Updates in Progress for ISO 13709/API 610, Centrifugal pumps for

petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries

by
Roger J ones
Consultant
Spring, Texas


ABSTRACT:

This tutorial discusses the status of ISO 13709/API 610 and three lesser and three major
issues and/or revisions to the standard. The lesser issues are: NACE Requirements,
casing gasket requirements and seal gland plate connections. The major issues are Shaft
Flexibility Index, Bearing System Life and Performance Testing.

PUBLICATION STATUS

American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 610, Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum,
Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries and International Standards Organization (ISO)
Standard 13709 (with the same title) are identical standards. For decades API 610 has
been a de facto international standard for refinery pumps. But, it hasnt officially been
an international standard. This lack of official status has created difficulties for
international oil companies investing outside of North America. The API has therefore
developed a strategy of co-branding certain standards such that the API standards
become ISO, bona fide international standards. API 610 is among those in this program.

The ninth Edition of API 610 was published in J anuary of 2003. At the same time the
First Edition of ISO 13709 was going through the ballot process. The ISO ballot process
involves at least two and sometimes three drafts and ballots. The first is the Committee
Draft or CD. This draft is offered for comment and ballot. If it passes the Working
Group resolves all comments, revises the draft and moves it to the next stage. The next
stage is Draft International Specification or DIS. For mature specifications such as API
610 the CD stage can be skipped. This is exactly what was done with the 9
th
Edition.

When API 610 9
th
Edition went through the DIS review and ballot a large number of
mainly editorial comments we submitted. These were duly resolved and the draft was
revised. There was essentially no significant technical change to the standard. The
document was moved to the Final Draft International Standard ballot level. The FDIS
ballot is a yes/no ballot with no technical comments allowed. However non-
technical/editorially comments are allowed. API 610 9
th
Edition passed FDIS
unanimously.

However, there was now a problem. In order to adopt ISO 13709 back as API 610 9
th

Edition an annex would have to be added identifying every editorial change in the
standard. There were more than 100 of these changes. The only way that ISO 13709

First Edition could be adopted back identically with no list of editorial changes was to
change the edition. Therefore ISO 13709 1
st
Edition was adopted back as API 610 10
th
in
October of 2004. The 9
th
and 10
th
Editions of API 610 are the same technically but not
editorially.

The ISO ballot process took more than two years. This created the next problem the API
610 Taskforce/ISO 13709 Working Group (WGTF) had to deal with. API requires
standards to be revised on a five year interval. In order to meet this schedule it is
necessary to activate the taskforce for a given standard about 3 years ahead of the
scheduled publication date. This meant that ISO 13709 1
st
Edition and API 610 10
th

Edition were freshly published and we activated the Taskforce/formed a new Working
Group to revise and update that standard. The original target was to publish the 2
nd
and
11
th
editions in late 2005 or early 2006. We didnt make it.

In October of 2005 the DIS was submitted to ISO. The DIS passed its ballot
unanimously but we literally received hundreds of comments. There were a significant
number of substantive comments. Since the ballot closure the WGTF has resolved all of
the comments and presented those resolutions to the Subcommittee on Mechanical
Equipment (SOME) of the API at the Spring and Fall Refining meetings this year. The
WGTF was also unable to resist the temptation to make additional technical changes. As
a result the WGTF has recommended that the standard be submitted to ISO for a second
Draft International Specification ballot. The DIS2 draft is currently being prepared and
will likely be submitted in J anuary 2007.

This means a couple of things. First it means that you have another opportunity to
comment on the document. Second the WGTF will be presenting resolutions of DIS2
comments at the Fall Refining Meeting in 2007. The bottom line is that the FDIS will be
submitted for ballot in late 2007 and publication of ISO 13709 2
nd
Edition and API 610
11
th
Edition will be published in mid 2008. You are invited to review the standard and
comment. The draft will be available on the API website sometime in the first quarter of
2007.

MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES

There are three very significant changes being made in the next edition. These will be
discussed in some detail. There are also a couple smaller changes or issues which will be
discussed only briefly. Among these smaller changers are NACE requirements, pump
radial casing gaskets and seal gland connections.

NACE

For more than 30 years API 610 and all other API standards have referenced NACE
MR0175 for materials in services where sulfide stress corrosion cracking might be an
issue. This standard has been referenced in spite of the fact that it was written
specifically for upstream applicationsnot refinery services. The reason for this is that

there wasnt any other standard that could be used for these downstream services. The
author is unaware of this ever causing an issue and MR0175 has served our industry well.

In 2002 NACE updated MR0175. This update expanded the scope of MR0175 to also
deal with Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking. These changes made MR0175 even less
applicable to downstream applications. NACE then decided to create a new standard
directed specifically at downstream applications. The result was a new standard MR
0103 which was published in 2003 shortly after MR0175-2003 was published. The major
impact of the new standard is that there are numerous, more rigorous requirements for
welding on carbon steel. In fact the bulk of the text is devoted to welding requirements.
If you want more detail on the content of MR 0103 and how it compares to MR0175, you
will find An Overview of NACE International Standard MRO103 and comparison with
MR0175 by Bush, Brown and Lewis (Corrosion 2004, Paper No. 04649 a good read.

There is a second issue with the application of NACE to pump materials. This issue was
dealt with in the 9
th
and 10
th
Editions however, questions still arise so the WGTF is
making further revisions in an effort to attain clarity. The issue is that purchasers specify
NACE materials. The pump vendor then looks at NACE and sees that it does not require
reduced hardness materials. The pump vendor supplies standard materials which comply
with NACE. Did the purchaser get what he wanted?

