Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Insulation Management and Its Value to Industry

Just look at any chemical, petrochemical, or petroleum refining facility. Much of what you might see is insulated piping, equipment and vessels. There sure looks like there is a lot of it. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of insulated pipe, equipment, tanks and vessels. As an example, let’s consider a "typical" mid-size chemical plant and oil refinery. A mid-sized chemical manufacturing plant can contain more than 61 miles of insulated piping and more than 6 football fields (270,000 square feet) of insulated equipment, vessels and tanks. A medium sized oil refinery contains 356 miles of insulated piping and more than 32 football fields (1,440,000 square feet) of insulated equipment, vessels and tanks.

It seems clear that insulation serves an important role in the operation of all chemical, petrochemical and oil refining facilities. But why is it important?

  • Process Control is first and foremost. Insulation helps retard the flow of thermal energy into or out of a process, keeping temperatures stable, allowing chemical reactions to proceed normally and safely to manufacture the chemical and oil products.

  • Energy Conservation is next. Without insulation, thermal energy would escape uncontrollably to the atmosphere, wasting billions of dollars. Figure 1 (page 10) illustrates the energy loss from an uninsulated 4 inch pipe versus one insulated with 2 inches of insulation and covered with aluminum jacket.

  • Freeze Protection is the next most important service that insulation performs for those facilities in northern climates. Without adequate insulation on critical service equipment supplying cooling or fire protection water, steam condensate, and other aqueous solutions, they would freeze, preventing them from performing the service they were intended to do. The freezing of this equipment also results in rupture and breakage of pipe and equipment due to water’s unique property to expand when frozen. This results in millions of dollars of damage along with the potential for serious environmental and personnel safety problems.

  • Personnel Protection from burn hazards is the next important service insulation provides. Much of the insulated pipe and equipment in a chemical plant or oil refinery operate at temperatures ranging from 200 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to more than 1000 degrees F, and are located near where plant employees and contract personnel work on a daily basis. Insulation is frequently the only barrier keeping personnel safe from these hazards.

  • Emissions Control, although frequently not recognized, is the final service insulation provides to an industrial plant. Figure 2 (page 10) shows the emissions loss from the same 4 inch pipe, comparing bare versus 2 inches of insulation.

Industry Appreciates Insulation-Or Does It?

With all the essential service insulation performs for industry, it must be an important element in each facility’s maintenance program ?right? Well, let’s look at those chemical plant and oil refinery examples discussed earlier. Figure 3 (page 10) shows the typical damage present, the problems created and their costs. Another way to look at the scope of the problem is to look at the asset value. Take that typical mid-size chemical plant with existing damages, assuming an invested value of $500,000,000. A normal chemical plant contains from 6 percent to 10 percent of its asset value in its insulation systems. This means there is between $30 million and $50 million of insulation damage to this facility. With the cost of energy from about $4/MM Btu to more than $10/MM Btu, repairs to many of these damaged insulation systems would yield anywhere from 30 percent to more than 300 percent plus return on the investment (ROI) to repair them. So, with this kind of damage and the potential for excellent payback once repaired, it looks like insulation maintenance isn’t managed as well as it should be, nor does it look like it’s considered very important, despite compelling evidence. Why?

Quoting a fellow consultant and friend of mine, V. S. Pignolet of Balmert Consulting: "For something to get fixed, it first must be noticeable. Then the level of damage must be objectionable." The abundance of insulated pipe and equipment that surrounds industrial facility managers makes it difficult to recognize the impact of what looks like such a small amount of damage. However, often the biggest reason is much of the damage is either not noticed or viewed as not important. Insulation damage ranges from cosmetic, such as staining, to completely bare equipment.

A good example of "not noticed" was an insulation assessment I performed at a chemical plant in the Texas Gulf Coast. Plant management was concerned about the quality and capacity of their steam delivery system. Often, the steam pressure was dramatically reduced and there was an excessive amount of condensate within the system at the end of the main utilities distribution pipe rack. As a result, those production manufacturing facilities were having a more difficult time operating efficiently.

As I started my assessment survey, I interviewed personnel from the utilities area. These personnel indicated that each time it rained they had to add about 25 percent more steam generating capacity in order to meet the demand. Since this was the Texas Gulf Coast, the plant saw rain.

Looking at the utilities distribution pipe rack from the ground showed only incidental damage to these steam pipes. However, once I gained access to the top of the pipe rack, the picture changed. These steam lines were installed with glass fiber insulation covered with corrugated aluminum jacketing (great for trapping water and diverting it into the insulation when used on horizontal runs). Over the years, maintenance activity, storms, salt in the air from the Gulf Coast only a few miles away and the mildly corrosive atmosphere resulted in numerous small holes in the aluminum jacketing. The result …each time it rained, nearly the entire run of steam lines in this pipe rack was getting soaked, ruining the insulation efficiency and condensing the steam before it could get to many of the process facilities. The project designed to upgrade this damage yielded more than 150 percent ROI for the energy savings alone. In addition, each production facility found a more reliable source of steam with less difficulty efficiently operating their facilities.

A case of "not realizing" was an insulation assessment I performed at a chemical plant in the Midwest. This plant operates much of its facility well below 0 degrees F, with some in the cryogenic ranges below minus 100 degrees F. The insulation system was cellular glass with an applied "asphalt cutback" vapor retarder and aluminum jacketing. At a casual glance most of the insulation systems looked intact. However, most of the piping, equipment and vessels showed extensive condensation and mildew growth on the jacketing (photo 7, page 16). Over time (with the help from some maintenance and shutdown activity damage) the vapor retarder had failed, filling the system with moisture. Figure 11 (bottom right) shows the loss of insulation efficiency as a result. Again, with refrigeration energy costs of almost $40/MM Btu, a project with excellent ROI was developed. Also, the refrigeration units could run during the peak mid-summer times without reaching their capacity limits.

Maintenance: Still a Reactive Program

Another reason so much of industry’s insulation systems remain damaged is the manner they are repaired. Insulation maintenance remains a very reactive maintenance program. Simply stated, this means that once it gets found, it gets fixed. The consequences of this type of maintenance are many.

  • Usually only the most damaged, highly visible, items get fixed. As a result, every $1 that would have been spent to repair the insulation with minimal damage (e.g. sealant or jacket repair) will cost from $10 to well more than $50. This doesn’t help to stretch already reduced maintenance budgets!

  • Each scope of work is small, leading almost invariably to low insulator work efficiency and high cost. The insulator must mobilize, secure all necessary permits, and get to the work site. This element of cost is essentially fixed, meaning it will take about the same money to fix 3 feet as it would 30 feet of insulation damage in any one area. I have performed and seen studies that reflect from 20 percent to over 300 percent less insulator work efficiency for work performed this way. Once again those precious maintenance budgets are getting strained!

  • Many damaged areas are never even seen at all so are never fixed. Hard to see areas such as congested, multi-tier pipe racks or the highest elevations of a facility are good examples. Personnel seldom travel there and can’t see well if they do, so needed insulation repairs are overlooked.

  • Doing repairs in this manner makes it extremely difficult to identify the work that has been accomplished. As a result, a busy operations manager, who probably doesn’t fully understand the benefits of insulation maintenance, sees money being spent without any real visible benefit. This makes a tempting budget cutting target if money becomes scarce!

So with insulation damage not being noticed, insulation maintenance not being viewed as important, the benefits not well understood and often the work that does get done is done very expensively, how (if at all) can we improve it? The answer is to develop a planned or strategic approach. A strategic approach is planned and executed to target and fix those areas of damage with the potential for best benefit to the facility and packaged in such a way to delivery the best long term cost. What follows is an explanation of ways to get it done.

1. Prioritize the Facility

Analyze how important the insulation systems are for each section or process unit within your facility. (e.g. The catalytic cracker unit within an oil refinery is large, contains large equipment, piping and vessels and utilizes some of the highest temperatures anywhere within the refinery, so prioritizing this area will likely save the largest amount of thermal energy and therefore money.)

2. Prioritize the Roles Insulation Serves

Which insulation systems are the most important and why? Is it process control, energy management improvement, freeze protection, personnel protection or environmental emissions control? (e.g. A chemical plant process unit manufacturing an aqueous chemical compound probably should be very concerned with freeze protection.)

3. Scope

Survey and quantify the necessary repairs, taking into account the quantity of damage, type of damage and its physical location. This is the first step in assembling a work package that will yield the greatest benefit and least possible cost. A word of caution here ?Do not assemble work packages any larger than you can reasonably afford to perform within a two-year time period. Any time period longer than this risks a work package that no longer reflects the needed repairs.

4. Package for Geography

Assemble the work according to specific geographic areas. This allows a crew of insulators to tackle a big enough job in any one area to make it worthwhile to get them there. The cost to mobilize a work group to and from any area can be anywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent plus the total job cost.

5. Package for Insulation Damage

If budgets are an issue, consider performing repairs only on those insulation systems with damage that will yield the greatest benefit to the facility. (Careful with this one! If you split up the work in any one specific geographic area, you end up paying the work crew to come back time and again to perform work in the same area. Balance this need with point number 4 discussed previously.)

6. Specifications

Insulation systems are NOT a "one size fits all" proposition If you are only repairing a relatively small part of the insulation system, you probably want to consider specifying what’s already installed, unless it’s a hazardous respirable fiber such as asbestos. However, if you are doing a large amount of work on any one system, consider:

  • the environment (exterior vs. interior, corrosive chemicals, temperatures, etc.).

  • the possibility for physical abuse such as maintenance.

  • areas of regular maintenance (removable insulation systems may be needed).

  • vibration

  • the reason for insulating (personnel protection, energy, etc.).

  • cost and other factors.

All these factors affect how well the insulation system will perform, how long it will last and what it will cost. Time spent thinking about this will give you an insulation system that will last, resulting in the lowest long-term cost.

7. Cost Information

Ideally, it would be nice to know what the work should cost prior to the start of job. A responsible contractor, particularly one in which you have a contract, can assist you in providing estimates for various job costs, giving you valuable information in deciding how much you want to spend and how much value you think you’ll receive from the expenditure. There is a belief in some places that if you get a number of contractors together, show them the work and request lump sum proposals from them then you AUTOMATICALLY get the best price. This is NOT always the case. Sometimes contractors may propose prices that some may think are higher than what the job should cost. Why? If it’s a busy time for all contractors in a region, then manpower is scarce and the contractors may be stretched thin trying to do the work they already have. This condition often results in prices higher than normal. Again, a responsible contractor can give you estimates of what they think the job will cost, allowing you to decide to go ahead with the work, delay the work or perform it another way.

8. Execute

Consider the best way to perform this work. There are a variety of ways to perform insulation work. Assuming you are considering using an insulation contractor, you can do it several ways. Several contractors can review the work at a pre-bid job meeting and submit lump sum bids. You can arrange to have the contractor perform this work on a "time & material" basis with the contractor charging for each hour of labor they spend plus the cost of all materials and equipment used on the job.

You could also have several contractors offer a "unit price" proposal in which the contractor proposes a fixed fee to perform a specific unit of work (e.g. 1 lineal foot or 1 square foot for a specific insulation system installed on a specific surface).

Each of these methods has been designed to perform cost effectively for the right kind of job under the right kind of circumstances.

9. Monitor

The old saying goes "You expect what you inspect" and that is true for insulation work. Thorough monitoring of the work for safety compliance, adherence to specifications, installation quality, scope completion and schedule maintenance is critical in assuring that the work has been performed according to what you requested and delivers the insulation system necessary to do the job you wanted done. Obviously it’s important for you to inspect the work. After all, nobody knows the facility like you do, along with the potential for hazards and how to control them. Nobody knows what needs to be done better than you, and nobody looks out for your interest better than you. However, an insulation contractor can be a valuable partner in making sure the work is done in a satisfactory manner. You should look for a contractor that has a proven and demonstrated quality process system in place. A good contractor will be happy to explain in detail its quality program.

Managing your industrial facility’s insulation work in this manner may be dramatically different than what was done before. However, doing it in this way gives you, the facility owner, the best chance to fix the most important insulation repairs that will benefit the facility the most, at the least possible cost for a quality job designed to last a long time. You have the added benefit of performing necessary work to maintain your facility that almost always pays you back, continues to pay for years to come, is kind to the environment and conserves precious natural resources.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Thinking About Sales

Good time management for salespeople has been an obsession of mine for more than 30 years. In the last decade, I’ve been involved in helping tens of thousands of salespeople improve their results through more effective use of their time. Over the years, I’ve seen some regularly occurring patterns develop-tendencies on the part of salespeople to do things that detract from their effective use of time.

