1. P12452 – Vibration Isolation and Novel Cooling System Detailed Design Review February 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) 2

3. 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

4. PROJECT BACKGROUND 4

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. 5

6. 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)

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. 7

8. CUSTOMER NEEDS 8

9. Vibration System Needs 9 CN#DescriptionWeight 1. Vibration Damping System 1.1Reduce motion ~50% 9 1.2Design System to be removable 3 1.3Keep work area around compressor manageable and safe 3

10. Cooling System Needs 10 CN#DescriptionWeight 2. Thermosyphoning Coolant System 2.1 Thermosyphoning system works comparable to current pump-based system3 2.2System must keep pump at safe operating temperature9 2.3 Design system so that it can easily switch back and forth between thermosyphoning system and pump-based system3 2.4 Design system so it is mounted in a fashion that does not obstruct movement around the compressor1 2.5Design system so it does not require any external power9

11. UPDATED ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS 11

12. Engineering Spec’s - Vibration 12 Engineering Specifications Vibration Isolation System #SpecificationGoal ValueAcceptable RangeUnits ES 10Reduction in deflection50> 50% ES 11Number of on-compressor mounts2< 4# ES 12Number of off-compressor mounts2< 4# ES 13Total Damping Coefficient for System119500>119500N-s/m

13. Engineering Spec’s - Thermosyphoning 13 Engineering Specifications Thermosyphoning Coolant System #SpecificationGoal ValueAcceptable RangeUnits ES 1Efficiency TS v Efficiency Forced100> 80% ES 2Environmental safety of coolantGoGo/No-Go-- ES 3Valve and piping losses5<10m ES 4Thermal efficiency of system90> 80% ES 5External Power Consumption00Watts ES 6Weight of filled coolant tank7< 10kg ES 7Number of mounting points9< 12-- ES 8Durability of systemGoGo/No-Go-- ES 9Insulation's environtmental safetyGoGo/No-Go--

14. RISK MANAGEMENT 14

15. 15 Risk #Risk ItemEffectCauseLikelihoodSeverityImportanceMitigation ActionOwner R6 Damping analysis performed incorrectly System is not properly damped Poor implementation of engineering principles 5945 Perform thorough analysis and obtain input from experts Matt R7 Thermosyphoning analysis performed incorrectly Thermosyphoning system does not work Poor implementation of engineering principles 5945 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 5945 Perform thorough engineering analysis prior to installation Matt R17 Concerete cannot support mounts for dampers Building is damaged, pump might be damaged Poor implementation of engineering principles 5945 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 5945 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 5945 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 5945 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 5735 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 5735 Ensure that everyone is trained and comfortable on the given machine Ryan

16. 16 Risk #Risk ItemEffectCauseLikelihoodSeverityImportanceMitigation ActionOwner R19 DAQ inteferes with thermosyphoning system DAQ or thermosyphonings system needs to be modified Poor communication between SD teams 7535 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 7535 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 5735 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 5735 Ensure that the existing pump system can be switched to quickly Chris R10 Pump is run while "down" for installation Pump is damaged or destroyed Failure to follow Lock-Out, Tag-Out Proceedure; poor communication 3927 Follow Lock-Out, Tag-Out proceedures, continuous communication between groups John R12 Compressor is damaged during installation Pump is damaged or destroyed Lack of training or planning 3927 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 3927 Ensure that the contract firm is qualified for the job All R11 Injury during installation Team member/faculty/staff get hurt Lack of training or unsafe practices 5525 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 5525 Plan and communication with the other team, plan thoroughly Matt

17. 17 Risk #Risk ItemEffectCauseLikelihoodSeverityImportanceMitigation ActionOwner R20 DAQ installation is damaged DAQ system is no longer functional Poor communication between SD teams; poor installation processes 5525 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 5525Perform a high-quality installationChris R1 Ordered Parts do not arrive on time Adjust Schedule; Worst- case, adjust project goals Not enough lead time, failure of shipper or supplier 3721 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 3721 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 3721 Ensure that the contract firm is qualified for the job Ryan R8 Injury during part manufacturing Team member/faculty/staff get hurt Lack of training or unsafe use of machines 3515 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 199 Verify specs with knowledgable authorities and engineering principles All R5No Funding Adjust schedule, limit project goals Budget constraints, team failure 199 Focus more energy on fundraising and sponsorship All R3 Incorrect parts delivered Adjust schedule.Supplier Failure177Build-in buffer time for emergenciesAll

