Steam Trap Performance

F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M DOE/EE-0193
Steam Trap Performance Assessment

Advanced technologies for evaluating the performance of steam traps
Approximately 20% of the steam leaving a cen- Steam Trap Function

tral boiler plant is lost via leaking traps in typical Steam traps are automatic valves used in
space heating systems without proactive assess- every steam system to remove conden-
ment programs. Losses can be significantly and sate, air, and other non-condensable gases
easily reduced by implementing a program us- while preventing or minimizing the passing
ing portable test equipment. Fixed test equip- of steam. If condensate is allowed to collect, it
ment, allowing continuous monitoring and
evaluation, can reduce losses to less than 1%.
reduces the flow capacity of steam lines and the Federal
thermal capacity of heat transfer equipment. In
The potential impact in the Federal sector is addition, excess condensate can lead to “water Technology
enormous; annual savings associated with
implementing an assessment program using
hammer,” with potentially destructive and
dangerous results. Air that remains after system
Alert
portable equipment is estimated to be about startup reduces steam pressure and temperature
$80 million, with an average payback period of and may also reduce the thermal capacity of heat A publication series
less than half a year. transfer equipment. designed to speed the
This Federal Technology Alert, one in a series on Non-condensable gases, such as oxygen and adoption of energy-
new technologies, describes the various tech- carbon dioxide, cause corrosion. Steam that efficient and renewable
niques and technologies for evaluating steam passes through the trap provides no heating ser- technologies in the
traps, with a focus on more advanced tech- vice. This effectively reduces the heating capacity Federal sector
nologies utilizing ultrasonic sound or fluid of the steam system or increases the amount of
conductivity measurement. A methodology for steam that must be generated to meet the heating
estimating the costs and benefits of implement- demand. Where condensate is not returned to Prepared by the
ing a proactive steam trap maintenance program the boiler, water losses will be proportional to New Technology
is also presented along with the results of a site- the energy losses associated with leaking steam. Demonstration Program
specific Federal application. Feedwater treatment costs will be proportion-
ately increased. In turn, an increase in
make-up water increases the blowdown
Photo courtesy of TLV CORPORATION
requirement and associated energy and

water losses. Even where condensate is
returned to the boiler, steam bypassing a
trap may not condense prior to arriving
at the deaerator, where it may be vented
along with the non-condensable gases.
Performance Assessment Methods

Steam trap performance assessment is
basically concerned with answering the
following two questions:
1) Is the trap working correctly or not? The U.S. Department
of Energy requests that no
2) If not, has the trap failed in the open alterations be made without
or closed position? permission in any repro-
duction of this document.
Computerized steam trap management system.
Internet: http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M
Sight, sound, and temperature measure- staff may be called upon to conduct What to Avoid
ments have been used to assess the per- tests, the incremental investment in an The retrofit of sight glasses or test valves
formance of steam traps since steam ultrasonic gun with built-in diagnostics allowing a visual assessment of steam
traps were invented, but the measuring makes the most sense. The built-in diag- trap performance should be carefully
technology has evolved over the years. nostic capability practically eliminates considered. While visual assessment is
In particular, sound measurement has the need for training, which is essential judged by the majority of steam trap
progressed to include ultrasonic devices to achieving good results without built- experts to be the best assessment tech-
that compare measured sounds with the in diagnostics, but would be expensive nique, the cost of retrofitting this type of
expected sounds of working and non- if a large group had to be trained. equipment is significantly greater than
working traps to render a judgment on any portable temperature or sonic test
Conductivity-based assessment equip-
trap condition. Equipment using a fourth equipment and comparable to conduc-
ment offers the best performance
method, based on the conductivity of the tivity-based test equipment. The latter
improvement and lowest operating
fluid at a specific point in the pipeline, has the advantage of being wired for
costs via continuous, remote monitor-
has also been developed in recent years. continuous, remote monitoring, how-
ing, but installation of the sensing cham-
These advanced technologies are often ever, which should reduce operating
bers and wiring make this the most
coupled with temperature-measuring costs and improve steam system effi-
capital-intensive steam trap assessment
capability to increase diagnostic accuracy. ciency for a relatively modest incremen-
system. The extra investment is most
likely to be cost-effective in steam sys- tal investment, compared with sight
Where to Apply glasses or test valves.
tems serving heating equipment with
Steam trap performance assessment relatively large loads and, hence, rela-
equipment varies significantly in initial tively large steam traps. Larger steam Bottom Line
cost and moderately in operating cost traps, when failed open, result in larger, The widespread cost-effectiveness of
and assessment effectiveness. For more expensive leaks. Industrial process proactive steam trap maintenance is
smaller steam systems with relatively heating applications would be most well documented in the literature. Thus,
few traps and/or for energy managers attractive for this type of assessment implementing almost any type of steam
with exceptionally small budgets, a system, but space-heating applica- trap maintenance program will be ben-
simple ultrasonic gun (without built-in tions should not be excluded from eficial; selecting the specific type of
diagnostics) is probably the best invest- consideration. assessment equipment is of secondary
ment. However, where many different importance.
Steam Trap Performance Assessment

Advanced technologies for evaluating the performance of steam traps
Photo courtesy of Armstrong International, Inc.

trap performance assessment equip-
ment and programs are estimated to
be about $20 million. Based on invest-
ment costs of only $8 million, the aver-
age payback period is less than half a
year. The total present value of savings
over a 25-year period was estimated
to be about $200 million. Department
Federal
of Defense (DoD) and Federal sector Technology
impacts are probably about three and
four times as great, respectively, as the Alert
Army impacts.
Steam trap performance assessment
has traditionally been based on three
basic methods: sight, sound, and
Three-way valves on either side a steam trap comprise a temperature. This Federal Technology
trap test station. They make it easy to test traps and to Alert focuses on ultrasonic sound mea-
check on back pressure in the system. surement equipment and equipment
utilizing a fourth method based on
conductivity. A sight glass specifically
Abstract designed for steam trap performance assessment
Various types of performance assessment equip- is also included.
ment can be used as part of a proactive steam trap The first two sections present background mate-
maintenance program to significantly reduce rial that describes the basic types of steam traps
energy losses in steam distribution systems. and performance assessment methods. The next
Approximately 20% of the steam leaving a cen- section describes the technologies included in
tral boiler plant is lost via leaking traps in typical this Federal Technology Alert in more detail. Subse-
space heating systems without proactive mainte- quent sections describe how to use the technolo-
nance programs.1 Relatively simple equipment gies and the experiences of Federal sector users.
and programs can easily cut losses in half. Inter- Details regarding development of the Army
mediate equipment and programs can cut losses impacts noted above and the results of a specific
in half again. The best equipment and programs program initiated at three Veterans Administra-
can reduce losses to less than 1%.2 tion hospitals are also documented. Finally,
The potential impact in the Federal sector is enor- Appendix A provides detailed information on
mous. In the Army alone, the annual savings manufacturers and their products, and Appen-
associated with implementing intermediate steam dix B gives Federal life-cycle costing procedures.
1 Estimated based on data presented in Pychewicz (1985), Vallery (1981), and Johnson and Lawlor (1985).
2 A “simple” program would use rudimentary portable test equipment once a year. An “intermediate” program
would use more sophisticated portable test equipment twice year. The “best” program would use perma-
nently installed test equipment allowing continuous monitoring and evaluation.
1
This page left blank intentionally
2
Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................ 1
About the Technology .................................................................................................. 5
Steam Trap Overview
Performance Assessment Methods
Application Domain
Energy-Saving Mechanism
Other Benefits
Installation
Federal Sector Potential ................................................................................................ 11
Estimated Savings and Market Potential
Laboratory Perspective
Application...................................................................................................................... 12
Application Screening
Where to Apply
What to Avoid
Equipment Integration
Maintenance Impact
Equipment Warranties
Costs
Technology Performance .............................................................................................. 14
Case Study ...................................................................................................................... 14
Facility Description
Existing Technology Description
New Technology Equipment Selection
Savings Potential
Life-Cycle Costs
The Technology in Perspective .................................................................................... 16
The Technology’s Development
Technology Outlook
Manufacturers ................................................................................................................ 17
Who is Using the Technology ...................................................................................... 17
For Further Information................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A Steam Trap Monitoring Equipment Information............................ 21
Appendix B Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures
and the BLCC Software ...................................................................... 32
3
4
About the Technology process causing them to open and close. As the name implies, the operation of a
The three major categories of steam thermostatic steam trap is driven by
The focus of this Federal Technology Alert
traps are 1) mechanical, 2) thermostatic, the difference in temperature between
(FTA) is on advanced technologies for
and 3) thermodynamic. In addition, steam and sub-cooled condensate. Valve
evaluating the performance or work-
some steam traps combine characteris- actuation is achieved via expansion and
ing condition of steam traps. However,
tics of more than one of these basic contraction of a bimetallic element or a
prior to discussing techniques and
categories. liquid-filled bellows. Bimetallic and bel-
equipment for evaluating steam traps,
lows thermostatic traps are shown in
a brief overview of steam trap functions, The operation of a mechanical steam
Figures 2 and 3. Although both types of
designs, and operating characteristics is trap is driven by the difference in den-
thermostatic traps close when exposure
provided. At least a rudimentary under- sity between condensate and steam.
to steam expands the bimetallic element
standing of steam trap principles is nec- The denser condensate rests on the
or bellows, there are important differ-
essary to understand how the various bottom of any vessel containing the two
ences in design and operating character-
evaluation approaches work and why fluids. As additional condensate is gen-
istics. Upstream pressure works to open
some are more likely to produce a better erated, its level in the vessel will rise.
the valve in a bimetallic trap, while
evaluation than others. Those not famil- This action is transmitted to a valve via
expansion of the bimetallic element
iar with steam traps are also referred to either a “free float” or a float and con-
works in the opposite direction. Note
several references listed at the end of necting levers in a mechanical steam
that changes in the downstream pres-
this FTA that provide a more detailed trap. One common type of mechanical
sure will affect the temperature at which
discussion. steam trap is the inverted bucket trap,
the valve opens or closes. In addition,
shown in Figure 1. Steam entering the
the nonlinear relationship between
Steam Trap Overview submerged bucket causes it to rise
steam pressure and temperature requires
upward and seal the valve against the
Steam traps are automatic valves used careful design of the bimetallic element
valve seat. As the steam condenses
in every steam system to remove con- for proper response at different operat-
inside the bucket or if condensate is
densate, air, and other non-condensable ing pressures. Upstream and down-
predominately entering the bucket, the
gases while preventing or minimizing stream pressures have the opposite
weight of the bucket will cause it to sink
the passing of steam. If condensate is effect in a bellows trap; an increase in
and pull the valve away from the valve
allowed to collect, it reduces the flow upstream pressure tends to close the
seat. Any air or other non-condensable
capacity of steam lines and the thermal valve and vice versa. While higher tem-
gases entering the bucket will cause it
capacity of heat transfer equipment. In peratures still work to close the valve,
to float and the valve to close. Thus, the
addition, excess condensate can lead the relationship between temperature
top of the bucket has a small hole to
to “water hammer,” with potentially and bellows expansion can be made to
allow non-condensable gases to escape.
destructive and dangerous results. vary significantly by changing the fluid
The hole must be relatively small to
Air that remains after system startup inside the bellows. Using water within
avoid excessive steam loss.
reduces steam pressure and tempera-
ture and may also reduce the thermal
capacity of heat transfer equipment.
Non-condensable gases, such as oxy-
Illustration courtesy of Yarway Corporation

gen and carbon dioxide, cause corrosion.
Finally, steam that passes through the
trap provides no heating service. This
effectively reduces the heating capacity
of the steam system or increases the
amount of steam that must be gener-
ated to meet the heating demand.
The objective of the steam trap is not an
easy task and condensate pressures and
flow rates vary significantly at various
points in a steam distribution system. As
a result, many different types of steam
traps have been developed. Steam traps Figure 1. Inverted bucket steam trap.
are commonly classified by the physical
5
and decrease in pressure as the conden-

sate flows through the trap, following
the 1st law of thermodynamics and the
Bernoulli equation. As the condensate
entering the trap increases in tempera-
ture it will eventually flash to steam
because of the localized pressure drop
just described. This increases the veloc-
ity and decreases the pressure even
further, causing the disc to snap closed
against the seating surface. The moderate
pressure of the flash steam on top of the
disc acts on the entire disc surface, creat-
Figure 2. Bimetallic steam trap
ing a greater force than the higher pres-
sure steam and condensate at the inlet,

