CHE382

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Experiment No. 4

Name: Caballero, Nadyah Ginice B. Course and Year: BSChE – III

Group: N/A Date: June 02, 2022

I. TITLE: HEAT LOSS IN BARE AND LAGGED PIPES

II. OBJECTIVES

 To determine the convection coefficient hc at various temperatures from different

surfaces:

a) Bare pipe

b) Pipe painted with Silver-chrome paint

c) Paint

d) 85% magnesia insulation

 To determine the lagging efficiency

III. THEORY

Heat is lost from the pipe, or other surfaces, to the room in two ways: 1) by

conduction through an air film, and then by convection in the bulk of the air; and 2) by

direct radiation to the cooler walks of the room.

 Conduction – In conduction, heat can be conducted through solids, liquids, and

gases. The heat is conducted by the transfer of the energy of motion between adjacent

molecules.

Convection – The transfer of heat by convection implies the transfer of heat by

bulk transport and mixing of macroscopic elements of warmer portions with cooler

portions of gas or liquids.

Radiation – Radiation differs from heat transfer by conduction and convection in

that no physical medium is needed for its propagation. Radiation is the transfer of energy

through space by means of electromagnetic waves in much the same way as

electromagnetic light waves transfer light.

The rate of heat loss from the surface may be expressed as:

𝑄
= (ℎ𝑐 + ℎ𝑟 )𝐴∆𝑇
𝜃

Therefore,

𝑄
(ℎ𝑐 + ℎ𝑟 ) = 𝜃
𝐴∆𝑇

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒:

𝑄 ⁄𝜃 = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑑, 𝐵𝑡𝑢⁄ℎ𝑟

ℎ𝑐 = 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝐵𝑡𝑢⁄ℎ𝑟. 𝑓𝑡 2 . °𝐹 )

ℎ𝑟 = 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝐵𝑡𝑢⁄ℎ𝑟. 𝑓𝑡 2 . °𝐹 )

𝐴 = 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝑓𝑡 2

∆𝑇 = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑖𝑟, °𝐹

 The quantity Q/θ is calculated from the quantity of steam condensate, the latent

heat of vaporization, and the time of the run. However, because the condensate leaves

the system at a pressure higher than atmospheric, some of it flashes, and the volume of

condensate collected is smaller than the amount of steam condensed. It is necessary,

therefore, to calculate the quantity of condensate lost through flashing; this is done by a

heat balance:

𝐻𝐼1 = 𝑋(𝐻𝐼2 ) + (1 − 𝑋)(𝐻𝑣2 )

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒:

𝐻𝐼1 = 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚, 𝐵𝑡𝑢⁄𝑙𝑏

𝐻𝐼2 = 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝐵𝑡𝑢⁄𝑙𝑏

𝐻𝑣2 = 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝐵𝑡𝑢⁄𝑙𝑏

𝑋 = 𝑙𝑏 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑏 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑑

The percent lagging efficiency is expressed as:

𝑞𝐵 − 𝑞𝐿
𝐿. 𝐸 = 𝑥 100
𝑞𝐵

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒:

𝑞𝐵 = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒

𝑞𝐿 = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒

Since the heat loss is proportional to the quantity of condensate collected, the

equation for lagging efficiency may be expressed as:

 𝑊𝐵 − 𝑊𝐿
𝐿. 𝐸 = 𝑋 100
𝑊𝐵

Where W B and W L are the quantities of condensate from the bare and lagged

pipes, respectively.

The convection coefficient hc can be evaluated from the equation:

ℎ𝑐 = 0.42(∆𝑇⁄𝐷)0.25

And the radiation coefficient hr can be calculated from the equation:

0.173𝑝 [(𝑇𝑠 ⁄100)4 − (𝑇𝑟 ⁄100)4 ]

ℎ𝑟 =
∆𝑇

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒:

𝑇2 = 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

𝑇𝑟 = 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

𝐷 = 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑃 = 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦

IV. EQUIPMENTS AND MATERIALS

The equipment and materials used for this experiment are: Boiler, Test pipes –

bare, paint, silver chrome paint, and 85 % magnesia insulation, Thermocouple, Beakers,

Graduated Cylinder and a Stopwatch.

V. PROCEDURE

1. The apparatus needed for the experiment was prepared, consisting of four, 10 ft.

lengths of 1-inch standard steel pipe, mounted on a framework of welded 2-inch

steel angles. A length is bare while the others are lagged with silver-chrome paint,

paint and 85% magnesia insulation.

