Solar Radiation/Heat Transfer

Effect on Water Filled Steel Pipe

Ecorp (Civil/Environmental) 31 Mar 03 17:54

Could anyone please help me find a source/aid in solving this problem?

I have to meet the CA water quality standard that will not allow treated
effluent to exceed 5F of the average stream temp. which will receive treated
water.

I will have a 36" o.d. steel duct. pipe that is approx. 3 miles long transport
treated water, above the ground surface, assuming influent water temp. of
68F. The flow will be approx. 9600gpm (assume pipe is always full) and the
ambient air temp (I will assume worse case scenario) will be 110F. The pipe
will be subject to direct solar radiation on top half of pipe and my version of
the computer program "qpipe" forces me into a subterrainian condition. How
can I figure the heat losses/increases either over the 3 mile pipe length or per
mile?

What if I use HDPE pipe of same o.d? (Would use of HDPE be way too costly
compared to steel?)

Regards,

You could start with a VERY basic heat transfer analysis. The max mean
solar incident radiation is around 940 W/m2 at the equator, if memory
serves. You could use that as a conservative starting point. A text on solar
engineering will give you the derating factors for your actual altitude. You
might find that info in the ASHRAE handbook also.

You can use the 3E insulation program (get it off the web from
www.naima.com) to get the emissivity value of the pipe.

For the pipe heat transfer calcs you can look in a process engineering text or a
heat transfer text. You will also need the wind speed in your area to allow for
convective losses. If the wind speed is high enough, convection is
significant.

Can't tell about HDPE vs. steel just off-the-cuff without doing the
arithmetic. Black is as good an emitter as it is an absorber. Need the
emissivity values first.

My stuff is all packed away right now since I just moved my office or I woul
dget it for you. This should get you started.

Thanks!
Pete

BobPE 31 Mar 03 18:40

(Civil/Environmental)

Ecorp:

74Elsinor is right on in his response. A simple heat transfer calc will give you
a good understanding of what you face. Pipe material will only mildly
increase or decrease heat loss and will be the last choice I think you would
make in your decision. I worked on a project that involved transfer of river
water from one basin to another. I used a pipe and an existing stream as the
conveyance conduit. This was in the NE USA and the seasonal conditions
caused all sorts of problems, more so than pipe material selection would
correct for. The design ultimately had large chillers on the effleuent to
remove heat to meet stream discharge conditions. This project involved a big
flow (100,000 gpm) and you can imagine the size of the chillers. You will
really have to focus on ambient seasonal conditions for the period your
permits require you to meet the temp discharge requirements. Your
negotations in advance of design and final permitting will also be very
important as any gain you make in getting the limit more flexible will result in
great cost savings for you. Focus on that stream you are discharging too and
question all the data that any permitting agency gives you on it, that worked
for me in my case as we negotiated the temps after the design was done and
all could see the magnitude of investment of capital equipment for just a
fraction of a degree in temp reduction.

I know this is a cop out, but I do not have my Heat and Mass Transfer book
with me either. If 74Elsinor dosn't get it, I will be near my book next week.

Take care...

BobPE

25362 1 Apr 03 10:04

(Chemical)

When doing solar radiation heat up estimates, it is convenient to have white

paints or pigments, since their absorptivity for solar radiation is 0.14 on the
average, while the low temperature radiation to the cooler surroundings are
0.92 on the average.

JKEngineer 1 Apr 03 10:41

(Chemical)
Ecorp -
You do not cite the expected stream temperature. You give an anticipated 68F
inlet to the pipe and a worst case air T of 110F. The stream T will fix the
amount of heat you can afford to gain.

I agree with the previous commenters. A relatively straight forward hand calc
will tell you something about how bad things are and what factors need to be
addressed. I expect that both solar loading and convective loading will be
factors. You could address them by: emissivity adjustment of the pipe surface
-- could even consider low emissive top for solar rejection and high emissive
bottom for re-radiation to the ground (if you think the ground is cool - but at
110F air T I doubt it); aluminum cladding of the pipe; insulation and
aluminum cladding; exterior shading to cut solar loading.

