Detailed Design Review Presentation (PDF)

P12452 – Vibration Isolation and Novel Cooling System

Detailed Design Review

February 17, 2012

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)

2

Members

Team John Burns – Project Manager Ryan Hurley – Principle Engineer Chris Guerra – Thermo-Fluids Engineer Matt Kasemer – Vibrations Engineer Support Bill Nowak – Faculty Guide Dr. Jason Kolodziej – Primary Customer Scott Delmotte – Dresser-Rand Contact James Sorokes – Dresser-Rand Contact

3

PROJECT BACKGROUND

4

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.

5

RIT Reciprocating Compressor

6

• Smallest reciprocating compressor Dresser- Rand manufactures

• Bore – 6 inches

• Stroke – 5 inches

• Operating Pressure – ~45psia

• 360 cycles per minute (6 Hz)

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.

7

CUSTOMER NEEDS

8

Vibration System Needs

9

CN# Description Weight

1. Vibration Damping System

1.1 Reduce motion ~50% 9

1.2 Design System to be removable 3

1.3 Keep work area around compressor manageable and safe 3

Cooling System Needs

10

CN# Description Weight

2. Thermosyphoning Coolant System

2.1 Thermosyphoning 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

2.4 Design 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

UPDATED ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS

11

Engineering Spec’s - Vibration

12

Engineering Specifications Vibration Isolation System

# Specification Goal Value Acceptable Range Units

ES 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

Engineering Spec’s - Thermosyphoning

13

Engineering Specifications Thermosyphoning Coolant System

# Specification Goal Value Acceptable Range Units

ES 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 m

ES 4 Thermal efficiency of system 90 > 80 %

ES 5 External Power Consumption 0 0 Watts

ES 6 Weight of filled coolant tank 7 < 10 kg

ES 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 --

RISK MANAGEMENT

14

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

R7 Thermosyphoning analysis performed incorrectly

Thermosyphoning system does not work


5 9 45 Perform thorough analysis and obtain input from experts

Chris

R16 System introduces unforseen vibration

Pump is damaged, building is damaged


5 9 45 Perform thorough engineering analysis prior to installation

Matt

R17 Concerete cannot support mounts for dampers

Building is damaged, pump might be damaged


5 9 45 Perform thorough engineering analysis prior to installation

Ryan

R21 Damping 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

R26 Design 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 45

Perform 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


R19 DAQ 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

R24 Thermosyphoning 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

R10 Pump is run while "down" for installation


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

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

John

R12 Compressor is damaged during installation


Lack of training or planning

3 9 27 Follow safe practices, do not work alone, stop if unsure.

All

R15 Contract 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 25 Plan 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 21 Create 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

R14 Contract 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

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

18

PROPOSED DESIGN OVERVIEW

19

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

20

Vibration Isolation CAD

21

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

22

Thermosyphoning CAD

23

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.

24

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.)

25

DETAILED ANALYSIS

26

Vibration Analysis – Initial Model

• Gathered acceleration data on both ends of skid

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

27

Theoretical Vibrations Model

Vibration Analysis – Current System

28

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)

Accele

ration (

m/s

2)

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

Vibration Analysis – Current System

29

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)

Deflection (

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

Vibration Analysis – MR System

32

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)

Deflection (

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)

Forc

e (

N)

Model of Force for MR Dampers at Maximum Damping


Vibration Analysis – Shock Absorber

36

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

Vibration Analysis – Shock Absorber

37

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

Forc

e (

N)

Time (s)

Model of Force for Traditional Dampers at Maximum Damping


Steady State Minimum: -4483 N

Mechanical Mounting Analysis

38

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

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.

39

Mounting Boss Analysis

40

Max Deflection: .00002 in

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

Min F.o.S.: 44.5

Floor Assembly Analysis

41

Max Deflection: .0003 in

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

Min F.o.S.: 21

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.

42

Material Specifications

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

43

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

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

FEA Validation

Stress = σ = W*L*c/I = Mc/I

Displacement = δ=-PL3/3EI = -ML2/3EI

44

Theoretical FEA % Diff.

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

Displacement (in)

.050 .044 13.6%

W8x58 W-flange I-Beam

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

45

Control Volume

46

Thermosyphoning Excel

47

Thermosyphoning Results

Heat 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)

48

1 – Proposed design, absorbing all heat due to compression, No head loss 2 – Same as 1 except incorporating head loss 3 – Same as 2 except more compact design to reduce head losses 4 – Only taking 2000W of heat, solving for flow rate 5 – Same amount of heat current forced system

Finned Tubing Analysis

Manufacturer 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

49

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

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

50

BILL OF MATERIALS

51

Vibration Bill of Materials

52

Thermosyphoning Bill of Materials

53

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

54

TESTING

55

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)

56

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

57

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

58

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.

59

NEXT STEPS

60

MSD II Timeline – Weeks 1-5

61

MSD II Timeline – Weeks 6-11

62

Acknowledgments

• Dr. Stephen Boedo

• Dr. Marca Lam

• Dr. Mark Kempski

• Dr. Amitabha Ghosh

• Scott Delmotte

• LORD Corporation

63

Questions?

64

Detailed Design Review Presentation (PDF)

Documents