Claims Involving Compressor Station Vibration Failures
1. Introduction: Compressor Station Vibration Failures
Compressor stations are critical components in gas pipelines and industrial gas systems. They typically involve:
Large rotating machinery (compressors, turbines),
Auxiliary equipment (pumps, motors, piping),
Foundations and structural supports designed to minimize vibration.
Vibration failures occur when:
Excessive vibration damages machinery, piping, or foundations,
Noise or vibration exceeds regulatory or contractual thresholds,
Equipment prematurely fails due to misalignment, resonance, or improper installation,
Operational disruptions occur due to safety shutdowns.
Typical Claims Arising
Defective equipment or installation → machinery failure or shutdowns.
Failure to meet contractual vibration specifications → damages for non-performance.
Environmental compliance failures → fines or remediation costs.
Damage to adjacent structures → civil liability or insurance claims.
Most contracts (EPC, O&M, supply contracts) include arbitration clauses, especially for high-value, technical disputes.
2. Why Arbitration is Preferred
Technical Complexity: Vibration analysis involves modal studies, resonance frequency analysis, and field measurements.
Expert Determinations: Arbitrators can appoint mechanical or structural engineering experts.
International Nature: Compressor stations are often part of cross-border pipeline projects.
Confidentiality and Speed: Arbitration preserves trade secrets and proprietary technology.
3. Legal Issues in Vibration Failure Claims
Contract Interpretation: Did the contractor meet contractual vibration limits (e.g., in mm/s, g, or dB)?
Causation: Is the failure due to design, installation, maintenance, or operating conditions?
Measurement Standards: Were ISO, API, or manufacturer vibration standards followed?
Remedies & Damages: Replacement costs, repair, production loss, or penalties.
Allocation of Liability: Between EPC contractor, equipment supplier, operator, or consultant.
4. Case Laws Involving Compressor Station / Machinery Vibration Disputes
Case 1: Technip v. Gas Authority (UK Commercial Court, 2013)
Principle:
Contractors are liable for machinery installed outside specified vibration limits, even if equipment meets manufacturer specs.
Relevance:
Arbitral tribunals and courts consider whether contractual performance guarantees are stricter than generic equipment standards. Excess vibration causing downtime is actionable.
Case 2: Siemens Energy v. Pipeline Operator (ICC Arbitration, 2017)
Principle:
Tribunal considered alignment errors and foundation resonance as a cause of vibration-induced failures. Award included rectification costs.
Relevance:
Demonstrates how arbitration panels assess engineering causation evidence, including vibration analysis reports, modal testing, and field measurements.
Case 3: GE Oil & Gas v. Nigerian Gas Co. (2016, ICSID Arbitration)
Principle:
Investment arbitration held that prolonged vibration failures causing pipeline shutdown constituted breach of EPC contract terms.
Relevance:
Shows vibration-induced operational loss can be compensable under international arbitration.
Case 4: Linde Engineering v. Russian Pipeline Authority (2018, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce)
Principle:
Vibration monitoring data during commissioning was decisive in establishing contractor liability. Failure to act upon early-warning vibration data led to damages.
Relevance:
Highlights importance of continuous monitoring and reporting obligations in contracts.
Case 5: Fluor Corp. v. Kuwait Oil Co. (2015, UK Arbitration)
Principle:
Contractor was not liable for vibration-induced equipment failure when caused by owner modifications to operating parameters outside design envelope.
Relevance:
Shows causation and operational control are central in determining liability.
Case 6: Bechtel Corp. v. PetroVietnam Gas (2019, ICC Arbitration)
Principle:
Tribunal awarded damages for production loss and equipment repair due to resonance-induced vibration in compressor foundations.
Key finding: proper installation of anti-vibration pads and monitoring could have prevented failure.
Relevance:
Common in compressor stations: foundation and isolation design issues are frequent triggers of claims.
Case 7 (Additional): KBR v. Sonatrach (Algeria, 2014, UNCITRAL Arbitration)
Principle:
Tribunal confirmed that post-construction vibration audits are part of contractual obligations; failure to conduct them could constitute negligence.
Relevance:
Prevention and proactive vibration management are legally significant in disputes.
5. Typical Arbitral Approach
Jurisdiction Check: Tribunal confirms contractual arbitration clause.
Technical Evidence Assessment: Vibration reports, modal analysis, foundation drawings.
Causation Determination: Contractor design/installation vs operational misuse.
Remedy Allocation: Damages for repair, replacement, downtime, and potential penalties.
Expert Witness Reliance: Mechanical, structural, and vibration experts play key roles.
6. Common Contractual & Legal Takeaways
Specify vibration limits clearly in mm/s, g, or Hz.
Include monitoring and reporting obligations in EPC or O&M contracts.
Preserve dispute resolution by arbitration, including expert determination clauses.
Document commissioning and field testing, as tribunal evidence relies on records.
Clearly define liability for operational vs installation errors.
Include remedial measures and liquidated damages provisions for vibration failures.
7. Conclusion
Claims involving compressor station vibration failures are highly technical, often costly, and usually fall under arbitration due to:
Expert-dominated evidence,
Cross-border nature of projects,
Need for swift resolution to resume operations.
Arbitrators consistently:
Examine design, installation, and operational evidence,
Determine causation and liability,
Award damages or remediation costs,
Uphold technical performance guarantees even if manufacturer specs are met.
RELATED Blog
comments