Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-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
0
0
US
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

"Did anyone stop and consider it might be an anti-reverse device that uses steel balls instead of pins?"

The OP photos show Pins. That is why it is not working very well; it has no Balls!

Walt
 
Artisi said:
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?
Common pipeline. I don't know much about the system or the sequence that they operate pumps.
Artisi said:
Forget spring loaded pins - useless.
I agree. I only brought that up in the context of looking for a situation when grease would make sense, but the springs wouldn't make sense.
Artisi said:
Possibly this failure was just back luck - has the failed pin been analysed for failure mode, possible fatigue over many years of use?
The pin will be saved. I'll post a closer photo if I get one.
Artisi said:
just for interest who was the pump manufacturer?
Allis Chalmers
TugBoatEng said:
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.
They have discharge motor-operated butterfly valves. I don't know the full logic for the design, but I'm thinking about the scenario of loss of power... the pumps stop, the valves stay in their open position, you won't want all that water rushing backwards from the reservoir and reverse overspeeding the pumps and draining the reservoir.
Walt said:
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.
Holes are pure vertical. Ratchet ramp lifts them during start, centrifugal force and friction pin them to the side of the hole. I agree, no springs, see previous comments.
goutam said:
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.
1 - I agree there is potential contact but not much. I don't see it as a problem unless it roughens the bottom of the pin (which is an important sliding surface during start... and if rough can damage the ramp). I'll take a close look at the bottom of those pins if I get a chance.
2. I agree, the pins fall when the time comes, they may not be all the way down by the time they contact that vertical wall and there is evidence of that.

clutch seems like a more complicated modification than I'm interested in at the moment.
John D said:
Little late to the party here. (Rarely check this mechanical board for electric motor related topics.)...

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.
Better late than never! I agree the blueing is a clue to what they were looking at. I'll check if the failed pin shows any evidence of being magnetized... I kind of doubt I'll see any but that could certainly stop or slow it from falling.
JS said:
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.
Thanks. I'm curious if you have a reference or thought process leading to the pin clearance recommendation. 0.015 to 0.020 per side is exactly what our shop came up with, but I couldn't pin them down on the basis.
No springs - I agree.
The benefit of increasing the pin size is just for the increased strength from increased cross section?
goutam said:
The current anti-rotation device is on the shaft above the upper bearing. Your linked device would have to be at the coupling location (replacement for a coupling). It might be good for a new machine from the ground up but I don't think for a backfit here. That is already somewhat congested and an area we need to access for things like alignment. And I'm not really interested in any big changes if I can avoid it. If I find suitable replacement a/r device for the top I'd be more likely to go that way... at some point in the future (the repairs for this particular motor are already well on their way).
JS said:
Did anyone stop and consider it might be an anti-reverse device that uses steel balls instead of pins?
You lost me on that. There are no balls in our device.

I'd like to thank everyone for the responses so far. I threw a bunch of info out there and I know it was tough to read. Your responses gave me a lot to think about.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
I actually think pin weight is to your advantage here. Once the motor starts and is spinning the pins slide up on the ramps and into the hole and the centrifugal force holds sideways against it's housing and keeps it from dragging with any significant force on the ratchet plate. However a heavier pin once stopped will have more force available to overcome friction and drop into place. I would consider making the pins as long as possible to give them as much weight as possible to encourage them to drop.
 
The weight of each pin should be the same within a fraction of a gram to minimize rotor unbalance, and to allow the same gravity force to drop all pins at nearly the same time or rotor position. If the pins extend into a blind hole, then the hole should be vented and kept clean. Any suction pressure created by the dropping pin would slow it down.

I would have a new top plate made instead of drilling holes in the old one. It looks to have a lot of distress. There should be a specified gap or clearance between rotating plate and stationary backstop. If motor provides thrust bearing for pump, then be aware of up and down thrust and rotor vertical movement. The the rotating plate has through holes, then what is the condition of the plate above it? Does it have small holes for venting air from the pin-hole cavity?

Walt
 
electripete said:
1 - I agree there is potential contact but not much. I don't see it as a problem unless it roughens the bottom of the pin
But the deep near circular wear marks on ratchet wheel give rise to the suspicion that indeed pins make contact with wheel teeth during normal running.
Actually what might happen is that friction will try to hold back the pins but due to pump vibration the pins will tend to slide back to lowest position. Push from the ratchet teeth will push them to the top again and again it will tend to slide back.
If you have some space and flexibility you can think of attaching 3 balls with springs and connected to the pins through pivots(via a circular ring) which will lift the pins at certain speed and drop the pins to low position at low speed by spring and gravity action. The principle is similar to mechanical governors in steam turbines.
Excuse me if I am asking you too much as I do not have the full information.




Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !
 
The pins likely do drop as speed drops. They ride up and down on the ramps until the reversal. That's why you see the wear on top of the ratchet mechanism. This should be quite audible as it happens. It's only for a short time so it shouldn't cause significant wear.
 
Electricpete :
Have forwarded an email to what I believe is your address.
Regards

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.)
 
I have not been following this discussion very closely, but it seems that the fundamental problem has not been identified correctly.

One pin has been sheared, causing significant damage. The only way for that to happen is that all the pins were stuck, and the pump reversed and built some speed. Then one pin dropped and was sheared. There is only the weight of the pin causing it to drop when the motor stops. When the motor runs, the pin is under significant centrifugal load pressing it to the side of the hole it is in, and friction force will be much higher than pin weight. So the pins are sitting motionless in their holes while the motor runs, allowing the pins to get slightly stuck by rust.