If you seriously want some aid in solving this, I would be glad to discuss it
with you.

Jack M. Kleinfeld, P.E. Kleinfeld Technical Services, Inc.

Infrared Thermography, Finite Element Analysis, Process Engineering
www.KleinfeldTechnical.com

denniskb 1 Apr 03 11:34

(Mechanical)
I have developed software for this application and will try
to run your case in the next few days and post the result.

Be careful with using reflective surfaces as they will work the day you put
them on and a few days later will have a slight layer of dust on them and will
loose almost all of the benefit.

Insulation will work very well and that can include an air gap. Even a simple
light colored plastic film loosely tied to the pipe can provide a significant
reduction in heat load.

Dennis Kirk Engineering

www.ozemail.com.au/~denniskb

KernOily 1 Apr 03 11:45

(Petroleum)
Dennis - you raise some interesting, timely, and
immediately applicable points. Do you have any data that details the
effect/change on emissivity of dust layers or oxidation layers of various
thicknesses? I am up against this problem all the time - not necessarily from
the solar viewpoint, but from radiative heat loss from high-temperature
piping systems and equipment. I am constantly trying to find better data for
emissivity to sharpen my pencil in my heat transfer calcs. As you probably
know the handbooks are pretty iffy when it comes to emissivity, at least the
ones I've seen are. I'd love to discuss this further or see what data you have.

Thanks!
Pete

Ecorp 1 Apr 03 20:09

(Civil/Environmental)

I have more information on this ever challenging problem.

Two Pipe sizes

A.(20" Schedule 40 Steel Pipe); Q20 = 0.38 m3/s
Outside Diameter 0.5080 m
Inside Diameter 0.4778 m
Wall Thickness 0.01509 m

B. (36" Scedule 40 Steel Pipe); Q36 = 0.61 m3/s

Outside Diameter 0.9144 m
Inside Diameter 0.8763 m
Wall Thickness 0.01905 m

Assumptions:
1. Air Temp. will effect water inside the pipe through convective heat transfer.
But this would not be the same as heating the pipe with an electric blanket at
43C. I am still trying to compensate for the heat source from the sun
transmitted through the air(an insulator)and then being applied around the
outside surface of the pipe through the steel and into the water assuming
Laminar Flow.

Tmax,air=43C(Summer)
August: Tave,air=34C(high); Tave,air=14C(low); Twater,influent=19.5C
December:Tave,air=12C(high); Tave,air=3C(low); Twater,influent=14.7C
*It can be safely assumed that August will control and I still don't know the
stream temps for August or Dec. but I will simply come up with a temp.
increase for per meter of pipe.

2. I will have to calculate the effects of solar radiation and the emissivity
properties of the outside of the pipe itself as well as the ground located
underneath. As you all pointed out this is a difficult one to pin down but I will
have to do the best with the charts that are provided online. I will assume new
steel pipe that has not been coated or painted. I will also have to assume
ground without vegetation and go with the higher values on steel and soil to
be conservative.

Solar Radiation
August 296.5 W/m2(612.2ly)
December 78.2 W/m2 (161.6 ly)

3. I will assume no heat input due to friction of the water travelling through
the pipe and pressure in equals pressure out (even though it wont) since flow
work effects make a small contribution to heating water.

4. I am assuming that all other possible heat sources in this system, that I
haven't listed, will be negligable (maybe this is a bad assumption).

I hope this helps and thanks alot.

Nathan

denniskb 2 Apr 03 09:12

(Mechanical)
74Elsinore - yes I do have some limited information which
I gained second hand from some research done here a few years ago and I can
pass it on so long as it becomes a two way exchange to add value to the
information available to those interested. Contact me at
denniskb@ozemail.com.au

First a brief introduction to the application I developed and will use to try and
help Ecorp with his situation. In Australia we have some quite extreme
temperatures (up to 55degC)and levels of solar radiation (up to 1100 W/m2)
and these occur in areas with significant mining and processing facilities.
Within these are many emergency safety showers because of fired equipment,
hot fluids and chemical useage. The water delivered to the showers can get
very hot (up to 88degC recorded) and can cause more harm to personnel than
the original injury (at 60degC third degree burns with 5 sec exposure).

