Feature Report

Short-Cut Piping Costs

This method saves
precious time in
preparing estimates for
pre-design and other
approximated analyses
Gael D. Ulrich and
Palligarnai T. Vasudevan
University of New Hampshire

ngineers often need to predict

the cost of piping and pipefitting
associated with a process unit.
Even though detailed prices are
available, finding and organizing them
takes time and costs money. For those
needing a quick method of approximation (such as for a pre-design estimate),
a short-cut piping cost method is presented in this article. For convenience
and compactness, the relevant equations and data lists are superimposed
on the same diagram as the base cost
curves (p. 48). The method of the charts
compilation and other background details are described below.
Lindley and Floyd [1] reported detailed data for more than 30 types of
piping in three diameters (2, 4 and 6
in., essentially equivalent to 5, 10 and
15 cm. nominal dia.) and two types of
installation:
1. Simple straight runs such as those
used to convey raw materials from
storage to a process module
2. Complex systems such as the
plumbing associated with a distillation column or heat exchanger
That database is, no doubt, valued by
many who prepare detailed definitive
cost estimates. We likewise found it
useful to construct our short-cut chart,
which is applicable to the same set of
piping sizes and materials.

Simple, straight pipe runs

Consider a simple system made of

standard piping suitable for pressures
up to 10 barg at ambient tempera44

TABLE 1. STRAIGHT RUN PROCESS PIPING

BASE COSTS AND BARE MODULE INSTALLED PRICES
Pipe type

Sched- CPa
FMa
Pipe
Field
Equipment,
ule
Base cost pipe, Material Racks, installa- engineering,
flanges, and
Factor
$/m
tion, $/m contractors
preparation,
expenses,
$/m
$/m
5-cm nominal diameter pressures up to 10 barg
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80
3.63
0.3
14.77
9.89
15.74
Chlorinated polyvinyl80
9.35
0.7
14.77
9.89
15.74
chloride (CPVC)
Carbon Steel
40
12.83
1.0
11.05
11.24
16.25
Stainless 304L
10
19.92
1.6
11.95
11.24
17.99
Stainless 316L
10
25.67
2.0
11.95
11.24
18.74
Lined carbon steel
40
Rubber
29.20
2.3
19.41
14.05
22.20
Conventional plastic
61.68
4.8
20.91
14.05
26.98
Fluorocarbon
126.07
9.8
19.41
14.05
31.94
Glass
127.42
9.9
22.36
14.05
34.14
Fiberglass-reinforced
63.33
4.9
19.41
14.05
26.23
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
10
112.13
8.7
12.41
11.58
27.73
Monel
10
140.42
11.0
12.11
11.24
29.98
Hastelloy C-276
10
195.07
15.2
13.17
12.14
37.47
Titanium
10
127.81
10.0
14.08
13.04
32.22
Zirconium
10
388.29
30.3
14.08
13.04
58.45
10-cm nominal dia. pressures up to 10 barg
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80
9.41
0.4
14.77
12.59
17.99
Chlorinated polyvinyl80
26.62
1.0
14.77
12.59
19.48
chloride (CPVC)
Carbon Steel
40
25.85
1.0
11.49
14.61
20.69
Stainless 304L
10
39.69
1.5
12.40
14.61
23.23
Stainless 316L
10
49.63
1.9
12.41
14.61
23.98
Lined carbon steel
40
Rubber
49.97
1.9
24.30
16.86
28.89
Conventional plastic
132.23
5.1
26.98
16.86
38.22
Fluorocarbon
239.81
9.3
24.30
16.86
48.37
Glass
215.41
8.3
30.35
16.86
48.32
Fiberglass-reinforced
91.43
3.5
24.30
16.86
33.72
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
10
232.83
9.0
12.85
15.06
43.47
Monel
10
324.09
12.5
12.55
14.61
51.71
Hastelloy C-276
10
557.37
21.6
13.62
15.96
77.94
Titanium
10
282.15
10.9
14.52
17.31
51.71
Zirconium
10
1017.76
39.4
14.52
17.31
125.15
15-cm nominal dia. pressures up to 10 barg
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80
16.84
0.4
17.94
14.39
21.73
Chlorinated polyvinyl80
51.55
1.2
17.94
14.39
25.48
chloride (CPVC)
Carbon Steel
40
42.40
1.0
12.37
17.09
25.79
Stainless 304L
10
63.51
1.5
13.28
17.09
28.48
Stainless 316L
10
80.90
1.9
13.28
17.09
29.98
Lined carbon steel
40
0.0
Rubber
58.15
1.4
30.06
19.67
33.98
Conventional plastic
215.34
5.1
35.22
19.67
51.71
Fluorocarbon
359.90
8.5
30.06
19.67
64.45
Glass
373.16
8.8
37.77
19.67
69.13
Fiberglass-reinforced
152.43
3.6
30.06
19.67
43.84
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
10
364.58
8.6
13.73
17.76
59.20
Monel
10
912.96
21.5
13.43
17.09
113.91
Hastelloy C-276
10
750.98
17.7
14.49
18.89
100.42
Titanium
10
415.52
9.8
15.40
20.68
68.95
Zirconium
10
1168.91
27.6
15.40
20.68
144.64

