Which of these two static grounding methods is better?
Thread Content
Which of these two static grounding methods is better? Two different methods of static electricity bonding were found at the site; please take a look and determine which one is more standard and better Why?
To be honest, I’ve seen very few such jumpers in person. Experts see the essence, while laypeople watch the spectacle ； I’m an amateur; I’m waiting for an expert’s response.
Personally, I think the latter type of jumper is more standard; the connection plate welded to the flange ensures a firm connection, and the jumper with bolts for securing it is also very sturdy. The former is commonly seen and represents a standard approach; however, the use of steel plates pressed on the flange fastening bolts can affect the tightening effect to some extent. The connection method for the jumper wires is proper. I don’t know why stainless steel flanges are fastened with carbon steel bolts
The compression terminals for the cross-grounding wires should be made of galvanized flat steel or pure copper, in order to prevent rusting or poor compression that could increase resistance and affect the safe operation of the equipment; the second diagram shows a more standard approach
Both meet the standards; the second one is even more up to standard
It seems unnecessary, with so many bolts already here. Article 14.2.14 of the «Code for Design of Oil Depots» (GB 50074-2002) stipulates that flange connections of oil (oil and gas) pipelines shall be bridged. When connected by no less than 5 bolts, bypass wiring is not required in a non-corrosive environment.
Thank you for the reply! Most chemical enterprises are confronted with corrosion issues, so anti-static bonding is a standard solution.
The latter is better; it presses more firmly. But it seems that such flanges don’t require a jumper
For the latter, I need to use copper sheets with a thickness of 0.5 mm here. .