2/24/2011

Sealing Systems
Energy Efficiency

Fluid Sealing Association

Friction is Only
The Beginning

Fluid Sealing Association

1
 2/24/2011

Sealing Systems Impact Efficiency

z Friction losses are only the beginning
– There is lost product
p
– There are cooling requirements
– There are heating requirements
z Some sealing systems use more
energy than the pump driver
z Market
M k t researchh shows
h greater
t than
th
50% of the time inefficient sealing
systems are used

Seals Contain Process and Energy

Process
Energy
Can be
wasted
into the
atmosphere

2
 2/24/2011

Basic Pumping System

P
Pump discharge
di h

Flanges

Valves Expansion Joint

Mechanical Seal
Bearing Housing

Motor
Pump Suction

Bearing lubricant seals

Pump

Where are the Seals?

3
 2/24/2011

Basic Pumping System

z Pipes are joined with flanges
– The flanges are sealed with gaskets

z Valves are used to isolate parts of the system

– The valve stem is sealed with compression packing. It
is a dynamic seal that accommodates linear and rotary
motion
– The valve is joined to the pipe with flanges

z The pump shaft goes through the pump housing and

needs
d a seall
– A mechanical seal or compression packing are
dynamic seals that accommodate rotary motion

Sealing Systems Impact Efficiency

Directly

z Leaks from static and dynamic seals

waste product and contaminate the
environment
z Dynamic seals consume energy from
the friction between the static and
moving g parts
p
– Contact pressure between parts in relative
motion is high due to the need to contain
system pressure

4
 2/24/2011

Sealing Systems Impact Efficiency

Indirectly

z Suction leaks can reduce pump

y
efficiency
z Friction from packing on valve stems
can affect control valves and prevent
maintaining the desired output
z Seal replacement can result in product
loss and require entire systems to be
de-pressurized and then re-
pressurized

Sealing Systems Impact Efficiency

Indirectly

z Shaft sealing can require temperature

control for operation
– Re-circulating lines reduce pump efficiency
– External cooling reduce the thermal efficiency of
the system
– External injection has to be later removed
requiring evaporation
– External injection has to be separated from the
product and treated before it can be disposed of
– External circulating systems for single or dual
seals require additional pumps

5
 2/24/2011

An Example of a Sealing System That

Wastes Energy

z In a power plant the steam

condensate circuit is a closed loop
system
z Water is added to make up what is
lost through the system leaks
z Some is lost as feed-water
feed water
z Some is lost as steam
z Some is lost as condensate

An Example of a Sealing System That

Wastes Energy

z Feed-water, steam and

condensate are at a higher energy
state than make-up water
z Energy required to elevate make-
up water energy level to:
– Condensate: 212 BTU/lb
– Feed-water: 370 BTU/lb
– Steam: 1400 BTU/lb

6
 2/24/2011

An Example of a Sealing System That

Wastes Energy

z With a system where leakage is

approximately due to
z Feed-water 25%
z Steam 25 %
z Condensate 50%
– The energy required for 1 lb of leakage is:
z 212 x .5 + 370 x .25 + 1400 x .25 = 548.5
BTU/lb
z Or 4577 BTU/Gal.

An Example of a Sealing System That

Wastes Energy

z With a water make-up rate 50 GPM,

the energy required to be added to the
system is:
– 4577 BTU/Gal x 50 GPM x 60 min x 24 hr x
365 days = 120,283,560,000 BTU/Year
– Or 35,251,635 kilowatt hour
z This is just the energy loss from leaks
leaks.
It does not include reheating by the
system of the cooling of seal areas

7
 2/24/2011

Energy Waste in Perspective

z The average annual electricity
consumption
p for a U.S. residential
utility customer is about 11,000 kWh
z 50 GPM make up water that needs to
be added in a Power Plant is the
equivalent of the consumption of
about
b t 3200 hhomes
z We need to seal energy in a system,
not just liquids.

Sealing Systems Impact Efficiency

z Sealing systems contain energy as well

as fluids
z Some sealing systems use more
energy than the pump driver
z Market research shows greater than
50% of the time inefficient sealing
systems are used
z Sealed equipment can be 10%-20%
more efficient than sealless pumps

8
 2/24/2011

Driver Power Consumption

Frictional Power Consumption of Compression Packing
@ 1750RPM @ 100 psig
z Depending on
30
20 selection of the
20 packing or
HP

kW
10
10 mechanical seal
0 0 type, sealing
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
Shaft Size (inches) systems have a
Packing 5 rings (1.000 x .312, 2.000 x .375, 3.000 x .500, 4.000 x .500)
potentially
Frictional Pow er Consum ption of Mechanical Seals significant
@ 1750 RPM @ 100psig
4 3 influence on the
3
2
power
HP

kW
1
1
0 0
consumed by
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
Shaft Size (inches)
the pump driver.
Single Unbalanced Dual Balanced Single Balanced Dual Dry Gas Seal

However …
z Driver power consumption is the tip of
the iceberg.
g
z The potential for wasted thermal
energy from a poorly selected Sealing
System can be staggering, often
exceeding the total power consumed
b the
by th driver.
di
z The following Case Studies illustrate
this point.

