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

M
ethanex (www.methanex.com) is the world’s 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 GE’s 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
Plants 1, 2 and 3 also use GE’s condition monitoring
trains, and Bently Nevada 1900/55 with Trendmaster*
products, with all critical machine trains connected
Pro for a combined total of 44 cooling towers and fin
to Bently Nevada machinery protection systems and
fans (Table 1). The entire system is integrated, providing
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, Methanex’s new Plant 4 was in the
process of starting up. The Main Air Compressor/Booster
Air Compressor (MAC/BAC) is critical to the process and
consists of a steam turbine driving the two centrifugal
compressors (Figures 1 and 2).
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.
The steam turbine was initially run solo 11 days prior
to the first coupled run without problems. During the
first coupled run, the machine reached the minimum
governor speed of 4950 rpm and ran smoothly for
several minutes. Then, an abrupt change in vibration
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.

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

 CASE HISTORY

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

Analysis of the data collected during the coastdown
showed symptoms of vertical preload, with potential
of a rub on the orbit as noted by the flat spot (Figure 3).
This was markedly different in amplitude and shape
than baseline data collected for the machine.
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
the shaft centerline exhibits normal behavior during
the uncoupled run, rising up in the bearing clearance as
it assumes its characteristic attitude angle at full speed,
and then largely retracing that path as the machine
coasts down. However, during the coupled run
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 path—again
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) μm.

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

 CASE HISTORY

This additional driven equipment required more turbine

Figure 5 – Bottom half of balance piston area
steam flow, with a subsequent reduction in first stage
showing evidence of severe rub.
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 As a result of the data provided by System 1, the
a rub at the inlet end of the turbine rotor.
plant was able to rapidly make the right decision
Additionally, following the trip event, the turning gear
regarding an inspection of the machine, knowing
system was not able to move the rotor, and abnormally
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
significant damage or catastrophic failure, and the
the turbine to evaluate the expected internal damage.
The inspection confirmed a severe rub located in the root cause of improper heat soaking would prob-
turbine balance piston (Figure 5), which required both
ably not have been identified, resulting in a repeat
the rotor and casing to be refurbished.
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
use of their condition monitoring system.
known. Considering that a rub is often a consequence
of another malfunction, the rotating equipment special-
ist 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
start up; in this case, allowing an improper startup
of the inner turbine case pressure. This pressure only
reached 60% of the manufacturer’s expected value for sequence to be isolated and rectified before more
this startup measurement. This led to examination of
serious and costly machinery damage and process
the startup sequence, and it was discovered that the
turbine startup procedure was never adjusted for the interruptions could occur.
actual configuration of two compressors plus gear box.

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