Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Pre-Engineered, Pre-Fabricated Panel Insulation Systems for Ducts and Equipment: What You Get for Your Money

This article will explore what plant owners, Air Quality Control System (AQCS) equipment suppliers, and insulation contractors get when they purchase a pre-engineered and pre-fabricated insulation system.

Pre-fabricated panel insulation systems have been used extensively on above-ambient AQCS ducts and equipment at pulverized coal (PC) electric plants since the 1970s. Over a period of roughly 10 years, several hundred PC plants added or were retrofitted with equipment for separating the fly ash from the flue gas to bring the plants into compliance with the Environ-mental Protection Agency’s current Clean Air Act rules. Early AQCS equipment, consisting of either precipitators or bag houses, had to be well insulated for both personnel protection and process control. The insulation systems used for this equipment generally were pre-fabricated panels for the specific ductwork, hoppers, fans, and other sections of the AQCS. In some projects, the systems were pre-engineered; often, the panels were factory-assembled prior to delivery to the job site.

A quarter of a century later, most existing PC plants already have fly ash (i.e., particulate) collection systems. They are now additionally being retrofitted with selective catalytic converters and flu gas desulfurization scrubbers—the former for removing nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases and the latter for removing both sulfur oxide (SOx) gases and mercury compounds. NOx, in the presence of sunlight and warm air, will form smog particles; SOx, in the presence of water vapor, will form sulfur-containing acids. Both can lead to respiratory problems, and the latter contributes to acid rain that leads to water quality problems, fish kills, damage to stone structures, and corrosion of metal structures. Mercury compounds are toxic to all forms of life.

The dozens of proposed new coal-fired power plants, whether of PC or another design concept (such as fluidized bed combustors), must meet current Clean Air Act rules: They must be designed and constructed with appropriate AQCSs to remove pollutants from the flue gas prior to release into the atmosphere.

The bottom line is that there is a lot of work for the next few years in the United States for both the engineering firms who specify these modern AQCSs and the companies who design and fabricate the systems. Consequently, there is an increasing amount of work for mechanical insulation contractors who are experienced and skilled in installing pre-fabricated insulation panel systems at electric power plants. A typical project for the insulation contractor is to insulate 100,000 to 500,000 square feet of duct and equipment surface area with pre-fabricated insulation panel systems. These insulation contractors have found that the more pre-fabrication they can have done for them, the better they can control their costs and manage risk on the project. Furthermore, the more pre-engineering that can be done on the insulation panels, the better the thermal and structural performance, the better the fit, and the lower the operations and maintenance costs for the plants’ owners.

Terminology

It is useful to define some terms: pre-engineered, pre-fabricated, and pre-assembled insulation panel systems.

Pre-engineered insulation panel
system: A rigid panel insulation system for equipment operating at above-ambient temperatures, with thermal and structural calculations—and sometimes acoustical testing and calculations as well—designed to meet particular project criteria. This type of panel system design includes project-specific assembly drawings giving the construction, weight, dimensions, quantities, location, and attachment details for installation onto the industrial equipment to be insulated.

Pre-fabricated insulation panel
system: A rigid panel insulation system composed of precision-cut metal parts and insulation materials such that the system’s components can be installed by skilled craft laborers on the equipment to be insulated with minimal cutting and forming in the field. The metal parts and insulation may be delivered to the job site either unassembled or pre-assembled.

Pre-assembled insulation panel
system: A rigid panel insulation system composed of precision-cut metal parts and insulation materials and fully assembled into discrete insulation panels. These panels can be installed by craft laborers skilled on the equipment to be insulated with the metal lagging, panel structure, and insulation boards in pre-assembled, discrete units.

Responsibility for Performance of Pre-engineered Insulation Panel Systems

There is always an engineering firm or an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor responsible for the overall AQCS design. However, there are also an AQCS equipment designer/supplier, a pre-fabricated panel insulation system supplier, and an insulation contractor involved, so the question of who is responsible for the insulation panel system design can be complex. The engineering firm or EPC contractor probably has a specification for pre-fabricated insulation panel systems. The AQCS equipment designer/ supplier also probably has his own specifications—his panel insulation system design may be specifically tailored to his own equipment. If there is a pre-fabricated insulation panel system supplier, he should have his own in-house engineering and design capabilities. Finally, the insulation contractor typically is responsible for correctly purchasing and installing the system to the both the intent and requirements of the specification. His purchase order is likely to include a specification for the pre-fabricated insulation panel system with performance criteria; therefore, the insulation contractor likewise ends up with design responsibility. Without some clarification (perhaps contractual clarification), there is no simple, “one size fits all” answer to the question of who has design responsibility for the pre-fabricated insulation panels.

Materials Used

The insulation materials typically used are almost always mineral fiber boards or blankets, in compliance with either ASTM C612 or C553, that meet the high temperature requirements. Mineral fiber boards or blankets are selected for a combination of factors. Boards or blankets should meet the following requirements:

  • Are compressible and resilient, and so can be easily handled without damage
  • Can be cut easily and penetrated with attachment pins
  • Are lightweight (typically having a bulk density in the 2.5 to 10.0 pcf range)
  • Are effective insulators, with a thermal conductivity less than 0.24 Btu-in/hr-ft2-°F at a mean temperature of 75° F
  • Do not contribute corrosive chemicals when wet
  • Are partially water repellent prior to first high-temperature exposure (valuable during construction)
  • Easily drain and dry out when they get wet after high-temperature service
  • Are not flammable
  • Provide specified acoustical control in designated locations

High thermal efficiency materials, such as microporous insulation, are sometimes used where space limitations preclude full thickness of the mineral fiber insulation.

Required Thermal Performance

Usually, one of the insulation requirements includes providing personnel protection, which means keeping outer surface temperatures below 140°F on a windless, hot day, including consideration of the lagging emissivity (but without consideration of the effects of sunlight). Second, the insulation is intended to keep the flue gas from cooling below some threshold value as it travels through the duct. The longer the duct or the slower the flue gas flow rate, the lower the required thermal conductance of the insulated panel (or, alternatively, the greater the required insulation thickness). The maximum allowable temperature drop of the flue gas is then a function of several factors: the flue gas’ properties, its initial temperature as it enters the ducts and equipment, design (winter) ambient conditions, the ducts’ and equipment dimensions, and the ducts’ and equipment walls’ effective thermal conductance.

Heat flow analyses would be simple if the thermal design could assume one-dimensional heat transfer such that all heat flow is only through the insulation itself. However, some allowance must be made for additional heat loss through subgirts that cut through the insulation, from the hot side to the cold side, creating “thermal bridges.” This additional heat loss can be estimated either by hand or by computer calculations, the latter using a finite element or similar model. Regardless, the additional heat loss can be considerable with consideration for thermal bridging through the subgirt: it might be 25 to 50 percent greater than it would be for simple, one-dimensional heat flow through the insulation with no thermal bridging. The exact percentage depends on the panel system design and thermal design conditions.

Required Structural Performance

Specifics can vary from one location to another. In general, the panel system must withstand its own weight vertically, as well as a design vertical and horizontal seismic loading, a certain horizontal wind loading (usually based on hurricane or tornado conditions), snow loads, and foot traffic. Additionally, the system must accommodate ducts and equipment thermal movement in all directions. Hence, calculations made to establish the structural adequacy of the proposed design should be provided by the pre-fabricated insulation panel system supplier. Additionally, on horizontal ducts and equipment, the top surfaces must withstand foot traffic loading and so usually use thicker aluminum lagging.
In addition to the above thermal and structural design requirements, the insulation system must be designed to allow for water run collection and run-off.

The Importance of Engineering

If a panel insulation system is indoors, protected from wind and other environmental impacts, the engineering requirements are much less demanding. In such cases, it may be practical to have the aluminum lagging supported by pins holding the system to the flue gas ducts and equipment sidewalls. One such system is shown in Figure 9.

Note that in the system shown in Figure 9, the weight of the entire system is supported by capacitor discharge (CD) weld pins shot to the duct’s surface (refer to the detailed description given in the caption). While this may be structurally adequate for indoor applications, it may be insufficient for outdoor applications where the panel system would be expected to withstand high wind loadings (up to 110 mph). Figure 9 also shows the “Riley-Stoker Hat” subgirt and strap support, and the upper right corner illustrates the representative duct plate with the CD weld pin welded to the plate. The mineral fiber insulation is placed over the pins and against the duct plate, and a “speed washer” is placed on the CD weld pins and pushed tightly against the insulation. A pre-punched strap is placed over the pins and secured with suitable clip fasteners, to which the “Riley-Stoker Hat” subgirt is welded. The box rib lagging is then applied over the wall and is held in place with self-drilling screws to the “Riley-Stoker Hat” subgirt.