which acts on a much smaller portion
of the opposite side of the disc. Eventu-
ally, the disc chamber will cool, the flash
steam will condense, and inlet conden-
sate will again have adequate pressure
to lift the disc and repeat the cycle.
Performance Assessment
Methods
Steam trap performance assessment is
Figure 3. Bellows steam trap. basically concerned with answering the
following two questions:
1) Is the trap working correctly or not?
the bellows results in nearly identical development of float and thermostatic
2) If not, has the trap failed in the open
expansion as steam temperature and traps. The condensate release valve is
or closed position?
pressure increase, because pressure driven by the level of condensate inside
inside and outside the bellows is nearly the trap, while an air release valve is Traps that fail open result in a loss of
balanced. driven by the temperature of the trap. steam and its energy. Where condensate
A float and thermostatic trap is shown is not returned, the water is lost as well.
In contrast to the inverted bucket trap,
in Figure 4. The result is significant economic loss,
both types of thermostatic traps allow
directly via increased boiler plant costs,
rapid purging of air at startup. The Thermodynamic trap valves are driven
and potentially indirectly, via decreased
inverted bucket trap relies on fluid by differences in the pressure applied
steam heating capacity. Traps that fail
density differences to actuate its valve. by steam and condensate, with the pres-
closed do not result in energy or water
Therefore, it cannot distinguish between ence of steam or condensate within the
losses, but can result in significantly
air and steam and must purge air (and trap being affected by the design of the
reduced heating capacity and/or dam-
some steam) through a small hole. A trap and its impact on local flow velocity
age to steam heating equipment.
thermostatic trap, on the other hand, and pressure. Disc, piston, and lever
relies on temperature differences to designs are three types of thermody- There are three basic methods for evalu-
actuate its valve. Until warmed by namic traps with similar operating prin- ating a steam trap that are commonly
steam, its valve will remain wide open, ciples; a disc trap is shown in Figure 5. discussed in the literature: sight, sound,
allowing the air to easily leave. After the When subcooled condensate enters the and temperature. The three are discussed
trap warms up, its valve will close, and trap, the increase in pressure lifts the below in the general order of reliability.
no continuous loss of steam through a disc off its valve seat and allows the con- At least two of the three methods should
purge hole occurs. Recognition of this densate to flow into the chamber and be used to increase the chances of cor-
deficiency with inverted bucket traps or out of the trap. The narrow inlet port rectly identifying the condition of a
other simple mechanical traps led to the results in a localized increase in velocity steam trap. A less commonly discussed
6
that must be overcome or avoided. First,

steam and condensate are both expected

to exist upstream and downstream of
the trap (live steam on the upstream side
and flash steam on the downstream
side). Second, the view through a sight
glass tends to deteriorate over time
because of internal or external fouling.
Third, both steam and condensate will
appear as clear fluids within the pipe. In
response to the first and third concerns,
sight glasses have been developed with
internal features that allow the propor-
tion of steam and condensate to be iden-
tified. Incorporation of a sight glass into
a pipe is shown in Figure 7a. Normal
and abnormal operating conditions
viewed through a sight glass are illus-
Figure 4. Float and thermostatic steam trap
trated in Figures 7b, 7c, and 7d for a
sight glass installed on the upstream

side of the trap. In Figure 7b normal
operation results in a condensate level
that is just above the internal flow baffle.
Moderate to high rates of steam flow
past the baffle (indicating a leaking or
blowing steam trap) will sweep out most
of the condensate, as shown in Figure 7c.
A completely flooded baffle, shown in
Figure 7d, could be caused by excess
condensate formed during startup, a
steam trap that is undersized for normal
Figure 5. Disc steam trap. condensate loads, blockage in the con-
densate return system, or a steam trap
that has failed closed or nearly so. Addi-
tional investigation is required to deter-
method is based on fluid conductivity. characteristic of a properly working mine which of the alternative causes is
Although this method should be at least trap, and “live” steam, which is charac- the likely source of the problem.
as reliable as sonic-based methods, it is teristic of a trap that has failed open
discussed less frequently in the litera- and is leaking or blowing a significant
ture, and no general consensus on its
Sound Method
amount of steam. Flash steam is created
relative reliability was evident. when a portion of the condensate flashes Mechanisms within steam traps and the
to vapor upon expansion to atmospheric flow of steam and condensate through
steam traps generate sonic (audible to
Sight Method pressure. Flash steam is characterized
the human ear) and supersonic sounds.
by a relatively lazy, billowy plume. Live
The sight method is usually based on a Proper listening equipment, coupled
steam, on the other hand, will form a
visual observation of the fluid down- with the knowledge of normal and
much sharper, higher velocity plume
stream of the trap. This is possible if abnormal sounds, can yield reliable
that may not be immediately visible as
there is no condensate recovery system assessments of steam trap working
it exits the test valve or steam trap. The
or if test valves have been installed to condition. Listening devices range
difference between live steam and flash
allow a momentary discharge of the from a screwdriver or simple mechanic’s
steam is illustrated in Figure 6.
downstream fluid from the condensate stethoscope that allow listening to sonic
recovery system. In either case, the steam Sight glasses can also be used for a visual sounds to more sophisticated electronic
trap evaluator must be able to distin- observation, but have some drawbacks devices that allow “listening” to sonic or
guish between “flash” steam, which is
7
sonic and ultrasonic sounds at selected

frequencies. The most sophisticated
Photo courtesy of Yarway Corporation

devices compare measured sounds
with the expected sounds of working
and non-working traps to render a judg-
ment on trap condition. A typical ultra-
sonic test kit is shown in Figure 8.
Temperature Method
Measuring the temperature of the steam
trap is generally regarded as the least
reliable of the three basic evaluation
techniques. Saturated steam and con-
densate exist at the same temperature, of
course, so it’s not possible to distinguish
between the two based on temperature.
Figure 6. Live steam versus flash steam. Still, temperature measurement provides
important information for evaluation
purposes. A cold trap (i.e., one that is
Illustration courtesy of GESTRA, Inc.

significantly cooler than the expected
saturated steam temperature) indicates
that the trap is flooded with conden-
sate, assuming the trap is in service. As
described above for the visual test via a
sight glass, a flooded trap could mean
several things, but barring measurement
during startup, when flooding can be
expected, generally indicates a problem
that needs to be addressed. Downstream
temperature measurement may also
yield useful clues in certain circum-
stances. For example, the temperature
7a Cutaway View
downstream of a trap should drop off
Photo courtesy of GESTRA, Inc.
Figure 8. Ultrasonic test kit.
Figure 7. Sight glass evaluation.
8
relatively quickly if the trap is working heating systems and steam traps are
properly (mostly condensate immedi- used. Steam can be used for space and
Photo courtesy of Raytek Corporation

ately past the trap). On the other hand, process heating. Space-heating with
the temperature downstream of the steam is more common in the Federal
trap will be nearly constant if significant sector than other sectors, which can be
steam is getting past the trap. Care must attributed to a tendency for Federal
be taken not to use this technique where buildings to be larger, grouped closely
other traps could affect downstream together in campus-like arrangements,
conditions, however. or constructed in an era when central
boiler systems were the preferred heat-
Temperature measurement methods,
ing system. The Department of Defense
like sound measurement, vary tremen-
has about 5,000 miles of steam distri-
dously in the degree of sophistication.
bution systems, not including piping
At the low-end, spitting on the trap and
within buildings. Larger forts or bases
watching the sizzle provides a general
can easily have more than 10,000 steam
indication of temperature. For the more
traps. Proactive steam trap maintenance
genteel, a squirt bottle filled with water
programs are believed to be the excep-
will serve the same purpose. Alterna-
tion, rather than the rule, in the Federal
tively, a glove-covered hand can provide
Figure 9. Infrared temperature gun. sector due to a shortage of maintenance
a similar level of accuracy. More sophis-
staff. On the other hand, essentially all
ticated are various types of temperature-
studies of steam trap maintenance pro-
sensitive crayons or tapes designed to
grams reported in the literature suggest
change color in different temperature
described above and shown in Figure 7 that energy savings far exceed imple-
ranges. Thermometers, thermocouples,
for the sight glass. mentation costs. Thus, the potential
and other devices requiring contact with
Conductivity measurement must be incremental application of steam trap
the trap offer better precision. Finally,
accompanied by temperature measure- performance evaluation equipment is
non-contact (i.e., infrared) temperature
ment to ensure a correct diagnosis. For significant when measured by either
measuring devices provide the precision
example, an indication of steam and a the size or fraction of the market.
of thermometers and thermocouples
without requiring physical contact. trap that has failed open could occur if a
Non-contact temperature measure- trap has not been used recently and has Energy-Saving Mechanism
ment makes it easier to evaluate traps filled with air. The conductivity of air is Monitoring and evaluation equipment
that are relatively difficult or dangerous similar to steam, but a trap filled with air does not save any energy directly, but
to access closely. An infrared temperature would be close to ambient temperature, identifies traps that have failed and
measuring “gun” is shown in Figure 9. in contrast to a trap filled with steam. whether failure has occurred in an open
Similarly, the presence of condensate or closed position. Traps failing in an
Conductivity Method could mean the trap is working prop- open position allow steam to pass con-
erly, but could also mean that 1) the trap tinuously, as long as the system is ener-
Conductivity-based diagnostics are
has flooded, either because the trap has gized. The rate of energy loss can be
based on the difference in conductivity
failed closed or something else is block- estimated based on the size of the orifice
between steam and condensate. A con-
ing the line, 2) the trap is undersized, or and system steam pressure using the
ductivity probe is integrated with the
3) the heat transfer equipment served relationship illustrated in Figure 10.
steam trap or just upstream of the steam
by the trap is warming up to its normal This figure is derived from Grashof’s
trap in a sensing chamber. Under normal
operating temperature and generating equation for steam discharge through
operation, the tip of the conductivity
an unusually large amount of conden- an orifice (Avallone and Baumeister
probe is immersed in condensate. If the
sate for a short period. These alternative 1986) and assumes the trap is energized
steam trap leaks excessively or is blow-
conditions would be indicated by low (leaks) the entire year, all steam leak
ing, steam flow will sweep away the
temperature in conjunction with the energy is lost, and that makeup water is
condensate from the test probe tip and
presence of condensate. available at an average temperature of
conductivity corresponding to steam
will be measured. Thus, the sensing 60°F. Boiler losses are not included in
chamber and the existence of steam and Application Domain Figure 10, so must be accounted for
condensate under normal and leaking separately. Thus, adjustments from the
Steam trap monitoring equipment
or blowing conditions are similar to that raw estimate read from this figure must
should be employed wherever steam
9
be made to account for less than full condensate load. In addition, steam trap The use of Figure 10 is illustrated via
time steam supply and for boiler losses. internals create flow restrictions that the following example. Inspection and
reduce losses relative to unimpeded observation of a trap led to the judg-
The principal uncertainty in using the
flow through an orifice. ment that it had failed in the fully open
Figure 10 energy loss rates is estimating
position and was blowing steam. Manu-
the equivalent hole diameter for a trap The maximum steam loss rate occurs
facturer data indicated that the actual
suspected of leaking or blowing steam. when a trap fails with its valve stuck in a
orifice diameter was 3/8 inch. The trap
Vendor advice can be solicited to iden- fully opened position. While this failure
operated at 60 psia and was energized
tify the orifice size for a trap when fully mode is relatively common, the actual
for 50% of the year. Boiler efficiency
open. However, not all traps fail in this orifice size could be any fraction of the
was estimated to be 75%. Calculation
mode. Rather than being stuck open, the fully opened position. Therefore, judg-
of annual energy loss for this example
trap valve may no longer seal properly, ment must be applied to estimate the
is illustrated in the sidebar on page 11.
resulting in a smaller hole. Intermediate orifice size associated with a specific
failure modes are also possible. Whether malfunctioning trap. Lacking better
a trap has lost its seal or is stuck fully data, assuming a trap has failed with an Other Benefits
open, the flow of condensate through orifice size equivalent to one-half of its Where condensate is not returned to
the orifice reduces the area available for fully-opened condition is probably pru- the boiler, water losses will be propor-
steam flow. Fischer (1995) estimates that dent. Additional advice on estimating tional to the energy losses noted above.
condensate flow reduces steam flow losses from individual traps can be Feedwater treatment costs will also be
by 1/3 to 1/2 of that expected without found in Pychewicz (1985), David proportionately increased. In turn, an
condensate. The variation depends on (1981), and Tuma and Kramer (1988). increase in make-up water increases the
the sizing of the trap relative to expected
Steam Leaks
Figure 10. Energy loss from leaking steam traps.
10
about 8% and an intermediate program

