IVM wins the sale even though the tender specifications were based on a competitor’s data. How? In the process of determining the performance of our existing 8 WTR valve, which allowed flow superior to the competitor’s, IVM realized that even their new design could not meet the performance specification published by our competitor. Interestingly, their performance specifications, when analyzed, suggested that the kinetic energy of the air-flow exiting the competitor’s valve appeared to exceed the energy entering it. A mathematical energy balance critique was subsequently presented to the client for their engineers to review.
IVM then redesigned the 08-WTR 25 Bar valve so that it would meet the performance criteria and pressure duty. This resulted in a substantially larger ARV based on a 14 diameter body tube verses the original 12. The new valve also has an ASME rated working pressure above 25 Bar whereas the other unit was less than 21 Bar. Furthermore, the effective cross-sectional flow area through the new valve was increase to 126% from 98% of the area of an 8 circle.
Admittedly, when our costs of re-engineering and testing the new design were factored in, IVM lost money. But it’s always satisfying to design exactly what the customer asks for, and do so with confidence. Of course the knowledge gained will likely prove to be profitable at another time.