Category Archives: Global

The central building blocks of any new or existing steam-generating, fossil-fired boiler are the boiler island’s high-temperature systems. All high-temperature systems found at steam-generating facilities require insulation (and lagging) applications that, at minimum, keep the surface temperature at or below the boiler or equipment manufacturers’ designed heat loss (usually around 120-140°F). The insulation and lagging (and jacketing) systems for these high-temperature applications also must be designed to help keep installation costs down.

A high-temperature system is defined as any system operating above 350°F. For the power-generating industry, that would encompass the steam-generating boiler walls, penthouse or vestibule enclosure, economizer casing, wind box, secondary and primary air ducts, gas outlet flue to the air heater, air heaters (recuperative and regenerative), dust collectors, gas re-circulating flue, pulverizers, and air-pollution equipment installed before the air  heater-such as selective catalytic reducers, non-catalytic reducers, scrubbers, and precipitators. Piping systems also can be considered part of high-temperature applications such as downcomers, steam leads, soot blower piping, supplies, and feed water pipes. For the power-generating industry, high-temperature applications amount to about 70 percent of the insulated area at any given power plant. Here are some typical examples.

Example 1

A typical 100-150 megawatt tangent tube design is usually covered on the outside of the boiler and furnace tube walls with 3″- or 4″-thick mineral wool-type board insulation and an outer aluminum lagging material. This type of steam-generating boiler has approximately 17,000 square feet of mineral wool board insulation meeting ASTM C612 type IVB and outer lagging on the boiler walls; 1,000 square feet of hard block type (calcium silicate type meeting ASTM C533), usually used on the penthouse (top of boiler)
roof and steam drum; and 1,000 linear feet of boiler-proper piping covered with either calcium silicate or mineral wool pipe cover insulation and jacketing (see typical piping systems and temperatures below).

  • Drum and Pressure Parts    575°F
  • Econ Inlet Header and Piping       462°F
  • Econ Outlet Header and Piping     577°F
  • Reheat Super Heater Outlet    1,005°F
  • Reheat Super Heater Inlet    690°F
  • Secondary Super Heater Inlet Header     710°F
  • Secondary Super Heater Outlet Pipe    1,005°F
  • Primary Super Heater Outlet Pipe     1,005°F
  • Primary Super Heater Inlet Pipe    700°F

Example 2

A typical radiant-type boiler (500-600 megawatt) with a steam output of 3,700,000 pounds of steam per hour and a membrane tube wall construction is usually covered on the outside of the boiler and furnace tube walls with 4″-thick mineral wool-type board insulation and an outer aluminum lagging material. This type of steam-generating boiler has approximately 45,000 square feet of insulation meeting ASTM C612 type IVB and outer lagging on the boiler walls; 50,000 square feet of flues, ducts, and equipment with insulation meeting ASTM C612 type IVB; 4,000 square feet of block insulation on the penthouse roof (top of boiler) meeting ASTM C533 or ASTM C612 type V; and 3,500 linear feet of boiler-proper piping covered with either calcium silicate or mineral wool pipe cover insulation and jacketing (see typical piping systems and temperatures below).

  • Econ Inlet Header and Piping    629°F
  • Econ Outlet Header and Econ Discharge Piping     629°F
  • Furnace Downcomer, Bottle, and Supply Tubes    629°F
  • Primary Super Heater Inlet    650°F
  • Primary Super Heater Outlet    800°F
  • Secondary Super Heater Inlet    800°F
  • Secondary Super Heater Outlet    1,015°F
  • Soot Blower Piping    800°F

Example 3

A typical universal pressure-type boiler (1,300 megawatt) with a steam output of 4,400,000 pounds of steam per hour with a membrane tube wall construction is usually covered on the outside of the boiler and furnace tube walls with 4½”- or 5″-thick mineral wool-type board insulation and an outer aluminum lagging material. This type of steam-generating boiler has approximately 100,000 square feet of insulation meeting ASTM C612 type IVB and outer lagging on the boiler walls;150,000 square feet of flues, ducts, and equipment with insulation meeting ASTM C612 type IVB; 9,000 square feet of block insulation on the penthouse roof (top of boiler) meeting ASTM C533 or ASTM C612 type V; and 14,000 linear feet of boiler-proper piping, covered with either calcium silicate or mineral wool pipe cover insulation and jacketing (see typical piping systems and temperatures below).

  • Econ Inlet Header and Piping    637°F
  • Econ Outlet Header and Econ Discharge Piping    637°F
  • Furnace Downcomer, Bottle, and Supply Tubes    637°F
  • Platen Super Heater Inlet    907°F
  • Platen Super Heatet Outlet    1,006°F
  • Secondary SuperHeater Inlet    981°F
  • Secondary Super Heater Outlet    1,115°F
  • Final Reheat Super Heater Inlet    1,026°F
  • Final Reheat Super Heater Outlet    1,126°F
  • Primary Reheat Super Heater Inlet    705°F
  • Primary Reheat Super Heater Outlet    1,026°F
  • Primary Super Heater Inlet    794°F
  • Primary Super Heater Outlet    929°F
  • Pump Recirculation and Piping    637°F
  • Vertical Steam Separator and Piping      900°F
  • Arch Outlet Header    831°F
  • Spiral Transition     772°F
  • H2O Collection Tank and Piping    637°F
  • Dilution Air Skid and Header    100°F
  • BLR and FNC SB Piping PSH to PRV Station    902°F
  • BLR and FNC SB Piping PRV Station to Soot Blowers      782°F
  • AH SB Piping Platen Outlet HDR to PRV Station    983°F
  • AH SB Piping PRV Station to Soot Blowers    903°F
  • SH Attemperator Piping    637°F
  • RH Attemperator Piping    533°F

Boiler Design

In the steam-generating industry, it is important to understand high-temperature systems and how to improve insulation practices within the boiler island area. The power industry requires smarter and more economical insulation designs on the steam-generating boiler walls-especially when considering the rising cost and reduced availability of qualified field labor. The potential cost savings with improved insulation practices is small compared to the total plant cost, but every dollar saved is important. It is up to everyone working within the steam-generating industry to find ways to cut cost without reducing boiler efficiency. This section describes one way to reduce labor cost.

Today, the power industry accepts the assertion that a double-layer application in lieu of one single layer of insulation on membrane boiler walls creates a better insulation system. In the past, that assumption was not always the case. Single-layer application on membrane boiler walls was a common practice within the power industry for many years. In fact, almost every boiler built in the United States between 1968 and the mid 1980s, regardless of manufacturer, specified single-layer application as the boiler wall insulation standard, unless the thickness required by operating and surface temperatures was greater than 4″. Double-layer application during that time was typically specified only when it was a special requirement by the end user, or the insulation material was not available in a single layer from the insulation manufacture.

All boiler original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) specified and documented the insulation thickness and material requirements on their steam-generating boilers. Each has developed company standards for the type of insulation and the acceptable application procedures for installing the insulation. These standards and application procedures are provided with each boiler sold, whether the insulation is in the OEM’s scope of supply or not. This practice is still true today.

It is interesting to note that the decision to use a single or double layer of insulation during the construction of the boiler is not tied to the boiler performance warranties. It does not matter if a single or double layer of insulation is specified. The total thickness is what governs insulation performance. The decision to specify a single layer over double layers was strictly an economic decision made by the OEM.

Single-thickness insulation has a long and successful history in the power-generation industry. During the period from 1964 (starting with the membrane tube wall construction) to 1990, one particular boiler manufacturer built and sold over 250 radiant power boilers, 150 universal pressure boilers, 200 industrial boilers, and 100 process/Kraft recovery boilers. All of these boilers were designed and constructed with a single layer of mineral wool board on the boiler walls, with 4 inches of insulation and a cold surface temperature of 130°F. Significantly, the OEM has not reported any problems meeting boiler performance caused by using a single layer of insulation on all of these units.

Costly Changes

In the mid-1990s, several OEMs and purchasers changed their insulation standard to require a double layer of insulation with the same overall thickness on their boiler walls. The reasons behind this specification change remain unclear to those of us who design and specify insulation systems for a living. If this change has its roots as an energy-saving decision, then one layer will perform as well as two layers at the same overall thickness, assuming the insulation is installed correctly.

Some argue that a double-layer application is better than single layer because it eliminates gaps between the individual insulation pieces and reduces the chances for hot spots on the outer lagging or casing surface. This is a labor supervision issue and not a design specification issue. Every OEM installation standard clearly states that gaps between boards or blankets are not acceptable, regardless of how many layers of insulation are installed. These standards require that all insulation be tightly butted against each other, and any gaps between insulation must be filled with appropriate insulating cement before the outer lagging or casing is installed. These standards are independent of whether the insulation is applied in a single or double layer.

Field inspections have shown that using a double layer of insulation has several drawbacks. First, the cost to use double-layer versus single-layer insulation on boiler walls increases the cost of materials (insulation and additional fasteners) and labor. For example, a boiler with 100,000 square feet of water wall surface covered with a 4″-thick double-layer mineral wool board meeting ASTM C612 type IVB, instead of a single board of the same thickness, raises the cost to build that boiler by approximately $200,000 and does not increase boiler efficiency or prevent any additional heat loss.

Secondly, going to a double layer often increases the number of gaps and can increase the incidence of improper insulation application. This situation takes place when the first
layer of insulation is installed in a shoddy manner, followed by a second layer that hides the poor craftsmanship. Unfortunately, this occurs all too frequently. Only good supervision will prevent this situation from becoming an epidemic on a job site.

Final Thoughts

High-temperature systems are found at every steam-generating facility. They require and demand thermally and energy-efficient insulation systems. The late J.P. Malloy, author of “Thermal Insulation,” noted something in 1969 that still holds true today: “Insulation installed to save energy also saves money at the rate that is essential for efficient plant operation.” A better understanding of your high-temperature systems and their required insulation designs, applications, and thicknesses will inevitably help save you money and avoid future installation problems that could potentially haunt your project for years to come.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16

As a part of efforts by the Department of Energy’s
Advanced Manufacturing Office to improve the energy efficiency of the U.S.
industrial and commercial sectors, the National Insulation Association (NIA)
and its alliance partners worked together to design, implement, and execute the
Mechanical Insulation Education & Awareness Campaign (MIC).

MIC is a program to increase
awareness of the energy efficiency, emission reduction, economic stimulus, and
other benefits of mechanical insulation in the industrial and commercial
markets. An integral component was the development of a series of “Simple
Calculators.” The calculators provide the user instantaneous information on a
variety of mechanical insulation applications in the industrial, manufacturing,
and commercial markets. Topics include:


  • Condensation Control for Horizontal Pipe
  • Energy Loss, Emission Reduction, Surface
    Temperature, and Annual Return (two calculators:
    one for Equipment, and one for Piping)
  • Financial Returns/Considerations
  • Estimate Time to Freezing for Water in an
    Insulated Pipe
  • Personnel Protection for Horizontal Piping
  • Temperature Drop for Air in an Insulated Duct
    or Fluid in an Insulated Pipe

The calculators are online at
the National Institute of Building Sciences’ Mechanical Insulation Design Guide
(MIDG) website, www.wbdg.org/midg, and can be accessed from the NIA
website, www.insulation.org. They are fast, free, and functional tools
that make it easy to discover energy savings, financial returns, as well as
other information used in the design of mechanical insulation systems for
above- or below-ambient applications.

