University of Technology PETRONAS

Failure analysis study on failed fin fan shaft assembly

from Air Cooled Heat Exchangers unit
(A case study from Egyptian LNG plant)
Omar Eid Khorshed
Mechanical Engineering Program, University Teknologi PETRONAS
Abstract— This case study is focused in understanding the cause of the repetitive failures happening to machined shafts
in the Air Cooled Heat Exchangers units in Egyptian LNG plant. The study was focused on the latest occurred case which
was on 30th of September 2012. It involves various aspects to understand the reasons of failure, including fracture face
analysis, loads, stress and torque analysis, failure analysis using Distortion Energy Theory for ductile material failure
and extensive maintenance history investigation. The study showed that the repetitive failures are due to faulty machining
and maintenance activities carried on the failed shafts and returning them back into operation. Taking all the discovered
reasons from the extensive analysis, a list of recommendations were put to prevent such problems from occurring again.

Index Terms— Shaft, Fatigue, Distortion Energy Theory, Relief groove, Stress concentration

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION 2 SHAFT MODEL & HISTORY

This shaft has been machined 2 years ago after an upper

A shaft is a rotating member, usually of circular cross-

sectional area used to transmit power. It’s supported
bearing failure. Upon the bearing failure, the shaft had
been sent to workshop to get fixed. To fix, the area of the
by bearings and support gears, sprockets, fly wheels and failed bearing went through welding and lathe
rotors. It is subjected to torsion, traverse or axial loads, operations to return the shaft to its original shape and
dimensions. A new bearing assembly was then
acting in single or in combination. Generally shafts are not
assembled to the new machined area. Machined and
of uniform diameter but are stepped to provide shoulders fixed shaft was then returned into operation.
for locating gears, pulleys and bearings. The stress on the
shaft at a particular point varies with rotation of shaft there As shown in figure 1, the failure of the shaft happened
by introducing fatigue. Shaft and bearing failures have right above the upper bearing assembly of the shaft
been a repetitive and a well expected problem with
rotating equipment machinery in most of the Oil and Gas
plants & facilities equipment. On 30th of September 2012,
a vertical cooler fan shaft (2E – 3201B) had been broken at
the upper part just above the bearing assembly. This failure
was preceded with an exact similar shaft failure but at the
lower bearing of the fan assembly. Accompanying these
reported shaft failures, a long history of bearing failures for
the fans. Egyptian LNG has been facing repetitive failures
and reported problems from cooling fans used in the
plant’s refrigeration cycles. This repetitive failures cost the
plants massive amount of money in maintenance and
renewal, as well as downtime for process production Figure 1. Illustration of place of fracture
losing the plant a good amount of revenue and bigger
profit margins. A free body diagram resembling the shaft and its
features is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2. Free body diagram of shaft, bearing & sprockets
assembly
3 FAILED AREA INSPECTION
3.1 Fracture position:
Upon inspecting the failed shaft area shown in figure, we
found that the fracture is located exactly above the upper
bearing assembly.
Moreover, the fracture is exactly at the shoulder fillet
between the bearing assembly seat and the upper shaft
part.
brittle failure happened, from the shape of the IZ we can
understand the following:
 The IZ is oval shaped with a part extending
towards the circumference of the shaft.
 The centered IZ shows that the fracture is
caused by torsional fatigue. However, the
extended part of the IZ shows that bending
stress was also included.
 From the size of the IZ, we can understand that
the stress causing the failure was relatively low.
Crack Origins:
 Crack origins have started from the
circumference of the shaft, and then the crack
propagated towards the middle.
 The IZ part that extended towards the edge of
the circumference shows that no cracks
originated from this area.
Friction marks:
 There are rough friction marks along the
direction of rotation of the shaft, showcasing
that the shaft kept on rotating even after the
failure by some time. Causing the two fractured
faces to keep contact and hence the friction
marks occurred.

4 FAILURE ANALYSIS
4.1 Force analysis:

Figure 3. Shaft failed area

FR2 FB
3.2 Fracture face analysis:
Studying the fracture face provides us with leads and
clues to narrow down our study and be able to identify
the root cause of the failure. Figure shows the fracture
face of the shaft.
FR1
Crack
Friction Origins
Figure 5. Static radial forces on shaft
marks
FB: Bending force resulting from belt tension.
FR1: Reaction force from lower bearing assembly.
FR2: Reaction force from upper bearing assembly.
Instantaneous From belts, sprockets and motor assembly:
Zone

Figure 4. Fracture face analysis

Analyzing the fracture face we can find the following:

Instantaneous Zone:
IZ is the roughest part of the fracture face, and it is the Figure 6. Center distance calculation method
last part of the face that the crack reached and where
Center distance between the two sprockets:
 𝐾+√𝐾 2 −32(𝐷−𝑑)2 R is the radius of the shaft (mm)
𝐶= , 𝐾 = 4𝑙𝑝 (1)
16
n is the rotational speed of the shaft (rpm)
Pitch Length (lp) = 154.33 in, 𝑲 = 𝟔𝟏𝟕. 𝟑𝟐 , Sub in (1)
G for drive shafts = G16 = 16 mm/s
𝐶 = 75.34 𝑖𝑛 = 1.9136 𝑚
R = 39mm
n = 226.5 rpm
Belt tensions: P = 𝜌 × 𝑣 = 𝜌 × (𝜋𝑟 2 × ℎ) = 81.718 𝐾𝑔 ≈ 100 𝐾𝑔
10×𝐺 10×16
Sub in (4) 𝑒𝑡 = 𝑛 = 226.5 = 706.4 μm
( ) ( )
1000 1000
𝑒𝑡 × P
𝒑= = 𝟏. 𝟖𝟏𝟏 𝑲𝒈
𝑅
𝑭 = 𝑈𝑏 × 𝜔2 = 𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟕 𝑵
Force acts along the whole of the shaft dimension.

Figure 7. Belt tensions diagram

Torque transmission:
(144,067)𝐷𝐻𝑃 (18,008)𝐷𝐻𝑃 We can calculate the amount of torque transmitted to the
𝑇𝑇 = (2), 𝑇𝑆 = (3)
(𝑃𝐷)(𝑅𝑃𝑀) (𝑃𝐷)(𝑅𝑃𝑀) shaft from tracing the amount of torque generated by the
Where: DHP = Horsepower x Service Factor (hp) turning force from the motor.
PD = Sprocket Pitch Diameter (in) = 6.141 in Turning force = 3620.941 𝑁
RPM = Sprocket Speed (rev/min) = 145 rpm Shaft sprocket pitch diameter = 39.300 in = 0.99 m ≈ 1 m
Service Factor for 50 hp motor = 1.15 𝑻 = 𝐹 × 𝑟 = 𝟏𝟖𝟏𝟎. 𝟓 𝑵𝒎
HP = 49.6, DHP = 49.6 x 1.15 = 57.5 … Sub in (2) , (3)
𝑇𝑇 = 𝟒𝟏𝟑𝟖. 𝟏𝟖 𝑵 4.2 Stress analysis:
𝑇𝑆 = 𝟓𝟏𝟕. 𝟐𝟑𝟗 𝑵
𝐷−𝑑
𝐹𝐵 = (𝑇𝑇 + 𝑇𝑆 ) × = 𝟐𝟎𝟒𝟗 𝑵
𝐶
Turning force(Causing torque) = 𝑇𝑇 − 𝑇𝑆
= 4138.18 − 517.239 = 𝟑𝟔𝟐𝟎. 𝟗𝟒𝟏 𝑵
In Shaft assembly:

FR2 Unbalance Forces

FB

Shear – V Diagram
Unbalance Forces No shear force at failed
FR1 area

Figure 8. Radial loads on shaft

Using sum of moments around a point is zero equation

𝚺𝑴𝒄 = 𝟎
𝑭𝑹𝟏 = 𝟐𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟒𝟓 𝑵
Using sum of forces along a static shaft is zero equation Bending Moment – M
Diagram
𝚺𝐅 = 𝟎 No bending moment at
𝑭𝑹𝟐 = 2333.45 − 2049 = 𝟐𝟖𝟒. 𝟒𝟓 𝑵 failed area

Shaft unbalance:
𝑝×𝑅 10×𝐺
Permissible residual unbalance: 𝑒𝑡 = = 𝑛 (4)
𝑃 ( )
1000

Where, G is the balanced grade (mm/s)

P is the weight of the shaft. (Kg) Torque - T Diagram
p is the unbalanced amount (grams) T = 1810.5 Nm

𝒆𝒕 is eccentricity (μm)
Shear stress due to Torsion:
𝑇𝑟 16𝑇
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = (5)
𝐽 𝜋𝑑 3

Where, T is the Torque = 1810.5 Nm

d is shaft diameter = 63.5 mm
16𝑇
Sub in (5): 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙 = = 𝟑𝟔. 𝟎𝟏𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂
𝜋𝑑 3

4.3 Stress concentrations:

Figure 10. FEA typical example

From the figure, we can understand that the stresses

concentrate and multiply around the circumference of
the shaft shoulder. (Stress concentration area).
6 SHAFT FAILURE FISHBONE DIAGRAM

Figure 9. Stress concentration due to torque, Kt

𝐷 𝑟
= 1.1, = 0.0472
𝑑 𝑑
From table, Kt = 1.51

𝝉′𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝐾𝑡 × 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝟓𝟒. 𝟑𝟕𝟖𝟏𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂

4.4 Distortion Energy Theory:

From material properties of Carbon Steel 1090:
𝑺𝒀 = 𝟐𝟓𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂
From Von Misses Effective stress theory in the case of
pure shear stress,
𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟕𝟕𝑺𝒀 = 𝟏𝟒𝟒. 𝟐𝟓 𝑴𝑷𝒂
From the above calculations we can see that the
calculated 𝝉′𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟓𝟒. 𝟑𝟕𝟖𝟏𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂 is within acceptable
region that that of the shear stress causing failure
𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟏𝟒𝟒. 𝟐𝟓 𝑴𝑷𝒂.
5 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
7 CONCLUSION
 Shaft failure was mainly due to torsional fatigue,
the torsional fatigue for ductile materials cause a
cut off fracture face feature.
 This torsional stress is mainly from the torque
originating from the driving motor. This is
further proved by the fracture face analysis.
 Failure analysis showed that design conditions
is correct, therefore, an off design reason caused
the failure.
 Since failure occurred at the exact same area
that’s been machined before, this proves that the
machining and improper
assembly/maintenance was the main cause of
the shaft failure.
  Machined area undergone welding and lathe
operations, causing the area to be affected with
heat treatment and inhomogeneity that differs
from that of the original shaft properties,
causing design conditions to differ at this area.
(Higher stress concentrations, different material
strength properties, etc.)
 The traces of the bending loads on the fracture
face is mainly due to the radial forces generated
by the shaft’s unbalance.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Wireless vibration sensors:
The structure of a cooling tower makes collecting
vibration data on the gearbox difficult and dangerous
without permanently installed sensors. Because the
gearbox is a typical failure point, lack of feedback on the
machine’s health puts you at risk for unexpected failure.
As an example, Emerson offers the service to empower
companies to:
 Achieve optimal health of cooling tower fan
 Prevent catastrophic failure and unplanned
shutdown
 Determine the best time to schedule
maintenance to overhaul the asset
 Shift from reactive and preventive to predictive
maintenance
 Diagnose the root cause of degradation and
reoccurring problems
 Safely monitor inaccessible cooling tower fans to
keep people out of hazardous areas
 Receive advanced notification of a developing
problems, such as rolling element bearing
defects, imbalance, and misalignment
8.2 Anti Rotation Lock:
Anti-rotation devices like the Gates Draftguard unit
provide an economical solution to the two major
problems created by wind milling ACHE fans. From a
safety standpoint, they secure fan drives and prevent
them from rotating freely when not receiving power,
allowing maintenance technician’s access to the fan cage
without risk of injury. Secondly, they prevent hard starts
by allowing fan drives to power up from a neutral,
standstill position, minimizing damage to drive
components caused by shock loading.
8.3 Not to repair failed shaft:
Clearly the repetitive failure of the machined shafts
poses a clear threat towards the reliability of the Air
Cooled Heat Exchanger units, especially if the plant is
going to be under heavy loads and production
requirements increase.
Therefore, a strict decision to stop repairing failed shafts
and returning them back to duty has to be made, in order
to increase the lifespans of the cooling tower fans.
8.4 Redesign & selection of shaft and bearing
assembly:
Even though we stood upon the root cause of the case’s
shaft failure, but from a deeper perspective, the shaft was
initially machined because it has failed, and it has failed
because of bearing failure at the beginning. Meaning that
bearing failures is the main case at hands and a full
redesign and selection study needs to be performed to
stand upon the optimum design and bearing selection to
prevent bearings from failing repetitively.
9 REFERENCES
[1] The University of Oklahoma, Refrigeration basics
and LNG course notes, 2009
[2] Deepan Marudachalam M.G, K.Kanthavel,
R.Krishnaraj, “Optimization of shaft design under
fatigue loading using Goodman method” International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2,
Issue 8, August-2011
[3] Hudson Products Corp, Air Cooled Heat Exchangers
technical specifications manual, 2009
[4] Neville W Sachs, “Practical plant failure analysis: A
guide to understand material deterioration and
improving equipment reliability”, Taylor & Francis
group,
[5] Gates Corp, Gates Poly Chain GT2 Belt System
Specifications manual.
[6] Hayward Gordon Ltd., Shaft Design, Section TG8,
July 2000.
[7] Flygt ITT Industries, Shaft and Bearing calculation,
February 2003.
[8] Kruger, Permissible Residual Balance, Technical
Bulletin, 2001
[9] Deepan Marudachalam M.G, K.Kanthavel,
R.Krishnaraj, Optimization of shaft design under fatigue
using Goodman method, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 8,
August 2011
[10] Bary Dupen, Notes for Strengths of Materials, ET
200, 2011
[11] Pilkey, Water D. Peterson's Stress Concentration
Factors. Second Edition. New York:John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1997.
[12] Emerson Process Management, Cooling Tower
Monitoring: Wireless Vibration Monitoring for Motor
and Gearbox Combinations, 2012
[13] Gates Corp., Solving wind milling problems on belt-
driven ACHE fan systems: How to improve worker
safety and reduce maintenance.