Estimating steam loss using Figure 10 (using good portable equipment and
Assume: 3/8-inch-diameter orifice steam trap, 50% blocked, 60 psia saturated steam sys- more frequent testing) should yield bet-
tem, steam system energized 4,380 h/yr (50% of year), boiler efficiency 75%. ter results, reducing losses to perhaps 4%.
• Using Figure 10 for 3/8 inch orifice and 60 psia steam, steam loss = 2,500 million Btu/yr With an advanced program (using hard-
plumbed and wired equipment allow-
• Assuming trap is 50% blocked, annual steam loss estimate = 1,250 million Btu/yr
ing continuous monitoring), the loss
• Assuming steam system is energized 50% of the year, energy loss = 625 million Btu/yr rate should approach 0%.
• Annual fuel loss including boiler losses = [(625 million Btu/yr)/(75% efficiency)] = 833 In general, each increment of improve-
million Btu/yr ment in the steam trap loss rate requires
an increased investment in labor and
blowdown requirement and associated to connect individual test probes to a equipment. Equipment costs are negli-
energy and water losses. Even where central monitoring terminal. Otherwise, gible for either the minimal or interme-
condensate is returned to the boiler, a portable monitoring device can be diate programs, but would increase
steam bypassing a trap may not con- periodically connected to each test probe. significantly for the advanced program,
dense prior to arriving at the deaerator, Sight glasses must also be plumbed into which requires the installation of new
where it may be vented along with the the pipeline just upstream from the hardware, including retrofit of the exist-
non-condensable gases. Steam losses also steam trap. ing steam piping. The significant invest-
represent a loss in steam-heating capac- ment associated with the advanced
program is probably not justified in
ity, which could result in an inability to Federal Sector Potential most Federal applications, which are
maintain the indoor design temperature
Steam heating systems are relatively predominately for building space heat-
on winter days or reduce production
common in the Federal sector. Total ing. Compared to typical industrial pro-
capacity in process heating applications.
boiler capacity, boiler energy consump- cess heating applications, end-use heat
Traps that fail closed do not result in
tion, steam piping length, and the num- exchanger condensate loads are small
energy or water losses, but can also
ber of traps in the Federal sector are not for typical space heating applications.
result in significant capacity reduction
directly available from databases, but Thus, smaller steam traps are used, and
(as the condensate takes up pipe cross-
can be estimated from related data and the potential loss from a single trap
sectional area that otherwise would be
rules-of-thumb. probably does not warrant the expense
available for steam flow). Of generally
more critical concern is the physical of an advanced program. This generali-
damage that can result from the irregu- Estimated Savings zation should be revisited in any site-
lar movement of condensate in a two- and Market Potential specific analysis, however.
phase system, a problem commonly Implementation of a proactive steam The estimated savings and market
referred to as “water hammer.” trap program (i.e., a program based on potential were estimated by evaluating
regular maintenance checks rather than the cost-effectiveness of implementing
Installation only replacing steam traps when failure either a minimal or intermediate proac-
Installation requirements are essentially creates an intolerable operating condi- tive steam trap maintenance program.
nil for portable test equipment, which tion) can save significant energy. The 80% of Federal sites were assumed not
includes ultrasonic systems with or results of several steam trap programs to have a proactive maintenance pro-
without built-in diagnostic capability. described in the literature suggest that gram. 15% were assumed to have a
Some training will be required for the failed steam traps leak approximately minimal program and 5% an intermedi-
ultrasonic systems without built-in 20% of the steam leaving the boiler in ate program. No Federal sites were pre-
diagnostics, however, for the user to predominately space-heating systems sumed to have an advanced program.
correctly interpret the signals received. lacking a proactive maintenance pro-
The costs of implementing a minimal
The conductivity-based systems gener- gram. The same sources suggest that
or intermediate program, or upgrading
ally require a test chamber plumbed the loss rate would be reduced to about
from a minimal program to an interme-
into the pipeline just upstream from 6% by the average proactive mainte-
diate program, were estimated from
the steam trap, although some steam nance program. If the average loss rate
rules-of-thumb provided in publications
traps have an integrated test chamber. for a proactive program is 6%, then a
describing proactive steam trap mainte-
Continuous monitoring requires the minimal program (using rudimentary
nance programs. Program requirements
installation of power and control wiring test equipment) might reduce losses to
11
include an initial identification of all combined effect is presumed to cut to determine if trap replacement is still
steam trap locations, purchase of test energy losses for the intermediate pro- economically justified. Note that money
equipment, training, trap testing, gram in half compared to the minimal already spent for trap identification and
trap replacement, and engineering program. initial testing are “sunk” and should not
management. be included in the subsequent calculation.
Consider a hypothetical facility with
Estimated costs for the two programs, 100,000 lb/hr of steam generating The potential economic and environ-
as a function of the total trap population, capacity, 500 traps, annual steam pro- mental impacts of implementing cost-
are shown in Table 1. The minimal production of 219,000,000 lb, and a marginal effective steam trap maintenance
gram is presumed to use whatever test- cost of steam production of $5/thousand programs in the Army are shown in
ing equipment is already available, so pounds. Implementation of the minimal Table 2. The results are quite impressive.
no expenditure for equipment or equip- program would save 26,280,000 lb of Annual energy savings could be about
ment-use training is required. Traps are steam valued at $134,000 every year for 5 trillion btu, with the present value of
presumed to be tested once a year for an initial cost of $27,500 plus annually annual savings (annual energy savings
the minimal program and twice a year recurring costs of $16,000. Implementa- less annual program costs) and the net
for the intermediate program, which tion of the intermediate program would present value (after paying for initial
explains the difference in trap testing save 35,040,000 lb of steam valued at program investment costs) both in excess
and engineering management costs for $175,200 every year for an initial cost of of $200 million. The data required for
the two programs. The intermediate $31,500 plus annually recurring costs accurate estimates were not available,
program is presumed to do a better job of $19,500. The payback periods for the but DoD and Federal sector impacts are
of assessing trap condition; a higher minimal and intermediate programs probably about three and four times as
percentage of traps that have failed are are 0.23 and 0.20 years, respectively. great, respectively, as the Army impacts.
identified as having failed and a lower
The calculations in the previous para-
percentage of traps that are working cor-
graph provide the economic justifica- Laboratory Perspective
rectly are misidentified as having failed.
tion to proceed with trap identification The cost-effectiveness of proactive steam
Thus, a lower percentage of steam traps
and testing, resulting in a more accurate trap maintenance is well documented
are still leaking after completing a test
assessment of trap conditions and steam in the literature. In general, it’s far more
and repair cycle with the intermediate
losses, hence trap replacement costs important to ensure that steam traps
program. In addition, subsequent fail-
and energy savings. The life-cycle cost are evaluated on a regular basis than to
ures accumulate for only six months for
calculations should be repeated once worry about which specific type of test-
the intermediate program compared
this additional information is available ing equipment is used. A more careful
to a year for the minimal program. The
analysis of the costs and benefits is
justified, however, if some of the more
expensive options requiring hardware
installation are considered. Still, the
Table 1. Steam trap proactive maintenance program cost estimates.3
efficiency improvement offered by
Cost Element Minimal Program Intermediate Program these more sophisticated systems may
be justified for systems with larger steam
Trap Identification $15/trap once $15/trap once traps that lose much more steam upon
Equipment and Training $0 total once $4000 total once failure. The pervasive existence of steam
Trap Testing $5/trap per year $10/trap per year heating systems coupled with relatively
Trap Replacement $40/trap first year $40/trap first year few proactive steam trap maintenance
$15/trap thereafter $15/trap thereafter programs in the Federal sector presents
Engineering Management $5000 + $2/trap/year $5000 + $4/trap/year a substantial opportunity for energy
savings and related benefits.
Total Initial Cost $55/trap $4000 + $55/trap
Total Annual Cost $5000 + $22/trap $5000 + $29/trap Application
This section describes in more detail
3 Estimates were developed from information presented in Hooper and Gillette (1997), Garcia
the technical considerations regarding
Gaggioloi (1986), Miller (1985), Johnson and Lawlor (1985), Lane (1983), Vallery (1981), and implementation of a proactive steam
FEMP (1996).
trap maintenance program and selec-
tion of steam trap testing equipment.
The first few paragraphs describe the
12
conditions and characteristics where a

