P12452 – Vibration Isolation and Novel Cooling System Detailed Design Review February 17, 2012

P12452 – Vibration Isolation and Novel Cooling System

Detailed Design ReviewFebruary 17, 2012

2

Agenda

• Team Members and Support (1 min)• Project Background (5 min)• Customer Needs (2 min)• Updated Engineering Specs (5 min)• Risk Management (5 min)• Proposed Design Overview (10 min)• Detailed Analysis (30 min)• Bill of Materials (15 min)• Testing (10 min)• MSD II Deliverables & Schedule (10 mins)• Q&A (10 min)

3

Members

TeamJohn Burns – Project ManagerRyan Hurley – Principle EngineerChris Guerra – Thermo-Fluids EngineerMatt Kasemer – Vibrations Engineer

Support Bill Nowak – Faculty GuideDr. Jason Kolodziej – Primary CustomerScott Delmotte – Dresser-Rand ContactJames Sorokes – Dresser-Rand Contact

4

PROJECT BACKGROUND

5

Reciprocating Compressors

• Typically used to compress process gas in refineries

• Traditionally configured as opposing throws to reduce vibration, with hard-mount to large concrete pad.

• Both forced and thermosyphoning systems used for cooling.

6

RIT Reciprocating Compressor

• Smallest reciprocating compressor Dresser-Rand manufactures

• Bore – 6 inches• Stroke – 5 inches• Operating Pressure –

~45psia• 360 cycles per minute

(6 Hz)

7

P12452 Project Scope

• Understand operating conditions of the compressor

• End Goals– Design, evaluate, install and test a

vibration isolation system.– Design, evaluate, implement and

analyze a thermosyphoning system.

8

CUSTOMER NEEDS

9

Vibration System Needs

CN# Description Weight1. Vibration Damping System1.1 Reduce motion ~50% 91.2 Design System to be removable 31.3 Keep work area around compressor manageable and safe 3

10

Cooling System Needs

CN# Description Weight

2. Thermosyphoning Coolant System

2.1Thermosyphoning system works comparable to current pump-based system 3

2.2 System must keep pump at safe operating temperature 9

2.3

Design system so that it can easily switch back and forth between thermosyphoning system and pump-based system 3

2.4Design system so it is mounted in a fashion that does not obstruct movement around the compressor 1

2.5 Design system so it does not require any external power 9

11

UPDATED ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS

12

Engineering Spec’s - Vibration

Engineering SpecificationsVibration Isolation System

# Specification Goal Value Acceptable Range UnitsES 10 Reduction in deflection 50 > 50 %ES 11 Number of on-compressor mounts 2 < 4 #ES 12 Number of off-compressor mounts 2 < 4 #ES 13 Total Damping Coefficient for System 119500 >119500 N-s/m

13

Engineering Spec’s - Thermosyphoning

Engineering SpecificationsThermosyphoning Coolant System

# Specification Goal Value Acceptable Range UnitsES 1 Efficiency TS v Efficiency Forced 100 > 80 %ES 2 Environmental safety of coolant Go Go/No-Go --ES 3 Valve and piping losses 5 <10 mES 4 Thermal efficiency of system 90 > 80 %ES 5 External Power Consumption 0 0 WattsES 6 Weight of filled coolant tank 7 < 10 kgES 7 Number of mounting points 9 < 12 --ES 8 Durability of system Go Go/No-Go --ES 9 Insulation's environtmental safety Go Go/No-Go --

14

RISK MANAGEMENT

15

Risk # Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance Mitigation Action Owner

