<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Mr. Hicks' approach to sizing pipe for compressed air
Review: Mr. Hicks has done a wonderful job in compling equations, however, he has missed the practical applications in compressed air and vacuum systems. I initially used his theoritcal position on calculating pressure drop in pipe for compressed air. His position seems reasonable and logical until you compare the results with practical applications. Ingresoll-Rand, the air compressor manufacturer, published tables of pressure drop verses pipe sizes, delivery pressures and ACFM. Futher ASPE has published a data book which leads the engineer into an empirical equation for calculating pressure loss in compressed air piping. The results with both Ingresoll-Rand and ASPE agree. Using Mr. Hicks' therotical approach drives the pipe size much larger than needed and therefore the cost of the project. My suggestion is that Mr. Hicks contact I-R and ASPE to incorporate their empirical approach to sizing pipe for compressed air and vacuum systems.
Rating: 
Summary: David R. Debo, P.E.
Review: To: Lost in AirI respectfully submit, that you need to appreciate Mr. Hicks' position. He has provided a conservative approach that will work in almost every situation. The empirical approach that you advocate may well work in most situations but I'll bet there is little margin built in for contingencies. True, your solution may cost less, which is important. But will the low-margin, low cost solution still work 1 or 2 years from now or will the pipe size be too small to allow for degradation/changes? Customer repeat business must be a consideration, too. I'm not trying to be confrontational, and I understand what you're saying. But you have to appreciate the position that Mr. Hicks must take in such a handbook, and he takes the only logical one, which is to be on the conservative side. People doing more than a couple of these calculations in a year in fact should consult more in-depth material, as you did. Regards, David R. Debo, P.E.
Rating:
Summary: David R. Debo, P.E.
Review: To: Lost in Air I respectfully submit, that you need to appreciate Mr. Hicks' position. He has provided a conservative approach that will work in almost every situation. The empirical approach that you advocate may well work in most situations but I'll bet there is little margin built in for contingencies. True, your solution may cost less, which is important. But will the low-margin, low cost solution still work 1 or 2 years from now or will the pipe size be too small to allow for degradation/changes? Customer repeat business must be a consideration, too. I'm not trying to be confrontational, and I understand what you're saying. But you have to appreciate the position that Mr. Hicks must take in such a handbook, and he takes the only logical one, which is to be on the conservative side. People doing more than a couple of these calculations in a year in fact should consult more in-depth material, as you did. Regards, David R. Debo, P.E.
<< 1 >>
| 