Figure 10 shows a mock-up for a modified H-bar system, which can easily be designed to withstand a high wind loading. In this design, the entire insulation panel system is installed outside the vertical duct stiffeners (as opposed to between those stiffeners and directly to the duct’s surface), providing a uniform exterior surface. The horizontal J-bar (upper) and H-bar (lower) are either welded or mechanically attached to channel standoffs that, in turn, can be either welded or mechanically attached to the vertical duct stiffeners. The vertical mineral fiber board is slightly oversized and compressed (to allow for thermal expansion) between two horizontal, parallel H-bars, leaving a vertical (i.e., still) air space between the boards and the duct surface. Where thermal movement considerations must be accounted for in the design, an expansion clip is used to secure both the J-bar and the H-bar. This allows for thermal movement of the duct plate and stiffeners relative to the lagging. Also of significance are the weld pins used in the H-bar as a top retention device for the insulation. This allows for a better compression fit of the insulation, which does not have to be deflected or deformed in any way to be worked between two flanges. The absence of the lower flange also allows for visual verification of the insulation fit at the top edge, where it is most likely to be shy of the subgirt, thus producing a cold spot for the duct and a thermal “hot spot” for the lagging.

To prevent high air movement and therefore higher-than-design heat transfer in that space, insulated convection barriers (continuous shelves composed of expanded metal with mineral fiber boards on top) are used. The box-ribbed aluminum lagging is screwed to the H-bars; however, woven fiberglass tape, adhered to the flange of the H-bar, acts as a thermal gasket to prevent high heat conduction through the H-bars to the lagging. This system has been designed by the pre-fabricated insulation panel system supplier for rapid installation of the mineral fiber boards (between the parallel H-bar and J-bar), capability to withstand high wind loadings, and ability to provide good thermal performance through the use of convection stops and thermal barrier fiberglass tape. These engineering features are to be expected with a well-designed panel system.

Conclusions

Pre-fabricated insulation panel systems can be made in a variety of designs. The facility owner and the insulation contractor both benefit if they specify and purchase a pre-engineered system that is custom designed for the particular project and supplied with thermal calculations, structural calculations, and assembly drawings showing where all the parts and pieces are to be installed. Furthermore, both obviously benefit from quality fabrication where the drawings match the delivered parts. The benefits are both short- and long-term. In the short term, the schedule and cost of the construction of the new AQCS component being added to the plant are well managed. Long term, the system provides the expected thermal performance, endures high wind conditions and external loads such as foot traffic, and allows accessibility for plant maintenance personnel. There are benefits if the project starts with
a comprehensive, detailed specification that requires the pre-fabricated
insulation panel system also to be fully engineered.

Figure 1

Insulators install a pre-fabricated aluminum box rib panel over a modified H-bar system, with the mineral fiber boards already installed on the flue gas duct sidewall. Note that while this system was pre-engineered and pre-fabricated, it was not pre-assembled; assembly is being done in the field by these insulators.

Figure 2

These two photos show pre-assembled panels, with the mineral fiber boards already impaled onto the aluminum box-ribbed panels, installed with screws to the pre-installed sheet metal flashing. Since they are cut to size, came with drawings showing where each should be installed, and have thermal and structural engineering calculations that support the design, this system is also pre-engineered. The panels were pre-fabricated at a remote shop and shipped to the power plant, several hundred miles away.

Figure 3

These two photos show pre-assembled panels, with the mineral fiber boards already impaled onto the aluminum box-ribbed panels, installed with screws to the pre-installed sheet metal flashing. Since they are cut to size, came with drawings showing where each should be installed, and have thermal and structural engineering calculations that support the design, this system is also pre-engineered. The panels were pre-fabricated at a remote shop and shipped to the power plant, several hundred miles away.

Figure 4

This pre-engineered, pre-fabricated, and pre-assembled insulation panel system was installed relatively quickly by the insulation contractor because all the panels had been cut to size and designed for a specific location, shown on the panel fabricator’s assembly drawings. These drawings will be extremely valuable in the future for the power plant owner, as they provide a record of what is where, should any panels need to be removed for maintenance or inspection.

Figure 5

Engineering drawing showing the assembly of a pre-fabricated, modified H-bar/panel combination system with a sound barrier material between the aluminum box-ribbed panel and the mineral fiber insulation board. Provided by a firm that pre-engineers and pre-fabricates these panels, this drawing shows details not otherwise available, such as the size and type of attachment screws.

Figure 6

A pre-fabricated door will be installed onto this hopper to provide access to the access port for maintenance. Such access is critical for the facility owner, who must operate and maintain the facility.

Figure 7

A pre-fabricated door will be installed onto this hopper to provide access to the access port for maintenance. Such access is critical for the facility owner, who must operate and maintain the facility.

Figure 8

Modified H-bar insulation system being installed on the top side of AQCS ducts at a PC electric power plant being retrofitted. This pre-fabricated system must be designed for thermal performance, wind loading, seismic accelerations, snow loads, and foot traffic; provide proper slope to allow water run-off; and allow for quick installation by the insulation contractor.

Figure 9

: In this photo of a mock-up, this system is typically referred to as a “conventional, pinned-to-the-skin” system using a “Riley-Stoker Hat” subgirt and strap support.

Figure 10

The essential details of a modified H-bar panel system. The advantages of this design and others that support the lagging off the duct’s stiffeners include that they can withstand high wind loading, which the “Riley-Stoker Hat” subgirt and strap support design, shown in Figure 7, cannot.

Figure 11

The upper sections of a row of hoppers on a bag house that filters out fly ash from the flue gas. Note the excellent fit of the pre-fabricated insulation panels, resulting from the efforts of both the panel system supplier and the insulation contractor. With its indoor location, protected from the elements, this system does not need to be designed for high wind loads, snow loads, or other outdoor environmental factors.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The Value of Maintaining Insulation

Insulation is a critical part of any industrial operation, protecting workers from extreme temperatures, controlling condensation, making processes more efficient, and improving energy efficiency and life-cycle costs. But when damaged or removed, insulation systems cannot perform effectively. Properly maintaining an insulation system is vital to a plant’s efficient and low cost operations.

According to a presentation by Dr. Urbi van der Velden, Director of the Netherlands Centre for Technical Insulation, damaged or missing insulation has a huge impact on productivity and the environment. Approximately 150,000 barrels of oil are lost daily due to insufficient insulation. Estimates are that 5 to 10 percent of refinery systems are badly insulated or not insulated at all in the European Union; for the United States, estimates are 20 to 25 percent. One refinery with a capacity of 300,000 barrels per day was examined and found to be losing 4,500 barrels a day due to insufficient insulation—a loss of roughly $200 million per year. Stopping the refinery’s losses with proper insulation would cost approximately $25 million, with a payback time of two months. This would save 500,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions.

Typically, routine insulation maintenance involves removal and replacement of insulated items when facility personnel perform maintenance work. However, insulation removed by plant personnel or by other contractors’ personnel is usually not replaced unless specifically noticed and reported by the employees of the in-plant or third-party insulation contractor. You might be surprised how often work orders are generated for the sole purpose of insulating or re-insulating items that should be insulated—not as often as you would think. During capital expansion or upgrade projects is normally the only time work orders are generated just to apply insulation to newly installed systems (whether piping or equipment).

Turnarounds (scheduled shutdowns) and Shutdowns (un-scheduled shutdowns) usually involve the removal and replacement of insulation for the same reason—the servicing of in-place insulation systems. The issue of insulation removal by other than insulation contractor workers becomes even more common (and detrimental) because workers are in a hurry and may not properly remove the insulation.

Insulation repair or replacement is nearly always one of the most cost-effective maintenance opportunities for a plant. Insulation’s typical Return on Investment (ROI) is less than 6 months, and tools exist to easily calculate ROI for a specific job. One way to calculate ROI is through an insulation energy appraisal, which calculates the dollar savings of preventing Btu losses as well as greenhouse gas emissions. An appraisal is based on data supplied by a plant/energy manager and gathered during a facility walk-through. This data is input to a program that calculates the energy used and the savings on any operating period or annual basis. Useful tools are also available at the Department of Energy’s website at www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/software.html.

“Insulation energy appraisals or insulation condition surveys are a great tool for identifying insulation needs to our customers. Although many plant energy (or utility) managers are becoming more aware of the importance of insulation, especially with the rapidly rising cost of energy, insulation contractors need to continue their efforts to work with these individuals regarding the potential savings that properly insulated systems offer,” says Larry Nelles of Zampell, Houston, Texas.

Insulation maintenance is all too often ignored. It has been estimated that between 10 and 30 percent of all mechanical insulation that has been installed is now missing or damaged. Ignoring problems with an insulation system can lead to excessive energy loss, corrosion under insulation, mold development, increased cost of operations, and reduced process efficiency or productivity. In extreme cases, these problems could lead to loss of capacity or an emergency shutdown.

In today’s energy environment, it is more important than ever to keep operations as efficient as possible. Insulation systems play a critical role and need to be properly maintained.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Saving Millions by Maintaining Insulation Systems: Control Your CUI Monster!

“I just put on sun block. Why am I still burned?”

That question reflects the frustration—often misdirected—the Netherlands Centre for Technical Insulation (NCTI) encounters over and over when confronted with corrosion under insulation (CUI) problems. It is time to counter the idea that insulation is the cause of corrosion. In today’s reality of strict budgeting of time and money, an integrated approach is not the easiest solution, but it is increasingly necessary to fight CUI—often the number one cost factor in a maintenance budget.