maintenance program and specific types
Table 2. Potential Army impacts of proactive steam trap maintenance programs
of equipment should be applied and
situations that should probably be Criteria Result
avoided. Subsequent sections focus Net Present Value ($) 203,991,245
on equipment integration impacts,
Installed Cost ($) 7,850,779
including installation requirements,
Present Value of Savings ($) 211,841,024
equipment and installation costs, and
Energy Savings (million Btu/year) 5,197,636
maintenance requirements.
SO2 Emissions Reduction (lb/year) 3,624,870
Application Screening NOx Emissions Reduction (lb/year) 1,215,219
Some type of steam trap performance Particulate Emissions Reduction (lb/year) 68,721
assessment program should be imple- CO Emissions Reduction (lb/year) 354,341
mented anywhere steam heating sys- CO2 Emissions Reduction (tons/year) 368,695
tems and steam traps are used. Even for Hydrocarbon Emissions Reduction (lb/year) 8,163
smaller systems with only a handful of
traps, some type of steam trap program
will be cost-effective. The use of tempera-
ture and sound measurement equipment but installation of the sensing chambers
currently available in your maintenance
Equipment Integration
and wiring make this the most capital-
shop, even if limited to a gloved hand Portable steam trap test equipment,
intensive steam trap assessment system.
and a screwdriver, is better than having which includes all of the ultrasonic
The extra investment is most likely to
no regular assessment program at all. devices described in this FTA as well
be cost-effective in steam systems serving
The most important decision is to imple- as most temperature-measuring equip-
heating equipment with relatively large
ment a steam trap performance assessment, requires no integration with the
loads and, hence, relatively large steam
ment program. Selection of the specific steam distribution system. On the other
traps. Larger steam traps, when failed
performance assessment equipment is hand, conductivity-based and visual-
open, result in larger, more expensive
a secondary consideration. based test equipment must be plumbed
leaks. Industrial process heating appli-
into the distribution system. Some steam
cations would be most attractive for
traps have built-in conductivity sensor
Where to Apply this type of assessment system, but
chambers, but most utilize a separate
The steam trap performance assessment space-heating applications should not
sensor chamber. Either approach requires
equipment described in this FTA varies be excluded from consideration.
isolation of the steam trap and surround-
significantly in initial cost and moder- ing piping and insertion of a new device
ately in operating cost and assessment What to Avoid (either a new steam trap with a sensing
effectiveness. For smaller steam sys- The retrofit of sight glasses or test valves chamber or a separate sensing chamber).
tems with relatively few traps and/or allowing a visual assessment of steam Sight glasses and test valves require a
for energy managers with exceptionally trap performance should be carefully similar retrofit. Conductivity chambers,
small budgets, a simple ultrasonic gun considered. While visual assessment is sight glasses, and test valves are gen-
(without built-in diagnostics) is probably judged by the majority of steam trap erally available in models allowing
the best investment. However, where experts to be the best assessment tech- threaded, flanged, or welded connec-
many different staff may be called upon nique, the cost of retrofitting this type tions to suit pipeline-specific require-
to conduct tests, the incremental invest- of equipment is significantly greater ments, but all require at least a moderate
ment in an ultrasonic gun with built-in than any portable temperature or sonic amount of pipefitting labor to install.
diagnostics makes the most sense. The test equipment and comparable to
built-in diagnostic capability practically conductivity-based test equipment.
eliminates the need for training, which
Maintenance Impact
The latter has the advantage of being
is essential to achieving good results All steam trap performance assessment
wired for continuous, remote monitor-
without built-in diagnostics, but would equipment will require incremental labor
ing, however, which should reduce
be expensive if a large group had to be to collect and evaluate test data. Much
operating costs and improve steam sys-
trained. Conductivity-based assessment of this incremental labor is associated with
tem efficiency for a relatively modest
equipment offers the best performance walking from one trap to another with
incremental investment, compared to
improvement and lowest operating portable test equipment. This require-
sight glasses or test valves.
costs via continuous, remote monitoring, ment can be eliminated with hard-wired,
13
remotely accessed, conductivity-based Technology Performance Charles says that he is “well satisfied”
systems, however, with incremental labor with the TrapMan system.
Ultrasonic testing equipment, appli-
limited to periodic review and evalua-
cable to a wide-range of technologies CIS Services operates the Electric Power
tion of the centrally collected data. Steam
besides steam traps, has been used Research Institute’s Monitoring and
trap replacement costs will increase, of
extensively in the Federal and private Diagnostics Center. CIS provides instruc-
course, compared to not having a proac-
sectors. Conductivity-based test equip- tion on the inspection of transformers,
tive steam trap maintenance program.
ment and sight glasses, both more pecu- valves, and steam traps. They use Triple
Otherwise, maintenance of the perfor-
liar to steam trap assessment, have been 5 Industries’ ultrasonic leak detector for
mance assessment equipment itself is
used less frequently, but have still seen all of these applications. George Spencer
generally expected to be negligible. A
significant use. All of the steam trap of CIS says that Triple 5 Industries’ ultra-
notable exception would be sight glasses,
performance assessment equipment sonic leak detector is “the best system
which may require periodic removal
included in this FTA could be described you can buy.” In particular, George likes
and cleaning to maintain clarity.
as mature. In all cases, hundreds or the battery-powered portability of the
thousands of units or systems have been system, and claims the system is sub-
Equipment Warranties sold. In general, a substantial fraction of stantially faster than using temperature
A one-year warranty is standard for sales have been to the Federal sector, but systems for assessing steam traps.
most steam trap performance equip- specific sales data for Federal and non-
ment and manufacturers covered in this Peter Palamidis is the Preventive Main-
Federal sectors and customer references
FTA. An exception to this generaliza- tenance Coordinator at Brookhaven
were not always available. The specific
tion is the Ultraprobe‘ ultrasonic sys- National Laboratory in Upton, New York.
experiences of available references are
tem manufactured by UE Systems, Inc., Peter uses UE Systems’ UltraprobeTM
documented in this section. Contact
which is warranted for five years. 2000 to survey approximately 2,500
information is provided in Appendix A.
steam traps at his facility. Peter says the
Ted Tomaliwski of the National Institute Ultraprobe is a “good system,” and he
Costs
of Standards and Technology (NIST) in was especially enthusiastic about the
The costs of steam trap performance- Gaithersburg, Maryland, uses the support that UE Systems provides its
assessment equipment vary signifi- CTRL Ultraphonic‘ ultrasonic tester. customers.
cantly, depending on the type, its Ted works at the central steam, chilled
features, and its size (for sight glasses
and conductivity-based equipment
water, and compressed air plant at the Case Study
NIST facility. Steam produced at the
that must be plumbed into the existing Steam trap management programs
central plant is primarily used for space
pipeline). Fixed frequency ultrasonic were recently initiated at three Veterans
heating. Ted uses the Ultraphonic to
meters can be purchased for $600 or less Administration (VA) medical centers in
check for air leaks and malfunctioning
up to about $2,000. Tunable ultrasonic the Northeast with the help of FEMP’s
steam traps. Ted told us the Ultraphonic
test systems can usually be purchased SAVEnergy Program. The three VA
“works well and is easy to use.” Ted
for $3,000 to $5,000. The purchase cost hospitals were located in Providence,
also uses a contact temperature probe
of conductivity-sensing chambers and Rhode Island, and Brockton and West
to evaluate steam trap performance.
sight glasses varies from less than $100 Roxbury, Massachusetts. Steam trap
to more than $1,000 per trap, depending Charles McMullin has responsibility for inspection and evaluation was included
on pipe diameter, pipe material, and the exterior steam lines at Whiteman Air as part of broader audit of the steam
type of connection (welded, flanged, or Force Base in Knobnoster, Missouri. generation, distribution, and end-use
threaded). Installation costs for conduc- Charles has used TLV’s TrapMan‘ (an equipment at these three facilities. Steam
tivity test chambers and sight glasses are integrated ultrasonic and temperature traps were identified and evaluated to
also significant and variable, although measurement system with built-in diag- determine their performance and the
not generally as expensive or variable. nostics) for about 4 years, and considers value of steam losses from malfunction-
Depending on pipe size and connection it an improvement over temperature ing traps. Malfunctioning traps were
type, an additional $50–200 per trap can measurement devices that were previ- designated for either repair or replace-
be expected. ously used to evaluate steam traps. ment. In addition, VA maintenance
Charles notes that performance data are crews received trap-testing training as
Rough estimates of other costs associ- recorded by the system, so it takes very part of the continuing steam trap man-
ated with a proactive steam trap main- little time to conduct the tests. Overall, agement program.
tenance program are shown in Table 1.
14
Facility Description used to identify the effective orifice size possible to test approximately 70% of the
The key facility-level characteristics for if the trap has failed in a fully open con- traps at Providence and approximately
a steam trap management program are dition. Interpretation of trap operating 40% of the traps at Brockton and West
the steam system pressure or pressures, condition via one of the methods previ- Roxbury. Of the remaining traps, 51, 47,
the hours per year that the steam system ously described is required to judge and 5 were found to have failed in the
is energized, and the marginal cost of whether a trap is operating correctly or open position at Providence, Brockton,
producing steam that is lost in faulty not, if it has failed in an open or closed and West Roxbury, respectively. Among
traps. The steam pressure affects the rate position, and the degree of failure if less those determined to have failed opened,
of steam loss through a leaking trap as than fully open. Accurately determin- each was classified as leaking at a low,
shown in Figure 10. Losses occur con- ing the effective orifice size for a trap medium, or high rate relative to the leak
tinuously at a constant rate (indepen- determined to have failed in an open or rate for each trap if it failed fully open.
dent of end-use demand) whenever the partly open position requires detailed Thus, the estimated annual leak rate is a
steam system in energized, so care must knowledge of the trap design (acquired function of the trap orifice if fully open,
be taken to estimate this factor correctly. from the trap vendor) and experience the degree of openness of the failure,
Individual pieces of steam-heated equip- evaluating traps. Thus, it may be more the differential pressure across the trap,
ment or sections of a system may be cost-effective to hire the services of a and the number of hours the trap is
energized for different portions of the company that specializes in trap testing energized.
year. For example, space-heating lines and evaluation than to conduct the
may be shut off during the summer assessment with in-house personnel. New Technology Equipment
while domestic water heating is required Sites with larger steam systems and Selection
year round. In addition, the use of auto- more traps are more likely candidates
The energy savings in this case study
mated control valves (or not) will sig- for developing their own capabilities,
come from repairing and replacing
nificantly affect the fraction of time but availability of maintenance staff is
steam traps that have failed in a fully or
that a steam trap is energized. The often the limiting factor.
partly open position and were leaking
marginal cost of steam will equal fuel The trap inspection and evaluation steam into the condensate system. No
cost divided by boiler efficiency at a company contracted for the VA assess- change in steam trap technology was
minimum. Makeup water treatment ment identified the trap location, manu- considered. Instead, a change in mainte-
costs should also be included for that facturer, type, model (in some cases), nance practice was recommended. Selec-
fraction of the leaking steam that fails nominal pipe diameter, inlet and outlet tion of the steam trap testing equipment
to return to the boiler feed water tank. pressure, steam supply control, and is not nearly as important as the decision
Multiple steam pressures were found steam service for each steam trap. Again, to conduct testing. Using the most rudi-
at each of the three medical centers. The knowledge of steam service (e.g., water mentary trap testing equipment will
specific pressures were 110, 80, 40, and heating, space heating, equipment steril- probably cut trap-related steam losses
15 psig at Providence; 120, 40 and 5 psig ization, main and header drip legs, etc.) by more than 50%. Using any of the
at Brockton; and 100, 55 and 5 psig at and steam supply control to the service testing equipment described in this
West Roxbury. Steam uses at all three is essential for estimating the number Federal Technology Alert will probably
facilities include space heating, water of hours a year that each trap will be cut trap-related steam losses by at least
heating, food preparation, equipment energized and potentially leaking. 75%. In general, more sophisticated
sterilization, and laundry. Steam usage The balance of the information col- testing equipment and more frequent
ranged from 12–52 weeks per year for lected is oriented toward determining testing is warranted for larger traps
the various processes. Steam losses were the leak rate. operating at higher pressures, where the
valued at $5.25 per 1,000 pounds of steam potential steam loss rate is the highest.
Providence has by far the greatest num-
at Providence and $4.25 per 1,000 pounds ber of traps of the three facilities with
of steam at Brockton and West Roxbury. 1109 units. Brockton and West Roxbury
Savings Potential
have 202 and 95 traps, respectively. The savings potential for each trap can
Existing Technology Description Unfortunately, the trap inspection was be calculated from an estimate of the
Trap-specific characteristics must be col- conducted in the spring at Providence orifice size associated with a leaking
lected via inspection and evaluation to and summer at Brockton and West trap (i.e., the size of the hole that steam is
accurately estimate annual steam loss. Roxbury when most, if not all of the leaking through, which will be less than
The size, type, manufacturer, and model traps servicing space-heating equip- or equal to its orifice size when a trap is
should be identified. This information is ment were not in use. Thus, it was not
15
fully open), the steam pressure, the frac- failed and needing replacement. The Sound measurement has progressed
tion of the year that the trap is energized, estimated savings for these traps will from a screwdriver to a more comfort-
and the boiler efficiency. Figure 10 shows continue until these traps start to fail. able mechanic’s stethoscope to ultra-
how annual energy losses vary with The average trap lasts for about 5 years, sonic listening devices. The former two
equivalent hole (orifice) diameter and with some lasting longer and some assist with hearing sounds in the normal
steam pressure. failing sooner. audible range of the human ear, while
the latter detects normally inaudible
Annual steam losses were estimated
to be 3,561, 16,591, and 733 thousand The Technology in sounds of higher frequency and con-
verts the signal into audible sounds.
pounds per year at the Providence, Perspective Simpler ultrasonic listening devices are
Brockton, and West Roxbury medical Proactive steam trap management tuned to a fixed frequency or frequency
centers, respectively. Steam was valued programs have proven themselves to range, while more advanced models
at $5.25 per thousand pounds at Provi- be cost-effective. The most important allow tuning to a specific frequency or
dence and $4.25 per thousand pounds decision is making a commitment to frequency range. More recently, acoustic
at Brockton and West Roxbury. Thus, implement a program; the specific test- signatures representative of properly
the total annual costs of the losses (and ing equipment chosen is of lesser impor- working and failed traps have been
the expected annual savings if fixed) tance. Still, site-specific steam system stored in the memory of ultrasonic lis-
were estimated to be $18,695 at Provi- and maintenance resource characteris- tening devices for comparison with cur-
dence, $70,511 at Brockton, and $3,117 tics (e.g., number and size of traps, avail- rent readings. This allows the ultrasonic
at West Roxbury. ability of capital and labor) will affect instrument to provide a diagnosis of
the preferred testing technology. In the trap condition without relying on the
Life-Cycle Costs future, continued improvement of per- experience of the instrument user.
Trap inspection and evaluation at the formance assessment technologies
VA medical centers was included as part should allow even greater cost-effective Temperature measurement tools have
of broader energy audits addressing energy savings. also progressed significantly over
other components of the steam genera- the years. Although a gloved-hand or
tion and distribution systems. The trap- The Technology’s Development squirt bottle may be adequate in some
related portion of the energy audit costs situations, much better accuracy can be
Sight, sound, and temperature measure-
were estimated by the contractor to aver- easily achieved. Temperature measure-
ments have been used to assess the per-
age $9.70 per trap, while trap replacement has progressed from these original
formance of steam traps since steam
ment was estimated to cost $94 each.4 “ballpark” approaches to temperature-
traps were invented, but the measuring
Thus, total trap replacement costs were sensitive materials that change color
technology has evolved over the years.
estimated to be $5076, $4512, and $470 with temperature to several types of
Equipment using a fourth method,
at Providence, Brockton, and West contact and non-contact devices. Earlier
based on the conductivity of the fluid
Roxbury, respectively. Combining these instruments were generally thermom-
at a specific point in the pipeline, has eters (i.e., devices that measure tempera-
investment costs with the annual savings been developed in recent years.
estimates noted above yields payback ture based on the thermal expansion of
periods of 0.27, 0.06, and 0.15 years for In steam systems without condensate various materials). More advanced con-
the three medical centers in the same return, steam leaking past a trap is tact devices are now based on either the
order. Note that “sunk” cost associated directly visible. With condensate return, thermoelectric potential of two dissimi-
with trap testing does not figure into the a test tee and two valves (one to isolate lar metals (thermocouple) or the varia-
economic assessment affecting the deci- the trap being tested from the influence tion in electrical resistance of a metal
sion to replace the traps or not. Also note of other traps, the other to provide an with temperature (thermistor). Contact
that this assessment focuses on the costs outlet for viewing the fluid downstream temperature measurement is often
and savings of the traps identified as of the trap being tested) are all that’s coupled with ultrasonic measurement
required. Thus, the standard technol- to provide an integrated steam trap test-
ogy for conducting a visual test has ing unit. Non-contact devices allow the
remained unchanged since steam traps freedom and comfort of measuring
4 Note that $94 was estimated per trap were invented. Sight glasses provide an temperature from a distance based on
replaced, while the figures in Table 1 are alternative approach to visual assess- the thermal radiation emitted from an
based on the total trap population. Thus, object’s surface. The radiation entering
ment that can be used without affecting
the figure of $40/trap in Table 1 incorporates
system operation, but are prone to foul- a non-contact pyrometer is either focused
assumptions about the fraction of traps ini-
tially needing replacement and the cost per ing in some service conditions. on a heat-sensitive element such as a
replacement.
16
thermocouple or thermistor (radiation example, all temperature-measuring – Mitchell Instrument Co.