2. Then, steam is introduced to the common header in which the flow is being

regulated using a reducing valve. A total of three runs were made with different

steam pressures, at 10 psig, 20 psig, and 30 psig.

3. The system was adjusted to the desired pressure then the cock under the header

was drained in order to remove water from the steam line and header.

4. Then, in order to eliminate the existing condensate from the pipes, the four plug-

type values were then opened. It was then closed until small amount of steam

escapes along the condensate.

5. As it reaches equilibrium, in which was determined by surface temperature

measurements reading using the thermocouple, the condensate from each pipe

over a timed interval of 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and 1 hour were recorded.

6. The temperature of the surface and the room was used in order to calculate for the

surface-film coefficients and the lagging efficiency.

VI. SKETCH

Figure 1. Sketch of the Experiment

VII. TABULATED DATA AND RESULTS

LENGTH OF PIPE
PIPE NO. 1 2 3 4
SILVER- 85% MAGNESIA
COVERING PAINT BARE PIPE
CHROME 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 (87.8 °F)
TEMPERATURE
TIME / RUN 15 minutes

Table 1. Summary of Data and Values in Heat Loss in Bare and Lagged Pipes

PIPE NO. 1 2 3 4
560 mL

600 mL

525 mL

560 mL

590 mL

520 mL

345 mL

360 mL

330 mL

345 mL

360 mL

435 mL
TRIAL

A 63 °C 67 °C 58 °C 54 °C
SURFACE TEMPERATURE

B 68 °C 66 °C 73 °C 53 °C
1st
C 55 °C 60 °C 70 °C 51 °C
D 58 °C 64 °C 73 °C 56 °C
A 70 °C 60 °C 76 °C 52 °C
B - 92 °C - -
2nd
C 68 °C 69 °C 90 °C 55 °C
D 90 °C 83 °C 106 °C 63 °C
A 83 °C 85 °C 96 °C 63 °C
B 72 °C 60 °C 97 °C 55 °C
3rd
C 75 °C 75 °C 91 °C 61 °C
D 85 °C 74 °C 94 °C 58 °C
71.55 °C 71.25 °C 84 °C 56.45 °C
AVERAGE TS
(160.79 °F) (160.25 °F) (183.2 °F) (133.61 °F)
VOLUME OF
561.67 mL 556.67 mL 345 mL 381.67 mL
CONDENSATE
Table 2. Continuation of Gathered Date for the Experiment
 PIPE NO. 1 2 3 4
SILVER- 85% MAGNESIA
COVERING PAINT BARE PIPE
CHROME PAINT INSULATION
CONVECTION
2.1237 2.1197 2.2707 1.6206
COEFFICIENT, hc
RADIATION
0.0137 0.0136 0.0068 0.0093
COEFFICIENT, hr
RATE OF HEAT
220.01 217.97 306.41 194.88
LOSS, Q/θ
LAGGING
EFFICIENCY 0.9360 0 40.5727 10.5937
(USING QB), L.E.

LAGGING
EFFICIENCY 0.8982 0 38.0243 31.4369
(USING WB), L.E.

Table 3. Tabulated Results of Heat Loss in Bare and Lagged Pipes

Calculations:
Calculating the quantity of condensate lost through flashing by heat balance:

1 atm = 14.7 psia

Ptot = 30 psig + 14.7 psia = 44.7 psia

From Steam Table @ 44.7 psia:

Btu Btu Btu
HL1 = 242.92 , HL2 = 179.56 , HV2 = 1149.76
lb lb lb
(1
HL1 = xHL2 + - x)HV2
Btu Btu Btu
242.92 = 179.56 x + (1 - x) (1149.76 )
lb lb lb
x = 0.9346938776
x ≈ 0.9347

Solving for Convection Coefficient, hc:

Pipe No. 1 (Paint)

0.25
0.25
ΔT 160.79 °F - 87.8 °F Btu
hc = 0.42 ( ) = 0.42 ( ) = 2.123656363
D 1 ft hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
1.34 in. (12 in)
Btu
hc ≈ 2.1237
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
 Pipe No. 2 (Bare Pipe)
0.25
ΔT 0.25 160.25 °F - 87.8 °F Btu
hc = 0.42 ( ) = 0.42 ( ) = 2.119717571
D 1ft hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
1.34 in. (12 in.)
Btu
hc ≈ 2.1197
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Pipe No. 3 (Silver-Chrome Paint)

0.25
ΔT 0.25 183.2 °F - 87.8 °F Btu
hc = 0.42 ( ) = 0.42 ( ) = 2.270677706
D 1 ft hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
1.34 in. ( )
12 in.
Btu
hc ≈ 2.2707
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Pipe No. 4 (85% Magnesia Insulation)