Here are the four most common time-wasters I’ve observed. See if any apply to you or your salespeople.

Allure of the Urgent/Trivial

Salespeople love to be busy and active. We have visions of ourselves as people who can get things done. No idol dreamers, we’re out there making things happen! A big portion of our sense of worth and our personal identity is dependent on being busy. At some level in our self image of ourselves, being busy means that we really are important. One of the worst things that can happen to us is to have nothing to do, nowhere to go, and nothing going on. So, we latch onto every task that comes our way, regardless of the importance.

For example, one of our customers calls with a back order problem. "Oh good!" we think, "Something to do! We are needed! We can fix it!" So, we drop everything and spend two hours expediting the backorder.

In retrospect, couldn’t someone in purchasing or customer service have done that? And couldn’t they have done it better than you? And didn’t you just allow something that was a little urgent but trivial prevent you from making some sales calls? And wouldn’t those potential sales calls be a whole lot better use of your time?

Or, one of our customers hands us a very involved "Request for Quote." "Better schedule a half-day at the office," we think. "Need to look up specifications, calculate prices, compile literature, etc."

We become immediately involved with this task, working on this project for our customer. In retrospect, couldn’t we have given the project to an inside salesperson or customer service rep to do the legwork? Couldn’t we have just communicated the guidelines to someone and then reviewed the finished proposal?

Once again, we succumbed to the lure of the present task. That prevented us from making sales calls and siphoned our energy away from the important to the seemingly urgent.

I could go on for pages with examples, but you have the idea. We are so enamored with being busy and feeling needed that we often grab at any task that comes our way, regardless of how unimportant. And each time we do that, we compromise our ability to invest our sales time more effectively.

The Comfort of the Status Quo

A lot of salespeople have evolved to the point where they have a comfortable routine. They make enough money, and they have established routines and habits that are comfortable. They really don’t want to expend the energy it takes to do things in a better way, or to become more successful or effective.

This can be good. Some of the habits and routines that we follow work well for us. However, our rapidly changing world constantly demands new methods, techniques, habits and routines. Just because something has been effective for a few years doesn’t mean that it continues to be so. This problem develops when salespeople are so content with the way things are, they have not changed anything in years.

If you haven’t changed or challenged some habit or routine in the last few years, chances are you are not as effective as you could be.

For example, you could still be writing phone messages down on little slips of paper when entering them into your contact manager would be more effective. This is a simple example of a principle that can extend towards the most important things that we do. Are we using the same routines for organizing our workweek, for determining who to call on, for understanding our customers, for collecting information? There is no practical end to the list. Contentment with the status quo almost always means salespeople who are not as effective as they could be.

Chapter two of my book, 10 Secrets of Time Management for Salespeople, discusses the use of the "more" mindset as an alternative to the status quo.

Lack of Trust in Other People in the Organization

Salespeople have a natural tendency to work alone. After all, we spend most of the day by ourselves. We decide where to go by ourselves, we decide what to do by ourselves, and we are pretty much on our own all day long. It’s no wonder then, we just naturally want to do everything by ourselves.

That’s generally a positive personality trait for a salesperson. Unfortunately, when it extends to those tasks that could be done better by other people in our organization, it turns into a real negative.

Instead of soliciting aid from others in the organization, and thereby making much better use of our time, many salespeople insist on doing it themselves, no matter how redundant and time-consuming the task is. The world is full of salespeople who don’t trust their own colleagues to write an order, to source a product, to enter an order in the system, to follow up on a back order, to deliver some sample or literature, to research a quote, to deliver a proposal, etc. Again, the list could go on and on.

The point is that many of these tasks can be done better or cheaper by someone else in the organization. The salespeople don’t release the tasks to them because they, the salespeople, don’t trust them to do it. Too bad. It’s a tremendous waste of good selling time and talent. Chapter 10 of my book describes a system to nurture helpful relationships.

Lack of Tough-Minded Thoughtfulness

Ultimately, time management begins with thoughtfulness. That means a sufficient quantity of good quality thought-energy invested in the process. I like to say that good time management is a result of "thinking about it before you do it."

Good time managers invest sufficiently in this process. They set aside time each year to create annual goals, they invest planning time every quarter and every month to create plans for those times, they plan every week and every sales call. Poor sales time managers don’t dedicate sufficient time to the "thinking about it" phase of their job.

Not only do good sales time managers invest a sufficient quantity of time, but they also are disciplined and tough-minded about how they think. They ask themselves good questions, and answer them with as much objectivity as they can muster.

"What do I really want to accomplish in this account?"

"Why aren’t they buying from me?"

"Who is the key decision maker in this account?"

"Am I spending too much time in this account, or not enough in that one?

"How can I change what I am doing in order to become more effective?"

These are just a few of the tough questions that good sales time managers consider on a regular basis. They don’t allow their emotions or personal comfort zones to dictate the plans. They go where it is smart to go, do what it is smart to do. They do these things because they have spent the quantity and quality of thought-time necessary.

Of course, there are hundreds of other time-wasting habits. These four, however, are the most common. Correct them, and you’ll be well on your way to dramatically improved results.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The Top 10 Mistakes in Managing Safety Performance

As the first wave of our "Baby Boomer" generation of managers heads for the exits, it’s an appropriate time for reflection. Over the course of our careers, the revolution we’ve witnessed on the industrial landscape and in practice of management has been nothing short of astounding.

When we started out years ago, business was "big," and the world of industry was the place to be. Land a job with a big industrial firm, and then work you way up the corporate ladder, where the opportunities in middle management were enormous.

That scene is gone forever. It’s been replaced with the world we now know all too well: the organization chart’s been flattened; the pace of work frenzied; the demands on performance–production, cost, schedule and quality–unrelenting. The forces of global competition have changed just about everything in our world in industry.

There’s one thing that hasn’t changed: the goal of sending people home safely at the end of the day. As managers in industrial operations, safety has always been an important part of our job. Over our careers, we’ve had the opportunity to experience the highs and lows in managing the safety performance of those entrusted to us. We’ve celebrated milestones and passed out awards; we’ve gone to the emergency room with people we work with and sat in accident investigations trying to figure out what went wrong.

It’s been said that organizations don’t have memories, people do. So, before everything we learned is forgotten, we owe the generation moving into the ranks of management the benefit of our experience, good and bad. We did manage to learn a few things about managing safety along the way; regrettably, most of that learning came the hard way.

What were the lessons we learned about managing safety as we progressed through the ranks of management? What were the mistakes we made on our watch?

That’s what this series is all about: Sharing The Top 10 Mistakes We Made Managing Safety Performance. This is the first of a series of articles that will focus on mistakes. This article will highlight two of them.

"Hope Is Not A Method"-General Gordon Sullivan

Mistake Number 10: Relying on Hope as a Method

Very few of us started out our working careers as a manager: we worked our way up to the job. When we finished our education, we found our first job in the business. Whether that job was as an apprentice, operator, draftsman, engineer, or working in the office, the only person we managed in the first years of our career was ourself.

Not that learning a new job and starting out a career didn’t present its own problems, but as we later learned, managing people presents a set of challenges that very few of us are ever fully prepared to handle.

As our careers progressed, we found out that we liked what we were doing and were good at the work we did. Being good at it and doing our jobs didn’t seem all that difficult. It wasn’t too long before we started to get recognized for our skills-and potential.

Then, one day someone offered us the opportunity to manage others–whether it was what we wanted to do all along or not. Of course, we accepted the promotion.

Of all new assignments we encounter in the course of our career, no one is bigger than the change from managing yourself to managing others. When our new assignment and responsibilities were described, we were reminded "you are also accountable for the safety of those assigned to you." In industry, managers are entrusted with the safety of those who report to them.

Of course, we knew that. We all understood that being accountable for the safety of others came as part of the job.

Did we really comprehend what that meant? Did we fully appreciate that we became responsible for how other people behaved-whether we were standing next to them or not? That this responsibility could weigh so heavily on us as we stood with the family of an injured worker, not sure whether he would survive his injury? That this responsibility would force us to deal with the people we work with in ways that wouldn’t always make them happy to see us?

The truth turned out to be that managing safety performance was probably the toughest part of our job as manager, and one for which we had the least preparation.

Picture this:

You’re looking for a good athlete from within your workforce for a very special business opportunity. You’d like to find someone with great hand-eye coordination and a track record of success in competitive sports.

Fortunately, there are plenty of candidates to choose from. You’re given a candidate list: former high school quarterbacks, guards on the basketball team, volleyball players, baseball pitchers and even a tennis player.

You start interviewing the candidates, searching for the one with the right potential for this special assignment. You concentrate on those who’ve stayed in shape and kept up their skills. Eventually, you happen upon the perfect candidate: an employee who’s been working for you for 10 years; a former baseball pitcher, who now competes in triathlons.

You offer him the job and he accepts. His new assignment, by the way, is to play golf with Tiger Woods next Monday morning in front of a gallery composed of your company’s president and hundreds of his friends. No matter that the candidate you’ve selected has never held a golf club in his hands in his life.

Sound crazy?

Sure. But, in a sense, isn’t that exactly what happened when we were first promoted into management? We were given responsibility for managing the safety of others–even though we had no management experience. Someone with the potential to learn a new set of skills–management skills–is put in a situation where they are expected to be able to immediately perform those new skills, and perform them successfully so that no one goes home injured and everyone who is watching them perform is impressed with their proficiency.

We wouldn’t send a machinist out to troubleshoot a problem with electrical switchgear. At least not without training and some assurance about his electrical qualifications. We’ll promote that same machinist to supervisor, and expect that he’ll be able to manage the safety performance and behavior of his crew. "He’ll do just fine" is what we’ve all said, probably because that’s exactly what happened to us, and we managed to survive the experience.

Big mistake.

"Hope is not a method." Yet, when it comes to the most important role we play as managers in industry, sending people home safe at the end of the day, hope is the method of choice to prepare managers for the assignment.

It was how we started off our careers in management. And, we turned right around and repaid the favor over our careers by doing exactly the same thing to others: taking people with great potential as supervisors and managers; entrusting them with the safekeeping of their crew; yet failing to give them the kind of support and training to function effectively.

It’s amazing that there weren’t more failures when we were moving into management. At least back then we had experienced crews working for us, and the people we worked for seemed to be able to find the time to help and coach us.

What’s the situation look like today? What’s the experience level of those performing the work in our organizations now? How much time do senior managers have to spend with their new supervisors and managers, providing the coaching and development they need?

Relying on hope as the method to teach supervisors and managers how to manage safety performance is one of the biggest mistakes managers make.

Advice worth heeding from those of us who’ve made the mistake more than once.

"My greatest strength as a consultant is to be ignorant and ask a few questions."-Peter Drucker

Mistake Number 9: Failing to Ask Good Questions

Make up a short list of those with the greatest impact on the conduct of business in the 20th century, and the name Peter Drucker is bound to show up. As a teacher, author and consultant, Drucker has had a profound effect on those of us who’ve served as managers in industry in the last 50 years. We were taught his methods in business courses and our companies made extensive use of his concepts in running the business.

So, if Drucker found asking questions to be so powerful, why is it that so many managers make so little use of the question as a management tool? What is it about asking questions that makes them so powerful?

Good questions that deserve good answers.

Good questions can do the heavy lifting for managers. A question starts by getting someone else talking. For all of the sophisticated theories that have been offered about the art of interpersonal communication, doesn’t communication fundamentally boil down to someone speaking, and others listening to what is being said?

When a manager asks a question and people begin to answer, the manager gets information about what is going on and what people are thinking. What manager wouldn’t benefit by that?

Questions engage people. It’s hard to hear a question and not start thinking about it. Ask yourself: "What do you think caused the Space Shuttle Columbia to crash?" and you’ll start thinking about foam insulation, high speeds, heat at re-entry, and the loss of the lives of the crew.

Exactly the same thing happens when you ask someone else a question. Even in the cases where they don’t answer, you can bet they’re thinking about your question, which also means they’re paying attention.

Questions can shape the agenda. Who in our generation can forget the famous question "What did he know, and when did he know it?" These questions ultimately brought down a president. Six years later, the question "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" led to the election of another president.

Any manager who wants to advance a cause, like recognizing hazards, would do well to make good use of the same technique, perhaps by asking the people doing the work "What kinds of hazards are you working around that might get you hurt?"

