Pro/Con Hot Side TC Tube Diameter 3/4" vs 1" vs 1.5"

[koilife]

When I install my 10 gal electric system, I plan to hard pipe the hot side of the whole system, so I've been working through to-scale piping diagrams. Staying with 1.5" TC ends up taking up a lot of space (e.g. large turning radii) and results in more horizontal sprawl than I'd like. The way the pieces come together using 3/4" parts actually saves me almost a foot of horizontal table space.

Given the number of smaller diameter objects (e.g. pumps, chiller, RIMS), I'm curious if there is any advantage to staying all 1.5" on the hot side, or if there is any real downside to reducing most or all of the entire system to 3/4" or 1" (though still within the 1.5" clamps)?

I assume I want to dump from kettles to their pumps at 1.5". I'd use a reducer to transition smoothly into the pump, and then hold at around 3/4" until I move the water/wort to it's next destination. I'm assuming that even flow is better at keeping particulate moving with less turbulence than if I get into faster/slower regions due to significant diameter changes of the tubes, ports, etc. Although the smaller diameter costs me more in pump head, that's not an issue.

Are my assumptions correct? Am I overthinking this?

 

[Drumminguy81]

Speaking from my personal experience, I hard piped my entire rig with 3/4" pipe. Reason being I looked at the size of my pickup tubes and pump inlet and outlets. All of them are equal or smaller than 3/4" so my line of thinking is I will only get as much flow as my smallest diameter bottleneck so there would be no benefit in using larger pipe. I do not have any proof to back this up however. The 3/4 works perfectly for me though and gives me minimal waste left in the pipes. I tried to keep everything the same size and used reducers where needed to keep it sanitary with no dead spots. Also keep in mind proper gasket sizing is important with sanitary fittings.. a lot of people over look gaskets which can cause a void at the flanges. Match the gasket i.d. to the pipe i.d. hope that helps some. Good luck!

 

[Vale71]

Speaking from my personal experience, I hard piped my entire rig with 3/4" pipe. Reason being I looked at the size of my pickup tubes and pump inlet and outlets. All of them are equal or smaller than 3/4" so my line of thinking is I will only get as much flow as my smallest diameter bottleneck so there would be no benefit in using larger pipe.

This is not how it actually works. Every single inch of pipe will add to the total losses regardless of how small any bottleneck might be, there is no "shadowing" effect or anything of the sort. If your system is already marginal, for example with regards to possible pump cavitation, switching to smaller diameter pipes might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[Nummisoft]

Isn't the flange size defining bent radius? I have 1,5" flange 90 degree elbows with 3/4", 1" and 1,5" pipe and they all have flanges at same distance.

 

[mongoose33]

You can get TC fittings that are smaller in diameter than 1.5". Check out brewhardware.com. And go through all 4 pages to see what he has.

Here's an example:

https://www.brewhardware.com/product_p/tc15m12npt.htm

 

[eric19312]

You can get TC fittings that are smaller in diameter than 1.5". Check out brewhardware.com. And go through all 4 pages to see what he has.

Here's an example:

https://www.brewhardware.com/product_p/tc15m12npt.htm

I like the way brewershardware organizes their TC offerings
https://www.brewershardware.com/Sanitary-Fittings/Shop-By-Size/1-2-3-4-Tri-Clover-Fittings/

 

[koilife]

This is not how it actually works. Every single inch of pipe will add to the total losses regardless of how small any bottleneck might be, there is no "shadowing" effect or anything of the sort. If your system is already marginal, for example with regards to possible pump cavitation, switching to smaller diameter pipes might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

As to head loss, although the smaller diameter tubing will generate greater head loss, my runs are very short and laid out with very few turns, so loss is the least of my worries here. My goal in getting to a more consistent diameter throughout the whole system was to reduce sharp changes of diameter where changes in flow rates could create both turbulence and particulate aggregation points.

As to pump cavitation, I'm coming straight out of the kettles with a 90 sweep down into a reducing cone and directly into the pump. If I get cavitation under this scenario, it's clogging at the kettle or I've reached the dregs. The other issue would be artificially choking down flow rates when sparging or recirculating, but I don't see that being affected by diameter. The artificial head from choking the flow at these two points should dwarf any effect of the smaller diameters.

 

[koilife]

Isn't the flange size defining bent radius? I have 1,5" flange 90 degree elbows with 3/4", 1" and 1,5" pipe and they all have flanges at same distance.

I've seen same size w/ smaller sweeps, and I've seen smaller size w/ smaller sweeps. I think it depends on manufacturer.