1

API 682 dual seal design configurations

Part 1 of 2: Comparing arrangements and reconciling requirements

By Richard Smith, Director, AESSEAL plc, Rotherham, England, and Heinz P. Bloch,
Consulting Engineer, Westminster, Colorado heinzpbloch@gmail.com

Mechanical seal designers face challenges when developing dual seals for a multitude of users
and industries. Although originally aimed at the Hydrocarbon Processing Industry, the
American Petroleum Institute’s Seal Standard (API-682 / ISO 21049) is very widely used
because it lists and explains many universally applicable requirements.

Dual seal arrangements

Dual seals are increasingly important in many industries, including hydrocarbon processing.
Driving this are plant hazard safety requirements, reductions in allowable fugitive emissions
and the quest for increased equipment uptime. API- 682 / 3rd Edition (Ref. 1) and its
appendix material collectively describe pressurized seal geometries as Arrangement 3. This
arrangement comprises two seals per cartridge assembly and an externally supplied
pressurized barrier fluid. Taken together, the seal layout and flush arrangement create a
beneficial and life-extending seal environment.

The different configurations for Arrangement 3 are described by API-682 as:

 Face-to-back dual seal in which one mating ring is mounted between the two flexible
elements and one flexible element is mounted between the two mating rings or seats
(Figure 1a).
 Back-to-back dual seal in which both of the flexible elements are mounted between the
mating rings (Figure 1b).
 Face-to-face dual seal in which both of the mating seal rings are mounted between the
flexible elements (Figure 1c).

However, the description “dual seal” is inadequate. It should be pointed out that the principal
attribute of the face-to-back (“FB”, Figure 1a) configuration is locating the process fluid
2

(pumpage) on the outer diameter of the inside set of seal faces. In the other two configurations
the process liquid is on the inside diameter of the inside set of seal faces. Note that in this
context an outside-facing set of faces would come into contact with the atmosphere.

Face-to-back arrangements are preferred, although back-to-back and face-to-face orientations

are offered as purchaser’s options. In API-682, non-pressurized dual seals are called
Arrangement 2 and face-to-back is the only arrangement option available in the API 682
standard.

Figure 1: Three styles of dual face mechanical seals for pumps

Advantages and disadvantages of back-to-back and face-to-face seal configurations

In the hydrocarbon processing industries, back-to-back and face-to-face configurations are
widely represented. They can potentially offer higher levels of performance-in large measure
attributable to the cooling effect of barrier fluid flowing over both inner and outer seals.
However, there also are disadvantages.

The main shortcoming of back-to-back and face-to-face configurations is that the process
fluid is on the inside diameter of the seal faces. Centrifugal force action tends to throw any
entrained abrasive solids towards the seal faces, which increases the potential for damage. The
“dead zone” formed by a small volume of process fluid underneath the inner seal increases the
probability of trapping fluid. Trapped fluids tend to congeal and solids are likely to
3

accumulate in dead zone spaces. As the secondary O-ring will then move over a deposit-
affected region of the sleeves (Figure 2), “hang up” is more likely to occur.

The application of reverse balance (which will be explained below) can be more difficult with
back-to-back designs. Upset conditions such as loss of barrier fluid pressure or increases in
process pressure can adversely affect back-to-back configurations. Positive retention of the
inner-seal mating ring can be difficult to accomplish since there will always be unavoidable
dimensional constraints of associated hardware and seal chambers.

So, unless properly retained, thrust forces acting during pressure reversal may cause a ring to
become dislodged. Also, with some designs, reverse pressure loading will apply a hydraulic
force to the inner seal spring plate. This reverse pressure then tends to open the seal faces.

These concerns have, over the past two decades, prompted chemical process industries to
move toward face-to-back designs. Overall seal reliability has improved with face-to-back
configurations.

Figure 2: Explaining the potential for “hang-up”

4

Figure 3: O-ring movement with pressure reversals

Advantages of face-to-back seal configurations

Face-to-back configurations overcome virtually all the weaknesses of other designs with
pumpage on the outside diameter of the seal faces. The preference for this configuration is
noted by API-682 and is summarized below: ‘The advantages of the series configuration are
that abrasive contamination is centrifuged and has less effect on the inner seal.’

