Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
LeeRay  
#1 Posted : 08 January 2010 08:06:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LeeRay

At work we have a hydraulic system which ran to a certain pressure determined by a relief valve.
This meant that the pump ran at full capacity and the pressure was governed by the adjustable relief valve.

To save money on energy efficiency the electricians have fitted variable speed drives to the motor supply. The have set an operating window so that if the pressure (electronic pressure sensor fitted) went out of the window of operation the system would shut down after 5 seconds. They have removed the mechanical relief system so that the system is totally reliant on the variable speed drive for preventing over pressure.

I know that you can have an electronic system to comply with the requirements for over pressure instead of a mechanical relief but i am trying to explain that to take out a system that is already installed and could act as a secondary safety device is ridiculous.

They (engineering department) have said they have been in touch with the insurance company regarding it and they are happy with the new system but the general feeling on the shopfloor is that the operators/maintainers aren't.

Are they right in what they have done or does the system need a mechanical relief?

Usually operating pressure is between 900-1200psi, window is set at 750-1300psi. Rigid pipework on machine but a lot of flexible pipe is used in the system also.

Your thoughts and opinions please.
bob youel  
#2 Posted : 08 January 2010 09:04:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel



Speak to the engineers yourself; if you are officialy able [ Competent and hold a specific role] to do so; to get the full picture noting their risk assessments and supporting docs inclusive of suppliers operating and maintenance guides / manuals plus the insurers comments that prove that the new system is at least as safe as the old one noting that new systems should be better than old systems as against being the same but newer!

Perhaps its just a training and sales issue towards the day to day staff as, after all, the engineers are engineers so they should know what they are doing but if there are still concerns move up the management chain
LeeRay  
#3 Posted : 08 January 2010 09:36:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LeeRay

Thanks for the reply bob, i am myself an engineer who works on these machines and i would like to see the mechanical devices left in place as they can be easily removed and checked for operation, the same cannot be said for the variable speed drives unless you force a fault condition on the system.

What i have seen happen is that if i raise a point like this whilst conducting my H&S duties, they usually cannot give me a decent enough explanation. After a period of time of me chasing them for the reasons behind the change/modification they circumvent me and exclude me from discussions with higher management.

I wanted to make sure i had a valid point with my persuance of the relief valves before i went higher.

They see it as me being pedantic rather than being thorough, ensuring we comply with legislative requirements.

Looks like i'll continue to bang my head against a wall for now, until something goes wrong!
paul.skyrme  
#4 Posted : 08 January 2010 22:19:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

LeeRay,
You have several issues here I believe.
I am a Professional Engineer myself, and have worked on design, applications and systems engineering, installation, commissioning and field service on both hydraulic systems and variable speed drive systems for a manufacturer of these both of these types of devices.
From the hydraulic standpoint you need to look at the pump, it may be found that running the pump at a non design speed will reduce the pump life, remember that these units may have been designed to generate internal leakage for self lubrication.

Also there is also the safety aspect minor point I know ;-)).

You should check the Pressure Equipment Directive & Machinery Directive. Has the original design function of the system been significantly changed? IF so the machine must now be CE marked with all that goes with it, thus it MUST comply with the EHSR of the relevant new approach directives.
Don’t have the PED or guidance there on to hand, but IIRC, is it not compulsory to have a full flow relief valve as a last resort safety measure? It certainly is on compressed air.
I think your concern over the flexible hoses is un founded, sorry. Many will have design pressures equal if not above that of the rigid Pipework.

The control system of the pump offering the feedback would possibly now be a safety related part of the control system, check that out and then you may go cold!
Nothing to do with the weather by the way that is cold enough!

EN954 has had a reprieve in that it is still harmonised to the new MD, but, there is a lot of stuff that MUST be considered here, possible dual channel redundancy, safety bus communications, safety plc, and it goes on and on…

IMHO in simple terms, the relief should stay but be set at a point that will allow the pump to function on the VSD in normal operation, but act as a backup device. Your insurance co. may be happy at the mo, but if it all goes Pete Tong and HSE get involved, have you got this in writing! Are the ins. Co. competent to advise you in this matter, I doubt it…
A better solution may have been a change to a variable displacement pump if it spends that much time off load? Also that would result in no fundamental change to the design of the system, thus no possibility of “CE” becoming involved.

You may also want to check PUWER98 Reg. 12 & ACoP L22 wrt this because this is what HSE will “get you on”. Also HSE do recommend using current harmonised standards for compliance with PUWER98. It may be necessary to check the SIL/PL of the control system & its components to ensure that they are suitable to operate in the desired application.