0.25
ΔT 0.25 133.61 °F - 87.8 °F Btu
hc = 0.42 ( ) = 0.42 ( ) = 1.620584776
D 1 ft hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
2.48 in. (12 in.)
Btu
hc ≈ 1.6206
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Solving for Radiation Coefficient, hr:

Pipe No. 1 (Paint)

TS 4
Tr 4
160.79 °F 4 87.8 °F 4
0.173ε [(100 ) - (100 ) ] 0.173(0.95) [( 100 ) - ( 100 ) ]
Btu
hr = = = 0.01371212
ΔT (160.79 °F - 87.8 °F) hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
Btu
hr ≈ 0.0137
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Pipe No. 2 (Bare Pipe)

TS 4
Tr 4
160.25 °F 4 87.8 °F 4
0.173ε [(100 ) - (100 ) ] 0.173(0.95) [( 100 ) - ( 100 ) ]
Btu
hr = = = 0.01361166
ΔT (160.25 °F - 87.8 °F) hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
Btu
hr ≈ 0.0136
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Pipe No. 3 (Silver-Chrome Paint)

TS 4
Tr 4
183.20 °F 4 87.8 °F 4
0.173ε [(100 ) - (100 ) ] 0.173(0.35) [( 100 ) - ( 100 ) ]
Btu
hr = = = 0.006772192
ΔT (183.20 °F - 87.8 °F) hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
 Btu
hr ≈ 0.0068
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Pipe No. 4 (85% Magnesia Insulation)

T 4
T 4
133.61 °F 4 87.8 °F 4
0.173ε [( S ) - ( r ) ] 0.173(0.95) [( ) -( ) ]
100 100 100 100 Btu
hr = = = 0.009301132
ΔT (133.61 °F - 87.8 °F) hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
Btu
hr ≈ 0.0093
hr∙ft 2 ∙°F

Solving for Rate of Heat Loss, Q/θ:

Pipe No. 1 (Paint)

Q
= (hc + hr )AΔT = (hc + hr )(πDL)(Ts - Tr )
θ
Btu Btu
Q (2.123656363 2
+ 0.01371212 2 ∙°F
) Btu
={ hr∙ft ∙°F hr∙ft } = 220.0099097
θ 1ft hr
[π(1.34 in.) ( ) (4.02 ft)] (160.79 °F - 87.8 °F)
12 in.
Q Btu
≈ 220.01
θ hr

Pipe No. 2 (Bare Pipe)

Q
= (hc + hr )AΔT = (hc + hr )(πDL)(Ts - Tr )
θ
Btu Btu
Q (2.119717571 2
+ 0.01361166 ) Btu
={ hr∙ft ∙°F hr∙ft 2 ∙°F
} = 217.9695121
θ 1ft hr
[π(1.34 in.) ( ) (4.02 ft)] (160.25 °F - 87.8 °F)
12 in.
Q Btu
≈ 217.97
θ hr

Pipe No. 3 (Silver-Chrome Paint)

Q
= (hc + hr )AΔT = (hc + hr )(πDL)(Ts - Tr )
θ
Btu Btu
Q (2.270677706 2
+ 0.006772192 2 ∙°F
) Btu
={ hr∙ft ∙°F hr∙ft } = 306.4055902
θ 1 ft hr
[π(1.34 in.) ( ) (4.02 ft)] (183.2 °F - 87.8 °F)
12 in.
Q Btu
≈ 306.41
θ hr
 Pipe No. 4 (85% Magnesia Insulation)
Q
= (hc + hr )AΔT = (hc + hr )(πDL)(Ts - Tr )
θ
Btu Btu
Q (1.620584776 + 0.009301132 )
={
2
hr∙ft ∙℉ hr∙ft 2 ∙°F } = 194.8784682 Btu
θ 1 ft hr
[π(2.48 in.) ( ) (4.02 ft)] (133.61 °F - 87.8 °F)
12 in.
Q Btu
≈ 194.88
θ hr

Solving for Lagging Efficiency using WB:

Pipe No. 1 (Paint)

|WB - WL | |556.67 - 561.67|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100% = 0.898198214%
WB 556.67
L.E. ≈ 0.8982%

Pipe No. 2 (Bare Pipe)

|WB - WL | |556.67 - 556.67|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100%
WB 556.67
L.E. = 0%