The author surveyed all user and contractor API members who attended the Fall Refinery
meeting in 2001, the responses we almost evenly divided. Half of the respondents felt
that specification of NACE meant that reduced hardness materials were required. The
other half believed that specification of NACE resulted in the pump supplier looking at
the H2S and water content of the service, determining whether reduced hardness
materials were required and then either supplying them or not.

The fact that there is ambiguity in requiring NACE turns this into a commercial issue.
For example one manufacturer believes that specification of NACE requires reduced
hardness materials. He supplies them and adds the cost into the price of his pump. A
second manufacturer, who might have a higher threshold of risk, looks at the service and
supplies standard materials, The second manufacturers pump has a lower price and he
wins the bid.

The current draft of API 610 contains the following paragraphs to make this issue crystal
clear:

6.12.1.x0 The purchaser shall specify the amount of wet H2S that may be present, considering
normal operation, start-up, shutdown, idle standby, upsets, or unusual operating conditions such
as catalyst regeneration.
Note: In many applications, small amounts of wet H
2
S are sufficient to require materials
resistant to sulfide stress-corrosion cracking. If there are trace quantities of wet H
2
S
known to be present or if there is any uncertainty about the amount of wet H
2
S that may
be present, the purchaser should consider specifying that reduced hardness materials are
required.


6.12.1.x1 The purchaser shall specify if reduced hardness materials are required.
6.12.1.x2 If reduced hardness materials are specified in 6.12.1.x1 they shall be supplied in
accordance with NACE MR0103.
Note: NACE MR0103 applied to oil refineries, LNG plants and chemical plants. NACE
MR0103 applies to materials potentially subject to sulphide stress corrosion cracking.

6.12.1.x3 If specified reduced hardness materials shall be supplied in accordance with ISO
15156 (NACE MR0175).
Note: ISO 15156 applies to oil and gas production facilities and natural gas sweetening
plants. NACE MR0175 is equivalent to ISO 15156. ISO 15156 applies to material
potentially subject to sulphide and chloride stress corrosion cracking.

6.12.1.x4 If reduced hardness materials are specified, ferrous material not covered
by MR0103 or ISO 15156 (NACE MR0175) shall have a yield strength not exceeding
620 N/mm2 (90 000 psi) and a harness not exceeding HRC 22. Components that are
fabricated by welding shall be post weld heat-treated, if required, so that both the welds
and heat-affected zones meet the yield strength and hardness requirements.

6.12.1.x5 If reduced hardness materials are specified the following components shall
have reduced hardness:
1) the pressure casing;
2) shafting (including wetted shaft nuts);
3) pressure-retaining mechanical seal components (excluding seal faces);
4) wetted bolting;
5) bowls.
Double-casing pump inner casing parts that are in compression, such as diffusers, are not
considered pressure casing parts.
6.12.1.x6 Renewable impeller wear rings that must be through-hardened above
HRC 22 for proper pump operation shall not be used if reduced hardness materials are
specified. Wear rings may be surface-hardened or coated with a suitable coating. If
approved by the purchaser, in lieu of furnishing renewable wear rings, wear surfaces may
be surface-hardened or hardened by the application of a suitable coating.

The paragraphs above use xX notation because the paragraphs in the draft have not
been reordered and renumber at the time of this writing.

CASING GASKETS

The Issue of casing gaskets was raised in mid-2006 when a user company discovered that
they had bought a cryogenic pump which used o-rings on pressure casing joints. This

was something of a surprise to them and they asked the WGTF why they had reduced the
gasket requirements in the standard. The answer was, the WGTF has not changed the
gasket requirements. They have been unchanged since the 7
th
Edition in 1989. While
this is the simple answer to the question the history of gaskets in 610 is kind of
interesting. For those with an interest Appendix 1 of this tutorial follows the evolution of
gasket requirements from the first edition of API 610 in 1954 to the present. The reader
will note that when asbestos gaskets were disallowed it forced a change to spiral wound
gaskets.

The situation is that the 7th Edition of API 610, February 1989 was the first to require
controlled compression gaskets. Subsequent editions first classified o-rings as controlled
compression gaskets for application on the joint between the seal chamber and gland
plate. In the 8th Edition this classification was extended to pressure casing gaskets. It
should be noted that the current edition of API 682 mandates the use of o-rings on the
gland plate to seal chamber joint for all services up to 350 F.

While neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the o-ring mandate for seal glands it is noted
that in some gland sizes use of flexitallic gaskets requires an increase in gland stud sizes
to be able to properly crush the gasket. This is avoided by use of o-rings on this joint.

Multiple o-rings are used in all Type A and B seals which are installed in pumps. Further
many models of BB1 and BB2 pumps utilize or-rings to seal between stages. Likewise
many high pressure API 617 compressors utilize o-rings to seal radial joints as well as
seal cartridges etc. The WGTF conclusion is there is no problem and that it is not
necessary to ban o-rings from use as pressure casing gaskets. Our strategy of minimizing
design prescription also supports this. Furthermore the technology of elastomers has not
stood still. Current technology from multiple suppliers has not only improved chemical
resistance but more importantly to API pumps improved temperature resistance.

Action is still required in 610 to make it clear what the selection process and temperature
limitations for o-rings shall be. It is possible this is simply a reference to API 682. It is
also possible that the selection process should differentiate between static and dynamic o-
rings.