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 18

19. PROPOSED DESIGN OVERVIEW 19

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 20

21. Vibration Isolation CAD 21

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 22

23. Thermosyphoning CAD 23

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. 24

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.) 25

26. DETAILED ANALYSIS 26

27. 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

28. Vibration Analysis – Current System 28 Acceleration Model of Current System produced by Simulink modeling - very accurate to the empirical data collected - Steady state maximum and minimum: ±11.4 m/s 2

29. Vibration Analysis – Current System 29 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. Vibration Analysis – Initial Model 30 Used to determine the number of MR dampers necessary

31. Vibration Analysis – Initial Model 31

32. 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

33. Vibration Analysis – MR System 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

34. Vibration Analysis – MR System 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)

35. Vibration Analysis – MR System 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. Mechanical Mounting Analysis 38 BoltLoad (N/bolt) Max Shear (N/bolt) Max Tensile (N/bolt) Factor of Safety ¾”-103,107.3136,067.959294,774.617(S) 43.7 5/8”-113,107.394,491.636204,704.592(T) 65.8 5/8”-112,330.529,000*56,300*(S) 12.4 M12x1.52330.554,163.4443,920(S) 23.2 ComponentMax Stress (ksi) Max Displacement (in) Min. Factor of Safety Compressor Mount.725.0000244.5 Floor Mount1.71.000321 Baseplate1.71.000321 Brace1.71.000321 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. 39

40. Mounting Boss Analysis 40 Max Deflection:.00002 in Cycles to Failure: >1,000,000 Max Stress: 5 MPa Min F.o.S.: 44.5

41. Floor Assembly Analysis 41 Max Deflection:.0003 in Cycles to Failure: >1,000,000 Max 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. 42

43. Material Specifications http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=afc003f4fb40465fa3df05129f0e88e 6&ckck=1 43 A36 Steel Plate was used as the material for this analysis.

44. FEA Validation Stress = σ = W*L*c/I = Mc/I Displacement = δ=-PL 3 /3EI = -ML 2 /3EI 44 TheoreticalFEA% Diff. Max Stress (ksi) 17,60417,9592% Displacement (in).050.04413.6% 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 45

46. Control Volume 46

47. Thermosyphoning Excel 47

48. Thermosyphoning Results Heat Rate (W)Hot Temperature (°C) Cold Temperature (°C) Elevation (m)Flow Rate (l/min) (gpm) 4333.3343271.1052.7 (.72) 4333.3343271.1052.7 (.72) 4333.334327.92.7 (.72) 200043271.1051.26 (.33) 375843271.1052.36 (.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

49. Finned Tubing Analysis ManufacturerMaterialDiameter (in)Heat Rate (W/m)Length Needed (m) Slant/Fin (Series 2000) Cu/Al¾8650.5 Slant/Fin (Series 30) Cu/Al¾9230.47 Slant/Fin (Multi/Pack 80) Cu/Al110095.43 Trane (Series 40) Steel1 ¼14422.3 Trane (Series 68) Cu/Al110962.4 49 Length Values based on 4333W heat removal Max length available is 1.2 m System comes into finned tubing at 1” Schedule 80

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 50

51. BILL OF MATERIALS 51

52. Vibration Bill of Materials 52

53. Thermosyphoning Bill of Materials 53

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 54

55. TESTING 55

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) 56

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 57

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 58

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. 59

60. NEXT STEPS 60

61. MSD II Timeline – Weeks 1-5 61

62. MSD II Timeline – Weeks 6-11 62

63. Acknowledgments Dr. Stephen Boedo Dr. Marca Lam Dr. Mark Kempski Dr. Amitabha Ghosh Scott Delmotte LORD Corporation 63

64. Questions? 64