A Closer Look at Rod Load Definitions and Rod Load Limitations of Reciprocating Compressors - Gerhard Knoop e Klaus Hoff

A
closer Look at Rod Load Definitions and Rod Load Limitations of Reciprocating Compressors
__________________________________________________________________________________

A Closer Look at Rod Load Definitions and Rod Load Limitations of
Reciprocating Compressors.
by
Gerhard Knop, Klaus Hoff, NEUMAN & ESSER GmbH & Co. KG
Abstract
One of the important design parameters of reciprocating compressors is the rod load. At the same
time, it is probably one of the most misunderstood quantities. Specifications usually define the rod
load by only a single number, the maximum rod load, which makes the strength evaluation very
convenient and simple and, therefore, attractive to use. However, as most possible failure
mechanisms of reciprocating compressor parts are related to fatigue the essential load is more
complex. Moreover, the decisive load kind is not the same at every compressor part and location
which makes it even more incorrect to define a single rod load level valid for the whole compressor.
In this situation, the compressor OEMs may find themselves in a conflict between keeping it simple
or doing it right.
There is a second and even more important aspect. Usually, a lot of effort is put in the quantification
of the rod load. Apart from the basic crank mechanism kinetics, additional influences like valve
pressure drops, pulsation and vibration effects as well as gas inertia phenomena inside the cylinder
are considered. This makes the load aspect very complete. However, the definition of the load limits
often misses such a comprehensive approach and restricts on merely using material strength
properties which are only of secondary importance at the critical locations. So, there might be a
discrepancy between the effort taken for load quantification and load limit quantification. However,
one quantity cannot really live without the other.
This paper tries to describe appropriate rod load definitions and on which properties and effects load
limits really depend.

Gerhard Knop, Klaus Hoff – NEUMAN & ESSER Gas Machinery Conference 2015 page 1

A closer Look at Rod Load Definitions and Rod Load Limitations of Reciprocating Compressors
__________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
If one compares old and current compressor designs one will find that the main difference is the size.
Today, the same job (flow rate and pressure built-‐up) can be done with much smaller machines than
years ago, without loss of reliability. This dimensional reduction has been mainly achieved
1. by applying more appropriate rod load definitions,

2. by a more comprehensive load source consideration and by using state of the art calculation
options like FEA to find local part-‐loads (stresses and other load parameters)
3. by a better understanding of the properties and effects which mainly define the compressor-‐
part strength.
From these three aspects, the 1st and 3rd are dealt with in this paper. The 2nd has been extensively
looked at in numerous publications like [2,3,4] and is therefore only summarized in a very short
section. It must be however briefly touched, as it yields the compressor-‐part loads at the critical
locations which need to be compared to the strength limits addressed in the 3rd section of this paper.
It is interesting to see how much effort is put into finding local part loads (2nd aspect) but for the
necessary strength comparison (3rd aspect) often just very rudimentary material strength numbers
are used.
Note: The terms ‘material strength’ and ‘part strength’ used in this paper mean the following:
‘Material strength’ refers to the strength figures which depend only on material properties. They
have been gained by respective tests (load cycle tests) on uniaxial loaded, small, smooth-‐surface,
notch-‐free, friction-‐free, specimens. All parameters that may have an effect on the fatigues strength
except the material properties have been eliminated in these tests.
‘Part strength’ refers to the strength of the actual compressor part at the respective location,
including all the influences that have been excluded in the material tests.
Section 3 of this paper will show that for most critical locations of the compressor the part strength is
enormously different from the material strength and sometimes not even related to it.


__________________________________________________________________________________
1. Appropriate rod load definitions
Before discussing stress and strength issues, let us however examine the rod load cycle itself.

Fig. 1: Two different combined rod loads [20]
top diagram: max. compression: 271 kN, max. tension: 200 kN
bottom diagram: max. compression: 271 kN, max. tension: 78 kN
The two rod load examples (Fig. 1) provide the same maximum force of 271 kN although their
characteristic looks obviously much different. In terms of convenience, using just this one maximum
force number and opposing it to an “allowable” rod load level is very attractive. It can be easily
entered into a data sheet and the comparison to the load limit is very simple. One can assume that
this simplicity is the reason why it is still so often used.