or infrared pyrometer) or its intensity is devices. An exception to this general – Spirax Sarco, Inc.
compared to that of reference element exclusion was made for ultrasonic test- – Superior Signal Company, Inc.
(optical pyrometer). ing equipment, however. – TLV CORPORATION
– Triple 5 Industries, LLC.
Conductivity measurement is a relatively Steam trap evaluation technologies and
– UE Systems, Inc.
new approach for evaluating steam traps. associated manufacturers were identified
A probe inserted into the pipeline can by contacting steam trap and ultrasonic
easily distinguish between the conduc- testing equipment manufacturers listed Who is Using the Technology
tivity of steam or condensate. The probe in product directories published by Thousands of ultrasonic listening
must be positioned at a location where Thomas Register, Chemical Engineering, devices (without built-in steam trap
normally it would be covered by con- Energy Products, Heating/Piping/Air- diagnostics) have been sold to Federal
densate, but failure would cover it with Conditioning, Energy User News, and and non-Federal customers. However,
steam or vice versa. Special sensing Consulting Specifying Engineer. We also these devices can be used for evaluat-
chambers create a flow path and precise conducted searches of Internet web sites ing an extremely broad range of other
point for inserting a probe. Conductivity and library databases. Despite our efforts, equipment, so the number used for
probes, also often coupled with contact it is practically impossible to ensure that evaluating steam traps is unknown.
temperature measurement devices, can all manufacturers of steam trap perfor- Approximately 150 ultrasonic testing
be wired to a central, remote monitoring mance assessment equipment have systems with built-in steam trap diag-
device that receives signals from many been identified. In fact, given the broad nostics also have been sold. Again, the
probes. This minimizes subsequent data scope of potentially applicable equip- specific number of Federal applications
collection efforts, but does cost more to ment, some manufacturers have surely is unknown. Sales data for sight glasses
purchase and install than ultrasonic test been missed. To those, we extend our and conductivity-based testing systems
equipment, which is portable. apologies. were unavailable. The following Federal
contacts were identified by the manu-
The search process identified 13 prod-
Technology Outlook ucts offered by 10 companies in four
facturers listed above as users of one or
Steam trap testing equipment is rela- more of the steam trap monitoring
generic categories. The four categories
tively mature, but evolutionary progress technologies described in this Federal
were 1) ultrasonic listening devices
is expected to continue. Advances in Technology Alert.
(with or without accompanying tem-
electronics have spurred the develop- perature-measuring devices) with built- Ted Tomaliwski
ment of new steam trap testing equip- in diagnostic capability, 2) conductivity National Institute of Standards
ment and reduced the cost of basic measuring devices (with or without and Technology
ultrasonic and temperature measure- accompanying temperature-measuring Quince Orchard and Clopper Road
ment instruments. This trend is expected devices) with built-in diagnostic capa- Gaithersburg, Maryland
to continue. Future advances in ultra- bility, 3) ultrasonic listening devices 301-975-6983
sonic measurement might reduce costs (tunable or fixed frequency band-
enough to allow meters to be perma- George Spencer
width, with or without accompanying
nently attached to individual steam CIS Services
temperature-measuring devices) with-
traps like conductivity probes and 440 Baldwin
out built-in diagnostic capability, and
sensing chambers. This would allow Eddystone, Pennsylvania
4) a sight glass for visual determina-
central, remote monitoring of ultrasonic 800-745-9981
tion of steam trap condition. A detailed
measurements. description of each product, including Charles McMullin
manufacturer contact information, is Whiteman Air Force Base
Manufacturers presented in Appendix A. Building 410
The number of technologies that could Knobnoster, Missouri
The 10 companies offering these steam
potentially be applied to the evaluation 660-687-5095
trap products are:
of steam trap performance is extensive. Peter Palamidis
In general, the manufacturer list that – Armstrong International, Inc.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
follows was limited to those making tech- – CTRL Systems, Inc.
Building 097
nologies that are peculiar to the evalua- – Electronics For Industry, Inc.
Upton, New York
tion of steam traps. This excluded, for – GESTRA, Inc.
516-344-2462
17
For Further Information Guides and Handbooks Hooper, F.A., and R.D. Gillette. 1997.
Armstrong International, Inc. 1995. Comparison of Three Preventative Mainte-
Associations Steam Conservation Guidelines for Conden- nance Strategies for Steam Trap Systems.
International District Energy sate Drainage. Three Rivers, Michigan. Steam Conservation Systems, East
Association Greenwich, Rhode Island.
McCauley, J.F. 1995. The Steam Trap
1200 19th Street, N.W. Suite 300 Johnson, M., and L. Lawlor. 1985. “Steam
Handbook. The Fairmont Press, Inc.
Washington, DC 20036-2412 trap replacement program initiated by
Lilburn, Georgia.
Tel: 202-429-5111 pharmaceutical plant. Chemical Process-
Fax: 202-429-5113 Naval Facilities Engineering Service ing (April 1985) pp. 22-23.
www.energy.rochester.edu/idea/ Center. 1998. Steam Traps—An Overview.
Port Hueneme, California. Lane, J. 1983. “Cut energy losses and
American Boiler Manufacturers improve control with steam trap inspec-
Association Spirax Sarco, Inc. 1997. Design of Fluid tion teams.” Canadian Chemical Processing.
950 N. Glebe Road Systems. Allentown, Pennsylvania. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 27-28.
Suite 160
TLV CORPORATION. 1997. Managing Miller, J.A. 1985. “A Minimum Life Cost
Arlington, VA 22203-1824
the Steam Trap Population. Charlotte, Strategy for Steam Trap Maintenance.”
Tel: 703-522-7350
North Carolina. ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 91, Part 1B.
Fax: 703-522-2665
www.abma.com Yarway Corporation. 1984. Industrial ASHRAE, Atlanta, Georgia.
Steam Trapping Handbook. Blue Bell, Pychewicz, F.S. 1985. “Steam Traps—
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
Pennsylvania. The Oft Forgotten Energy Conservation
6035 Burke Centre Parkway
Suite 360 Treasure.” Published in the Proceedings
References of the 1985 Industrial Energy Technology
Burke, VA 22015
Tel: 703-250-9042 Avallone, E.A., and T. Baumeister, edi- Conference and Exhibition. Public Utility
Fax: 703-239-9042 tors. 1986. Marks’ Standard Handbook Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas.
www.cibo.org for Mechanical Engineers. Ninth Tuma, S.L., and D. Kramer. 1988. “Steam
Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, System Testing, Maintenance, and Energy
Clearinghouse New York. Conservation: A Case History. Integration
Steam Challenge Clearinghouse David, T. 1981. “Springing the Trap.” of Efficient Design Technologies. Fairmont
P.O. Box 43171 Energy Manager, October 1981. Press, Lilburn, Georgia.
925 Plum Street, SE Vallery, S.J. 1981. “Setting Up a Steam
Federal Energy Management Program.
Olympia, WA 98504-3171 Trap Standard.” Chemical Engineering
1996. Heating with Steam at Veterans
Tel: 800-862-2086 Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 92-98.
Administration Medical Centers. U.S.
Fax: 360-586-8303
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Vallery, S.J. 1982. “ Are your steam traps
Steamline@energy.wsu.edu
Fischer, D.W. 1995. “Assessing the wasting energy?” Process Energy Conser-
Other Web Sites Impact of Energy Losses in Steam Sys- vation. McGraw-Hill Publications Co,
tems.” Plant Engineering, July 10, 1995. New York.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Industrial Technologies Steam Chal- Garcia, E., and R. Gaggioloi. 1986. “A
lenge Program Discussion on Steam Trap Management
www.oit.gov/steam Programs and Their Return.” Proceed-
ings, 1986 ASME Winter Meeting. ASME,
Alliance to Save Energy
New York.
www.ase.org
Armstrong Steam Library
www.armstrong-intl.com/university/su.html
18
Appendixes
Appendix A: Steam Trap Monitoring Equipment Information
Appendix B: Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and the BLCC Software
19
20
Appendix A
Steam Trap Monitoring Equipment Information
Manufacturer: Armstrong International, Inc.
Address: 816 Maple Street, PO Box 408, Three Rivers, MI 49093
Phone: 616-273-1415
Fax: 616-278-6555
Contact: Scott French
Product Name: Trap Scan/Trap Alert
Description: Trap Scan is a remotely operated steam trap testing system with probes that are integrated with the body of the steam
trap. Signals from individual traps/probes are communicated via wire to zone modules and from there to a single central processing
unit (CPU) provided by Armstrong or a programmable logic controller (PLC) provided by the user. Trap Alert uses the same probe
as the Trap Scan, but does not forward a signal to a central processing unit. Instead, the external portion of the probe is integrated
with a visual signaling device.
Operating Mechanism: The probe measures the temperature and conductivity within the steam trap at a location near the bottom of
an inverted bucket. The conductivity measurement indicates whether the measurement point is within steam or condensate. During
normal operation, the probe should be covered with condensate, indicating that steam is not leaking or blowing through the trap. If
the temperature is also within an acceptable preset range, normal operation would be indicated. If the probe is covered with conden-
sate, but the temperature is below the preset range, the trap is presumed to have failed closed or be otherwise blocked. If the probe
indicates it is covered by steam, the trap is presumed to be leaking or failed open, unless the trap is also cold. In this latter combina-
tion, the trap is probably serving an inactive device and has lost its prime.
How Applied: Trap Scan data collection is initiated by pressing a button on the CPU/PLC. The CPU/PLC polls steam traps by zone
to determine temperature and conductivity at the probe tip. One zone module can take signals from up to eight traps, and up to 25
zones can feed into one CPU. The CPU processes the data and interprets each steam trap’s condition. The CPU comes with an RS-
232 serial communications port (for connection to a computer), and either a parallel communications port for use with an external
printer or an optional integrated printer. Alternatively, the output could be viewed on a PLC monitor. Trap Alert for indoor service is
activated by focusing a flashlight beam on the unit’s photodetector. The beam activates the unit’s batteries, which power three small
indicator lights. A green light indicates a good condition; yellow means the trap is cold; red signals a leaking or blowing trap. Trap
Alert for outdoor service is activated by a magnetic field (almost any type of magnet can be used). When activated, a bulb lights for
1-2 seconds if the trap is okay, for 10-15 seconds if the trap has lost its prime or is leaking or blowing steam, or flashes on and off for
10-15 seconds if the trap is cold.
Installation Requirements: The Trap Scan probe is screwed into the bottom of an inverted bucket steam trap. Wires are run from the
external tip of each probe to the zone module and from each zone module to the CPU/PLC. Additional wiring or other communica-
tion hardware would be required to connect the Trap Scan CPU to a personal computer. 120 VAC power must also be provided to
the CPU/PLC. The CPU, zone modules, probes, and probe interfaces are provided by Armstrong. The user supplies communication
and power wiring, and any additional communication hardware for connecting to a computer. If the user chooses, they can provide
their own PLC in lieu of the Trap Scan CPU, but would need a Trap Scan power supply module instead.
Application Limitations: Trap Scan is compatible with Armstrong Series 800 cast iron and Models 1811 and 2011 stainless steel in-
verted bucket traps. The unit is designed for services up to 400 psig and temperatures up to 450°F, indoors or outdoors.
Experience: Units sold/installed: About 75 Trap Scan systems are in use, ranging from 10 to 200 probes, as well as thousands of
Trap Alerts.
Federal customers: Army
Federal references: None identified.
Purchase Cost: $150 for Trap Alert.
Warranty: Trap Scan and Trap Alert are covered by a 1-year warranty.
21
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: The incremental costs to install a Trap Alert steam trap are negligible compared to a standard
steam trap. The total installed costs (purchase plus installation) for Trap Scan systems (including the trap) range from $400-700
per trap.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: A single Trap Scan system can check the condition of up to 200 steam traps in a few minutes. No
routine maintenance is required.
Manufacturer: CTRL Systems, Inc.

