Help: There is a large discrepancy between the steam production and the users’ consumption
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Mechanized Organisms on 2018-2-8 at 11:48. We have 6T gas steam boilers here; the steam pipeline has a length of about 300 meters from the boiler to the flow meter at the user’s end, and there are two drain valves in between. Currently, only two users are using steam. The flow meters used by these two users are of one brand, which is different from ours; both are vortex flow meters. Under normal conditions, when both users are using steam, the loss is around 10%-15%. However, one user uses steam intermittently due to the type of product being processed, and during those periods when this user does not use steam, the steam loss increases to 30%; recently, it was observed that the loss even reached 46%. Both users have diameter reductions where the pipes branch off from the main pipeline. The user who uses steam intermittently initially used 150-mm pipes along with flow meters matching that diameter, but since their household’s steam consumption was low, they added an 80-mm bypass pipe and installed a flow meter corresponding to that diameter as well. I’m not sure if the changes in steam loss are related to these factors; I’m an amateur in this area, so I hope everyone can **help analyze it».
Check whether the bypass is leaking steam and whether the flow meter is installed correctly. The pipeline of the vortex street steam flow meter must not vibrate; is the flow rate selection for this meter appropriate?
If the customer adds a 80 bypass next to the 110 pipeline, it is possible that the valve of the 110 pipeline may not close properly due to internal leakage. When the actual flow rate is much lower than the designed flow rate, vortex flow meters are unable to make a measurement; therefore, even in the case of internal leakage, the 110 flow meter will not be able to display any value. It is recommended that the customer seal both ends of the 110 flow meter and observe again. Additionally, vortex flowmeters are generally not used as measuring instruments; it’s unclear why the three of you have installed vortex flowmeters. Vortex flowmeters generally do not have temperature and pressure compensation functions, so their errors are already high.
It is recommended that: 1. Use Yokogawa DY vortex flowmeters uniformly; 2. Apply temperature and pressure compensation to all of them; 3. Select the flowmeter diameter based on the measurement range of the existing flowmeters, giving priority to a lower limit for measuring low flow rates; 4. Provide the appropriate straight pipe sections corresponding to the diameter; 5. The parameters of the vortex flowmeters and accumulators must be set correctly.
Thank you to the moderator for providing personal guidance~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for the guidance~~~~~~~~~
Yokogawa vortex flowmeters offer the best cost-performance ratio. You can also calculate the measurement losses caused by steam to determine whether such an investment is worthwhile Secondly, it is most important to choose the right watch and fit it correctly from the start.
Thank you for the guidance~~~:handshake
This post was last edited by Mechanized Organisms on 2018-2-9 09:19. Does the Yokogawa mentioned by the moderator refer to Yokogawa in Japan? With imported products, the concern is the high maintenance costs in the long term. The user is using Anhui Tiankang; I’m not sure what kind of brand it is. We are using Hongda models (provided directly by the boiler manufacturer). We have been applying to our superiors to have unified flow meters installed, but we haven’t received any support. Since I’ve only just taken charge of these matters, I might not be able to provide sufficient evidence, which is why I turned to this forum for help.
Shanghai Yokogawa – it’s very convenient. Basically maintenance-free and doesn’t break; it’s been working for over a decade.
For trade measurement, to achieve accurate results, it is necessary to take scientific principles into strict consideration – (Venturi tube + differential pressure gauge + steam-compensated integrator + thermometer + pressure gauge). I believe this represents the most reliable method for flow measurement. In the parentheses above, the five elements involved in flow measurement can be directly inspected by the calibration institute, without the need for actual flow testing; in other words, the cost associated with calibrating them is extremely low – three inches lower than the size of one’s navel. All instruments come with accuracy verification results issued by the metrology institute; so how is this accuracy transferred and combined to determine the final accuracy of flow measurement? What is that value? . . . Who can’t do this kind of calculation? You can come and ask me. . . My brother spent a few years dedicated to studying this topic.