R6 Damping analysis performed incorrectly

System is not properly damped

Poor implementation of engineering principles 5 9 45 Perform thorough analysis and obtain

input from experts Matt

R7Thermosyphoning analysis performed incorrectly

Thermosyphoning system does not work

Poor implementation of engineering principles 5 9 45 Perform thorough analysis and obtain

input from experts Chris

R16 System introduces unforseen vibration

Pump is damaged, building is damaged

Poor implementation of engineering principles 5 9 45 Perform thorough engineering

analysis prior to installation Matt

R17Concerete cannot support mounts for dampers

Building is damaged, pump might be damaged

Poor implementation of engineering principles 5 9 45 Perform thorough engineering

analysis prior to installation Ryan

R21Damping system damages physical plant

Building is damaged, pump might be damaged

Poor planning; Poor implementation of good plans

5 9 45 Plan thoroughly, and ensure that failsafe measures are in place Ryan

R26Design does not properly damp system

Pump is damaged Poor design or poor manufacturing 5 9 45 Peform a thorough analysis, and

solicitic expert and faculty input Matt

R27 Systems fails catestrophically

Pump is destroyed, building is seriously damaged

Poor design, poor manufacturing, or poor installation

5 9 45Perform a thorough analysis, a thorough installation, and double-check everything before starting the pump.

All

R2 Ordered Parts are not ordered on time

Adjust Schedule; Worst-case, adjust project goals

Poor planning on the team's part 5 7 35

Create design plan, check-in with group members, build-in buffer time for emergencies

John

R9 Parts manufactuered improperly

Parts do not fit or system fails catestrphically

Poor design or poor manufacturing 5 7 35 Ensure that everyone is trained and

comfortable on the given machine Ryan

16


R19DAQ inteferes with thermosyphoning system

DAQ or thermosyphonings system needs to be modified

Poor communication between SD teams 7 5 35 Plan and communication with the

other team, plan thoroughly Chris

R22 Trip hazard from damping system

Team member/faculty/staff get hurt

Bad planning for safety concerns 7 5 35 Design a cover that preventing tripping

hazards Ryan

R23 Thermosyphoning system mounting fails

Team member/faculty/staff get hurt; pump is damaged; building is damaged

Poor design or poor manufacturing 5 7 35

Perform thorough analysis prior to manufacturing and installation, assemble according to plan

Chris

R24Thermosyphoning system does not properly cool pump

Pump is damaged or destroyed

Poor health monitoring or poor design of cooling system

5 7 35 Ensure that the existing pump system can be switched to quickly Chris

R10Pump is run while "down" for installation


Failure to follow Lock-Out, Tag-Out Proceedure; poor communication

3 9 27Follow Lock-Out, Tag-Out proceedures, continuous communication between groups

John

R12Compressor is damaged during installation


Lack of training or planning 3 9 27 Follow safe practices, do not work

alone, stop if unsure. All

R15Contract engineers do not do properly perform analysis

System fails catestrphically Poor choice of contract engineering firm 3 9 27 Ensure that the contract firm is

qualified for the job All

R11 Injury during installation


Lack of training or unsafe practices 5 5 25 Follow safe practices, do not work

alone, stop if unsure. All

R18 DAQ interfers with dampers

DAQ or damping system needs to be modified

Poor communication between SD teams 5 5 25 Plan and communication with the

other team, plan thoroughly Matt

17


R20 DAQ installation is damaged

DAQ system is no longer functional

Poor communication between SD teams; poor installation processes

5 5 25Plan and communication with the other team, plan thoroughly, and install very carefully

All

R25 Thermosyphoning system leaks

Pump is damaged, building is damaged

Poor installation or design quality 5 5 25 Perform a high-quality installation Chris

R1 Ordered Parts do not arrive on time

Adjust Schedule; Worst-case, adjust project goals

Not enough lead time, failure of shipper or supplier

3 7 21Create design plan, check-in with group members, build-in buffer time for emergencies

All

R13 Contract engineers run over budget

Funding for other components is missing

Poor planning or unforseen problems 3 7 21 Perform thorough planning prior to

starting work John

R14Contract engineers fail to install mounts properly

System fails catestrphically Poor choice of contract engineering firm 3 7 21 Ensure that the contract firm is

qualified for the job Ryan

R8 Injury during part manufacturing


Lack of training or unsafe use of machines 3 5 15 Ensure that everyone is trained and

comfortable on the given machine Ryan

R4 Engineering Specs are incorrect

Improper models created and project fails

Failure to perform proper engineering verification 1 9 9 Verify specs with knowledgable

authorities and engineering principles All

R5 No Funding Adjust schedule, limit project goals

Budget constraints, team failure 1 9 9 Focus more energy on fundraising

and sponsorship All

R3 Incorrect parts delivered Adjust schedule. Supplier Failure 1 7 7 Build-in buffer time for emergencies All

