Thermal pipeline compensation
Thread Content
Which type of compensation is better – the π-shaped bend for thermal pipelines (where the pipe first goes horizontal, then upward and then outward) or the square compensator (where the pipe first goes horizontal, then upward, and then downward)? What are the parameters that affect these compensators?
The first option is good, although it requires more work.
Who can explain in detail the advantages of the first one?
1. A comparison diagram of the two options is provided in Attachment 2. Generally speaking, the more elbows there are, and the longer the pipes with compensating bends, the greater the compensation capacity
Although everyone upstairs says the first option is better, I would like to present a different opinion: 1. First of all, in terms of compensation capacity, the first option is definitely stronger. 2. However, the first type takes up a lot of space and has many bends. 3. There is no universal ‘better’ option; only what is more suitable. Whether it is suitable depends on the amount of compensation required, the space available in the pipeline, and the conditions of the surrounding pipelines – there is no fixed rule.
This post was last edited by WoXinZhuFeng on 2017-6-30 at 08:55. The first option is better, but it takes up more space. The influence parameters are a, b, and H. There are calculation formulas in the strength design of pipelines and storage tanks.
The same; it mainly depends on the installation environment – whether it allows the use of the second method
The first one is good, because in the first option, the a-part and the straight tube are not in the same plane, which results in a torsional effect that can increase the compensation capacity by about 30%!