Document e78d2jJpaLLRdxYp2dGXGKOe

/ --V?1 .?-JT^a M, ' /':- (MJ A lj i\ \ '&\ \j j 122 EAST 42nii 5TKE`f ,. NLVV YfiiH ;. y. lOyi 'f l ;:_.4 Dear Sir: Supplementing my letter of June 16, 1967, have received an additional comment from lagersoll-Rand Company- on M3X-P-18682/L. A copy of this comment is attached hereto, and vq uonld appreciate your including this vith the comments mailed to you previously. Very truly yours, AA2 Frank P. Anderson \ Secretary PPA:eu Pncloeure cc: (nsoo) Comittee to Reviev Military Specifications Institute Member Companies and Bon-Msmber Companies on Navy Qualified Products List for Centrifugal Pumps PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT SOV!-^ SLM00170 DEra]@&'sQn>*!j5<amG3 CcDC-Trafperasottg Establl.*d 1671 PHittlPSBURG, N. ). 03365 June 20, 1967 Subj: Comments on MU.-P-18682A, dated ! October 196$ Pumps, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating Naval Shipboard This letter covers the Ingersoll-Rand Company comments to HIL-P-18682A. paragraphs 3.1, 4.2 and 6.3 deal with product qualification. Paragraphs , 3.1 and 6,3 indicate that only qualified pumps may be bid and awards will . be made only for qualified pump. The pumps Ingersoll-Rand Co. has built to the previous revision of Subject spec!fication did not exist at the date of invitation for bid. Paragraph 6.3 apparently attempts to cover this contingency by stating, "...manufacturers are urged to arrange to have the products that they propose to offer to the federal Government tested for qualification in order that they may be eligible to be awarded contracts or orders for the products covered by this specification". Jngersol 1-Rand Co. generally is allowed four to six weeks to work up a pjcposed new design pump for bid purposes. Work cannot be started prior to a request to bid since the hydraulic conditions and specification. requirements are not known until this time, it is obviously not possible to qualify a new unit Insix weeks, or even six months for that matter. The mechanics of how to qualify a product for hid consideration are quito clearly spelled out in Section 4.2 of Subject specification. It- appears quite unlikely to the writer that a potential pump supplier would spend a large sum of money to design and develop a pump and subject it to the required qualifi cation tests just to be permitted to submit a bid on such a pump. There is no certalnity that there would be a need for such a pump at the end of the twelve to eighteen nxnth des ign-deve loprnOnt qualification period and even less certainity of being awarded the contract. The requirement of prior qualifi cation for each class, design and si:;c pump that could be bid to Subject speci fication appears to be very unrealistic and quite impractical. The prior qualification requirement is not compatible with the extensive and exacting requirements of Subject specification. m r.. -To pg. 2- *11 Ap'.hi fxr me CwMiinim n i uron mbihi % Afcifii mi ami< nun? nnoiiions fiivONi) oirfi coniboc. ami v;h,rr 1 in aii r;jvm rtr m 1,11 in k O' mi o.mi'av. ia:k>ks ci 0 r.n*i;i .mi net; i uoiic.f. SLM00171 0 m qj <b rrs>n Q - 03] m dl Ccmnmi [pcm stj 1871 PHJUIPSBURG, N. J. 00865 Jure 20, 1967 -2- Paragraph 3.2.2.2; Pump replacement parts can be designed for 10,000 hours actual operating life, but it would be very risky for a pump supplier to guarantee 10,000 hours actual life. Pumps often work in systems handling liquids containing solid particles that can greatly shorten the useful life of a pump. Since the cleanliness of a system is beyond the control of a pump supplier, it would not be realistic to expect such a guarantee. Paragraph 3.2.4.1; The word "normal11 as applied to piping loads imposed on pumps should be defined. Pumps are not intended to be used as anchors to tie down piping systems. Paragraph 3.2.9: Certain portions of the pump casing halve gasket in some designs may be considered to be Internal. To prevent any misunderstanding of the intent in this area we request a sentence be added stating: "No part of the casing halve gasket on axial split pumps need be encased". Paragraph 3.2.10; We request a sentence be added