This article, including text excerpted from the MIDG website, provides
an overview and guide to use of the calculators for energy and condensation
control for horizontal piping.

Energy Calculator for Horizontal Piping

As an aid to understanding the relationships
between energy, economics, and emissions for insulated systems for horizontal
pipe applications, a simple spreadsheet calculator was developed. A similar
calculator for equipment, vertical flat surfaces, also was developed.

The algorithms used in the
energy calculators are based on the calculation methodologies outlined in ASTM C680-10 – Standard Practice for Estimate of the
Heat Gain or Loss and the Surface Temperatures of Insulated Flat, Cylindrical,
and Spherical Systems by Use of Computer Programs.

The pipe calculator estimates
the heat flows through horizontal piping assuming one-dimensional, steady-state
heat transfer. Information concerning a hypothetical insulation system (e.g.,
the length of run, pipe size, operating temperature, ambient temperature and
wind speed, insulation material, and surface emittance of a proposed insulation
system) may be input by the user. Calculated results are displayed for a range
of insulation types and thicknesses, and include surface temperature, heat
flow, annual cost of fuel, installed cost, payback period, annualized rate of
return, and annual CO2 emissions.

Other geometries and more
complex insulation systems may be analyzed using publicly available software
such as the 3E Plus® Insulation Thickness Computer Program. 3E Plus
was developed by the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and is
available at www.pipeinsulation.org.

The Energy Calculator for Horizontal Piping requires “Input Information” for thirteen variables (see
Figure 1).
Results are updated as each
input variable is entered. Below are instructions and additional information
for each input variable. Sample inputs appear in a box, after each instruction.


  • Line 1. Enter the length of the piping run in linear feet    1

    The default value
    is 1 linear foot, but you may enter any length of piping run. The initial
    “Results” section contains installed cost for the default footage (1 linear
    foot) for the nominal pipe size and material selected in lines 2 and 6,
    respectively. You may find it helpful to review the cost information for 1
    linear foot before completing line 1 and line 7, the cost multiplier.

  • Line 2. Select Nominal Pipe Size, NPS    3

    The default value
    is an NPS of 3″. Using the drop-down box, however, you can select any pipe size
    from 0.5″ to 14″. Above 14″, we suggest you refer to the 3E Plus program or
    take another approach.

  • Line 3. Enter average operating (process) temperature for the period of
    operation    350

    Enter the average
    below- or above-ambient operating temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

  • Line 4. Enter average ambient temperature for the period of operation   
     75

    Enter the average
    ambient temperature in °F

  • Line 5. Enter average wind speed for the period of operation (if
    unknown, use 1 miles per hour for indoor, 8 mph for outdoor)    8

    Enter the average
    wind speed in mph. If unknown, it is suggested you use 1 mph for indoor and 8
    mph for outdoor applications.

  • Line 6. Select an insulation material. Note: Calculator does not screen
    for material temperature limitations-Use caution.  Mineral Wool (0°F to
    1,200°F)

    The default material is
    mineral wool; however, you may use the drop-down box to select one of six insulation
    materials:


    • Calcium Silicate (80°F to 1,200°F)
    • Cellular Glass (-450°F to 800°F)
    • Elastomeric (297°F to 220°F)
    • Fiberglass (0°F to 850°F)
    • Mineral Wool (0°F to 1,200°F)
    • Polyisocyanurate (297°F to 300°F)

    You
    will note that each of the material options contains a general operating
    temperature range.

    Should you
    wish to use a material that is not listed, you will need to refer to the 3E
    Plus program. The simple calculators do not have the capability of utilizing
    user-supplied thermal curves. Thermal conductivity values for the listed
    materials are based on ASTM material specification values.

  • Line 7. Enter a cost multiplier to modify the default installed costs
    (e.g., enter 1.10 to increase costs 10%)    1.00

    As noted under line
    1, the calculator contains default costs for each type of material and pipe
    size. If you enter 1 linear foot in line 1, select the size pipe in line 2, and
    the insulation material in line 6, you can review the default cost for a linear
    foot for various insulation thicknesses in the “Results” section. If “NA”
    appears for a given insulation thickness, that indicates that the thickness is
    normally not available for the selected material. You can adjust the cost up or
    down by simply modifying the multiplier. Enter 1.10 if your cost is 10% higher.
    Enter .80 if your cost is 20% lower.

    The installed
    costs were developed from industry sources and represent single-layer
    installations. They include aluminum jacketing, but do not include vapor
    retarders or vapor sealing. They may be viewed as higher than actual, but that
    view will vary greatly depending upon labor cost, operating conditions,
    insulation system, and a variety of other factors. Understanding that those
    variances exist is the reason the multiplier approach was selected.

  • Line 8. Enter the effective emittance of the exterior surface (see
    MIDG>Design Data>Table 1 for guidance)    0.10-Aluminum, oxided, in
    service

    A definition of emittance
    is often requested. Technically, emittance is defined as the ratio of the
    radiant flux emitted by a specimen to that emitted by a blackbody at the same
    temperature and under the same conditions. In simpler terms: the darker the
    surface, the more radiant heat is absorbed. The default value is 0.10, which
    represents aluminum that has oxided in service. However, using the drop-down
    box, you can select the typical emittance value for eleven of the commonly used
    insulation jacket finishes.

  • Line 9. Enter the expected life of the insulation system in years    20.0

    This value is the
    economic life used for financial return calculations. The default value is 20
    years. You can enter any number of years.

  • Line 10. Enter the number of hours per year of system operation (e.g.,
    8,760 for full year operation)     8320  

    Some systems may
    not operate 24/7/365. You can input the estimated number of operational hours
    anticipated.

  • Line 11. Enter the conversion efficiency of the system in percent    80

    If you do not know the
    conversion efficiency for the energy source, you can use the following typical
    conversion efficiencies for various systems:


    • Fossil Fuel Boilers (Non-condensing)     65-85%
    • Fossil Fuel Boilers (Condensing)    80-95%
    • Electric Resistance Boilers    92-96%
    • Electrically Operated Chillers    300-700%
    • Absorption Chillers    60-100%


  • Line 12. Select the fuel used    Natural Gas

    Using the drop-down box, you can select one of
    five types of fuel: Natural Gas, Oil, Propane, Coal, or Electricity.

  • Line 13. Enter cost of fuel if known or use default value    8.00

    A typical default
    cost for each of the fuel types is provided ($/Mcf). You have the option of
    simply entering your actual cost, if known, or accepting the default cost.

Based upon the input
information you entered, the “Results” section provides detailed information
for various insulation thicknesses. An example using the default values for all
input variables is shown in Figure 2 on page 27.

Condensation Control Calculator-Horizontal Pipe

This calculator estimates the thickness of
insulation required to avoid condensation on the outer surface of an insulated
horizontal steel pipe. Input data includes the operating temperature, the
ambient conditions (temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed), and
details about the insulation system (material and jacketing).

The insulation materials included in this calculator were selected to be
representative of some of the materials commonly used in the industry. The list
is not exhaustive, and other materials are available. Also note that some
materials are not available in all of the sizes and thicknesses covered by
these calculators, and some are available in sizes and thicknesses not listed.
Thermal conductivity data for the materials included in the calculator were
taken from the appropriate ASTM material specification. Figure 3 identifies the
ASTM specification and the material type and/or grade used in the calculator.

The calculator requires “Input
Information” for seven variables. Here are instructions for each data field and
additional information for each. As before, sample inputs appear in a box after
each step.


  • Line 1. Select Pipe Size, NPS     4

    The default value is an NPS of 4″, but by using
    the drop-down box, you can select any pipe size from 0.5″ to 24″.

  • Line 2. Enter average operating (process) temperature, °F    40  

    The default value
    is 40°F, but other values may be entered.

  • Line 3. Enter average temperature of the air surrounding the pipe    80 

    The default value
    is 80°F; however, you should enter the average surrounding or ambient operating
    temperature, in Fahrenheit, for the area in question. 

  • Line 4. Enter relative humidity of
    the ambient air    80 

    The default value
    is 80%. You should enter the specific design relative humidity for your
    application, however. From a design perspective, it is better to use a
    reasonably higher-than-average or worst-case value.

  • Line 5. Enter the wind speed of the ambient air (if unknown, use 0 mph
    for worst-case conditions)      0  

    As noted, when in
    doubt, use 0 mph, which represents the worst-case conditions.

  • Line 6. Select an insulation material    Cellular Glass  

    You may use the drop-down box to select one of
    seven insulation materials: Cellular Glass, Elastomeric, Fiberglass, Mineral
    Wool, Polyethylene, Polyisocyanurate, or Polystyrene. Should you wish to use a
    different material than one of the ones listed, you will need to refer to the
    3E Plus program. Thermal conductivity values for the listed materials are based
    on ASTM material specification values.

  • Line 7. Select the effective emittance of the exterior surface    0.90-All
    Service Jacket

    As with the energy
    calculator for horizontal piping, a definition of emittance is often requested.
    In simple terms, the darker the surface, the more radiant heat is absorbed. The
    default value is 0.90, which represents All Service Jacket; however, using the
    drop-down box, you can select the typical emittance value for eleven commonly
    used insulation jacket finishes.

The “Results” section
highlights the thickness of insulation required to avoid condensation on the
outer surface of the insulation jacket. This thickness yields an average
surface temperature that is greater than the dew-point temperature plus a
safety factor of ¾°F. It should be noted that for some high-humidity
conditions, regardless of the insulation type or thickness, it is impossible to
avoid condensation on the outer surface. An example using the default values for
all input variables is shown in Figure 4.

Summary

The Simple Calculators are intended to provide the
user with online, at-your-fingertips, snapshot information to help answer some
the most frequently asked questions about benefits and design considerations of
mechanical insulation systems. They do not address every insulation material or
application conditions-thus the phrase, Simple Calculators. Other insulation
systems and more complex applications may be analyzed using the 3E Plus
program.

Whether you need basic
insulation information or are designing a complex insulation system, the MIDG (www.wbdg.org/design/midg.php)
is the best resource for the novice or the experienced user alike, with
everything you need to know about the design, selection, specification,
installation, and maintenance of mechanical insulation. The MIDG is continually
updated and always has the most current and complete information, including the
Simple Calculators. These tools can be very helpful in designing a mechanical
insulation system, allowing the user to easily determine the many benefits and
value of mechanical insulation.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Calcium Silicate

Calcium Silicate thermal
insulation is defined by ASTM as insulation composed principally of hydrous
calcium silicate, and which usually contains reinforcing fibers.

Calcium Silicate Block
and Pipe Insulation are covered in ASTM C533. The standard contains three
types, classified primarily by maximum-use temperature and density.

The standard limits
the operating temperature between 80° and 1,700°F.

