See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296704456

Improving Dry Gas Seal Reliability

Technical Report · April 2008

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3901.9285

CITATIONS READS
0 2,797

1 author:

Joseph M. Thorp
Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures - North America
25 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph M. Thorp on 04 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Improving Dry Gas Seal
Reliability

J.M. Thorp, P.E

Aramco Services Company
Chairman, API, Sub-Committee On Mechanical
Equipment

April 15, 2008

1
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
Table of Contents:

Most common modes of Dry Gas Seal failure: ………………………………………………………………………………..…… 3

1. Contamination …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 3
2. Condensation …………………………………………………………………………………..…..………………………………… 4
3. Misalignment ……………………………………………………………………………..………..………………………………… 4
4. Explosive Decompression …………………………………………………………..…………………………………………… 5
5. Reverse Pressurization ………………………………………………………………….………………………………………… 5
6. Reverse Rotation...………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………… 5
7. Failure at Transient Conditions ……………………………………………………………………..………………………… 5

Best Practices/Designs: …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… 6

1. Process Design …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………… 6
2. Seal Gas Selection …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
3. Seal Gas Pressure ………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 6
4. Seal Gas Quality and Composition ……………………………………………..…………………………………………… 7
5. Seal Gas Conditioning/Support System …………………………………………………………………………………… 7
6. Engineering Review ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
7. Management System ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
8. Training ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………… 8
9. Maintenance …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………… 8
10. Monitoring Leakage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
11. Running the Equipment at Transient Conditions …………………………………………………………..………… 10

Failure Data Received ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………… 10

 Temperature vs. MTBF ………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 11
 Pressure vs. MTBF …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
 Weibull Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
 Monte Carlo Simulation -100 Iterations …………………………..……………………………………………………… 12
 Survey Results on Dry Gas Seal Failure Causes ………………………………………………………………………… 13
 Data Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
 Economics Supporting Further Work ……………………………………………………….……………………………… 13

2
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
Sources ……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………… 14

Most common modes of Dry Gas Seal failure:

1. Contamination:

Contamination is one of the leading causes of dry gas seal failure. Foreign materials, either solid or
liquid, passing into the thin seal running gap between the rotating and stationary rings can lead to
degradation of seal performance, reduced reliability and eventual seal failure. The supply of sealing gas
which is inserted into the seal is a main source of contamination of the seal. This type of contamination
takes place when the seal gas is not correctly treated upstream of the dry gas seal. To eliminate or
decrease this contamination failure, seal gas conditioning systems could be added which would lead to
improved dry gas seal reliability and availability.

Another cause of dry gas seals contamination is lube oil migration towards the seals. To prevent this,
separation gas is injected between the seal and bearing. Also using, carbon bushes and/or an oil slinger
could aid in stopping this oil movement. In addition, increasing the size of the bearing lube oil return line
and tank breather decreases backpressure which in turn would help against this type of contamination
by reducing the migration of oil.

Is also worth to note, according to John S. Stahley, that field experience by end users has proven that
contacting (zero shaft clearances) segmented carbon ring fiber barrier seals to be ineffective at
preventing lube oil migration into the gas seal under semi-flooded bearing chamber conditions. This
conclusion was later confirmed by shop testing performed by the barrier seal manufacturer. However,
similar shop testing performed by a manufacturer of non-contacting segmented carbon ring barrier seals
was successful.

For back to back compressors in at least one study, contamination related failures were found to be
caused by improper seal cavity design . The observed failure mechanism involved leakage of process
gas across the labyrinth seals. A design solution identified was to increase the size of the annulus
between the two sets of labyrinth teeth, and to use a stepped inner labyrinth seal. Modifications to
units experiencing these failures in the field resulted in improved reliability.

When contamination does occur, it is recommended to investigate the complete buffer gas system,
including the buffer gas source itself and study why the contaminated buffer gas is entering the gas
compressor. Field engineers should diagnose the following:

3
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
 1. Incorrectly fitted filters, which causes gas bypassing of elements. It is recommend to change the
HP compressor gas filter elements to 2 micron filters if they are presently of a greater particle
size.
2. A knockout pot that is inadequate.
3. Excessively dirty seal piping that was not cleaned properly at commissioning. This should be
cleaned out by removing the filter elements, and circulating a volatile cleaning solvent with a
small pump, while temporarily connecting all seal piping into a loop. Afterwards, blow out all
piping with instrument air only, at high velocity.
4. Other errors arise from dirt buildup on flow meter orifice plates. It is recommend to retrofit
orifice type flow meters with direct flow indicators.