__________________________________________________________________________________
On the other hand, one may ask if this comparison really yields an honest impression of the margin
to the real physical load limit. Finally, it is the intention of comparing load and admissible load, to
give an idea on the load-‐safety-‐margin.
Unfortunately, both rod loads of Fig. 1 are not equally critical at all and should be assessed in a
different way. For this purpose, the load limit utilization can be improved by considering additional
load types like
-‐ Maximum tension force

-‐ Dynamic force like 0-‐peak or peak-‐to-‐peak
Depending on the part and the location within this part, a different load type is of dominant
importance and should be therefore used. Very often, it is the dynamic force which is the most
decisive load type, but it is actually rarely used.
The following sections exemplify the importance of considering different load types.
1.1 Example: Piston rod -‐ crosshead connection
Piston rod – crosshead connections always provide significant stress concentration. As an effect of
this stress concentration, the most important load type is the dynamic load and the mean load
influence is reduced to a minimum. Further explanations are given in Section 3 below. The two load
characteristics of Fig. 1 above have very different dynamic load levels (471 kN vs. 349 kN peak-‐to-‐
peak). Therefore they are not at all equally critical for the Piston rod – crosshead connection as their
common maximum compressive load may imply.

Fig. 2: Threaded Piston rod – crosshead connection, as an example of parts, the strength of which is
mainly dependent on the dynamic force (0-‐peak or peak-‐to-‐peak), not the maximum force.

1.2 Example: Connecting rod small end bore
The following Fig. 3 shows the effect of tension and compressive load on a connecting rod bore.

Fig. 3: Effect of tension (left) and compressive load (right) on a connecting rod bore [11]

__________________________________________________________________________________
The tension load significantly deforms the rod bore, creating tensile stress at the bore sides. The
compression load however just presses on the connecting rod shank without significant deformation
of the rod bore. That means for the connecting rod bores, only the tension load is to be considered,
not the compression load.
1.3 Examples that cannot make use of just one load kind
There are even parts where a reduction of a single load type is no longer possible. Plain bearings and
crank shafts belong to this group.
1.3.1 Crankshaft
The dominant load shares at crankshafts are torsion and bending. Both are finally driven by the rod
load on the crankshaft and passed through the shaft as dynamic torque and bending moment.
Sometimes bending is prevailing, sometimes torque or anything in between. This makes it very
individual and cannot be reduced to bending or torque only. With long crankshafts the additional
load introduced by torsional vibrations is to be considered as well.

Fig. 4: Instantaneous crankshaft bending load situation to be superimposed to the torsional load (top:
front view, bottom: top view) [20]
The previous figure shows an example bending load scenario. Bending and torsion are considered in
an elaborate strength evaluation calculation, also using stress concentration factors derived by FEA
and strain gage measurement, resulting in a safety margin that is to be opposed to the required
safety margin of this procedure. That way, the load situation is once more reduced to a single
number, even though it is not a direct load number: the utilization of the required safety margin.

__________________________________________________________________________________
1.3.2 Plain Bearings
The following figure shows a typical journal orbit within a slide bearing.

Fig. 5: Crankshaft bearing journal orbit calculation [20]
The loading of a compressor slide bearing is rather complex. There are as much as 4 different load
parameters like local oil pressure, the minimum oil film thickness, a mixed friction load number if
mixed friction is present and, finally, an oil refilling parameter for crosshead pin bearings (Fig. 6) that
describes the capability of refilling the bearing with liquid oil after the vaporization at the rod load
reversals.

