DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY
Gokongwei College of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department
Unit Operations Laboratory 1
Final Laboratory Report
Experiment # 3
Heat Losses in Bare and Lagged Pipes and Finned Tubes
Group Name Section EA2
NAME SIGNATURE Criteria Score
1. Catapang, Jacen Mariel S. Content (50%)
2. Chan, Cary Albert D. Presentation (25%)
3. Garces, Jerome Ignatius T. Relevance (25%)
4. Lee, Angela Mae T. Total (100%)
5. Liclican, Sephi Marz G. Percentage Equivalent
6. Tiu, Sean Elijah J.
28 January 2019 04 February 2019
Date of performance Date of Submission
Dr. Allan N. Soriano
Instructor
Unit Operations Laboratory 1
Heat Losses in Bare and Lagged Pipes and Finned Tubes
Jacen Mariel S. Catapang, Cary Albert D. Chan, Jerome Ignatius T. Garces,
Angela Mae T. Lee, Sephi Marz G. Liclican, Sean Elijah J. Tiu
Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering, De La Salle University,
2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines (10 pt, italics)
I. INTRODUCTION
Steam is a common fluid that has a plethora of industrial uses, including heating, driving steam-powered turbines in
power generating plant, atomization, humidifying, and drying [1,2]; however, the metal pipes commonly used to mobilize
steam facilitate the exchange of heat between steam and the environment. In essence, this phenomenon is unavoidable
because of the temperature gradient that exists between the steam and the environment outside the pipe; however, insulators
can be used on the metal pipes to retard the rate of heat loss by decreasing the conductivity of the pipe. Insulators are also
useful for controlling the surface temperature of the pipe for personnel protection, stabilization of process temperature, and
prevention of surface condensate formation and subsequent corrosion [3]. Heat loss is dependent of several factors such as
wind speed, temperature, thickness of insulation and many more [4].
The following experiment tested the effect of using different types of insulators on the pipes; the effectiveness of the
insulation was then quantified using Equation 1.1.
q lost =m[ λ s +C p (T s−T c )] (1.1)
Where q = Total heat lost
λ s = Latent heat of vaporization
T s = Saturated temperature of the steam
T c= Temperature of condensate
If the experiment is conducted in a controlled environment, the steam could be collected as a saturated liquid and a
simpler equation can be used instead (Equation 1.2).
q lost =m λ s (1.2)
To determine the efficiency of the pipe insulation, a comparison of the heat lost in the insulated pipe and the bare pipe is
made. The effectiveness of the insulation is called a lag and its efficiency can be mathematically quantified using Equation
1.3.
V b−V L
Lagging Efficiency=[ ] (1.3)
Vb
Where V b= Condensate volume collected from bare pipe
V L = Condensate volume collected from lagged pipe
In the process of heat transfer from the steam to the environment, the heat must travel from the bulk stream, through the
[1]
steam film condensate, to the metal pipe, and then through the conduction using conduction, after which, heat is transferred
from the insulation surface to the environment using convection and radiation (usually insignificant if surface of the
insulator is not very hot). If the process of heat loss is steady state (i.e., temperature gradients remain the same), then it is
logical that all heat lost by the steam through conduction must be equal to the heat lost by the insulation material to the
environment. Equations 1.4 and 1.5 provide an additional method of heat loss computation.
q lost =qconduction=qconvection +q radiation (1.4)
q lost =hc A o (T s−T a )+ hr T Ao (T s −T w ) (1.5)
Where h c = Heat transfer coefficient by convection
hr = Heat transfer coefficient by radiation
T s = Surface temperature of insulation
Ao = Outside area of insulation
Ta is often approximated to be the same value as Tw for practical purposes; taking this into account results in Equation 1.6.
q lost =A o (h c +h r T )(T s−T a) (1.6)
Since the surrounding area can be assumed to be very large compared to the area of insulation and gray surfaces, hr is
given by Equation 1.7.
hr =¿ ¿ (1.7)
where ∈ = Emissivity of surface
The convective heat transfer coefficient, hc, depends on many factors including the mechanism involved in the heat
transfer from the surface of the insulator to the air. The empirical formulas for the determination of h c were discussed in one
of the previous experiments involving heat transfer.
