Dry Gas Seals:

Why They Fail and How to

Reduce Failures

Aaron Rimpel
Tim Allison, Ph.D.
June 24, 2020
Outline

 Dry gas seals

 Separation seals
 System layout
 Common failure modes
– Particulate filtration
– Liquid contamination
 R&D efforts

2
SwRI is an Applied Research &
Development Company
 Founded in 1947, based in San Antonio,
Texas
 501 (c)(3) nonprofit corporation
– Internal Research
– New Laboratories
 ~$600M Annual revenue from contract
work for industry and government
clients
 Over 2,600 employees
 1,200-acre facility; 2.3 million square
feet of laboratories & offices
 Flexible IP policy
 Machinery Department: 70 employees,
5 labs with turbomachinery trains up
to 14 MW
Why is dry gas seal reliability important?
 Minimize process gas leakage to
atmosphere
 Prevent bearing oil migration
into process
 Tight running clearance (3-10
microns)
– Low leakage
M. Klosek, "Short Course 4 on Dry Gas Seals," Turbomachinery – Sensitive to contamination
Symposium, Houston, 2003.
from process gas, seal supply
gas, lubrication oil
 Understanding common DGS
failure modes and their
prevention can reduce frequency
and cost of DGS system failures

4
Overview of DGS

 Lift-off between primary mating rings

– Static (due to hydraulic balancing)
– Dynamic (converging flow in
grooves)
Rotating Face Groove Pattern

 Self-regulating running gap

– Held closed by spring when not
pressurized
– Increased gap from axial movement
 pressure reduced  rings forced
closer
– Vice-versa
Image Courtesy Stahley, 2001

5
Most common seal in use:
Tandem Configuration
 Primary and secondary (backup) seal in series
M. Klosek, "Short Course 4 on Dry Gas
 Flow of sealing gas Seals," Turbomachinery Symposium,
Houston, 2003.
– Mostly leaks into process side
– Small amount goes through seal and primary vent
– Smaller amount goes through secondary seal and secondary vent

 Backup of primary seal is safer, but complex

 Can have intermediate laby

– Prevents primary seal leakage from flowing into secondary vent
– Keeps harmful gas from venting to atmosphere
– Requires secondary seal gas supply
6
Unidirectional vs. Bidirectional
Configurations
 Unidirectional better for axial movement
– Wider running gap = less risk of contact
– Stiffer film = more accommodation for disturbances

 Bidirectional advised for applications where counter-rotation is

a possibility
– Sometimes used for reducing spares

7
Seal Gas Supply
 Often taken from compressor discharge with a booster for transients

 Higher pressure than required sealing pressure across compressor's operating range
– Including transients
– 50 psi above required sealing pressure usually sufficient[1]

 Clean and dry

– Coalescing filter
– Duplex filter
– DP gage with high DP alarm

 Prevent condensation from water vapor and heavy hydrocarbons (C6+) with a
heater
– Largest pressure drop may be at seal faces
– Joule-Thompson effect will decrease temperature  condensation

8
Gas Supply Control
 DP control
– DP CV to keep seal gas pressure above a referenced sealing
pressure (typically 10 psi)[1]
 Flow control
– Regulate gas flow through upstream orifice
– Flow control valve or needle valve
– Automatic control recommended
 Recommended 32 ft/sec flow across inner laby[1]
 Minimize seal gas consumption since most is recycled
– Very little flow required for seal

9
Separation Seals
 Labyrinth seals
– Least expensive
– Reliable
– Highest leakage
 Contacting segmented carbon ring seals
– Wear  service life of 3-5 years
– Low leakage
 Noncontacting segmented carbon ring seals
– Indefinite service life
– Challenging operating conditions

10
Typical DGS Supply System Layout
 Supply and vent locations at compressor (single seal)
 Objective: Min 16 ft/s across process laby at 2x seal clearance

11
 Example DGS System

Filter DP
DP for Seal Gas Reference P
Control from
Seal Gas Compressor
Supply
Filter Seal Gas To Seal
Control Valve

Filter DP

LP Reference
Separation
Gas Supply HP Reference

Filter Separation Gas To Seal

DP Regulator

12
 Typical Failure Modes
Process Supply Lube Oil Installation/
Contamination Contamination Contamination Geometry

Even though DGS operation and maintenance are

generally well understood, failures are still common

M. Day and T. Allison, “Analysis of Historical Dry Gas Seal Failure

Data in Natural Gas Compressors," Gas Machinery Conference,
Denver, 2016.
13
 Failure Modes
Root Cause
Process Lube Oil
Supply Installation /
Contamination Contamination
Contamination (43%) Geometry (26%)
(34%) (21%)
• Liquid • Geometry • Heavy (not broken into
Contamination 62%) Hydrocarbon subcategories)
(64%) • Installation Contamination
• Other (38%) (25%)
Contamination • Process Gas
(28%) Contamination
• Filter Overload (41%)
(8%) • Insufficient Seal
Gas (25%)