Fig. 6: Crosshead pin bearing simulation [20]

__________________________________________________________________________________
All this can be simulated by appropriate software. Hoff and Steinbusch [1] developed such a
simulation tool and even derived an analytical approach that allows the evaluation of the bearing
load for all mentioned load kinds. The analytical approach was adjusted to the simulation so that it
provides sufficient accuracy.
The final load quantity is the utilization of the load limit as a number between 0 and 100%, for all
four load kinds described above. (Example, see section 1.5, Fig. 7)
1.4 Further aspect: Mass force contribution
It stands to reason that, as a minimum, the rod load should be quantified by superimposing gas and
mass load. Mass force can either increase or decrease the combined rod load. For the mass load it
must be taken into account that it is different at any location of the cylinder axis. Right beneath the
piston, it is just the piston mass that is producing inertia force. At the piston rod – crosshead
connection it is the mass of piston plus piston rod. At the small connection rod end bore it is mass of
piston, piston rod plus crosshead etc. The further we go down the axis, the more mass is effective to
the rod load.
This circumstance is another reason why it is not sensible to name just one load number as a
representative loading quantity of the whole compressor.
1.5 Conclusions on rod load definitions
As attractive the use of only one load number to be compared to one single limit may be in terms of
simplicity, it gives no real impression on how close the load is really at the limit.
Instead, every critical part and location should get its own limit to which the respective load is
related. For parts that do not allow a reasonable reduction to only one load number like plain
bearings or crankshafts due to their complexity, it is still possible to define a relative (percentage)
figure showing the utilization of the load limit. The following diagram gives an example of a load
map.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 7: Bar diagram showing the strength utilization of the different compressor parts [20]
Blue bars = normal load, red bars = PSV load, yellow bars = idle run load
Colored ranges: green <90%, yellow 90…100%, red > 100% load limit utilization
The large number of different loads is certainly more inconvenient to use than a single load figure
but is just giving a more realistic idea about the margin to the load limit. It may be suggested to
reduce the multitude of loads to only the most critical one. However, modern compressors are well
balanced designed and it is usually not always the same part and location the bottle neck.
2. Load sources and local part-‐loads
Many publications, e.g. [2,3,4] point out that there are also other load sources than the ‘classical’
compression gas forces and inertial mass forces. They may include pressure pulsations inside the
compression chambers, uneven pressure distribution across the piston, torsional crank shaft
vibrations that feed back to the piston rod, mechanical cylinder vibrations and others. These
additional load sources are usually not very dominant but contribute to a certain extent to the
overall rod load and may need to be quantified.
After the quantification of the rod loads which may be considered as outer loads, they need to be
converted into local part-‐loads. These local part-‐loads are stress, stress gradient, contact pressure
and oscillatory micro slippage of two contacting part faces. This conversion is usually carried out by
applying FEA (Finite Element Analysis). These resulting local part-‐loads are to be compared to
strength limits examined in the next section. For the purpose of fighting against widespread
misunderstandings, it may be perhaps once more emphasized at this point that FEA yields no
strength but just load magnitudes. Strength on the other hand is purely empirical.
3. Material vs. part strength
Once the local load is found by applying the methods succinctly described in the previous section, it
must be opposed to allowable limits that define part strength. The most important fact in this

__________________________________________________________________________________
context is the awareness that the load limits at the critical locations of the compressor parts are in no
way proportional to the material fatigue strength properties.
Material fatigue strength limits are found by load cycle tests on uniaxial loaded, small, smooth-‐
surface, notch-‐free, friction-‐free, specimens. Such experimentally gained load limits are usually used
as a basic to derive the required part strength. This derivation is often carried out by applying factors
that are supposed to cover the effect on the strength caused by the features not included in the
material cycle test. These factors again are gained by respective tests. When applying this approach,
it is crucial to understand its limitations. The following paragraphs give the most important aspects
that need to be considered.
3.1 Fatigue in reciprocating compressors
Before immersing into the subject, it must be noted that any prospective part fracture at
reciprocating compressors is always a fatigue fracture and never a fast rupture (overload fracture).
This fact is just given by the exceptionally dynamic load characteristic of the reciprocating machine.
Therefore, whenever the term strength is used in this paper, the meaning is always fatigue strength,
even if not explicitly mentioned.
3.2 Fretting fatigue
Experimental tests [5,6,7,8,9,10] show that the material strength can be enormously reduced by
micro slip of two contacting faces. This situation is always given at any compressor part assembly and
principally cannot be avoided. Hence, it must be considered as the most important effect on fatigue
and a good knowledge on this matter is required to establish accurate compressor-‐rod load limits.
The small end bore of the connecting rod is used as an example to describe fretting fatigue.