So, if questions offer managers so many benefits, why aren’t they used more often?

As we have witnessed from the front row seats in our careers, managers are far more likely to provide answers than to ask questions. Here’s one perfect–and tragic–example. A company chief executive officer listens to the details of a fatality to a very experienced employee. The accident was in large part caused by the employee’s failure to follow required safety procedures. The CEO’s comment after hearing the story: "If procedures had been followed, this never would have happened."

True. But, how useful was that statement?

It’s never a bad thing to be reminded that following safety procedures can prevent an injury. We suspect that is why the procedures were written in the first place. Wouldn’t this CEO have been better off asking the question: "What would cause a senior employee who knew the rules to take a shortcut that would cost him is life?" Had he asked that question, and gotten the real answer, he would have been shocked.

But he didn’t ask that question. Instead he did exactly what most of us managers do in situations where we are searching for an explanation: we give an answer; make a comment; offer an opinion. Why are we so inclined to do that?

The answer may well lie in the skills that got us promoted into management in the first place. In school, we were rewarded for knowing the answer. When we first started out our careers, we were recognized for what we knew. Our potential for management was recognized in large part because we weren’t sitting in the slow learner row in the classroom.

Collectively, managers are bright people with a passion to excel. Being recognized for knowing the right answer is a big part of what has driven us for our entire lives. We have made a habit of knowing the answer.

Our knowledge may well be our greatest strength, but it can also be our downfall. Knowing the wrong answer is worse than knowing nothing. Many of the problems we’re expected to solve in business–ones that involve human behavior and marketplace dynamics, for example–don’t come with "correct answers." Solving a tough safety problem–like why people aren’t following safety procedures–isn’t a graded test. You won’t find the correct answer on page 47 in your textbook.

Solving tough problems requires good thinking. Asking good questions is part and parcel of good thinking. The best managers ask the best questions.

The good news is that learning how to ask good questions isn’t all that difficult, and can easily be mastered. It’s really just a case of forming a new habit: starting out sentences with words like "who, what, when, where, why and how" and finishing up the sentence with a question mark.

Here’s one example. "How many sentences in this article end with a question mark?"

Don’t make the mistake of thinking you have to have all the answers just because you’re the manager. No manager ever does. Our unwillingness to admit what we don’t know, and ask good questions, is one of the biggest mistakes we make.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Performance Optimization Tips

It’s important to focus efforts for both reliability and energy purposes on those systems with the greatest potential for improvement or savings opportunities. As an example, the fact that a relatively small percentage of the motor population was responsible for most of the energy consumption in U.S. industry implied the need to focus system (not component) level evaluations on large equipment that runs a lot.

But in many industrial facilities, many big pieces of equipment run most of the time. In this article, we’ll focus on pumping systems, and use a different approach-the presence of certain symptoms-to further prescreen opportunities for savings.

The goal of prescreening is to identify and prioritize the systems where we’re most likely to find significant opportunities for improvement or savings. Although the symptoms we will discuss are specific to pumping systems, analogous conditions exist in other fluid handling systems, such as fan systems.

Pumping systems share a number of common features with people, and readers might find it helpful to consider them in an analogous sense. For example, both people and pumping systems:

  • are composed of a variety of components
  • require external sources of energy and energy conversion devices to keep them going
  • have a device that keeps fluid moving, but at a rate and pressure controlled by other components and factors.

It also turns out that symptoms, both in people and in pumping systems, can be helpful indicators of health.

Symptoms in People

While we are encouraged, particularly as we get older, to get periodic checkups of one form or another, we still rely on symptoms to serve as primary indicators of physical and mental health.

In some cases, the symptoms are acute and obvious. I recently conducted an unplanned verification of several laws of physics; in particular, the relationship between potential and kinetic energy.

A 4-inch-diameter poplar limb which I had just cut hit the ground and in a combative demonstration of its resilience, sprung and knocked out from beneath me the unsecured ladder upon which I was perched. Up until this arboreal rebellion, I was about 20 feet off the ground, chainsaw in hand.

Recognizing that this situation was in reality a once-in-a-lifetime experimental opportunity (of the variety that often culminates a lifetime), I quickly ensured that a major source of external thermodynamic and kinetic energy (the chainsaw) would not confuse the experimental results (I tossed it off to the side). Even though this was an unplanned test, I was able to quickly develop an experimental hypothesis (that it was going to hurt when I hit the ground). That my hypothesis was accurate was borne out in short order by a sequence of verbal emissions and mechanical gesticulations, which were validated by an independent observer (my wife and erstwhile ladder anchor).

Now, before you call me stupid, just how many physics experiments have you conceived, performed, analyzed, and had independently verified in 1.1 seconds?

On the other hand, some symptoms are chronic in nature. Headaches, sinus congestion, and sore joints are things some of us regularly tolerate, but persistent nagging may ultimately spur a visit to the doctor.

The existence of symptoms isn’t proof-positive that we have a serious health problem. Even my experimental fall only resulted in a couple of cracked ribs and a few bruises to body and ego (although my wife did suggest that there was ample evidence of pre-existing brain damage). Likewise, plugged sinuses can be extremely annoying, but we can learn to live with them. But overall, the presence of certain physical symptoms suggest the possibility that something is wrong, and the more symptoms that are present, the greater the likelihood that it is serious. It might finally be noted that some of our symptoms are quite obvious to ourselves and others, while other symptoms are subtler and require greater attention to detect. And of course, in some cases, a serious condition can exist even though there are no apparent symptoms.

Symptoms in Pumping Systems

Pumping systems that are ill-in the sense they are wasting energy-often have their own symptoms; as with people, some are acute and obvious, while others more closely fit the chronic category. The patterns or symptoms discussed later have been found useful in the prescreening process. The existence of one of these symptoms doesn’t guarantee a significant savings opportunity, just that it is more likely; and the more symptoms that are present, the greater the likelihood.

Throttled Valves

Valves that are consistently throttled to control flow rate, pressure, level, temperature, or some other parameter in the system provide direct evidence that fluid energy is being dissipated. Significant losses from throttling are common in process industries such as petrochemicals and paper, although I’ve observed heavily throttled valves even in raw water pumping applications.

Open Bypass Lines

Open bypass or recirculation lines are sometimes used for control purposes. In a few cases, a combination of concurrent throttling and bypass flow control is found. Needless to say, opportunities to achieve energy reductions in those situations are usually excellent.

Multiple Parallel Pumps With The Same Number of Pumps Always Operating

Multiple pumps are used in parallel to provide redundancy and/or to provide flexibility in responding to changing load conditions. If two pumps are installed for redundancy, but both normally operate, there is a strong likelihood that the pumps were not well-sized or that they have degraded. Alternatively, if multiple pumps were installed to provide flexibility in operations, but the same number always run, it is worth asking whether the expected variability in demand really doesn’t exist, or if the number of pumps needed for the maximum load condition are continuously run as a matter of course.

Continuous Pump Operation in a Batch Environment

Pumps that run continuously when the fundamental nature of the system requirement is of a batch nature may simply be left running even when they aren’t needed. One example of this would be a pump that runs 24 hours a day, even though the load that requires the pump is only present during one or two shifts.

Frequent Cycling of Pumps in a Continuous Process

Some pumps cycle on and off, typically to maintain level or inventory. If pumps in such service cycle frequently so that they only run a relatively small amount (for example 40 percent of the time), there are likely to be energy and demand cost savings opportunities, not to mention the likelihood of improving pump, motor, and motor starter life.

As pumps depart from their design or best efficiency point, both static and dynamic loads associated with unstable flow conditions increase. Reduced seal, wear ring, or bearing life can be a result. While other factors, such as poor alignment, a generally harsh environment, or mechanical imbalance can also affect these elements, at least an increased likelihood exists that off-design operation is a factor.

Systems That Have Undergone Function or Demand Changes

Although this is not a symptom, per se, it is always useful to consider the history behind the system. In cases where system requirements increase with time, pumps are normally upsized to meet the growing demand. On the other hand, if requirements drop, the pump that was presumably properly sized will now be oversized.

The existence of one or more of the symptoms outlined previously suggest that a system is more likely to have savings opportunities than one with none of the symptoms. However, systems with none of these symptoms can still be sick. I have run across systems with savings potential of 40 percent or more even when none of these symptoms was present. But since all of us have a finite amount of time, and hopefully our time is worth something to someone, it is incumbent upon us to use it wisely. I’ve personally found the symptom-based prescreening to be very helpful, and hope you might find it beneficial as well.

Diagnosis and Prescription

When the symptoms of health problems or energy opportunities appear to warrant it, measurements and analyses are often performed to establish the magnitude of the problem. If the magnitude is significant enough, the evaluation of possible treatments may be pursued.

But it is important to recognize that there is no panacea in either the human or the energy system domains. The best treatment for an ailment in humans may depend on multiple factors such as age, other health problems, and our ability to pay the costs. Likewise, external factors such as the electric rate structure, implementation costs of alternatives, current and anticipated company financial health must be considered.

So how do we quantify the potential savings opportunities in systems that appear to be worth exploring? And even more fundamentally, what do we do with all the systems that don’t fit our prescreening criteria-either because they’re small, don’t operate a lot, or don’t exhibit any of these symptoms?

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2003 edition of Energy Matters, published by the U.S. Department of Energy. Don Casada is with Diagnostic Solutions, LLC, in Knoxville, Tenn.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Fabricated For Peak Performance

Thermal insulation has been used for hundreds of years and has taken many forms. For most of that time, the insulation was for heat conservation; that is, the insulation was used on piping and ducting systems that carried above ambient liquid or vapor. During the last half of the 20th Century, advances in technology demanded that insulation be designed to accommodate a new range of temperatures.

The advent of commercial air conditioning, refrigeration and cryogenic systems, to name a few, changed the range of temperatures and conditions that needed to be considered. These new systems all involved below ambient temperatures, some as low as minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and the insulation for those systems needed to be able to function effectively within those temperature ranges.

The insulation systems commonly used for high temperature applications were not suited for below ambient conditions. Most of the insulations were not closed cell and did not have the properties required for the lower temperatures that these new systems would face.

Technology Moves Forward

Fortunately, insulation technology was also moving forward. Cellular glass was first introduced as an industrial insulation shortly after World War II. Cellular glass has a wide temperature range, from minus 300 degrees F to 900 degrees F. Polystyrene (temperature limit minus 297 degrees F to 165 degrees F) and polyisocyanurate (temperature limit minus 297 degrees F to 300 degrees F) followed, and by 1970 all of these items had taken their place in the insulation material family.

The development of these materials altered the way they came to the marketplace. Insulations for heat conservation were generally manufactured by companies and sold to distributors. The distributors then sold the materials, along with accessories, to insulation contractors and end users.

Cellular glass, polystyrene and polyisocyanurate are all manufactured in block or bun form and require additional fabrication to turn them into pipe insulation, fitting covers and curved segments, in the various sizes and thickness required by contractors and end users. In the beginning, some manufacturers attempted to provide this service themselves, but over time it was recognized that a separate entity could more efficiently provide this service. This new entity was the INSULATION FABRICATOR.

There are currently many of these fabricators doing business across the United States and they have become an important part of the insulation industry. By the very nature of the materials they deal with, fabricators are involved in some of the industry’s most critical projects, and their knowledge of products and specifications are important in the successful completion of these jobs.

The Fabricator’s Role

The insulation fabricator is not a manufacturer, he is in reality a converter; turning raw materials manufactured by others into finished products. The insulation products that the traditional fabricator converts will insulate systems that range in temperature from minus 300 degrees F to 1,200 degrees F. The conditions that these products face require that all parties in the insulation chain, from the specifying engineer to the installer of the insulation to the final end user, be aware of and accept their responsibilities so that the finished insulation system can function efficiently. The insulation fabricator is one of the most important parts of the insulation chain.

Many of these products will be used in systems, which will fail if the insulation system does not function correctly. A rooftop refrigeration system operating at minus 20 degrees F has to be designed, installed and maintained correctly for that system to operate efficiently over its expected life cycle. The same can be said for the underground steam distribution system, the low temperature gas plant or the cryogenic system.

If the insulation on a commercial hot water heating system is not designed correctly or installed properly, there will be consequences. Energy will be wasted as heat losses will cause excess fuel to be used. Personnel may be at risk by coming in contact with uninsulated hot piping. The solutions to those problems, however, would be relatively easy to fix.