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

CBMa
Total bare
module cost,
$/m

FBMa
Installation
factor

44.03
49.75

3.4
3.9

51.36
61.10
67.60

4.0
4.8
5.3

84.86
123.62
191.48
197.98
123.02

6.6
9.6
14.9
15.4
9.6

163.84
193.75
257.84
187.16
473.86

12.8
15.1
20.1
14.6
37.0

54.76
73.47

2.1
2.8

72.64
89.94
100.63

2.8
3.5
3.9

120.02
214.30
329.34
310.95
166.31

4.6
8.3
12.7
12.0
6.4

304.21
402.97
664.89
365.70
1174.75

11.8
15.6
25.7
14.1
45.4

70.90
109.36

1.7
2.6

97.65
122.36
141.24

2.3
2.9
3.3

141.86
321.94
474.08
499.72
246.00

3.3
7.6
11.2
11.8
5.8

455.27
1057.39
884.78
520.55
1349.64

10.7
24.9
20.9
12.3
31.8

Pipe type

Sched- CPa
FMa
Pipe
Field
Equipment,
ule
Base cost
Material Racks, instal- engineering,
pipe, flanges, Factor
$/m
lation, contractors
and prepara$/m
expenses,
tion, $/m
$/m
5-cm nominal diameter pressures up to 10 barg
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80
18.42
0.4
7.62
23.27 29.11
Chlorinated polyvinyl80
26.09
0.6
7.62
23.27 30.43
chloride (CPVC)
Carbon Steel
40
46.67
1.0
19.56 23.44 50.79
Stainless 304L
10
71.96
1.5
19.88 23.44 53.13
Stainless 316L
10
83.62
1.8
19.88 23.44 52.83
Lined carbon steel
40
Rubber
80.31
1.7
25.88 25.85 40.48
Conventional plastic
204.03
4.4
29.04 25.85 50.85
Fluorocarbon
329.87
7.1
25.88 25.85 60.38
Glass
294.49
6.3
31.67 25.85 61.90
Fiberglass-reinforced
180.23
3.9
25.88 25.85 49.18
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
10
325.92
7.0
20.03 23.55 72.84
Monel
10
285.72
6.1
19.94 23.44 69.32
Hastelloy C-276
10
420.80
9.0
20.28 23.55 87.31
Titanium
10
356.52
7.6
20.62 23.66 86.78
Zirconium
10
763.40
16.4
20.62 23.66 120.88
10-cm nominal dia. pressures up to 10 barg
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80
36.91
0.5
7.62
27.93 40.02
Chlorinated polyvinyl80
66.59
0.8
7.62
27.93 42.04
chloride (CPVC)
Carbon Steel
40
80.62
1.0
30.48 28.19 75.16
Stainless 304L
10
139.64
1.7
30.79 28.19 79.89
Stainless 316L
10
164.25
2.0
30.79 28.19 82.21
Lined carbon steel
40
Rubber
111.29
1.4
45.12 32.60 61.34
Conventional plastic
382.20
4.7
50.59 32.60 84.23
Fluorocarbon
588.56
7.3
45.12 32.60 98.70
Glass
486.91
6.0
57.02 32.60 100.72
Fiberglass-reinforced
267.92
3.3
45.12 32.60 74.38
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
10
732.76
9.1
30.94 28.24 124.25
Monel
10
706.76
8.8
30.86 28.19 123.58
Hastelloy C-276
10
1072.30
13.3
31.19 28.36 165.55
Titanium
10
765.74
9.5
31.53 28.52 145.87
Zirconium
10
1852.97
23.0
31.53 28.52 238.46
15-cm nominal dia. pressures up to 10 barg
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 80
65.26
0.5
10.46 32.17 49.01
Chlorinated polyvinyl80
127.78
1.0
10.46 32.17 54.07
chloride (CPVC)
Carbon Steel
40
124.18
1.0
39.57 32.51 95.16
Stainless 304L
10
262.43
2.1
39.47 32.51 104.02
Stainless 316L
10
313.44
2.5
39.47 32.51 108.67
Lined carbon steel
40
Rubber
137.44
1.1
58.20 39.34 73.46
Conventional plastic
635.69
5.1
64.64 39.34 114.40
Fluorocarbon
919.33
7.4
58.20 39.34 132.25
Glass
785.32
6.3
73.35 39.34 135.41
Fiberglass-reinforced
506.23
4.1
58.20 39.34 101.66
plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
10
1171.58
9.4
39.62 32.59 173.04
Monel
10
1610.63
13.0
39.53 32.51 216.73
Hastelloy C-276
10
1685.59
13.6
39.87 32.73 227.37
Titanium
10
1368.80
11.0
40.21 32.96 209.80
Zirconium
10
2714.46
21.9
40.21 32.96 317.23