Disclaimer:
You are on the web as in the Hazardous Industries group. I don’t do Haz Ind stuff! I am involved with more general industrial equipment, machinery and systems, so I may be off the mark, as I don’t have a good enough understanding of the actual application here.

If you explain a little more than I can try to help a little more.
PM if you wish to discuss this outside the open forum.

HTH
Paul.
David H  
#5 Posted : 09 January 2010 18:08:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

Nice one Paul - good to know we have this level of expertise to listen to.

My advise was going to be similar - speak to the supplier and ask them their opinion.
Do the PUWER assesment and get it recorded now - do not delay.
My personal opinion would be to leave the relief valve in place but set to activate on the extremity of the variable speed motor in case of failure.

David
paul.skyrme  
#6 Posted : 09 January 2010 19:01:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Just to add an echo, o,o,o,o...
I would wholly endorse the second paragraph of David H's response at #5.
Paul.
LeeRay  
#7 Posted : 09 January 2010 20:01:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LeeRay

Thanks for the reply guy's. Totally valid point especially regarding the running and possibly shortening of the life of the pump, although the pumps are running in the window of range that they were before,just a little bit slower. It was over pressure protection i was mainly concerned about. The pumps are never off load as such, they constantly run 24/7 as do the machines. For adjustablility they were controlled with a mechanical relief but the new control is electronic.

The hydraulic system is part of a power press and supplies oil to bearings and creates a hydrodynamic wedge for plain bearings in the machine as it runs at 270 strokes per min.
I have consulted with EN 982 which covers hydraulic systems as PUWER doesn't specify types etc of safety protection equipment on hydraulic systems and refers to EN stds for specifics.

The std says that the prefered method of protection is from one or more mechanical reliefs in the system but that you can use an electronic device that monitors and regulates the system pressure.
Basically according to the std we are compliant with EN 982, but i really do want the relief valves left in as i think they are the best (and the prefered) protection for the system. Everything is in place they just need adjusting to the VSD cut off limit.

They just want to remove them - why, i really don't know, i think they see them as being the weak point in the system which would allow oil to return to tank before reaching pressure. A total misunderstanding of how the system works IMO.
I will definately mention to the upper management regarding the insurance advice as i think they may not want to supply us with this.
I just want them to see common sense and leave the relief valves in as a secondary measure.
paul.skyrme  
#8 Posted : 09 January 2010 21:07:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

LeeRay,

First, I don’t know your background, the exact application, or the status of your colleagues. The following is merely suggested to assist you in forming your own ideas to ensure the best situation so please don’t take offence to any of my comments.

My reference to internal leakage being generated for lubrication is directly related to pump speed, which is why I made it! Believe it or not hydraulic pumps are more often than not hydro-dynamically lubricated, if the speed is too slow there is insufficient leakage for the internal lubrication to function correctly, or the other possibility is that the speed is insufficient for the correct hydrodynamic film to form, and this seriously increases internal wear rates! To lubricate them hydrostatically would require TOO much leakage and thus lost “power”.

At a nominal 1kpsi it is doubtful you are looking at hydrodynamic bearings, as these are almost always at low pressure, a few bars at most, you almost certainly have hydrostatic bearings.
A hydrodynamic bearing builds up its own fluid wedge by surfing the low pressure supplied oil, I have never seen one yet running at this sort of pressure in 20+ years of machine tools. Remember it is the hydrodynamic principle that lubricates anti-friction bearings, car crankshafts etc. Does your car oil pressure run at 1kpsi? I don’t think so, the oil filter canister would surely burst, and how could you generate this without the engine running on a normal car!  As an analogy, hydrodynamic bearings are surfers, hydrostatic bearings are hovercraft.
Power press at 240spm... Hmmm... Pressure failure could be a problem, as obviously over pressure. Very short stroke then? Also this is infrasound and can have very curious human responses!
I suspect that if as you state the pumps are on full load at all times then there is no benefit in having a VSD as the relief will never be open for any length of time in normal operation.
If the system is designed to pump against an open relief then this is by design, to ensure constant bearing pressure.
Do the vendor of the VSD actually understand the hydraulic system to which they have recommended this device, or are your engineers doing this off their own backs? IF the former then I suspect they don’t, well most don’t in my experience.

