Let me just say that if this were a situation that would affect the design and/or a clear-cut technical issue addressed in various references, I would agree that it clearly is my “row to hoe.” However, I think we are more in a professional judgment/preferences situation and, as such, the reviewer should provide sources or methodology that are acceptable. 2 h K v g ( /2 ) L The value of K is typically provided for various devices. Losses are proportional to velocity of flow, geometry of device. Let me get off stage before I start whining and I say something I’ll regret. Minor in comparison to friction losses which are considered major. Units for minor losses are in length, such as feet or meters, the same as any of the three types of head. Assuming all of these bends as 45 degree bends only adds 0.1 ft to my friction loss for the 3,000 ft force main at design flow. Minor losses are directly related to the velocity head of a pipe, meaning that the higher the velocity head there is, the greater the losses will be. Fig 5: Minor head loss coefficient for bends (45, 60, 90) Vs. I guess what torques me about this situation is that the issue is one that doesn’t make any difference. minor loss coefficient was observed for 0.5 inch diameter flexible pipe and minimum was observed for 1.00 inch diameter flexible pipe which conforms to the relation that for a fixed radius of curvature the value of minor loss coefficient will increase with decrease of diameter. Basically, he is taking the position of what I’ve proposed is unacceptable, that it is my problem to provide losses that are acceptable to him, and that, as the reviewer, it isn’t his problem to provide a what would be acceptable friction losses or even a source for these losses. Now I have a situation where a reviewer will not accept either of the above approaches without some type of source as back-up as there isn’t a technical basis for either and he will not provide friction losses for these bends that he would accept. In the past, I have prorated the losses for 45 degree bends or just used the 45 degree bend friction loss for these bends and, although not technically correct, one or the other approach has been accepted with no problems as it provides an increased friction loss over straight pipe for the bend, and, to be frank, because no one had a technical approach or reference that addressed these bends either. Minor loss coefficient for different bend angles and two. Different parameters on which Minor Loss depend were observed and their relations to the Minor Loss were analyzed. My references have friction losses for 90 degree and 45 degree bends, but nothing for these smaller bends. Minor loss coefficients for different bend angles and different bend radius of these pipes are ascertained, using both experimental method and numerical analysis. I’m working on a force main that has a few of 22-1/2 degree and 11-1/4 degree bends.