Houston

February 22nd, 2022

To: NATURGY, Argentina

Subject: SUPERIOR SW68 S/N 329010 & 16SGT S/N 329019

Dear Customer:

The existing compressor is a two stage SW68 with (4) Class 134CS 18.5” cylinders on the first
stage (throws 1, 3, 5 & 7) and the second stage utilizes (4) Class 124CS 9.5” cylinders (throws 2,
4,6 & 8).
In the 2017, failure of the rings, Compression offered warranty if Naturgy would allow us to do
the inspection and work to correct the issue. This was denied.
The ring failures on this unit has had numerous factors being applied and many that we have
not had the opportunity to review. 2020, we found out that the cylinders had been machined
by a third party to a finish of 125 Ra which was the proper Ra for a cylinder that was to be
impregnated with Teflon as the original design had. Not for sure why the 3rd party did not know
what a normal finish was. Upon discussions during the 2020 failure, we determined this to be
one of the issues affecting the rings.
These rings were provided were to one of our supplier’s latest and greatest non-lube designs
for the 2020 rings. 3 possible options were provided at this time to assist you. The rings were
made and sent to and to my understanding have run only 5 hours in a 17,500-hour period. We
do need to get clarity on this information. Nor have we gotten clearly stated operational
conditions at the time of the failure then or now such as there was significant lack of definition
on screen shots, sizes of piston dimensions and cylinder finish & dimensions. We made the
rings and riders to limited information that was provided to us.
The current ring proposal will be made to the same dimensions as last made due to the lack of
information being provided except for the changes to material for thermal growth. The
Material will be a brass blend PTFE that is used for non-lubed cylinders. The proposal will also
have the relief grooves eliminated.
Running the performance of the unit with the email gas composition provided, we have found
the unit to have significant change in the process gas composition from the original design. The
original and current provided composition will be following in this email.
The Methane has been increased from 27% mole weight to 40.3054%. Propane has moved
upwards 4% to 15.503 with a drop in Nitrogen by 9%. Ethylene also dropped by 11%. Never
have we had a true gas analysis report from a lab but only mailed compositions. These changes
significantly affect the compressibility factor of the gas and creates an overload condition seen
on the first stage or basically more horsepower to pump the new composition. With the higher
horsepower seen on the 1st stage, the volume that is being pumped creates the high ratio seen
and while the 2nd stage due to moving more volume through the second stage than what it was
designed at – more of a bottle neck.
The proposal to reduce the HP and volume with the new gas is to add spacers to the bottom of
the compressor valves and add another valve retainer on top of the valve. This will be done on
only the suction valves of the first stage. This will give reduce the ratio to the 1st stage by .7,
lower the ratio from a 3.8 to approximately 3.1 and dropping an approximately 300 – 400 hp
requirement. This will balance the ratios and hp from side to side giving the unit an evenly
balanced frame at 2120 hp and 720 rpm. I am attaching the performance runs with the given
gas compositions so show the difference. The pricing for this will also be included in this mail
train.
These will be Engineering’s proposals to reduce issues with this given unit. If you
have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Rick Lucas
Sr. Engineer – Technical Support

O: 281-971-2808| M: 832-239-0804
CooperServices.com
24/7 Support Hotline 1-844-732-4743

Disclaimer: Cooper Services validated the numbers associated with the original design as developed in 1995
Cooper Literature. If any diversion from the original design, numbers would require a new study to confirm
the actual numbers listed above.