Experiment No.

Bare and Lagged Pipes

CHELAB 1 / 51149
10:30 - 13:30 Thursday

Name Student No. Signature

1.) Tongo, Jhon Nicko Y.

201912842

Dr. Rugi Vicente DC. Rubi

Instructor

March 13, 2023

 Abstract

Heat can be transferred in three ways namely: convection, conduction, and radiation. Convection is the

transfer of heat using a medium without direct contact on the object. While conduction is the transfer of heat with

direct contact on the surface of the object. On the other hand, radiation transfers heat without the need of any

medium. It transfers heat via electromagnetic waves. Coatings and insulators are painted or covered in the pipes

in order to trap the heat that is escaping. In this experiment, the students used a bare and lagged pipe instrument

to quantify and compare the thermal conductivity of each coating or insulator to its theoretical value using

Fourier’s Law of Conduction. The obtained actual values of the thermal conductivity were so far deviated from

the theoretical value. The conclusion that was made by the students was, the equipment was not calibrated.
 I. Introduction

One of the focuses of transport phenomena is the transfer of energy which involves a flow of heat from

one body to another. The second law of thermodynamics governs the occurrence of this phenomenon. According

to this law, heat transfer occurs from a body with a higher temperature to a lower temperature. Therefore, heat

transfer is possible if the temperature gradient between two areas is negative. With that, the temperature gradient

serves as a driving force for heat transfer.

Moreover, various mechanisms take place in the transfer of heat, which are the following: conduction,

convection, and radiation. Conduction is the type of heat transfer that requires direct contact for heat to flow,

most likely solid matter. On the other hand, convection happens when the transfer of heat occurs within the fluid,

a gas or liquid. However, the heat flow due to electromagnetic waves without interaction between particles and

molecules is known as radiation.

One of their applications is the heat transfer of fluids through a tube commonly occurring in heat

exchangers. In a conduit or heat exchanger, steam and water are widely used as the working fluid to heat and

cool a particular liquid. However, heat transfer efficiency is affected by various factors, one of which is

insulation. Insulation is when building or putting a barrier between the surface of an object where heat transfer

occurs. This barrier reduces the heat flow by reducing the thermal conduction or convection from a specific

matter. In terms of calculation, heat transfer can be quantified using the model of Fourier’s law of thermal

conduction which states that the rate of heat transfer from a material is directly proportional to area and to the

negative temperature gradient. This can be expressed as:

𝑄 = − 𝑘𝐴 ∆𝑥
∆𝑇

Equation 1. Fourier’s Law of Conduction

In terms of circular object or conduit:

𝑄 = 𝑈𝐴∆𝑇
𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷

Equation 2. Heat transfer on a circular path

II. Objectives

● To solve for the experimental thermal conductivity and compare it to the theoretical value.

III. Materials/Equipment Needed

Bare and lagged pipe apparatus

Water

Thermometer
 Small container

Caliper

IV. Procedure

The apparatus was turned on with zero wattage on the wattmeter and it was allowed to achieve

equilibrium before starting the experiment. Before starting the actual experiment, it was made sure that the exit

valve was closed to avoid the leakage of the input water and the water temperature was measured to acquire the

temperature difference needed in the computation. The experiment was started by turning the wattmeter knob to

99.48 watts. After turning the wattmeter knob, the temperature for four different pipes were observed and

recorded to the data collection. In addition, after the first run, the temperature of the water inside the pipe was

measured by collecting the water and placing a thermometer to read the temperature. The experiment was

repeated for two more runs with a wattage of 203.6 watts and 305.2 watts.
 V. Experimental Data
Table 1. Pipe and Insulator Dimensions
Pipe Insulator
Outside Diameter = 35 millimeter Outside Diameter = 90 millimeter
Length = 1 meter
Schedule Number 80

Experimental Data and Observations

Table 2. Pre-Trial
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

0 26 25 22 25 27

Table 3. Trial 1
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite Temperature
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

99.48 43 42 29 27 33.2

Table 4. Trial 2
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

203.6 80 77 43 34 56.6

Table 5. Trial 3
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

305.2 81 79 39 30 75.7

VI. Results and Discussion

Table 6.1 Calculated Experimental and Theoretical Conductivity for Trial 1

Trial 1
Pipe and Insulator Experimental Conductivity Theoretical Conductivity
(W/-m-K) (W/-m-K)
T1 -0.2250 15
T2 -0.2506 15.2
T3 1.068 0.0430
 T4 0.9346 0.047

Trial 1, operated under 99.48 Watt-meters, achieved the above results as shown in Table 6.1. The

experimental thermal conductivities in W/m-K were -0.2250, -0.2506, 1.068, and 0.9346, respectively from T1

to T4. These values are far from the theoretical conductivity on the last column which are 15, 15.2, 0.0430, and

0.047. This large difference resulted in an average percent error of 1118.85%.

Table 6.2 Calculated Experimental and Theoretical Conductivity for Trial 2

Trial 2
Pipe and Insulator Experimental Conductivity Theoretical Conductivity (W/-m-
(W/-m-K) K)
T1 -0.1929 15
T2 -0.2212 15.2
T3 0.8271 0.0430
T4 0.6653 0.047

An increase of about 104.12 Watt-meter were applied for Trial 2, which yielded the results in Table 6.2.