CUI has been on the agenda for a long time, but the recommended solutions are in daring contrast with the enormous costs for our companies and society. In the United States, an estimated $300 billion per year is now seen as a conservative estimate. The true figure, according to NACE International (formerly the National Association of Corrosion Engineers), might be closer to $500 billion per year!

To get a better grip on CUI, it is important to realize that insulation plays a pivotal role and should receive the utmost attention in all phases of a project, from design through operation. NCTI, from the insulation perspective, recognizes four phases in the chain of responsibility for quality insulation installation: (1) design, (2) painting and coating (conservation), (3) insulation system, and (4) maintenance and inspection (see Figure 1). All four are important in mitigating CUI and ensuring the best thermal performance. As the expression goes, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Design

It is essential that the specification for thermal insulation of the plant and equipment be addressed early in the design stage. It is important that the insulation contractor be able to submit a system that can be incorporated by the plant designer. Too often installations are designed that, with respect to quality, can hardly be insulated—let alone in an optimal way. A design that works well in CAD/CAM drawings but does not incorporate insulation requirements will most certainly give the owner problems down the road. At the design stage, allowance should be made for sufficient clearance around pipes, equipment, and/or elements of construction. Consideration should also be given to the additional weight of the finished insulation system. Unfortunately, very often this is not the case. Solutions are provided later, but these can rarely be classified as optimal and in due time will cause problems (e.g., in thermal performance or weatherproofing). It would serve all projects well if everyone focused on the fact that CUI starts on the drawing table.

Painting and Coating (Conservation)

Before insulation is installed, an appropriate painting or coating system should be an integral part of the preparation phase. Often either the awareness or preparedness (i.e., budget) for proper piping and equipment conservation is lacking. Substandard execution and surface preparation—or leaving the painting system out completely—are responsible for more than 80 percent of the installation failures due to CUI, yet this is common practice. It is essential that a proper conservation system be applied in the temperature range from 50°C to 150°C. When process temperatures are cyclic, the high-risk range for CUI extends to -20°C to +320°C. Paint systems, organic and inorganic, are used as a “last line of defense” to prevent CUI. The failure probability of a coating system increases with age and depends on the operating conditions. Most painting systems fail after 10 years, after which the bare steel can be attacked by CUI. Detailed description of coating and painting systems usually falls beyond the scope of an insulation specification, but the utmost attention should be paid to this subject.

Insulation System

A well-designed painting or coating system, together with a proper insulation system, will offer the benefits of improved control of CUI, reduced maintenance cost, installation lifetime extension, and longer undisturbed production. The system will pay for itself in enhanced energy performance.

It is also important to stress the need for a proper insulation standard. The commission on industrial insulation standards in the Netherlands, CINI, publishes the “insulation for industries” standard, which is specified worldwide in main industrial insulation projects. In this standard, material and application specifications are worked out, with hundreds of CAD/CAM detailed sketches and conservation and measurement standards. The base of the standard is control of CUI and best thermal performance of insulation systems. Experts from the industry and contractor communities worked together on the standard, which is updated annually using the best available techniques.

The quality of insulation systems has improved. But reality is unruly, standards very quiet, and budgets destructive. Despite good planning and specs, when the period of preparation startup draws near and insulation needs to be applied extremely quickly, standards and quality diminish in importance.

Maintenance and Inspection

Unfortunately, despite loud cries from corrosion engineers and the facility owner community, maintenance-free insulation systems do not exist. Insulation systems, no matter how well designed and well installed, eventually lose the ability to shed water. This deterioration occurs for many reasons, including mechanical damage in the operational phase, and can be caused by the inevitable maintenance of an operating plant.

Routine maintenance on insulation is usually a low-priority task because many operating departments cannot easily detect or assess the immediate effect of insulation damage. Maintenance is focused on equipment that has a direct and easily perceived impact on operating reliability—this in spite of experience showing that CUI has a major effect on maintenance budgets. NCTI statistics show that 55 percent of insulation system failures occur in the user or maintenance phase. Insulation must become an integral part of maintenance programs.

After an inspection survey has been completed, the reported damage and remarks should be translated into a plan of action for remedial and preventive maintenance. Companies that apply risk-based inspection work processes to determine the priority and inspection scope should make coating and insulation systems an integral part of their assessment.

For both coating and insulation systems, it is recommended that a yearly visual inspection be performed (to provide a first impression of system status). If defects are detected, more detailed inspections and maintenance should be executed (upon priority). For cold insulation systems, a regular inspection for damage of the vapor barrier is necessary to prevent progression of any damage.

Recommendations for preventive maintenance refer to situations or structures that need to be modified to prevent future or repeated damage to insulation or underlying surfaces. To systematically control the upgrade of insulation in a plant, the various units should be divided into manageable areas indicated on a plot plan and the work carried out area by area. Simultaneously, maintenance painting should be scheduled in the given areas.

The correct application of coatings—along with the proper design, specification, installation, and, most importantly, maintenance and inspection program—will allow for better control of CUI, lower maintenance costs, improved thermal performance, and extended life of process equipment. The result is longer, undisturbed, and cheaper production. It is not a game of chance. Proper design, conservation, insulation, and maintenance will give facility owners the best chance to control CUI and have all their efforts quickly repaid in energy savings and reduction in CO2 emission.

Figure 1

NCTI life cycle chain for ensuring quality in installation of insulation.

Figure 2

The results of the killer CUI.

Figure 3

Ready for maintenance or fit for purpose?

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Making the Case: Top 10 Arguments for Insulation and Energy Efficiency Improvements

So you’ve undergone a plant or energy assessment, or you already know what needs to be done with your existing mechanical insulation system, and you have recommendations in hand. But now you have a new challenge: convincing your company to implement the recommendations, which frequently include increased focus on insulation maintenance or insulation upgrades.

Recent data from the Department of Energy’s Save Energy Now program indicates that barriers to implementing energy conservation definitely exist. Of recommended actions, 73 percent had paybacks of less than 2 years, while 40 percent had paybacks of less than 9 months. Only 8 percent of recommendations had paybacks of more than 4 years. Yet the implementation rate does not reflect an appreciation for those paybacks. Fewer than half of technical recommendations are typically implemented, and good practices in one unit or plant are often not widely diffused in organizations.1 Why?

We will continue to examine this problem in a future issue as part of our effort to arm insulation advocates with compelling data. Meanwhile, here are 10 of the most common objections and some arguments against them.

Barriers

These barriers are commonly erected against energy management plans and specifically mechanical insulation.

  1. Insulation and energy management need a “champion”
  2. People resources seem to always be a problem
  3. Energy is often not a line of specific accountability
  4. Energy is often not integrated with other business objectives
  5. There is slow uptake on energy savings projects and implementing technical or specification recommendations
  6. The damage or cost caused by reduced focus on mechanical insulation is often not identified
  7. Detailed knowledge on mechanical insulation systems is lacking
  8. Pressure from competing initiatives exists
  9. Good or best practices in one unit/plant are not easily and widely diffused in organizations
  10. Insulation is not considered part of continuous improvement