Calcium Silicate
Insulation Products

Calcium Silicate pipe
insulation is supplied as hollow cylinder shapes, split in half lengthwise, or
as curved segments. Pipe insulation sections typically are supplied in lengths
of 36″ and are available in sizes to fit most standard pipe sizes. Available
thicknesses range from 1″ to 3″ (in one layer). Thicker insulation is supplied
as nested sections.

Calcium Silicate
block insulation is supplied as flat sections in lengths of 36″; widths of 6″,
12″, and 18″; and thickness from 1″ to 4″. Grooved block is available for
fitting block to large-diameter curved surfaces.

Special shapes, such
as valve or fitting insulation, can be fabricated from standard sections.

Calcium Silicate is
normally finished with a metal or fabric jacket for appearance and weather
protection.

The specified
maximum thermal conductivity for Type I is 0.41 Btu-in/(h?ft²?°F) at a mean
temperature of 100°F. The specified maximum thermal conductivity for Types IA
and Type II is 0.50 Btu-in/(h?ft²?°F) at a mean temperature of 100°F.

The standard also
contains requirements for flexural (bending) strength, compressive strength,
linear shrinkage, surface-burning characteristics, and maximum moisture content
as shipped.

Typical applications
include piping and equipment operating at temperatures above 250°F, tanks,
vessels, heat exchangers, steam piping, valve and fitting insulation,
boilers, vents, and exhaust ducts.

Figure 1
Figure 2

This article is a follow-up to the piece that appeared in the
November issue of Insulation Outlook.

The U.S. national elections appeared to have the
expected, definitive effect on the high-profile Industrial Boiler Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulation. As discussed in November’s
article, the regulation’s two subparts have undergone many changes and much
scrutiny over the past few years. Such controversy delayed the passing of a
definitive standard and placed many industrial, commercial, and institutional
facilities in a considerable amount of confusion.  This article will clearly
outline the changes, updates, and final adjustments to the Major and Area
Source Boiler MACT standards.

On December 20, 2012, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed the particulars for the Clean
Air Act Boiler MACT standards originally published in March 2011.  Throughout
2011 and 2012, the EPA released extensive revisions to the specific National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The standards are
divided between 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart JJJJJJ for affected area sources (sources
emitting fewer than 10 and/or 25 tons per year [tpy] of single HAPs and/or
total HAPS, respectively) and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart DDDDD for major sources
(sources emitting greater than 10 and/or 25 tpy of single HAPs and/or total
HAPS, respectively), as defined by the respective air permits of the facilities.
All of the final adjustments consider facility concerns and employ new
information.  Both subparts still work toward preserving public health by
mitigating toxic air pollution while achieving more flexibility for facilities.

The current Boiler MACT standards
divide facilities’ boilers into subcategories defined by boiler type, capacity,
and fuel type. Based on this information, a source must meet emission limits,
work practice standards (including tune-ups and energy assessments), and
operating limits; and/or demonstrate initial/regular compliance. The facility’s
designation as new or existing also will determine if it is subject to the
varying work practice standards and requirements. Below are some critical facts
regarding the final adjustments to the Boiler MACT standards published on
December 20, 2012, including how they may apply, and what impact they could
have, for your facility.

Area Source Requirements

40 CFR Part 63 Subpart JJJJJJ affects facilities
with the potential to emit fewer than 10 tpy of any single HAP and/or fewer
than 25 tpy of combined HAPs affecting sources with boilers defined as
existing, new, or reconstructed. A majority of the boilers affected by this
standard are in the commercial and institutional sectors. It is anticipated that
the final adjustments to the standard will provide relief to some of the
facilities fearful of meeting regulatory requirements and deadlines.

The health benefits have been
researched and examined methodically by the EPA. Approximate
standard-associated reduced exposure to fine particles has a health benefit
value of $210 million to $520 million by the year 2015. The EPA estimates that
the cost for the final standard, incorporating the cost expected to be incurred
by industry, will be roughly $490 million per year.  The final modifications
will not raise the standards’ costs but are intended to ultimately decrease the
burden on smaller facilities with boilers.

Only a small fraction of the
boilers currently operating will be affected by the final adjustments made by
this subpart. Based on the final adjustments, 1.3 million of the 1.5 million
boilers at area sources will not be subject because they run on natural gas. Of
the remaining 183,000 boilers, 182,400 require only regular tune-ups and
possibly a one-time energy assessment. The remaining 1 percent of boilers at
area sources will be obliged to meet the more rigorous emissions limits. These
boilers are chiefly coal burning. Due to how little these sources emit, the EPA
is continuing to require work practice/management practice standards, which
include tune-ups for more than 99 percent of area source boilers covered by the
final standards. Less than 1 percent of area source boilers will need to meet
numerical emission limits.

Some of the changes from the
March 2011 regulation that have been made to the final standards will please
both the agencies and the affected sources. A point-by-point list of the
critical changes to the standards as supplied by the EPA in its Technical Fact
Sheet is available at  www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/docs/20121221_boilers_area_recon_fs.pdf,
summarized below.



  • Extending by 2 years the initial compliance date for existing area
    source boilers subject to the tune-up requirement. Now, existing area source
    boilers will have until March 21, 2014 to comply with these standards. If
    necessary, they may request an additional year.  This provides facilities with
    2 additional years to meet the requirements.

  • Revising the deadline for initial notification for existing area source
    boilers to no later than January 20, 2014.

  • Revising provisions for existing dual-fuel fired units that fuel switch
    from gas to coal, biomass, or oil, such that they still would be considered
    existing sources.

  • Providing subcategories for seasonally operated boilers and limited-use
    boilers.

  • Requiring tune-ups every 5 years, instead of every 2 years, for certain
    area source boilers: seasonally operated units, limited-use units, small
    oil-fired units, and units with oxygen trim systems.

  • Clarifying that temporary boilers and residential boilers are not part
    of the source categories being regulated.

  • Revising particulate matter (PM) emission limit requirements such that
    combustion of oil meeting certain sulfur content requirements by new oil-fired
    boilers is considered an alternative method of meeting the PM emission
    standard, and such units are not required to meet the PM emission limit.

  • Reducing the fuel sampling and performance testing requirements such
    that after demonstration of initial compliance, under certain circumstances,
    further fuel sampling for boilers subject to a mercury emission limit, and
    further PM performance testing for boilers subject to a PM emission limit, are
    not required.

  • Providing the option of continuous emissions monitoring to demonstrate
    continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit.

  • Defining more clearly the scope of the energy assessment and allowing
    for more streamlined assessments, including allowing sources already operating
    under certain energy management programs to satisfy the assessment requirement.

Final adjustments to the rule
have taken many factors into consideration, including concerns raised by the
sources. These rules have made the breakdown of subjectivity more complex than
in the March 2011 standard. To best understand what work practice standards
your facility is subject to, review figures 1 and 2, which provide a basic
overview of what needs to be completed to meet the area source standard for
boilers under the final adjustments. Please note several changes from the
tables published previously.

The final rule for area source
boilers is available on the EPA website.

Major Source Requirements

40 CFR Part 63 Subpart DDDDD affects facilities
with the potential to emit greater than or equal to 10 tpy of any single HAP,
and/or greater than or equal to 25 tpy of combined HAPs. This rule includes
boilers and process heaters burning natural gas, fuel oil, coal, biomass (e.g.,
wood), refinery gas, or other gas to produce steam. Unlike Subpart JJJJJJ,
Subpart DDDDD also includes natural gas/propane/clean fuel boilers. These
requirements contain subcategories with very specific requirements.

Similar to the March 2011 rule, of the roughly 14,000 major source
boilers and process heaters in the United States, 88 percent are required to
conduct annual or biennial tune-ups, and 12 percent are required to meet
emission standards if those standards are not already met. The final adjusted
standards will be considered effective upon their publication in the Federal
Register. As with the area source requirements, existing sources will have 3
years from the publication date to comply with the revised standards. If
needed, an additional year can be requested.

For the major source standard, the annual cost, including industry
costs, to implement the standards is estimated to be between $1.4 and $1.6
billion. Overall, though, the costs to comply per boiler are anticipated to
drop from those associated with the March 2011 standards. This is due to
alterations made to emission limits based on research, which include less
strict obligations for the control of particle pollution on biomass units.
Figure 1 from the EPA standard provides extensive summary costs and benefits
associated with the Major Source Boiler MACT reconsideration for 2015.

Here is a point-by-point list
of the critical changes to the initial March 2011 standards as supplied by the
EPA in its Technical Fact Sheet:


  • Adding new subcategories for light and heavy industrial liquids to
    reflect design differences in the boilers that burn these fuels. 
  • Adding new emission limits for PM that are different for each biomass
    fuel subcategory, to better reflect emissions during real-world operating
    conditions. 
  • Adding new emission limits for CO based on newly submitted data that
    shows CO emissions from boilers vary greatly. The EPA is setting new limits to
    more adequately capture that variability.
  • Allowing alternative total selective metals emission limits to regulate
    metallic air toxins instead of using a PM as a surrogate, thus allowing more
    flexibility and decreasing compliance costs for units that emit low levels of
    HAP metals.
  • Replacing numeric dioxin emission limits with work practice standards to
    reflect a more robust analysis that shows dioxin emissions are below levels
    that can be accurately measured.
  • Increasing flexibility in compliance monitoring by adding alternative
    monitoring approaches for demonstrating continuous compliance with the PM
    limit.
  • Adjusting PM and CO emission limits for units located outside the
    Continental United States, to reflect new data and better reflect the unique
    operating conditions associated with operating these units.
  • Continuing to allow units burning clean gases to qualify for work
    practice standards instead of numeric emission limits. The EPA is removing the
    hydrogen sulfide (H2S) fuel specification from the rule because it
    does not provide a direct indication of potential HAP from combustion of
    gaseous fuel. Instead, mercury content alone is used to determine clean gas.

To best understand what
standards your major source facility may be subject to, review the major source
standard for boilers under the final adjustments. Again, please note several
changes from the tables published previously. There also are many nuanced
variations based on fuel type and limit specifics that are not included on the
table. The one major change to this subpart is that new boilers are no longer
subject to a one-time energy assessment. All existing boilers and process
heaters at a major source facility, however, still must conduct a one-time
energy assessment for compliance. Please review the actual regulation for
specifics (see www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/docs/20121221_boilers_major.pdf).

There are many intricacies to
these regulations, and the final adjustments-particularly for the major source
standard-are far too detailed to examine here. Further reading is recommended.

Sources
for Further Reading:

Figure 1
Figure 2

The Mechanical Insulation Design Guide (MIDG) contains extensive information on mechanical insulation materials and their properties, as well as design information. Based on excerpts from the MIDG, here is an overview of design objectives and considerations that should be taken into account for each insulation system.

Most engineers, architects, and end users are familiar with the use of insulation to reduce heating and cooling loads, and to control noise in building envelopes. Insulations used for pipes, ducts, tanks, and equipment are not as familiar; and the installed cost of these materials is usually a small part of the total cost of a project. As a result, mechanical insulation is often overlooked, undervalued, or improperly specified and maintained in commercial and industrial construction projects.

Mechanical insulation is used primarily to limit heat gain or loss from surfaces operating at temperatures above or below ambient temperature. It may be used to satisfy one or more of the following design objectives (answering the question: why insulate?).