CBMa
Total bare
module
cost, $/m

FBMa
Installation
factor

78.42
87.40

1.7
1.9

140.45
168.41
179.77

3.0
3.6
3.9

172.53
309.77
441.99
413.92
281.15

3.7
6.6
9.5
8.9
6.0

442.34
398.42
551.93
487.58
928.56

9.5
8.5
11.8
10.4
19.9

112.48
144.18

1.4
1.8

214.45
278.50
305.44

2.7
3.5
3.8

250.35
549.62
764.98
677.25
420.02

3.1
6.8
9.5
8.4
5.2

916.20
889.38
1297.39
971.67
2151.49

11.4
11.0
16.1
12.1
26.7

156.90
224.49

1.3
1.8

291.42
438.42
494.08

2.3
3.5
4.0

308.45
854.07
1149.12
1033.42
705.43

2.5
6.9
9.3
8.3
5.7

1416.83
1899.40
1985.57
1651.76
3104.85

11.4
15.3
16.0
13.3
25.0

Pressure factor, dimensionless

Pipe length, m
Internal pipe pressure, barg (bars gage)
Design stress of pipeline material,
bara (bar absolute)
t Pipe wall thickness, cm
topt Optimum insulation thickness, cm
T Difference between pipe temperature
and ambient, C

TABLE 2. COMPLEX PIPING SYSTEMS

BASE COSTS AND BARE MODULE INSTALLED PRICES

Fp
L
p
S

NOMENCLATURE

CBMa Bare module price of piping material Dact Bare pipe actual outside diameter, cm
a, i.e., its total contribution to the
FBMa Bare module installation factor for
capital cost of a process
material a (ratio of bare module
module, $/m
installed cost to purchase price of carCBMIns Bare module price of piping
bon steel), dimensionless
insulation, $/m of pipe length
FMa Material factor for material a
CPa Base cost or purchase price of
(quotient of base cost CPa for piping
piping material a prepared for
material divided by CPcs the base cost
transport to an installation site, $/m
of carbon steel pipe having the same
D, Dnom Bare pipe nominal diameter, cm
diameter), dimensionless

FIGURE 1. To obtain an installed price

for any either complex or straight-run piping, simply multiply the appropriate value
from this figure by the installation factor,
FBMa, for that material

ture.1 To prepare carbon steel pipe

for straight runs, it is normally cut to
length (typically 6 or 12 m) in a shop
where flanges are welded at each end.
These thimbles are sandblasted,
painted and otherwise made ready for
transport to the plant site.2 In 1993,
Lindley and Floyd reported the price
for such preconditioned, Schedule 40,
5-cm (2 in.) nominal dia., carbon-steel
pipe to be $1,711 for a 500-ft long
(152.4-m) section. This corresponds
to a base price of $11.23/m in 1993
dollars. For this article, we escalated
numbers to mid-2003 dollars by multiplying all 1993 data by 400 (the CE
Plant Cost Index [CE PCI] for mid
2003) and then dividing it by 350 (the
CE PCI for 1993). The resulting 5-cm
carbon-steel base price in mid-2003
dollars is $12.83/m, the value shown
in the third row of Table 1.
To update data in this article to a
1. Ranges of suitable temperatures vary widely,
depending on type of pipe. Some conventional
plastic pipe is limited to 65C (service temperatures for specific polymers can be found in
Dennis [2] or in Perry [3], Tables 10-15, 10-16,
10-17, and 28-22). Copper and aluminum tubing
are not normally recommended above 150C.
Carbon steel is suitable to 500C if protected
from oxidation. Stainless steels and nickel alloys serve up to 600C under favorable circumstances. Limits for titanium and glass-lined
pipe are 315C and 232C respectively (Perry
[3], pages 10-96 and 10-99).
2. Some of those preparation steps could be considered installation expenses rather than part
of base pipe cost. We included them in the base
cost to place all pipe on the same footing, because
some types come from the factory as thimbles
already prepared for the field with no need for
cleaning, painting, or welding.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

