Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Turbolab - Seal Leakage Guide - P25-Lec2 PDF
Turbolab - Seal Leakage Guide - P25-Lec2 PDF
by
John B. Merrill
Manager of Application Engineering
EagleBurgmann
Charlotte, North Carolina
questions. In many cases it is the user that can best answer their own
questions. Ideally, a strong relationship with the seal manufacturer
as a partner rather than a commodity supplier will address these
issues before the seal is placed into service.
A discussion of mechanical seal leakage can be organized by
those factors that limit leakage in various ways. These can be
separated into five general categories:
ABSTRACT
In some cases the end user may have detailed and evolved
expectations of seal leakage. This is often the case at mature
petrochemical refineries where governmental regulation of
emissions has been in effect for nearly 20 years. The first category,
leakage limited by law, is typically of paramount importance to end
users so that they do not incur fines, operational injunctions, or an
erosion of public confidence both in their neighborhood or on the
relevant stock market.
The second category, leakage limited by process, usually falls
within the end users expertise as well. Contamination of a process
fluid by seal leakage can require further downstream processing,
yield a less efficient reaction chemically or thermodynamically,
result in a less commercially valuable end product, or even pose a
safety risk.
Leakage limited by housekeeping also lies within the domain of the
end users knowledge. Often the geographic climate itself influences
this as leakage freezes, evaporates, condenses, dries, or otherwise
behaves in a way familiar to site personnel. Seal leakage may also
prevent or hinder maintenance of other equipment in the area.
Responsibility for categories 4 and 5 are typically shared by the
end user and seal supplier (manufacturer, distributor, original
equipment manufacturer [OEM], or engineering contractor).
Each category shall be discussed in detail and offer up many
issues for discussion before they become a problem. But realize
that categorization as such only provides a convenient structure for
analysis. In reality these issues are all quite intertwined into a
system that behaves as a complex organism. That is precisely why
end users and seal suppliers must all bring their experience to the
table and listen carefully to one another, develop an agreed upon
plan, then execute that plan daily in a disciplined manner.
INTRODUCTION
How much should this seal leak?
How much can this seal leak before it becomes a problem?
The seal is leaking. Should I remove it from service?
These are questions posed to mechanical seal manufacturers
every day. Seal users have realized that the answers to these
questions are complex and often lead to even more difficult
13
14
where:
h
= Film thickness, m
m = Mass flowrate, kg/s
p
= Pressure, Pa
r0 = Outside radius of seal face, m
= Angle, rad
= Density, kg/m3
Equation (1) is valid for both liquids and gases, although the
(p) term is generally a constant for liquids. The negative sign
appears because the Mp term is defined as inside pressure minus
outside pressure. For outside pressurized seals, the Mp term will be
negative and cancel out the minus sign.
One can see that the relationship between leakage and seal
radius, pressure drop across the seal face, fluid density and
dynamic viscosity are all linear, with only viscosity inversely so.
The relationship between leakage and film thickness is cubic,
however. While the equation appears simple at first glance, one
must understand that the film thickness, h, is itself a function of
several variables:
where:
= Net radial taper of seal faces, rad
u
= Relative velocity of seal faces, m/s
Ra = Average surface roughness of seal faces, m
hw = Amplitude of circumferential waviness, m
Some of these variables are yet again a function of many other
variables, and often functions of one another.
A casual review of the Reynolds equation might lead one to
conclude that higher viscosity results in lower leakage, but that is only
true under static conditions. The film thickness, h, is a strong function
of dynamic viscosity, , and velocity, u. Increased dynamic viscosity
results in a dramatic increase in hydrodynamic or aerodynamic lift.
This function is typically highly nonlinear and must be solved using
advanced numerical techniques during the analysis phase.
Other parameters of seal design, such as spring load, balance
ratio, radial face width, face patterning or surface treatments, will
not be discussed. None of those parameters changes the derivation
and mathematical form of the Reynolds equation. Those parameters,
rather, affect only the functions such as h and Mp/Mr contained
therein. A solid understanding of the Reynolds equation is therefore
a prerequisite to understanding those more intricate design bases.
One often hears the statement, All seals leak; they have to in
order to work. Look again at the Reynolds equation and think
about this statement. Approach this statement in a different way.
Shaft misalignment
Machine vibration
Seal face or gasket damage
15
16
destruction of the seal faces since the solids laden fluid cannot
enter the seal face gap. These macroscale misbehaviors render
leakage impossible to predict. If the slurry does de-water and
measures have been taken to minimize gasket fouling, the leakage
statements from paragraph 1 will apply.
Engineered Liquid-Lubricated Seals
For the purpose of this paper, engineered liquid lubricated seals
are defined as those that have some sort of surface treatment or
pattern on one of the seal faces that either aids lubrication or prevents
contact altogether by means of hydrostatic or hydrodynamic lift. This
would include hydro-grooves, waves, spiral grooves, scallops, or
nontraditional surfaces such as matte lapped, hydropores,
diamond-like coatings, or the like. Most seal manufacturers have
proprietary software that can predict leakage as a function of
several parameters, and many of these designs are dynamically
tested by the manufacturer before shipment.