Counterarguments

  1. Insulation and energy management need a champion: The first thing to do is find a champion in your company—someone in management who understands the value of insulation and will be receptive to arguments for energy efficiency and advocate for implementing recommendations. Then make your case to him or her.
  2. People resources seem to always be a problem: If insulation is not properly installed or maintained, its value to the system is severely compromised. Insulation should be installed by an insulation contractor. To find one, go to www.insulation.org/membership/. Also, there are many more training opportunities available today than there were a few years ago, including NIA’s National Insulation Training Program (NITP).
  3. Energy is not a line of specific accountability: Utility costs are part of the bottom line too; energy costs must be accounted for somewhere in your company’s budget. Talk to your accounting department and find out how. It may be time to make an argument for more visibility of energy costs so they can be more easily tracked. In today’s cost-cutting environment, it should be possible to argue that to cut energy costs, it is first necessary to know what those costs are. Also, energy efficiency improvements may extend the life of equipment and therefore impact capital investment. For example, replacing insulation may also address issues such as corrosion under insulation, mold development, reducing cost of operations, increasing process productivity, and providing additional worker safety.
  4. Energy is often not integrated with other business objectives: This is closely related to the above argument. Saving on energy costs should be an objective of every company, for both budgetary and environmental reasons. Energy costs may be taken for granted as part of your company’s general operating expenses, but management should be receptive to including energy reduction as one of the company’s overall goals. Insulation helps save energy and reduce greenhouse gases—a simple way to make your company “greener,” a growing concern in the current climate. It can also improve large equipment productivity.
  5. There is slow uptake on energy savings projects and implementing technical or specification recommendations: Uncertainty in the price of energy makes implementation more necessary. Energy prices do vary, but the general trend has been upward in recent years. Making improvements that reduce energy usage is a good way to hedge against future energy price increases. With crude oil at over $130 per barrel right now, reducing energy usage should be among your company’s priorities. Insulation also has one the fastest Returns on Investments (ROIs) around, so the company will make their investment back quickly and keep saving day after day.
  6. The damage or cost caused by reduced focus on mechanical insulation is often not identified: Neglecting mechanical insulation can directly impact a plant’s productivity. Corrosion under insulation, mold, excessive energy loss, and increased cost of operations can result from not properly maintaining an insulation system. Corrosion and mold can lead to a loss of operational capacity or even a plant shutdown. Replacing or maintaining insulation may cost a little bit, but most companies will save much more. Not replacing or maintaining insulation is guaranteed to cost money. Pipe or equipment failure can often be traced back to maintenance issues, whether the company recognizes it or not.
  7. Detailed knowledge on mechanical insulation systems is lacking: There are plenty of tools available to help. Insulation.org offers training classes, technical articles and literature, a database of Certified Insulation Energy Appraisers, and a Guide to Insulation Products Specifications. The National Institute of Building Sciences’ (NIBS’) Mechanical Insulation Design Guide is an excellent source for mechanical insulation information and design/specification guidance (www.wbdg.org/midg). The NIA Member Directory (www.insulation.org) is a good way to find knowledgeable help. The 3E Plus® program, which eliminates the complexity of determining the appropriate insulation thickness, is available at www.pipeinsulation.org. The Department of Energy offers the Save Energy Now assessment program (www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/assessments.html) and has a collection of helpful software tools at www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/software.html.
  8. Pressure from competing initiatives exists: Insulation has an incredibly short ROI, usually measured in months instead of years. Point out that it makes sense to address the options with the best ROI first. Look at the overall annual savings that insulation will provide and the impact this “free money” will have on your company’s cash flow. Also, as mentioned above, insulation has many other benefits in addition to energy savings. While insulation pays for itself quickly, it also helps improve personnel safety as well as equipment and process productivity by protecting equipment and reducing mold development and corrosion. This protection can reduce the overall cost of operations and increase productivity.
  9. Good or best practices in one unit/plant are not easily and widely diffused in organizations: Your champion can help with this. Consider starting a best practices program for the entire company, giving each unit or plant a chance to demonstrate their strengths and improve their weaknesses. A change in company policy might also be helpful in focusing everyone’s attention on the need for mechanical insulation.
  10. Insulation is not considered part of continuous improvement: If insulation issues have been neglected, with no record of continuous improvement, there may be reluctance to point out problems. This can lead to the question, “Why do we suddenly have to worry about this?” and make employees feel defensive about not addressing the problem sooner. “It will make me look bad” is a common reason workers do not like to raise problems. But energy improvement issues, especially in regard to insulation, are common to most plants. Instead of focusing on the past, focus on the future: improvements can be made starting now and will put the company ahead of the many that have not addressed the issue. Insulation may also be fighting for a share of the maintenance budget. Be sure to emphasize the ROI and other benefits when you talk about how much work the insulation system needs. Making insulation maintenance part of a continuous improvement program will also reduce the need for large one-time expenditures, both by keeping up with the insulation system’s needs and by reaping the benefits of properly insulated equipment.

Conclusion

Arguing the case for energy efficiency improvements is important for the health of your operation at any time, but it is especially vital after an energy or plant assessment. Often, the case rests on areas that are usually overlooked, such as insulation, and will require you to educate management on benefits that may seem obvious to you. Armed with data and prepared for the most common barriers, you are ready to go out and make your case.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Maintain Insulation Jacketing To Ensure Mechanical Insulation Performance

Jacketing applied over mechanical insulation can serve several purposes. Regardless of the type of jacketing and insulation, jacketing is used to ensure both the short-term and long-term performance of the insulation in the particular application. Assuming the jacketing is specified, manufactured, supplied, and installed correctly, over time it will only perform as designed if properly maintained.

Several types of jacketing are used on mechanical insulation materials, including all service jacket (ASJ), foil-scrim-kraft (FSK), sheet metal such as aluminum, metal foil, various types of thin plastic, synthetic rubber laminates with pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA), metal foil with PSA, multi-ply laminates with PSA, and fabrics with mastics and adhesives. The integrity of the jacketing is critical to the insulation’s performance, whether the insulation is applied to air handling ducts, pipes, or equipment—indoors or outdoors—and whether the system operates at above-ambient or below-ambient temperature. This is why maintenance of the jacketing is so important. Since maintenance decisions generally are made by facility owners (who set budgets), jacket maintenance can be made a priority for insulation maintenance workers.

This article describes several different applications and the role of insulation jacketing maintenance in each.

HVAC Insulation System Applications

For above-ground ducts and pipes, the thermal insulation system ensures that conditioned air or water flows from one place to another with a controlled temperature change. This controlled change would be a temperature decrease for above-ambient systems and a temperature increase for below-ambient systems. In essence, the insulation on above-ambient HVAC systems serves the dual purposes of controlling thermal energy transport (i.e., energy savings) and providing thermal comfort (i.e., controlling distribution of energy) for occupants of the space. Indoors, there is lower probability (but not a zero probability) that the insulation will become wet or damaged by physical abuse. Nevertheless, the jacketing on indoor applications—typically a lightweight material such as ASJ, FSK, or plastic sheet—secures the insulation to the surface being insulated. If the jacketing becomes torn and dislodged, the insulation material usually goes with it. Therefore, if the jacketing becomes damaged and is not quickly repaired or replaced, the penalty is typically both wasted energy and loss of thermal comfort for the building occupants.

The penalties for not maintaining insulation jacketing on below-ambient HVAC systems are much more severe, since they include the same penalties for above-ambient systems plus an additional penalty. In cold systems, the insulation serves to control thermal energy gain and provide thermal comfort. The jacketing not only protects and secures the insulation, but it must also serve as an effective vapor retarder, preventing moisture migration to the duct or pipe surface and the subsequent build-up of condensed water. Any breach of the vapor retarder, sooner or later, leads to moisture condensation. And wet insulation generally does not do anything useful. It must remain dry to perform.

The ASHRAE Research Project – 721, “The Effect of Moisture Content on the Thermal Conductivity of Insulation Materials Used on District Heating and Cooling Pipes,” documents that in the heating mode (up to 450°F), the effective thermal conductivity of wet insulation can be from 10 to 115 times greater than the same material in a dry state. For below-ambient applications, the effective thermal conductivity can be 2.5 to 17 times greater. In either case, but particularly in above-ambient applications, the insulation is not only rendered useless, but the net energy loss actually can be greater than if there were no insulation at all. While the above-referenced ASHRAE RP-721 was specifically conducted for buried district energy pipe systems, the physics remains the same: wet insulation does not work. For above-ground applications with weather-exposed insulating piping systems, the insulation jacketing must be maintained to keep the insulation dry and performing as it was designed.

Figure 1 shows some well-installed, well-maintained duct insulation on a below-ambient outdoor duct. The jacketing is a multi-ply laminate.

Figure 2, by contrast, shows an outdoor insulated duct where the jacketing has split open due to a poorly installed duct support (i.e., the sheet metal saddle was not installed as it was supposed to have been) and the duct insulation and jacketing were subsequently poorly maintained. After the split in the jacketing occurred, the insulation was exposed to the atmosphere, resulting in moisture condensation on the duct surface. This problem could have been avoided by having maintenance personnel identify the problem area, remove the wet insulation, replace it with new insulation, and re-jacket it with new multi-ply laminate jacketing.

The same principles hold for below-ambient pipe insulation. Figure 3 shows well-installed, well-maintained below-ambient pipe insulation.

Figure 4, by contrast, shows poorly designed and maintained pipe insulation jacketing on a project that experienced extensive moisture condensation problems. The resulting water and mold build-up is a consequence of both poor design and poor jacketing maintenance. It is not always simple to identify where the problem begins and where it ends. The plastic jacketing shows signs of having been stepped on repeatedly.

Figure 5 shows a clear plastic bag full of wet pipe insulation materials removed so they could be replaced with new insulation and jacketing. The amount of moisture in the insulation and plastic bag show the consequence of poorly designed and maintained insulation jacketing.

Figure 6 shows outdoor hot and chilled water pipes that have not experienced any moisture condensation problems due to good design, materials, installation, and maintenance. Of course, foot traffic on most insulation systems can be extremely damaging—a fate this system is protected from by its location. The damage is initially inflicted on the jacketing itself, then on the insulation. This is a problem at many process facilities in particular. Once the damage has occurred, rainwater enters the insulation system and eventually results in corrosion, especially if the metal surfaces are uncoated and there are frequent or prolonged maintenance periods when the lines are at ambient temperature.

Figure 7 shows indoor pipes with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) jacketing that has been well installed and well maintained.

Figure 8 shows pipes held together with insulated clamp and groove-type fittings that are jacketed with PVC fitting covers. These covers have been heavily damaged by foot traffic and needed replacement.

Industrial Insulation System Applications

Industrial applications can be even more challenging when it comes to maintaining the insulation and its jacketing. There are several reasons for this, including the following:

  • The applications are generally subject to weather.
  • Corrosive chemicals are often carried in the process pipes.
  • Horizontal pipes are frequently stepped on or even walked on, subjecting the insulation and jacketing to damage.
  • High process temperatures make it impractical to rely on organic coatings and hydrophobic insulations to protect against corrosion under insulation (CUI), so the jacketing is the only real protection.