  • Condensation control: minimizing condensation and the potential for mold growth by keeping surface temperature above the dew point of the surrounding air
  • Energy conservation: minimizing unwanted heat loss/gain from systems. There are three primary reasons to conserve energy
  • Energy: minimize the use of scarce natural resources
  • Economics: minimize return on investment (ROI) and minimize life-cycle cost
  • Environment: minimize emissions associated with projects’ energy usage
  • Fire safety: protecting critical building elements and slowing the spread of fire in buildings
  • Freeze protection: minimizing energy required for heat tracing systems and/or extending the time to freezing in the event of system failure
  • Personnel protection: controlling surface temperatures to avoid contact burns (hot or cold)
  • Process control: minimizing temperature change in processes where close control is needed
  • Noise control: reducing/controlling noise in mechanical systems

In addition to these objectives, a number of design considerations may require attention when designing a mechanical insulation system.

  • Abuse resistance
  • Corrosion under insulation
  • Indoor air quality
  • Maintainability
  • Regulatory considerations
  • Service and location
  • Service life

Designing insulation systems can be complicated, as they are intended to satisfy a number of design objectives and in some projects, must satisfy multiple design objectives simultaneously. For example, the objective may be to provide the economic thickness of insulation and avoid surface condensation on a chilled water line. The chilled water line may pass through various spaces within the project. Those various spaces may have differing temperature and humidity conditions, so it is likely that different insulation materials, thicknesses, and coverings may be required for a single line. Since projects may involve many lines operating at various service temperatures in various environmental conditions, it is clear that a systematic approach is required for all but the simplest projects.

Design Objectives Condensation Control

For below-ambient systems, condensation control is often the overriding design objective. The design problem is best addressed as two separate issues 1) avoiding surface condensation on the outer surface of the insulation system, and 2) minimizing or managing water vapor intrusion.

Avoiding surface condensation is desirable for a number of reasons (1) it prevents dripping that can wet surfaces below, (2) it minimizes mold growth, and (3) it avoids staining and possible damage to exterior jacketing.

The design goal is to keep the surface temperature above the dew-point temperature of the surrounding air. Calculating surface temperature is relatively simple, but selection of the appropriate design conditions is often confusing. The appropriate design condition is normally the “worst-case” condition expected for the application. For condensation control, however, a design that satisfies the worst-case condition is sometimes impossible.

For outdoor applications (or for unconditioned spaces vented to outdoor air), there are always some hours per year where the ambient air is saturated or nearly saturated. For these times, no amount of insulation will prevent surface condensation. Therefore, for outdoor applications and mechanical rooms vented to outdoor conditions, it is suggested to design for a relative humidity (RH) of 90%. Appropriate water-resistant, vapor-retarder jacketing or mastics then must be specified to protect the system from the inevitable surface condensation. Additional design dew-point data can be found in Chapter 28 of the 2005 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (www.ashrae.org).

For indoor designs in conditioned spaces, care must still be exercised when selecting the design conditions. Often, the HVAC system will be sized to provide indoor conditions of 75°F/50% RH on a design summer day. However, those  conditions would not represent the worst-case indoor conditions with respect to the insulation design. Part load conditions could result in higher humidity levels, or night and/or weekend shutdown could result in more severe conditions.

Water Vapor

Note that the discussion has focused so far on designing to avoid condensation on the exposed surface. Another important design consideration is minimizing or managing water vapor intrusion. Water vapor intrusion is extremely important for piping and equipment that is operating at below ambient temperatures. Water-related problems include thermal performance loss, health and safety issues, structural degradation, and aesthetic issues. Water entry into an
insulation system may be through diffusion of water vapor, air leakage carrying water vapor, and leakage of surface water.

During those periods when the operating temperature is below the dew point of the surrounding ambient air, there will be a difference in water vapor pressure across the insulation system. This vapor-pressure difference serves as the driving force for diffusion of water vapor from the ambient toward the cold surface. Piping and equipment typically create an absolute barrier to the passage of water vapor, so any vapor-pressure difference imposed across the insulation system results in the potential for condensation either within the insulation or at the cold surface. While these pressure differences seem small, the impact over many operating hours can be significant.

A number of fundamental design principles are applied in managing water vapor intrusion. One method is to reduce the driving force by reducing the moisture content of the surrounding air. While the insulation designer typically will not have control of the location of the piping, ductwork, or equipment to be insulated, there are opportunities for the mechanical engineer to influence the ambient conditions. Certainly, locating cold piping, ductwork, and equipment in unconditioned portions of buildings should be minimized. Consideration should be given to conditioning mechanical rooms, if feasible.

Another fundamental design principle involves the moisture-storage design. In many systems, some condensation can be tolerated, with the amount depending on the water-holding capacity or water tolerance of a particular system. The moisture storage principle permits accumulation of water in the insulation system but at a rate designed to prevent harmful effects. This concept is applicable when 1) unidirectional vapor flow occurs, but accumulations during severe conditions can be adequately expelled during less severe conditions; or 2) reverse-flow conditions regularly occur on a seasonal or diurnal cycle. Design solutions using this principle include 1) periodically flushing the cold side with low dew point air (this procedure requires a supply of conditioned air and a means for distribution), and 2) use of an insulation system supplemented by selected vapor retarders and absorbent materials such that an accumulation of condensation is of little importance. Such a design must ensure  adequate expulsion of the accumulation.

Another common method is the application of moisture-blocking design. The moisture-blocking principle is applied in a design wherein the passage of water vapor is eliminated or minimized to an insignificant level. The design must incorporate: 1) a vapor retarder with suitably low permeance; 2) a joint and seam sealing system that maintains vapor retarding system integrity; and 3) accommodation for future damage repair, joint and seam resealing, and reclosing after maintenance.

A vapor retarder is a material or system that will adequately reduce the transmission of water vapor through the insulation system. The vapor retarder system is seldom intended to resist the entry of surface water,  or to prevent air leakage, but can occasionally be considered the second line of defense for these moisture sources.

Energy Conservation – Financial Considerations

Energy is in short supply, and our dependency on foreign energy sources is at best volatile. Throughout the developed world, the primary source of energy is the burning of fossil fuels. Energy supply and demand plays an increasingly vital role in national security and the economy.

Minimum insulation levels for ductwork and piping often are dictated by these energy standards, which are often adopted by model building code organizations and/or various jurisdictions as building energy codes. Energy codes address energy conservation in buildings, but typically do not address additional design objectives (such as condensation control, personnel protection, or noise control) that may be important on a specific project. The adoption of energy codes varies by state and locality, and the level of enforcement varies. For the current status of statewide energy codes, see www.bcap-energy.org or www.energycodes.gov.

As an aid to understanding the relationships between energy, economics, and emissions for insulated systems, simple spreadsheet calculators have been developed for equipment, vertical flat surfaces, and horizontal pipe applications.

Calculated results are given over a range of insulation types and thicknesses, and include 1) surface temperature, 2) heat flow, 3) annual cost of fuel, 4) payback period, 5) annualized rate of return, and 6) annual CO2 emissions.

The pipe spreadsheet estimates the heat flows through horizontal piping. Information concerning a hypothetical insulation system (e.g., the length of run, pipe size, operating temperature, ambient temperature and wind speed, insulation material, and surface emittance of a proposed insulation system) may be input by the user. Calculated results are given over a range of insulation types and thicknesses, and include 1) surface temperature, 2) heat flow, 3) annual cost of fuel, 4) payback period, 5) annualized rate of return, and 6) annual CO2 emissions.

Economic Considerations – ROI

Insulation systems are frequently designed with the objective of minimizing costs. Properly designed systems can reduce heat loss (or gains) from (or to) mechanical systems by 90-98%. When energy must be purchased to offset these heat flows, insulation systems can quickly pay for themselves in reduced energy costs.

Insulation projects (like many energy conservation projects) generally involve making an initial investment that will result in future cost savings. A number of approaches can be used to measure the financial desirability of an insulation project. All require estimates of the initial investment (the installed cost of the insulation system) and the resulting future savings. Some of these financial measures are simple, like ROI and Simple Payback Period. Others are more complicated and take into account the time value of money, inflation, and taxes.

In today’s economic environment, companies are requiring that investments be subject to review at various levels in the approval process. The Mechanical Insulation Financial Calculator was developed to provide a simple example of specific financial measures related to investments in mechanical insulation. It can be used for an overall mechanical insulation project or a simple, small mechanical insulation investment?such as insulating a valve or replacing a section of insulation. Tax implications of the investment have not been considered in the Financial Calculator. Users should consult a financial advisor for specific and/or tailored financial calculations.

Economic Thickness Considerations

The concept of economic thickness of insulation considers the initial installed cost of the insulation system plus the ongoing value of energy savings over the expected service lifetime. Economic thickness is defined as the thickness that minimizes the total life-cycle cost (see Figure 1). The installed costs (labor and material) of the insulation increase with thickness.

Insulation often is applied in multiple layers (1) because materials are not manufactured in single layers of sufficient thickness, (2) to accommodate expansion and contraction of insulation and system components, and (3) to minimize thermal short circuits at joints. Figure 1 shows initial installed costs for a multilayer application. The curve is discontinuous and increases with the number of layers because labor and material costs increase more rapidly as thickness increases. Figure 1 also shows the present value of the “lost energy” cost over the expected life of the project, which decreases as the insulation thickness is increased. The total cost curve, which is the sum of the installed insulation cost and the present value of the lost energy cost curves, shows a minimum value at point A. This point on the total cost curve corresponds to the economic insulation thickness, which, in this example, is in the double-layer range.

Initially, as insulation is applied, the total life-cycle cost decreases rapidly because the value of incremental energy savings is greater than the incremental cost of insulation. Additional insulation reduces total cost up to a thickness where the change in total cost is equal to zero. At this point, no further reduction can be obtained; beyond it, incremental insulation costs exceed the additional energy savings derived by adding another increment of insulation.

An economic thickness analysis should consider the time value of money, which can be based on a desired rate of return for the insulation investment. Energy costs are volatile, and a fuel cost inflation factor is sometimes included to account for the possibility that fuel costs may increase more quickly than general inflation. Insulation system maintenance costs should also be included, along with any identifiable cost savings associated with the ability to specify lower capacity equipment.

Any economic analysis must, by nature, deal with quantifiable benefits and costs. Some benefits difficult to quantify (e.g., thermal comfort of occupants, increased life of mechanical equipment, reduced dependency on energy imports, and/or reduced emissions). Designers therefore should consider the economic thickness of insulation to be a minimum.

Economic considerations also come into focus during the owner/contractor “value engineering” (VE) process. Efforts by the contractor or owner/developer to reduce the initial cost of a building or structure by applying the principles of value engineering to the building design and construction must be carefully weighed by the architect/engineer-of-record against the best long-term interests of the owner/end-user. This is particularly true with regard to mechanical insulation. In too many instances, the term “value engineering” is used as a euphemism for cost reduction. Design choices of insulation materials, thicknesses, and jacketing systems made by the design professional are arbitrarily considered cost-prohibitive for a project and are eliminated during the VE process. In some cases, the costs associated with correcting problems that result from VE decisions can be significant, and the work highly disruptive. The importance of documenting the criteria used in the design, and highlighting these criteria during the VE process, is emphasized.

