water density per foot of height.  This is simply done, as Bobby indicates, as follows:

 

Water density/foot = (62.4 lb/ft3) / (144 in2/ft2) = 0.4333 lb/in2-ft

 

That should answer your specific query.  Bobby deserves some rightful respect.  As the old Spanish saying goes, "Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo".

 

The next key learning for you - and for any other young ChE student is that you should never take any API (or other “sacred” document) for granted when reading or studying the related math.  ALWAYS check the math and the rational reasoning.  This is not the first - and ONLY mistake in the API documents and standards.  They are human also (and sometimes dumb).  As an engineer you are always challenged to use your intelligence and common sense.  You are well advised to always check and/or challenge given standards and calculations carefully and thoroughly - especially if you are involved in process design.

 

I hope these comments help you out and give you some insight into API documentation.



#10 Process1990

Process1990

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 04:40 PM

Art Montemayor,

Thank you for your detailed answer but you all must know I respect Bobby a lot that's why I tagged him .

His experience is obvious in his answers .

 

 

Regards   






Similar Topics