Figure 9 shows a process pipe at an industrial facility that has been properly jacketed. It would appear, however, that this jacketing is relatively new. It is a challenge to keep the lap and butt joints effectively sealed with caulk, a material that will deteriorate over time and is not visible until the jacketing is removed. Maintenance of sealants suffers from the “out of sight, out of mind” syndrome. The only effective solution for outdoor systems is to periodically dismantle a section, inspect the sealants, and determine whether the entire system needs to be resealed.

Figure 10 shows a system that obviously needs to be re-jacketed. In fact, the insulation materials themselves probably need to be replaced with a high-compressive-strength material, assuming the facility owner cannot stop workers from walking on the pipes.

Figure 11 shows “A Tale of Two Pipes.” The pipe on the right has suffered from extensive foot traffic damage, and the one on the left has not (the pipe on the left has been reinsulated with new high-compressive-strength insulation and new metal jacketing). Failure to replace the insulation system on the pipe on the right, as was done on the pipe on the left, likely will result in excessively high heat loss, as well as water intrusion that may, over time, lead to CUI on the process pipe.

When it rains on the pipe with the damaged jacketing and insulation, the water will bypass the jacketing, such as it is, and likely be absorbed by the insulation. When the system is operating, the water will boil off, causing no further damage but resulting in high heat losses due to the high latent heat of vaporization of the leaking water (about a thousand Btus per pound of water, a quantity that can add up quickly with a leaky system in a rainy climate). When the system is shut down for maintenance (assuming that the insulation system itself is not being maintained), the water will migrate to the surface of the pipe, where it is likely to initiate CUI—and CUI is extremely costly to mitigate once it starts.

Figure 12 shows the consequence of corrosion on metal jacketing itself. The aluminum jacketing on the lower pipe was incorrectly specified for this application. It became corroded by leaking fluids from the pipe, a design issue that should have been anticipated. The upper pipe has been re-jacketed with a multi-ply laminate resistant to the corrosive effects of the process fluids.

Financial Justification for Insulation Maintenance

There are several reasons to use thermal insulation in mechanical applications. Whether for energy efficiency, energy savings, process control, condensation control, or thermal comfort in HVAC applications, its use can be easily justified by economics. To attain the design thermal performance, appropriate jacketing must be specified, correctly installed, and properly maintained. If any of these steps are missed, including maintenance, the insulation materials probably will not perform as specified, and the consequence will be higher operations costs. If CUI is a consequence of poorly maintained insulation jacketing, piping system replacement costs can become very expensive.

An example of the costs of pipe replacement when CUI has resulted: for a 3-inch to 4-inch nominal pipe size (NPS) pipe, about 5 man-hours per linear foot will be required to remove, replace, and retest the replacement pipe. With labor costs at a nominal $50 per man-hour, the labor cost would be about $250 per linear foot. Pipe material costs would be about $15 per linear foot, for a total pipe replacement cost of about $265 per linear foot.

Of course, insulation system replacement costs would be additional, perhaps about $17 per linear foot installed, bringing the total pipe replacement cost to over $280 per linear foot. The whole pipe system replacement project would be unnecessary if the insulation jacketing simply had been maintained in the first place, a cost that would be a fraction of the $280+ per linear foot on an annual basis.

Below-ambient air handling ducts and chilled water pipes with a major condensation problem would accrue similar replacement costs for the piping system and the insulation system. In the meantime, if the facility suffers from wet insulation, the owner is paying for much greater energy use, since the wet insulation does not effectively insulate. Further, dripping water can by itself lead to costly problems, e.g., if the water drips onto electrical equipment.

Conclusion

The performance of a thermal insulation material is dependent on its protection from water, water vapor condensation, and physical abuse. Insulation jacketing can provide that protection and thereby ensure the insulation material’s performance. To be successful, however, the jacketing must be properly maintained. A well-maintained insulation system reduces the operating costs of a facility—commercial or industrial. Overall, the benefits of a regular, sustained jacketing maintenance program will far outweigh the costs of that maintenance.

Figure 1

A below-ambient air handling duct, located outdoors, jacketed with a multi-ply laminate. This insulation system has been designed, installed, and maintained properly and hence, by excluding water and water vapor, it is providing the intended insulating performance.

Figure 2

The insulation jacketing, a multiply laminate on the same project shown in Figure 1, has broken open at a support that is missing the sheet metal saddle. While this saddle should have been installed, the lack of maintenance by the facility owner is leading to a significant energy penalty. An immediate repair could have prevented the condensed water build-up in the fiberglass insulation.

Figure 3

Hot and chilled water pipes, located outdoors, with generally well-specified, well-installed, and well-maintained insulation and jacketing. Note that the aluminum jacketing serves only as the weather barrier; the moisture retarder is taped FSK, located between the aluminum jacketing and the insulation.

Figure 4

The insulation jacketing on these chilled water pipes, located in a relatively humid environment exposed to the outdoor air, shows signs of extensive water condensation damage. Once the system started dripping, the owner applied the metal duct tape to the jacketing in a futile attempt to stop the condensation problems.

Figure 5

Soaking wet fiberglass insulation with ASJ materials removed from chilled water pipes. While better late than never, this project had operated for several years with the wet insulation, resulting in extensive corrosion of the pipes as well as excessive energy use.

Figure 6

Hot and chilled water pipes with an insulation system, including PVC fitting covers, that has been well maintained. Admittedly, this system would be difficult to walk on due to its location.

Figure 7

Indoor pipes with correctly installed and well-maintained PVC jacketing.

Figure 8

Insulated fittings with PVC jacketing that have suffered from foot traffic damage. These should be replaced to provide the vapor retarder performance of the PVC jacketing.

Figure 9

Process pipes with well-installed and well-maintained aluminum jacketing.

Figure 10

The aluminum jacketing on this process pipe ought to be replaced as part of the facilities maintenance program. Failure to do so sooner rather than later will likely result in wet insulation that performs poorly and possibly leads to problems with CUI on the process pipe itself.

Figure 11

“A Tale of Two Pipes” shows one (on the left) on which the insulation system has been recently replaced (reportedly with a high-compressive-strength insulation as well as new aluminum jacketing) and one (on the right) still waiting to be reinsulated. This comparison demonstrates clearly the level of damage that can occur from foot traffic.

Figure 12

In this photo, the lower pipe’s aluminum jacketing has apparently suffered from the corrosive effects of the process fluid. The upper pipe has been re-jacketed with a multi-ply laminate that is resistant to this corrosive fluid.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Insulation Materials: Rock and Slag Wool Insulation: A Sustainable Choice

History

Rock and slag insulations, sometimes referred to as mineral wool, have been produced naturally for centuries. During volcanic eruptions, when a strong wind passes over a stream of molten lava, the lava is blown into fine silky threads that look like wool. From this natural inspiration sprang one of the most innovative and versatile insulation products on the market today. Today’s rock and slag wool insulations are high-tech versions of their predecessors, produced from plentiful basalt and industrial slag.

Rock and Slag Wool Composition and Manufacturing Process

Rock wool and slag wool insulations are composed of basically the same raw materials in different proportions and are produced in the same way. Manufacturers use a mechanized process to spin a molten composition of rock and slag into high temperature-resistant fibers. Their similar properties also produce fairly similar performance attributes. The major difference is in the specific volumes of the various raw materials used to make each product.

Rock wool insulation is composed principally of fibers manufactured from a combination of aluminosilicate rock (usually basalt), blast furnace slag,
and limestone or dolomite. Slag is a byproduct from steel production that would otherwise wind up in landfills. Binders may be used, depending on the product. Typically, rock wool insulation is composed of a minimum of 70 to 75 percent natural rock. The remaining volume of raw material is blast furnace slag.
Slag wool insulation is composed principally of fibers manufactured by melting the primary component, blast furnace slag, with a combination of some natural rock, with or without binders, depending on the product. Typically, slag wool insulation uses approximately 70 percent blast furnace slag, with the remaining volume of raw materials being natural rock.

Rock and Slag Wool Benefits

Rock and slag wool insulations offer a wide array of benefits for specifiers, designers, and builders interested in using materials offering environmentally responsible characteristics and demonstrating proven performance. These benefits include the following:

  • Thermal performance. Rock and slag wool insulations are tested to all applicable industry standards to ensure their R-value does not deteriorate over time. Loose-fill rock and slag wool insulations resist settling, and batt products spring back after average compression, so installed thermal performance is maintained over the life of the product.
  • Fire resistance. Rock and slag wool insulations are naturally non-combustible and remain so for the life of the product. These insulations can resist temperatures in excess of 2,000°F. Because these products have a high melting temperature, they can be used in a wide variety of applications that call for these unique properties. These products meet NFPA 220and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E136 standards and test methods, and are Class A product tested per ASTM E84 and NFPA 101. Rock and slag wool insulations are used as passive fire protection in many buildings.
  • Sound absorption. The fibrous structure and high density of rock and slag wool insulations offer excellent sound absorption properties, making these products an outstanding part of systems designed to reduce sound transmission.
  • Mold, fungi, and bacteria resistant. Rock and slag wool insulations resist the growth of mold, fungi, and bacteria because they are inorganic.