18

Primary Risks

• Vibration or Thermosyphoning analysis are done incorrectly– Perform thorough analysis and obtain input from

experts

• System Fails Catastrophically– Perform a thorough analysis, a thorough

installation, and double-check everything before starting the compressor

• Concrete cannot support mounts for dampers– Perform thorough engineering analysis prior to

installation

19

PROPOSED DESIGN OVERVIEW

20

Proposed Vibration Isolation Solution

• Magneto-Rheological (MR) dampers mounted between crane hooks and mounts off compressor

• Adjustable damping• LORD is willing to sponsor the shocks

and donate them• Meet safety requirements

21

Vibration Isolation CAD

22

Proposed Thermosyphoning System

• No use of power and easily modified to fit into current system

• Mounted close to compressor • Valves on pipes to change from forced

to thermosyphoning• Finned tubing used to remove heat

from system• Piping diameters same as forced

cooling system

23

Thermosyphoning CAD

24

Design Choice Justification

• 2 Proposed Solutions at Systems Design Review:– Ordinary vehicle shock absorbers– LORD Corp. Magneto-Rheological shock

absorbers

• Similarities of two systems allow for parallel design paths to be pursued

• MR dampers and car-style dampers were the clear winners over the other concepts per the Pugh process.

25

Design Choice Justification

• MR Dampers were decided to be the team’s favored design for a number of reasons– Price (LORD has agreed to donate shocks)– Adjustability (electronically controllable)– Safety (Does not require preloaded springs)– Capacity (Safely handles our application)– Form factor (Easily replaceable with

conventional dampers if they prove to be unacceptable.)

26

DETAILED ANALYSIS

27

Vibration Analysis – Initial Model

• Gathered acceleration data on both ends of skid

• Created a Simulink model as a simple spring-mass-damper system

Theoretical Vibrations Model

28

Vibration Analysis – Current System

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20Model of Acceleration of Existing System

Time (s)

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

/s2 )

Steady State Minimum: 11.4 m/s2

Steady State Maximum: 11.4 m/s2

Acceleration Model of Current System produced by Simulink modeling - very accurate to the empirical data collected - Steady state maximum and minimum: ±11.4 m/s2

29

Vibration Analysis – Current System

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015Model of Deflection of Existing System

Time (s)

Def

lect

ion

(m)

Steady State Minimum: 0,8015 cm

Steady State Maximum: 0.8015 cm

Deflection model of current system produced by Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±0.8015 cm - This is the value we need to reduce by 50%

30


Used to determine the number of MR dampers necessary

31


32

Vibration Analysis – MR System

Deflection Model of proposed MR Shock system optimized for ~50% deflection reduction, produced through Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±0.405 cm, achieved with MR shocks set at 0.5A

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6x 10

-3

Time (s)

Deflection (

m)

Model of Deflection for MR Dampers Optimized to 50% Deflection Reduction


Steady State Minimum: -0.405 cm

33


Force Model of proposed MR Shock system optimized for ~50% deflection reduction, produced through Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±3520 N - This is the amount of force being translated to each MR Shock Absorbers

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000Model of Force for MR Dampers Optimized for 50% Deflection Reduction

Time (s)

Forc

e (

N)

Steady State Minimum: -3520 N

Steady State Maximum: 3520 N

34


Deflection Model of proposed MR Shock system set at maximum damping, produced through Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±0.2526 cm (~68% Reduction, achieved at 1A)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4x 10

-3

Time (s)

Def

lect

ion

(m)

Model of Deflection of MR Dampers at Maximum Damping


35


Force Model of proposed MR Shock system set at maximum damping, produced through Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±4661 N - This is the amount of force being translated to each MR Shock Absorber