Environmental Considerations – Sustainability

Along with the benefits associated with conserving energy resources, insulation contributes to the reduction in emissions associated with using those energy resources. Insulation products are among the few building materials considered to be “carbon negative,” in that reductions in carbon emissions over the life of the materials far exceed the carbon emissions associated with manufacture, transport, and installation of the insulation products.1 In addition, well-insulated mechanical systems often can result in smaller equipment, which also contributes to sustainability.

Fire Safety

Mechanical insulation materials often are used as a component in systems or assemblies designed to protect buildings and equipment from the effects or spread of fire (i.e., fire-resistance assemblies). Specific designs are tested and assigned hourly ratings based on performance in full-scale fire tests. Note that insulation materials alone are not assigned hourly fire-resistance ratings; ratings are assigned to a system or assembly that may include specific insulation products, along with other elements such as framing members, fasteners, wallboard, etc.

Materials used to insulate mechanical equipment generally must meet the requirements of local codes adopted by governmental entities having jurisdiction over the project, so local code authorities should be consulted for specific requirements. In the United States, most local codes incorporate or are patterned after model codes developed and maintained by organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the more recent International Code Council (International Codes).

Fire-resistance ratings often are developed using ASTM E119. This test exposes assemblies (walls, partitions, floor or roof assemblies, and through-penetration fire stops) to a standard fire exposure controlled to achieve specified temperatures throughout a specified time period. The time-temperature curve is intended to be representative of building fires where
the primary fuel is solid, and specifies a temperature of 1,000°F at 5 min, 1,700°F at 1 h, and 2,300°F at 8 h.

Most codes related to insulation product fire safety refer to the surface burning characteristics as determined by the Steiner tunnel test (ASTM E84, NFPA 255, UL 723, or CAN/ULC S-102). These similar test methods evaluate the flame spread and smoke developed from samples mounted in a 25 ft long tunnel and subsequently exposed to a controlled flame. Results are given in terms of flame-spread and smoke-developed indices.

For pipe and duct insulation products, samples are prepared and mounted in the tunnel per ASTM E2231, which directs that “the material, system, composite, or assembly tested shall be representative of the completed insulation system used in actual field installations, in terms of the components, including their respective thicknesses.” Samples are constructed to mimic the products, as closely as possible, the products as they will be used?including any facings and adhesives, as appropriate.

Duct insulation generally requires a flame-spread index of not more than 25 and a smoke-developed index of not more than 50, when tested in accordance with ASTM E84. Codes often require factory-made duct insulations (e.g., insulated flexible ducts, rigid fibrous glass ducts) to be listed and labeled per UL 181, Factory-Made Air Ducts and Air Connectors. This standard specifies a number of other fire tests (e.g., flame penetration and low-energy ignition) as part of the listing requirements.

Some building codes require that duct insulations meet the fire-hazard requirements of NFPA 90A or 90B to restrict spread of smoke, heat, and fire through duct systems; and to minimize ignition sources.

For pipe insulation, the requirement is generally a maximum flame-spread index of 25 and a maximum smoke-developed index of 450. For insulation materials exposed within supply and return ducts and plenums, the typical requirement is that the materials be noncombustible or have a maximum flame-spread index of 25 and maximum smoke-developed index of 50.

Freeze Prevention

It is important to recognize that insulation retards heat flow; it does not stop it completely. If the surrounding air temperature remains low enough for an extended period, insulation cannot prevent freezing of still water or water flowing at a rate insufficient for the available heat content to offset heat loss. Clean water in pipes usually supercools several degrees below freezing before any ice is formed, then, upon nucleation, ice forms in the water and the temperature rises to freezing. Ice can be formed from water only by the release of the latent heat of fusion (144 Btu/lb) through the pipe insulation. Well-insulated pipes may greatly retard this release of latent heat. Gordon’s research in 1996 showed that water pipes burst not because of ice crystal growth in the pipe, but because of elevated fluid pressure within a confined pipe section occluded by a growing ice blockage.2 Insulation can prolong the time required for freezing, or
prevent freezing if flow is maintained at a sufficient rate.

Personnel Protection – Safety

In many applications, insulation is provided to protect personnel from burns. In addition, there are safety and comfort concerns related to personnel working in high-temperature, high-radiant exposure locations.

The potential for burns to human skin is a complex function of surface temperature, surface material, and time of contact. See ASTM Standard Guide ASTM C1055 – 03(2009) for a discussion of these factors. ASTM Standard Practice C1057 – 03(2010) provides a mathematical model for “Determination of Skin Contact Temperature from Heated Surfaces….” Standard industry practice is to specify a maximum temperature of 140°F for surfaces that may be contacted by personnel. This temperature would cause no more than first-degree burns for all surfaces for contact times up to about 5 sec. Note that for non-industrial settings (e.g., retail stores) it may be prudent to design for longer contact times (i.e., lower surface temperatures).

When evaluating an insulation system for the potential for burn hazards, select the appropriate worst-case ambient condition. For indoor applications, maximum air temperatures depend on the facility and location, and are typically lower than for outdoor conditions. For outdoor installations, base calculations on summer design ambient temperatures with no wind (i.e., the worst case). Surface temperatures increase because of solar loading, but are usually neglected because of variability in orientation, solar intensity, and many other complicating factors. Engineering judgment must be used in selecting ambient and operating temperatures, and wind conditions, for these calculations.

The choice of jacketing also strongly affects a surface’s relative safety. Higher-emittance jacketing materials (e.g., plastic, painted metals) can be selected to minimize the surface temperature. Jacketing material also affects the relative safety at a given surface temperature. For example, at 175°F, a stainless steel jacket blisters skin more severely than a nonmetallic jacket at equal contact time.

Process Control

Insulation systems often are designed to minimize variation of temperatures in processes. A common example is the use of insulation on tanks or vessels used as chemical reactors, where the yield of the reaction is dependent on the temperature. Insulating the reactor helps to isolate the reaction from variations in ambient temperature and minimizes the capacity of process heating and/or cooling equipment.

Another example is the use of insulation to minimize temperature change (drop or rise) of a fluid from one location to another. Consider the case of a hot fluid flowing down a pipe or duct. Note that, for a cold fluid flowing down a pipe, the temperature drop will have a negative sign, which indicates a temperature rise in the fluid stream.

Noise Control

Noise Radiating from Pipes

Noise from piping can be reduced by adding an absorptive insulation and jacketing material. The expected level of noise reduction in the field can be estimated from knowing knowing the sound insertion loss of insulation and jacketing material combinations. A range of jacket weights and insulation thicknesses can be used to reduce noise. Jackets used to reduce noise are typically referred to as being mass-filled. Some products for outdoor applications use mass-filled vinyl (MFV) in combination with aluminum.

Pipe insertion loss is a measurement (in dB) of the reduction in sound pressure level from a pipe as a result of application of insulation and jacketing. Measured at different frequencies, the noise level from the jacketed pipe is subtracted from that of the bare pipe. The larger the insertion loss number, the larger the amount of noise reduction.

ASTM Standard E1222 describes how to determine insertion loss of pipe jacketing systems.

It is important that sound sources be well identified in industrial settings, otherwise it is possible to treat specfic noise sources effectively and have no significant influence on ambient sound measurement after treatment. All sources of noise above desired levels should receive acoustical treatment, beginning with the largest source.

Noise from Ducts

HVAC ducts act as conduits for mechanical equipment noise and carry office noise between occupied spaces. Additionally, some ducts can create their own noise through duct wall vibrations or expansion and contraction. Lined sheet metal ducts and fibrous glass rigid ducts can greatly reduce transmission of HVAC noise through the duct system. The insulation also reduces cross-talk from one room to another through the ducts.

Attenuation loss is noise absorbed within the duct. In uninsulated ducts, it is a function of duct geometry and dimensions, as well as noise frequency. Internal insulation liners generally are available for most duct geometries. Chapter 47 in the 2007 ASHRAE Handbook?HVAC Applications provides attenuation losses for square, rectangular, and round ducts lined with fibrous glass, and gives guidance on the use of insulation in plenums to absorb duct system noise. Internal linings can be very effective in fittings such as elbows, which can have two to eight times more attenuation than an unlined elbow of the same size. For alternative lining materials, consult individual manufacturers.

Breakout noise is from vibration of the duct wall caused by air pressure fluctuations in the duct. Absorptive insulation can be used in combination with mass-loaded jacketings or mastics on the duct exterior to reduce breakout noise. This technique is only minimally effective on rectangular ducts, which require the insulation and mass composite to be physically separated from the duct wall to be effective. For round ducts, as with pipes, absorptive insulation and mass composite can be effective even when directly applied to the duct surface.

For More Information

Additional information on these topics and more can be foundat www.wbdg.org/midg or www.insulation.org.

References

1.
Gordon, J., 1996. An investigation into freezing and bursting water pipes in
residential construction. Research Report 90-1. University of Illinois Building
Research Council.

2.
Russell, A., 2007, The Basics of Life Cycle Assessment and Insulation, ASTM C
16 Forum. April 2007.

Figure 1

Insulation
material comparison often involves contrasting the physical properties of the
materials as represented on the products’ data sheets. Going through this exercise,
it is important to be sure that the physical properties being compared are
tested to the same test method and procedure, and the values are expressed in
the same units. If not, one is comparing apples to oranges, resulting in an
inaccurate analysis of materials. It also is essential to understand the effect
that the physical property will have on the insulation performance in relation
to the units of measure.

A good example of the importance of understanding physical
property terms is in defining a material’s ability to resist penetration of
moisture from the air. Water vapor permeability and permeance are both measures
of a material’s ability to resist penetration of moisture from the air. The
terms are defined in ASTM Standard C168 ? 10, “Standard Terminology Relating to
Thermal Insulation” as follows:

Water
vapor permeability
– the
time rate of water vapor transmission through unit area of flat material of
unit thickness induced by unit vapor pressure difference between two specific
surfaces, under specified temperature and humidity conditions.

Water
vapor permeance
– the
time rate of water vapor transmission through unit area of flat material or construction
induced by unit vapor pressure difference between two specific surfaces, under
specified temperature and humidity conditions.

Permeability is measured in units of perms-inch and is used
to compare materials that are typically used in a variety of thicknesses (¼” or
greater). Permeance is measured in units of perms and is used to describe
thinner materials (e.g., jacketing products) that are used in the field in the
exact thickness at which the material is tested.

A similar relationship exists between the terms used to
define thermal conductivity: k-factor and R-value. The unit to describe k-factor
is defined at a standard thickness of per 1″. This allows an end user to
compare materials on an equal basis, regardless of thickness. In contrast,
R-value is a measure of the material in the thickness it is used in the field,
and varies depending on the referenced thickness. In regards to units used to
measure moisture penetration resistance, permeability is similar to the
k-factor, and permeance is similar to the R-value. A material with a
permeability listed as 1.0 perm-inch would have a permeance of 1.33 at ¾”
thickness (1.0/.75 = 1.33). For moisture penetration resistance values, the
smaller the number, the better the value.