Total: 194 Failures (144 with provided root causes)

14
Supply Gas Contamination:
Liquid Contamination (64%)
 Cause
– Joule-Thompson effect  liquid drop out downstream
– Liquid migration from compressor discharge piping
 Symptoms
– Liquids in seal (or dried residue)
– Water lines showing presence of liquid in seal
 Solution
– Coalescing filter on supply lines
– Heater to keep supply gas from forming liquids
– Proper heater operation during transients
– Trips/alarms at low supply gas temperature

15
Supply Gas Contamination:
Liquids in Vent Unable to be Drained
 Causes
– No low point to drain liquid accumulation in vent
 Symptom
– Liquid contamination in primary seal
 Solution
– Have low point in primary vent line before flare to drain liquid
– Operator should check drain regularly

16
Supply Gas Contamination:
Other Contamination (28%)
 Causes
– Contamination from a procedure (such as cleaning) where system
would be opened
– Other contaminates in lines are stirred up during transients (in seal gas
system and compressor operation)
– Upstream over-pressurization
 Symptoms
– Contamination on gas side
– Oil contamination (from booster compressor)
– Solids in lines
 Solution
– Flush & blow out upstream pipes
– Use stainless steel pipes instead of carbon steel to minimize corrosion
17
Supply Gas Contamination:
Filter Overload or Degradation (8%)
 Causes: Filter overload
– Operator not heeding alarms, not changing filter
– Collapses, sends large “clump” of debris through
 Causes: Filter degradation
– Operator not heeding alarms, not changing filter
– Filter starts to allow larger particles through once clogged
 Symptoms
– Vent pressure and vibration jump upward for a catastrophic, quick failure
(overload)
– Vent pressure trends upward to a gradual failure (degradation)
 Solution
– Ensure operator heeds alarms related to filter and is trained to change filters
– Have duplex filter setup so filter can be changed while operating

18
 Filters in DGS Supply System

Filter DP
DP for Seal Gas Reference P
Control from
Seal Gas Compressor
Supply
Filter Seal Gas To Seal
Control Valve

Filter DP

LP Reference
Separation
Gas Supply HP Reference

Filter Separation Gas To Seal

DP Regulator

19
Coalescing Filter

 Seal gap requires 3 μm filtration

– API 692 requires 1 μm filtration
 Use transfer valves for duplex setup to enable changing of filter
elements while in service
 Must have drain valves w/automatic control or regular
inspection/draining
 Level transmitter may be needed
 Monitor DP (alarm recommended)
 Prefilter may be needed to remove larger particles (e.g., a
cyclone filter)
 Removable bolted cover for filter cartridge replacement

20
Other Failure Modes:
Improper Installation (38%)/Geometry (62%)
 Causes
– Parts missing/not installed
– No axial movement on seal faces (were in contact)
– Drive pin too long or too short
 Symptom
– Immediate failure on startup
– Misalignment (drive pin)
 Solution
– Check drive pin dimensions prior to installation
– Check for proper installation

21
Process Gas Contamination:
 Cause
– Intermittently or continuously insufficient seal gas pressure (25%)

– Oil drained back from flow path

– Slow roll, if supply taken from compressor discharge (16%)

 Symptoms
– Process gas contamination on seal face (41%)

– For sour gas, could result in white sulfur powder build-up

– Heavy hydrocarbons on seal face (25%)

– Broken rotating seat if seal face contact

 Solution
– Robust booster system (check air quality if pneumatically actuated)

– Alarms and trips to not allow operation without sufficient seal gas pressure

– Supply flow automatically regulated

– Provide gas supply during pressurized hold; provide adequate oil drainage

– If slow roll, use booster or increase idle speed

22
Phase Map Analysis
 Screen supply system with multiphase simulation tools
– Liquid dropout
– Solid formation
– Hydrate formation
 Include system pressure drops and heat transfer

23
Lube Oil Contamination (21%)

 Causes
– Insufficient separation gas
– Inadequate separation seal design
– Lube oil flow too high, overcomes drains
 Symptoms
– Wet oil on seal faces
 Solution
– Increase separation gas pressure to upper design limit on seal[1]
– Note: excessive DP can accelerate wear of barrier seal
– Have minimum separation gas pressure as a start permissive for
lube oil