In the current draft of the 11
th
Edition no changes have been made to most of the
paragraphs governing gaskets. They are presented here with no comment other than their
numbers have all changed from Section 5 to Section 6. The authors stress that there have
been no technical changes to these paragraphs. These requirements have been in effect
since 1989.

6.3.10 Radially split casings shall have metal-to-metal fits, with confined controlled-compression
gaskets, such as an O-ring or a spiral wound type.
6.3.12 O-ring sealing surfaces, including all grooves and bores, shall have a maximum surface
roughness average value (Ra) of 1,6 m (63 micro-inches) for static O-rings and 0,8 m
(32 micro-inches) for the surface against which dynamic O-rings slide. Bores shall have a
minimum 3 mm (0,12 in) radius or a minimum 1,5 mm (0,06 in) chamfered lead-in for static O-

rings and a minimum 2 mm (0,08 in) chamfered lead-in for dynamic O-rings. Chamfers shall have
a maximum angle of 30.
6.8.3 The seal chamber shall conform to the dimensions shown in Figure 25 and Table 6. For
pumps with flange and pressure ratings in excess of the minimum values in 6.3.5, the gland stud
size and circle may increase. Larger studs shall be furnished only if required to meet the stress
requirements of 6.3.4 or to sufficiently compress spiral-wound gaskets in accordance with
manufacturers specifications.
Clause 6.12.1.3 is new in the 11
th
Edition. This paragraph says that the material
specification of the seal chamber joint gasket must be selected in accordance with ISO
21049 (API 682).

6.12.1.3 The material specification of all gaskets and O-rings exposed to the pumped fluid
shall be identified in the proposal. O-rings shall be selected and their application limited as
specified in ISO 21049.
Table H-1 and Note g are unchanged from the 10
th
Edition.

g
If pumps with axially split casings are furnished, a sheet gasket suitable for the service is acceptable. Spiral-wound gaskets should
contain a filler material suitable for the service. Gaskets other than spiral wound, may be proposed and furnished if proven suitable for
service and specifically approved by the purchaser.

Having reviewed the current radial case gasket requirements, it should be noted that the
WGTF is virtually unanimous in feeling that spiral wound gaskets should be the standard
for radial split casings. It is also noted that despite requests for data that indicates that o-
ring should be disallowed, we have no case (no pun intended) for change. Having no
case for change also means the WGTF does not want to see pump manufacturers
redesigning all their pressure casings for o-ring sealed radial joints in lieu of the present
standard spiral wound gaskets. The 11
th
Edition will contain a note stating the preference
for spiral wound gaskets. The current wording, which continues to be debated is:

6.3.10 Radially split casings shall have metal-to-metal fits, with confined controlled-compression
gaskets, such as an O-ring or a spiral wound type.
Note: The materials table H-1 shows only spiral wound gaskets for casing joints. Spiral wound
gaskets are preferred because they typically have had better availability, are more conducive to
positive materials identification and historically have had higher temperature limits.
As a final note, vertical suspended pumps almost always have o-rings for gaskets on
column joints and bowls.

GLAND CONNECTIONS

Virtually no oil or chemical company today will allow screwed joints in process piping.
Yet API 610 and API 682 allow a screwed joint between the piping and the seal gland or
end plate. The reasons screwed piping is not allowed in refineries and chemical plants
are pretty obvious. The piping is significantly weakened by the cut threads and the joints
leak, if not visibly in the form of drips then invisibly in the form of detectible HC fugitive
emissions (yes sealants can be used). Allowing either form of leakage is not responsible
in todays environmentally sensitive world. So why do we allow it?


We allow it because it is perceived that there has is no simple way to replace the tapered
thread joint on the seal end plate and still be able to assemble and disassembly typical
pumps. The difficulty varies depending on pump types and is probably most difficult for
small single stage over hung pumps. How long is the industry going to accept this?

The as new screwed joint may or may not have detectible leakage. However the first
time the joint is broken and remade, it almost certainly will have detectible leakage. The
mechanic or pipe fitter now has a choice. He can let it leak or he can tighten it another 90
degrees due to the four holes in the flange (because the rest of the piping is welded). The
situation is better if tubing is allowed but many user companies do not allow tubing on
these (relatively) low pressure product lines (while at the same time allowing tubing in
2500 psig hydrogen systems for instrument sensing lines). A possible solution to the 90
degree tightening issue is to specify a lap joint flange on the nipple that connects to the
gland. The WGTF has found no data to support this reducing fugitive emissions but
intuitively we think it would be an improvement. Lap joint flanges are probably an
improvement but not a solution.

API 610 has had a possible solution in it since the 8
th
Edition.

2.3.3.3 If specified, cylindrical threads conforming to ISO 228, Part 1 may be used. If cylindrical
threads are used, they shall be sealed with a contained face gasket, and the connection boss
shall have a machined face suitable for gasket containment (see Figure 2-1).

Figure 1 Reproduction of Figure 2-1 from API 610 8
th
Edition


If a component existed that used this internationally accepted joint and a lap joint, those
users that specify on hard piping could eliminate all the weaknesses in the tapered thread
joint. In fact since this is a metal to metal joint it is possible (fabrication issues) that a lap

joint would not be necessary. For those who specify tubing the last significant fugitive
emissions source is eliminated.

The convenor/chairman of the WGTF has strong feelings that the threaded joint to the
seal end plate (gland) should be disallowed. This will be proposed in the DIS2.