2. Condensation:

Another type of failure is due to condensation. One the reasons condensation might occur is due to a
decrease in pressure. Components of the gas seal system such as filters, valves, orifices, and the seal
faces themselves, will cause seal gas pressure drops during operation. As the seal expands across these
components, the Joule-Thompson effect will result in a consequent decrease in gas temperature.
Condensed liquids (water or C6+ hydrocarbon) formed in the sealing gas produce a sticky substance that
adversely affects elasticity of O- rings and springs, resulting in increased leakage rates.

To avoid this type of failure, the temperature-pressure relationship of the seal gas must be studied.
Consequently, simulating the seal gas temperature and pressure drops expected throughout the
different components within the gas seal system is required. The resulting data can then be plotted on a
phase diagram of the seal gas. No further seal protection is necessary if the resulting gas seal system
simulation shows that the seal gas supply remains in the gaseous phase for all operating situations.
However, if the sealing gas goes through a liquid phase, particular filtration and liquid separation
equipment, and possibly heating of the sealing gas may be necessary. It is often suggested that the
sealing gas be heated or else maintained at least 20 °F above its dew point. Furthermore, if ambient
temperatures could fall below the dew point of the seal gas then the seal gas lines must be heat traced.

A leading oil company has found a higher rate of failure on medium and high pressure dry gas seals
services, meaning suction pressure above 300 psig, due to condensation. After significant
troubleshooting, it was concluded that this is due to the fact that in these higher pressure services, the
buffer gas entering the primary faces has a large pressure drop to atmospheric pressure across the
faces, as compared to the lower pressure services, where the pressure drop may be only 100 psig down
to atmospheric pressure. The high pressure drop means that the Joule Thomson effect will significantly
cool the gas causing condensate knockout within the primary seal faces. Typically, this condensate is not
a light condensate; it is a high density hydrocarbon, with heavy NGL content and paraffin oils. The
combination of this condensate plus the usual solid particles smaller than the standard 3 µm filters,
leads to deposits that nullify the lift-off faces of the dry gas seal. This is a gradual, time-dependant
action, so actual seal failure develops in 1.5 or 2.0 years. One of the solutions Saudi Aramco used for
these types of failures are was to request a 1.0 micron solids filtration on the seal conditioning skid, or
request preheating of the buffer gas so that its temperature, before entering the faces, is not less than
200 °F. This high temperature resists the Joule Thompson cooling effect on condensate.

4
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
3. Misalignment:

Another type of dry gas seal failure is due to misalignment. An example of this was found in a gas
pipeline station run by a leading company which was facing recurrent seal failures. The mean time
between failures was 200 hours. According to Joe Delrahim, after investigating these failures, the
company determined that the malfunction was a result of an excessive compressor misalignment, which
caused repeated balance diameter o-ring failures due to the unusual axial motions experienced at the
operating speed. By finding the cause of the dry gas seal failure, the maintenance manger was able to
improve such repeated seal replacement. The results were an increase in predictability and performance
of the stations and a decrease in costs in terms of labor and product loss due to compressor downtime.

4. Explosive decompression:

For dry gas seals in rotary compressors equipment in gas production installations, elastomeric rings are
used as secondary seals. The main purpose of the secondary seal is to aid the spring-loaded rotary face
in keeping close axial proximity to its counter face; the designed separation is only a few micrometers.
Rapid decompression can cause damage to these secondary seals. Permeable O-rings (fluoroelastomer)
absorb gas under pressure. One recommendation, according to M. N. Saxena, an O-ring of harder (but
lesser compression/ sealing ability) material like Aflas for sealing pressures above 900 psig (6,000 kPa)
should be considered. Otherwise, consider using polymer seals such as with a position retaining step. An
effective solution is the use of PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene) -based materials. However, According to
Emily Ho, the flexure mode of elastomeric seals is more tolerant of solids build-up, which is sometimes
difficult to eliminate and is the most common cause of secondary seal failure. Therefore whenever
possible, elastomeric seals are used. The O-ring or V-ring material is also affected by gas composition
and should be discussed with the seal vendor. Generally, a water saturated gas with 5% CO2, 1 % H2S or
the presence of methanol /ethanol will necessitate review of the secondary seal material. In addition,
whenever the use of elastomeric seals in equipment such as rotary compressors are needed, the use of
burst-discs to limit pressure should be avoided. One suggestion is to use a relief valve to vent pressure
more progressively which can decrease the risk of decompression damage.