The experimental thermal conductivities in the same units were -0.1929, -0.2212, 0.8271, and 0.6653. Similarly,

the results here were also far from the theory, giving an average percent error of 835.44%.

Table 6.3 Calculated Experimental and Theoretical Conductivity for Trial 3

Trial 3
Pipe and Insulator Experimental Conductivity Theoretical Conductivity (W/-m-K)
(W/-m-K)
T1 -1.2763 15
T2 -2.0499 15.2
T3 1.0923 0.0430
T4 0.8995 0.047

The final trial had been applied an increase of 101.6 Watt-meter, resulting in experimental thermal

conductivities of the same units of -1.2763, -2.0499, 1.0923, and 0.8995, as seen in Table 6.3. These are, once

again, far from theoretical results with an average percent error of 1119.04%.

There are several alleged reasons as to why the experimental values deviate so much from the theoretical

values, the first of which is faulty or uncalibrated equipment. The proponents reason that the thermocouple of

the equipment have been damaged over the years resulting in false readings on the equipment. Notably, the

measurement of the water temperature during trials were also inconvenient to the proponents as the water had to

be flushed out of the equipment and measured thereafter manually using a digital thermometer. This

inconvenience could have resulted in losses to the temperature during flushing therefore yielding lower
temperatures than actual, such case could have been avoided with another thermocouple in the water itself.

Another is that the equipment could be uncalibrated and therefore giving such results.

Additionally, it is noted that the exit valve of the water inside the equipment have not been closed during

the trials as there were safety concerns to the structural integrity of the valve, this allowed any build up of heat

in the water to escape. The supervising professor informed the proponents of this which strengthens the validity

for the second reason. The unclosed valve is speculated to be the reason for the water temperature being lower

than the bare pipe temperature, which is illogical as the heat source should be coming from the water itself and

therefore should have higher temperatures than all other variables.

VII. Conclusion

The proponents have completed the experiment during the allotted time and have achieved theoretical thermal

conductivities in line with the objectives. In conclusion, the experimental values compared to their theoretical

values in W/m-K are:

Trial 1 Trial 3

1. -0.2250 and 15 (101.5% error) 1. -1.2763 and 15 (108.51% error)

2. -0.2506 and 15.2 (101.65% error) 2. -2.0499 and 15.2 (113.58% error)

3. 1.068 and 0.0430 (2383.72% error) 3. 1.0923 and 0.0430 (2440.23% error)

4. 0.9346 and 0.047 (1888.51% error) 4. 0.8995 and 0.047 (1813.83% error)

Trial 2

1. -0.1929 and 15 (101.29% error)

2. -0.2212 and 15.2 (101.46% error)

3. 0.8271 and 0.0430 (1823.49% error)

4. 0.6653 and 0.047 (1315.53% error)

For future reference, it is recommended that the equipment to be used is calibrated before experimentation.

Additionally, ensure that all sensors are functioning properly and that all valves are in proper condition for use.
 Appendices
Appendix A. Experimental Data
Raw Data
Table 1. Pipe and Insulator Dimensions
Pipe Insulator
Outside Diameter = 35 millimeter Outside Diameter = 90 millimeter
Length = 1 meter
Schedule Number 80

Experimental Data and Observations

Table 2. Pre-Trial
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

0 26 25 22 25 27

Table 3. Trial 1
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

99.48 43 42 29 27 33.2

Table 4. Trial 2
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

203.6 80 77 43 34 56.6

Table 5. Trial 3
Watt-M Pipe and Insulator Surface Temperature Water
eter Temperature
T1 (Bare Pipe) T2 (Paint T3 (Fiberglass T4 (Perlite
Coated) Insulation) Insulation)

305.2 81 79 39 30 75.7
Appendix B.
Sample Calculations
 Cheasltal Englneering Department
School Year 2022 - 21123

For T2 (Paint Coated)

« (15 + 0.2)2*(l}(I'
(3s ss)
Z’ 41. 8542 “C

Average Water Temperature

M.8522 + 41.8543 _ g .

