Regarding flowmeter piping issues
Thread Content
As the title suggests, there are two piping configurations: 1. Main pipe—necking—valve—straight section—flow meter—straight section—valve—necking—main pipe; 2. Main pipe—valve—necking—straight section—flow meter—straight section—necking—valve—main pipe. Which of these complies with the standards, and which is more reasonable? I would appreciate everyone’s insights. Thank you. Do these two methods have any impact on the maximum flow rate? How great is the impact?
Personally, I prefer Option 1: There is no fixed standard regarding diameter reduction and the arrangement of valves; as long as it meets the installation standards for straight pipe sections and instrument installation, that’s sufficient. Since diameter reduction is necessary, smaller-diameter valves are cheaper than larger ones, so saving some money isn’t a bad idea! Therefore, both Option 1 and Option 2 can achieve the desired results, so I choose Option 1.
I feel that flow meters are still very difficult to manufacture; they require a high level of technical expertise, and it seems more difficult than making our gas detectors
For flowmeters, it is essential to ensure sufficient straight pipe sections first; the location where the valves are installed has little impact on the measurement. From an economic perspective, the first option is better...
As long as the straight sections before and after meet the requirements, the valve’s diameter decreases after the necking process, which allows for cost savings; I agree with the view from the third floor
Regarding pipeline pressure loss and flow loss, to what extent do they occur? Have people encountered these issues in actual work? Are the piping requirements dictated by the process, or by our instrumentation?