Pipe No. 3 (Silver-Chrome Paint)

|WB - WL | |556.67 - 345|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100% = 38.02432321%
WB 556.67
L.E. ≈ 38.0243%

Pipe No. 4 (85% Magnesia Insulation)

|WB - WL | |556.67 - 381.67|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100% = 31.4369375%
WB 556.67
L.E. ≈ 31.4369%

Solving for Lagging Efficiency using Heat Loss, QB:

Pipe No. 1 (Paint)
|Q B - Q L | |217.9695121 - 220.099097|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100% = 0.93609117%
QB 217.9695121
L.E. ≈ 0.9360%

Pipe No. 2 (Bare Pipe)

|Q B - Q L | |217.9695121 - 217.9695121|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100%
QB 217.9695121
L.E. = 0%
Pipe No. 3 (Silver-Chrome Paint)
|Q B - Q L | |217.9695121 - 306.4055902|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100% = 40.5726825%
QB 217.9695121
L.E. ≈ 40.5727%

Pipe No. 4 (85% Magnesia Insulation)

|Q B - Q L | |217.9695121 - 194.8784682|
L.E. = × 100% = × 100% = 10.59370353%
QB 217.9695121
L.E. ≈ 10.5937%

GRAPHED RESULTS

Rate of Heat Loss, Q/θ vs. Pipe Number

306.4055902
300

275
Rate of Heat Loss

250

225
220.0099097 217.9695121

200
194.8784682

175

150
0 1 2 3 4
Pipe Number

Graph 1. Rate of Heat Loss vs. Pipe Number

 Pipe No. 1
(Paint)
Pipe No. 3
(Silver-Chrome Paint)

Pipe No. 2
(Bare Pipe)

Pipe No. 4
(85% Magnesia Insulation)

Graph 2. Rate of Heat Loss vs. Lagging Efficiency using W B

Rate of Heat Loss, Q/θ vs. Lagging Efficiency using QB

300

275 Pipe No. 1

(Paint)
250 Pipe No. 3
Rate of Heat Loss

(Silver-Chrome Paint)
225

200
Pipe No. 2
175
( Bare Pipe) Pipe No. 4
(85% Magnesia Insulation)
150

125

100
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
Lagging Efficiency using QB

Graph 3. Rate of Heat Loss vs. Lagging Efficiency using QB

VIII. GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS

1. Describe the factors that affect the heat loss.

Heat loss may be affected due to the material conductivity, its temperature

difference between materials, the material thickness and the material surface. These can

affect heat loss as different materials have a greater or lesser resistance to heat transfer,

in which one can identify if the material is either a good insulator or a good conductor.

Specifically, in the industry, design engineers needs to consider areas that are prone to

heat loss as they heat their products. These common areas are uninsulated surfaces,

vertical or horizontal insulated surfaces, water surfaces, oil or paraffin surfaces and wind

velocity effects.

2. Comment on the results of the lagging efficiency.

Lagging is used in order to protect the insulation it covers and it is also applied

over insulated areas in order to present a true plane (a flat and even surface). Moreover,

the amount of heat given drops. Then the amount of heat produced increases which will

lead us to the conclusion that heat transfer equipment have less efficiency.
3. Comment on the probable sources of any errors in your results.

Probable sources of any errors in the results could be because of the incorrect

measurement of heat rate. Aditioanlly, not using the formulas given correctly could be

another source of errors.

IX. CONLUSION

By performing the experiment, the objectives of the experiment has been met as

the convection coefficient, hc at different temperatures, as well as from different surfaces

along with the lagging efficiency was determined. Additionally, the graph shows the

comparison of the rate to heat loss versus the pipe number, lagging efficiency using Wb

and the lagging efficiency using Qb.

X. RECOMMENDATIONS

Advanced equipment is advised to use for the experiment. This will lessen the

errors in obtaining the data for the experiment. Additionally, the external temperature must

be well examined when solving for the convection coefficient, radiation coefficient, heat

loss rate and lagging efficiency as the external temperature affects the variables

mentioned.
REFERENCES:

H. (2021, August 12). What factors affect heat loss? HomeX. Retrieved June 2, 2022,

from https://homex.com/ask/what-factors-affect-heat-loss

Heat loss factors | watlow. (n.d.). Watlow. Retrieved June 2, 2022, from

https://www.watlow.com/blog/posts/heat-loss-factors

P. (2012, November 27). Insulation and lagging fundamentals. POWER Magazine.

Retrieved June 2, 2022, from https://www.powermag.com/insulation-and-lagging-

fundamentals/