For bare pipes, trial and error calculation for Ts may be eliminated. Since the thermal resistance of the metal pipe and
the steam film condensate are small, it is safe to assume that the surface temperature of the pipe is nearly the same as the
temperature of the steam. With Ts known, evaluation of hc, hr and q becomes straightforward.
To evaluate the effective overall heat transfer coefficient from steam to air, we use Equation 1.8.
1 D x Do x Do 1
= o +
U o hi Di k D́ ( ) ( ) metal
+
k D́ ins
+
hc + hr
(1.8)
The calculated value Uo can be compared with the experimental Uo derived from Equation 1.9.
m λs
Uo= (1.9)
A o (T h−T a )
Sometimes, a process requires equipment that encourages or maximizes heat loss; in these types of equipment, the bare
pipes are equipped with fins to increase the surface area of the pipe that will aid in the heat dissipation of the system. In
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[2]
finned pipes, fin efficiency is used to quantify the effectiveness of the finned pipe compared to the bare pipes. Fin efficiency
comes from the concept of reduction in the potential of temperature between the steam and the fin because of conduction
happening along the fin and the convection from or towards the fin surface [5]. The heat transfer coefficient for the fins used
in this experiment is calculated using the empirical Equation 1.10.
h f =0.27 ¿ (1.10)
Where ΔT = Temperature difference between the air and the fin surface
Bf = Outside diameter of circular fin
The fin efficiency is calculated using Equation 1.11.
tan φ
Ωf= (1.11)
φ
1.17
Bf
φ=
[( ) ]
Do
−1 Do √ 2h'f k f S f (1.12)
Where Bf = Outer diameter of the circular fin
Do = Outside diameter of the tube
Sf = Thickness of fin
Heat loss per foot and theoretical heat loss could also be calculated lost using Equations 1.13 and 1.14.
q ' f =h ' f L f (T b−T a)Ωf (1.13)
q f =Lq ' f (1.14)
Where q ' f = Heat losses per unit length
Lf = Height of the fin
T b = Surface temperature of the fin
T a = Temperature of the air
q = Theoretical heat lost
L =Total length of tube
II. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Materials and Reagents
1 Stopwatch
6 Erlenmeyer flasks
16 mercury thermometers
1 1L graduated cylinder
2.2 Equipment
An engineering sketch of the bare and lagged pipes for the experiment is illustrated in Fig. 2.2.1, and the actual
equipment used is shown in Appendix C (Fig. C.1). In addition to the equipment, ten mercury thermometers were
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[3]
placed in the designated thermometer wells in the condensate section, mid-section, and steam supply section of the
equipment to measure the temperatures of each pipe in each of the three aforementioned sections. Six Erlenmeyer
flasks were also placed under the distillated outlets to collect the distillates from the six pipes.
Figure 2.2.1. Engineering sketch of the equipment set-up.
The actual equipment itself includes six pipes with different insulations (from left to right of Fig. 2.2.1): asbestos,
silver, black, bare, finned, and styrofoam. These pipes are connected to an insulated steam supply line leading to the
boiler, where a pressure gage indicates the pressure of the steam from the boiler. Two other pressure gages are located
after the manual controlled valve and at the condensate section. In the condensate section, the pipes are connected to
cylindrical condensate collectors with stopcocks on top. Each of these collectors are connected to control valves which
can be turned forward for collecting the condensate or sideward for draining the condensate. The cylindrical coolers are
provided each with cooling system where a valve located at the main water supply line can control the cooling water
and discharge directly to the drain.
2.3 Experimental Procedure
Two runs were done for the experiment, with each run having an interval of 5 minutes in recording temperatures from
the 6 pipes in each section of the equipment (condensate section, mid-section, and steam-supply side section).
