Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Motor anti-reverse-rotation device failure (sliding pin type) 10

Status
Not open for further replies.

electricpete

Electrical
May 4, 2001
16,774
Machine Description: Outdoor vertical motor (700hp, 900rpm) driving a pump through a rigid coupling. Rated torque = 5250*700/900 ~ 4100 ft-lbf. Locked rotor torque is probably around 8000 ft-lbf.

What happened: Motor tripped during start on time overcurrent (51 relay). On-site inspection revealed motor would not rotate by hand, even after uncoupled. Sent to repair shop who provided attached photos showing a damaged anti-reverse-rotation device.

Overview of anti-reverse-rotation device operation: Slide 1 is an overview of the parts of the device. Principle of operation: During start, the vertical pins slide up the ramp on the stationary ratchet plate which pushes them into the holes in the rotating pin-holder where they are held I place against the side of the hole by centrifugal force (and friction). When the motor slows down, the pins fall down onto the stationary ratchet plate again but a portion also remains in the hole. If the motor rotates reverse then the pin is pushed backwards against the flat vertical portion of the ratchet plate preventing reverse rotation. By the way normal rotation is CW viewed from the top. There are 12 equally spaced ratchet ramps and 6 equally spaced pins (why are there 12 holes... there were originally 6 holes but during a previous refurbishment they were found damaged so 6 alternate holes were drilled at that time... that previous repair was associated with reverse rotation damage to the holes and the vertical faces of the ratchets found during proactive refurbishment which had never caused any problems with motor operation in the plant).

Inspection Findings: The photos show that one out of 6 pins is broken roughly in half (not much deformation, maybe a brittle failure?). One pin hole has a wallowed entry (on the side that would suggest that damage occurred while rotating forward with pin stuck on ramp)[revised to remove incorrect info]. One ramp is severely damaged. The vertical portion of another ramp is slightly damaged at the top.

The repair shop’s conclusion is that the pin bound in the hole due to rust and lack of clearance (0.005” clearance on a pin which is maybe 0.5” diameter and 1” long). They plan to increase clearance to 0.020”. They also suggested using stainless steel pins to address the rust, but as far as I can tell from the photos the rust is mostly on the pin holder rather than the pins (I’ll ask them about that). I asked if parts could be lightly coated in oil to reduce rust. They said lubrication is not typically used since it would attract/retain dirt/dust. I suggested some kind of dry powder lubricant and they said they’d consider it.

MAIN QUESTION: Based on the info above, do you have any ideas about the cause of the failure or what are the proper actions to prevent recurrence (I'm preparing for a phone call with the shop Friday 1/22 to finalize our repair plan).

My questions for the shop (not necessarily important for responders to this post). To prepare for my phone call I made a list of questions. This is not the main part of my post, I'm just listing it here because it's convenient for me. You can add questions or weigh in on my queestions if you like, but you don't have to read them (all the important stuff is above):
1 - Is there rust on the pins? (I don't see it). What can we do about rust in the pin holes?
2 - What is the silver pattern on bottom of the pin holder slide 2
3 - Slide 4 why does the brown rub pattern seem to be further out at a larger radius on the ramp and then closer in at a smaller radius on the flat?
4 - Is the rub mark on the non-damaged stationary ramps normal / expected outside of a failure?
5 - What about the slightly damaged vertical wall slide 5 at 10:00 position (two to the left of the obvious damaged ramp). It looks as if the pin was starting to fall and caught the top of the vertical wall and then pin pushed up out of the way. Is that normal?
6 - What materials are the pins, pin-holder, ratchet plate? Are any of these parts painted? (what explains the colors on the ratchet plate).
6a. Regarding pin material - Is it expected to have a brittle looking failure without much pin deformation
6b [new]Were the materials changed during the last repair? Is the stationary ratchet plate now harder such that more of the reverse impact is transferred to the pin?
7. How much clearance is between the top of the ratchet and bottom of the pin holder
8 What are exact dimensions of the pin (I said 0.5" x 1" but that's just my guess). And what is the height of the stationary ramp?
9. If we lined up the pin's plane of the failure with the bottom of the pin holder, where would the bottom of the pin be... resting on the bottom between ramps of resting in the middle of the ramp where the damage is or somewhere else.
10. are those clearances per side or diameteral.
11. You'd think the pin breaking would allow the motor to successfully start. Did the pin break before trip but still slowed it down enough to trip?
12. What is the radius of curvature of the bottom corners of those pins? Would a larger radius of curvature be beneficial to help the pin slide smoothly up the ramp during start?
13. Could the proposed larger clearance allow the pin to tilt enough to score the inside of the holes during starting? Maybe larger radius of curvature on top corner of the pins would help prevent that? And also radius of the hole entry?


