You are on page 1of 6

CASE HISTORY

Diagnosing
a Compressor Train Rub at

Methanex, Chile

Alberto Jahn | Field Applications Engineer | GE Energy | alberto.jahn@ge.com


Luis Perez | Rotating Equipment Engineer | Methanex Chile, Limited | lperez@methanex.com
62 O R B IT Vo l.27 N o.2 2007

CASE HISTORY

ethanex (www.methanex.com) is the worlds largest producer and marketer of methanol with four
plants in Chile, along with other plants in Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, and a new plant under
construction in Egypt.

The Chilean plants produce methanol using natural gas transported from southern Chile and Argentina,
with a combined capacity of 3.8 million tonnes, approximately 10% of world methanol demand. The Chilean
plants are located along Cape Horn on the extreme southern tip of South America, allowing the methanol
produced to be easily exported by ship to several countries. To accomplish this task, Methanex maintains
the largest methanol tanker fleet in the world.

Monitoring Scope
Methanex relies extensively on GEs condition monitor-

combined continuous online data acquisition for critical

ing products in its four Chilean methanol plants. Plant 4,

machinery and periodic online data acquisition for the

the newest, uses System 1* software, Bently Nevada*

cooling towers/fin fans.

3500 series monitoring systems for 14 critical machine


trains, and Bently Nevada 1900/55 with Trendmaster*
Pro for a combined total of 44 cooling towers and fin
fans (Table 1). The entire system is integrated, providing

Plants 1, 2 and 3 also use GEs condition monitoring


products, with all critical machine trains connected
to Bently Nevada machinery protection systems and
online condition monitoring software.

Table 1 Screen captures from System 1 software showing machinery trains monitored at Methanex
Plant 4 in Chile.
Critical Machine Trains with 3500 Monitoring Systems

Cooling Towers and Fin Fans with 1900/55


Monitoring Systems and Trendmaster Pro

Vo l . 27 N o. 2 2007 ORB I T 63

CASE HISTORY

Figure 1 Machine Outline Diagram for main air compressor/booster air compressor.

Figure 2 Machine Train Diagram for main air compressor/booster air compressor.

MAC/BAC Startup Problems


In March 2005, Methanexs new Plant 4 was in the

The steam turbine was initially run solo 11 days prior

process of starting up. The Main Air Compressor/Booster

to the first coupled run without problems. During the

Air Compressor (MAC/BAC) is critical to the process and

first coupled run, the machine reached the minimum

consists of a steam turbine driving the two centrifugal

governor speed of 4950 rpm and ran smoothly for

compressors (Figures 1 and 2).

several minutes. Then, an abrupt change in vibration

During startup of the unit, the rotating equipment


specialist was assigned to observe the dynamic
behavior of the machine using the transient data
collection capabilities of System 1 software.

64 O R B IT Vo l.27 N o.2 2007

levels occurred over the space of less than 1 minute,


increasing the vibration at the turbine inlet bearing to
75 microns (3 mils), causing the unit to trip via the 3500
series protection system.

CASE HISTORY

Figure 3 Orbit/timebase plot collected during unit coastdown as unit passed through 2100 rpm.
Red arrow shows location of constrained and attened orbit, indicative of a rub. Black arrow shows
direction of shaft rotation.

Analysis of the data collected during the coastdown

the shaft centerline exhibits normal behavior during

showed symptoms of vertical preload, with potential

the uncoupled run, rising up in the bearing clearance as

of a rub on the orbit as noted by the flat spot (Figure 3).

it assumes its characteristic attitude angle at full speed,

This was markedly different in amplitude and shape

and then largely retracing that path as the machine

than baseline data collected for the machine.

coasts down. However, during the coupled run

In addition to the change in orbit shape and amplitude,


a significant change in the average shaft centerline
position during the coastdown was noticed compared
to similar baseline data collected (Figure 4). Notice that

something is clearly forcing the shaft dramatically


towards the left side of the plot as the machine coasts
down, rather than retracing its run-up pathagain
indicative of a rub.

Vo l . 27 N o. 2 2007 ORB I T 65

CASE HISTORY

Figure 4 Shaft centerline plot at turbine inlet bearing during solo uncoupled run (top)
and coupled run (bottom) during coastdown. The bottom plot shows clear evidence of a
rub or preload forcing the shaft to the left. For reference, the diametral clearance of this
tilting-pad bearing is 330 (min) to 420 (max) m.

66 O R B IT Vo l.27 N o.2 2007

CASE HISTORY

Figure 5 Bottom half of balance piston area


showing evidence of severe rub.

This additional driven equipment required more turbine


steam flow, with a subsequent reduction in first stage
pressure, creating more steam condensation, and the
casing drains were unable to remove the additional
condensate. In essence, the turbine was not properly
heat soaked during starting. The turbine control system
was reconfigured with a more appropriate heat soak
curve, the refurbished rotor and casing were reinstalled,
and the machine was returned to service without
further problems.

Conclusions
Combined, these two indicators strongly suggested
a rub at the inlet end of the turbine rotor.
Additionally, following the trip event, the turning gear
system was not able to move the rotor, and abnormally

As a result of the data provided by System 1, the


plant was able to rapidly make the right decision
regarding an inspection of the machine, knowing

high motor current was being drawn in a futile attempt

where to look (turbine inlet end) and what to look

to rotate the shaft. This was also consistent with a seri-

for (a rub). As expected, a rub was confirmed and

ous rub between rotating and stationary parts.

repairs commenced immediately while root cause


A meeting was called to decide upon a course of action
and after considering the data plots presented by the

was isolated. Without the system, the machine

rotating equipment specialist along with the turning

would likely have been restarted, incurring more

gear situation, the plant elected to immediately open


the turbine to evaluate the expected internal damage.
The inspection confirmed a severe rub located in the
turbine balance piston (Figure 5), which required both
the rotor and casing to be refurbished.

significant damage or catastrophic failure, and the


root cause of improper heat soaking would probably not have been identified, resulting in a repeat
of the problem after repairs. Methanex estimates

Root Cause

that they avoided several days of additional

Although the rub had been properly diagnosed and

downtime at 300 K USD per day through the

repairs were underway, the root cause was still not


known. Considering that a rub is often a consequence

use of their condition monitoring system.

of another malfunction, the rotating equipment specialist again turned to his System 1 software and analyzed

This case history also illustrates the importance of

all the process variable trends, finding that all were

a condition monitoring system during initial plant

within normal parameters with the notable exception


of the inner turbine case pressure. This pressure only
reached 60% of the manufacturers expected value for
this startup measurement. This led to examination of
the startup sequence, and it was discovered that the
turbine startup procedure was never adjusted for the

start up; in this case, allowing an improper startup


sequence to be isolated and rectified before more
serious and costly machinery damage and process
interruptions could occur.

actual configuration of two compressors plus gear box.

Vo l . 27 N o. 2 2007 ORB I T 67

You might also like