5. Reverse pressurization:

When face contact occurs on reverse pressurization immediate seal failure can take place. Reverse
pressurization can occur in low pressure services due to high plant flare pressure on
upset/depressurization. The seal can be protected by suitable instrumentation to avoid such incidents,
or a check valve could be installed in the leakage line to flare. Other resolutions may be necessary for
extended periods of high flare pressure. It is also recommended to inform the seal vendor of the
maximum possible flare pressure and time periods at the engineering phase.

6. Reverse rotation:

5
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
Another type of dry gas seal failure is reverse rotation on compressor shutdown. According, M. N.
Saxena, this happens when the suction valve does not close and/or the recycle valve fails to open and/or
the check valve malfunctions. One solution is to use a T-slot or other bidirectional groove seal face
which will sustain the seal gap on reverse rotation. Because of large machine inertia this type of failure is
rare and, therefore, not a major criteria for seal face selection.

7. Failure at transient conditions:

It is critical that the sealing gas source be accessible at sufficient pressure to incorporate the entire
operating range of the compressor. It is common practice among the industry to use the compressor
discharge as the source for the sealing gas seal. Using the compressor discharge may seem to be a sound
practice since compressor discharge pressure is obviously greater than compressor inlet pressure.
Nevertheless, this design does not address transient conditions such as start up, idle, or shut down. In
these conditions providing dry and clean seal gas is vital when nitrogen is not an option. It is worth to
mention that, according to end users, very poor seal reliability resulted when utilizing compressor
discharge as buffer gas source. There can be inadequate pressure increase across the compressor to
allow for a constant positive flow of the sealing gas in the seals throughout these transient conditions.
Furthermore, the compressor does not produce enough buffer pressure, at low speeds, to overcome
non-conditioned gas migration from inside compressor to the seals. On recommendation, according to
John S. Stahley, is to require a minimum pressure rise of about 50 PSI across the compressor to allow for
pressure drops throughout the gas seal system and still have sufficient seal gas pressure at the seals
although this may not the case during transient conditions. To avoid this type of failure, plant,
compressor and seal design, as well as testing and operating procedures, must develop simultaneously
to insure that the seal and seal environment is optimized for all anticipated conditions.

Best Practices/Designs:

1. Process Design:
Operators should go by written procedures and standards when modifying existing installation
procedures or designing new plants. They should at least abide by the requirements of any national and
international technical codes for equipment design, fabrication, and materials. All design decisions or
alterations should be documented to provide an audit trail. Since techniques and technologies
integrated at the design phase are more effective and more economical, environmental protection
should be an intrinsic aspect of the design standards. Furthermore, According to European Sealing
Association (ESA), Preliminary process design should consider how fundamental principles may be
applied to process materials, process variables and equipment in order to prevent releases. For
example, consideration should be given to recognize opportunities for utilizing new, reduced emission
sealing advancements or other suitable sealing technology alternatives.

2. Seal Gas Selection:

For separation gas, it is highly recommended that a nitrogen source be used. If this is not possible,
consider the use of particular nitrogen generation equipment to avoid the difficulties occurring from the
use of air as the separation gas medium. When air is used as the separation gas for the barrier seal
6
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
safety issues develop. It is possible to produce an explosive mixture in the seal system secondary vent
when combustible process gas mixes with air. Combustion can take place within the secondary vent if a
specific gas to air mixture exists reaching explosive levels and a source of ignition is introduced.
According to the ESA, The worst case scenario is a catastrophic failure of the primary seal, while the
secondary seal remains intact. Under this condition, the secondary vent would be exposed to higher
levels of sealing gas leakage, up to the maximum primary seal leakage rate advised by the gas seal
manufacturer.

3. Sealing gas pressure:

The sealing gas must be available at an adequate pressure to include all the operating range of the
compressor. It has been previously suggested that a minimum seal gas source pressure of at least 50 PSI
above the sealing pressure should be maintained. This may not be possible throughout transient
conditions. During these conditions, an alternate source of seal gas can be used, or a seal gas pressure
booster can be included with the seal gas conditioning system.

