译文：
在对英国皇家化学工业公司位于Huddersfield和Grangemouth（英格兰）工业厂的疏水阀性能进行长达7年的监测和实验，一级在两家生产商实验室进行的疏水阀性能和新鲜蒸汽损失的监测和实验的基础上，英国皇家化学工业公司最终对其《工程设计指导》中有关疏水阀选型的内容作了修改。 旧的选型标准存在很多的缺点，最明显的是它未提到被疏水设备的类型和疏水方法。所选的疏水阀经常与实际负荷不相匹配。尤其严重的是，热动力圆盘疏水阀（旧选型标准的基础）被人们尤其是车间人员误认为是{wn}疏水阀。 　　早在1980年，由于工程维护人员抱怨蒸汽主管疏水阀寿命过短，英格兰Grangemouth工厂开始对疏水阀性能进行监测。两年后，Huddersfield工厂也做了同样的监测。 在监测中，首先对疏水阀作了调查，了解现有疏水阀的种类，并检验选型时的负荷。同时也进行了相关测试。初步结果令人大吃一惊。在对一个车间的415只疏水阀所做的检验结果表明，19%的疏水阀已失效，63%的负荷选型不匹配。 在对蒸汽主管的132只疏水做的检验表明，42%的疏水阀已实效。对疏水阀寿命的检验也于1980年开始并一直延续至今。表2-1列出了各种疏水阀的平均寿命。 为检验各种疏水阀的节能效益，人们对两家生产商的实验室中正在使用的疏水阀进行了新鲜蒸汽损失测试。测试在实验室状态下进行即20℃，静止空气。该实验未对疏水阀阀体的热损失进行检测。检测中凝结水负荷为常见的10-20公斤／小时（22-44磅／小时）。 　　检测结果汇总在表2-2中。这两个表格所表现出的最有趣的一点是，作为通用的最广泛采用的热动力圆盘式疏水阀，其节能效果最差，而且与倒吊桶疏水阀相比，寿命极短。 在热量要求不高的场合，用热静力疏水阀取代热动力圆盘疏水阀会提高节能效果，同时保证使用寿命。 这些实验还揭示了机械疏水阀（即倒吊桶和浮球疏水阀）无论在凝结水负荷大或负荷小的情况下都可以保证蒸汽不含冷凝水，而热静力疏水阀在负荷增加的时候容易积聚凝结水。另外，双金属片疏水阀动作容易不稳定。 更改后的新《指导》中包括疏水阀选型表。 选型推荐： 　　1、 倒吊桶疏水阀： 作为所有工艺负荷和蒸汽主管线疏水阀的{sx}，即所有需要对蒸汽疏水的场合。 　2、浮球热静力疏水阀： 用于工艺疏水，尤其是在控制负荷3.5公斤以下（50psig）的应用场合或空气含量高、安装倒吊桶疏水阀有问题的场合。 　　3、平衡压力疏水阀： 用作不重要的伴热或加热系统。 　　4、双金属片热静力疏水阀： 用于伴热管线或加热系统低温或防霜工况。该类型的疏水阀可以{zd0}限度地利用凝结水中的显热或防止产品过热。其阀体为全不锈钢。 　　5、热动力圆盘疏水阀： 只要在先前经验证明其性能良好时，可作为倒吊桶疏水阀的替代产品，在压力为17公斤以下的蒸汽主管和伴热管上有限制地使用，或作为产品替换用于更高的蒸汽压力。因其能源效率低，使用寿命短，不推荐使用（而且，在Huddersfield和Grangemouth工厂不允许使用）。 　　

“ Select high-quality trap coup ”是由提供的国际阀门新闻，译文仅供参考。另外，中国疏水阀网还提供相关产品搜索：、、、、等。

原文：
In the Royal Chemical Industry Company is located in Huddersfield and Grangemouth (England) the performance of industrial plant steam traps for up to 7 years of monitoring and experiments, a laboratory in the two manufacturers of steam traps of steam loss of performance and monitoring of fresh and experimental basis, the Royal Chemical Industries ultimately its "design guidance" in the selection of the contents of the trap has been modified. Selection of the old there are many shortcomings of the standard, the most obvious is that it does not mention the type of device being hydrophobic and hydrophobic method. The selected traps often do not match the actual load. Particularly serious, the thermodynamic disc trap (the old selection criteria based) were people in particular, workshop personnel mistaken for a universal traps. As early as 1980, as director of engineering and maintenance staff complained of steam traps life is too short, England Grangemouth plant to begin monitoring the performance trap. Two years later, Huddersfield factory did the same monitoring. In monitoring, the first trap were investigated to understand the types of existing traps, and test selection when the load. Also carried out relevant tests. Preliminary results surprised. In a workshop of 415 traps made of test results showed that 19% of the traps has expired, 63% of the load does not match the selection. In charge of the 132 hydrophobic steam to do the test showed that 42% of the traps have been effective. Life on the trap inspection also in 1980 and continues today. Table 2-1 lists the average life expectancy of the various traps. In order to test the energy efficiency of various traps, people in the two laboratories manufacturers are using fresh steam traps were tested loss. Testing conducted in the laboratory that is under 20 ℃, still air. The experiment did not trap body heat loss test. Detection of a common condensate load 10-20 kg / h (22-44 lb / hr). Test results summarized in Table 2-2. Form shown by the two most interesting point is that most widely used as a general thermodynamic disc trap, the energy saving effect is the worst, but compared with the inverted bucket traps, very short-lived. In the heat less demanding situations, replace the trap with a thermostatic steam traps will increase the thermal power disk energy savings, while life assurance. These experiments also revealed the mechanical traps (ie, inverted bucket traps and float) in terms of condensate load large or small case load can be guaranteed without condensation of water vapor, and heat load of static traps increase in the time to the accumulation of condensate. In addition, action is easy bimetallic steam traps instability. Changes in the new "guidance" includes traps Selection Table. Selection Recommendation: 1, inverted bucket steam traps: for all process load and the steam trap of choice for head of line, that all need to steam hydrophobic occasions. 2, float thermostatic steam traps: for process hydrophobic, especially in the control load 3.5 kg less (50psig) or air applications where a high level of inverted bucket traps have problems installing the occasion. 3, balanced pressure steam traps: as unimportant or a heating system with heat. 4, two-metal thermostatic traps: for the heating system with heat pipes or cryogenic or frosting conditions. The type of traps can maximize the use of condensation water was hot or prevent product overheating. The body is stainless steel. 5, thermodynamic disc traps: as long as previous experience has shown that its performance is good, inverted bucket traps can be used as a substitute products, the pressure of 17 kg of steam heat pipe on the head and with limited use, or as a product replacement for the higher steam pressure. Because of its low energy efficiency, life is short, not recommended (and, in Huddersfield and Grangemouth plant is not allowed).