From 0 psig, pressure was increased to 30psig, and temperatures were recorded for each pipe initially and at the fixed
interval of 5 minutes. In addition, pressure was also monitored during the runs. After 25 minutes, the steam supply
valve is closed completely and the stopcocks on top of the condensate collectors were opened slowly. The condensate
for each pipe was then poured from the Erlenmeyer flask to the graduated cylinder for measuring the volume.
III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Six (6) pipes were studied in this experiment, four of which were lagged pipes, with asbestos, silver paint, black paint,
and Styrofoam insulations (Pipes A, B, C, and F, respectively), while one is a finned pipe (Pipe E) and the last is without
insulation (Pipe D). First, in order to determine the ability of the insulators to minimize heat losses along the pipe, the
lagging efficiencies for each of the insulated pipes were obtained in Table 3.1 with reference to the bare pipe (Pipe D) for
the two runs, at inlet pressures 30 psig and 40 psig.
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[4]
Table 3.1. Lagging efficiencies of the lagged pipes at different pressures.
Parameter
Lagging Efficiency (%) Thermal
Type of Lagged Pipe
Run 1 Run 2 Conductivity Emissivity
Average
(30 psig) (40 psig) (BTU/hr-ft-R)
Asbestos (Pipe A) 12.82 5.10 8.96 0.080 0.930
Silver (Pipe B) 39.74 47.96 43.85 - 0.305
Black (Pipe C) 0 6.12 3.06 - 1.000
Styrofoam (Pipe F) 79.49 61.22 70.36 0.019 0.600
Additionally, the average values for the two runs for the lagging efficiencies were calculated and the thermal
conductivity/emissivity of the insulators was investigated. Since there are no specifications for silver and black paint, only
the thermal conductivity of asbestos and Styrofoam covered pipes can be related to the lagging efficiency. It can be seen that
the result is consistent with theory, that lagging efficiency is inversely proportional to the thermal conductivity. Still, errors
are realized and can be attributed to the leak in the pipes. More importantly, comparing the lagging efficiencies, Styrofoam
was found to be the most effective pipe insulation at 30 psig with efficiency of 79.49% followed by silver paint (39.74%),
asbestos (12.82%), and black paint (0%). On the other hand, at 40 psig, Styrofoam was most effective with efficiency of
61.22%, still followed by silver paint (47.96%), then black paint (6.12%), and asbestos (5.10%). Overall, examining the
average lagging efficiencies, Styrofoam was the most insulative (70.36%) while black paint was the least insulative
(3.06%).
When lagging efficiencies for both pressures are compared, there is a large difference among the ranking of the
effectiveness of the insulators. For example, black paint at 30 psig is the least insulative and after a small change in pressure
to 40 psig, it becomes more insulative than asbestos. This change in results from 30 to 40 psig show that errors exist within
the experiment. These large errors are inferred to be caused by the leak on one of the pipes from A to C. The following
occurrence decreased the amount of condensate collected in the condensate side, which increased the lagging efficiency
calculated for pipes A to C. Evident in Fig. 3.1 below, there are inconsistencies in the lagging efficiencies of asbestos and
Styrofoam covered pipes decreased with pressure while those of silver and black painted pipes increased with pressure.
0.9 Lagging Efficiencies
0.8
30 psi
Lagging Efficiency
0.7
40 psi
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Asbestos Silver Black Styrofoam
Lagged Pipes
Figure 3.1. Lagging efficiencies of each lagged pipe.
On the other hand, it was found out that the relationship between emissivity and lagging efficiency was not always
consistent with the theory. To exemplify, silver pipe with emissivity of 0.305 was found to be more insulative than black
pipe with emissivity of near 1 at all pressures considered, however, Styrofoam with emissivity of 0.600 was found to be less
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[5]
insulative than the silver pipe. Lower emissivity as desired for better insulation was not strongly verified in the experiment.