Hypothetical Projects

Consider some other hypothetical projects; (1) On an insulated underground steam line, the weather barrier has failed, and moisture has been introduced and has penetrated the insulation; years have gone by and the pipe has been severely corroded, necessitating removal and replacement of the insulation and possibly the pipe; (2) A refrigeration system has been installed without proper vapor retarder or weather barrier. Moisture, either in liquid or vapor form, has penetrated the insulation system and has turned to ice as it reaches the freezing point. The moisture expands as it freezes, further degrading the system. This situation continues until the system is one large ice ball, having minimal insulation value.

Both of the above examples will be very expensive to repair, both in terms of the cash outlay and the down time the system will incur. The insulation in the hypothetical cases above would most likely have been designed by an engineer, produced by a fabricator, installed by an insulation contractor and maintained by the end user.

In the commercial heating system example, the deficiencies in the insulation may go undetected for a long time. As a matter of fact, they may never be found. Energy, however slight, is being wasted but the piping system is functioning properly.

Compare that with the next two examples. In the case of the underground piping, ground water continues to enter the insulation envelope. Some of this water could turn to steam and expand, further damaging the insulation. The owner of the facility will see a significant increase in the amount of fuel needed to achieve the steam pressures required at the terminus of the line. The location of the underground steam line will be known to all; in the summer grass will not grow above it, in the winter snow will melt above it. At some point, remedial action will be required, which will entail shutting down the system, digging up the steam line and replacing the insulation and possibly the pipe.

In the refrigeration example, the owner will find that his energy costs have increased significantly. It may be that the capacity of his refrigeration equipment is not sufficient to provide the necessary cooling required to run his plant. As in the underground case, the system will have to be shut down and the insulation replaced.

The difference between the commercial heating piping system example and those of the underground steam line or the refrigeration system, for the purposes of this discussion, is that an insulation fabricator would most likely be involved in the latter two cases.

Providing Guidance

The insulation fabricator has no direct responsibility for the design of an insulation system itself nor is he responsible for the installation or the maintenance of the finished product. I do believe, however, he is uniquely positioned to offer informed guidance to help insure the completion of a successful project.

The fabricator is most likely approved by the manufacturer of the products that he fabricates. He has available to him the engineering resources of those organizations and he should possess knowledge of correct specifications as they relate to those products.

If a fabricator gets an order for cellular glass to be used in a direct burial system and he is not asked to quote on a jacketing material, he needs to ask about this. If it is determined that an inadequate jacket is going to be used, I believe it is his responsibility to inform his customer of his concerns.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. If a large order for insulation for a refrigeration system comes from a contractor who the fabricator knows is inexperienced, that order should ring bells of caution in the mind of the fabricator. The same type of workmanship and attention to detail that is used in the barely adequate results of insulation in the commercial heating piping job will almost certainly result in failure if applied to a refrigeration project. The fabricator can pass on the information he possesses about the recommended installation procedures of the manufacturer of the materials he is providing to the contractor. (Editor’s note: the views expressed in this paragraph are based on the opinions and beliefs of the author. Others may have different opinions and interpretations regarding the hypothetical situation described in the paragraph.)

Industry Knowledge Important

A successful fabricator must possess a great deal of knowledge about the insulation industry. He must be familiar with and fabricate materials to ASTM standards. The fabricator must not only know that 2½ inch IPS x 2½ inch thick cellular glass or polyisocyanurate pipe insulation will have a 8.63 inch OD, and an actual wall thickness of 2.875 inches, but he should make this fact known to his customer. (If he does not, he is likely to get a few calls each year from customers who will complain that their insulation has been fabricated incorrectly.) He must know what fabrication adhesive to use on each cellular glass order, and that this is determined by the operating temperature of the surface to be insulated. The successful fabricator should have working knowledge of the NAIMA 3E Plus® program, and be able to use this program when asked by his customers. He should be familiar with typical specifications and use that knowledge to assist his customers and, hopefully, prevent some problems from happening.

The insulation fabricator who can successfully do all these things provides a unique and very important service to the entire insulation industry.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Caraustar Industries Energy Assessment Provides a Company-Wide Model

In 2000, Caraustar, in partnership with the Department of Energy, conducted plant-wide energy assessments at two of its recycled paperboard mills, the Chesapeake Mill in Baltimore, and the Rittman Mill in Rittman, Ohio. The assessments identified potential opportunities for systems and process efficiency improvements that could result in important energy savings and improved productivity. Among the improvements included investments in insulation. The projects would particularly improve the efficiency of plant steam systems and would substantially decrease dependence on purchased electricity and fuel. Annual cost savings were estimated at $1.2 million and $370,000 at the Rittman and Chesapeake mills, respectively.

Caraustar is a major manufacturer of recycled paperboard and converted paperboard products. The company operates more than 100 facilities in the United States, along with plants in Mexico and the United Kingdom. Caraustar manufactures its products primarily from recovered fiber derived from recycled paperstock. At its 16 paperboard mills, Caraustar produces various grades of uncoated and clay-coated recycled paperboard both for internal consumption and for sale to customers in four principal markets. In addition to the mills, Caraustar’s facilities include tube and core converting plants, composite container plants, folding carton plants, and speciality converting plants.

Large quantities of electricity, natural gas, coal, and oil are used in the production of recycled paperboard. Caraustar purchases electricity and natural gas for all its facilities, but also purchases significant quantities of fuel oil and coal for many of its recycled paperboard mills. Energy accounts for 15 percent to 25 percent of each mill’s total operating expenses, and is third only to raw material and labor in a mill’s operating cost structure.

Caraustar has made a commitment to continually maintain and improve its paperboard mills. During the past 5 years, Caraustar has spent more than $30 million annually in capital expenditures, primarily to expand and upgrade its paperboard production, and to convert capacity by acquiring and maintaining state-of-the-art machinery and technology.

Assessment Overview

Caraustar has historically monitored the cost per ton of paper produced in its Mill Group. As a result of this study, the company has also begun to document energy costs for the Industrial and Consumer Products and Packaging divisions.

Caraustar conducted the plant-wide energy assessment in association with Sterling Energy Services, LLC. The project was partially funded by the DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program. The assessment team conducted comprehensive plant energy efficiency reviews using a systems approach combined with industry standard practices. Opportunities for energy savings were identified and documented, then evaluated and prioritized based on potential for energy savings. Maintenance practices and operating procedures were also reviewed for their impact on energy efficiency.

Assessment Implementation

The assessment team first developed complete lists of the energy-consuming production and mill utility processes (steam, compressed air, and on-site power production). The team conducted detailed audits of the processes believed to have the greatest energy savings potential.

The areas investigated included:

  • steam systems
  • cogeneration assessment
  • waste heat recovery
  • motor analysis
  • compressed air systems
  • lighting systems
  • electric variable speed drive analysis

Seven specific systems and processes were evaluated in detail for efficiency improvement or cost reductions for the Chesapeake mill. (Caraustar closed the Chesapeake mill in the spring of 2000 because of overcapacity in the industry and other issues. In spite of this closure, Caraustar realized that the assessment’s findings were valid for similar facilities.)

The systems and processes evaluated at the Chesapeake mill included:

  • backpressure steam turbine generator
  • boiler feed pump variable speed electric drive
  • boiler feed pump steam turbine drive
  • paper machine #2 variable speed electric drive retrofit
  • vapor-absorption system boiler stack heat recovery
  • stock pulper fill water heat exchangers
  • improved insulation of steam pipes

Six systems and processes were also evaluated for efficiency improvements at the Rittman mill. These included:

  • project requirements analysis for mill cogeneration (replacement or retrofit of existing operations)
  • benchmarking mill operations’ energy use
  • pulper fill water heat exchangers
  • modifications to steam injection stock heater
  • coater oven steam requirement efficiency or elimination
  • heat recovery for vapor-absorption system

Actions Identified in the Assessment

The plant-wide studies concentrated on identification of energy efficiency improvements for Caraustar’s Chesapeake and Rittman mills, with an extended focus on the development of efficiency concepts that could be transferred to other Caraustar facilities. Many of the efficiency measures identified and evaluated in this assessment will benefit other Caraustar mills as well as those of other recycled paperboard manufacturers. These include:

  • motor procurement and efficiency improvements
  • backpressure steam turbine generators
  • boiler feed pump variable speed drives
  • stack heat recovery to vapor-absorption systems
  • pulper fill water heat exchangers
  • steam pipe insulation

The application of these energy efficiency measures is being reviewed for other Caraustar mills. In addition to the energy efficiency measures identified, other measures were found that did not offer immediate benefits for either Chesapeake or Rittman, but should offer some benefits to other Caraustar locations. These measures include:

  • boiler forced draft fan variable speed drives
  • paper machine dryer section drive retrofits

Before initiating the two mill energy assessments, Caraustar had already undertaken a project to inventory electric motors at selected mills to identify savings opportunities that could be realized from implementation of a formal motor management program. The plant-wide energy assessment permitted the project team to accelerate the motor management effort. As a result, Caraustar has implemented a corporate procurement program for electric motors, power transmission, and related industrial equipment that has reduced the cost of purchasing these items, and boosted the opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of each plant’s motor inventory. The plant-wide energy assessment project has been an important component in extending Caraustar’s focus on energy efficiency and cost reduction measures in all divisions.

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2003 edition of Energy Matters, published by the U.S. Department of Energy. For plant-wide assessment program information, contact Grace Ordaz of the DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program by phone at (202) 586-8350 or by e-mail at grace.ordaz@ee.doe.gov. For technical details about the assessments, visit www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/factsheets/.pdf, or contact Bob Leach of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory by phone at (865) 946-1352 or by e-mail at leachre@ornl.gov.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Bill Pitkin – A Remembrance of More than 40 Years in the Insulation Industry

For more than 40 years, Bill Pitkin was a presence in the insulation industry, both in sales and marketing positions with a number of manufacturers, and as executive vice president with the National Insulation Association (NIA).

Pitkin, who died June 11 at age 67, left a lasting impression on several long-time colleagues.

"What I most respected about Bill was his enthusiasm for everything he did," said Paul "Stoney" Stonebraker, a former NIA president, current president of TRA Thermatech and current chairman of NIA’s Union Contractor Committee. "I first met him more than 35 years ago when he was district sales manager for Owens Corning and I was newly into management from the field. His incisive questions to draw out information and learn more about different aspects of and approaches to the industry impressed me from the start."

Tom Decker was one of Pitkin’s closest friends. Decker, whose career in the insulation industry spanned 35 years, including service as NIA’s 1985 president and as president of ACandS Contracting (now IREX), said, "Because of Bill’s background with the industry with Owens Corning and CertainTeed, and later with his 19 years as NIA executive vice president, I think he was as well known as anyone in the industry that he served so well for so long."

Current NIA president Vaughan Privett (also president of C.E. Thurston & Sons, Inc.) said, "Bill served the insulation industry all his life and NIA for nearly 20 years. He was a friendly and fair leader, supporting his staff and membership in achieving his industry objectives. Bill will be missed."

Tom Fraatz, president of Pacor, Inc., chairman of NIA’s Web Site Committee and also a former NIA president, said, "I always found Bill to be well liked and respected by those in our industry. I enjoyed working with Bill during my term as NIA president, as he was very helpful to me in seeing that the affairs of the association were carried out in a timely and professional manner."

A native of New York, N.Y., Pitkin graduated from Stanford University (where he played varsity football) and served in the Army reserves. In 1959, he joined the insulation industry with Owens Corning as a salesman at the company’s San Francisco branch. He was later promoted to district sales manager for Owens Corning’s New York district office.

Pitkin joined CertainTeed Corp. in 1971 as marketing manager for industrial commercial insulation products. He was promoted to senior vice president in 1978.

In June 1983, Pitkin joined NICA (now NIA) as executive vice president, a position he would hold until 2002. Pitkin worked to create partnerships and strong relationships with other associations and government organizations, including the Department of Energy (DOE). With DOE, Pitkin served for four years as chairman of its Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Steam BestPractices program, helping give the insulation industry a voice and presence in that area.

"Bill Pitkin was the consummate people person," said Christopher Russell, senior program manager for the Alliance to Save Energy. "This was evident in his role as chairman of the BestPractices Steam steering committee. Bill used his executive presence to open doors to program sponsors, collaborators, and patrons. But he was equally adept at working with support staff, mentoring, encouraging and putting a pleasant face on everything we did."