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

Time (s)

For

ce (

N)

Model of Force for MR Dampers at Maximum Damping


36

Vibration Analysis – Shock Absorber

Deflection Model of proposed GK shock absorbers set at maximum damping, produced through Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±0.3018 cm (~63% Reduction) - This is achieved using 4 dampers

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5x 10

-3

Time (s)

Deflection (

m)

Model of Deflection of Traditional Dampers at Maximum Damping


Steady State Minimum: -0.3018 cm

37

Vibration Analysis – Shock Absorber

Force Model of proposed GK shock absorbers set at maximum damping, produced through Simulink modeling - Steady state maximum/minimum: ±4483 N - This is the amount of force being translated to each shock absorber

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

For

ce (

N)

Time (s)

Model of Force for Traditional Dampers at Maximum Damping


Steady State Minimum: -4483 N

38

Mechanical Mounting Analysis

Bolt Load(N/bolt)

Max Shear (N/bolt)

Max Tensile (N/bolt)

Factor of Safety

¾”-10 3,107.3 136,067.959 294,774.617 (S) 43.7

5/8”-11 3,107.3 94,491.636 204,704.592 (T) 65.8

5/8”-11 2,330.5 29,000* 56,300* (S) 12.4

M12x1.5 2330.5 54,163.44 43,920 (S) 23.2

Component Max Stress(ksi)

Max Displacement (in)

Min. Factor of Safety

Compressor Mount

.725 .00002 44.5

Floor Mount 1.71 .0003 21

Baseplate 1.71 .0003 21

Brace 1.71 .0003 21

Design Goals•Very high factor of safety•Infinite life•Permanent Installation•Matainence-free•Safety

* Supplied by Hilti

39

Concrete Mounting

• Concrete mounting will consist of eight 5/8” studs sunk into the floor, and epoxied in place using Hilti HIT-HY 150 MAX adhesive.

• Hand calculations showed that bolt, not concrete shear was the governing factor

• Hilti supplies a proprietary software tool to help chose anchor combinations, which matched well with hand and table calculations.

40

Mounting Boss Analysis

Max Deflection: .00002 in

Cycles to Failure: >1,000,000Max Stress: 5 MPa

Min F.o.S.: 44.5

41

Floor Assembly Analysis

Max Deflection: .0003 in

Cycles to Failure: >1,000,000Max Stress: 11.8 MPa

Min F.o.S.: 21

42

Fatigue Analysis of Damper Bolts

• Due to design restrictions, it was necessary to use a significantly smaller bolt to mount the dampers.

• A fatigue study determined that fatigue failure would not be a source of concern.

43

Material Specifications

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=afc003f4fb40465fa3df05129f0e88e6&ckck=1

A36 Steel Plate was used as the material for this analysis.



44

FEA Validation

Stress = σ = W*L*c/I = Mc/I

Displacement = δ=-PL3/3EI = -ML2/3EI

Theoretical FEA % Diff.

Max Stress (ksi) 17,604 17,959 2%

Displacement (in)

.050 .044 13.6%

W8x58 W-flange I-Beam

45

Thermosyphoning Analysis

• First Law of Thermodynamics modified to Engineering Bernoulli

• Assumed – – Hot side at 43°C (~110°F), Cold side at 27°C (~80°F)– Pressures are atmospheric– Height difference is from hot discharge to lowest point– Head loss used average density and velocity, – 1” Schedule 80 piping for full system

46

Control Volume

47

Thermosyphoning Excel

48

Thermosyphoning ResultsHeat Rate (W) Hot

Temperature(°C)

Cold Temperature (°C)

Elevation (m) Flow Rate (l/min) (gpm)

4333.33 43 27 1.105 2.7 (.72)

4333.33 43 27 1.105 2.7 (.72)

4333.33 43 27 .9 2.7 (.72)

2000 43 27 1.105 1.26 (.33)

3758 43 27 1.105 2.36 (.62)