4. Seal gas quality and composition:

The quality and composition of the sealing gas is another issue of concern in the gas seal system design.
Gas seal vendors have strict requirements for the sealing gas quality. Usually, the sealing gas should be
dry and filtered of particles 3 micron (absolute) and bigger. Coalescing-type filters are usually provided
in the gas seal system to address this requirement, but "pre-filtering" may be needed depending on the
particular application in order to eliminate solid particles. A liquid separator should also be included, if
entrained liquids are present in the seal gas.

At the time of the system design, it is imperative that the composition of the sealing gas be well defined.
According to John S. Stahley, of particular concern should be "heavy end" hydrocarbons (C6 and higher)
and water vapor in the gas. These components will have a tendency to condense as a result of pressure
(and therefore temperature) drops throughout the gas seal system. It is also vital to assess the
possibility of liquid condensation within the gas seal system or the gas seals themselves. To avoid such
condensation, as previously mentioned, it is recommended that the seal gas temperature into the gas
seal be at least 20 °F above its dew point. This is a good rule of thumb, but may not be enough in some
situations.

5. Seal gas conditioning/support system:

Seal gas conditioning systems normally consist of a pre-filter/liquid separator, pressure booster, and/or
heater, all mounted on a single base-plate installed upstream of the existing compressor gas seal system
which is normally mounted on a panel next to the compressor. The purpose of this system is to
condition the sealing gas before it flows into the compressor gas seal system to assure a specific gas
quality at the gas seal.

According to end users, the design consistency of the ancillaries is very poor, not just from original
equipment manufacturer to original equipment manufacturer, but also from job to job by the same
original equipment manufacturer. Ancillary system performance has also proven to be weak, due to
both lack of consistent specification and design practices and weak verification testing.
7
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
6. Engineering Review:
One of the purposes of a thorough engineering review of the seal gas supply source and the existing gas
seal support system is to find out the extent of seal gas conditioning needed. It is imperative that the
quality, composition, and source of the sealing gas be well defined at the time of the system design. The
temperature -pressure relationship of the sealing gas should be considered to find the possibility for
liquid condensation. This can be achieved by simulating the sealing gas temperature and pressure
probable drops across the different components within the gas seal system and plotting the results on a
phase diagram of the sealing gas. Depending on the outcome of the engineering review, the seal gas
conditioning system may consist of one or more of the following components: pressure booster, pre-
filter, heater, liquid separator, and alternate sealing gas source. Furthermore, a study of all the phases of
operation and a review of the components of the plant and their impact on the total system should be
included as part of the engineering study.

7. Management Systems:
It is essential to understand the fundamental role of effective management systems in order to reduce
the environmental impact of any process. According to the ESA, the purchase of state-of-the-art
hardware does not automatically guarantee the best environmental performance since it must also be
installed and operated correctly. Likewise, the limitations of older equipment can often be mitigated by
diligent operation. The best environmental performance is typically reached by the installation of the
best technology and its operation in the most effective and efficient manner.

Furthermore, communication among all players is vital. All too often, finger-pointing between the
compressor technician, engineering firm and the seal vendor occurs. Problems are likely to arise without
well defined responsibilities or a clear understanding and attempt to get all involved parties to the table
at design start.

8. Training:
Suitable training should be given to all staff involved in process operation to make sure that they are
proficient for their duties. This is critical for the proper selection, installation and performance of sealing
systems. Contrary to widespread practice by many in the industry, delivery of a new seal or mechanical
failure is the wrong time to start a training program, let alone acquaint oneself with the compressor or
seal operating manual. Training programs should instead be given up front as part of vendor selection.
The compressor and mechanical seal manufacturers, as well as the engineering firm, should provide
training as part of their service. Partnering with a firm that does not provide, and insist upon, a solid
educational component as part of its standard service should be avoided. It is important that the seal
vendor offer on-site technicians to assist in developing equipment reliability, mean-time between
change or repair, and overall plant productivity. Furthermore, according to the ESA, it is also just as
important that subcontractors, who may be responsible for maintenance work, or installation of sealing
systems during plant shutdown, should be fully trained in the handling and installation of sealing
8
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
materials. Records should be kept of the training given to staff and these should be reviewed
periodically to ensure that they reflect the needs of the job and the latest technologies.