Derived moisture penetration resistance results can be
converted from one term to the other using appropriate conversion factors
(referenced in the table on page 29).

A common test method to measure this property is ASTM E96,
“Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials.” Two test
procedures (see images above) are called out in the Standard: wet cup
(Procedure A) and dry cup (Procedure B). Both procedures start by conditioning,
measuring thickness, and weighing the sample. For the wet cup method, the
sample is placed over a pan with water in it and the edges sealed.  For the dry
cup method, the sample is placed over a pan with a desiccant in it and the
edges sealed. The pans are then placed in an environmental chamber at a
specified temperature and humidity, and weighed daily, until the weight gain or
loss reaches equilibrium (shown in the chart on page 29). At this time, the
permeability or permeance of the material can be established. For some
insulation or jacketing materials, the procedure used can make a slight
difference in the stated value. Hence, to be sure one is comparing apples to
apples, one should use values obtained from the same procedure (which should be
stated on the product’s technical data sheet).

It also is important to understand the
significance of both the physical property itself and the value stated. One of
the key determining factors to consider when evaluating the significance of a
test value is the precision of the test. A result that goes beyond what the
test can accurately measure does not provide added value. Also, the definition
of what constitutes a good value, “low perm” in this case, often changes over
time. Further, within the permeability or permeance value, one should consider
the value of the entire system?specifically, how much weight should be placed
on the permeability of the material itself versus the permeability of the seams.
For example, aluminum jacketing has a very low permeance, but if the seams are
not properly sealed, the system loses much of its integrity so that no matter
how good the jacketing is, the overall insulation system may not perform as
expected. In most cases, slight differences in permeability would require many
years to make a difference in the performance of the system, even if the
percentage change may seem large. Other factors probably would play a much
greater role, such as damage to the jacket or insulation.

Another key point to understand is what
effect the property will have on the performance of the insulation.
Permeability is primarily an issue with insulation on low-temperature lines
where humidity is high over long periods of time. On systems that do not have
these conditions, permeability will not be a key consideration. The lower the
line temperature and the higher the humidity, the greater the importance will
be. Hence, in Florida and the Gulf States, it can be a key factor. Over time,
with highly permeable materials, air with moisture will come in contact with
the cold pipe and form condensation between the pipe and the insulation. The
moisture creates wet insulation, which increases the chances for pipe
corrosion, mold growth, and degradation of the insulation’s thermal
conductivity, resulting in insulation and system failure. This situation is
severe and would warrant removal of the insulation. However, this is a long,
slow process taking years to develop. In contrast, if there is evidence of
moisture between the insulation and the pipe in a short period of time, the
cause is almost always an open seam or termination point where moisture-laden
air can travel unabated to the cold pipe and form condensation.

In summary, there are typically several ways to describe a
material’s performance, including its ability to resist penetration of moisture
from the air. When comparing products or determining if a material meets a
specification requirement, one must pay careful attention to the units and identified
test method. There are many reasons why it is important to understand the
physical property terms used to describe or compare materials and to be sure
one is comparing like terms expressed in the same units. Further, it is vital
to understand the effect that a particular property has on the performance of
the insulation system.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Textile Glass

Textile Glass (e-glass) fibrous thermal insulation is
produced from textile glass fibers (e-glass) and is needled into insulation
felts without the use of binders. The material is used as a thermal insulation
component in the fabrication of insulation systems for use on machinery and
equipment at temperatures up to 1,200°F. These products are covered in ASTM
C1086 and in MIL-I-16411F.

The Standard contains requirements
for thickness, mass per unit area, apparent thermal conductivity, hot surface
performance, tensile strength, and combustibility. For comparison purposes, the
thermal conductivity of the material is a maximum of 0.29 Btu?in/(hr?ft²?°F) at
75°F.

There is an old saying: Measure twice, cut once. We all have “check” or “to do” lists to help us remember what needs to be done. Many of us rely on our memory, but it is usually a good idea to put the lists in writing so that when we are in a hurry we do not forget anything. The checklists below were developed primarily for below-ambient piping systems but would apply to any insulation application. The items listed are in general terms, so there may be additional items to add to tailor the list to your needs based on past experience.

There are three main functions that take place during an insulation installation: (1) job layout or estimation, (2) actual installation, and (3) quality inspection of the job once it is complete. The checklists below have been broken out for these three functions. The responsible party for each function also is noted.

Job Layout/Estimation (Responsible Party: Estimator)

  • Review all system operating temperatures to be sure they are consistent with insulation use temperatures. Consider any temperature cycling and/or yearly maintenance that may affect system temperatures.
  • Determine the desired design conditions and the performance requirements of the insulation system. For outdoor systems, be sure to take into account the site location, likely weather conditions, and weather extremes when formulating the proper design conditions. Based on this information, determine the appropriate insulation
    thickness to be used.
  • Based on the site conditions and expected service conditions (UV exposure, exposure to chemicals, mechanical abuse, etc.), select the proper jacketing/protective covering/coating for the insulation. Note that many sites will have “standard practices” or internal specifications that will call out insulation system finish requirements.
  • Consider the following when deciding on the insulation configuration/style.
      • Method of installation – i.e., mechanical attachment, adhesive, clam-shell, slide-on or
        slit, etc.
      • Trade-off between labor and cost of materials. Some insulation systems cost more out of the box but install faster than cheaper systems. This saves labor and time during installation.
      • Trade-off between labor and insulation system performance: Factory-fabricated fittings may cost more in materials but save labor and improve uniformity and performance.
      • Trade-off between up-front material cost and maintenance costs down the road: Jacketed systems may cost more than those with a mastic finish but usually require less maintenance during the life of the insulation system.
      • Configuration and type of equipment to be insulated. What is the geometry? Take into account the fittings, valves, pumps, etc. How will these be insulated?
  • Review the layout of the system or item to be insulated to be sure there is sufficient room for the insulation thickness specified without compressing the insulation or having the insulation come in direct contact with the insulation on other pipes or pieces of equipment. If not, can this be corrected? Check and see if there are protrusions along the system. Are they long enough to accommodate the recommended amount of insulation? If not, can they be extended or removed?
  • Lay out the job in a manner to eliminate seams or minimize insulation joints as much as possible. If multiple layers of insulation are required due to thickness or other performance requirements, the insulation joints of successive layers should be offset from the insulation joints of the previous layer.
  • When deciding on how to achieve the desired insulation thickness, consider practical handling of the insulation during installation (including the bending radius of the material) as well as the ability to achieve full joint closure. In addition, consult the insulation distributor or fabricator to verify the availability of different insulation sizes and configurations in order to select the most cost-effective way to achieve the desired thickness.
  • Consider the required time frame for completing the job. If the time frame is short, as is typical for maintenance during a plant shutdown, you may want to consider using insulation materials that are quicker and easier to install (e.g., self-seal or factory-fabricated products) because of the time saved, even though the initial cost of these materials may be higher.
  • Consider the availability of materials to be sure they can be delivered to the job in time.
  • Consider the availability of labor and the skill of the labor pool, as this may make a difference in the choice of materials.
  • Consider how important aesthetics are for the job.

 

Installation                                         (Responsible Party: Foreman)

  • Review work orders/specifications for areas to be insulated and materials (thicknesses) required. Lay out a plan/schedule for areas to insulate first, coordinating with other trades that may be working in the area. Include your safety training and any special safety equipment that may be needed for the job.
  • Be sure all materials (insulation, accessories/adhesives, tapes, jacketing, fittings, etc.?and tools) are on site or are scheduled to be delivered at the appropriate time. Be sure all materials are stored in a clean, dry room.
  • Check materials against what was specified (i.e., proper sizes and thicknesses). Organize insulation according to size and thickness.
  • Know job site conditions, including where other trades are working, what the weather will be over the period of the job, etc. Understand access to the working area. Because of potentially damaging environmental conditions, insulation used on outdoor applications nearly always requires protection (coating, jacketing, or cladding) from mechanical abuse and UV resistance. Remember, it is also important to protect the system from moisture intrusion during the installation process. Good practice dictates that no more insulation be applied in a day than can be properly sealed and protected from weather before leaving the site at the end of the shift.
  • Check equipment/tools (lifts, etc.) to be sure everything is in place for what needs to be done.
  • Check manpower and review the experience of workers. Develop a manpower allocation plan accordingly.
  • Review the insulation manufacturer’s recommended installation procedures. If there are any questions, contact the manufacturer for recommendations.
  • Check to be sure the piping system or equipment is turned off and at ambient conditions. Make sure it is clean and free of dirt or moisture.
  • For most applications, it is recommended to apply the fittings first (which may be available for purchase pre-fabricated by a fabricator or the manufacturer, or can be pre-fabricated at an off-site location). After the fittings are installed, application can begin on the straight runs. The straight length material is usually easier to install than fitting insulation, so the straight run work will progress more quickly. Protrusions to the insulation system must be properly insulated and sealed. For below-ambient systems, protrusions should be insulated a distance of four times the insulation system thickness when possible. Protrusion on above-ambient systems should be insulated a distance of two times the insulation system thickness. For complex applications, contact the manufacturer for recommendations.
  • Inspect workmanship as the materials are being installed. Notify appropriate personnel if problems arise.
  • At the end of each day, be sure all materials are put away in a clean, dry area and that the installed portion of the job has been appropriately sealed/closed in such a way to prevent any damage from other trades or from the weather. Make sure all scrap insulation material resulting from field fabrication is either (1) put back in appropriate boxes to maintain size identification, or (2) appropriately disposed of.
  • On cold applications, make sure that all seams are glued and sealed. Install vapor stops when needed (for details, contact the insulation manufacturer).
  • When the job is finished, make a final inspection.

 

Quality Inspection
(Responsible Party: Engineer or Job Inspector)

  • Obtain a list of all areas that were specified to be insulated (including material type and thickness). Obtain a data sheet and appropriate installation instructions from the manufacturer for each material.
  • Conduct a preliminary inspection of the entire job. Make a list of any obvious issues that may need to be replaced, repaired, or corrected. Be sure all areas that were called out for insulation have been insulated. Also check for the overall neatness of the job.
  • Check that installed materials comply with those specified (material type and size). Material type and size (ID and thickness) generally can be found on the product box or on the insulation itself.
  • Ensure that all seams (longitudinal, butt joints, and terminations) have been sealed properly per manufacturer recommendations. Check all fittings, valves, etc. to be sure the insulation is sealed properly at any termination points.
  • When checking materials and insulation systems, be sure there are no tears, cuts, or damage that would cause performance issues. If any are found, the damage must be repaired or the section of insulation completely replaced. Also, make sure that none of the insulation is wet and there is no moisture between the insulation and the substrate.
  • On straight runs, make sure that seams are facing down to reduce weight/pressure on the seam.
  • Inspect the insulation finish (jacketing, coating, or mastic) for damage and defects. For outdoor applications, it is generally recommended that all insulation materials be protected from the elements and mechanical abuse by jacketing or coatings, and that all jacketing laps should be positioned to shed water.
  • On pipe and supported equipment, review all hanger and support areas to be sure they were handled according to manufacturer recommendations. The insulation should not be compressed, as the thickness of the insulation should not be compromised. Also, check all protrusions to ensure that they are properly insulated and sealed.
  • If the system has been turned on, look for any signs of condensation or ice formation.

