When classifying heat exchangers, should the shell side volume be deducted from the volume occupied by the tube bundle?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Dou Man on 2018-1-14 09:42. After all this, the issue of equipment category has been mentioned again, as stipulated in Article 1.3 of TSG 21-2016 Large Capacity Regulations: Note 1-3: Volume refers to the geometric volume of the pressure vessel…. It is generally necessary to deduct the volume of internal parts permanently connected to the interior of the pressure vessel. In order to facilitate everyone's discussion, I took a screenshot and attached it: Therefore, in shell and tube heat exchangers, the problem of dividing chambers arises in the classification of our equipment categories. Everyone has no doubts about fixed tube sheet heat exchangers. This article is followed when classifying categories, that is, the shell side volume deducts the volume occupied by tube bundles, etc., and the tube side volume includes the volume of the inner diameter of the heat exchange tube. However, for pumpable heat exchangers, such as U-tube, floating head and other heat exchangers, there are different opinions on the determination of shell side volume.: Opinion a. Pumpable heat exchangers, as the name suggests, can be pumped or pumped. Therefore, the tube bundle is not permanently connected, so the shell side volume should not be deducted from the volume occupied by the tube bundle, etc. ； Opinion b. Although the pumpable heat exchanger can be pumped, its heat exchange tubes are permanently connected to the tube plate (it should be considered as a permanent connection at this time). As long as the equipment is in working condition, the volume occupied by the tube bundle is occupied. The volume occupied by the tube bundle should be deducted when classifying the shell side. Regarding the annotation of large capacity regulations, how to handle the "general" "generally required deduction" is to hand over the power to the designer. When classifying heat exchangers, should the shell side volume be deducted from the volume occupied by the tube bundle? What do you think?
This post was last edited by wanlirn on 2018-1-14 10:39. People who use the statement a have learned to be fuzzy. The content management is how you work when the control of your container is extracted under normal use and test conditions. Is the pile of iron that is not working related to the regulations?
It should be opinion b: When classifying heat exchangers, the shell side volume should be deducted from the volume occupied by the tube bundle.
Agree with you. In fact, although the tube bundles such as U-shaped tubes and floating heads are detachable, the tube bundles and tube sheets are actually permanently connected. So the standard terms and conditions are just one sentence, but they have a lot of meaning.
Personally, I feel that those who are distracted by discipline should be deducted, and those who are not disciplined should not be detained.
Geometric volume is generally only used when dividing categories. When the volume is far from affecting the classification of categories, it does not matter if the workload is simplified and no deduction is made.
We design heat exchangers such as U-shaped tubes and floating heads. Whether to deduct the tube bundle volume affects the classification. If the medium is dangerous and it is not a general contract project, we will not deduct the tube bundle.
deduct. Regardless of whether it is welded to death, it can still be smoked. Normally, the volume occupied by the tube bundle accounts for more than 60% of the shell side volume. If it is not deducted, it is too different from the facts and it is really inconsistent. Moreover, Notes 1-3 of the rules are written in small print, which itself indicates a weak heart and lack of confidence. There is also a word "general" in it. It seems that not only is the heart weak, but the kidneys are also weak.