MAJOR ISSUES

This tutorial has now covered three smaller issues or changes with API 610. The three
major issues now follow.

SHAFT FLEXIBILITY INDEX

The quantity L
3
/D
4
has been used to evaluate single stage overhung pumps since the 50s.
It came into common usage in the 70s and 80s and there is no question that it, along
with requirements in API 610, has moved the pump industry into make stiffer more
robust pump designs. Some companies devised bid penalties based upon values of
L
3
/D
4
. The higher the value of L
3
/D
4
the more flexible the pump shaft and the higher the
penalty. In all this time API 610 has remained silent on this quantity. In the 11
th
Edition,
API 610 will address L
3
/D
4
. To begin with it will be called the Shaft Flexibility Index or
SFI. A very simple, standardized method of calculating SFI will be set forth in Annex K
as follows:

To meet the requirements of 9.1.1.3, the shaft flexibility index should be calculated as follows
(see Figure K.1):
[SFI] = 25.4 (L
3
/ D
4
) in SI units
[SFI] = (L3/ D4) in US Customary units
where:
[SFI] =shaft flexibility index
L =distance from the centerline of the radial bearing to the centerline of the
overhung impeller, mm (in)
D =nominal diameter of the shaft between the radial bearing and the overhung
impeller hub, mm (in)

Before settling on the admittedly very simple method of calculating SFI above the WGTF
considered requiring actual deflection and critical speed calculations. The WGTF also
considered a more complicated Shaft Deflection Factor, SFD that considers the diameter
of the shaft between the bearings. SFD is calculated as follows:

SFD = L13/D14 + L1(L2)2/D24

To judge the desirability of the two methods one (manufacturer) taskforce member
looked at SFI using both definitions. Calculations were performed for a number of lines
of pumps complying with various editions of API 610. The results are shown in Figures
2 and 3.


Figure 2. SFI for various vintages of pumps



Figure 3. SFD for various vintages of pumps




Figures 2 and 3 show that both SFI and SFD have gotten lower with progressive editions
of API 610, but they dont show a clear advantage to either method. Which ever method
is used one can compare pumps in a general sort of way. The figures also show that
values of SFI and SFD probably need to be a function of shaft diameter in someway. A
value that might be fine in a smaller pump might well be far too liberal in a larger pump.

API 610 restricts shaft flexibility through a number of requirements. Among these
requirements are:

Shaft deflection at the seal faces is limited to 0.002 under the worst conditions
One and two stage pumps are required to have a dry bending first critical above
120% of maximum continuous speed
Seal chamber dimensions are standardized
Bearings must be designed for a minimum life of 25,000 hours

The shaft deflection criteria, the dry critical criteria and the bearing minimum life criteria
all drive SFI down, that is, they drive pump design toward stiffer shafts. The seal
chamber dimensions set the minimum overhang the pump can have and limit how low the
SFI can go. Note that Hydraulic Institute Standard 1.3 2000 Section 1.3.4.7.2 provides
standard calculations to check shaft deflection and dry bending critical speed as well as
bearing loads. With bearing loads known the SKF website provides a very good, simple
to use tool for calculating bearing life.


Why has SFI not already been dealt with in API 610? Primarily because it is not a
definitive tool for evaluation of shaft stiffness and because there has been no consensus in
the industry as to what value is acceptable. For example lets examine deflection in a
typical single stage overhung pump shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4, Typical Single Stage Overhung Pump Rotor
La Lb
Da
Db
X
SEAL FACE
BEARING C
W
L


Shaft deflection is caused by impeller weight and unbalanced hydraulic loads. For a shaft
with two major diameters, shaft deflection can be calculated using:

+ =
b
b
a
a a
I
L
I
L
E
WL
Y
3
2
max

where:
W =radial load
L
b
=distance between centerlines of bearings
D
b
=nominal shaft diameter between bearings
E =elastic modulus of shaft
I
a
=moment of inertia for the shaft diameter between impeller centerline and radial
bearing
I
b
=moment of inertia for the shaft diameter between radial and thrust bearings

Table 1 shows four hypothetical pumps all designed to have an SFI of 76.2. Generally
users of SFI would find this value acceptable. However two of the pumps do not meet
the seal face deflection criteria of API 610. For this reason some pump manufacturers
oppose dealing with SFI and have offered the alternative of testing for deflection. A
pump bearing housing would be rigidly mounted in some fixture and a known
standard weight would be attached to the shaft end. The deflection would be measured
directly. This deflection value would be furnished in all proposals and would provide a
direct way of comparing shaft stiffness in all pumps offered in a particular case. The

down side of this method is standardization of the fixture and test/measurement method.
With hydraulic loads also varying among pump designs and vendors, this still doesnt
really give a direct comparison.

Table 1, Comparison of deflection in four hypothetical pumps with equal SFI

L
a
(in) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
D
a
(in) 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
L
b
(in) 7.75 10 7.75 10
D
b
(in) 3 3 2.5 2.5
X (in) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
W (lbs) 250 250 250 250
L
3
/D
4
76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2
Deflection at seal face (in) 0.0018 0.0019 0.0021 0.0023
Deflection at impeller center (in) 0.0057 0.006 0.0067 0.0073
% deflection 100 105 117 128

All of this material has been debated in the WGTF for more than two years. Everyone in
the WGTF recognizes the limitations of an SFI comparison. Further there is no real
advantage to using SFD for a comparison. In spite of the weakness of this sort of
analysis the WGTF received multiple comments on this issue and there is a faction in our
industry that strongly desires to have this calculation performed to compare various pump
offerings. It is clear that if one line of pumps has disparately high SFI numbers there is a
good chance they cannot meet the deflection and dry bending critical requirements of
API 610. One the other hand if SFI numbers are disparately low one might suspect the
manufacturer is using overly large and expensive seals or he is exercising his creativity in
the use of numbers.