45

Feature Report
year after 2003, multiply your result
by the overall CE PCI for the more
recent time period and then divide by
400 (the value for mid 2003). For example, per the final Dec. 2005 index
(the most up to date CE PCI as of this
issue, p. 84) the ratio is approximately
476/400 or 1.19.
Meanwhile, installation includes
transport to the site, pipe rack construction, pipe assembly, equipment
rental, labor and contractor fees. The
sum of updated costs for these activities
reported by Lindley and Floyd yields
an installed bare-module value equal
to $51.40/m for 5-cm dia., Schedule 40,
carbon steel pipe. Installed cost divided
by the base price ($51.40/m $12.80/
m) yields a bare module (installation)
factor FBMcs of 4.0.3 Installation factors for 14 other types of piping were
computed via the same procedure and
are listed in Table 1. (Values quoted
above for carbon steel can be found in
the carbon steel row of the 5-cm-pipe
sub-table.) Material factors, FBMa
(where subscript a denotes material
of construction), are equal to the base
cost, CPa (again, where subscript a
denotes material of construction), for
each type of piping divided by CPcs, the
base cost of carbon steel pipe having
the same diameter.

Complex piping systems

Complex piping systems were analyzed by an approach similar to that

used for straight pipe runs. Lindley
and Floyd assumed a layout averaging one fitting (elbow or tee) every 3
m and one valve every 7.5 m. They did
not include purchase and installation
of valves in their tally, however, because they felt that valve prices vary
too widely to be included in data intended for definitive estimates.
Valves can be included in a preliminary estimate like the one in this
article, where limits of precision are
broader. Bare module costs for complex
pipe systems, valves included, were determined by using Lindley and Floyds
assumption of 2.5 fittings for every
valve and our estimate that a valve
3. Based on Guthries capital-cost estimation technique [4, 5], where installed cost of equipment in
a bare process module is equal to purchase cost
multiplied by bare module factor. Subscript cs
denotes material of construction (carbon steel in
this case).

46

TABLE 3. MATERIAL FACTORS FOR SELECTED CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS AND COMPONENTSe

Material

Pipec

Carbon steel
Aluminum
Copper/Brass
Rubber-lined steel
Stainless, 304
Stainless, 316
Alloy 20
Titanium
Monel
Hastelloy C-276
Zirconium

1.0

1.6
1.7
2.0
8.6
9.8
12
15
26

Metal
plated
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.7
2.0
5
13-35
20
15

Process vessels, Pumpsa

etc. a,b
1.0
1.0

1.3
2.8
2.9
6.1
10.7
9.0
12.5
11

Heat exchangers a,b

1.0

1.4
1.4
1.7
1.8

3.3

5.2
8.7
7.3
10.1
8.7

a. Holland and Wilkinson (Perry [3], page 9-74)

b. Yau and Bird [6]
c. This study, average of all data in Tables 1 and 2
d. McMaster-Carr [7] catalogue
e. Because of labor, installation factors are not the same as material factors. The material factor for
titanium, for example, is about 10 times that of carbon steel. The ratio of installed costs, on the other
hand, is usually between 3 and 5 because much of the expense involves labor, which is basically the
same for both materials. Because of ambiguity in some data sources, some numbers in this list may
be ratios of installed costs rather than ratios of purchase prices (the definition of FM in this article)

