Members

Up for Review

Comment on Standards and Publications
Return to Document List

Standards Document Up for Review:

Standard 803-02 (R2008) | Industrial Process/Power Generation Fans: Site Performance Test Standard


Click the document title to purchase this item in our Online Store.

Comments:

Section/Figure/Table #: Equations 9.8 I-P and G.11
Comments:
Please explain why the constants in these two equations are different (1097 vs. 1096).

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 22, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: Inlet Box Static Pressure Table in Section G.7
Comments:
The static pressure values in this table should be negative.

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 22, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: Section G.9.1.2
Comments:
The variable "tt1" in the first equation should be "td1" instead.

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 22, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: Section G.9.1.1, Equation G.2
Comments:
The value for the average "td0" should be 80.3 and the value for the average "tw0" should be 65.3 unless the values provided in Section G.4 have been rounded such that the values in Equation G.2 are correct. Please advise.

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 22, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: Section G.9.2, Equation G.11
Comments:
The density variable should be "rho3" instead of "pe".

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 22, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: Equation 9.8 I-P
Comments:
I have been involved in some recent performance testing of some fans in June 2017 and the flows I am calculating using AMCA 803 calculation methods based on the velocity pressures recorded (and other parameters) are not physically possible (much higher) based on other parameters indicating where the fans were operating at on their performance curve and how the unit was operating. However, when calculating the flows using EPA Method 2 calculation methods the values are much more believable and I'm wondering if this is because the AMCA 803 calculations do not account for the pitot tube coefficient (0.818 in my case). When I multiply the pitot tube coefficient by the AMCA 803 calculated velocity the calculated flow matches the EPA method 2 flow. Due to the flows determined from the AMCA 803 calculation method being too high, I am forced to use the EPA Method 2 calculation method to finish my analysis and report. However, I would like to understand the reasoning for these differences better and possibly look for more industry consistency regarding the calculation of flows into fans in this manner. Please contact me if you wish to discuss this with me and/or please advise of AMCA’s stance on this issue.

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 22, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: H.4.4.2
Comments:
The variable uP in the "Where:" subsection should be "uPs" instead

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 23, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: H.4.2
Comments:
Equation D.5 does not match the equation in D.9.2.1 that should be the same. Please revise.

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 23, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: H.4.2
Comments:
Equation for uPv3: Update the value "0.02" to a squared value based on equation D.5 in Section D.9. The answer just below this equation of 0.0211 reflects this value being squared.

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 23, 2017

Section/Figure/Table #: D.9.2.1
Comments:
Recommend providing definitions for the following terms such as ranges of percent change:
"Steady readings"
"Minor fluctuations"
"Fluctuations"

Erik Keltner
Black & Veatch
keltnerej@bv.com
Posted: August 23, 2017

Rows: 1 - 10 of 10   Page: 1 of 1


Submit Your Comments:

red color - denotes required fields
Section/Figure/Table No.:
Type of Comment:

Comment (justification):
Proposed Change:
Name:
Email Address:
Company: