Analytical tower pressure measuring point location
Thread Content
Our analysis system sends the heat to the analysis tower heat exchanger through the analysis feed pump and then sends it to the upper analysis tower. After analysis, the liquid phase enters the hydrolysis pump and goes to the hydrolysis heat exchanger. After recovering the heat, it enters the hydrolysis tower for hydrolysis of urea. The (vertical) top gas phase enters the middle and upper part of the upper tower, and the liquid phase enters the lower tower of the analysis tower to continue recovering ammonia carbon dioxide. However, the pressure measurement position of our analytical tower is set on the pipeline that comes out of the analytical feed pump and enters the analytical heat exchanger (Note: Our analytical heat exchanger is located on the first floor. The upper tower and lower tower of the analytical tower overlap, and a float valve tower is used.) Can the pressure measured at this position truly reflect the pressure of the analytical system?
What is your design institute? You can refer to other design institutes. According to what you said, the measured pressure is actually the outlet pressure of the analytical pump, and the analytical pressure measuring point should be at the top of the analytical tower! I wonder if there is any reference!
If the analysis tower only has one pressure measuring point, this design is problematic. Many manufacturers have added pressure measuring points, and some have added two.: The pipeline from the analytical heat exchanger to the analytical tower ； The top of the analytical tower.
2# lishouqiang_198 We are Chengda Design Institute. Yes, the others are installed at the top or on the pipeline about one meter into the tower. We don’t know if there is any problem with the position of the heat exchanger outlet pipeline (first floor). My personal opinion is that the pressure measured at this time should be subtracted from the pressure difference of the 30-meter pipeline to the top of the analytical tower to be the pressure of the analytical tower. However, it is said later that it depends on whether the instrument can be adjusted to eliminate this difference. I don’t know if it is feasible.
This post was last edited by lxq700918 on 2009-9-14 16:04 We also have two pressure measurement points, one on the gas outlet and one on the pipeline for sending out the analytical waste liquid. The difference is that we are a packed tower. I would like to ask the poster, in terms of operation, economic price, and analytical capabilities, packed towers are obviously better than float valve towers, but why do you still use float valve towers?
Durian is good! Excuse me: Your desorption tower is a packed tower. What kind of packing is used? Is it structured packing?
Nowadays, new desorption towers generally use structured packing. Where the pressure measurement point is selected is not the key issue. The problem is that the pressure measurement point is different and the operating pressure selected is different. If it is on the liquid inlet pipe, the indicator can be controlled higher, and on the gas phase pipe the pressure indicator can be controlled lower. To eliminate the deviation caused by the position difference. Reflects the real pressure inside the tower.
Generally, they are at the top of the desorption tower. I don’t know which design institute designed it.
In principle, the setting of the pressure measuring point of the desorption tower should ensure that the pressure guide tube is not blocked by crystals and can reflect the pressure of the desorption tower. Therefore, in addition to what everyone mentioned above, the pressure measuring point can also be set like this: One point is set on the steam pipe entering the first desorption tower, and the other point is set on the feed pipe of the ammonium bicarbonate liquid entering the second desorption tower.
This post was last edited by lxq700918 on 2009-9-20 17:28 5# Durian was designed by the design institute. Many things were designed by the design institute, but the design institute couldn’t give any basis for it. Do you know what he designed for us?* * More than 300 minor changes were made.
7# ttlkk Yes, but the indicator given to us by the design institute is 0.36. But if the pressure really shows 0.36, isn’t the analytical tower only about 0.3? The existence of position difference is not taken into account.