costs four times as much as the average

fitting. Results are contained in Table
2. By way of explanation, consider each
column of that table briefly:
Base costs, valves included, are
listed in column three4
FMa material factors (ratios of CPa
to CPcs), are listed in column four
Pipe rack costs (unaffected by the
presence of valves) were drawn directly from Lindley and Floyd5
Columns six and seven, Field installation, and Equipment engineering and
contractor fees, were revised by assuming that reported differences between complex and straight-run pipe
were due to fittings. These differences
were increased by 40% to account for
valves and added back to original
straight-run prices for each pipe size
and type
After these adjustments, total bare
module price CBMa is simply the
sum of the costs. Installation factors
FBMa were derived as the quotient
of CBMa and the base cost of carbon
steel CPcs
In the preparation of a cost chart, CPcs
is plotted versus nominal pipe diame4. Costs of pipe, flanges, and routine fittings were
listed by Lindley and Floyd. To estimate the added
effect of valves, prices for fittings were multiplied
by 1.6 (0.4 valves per fitting at four times the
price). Sandblasting and painting charges were
not changed. Shop fabrication expenses were increased by 40% to allow for valves. These were
summed to give Base Cost, valves included.
5. Adjusted to mid 2003 prices and normalized
per meter of pipe length.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

ter (Figure 1).6 There are two lines: one

for straight runs, the other for complex
piping networks. This requires only six
data points from Tables 1 and 2; for
straight-run and complex carbon-steel
piping in three diameters.

Different materials of
construction and installation

Two simple curves for carbon steel

pipe in Figure 1 serve as the launching point from which installed costs
of many types and sizes of pipes will
be estimated. To obtain an installed
price for any type of pipe, one simply
multiplies the appropriate value from
Figure 1 by the installation factor for
that material. For example, the installation factor from Table 2 averages about 3.5 for Type 304 stainlesssteel pipe in complex networks. This
yields a mid-2003 cost for 8-cm dia.
304-stainless-steel piping associated
with process equipment of $240/m
(CPcs of $68/m from Figure 1 for 8-cm
pipe in a complex network, multiplied
by 3.5). For a straight run, where the
installation factor (Table 1) is 4.0,
the mid-2003 price in 304 stainless
is $84/m (CPcs of $21/m from Figure 1 for 8-cm dia., straight-run pipe
times 4.0). To predict costs for the
same piping in a project planned for
the future, one would multiply these
6. The chart employs log-log coordinates, since
capital costs usually follow the six-tenths rule,
producing a straight line when plotted.

EXAMPLE PIPELINE COST ESTIMATE

wners of a steam boiler are considering a plant expansion.

No change is planned for the boiler module itself, but its
fuel-oil storage tanks are to be relocated. This will require a
new fuel-feed pipeline, 65 m in length. Construction is expected to
occur in 2006. Estimate the cost of running the new line.
An operator pumps fuel from storage to the feed drum once every
shift for a period of 15 minutes, requiring a flow of 3.9 liter/s.
Perry [3], page 6-14, suggests an optimum flow velocity in the
range of 1.82.4 m/s for this situation. Nominal-3.8-cm standard
pipe will suffice (1-1/2 in., Schedule 40, 4.1-cm actual inside diameter, 4.8 cm OD).a, b
A corrosion checkc confirms common experience that almost any
of the metals covered by the short-cut chart (p. 48) will contain
the fuel without corroding. Carbon steel, the current metal, has
served for many years, and maintenance people tell us that surface conditions inside the pipe are like new. Otherwise, weather
exposure on the outside has required periodic repainting and
other maintenance.
According to the short-cut chart (p. 48), the base cost CPcs for
nominal 3.8 cm pipe (straight run) is $11.50/m. For carbon steel
with material and pressure factors of unity, FBMcs for straight-run
a. At 2.4 m/s, the calculated diameter is 4.5 cm. Optimum pipe diameters/flow velocities from Perry [3] assume continuous pumping of fluid. A
rigorous analysis of batch transfers like this one will push the optimum
to a slightly smaller diameter and a higher velocity
b. We must, of course, choose a diameter that is commercially available.
Standard U.S. nominal pipe sizes are denoted by ticks on the horizontal
axis of the short-cut chart, p. 48.
c. See, for example, Table 4-1a, Ulrich and Vasudevan [8]

results by the ratio of the future CE

PCI to 400. In mid 2007, for instance,
current trends suggest a CE PCI of
500. Thus, mid-2007 prices would be
25% greater than those cited in this
example.
To make things easier for spreadsheet formulation, we gain generality
and consistency with a minor loss of
precision by using equations to calculate installation factors. For straightruns, Equation (1) yields factors for all
three diameters that, on average, fall
within 5% of those listed in Table 17
FBMa = 11.6 D 0.84 + 1.13 FM a

