The heat exchanger fails to meet the process requirements after being put into use; analyze the reasons
Thread Content
After the heat exchanger was put into use, it failed to meet the process requirements. The reasons were analyzed as follows: For heat exchangers, various issues can lead to leaks after they are put into operation, which affects their normal functioning. After analysis by the owner, it was recommended that the design agency responsible for designing this equipment change the material of the heat exchange tubes (from 10# carbon steel to S31803 duplex steel). Following process calculations conducted by the design agency, it was determined that this change would basically satisfy the original process requirements. The current owner has now entrusted the structural design of the equipment (note: only the material of the heat exchange tubes is being changed; the structure remains as per the equipment drawings designed by the original design institute) as well as the manufacturing process to the equipment manufacturer. After the equipment was manufactured and delivered for use by the owner, the owner reported that it failed to meet the process requirements once put into operation, and thus has requested the equipment manufacturer to conduct an analysis and propose solutions. Has anyone encountered this problem? Share your opinions. There are rewards!
If only the material of the heat exchange tubes is changed, then the reason for the decrease in the heat transfer coefficient can only be the thermal conductivity of the material itself.
It should be sorted out: those aspects that fall under design are the responsibility of the head of the design department, while those related to manufacturing processes are the responsibility of the manufacturing party. Since the design institute has evidence showing that the proposed plan can be implemented, on that basis alone it must bear full responsibility. If there is no written evidence to support the oral plan, then the owner will have to take responsibility themselves. The manufacturing party can also clear its own name by having documents or contracts related to secondary processing and modifications. The key is to have written contract documents as evidence.
The owner simply claims unilaterally that the process calculations carried out by the design institute are correct, and that calculations using advanced software also show no issues; they keep pointing to problems in the manufacturing process, such as manufacturing deviations or the wrong orientation of the baffle plates, as reasons why their process requirements cannot be met. Say to have the manufacturing unit analyze a solution. The manufacturing unit followed the drawings designed by the design institute to the letter, and the owner had signed off on all the drawings required for manufacturing. The manufacturing unit really doesn’t know how to conduct the analysis, but it also doesn’t want to fall out with the client; it is merely cooperating with the investigation.
There are written contract documents proving that the manufacturer merely produced the product according to the designs, but the client insists on holding the manufacturer accountable. Have the manufacturing unit analyze the reasons why the process does not meet the requirements and come up with solutions.
The owner said that according to the calculations done by the design institute, the impact is only 2%, which is practically negligible. I just want to ask why the design institute is so confident in its own calculations. The calculation is merely a simulated computation of the model, not like actual operation.
This depends on the design margin for the area when the heat exchange tubes are originally made of carbon steel. Do they have any calculation documents for their heat transfer processes?
OP, has the deviation exceeded the tolerance? Does the manufacturer have the confidence? What’s the issue with the baffle being installed in the wrong direction? Flies don’t bite eggs without any cracks; does the P manufacturing factory have the courage to stand by its actions?
This has little to do with the manufacturing plant. Process reasons
Is the owner’s heat exchanger horizontal or vertical? Are there operating conditions under which the material undergoes a phase change?
The heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger itself is one thing, while its inability to operate properly due to leaks is also a factor that affects production. The baffle is installed in the wrong direction; I think it will affect the heat exchange efficiency. Dual-phase steel is inherently difficult to weld and prone to cracking. So it’s necessary to look in all aspects and rule them out one by one.