1 – Proposed design, absorbing all heat due to compression, No head loss2 – Same as 1 except incorporating head loss3 – Same as 2 except more compact design to reduce head losses4 – Only taking 2000W of heat, solving for flow rate5 – Same amount of heat current forced system

49

Finned Tubing AnalysisManufacturer Material Diameter (in) Heat Rate (W/m) Length Needed (m)

Slant/Fin (Series 2000)

Cu/Al ¾ 8650 .5

Slant/Fin (Series 30)

Cu/Al ¾ 9230 .47

Slant/Fin (Multi/Pack 80)

Cu/Al 1 10095 .43

Trane (Series 40)

Steel 1 ¼ 14422 .3

Trane (Series 68)

Cu/Al 1 10962 .4

• Length Values based on 4333W heat removal• Max length available is 1.2 m• System comes into finned tubing at 1” Schedule 80

50

Thermosyphoning Conclusions

• Head loss not a major factor • Heat rate and flow rate are linearly

proportional• Different finned tubing can be used

in system• Excel sheet can become flexible to

solve for different parameters

51

BILL OF MATERIALS

52

Vibration Bill of Materials

53

Thermosyphoning Bill of Materials

54

Major Expenses

• Flow Meter - $184 Total• 3-way ball valves - 2 @ $228.45

Each - $457 Total• 1” Flanges – 14 @ $9.75 Each -

$136.50 Total• Finned Tubing – 2 @ $35.65 Each -

$71.30 Total

Total Cost Both Systems – $2175.93

55

TESTING

56

Vibration Test Plan

• Testing Will Utilize:– pre-installed accelerometers– pre-installed data acquisition unit– LabView data acquisition program created by P12453

• Testing will need to analyze four (4) vibration cases:– Before dampers are installed– After dampers are installed, but when turned off (new

baseline “un-damped” data)– With dampers at maximum setting (~65% vibration

reduction)– With dampers at 0.5 Amp power setting (~50% vibration

reduction)

57

Vibration Test Plan• The testing will also need to encompass the following scenarios:

– 0% Compressor Load– 50% Compressor Load– 100% Compressor Load– 0% 50% Transition– 50% 100% Transition– 100% 50% Transition– 50% 0% Transition– 100% Off Transition– 50% Off Transition– 0% Off Transition

• To acquire appropriate data:– All Scenarios A-J to be tested before new damping hardware installed (Case I

above)– Scenarios A-C are to let the compressor reach steady (~2-3 mins) before acquiring

data– Scenarios D-J are to start taking data during steady state, and continue collecting

data through the transition until the next steady state is reached– Approximately 5-10 seconds of data to be acquired in each case

58

Thermosyphoning Test Plan

• Testing Will Utilize:– Thermocouples installed by team P12453– Additional thermocouples being installed by P12452– Flow meter installed by team P12453 for pump-driven system– Flow meter being installed by P12453 for thermosyphoning system– Pre-installed data acquisition unit– LabView data acquisition program created by P12453

• Flow rate and temperature data will need to be acquired for three (3) different cooling cases:– Current existing pump-driven system, unmodified– Pump-driven system using modified plumbing to incorporate

thermosyphoning system; this case to be analyzed in order to ensure that the additional plumbing hardware does not inhibit the existing system

– Thermosyphoning system with entire pump-driven system plumbing closed off completely

59

Thermosyphoning Test Plan

• To acquire appropriate data:– Pump must be allowed to reach a steady state

temperature (~60 minutes)– Temperature and flow rate data to be

collected– Temperature and flow rate to be factored in to

calculating a corresponding heat transfer rate– Data from case III to be compared to cases I

and II from above. Case III should perform as well (down to 80% as well) as the other cases.

60

NEXT STEPS

61

MSD II Timeline – Weeks 1-5

62

MSD II Timeline – Weeks 6-11

63

Acknowledgments

• Dr. Stephen Boedo • Dr. Marca Lam• Dr. Mark Kempski• Dr. Amitabha Ghosh• Scott Delmotte• LORD Corporation

64

Questions?

Documents

P12452 – Vibration Isolation and Novel Cooling System Detailed Design Review February 17, 2012