Address: 1902 Twin House Road, Oxford, PA 19363
Phone: 610-932-7006
Fax: 610-998-0588
Contact: Dean Smith
Product Name: Ultraphonic Detector Model 101
Description: The Ultraphonic is a portable, hand-held instrument for detecting and measuring ultrasonic sounds. Optional
software allows collection and subsequent analysis of historical measurements.
Operating Mechanism: The flow of steam or condensate through a steam trap creates turbulence, which results in ultrasound.
Ultrasonic frequencies between 20 and 100 kHz are detected, measured, and converted to audible frequencies between 100 Hz
and 3 kHz. By converting the ultrasonic frequencies generated by an operating steam trap into the audible range, the Ultraphonic
allows users to hear through a headphone and see on a meter sound characteristics that allow an assessment of a steam trap’s
condition.
How Applied: The tip of the Ultraphonic stethoscope is held on the steam trap, allowing ultrasonic frequencies to be measured and
converted to audible sounds. The unit operates in a fixed frequency range. The user must be trained to identify and differentiate
between the sounds expected from a properly functioning trap and the sounds from a trap that has failed close, failed open, or is
leaking steam.
Installation Requirements: The Ultraphonic stethoscope and headphones are portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the Ultraphonic can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly
working and failed traps vary with the type of trap, so training on the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility is
required. One user estimated the training time at as little as 1-2 hours. In addition, the tip of the stethoscope must be placed in direct
contact with the steam trap, which may not always be possible.
Experience: Units sold/installed: Approximately 800 units have been sold.

Federal customers: Approximately 25-30% of the 800 units have been sold to military customers.
Federal reference: Ted Tomaliwski works at the central steam, chilled water, and compressed air plant for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Steam is produced primarily for facility heating.
The Ultraphonic 101 is used to check for air leaks and malfunctioning steam traps, primarily low-pressure traps in the
plant. He says the unit “works well and is easy to use.” They also use a surface temperature probe to evaluate trap
performance.
Ted Tomaliwski, National Institute of Science and Technology, Quince Orchard and Clopper Road, Gaithersburg, MD
20899, 301-975-6983.
Purchase Cost: $1995 for Model 101, not including optional software.
Warranty: The Model 101 is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: There are no costs associated with installing the equipment, but users will need to be trained to
distinguish the sounds of properly functioning traps from the sounds of different failure modes. The length of training depends on
the user’s familiarity with steam trap principles, but should require no more than 2-3 hours of classroom instruction, plus a hands
on field session testing actual steam traps. CTRL has created a CD-ROM training tool for the system. They estimate 1-2 hours
training plus 1-2 days of field tests to become familiar with steam trap testing.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: Mostly the time required to walk from one steam trap location to the next and record the test
results; sound measurement is instantaneous.
22
Manufacturer: Electronics For Industry, Inc.

Address: 18633 S.W. 105th Ave. Miami, FL 33157
Phone: 305-233-1640
Fax: 305-233-1776
Contact: George Harris
Product Name: W-7 Microsonic Detector
Description: The Microsonic Detector is a portable, hand-held instrument for detecting and measuring ultrasonic sounds. The
W-7 model is a hand-held “gun” that incorporates a meter indicating the strength of the noise. The EL-300 microsonic stethoscope is
also offered, but does not incorporate the visual meter reading.
and 3 kHz. By converting the ultrasonic frequencies generated by an operating steam trap into the audible range, the W-7 allows
users to hear through a headphone and see on a meter sound characteristics that allow an assessment of a steam trap’s condition.
How Applied: The tip of the W-7 gun is held on the steam trap, allowing ultrasonic frequencies to be measured and converted to
audible sounds. The W-7 listens for noise in the 40 kHz region. The user must be trained to identify and differentiate between the
sounds expected from a properly functioning trap and the sounds from a trap that has failed close, failed open, or is leaking steam.
Installation Requirements: The W-7 gun and headphones are portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the W-7 can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly working and
failed traps varies with the type of trap, so training on the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility is required. In addi-
tion, the most accurate results will be achieved when the tip of the gun can be placed in direct contact with the steam trap, which
may not always be possible. Although an attachment will allow measurement of airborne signals, it’s often difficult to distinguish
the source of the signal when operating in this mode, especially in a process plant environment where there are many signal sources.
Experience: Units sold/installed: Manufactured since 1967, with sales to many DoD sites.
Federal customers: None identified.
Purchase Cost: $699 for W-7 Microsonic Detection Kit, which includes detector body, leak and stethoscope plug-in modules, rubber
focusing extension, ultrasonic tone generator, headset, and carrying case.
Warranty: The W-7 is covered by a 1-year warranty.
on field session testing actual steam traps.
Manufacturer: GESTRA, Inc.

Address: 10 York Avenue; W. Caldwell, NJ 07006
Phone: 973-403-1556
Fax: 973-403-1557
Contact: Ed Ilg
Product Name: Vaposcope VK
Description: A Vaposcope is a double-sided sight glass that allows visual supervision of flow conditions in pipelines.
Operating Mechanism: Where steam and condensate are present, the steam will pass over the top of the condensate because of its
lower density. The internals of the Vaposcope include a flow deflector and condensate basin to aid recognition of the mixture of
steam and condensate within the pipe (see Figure 7 in the main text). Steam and condensate are forced through the basin by the
23
deflector. Normal operation is indicated by slight turbulence and a condensate level that just covers the bottom of the deflector.
Higher steam flow rates, indicating a leaking or blowing trap, will create more turbulence and depress the condensate level below
the deflector. If no turbulence is seen and the deflector is completely covered with condensate, a downstream blockage has occurred,
potentially by a failed or undersized steam trap.
How Applied: The Vaposcope is installed directly in a pipeline like a valve. Flow conditions are manually observed through the site
glass as described above to judge the condition of nearby steam traps.
Installation Requirements: An existing pipeline would have to be cut open and a short section taken out to allow the Vaposcope to
be inserted. Flanges would have to be welded to the two pipe ends or the Vaposcope would have to be welded directly into the pipe-
line. A threaded version is also available.
Application Limitations: Vaposcopes are available for application at pressures up to 580 psig in nominal pipe diameters of
0.5-2 inches. Applications will be limited to locations where space exists to insert the Vaposcope into the pipe and where physical
access allows visual inspection.
Experience: Units sold/installed: Thousands of Vaposcopes have been sold.

Purchase Cost: $518-946.
Warranty: The Vaposcope is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: Same as installing a steam trap.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: The time required to walk from one Vaposcope location to the next and record the
observation/condition assessment.

Phone: 973-403-1556
Fax: 973-403-1557
Contact: Ed Ilg
Product Name: Test Set VKE
Description: The Test Set is a conductivity measuring device mounted in its own test chamber.
Operating Mechanism: The difference in steam and condensate conductivity is used to identify the presence of steam or condensate
at the sensor.
How Applied: The test set is installed upstream of a steam trap. During normal operation, the sensor is immersed in condensate. If
the steam trap is leaking sufficient steam, the increased steam flow will result in steam covering the sensor. The sensor is read by
temporary electrical connection to a portable test unit or permanent connection to a remote test unit. The remote unit is capable of
monitoring up to 18 sensors. The portable test unit shows a green light if condensate is detected and a red light if steam is detected.
The remote unit also shows a red light if steam is detected, but no light if condensate is detected. Note that the steam trap could be
failed shut, flooding the sensor with condensate, but indicating that operation is normal. Therefore, this device must be used in con-
junction with a temperature measurement to make sure that flooding has not occurred. Condensate backup is indicated by a tem-
perature that is lower than expected for normal saturated steam conditions.
Installation Requirements: An existing pipeline would have to be cut open and a short section taken out to allow the Test Set to be
inserted. Flanges would have to be welded to the two pipe ends or the Test Set would have to be welded directly into the pipeline.
The remote unit would require installation of connecting wiring.
Application Limitations: Test Sets are available for application at pressures up to 465 psig. Applications will be limited to locations
where space exists to insert the Test Sets into the pipe. Relatively easy physical access is desirable for manual inspection.
Experience: Units sold/installed: Hundreds of Test Sets have been sold.

24
Purchase Cost: $3200-3800 for remote test unit. The manual test unit costs $400 and the test chambers range from $350–400, depend-
ing on the fitting size.
Warranty: The Test Set VKE is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: Chamber installation is about the same as installing a steam trap. Add wire and conduit costs of
about $0.15 per foot each, plus labor to lay conduit.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: Manual testing will require time to walk from one Test Set location to the next and record the obser-
vation/condition assessment. Even with the remote unit, a complete assessment of steam trap condition will require walking from
trap to trap to collect temperature data, so labor savings with the remote unit appear minimal.

Phone: 973-403-1556
Fax: 973-403-1557
Contact: Ed Ilg
Product Name: Trap Test VKP 30 – Available in spring 1999
Description: Trap Test is a computerized steam trap management system. The system consists of a hand-held measuring transducer,
a portable computer, and Trap Test software. This is an updated version of the Trap Test VKP 20, with added features such as a
weather/shock proof case, audio output, and compatibility with a Windows operating system (previously DOS).
Operating Mechanism: Ultrasonic measurements are compared to expected measurements stored in the computer for the specific
trap being tested. The computer judges whether the steam trap is operating correctly or not, rather than relying on the judgment of
the testing personnel. Data collected by Trap Test can be downloaded later to a personal computer via an accessory cable if desired.
How Applied: Data are collected by placing the transducer tip on the steam trap. The specific point depends on the trap type and
make. Ultrasonic vibrations are converted by the transducer to electrical pulses and transmitted as digital pulses to the computer.
The signal is presented on a screen and can be printed or stored electronically for future comparisons with additional tests. Data
collection requires about 10-25 seconds. Based on the ultrasonic signal recorded, the computer determines whether the steam trap is
leaking steam or not. Data can be stored for up to 1100 traps per removable data storage cards. In addition to diagnostic results, sur-
vey dates, trap characteristics, location information, and tester comments can be stored. The software will also automatically prepare
repair orders. Universal application with all trap types and makes is possible.
Installation Requirements: The Trap Test hardware is portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: The Trap Test measuring transducer must be placed on the steam trap, so immediate physical access to the
trap being tested is required. Training time for the Trap Test is estimated by the vendor to be about 10 hours.
Experience: Lab tests: The VKP 30 is currently in lab testing. Since most of the components are adapted from the VKP 20, or are
purchased components used in other systems (i.e. computer and case) the system is expected to require little additional
field testing.
Units sold/installed: About 100 Trap Test VKP 20 systems were installed.
Federal customers: None Identified.
Federal references: None Identified.
Purchase Cost: $5,000 – 7,000.
Warranty: The Trap Test VKP is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: None.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: The time required to walk from one steam trap to the next and record the observation/condition
assessment.
25

Phone: 973-403-1556
Fax: 973-403-1557
Contact: Ed Ilg
Product Name: Vapophone VKP-Ex
Description: The Vapophone is a portable, hand-held instrument for detecting and measuring ultrasonic sounds.
Operating Mechanism: The flow of steam through a steam trap creates turbulence, which results in ultrasound. Steam flow ultra-
sonic frequencies between 40 and 60 kHz are detected, measured, converted to an electronic signal, and displayed on an analog
meter. The meter reading is used to make an assessment of a steam trap’s condition.
How Applied: The tip of the Vapophone probe is held on the steam trap, allowing ultrasonic frequencies to be measured and con-
verted to an analog meter reading. The unit operates at a fixed frequency range. The magnitude of the analog meter reading is pro-
portional to steam leakage. The user must first calibrate the Vapophone against a steam trap that is known to leak, preferably one
that is similar to others to be tested.
Installation Requirements: The Vapophone is portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the Vapophone can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly working
and failed traps varies with the type of trap, so calibration of the meter for the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility
is required. Training the operator to recognize failures in different types of traps is estimated by the manufacturer to require from
5-8 hours. In addition, the probe must be placed in direct contact with the steam trap, which may not always be possible.
Experience: Units sold/installed: Hundreds of Vapophones have been sold.

Purchase Cost: $1545.
Warranty: The Vapophone VKP-Ex is covered by a 1-year warranty.
the user’s familiarity with steam trap principles, but should require no more than 2-3 hours of classroom instruction, plus a hands-
Manufacturer: Mitchell Instrument Co.