In 2002, Denise Swink, deputy assistant secretary of OIT-DOE, and Fred Hart, program manager for BestPractices Steam, recognized Pitkin’s contributions, noting that "through his thoughtful and skillful leadership, he guided BestPractices Steam from an idea and start-up initiative to become an effective program dedicated to serving industry."

Pitkin was a devoted sailor, and often could be found navigating the waters of the Chesapeake Bay near his home in Annapolis, Md. He was also a devoted husband to his wife of 30 years, Sue, and father to his four children.

Stonebraker summed up his thoughts about his longtime friend by saying, "He always wanted to digest new approaches and find a way of using them to grow both the association and the industry as a whole."

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Steam Efficiency Investments-Maximizing Your Investment

Steam efficiency is a major opportunity for manufacturers to boost financial performance in an increasingly competitive environment. An immediate policy challenge is to raise manufacturers’ awareness of these opportunities. A major barrier to accomplishing this is the communications disconnect between plant superintendents and the financial decision-makers who set capital budgeting priorities. Energy engineering literature is rich with technical how-to discussions; the more daunting task is to overcome the perceptual barriers that preclude the approval of these initiatives. This article assumes that strong, financial justification is the key to the full realization of steam efficiency opportunities. That premise is followed by a step-wise review of the ways that steam efficiency can boost a manufacturer’s return on investment.

Background

Steam systems represent significant value in manufacturing facilities. The sheer volume of energy consumed by U.S. manufacturing makes this evident: 16.5 quads of energy are consumed by industry as fuel; 35 percent of that is used to raise steam. Add to that the fuel used by steam systems in institutional, commercial, and military settings, and the total energy required by all steam systems (about 9 quads) represents approximately one tenth of total U.S. energy demand (98 quads). With energy prices in the neighborhood of $5.00 per MMBtu, this adds up to $45 billion for just the fuel cost of raising steam. (Note: one "quad" is one quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu). Stated differently, one quad is 1015 Btu.)

At the facility level, steam remains a ubiquitous yet underappreciated utility. While steam performs a countless variety of thermal transfer tasks within the majority of manufacturing industries, it’s widely perceived as a "support" utility. In other words, steam is considered a power source subordinate to process lines that are the real focus of manufacturing activity.

Steam system savings potential is within practical reach. One comprehensive study of 66 major steam plants found that 12.3 percent of fuel consumption, totaled over all plants, was avoidable. The payback for these opportunities, overall, equaled 1.7 years. But while this volume of savings was identified, the actual implementation rate of enabling projects represented only 3.9 percent of fuel consumption (i.e., only one third of the opportunities were implemented). An additional point worth noting is that only about half of the opportunities identified required capital investment; the balance required only operational or behavioral changes.

Why do companies forfeit additional earnings? Many companies simply fail to capture the full range of opportunities that occur where financial and engineering priorities intersect. Steam and other energy efficiency proposals may be stalled by a variety of corporate barriers-indifference, technical incompetence, capital budgeting procedures, and investment biases are but a few examples. Financial criteria are paramount-as must be the case for any profit-motivated enterprise. The challenge is for plant superintendents to advance steam plant optimization not simply as engineering projects, but as effective contributions to financial performance.

Impacting Business Through Steam Efficiency

The actions which provide steam efficiency are training, proper technology selection, adequate maintenance, and disciplined monitoring of fuel and other system inputs. Data describing plant operations provides a window on system performance. Because of system optimization, anomalies are more often detected before they become failures that shut down the plant or injure employees. As downtime is reduced, so too is the need to run overtime shifts to "catch up" to production targets. Combustion emissions decline proportionately with fuel consumption. In addition, optimized plant equipment increases productivity. When thermal losses are contained, a greater portion of boiler capacity can be directed to productive functions, enabling the plant to extend production runs or perhaps even begin new product lines.

Return on Investment

Global competition and decentralized corporate structures provide formidable challenges for manufacturing industries. Cost control is especially important for producers of bulk chemicals, grains, oils, paper, and other commodity products, which cannot be easily differentiated from competitors’ output. Decentralized corporate structures give rise to virtually independent profit centers within a corporation. This fosters internal competition among profit centers in the allocation of investment capital. The overarching measure of success within the manufacturing corporation is return on investment (ROI), which becomes a benchmark for deciding (1) how well managers are employing currently invested capital, and (2) which profit centers should get new investment capital. If steam plant superintendents are to be successful in securing capital budget funds, their proposals must clearly demonstrate effective contribution to the corporation’s return on investment. The ROI measurement is derived from the financial elements shown on the top of this page.

A few concepts in this figure are worthy of additional discussion. Net operating income represents earnings before interest and taxes. It’s what remains of sales revenue after deducting operating expenses, which include the cost of goods sold, operations and maintenance, administrative costs, selling expenses, and depreciation.

Average operating assets are the mean dollar value of all assets held over the course of an accounting period (usually a year).

Margin is the ratio of net operating income to sales revenue. As such, it’s expressed as a percentage and can be interpreted as the "cost-price efficiency" of a profit center. Margin may be most useful for measuring sales and marketing performance. However, margin doesn’t incorporate asset utilization, so it’s only a partial measure of overall manufacturing performance. Keep in mind that manufacturing involves amortized plant assets, which incur interest and carrying costs that accrue daily, regardless of production volume. It therefore makes financial sense to maintain asset utilization rates as close to 100 percent as possible.

Asset turnover is margin’s complement. Asset turnover expresses sales revenue as a multiple of the value of assets that produced that revenue. In effect, asset turnover is a measure that compares the relative revenue-making effectiveness of two or more plants, or to track one plant’s performance over time. When a profit center’s margin and asset turnover are multiplied together, the product is return on investment. Therefore, ROI is a simultaneous measure of the profit center’s control of expenses as well as its utilization of production assets.

Why must margin and asset turnover be used together? Think of these analogs: margin is to speed as asset turnover is to time. Taken singularly, speed and time are of limited interpretation. But multiplied together, speed and time describe distance, or the product of travel. Similarly, margin times asset turnover describes the financial product of a manufacturing facility.

A review of the elements in Figure 1 reveals that there are five ways, broadly speaking, to increase ROI:

1. Increase Product Price

This sometimes applies to consumer goods, especially when they can be marketed as "green" or environmentally friendly. In this case, the manufacturer’s effort to optimize energy use also reduces emissions output, thus fulfilling its environmental responsibility. These isn’t realistic for bulk commodities which have prices set by the market (instead of the manufacturer), and are sold in business-to-business markets which, aside from any compelling regulation, have little regard for altruistic intentions.

2. Increase Production Volume or Number of Product Lines

If the market will accept the plant’s additional output, fine. But does the plant have the capacity to produce more output? Steam system efficiency can recapture thermal resources that were lost to leaks, radiant losses, and poor condensate recovery, and apply that load to new production initiatives.

3. Reduce Operating Expenses

The impact of steam optimization in this instance should be obvious-become energy efficient to spend less on fuel. There are additional impacts:

    a. Plant optimization helps to preclude downtime. In turn, production schedules become more predictable. This gives the manager tremendous leverage when negotiating with fuel marketers. Fuel is cheaper when purchased in fixed-priced contracts, so predicable consumption allows a greater proportion of fuel to be acquired in this manner. This avoids the bother and expense of purchasing fuel in spot markets, which may happen when plants put on extra, unscheduled shifts to compensate for downtime.

    b. Similarly, overtime salaries are avoided.

    c. The optimized plant is safer, thanks to more diligent monitoring and maintenance. This is reflected in a clean boiler logbook, which is leverage for reducing hazard insurance premiums.

    d. The same actions reduce the exposure to penalties imposed by safety and emissions regulations.

    e. For some processes, scrap reduction is achieved through the same actions that enable energy efficiency. Insufficient heat transfer can spoil works in progress, rendering a greater waste of raw materials. For example, improved insulation of steam distribution lines and the reduction of scale build-up in pipes both ensure that heat transfer is achieved at or near system design specifications. Stability of operating parameters reduces waste, as reflected in lower direct material costs.

4. Reduce Asset Holdings

This is an option frequently favored by corporate leaders whose expertise is more financial than engineering-based. ROI embodies the "do more with less" concept when attempts are made to reduce the volume of assets employed per unit of sales. Concurrent to this approach is the aversion to investing in new assets unless it’s absolutely necessary. This is one reason why industry still employs many boiler assets that are decades old. True, as assets are reduced, ROI is increased primarily in the short run.

5. Reduce Downtime of Asset Holdings

The price for avoiding new assets is to endure the failure of old ones. Corporate leaders can maintain ROI by avoiding asset additions, but eventually the downtime imposed by failing assets begins to defeat this strategy. Plant optimization achieved through applied energy efficiency can only support the manager’s adherence to production schedules. It’s worth repeating that assets impose the same carrying costs whether they’re operable or not, so financial performance is improved by moving asset utilization factors as close to 100 percent as possible. From a financial perspective, plant optimization permits greater yield from assets in place.

Impacts on ROI

This section illustrates a hypothetical manufacturer’s step-wise improvement of return on investment. Each of the consolidated financial statements in this sequence (Appendices 1-3) shows the financial elements that make up return on investment.

Step 1

Appendix 1 (page 30) is a financial snapshot of manufacturing operations before implementation of a steam efficiency initiative. There is nothing remarkable about this model statement. The highlights include a profit margin of 10 percent (line 22), which means the company earns 10 cents from every dollar of revenue. The revenue generated by these assets is twice the value of the assets themselves (line 18). Together, margin and asset turnover (line 23) yield a return on investment of 20 percent (line 24).

Step 2

Appendix 2 (page 30) shows this company’s consolidated financial statement for the accounting period after implementing steam efficiency. The steam plant superintendent spends more on operations and maintenance, labor, and training. In return, the savings in fuel expenditures, waste reduction, and reduced overtime more than compensate for the increases. Manufacturing now produces more gross margin (line 9). Savings for reduced emissions penalties and hazard insurance (lines 10 and 11) add to income performance (line 15). The profitability of the plant is reflected in the increased margin (line 22), but this is facilitated in part by investment in new plant assets (line 16). Accordingly, asset turnover (line 23) declines relative to Step 1. Still, the magnitude of margin improvement more than compensates, so ROI is improved to 26.5 percent (line 24).

Step 3

The plant decides to capture the full economic value of its improvements. See that Step 2 generated an additional $456,000 in net income (line 15, Appendix 2). Since the plant makes money (it costs $0.854 to make $1 of revenue; line 21 of Appendix 2), it makes sense to reinvest these savings into production. Accordingly, production is increased by 533 units ($456,000 additional earnings divided by $854 production cost per unit). All manufacturing expenses (line 8) increase relative to Step 2, but this is mostly due to the increase in production. Higher salaries for better-trained plant staff (line 3) push overall expenditures even higher. But with margin per unit still at 15 percent (line 22), the increased production boosts the overall magnitude of net operating income even more (line 15). Finally, the increased production in Step 3 is generated without increasing the asset base, so asset turnover (line 23) improves relative to Step 2. Despite the constant margin, the improvement in asset turnover is enough in Step 3 to increase ROI by another 2.3 percentage points, to 28.8 percent (line 24).

Note that this analysis omits some additional opportunities. For example, the steam efficiency initiative as described here simply increased capacity for making more of the same product. An alternative would be to let that capacity serve a new product line-perhaps one that’s marketed as a "green" or environmentally friendly alternative. As such, the new product may command a premium price, which ultimately would have driven return on investment even higher.

To whom do the benefits of steam efficiency accrue? Figure 2 (page 28) shares again the ROI schematic, but with detail showing impacts on specific financial elements.

In the final analysis, the investment in steam system optimization provides benefits beyond the boiler room. True, plant staff gets some training and a corresponding boost in pay. The steam plant superintendent gets the resources to upgrade steam assets and maintenance. But in addition, product managers enjoy lower costs per unit due to reduced waste of direct materials, as well as avoided downtime. Sales and marketing staff enjoys a bit more negotiating room since the spread between product cost and price has widened. The corporate officers demonstrate to shareholders a higher return on investment, thus positioning the company well for attracting more investment capital. Finally, the manufacturing operation survives another round in the continuing battle with global competition.

This article is part of an ongoing discussion of policy and programs that impact the market for mechanical insulation and energy management in general. The Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington, D.C. based non-profit organization, is closely allied with the National Insulation Association in promoting the benefits of energy efficiency.

References and Resources

Figure 1

The financial elements shown above help demonstrate return on investment measurement.