stating; `The setting end of studs shall be Class 5 fit, or Class 3 fit with locking resin per H1L-S22473". Paragraph 3.2.14.1: In accord with the convention of the Hydraulic Institute we assume the maximum horsepower output of the pump (commonly called water horsepower) is to be determined using clear, cold, fresh water at a temperature not over 85F. is this correct? Paragraph 3.2.19: We recommend the word "internal" be added between, "All" and "threaded" In the first sentence. Does MAVSEC have a list of approved lock ing devices for the guidance of pump suppliers? Paragraph 3.2.20: A minimum time limit of one minute (Paragraph 4.4.1.4(B)) should be added. A pump will not run backward indefinitely without damage. Paragraph 3.3.3. M: Fatigue analysis is not possible for casting area geometry where theoretical str^'-s analysis is lacking. The only way to justify the design in such area-; by experimental stress analysis (fatigue life proof test). Paragraph 3.3-3.11.1: Vie question the validity of the value of 25,000 In the formula listed. The formula supposedly gives the maximum piping bending moment imposed on the pump nozzle when the piping is subjected to a bending stress equal to the yield strength of the piping. Equating the formula listed to the formula for piping bending moment is SDB-63 paragraph 1-480 results in a value of about 11,000 Instead of the 25,000 value shown. This is based on M1L-T-16420 tuhine with a minimum yield strength of 15,000 psl. Please explain how the value of 25,000 was arrived at? -To Pg. 3- Att AWIMIMS tONTiN&f HI UPON SI HIM S. ACCWl'NTS ANO r..;DHrONS BLrONO OUR CONTROl. A11 CC-MRACTC. ARC suTtjf r.! to ai wimouT ./ at: f > i>;i rr tin; wmi-a'iy. C-ti>' iinhs sofun I iO rw,[ Nmicr SLM00172 0G'Q^]OB`5fn>D3"'C^eiiG^dl (Ds^sErafpaatraQg 1871 PHiLUPSBURG, N. J. 08365 June 20., I367 -3" Paragraph 3.3.10.1: Why is NAVSEC approval required for alternate materials that will give equal or better service than the materials specified? The requirement of NAVSEC approval tends to be restrictive to a pump supplier when dealing with a private shipyard. The private yards are not too interested in taking their time to correspond with NAVSEC thru the cognizant SOS to obtain, what appears to the yard, to be "relief11 for the pump supplier. If NAVSEC Is willing to act on materia! approval requests received from the pump supplier on non-government contracts the restriction would be largely eliminated. paragraph 3.4.3.1: Special tools are to be included in the list of pump materials. This meais that a complete set of special tools will be supplied with every pump sold. A complete set of tools are to be supplied with each set of onboard repair parts. Thus a ship with two engine rooms requiring six boiler feed pumps will receive eight sets of special tools, six sets with the pumps and two sets with the onboard repair parts. This appears to be a un necessary and needless waste of government money. We feel the special tools should be shipped with the pumps but at a rate of one complete set for each machinery space. We recorfsnend the third sentence be changed to read, "Special tools shall be detailed". We recommend the fourth sentence be changed to read, "One complete set of special tools required for-the maintenance and repair of the pump units sbalT be furnished for each machinery compartment in which the pumps are installed, as specified (See 6.1)." paragraph 3.4.3.2: Delete the words, "and tools". paragraph 3.6.4.3.2: We suggest the pump supplier be given the option of making the NAVSH1PS A786A786A forms part of the Class B outline-certification drawing as required, or furnishing a sectional assembly-materials (parts) list draw ng with the outline-certification drrvjig instead. Since the materials list already includes an 5rd {cation of required onboard repair parts (See paragraph 3.9*4.2.1) it is repetitious to include the informatTonagaln with another drawing. The 4786/4786A forms are a different size than any outlinecert if icat Ion drawing thus creating a filing problem with the supplier, the shipyard if invol. d, and the Government. We do not understand the last sentence. |t