Address: 1570 Cherokee Street, San Marcos CA 92069
Phone: 760-744-2690
Fax: 760-744-0083
Contact: Chris
Product Name: Ultrasonic Noise Detector
Description: The Ultrasonic Noise Detector (UND) is a portable, hand-held instrument for detecting and measuring ultrasonic
sounds, and measuring surface temperature.
and 3 kHz. By converting the ultrasonic frequencies generated by an operating steam trap into the audible range, the UND allows
users to hear through a headphone and see on a meter sound characteristics that allow an assessment of a steam trap’s condition.
The contact sensor incorporates a thermocouple that allows simultaneous temperature measurement. Digital readings of the moni-
toring frequency (kHz), sound level, (dB), and temperature are provided. An analog measure of sound level is also displayed.
26
How Applied: The tip of the UND “gun” is held on the steam trap, allowing ultrasonic frequencies to be measured and converted to
audible sounds and temperature measurement via a thermocouple. The UND can be tuned in the full-range mode to any frequency
within 20-200 kHz. For better results, the instrument would be more commonly operated in the limited-range mode, which allows tun-
ing to frequencies within 36-44 kHz. This allows differentiation between steam and condensate flows while reducing interference from
other ultrasonic signals and ignoring frequencies outside of this range. The user must be trained to identify and differentiate between
the sounds expected from a properly functioning trap and the sounds from a trap that has failed close, failed open, or is leaking steam.
Installation Requirements: The UND gun and headphones are portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the UND can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly working and
failed traps varies with the type of trap, so training on the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility is required. In addi-
tion, the most accurate results will be achieved when the tip of the gun can be placed in direct contact with the steam trap, which
The contact sensor may be exposed to 500°F conditions continuously or up to 800°F intermittently.
Experience: Units sold/installed: Several hundred Ultrasonic Noise Detectors are sold each year.
Purchase Cost: The complete package, including ultrasonic gun, airborne sensor, contact sensor with temperature capability, test
tone generator, battery charger, soundproof headphones, flexible focus sensor adapter, and carrying case costs $4200. The cost for
individual components of the package are: ultrasonic gun: $2900; airborne sensor: $150; contact sensor: $450; test tone generator:
$105; battery charger: $60; headphones: $395; flexible focus sensor adapter: $10.
Warranty: The Ultrasonic Noise Detector is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: Mostly the time required to walk from one steam trap location to the next and record the test results;
sound measurement is instantaneous.
Manufacturer: Spirax Sarco, Inc.

Address: 1150 Northpoint Boulevard, Blythewood, SC 29016
Phone: 803-714-2000
Fax: 803-714-2200
Contact: Dennis Kacsur
Product Name: Spira-Tec
Description: The Spira-Tec steam trap fault detection system consists of a sensing chamber, sensor, and a portable or remotely
installed monitor connected by cable for determining temperature and the presence of steam or condensate. Manual or automatic
remote units are available that are able to serve up to 12 and 16 steam traps, respectively.
Operating Mechanism: The Spira-Tec sensor measures the temperature and conductivity of the fluid present at the measuring point
in the sensing chamber. Differences in conductivity identify the fluid as steam or condensate. Under normal operation, the sensing
point is covered with condensate near the temperature of saturated steam at the local line pressure. Increased steam flow resulting
from a leaky trap will bathe the sensing point in steam rather than condensate. A drop in temperature indicates a trap that has failed
closed, is blocked, or is not in service.
How Applied: The sensing chamber with sensor is installed directly in the pipeline, just upstream from the steam trap. A portable
testing instrument is connected to the sensor. Normal operating conditions are indicated by a green light. A yellow light indicates a
trap that has failed closed or is blocked, or is out of service. A red light indicates a trap that has failed open. Up to 12 sensors may be
connected to single remote test point for more convenient testing with a portable monitor. Alternatively, an automatic monitor that
combines the functions of a remote test point and portable monitor can be connected to as many as 16 sensors. The automatic moni-
tor may also be connected to external building operating and control systems.
27
Installation Requirements: An existing pipeline would have to be cut open and a short section taken out to allow the sensing cham-
ber to be installed. Sensing chambers accommodating screwed, flanged, or welded connections are available. The manual or auto-
matic remote units require mounting and installation of connecting wiring. The portable monitor is battery-powered, while the
automatic monitor must be connected to an external power supply
Application Limitations: Stainless steel and ductile iron sensor chamber models are available in 1/2-, 3/4-, and 1-inch diameter
sizes; steel models are also available in 1- and 2-inch diameter sizes. The maximum operating pressure is 464 psig and the maximum
operating temperature is the saturated steam temperature corresponding to the operating pressure.
Experience: Spira-Tec has been available in the U.S. for about 15 years.
Units sold/installed: There are thousands of Spira-Tec customers, some with thousands of sensors.
Purchase Cost: Sensor chambers vary from $61.50 for 1/2-inch threaded ductile iron up to $1384.60 for 1-inch flanged stainless steel.
Sensors for measuring conductivity only cost $61.50. Combination conductivity and temperature sensors cost $170 for reading with
the portable monitor and $195 for reading with the automatic monitor. The portable monitor costs $311.75. The automatic monitor
costs $1770. Remote test points cost $155.40 and $398.85, respectively, for single-sensor and 12-sensor capacity models.
Warranty: The Spira-Tec system and components are covered by a 1-year warranty.
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: The user must provide cabling connecting the sensors to remote test points or an automatic mon-
itor. Power wiring to the automatic monitor must also be supplied. Labor is required to install these materials as well as the sensor
chambers, sensors, remote test points, and automatic monitor. Installation costs are highly site specific.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: The time required to walk from one steam trap to the next and record the observation/condition
assessment. The time required can be reduced through the use of remote test points or an automatic monitor.
Manufacturer: Superior Signal Company, Inc.

Address: P.O. Box 96, Spotswood, NJ 08884
Phone: 732-251-0800
Fax: 732-251-9442
Contact: Paul Tashian
Product Name: AccuTrak VPE-1000
Description: The AccuTrak VPE-1000 is a portable, hand-held instrument for detecting and measuring ultrasonic sounds.
Operating Mechanism: The flow of steam or condensate through a steam trap creates turbulence, which results in ultrasound. Ultra-
sonic frequencies between 20 and 100 kHz are detected, measured, and converted to audible frequencies between 100 Hz and 3 kHz.
By converting the ultrasonic frequencies generated by an operating steam trap into the audible range, the AccuTrak allows users to
hear through a headphone and see on a meter sound characteristics that allow an assessment of a steam trap’s condition.
How Applied: The tip of the AccuTrak “gun” is held on the steam trap, allowing ultrasonic frequencies to be measured and con-
verted to audible sounds. The AccuTrak can be tuned to any frequency within 20-100 kHz, which allows differentiation between
steam and condensate flows while reducing interference from other ultrasonic signals and ignoring frequencies outside of this range.
The user must be trained to identify and differentiate between the sounds expected from a properly functioning trap and the sounds
from a trap that has failed close, failed open, or is leaking steam.
Installation Requirements: The AccuTrak gun and headphones are portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the AccuTrak can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly working
and failed traps varies with the type of trap, so training on the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility is required. In
addition, the most accurate results will be achieved when the tip of the gun can be placed in direct contact with the steam trap, which
may not always be possible. Although an attachment will allow measurement of airborne signals, it’s often difficult to distinguish the
source of the signal when operating in this mode, especially in a process plant environment where there are many signal sources.
28
Experience: Units sold/installed: The AccuTrak has been sold to hundreds of customers.
Purchase Cost: $600.
Warranty: The AccuTrak VPE-1000 is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Manufacturer: TLV CORPORATION

Address: 6701-K NorthPark Blvd.; Charlotte, NC 28216
Phone: 704-597-9070; 1-800-858-8727
Fax: 704-597-9082
Contact: Ottmar Hedemus
Product Name: TrapMan
Description: TrapMan is a computerized steam trap management system. The system includes hand-held TM5‚ hardware that incor-
porates ultrasonic and temperature testing equipment with TLV diagnostic logic. Accompanying TrapManager software completes
the system.
Operating Mechanism: Ultrasonic and temperature measurements are compared to expected measurements stored in the TM5
hardware for the specific trap being tested. The hardware judges whether the steam trap is operating correctly or not, rather than
relying on the judgment of the testing personnel. Data collected by the TM5 unit can be downloaded later to the TrapManager
software.
How Applied: Data are collected by placing the test probe tip on the inlet side of the steam trap. Data collection requires about
15 seconds. The TM5 unit compares measured conditions with stored conditions and returns one of the following diagnoses:
good; small, medium, or large leak; blowing; blocked; low temperature; and temperature adjustment failure. Automatically
diagnosed performance results can be modified manually, if necessary. Data can be stored for up to 2000 traps. In addition to
the diagnostic result, survey date and time, surface temperature, identification number, and model can be stored. Expected operat-
ing characteristics for most traps available on the market can be accessed, including units made by Armstrong, Yarway, Spirax-Sarco,
Gestra, Nicholson, Bestobell, Velan, Clark-Reliance, Erwell, Dunham-Bush, Hoffman, Trane, Illinois, and Wright-Austin, as well as
TLV. Data are transferred from the TM5 to the TrapManager software via a communications cable supplied with the system.
Installation Requirements: The TM5 hardware is portable. No installation is required. TrapManager software is installed on the
user’s PC. Minimum PC system requirements are a Pentium 90 CPU with 16 MB of RAM, 20 MB of hard drive capacity, a CD-ROM
drive, and a VGA monitor. TrapManager is Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT compatible.
Application Limitations: The test probe must be placed on the steam trap, so immediate physical access to the trap being tested is
required. The hardware is designed to work on steam pressures ranging from 7-570 psig and surface temperatures ranging from
32-662°F.
Experience: Units sold/installed: TrapMan systems are being used by over 150 private and public organizations.
Federal customers: Federal users include the Army, Navy, Air Force, Veterans Administration, and Brookhaven
National Laboratory.
Federal reference: Charles McMullin has responsibility for exterior steam lines at Whiteman Air Force Base. He has
used TrapMan for about 4 years, and considers it an improvement over temperature devices that were previously used
to assess steam trap condition. Since trap data is stored in the system it takes very little time to enter the trap I.D. num-
ber and carry out the test. Charles says that he is “well satisfied” with TrapMan.
Charles McMullin, Whiteman Air Force Base, Building 140, Knobnoster, MO, 660-687-5095.
29
Purchase Cost: The cost of the complete TrapMan system is $17,500. This includes two days of training for two people (with hotel
and meal expenses), one-year of unlimited software support, and rebates on TLV traps.
Warranty: TrapMan is covered by a 1-year warranty.
Installation Labor/Material/Cost: Trivial installation costs for software, no installation costs for hardware; 2-4 person-days of
training.
Operating Labor/Material/Cost: Mostly the time required to walk from one steam trap location to the next; data recording takes
only 15 seconds.
Manufacturer: Triple 5 Industries, LLC

Address: 213 Chesterfield Crosswicks Road; Trenton, New Jersey 08620
Phone: 609-298-5544
Fax: 609-298-5594
Contact: Trudy Bryson
Product Name: Sonic/Ultrasonic Leak Detectors
Description: The Triple 5 leak detectors are portable, hand-held instruments for detecting and measuring sonic and ultrasonic
sounds. Optional equipment allows collection and subsequent transfer of data to a personal computer.
Additional audible noise is also created by trap operation. Two frequency bands are monitored: 2-11 kHz in the sonic range and 20-
180 kHz in the ultrasonic range. Ultrasonic frequencies are converted to audible frequencies for the human ear. The magnitude of the
sound is also indicated via an LED display. By converting the ultrasonic frequencies generated by an operating steam trap into the
audible range, the Leak Detectors allow users to hear through a headphone and see on the LED display sound characteristics that
allow an assessment of a steam trap’s condition.
How Applied: The tip of the Leak Detector probe is held on the steam trap, allowing sonic and ultrasonic frequencies to be measured,
with the latter converted to audible sounds. The user must be trained to identify and differentiate between the sounds expected from
a properly functioning trap and the sounds from a trap that has failed close, failed open, or is leaking steam.
Installation Requirements: The Leak Detectors are portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the Leak Detector can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly work-
ing and failed traps vary with the type of trap, so training on the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility is required. In
addition, the most accurate results will be achieved when the tip of the gun can be placed in direct contact with the steam trap, which
The contact probe is limited to a maximum temperature of 350°F.
Experience: Units sold/installed: About 100.

Commercial reference: CIS Services operates EPRI’s Monitoring and Diagnostics Center. They provide courses, includ-
ing utility training, on inspecting transformers, valves, and steam traps. The 5550 Sonic/Ultrasonic Leak Detector and
5551 Data Logging Leak Detector work for all of these applications. For steam traps, CIS uses a 2-hour class followed
by a field trip, for a 1-day course. George Spencer of CIS says that these are “the best system you can buy.” The 10-180
kHz band is the best for checking steam traps, but he uses both this and the lower frequency range. He likes the bat-
tery-powered portability of the system, and claims that they are substantially faster than thermograph/temperature
systems for assessing steam traps.
George Spencer, CIS Services, 440 Baldwin, Eddystone, PA, 800-745-9981
Purchase Cost: $3414-5114. This price is for a test unit and all accessories. The low end of the range is for ultrasonic measurement
only. The high end is for sonic and ultrasonic measurement with a data logger. An intermediate model that measures, but does not
record sonic and ultrasonic sounds is also available.
Warranty: The systems are covered by a 1-year warranty.
30
Manufacturer: UE Systems, Inc.

