Thread Content
This post was last edited by LoveToPlayElementaryStudent on 2022-11-8 at 20:10. Several sets of identical installations were created, with only differences in scale; their layout was arranged in accordance with petrochemical standards, taking into account the required fire separation distances between similar installations. Could it be considered as a single large unit overall, with several sub-units or production lines (all part of the same unit)? In that case, there would be no requirement for fire separation distances between these units, thus avoiding the fire spacing requirements specified in the general layout regulations for petrochemical facilities Do you all think this is workable?
It is feasible; when considered as a combined unit, the utilities and auxiliary facilities are located together, offering advantages such as reduced investment, less land use, lower energy consumption, and lower operating costs.
This post was last edited by LoveToPlayElementaryStudent on 2022-11-8 at 18:59; it does not meet the definition of a combined unit as specified in the petrochemical regulations. It consists of several independent, identical units that do not support feeding between them or synchronized start-up and shutdown. It is estimated that the joint reporting mechanism will face opposition from experts during review
I have seen ten combined plants of the same scale, with independent sulfur recovery units arranged together.
In the past, joint installations were often considered as a standard approach, which resulted in many installations facing the risk of non-compliance even before they were completed; if there is enough space available, it’s better to avoid using joint installations
In the country? When was the device built?
You mean it’s only risky; the devices built before have all passed the evaluation.
Sinopec Dazhou Natural Gas Purification Plant was built after 2000.
You can consult the relevant design institutes.