A further note supports the case: ‘Liquid barrier seal designs arranged such that the process
fluid is on the OD of the seal faces will help to minimize solids accumulation on the faces and
minimize hang-up.’

Dual balance is easier to incorporate in this configuration and the seal O-ring can be located
so as to permit it to move to either side of the groove. This then supports a closing force
regardless of the direction of pressure. Mating rings can be simply retained either positively
or, with more modern designs, hydraulically (Figure 1b). Pressure reversal capability provides
for greater safety; it increases the degree of tolerance for many process upset or loss of barrier
fluid conditions. Again, API-682 reinforces this point in a note:

‘In the event of a loss of barrier fluid pressure, the seal will behave like an Arrangement 2’

Figure 2 illustrates O-ring retention and movement with pressure reversals.

5

Fig. 4: Barrier fluid cooling 
comparison face-to-back (right) versus back-to-back (below)

Disadvantages of conventional face-to-back configurations

Of major concern in face-to-back designs is cooling of the inner seal. Seal designers have
typically approached the issue by mounting component seals with adaptive hardware (sleeve
and gland) to form a cartridge. However, the barrier fluid flow path to the inner seal is
compromised by a region of low or zero flow. The temperature in these stagnant areas will be
elevated by heat soak and face-generated heat. The 2nd Edition of API-682 very eloquently
provides a warning (Ref. 2):

‘Restricted seal chamber dimensions and the resulting cartridge hardware construction can
affect the ability of the barrier fluid flush to adequately cool the inner seal. Inadequate cooling
of the inner seal can result in reduced seal reliability. Selection of a back-to-back or face-to-
face configuration may resolve an inner seal cooling problem.’

Accordingly, the challenge for seal designers is to provide both a seal with optimized cooling
and to simultaneously provide resistance to “hang up” and pressure reversal.
6

Figure 5: Face-to-back bellows seal with deflector baffle. This baffle guides the barrier fluid towards the seal faces
(Source: AESSEAL plc., Rotherham, UK, and Rockford, TN)

Deflector baffle developments

An ordinary face-to-back (“FB”, upper right) seal would receive little or no cooling at the
inner seal faces. That fact drove technology innovation to improve inner seal cooling.
Superior cooling can now be achieved by incorporating a high performance circulating device
and flow deflector baffle in dual seals. The deflector baffle in Figure. 5 diverts the barrier
fluid flow to the inner seal; this provides cooling to the inner seal faces and represents an
elegant solution to the dual seal challenge: good cooling and superior containment in a small
dimensional envelope.

Deflector baffles have long been employed on single high-temperature seals connected to
quench stream. However, restrictions in seal chamber dimensions and somewhat large cross-
section of conventional dual balanced pusher seals have generally inhibited the more
widespread use of deflector baffles. Except for bellows seals with their traditionally smaller
cross-sections (Figure 5), incorporating deflectors has generally been limited to “engineered
specials” rather than off-the shelf designs. Still, in applications where more space is available
the deflector baffles can be optimally shaped and contoured. This contouring is now much
more widely available from the true innovators. Proper contouring now guides the maximum
amount of barrier fluid to the regions from which heat must be removed or where cooling is of
greatest benefit.

In other words, well-engineered deflector baffles are now part of superior dual mechanical
seal designs where they determine flow direction. Also, there needs to be flow-rate
optimization for barrier fluids.

Part 2 will elaborate on modern deflector baffles and pumping devices.

References
1. API Standard 682/3rd Edition; also ISO 21049, (2004): “Shaft Sealing Systems for
Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps,” API (American Petroleum Institute), Alexandria, VA

2. API Standard 682/2nd Edition, (2002): “Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary
Pumps,” API (American Petroleum Institute), Alexandria, VA
7

Part 2 of 2: Developments in pusher seal technology

by Richard Smith, Director, AESSEAL plc, Rotherham, England and Heinz P. Bloch, Consulting Engineer,
Westminster, Colorado 80031.