miscellaneous note - Since the are exactly twice as many ratchets as pins, all six pins will contact at the same time (assuming dimensions are precise enough to permit them all to contact). Other designs have different odd combinations of pins and ratchets which means the pins wouldn’t all contact at the time (one would hit first to stop motion) but that type of staggered design has the advantage that it significantly limits the arc available for reverse windup before contact is made and is therefore probably a better approach in terms of stresses during stopping reverse rotation. But the distinction doesn't seem important because it appears the damage here occurred during forward rotation.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
 https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=738ac414-8c69-4b3a-8a23-9ca8e890867b&file=AsFoundAntiRotDevice.pdf
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Artisi said:
I looked again at "previous since-repaired damage" photo, and cannot believe the amount of damage shown on the vertical face, you can also see damage on the up-ramp where the retaining pin has gouged into the face. Seems the pump unit was running backwards (more than once) prior to the pins dropping into place. Also see the same on the latest failure although not as bad. To me it seems the pins are being held up and very slow to drop, possible made worse as the speed increases (in reverse) the centrifugal force is also assisting - would also look to rounding the end on the bottom of the pins.

added: the pins should drop immediately the pump comes to rest and prior to reverse rotation starting - that's assuming there is some back flow, unlikely not to be - would except there is a pause before the change of direction - back flow needs to develop enough torque to start rotation, same as start-up torque at which time the pin/s should have engaged
I don't have a full answer what was going on in the previous photo. That previous photo represented about 15 years of motor service whereas the recent photo represents only 3 years.

With 6 pins and 12 ramps, it is possible to get a full (360/12=) 30 degree windup in the reverse direction between when the pin starts dropping and hits the vertical wall (which creates more momentum for the device to stop). In contrast if you had an odd combination let's say 7 pins and 12 ramps then I think it would be something like 30/7 ~ 4 degrees worst case windup I think. The 6 pins / 12 ramps has the advantage that it's supposed to share load, but does it really? I mentioned the deformation of the stationary parts would help compensate for uneven spacing there, but it wouldn't compensate for uneven spacing of the rotating pin holes. Maybe those pins are way stronger / harder than the stationary parts and the single pin in the worst case hole just kept beating up whatever stationary wall it landed on. New set of holes was drilled last repair 3 years ago to address that one damaged hole so maybe that problem was "fixed" at that time? (wishful thinking, I don't know). Why was new set of holes drilled during refurbishment three years ago... it was because of that one damaged hole. So does that damaged hole give a clue what was going on with that device before the previous damage? (I'll have to ask again if there was pin damage found during the previous refurbishment but I don't think there was). It's strange because there was never any operational evidence of problem prior to that previous refurbishment.

There are 4 pumps, two small (700hp motor) and two large (4000hp motor) in parallel. There can be many different combinations in service when this motor is switched to off (and it's also pumping water uphill so there would be reversing even if no parallel pumps running). Since the damage is on all the ratchets (not just half that engage with pins during a given stop) we can't attribute that previous damage to a single event... must have been multiple.

> So what's holding the pins up?

As we know centrifugal force creates the normal force of pin in hole, which gives friction. I suppose rough surface of pin or hole could increase friction to slow dropping (so the motor has to drop to lower speed before it begins dropping). The pin itself is likely to get rougher over time during this service, the hole seems to be susceptible to corrosion. But it would have to be all 6 pins, which seems maybe less likely. At any rate, the dry lubricant we will add to minimize friction while the pin is travelling up in the hole has the happy side effect to also minimize friction while the pin is dropping down.

I do wonder what happens if the pin is only partially dropped when it makes contact (since all 6 pins are somewhat synchronized they might all be only partially dropped when they make contact during a given event). They could in theory all be 1/8" down below top of the ratchet when they make contact (in which case they might just rip the top of the ratchet a little and perhaps move back up) or 1/4" down or 1/2" down. I think I can see some evidence of this happening by looking at the stationary ratchet damage but I'm not sure.


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 

Quote"
Artisi
mfgenggear :this is not a coupling, it's a hold-back device to stop reverse rotation of the pump / drive motor, in forward operation there is no connection between the hold-back and pins." Unquote

o thanks for the clarification.
 
I do see that the ramps are rubbed outboard of centerline which doesn't really mean much but the actual impact from the pin is not inline with the normal path so it could not have been in the hole at the moment of impact. In other words, it was already broken.
 
Is the anti-reverse clutch provided by the motor manufacturer ?

