Your ISO is piece of crap ... useless, NOT formulated.
Does not include Fa correction, neither magic number.
Fa is correction factor between plate material/duct material.
Damned important 316/Derakane.

... once done, sanity check.

You use 1980 version of ISO standard and call 2003 version crap?
Your mind is uterly deluded, I would never want to be a collegue with someone like you.
Appearently you occupy a job without deserving it.
You somehow get the job in the past because of your age.
And now you are trying to defend your shitty calculations shamelessly.

You have no competence in that stuff.
Your ISO 5167 is not the working version.
Order the hard copy, check if you can do the example
as given by the Process Team.
Instrumentation Engineer greatly assist the piping Designers.
After my valve sizing 2", the original 6" vanadium pipe 100m
can be reduced to 3" pipe depending upon availability & $ kW/hr.
at the cost of vanadium !!!
They paid me Gold Bridge for results.

Wrote

You have no competence in that stuff.

Says the man who can't work with units.
I already have the standard document, any calculation made according to latest 2003 ISO can easily surpass your primitive example.
You lack the abilities of a proper engineer. As I have said, you did made your career when human resources are limited.
With your lack of knowledge and false claims you wouldn't get a job nowadays.

Simply, do the example above or one of your choice.

Why would I do your calculations "properly" without getting paid?
Do your own job and correct them, according to latest standards.
And stop spreading to new SMath users about your unitless bullshit!

Supplementary details ...
The orifice plates are associated with 3 documents for traceability.
1. The orifice bore is signed by the calculators and chemical data provider.
The chemical data provider confirms the process design conditions.
2. A manufacturing drawing details each plate for the manufacturer ...
drain/vent hole, size, orientation, instrument number
3. An in-situ installation drawing c/w wiring connections.
Lastly, on plant startup, an independent QA team certifies to client.

Hello Jean
Hello Overlord

In this link: https://www.hydraucalc.com/downloads/
you can download a free program for the calculation of orifice plates
in accordance with the current ISO 5167-2:2003 standard


Place your bets and be happy.





Best Regards

Carlos

Thank you for your replies and your work in doing so.

My question related to SI units and process control. It was not about tool use or pissing competitions.

Regarding the calculations: they should all work in any unit system interchangeably (with appropriately scaled constants).

Jean: my reading of the posts so far is SI unit inconsistency with process control has not been identified. I see nothing here that invalidates the use of SI units in process control.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Regarding compliance with the ISO standard: There is zero chance that using the formulas with the appropriate SI units in place is non-compliant.

Not showing units or using them incorrectly (ms and m/s are not the some thing) would cause me concern as a reviewer or customer.

I'm thinking that claiming 'SI units are not suitable for process control' is a bit like claiming the earth is flat. Jean: the burden of evidence is on you to provide: not overloard.

Carl Sagan: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

OK, I think I get it.

Can you see that all the units in your example are defined as SI, but represented in other units?

You asked for an example for me. This one is thermodynamic and chemical so should be in your area of expertise:

When filling up the car do you care about the units of measurement? Not really (all we care about is the Joules added - or Ergblubbertons) and the cost (dont really care about the financial units either as they are easily converted).

But we all care heaps about the formula the dispensing pump uses. And it uses SI-based units for measurement.

Please prove this wrong or QED.

It is a fairly common mistake to think that to go from the reading of a mass flow meter to a volumetric flow, it is enough to know the density at the temperature and pressure of the reading.

First let's see how it is handled by a software, for example Hysys. It does not have a single volumetric flow, but also introduces a "Std Liq Vol Flow"



The density to use for mass to volume conversion is stored in the critical properties information of the compound.



Information about how the conversion is done in the program is on pages 55-60 of this manual:

Pages from SimBasis appendix A property packages.pdf (280 KiB) downloaded 141 time(s).

For the conversion of readings in real instruments it is necessary to go to the information of the manufacturer of the instrument. Some examples on how to convert standard or actual mass to volumetric flows readings units appear in this article, highly recommended for those who don't know how to use units in process plant instrument readings.

gnan1402.pdf (1 MiB) downloaded 91 time(s).

In conclusion, the only thing I see are well-managed units in all the showed calculations.

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

It is a fairly common mistake to think that to go from the reading of a mass flow meter to a volumetric flow, it is enough to know the density at the temperature and pressure of the reading.

Thanks Alvaro.

Mass flow is bog-standard for people to understand nowadays (IC engine management has made it so commonly studied), and the units are exactly correct (ie what they say they are).

The good thing about using units correctly on the inputs to a formula is that if the output isn't correct units-wise then something needs to be fixed.

Smacking a Unit:=1 onto it is not at all helpful (ie can be better done as a simple comment without the units operator-overloading declaration).

Wrote

Smacking a Unit:=1 onto it is not at all helpful

Exactly, that is what Jean can't comprehend.

And fortunately this is not a pissing contest.
Sorry for my words, but Jean is shitting all the forum and we are trying to clean it.
Jean is spamming topics with enigmatic/rude replies or non-related worksheets.
He degrade other peoples works, examples, requests, questions, etc.
Meanwhile he insist on calculations without units, SI is not sufficient, visa versa.
Which is the most absurd thing that an engineer or scientist could say.
That is why I am, and going to mock his incognitive behavior.
And his primitive engineering capabilities.

Maybe you wouldn't know, but he already shitted mathcad forums 10 years ago.
Everybody was laughing him back then, he left there and now he is polluting SMath forum.
Sorry again for ruining your topic, but somebody has to stand this madness.

Wrote

You asked for an example for me. This one is thermodynamic and chemical so should be in your area of expertise:

I will read shortly and let 'overlord' finish.
Specify what it is all about: size valve, orifice plate
May be temperature control, volume/mas change ...
... setup a PID control algorithm ?

Wrote

I will read shortly and let 'overlord' finish.

Ooh I will never finish with mocking your "unitless engineering" charlatanism.
I will continue to insult your "the SI that is not a native Engineering System" statement.

Wrote

Wrote

You asked for an example for me. This one is thermodynamic and chemical so should be in your area of expertise:

I will read shortly and let 'overlord' finish.
Specify what it is all about: size valve, orifice plate
May be temperature control, volume/mas change ...
... setup a PID control algorithm ?

No.

Please demonstrate the correctness of your contention by showing that SI-derived units cannot be used to show:
1) energy being added to the gas tank at the service station and
2) paying for it at the counter (ie price per energy).

Thank you.

Wrote

This one is thermodynamic and chemical

Just that stuff c/w project abstract and data.

Wrote

Please demonstrate the correctness of your contention

He won't, he can't.
As you have said, he is "the flat earther".
He claims ludicrous assertions and expect us to unprove that nonsense.

Wrote

Wrote

This one is thermodynamic and chemical

Just that stuff c/w project abstract and data.

Unfortunately, that isn't evidence supporting your assertion.

And it isn't the extraordinary evidence needed for the extraordinary claim.

It is a pity, I was going to ask if we could share the Nobel prize for countering the underpinning basis for all measurement in the scientific and engineering communities.

Ah well, back to trying to work out how to solve this puzzle...