Is our understanding that each pump supplier is required to submit provision technical documentation in accordance with MlL-P-15137 nd the equipment specification (MlL-P-17881B, Table f H) . The 4?86A form submitted does not indicate what the Government actual purchases but what the manufacturer recommends for repair parts (See Block F, Note 1. of KAVSHIPS 4786). V/e suggest the words, "actually purchased", be deleted from the last sentence. Paragraph 3.6.5.2; Is it permissible when supplying manufactures standard material (d) that has physical and chemical properties identical to a federal or Military Specif icat ion, to so indicate rather than list the properties? -To Pij. 4 - *1 I AOt 1 Ml HI-; (Dli Ilf;'.! Ill lll'ON -.llllhl A> Oill'HIS AND OIlll U Cl >NrT|iJN\; III YONO OUH CON I KOI. All C' NT'AOIT. AM SODJTCT IO AM'l/VAi. Ilf /.Hd.UOH Cl lilt COI-AWr. CII..1S! ll'.NS VJIUtCI 10 OiAHul Wlll'OUl NOHCC- SLM00173 Q[ra0cB[rscn>f]S"[^aoE?iidl (DmDtmjpcjaiimyj P.ifa bliified 1871 PHILUPSBURG, N. J. 08865 June 20, 1967 -4- Paragraph 3.7.5: Sufficient wear data versus hours of operation is not available in most instances to assure that the maximum clearances are, in fact, consistent with the minimum specified life of replacemoit parts (assumed to be 10,000 hours per paragraph 3.2.2.2). Conducting a 100 hour endurance test, or even a 10,000 hour endurance test, under test laboratory conditions of load and cleanliness is not fully indicative ofv-ear rates actually encountered in service. Without a Government system of operational experience and repair data feedback to the equipment supplier it is not possible to fully satisfy this requirement. paragraphs 4.4.1.3 4.4.1 .4(a): Must the overspeed test and mechanical soundness test of o turbine driven pump be conducted with design-steam temp erature or will a lower temperature steam be acceptable? Many Navy turbines are designed for 950F/H95 psig steam. 1 know of no pump vendor that has this temperature superheated steam. The writer is aware of only two test facilities in the country that may be able to conduct such a test with a steam turbine driven unit. Both facilities are owned by the Government. Since all pumps must undergo the mechanical sound ness test,the two test facilities would be hard pressed to keep up with the incoming flow of pumps to be tested. paragraph 4.4.2.1: The performance test requirements for turUne driven pumps preclude the possibility of apump supplier performing this test himself unless test steam temperature lower than the design temperature would be acceptable. See comments on Paragraph 4.4.1.4(a). Paragraph 4.4,3: The procuring agency has the discretion to require a new design evaluation test if they deem necessary. It will be mandai- ry that the procuring agency make this decision to a potential supplier during the proposal stage. Since the supplier must bear this cost, the need for this decision dur ing the pricing stage is obvious. paragraph 4.4.3.1.5(h): We do not see how one can project the wear rate found during a 100 hour test to 10,000 hours. Parts generally show a greater wear rate during the early hours of operation than occurs after many additional hundreds of hours of operation. Paragraph 6.2: Table 1 - Casings - Surface ships: MlL-C-20159 Type 11, 90-10 Copper-Nickel should be listed. Casing bolts, studs, nuts: QQ-N-286 should be listed. Oiffusors (Type | pumps): MlL-C-201S9 Type ||, 90-10 Copper-Nickel should be 1isted. ail AM4r.fMI.NIS CONTIHO.I HI upon MRIAIV ACOWHlS ANLi OlilfB CONDITIONS llOf-NO OUfi CONTROL A! t (.ONlPAC is ART Sulljf..;! !> Ai'i-l>uv/.i hr AN < >1 ) if I ii 1.1 I in Cum, a:.t. OUOl *): -O', SHU.'I 01 IO o.iAv',1 tiGliCf SLM00174 Dra0OtrS<0Q"C5Q3GTlQ3<S<33)B?jQ[pGaGBQg 1871 PHflMPSBURG, N. J. 03865 June 20, \%1 -5- jmpeUer Huts: QQ-H-286 should be listed. Jngersoll-R'md Company personnel will be pleased to discuss these consents and recommendatIons with NAVSEC personnel If further clarification Is desired. Very truly yours INGER50LL-RAND COMPANY bjv /i i O'mikhi'K >i;i ;i:n i i t to ai nt./VAt nv an <_> i i, i n u> im mi-ani. oic tAli' N', v;li ;f r i Jo i:mw,| wuhCUI HOUCf SLM00175