9. Maintenance:
The maintenance of equipment and process plant is an important part of superior operation and will
entail both pro-active (preventative) and reactive methods. Preventative maintenance plays a major
part in optimizing performance and it is often the favored approach. A planned program of preventative
maintenance should be established after comprehensive consideration of equipment failure frequencies
and consequences. The maintenance program should be supported by suitable documenting systems
and diagnostic testing. There should be clear accountability for the planning and implementation of
maintenance. Equipment modifications during maintenance are a frequent occurrence on many plants
and the ESA recommends that it should be covered by procedures which give authorization only after a
suitable level of risk assessment. Subsequent process start-up should be dependent upon suitable post-
modification checks. Furthermore, regarding storage, when equipment, such as valves, pumps,
compressors, etc., are replaced by a stored unit, it is essential to verify the storage time, and compare it
with the seal vendors’ suggested storage time.

10. Monitoring Leakage:

Leaking losses are frequently difficult to determine since there are many possible sources and they are
highly dependent on how well the installation is operated, maintained and inspected. Some important
causes of leaking losses according to the ESA are:
 Ill-fitting sealing elements
 Installation faults
 Construction faults
 Wear and tear
 Ageing
 Equipment failure
 Contamination of the sealing element
 Excursions out of normal process conditions
 Poor maintenance procedures

Only when insight on the leaking losses is acquired is a structural decrease of leaking losses possible.
There are a variety of ways to quantify the leaking losses. Multiplying the number of each type of
equipment by an emission factor for that type of equipment is the easiest method to approximate the
leaking losses is. This technique can be used to acquire a broad approximation of the emissions without
measurements. It is worth to mention that emissions factors are not supposed to be a precise measure
of a single piece of equipment, and do not reveal the site-precise conditions of process units.
Many companies determine their leaking losses by calculations or approximations based on
measurements, but it is difficult to measure all possible sources in a large plant where not all sources
might be accessible. A representative sampling of sources, in most cases, will be enough to approximate

9
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
or calculate the leaking losses of the plant where the number of samples depends on the type of process
fluids in the plant and the type of equipment.

The results of monitoring program should be actively used. In addition, records of results should be kept
for trend analysis and diagnostic use. The use of monitoring and maintenance programs can reduce
leaking losses from equipment and fittings. According to the ESA, such programs could reduce fugitive
emissions by 40 to 60%, depending on the frequency of inspections, the process conditions and the fluid
emitted.

The recommended technique of evaluation of the condition of the dry gas seal is by monitoring the gas
seal leakage through the primary vent. This is done by measuring the pressure or flow across a
restriction orifice in the piping of the primary vent. Rising primary seal vent flow or pressure or declining
sealing gas supply to seal reference pressure differential points towards a failing gas seal. John S. Stahley
recommends that the flow restriction orifice should be provided with a differential pressure transmitter
to monitor and record seal leakage trends. Also, an alarm should be included to initiate upon escalating
pressure or flow above a predetermined limit. The suggested alarm level would vary depending on the
gas seal vendor, but twice the calculated gas seal leakage rate is a conservative method.

It is hard to monitor the health of the secondary seal. Contrary to the primary seal vent, a pressure or
flow measurement of the secondary vent does not help in evaluating the health of the secondary seal.
Measurement of this flow does not represent secondary seal performance because the majority of the
gas flow through the secondary vent is injected separation gas. Contamination from bearing lube oil is
the main threat to the reliability of the secondary seal. Therefore, the best way of monitoring the
condition of the secondary seal and the effectiveness of the barrier seal is an evaluation of lube oil
migration into the secondary seal cavity. This can be done by regular examination of the low point drain
installed in the secondary vent piping. The presence of growing quantities of lube oil in the secondary
vent drain over a period of time points to worsening barrier seal performance which could lead to
secondary seal failure. On the other hand, if primary vent flow or pressure is typical, and vent drains of
the secondary are dry, it is normally ok to conclude that the secondary seal and barrier seal are in an
adequate operating condition.

11. Running the compressor at transient conditions:

The probability of contamination related dry gas seal failure greatly increase when operating the
compressor at transient conditions. Therefore, the number of times a compressor is started or stopped
should be held to a minimum. When utilizing the compressor discharge as the source of sealing gas
supply, operating the compressor at idle conditions of low pressure increase should also be avoided. If it
is crucial to operate in a hot standby mode, the operating parameters should be such that sufficient
pressure increase is available across the compressor to permit a positive flow of sealing gas. Another
alternative when running in these idle conditions is to use a different source of sealing gas, other than
compressor discharge. According to John S. Stahley, the availability of such secondary sources of seal gas
is highly dependent on the installation location, but some possibilities include gas turbine fuel gas,
bottled there are seal gas “boosters” on the market which can be used to increase the pressure of seal
gas taken from the compressor discharge.