(1)

The following equation does almost as

well for complex networks in Table 2
FBMa = 2.0 0.024 D 0.001D2 + 1.22 FMa

0.011D FMa 0.015 D ( FMa )

(2)
With these equations, a list of material factors, and two cost curves, one
can estimate bare module prices for
straight-run and complex piping systems in 15 materials and all diameters
between 5 and 15 cm.8, 9 For context,
7. Two thirds of the calculations fall within plus
or minus 5%. None differs by more than 20%
from original data.
8. For a few materials in Tables 1 and 2, FMa
varies erratically from one pipe size to another.
This stems from the data source where Hastelloy C-276, for example, is reported to cost 70%
more than Monel in 10-cm pipe but 15% less in
15-cm pipe. Except for a few discrepancies like
this, relative prices in Lindley and Floyds tables
change only slightly and consistently with diam-

pipe is calculated to be 4.9 from Equation (3). Thus, the mid2003 bare-module cost of uninsulated pipe is 4.9 $11.50/m
= $56/m.
The pipe must be traced to maintain its temperature at 95C.
From Equation (5), the optimum insulation thickness is found to
be 2.6 cm. With this value for topt and 4.8 cm for Dact, we find
an additional cost of $22/m for insulation. Thus, the total bare
module cost in 2003 dollars is $78/m or $5,100 for a 65-m
run. Based on a projected CE Plant Cost Index of 485, the 2006
predicted price is $5,100 485/400 = $6,200.
Past experience with the old line suggests that we might save
in maintenance dollars and aggravation if we make the line of
Schedule 10, Type 304 stainless steel. In this case, FM is 1.5,
leading to a value of 5.5 for FBM. Uninsulated pipe cost is 5.5
$11.50/m = $63/m. With insulation at $22/m, the bare module
cost is $85/m or $5,525 in 2003 dollars; $6,700 in 2006. The
difference is slight enough to seriously consider stainless steel.
A more experienced engineer notes that even though Schedule-10 or light-wall pipe is adequate for the pressure and exposure, it may not tolerate abused. A heavier wall stock would be
safer. She suggests using 304 stainless steel, Schedule-40 pipe.
Since this is the wall thickness in alloy piping denoted for high
pressure service, we can estimate its price by using a pressure
factor of 1.6 in the equation for FBM. Doing so, we find FBM
for Schedule 40, 304-stainless-steel pipe is 6.5. Its 2006 bare
module price is $7,600 for the 65 m line.

d. A large fraction of industrial safety/pollution incidents is caused by

vehicles puncturing outdoor pipelines and storage tanks

Table 3 lists material factors for various piping materials alongside values
that have been published throughout
literature for other types of equipment. Values for alloy plate, pumps,
heat exchangers, process vessels, and
so on, are included.

High pressure service

By an analysis similar to that just

described, pressure factors can be derived to predict bare module prices of
heavier pipe. Lindley and Floyd included data for seven piping materials
rated for up to 40 barg pressure. These
higher pressure piping costs can be
predicted via Figure 1 if equations for
FBM are revised by replacing FM in
each case with the product FMFp.
Straight-run piping systems:
FBMa = 11.6 D 0.84 + 1.13 FM a Fp

(3)

Complex piping networks:

FBMa = 2.0 0.024 D 0.001D + 1.22 FMa Fp

Insulation costs

With the information assembled thus

far, one can quickly estimate installed
prices for simple and complex networks from Figure 1 for fifteen different types of pipe between 5 and 15-cm
nominal dia. at pressures up to 40
barg. The approach is even more useful if it is extended to include the cost
of insulation, which is necessary in
most chemical process applications.
Finding the optimum thickness of
pipe insulation is discussed in Chapter 7 of Ulrich and Vasudevan [8].
Based on that analysis using 2003
energy prices, one finds the optimum
insulation thickness to be10
0.20
topt = 0.85 Dnom
T 0.65

0.011D FMa Fp 0.015 D FMa Fp

where FM values are those listed in

Columns 4 of Tables 1 and 2, and
Fp = 1.0 for pressures less than 10 barg
Fp = 1.6 for 10 to 40 barg pressure

(4)

eter. The act of smoothing data with a general

correlation like the one we are building might
actually improve their reliability.
9. Pipe made from premium metals, because of
greater strength and smaller corrosion allowance, can be lighter than carbon steel. Thin-wall
(schedule 10) stainless steel and alloy piping
serves at pressures up to 10 barg, for example,
in service where schedule 40 would be required
if made from carbon steel. Schedule 40 alloy pipe
can often be used at pressures up to 40 barg.