Fig. 8: Tangential bulk stress σt (red) and slip s (green) in a connecting rod bore [11]
The above figure shows tangential slip between the bushing and the connecting rod bore (in green
color). Its magnitude depends on the location around the circumference. The amount of slip is one
parameter out of several at the face-‐to-‐face contact that can enormously reduce the fatigue
strength, however in a different way than firstly expected.

__________________________________________________________________________________
wear [mm³/Nmm]
life time [cycles]

slip amplitude

[µm]
Fig. 9: Life time vs. slip (U-‐shaped curve) and wear of a surface exposed to fretting [5]. Note that the
numbers given here are not generic and give only a representation in quality.
It is interesting to find that not the locations exposed to large slip but those subject to low slip
provide the lowest fatigue strength (Fig. 9). This was already described by Vingsbo and Söderberg [5]
in 1988 and confirmed by many others (e.g. [6]) later. The diagram gives rise to define two failure
mechanisms:
Fretting fatigue: In the low-‐slip region, cracks would be initiated which can propagate if the
tangential bulk stress level around the crack is high enough. These locations can typically be not
noticed beforehand (e.g. by a regular inspection) as the small slip creates no visible surface damage
or even corrosion.
Fretting wear: In the high slip region, a surface damage and corrosion can be observed. Continuous
large slip would create material loss of the contacting faces. Experiments yielded however no crack
propagation or fractures. This is interpreted in a way that any newly initiated crack is worn away by
the presence of the large slip.
From both observations it can be concluded that obvious surface damages are not critical in terms of
fatigue and clean surfaces on the other hand are no proof that there is no danger of fatigue fracture.
Coming back to our example assembly, the small end connecting rod, no location around the bore
provides enough slip to produce wear. Fretting wear is normally no issue with connecting rods. The
critical zones in terms of fretting fatigue are near the areas of the highest bulk stress. Other regions
may also produce initial cracks by fretting but these would stop propagating after a certain crack
depth when the crack tip is out of the range of the fretting influence (in terms of depth) and – at the
same time -‐ only low tangential bulk stress present. For more details, refer to the work by Naumann
and Knop [11]. The intention of this paper is just to give an idea about the amount of strength loss
one typically has to expect with fretting.

__________________________________________________________________________________
w/o fretting with fretting
fatigue strength [MPa]
Tensile strength
Stahl = steel

Fig. 10: Fatigue limits of different materials with and without fretting [10]

Fig. 11: Comparison of the Söderberg U-‐curve (Fig. 9) for different material grades [11]
Figures 10 and 11 give an impression about the loss in fatigue strength. It turns out that high-‐
strength steels can lose strength by a factor of 2 or 3, whereas low-‐strength steels lose only little
strength. Exposed to fretting, both material groups approach about the same fatigue level!
The figures above clearly show the need to include the fretting fatigue aspect into the strength
evaluation. The most famous approach is probably the FFDP parameter (fretting fatigue damage
parameter) or Ruiz criterion [7].
FFDP = σt ·∙ τ ·∙ s
σt = tangential stress
τ = shear stress
s = slip
For a certain shear stress and FFDP, the Ruiz equation above yields the qualitative hyperbolic relation
1
σ t −admissible = σ W ~
s
which is reflecting the decreasing branch of the curve in Fig. 9, 11.


__________________________________________________________________________________
3.3 Geometrical notch effects
The next important design feature which creates a possible weak location of compressor parts is the
notch (like fillets or other radii). This section does not address the generally known aspect of stress
concentration at which the local stress is increased compared to the nominal stress (force per area or
moment per second moment of area), but the fatigue strength loss of different materials at such
areas.