Although seal face cooling and the other vital requirements discussed in Part 1 of this article (Pump
Industry magazine, May 2014) may often appear to be at odds with each other, innovative designs are now
available to satisfy all criteria. Computational flow techniques (CFD) and testing have facilitated an
understanding of best available solutions that don’t require compromise. All underlying design concepts
discussed in this article have been fully validated in field studies.

Achieving seal balance

One method of achieving seal balance involves placing O-rings on the outside of the seal faces. This is now
common practice in the chemical process industries. Making the sleeve also serve as the face holder is now
possible with modern computer numerically controlled (CNC) machining techniques.

These design and manufacturing techniques facilitate a more compact design, open up the inner seal
envelope and provide a deflector baffle (Figure 1). Separating the barrier flow inlet and outlet causes the
cooler barrier fluid to migrate towards the inner seal faces and can be critically important to promoting
extended mechanical seal life.

Figure 1. Flow of barrier fluid with deflector baffle. Flowrate increases are made possible by the tapered pumping device
shown here (www.aesseal.com).

The exact configuration of the deflector baffle shown schematically in Figures 5 (Part 1) and 1 (Part 2) was
actually refined and optimised through the use of modern flow optimisation techniques, typically called
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The before-versus-after results are shown in Figure 2.

Since it is, of course, desirable to maximise fluid flow in contact with the inboard seal faces, the end of the
deflector was re-profiled to a triangular sharp edge. The analysis plotted in Figure 2 indicates radial motion
next to the extremity of the deflector. This re-circulation reduces the flow path and prevents some fluid
close to the deflector nose from escaping before even reaching the seal faces. Compared with the original
round shape, the triangular sharp edge shape promotes vortex motion and redirects additional coolant flow
to the seal faces.
8

Figure 2a. Deflector performance after making modifications for flow optimisation.

Figure 2b. Deflector performance before flow optimisation.

Circulation device performance for API Plan 52 and 53 systems

Dual wet seal barrier fluid circulation can be achieved by external means per API Plan 54. It can also be
achieved by internal circulating devices per API Plans 53 a, b, and c, and also per API Plan 52 (see Refs. 1
and 2; also Bloch/Budris, Pump User’s Handbook, 4th Edition, 2013). All of these seal flush plans are
available from recent editions of API 682; virtually every plan conveys the need to ensure cooling of the
seal faces. Effective seal cooling depends upon the barrier fluid circulation devices’ efficiency. Internal
devices are part of the seal cartridge and their performance can be affected by many factors, summarised in
Table 1.

Circulating or pumping device design

Direction of rotation

Seal size

Seal type

Shaft speed
9

Barrier fluid density

Barrier fluid viscosity

Barrier fluid containment vessel (or cooler)

Seal cavity flow path, concentricity, contour

Gland port orientation ports: top/bottom, tangential

Connecting pipe size & layout (bends/distances)

Fittings connections & roughness of pipe bore

Table 1. Factors that can affect circulation flow.

Traditional internal circulating devices (Figures 3a and 3b) fall into two groups, parallel slot (castellation,
Figure 3a) and helical vane (Figure 3b). Parallel slot devices induce radial flow and must be positioned
adjacent to the barrier outlet orifice; they can be bi-directional only if used with radial ports. Helical vane
devices are unidirectional, provide axial flow, and are less dependent on port proximity.

Figure 3a. Parallel slot pumping device.

Figure 3b. Helical pumping device.

Figure 3c. Tapered vane bi-directional pumping ring.

However, the use of multi-axis CNC machine tools has given designers far more freedom to devise
considerably more efficient arrangements. Figure 3c illustrates a very important option that now presents
itself. Here, a modern bi-directional large clearance “tapered vane” pumping ring provides much-improved
circulation.
10

The head versus flow performance of a 100 mm seal with the three different pumping devices in Figure 3 is
plotted in Figure 4. The tapered vane device excels with its higher head and higher flow capability.

Figure 4. Head versus flow performance of a 100 mm seal with the three different pumping devices (shown earlier in
Figure 3).