Figure 2

Elements of manufacturing return on investment.

Figure 3

Breakout of elements of manufacturing return on investment.

Figure 4

Appendix 1 is a financial snapshot of manufacturing operations before implementation of a steam efficiency initiative.

Figure 5

Appendix 2 shows financial position after implementing a steam efficiency initiative.

Figure 6

Appendix 3 shows a company’s financial position after reinvesting savings in production.

Figure 7

Table 1 summarizes the financial contribution of steam efficiency to a manufacturer’s ROI.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Specifying for Mechanical Insulation Systems

Mechanical insulation has long been underutilized and its importance in the overall mechanical system unappreciated. Many engineers who have devoted far too little time on insulation material selection and specifications don’t consider mechanical insulation an engineered system. For those who understand mechanical insulation’s importance, many don’t know where to begin the process of designing systems and creating specifications. This article will identify important steps in designing insulation systems and creating comprehensive specifications.

Although the main focus of this article is specifying mechanical insulation, system design concepts must be addressed to set the stage. Also, designing and specifying are overlapping tasks with the common ground being product selection.

System Design

Designing insulation systems involves listing and prioritizing criteria; then selecting materials and calculating insulation thickness that meet those criteria. This design process is required for each item to be insulated and for each environment in which each item exists. What follows is a brief overview of some points covered in the National Insulation Association’s National Insulation Training Program (NITP).

Why Insulate

The first task in designing insulation systems is to document the answer(s) to "why insulate?" There are many reasons to insulate, but most assume the main reason is to conserve energy. The following is a partial list of reasons to insulate in addition to energy conservation:

  • Protect equipment and personnel.
  • Increase process efficiency.
  • Prevent condensation.
  • Prevent excess heat in fire hazard areas.
  • Control noise.
  • Maintain temperature.
  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Maximize return on investment.
  • Improve process control and efficiency.

An unbelievable amount of energy is lost through uninsulated valves, bare pipes, and defective insulation. NIA’s Insulation Energy Appraisal program states that uninsulated surfaces have a heat loss 20 times higher than properly insulated surfaces. This program also points out that insulation is the most effective technology available today that allows energy users to conserve energy, save money, and preserve the environment; and that return on investment often is less than six months.

Insulation Selection Criteria

The following is a partial list of considerations in setting a prioritized criteria list:

  • What are you insulating? (pipe, tank, vessel?)
  • What is the nature of the process?
  • What is the primary reason for insulating?
  • What is the base material of the pipe or equipment?
  • What is the operating temperature of the system?
  • What are the ambient conditions?
  • What is the relative humidity; will there be condensation issues?
  • Is the system located indoors, outdoors, or both?
  • How much wind or air movement is there? (Ventilation rates required for indoors means there are wind speeds to consider.)
  • Will the system need to be heat traced?
  • Will you need to address leak detection and monitoring within the insulated system? How critical is the appearance of the finished system?
  • Do you need to meet specific code criteria, such as U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, fire ratings and building codes?
  • Will there be people working around the insulated surface?
  • Will the system or equipment be exposed to physical damage?
  • Are the contents inside the pipe or equipment flammable? Will there be areas of the system that need regular maintenance checks, such as valves and fittings, specialties, and access panels?
  • What is the expected life of the system?
  • Does acoustical treatment need to be addressed?
  • Installed cost and return on investment?

There are many other considerations in designing systems. Some criteria outweigh others in importance. At some point, economics will play a role; especially when you have several insulation materials that work equally well.

Material Selection

Determining the right insulation for each application requires consideration of the previously mentioned questions. No two jobs will have identical criteria; so don’t just dust off the previous project specifications for the next project. Before selecting insulation materials, gather data on the systems and equipment being insulated and environmental conditions in which they exist.

To begin, organize and prioritize the responses to the previous questions (selection criteria). Then list the primary reason for insulating, matched with the prioritized selection criteria. In most cases selection is a result of combining prioritized reasons and criteria. You may need to design and specify an insulation material and thickness that fulfills multiple criteria.

Specifying Systems

After designing each insulation system, create precise and concise prescriptions of required materials and workmanship. To do so, describe the quality of materials required for the project, the quality of workmanship required for the project, and how you will know that those quality requirements are fulfilled.

Drawings and specifications are part of the documents that form the contract between the contractor and the facility owner. These contract requirements don’t include the insulation selection criteria, thickness calculations, and other selection considerations (such as economic factors) that form the basis of the insulation system design. To fulfill their contract, installers only need to know what materials to use and where to install them.

Drawings for commercial construction do not identify insulation materials, thicknesses, and many installation requirements. Drawings rarely identify what items (pipe, equipment, and ducts and plenums) are required to be insulated. The specification sections that specify the items to be insulated (e.g., pipes, equipment, and ducts and plenums) also don’t include insulation requirements. So, insulation specification sections must be written to include the extent of insulation and the quality of materials and workmanship.

Insulation installers need to know what must be insulated, with what insulating and finishing materials, and in what thickness. Installers then use the project drawings and specifications to see the description, quantities, and locations of the items to be insulated. The combination of insulation specifications and drawings and specifications for insulated items sets the quantity and quality on which installers prepare bids and owners form contracts.

The particular requirements for insulation are contained in one or more specification sections. For commercial projects following MasterFormat?, (the "master list of numbers and titles for the construction industry") these sections are located in Division 15 – Mechanical. There can be as many as three sections (i.e., duct insulation, equipment insulation, and pipe insulation) or these subjects can be consolidated into a single section (i.e., mechanical insulation). Building and roof insulation specifications are included in Division 7, according to MasterFormat?. Whether mechanical insulation is written in one or three sections, the specifications must include a description of the required materials and the location where each material shall be installed. This sounds like a simple task. However, because most projects include numerous systems and equipment to be insulated and because each item can have multiple criteria and conditions, this task is very complex.

Each item that requires insulation can have several conditions for which to design. Domestic water piping, for example, includes both cold and hot water each having different insulating criteria. Domestic water piping passes through different environments, perhaps requiring freeze protection in some locations and personnel protection in other locations (i.e., hot-water supplies at handicapped lavatories). Because of different environments through which domestic water piping passes, some locations must consider condensation control and other locations must consider energy conservation. There are more considerations for domestic water piping, but these should begin to illustrate the point of how complex each system design can be. Now, consider that there are many other systems, each with a variety of insulating criteria.

Each system presents interesting design problems, but taken in combination, the design and the number of systems multiplies and the problem and specifications task is compounded. Once design solutions are developed, the problem now becomes one of how to specify the compound variations of insulation systems in a concise and easy to read specification that will result in competitive bids and enforceable contract requirements.

The following is a list of simple steps for comprehensive, concise, and accurate specification.

    1. List items to be insulated.
    2. Identify type(s) of insulation for each item.
    3. Specify thickness (es) for each item and each condition.
    4. Describe each insulating material.
    5. Describe other insulating materials.
    6. Describe installation (workmanship) quality requirements.
    7. Describe unique administrative requirements.

Specification Organization and Content

The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) publishes a Manual of Practice, which prescribes the format and arrangement of subject matter for project specifications, individual specification sections, and page layout and arrangement. The Manual of Practice also prescribes proper writing style and methods of specifying. These organizational and writing principles have become the de facto standard of the commercial construction industry throughout North America. These principles aren’t discussed in this article; instead, this article focuses on the application of those principles as they apply to specifying mechanical insulation.

Specifying Material, Workmanship

The following expands on the steps listed previously. The location and arrangement of these subjects will be discussed later in this article.

Create a List of Systems and Equipment

Create a list of systems and equipment to be insulated from the information developed when designing the insulation systems. You will also need to identify what systems and equipment or portions of systems and equipment must not be insulated. Gather as much information as possible for each system and equipment. This information will be used to select appropriate materials and calculate thicknesses. See the discussion later on calculating thickness for a list of questions to consider about items to be insulated.

Select Appropriate Insulation Material

Select appropriate insulation material for each system and equipment listed. Because there are many systems and items of equipment to be insulated and many differing conditions and criteria, it’s likely that the project will include several different types of insulation materials, jackets, and finishes. The result of this step will be a list of insulation materials required for the project independent from the list of items to be insulated. This separate list of insulation materials will be used to create the "quality of materials" specifications discussed (page 11). Specifiers may wish to limit the installer’s choices to a single type of insulation or may wish to allow the installer to choose among several types to impose a competitive bidding environment. The two lists (items to be insulated and list of insulation materials) will be combined later and expanded to include thicknesses and will be included in the insulation schedules. Schedules are discussed later in this article.

Calculate and Specify Thickness

Calculate and specify thickness for each application. Calculations for insulation thickness can be made to fulfill different criteria. Criteria for calculating thickness include energy conservation, personnel protection, condensation control, and much more. The results of calculations for each criterion will be different. Calculations using the same criterion for different insulation materials will also yield different thicknesses. So, when including more than one type of insulation for a particular application to impose a competitive environment include, equivalent thicknesses (not necessarily the same thickness) so the competitive field is level. Thickness of each insulation application should be included in the schedule that identifies the type(s) of insulation for each system. Including thicknesses in the schedule adds another level of complexity to the specifying task because each application can have multiple materials and varying thicknesses. For example, for hydronic heating piping, the insulation thickness will vary according to the pipe size. So the thickness for NPS 3/4 (DN20) pipe will be different than for NPS 12 (DN 300) pipe; thicknesses for one type of insulation will be different than another type. Continuing this piping example, thicknesses will also vary depending on the ambient conditions for the pipe. Indoor pipe will have a different thickness (and perhaps different insulation materials) from the same pipe size installed outdoors.

A software program called 3E Plus® from the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) calculates thicknesses and accommodates many fuel types and five different surface applications. Thermal conductivity values are built in to the program for several different American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) referenced insulation materials, and the user can input conductivity values for any other material. The large number of possible combinations and options is what gives this program its tremendous flexibility. 3E Plus calculates the following:

  • heat gain and loss (also translated to dollars)
  • surface temperatures
  • thickness to control condensation
  • thickness required for personnel protection
  • heat loss efficiencies for particular insulation designs versus bar surface
  • payback period or return on investment
  • emissions reduction

Within the 3E Plus program there’s a questionnaire for gathering information about items to be insulated. The following are the first 10 questions, which are required to run the program out of a total of 22:

    1. What pipe sizes are the most commonly used?
    2. What is the base metal of the pipe or equipment?
    3. What is the geometry of the surface? (horizontal or vertical?)
    4. What type of insulation are you currently using, if any?
    5. What is the external jacketing material? Is the covering shiny or dull?
    6. What is the average ambient temperature in the area of the piping or equipment?
    7. What is the process temperature in the pipe or equipment?
    8. What is the average wind velocity at the pipe, for inside and outside applications?
    9. Does the energy user require a maximum insulated surface temperature?
    10. What is the design relative humidity value for the area of the piping or equipment (for cold surfaces).

Specifying thickness for each item and each condition is the next step. The following is an excerpt for one application from MASTERSPEC Section 15080 – Mechanical Insulation:

N. Heating-Hot-Water Supply and Return, above 200 Degrees Fahrenheit (F) (93 degrees Celsius [C]):

1. [NPS 3/4 (DN 20)] <Insert pipe size> and Smaller: Insulation shall be[ any of] the following:

    a. Calcium Silicate: [2 inches (50 mm)] [3 inches (75 mm)] <Insert thickness> thick.
    b. Cellular Glass: [2 inches (50 mm)] [3 inches (75 mm)] <Insert thickness> thick.
    c. Mineral-Fiber, Preformed Pipe, Type I or II: [1-1/2 inches (38 mm)] [2 inches (50 mm)] <Insert thickness> thick.

2. [NPS 1 (DN 25)] <Insert pipe size> and Larger: Insulation shall be[ any of] the following:

    a. Calcium Silicate: [3 inches (75 mm)] [4 inches (100 mm)] <Insert thickness> thick.
    b. Cellular Glass: [3 inches (75 mm)] [4 inches (100 mm)] <Insert thickness> thick.
    c. Mineral-Fiber, Preformed Pipe, Type I or II: [3 inches (75 mm)] [4 inches (100 mm)] <Insert thickness> thick.

In the excerpt, the boldface text in square brackets and angle brackets are choices the specifier must make when she or he edits the master to create a project specification. The example identifies the changes in pipe sizes where insulation thickness changes are likely to occur, and leaves the option for the specifier to insert a different pipe size for this break point. There may be additional pipe size break points as pipe sizes increase. Insulation thickness choices presented in the illustration are the most common and the smallest thickness that complies with the energy standard enforced by most authorities of building and mechanical codes. The specifier can insert a different thickness based on project criteria and his or her calculations and judgment.