Fig. 12: Notch influence [12]
When looking at approved approaches like given in [12], it shows that high-‐strength metals loose
much more strength than low-‐strength metals at notches. The symbols in the figure represent the
following:
n = Kt / Kf
σ
Kt = stress concentration factor = ratio local stress to nominal stress (only dependent on geometry
and load kind) (could be a result of a FEA)
Kf = fatigue notch factor (dependent on Kt, stress gradient and material)
G = related stress gradient in mm-‐1 = 1/σa ⋅ dσa/ds
σ
σa = stress amplitude on and along the surface

dσa/ds = stress gradient normal to the surface
Rm = material tensile strength
Other parameters like surface roughness show the same material dependence on fatigue strength:

__________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 13: Surface roughness influence; simplified illustration of [12, Fig. 4.3.4]
Symbols:
KR = surface roughness factor (KR = 1 → no influence, KR < 1 → loss of strength)
Rm = material tensile strength
The above figure shows that

-‐ high-‐strength steels are sensitive to rough surfaces, they only maintain their high material
strength, if the surface is very smooth
-‐ low-‐strength materials (as grey cast iron or nodular iron) are more insensitive to rough
surfaces, their fatigue strength is low anyway and will not go significantly further down with
increasing roughness
There is a further aspect to be looked at in this context: The surface roughness only creates a
significant effect at notch free locations. This non-‐proportional association can be considered by the
following equation [12]:
1 ⎛ 1 ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎞
KWK = ⋅ ⎜1 + ~ ⋅ ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ ⎟ ⋅ ... (Parameters have been explained at Fig. 12)
nσ ⎜ K ⎝ K R ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝ f
High KWK means: much loss of material strength
Low KWK means: little loss of material strength
The equation looks a bit confusing at first glance but finally means the following:
If no notch is present (Kf = 1), the surface roughness factor KR is fully effective.
If the notch is infinitely sharp (Kf = large), the surface roughness factor KR has no influence.
As a summery it can be said that, same as with fretting, the part strength of notched locations is
much less dependent on the material than assumed when just looking at the pure material strength
numbers.

__________________________________________________________________________________
3.4 A special load situation -‐ High mean stress, low amplitude
A special load situation is present at all threaded connections. Due to the high stress concentration,
often combined with high preload, it is normal that the local stress levels exceed the linear material
range. The material is yielding at the thread teeth. This is mostly the case and nothing to worry
about. Only it also forbids the use of the “classical” stress based fatigue strength evaluation methods.
Instead, strain based approaches can be used as described in [14], [16], [17] and other publications.
The interesting and attractive feature of such strain based approaches in highly notched areas is that
the part strength seems to be the same as the material strength, independent of any other effect like
surface roughness or part dimension. It must be noted however that this material strength is not
reflected by the well-‐known stress based quantities like ultimate tensile strength or yield strength.
Instead, other strength parameters are used like the SWT-‐parameter (Smith-‐Watson-‐Topper):
1
σ a ⎛ σ a ⎞ n '
PSWT = σ o ⋅ ε a ⋅ E using σ o = σ m + σ a and εa = + ⎜ ⎟
E ⎝ K ' ⎠
σ = stress, ε = strain
Indexes: o = maximum, m = mean, a = amplitude
E, K’, n’ = parameters of the Ramberg-‐Osgood relation, E = Young’s modulus
Other common methods are the Brown-‐Miller and Findley approaches with or without the strain
share as described in [15]. The motivation to erase the strain share in these approaches is driven by
the circumstance that parts which survive very high cycle fatigue are loaded primarily in the elastic
range only. For preloaded threads this can be however different:
Bolts:
A good approach should also cover the empirical finding that the strength of highly-‐preloaded,
sharply notched parts (like bolts) is almost independent of the steel grade used. High-‐strength steel
bolts show the same fatigue limits as low-‐strength steel bolts. This is experimentally verified in many
publications like VDI 2230 [18].
When considering simple bolts one can also come back to the nominal stress approaches since there
is probably no other machine part so extensively and comprehensively tested like the bolt. VDI 2230
gives the following expression.
⎛ 150 ⎞
σ ASV = 0,85 ⋅ ⎜ + 45 ⎟
⎝ d ⎠
σASV = bolt fatigue nominal stress amplitude in MPa
d = bolt diameter in mm
The fatigue stress depends only on the bolt diameter, not on the material !!
Frithjof [14] could show that the empirical VDI 2230 equation, when made dimensionless, almost
perfectly reflects the reciprocal of the fatigue notch factor, gained by FEA and applying the notch
influence factor of Fig. 12. It shows the same strength decline with diameter due to increasing stress
concentration and decreasing stress gradients. This finding once more gives a strong indication of the
independence of the bolt fatigue strength of the mean stress and of most material strength numbers.