(5)
where
topt = optimum insulation thickness,
cm
Dnom = bare pipe nominal diameter,
cm
T = the difference between pipe temperature and ambient, C
With thickness known, the 2003 cost
10. Steam-traced pipe based on energy costs of
$3.80/GJ. For other energy prices, electrical tracing, and different circumstances, see Ulrich and
Vasudevan [8], Chapter 7 or Perry [3], Tables 1121 and 11-22.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

47

Feature Report

THE SHORT-CUT METHOD FOR PIPING COSTS

Using data from this chart (right) and the
table (below), these equations can be used to
quickly estimate costs for 15 different piping
materials of 515-cm dia. at pressures up to
40 barg.

CBMIns = 1.13 topt Dact + topt

For straight-run piping systems:

FBMa = 11.6 D 0.84 + 1.13 FM a Fp

For complex piping networks:

FBMa = 2.0 0.024 D 0.001D2 + 1.22 FM a Fp

0.011D FM a Fp 0.015 D FM a Fp

CBM = FBM CPcs + CBMIns

MATERIAL FACTORS [FM]

Piping type
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC)
Carbon steel
Type 304 stainless steel
Type 316 stainless steel
Carbon-steel pipe lined with:
-rubber
-conventional plastic (cp)
-fluorocarbon plastic (fp)
-glass

Straight-run
0.4
0.9
1.0
1.5
1.9

Complex
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.8
2.1

1.9
5.0
9.2
9.0

1.4
4.7
7.3
6.2

of purchasing and installing insulation can be calculated from

CBMIns = 1.13 topt Dact + topt

(6)
where Dact is actual bare-pipe outside
diameter, cm

The cost chart

Finally, we have the information to

prepare a refined, comprehensive cost
chart. In composing it, let us consider
basic capital cost concepts and revisit
the lines in Figure 1. (With creative
insight, these curves might be ex-

References
1. Lindley, N.L. and J.C. Floyd, Piping Systems:
How Installation Costs Stack Up, Chem.
Eng., pp. 94-100, January, 1993. (This comprehensive study is more than 10 years old,
near the limit recommended for scaling with
inflation factors. No major technological or
productivity changes have occurred with pipefitting in the interim, however, so escalated
numbers reported here are considered valid
for todays use.)

48

Piping type
Fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP)
Alloy 20
Titanium
Monel
Hastelloy C-276
Zirconium

Complex
3.8
8.5
9.4
9.3
12.0
20.4

PRESSURE FACTORS
Less than 10 barg
10 to 40 barg

trapolated with confidence outside the

515 cm range.)
First, one would expect the cost of
pipe to be proportional to mass a
variation on DtL. Accordingly, for
pipes of different diameter made from
the same material, their base cost
ratio would be
CP 1a D1 t1
=
CP 2a D2 t2

(7)
The relevant design expression that
relates wall thickness to material
strength, pressure, and diameter is11:
11. See Ulrich and Vasudevan [8], p. 95.

2. Dennis, G., Picking the Best Thermoplastic

Lining, Chem. Eng., pp. 122-124, October,
1998.
3. Perry, J. H., D.W. Green, and J.O. Maloney,
Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook,
7th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
4. Guthrie, K.M., Data and Techniques for Preliminary Capital Cost Estimation, Chem.
Eng., pp. 114-142, Mar. 24, 1969.
5. Guthrie, K.M., Process Plant Estimating,
Evaluation and Control, Craftsman, Solano

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

Straight-run
4.0
8.8
10.2
15.0
18.2
32.4

Fp
1.0
1.6

t=

p D
2(0.9 S 0.6 p)

(8)

With typical design-stress values S

falling in the range of 1,000 bara and
at pipe internal pressures of 40 barg
or less, the second term in the denominators parenthetical expression can
be disregarded. Thus, wall thickness
is directly proportional to pressure
and diameter. For pipes of the same
material designed to handle the same
pressure, thickness ratio is, therefore,
equal to diameter ratio.
t1 D1
(9)
=
t2

D2

Beach, California, 1974.