Describing Quality of Material

Describing the quality of material is the next step. After listing all required materials, including acceptable alternatives where applicable, describe the quality requirements for each required material. Include requirements for insulation performance such as thermal performance, permeance where applicable, rigidity, density, and other attributes that are important to the design solution.

Writing insulation material specifications is done by first identifying the product by a generic title (e.g., calcium silicate or mineral fiber insulation). Sometimes the form must also be included in this generic title because the same material may be required in different forms (e.g., mineral fiber blanket insulation and mineral fiber board insulation). Choose these terms carefully so not to include proprietary or trade names, thereby setting an unfair advantage for one particular manufacturer (unless setting the advantage is your objective). This term(s) becomes an article or a paragraph title, which is followed by a description of that product. The description must include all of the important attributes about the material to distinguish it from other materials. Writing descriptions for insulation materials is made easy by citing a national standard such as published by ASTM International, The following is a discussion from the Evaluations document MASTERSPEC® Section 15080 – Mechanical Insulation:

"Preformed-pipe-type, mineral-fiber thermal-insulation properties are specified in ASTM C 547. When specifying mineral-fiber insulation by referencing ASTM C 547, specifiers are assured of product qualifications for density and dimension, linear shrinkage, apparent thermal conductivity, surface-burning characteristics, hot surface performance, sag resistance, water-vapor sorption, and non-fibrous contents. This standard specifies four types of mineral-fiber insulation with different properties. Type I is suitable for operating temperatures up to 850 degrees F (454 degrees [C]); Types II and III up to 1,200 degrees F (650 degrees [C]) and Type IV up to 1,000 degrees F (538 degrees [C]). The apparent thermal conductivity for all types at 100 degrees F (38 degrees [C]) is 0.25 Btu-in/hr. sq. ft. F (0.036 W/m°K). Types I, II, and IV are molded and Type III is V-groove. Grade A doesn’t require a heat up schedule and Grade B does require a heat up schedule. Grade B products aren’t commonly used in the HVAC industry. The most common section lengths are 3 feet (900 mm). Available nominal thicknesses range from 0.5 inch (13 mm) up to 6 inches (150 mm) in 0.5 inch (13 mm) increments. Common facings available include: aluminum foil, reinforced fiberglass scrim with kraft paper back (FSK), white kraft paper, reinforced fiberglass scrim with aluminum foil back, generally known as All Service Jacket (ASJ), and aluminum foil, reinforced fiberglass scrim with polyethylene back (FSP)."

From the excerpt you can see that there’s much to describe about this product, which can be omitted from the project specification by simply referencing the ASTM standard. There are some pitfalls, however. First, as seen in the excerpt, there are choices of types and grades for which the specifier must be aware and must identify in the specification. It’s not sufficient to reference ASTM C 547 without further identifying types and grades. If they aren’t identified, the installer doesn’t know if one or another type or grade is important, and the correct type may not be provided. Second, the project criteria might indicate that the values in the standard must be exceeded. In this case, these additional requirements must be specified in addition to the citation of the standard. National standards are updated frequently, so specifiers must keep up with revisions in standards. National standards are developed using a consensus process that involves all that have a vested interest. So, consensus-based national standards are those for which all participants (mainly manufacturers) can comply. Therefore, the resulting standard sets minimum requirements that may not be sufficient to fulfill project requirements and design criteria.

Describing the insulation materials may also include the identification of manufacturers and products for which the specifier is aware of that meet the descriptions. Other proprietary information can be included, and this proprietary information can be used to limit the installer’s selection of materials or to set the quality requirements by which other manufacturer’s products will be evaluated for acceptance. The absence of proprietary information allows the installer to purchase any material that meets the description or cited standard. The excerpt at top right is an example of a description of mineral fiber pipe insulation taken from MASTERSPEC Section 15080 – Mechanical Insulation.

In the excerpt, the titles of the paragraphs are used later in the insulation schedule to specify where this material is required to be installed. The boldface texts in square brackets are choices the specifier must make when he or she is editing the section for a project specification. These are choices within the cited standard that are available from the manufacturers listed.

Describe Other Insulating Materials

Describing other insulating materials means considering all the other components of the insulation system. These include attachment and securement hardware, adhesives, mastics, insulating cements, jackets (factory and field applied), and other finishing materials. Each of these components applies in various situations and in many combinations. These components complete the insulation system and can’t be overlooked. Some components will have their own schedule and some will be included in the insulation material schedule(s). Still others may only appear in general installation articles.

Describing Quality of Workmanship Requirements

Each type of material and each application will have unique installation requirements. The Midwest Insulation Contractors Association (MICA), National Commercial & Industrial Insulation Standards include standard details for many insulation applications. These details can be put on drawings or referenced in the specifications to illustrate relationships and locations of various components of insulation systems. Contractors use the plates from this standard as submittal data to confirm requirements before proceeding with installation.

Specifying Administrative Requirements and Quality Assurance/Control Requirements

There are specific administrative and procedural requirements unique to insulation that must be included in the specifications. These include the types submittals and their specific contents and purpose, extra materials requirements, coordination requirements, installer qualifications, and more. Field quality control requirements must be included to let the installer know how you intend to verify compliance with the specifications.

For insulation installations, field quality control tests and inspections are destructive, so designers should budget the cost for removal and replacement of a quantity of insulation samples in the initial construction cost estimate. Engineers often will specify that a random sample of insulation will be removed to verify proper materials and installation methods are used. Normally, these inspection requirements include statements that all installations will be considered in noncompliance if samples don’t comply. The specifications should identify the quantity of sampling so the installer can include replacement costs in their original bids for those removed portions.

Drawings

The following is an excerpt from the Drawing Coordination Checklist of MASTERSPEC Section 15080 – Mechanical Insulation:

Drawings should indicate the following information:

  • details of expansion and contraction compensation.
  • details of joint staggering for multi-layer insulation applications.
  • thicknesses of insulation at coordination details (space required for insulation).
  • details of insulation at mechanical penetrations of the building (walls, floors, roofs, etc.).
  • details of insulation at hangers and other mechanical supports, and details of anchorages where a particular treatment is desired.
  • details of special requirements at valves, strainers, piping specialties, ductwork accessories, and equipment.
  • special protection for exterior systems and at other locations for protection against damage, but only to the extent not specified.
  • details of vapor retarder and sealing, but only to the extent not specified.
  • details of removable insulation covers for ductwork, equipment, valves and strainers including fasteners, frames, etc.
  • Details of special requirements for removable portions of insulation at manholes, handholes and access doors for access.
  • extent of piping with heat tracing installed under the insulation.
  • application details for each type of field insulated equipment. Include insulation and jacket fastening method and spacing. Show arrangements of special shapes and edge treatment.
  • details of jacket applications including attaching and sealing, but only to the extent not specified.

Specification Section Outline

The following is an outline of a three-part section for mechanical insulation that includes duct, equipment, and pipe insulation. The outline includes only the part and article titles with a brief explanation (in italics) of what should be presented in each. This outline is based on MASTERSPEC Section 15080 – Mechanical Insulation.

PART 1 – GENERAL

Articles in Part 1 specify the unique administrative and procedural requirements for mechanical insulation, which supplement to general requirements written in Division 1 of the Specifications. The following Articles should be included.

  • Summary
    Like an executive summary of a report, this article summarizes the section’s contents for the benefit of the reader.

  • Definitions
    Include terms used outside of their normal definitions or special use terms.

  • Submittals
    Include types of submittals required and the purpose of the submittal (e.g., what must the submittal illustrate).

  • Quality Assurance
    Include here, overall quality requirements for mechanical insulation. Specific requirements are included where they apply in other parts of the section.

  • Delivery, Storage, And Handling
    Include unique requirements not already specified in Division 1 – General Requirements.

  • Coordination
    Include unique requirements not already specified in Division 1 – General Requirements.

  • Scheduling
    Include unique requirements not already specified in Division 1 – General Requirements.

PART 2 – PRODUCTS

This part describes all the products required for the project. Exclude products not required for the project.

    2.1 MANUFACTURERS

    Describe contractor’s options in selection among materials specified.

    2.2 INSULATION MATERIALS

    Include paragraphs that describe each insulation material required for project. These paragraphs shouldn’t describe where materials are applied, rather just the description of the important attributes of each type of insulation.

    2.3 FIRE-RATED INSULATION SYSTEMS

    Describe specific systems for fire-rated applications. Where these systems apply is listed in Part 3.

    2.4 INSULATING CEMENTS

    Include paragraphs that describe each insulating cement material required for project.

    2.5 ADHESIVES

    Describe adhesives applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section.

    2.6 MASTICS

    Describe mastics applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section.

    2.7 LAGGING ADHESIVES

    Describe lagging adhesives applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section.

    2.8 SEALANTS

    Describe sealants applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section.

    2.9 FACTORY-APPLIED JACKETS

    Include paragraphs that describe each jacket material required for project that are applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section. These paragraphs should not describe where jackets are applied, rather just the description of the important attributes of each jacket.

    2.10 FIELD-APPLIED FABRIC-REINFORCING MESH

    Include paragraphs that describe each reinforcing mesh required for project that are applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section.

    2.11 FIELD-APPLIED CLOTHS

    Include paragraphs that describe each cloth material required for project that are applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section. These paragraphs should not describe where cloths are applied, rather just the description of the important attributes of each cloth.

    2.12 FIELD-APPLIED JACKETS

    Include paragraphs that describe each jacket material required for project that are applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section. These paragraphs should not describe where jackets are applied, rather just the description of the important attributes of each jacket.

    2.13 TAPES

    Include paragraphs that describe each type of tape required for project that are applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section. These paragraphs should not describe where tapes are applied, rather just the description of the important attributes of each jacket.

    2.14 SECUREMENTS

    Describe securements applicable to the insulation materials specified in the Section.

    2.15 CORNER ANGLES

    Describe corner angles applicable to the project to protect corners of insulation exposed to damage.

PART 3 – EXECUTION

This part specifies the actions required for preparation, installation, field quality control, and where various insulation materials apply relating to systems and equipment.

    3.1 EXAMINATION

    Describe requirements to examine surfaces to be insulated

    3.2 PREPARATION

    Include requirements for surface preparation.

    3.3 COMMON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS

    Specify installation requirements that are common to most insulation materials and applications. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.4 PENETRATIONS

    Specify requirements for installation where insulated items penetrate walls, floors, and roofs.

    3.5 DUCT AND PLENUM INSULATION INSTALLATION

    Specify installation requirements unique to ducts and plenums. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.6 EQUIPMENT, TANK, AND VESSEL INSULATION INSTALLATION

    Specify installation requirements unique to equipment, tanks, and vessels. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.7 GENERAL PIPE INSULATION INSTALLATION

    Specify installation requirements unique to piping and that is common to most piping systems. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.8 – INSULATION INSTALLATION

    Include articles for each type of insulation material specified in Part 2 of the Section and specify installation requirements that are unique to that material. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.16 VAPOR-BARRIER INSTALLATION

    Specify installation requirements that are unique to vapor barriers. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.17 FIELD-APPLIED JACKET INSTALLATION

    Include articles for each type of field-applied jacket material specified in Part 2 of the Section and specify installation requirements that are unique to that material. Do not specify where to install, just how. Locations are specified in schedule articles.

    3.18 FIRE-RATED INSULATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION

    Specify installation requirements that are unique to fire-rated insulation systems.

    3.19 FINISHES

    Include articles for each type of finish material specified in Part 2 of the Section and specify installation requirements that are unique to that material.

    3.20 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL

    Specify field tests and inspections. Include a description of each type of test and inspection and a description of the extent of testing

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Specifying for Industrial Insulation Systems

We have all heard the old saying, "No job is complete until the paperwork is finished." When it comes to insulation, this saying should be changed to, "No job should be started until the paperwork is completed." Specifically, no insulation job should be started until an appropriate specification has been prepared and agreed to by all involved.