The fibrous composition of rock and slag wool insulations provides a flexibility and versatility not found in most other insulations. Rock and slag wool insulations come in a wide variety of forms, shapes, and sizes, including board, batt, loose-fill, spray-applied, and pipe insulation for many common and specialized applications.

Environmental Benefits

One of the most important environmental benefits of rock wool and slag wool insulations is their ability to make buildings and equipment more energy efficient. A thermally efficient building or system reduces the amount of energy required to maintain it.

Slag wool is made from blast furnace slag, a waste byproduct of steel production. The industry estimates that over 90 percent of the slag used for insulation is purchased directly from steel manufacturers. The remaining 10 percent is mined from waste disposal sites and landfills. Between 1992 and 2005, slag wool insulation manufacturers used over 13 billion pounds of waste blast furnace slag in the production of insulation.

Readers who are interested in learning more about the insulation material featured here should visit the MTL Product Catalog at www.insulation.org/MTL or visit the NIA Membership Directory at www.insulation.org/membership to fid a manufacturer.

NIA Members who would like to author a future Insulation Materials column should contact publications@insulation.org.

Figure 1
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company: A Case Study from the Save Energy Now Program

Through Save Energy Now (SEN), the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) helps industrial plants operate more efficiently and profitably by identifying ways to reduce energy use in key industrial process systems. From its inception in 2006 to May 2008, 526 assessments have been performed around the country, identifying cost savings of over $750 million. Approximately $112 million in energy savings recommendations have been implemented, resulting in 74.1 trillion British thermal units (Btus) of natural gas savings.

In March 2006, an SEN assessment was conducted for Goodyear at the company’s tire plant in Union City, Tennessee. Founded in 1898, Goodyear is one of the world’s largest tire companies, with 70,000 employees and more than 60 tire plants in 26 countries. Goodyear develops, markets, and sells more than 80 different types of tires for a wide variety of vehicles. In 2006, the company posted net sales of $20.3 billion. The Union City plant opened in 1968 and employs approximately 2,800 workers.

The SEN assessment was performed by DOE Energy Expert Don Schmidt of Geos, LLC, who worked with two plant employees to analyze the plant’s steam system. As a qualified specialist in the use of DOE’s steam system assessment tool (SSAT) software, Schmidt installed the program on the employees’ computers and reviewed the data with them. This not only helped the plant team learn the software, but it also showed them how to analyze and identify natural gas savings opportunities in the plant’s steam system and apply those practices to other Goodyear facilities.

The steam system at the Union City plant is served by four dual-fueled (natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil) boilers. The plant uses more than 400,000 MMBtu (million Btu) of natural gas and 4 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil annually. Steam is important for the Union City plant’s production because it is needed for critical applications, such as tire curing and processing. Because many of the steam traps are next to the plant’s presses, steam trap maintenance is critical to ensuring that the presses operate reliably.

The Goodyear plant has a longstanding energy management policy aggressively focused on maintaining steam traps and repairing leaks. Faced with rising energy costs and the need to remain competitive, plant employees had contemplated additional efficiency improvements to their steam and motor-driven systems. Plant associates had long suspected that their steam system could yield significant energy savings. The SEN assessment report added weight to concerns raised by the plant energy team.

Assessment Recommendations

Using the data collected in the SSAT software, the team identified three potential energy savings measures and evaluated each for technical and economic feasibility. After reviewing expected cost and energy savings and the associated payback periods, the team determined the following near- and medium-term opportunities.

Near-term opportunity

  • Optimize Boiler Operation and Load Management Strategy—The steam load profile showed that the plant operated all four boilers at part load for redundancy purposes. In addition, two boilers were operating with excess flue gas oxygen levels, and the air inlet temperatures were unnecessarily hot. Careful analysis of the plant’s reliability requirements showed that the plant’s steam demand could be met by operating the large boiler and one of the smaller boilers at higher loads.

Medium-term opportunities

  • Insulate Process Equipment—While much of the steam system, including the headers, was insulated, the plant’s tire presses were only partially insulated. The assessment calculated that the plant was losing approximately 1,500 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) of steam. It was recommended that the plant completely insulate the presses to reduce steam demand, which would lower steam system energy consumption. Annual energy savings were estimated at almost 23,000 MMBtu of natural gas and more than 224,000 gallons of No. 6 oil, with total annual cost savings of around $400,000.
  • Recover Process Waste Heat—Due to contaminants from the production process, a significant quantity of condensate is unsuitable for return to the boiler. This condensate is diverted to a “hot well,” where it is cooled in a cooling tower and then used to cool other plant processes. The assessment showed that the condensate’s heat could be recovered using a heat exchanger to raise make-up water temperature, which would reduce the load on the boilers. Annual energy savings were estimated at 9,600 MMBtu of natural gas and 94,100 gallons of No. 6 oil. Estimated annual cost savings were approximately $176,000 per year.

If implemented, the total annual energy cost savings from both the near- and medium-term opportunities was estimated at more than $1 million.

Assessment Results

Goodyear’s Union City plant personnel began optimizing boiler operation and working on a load management strategy shortly after the assessment was completed. To optimize boiler operation, the employees adjusted the automation controls on all the boilers and reconfigured the forced draft fan inlets as specified in the assessment. This enabled them to operate the large boiler closer to full load and shut down one of the smaller, natural gas?fired boilers, resulting in annual energy and cost savings of approximately 70,000 MMBtu and $490,000.

In 2007, plant personnel began insulating the tire presses. They finished installing heat blankets on each of the presses at the end of 2007, and the insulation is yielding annual energy savings of approximately 23,000 MMBtu of natural gas and 224,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil, with cost savings of $385,000.

The plant intends to implement the recovery of process waste heat during a future scheduled plant shutdown.

Total energy savings from the implementation of the two recommendations is estimated at approximately 93,000 MMBtu of natural gas and 224,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil. With total implementation costs of $180,000 and annual energy cost savings of $875,000, these achievements will yield a simple payback of just 2.5 months. The plant’s natural gas costs have declined since the spring of 2006, resulting in lower energy cost savings than originally projected by the assessment. The methodology and results from the assessment were deemed applicable to and are being shared with several other Goodyear facilities.

Lessons Learned

Energy efficiency opportunities in steam systems can deliver significant energy savings without incurring substantial implementation costs. At Goodyear’s Union City tire plant, associates were aware of the potential for energy savings from the measures proposed in the SEN assessment, but before the assessment they had been unsure of the measures’ cost-effectiveness.

The assessment’s calculations of implementation costs and savings revealed that the efficiency opportunities were viable enough to fit the corporate parameters for energy efficiency expenditures. Such opportunities can be replicated in many industrial facilities that use steam.

In addition to the SSAT, other DOE software tools can be used to analyze industrial systems and processes and generate energy efficiency opportunities, including AIRMaster+, the Fan System Assessment Tool (FSAT); MotorMaster+, the Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST); and the Pumping System Assessment Tool (PSAT). These tools can be found at www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/software.html. The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association’s 3E Plus® software can also be useful and is available at www.pipeinsulation.org.

This article has been reprinted with permission from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). To learn more about the DOE’s Save Energy Now program, please visit www.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

From the Mechanical Insulation Design Guide: General Guidelines for the Repair of a Below-Ambient Insulation Systems after Substrate Inspection

This Guideline has been developed specifically for non-destructive testing procedures of the substrate beneath insulation systems operating below ambient temperature. However, this same procedure may also apply to other areas in need of repair. This guideline does not apply to cryogenic applications.

The physical penetration of an intact below-ambient insulation system is viewed as destructive and should be avoided if possible. Other forms of non-invasive inspection that do not require penetration of the insulation system should be investigated before proceeding with any procedure that requires penetration of the insulation system.

Consideration should be given to the potential need of penetrating the insulation system for substrate inspection in the insulation system design phase, and the location of the inspection points should be identified and vapor stops applied on either side of the area to be penetrated. The manufacturer of the insulation material and vapor retarder should be contacted for their recommendations for this procedure.

1. General Considerations and Preparation

1.1. Prior to penetrating the system and insulation removal, careful planning is required to ensure that the inspection is as minimally invasive as possible.

1.2. Contact the insulation and vapor retarder manufacturer for specific repair recommendations for the insulation system and operating conditions involved. If the system is operating during the inspection process, “water stops” should be installed as soon as the insulation is removed to ensure moisture/condensation does not run into the inside dimension (ID) of the remaining insulation. “Water stops” can be accomplished by several means: (a) Wrap insulation foam tape around the pipe, sealing off the ID of remaining insulation or (b) Adhere the remaining insulation to the substrate. This procedure should be confirmed with the insulation manufacturer.

1.3. Have proper tools, supplies, and sufficient replacement materials on hand to repair the insulation system immediately following the inspection. Ideally, the insulation should be removed immediately (15 minutes or less) before the inspection, and the repair procedure should begin immediately after that area of inspection is complete and be finished as soon as possible.

1.4. Repairs to the system are to be made using the same materials and insulation thickness used in the original system.

1.5. For systems operating below 0°C (32°F), a deicer such as methanol may be needed to remove ice build-up if the repair is not done immediately. In addition to methanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and vehicle antifreeze can be used to remove or potentially prevent the formation of ice for a short period. Each of these materials has various environmental, health, and safety issues that should be considered prior to use. When using any of these materials, care should be taken to minimize contact with the remaining insulation system.