By using these checklists, and adjusting them for personal use by adding or modifying steps based on your experience, the job should meet the end user’s expectations and come in either at or below budget. “Measure twice, cut once” pays off more times than not in the long run. Taking short-cuts, particularly on an application involving below-ambient operating temperatures, is a bad bet.

The National Insulation Association Reaches 1,000
Certified Insulation Energy Appraisers!

The National Insulation
Association?s (NIA?s) Foundation for Education, Training, and Industry
Advancement is very excited to announce the certification of the 1,000th
Certified Insulation Energy Appraiser. Glenn Vande Walle with Bay Industries,
Inc. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, attended an Insulation Energy Appraiser Program (IEAP) training course this fall; by
passing the exam, he became the 1,000th person to become a Certified
Insulation Energy Appraiser!

NIA?s IEAP training
course was developed in 2001 to teach students how to determine the optimal
insulation thickness and corresponding energy and dollar savings for mechanical
insulation projects. The program gives students the information needed to
explain the value of properly installed mechanical insulation systems to
customers.

The IEAP course
curriculum includes instruction in the 3E Plus® insulation thickness
calculation software, how to interview customers, conducting a facility
walk-through, determining the amount of greenhouse gases saved through the use
of insulation, analyzing and completing an appraisal spreadsheet, and preparing
a final report for the customer that outlines this information. Students who
attend the 2-day IEAP training course and pass the exam become Certified
Insulation Energy Appraisers. Their certification is valid for 3 years and
renewed by providing information about appraisals or passing an online exam.

The IEAP training courses have seen increased
interest in recent years. Appraisers are bringing awareness regarding the
economic and environmental value of mechanical insulation to their customers,
with the goal of installing more insulation. Over the past 2 years, 15 training
courses were held in 2011 and 12 classes have been held in 2012.

For additional
information about the IEAP, or to view the list of Certified Insulation Energy
Appraisers, please go to www.insulation.org/training/ieap.

Find an Appraiser
Visit www.insulation.org and
click on ?Find a Certified Insulation Energy Appraiser? on the left side of the
page to locate a trained professional in your area.

Find
out How a Certified Insulation Energy Appraiser Can Save You Money

NIA has more than 400 members who are certified
insulation energy appraisers trained to help you discover the true dollar and
performance value of your facility?s mechanical systems. These professionals
conduct thorough insulation assessments of your facility and can determine the
potential savings and reduction in emission levels you can achieve with the
help of mechanical insulation. You will be amazed at the energy and dollar
savings, and emissions reduction achieved by investing in a properly insulated system.

Stand
out from the Competition: Become a Certified Insulation Energy Appraiser

NIA?s Insulation Energy Appraisal Program will train you
to calculate specific dollar and energy savings
and identify the proper insulation thicknesses required
for customers to achieve maximum return on investment. More than 400 NIA
members have already added the certification to their customer services, so
don?t get left behind.
 For more information
about the 2-day IEAP course and the certification process, visit www.insulation.org/training/ieap.

What Does 2013 Hold in Store for the Construction Industry?

“A goal without a plan is just a wish.” – Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

With the economic challenges faced over the past few years, uncertainty over the effects of the November elections, and the threat of the “fiscal cliff” looming, the end of 2012 left many of us with the sense that while we may not like where we are at the moment, we are glad to have the last year behind us and look forward to the future. The quote from author and pilot Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is empowering, as it focuses us on taking action and preparing to achieve our objectives, rather than passively hoping things will fall into place for us. To help you actualize your goals in 2013, NIA reached out to sources in other industry organizations and compiled this report of expert opinions on the state of the market today and forecasts for the new year. Where are the challenges, and where can you see opportunities? We hope you will be able to use this information as you hone your business strategies for 2013.

The Current Construction Market Analysis

October Construction Falls 14 Percent

The value of new construction starts retreated 14% in October to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $434.9 billion, according to McGraw-Hill Construction, a division of the McGraw-Hill Companies. Much of the decline was due to a sharp pullback by the electric power and gas plant category after a robust September. If this volatile project type is excluded from the month-to-month comparisons, total construction starts in October would register a 3% gain. Greater activity was reported in October for the public works sector, while both nonresidential building and housing settled back. Through the first 10 months of 2012, total construction starts on an unadjusted basis came in at $390.4 billion, a 4% gain relative to the same period a year ago.

The October statistics brought the Dodge Index to 92 (2000=100), down from the 107 reported for September. Over the first 10 months of 2012, the Dodge Index fluctuated within the range of 85 to 116, averaging 97 during this period. “This year’s pattern for total construction has been shaped to some degree by the swings for the electric utility and gas plant category, which is still on track to achieve a new annual high in current dollar terms, even with its weak October performance,” stated Robert A. Murray, vice president of economic affairs for McGraw-Hill Construction. “Leaving out electric utilities and gas plants, the amount of construction starts in 2012 would be up 3% through the first ten months, which reflects a mixed pattern by project type. For housing, the emerging recovery for single family housing is joining the strengthening trend for multifamily housing that’s already underway. For nonresidential building, commercial building is seeing modest growth in 2012, but this has been offset by declines for institutional building and manufacturing plant construction. Public works year-to-date has been basically flat, beginning to stabilize after its 14% downturn in 2011. While the pattern of overall construction activity does seem to be moving towards more broad-based expansion, the persistent uncertainty affecting the U.S. economy continues to pose a downside risk. The degree to which policymakers in Washington, D.C. are able to agree on the steps necessary to avert the fiscal cliff will determine whether the nascent upturn for construction continues to grow in 2013 or slides back.”

Nonbuilding construction in October dropped 32% to $133.4 billion (annual rate), retreating after the prior month’s 68% jump. September had been lifted by a 335% surge for the electric utility and gas plant category, as a $4.8 billion liquefied natural gas plant (the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project) was included as a September start, along with six power plant and transmission line projects valued each in excess of $100 million. For October, the largest electric utility and gas plant project was $88 million for transmission line work in Massachusetts, contributing to a 93% decline for the category.  In contrast, the public works sector in October climbed 19%. The miscellaneous public works category, which includes such diverse project types as site work, mass transit, and pipelines, soared 52% in October.  The boost to miscellaneous public works came from $2.0 billion related to work on the Keystone Pipeline Gulf Coast Expansion, located in Oklahoma and Texas. The large increase marked a departure from what has been a declining trend in 2012 for highway construction, which on a year-to-date basis was still down 11%. Sewers and water supply systems dropped a respective 16% and 5% in October.

Nonresidential building, at $131.6 billion (annual rate), decreased 4% in October. The manufacturing plant category plunged 73%, continuing to pull back from the improved activity that was reported earlier in 2012. Murray noted, “As the result of the uncertainty created by the looming fiscal cliff, manufacturers have increasingly held back on investment as 2012 has progressed.” Warehouse construction also weakened substantially in October, falling 33%. Office construction in October slipped 3%, although the month did include the start of several noteworthy projects?the $216 million Tower at PNC Plaza in Pittsburgh, PA, the $110 million Energy Center III office tower in Houston, TX, a $76 million municipal office building in Boston, MA, and a $50 million corporate headquarters renovation for TJX in Marlborough, MA. On the plus side, hotel construction in October grew 7%, helped by the start of a $189 million hotel in Austin TX. Store construction also registered a gain in October, rising 3% with the help of the $101 million retail portion of the $250 million City Point Residential Retail Development Project (Phase 2) in Brooklyn, NY.

On the institutional side, the educational facilities category continued to lose momentum, dropping 3%. Even with the decline, several large education projects reached groundbreaking in October, including a $95 million facility for the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, as well as two large high school projects in Massachusetts. More considerable October declines were registered by amusement-related work, down 22%; and transportation terminals, down 50%. The public buildings category posted a large October gain, climbing 92% due to the start of a $524 million military facility at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Healthcare facilities also registered a large October gain, advancing 37% with the help of five hospital projects valued each in excess of $100 million. These hospital projects were located in Virginia ($215 million), Iowa ($150 million), Florida ($111 million), North Carolina ($104 million) and Ohio ($102 million). Church construction in October edged up 1%, although activity continues to be very depressed.

Residential building in October dropped 2% to $169.9 billion (annual rate). The downward pull came from multifamily housing, which retreated 7% from September. During 2012, multifamily housing  fluctuated around an upward trend, and the pace for multifamily housing in October was still 23% above the level reported at the start of the year.  Large multifamily projects that reached groundbreaking in October included the $200 million Insignia Residential Towers in Seattle, WA and $149 million for the multifamily portion of the City Point project in Brooklyn, NY. Single-family housing in October was unchanged from September, maintaining the enhanced activity established over the course of 2012. The October single-family amount was up 25% from the level reported at the start of the year, and this project type had earlier shown gains in seven of the nine preceding months. During the January?October period of 2012, the regional pattern for single family housing showed the largest increase in the West, up 39%; followed by the Midwest, up 28%; the South Atlantic, up 26%; the South Central, up 22%; and the Northeast, up 14%.

The 4% pickup for total construction on an unadjusted basis during the first ten months of 2012 was the result of increases for two of the three main construction groups.  Residential building advanced 28%, with year-to-date gains of 27% for single family housing and 30% for multifamily housing. Nonbuilding construction grew 3% year-to-date, the result of combining an 11% increase for the electric utility and gas plant category and “no change” for public works. Nonresidential building continued to be the one major construction group to register a year-to-date decline, falling 14%. The nonresidential building decline was due to this behavior by segment?commercial building, up 2%; institutional building, down 15%; and manufacturing building, down 47%. To a large extent, the nonresidential building decline in dollar terms comes from the comparison to several massive projects that reached groundbreaking during the first 10 months of 2011, including a $3.0 billion coal-to-gasoline plant in West Virginia, a $1.5 billion semiconductor plant in
Arizona, a $1.2 billion airport terminal in New York, and a $1.1 billion government data center in Utah.  On a square footage basis, nonresidential building in the first 10 months of 2012 was up 1% compared to a year ago.

By geography, total construction starts during the January?October period of 2012 showed a large gain for the South Atlantic, up 24%, with much of the upward push coming from the start of two massive nuclear power projects in Georgia and South Carolina. If these two projects are excluded, then total construction starts in the South Atlantic would be up only 1%. Year-to-date gains for total construction were also reported for the Midwest, up 6%; and the South Central, up 5%. Year-to-date declines for total construction were reported for the Northeast, down 6%; and the West, down 8%.

For more than a century, McGraw-Hill Construction has
remained North America’s leading provider of project and product information;
plans and specifications; and industry news, trends, and forecasts. To learn
more, visit www.construction.com
.

 

The 2013 Construction Market Forecast

FMI Releases Q3-2012 Construction Outlook Report

“Contrary to election-year rhetoric, the economy is inching its way to improvement, and the construction industry has not stopped working,” according to the third quarter 2012 Construction Outlook report by FMI, the largest provider of management consulting and investment banking to the engineering and construction industry. Released in December, the industry forecast is calling for an 8% increase in total construction put in place for 2013. Contributing to this positive forecast is more robust growth in residential construction, as well as a few strong markets in nonresidential and non-building construction.

