Handling of the level gauge in liquefied gas cylinders
Thread Content
Our company has liquefied gas spherical tanks equipped with magnetic level gauges; these tanks are quite large, over ten meters in height. A long, thick pressure transfer pipe runs from the tank, with root valves on each end. Additionally, smaller valves are installed on this thick pressure transfer pipe to connect to the level gauge. If the valves or pipelines of this thick pressure transfer pipe get blocked, who is responsible for dealing with the issue – the process team or the instrumentation team?
It should be considered a primary valve for the instrument, so it falls under the responsibility of the instrument.
This really can’t be considered a problem; no matter which department is responsible, as long as it can be handled, that’s fine.
It depends on the division of tasks and the organizational structure in your unit; if the responsibilities aren’t clear, it’s best to resolve the issue first before discussing anything else.
Magnetic flap level gauges generally do not belong to instrument tubes
Based on the classification of interfaces in the petrochemical industry, on-site glass plate level gauges, magnetic flap level gauges, magnetic rod level gauges, as well as on-site pressure gauges and bimetallic thermometers, are all classified under process management, maintenance, and operation. Our liquefied gas balloon tank area is equipped with the same facilities; when dealing with issues such as blockages, leaks, and irregularities, the process simply involves discharging the medium according to the predefined plan to resolve the fault.
If the magnetic flap level gauge falls under instrument management, then the valves and pipelines mentioned by the original poster should be handled as part of the instrumentation. Of course, in many facilities, magnetic flap level gauges are not under the responsibility of the instrumentation department, but rather of the maintenance staff.
First, let me correct that: it’s not called a rough-in pressure tube, but rather a connecting tube. It is designed for instruments by the process or piping specialists, and falls under the responsibility of the process team.
I think what was said on the 8th floor is the most professional
Let me analyze it for you. First, look at your manufacturing process; if it’s a complex chemical process, then the person in charge of that process should be responsible. There’s also the issue of costs – if those costs aren’t covered by you, then the party responsible for those costs should handle them. To be honest, I’d like to take care of everything myself; I’m not afraid of not getting any reward, as it helps me improve myself. What I fear is doing everything only to not be appreciated or understood by others. Leaders keep arguing over costs related to work. In fact, we young people really want to do something meaningful, but others are only thinking about their own interests. Since we’re young and lack experience, we’re not able to accomplish great things. This kind of society has existed for a long time now
Actually, it also depends on the situation of your company. In a company of my size, such field instruments are usually under the responsibility of the process engineering department. But when there’s a problem, the management still orders the instrumentation team to handle it. After going there once, it becomes your responsibility to take care of it, haha. In the end, it became second nature.
Generally, in the field, the pipes that provide signal output are used for instruments, while those that offer local indication are used for process control. However, routine maintenance is the responsibility of the instruments.
It is the responsibility of the process equipment team; the instrumentation team is completely unable to handle it