HEAT LOSS IN BARE AND

LAGGED PIPES

ANGELES JANINE ROSE P.

DE CASTRO, LUZ ARLINA
DE GUZMAN, SHIELO
DE VERA, WENDY J.
ME – 4C

DR. ROMULO PANOTES

PROFESSOR
 HEAT LOSS IN BARE AND LAGGED PIPES

Introduction

Factors affecting heat transfer and thermal performance through fibrous materials
occur in a combination of the following three mechanisms: conduction – transfer of the
energy of motion between adjacent molecules, convection – transfer of heat by bulk
transport and mixing of macroscopic elements of warmer portions with cooler portions of
gas or liquids, and radiation – no physical medium is needed for its propagation.

This heat loss figure is normally given in either kilowatts (kW) or British Thermal
Units (BTUs) and represents the energy required to keep a room at a given temperature
on the coldest days.
The thermal conductivity will increase with temperature, as the component heat
transfer mechanisms increase, but the rate of increase and the final value at any
temperature will depend on the density and the quality of the material in the insulating
material.

The rate of heat loss from the surface may be expressed as:
Q= (hc + hr)A∆𝑇
The quantity Q is calculated from the quantity of steam condensate, the latent heat
of vaporization, and the time of the run. However, some of the condensate flashes
because the condensate leaves the system at a pressure higher than atmospheric, and
the volume of condensate collected is smaller than the amount of steam condensed.
In this experiment, convection coefficient is determined at various temperatures
from different temperatures one of which are lagged pipes. Pipe lagging is a special type
of insulation fitted around water pipes. It keeps heat within the pipes - so it’s useful for
saving energy as well as preventing pipes from freezing and bursting. Lagging also
prevents condensation forming on cold pipes.

Materials and Methods

Equipment and Materials

• Boiler
• Test pipes – bare, paint, silver chrome paint, and 85% magnesia insulation
• Thermocouple
• Beakers
• Graduated Cylinder
• Stopwatch

Methods

Three runs were made with steam at approximately 30 psig for each run:

1. After adjusting the system to the desired pressure, the drain cock was cracked
under the header to remove the water from the steam line and header.
2. The four plug – type valve was opened to blow out any condensate from the
pipes and then closed until only small amount of steam had escaped along with
the condensate.
3. When the system had reached the equilibrium, as determined by surface
temperature measurements, condensate was collected and measure from each
 pipe over a time interval of 15 to 30 minutes, and during this period the following
data were recorded:
i. Barometric pressure
ii. Room temperature
iii. Stream pressure and temperature
iv. Surface temperature
Surface temperatures were taken at three or more equally spaced points along
each test pipes, and at least three sets of readings were taken during each run. This was
because as steam rising from the condensate, valves tend to heat the pipes and insulate
them. No temperature measurements were made within 20 inches of the exit ends of the
pipe.

Results

Table 3.1 Tabulated Data of Heat Loss in Bare and Lagged Pipes
LENGTH OF PIPE

PIPE NO 1 2 3 4
SILVER –
CHROME 85% MAGNESIA
COVERING PAINT BARE PIPE
PAINT INSULATION
OUTSIDE
1.34 1.34 1.34 2.48
DIAMETER, in.
EMMISIVITY 0.95 0.95 0.35 0.95
RUN NO. 1

BAROMETRIC
1 atm
PRESSURE
STEAM
30 psig
PRESSURE
STEAM
100 ˚C
TEMPERATURE
ROOM
31 ˚C
TEMPERATURE
TIME/RUN 15 minutes

Tabulated Results of Heat Loss in Bare and Lagged Pipes

PIPE NO. 1 2 3 4
SILVER – 85% MAGNESIA
COVERING PAINT BARE PIPE CHROME PAINT INSULATION

convection
coefficient, hc
2.12366 2.11972 2.27068 1.62058
radiation
coefficient, hr
0.01371 0.01361 0.00677 0.0093
Lagging Efficiency
(using QB), LE
0.93609 0 40.5727 65.4684
Lagging Efficiency
(using W B), LE
0.8982 0 38.0243 31.4369
𝑄
220.01 217.97 306.46 360.671
𝜃
 PIPE NO. 1 2 3 4
560 600 525 560 590 520 345 360 330 345 360 435
TRIAL mL mL mL mL mL mL mL mL mL mL mL mL
S A 63 ˚C 67 ˚C 58 ˚C 54 ˚C
U
R B 68 ˚C 66 ˚C 73 ˚C 53 ˚C
F 1st
C 55 ˚C 60 ˚C 70 ˚C 51 ˚C
A
C D 58 ˚C 64 ˚C 73 ˚C 56 ˚C
E A 70 ˚C 60 ˚C 76 ˚C 52 ˚C

T B ------ 92 ˚C ---- ----

2nd
E C 68 ˚C 69 ˚C 90 ˚C 55 ˚C
M
P D 90 ˚C 83 ˚C 106 ˚C 63 ˚C
E A 83 ˚C 85 ˚C 96 ˚C 63 ˚C
R B 72 ˚C 60 ˚C 97 ˚C 55 ˚C
A
3rd
T C 75 ˚C 75 ˚C 91 ˚C 61 ˚C
U
R D 85 ˚C 74 ˚C 94 ˚C 58 ˚C
E 84 ˚C or
71.55 ˚C or 71.25 ˚C or 56.45˚C or
AVERAGE Ts
160.79 ˚F 160.25 ˚F 183.2 ˚F 133.61 ˚F
Volume of Condensate
(mL), W 561.67 mL 556.67 mL 345 mL 381.67 mL