Hydrostatic bearings rely on constant pressure, the orbit (& I MEAN ORBIT) of the shaft is self regulating due to the throttling action of the bearing jets and the opposing forces generated by the fluid system.
Is the electronic system quick enough to respond to changes in fluid pressure to prevent metal to metal contact in the hydrostatic bearings, as it is very doubtful that the manufacturer will have considered this as a possibility when undertaking their design RA. The purely mechanical system will have been designed to ensure that this situation can not occur. However, response time reductions in the fluid pressure will have a serious impact on the shaft orbit.
Does the system have an accumulator? Is there a pressure switch, if so what is that set at?
EN292 is very well, but there will be other standards to consider. IMHO if you remove the pressure relief from being the control medium, you are changing the fundamental design of the pressure control system, thus the operating principles of the machine, thus the machine will require re-assessment against current EU Directives, the fact that you have done this as the end user and only are using it for yourself is irrelevant. You will become the manufacturer, and the user, thus subject to several bits of legislation. Oh, by the way I agree that PUWER98 guides you to harmonised standards for compliance,  well done on that one, most don’t seem to get it!  

Please remember that you will have fluid pulses in the system from the pump, is it vane, piston etc? Superimposed on this you will have load forces at 4 Hz.
Take a 1480 rpm pump with 7 pistons this will give you a 172 Hz pressure ripple at the bearing, check it, it will be there, unless you have a smoothing system in place, in which case it will be reduced, simple pressure reservoir, or accumulator, between the pump and the bearing, on top of this you will have a superimposed 4 Hz load pressure change, depending on the detail design of the bearing, this could change, position of jets etc. You won’t see this with a pressure gauge, try a “Hydrotecnik” & a good vibration analyser on the same time frame then you’ll see it! Even better add a shaft displacement transducer with them all synchronised, you’ll have a field day!
Superimpose these two pressure fluctuations and assess the response time of your electronic control system against the shaft orbit and the forces required to minimise this and you may find that the shaft support foce goes out of spec?
Yes the bearing pressure will self regulate to a certain extent by the external forces changing the shaft orbit and this in turn changing the reactionary forces on the fluid system, however, response times may still be too slow.
Pressure is an analogue quantity, I have not seen an analogue VSD for over 20 years!
Thus the pressure will have to be A to D’d fed into the control loop around the control loop and out to the motor, the mechanical inertia will have to be overcome for the motor to slow, can the VSD respond quickly enough and is it capable of braking the motor? When the pressure increases, and the converse is required on the pressure reduction can the VSD open up quickly enough? This can be slow, I’m sorry to say, slower than a pressure relief can operate, thus…
The pressure relief can act much faster then the full control/PID loop in the VSD controller system!
Remember the PR is subject to exactly the same pressure fluctuations as the bearings, source and load and at fundamentally the same time frame, there is not any A/D, D/A conversions in place. The fluid column has the same response wherever it is, OK there is possibility a difference in pipework length creating time delays or damping, but this should have been considered at the design stage to build in the correct delay/damping factor to minimise the orbit and pressure fluctuations.

Got to stop now, this is getting TOO heavy for a Sat night after a beer!
IMHO you really need to have a second very careful think about what is going on here.
This may not be quite as simple as saving a few quid on electricity by fitting a VSD to reduce motor energy consumption!!!
Paul
paul.skyrme  
#9 Posted : 09 January 2010 21:08:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Smileys did not come out!
Risk of composing in Word to get a spill chucker I suppose!
For square all please read smiley!
Paul
paul.skyrme  
#10 Posted : 09 January 2010 21:10:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

BTW also got 982 & 292 mixed up!
Oh for a short term edit. (See other posts!)
See I said above that I should not be posting!
:-)))

Paul
David H  
#11 Posted : 09 January 2010 21:22:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

Again a brilliant amount of information from Paul.

I still suggest speak to the supplier - and PUWER will be the Reg you are measured against if it goes wrong as well as the pressure directive.
If the supplying company follow your changes, get it in writing.

But whats wrong with leaving the mechancal relief in, if it is outwith the parameter of the electric system but still a fail safe?
LeeRay  
#12 Posted : 10 January 2010 02:27:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LeeRay

David, your last paragraph is what i have been asking all along!

Paul, yes a heck of a lot of information that i have read and taken on board. I will bring this up with them.
The pump is actually a gear pump and we have a seperate low pressure filtration system with a seprate pump that filters the oil used.
The oil is supplied to various parts of the machine and to various manifolds that have lee jets of sizes .022" and .026". The oil is not just for bearings but also for a yoke which slides on ways to push the ram through a tool pack so yes it is hydrostatic not dynamic, my brain must not have been on focus at the time.
Not defending them in any way but the vsd has not changed the performance or function of the machine therefore we do not (IMO) need to re-classify or CE the machine as it is an integral part of the machine and not a machine on its own. I can see how this can be open to interpretation but the vsd has not changed the actual function of the machine at all.

Once again thanks for the advice. I shall present a case to them.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.