Thread Content
I work in the field of instrumentation, and I’ve encountered some points that are a bit confusing according to the relevant standards. I’d like to share them with everyone here: The effective length of heating: According to the SH 3040-2012 Standard for the Design of Heat Tracing Pipes and Jacketed Pipes in Petrochemical Industries, the effective length of heating refers to the actual length along which the heat tracing pipe covers the pipe that needs to be heated (including vertical pipes)… See page 8, section 6.3.1. Meanwhile, according to SH 3126 and HG 20514-2014 Standards for the Design of Heat Tracing and Insulation for Instruments and Pipelines, it refers to the total length of the heat tracing pipe from the steam distributor to the return water distributor. ……See page 6 of SH, section 5.3.3; the three specifications impose roughly similar restrictions on the effective length of the heat tracing tubes. Isn’t there some contradiction here? Regarding the limit on the rise height of the heat tracing tube, the specifications require the following: SH 3126-2013 5.3.4 b) The cumulative height shall not exceed the difference between the steam inlet pressure and the drain valve outlet pressure (in Bars) ； SH 3040-2012 6.3.1 d) The accumulated height of 0.5MPaG steam shall not exceed 6m ； HG 20514-2014 7.2.2 For heat-traced pipelines, the cumulative elevation increase in meters should not be greater than the steam inlet pressure (in Bar) ； There are more or less significant differences among these specifications. My current approach is to use the total length of the heat tracing pipe from the steam distributor to the return water distributor as the effective length ； The cumulative heating rise height shall not exceed 5 m, starting from the point where the heating tube makes contact with the object to be heated. What do you all think about standardizing these differences? The question is how to arrange the cumulative rising height of the heat tracing tube?