Calculations
1 atm = 14. 7 psia
Ptot = 30 + 14.7 = 44.7 psia

From Steam Table @ 44.7 psia:

HL1= 242.92 Btu / lb
HL2 = 179.56 Btu / lb
HV2 = 1149. 76 Btu / lb
HL1 = xHL2 + (x-1)HV2

242.92 = 179.56x + (1-x)*( 1149. 76) x

= 0.935

 getting hc

For painted pipe:

hc = 0.42 (∆𝑇)0.25
𝐷

hc = 0.42 (160.25−87.8)0.25
1.34/12

hc = 2.12366 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

For bare pipe:

 hc = 0.42 (∆𝑇)0.25
𝐷

hc = 0.42 (160.79−87.8)0.25
1.34/12

hc = 2.11972 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

For silver-chrome paint pipe:

hc = 0.42 (∆𝑇)0.25
𝐷

hc = 0.42 (183.2−87.8)0.25
1.34/12

hc = 2.27068 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

For 85% Magnesia insulated pipe:

hc = 0.42 (∆𝑇)0.25
𝐷

hc = 0.42 (133.61−87.8)0.25
2.48/12

hc = 1.62058 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

 getting hr
For Painted pipe:
𝑇𝑠 4 𝑇𝑟 4
0. 173 𝑝 [( 100 ) −( 100 ) ]
hr =
∆𝑇

160.79 4 87.8 4
0. 173 (0.95)[( 100 ) −( 100 ) ]
hr = (160 .79−87 .8)

hr = 0.01371 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

For Bare pipe:
𝑇𝑠 4 𝑇𝑟 4
0. 173 𝑝 [( 100 ) −( 100 ) ]
hr =
∆𝑇

160.25 4 87.8 4
0. 173 (0.95)[( 100 ) −( 100 ) ]
hr = (160 .25 −87 .8)

hr = 0.01361 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

For Silver-chrome Painted pipe:

𝑇𝑠 4 𝑇𝑟 4
173 𝑝 [( 100 ) −( 100 ) ] 0.
hr =
∆𝑇
 183.2 4 87.8 4
0.
hr =

hr = 0.00677 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

For 85% Magnesia Insulated pipe:
𝑇𝑠 4 𝑇𝑟 4
173 𝑝 [( 100 ) −( 100 ) ] 0.
hr =
∆𝑇

133.61 4 87.8 4
0.
hr =

hr = 0.0093 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F

 getting 𝑄
𝜃

For Silver- chrome pipe:

𝑄 = (hc + hr)A∆𝑇
𝜃

𝑄 = (2.270.68 + 0.00677)*(π(1.67)2)(183.2- 87.8)

𝜃

𝑄 = 306.406 Btu / lb
𝜃

 getting LE (using QB)

LE = QB−QL x 100 QB

For painted pipe:

LE = 217.97−QL x 100
217.97

LE = 0.93609%
For silver-chrome painted pipe:
LE = 217.97−QL x 100
217.97

LE = 40.5727%
For 85% Magnesia insulated pipe:
LE = 217.97−QL x 100
217.97

LE = 65.4684%
 getting LE (using WB)
LE = WB−WL x 100
WB

For painted pipe:

LE = 556.67−WL x 100
556.67

LE = 0.8982%
For silver-chrome painted pipe:
LE = 556.67−WL x 100
 556.67

LE = 38.0243%
For 85% Magnesia insulated pipe:
LE = 556.67−WL x
100
556.67

LE = 31.4369%

Discussion
Several factors affect the heat loss in a system, these include the surface area of
the pipe, material in contact with the pipe and the type of material used. As observed from
the experiment, different pipes have different surface areas and temperature with different
materials used such as paint, silver-chrome paint and 85% insulation with Magnesia; thus,
yielding different lagging efficiency and different convection coefficient.

Piping insulation or lagging is essential for saving energy this is due to insulation
of your pipes stops most of the heat from leaking out as the water travels from the hot
water system to your water outlet; moreover, hot pipes are lagged for energy efficiency,
cold pipes are lagged to prevent the water freezing and bursting the pipe especially during
seasons where temperature is lowest. Thus, it is important to know the lagging efficiency
of pipes at a particular insulating material.

Evident differences in the lagging efficiencies were observed between the

computation using the heat loss and the steam condensate collected. This may be due
to the fact that the boiler used in the experiment isn’t constantly on. The thermocouple
used is defective at times, and mainly due to human errors.

Conclusion

In general, the thermal conductivity increases with the rise of temperature, as the
component heat transfer mechanisms increase, but the rate of increase and the final
value at any temperature will depend on the density and the quality of the material (or in
this case, paint) in the insulating material.
The convection coefficient hc at various temperatures from different surfaces are
as follows: 2.11972 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F for bare pipe, 2.4255 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F for painted pipe,
2.2707 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F for silver-chrome paint pipe, and 1.62058 BTU/hr ft2 ˚F.
And their lagging efficiency with respect to the heat loss from the bare pipe are as
follows: 0.93609% for painted pipe, 0 % for bare pipe, 40.5727% for silver-chrome painted
pipe, and 65.4684 % for 85% Magnesia insulated pipe; and with respect to the volume of
condensate of bare pipe, their lagging efficiencies are: 0.8982% for painted pipe, 0% for
bare pipe, 38.0343% for silver-chrome painted pipe, and 32. 4369% for 85% Magnesia
insulated pipe.