Address: 14 Hayes Street; Elmsford, New York 10523
Phone: 914-592-1220
Fax: 914-347-2181
Contact: Terry O’Hanlon
Product Name: Ultraprobe 2000
Description: The Ultraprobe 2000 is a portable, hand-held instrument for detecting and measuring ultrasonic sounds.
Operating Mechanism: The flow of steam or condensate through a steam trap creates turbulence, which results in ultrasound. Ultra-
sonic frequencies between 20 and 100 kHz are detected, measured, and converted to audible frequencies between 100 Hz and 3 kHz.
By converting the ultrasonic frequencies generated by an operating steam trap into the audible range, the Ultraprobe allows users to
hear through a headphone and see on a meter sound characteristics that allow an assessment of a steam trap’s condition.
How Applied: The tip of the Ultraprobe “gun” is held on the steam trap, allowing ultrasonic frequencies to be measured and con-
verted to audible sounds. The Ultraprobe can be tuned to any frequency within 20-100 kHz, which allows differentiation between
steam and condensate flows while reducing interference from other ultrasonic signals and ignoring frequencies outside of this range.
The user must be trained to identify and differentiate between the sounds expected from a properly functioning trap and the sounds
from a trap that has failed close, failed open, or is leaking steam.
Installation Requirements: The Ultraprobe gun and headphones are portable. No installation is required.
Application Limitations: Although the Ultraprobe can be applied to any type of trap, the sounds associated with properly working
and failed traps vary with the type of trap, so training on the different types of traps installed at the user’s facility is required. Train-
ing may take as little as 15 minutes according to UE Systems, however. In addition, the most accurate results will be achieved when
the tip of the gun can be placed in direct contact with the steam trap, which may not always be possible. Although an attachment
will allow measurement of airborne signals, it’s often difficult to distinguish the source of the signal when operating in this mode,
especially in a process plant environment where there are many signal sources.
Experience: Units sold/installed: The Ultraprobe has been sold to thousands of customers.
Federal customers: Includes the Navy, Coast Guard, NASA, Westinghouse Hanford, and several Department of Energy
National Laboratories.
Federal reference: Peter Palamidis, Preventative Maintenance Coordinator at Brookhaven National Laboratory, uses the
Ultraprobe 2000 to survey the approximately 2,500 traps at their facility. He says that the Ultraprobe is a “good system,”
and was especially enthusiastic about the support that UE provides to their customers. Formal training is accomplished
with a short video, but Peter feels that a day in the field is required to become comfortable with use of the device.
Peter Palamidis, Preventive Maintenance Coordinator, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Building 097, Upton, New
York 11973, 516-344-2462
Purchase Cost: Ranges from $3500 to $4900, depending on the specific accessories ordered.
Warranty: The Ultraprobe is covered by a 5-year warranty.
31
Appendix B
Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and the BLCC Software
Federal agencies are required to evaluate energy-related investments on the basis of minimum life-cycle costs (10 CFR Part 436). A
life-cycle cost evaluation computes the total long-run costs of a number of potential actions, and selects the action that minimizes
the long-run costs. When considering retrofits, sticking with the existing equipment is one potential action, often called the baseline
condition. The life-cycle cost (LCC) of a potential investment is the present value of all of the costs associated with the investment
over time.
The first step in calculating the LCC is the identification of the costs. Installed Cost includes cost of materials purchased and the labor
required to install them (for example, the price of an energy-efficient lighting fixture, plus cost of labor to install it). Energy Cost
includes annual expenditures on energy to operate equipment. (For example, a lighting fixture that draws 100 watts and operates
2,000 hours annually requires 200,000 watt-hours (200 kWh) annually. At an electricity price of $0.10 per kWh, this fixture has
an annual energy cost of $20.) Nonfuel Operations and Maintenance includes annual expenditures on parts and activities required to
operate equipment (for example, replacing burned out light bulbs). Replacement Costs include expenditures to replace equipment
upon failure (for example, replacing an oil furnace when it is no longer usable).
Because LCC includes the cost of money, periodic and aperiodic maintenance (O&M) and equipment replacement costs, energy
escalation rates, and salvage value, it is usually expressed as a present value, which is evaluated by
LCC = PV(IC) + PV(EC) + PV(OM) + PV(REP)
where PV(x) denotes “present value of cost stream x,”

IC is the installed cost,
EC is the annual energy cost,
OM is the annual nonenergy O&M cost, and
REP is the future replacement cost.
Net present value (NPV) is the difference between the LCCs of two investment alternatives, e.g., the LCC of an energy-saving or
energy-cost-reducing alternative and the LCC of the existing, or baseline, equipment. If the alternative’s LCC is less than the baseline’s
LCC, the alternative is said to have a positive NPV, i.e., it is cost-effective. NPV is thus given by
NPV = PV(EC0) – PV(EC1)) + PV(OM0) – PV(OM1)) + PV(REP0) – PV(REP1)) – PV(IC)
or
NPV = PV(ECS) + PV(OMS) + PV(REPS) – PV(IC)

where subscript 0 denotes the existing or baseline condition,
subscript 1 denotes the energy cost saving measure,
IC is the installation cost of the alternative (note that the IC of the baseline is assumed zero),
ECS is the annual energy cost savings,
OMS is the annual nonenergy O&M savings, and
REPS is the future replacement savings.
Levelized energy cost (LEC) is the break-even energy price (blended) at which a conservation, efficiency, renewable, or fuel-switching
measure becomes cost-effective (NPV >= 0). Thus, a project’s LEC is given by
PV(LEC*EUS) = PV(OMS) + PV(REPS) – PV(IC)
where EUS is the annual energy use savings (energy units/yr). Savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is the total (PV) savings of a mea-
sure divided by its installation cost:
SIR = (PV(ECS) + PV(OMS) + PV(REPS))/PV(IC).
Some of the tedious effort of life-cycle cost calculations can be avoided by using the Building Life-Cycle Cost software, BLCC, devel-
oped by NIST. For copies of BLCC, call the FEMP Help Desk at (800) 363-3732.
32
About the Federal Technology Alerts

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, and sub- leading candidates for immediate appendixes provide supplemental infor-
sequent Executive Orders, mandate that Federal application. mation and example worksheets on the
energy consumption in the Federal sec- technology.
The goal of the FTAs is to improve the
tor be reduced by 35% from 1985 levels
rate of technology transfer of new FEMP sponsors publication of the FTAs
by the year 2010. To achieve this goal,
energy-saving technologies within the to facilitate information-sharing between
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal
Federal sector and to provide the right manufacturers and government staff.
Energy Management Program (FEMP)
people in the field with accurate, up-to- While the technology featured promises
is sponsoring a series of programs to
date information on the new technolo- significant Federal-sector savings, the
reduce energy consumption at Federal
gies so that they can make educated Technology Alerts do not constitute
installations nationwide. One of these
judgments on whether the technologies FEMP’s endorsement of a particular
programs, the New Technology Demon-
are suitable for their Federal sites. product, as FEMP has not indepen-
stration Program (NTDP), is tasked to
dently verified performance data pro-
accelerate the introduction of energy- Because the FTAs are cost-effective
vided by manufacturers. Nor do the
efficient and renewable technologies and timely to produce (compared with
FTAs attempt to chart market activity
into the Federal sector and to improve awaiting the results of field demonstra-
vis-a-vis the technology featured. Read-
the rate of technology transfer. tions), they meet the short-term need of
ers should note the publication date on
disseminating information to a target
As part of this effort FEMP is sponsoring the back cover, and consider the FTAs
audience in a timeframe that allows the
a series of Federal Technology Alerts as an accurate picture of the technology
rapid deployment of the technologies—
(FTAs) that provide summary informa- and its performance at the time of publi-
and ultimately the saving of energy in
tion on candidate energy-saving tech- cation. Product innovations and the
the Federal sector.
nologies developed and manufactured entrance of new manufacturers or sup-
in the United States. The technologies The information in the FTAs typically pliers should be anticipated since the
featured in the FTAs have already includes a description of the candidate date of publication. FEMP encourages
entered the market and have some technology; the results of its screening interested Federal energy and facility
experience but are not in general use tests; a description of its performance, managers to contact the manufacturers
in the Federal sector. Based on their applications and field experience to and other Federal sites directly, and to
potential for energy, cost, and environ- date; a list of potential suppliers; and use the worksheets in the FTAs to aid
mental benefits to the Federal sector, important contact information. Attached in their purchasing decisions.
the technologies are considered to be
Federal Energy Management Program

The Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the nation. Annually, in its 500,000 buildings and 8,000 loca-
tions worldwide, it uses nearly two quadrillion Btu (quads) of energy, costing over $8 billion. This represents 2.5% of all
primary energy consumption in the United States. The Federal Energy Management Program was established in 1974 to
provide direction, guidance, and assistance to Federal agencies in planning and implementing energy management pro-
grams that will improve the energy efficiency and fuel flexibility of the Federal infrastructure.
Over the years several Federal laws and Executive Orders have shaped FEMP's mission. These include the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975; the National Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1978; the Federal Energy Management
Improvement Act of 1988; and, most recently, Executive Order 12759 in 1991, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT), Executive Order 12902 in 1994, and Executive Order 13123 in 1999.
FEMP is currently involved in a wide range of energy-assessment activities, including conducting New Technology
Demonstrations, to hasten the penetration of energy-efficient technologies into the Federal marketplace.
This report was sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor any agency or contractor thereof,
nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof.
For More Information
FEMP Help Desk
(800) 363-3732
International callers please use
(703) 287-8391
Web site: www.eren.doe.gov/femp
General Contacts
Ted Collins
New Technology Demonstration
Program Manager
Federal Energy Management
Program
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW, EE-92
Washington, D.C. 20585
Phone: (202) 586-8017
Fax: (202) 586-3000
theodore.collins@ee.doe.gov
Steven A. Parker
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K5-08
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: (509) 375-6366
Fax: (509) 375-3614
steven.parker@pnl.gov
Technical Contact
Daryl Brown
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K8-07
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: (509) 372-4366
Fax: (509) 372-4370
daryl.brown@pnl.gov
Produced for the U.S. Department

of Energy by the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
DOE/EE-0193
July 1999
Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% post consumer waste

Steam Trap Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steam Trap Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steam Trap Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M DOE/EE-0193

Steam Trap Performance Assessment

Approximately 20% of the steam leaving a cen- Steam Trap Function

requirement and associated energy and

Performance Assessment Methods

Steam Trap Performance Assessment

Photo courtesy of Armstrong International, Inc.

This page left blank intentionally

This page left blank intentionally

Illustration courtesy of Yarway Corporation

and decrease in pressure as the conden-

Illustration courtesy of Yarway Corporation

Illustration courtesy of Yarway Corporation

that must be overcome or avoided. First,

Illustration courtesy of Yarway Corporation

Illustration courtesy of Yarway Corporation

sonic and ultrasonic sounds at selected

Photo courtesy of Yarway Corporation

Illustration courtesy of GESTRA, Inc.

Photo courtesy of GESTRA, Inc.

Figure 8. Ultrasonic test kit.

Figure 7. Sight glass evaluation.

Photo courtesy of Raytek Corporation

Figure 10. Energy loss from leaking steam traps.

about 8% and an intermediate program

conditions and characteristics where a

thermocouple or thermistor (radiation example, all temperature-measuring – Mitchell Instrument Co.

Appendix B: Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and the BLCC Software

This page left blank intentionally

Product Name: Trap Scan/Trap Alert

Purchase Cost: $150 for Trap Alert.

Manufacturer: CTRL Systems, Inc.

Product Name: Ultraphonic Detector Model 101

Experience: Units sold/installed: Approximately 800 units have been sold.

Warranty: The Model 101 is covered by a 1-year warranty.

Manufacturer: Electronics For Industry, Inc.

Product Name: W-7 Microsonic Detector

Warranty: The W-7 is covered by a 1-year warranty.

Manufacturer: GESTRA, Inc.

Product Name: Vaposcope VK

Experience: Units sold/installed: Thousands of Vaposcopes have been sold.

Purchase Cost: $518-946.

Warranty: The Vaposcope is covered by a 1-year warranty.

Installation Labor/Material/Cost: Same as installing a steam trap.

Manufacturer: GESTRA, Inc.

Product Name: Test Set VKE

Experience: Units sold/installed: Hundreds of Test Sets have been sold.

Warranty: The Test Set VKE is covered by a 1-year warranty.

Manufacturer: GESTRA, Inc.

Product Name: Trap Test VKP 30 – Available in spring 1999

Installation Requirements: The Trap Test hardware is portable. No installation is required.

Purchase Cost: $5,000 – 7,000.

Warranty: The Trap Test VKP is covered by a 1-year warranty.

Installation Labor/Material/Cost: None.

Manufacturer: GESTRA, Inc.

Product Name: Vapophone VKP-Ex

Installation Requirements: The Vapophone is portable. No installation is required.

Experience: Units sold/installed: Hundreds of Vapophones have been sold.

Purchase Cost: $1545.