__________________________________________________________________________________
VDI 2230, fatigue strength
reciprocal of Kf
diameter [mm]

Fig. 14: Correlation of fatigue strength and reciprocal of fatigue notch factor Kf [14, p. 74-‐76]
To summarize: The fatigue strength of bolts and other threaded parts is almost not dependent on the
material characteristic of the steel in use.
3.5 Load cycle tests of the full compressor part assembly
The most direct way to verify strength is of course testing the part. Load cycle tests are used on
unscaled assemblies with their original und unchanged design (Fig. 16) and the respective dynamic
load is applied up to typically several million cycles and increase in steps until fracture.

Fig. 16: Load cycle test of crosshead assembly (lower piston rod – crosshead – connecting rod top)
Left view: Drawing Right view: Installation in the load cycle test machine

__________________________________________________________________________________
Statistical effects must be covered with safety factors which have been developed by the compressor
manufacturer over the time bases on experience. This experience also includes the empirical findings
on real compressors over many years.
3.6 Conclusions on Material vs. Part Strength
Locking once more to the effects described in the previous sections, it can be noticed that whenever
deviations from the ideal conditions at material cycle tests (uniaxial load, smooth and un-‐notched
geometry, small dimension, no contact forces) are present at real compressor parts (which is always
the case at the critical locations), the fatigue load capacity of high-‐strength steel is much more
reduced than with low-‐strength steel.
It looks like especially with contacting part faces of assemblies or geometrical notches, the fatigue
part-‐strength seems to approach the same low level, with only little or even no dependence on the
steel grade.
The material importance is often much overrated.
Summary
It could be shown that the rod load limitation of reciprocating compressors requires some detailing
in load kind and compressor part. Only then, a good impression of the true margins to the strength
limits can be obtained. This is not possible by restricting to only one or two load figures, representing
the whole compressor.
The same effort usually taken to include all physical effects into the rod load quantification should
also be spent for finding correct part strength limits. Since the most critical compressor part locations
are situated at small radii or faces exposed to micro slip (fretting), the true fatigue strength is usually
much less related to material properties than at most other (uncritical) locations of the compressor
parts. Compressor design and dimensioning should always have the main focus on this fact.


__________________________________________________________________________________
References
[1] Hoff, Steinbusch, Hydrodynamic calculation method for crosshead pin bearings especially under
less rod load reversal loading, EFRC 2008, Düsseldorf
[2] Aigner, Meyer, Steinrück, Valve Dynamics and Internal Waves in a Reciprocating Compressor,
EFRC 2005, Antwerp
[3] Hinchliff, A Discussion on the Various Loads Used to Rate Reciprocating Compressors, GMC 2014
[4] Newman, Stephens, Lateral-‐torsional vibration coupling in reciprocating compressors, Torsional