For most of us, the thought of sitting down to read an insulation specification doesn’t exactly compare with the excitement of cracking open the latest page-turner from Tom Clancy or John Grisham, but a well prepared and well written specification is critical to the success of any project. In the National Insulation Association’s National Insulation Training Program (NITP) we spend considerable time talking about specifications and the design process that supports the creation of an effective specification. We use the Process Industry Practices (PIP) as the basis for industrial specifications and the ARCOM Master Spec as the basis for commercial specifications. For this discussion we will focus on the industrial side and will use the PIP Practices as the basis for showing how to create or interpret an effective specification so you can have your paperwork completed before the job starts. Please note that although PIP will be referenced throughout this article, it’s certainly not the only effective method for effective insulation specification.

What’s a Specification?

What is a specification? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it is a "detailed exact statement of particulars." True enough, but in the case of insulation it’s far more than just a statement of particulars; it’s how the designer communicates his intent to everyone involved, from the project manager to the installation contractor and the material suppliers. A good specification includes all the information the contractor needs to understand-what is to be insulated, the materials to be used, how they should be installed and how they will be inspected. There’s no such thing as a verbal specification. When an owner calls his local contractor and says, "Hi Bob, I have about 5,000 feet of pipe with a few valves and fittings that need to be insulated, I’d like you to come by tomorrow and take care of it, just do the usual." He may have issued a verbal purchase order, but he certainly hasn’t issued a specification and he has left the door open to disaster. The contractor could interpret this to mean practically anything. An unscrupulous contractor might take advantage of the situation by using the latest in solid gold jacket, but the more likely scenario is that the owner won’t get a system that’s adequate for his application. The problems could be anything from an inappropriate insulation material to improper thickness.

In the case of inadequate thickness, the owner would end up wasting energy and could even have a safety problem if the jacket temperature turned out to be above the personnel protection temperature. The use of improper insulation material could result in energy loss, damage to the insulation, corrosion of the equipment or even fire if a leaking chemical comes in contact with an incompatible insulation material. The lesson here is: don’t just dust off an old spec and send it out. Each job should have a specification based on the specific project details.

By now you may be thinking, "Great, this guy thinks I need a 50-page specification to insulate 10 feet of pipe-typical engineer." A good specification doesn’t have to be long to communicate the designer’s intent in a clear and logical way. The authors of the PIP practices had this in mind when they set out to create them. The end result is a series of text documents and datasheets that can be tailored to the needs of a specific project. A small project such as 10 feet of pipe might have just a few datasheets, while a large project could have many more. PIP was founded on the idea that standard specification formats used by everyone in the process industry would simplify the process of writing and reading specifications and ultimately lower project costs. In the case of insulation, the authors created a series of documents that cover engineering, materials specification, extent of insulation, detail drawings and inspection. Supporting these basic documents is a series of datasheets that are completed by the designer and read by contractors and material suppliers. The datasheets contain project specific information and the number of datasheets needed for a project depends on its size and complexity. At first glance, the PIP practices are a daunting stack of paper, but with familiarity comes the realization that most of the PIP text is supporting information that doesn’t change from project to project. After the text documents are learned, using the PIP practices is an exercise in completing or reading datasheets.

Design

The first step in any insulation project is design. Design is the process of identifying the important parameters that must be addressed through the materials selection process. Much of the NITP is focused on understanding the design process and how it’s influenced by both the physical properties of the insulation materials and the unique characteristics of the system being insulated. Using the PIP practices helps the specifier through the design process by requiring him to make choices. The first PIP document he must consult is INEG1000, "Insulation Design and Type Codes." This practice contains the type code definitions used by PIP and the designer must choose the code that applies to his project. The codes describe the basic purpose of the insulation and include heat conservation (HC), process stability (PS), personnel protection (PP), prevention from freezing (PF), cold conservation (CC) and condensation prevention (CP). By choosing a type code, the designer selects the fundamental design for his project. Later in the process this choice will be used to help determine what PIP calls the "extent of insulation," which is nothing more than what will be insulated and what won’t. The code will also become a part of the project documentation because it’s included in the line code for each item shown on the project’s piping and instrument diagrams.

The type codes help establish the basic reason for insulating, but there are many more criteria the designer must consider before he can choose his materials. We begin each NITP class by asking the students what they hope to learn. Perhaps the most common answer is, "I want to learn more about the different insulation materials and how they are used." In other words, how do designers choose from all those materials? One of the key points in design is to understand that there are many ways to solve a problem, all of which will work to some degree. With training and experience the designer learns to choose the best solution from among the many workable solutions. He does this by looking at each of the design criteria that apply to his project, prioritizing them and then choosing materials that best meet his priorities. Since designers are human, this process has a degree of subjectivity. Not all end users or designers will agree on what design criteria should apply to a project, how they should be prioritized or which materials will best meet their needs. Occasionally, factors outside the design process intervene to force the designer to change his approach. For example, the project could be a rush job for which the optimum material isn’t available and can’t be obtained in time to meet the schedule.

So, what are some of these other design criteria and how do we sort them out? The way to start is to ask: what are we insulating? Is the item a vessel, a piping system or machinery? The nature of the insulated item will sometimes dictate what material is best suited for the application. For example, suppose we’re insulating a large machine that’s complex in shape and our primary criteria is condensation control. Would it be better to use a rigid material that would have to be cut many times to conform to the complex shape, or would it make more sense to use a flexible material that could be easily fit to the curves? How this question is answered dictates which material is chosen, and not everyone gives the same answer.

After understanding what’s being insulated, we need to know what the operating temperature will be. This is probably the most fundamental question of all because it establishes the appropriate type code and narrows the field of appropriate material choices. If the process is operating at 400 degrees Celsius (C), all the organic materials automatically drop out of consideration. Likewise, if the temperature is minus 50 degrees (C), the field might be narrowed to closed cell materials.

The next question is, what’s the nature of the process? By this we mean what chemicals are being handled, and do they have any unique properties that might influence the design. Often this relates to the flammability or reactivity of the process chemicals. Some industrial facilities processing flammable chemicals only use closed cell insulation materials to prevent leaking chemicals from saturating a more absorbent material and causing a fire. I once worked with a plant that originally insulated a highly flammable process using fibrous material because it was their standard material for the temperatures involved. This chemical had a habit of destroying gaskets and valve seals and the standard method of finding leaks was to look for fires. The chemical was absorbed by the fibrous insulation until enough was present to cause autoignition. We solved the problem by changing to a closed cell product and providing drainage to prevent a dangerous buildup of the chemical. We also worked to find compatible gasket and seal materials, but the bottom line is that leaks happen and if the consequences of a leak could be severe then the insulation design should help to minimize those consequences.

It’s important to know the material of construction of the insulated substrate. Much has been written about corrosion under insulation (CUI), and there is a recommended practice (RPO-198) published by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) intended to reduce the likelihood of corrosion through the use of coatings. Not all end users follow the NACE recommendations, because in some cases the risk of CUI is judged to be acceptable. In these circumstances, the choice of insulation material should be made to minimize the corrosion risk. For example, if a stainless steel line operating at 95 degrees (C) (a prime temperature for chloride stress corrosion cracking) is to be insulated and not coated, a non-absorbent material might be chosen in order to prevent the occurrence of conditions that could lead to corrosion. Some chemical companies take the "belt and suspenders" approach and use absorption resistant materials along with following the NACE guidelines. All of this is dictated by the stainless steel substrate. This is just one example; other substrate materials present different problems that must be addressed by the designer.

The environment in which the insulation will operate influences many design choices. It’s important to distinguish between indoor and outdoor conditions. If the insulation system is to operate fully exposed to the elements, then the choice of jacket material and how it’s secured may be very different than if the system is inside a building. Outdoor systems generally require more robust jacket and sealing materials than indoor systems. Insulation is also exposed to people and it’s this exposure that probably presents the greatest likelihood of damage. It’s a fact of life in all chemical plants that insulated pipes and vessel tops make great ladders and platforms. Physical abuse can be addressed by choosing damage resistant materials. A solution many in the chemical industry use is to select a dense insulation material, such as calcium silicate or perlite, for the top surfaces of pipes and vessels that are likely to be damaged.

Material selection is clearly a major part of the specification process. An equally important part of the design process is deciding exactly what parts of the piping and equipment will be insulated. PIP refers to this as the extent of insulation and defines it as, "those items or systems that are to be insulated under requirements of a given type code." Notice that the extent of insulation is directly related to the type codes that were chosen. The extent of insulation for heat conservation would be different than for personnel protection or cold conservation. PIP includes recommended extent of insulation datasheets for hot and cold service: INSH2001 and INSC2001. In a matrix format, the datasheets list many equipment items and with a simple yes or no they determine whether insulation should be applied in order to meet the desired criteria. Each datasheet also has blank columns and rows to allow the designer to tailor the extent of insulation to his specific project.

The final step in design, after choosing the materials and determining the extent of insulation, is calculating the appropriate thickness. Thickness should be based on the specific details of the project and the primary design criteria. For example, in many cases the thickness required for personnel protection will be different than that required for optimum heat conservation. The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) has published the 3E Plus® software program to calculate insulation thickness. 3E Plus is accepted as the standard method for determining insulation thickness. The 3E user must provide project specific information on the process and the materials selected to determine the proper thickness. If economic thickness is to be determined considerable, project specific economic data must be supplied and it isn’t likely that using data from past projects will produce an accurate answer.

Documentation

At this point, the designer has established design criteria, determined the extent of insulation and calculated the required thickness. The next step in the process is to write it down. PIP provides a series of datasheets that are used to communicate the decisions made in the design process. The first are tables used to describe the system design, INSH1001 for hot and INSC1001 for cold. Each row in the first column is used to record an item or system to be insulated, for example, "10 feet of pipe." Next are columns to record the type code, operating temperature, insulation material, thickness table and finally a column to record special requirements. The designer could sit down with an equipment list or piping line list and record the insulation material, type code, thickness table and any special requirements for the entire project in one table. It could be for 10 feet of pipe or 10 pressure vessels. Figure 1 (page 21) is an example INSH1001.

The next datasheets provide detailed information on the selected materials and the accessories that have been chosen to install that material. There’s a material datasheet for each major material covered by PIP. Figure 2 (page 21) is the PIP provided sample for calcium silicate. There are spaces to identify the project and list the approved manufacturers for all the accessory items. INIH1000 and INIC1000 are a collection of detailed installation drawings that describe the PIP preferred installation methods. The specifier selects only the drawings that apply to his project for inclusion in the package. Finally, there are datasheets, INSH2002 and INSC2002 that are used to list all the documents that are to be included in the package-the datasheet datasheets. It may seem strange to have a datasheet for datasheets, but in a big project that might include many datasheets, it’s helpful to have them all recorded in a single location. Each of the datasheets has a text document that provides supporting information and should be supplied with the datasheets, at least until the contractor has learned the system. For example, INSH2000, "Installation of Hot Service Insulation Systems," provides text information that expands and supplements the installation information shown on the detail drawings.

At this stage the process is almost complete. The designer has established and prioritized the design criteria, selected materials, calculated thickness, determined the extent of insulation and completed the datasheets necessary to communicate the information. All of this is assembled into a package for transmittal to the contractor and material suppliers. For a project that’s just 10 feet of pipe, the package could be as small as two datasheets, a drawing and the supporting text documents. If the contractor is familiar with PIP and already has the text documents and drawings, then all that’s really needed are the two datasheets. If it’s a big project with many pipes and vessels, then the package will be larger.

Inspection

If we have followed the process, we now have a good specification. But does a good specification guarantee a good installation? In a perfect world it would, but unfortunately we don’t work in a perfect world. Inspection is a key part of the insulation process and it’s important to determine what inspections will be required and what results are acceptable. Without acceptance criteria the contractor doesn’t know to what standard he will be held and the inspector doesn’t know how or what to inspect. PIP has created an inspection standard, INTG1000, that provides an inspection checklist for use by both the inspector and the contractor. The inspection practice should be included in the specification package, which should be discussed in detail with the owner, contractor and inspector before the job is begun, preferably in a pre-job conference. There should be agreement between all parties about the specification requirements and about how discrepancies will be handled. There should never be arguments after the job has started about what the specification requires.

Finally, do the PIP practices have to be used to write a good specification? Clearly the answer is no. PIP is an example of how an industrial specification package can be assembled. It contains all the critical elements needed to establish the basic design criteria, choose the insulation materials, determine thickness and communicate all the important information to everyone involved. Many companies, end users and engineering contractors, use unique specification documents to effectively carry out the same mission as PIP. While they use different formats, the good ones all communicate the same basic information. At the end of the day, any good specification communicates why we are insulating, what we are insulating, with what materials and how they are to be installed.