6. Yau, T. and K.W. Bird, Know which Reactive
and Refractory Metals Work for You, Chem.
Eng. Prog., 88, pp. 65-69, February, 1992.
7. McMaster-Carr Catalogue 106, McMasterCarr Supply Company, New Brunswick, N.J.,
2000, www.mcmaster.com.
8. Ulrich, G.D. and P.T. Vasudevan, Chemical
Engineering Process Design and Economics,
A Practical Guide, 2nd Ed., Process Publishing, 2004, ulrichvasudesign.com.

Authors
Substituting Equation (9) into Equation (7) suggests that piping cost should
be proportional to diameter squared:
CP 1a D1 t1 D1
=
=
CP 2a D2 t2 D2

(10)

According to Equation (10), cost plotted against diameter on a log-log chart

should have a slope of two.
A quick check of Figure 1, however,
reveals a slope much closer to one.
This deviation from theoretical is
caused by other factors included in
base cost. Some of these (shop labor,
etc.), vary less with diameter than
do materials alone. As diameter increases, however, the labor component should diminish, causing the
slope to drift toward two. As diameter
decreases, on the other hand, labor
will become dominant and the slope
will approach zero. This suggests that
the two lines in Figure 1 should be
curved, with slopes approaching zero

at small diameter and two at large

diameter.
A closer look at Figure 1 revels that
the data points are actually represented
much more accurately by a curved line
than a straight one. In the final shortcut cost chart (p. 48), curves for both
simple and complex piping systems
are drawn to pass through the center
of each data point and asymptotically
approach the limiting slopes zero and
two. This graph, along with relevant
data and equations summarized next
to it, are all that is needed to prepare a
quick estimate of piping costs12.
For an illustrative example of how to
use the chart and equations to estimate

piping costs, see the box, p. 47.

Edited by Rebekkah Marshall
12. Cost data derived from the short-cut chart are
compared with the data used to create it on pp.
355 and 356 of Reference [8]. Standard deviations
average less than 15% in most cases. The largest
variances match anomalies in data mentioned earlier. Most errors are overestimates by the correlation, especially for the smallest diameter pipe.

Gael D. Ulrich (34R Prentiss St., Cambridge, MA

02140-2241;
Email:
gael.
ulrich@comcast.net) is professor emeritus of chemical
engineering at the University
of New Hampshire, where he
joined the faculty in 1970. He
worked at Atomics International Div. of North American
aviation and Cabot Corp. prior
to entering teaching. He holds
a B.S.Ch.E. and an M.S.Ch.E. from the University
of Utah and an Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For the past thirty years, he
has consulted for a number of corporations and
presided over a small contract research firm for
ten. Material in this article was extracted from
Reference [8] published with coauthor P. T. Vasudevan in 2004.
Palligarnai T. Vasudevan
is professor of chemical engineering at the University
of New Hampshire (Chemical Engineering Department,
Kingsbury Hall, Rm W301, 33
College Road, Durham, NH
03824; Phone: 603-862-2298;
Email: vasu@unh.edu) where
he joined the faculty in 1988.
He worked for a large petrochemical company for seven
years prior to entering teaching. For the past 15
years, he has worked in the areas of catalysis and
biocatalysis. He is currently collaborating with
researchers in Spain in the areas of hydrodesulfurization and enzyme catalysis. Vasudevan
holds a B.S.Ch.E. from Madras, India, a M.S.Ch.
E. from SUNY at Buffalo and a Ph.D. in chemical
engineering from Clarkson University.

PRESSURE RELIEF FOR

ALMOST ANY APPLICATION

ver pressure conditions threaten productivity at the most

inopportune time. Late at night, the weekend, a holiday.
Your process needs safety protection and emergency service.
At Continental Disc Corporation, our professionals
are trained and on-call for situations like
these. Theyll ask the right questions and
proceed into emergency production and
shipping. Youll get the protection you
need in your time of need. Call it
24/7/365 Emergency Service.
Let us be your pressure-relief partner.

3160 West Heartland Drive

Liberty, MO 64068-3385

(816) 792-1500

www.contdisc.com
email: pressure@contdisc.com

Rupture Discs Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valves

Flame/Detonation Arresters Pilot Operated Valves
Blanket Gas Regulators

Come see us at ACHEMA, Booth N48-N50

CERTIFICATIONS:

Emergency Service Design/Sizing Services Inventory Management Training Seminars

Circle 25 on p. 72 or go to adlinks.che.com/5827-25
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM MARCH 2006

49