1.6. Repairs to the insulation system should be made by an experienced insulation contractor immediately after the inspection is completed.

1.7. Penetration of the insulation system should never be made in inclement weather or when inclement weather is anticipated before the repair can be completed.

1.8. If possible, penetration and repairs should be made while the operating system for the area in question is not in operation. Repairs made while the system is in service are difficult and may not yield the expected long-term results.

1.9. Penetration of the insulation system could void insulation system or material warranties, written or implied. The insulation contractor and material manufacturers should be contacted before proceeding with any invasive inspection process. In addition, failure to follow the recommended repair guidelines of the contractor, material manufacturers, etc., could also void any and all insulation system warranties, written or implied.

1.10 Penetrating a below-ambient insulation system and not properly and quickly repairing the area could create damage to an extended area of the insulation system, shorten the life of the insulation system, and create many issues of concern such as, but not limited to, substrate corrosion, condensation, and safety-related issues.

1.11 All penetrations should be made on the bottom 180 degrees of all horizontal surfaces and on the bottom if possible.

2. Considerations for Insulation Removal

2.1. Removal of the insulation from the area to be inspected should be done by an experienced insulation contractor.

2.2. Care must be exercised during the insulation removal process to avoid damaging the insulation system beyond what is required for the inspection.

3. Insulation System Repair

3.1. If possible, the insulation system should be removed to the first insulation system joint. This procedure is more readily employed if the system is not in service. If not done during the removal, process cut or sand the exposed edges of the insulation to create a clean edge.

3.2. Working outward on multi-layer insulation systems, remove an additional 2-inch-wide strip of insulation from successive insulation layers from around the perimeter of the inspection area so the repair joints will be staggered when the insulation is replaced.

3.3. Measure the exposed area and cut replacement insulation to fit the exposed area. The insulation should be tightly installed, friction fit when possible.

3.4. Just prior to replacement of the insulation, wipe the exposed area down with dry rags to remove as much condensation as possible. If the substrate is iced up, apply deicer to remove the ice.

3.5. For totally adhered systems, replace the insulation and seal the joints using the adhesive recommended by the manufacturer.

3.6. For mechanically attached systems, replace the insulation and seal the joints using the sealant recommended by the manufacturer.

3.7. On multi-layer systems, the inner layers are replaced without joint sealant and the joints of the outer layer are sealed using the sealant recommended by the manufacturer.

3.8. If applicable, replace insulation finish with materials that match those used for the original installation and in a manner recommended by the finish manufacturer.

To access the MIDG, please visit www.wbdg.org/MIDG.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The 100th Congress, The 2008 Election, And The Future of Energy Efficiency Policy

On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the most sweeping energy efficiency legislation that has been enacted in the last 30 years. EISA is projected to save consumers and businesses more than $400 billion from now through 2030 and reduce U.S. energy consumption by 7 percent in that year. Congress is to be applauded for its leadership and perseverance in bringing about the passage of this landmark legislation in less than a year’s time. With the enactment of EISA, the United States has now taken a major step toward a cleaner and more energy-efficient future, and made a significant down payment on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The new energy law, welcome as it is, is just the cornerstone—the first stone laid in building the foundation for an energy-independent future. There are a number of major omissions from the energy law, including extending energy efficiency tax incentives for commercial buildings, new homes, appliances, and energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. A provision increasing the effectiveness of energy building codes, which was included in the energy bill that passed the House of Representatives last year, was dropped from the legislation at the 11th hour. Other key provisions that were dropped from the bill at the last minute include the Renewable Electricity Standard.

Notwithstanding the provisions that were left out, EISA’s significance from an energy efficiency perspective cannot be overstated. Among the bill’s provisions are new and updated efficiency standards for clothes washers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, boilers, motors, and incandescent reflector lamps, cutting an estimated 90 million tons of emissions. The phaseout of incandescent light bulbs, by itself, will help the United States realize a reduction of 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030—equal to the elimination of 20 million cars. EISA also focuses on the level of government energy consumption, requiring new federal buildings and renovations to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50 percent by 2010, while accelerating targets for energy use in existing and new federal buildings to reach a 30-percent reduction by 2015.

Other provisions in the new law include authorization of an initiative for development and deployment of Zero-Net-Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative (CBI) and new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. CBI’s goal is that all new commercial buildings will only use as much energy as they can produce or obtain from renewable sources by 2030. Commercial buildings currently represent about one-fifth of total energy consumed in the United States and are responsible for one-fifth of carbon dioxide emissions.

The new CAFE standards will require the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to increase the average fleet fuel economy standard for cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, saving consumers an average $22 billion in 2020, representing around $1,000 per year in fuel costs for an American family.

EISA represents Congress’ recognition of the importance of energy efficiency as the greatest resource in reducing carbon emissions; but the omissions from the new law leave a lot of work to be done this year in extending the tax incentives, as well as other “missing pieces” that would provide a comprehensive approach to U.S. energy problems.

The first target of opportunity in 2008 for extending the energy efficiency incentives was the economic stimulus package. The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) supported the successful amendment by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to add the efficiency incentives, along with extension of renewable energy tax credits, in the Senate Finance Committee’s consideration of the stimulus bill. When the package reported by the Finance Committee came to the Senate floor, it was immediately the subject of a filibuster. The ASE worked in concert with a diverse coalition of groups in support of the renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives, but the Senate failed to invoke cloture by one vote.

Now the ASE will work with the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and a coalition of organizations supporting the incentives to identify another legislative vehicle for passing the extension provision this year. The Alliance was encouraged that the House of Representatives was planning to consider a Ways and Means Committee package of tax provisions as early as mid-February.

Another high priority for 2008 is enactment of the building energy codes provision that also was deleted at the 11th hour from the bill. The ASE already has engaged in strategy planning with senior congressional staff to get building energy codes enacted in 2008 or 2009. The ASE is working closely with congressional staff to identify the right vehicle for adding the codes language, and Alliance staff members are meeting directly with members of Congress to identify additional “champions” for this key energy savings President Bush’s State of the Union address described some lofty goals in energy policy, such as U.S. leadership in developing energy-efficient technologies and using energy efficiency to help stem greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, the president’s budget request did not provide the resources to match those goals. In fact, the budget submitted reduces funding for key energy efficiency and research and development programs, particularly those in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The budget request calls for a reduction of almost 30 percent in EERE funding below the fiscal year (FY) 2008–appropriated level.

The Bush administration did propose gains in funding (approximately $15 million) for the DOE Building Technologies Program. The ASE was especially encouraged by the recommended increase in funding for building energy codes and by the administration’s statement of support for a 30-percent increase in residential building codes. The overall reduction in funding for EERE is a disappointment, however—especially the recommended zeroing out of funding for Low-Income Weatherization Assistance, the bulk of the reduction in EERE funding.

Lastly, but by no means least in importance, energy efficiency is critical to the debate on climate change legislation that is under way on Capitol Hill. The ASE will press actively for effective use of energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including use of credit allocation or auction for efficiency programs and strong complementary energy efficiency policies. For example, the building energy codes language is contained in the Lieberman-Warner bill, S. 2191, and the Alliance hopes it also will be included in the climate change bill that will be introduced in the House by Energy and Commerce Chair John Dingell and Energy Subcommittee Chair Rick Boucher.

The recent downturn in the economy, the declining real estate market, and the leaping gasoline and home heating oil prices will provide a renewed sense of urgency to Congress to deal with energy issues in 2008. Nothing affects the American consumer more than energy prices, whether it is gas prices, home heating oil prices, or the price of goods and services dependent on petroleum. The typical American family is expected to face home energy costs averaging $2,200 in this calendar year. National energy policy is among the top issues facing Congress and the presidential candidates.

The Alliance to Save Energy anticipates a busy year in 2008—seeking to secure the extension of the tax incentives, enactment of legislation for tougher building energy codes, and strong funding for energy efficiency programs. All of this adds up to a full agenda in a year when the legislative calendar will be shortened by the election cycle, leaving more to accomplish over a shorter period of time. The ASE is and should be encouraged by the enactment of the new energy law, but the larger task ahead is a reminder that EISA was not the beginning of the end for energy legislation, but, as Winston Churchill once said (in another context), merely the “end of the beginning.”

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

On A Knife’s Edge: The Outlook for 2008

“Senator, I realize my testimony wasn’t the most cheerful thing you’ll hear today.”—Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to Senator Richard C. Shelby during Bernanke’s testimony to Congress on February 27, 2008.

Following strong growth during the third quarter of 2007, the U.S. economy stagnated at the end of the year. Though an official declaration is several months away, many economists believe that the economy may have slipped into recession during the first quarter of 2008. A main economic headline in 2007 was the housing downturn, which triggered a global financial crisis and record high oil prices. These trends—which have persisted into 2008—suggest an economy balanced on the edge of a knife blade. On one side is stagnant growth or even recession. On the other side: inflation.