Vibration Symphosium, Salzburg 2014
[5] Vingsbo, Söderberg: On fretting maps. Wear, 1988, 126 (2), 131-‐147.
[6] Rabb, Hautala, Lehtovaara, Fretting Fatigue in Diesel Engineering, Paper No. 76, CIMAC Congress
2007, Vienna
[7] Merrit, Zhu, The Prediction of Connecting Rod Fretting and Fretting Initiated Fatigue Fractures,
SAE International 2004
[8] Madge, Leen, McColl, Shipway, Contact-‐evolution based prediction of fretting fatigue life: Effect
of slip amplitude, Wear 262 (2007) 1159-‐1170
[9] Forschungsvereinigung Verbrennungskraftmaschinen FVV, Auslegungsrichtlinie Reibkorrosion,

Heft 984 -‐2013
[10] Issler, Ruoß, Häfele, Festigkeitslehre – Grundlagen, Springer Verlag 1997
[11] Naumann, Knop, A Review on the Methods of Load and Strength Evaluation of Connecting Rods,
EFRC 2010, Florence
[12] FKM-‐Guideline, Analytical Strength Assessment, 6th edition 2012, VDMA Verlag
[13] Radaj, Vormwald, Ermüdungsfestigkeit, Springer 2007
[14] Frithjof Marten, Zur Ermüdungsfestigkeit hochfester großer Schrauben, Diss., Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2009
[15] Winkler, Holt, Vallance, Concerning the Synergy of Stress and Strain-‐based Methods in Modern
Metal Fatigue Analysis, www.safetechnology.com/downloads.asp?fid=35664
[16] Traversari, Rossi, Faretra, Nonlinear multi-‐axial fatigue analysis of a threaded crosshead to
piston rod connection of a reciprocating compressor using the Brown-‐Miller algorithm, EFRC 2012,
Düsseldorf
[17] R. Schneider, Örtliche Bewertung der Schwingfestigkeit von Gewindeverbindungen, Diss.,

Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2011
[18] VDI 2230, Systematic calculation of highly stressed bolted joints, Part 1, 2014
[19] API 618, Reciprocating Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical, and Gas Industry Services,
Standard by American Petroleum Institute, 2007
[20] Neuman & Esser, proprietary compressor design tool KO³

A Closer Look at Rod Load Definitions and Rod Load Limitations of Reciprocating Compressors - Gerhard Knoop e Klaus Hoff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Closer Look at Rod Load Definitions and Rod Load Limitations of Reciprocating Compressors - Gerhard Knoop e Klaus Hoff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

1. by applying more appropriate rod load definitions,

1. Appropriate rod load definitions

-­‐ Maximum tension force

1.1 Example: Piston rod -­‐ crosshead connection

1.2 Example: Connecting rod small end bore

1.3.2 Plain Bearings

1.4 Further aspect: Mass force contribution

1.5 Conclusions on rod load definitions

2. Load sources and local part-­‐loads

3. Material vs. part strength

3.1 Fatigue in reciprocating compressors

3.2 Fretting fatigue

life time [cycles]

w/o fretting with fretting

fatigue strength [MPa]

FFDP = σt ·∙ τ ·∙ s

3.3 Geometrical notch effects

σa = stress amplitude on and along the surface

The above figure shows that

High KWK means: much loss of material strength

Low KWK means: little loss of material strength

VDI 2230, fatigue strength

3.6 Conclusions on Material vs. Part Strength

The material importance is often much overrated.

[4] Newman, Stephens, Lateral-­‐torsional vibration coupling in reciprocating compressors, Torsional

[9] Forschungsvereinigung Verbrennungskraftmaschinen FVV, Auslegungsrichtlinie Reibkorrosion,

[10] Issler, Ruoß, Häfele, Festigkeitslehre – Grundlagen, Springer Verlag 1997

[13] Radaj, Vormwald, Ermüdungsfestigkeit, Springer 2007

[17] R. Schneider, Örtliche Bewertung der Schwingfestigkeit von Gewindeverbindungen, Diss.,

[20] Neuman & Esser, proprietary compressor design tool KO³

You might also like

-‐ Maximum tension force

1.1 Example: Piston rod -‐ crosshead connection

2. Load sources and local part-‐loads

[4] Newman, Stephens, Lateral-‐torsional vibration coupling in reciprocating compressors, Torsional