10
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
Furthermore, post shutdown, "slow roll" of the rotor in gas turbine-driven compressors should take into
account the seal vendor's recommended minimum speed requirement; typically, M. N. Saxena, is
greater than 100 rpm for a 4 inch seal. A stationary carbon ring can accommodate slow roll at speeds of
5-15 rpm on steam turbine shutdown.

Usually, on compressor shutdown or trip, the automated discharge and suction valves close and the
recycle control valve opens. It is recommended to blow down the compressed gas in this loop if the trip
is because of dry gas seal failure. But when the shutdown is due to other causes, consider keeping the
system under pressurized hold. Here, according to M. N. Saxena, the dry gas seals are subjected to an
intermediate "settle out" pressure that depends on the volume of the loop. Approximated settle out
pressure should be given as a minimum design condition for the dry gas seal and support systems. In a
multi body compressor train with inter stage check valves, the transient settle out pressure should be
considered in the seal design. Some end users and vendors suggest that the dry gas seal and support
systems be suitable for the greatest discharge pressure.

Failure Data Received

 22 failures covering 35 + years of combined operation

 Pressures ranging from 130 psig to 3200 psig
 Temperatures ranging from 89 °F to 302 °F
 Speed ranging from 3,900 rpm to 39,000 rpm
 Services including hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydro-carbons and chemicals

Temperature vs. MTBF:

11
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
 400
Temperature ( Deg. F)

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
MTBF (Months)

Pressure vs. MTBF:

4000
Pressure (psig)

3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
MTBF ( Months)

12
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
Weibull Analysis:

-1
-1.2
ln(ln(1-/1-mr)

y = 0.1429x - 1.644
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2
-1 1 3
ln ( cycles)

Monte Carlo Simulation - 100 Iterations:

14 100%

12

75%
10

Cumulative Failures
Frequency

50%

4
25%

0 0%
e
12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36
6

or
M

MTBF (Months)

13
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
Survey Results on Dry Gas Seal Failure Causes:

6%
12%
35%
6% Vibration
Contamination
Corrosion
Cracked Fluid
Lengthy slow roll
6%
No gas supply

35%

Received Data Summary:

 Failures are independent of speed, pressure and temperature

 Major mechanism of failure is liquid and particle contamination
 Data does not conform to industry claims that 90% of the failures are related to contamination
 Calculated MTBF for bad actors is < 20 months
 Weibull Analysis confirms the validity of the data (infant mortality) and supports the need for
future design (API Standards) improvements.

Economics Supporting Further Work:

 3.44% of compressor Failures are due to dry gas seals (OREDA 4th Edition pg 72)
 6000 compressors in operation within Energy & Petrochemical Industry
 40% reduction in particle and fluid contamination through design improvements
 Average Repair Cost of $ 150,000
 Lost Production = 4X Maintenance Repair Cost
 Potential Savings = $ 62 MM/Year

_____________________________________________________________________________________

14
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment
 Sources

1. Design, operation, and maintenance considerations for improved dry gas seal reliability in
centrifugal compressors, John S. Stahley, Dresser-Rand Co.USA, 2001.

2. Mechanical Upgrades to Improve Centrifugal Compressor Operation and Reliability, John S.

Stahley, Dresser-Rand Co. USA, 2003.

3. Dry gas seal system design standards for centrifugal compressor applications, John S. Stahley,
Dresser-Rand Co. USA, 2002.

4. Dry gas seals and support systems benefits and options, M. N. Saxena, Hydrocarbon Processing
Australia, November 2003.

5. Sealing Technology – BAT guidance notes, European Sealing Association United Kingdom, June
2005.

6. Elastomeric seals for rapid gas decompression applications in high-pressure services, Emily Ho,
BHR Group Limited United Kingdom, 2006.

7. Poor Buffer Gas Fluid Main Cause of Gas Compressor Seal Failure, Power Engineering
International, November, 2004.

8. Eliminating Compressor Seal Failures, Joe Delrahim, Pipeline and Gas Journal, January 2003.

9. API Standard 614, Fourth Edition, April 1999.

Special thanks to: Jim Demetriou, and Abdulrahman Khowaiter.

15
API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment

View publication stats