I'd be thinking about buying a new A-R clutch assembly, and maybe the latest model upgraded from all the lessons learned.

There should be maintenance info ( including pin lubrication recommendations ) in somebody's O&M manual.
As other said "Rebuilding" the busted one with drilled holes just ain't right.
 
> I do see that the ramps are rubbed outboard of centerline which doesn't really mean much but the actual impact from the pin is not inline with the normal path so it could not have been in the hole at the moment of impact. In other words, it was already broken.

One thing I said wrong before is that the mark on the top level surface of that ratchet plate is centered upon the pin axis... it is not. You can see where the pins sit by looking for the circles on the ratchet plate where the pins have been resting while stationary... that location is closer to the outside than to the inside. Then why are the marks on the top closer to the inside? I can only guess maybe that top portion of the stationary ratchet plate which is level in the circumferential direction is tilted outward in the radial direction to the pin makes contact on the inner side (although I can't detect that in the pictures). It looks like the circular damage in the ramp is roughly centered at the same radius where the circular mark from the pins resting is, although the angle of the photos makes it tough to judge. I'll ask for a photo taken from directly above the inverted ratchet plate (if they haven't started cleaning it up yet) so it is easier to judge those types of things.





=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
Tmoose said:
Is the anti-reverse clutch provided by the motor manufacturer ?

Yes.

Tmoose said:
I'd be thinking about buying a new A-R clutch assembly, and maybe the latest model upgraded from all the lessons learned.
There should be maintenance info ( including pin lubrication recommendations ) in somebody's O&M manual.

The motor OEM is Electric Products - long ago out of business (*). The manual includes a drawing that shows the ratchet, but there are no specific instructions related to it (most of the instructions are more generic).

* Edit I see now the motor has multiple nameplates including EP and Continental. Some of the documentation comes from EP who we bought the motor from and some from Continental (I think Continental subcontracted to EP). Electric Products is out of business but Continental is still in the motor business in New Jersey. I'll try reaching out to them.

Tmoose said:
As other said "Rebuilding" the busted one with drilled holes just ain't right.

I agree the design seems dodgy, and the failure shortly (3 years) after repair casts a lot of suspicion on that last repair. What is it specifically you don't like about drilling a new set of holes assuming their position is well controlled? (Or are you just pointing out an apparent lack of root cause analysis).


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
I would be careful about oversizing the holes compared to pin diameter to minimize pin cocking within hole. I would chamfer/round the hole and pin edges to minimize friction and improve engagement. I would not use a dry lubricant, but instead consider a good synthetic grease. I have used this product on shaft couplings.

Did any the pins or hole surfaces show any signs of fretting or chatter that may be caused by torsional vibrations? Did the pin or hole surfaces show any signs of EDM from stray current that could increase sliding friction?

Walt
 
mfgenggear said:
rounded spherical heads on the pins would also help

I've been wondering about what role the radius at the corner of the pin plays. Large radius (or spherical head) reduces contact area. But is that a good thing? I'm not sure (friction force depends on normal force and coefficient but not contact area in an idealized scenario). Unless there is an obvious answer it seems like we should stick with OEM design.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
> I would be careful about oversizing the holes compared to pin diameter to minimize pin cocking within hole.

Pin diameter is something like 1", and it currently has 0.005" per side and they're going to 0.020" per side. The length of engagement of pint within the hole I don't know yet but I think it's at least 0.5" at its minimum when dropped. It's hard to visualize cocking in this scenario. On the other hand it's also very hard to visualize the scenario that resulted in the pin getting "stuck" during this failure. The increased clearance can also result in a slightly larger tilt of the pin which may have implications for the sliding behavior of the bottom of the pin on the ramp (and also more uneven sliding velocity as it goes up the ramp if pin is rocking within hole during that period). I don't have experience with selecting this type of clearance but I'm inclined to go with my repair shop recommendation on this unless there is compelling information not to.

> I would chamfer/round the hole and pin edges to minimize friction and improve engagement.

Discussed pin above. Hole edge radius is a similar consideration.

> I would not use a dry lubricant, but instead consider a good synthetic grease.

I don't think this is a good application for grease at all. When it's time for the pins to drop, there's not a lot of force pushing them down, just gravity. It is very easy for me to imagine a grease-filled clearance just keeping the pin up in the hole. If it happens to all 6, I don't want to be standing nearby.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
"I don't think this is a good application for grease at all. When it's time for the pins to drop, there's not a lot of force pushing them down, just gravity. It is very easy for me to imagine a grease-filled clearance just keeping the pin up in the hole. If it happens to all 6, I don't want to be standing nearby."