Table 3.2. Experimental heat loss calculated for the pipes.
Experimental Heat Loss (BTU/hr)
Type of Lagged Pipe
Run 1 (30 psig) Run 2 (40 psig) Average
Asbestos (Pipe A) 3373.49 4563.24 3968.36
Silver (Pipe B) 2331.67 2502.42 2417.05
Black (Pipe C) 3869.59 4514.17 4191.88
Non-insulated (Pipe D) 3869.59 4808.57 4339.08
Finned (Pipe E) 1785.96 2011.75 1898.86
Styrofoam (Pipe F) 793.76 1864.55 1329.16
To further understand the lagging ability of the insulators, experimental heat losses based on the amount of condensate
collected were calculated, as in Table 3.2. This is done by converting the amount of condensate collected for a total of 25
minutes into heat loss, using the heat of vaporization at T s, the temperature of the steam The data for T s throughout the
experiment were averaged, which is around 130℃ for the first run (30 psig) and around 138℃ for the second run (40 psig).
The corresponding values of heat of vaporization, λ in BTU/lb, for the two runs are 938.07 and 927.80, respectively [6].
For both 30 psig and 40 psig runs, it is noticed that pipe with no insulation has the highest heat loss and styrofoam pipe
having the least heat loss. The average heat loss were taken to be 4339.08 BTU/hr and 1329.16 BTU/hr, respectively. While
the bare pipe is consistent with the concepts of heat transfer, the finned pipe should have the lowest heat loss because fins
enhance the prevention of heat losses. However, the ranking of pipes in terms of heat losses are different for each pressure,
and errors are discovered in this ranking. For example, the black painted pipe produces large heat losses roughly equal to
non-insulated pipe at 30 psig, which at small increase to 40 psig, it produces smaller heat loss than asbestos-insulated pipe,
as shown in Fig. 3.2. Similar source of error, the pipe leaking as aforementioned, is inferred from these errors.
Experimental Heat Loss
6000
30 psi
5000
40 psi
Heat Loss, BTU/hr
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Asbestos Silver Black No Finned Styrofoam
insulation
Pipes
Figure 3.2. Experimental heat loss of each pipe.
In addition to this, the parameters to be evaluated for the experimental heat transfer coefficients and the theoretical heat
of loss were also computed, specifically the convective and radiative heat transfer coefficients, h c and hr. Using eqn. 3.1
below for hc and eqn. 1.7 for hr, the values are summarized in Table 3.3:
0.25
∆T
h c =0.27
[ ]
D0
(3.1)
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[6]
where ΔT is equal to Ts – T, and Do is the outside diameter.
Table 3.3. Experimental heat transfer coefficients calculated for the pipes.
hr hc
Type of Lagged Pipe Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2
Average Average
(30 psig) (40 psig) (30 psig) (40 psig)
Asbestos (Pipe A) 20.158 19.337 19.747 1.354 1.362 1.358
Silver (Pipe B) 0.574 0.625 0.599 0.876 1.008 0.942
Black (Pipe C) 2.028 2.136 2.082 1.048 1.170 1.109
Non-insulated (Pipe D) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Finned (Pipe E) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Styrofoam (Pipe F) 6.881 7.041 6.961 1.327 1.336 1.332
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The experiment dealt with bare and lagged pipe heat exchangers. The heat losses due to a bare pipe were compared with
that of lagged pipes in order to determine how efficient the pipe lagging is. The pipes without insulation, as expected,
incurred the most heat loss while the insulated pipes reduced this heat loss. The pipe with sytrofoam insulator had the least
heat loss of all the insulation methods done in the experiment. This result is consistent with the lagging efficiencies
determined which shows that the Styrofoam has the best lagging efficiency among the lagged pipe. Furthermore, the theory
concerning the inverse relationship between the lagging efficiency and the thermal coefficient was found to be valid in this
experiment. However, inconsistencies were encountered in the results for the first trial run and the second trial run with a
different steam supply pressure. These inconsistencies can be attributed to instrumental errors since leaks were encountered
in the system. Further inconsistencies were encountered in the relationship between the lagging efficiency and the
emissivity. Theory states that the system with lower emissivity provides better insulation, however, some results from the
experiment were inconsistent with this theory.
V. INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
Industrial processes require steams for different processes such as heating. Steam is often transported around an
industrial plant through metal pipes. Thus, it is inevitable that heat losses will be encountered since there is an existing
temperature difference between the pipes and the surroundings. In order to prevent this, insulation is applied to the pipes.
Pipe lagging is a type of insulation fitted around water pipes in order to minimize losses due to heat transfer to the
environment. This experiment explores the difference between a bare pipe and a lagged pipe in order to simulate how
lagged pipes minimize heat loss in an industrial setting.
INDIVIDUAL OBSERVATIONS
[Catapang, J.] The temperature reading must be done carefully since it will become constant at some point in the
experiment.
[Chan, C.] The temperature of the pipes increased through time indicating that there is a change in the temperature
of the fluids passing through the pipes
[Lee, A.] The equipment was quite old to being with and leaks were present therefore, errors in the calculations can
be expected.
[Liclican, S.] Some leaks in the discharge pipes were observed and it may have caused some error in the
condensate volume measurements. The temperatures at the mid-section of the pipes were generally higher compared to the
surface temperatures in the condensate side and steam supply side.
[Tiu, S.] The temperature of the system decreased along the different pipe sections indicating that heat transfer has
taken place.
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[7]
REFERENCES
Proceeding Papers
[1] Available online at https://www.tlv.com/global/TI/steam-theory/principal-applications-for-steam.html#toc_6
[2] Available online at https://www.forbesmarshall.com/fm_micro/news_room.aspx?Id=boilers&nid=155
[3] Available online at https://insulationinstitute.org/im-a-building-or-facility-professional/industrial-insulation/why-
insulate/
[4] Available online at https://cheguide.com/tag/bare-pipe
[5] Shah, R. K., Extended surface heat transfer, 2011.
Books
[6] Perry, R.H., & Green, D.W. (2008). Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
APPENDICES
A. Raw Data
Table A.1. First Run Raw Data
Run 1 (30 psi)
Inlet Pressure (psig) 30 Outlet Pressure (psig) 27 Steam Pressure (psig) 115
Steam Supply Side Surface Temperature Data (℃)
Time (min) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
0 30.0 94.0 89.0 76.0 44.0
5 32.0 125.0 120.0 99.0 52.0
10 32.0 122.0 118.0 95.0 53.0
15 33.0 122.0 118.0 95.0 53.0
20 34.0 124.0 119.0 95.0 54.0
25 34.0 121.0 116.0 94.0 53.0
Average 33.00 122.80 118.20 95.60 53.00
Mid-Section Surface Temperature Data (℃)
Time (min) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
0 33.0 180.5 174.0 72.1 61.8 32.0
5 33.0 122.0 119.0 119.0 94.9 34.9
10 33.0 121.0 117.0 119.0 97.0 35.0
15 34.0 121.0 119.0 119.2 97.0 35.0
20 34.0 121.0 118.0 120.0 97.8 35.0
25 34.0 120.0 117.0 119.0 96.2 35.0
Average 33.60 121.00 118.00 119.24 96.58 34.98
Condensate Side Surface Temperature Data (℃)
Time (min) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
0 32.0 96.0 84.0 80.0 30.0
5 33.0 128.0 114.0 112.0 34.0
10 34.0 126.0 112.0 111.0 35.0
15 34.0 126.0 112.0 110.0 36.0
20 34.0 126.0 113.0 111.0 36.0
25 35.0 124.0 111.0 110.0 36.0
Average 34.00 126.00 112.40 110.80 35.40
Overall
33.5333 123.2667 116.2000 108.5467 96.5800 41.1267
Average
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[8]
Steam Supply Conditions
Time (min) Ps (psig) Ts (℃) Pmain (psig)
0 30 99 96
5 30 133 105
10 30 130 115
15 30 121 115
20 30 133 115
25 30 130 115
Condensate Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
Volume (mL) 680 470 780 780 360 160
*Averages did not include initial data (at time 0).