The theoretical average water tempemture in the pipe is 42.3532 °C which is for from the
experimental water temperature.
Turnitin Result
 References (APA Format)

Saskarc Inc. (2018, October 16). The pros & cons of steel – bare, painted & galvanized.Saskarc Inc.
https://saskarc.com/en/the-pros-cons-of-steel-bare-painted-and-galvanized/

Thermal conductivity determination by lagged pipe apparatus - volume 3, no. 2, April 2014 -
IJMERR. (n.d.). Ijmerr.com. Retrieved February 23, 2023, from
http://www.ijmerr.com/show-128-229-1.html

239142736 bare and lagged - experiment B3 heat losses in bare and lagged pipes and Finned tube. Studocu.

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/bulacan-state-university/differential-equai

ons/239142736-bare-and-lagged/4256753
 UNIT OPERATION LABORATORY 2 RUBRIC
Ranking: On a scale from 1(lowest performance) to 4 (highest), assign points to each dimension based on the criteria below:

EXPERIMENT TITLE: Bare and Lagged Pipe

GROUP MEMBERS:

Student Performance Evaluation Beginning Developing Acceptable Exemplary Score Equivalent

Outcomes Indicators Criteria (1) (2) (3) (4) Weight
k. Ability to use k.1. Use of Several major Abstract lacks one Abstract Abstract
techniques, Demonstrate software for aspects of the or more major references most contains all
skills, and skills in the the experiment are aspects of carrying of the major major aspects of
modern use of modern presentation missing, displays a out the aspects of the the experimental
engineering engineering and analysis lack of experimental experiment, some results, and well-
tools necessary tools and of data (8%) understanding on results. minor details are written.
for engineering techniques how to write an missing.
practice. necessary for abstract.
engineering
practice.
j. Knowledge of j.1. Express Introduction Very little Some introductory Introduction is Introduction
contemporary insights on (10%) background information and nearly complete, complete and
issues. current issues information major points are missing some well-written;
affecting provided. missing. minor points. provides all
engineering necessary
practice. principles for the
experiment.
k. An ability to k.1. Experimental Missing several Written in Written in Well-written in
use the Demonstrate procedure important paragraph format, paragraph format, paragraph
techniques, skills in the (10%) experimental still missing some important format, all
skills, and use of modern details. Not important experimental experimental
modern engineering written in experimental details were details are
engineering tools and paragraph format. details. covered, some covered and
tools necessary techniques minor details complete.
for engineering necessary for were missing.
practice. engineering
practice.
g. Ability to g.1. Prepare Results: Incomplete data, Complete data, Complete data, all Complete data,
communicate written Data, figures, figures, graphs, most figures, figures, graphs, all figures,
effectively. documents graphs, tables contain graphs, tables tables are graphs, tables
according to tables, etc. errors or are poorly OK, missing some correctly are correctly
technical constructed, have important or presented, and drawn,
specifications. (20%) missing titles, required features. some minor numbered and
captions or details could be contain
numbers, units improved. titles/captions.
missing or
incorrect, etc.
g. Ability to g.2. Deliver Discussion Evident Some of the Almost all of the All important
communicate oral (15%) discrepancy of results were results have trends and data
effectively. presentation data or incorrect correctly been correctly comparisons
to articulate interpretation of interpreted and interpreted and were correctly
concepts trends leading to discussed; partial discussed, needs interpreted and
and ideas. misinterpretation but incomplete minor revisions. discussed, good
of result indicating understanding of understanding of
lack of results was still
evident.
 understanding of results were
principles. conveyed.
Conclusions No conclusions or Conclusions on All important All important
(15%) missing the major points are conclusions have conclusions have
important points. drawn, but many been drawn, but been clearly
are misstated, could have better stated and
indicating a lack stated. answered all the
of understanding. objectives.
And not all
objectives are
answered.
Spelling, Frequent grammar Occasional Less than 3 All
grammar, /or spelling errors, grammar/spelling grammar/spelling grammar/spellin
sentence writing style is errors, generally errors, mature, g correct and
structure immature. readable with readable style. very well-
(10%) some rough spots written
in writing style.
Appearance Sections out of Sections in order, All sections in All sections in
and order, too much contains the order, formatting order, well-
formatting handwritten copy, minimum generally good but formatted, very
(10%) sloppy formatting. allowable amount could still be readable.
of handwritten improved.
copy, formatting is
rough but
readable.
TOTAL
INTERPRETATION
Comments and Recommendations:

Score Equivalent Score Equivalent Score Equivalent

Grade Grade Grade
1.0 10 2.1 43 3.1 73
1.1 13 2.2 46 3.2 76
1.2 16 2.3 49 3.3 79
1.3 19 2.4 52 3.4 82
1.4 22 2.5 55 3.5 85
1.5 25 2.6 58 3.6 88
1.6 28 2.7 61 3.7 91
1.7 31 2.8 64 3.8 94
1.8 34 2.9 67 3.9 97
1.9 37 3.0 70 4.0 100
2.0 40