The WGTF therefore took a look at values of SFI for a number of lines of modern (API
7
th
and 10
th
Edition Pumps) with the result shown in Figure 5. It was found that if SFI is
plotted as a function of HQ/N (this number is proportional to shaft torque) on log-log
scales, the result is a straight line.

Figure 5. SFI for typical modern pumps


Overhung Pumps - Rotor SFI
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Kt = QH/N
S
F
I

=

L 3
/
D
4
W'ton HN
Pacific SVCN7
FLS HPX
Pump-Turbines
6,100KtE-0.76
BWIP SC7


The DIS2 will have a standard simple method of calculating SFI and will refer to a figure
based on Figure 5 for guidance. A significant inconsistency with the value in the chart
would be cause for the purchase to perform a more in depth investigation before
purchase.

BEARING SYSTEM LIFE:

The API 610 individual bearing life requirements have been unchanged since the Xth
Edition in 19xx. In the current 11
th
Edition draft these requirements are as follows:

6.10.1.7 Rolling-element bearing life (basic rating life, L
10h)
for each bearing or
bearing pair) shall be calculated in accordance with ISO 281 and be equivalent
to at least 25 000 hrs with continuous operation at rated conditions, and at least
16 000 hrs at maximum radial and axial loads and rated speed.

NOTE 1 ISO 281 defines basic rating life, L
10
, in units of millions of revolutions. Industry practice is to convert this to
hours and to refer to it as L
10h
. ISO 281 also defines the method required to calculate bearing system life from individual
bearing life.
NOTE 2 For the purpose of this provision, ABMA 9 is equivalent to ISO 281.

It is the experience of the authors and many other users that fatigue failure of bearings is
not a significant issue in most plants. Typical bearing failure numbers are 8-10% of all
pump failures for conventional lubrication and fewer than 1% for oilmisted pumps.
Bearing failures are almost entirely lubrication related. Either the oil is contaminated or
there isnt enough oil. As a result the WGTF has not paid much attention to paragraph
6.10.1.7, feeling that current experience proves it is adequate.


All API standards contain a paragraph establishing the minimum design life for the
equipment covered. In the current draft of 610, the paragraph reads as follows:

6.1.1 The equipment (including auxiliaries) covered by this International Standard shall be
designed and constructed for a minimum service life of 20 years (excluding normal-wear parts as
identified in Table 19) and at least 3 years of uninterrupted operation. It is recognized that these
requirements are design criteria and that service or duty severity, misoperation or improper
maintenance can result in a machine failing to meet these criteria.
Design is defined in the following paragraph:

3.10
design
manufacturers calculated parameter

NOTE Design is a term that may be used by the equipment manufacturer to describe various parameters such as,
design power, design pressure, design temperature, or design speed. This term should be used only by the equipment
manufacturer and not in the purchaser's specifications.

There is clearly an inconsistency between the bearing life requirement of 25,000 hrs
(approximately but just less than 3 years) and the general requirement for the pump to be
designed for 3 years. This inconsistency comes about as a result of the fact that for the
bearing system to be designed for 3 years, the individual bearings must be designed for
more that three years. For two equally loaded bearings the individual bearings would
have to be designed for 40,000 hours L
10h
. The bearing system life can be calculated by
combining the individual bearing lifes as follows:

L
10h
(System) =[(1/ L
10hA
)
3/2
+(1/ L
10hB
)
3/2
+ +(1/ L
10hN
)
3/2
]
2/3

where: L
10hA
= Basic rating life, L
10h
per ISO 281 for bearing A,
L
10hB
= Basic rating life, L
10h
per ISO 281 for bearing B,
etc.

So, why not simply require the bearing system to be designed for 25,000 hours or 50,000
hours or whatever? In a nutshell longer bearing life requires larger bearings. Over many
decades pump manufacturers have tried to increase bearing life by installing larger
bearings. They have consistently had trouble meeting the bearing temperature
requirements of 610 when bearings larger than a 7314 are used at 3600 rpm. The author
is only aware of one pump manufacturer that uses a 7315 bearing in his largest OH2
bearing frame. Pump manufacturers are very concerned that requiring a 25,000 hour
system life will force redesign of their bearing housings which costs money and worse
might result in overheating of the oil and ball skidding failures. Further manufacturers
and many users view bearing fatigue life as a non issue. Other users strenuously object to
the inconsistency and some other API standard taskforces are receptive to higher bearing
system life requirements than 610 for other types of equipment.

To understand why bearing life is not an issue in single stage overhung pumps one can
look at the form of the equation for L
10h
bearing life. Before looking at the equation lets

review how the life calculation is performed. First the actual radial and axial forces on
the impeller are determined (HI 1.3 and multiple other texts discuss methods of
determining these forces). Then coupling and seal forces are determined. The forces are
then summed and the equivalent radial load, Pr, is calculated for each bearing.

P
r
= XF
r
+Y F
a

Where:

Fr = Radial Load
Fa = Axial Load

and
X & Y are factors from a table in ISO 281, these factors vary depending on the
type of bearing and the relative magnitude of the radial and axial loads.

At this point we go to the bearing manufacturers catalog and select the smallest bearing
that will give us an acceptable L
10h
life. L10 life is calculated from the following
equation:

L
10
=(C
r
/P
r
)
3


Where:

C
r
=Catalog load rating
P
r
=Equivalent radial load as above

This result is in millions of revolutions so we convent to hours by dividing by the number
of revolutions per hour. Now lets look at the equation. For a system of two equally
loaded bearings to have a 25,000 hr life, the radial bearing and the thrust bearing (40
degree angular contact duplex pair must each have a 40,000 hr life. The ratio of 40 to 25
is 1.6. Rearranging our life equation we find that as long as C
r
/P
r
is 1.17 or greater the
life will be 40,000 hours or greater. So how likely is it that the ratio of C
r
/P
r
is 1.17 or
greater?

To begin with we will restrict our discussion to single stage overhung, OH2, pumps.
Most manufacturers will have either three or four bearing housing sizes for their OH2
pumps. They will line their sets of hydraulics up against these standard bearing housing
sizes based upon the equivalent radial loads the bearings must deal with. Each bearing
housing will have a single set of hydraulics that represents the highest possible loads at
maximum diameter impeller and some arbitrary suction pressure. For the manufacturer
from which the following example comes, that suction pressure appears to be 250 psig.
This seems to be a sensible number to the authors in that a 250 psig suction pressure
probably covers 98% or more of all refinery services. (It is also noted that the pump
manufacturer has some tricks in this bag for higher suction pressures, such as differential
wear ring sizing and plugging balance holes in the impeller.)


The equivalent radial load is made up of the weight of the rotor, the radial thrust on the
impeller, the axial thrust on the impeller, seal compression load and the coupling axial
thrust. API 610 requires that the coupling axial thrust be input as the thrust at the
maximum allowable axial misalignment allowed by the coupling. It should be rare that a
user will stretch or compress the coupling to the maximum as opposed to repositioning
the coupling hub somewhere close to the right distance between shaft ends or hubs.
Additionally API 610 disallows pump selections that do not allow at least a 5% increase
in head. This latter requirement means that except in those cases where revisions to
pump hydraulics encroach on the 5% margin thrust will be lessened by 5% from the
worst case plus a decrease in thrust load due to something approaching proper coupling
installation. Next we have the arbitrary suction pressure (of 250 psig; where individual
bearing life is about 25,000 hrs). The suction pressure for any given pump doesnt have
to be much less than the 250 psig assumed in bearing selection for the ratio of dynamic
load rating to equivalent radial load to be greater than 1.17. Figure 6 shows the L
10h
life
for a 4 x 6 x15 OH2 pump at maximum diameter impeller It is seen that L
10h
life
becomes a huge number for most suction pressures encountered.

Figure 6. L
10h
Life for a typical OH2 Pump

0.00
200000.00
400000.00
600000.00
800000.00
1000000.00
1200000.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Suction Pressure (psig)
L
1
0
h

L
i
f
e

(
h
o
u
r

.
The last point in this discussion is that this pump is represented as having the heaviest
loads of any set of hydraulics used for this bearing housing. All smaller sets of
hydraulics will have even longer L
10h
lives. This agrees with most user experience that
fatigue failures of API pump bearings are exceedingly rate. What is puzzling is why ball
skidding failures are not more common? The WGTF does not have agreement as to what
words will be in the DIS2 but it is likely we will simply require a 40,000 hour bearing
system L
10h
life.

PERFORMANCE TESTING:


The performance test tolerances of API 610 may be the only requirements in the standard
that have remained unchanged since the 1
st
Edition in 1954. During this time Hydraulic
Institute Standard 1.6, Pump Tests has changed its tolerances and evolved but it has never
agreed with API 610. Additionally ISO has a standard ISO 9906, Rotodynamic pumps
Hydraulic performance acceptance testsGrades 1 and 2, 2000 does not agree with
either HI 1.6 or API 610. In spite of this API 610 currently references both HI and ISO
9906.

The purpose of the reference is to use the test methods and allowable measurement
uncertainties and basically everything except the performance test tolerances. The API
610 tolerances are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. API 610 Performance Test Tolerances



As the WGTF has worked through the 11
th
Edition drafts we have received multiple
complaints about the tolerances in Table 2 (14). If one studies the table one will note a
number of interesting things. First if one converts the allowable tolerance in head from a
percent to pressure in PSIG (which is what is measured) the tolerance is shown in Figure
7.

Figure 7. Performance Test Head Tolerance Band Width in PSIG

Tabl e 14 Performance tol erances (API)
Rated
point
Shutoff
% %
Rated differential head:
2 +10
+5 10 a
2 +8
+3 8 a
2 +5
+2 5 a
Rated power +4 b
Rated NPSH 0
NOTE Efficiency is not a rating value.
a If a rising head flow curve is specified (see 5.1.13), the negative
tolerance specifiedhere shall be allowedonly if the test curve still shows a
rising characteristic.
b Under any combination of the above (cumulative tolerances are not acceptable)
Condition
0 m to 150 m (0 ft to 500 ft)
151 m to 300 m (501 ft to 1 000 ft)
> 300 m (1 000 ft)


Tolerance Band Width
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Head
P
S
I

f
o
r

T
e
s
t

o
n

W
a
t
e
r
Band Width
3-.003*Head BW


In the DIS which was balloted last winter the WGTF proposed equations that plotted at
the purple line. A huge number of people objected to this as too complicated.