As world economic growth accelerated during the past several years, especially in China and India, demand for oil and other commodities has risen. In addition, oil is priced in increasingly devalued U.S. dollars, pushing the cost even higher for U.S. consumers. During the first quarter of 2008, it became clear that inflation has returned to the U.S. economy, with headline inflation rising at the highest level since Hurricane Katrina derailed oil production and sent prices soaring for several months. More troubling is the high rate of core inflation (excluding the volatile food and energy components), suggesting broad-based inflationary pressures in the economy.

The Federal Reserve (“Fed”) prefers the core rate of inflation to remain in a 1- to 2-percent band. By most measures, the U.S. economy has experienced inflation well above that band. This puts the Fed in a precarious position. It has the following two main goals:

  • Maintaining price stability
  • Promoting economic growth

This is one time when these goals conflict with each other. To promote economic growth, the Fed has lowered interest rates and indicated a willingness to go further should growth deteriorate. Relaxing monetary policy, however, has the side effect of increasing inflation. The last time the economy faced this set of circumstances was during the stagflation years of the 1970s, which were marked with high inflation combined with weak economic growth.

Housing, which pulled the economy down in 2007, will continue to be a drag on the economy through 2008. As the price of most Americans’ largest asset continues to erode, and credit becomes even tighter, consumer spending will weaken. After growing 2.9 percent in 2007, it is predicted that consumer spending will slow to 1.2 percent in 2008 before rebounding to a 2.2-percent rate in 2009. Capital spending is driven by profits, which have grown solidly over the past five years as operating rates have tightened. Operating rates have been falling since the third quarter of 2007, however, and profits are softening. Credit also is tight for businesses. As a result, capital spending will fall back.

One bright spot, however, is the lower value of the dollar, which serves to make U.S. exports relatively less expensive and imports relatively more expensive. As a result, the U.S. trade deficit improved in 2007 and is expected to improve in 2008. Many economists anticipate that the dollar will remain weak through 2008 before strengthening in 2009. In addition, the economies of many U.S. trading partners—including Canada, Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia—continue to expand, though at somewhat slower rates than in past years. This will keep demand for U.S. exports up. The International Monetary Fund projects global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to grow by 4.1 percent in 2008. Stronger exports, rather than capital spending, will be the growth driver in 2008.

Energy

Last year, oil prices returned to levels unfamiliar to the 125 million Americans born after 1980. As China’s economy surges ahead, Chinese consumption of oil has grown at a rate several times faster than those in developed countries. Last year, China alone accounted for nearly half of the incremental increase in global oil demand. Despite the fact that the United States is far more energy efficient than it was during the 1970s, sustained high oil prices are beginning to take their toll. By the middle of the first quarter, gasoline inventories were at a 15-year high, suggesting that $3-per-gallon gasoline is causing consumers to change their driving habits. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that oil prices,1 which moved above the historic $100-per-barrel mark in February, to average close to $90 per barrel for the year, before slipping to around $82 per barrel in 2009. Natural gas prices are expected to average around $7.60 per million British thermal units (MMBtus) in 2008, and $7.75 per MMBtu in 2009, according to the EIA.

Ethanol, made primarily from corn, has been heralded by many as the means to get Americans to reduce their dependence on foreign oil supplies. Huge investments in ethanol capacity have been made over the past several years, and many projects are in various stages of development. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, at the end of 2007, U.S. ethanol capacity had reached 8.4 billion gallons per year (bgy). In 2008, capacity is expected to grow by 2.8 bgy, to 11.2 bgy, and will surpass 13 bgy by the end of 2009.

At the beginning of 2008, several competing bills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were under consideration in the U.S. Congress. All of them feature some variation of a “cap-and-trade” mechanism, whereby emissions will be capped and emitting entities will be required to purchase an allowance equal to 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. This legislation will have serious implications for energy-intensive industries across all sectors and will provide opportunities for energy-saving materials, devices, and technologies.

Construction Spending

During 2007, total construction spending was off by 2.5 percent. Spending in the residential sector declined by 17.7 percent, led by the sharpest downturn in housing in recent memory. By the first quarter of 2008, inventories of new and existing homes were bloated, averaging 10 months’ supply at current sales rates. Home prices will remain depressed until these inventories are worked off. Home sales will depend on employment (and thus income) prospects and, of course, the ability to obtain an affordable mortgage in a tight credit market. As the imbalance unwinds during the rest of 2008, housing starts will fall to 980,000—down from a high of nearly 2.1 million in 2005.

The downturn in housing, however, has been offset by strong gains in private, nonresidential construction, which rose by 18.2 percent, and public construction, which was up by 12.4 percent in 2007. Last year, among the largest gaining segments in the private, nonresidential sector were lodging, office, commercial, and power. In the public construction sector, health-care, public safety, transportation, and publicly funded power projects were the largest gainers. Looking ahead to 2008 and 2009, spending on private, nonresidential projects will be constrained by soft profit growth and continued weakness in housing as it relates to commercial and retail projects typically located near new housing developments. As consumer spending and personal income growth weaken, so will tax revenues from sales and income taxes. Also, as housing prices continue to sag and foreclosures accelerate, the property tax revenues that support many local government projects will be at risk. Overall construction spending will be off by 3 to 5 percent in 2008 and will slip 1 to 2 percent in 2009 before regaining traction as the housing crisis finishes unwinding and the economy recovers.

Outlook for Insulation End-Use Markets

Chemicals. The $663-billion chemical industry has been affected by weakness in industrial markets, especially those tied to construction and light vehicles. Many key end-use markets for chemicals in the manufacturing sector have been decelerating or declining as the economy deflates. The low value of the dollar and stronger overseas growth have boosted exports, which have partially offset softer domestic demand. The American Chemistry Council projects chemical output to increase by 0.8 percent in 2008 and by 1.8 percent in 2009.

Food processing. Even during a recession, a growing U.S. population still needs to eat. The cost of doing so, however, is increasing. As discussed above, production of corn-based ethanol is growing strongly. This surge in demand has raised the price of corn and many products along the supply chain (including beef, poultry, and dairy products). It also has put pressure on the price of other grains that can be substituted for corn and their respective supply chains. In 2007, the price of food increased by 3.9 percent—the strongest gain since 1990. Between higher food and gasoline prices, less disposable income is available for higher value-added food products (such as convenience or gourmet foods) and meals eaten outside the home. Sales of organic food also may be affected by the downturn in consumer spending. Overall, food and beverage production is expected to increase by 2.5 percent in 2008 and 3.2 percent in 2009.

Refining. According to the EIA, U.S. refineries ran at 88.5 percent of capacity during 2007. Despite some evidence that high gasoline prices may be altering consumer behavior, demand for motor gasoline is expected to grow by 0.5 percent in 2008 and 0.3 percent in 2009, according to the EIA. The refinery capacity, however, is expected to contract by 11,000 barrels per day during 2008. As a result, the EIA projects that capacity utilization rates will tighten to 89.1 percent in 2008 and 89.3 percent in 2009.

Pulp and paper. The $170.4-billion U.S. pulp and paper industry continues to be plagued by overcapacity, loss of customer markets overseas, penetration of Internet-based media, and evolution of electronic recordkeeping. As the U.S. economy falters, business spending on advertising in traditional print media will subside, and demand for paper in packaging will ease as businesses and consumers hold back spending. As a result, pulp and paper production will fall by 1.5 percent in 2008. As the economy recovers in 2009, pulp and paper production will be flat.

Gas processing. Following the rebuilding of capacity after the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, new gas-processing demand came online during 2007 with the launch of production from the Independence Hub in the Gulf of Mexico. New deepwater production is rich in natural gas liquids (NGLs) that must be stripped out prior to pipeline distribution. The EIA projects that marketed production of natural gas will increase 2.2 percent in 2008 and 0.8 percent in 2009.

Shipbuilding. By some estimates, 70 percent of the world’s commercial shipbuilding and repair business occurs in Korea and Japan, with increasing activity in China. In the United States, the shipbuilding industry is a $15.1-billion industry.

The shipbuilding industry depends on the volume of world trade, which continues to accelerate. China’s industrial sector, growing by double digits in each of the past five years, has become the world’s factory floor, sending record volumes of exports around the globe. On the other side is China’s demand for imported raw materials and energy, which must make the journey from all parts of the globe to be processed. The Baltic Dry Index, a price measure for marine transport of bulk commodities, reached record highs at the beginning of the year, signaling strong demand for marine bulk transport. However, an increase in new shipbuilding orders has not materialized in the United States. New orders have softened through the first quarter, suggesting weaker growth through 2008.

Summary

Although there is considerable debate among economists about whether a recession has begun or will begin shortly, there is nearly unanimous agreement that the economy is experiencing its weakest performance since 2001. With increasing anxiety among consumers resulting from higher prices for everything except their largest asset and a manufacturing sector clearly in distress, the outlook is shaky. Historically, the U.S. economy has proved to be resilient time and again. With exports remaining strong, the potential for the economy to remain on a growth track without pushing inflation higher is certainly a possibility. At the same time, however, the risk of recession—and worse, stagflation—are very high.

(1) West Texas Intermediate (WTI)

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4