24
Liquid Contamination Failure Mechanisms
Liquid droplets stick to faces and pull out material

•Pockets of material pull out of face [OEM discussions]

•Increase in leakage
•Intermittent or sprayed liquid (liquid droplets) [OEM discussions]

Shear force breaks faces

•Startup [OEM discussions]

•Liquid accumulation in seal [OEM discussions]

Faces overheat due to friction

•High viscosity fluids [End-user discussions]

•Flow rate dependence [OEM discussions]
•Thermal deformations cause seal face rubs [OEM discussions]
•Material failure at high temperatures [2, 3]

Solid residue from liquid evaporation

•Scoring on faces [4, OEM discussions]

Grooves fill with liquid

•Affects running gap, leads to poor hydrodynamic performance [OEM discussions, 2]

•May lead to face contact [OEM discussions, 2]

Vaporization across seal faces

•Rapid vaporization can shatter ceramics in seal [OEM discussions]

•“Puffing” due to vaporization [Pump seal discussions, 1]

Hang-up due to liquid contamination

•Affects tracking of seal faces

•May result in face contact and high heat

25
Liquid droplets stick to faces and pull out material

 Pockets of material pull out of face [OEM discussions]

 Increase in leakage [OEM discussions]
 Intermittent or sprayed liquid (liquid droplets) [OEM
discussions

26
Shear force breaks faces
 Startup [OEM discussions]
 Liquid accumulation in seal [OEM discussions]

27
Faces overheat due to friction
 High viscosity fluids [End-user discussions]
 Flow rate dependence [OEM discussions]
 Thermal deformations cause seal face rubs [OEM discussions]
 Material failure at high temperatures [2, 3]
 Results in shattered seal face

28
Solid residue from liquid evaporation
 Scoring on faces [4, OEM discussions]

29
Grooves fill with liquid
 Affects running gap, leads to poor hydrodynamic performance
[OEM discussions, 2]
 May lead to face contact [OEM discussions, 2]

30
Vaporization across seal faces
 Rapid vaporization can shatter ceramics in seal [OEM
discussions]
 “Puffing” due to vaporization [Pump seal discussions, 1]

31
Hang-up due to liquid contamination
 Affects tracking of seal faces
 May result in face contact and high heat
 Evidence of contamination or pitting

32
Ongoing R&D efforts
 GMRC-funded project to improve DGS reliability
– Better understand liquid contamination effects to improve
design, instrumentation, monitoring
– Develop analytical capability to predict failures

SwRI rig for testing DGS liquid

Two-phase CFD model of DGS contamination

33
Rig for DGS liquid contamination testing
 Back-to-back seal for thrust balance
 3.5” shaft, 13,500 rpm
 Vars: pressure, gas, liquid, LMF/LVF
 Meas: flow, torque, temperature

34
Two-phase CFD modeling of DGS
 Eulerian-Lagrangian modeling approach
 Discrete Phase Model (DPM)
 Constant size droplets injected uniformly at the inlet of the geometry
(Sauter mean)
 Spherical drag model
 Taylor Analogy Breakup (TAB) model
 Heat transfer through thermal system coupling approach

35
 Thank you!

Aaron Rimpel
aaron.rimpel@swri.org
Tim Allison
tim.allison@swri.org

36
References
[1] J. S. Stahley, Dry Gas Seals Handbook, Tulsa: PennWell Corporation, 2005.

[2] M. Klosek, "Short Course 4 on Dry Gas Seals," in Turbomachinery Symposium, Houston, 2003.

[3] J. S. Stahley, "Design, Operation, and Maintenance Considerations for Improved Dry Gas Seal
Reliability in Centrifugal Compressors," in Proceedings of the 30th Turbomachinery Symposium,
Houston, 2001.

[4] American Petroleum Institute, API Standard 614: Lubrication, Shaft-Sealing, and Control-Oil
Systems and Auxiliaries for Petroleum, Chemical, and Gas Industry Services, 5th ed., Washington
D.C.: CSSinfo, 2008.

[5] S. Vidal, "CompressorTech2," June 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.ct2-

digital.com/ct2/june_2015?pg=18#pg18. [Accessed 2 December 2015].

[6] J.M. Thorp, “Improving Dry Gas Seal Reliability”, API Spring Refining Meeting, New Orleans, April
15, 2008.

[7] M. Day and T. Allison, “Analysis of Historical Dry Gas Seal Failure Data in Natural Gas
Compressors”, Gas Machinery Conference, Denver, October 4, 2016. Also available as M. Day and T.
Allison, “Analysis of Historical Dry Gas Seal Failure Data”, ASME Turbo Expo, Seoul, South Korea, June
16, 2016.

37