My software was developed to determine the heat load in the pipes and the
max equilibrium temperature achievable so that we could design cooling
circuits to keep the shower temperatures acceptable. It includes internal
conduction (incl film coeff) and convection (forced), external conduction (incl
flim coeff), convection (natural) and radiation (both solar and ambient) and
conduction through up to three layes of pipe or insulation. It deals with pipe
in the sun, shade or buried. I deals with CS, SS, HDPE and UPVC pipe and
many types of insulation (including air gap).

Many miners use HDPE pipe from borehole to the minesite and within the
minesite and there was lots of concern about the impact on water temp. One
of the manufacturers did lots of field tests to try and dispell concerns and in
fact developed an excellent and cheap way to significantly reduce the heat
load using a reflective plastic film simply tied to the pipe. It works very well,
reducing water temperature from 65 to 35 degC. Many other options were
tried, including a two layer HDPE with a white outer. This product worked
even better when it was new but after only a few weeks returned to the same
heat load as plain black HDPE. The change was due to a layer of red dust on
the outer surface. Cleaning improved it for a while but was impratical and
eventually the white layer became stained.

My application was able to duplicate the result from these test with quite
reasonable accuracy.
Anyway enough of this I need to see if I can apply my solution to Ecorp's
problem.

Dennis Kirk Engineering

www.ozemail.com.au/~denniskb

JKEngineer 2 Apr 03 09:37

(Chemical)
Dennis -

Sounds like you have had some interesting work.

If I read your last post correctly, many of your applications deal with stagnant
water in the pipes. This does not sound like the situation that Ecorp is
facing. His system, I think, will have a steady flow and therefore much lower
net temperature rise.

Jack M. Kleinfeld, P.E. Kleinfeld Technical Services, Inc.

Infrared Thermography, Finite Element Analysis, Process Engineering
www.KleinfeldTechnical.com

denniskb 2 Apr 03 10:12

(Mechanical)
JKEngineer - No the situation we dealt with was for both
water flowing and static. One of the primary outputs of the calculation is
water temperature rise per metre for the input flow rate. To reduce the
temperature of the water it is continually circulated and passed through a
cooling tower or heat exchanger. Alternatives of dumping to grade and
evaporative cooling are also used where necessary.

Dennis Kirk Engineering

www.ozemail.com.au/~denniskb

denniskb 2 Apr 03 11:08

(Mechanical)
I have run case B outlined above by Ecorp with the
following details.
Water, 20 C, 606 l/sec
Air, 43.3 C, Sky 12 C
Ambient Surfaces 43.3 C
Solar 296.5 W/m2
Pipe 914.4 mm OD, 19.05 mm WT
Surface Carbon Steel Clean, Absorp (solar) 0.45, Absorb (amb) 0.20, Emmis
0.55
Internal Conv Coeff 1952 W/m2.K
External Conv Coeff 3.03 W/m2.K
Radiative Coeff -0.93 W/m2.K

Heat Gain 140.3 W/m, 48.9 W/m2 (Outside), 50.9 W/m2 (Inside)
Temp Rise 0.023 C/100 m, 0.014 C/min

The temperature rise over 4.8 km will be only around 1.1 C

Contact me at denniskb@ozemail.com.au and I will forward you a pdf of the

calc so you can check the inputs are correct.

If the pipe is lightly rusted (or dusty) the temperature rise could be 7.5 C.

If the pipe is HDPE (clean) the temperature rise could be 5 C

Let me know if you want to see other outputs.

Dennis Kirk Engineering

www.ozemail.com.au/~denniskb