When starting a steam trap survey, replacement, or repair job, the first step is an organisation for all equipment. The steam traps should ideally have unique identifying tags, and the facility should have a list of where all of the steam traps are positioned.

In the absence of this information, the trap survey team should assess building designs and depend on institutional expertise to establish the list of traps. The survey crew should have a laptop or tablet with a database. Building, room, location, trap tag number (if appropriate), application, trap size, trap type, and conclusions are all suggested database columns. It is simple to calculate your annual mass flow loss and cost using this database. (equipment)

How can we tell whether a steam trap is operating properly? There are three major and straightforward methods: thermal, optical, and audio examination.

A steam trap may be simply assessed using a basic infrared temperature scanner, which is commercially available. If the temperature of the pipe immediately downstream of the steam trap is the same as or close to the temperature of the pipe upstream of the steam trap, the trap has failed. Live steam is getting past the trap. (equipment)

If the pipe equipment downstream of the steam trap is warm but not at the same temperature as the steam, it is a working trap. If the temperature of the pipe downstream of the steam trap is the same as the ambient air temperature, the trap has failed in the closed position and is obstructing condensate. This is a risky condition, and the trap should be changed. (equipment)

The steam trap equipment may be visually inspected if there are valves in place that allow the downstream trap discharge to be delivered directly to the atmosphere. Continuous steam flow indicates a failed trap. Intermittent multiphase flow indicates a functional trap. If test valves are not available, the nearest condensate receiver may provide information. A continuous, pressured flow out of the condensate receiver vent or overflow indicates a faulty trap. Working rearward from the condensate receiver, close valves on the condensate return pipe and observe changes at the receiver.

An ultrasonic scanner may also be used to assess steam traps acoustically. The ultrasonic scanner is a probe that is immediately put on the steam trap. The opposite end of the probe has headphones that allow the surveyor to listen in on the trap’s internal working. A working steam trap will produce an intermittent whooshing sound, but a failing steam trap in the open position will produce a continuous whooshing sound, similar to a high-pitched steam leak. There are now commercially available Bluetooth-enabled equipment that provides data immediately to a surveyor’s mobile smartphone. These devices remove the surveyor’s opinion from the equation and identify failing steam traps.

A variety of mismatched steam trap equipment is likely to be discovered as part of the steam trap survey, particularly near heat exchangers. As systems are mended over time, the original designer’s intent might be forgotten. Traps are changed without accurate measurements when there is no clean tracking scheme in place. Undersized steam traps will not efficiently remove condensate, causing it to back up, limiting heat exchanger efficacy and increasing the likelihood of a water hammer occurrence. (steam traps)

A large steam trap is also ineffective.

A large steam trap will be unable to provide effective shutdown at low loads, causing the steam trap to leak.

Using the nameplate data, determine the heat exchanger’s capacity. If no nameplate data is available, the heat exchanger equipment should be built by comparing dimensions and measured temperature differentials to catalogue data.

The steam trap may be sized once the heat exchanger has been sized. Some often used rules of thumb are as high as 200 per cent steam trap capacity relative to the heat exchanger’s design capacity, resulting in large steam traps. According to current manufacturer recommendations, the suggested steam trap capacity is 105 per cent to 150 per cent of heat exchanger capacity.

The inspection and repair of steam traps is a reasonably easy and efficient technique to save money on overall maintenance expenditures while also reducing a campus’ carbon impact. A structured examination of the present system by an experienced and detail-oriented team may lay the groundwork for a successful replacement effort. Finally, documenting all procedures and modifications is crucial for long-term success and simplicity of maintenance.