Practical application and limitations of circulating devices

Tangential porting arrangements can offer improved performance on all three types of devices and utilising
this feature on large between-bearing pumps is often straightforward. On smaller units port orientation can
be more problematic since gland stud position and pump frame casting will often interfere. Regardless of
the pumping device chosen, its respective performance can be optimised by modifying the internal cavity.
Suitably positioned cutwaters and eccentric or taper-bored seal environments (pump housings) merit
attention. Due to gland plate machining costs these optimisation practices tend to be found primarily on
engineered API-610 compliant pumps.

Reductions in internal radial clearance can also improve device performance. However, there are safety
implications and sufficient clearance is highly desirable to prevent contact between rotating and stationary
components. While not normally occurring, such contact is possible under fault conditions. For many years
API-682 had specified a minimum radial clearance of 1.5 mm (Ref. 1). But in their quest for increased
device efficiency, some seal manufacturers lobbied for reduced clearances, although unduly small internal
clearances tend to impede adequate thermosiphon action when the shaft is not rotating. It should be noted
that such fluid flow motion (i.e. thermosiphoning), is required to prevent the seal overheating just after
shutdown (when a pump will still be at full temperature) or during warm up.

The flow required in actual service depends largely on the amount of heat that must be removed from the
seal by the barrier fluid system. Formulas for seal face temperature heat generation and heat soak from the
process to the seal chamber are widely published. On small higher temperature pumps the heat load on the
seal barrier system will primarily be thermal soak and the cooling requirements are little affected by
changes in shaft speed.

As with any pump impeller, the performance of a circulating device is a function of its diameter and shaft
rotational speed. Performance becomes critical to seal reliability on smaller pumps and those operating at
four-pole motor speeds or with variable speed drives. Circulating devices must operate efficiently at lower
speed on smaller shafts with large clearances and radial porting. Well-engineered circulating devices
represent the widest potential application group. Bi-directional designs (Figures 1 and 3c) help eliminate
installation errors on between-bearing pumps and can reduce spare parts inventory requirements.
11

The original tapered vane bi-directional device of Figures 1 and 3c has been in successful commercial
service since 1999. Notice that the vanes in early designs were straight. However, research into vane
profiles and vane angles has subsequently allowed flow increases of up to 40 per cent. In fact, the vanes
furnished after 2011 are contoured into a “swan’s neck” shape, which prevents reverse flow on the back
edge of the vane. The performance of this device with its “swan-neck” vanes is virtually equal to that of a
similarly configured unidirectional tapered vane. It has been tested at different shaft diameters and shaft
speeds. As mentioned above, the relatively liberal radial clearances of 1.5 mm (0.060 in) between the rotor
and stator are of interest. The design thus fully conforms to Ref. 1 and best reduces the risk of seal-internal
stationary components being inadvertently contacted by seal-internal rotating devices. Test results obtained
with a 50 mm ‘swan-neck’ tapered pumping device design (typical of many medium-size pumps) are
readily available from www.aesseal.com.

Case studies involving dual mechanical seals

Case studies where implementing some of the discussed design elements has resulted in improved
reliability are always of interest.

Face-to-back replacement of back-to-back configuration

There are many published examples that demonstrate improved reliability after replacing older back-to-
back seals with modern face-to-back geometries. For instance, back-to-back seals had been installed in
circulation pumps used on industrial laundry machinery manufactured in the UK by Thomas Broadbent and
Sons, Ltd.

The duty for these ISO-compliant pumps (Ref. 1) would be considered “light” in most industries. They
operate at 85°C with a seal chamber pressure of 3 bar and have two seal sizes, 28 mm and 65 mm. The
pumped fluid, however, was contaminated with fibers typically known as “lint”. These fibers would enter
the seal chamber and become packed near the inside diameter of the inner seal faces. The resulting seal face
hang-up caused premature failure. After retrofitting dual seals with face-to-back orientation, the pump
MTBF (mean-time-between-failures) improved more than six-fold.

Replacement of back-to-back with advanced face-to-back technology including flow deflector baffle

A complex reactor circulation duty at a chemical plant in Wales, UK, demanded that a twin-screw pump
(made by Albany Engineering) be used and fitted with four dual seals. Conditions included process
temperatures between 25-180°C, seal size 54 mm, seal chamber pressures ranging from slight vacuum to
3.5 bar, viscosities ranging from 0.5cP to 5000cP, and shaft speeds ranging from 180 to 1500 rpm.