I am thinking of a grease surface coating and not filling with a lot of grease. The Thixogrease product has a very soft consistency (like hand cream) that stays on surface well, and it appears to act like a EP-rated coupling grease without breakdown/separation over time or with spinning/centrifuge.

Walt
 
electricpete said:
On the other hand it's also very hard to visualize the scenario that resulted in the pin getting "stuck" during this failure

Maybe pin getting stuck in the hole when dropping down under gravity is more likely failure then pin getting stuck in the hole as the ramp pushed it up.

So a new proposed scenario: during last stop the pin didn't drop fully down (maybe it got stuck 1/2" off the bottom), then when the motor was started the pin got a running start and slammed into the side of that ramp, which created different dynamics unfavorable to pin sliding up into hole.

strong said:
I am thinking of a grease surface coating and not filling with a lot of grease. The Thixogrease product has a very soft consistency (like hand cream) that stays on surface well, and it appears to act like a EP-rated coupling grease without breakdown/separation over time or with spinning/centrifuge.
Maybe that's something we'll consider if we ever decide to add springs above the pins to help force them down as someone else suggested.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
electricpete:

this and its twin pump run in parallel, separate pipe or common pipeline/s? why I'm asking if separate - can the pump be allowed to run backwards until stationary, is the hold-back necessary?.
Any damage ever reported on the second pump hold-back?
Forget spring loaded pins - useless.
Possibly this failure was just back luck - has the failed pin been analysed for failure mode, possible fatigue over many years of use?

just for interest who was the pump manufacturer?

Your tag 2B + 2B suits the problem very well --- "To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache ...."

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)
 
If this unit has isolation valves could it not be started and stopped with the isolation valve shut? That should eliminate the wear on the anti-rotation device.
 
Pete, are the holes for the pins at an angle (not plumb with shaft) to allow centrifugal force to keep the pin up when rotor is spinning? All pins would have to drop about the same time when rotor speed is near zero to minimize damage. It is not obvious that springs are good, if they do not allow pins to stay above the stationary ramps when rotor is in normal operation.

Walt
 
electripete said:
Maybe that's something we'll consider if we ever decide to add springs above the pins to help force them down as someone else suggested.
There are two problems with your existing design:
1. The pin weight (and spring force if you add them) will introduce a permanent rubbing action which will generate heat as well as wear during normal operation. The significant wear marks on the ratchet plate is testimony to this. With this you will lose a significant amount of energy and generated heat is another headache.
2. Without springs you have no control over speed of engagement in presence of friction. So at instant of engagement only a part of the pins may engage and so increasing the instantaneous compressive force on vertical ratchet teeth. The damage marks on vertical surface of ratchet teeth are most probably due to this.

I think the best option will be to use a synchro clutch which engages based on speed. Here, figuratively speaking, the spring assisted pins will be in radial direction which will be clear of rotating parts at normal speeds due to centrifugal force. After a trip when rotor slows down sufficiently, the pins with assistance from springs will engage with the stationary ratchet wheel to prevent reverse rotation. Given large motors (4000 hp), the savings due to increased mechanical efficiency may pay for the additional cost of such a clutch. You should check on this.



Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !
 
Pete;
Little late to the party here. (Rarely check this mechanical board for electric motor related topics.)
A lot of wordsmith-ing to read in this thread which I have not scrolled entirely... but here's an observation tossed on the pile with the rest of the theories.

The blueing on the ratchet plate indicates... -"tells me"- someone was trying to solve a problem with this assembly long before it failed.
The purpose of the blueing (or light dusting of paint in some instances) is a tactic a mechanic uses to understand what's rubbing or causing an issue.

By noting the photo from the first failure, you'll see the ratchet plate is in its original factory [insulator red] color with no blueing applied.

This observation does not cure the problem.... "but" it does indicate that whatever symptom originally existed during the first repair,
was likely never adequately solved. The blueing was applied to understand an issue at the time of re-assembly.

Motor is assembled on the shop floor. There's an issue... it has to be dismantled to investigate. Blueing is applied in a search for evidence.

And here's another wild theory: Have any of the parts for the mechanism been accidentally magnetized?
An anti rotation device using balls would not so much be effected... but maybe an assembly using cylindrical parts could be problematic if they
became magnetized.

John

 
Holes are to small .015 to .02 clearance, no lubrication required.

A tight fit on pins / hardened dowels will not allow the movement that you need for the ratchet to work properly.

opinion:

As for the extra holes, I would keep them.

no springs, gravity does the work.

re examine the pin size.

 
Did anyone stop and consider it might be an anti-reverse device that uses steel balls instead of pins?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor