HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

How to choose a wire gland for instrument installation?

2017-01-09 View Original

Thread Content

The diagram mentions the use of dust-proof junction box wiring boxes; what is the difference between these and explosion-proof junction box wiring boxes? The one with a tee isn’t explosion-proof, right? Should I use a 90-degree elbow instead? But a 90-degree angle doesn’t serve the purpose of drainage; how should one choose?
Reply #2 2017-01-09
The person who designed the standard diagram must not be functioning properly in his mind; probably he was scared by water getting into the instruments, and that’s why he came up with such a messy design. Remember, the explosion protection isn’t there; it’s in the cable entry device.
Reply #3 2017-01-09
The three-way drainage box is used for drainage; water often accumulates inside the conduit, so a drainage three-way fitting should be installed at the lowest point of the conduit. By removing the plug, the water accumulated in the conduit can be drained. There is no need to use tees in areas where water accumulation is unlikely.
Reply #4 2017-01-09
It’s a misguided interpretation – what’s the difference between opening the plug to allow drainage and adding an elbow to open the back cover? The design doesn’t include a thread plug.
Reply #5 2017-01-09
If that’s what’s said upstairs, then what exactly is the role of those three connectors?
Reply #6 2017-01-09
The design is fine. It is correct to install a drainage tee at the lowest point of the conduit (also known as a cable protection tube; it is now called a cable duct). Not only the protection tubes, but cable trays as well should have drainage holes. As for explosion protection, sealing measures must be taken at the entrance of the instrument junction box.
Reply #7 2017-01-09
I already said it’s a problem with the standard drawings; if the design is just copied mechanically, what could go wrong? In practice, few companies adopt the three-conduit solution, as wire ducts are not water pipes.
Reply #8 2017-01-09
Don’t reject the standards; some of them do have unreasonable aspects. However, the issue of using conduit for drainage is mentioned in multiple specifications, and it hasn’t been removed even after several revisions. Continuing to argue about this doesn’t show how intelligent you are. Moreover, in practical experience, failures caused by water entering the wire conduit are very common. How many companies install three-way connections? Does it really have to be drained after installing the tee to prove that it’s correct? Does a fire hydrant need to be used to extinguish a fire in order to prove that it is necessary to install one?
Reply #9 2017-01-09
Instrument: Wiring of the explosion-proof box for solenoid valves
Reply #10 2017-01-09
I’ve learned it; I hope there will be more topics like this in the future

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.