... once done, sanity check.

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.

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

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.

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'.

Edited by user 07 April 2022 11:50:34(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

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 (281kb) downloaded 10 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 (1,254kb) downloaded 9 time(s).

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

Best regards.
Alvaro.

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.

Edited by user 08 April 2022 14:17:15(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

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.

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...

Edited by user 09 April 2022 02:38:05(UTC)  | Reason: Grammar