9
 2/24/2011

Case Studies Data

z Most of the data was generated by HI

Associate Members and are part of the
Mechanical Seals Guidebook for pumps: 
Applications Guidelines
z FSA Members added parallel cases for
the packing sealing solutions

Case Studies Data

z An upcoming joint HI/FSA webinar is
planned for “Fundamentals of
p
Mechanical seals”.
– The course is based on the handbook
– It does include the information presented
here in one of its sections
– Case studies illustrate the variations in
power consumption from various sealing
systems as well as their relative
operating costs

10
 2/24/2011

Case Study 1 – Heat Transfer Oil

z Several different sealing systems can be compared using a
typical hot oil pumping application
z Application specifics:
– Single stage, end suction centrifugal pump (API 610 compliant)
providing heat to several areas of a plant
– Pumped fluid: Hydrocarbon @ 315°C (600°F)
z Specific Gravity 0.8
z Specific Heat 1.67 kJ/kg-°C (0.4 Btu/lb-°F)
– System pressure: 345 kPag (50 psig) in seal chamber
– Pump shaft: 3600 RPM, 50mm (2.0”) diameter in the seal area
– Pump driver: 50HP (typical)
– Sealing Devices:
z Compression Packing
z Mechanical Seals
– Heat lost at the pump must be replaced at the system boiler / heat
exchanger

Case 1A – Least Energy Efficient

Low Temperature Seal with API Plan 32 – Cool External Flush

7.6 lpm (2 gpm) kerosene

flush @ 38°C (100°F)

47 kW (160,000 BTU/hr) power required to

replace heat lost through
dilution of the pumped fluid

frictional power consumed by seal

Sealing System Power Consumption = 47.4 kW

11
 2/24/2011

Case 1B – Poor Energy Efficiency

Low Temperature Seal with API Plan 21 – Cooled By-pass Flush
Power required to replace heat
lost through
g cooling
g 4.7 lpm
p
(1.25 gpm) pumped fluid from
315°C (600°F) to 115°C
(240°F) by the water-cooled
heat exchanger

Power losses also

include 38 lpm (10
gpm) of cooling water
used by the heat
exchanger
h

frictional power consumed by

seal

Sealing System Power Consumption = 24.4 kW

Case 1C – Improved Energy

Efficiency
Low Temperature Packing (0.1 ff) Flow Through Flush
1.52 lpm
p ((.4 gp
gpm))
kerosene flush @ 38°C
(100°F)

9.4kW (32,100 BTU/hr): Power required to replace

heat lost to product & flush
outlet (30% of Flush going
into product)

2509 W (8,569 BTU/hr): frictional

power consumed by packing

Sealing System Power Consumption = 11.91 kW

12
 2/24/2011

Case 1D – Greatly Improved Energy

Efficiency
Low Temperature Seal with API Plan 23 – Cooled Closed-loop Flush

Apportion of the sealed fluid is

isolated from the hot process so
that the total cooling load is
significantly reduced and the
change in temperature across the
heat exchanger is reduced (as
compared to the Plan 21 in Case
1C)

frictional power consumed by seal

Sealing System Power Consumption = 6.4 kW

Case 1E – Significantly Improved

Energy Efficiency
(A properly installed steam
High Temperature Packing flush uses very little steam,
(0.12 ff) with Steam Injection and has almost no effect on
the process temperature)

Q2 = 440W
(1,500 BTU/hr)
heat radiated from
seal chamber area

Q1 = 3.0kW (10,236 BTU/hr)

frictional power consumed by
packing

Sealing System Power Consumption = 3.4 kW

13
 2/24/2011

Case 1F – Significantly Improved

Energy Efficiency

High Temp Packing

Q = 440W
(1 500 BTU/hr)
(1,500
(0.1 ff, 2 x Carbon Fiber,
heat radiated from 4 x Graphite) No Flush
seal chamber area

3.0 kW (10,236 BTU/hr) frictional power

consumed by packing

Sealing System Power Consumption = 3.4 kW

Sources: FSA Life Cycle Cost Estimator tool,
www.fluidsealing.com .

