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

Errors (or omissions) in the HG/T 21574-2018 standard

2019-02-01View Original

Thread Content

This post was last edited by yngjun on 2019-2-12 21:52. When using the top plate-type lugs, the following issues were observed: 1. The dimension of the ventilation holes from the edge is clearly incorrect; this error was present in the 2008 version of the standard, and it remains unchanged in the newer versions, which is rather unacceptable! 2. In the new standard, the layout types of the top plate lugs are divided into Type I and Type II; for the same lug, the radius of the cushion plate varies depending on the layout type. Isn’t that a bit absurd? Compared to the old standard, R15 applies only to the No. 1 lifting lug. 3. The dimension markings in the figure below are incorrect. 4. The dimensions of the lugs on TPB-2(HP-1) and TPB-3(HP-2) have been increased, but the dimensions of the shims have not been adjusted accordingly; as a result, the size of the shims is incorrect or too small. The lugs on TPB-2(HP-1) should be drawn according to the standard dimensions of 1:1, with a lower dimension of around 240, whereas the standard size for the shims is only 220. Similarly, the lower dimension of TPB-3(HP-2) is approximately 304, while the standard value is 310; in my opinion, this dimension is clearly too small.
Reply #22019-02-13
The original poster strictly prohibits it, but the lifting lugs still need to be calculated before use; their dimensions also need to be adjusted – it’s not possible to simply apply standard values.
Reply #32019-02-13
On the importance of including full-scale drawings or models of components in the reference standards :)
Reply #42019-05-22
I noticed this too; I really have no idea who edited it this time. The mistake is so obvious. For the lifting lugs of HP-1 and the shims 220, drawing them to scale requires a minimum size of 240.
Reply #52019-05-30
The standards become increasingly detailed; it seems that more factors are taken into consideration, but there are also many minor errors
Reply #62019-05-30
This standard doesn’t seem to be clear – how much weight can a lifting lug handle? A good project, yet the client complains that your lifting lugs aren’t strong enough to lift the equipment

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.