Only one pin has to drop for the anti-reversal to work. Even when all pins drop as expected, only one pin would be carrying all the load, due to fabrication tolerances.
 
goutam said:
But the deep near circular wear marks on ratchet wheel give rise to the suspicion that indeed pins make contact with wheel teeth during normal running.
Actually what might happen is that friction will try to hold back the pins but due to pump vibration the pins will tend to slide back to lowest position. Push from the ratchet teeth will push them to the top again and again it will tend to slide back
I tend to agree. If the marks were occuring during stopping I'd expect to see a more uneven pattern from pins dropping somewhere in the middle of the flat part.. with heavier damage toward the ramp end of the flat part. On the other hand I'm not really worried about efficiency and I don't see it as a reliability problem unless it damages the bottom of the pins (I do plan to look at those).
artisi said:
Have forwarded an email to what I believe is your address.
Got it, thanks! Those were some thoughts from an oem rep... I have to go back and read those again.
CompositePro said:
One pin has been sheared, causing significant damage. The only way for that to happen is that all the pins were stuck, and the pump reversed and built some speed. Then one pin dropped and was sheared
I have an open mind that we are completely missing something in our theory of the crime (I said before I'm not sure we correctly identified the causes and contributors). But that particular scenario seems unlikely since it requires 5 pins sticking and more importantly it doesn't explain the damage on the ramp. I requested some vertical measurements from the shop (questions 7/8/9 of op) which I hope will help clarify the position of the pin on the ramp at the time of failure... I'll post them when I get them.


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
There is a lot to read in this post, but from 38 years experience in industrial situations, this type of problem happens when there is no discharge check valve installed or it is leaking back through the check valve and you have been fortunate the shaft has not broken or the impeller has not become loose and is sometimes locking up inside the volute.

I have had to repair a few pumps in the past with reversing motors from leaking check valves and loosen impellers.

Good luck
 
As @mech-engr-experience has indicated a properly designed discharge valve should be provided. Usually for higher sized pumps a controlled closing butterfly valve is provided with closing time calculated from water hammer analysis.
The reverse rotation ratchet is provided as last line of defense. It should not experience too much impulsive force which may damage the mechanism. The impulse force is softened by discharge valve.
To ensure electric supply to the discharge valve in case of black-out you can provide emergency supply to the valves. We also normally provide reverse rotation detection switches to prevent restarting the pump under reverse rotation.
Also since the impact was severe you need to check integrity and alignment of all the bearings and the impeller.

Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !
 
There is most definitely not a discharge check valve installed. I should have put that into the op.

I work in a power plant. 95% of our systems have discharge check valve for parallel pumps. The ones that don't are all have motor anti-rotation device (which is my excuse for not including it in op... from my narrow perspective it was obvious, but I now realize not so obvious for others and for all I know there are applications that might include both check valve and non-reverse-rotation device). These applications at our plant that don't include check valves tend to be in very large piping systems (power plant circ water, main coolant, and reservoir makeup which is the application of the 700hp motor I'm posting about here). I assume either large check valves might cause problems with water hammer or else they are too expensive. It is the design we've had for 30 years of operation with relatively few problems. It's certainly beyond my interest to add check valves.

I'm more familiar with our power plant circulating water system (a critical system) than our reservoir makeup system (not as critical). For the power plant circulatign water system we have some complicated interlock logic between the pump motors and the discharge valves that helps prevent challenging the reverse rotation ratchet (for example when the pump handswitch is taken to off, it does not immediately stop the pump but instead begins closing the valve, and then when the valve is near closed a valve limit switch completes the logic to stop the pump motor... so when the the motor stops the fluid system doesn't create as much torque to accelerate it in the reverse direction because the valve is almost closed). We haven't had any problems on those anti-reverse rotation ratchets although those are not a sliding pin type, those are a pivoted arm type. As I said I'm not as familiar with the reservoir makeup application which is subject of this thread, but if I get a chance I'll review to see if it has similar logic circuits which close the valve most of the way before stopping the pump.

At any rate looking at the photos it looks like we may have had some severe forceful engagements of the anti-rotation device in the older days before the previous repair where the round pin shape was visible as an indentation in the vertical wall of the stationary ratchet plate ... I don't see that same evidence in the vertical wall of the stationary ratchet plate after the recent failure. At this point I'm more inclined to view this as a malfunction of the anti-reverse-rotation device rather than a consequence of excess force (still waiting those vertical measurements).

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
The damage to the ramp side of the teeth would have occurred when the motor was restarted after the one pin was sheared. The broken pin piece could have taken seconds or minutes to get jammed and cause the damage. It also appears that the "previously damaged" plate had radius faces machined into the teeth.
 
Electricpete :

what is the material and hardness of the ratchet? so with repeated cycles the pin was gouging the ratchet. thus it jammed. maybe carburized surface would prevent wear from repeated cycles.
also I said a spherical end on the pins would prevent gouging into the ratchet. but maybe a chamfer to match the angle of the ramp up on the ratchet. simple fix.
because once the pin dug into the ramp it prevent the pin from pushing up in to the hole. this actually happen when the motor started. dug into the ramp and failed.
 
Hi Pete
Would be interested in knowing what the final fix entailed.
Hopefully it's years into the future before you can report back that it could have a problem 😉

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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top