Another issue is that Table 2 (14) does not mention flow. The flow tolerance for the 9
th

and 10
th
Editions is contained in paragraph 7.3.3.3 b). The tolerance is +/-5%. This is a
big number. The tolerances have now defined a rectangle shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8, Typical Performance Test Curve



Figure 9 is a close up look at the Allowable Test Point Region or block.



The point of Figure 9 is the allowable test region allows plenty of room for discussion
and it allows a stack up of tolerances that can result in actually efficiency being
considerable lower than quoted and yet the pump would be acceptable. For typical
refinery pumps this may not be very important but for large pumps and pumps that have
mostly frictional system curves such as pipeline pumps, this is a very big deal. It should
be noted that API 610 bases acceptance on power not efficiency. This is because
efficiency is a derived or calculated value whereas power is measured directly. If one
takes the uncertainties (allowable inaccuracies) in the values measured during the test one
can see that with acceptable uncertainties in other variables the uncertainty in efficiency
if very large. Figure 10 shows the Allowable uncertainties in various test parameters

from the current version of ISO 9906. Note that 9906 and HI 1.6 are pretty close on these
values.

Figure 10 Allowable Uncertainties in test parameters from ISO 9906




As it turns out Hydraulic Institute and the ISO 9906 Working Group have gotten together
and the next edition of 9906 will be adopted back at HI 1.6. So the two test standards
will at long last agree. Further the Convenor of ISO 9906 is a member of the 13709/610
WGTF and so there is a very good chance that the tolerances that appear in API 610 11
th

Edition will be adopted by ISO and HI and there will be consistency in the world at last.
Unfortunately the current ISO 9906 Committee Draft still persists in assessing whether a
pump is acceptable based upon a single test point. This means that the full values of both
random and systematic uncertainties apply to the point. The WGTF proposes to require
that the test points be fit using either a spline or a suitable polynomial and then rated flow
inserted into the resulting equation and the head and power tolerances applied to the
result. This eliminates the uncertainty in flow from consideration as well as averaging
out the random error.

It is expected that the following in paragraph will appear in the DIS2:

Quanti ty Symbol Grade 1
%
Grade
2%
Fl ow Rate e Q

2.1

3.5
Speed of
Rotati on
e n

0.5

2.0
Torque
e T

1.4

3.0
Pump Total Head
e H

1.5

5.5

8.3.1.2 Performance and (NPSH) tests shall be conducted using the methods and
uncertainty requirements of ISO 9906 grade 1, HI 1.6 (for centrifugal pumps) or HI 2.6 (for vertical
pumps). Performance tolerances shall be in accordance with Table 15. Evaluation of results
shall be in accordance with 8.3.3.3 b).
And

8.3.3.3 Unless otherwise specified, the performance test shall be conducted as specified in
below.
a) The vendor shall take test data, including head, flowrate, power and vibration at a
minimum of five points. These points will normally be
1) shutoff (no vibration data required),
2) minimum continuous stable flow (beginning of allowable operating region),
3) between 95% and 99% of rated flow,
4) between rated flow and 105% of rated flow,
5) approximately the best efficiency flow (if rated flow is not within 5% of best efficiency
flowrate)
6) end of allowable operating region.
b) The test data shall be fit to a spline or appropriate polynomial (typically third or fourth order)
for head and for power using a least squares method. The rated/guarantee flow shall be
inserted into the resulting equation and a value for head and power calculated. These
values shall be corrected for speed, viscosity and density (specific gravity). The corrected
values of head and power shall be within the tolerance bands allowed in Table 15.
In the case of high-energy pumps (see 6.1.18), integral-gear and multistage pumps, it
may not be feasible to test at shutoff. Some low specific-speed pumps cannot achieve
120 % of BEP flowrate for the rated impeller diameter.

c) Unless otherwise agreed, the test speed shall be within 3 % of the rated speed shown on the
pump data sheet (see example in Annex N). Test results shall be corrected to rated speed.
d) The vendor shall maintain a complete, detailed log of all final tests and shall prepare the
required number of copies, certified for correctness. Data shall include test curves and a
summary of test performance data compared to guarantee points (see 10.2.4, 10.3.2.2 and
example in Annex M).
e) If specified, in addition to formal submittal of final data in accordance with 10.3.2.2, curves
and test data (corrected for speed, specific gravity and viscosity) shall be submitted within
24 h after completion of performance testing for purchaser's engineering review and
acceptance prior to shipment.

Having said this, we have one more round of review and comments and the performance
testing section will almost certainly draw numerous comments.


CONCLUSION

The main focus of the 11
th
Edition of API 610 is to improve clarity and to deal with a
limited number of key issues. The three key issues, Performance Testing, Bearing
System Life and Shaft Flexibility Index have attracted sufficient interest and comment
that the Working Group/Taskforce has decided to submit the document for an additional
round of comment. In the ISO world this is a second Draft International Specification.

The second DIS is expected to be distributed by ISO and API in early 2007 with the
comment period and ballot closing approximately mid year. Comments will be resolved
in the third quarter. Comment resolutions will be presented to the API Subcommittee on
Mechanical Equipment at the Fall Refining Meeting in early November 2007. The plan
is for the Final Draft International Specification and API Ballot to take place in early
2008. Publication is planned for mid 2008.




References:

This tutorial contains unpublished work by a number of members of the API 610
Taskforce/ISO 13709 Working Group. Among these members are:

Mick Cropper, Sulzer Pumps
Fred Blumentrath, CPC
Terry McGuire, Flowserve
Charle Heald, Consultant
J im Harrison, Flowserve

Additionally the ideas in this tutorial have been affected/developed through inputs from
the entire ISO 13709 Working Group/API 610 Taskforce. The authors asknowledge and
thank all of them for their contributions.

Hydraulic Institute Standard 1.3

Appendix 1 BACKGROUND DATA COVERING THE HISTORY OF API 610
AND API 682 GASKET REQUIREMENTS

API 610 1
st
Edition (tentative) 1954: Totally silent on gaskets or gasket
materials.

API 610 1st Edition January 1955: Text is silent on gaskets and gasket materials.
Datasheet has a block for gasket materials and blocks for Confined or Flat beside the
word Gaskets.

API 610 2nd Edition January 1957: Text is silent on gaskets and gasket
materials. Datasheet references are identical to 1
st
edition.

API 610 3rd Edition January 1960: Text is silent on gaskets and gasket
materials. Datasheet references to gaskets have been removed. Thus 3
rd
Edition is totally
silent on gaskets.

API 610 4th Edition July 1965: Text and datasheet are silent on casing gaskets
but Seal Gland Plate gaskets are addressed in Section 24, item d.:


API 610 5th Edition March 1971: Addresses radially split casing gaskets in item
12. f.:



Seal End Plate gaskets are addressed in item 24. k.:




Casing Gaskets are addressed in the Materials Section in Table D-1:



Note that the table does not reference spiral wound gaskets at all and that the only choices
are variations of asbestos gaskets and Teflon. Teflon Casing Gaskets are addressed in the
General Notes, Note 10:




The datasheet has no reference to gaskets.

API 610 6
th
Edition January 1981:

Pressure casing gaskets are covered in 2.2.7:


Gland gaskets are covered in 2.7.1.17:



The datasheet has no reference to gaskets for either the casing or the seal gland plate.

The materials table is now E-1 but the requirements are identical to 5
th
Edition. The table
is now so large it is impractical to scan and insert into this record. Note 10 of the 5
th

Edition is now note 7.



API 610 7th Edition, February 1989:


In the 7
th
Edition there are two references in the text related to pressure casing gaskets.
These are 2.2.6 and 2.2.10:



The fact that 2.2.10 gives the requirements for o ring grooves implies that o-rings might
be acceptable gaskets. Seal gland gaskets are covered by 2.7.1.16. This latter claus
specifically classifies o-rings as controlled compression gaskets further implying that o-
rings can be used as gaskets on pressure casings.



Datasheet has no blanks or references to gaskets for the casing or seal gland plate.

After the text has created this ambiquity. Annex H completely contradicts the
acceptablility of o-rings by only calling out spiral wound gaskets on the pressure casing.
This applies to both casing and seal gland gaskets. Further note that this is the first time
spiral wound gaskets are mandated. No previous edition calls for them.





API 610 8
th
Edition, August 1995:

The pressure casing gasket is covered in 2.2.7 and the o-ring groove is covered in 2.2.10.
For the first time 2.2.2 is crystal clear, o-rings can be used as casing gaskets.




Seal gland gaskets are covered by 2.7.3.23. It is also crystal clear that o-rings are allowed
between the pump casing and the seal gland.



Table H-1 has been reduced in size to fit on a single page but the requirements for
gaskets are unchanged and only spiral wound gaskets are called out.Note that there is
another paragraph in the mechanical seal section 2.7.37 which says that seal gaskets and
hard faces shall be specified from the seal materials tables. This gets us a material for the
gland gasket but there is no reference directing materials for other pressure casing gaskets
if o-rings are used.





Note that there is another paragraph in the mechanical seal section 2.7.37 which says that
seal gaskets and hard faces shall be specified from the seal materials tables. This gets us
a material for the gland gasket but there is no reference directing materials for other
pressure casing gaskets if o-rings are used.



API 610 9
th
Edition, January 2003 and 10
th
Edition, October 2004

The pressure casing gaskets and o-ring groove requirements are covered by 5.3.10 and
5.3.12. They are unchanged from the 8
th
Edition.




Clause 5.8.3 for the first time refers to spiral wound gaskets being used on the seal
chamber joint. Note that this paragraph implies that bolting might have to be increased in
size to properly crush a spiral wound gasket. This could cause manufacturers to prefer to
use o-rings on this joint.


Seal chamber gaskets are covered by 5.8.11 and are unchanged from the 8
th
Edition.


Table H-1 continues to only call out spiral wound gaskets for the pressure casing.




API 682 3rd Edition

API 682 has three paragraphs and two annex sections relevant to o-rings. The first is the
most relevant. Paragraph 6.1.6.7.2 mandates o-rings on the joint between the seal
chamber and gland plate for services below 350 F.


The other two paragraphs, 6.2.1.2.2 and 6.2.2.2.2, are identical and are also identical to
the requirements in API 610:


API 682 also gives temperature limitations for o-ring materials and a tutorial on their
selection. These two sections follow.




Standard Paragraphs, Revision 23B, November 3, 2005

The standard paragraphs have only one paragraph relative to pressure casing joints. This
paragraph, 6.2.4, discourages the use of o-rings but is really aimed at compressors or
steam turbines.