Seeking advice: Advantages and disadvantages of filling arms and metal flexible hoses
Thread Content
Regarding the loading of liquefied natural gas, what is the difference between filling arms and flexible metal hoses? I’ve looked up a lot of information but haven’t found a clear answer. Apart from price differences, are there any differences in terms of durability and safety between these two types of connection hoses? Please let me know, thank you!
It’s basically the same; as you said, apart from the price difference. The more expensive ones offer better safety features and last longer. These two are pretty much equivalent now
Well, thank you for your answer; I really can’t see what the big difference between the two is.
I think safety and operability should also be taken into consideration to facilitate future management and use
Can it be understood in this way: the filling arm offers better safety performance, while the operation of the metal flexible hose is simpler and faster. We use metal hoses for loading here. Now we have the idea of installing a filling arm – I’m not sure if that’s necessary
I am from a manufacturer of loading arms, so I may have a bias in favor of them. However, as for whether the views presented below are reasonable, fellow maritime professionals might want to form their own opinions: 1. Cost: Loading arms are far more expensive than metal hoses. 2. Safety: Loading and unloading arms far outperform hoses in terms of anti-static properties, explosion-proof design, and prevention of accidental leaks. 3. Lifespan: The designed lifespan of the entire loading and unloading arm is over 20 years; the lifespan of shorter hoses is around 3 months, while that of longer hoses is approximately 2 years, depending on maintenance conditions and hose quality. 4. Maintenance: The loading/unloading arm requires replacement of its seals, and once the hoses are damaged, they need to be replaced entirely. 5. Management: The loading and unloading arms can be arranged neatly, come equipped with locking mechanisms, have a relatively fixed service life, and are easier to manage than hoses. 6. Operation: During docking, the hose is easier to operate than the loading/unloading arm due to its greater degree of freedom. 7. Policies: Document No. [2008] 26 issued by the Office of the State Council Safety Committee – “Guiding Opinions of the Office of the State Council Safety Committee on Further Strengthening Work Related to the Safe Production of Hazardous Chemicals” – specifies that, in the process of filling hazardous chemicals in tank trucks, universal filling pipeline systems should be used instead of filling hoses; the use of hoses for filling liquid chlorine, liquid ammonia, liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, and other liquefied hazardous chemicals is prohibited. Taking all the above points into account, it should be clear which is better and which is worse. It’s just my opinion; I welcome any criticism or suggestions.
If the flexible metal hose is of reliable quality and used properly, it can last for 5-10 years. The original flexible hoses were of the type used with loading/unloading arms; due to the complexity of their operation and the difficulties in aligning them properly, they were replaced by metal flexible hoses. However, there are many manufacturers of such hoses, and the quality varies greatly – some sell substandard products, which results in a short service life and safety issues. As a result, the State Council issued a directive banning the use of metal flexible hoses.