Table A.2. Second Run Raw Data
Run 2 (40 psi)
Inlet Pressure (psig) 40 Outlet Pressure (psig) 37 Steam Pressure (psig) 110
Steam Supply Side Surface Temperature Data (℃)
Time (min) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
0 34.0 112.0 103.0 84.0 51.0
5 34.0 130.0 124.0 100.0 56.0
10 34.0 129.0 124.0 100.0 55.0
15 34.0 129.0 122.2 98.0 55.8
20 34.0 129.0 124.0 99.0 56.0
25 34.0 128.0 123.0 97.0 56.0
Average 34.00 129.00 123.44 98.80 55.76
Mid-Section Surface Temperature Data (℃)
Time (min) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
0 36.5 108.0 102.0 104.0 87.0 35.0
5 34.0 127.0 124.0 125.0 98.4 35.0
10 35.0 126.0 123.0 120.0 98.4 35.2
15 35.0 126.0 124.0 123.8 99.0 35.2
20 35.0 126.0 123.0 123.0 98.0 35.0
25 36.0 126.5 124.0 123.8 98.0 35.8
Average 35.00 126.30 123.60 123.12 98.36 35.24
Condensate Side Surface Temperature Data (℃)
Time (min) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
0 35.0 111.0 96.0 94.0 36.0
5 35.0 122.0 118.0 116.0 36.0
10 36.0 123.0 118.0 116.0 37.0
15 36.0 122.0 118.0 116.0 37.0
20 36.0 122.0 118.0 115.0 37.0
25 36.0 122.0 118.0 114.0 37.0
Average 35.80 122.20 118.00 115.40 36.80
Overall
34.9333 125.8333 121.6800 112.4400 98.3600 42.6000
Average
Steam Supply Conditions
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[9]
Time (min) Ps (psig) Ts (℃) Pmain (psig)
0 40 102 94
5 40 139 105
10 40 138 108
15 40 138 110
20 40 138 110
25 40 138 110
Condensate Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F
Volume (mL) 930 510 920 980 410 380
B. Sample Calculation (Asbestos pipe, 30psig)
Lagging Efficiency
V B −V L
Lagging Efficiency=
[ VB ]
Where VB = volume of condensate in the bare pipe
VL = volume of condensate in the lagged pipe
780 mL−680 mL
Lagging Efficiency= [ 780 mL
= 01282 ]
Experimental Heat Loss
q=vρ λ
Where v = volume of condensate
ρ = density of liquid water
λ = latent heat of vaporization
( 680 mL ) 1 m3 62.4 kg ft 3
q= 6
25 min 10 mL( m 3 )(
3.2808
m )( ) (938.069 BTU
lb )=3373.49
BTU
hr
Theoretical Heat Loss and Effective Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
q=( h c + hr ) Ao (T s −T a )
Where hc = heat transfer coefficient by convection
hr = heat transfer coefficient by radiation
Ts = surface temperature of insulation
Ao = outside area of insulation
Ts 4 4
T
hr =
0.1713
100 [( ) ( ) ]
− a
100
ɛ
T −T a
Where ɛ = emissivity of surface
T = absolute temperature
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[10]
725.67 4 536.67 4
hr =
0.1713 [( 100
−) (
100 ) ] ( 0.93)=20.16
92.36−77
0.25
∆T
h c =0.27
Do ( )
Where ∆T = Ts - T
Do = outside temperature of cylinder
0.25
266−92.36
h c =0.27 ( 0.27342 ) =1.35
C. Photo
Figure C.1. Actual equipment set-up. From left to right: asbestos, silver, black, bare, finned, and styrofoam
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[11]