Light silicon oil was selected as the barrier fluid. This had proven problematic on other applications due to
its poor lubricity and heat transfer properties at elevated temperatures. However, silicon oil had to be used
for reasons of compatibility with the process fluid. An external pumping device Plan 54 configuration
(Refs. 1 and 2) was selected for these variable-speed driven pumps.

Several variants of back-to-back bellows cartridge seals were tested, but failures occurred typically after six
months. These failures were primarily attributed to pressure reversal issues, as described earlier. Since then,
face-to-back seals with deflector baffles have been successfully used at this facility, replacing both
traditional face-to-back and back-to-back designs in these screw pumps. Not only have the pumps achieved
extended process runs in excess of two years, but the seal faces were still in pristine condition when
examined after almost three years.

Traditional face-to-back vs. advanced face-to-back with internal pumping Plan 53 in an automotive paint
facility

Superior coating technologies are used in the automotive industry. Today, automobile body corrosion is
virtually unheard of. One of the reasons for this is full immersion in primer dip tanks with an electrical
charge applied. However, facilities were challenged by sealing issues in the electro-coat primer circulation
pumps. The paint contains sub-micron abrasive particles, making it necessary to use hard-faced wear-
resistant materials on the inner seal. The paint temperature has to be maintained near a process temperature
of 25°C ±10°C. Upwards excursions in temperature are risky and could cause paint to rapidly congeal.
Dual seals are used for this sealing duty and ultra-filtrate, essentially de-ionised water with other chemicals
acting as a thinner, is used as a compatible barrier fluid.
12

End suction pumps with a 50 mm shaft are employed. At first, seal cooling and poor circulation device
efficiency had prevented reliable operation of conventional face-to-back seals and API Plan 53a systems
(Refs. 1 and 2). The paint is tenacious and tends to overcome the barrier fluid film pressure between the
inner seal faces. Heat generated by these faces causes the paint to congeal or polymerise. As the paint
particles migrate, they cause the seal face gap to widen and, although the faces are undamaged, excessive
leakage results. While it would seem logical to simply increase the barrier fluid pressure, this would
increase temperature generation and the added heat load would merely accelerate problem development.

Reliable sealing has traditionally been achieved by using moving pressurised barrier fluids at the high flow
rates achievable with API Plan 54 (Refs. 1 and 2). However, these relatively complex external barrier fluid
circuits often require instrumentation ensuring that equal flow reaches each seal in the many pumps
installed for parallel operation. Individual seal fault diagnostics can be difficult and cost-intensive with Plan
54 because a centralised pressure source provides external barrier fluid circulation to several pump sets.

These concerns then prompted plant designers and operators to seek alternative solutions. Modern face-to-
back cartridge seals with high efficiency circulation devices and barrier fluid flow separation baffles will
give superior performance in such duties with API Plan 53a (Refs 1 and 2). API Plan 53a systems offer
many advantages in terms of cost and simplicity and these systems have been successfully installed in five
automotive plants in Europe and on other continents. In fact, advanced face-to-back seals have, as of 2012,
seen flawless operation for over seven years at one UK automotive plant.

Experience shows that mechanical seal technology continues to develop and that application of sound
principles is useful in all sectors of industry. Highly reliable face-to-back designs are now available with
enhanced cooling features. These developments have greatly expanded the application range for this
advantageous dual-seal configuration. Well-proven developments combine API Plan 53a with tapered vane
pumping devices. These devices certainly merit close consideration in many pumping services.

Note: Our footnote again mentions the Pump User’s Handbook (4th Edition, 2013) because flush plans of
interest to dual seals can be found in this text. Another source is API 682 and websites including API,
AESSEAL, and others. The co-authors again acknowledge the kind permission of API and the hard-
working, experienced volunteers who keep the standards up-to-date.

References (for Part 2 of article):

1. API Standard 682/3rd Edition; also ISO 21049, (2004): Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and
Rotary Pumps, API (American Petroleum Institute), Alexandria, VA.

2. API Standard 682/2nd Edition, (2002): Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps, API
(American Petroleum Institute), Alexandria, VA.