The focus for 2013 will be on the movement of private money back into the markets. For the economy to grow at a faster rate, with the fiscal cliff looming and state and municipal budgets still in repair mode, it will be the private markets that must lead the way. Total construction put in place for 2013 is forecast to be $892 billion, a solid improvement over the last few years, but still just edging out 2003 levels of construction activity.

Health care construction will see a solid recovery, along with power construction. Both markets are expected to grow by 8% in 2013. Lodging, office, educational, and commercial markets will continue to struggle to get out of the doldrums. However, growth for all will be in line with or ahead of expected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth.

Residential construction housing starts rose to 603,000 units a year as of September 2012. Single-family permits also rose to a 545,000-unit pace, or 6.7%, returning to levels not seen since July 2008.

Nonresidential Construction Trends and Forecasts by Sector

  • Lodging: Hotel developers will renovate before building new properties. Bank loans will be hard to justify until occupancy and room rates remain consistently high.
  • Office: Through the first 2 quarters of 2012, the U.S. office sector absorbed 10.4 million square feet, 100,000 square feet less of net absorption than was generated over the first 6 months of 2011. (Source: Jones Lang LaSalle, “Office Outlook United States, Q2 2012”). This is not yet enough activity to compare with prerecession highs, but we expect Construction Put in Place (CPIP) to improve 4% in 2013.
  • Commercial: Expect more rethinking of commercial construction space to accommodate smaller stores and combining in-store sales with online shopping. Look for increasing multiuse projects.
  • Health care: New health care construction will include a growing number of renovation projects to update current facilities for modern hospital design, using more technology in the rooms as well as for improving air quality and reducing energy usage.
  • Religious: The lending environment continues to be a challenge for many congregations.
  • Public safety?Despite overcrowding in prisons, we expect public safety construction to remain slow
    for the next couple of years, at least with only 1% growth in 2013 to $10.2 billion.
  • Transportation: This remains a strong sector for construction. CPIP is expected to grow 6% in 2013 to a total of $38.2 billion for the year. This is due in part to The FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which will provide $63.6 billion for the agency’s programs between 2012?2015.
  • Manufacturing: Manufacturing construction is starting to make a comeback with both new growth in manufacturing output and with some companies repatriating their manufacturing capacity.
  • Power-related: Power construction will continue to be one of the strongest growth sectors for construction. Worthy to note: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a proposal out for $7 billion in locally generated renewable energy through power purchase agreements.
  • Sewage and waste disposal: Waste-to-energy may be one of the best bets for future work in this sector if more municipalities can find ways to work with private investors.
  • Water supply: Expect this sector to struggle to find funds for necessary remediation and construction. Strength in water supply construction will be found in pockets for industrial projects like the mining sector, power, and industrial plants.
  • Conservation and development: The 2012 annual budget for the Department of Agriculture eliminates funding for the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) and Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations programs. New projects in this sector, like water system projects, will likely come from cleanup for the mining and energy sector to comply with regulations.

For more information, contact Sarah Avallone at 919-785-9221 or savallone@fminet.com.

ABC Predicts Moderate Construction Recovery Will Continue in 2013

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) released its 2013 economic forecast for the U.S. commercial and industrial construction industry, and it shows the continuation of a modest recovery for nonresidential construction next year.

“ABC predicts nonresidential construction spending will expand 5.2% in 2013,” said ABC chief economist Anirban Basu. “Given the remarkably deep reductions in nonresidential construction spending since the onset of the downturn, one would expect more robust growth during the fourth year of broader economic recovery.

“Thanks to a handful of segments experiencing more rapid economic recovery, much of the construction expansion next year will be in categories heavily associated with private financing,” Basu said. “Due largely to constrained capital budgets at state and local government levels, as well as ongoing turmoil in Washington, D.C., publicly funded construction spending is expected to be flat next year, and perhaps worse.

“The fastest growing major U.S. industry during the last year in terms of absolute job creation was professional and business services,” said Basu. Because many firms in this category use office space, office-related construction spending is expected to rise 10% in 2013.

“Consumer confidence also has progressed,” Basu said. “Accordingly, ABC predicts total commercial construction will expand roughly 10% next year. Other industries positioned to experience rising levels of investment include power, up 10%; lodging, up 8%; health care, up 5%; and manufacturing, up 5%.

“Nonresidential building construction employment is expected to expand 2.1% in 2013, slightly better than the 1% performance estimated for 2012,” said Basu. “Construction materials prices should rise a bit more rapidly in 2013 than they did in 2012, with substantially more volatility to be experienced from month to month next year.

“Despite ongoing slowdown in many of the world’s largest economies, ABC anticipates many investors will opt to invest in hard assets as a way to avoid volatility in equity and bond markets,” Basu added.

ABC’s Conclusion

“Whether or not the nation falls off its fiscal cliff?a collection of spending cuts and tax increases that kick in at the end of the year?certain taxes likely are headed higher,” said Basu. “ABC predicts higher marginal income tax rates to reach pre-Bush levels, as well as an increase in tax rates on capital gains and dividend income. In addition, ABC expects the payroll tax credit to sunset in the first quarter of 2013.

“The U.S. economy is presently expanding at a 2% rate,” said Basu. “Even in the absence of a dive off the federal precipice, the nation will struggle to achieve 2% growth next year as certain tax rates rise and as federal spending growth slows and perhaps turns sharply negative. 

“GDP has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters,” Basu said. “ABC’s forecast for GDP growth next year is between 1%-2%. If the nation falls off its fiscal cliff, recession will follow, with GDP falling between 2% and 3% for the year.

“With the elections now behind us, the hope is the White House and Congress will be able to successfully navigate the nation past its fiscal cliff,” Basu said. “If that happens, the latter half of 2013 could be surprisingly good for nonresidential activity given the large volume of construction projects that were put on hold during the course of 2012. However, the baseline forecast calls for only moderate expansion in nonresidential construction spending next year.”

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national association with 74 chapters representing merit shop construction and construction-related firms with nearly two million employees. Visit them at www.abc.org.

McGraw Hill’s 2013

Dodge Construction Outlook

After the steep decline of 2007?2009, the construction industry has shown a few glimmers of recovery, but overall there’s not yet been sufficient traction to say that renewed expansion has taken hold. As reported by McGraw-Hill Construction, new construction starts in 2010 edged up 2%, followed by another 1% gain in 2011; and the current year is headed for a 5% increase to $458 billion. This still leaves the volume of total construction starts 32% below the 2005 peak on a current dollar basis, and down about 50% when viewed on a constant dollar basis. The modest gains experienced during the past 2 years have in effect produced an extended bottom for construction starts, in which the process of recovery is being stretched out.

The pattern of construction starts seems to be in a “balancing act,” where gains for a few project types are offset by declines for other project types. The upturn for multifamily housing has been joined in 2012 by a strengthening single-family market. Several commercial project types, notably hotels and warehouses, have picked up the pace; and electric utility construction will reach a new record high. However, the institutional building sector has weakened considerably during 2012, adversely affected by tight federal, state, and local budgets; while public works construction has experienced further erosion.

The backdrop for the construction industry remains the fragile U.S. economy. Real GDP in the second quarter of 2012 grew just 1.3%, and for all of 2012 the GDP increase is estimated at 2.1%. The employment statistics have reflected this hesitation, as growth in the second quarter fell to just 67,000 jobs per month, before bouncing back in the third quarter to 146,000 jobs per month. The main obstacle to stronger growth for the U.S. economy is the pervasive sense of uncertainty, which has dampened business investment and hiring. Earlier in 2012, at least some of this uncertainty was related to concerns over the potential spread of the European debt crisis, but by midyear the anxiety about the impending “fiscal cliff” (the expiring tax cuts, combined with reduced federal spending) became dominant. Along with the uncertainty created by the 2012 presidential election, many firms have placed plans for investment on hold.

The fiscal cliff poses a significant downside risk to the near-term prospects for the U.S. economy and the construction industry. In May, the Congressional Budget Office warned that allowing existing policies to take effect in early 2013 could cause the U.S. economy to slide 1.3% during the first half of 2013. For the purpose of this forecast, it is assumed that policymakers will be able to reach agreement in early 2013 to soften the impact of the spending cuts as well as maintain some of the Bush-era tax cuts. The U.S. economy will be shaky at the outset of 2013, but it is hoped that efforts to cushion the fiscal cliff will allow some of the uncertainty to diminish. Real GDP growth for all of 2013 will still be a tepid 2.2%, but the economy should improve after a weak start to the year.

A U.S. economy that avoids recession in early 2013 will allow several positive factors to benefit construction. Interest rates are very low, and lending standards for commercial real estate loans are easing. Significantly, market fundamentals for several project types are strengthening. This includes rent growth for multifamily housing, increases in revenue per available room for hotels, and retreating vacancy rates for warehouses and offices. In this environment, it is forecast that new construction starts for 2013 will climb 6% to $484 billion, a rate of growth not much different than the 5% gain estimated for 2012. The following are the main points, by sector, for the 2013 construction market:

  • Multifamily housing will rise 16% in dollars and 14% in units, marking healthy percentage gains, yet slower growth than what took place during 2011 and 2012. Improved market fundamentals will help to justify new construction, and this structure type continues to be viewed favorably by the real estate finance community.
  • Commercial building will increase 12%, a slightly faster pace than the 5% gain estimated for 2012. Both warehouses and hotels will benefit from lower vacancy rates, while store construction will feature more upgrades to existing space and the derived lift coming from gains for single-family housing. The increase for office construction will be modest, as new privately financed projects continue to be scrutinized carefully by lenders. Next year’s level of commercial building in current dollars will still be more than 40% below the 2007 peak.
  • Institutional building will level off, following the steep 13% drop estimated for 2012. For educational facilities, K-12 construction will slip further, while college and university construction should at least stabilize. Health care facilities are expected to make a modest rebound after this year’s downturn.
  • The manufacturing building category will grow 8%, showing improvement after its 2012 decline.
  • Public works construction will slide an additional 1%, as federal spending cuts in particular restrain environmental projects. The new 2 year federal transportation bill should help to limit the impact of spending cuts on highways and bridges.
  • Electric utility construction will drop 31%, after reaching a record high in current dollars during 2012. This year was boosted by the start of two very large nuclear power plants, and projects of similar magnitude are not expected for 2013. The expiration of federal loan guarantees for renewable energy projects would also dampen construction in 2013.

For more than a century, McGraw-Hill Construction has remained North America’s leading provider of project and product information; plans and specifications; and industry news, trends, and forecasts. To learn more, visit www.construction.com.

Conclusion

The companies who will succeed in 2013 and beyond will be those who effectively process the lessons of the past, adapting and targeting their efforts based on current and forecasted market conditions. Information and education are key to ensuring that goals are realistic and the path to reach them is well considered, built on a solid foundation of understanding. While conditions will evolve?historic storms will hit, or other events will catch us off guard?one thing is certain: As Benjamin Franklin noted, “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”