Noncontacting Gas Seals for Pumps
Seals of this design are applied in centrifugal pumps operating
between 1460 and 3600 rev/min with shaft diameters between 25
and 125 mm (.98 and 4.92 inch) in diameter. (Usually dual gas
seals are installed in centrifugal pumps designed to the ASME
B73.1 and DIN EN 733 or 22858.) Aerodynamic lift generated by
some seal face pattern or surface creates a gas film thick enough
so that zero face contact occurs. Seal manufacturers will provide
typical leakage curves as a function of seal size and/or shaft speed
so that the end-user knows what to expect. Refer to Figure 1 for a
general footprint for leakage.
or
Single seals, sealing the vapor space above the vessel contents,
which may be at a positive or negative pressure.
where:
PB
= Barrier gas pressure, psiG or barG
TB
= Barrier gas temperature, F or C
SG
= Gas specific gravity (1.0 for air, 1.02 for nitrogen)
Leakage for these designs behaves much like a gas orifice, which
reaches choked flow conditions at which point increased pressure
differential across the seal face only yields a nominal increase in
mass flow. This is due to the much thinner fluid film compared to
an active-lift gas seal. The film thickness will be equal to the
combined surface roughness of the seal faces. Practically speaking,
at some point operation will be governed not by leakage but rather
the pressure*velocity (P-V) limit of the seal face materials in
contact. Most seal manufacturers publish commercial P-V limits,
17
Split seals are often applied in low duty, top-entry mixers where
speeds and sealed pressures are very low. In many applications a
mechanical seal is installed to keep atmospheric air or contaminants
out of the vessel more so than containing the vessel contents. Seal
leakage, regardless of direction, should not be an issue in these
instances or a split seal is a poor choice.
These designs are quite often dry-running as discussed in
the section above, Dry-Running Mixer/Agitator Seals. With
atmospheric air above and vessel vapor space below, there is little
alternative. Whether dry-running or liquid lubricated, the seal
manufacturer is really the only one that can make statements
regarding leakage, and do not expect much detail. If this is a problem
for the end user, revisit whether a split seal is a good selection.
18
reader a starting point for researching what applies to his or her site
of interest as well as which chemicals are commonly found in
environmental legislation.
A list of environmental governmental agencies and legislation
for the major industrialized nations is included in Table 1. Many
countries with advanced health, safety and environmental legislation
limit the release of specific chemicals to the environment. Those
references can be found in Table 1 as well. Only federal laws are
listed. Many provinces, states, or special geographic areas have
more detailed local regulations as well. Most of the members of
the European Union have federal enforcement agencies and
overlapping federal environmental legislation.
Dual pressurized seals that use a liquid as the barrier fluid force a
very small amount of leakage into the process fluid. The leakage rate
is typically low because the pressure differential across the innermost
seal faces is low (review the Reynolds equationMp/Mr). Even so,
this issue must be discussed with the end user even before suggesting
use of a dual pressurized liquid seal. Several issues can arise:
Nation
Argentina
Agency
Federal Council on the
Environment (COFEMA)
Federal Regulation
The General Statute of the Environment (25.675 General del
Ambiente), 2002
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Egypt
European Union
India
Indonesia
Process
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
The Philippines
Russian
Federation
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Korea
Ministry of Environment
Taiwan
Environmental Protection
Administration
Thailand
United Arab
Emirates
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)
Vietnam
Material Leakage
By material is meant such debris as carbon graphite wear
particles from a seal face, O-ring lubricant, foreign matter from
the seal parts, or other unforeseen contamination. This form
of leakage is of primary concern to biopharmaceutical and
traditional pharmaceutical manufacturers and end users that have
very precise aesthetic or ingredient composition requirements.
The quantity of carbon graphite dust that any seal design can
generate is typically minute, but process fluids that must be
ultra-white (paint, pharmaceutical creams, textiles) may be
compromised by even the smallest amount of carbon dust.
Process fluids meant for human or animal consumption must
meet the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) requirements in
the U.S. and many other nations. Carbon graphite seal rings
comprise carbon, a hydrocarbon, or resin binder, and some impurities
such as ash and other trace compounds. Nearly every modern
carbon graphite seal material has been found generally regarded as
safe (GRAS) by the FDA with the exception of those that use
antimony as a binder.
O-ring and gasket lubricants that most end users will permit:
19
20
21
failure of the pressure unit can cause the entire seal array to fail. A
single seal failure may cause enough drop in barrier pressure or
flow to fail other seals in the array (Gabriel and Buck, 2007b).
Allowable seal leakage of any one seal or combination of seals will
be governed by the hydraulic characteristics of the pressure unit.
Leakage Limited by Standard
API 682/ISO 21049 (2006) sets objectives and minimum performance requirements for qualification testing. Section 10.3.1.4.1
states the permitted leakage rate shall be less than:
1000
An average liquid leakage rate less than 5.6 grams/hr per pair of
sealing faces.
Chaotic
CONCLUSIONS
22
Turley, R. S., Dickman, D. L., Parker, J. C., and Rich, R. R., 2000,
Influence of Gas Seals on Pump Performance at Low Suction
Head Conditions, Proceedings of the Seventeenth
International Pump Users Symposium, Turbomachinery
Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas,
pp. 23-29.
REFERENCES
API Standard 682, 2006, PumpsShaft Sealing Systems for
Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps, Third Edition, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Gabriel, R. and Buck, G., May 2007a, Circulation Systems for
Single and Multiple Seal Arrangements, Part 1, Pumps &
Systems, p. 50.
Gabriel, R. and Buck, G., July 2007b, Circulation Systems for
Single and Multiple Seal Arrangements, Part 3, Pumps &
Systems, p. 40.
Lebeck, A. O., 1991, Principles and Design of Mechanical Face
Seals, New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Chapter 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amoore, J. E. and Hautula, E., 1983, Odor as an Aid to Chemical
Safety, Journal of Applied Toxicology, 3, (6), pp. 272-290.
ASTM C1055-03, Standard Guide for Heated System
Surface Conditions That Produce Contact Burn Injuries,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.