Case 1G – Optimal Energy Efficiency

(Liquid Lubricated Seal)

High Temp Seal with API Plan 02/62 – Dead Ended / Steam Quench

(A properly installed
steam quench uses
very little steam, and
has almost no effect
heat radiated on the process
from seal temperature)
chamber area

frictional power consumed by seal

Sealing System Power Consumption = 0.8 kW

14
 2/24/2011

Case 1H – Optimal Energy Efficiency

(Dry Gas Seal)
High Temp Dual Seals with API Plan 74
Pressurized Gas Barrier
O-ring Reliability?
Q2 = 440 W (1500 BTU/hr)
heat radiated from seal
chamber area

Q1 = 35 W (120 BTU/hr)
frictional power consumed
by seals

Sealing System Power Consumption = 0.5 kW

Case 1 Populations Found in Industry

Today
z FSA member companies have Plan 23

assembled data on 28,000 seal Plan 32

applications
pp where the pumping
p p g Plan 2

temperature exceeds 200°C Plan 21

(400°F), similar to Case Study 1. Plan 74

– Chart 1 represents the frequency 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

of the API piping plans used in Selection Frequency
these 28,000 high temperature Plan 32
applications
Driver (Case 1)
– Chart 2 shows the comparative
power consumption
p p values for Plan 21

each sealing system in Case 1. Plan 23

– We estimate around 20% of these Plan 2

applications use compression
Plan 74
packing, but we have no reliable
data on packing type or piping 0 10 20 30 40 50
arrangements. Pow er Consum ption (kW)

15
 2/24/2011

Case Study 2 – Water Based Slurry

z Water based slurry applications are ubiquitous in

general industry markets (e
(e.g.
g Pulp & Paper
Paper, Water
& Waste Water , Mining & Minerals, Power
Generation)
z An estimated 50% of these pumps use
compression packing with cool external flush.
z When using g seals,, Plan 32 - Cool External Flush is
also typically the default seal support system
selected in these industries.

Case Study 2 – Water Based Slurry

Application Specifics
z End suction centrifugal pump (ANSI B-73 compliant)
z Pumped fluid: Water with entrained solids @ 75°C
(170°F)
z Example: Green or Black liquor

z System pressure: 345 kPag (50 psig) in seal

chamber
z Pump shaft: 3600 RPM, 50mm (2.0”) diameter in the
seall area
z Flush water introduced at the pump must be
removed downstream to restore the integrity of the
pumped fluid

16
 2/24/2011

Case 2A – Least Energy Efficient

Low Temperature Seal with API Plan 32 – Cool External Flush

6.6 lpm (1.75 gpm) clean
water flush @ 10°C (50°F)

Q3 = 249 kW (849,000 BTU/hr) power required to

remove flush water from the pumped
product to restore process integrity

frictional power consumed by seal

Sealing System Power Consumption = 249.4 kW

Case 2B – Poor Energy Efficiency

Packing (0.12 ff) with water injection Carbon bushing from Lantern ring

Q3= 59.5kW (204,085 BTU/hr): Power

required to remove 1.9 lpm (.5 gpm)
clean water flush from the pumped
product to restore process integrity

Q1 = 1800 W (6,141 BTU/hr):

frictional power consumed by
packing Sealing System Power Consumption = 61.3 kW

17
 2/24/2011

Case 2C – Improved Energy efficiency

Packing (0.1 ff) with Cool External Flush

.4 lpm
p ((.1 gp
gpm)) clean water
flush @ 10°C (50°F)

Q3 = 9 kW (30,870 BTU/hr) power required to

remove flush water (60 % to process)
from the pumped product to restore
process integrity

4250 W
frictional power consumed by packing

Sealing System Power Consumption = 13.25 kW

Case 2D – Improved Energy Efficiency

Dual Seals with API Plan 54

Circulated Barrier from External Source

power required by the

motor of the auxiliary
pump to circulate the
barrier fluid

frictional power consumed by seals

Sealing System Power Consumption = 1.8 kW

18
 2/24/2011

Case 2E – Optimal Energy

Efficiency (Dry Gas Seal)
Dual Seals with API Plan 74 – Pressurized Gas Barrier
Reliability with solids inside inboard seal?

Q1 = 35 W (120 BTU/hr)
frictional p
power consumed
by seals

Sealing System Power Consumption = 0.035 kW

Conclusions

z Potential sealing system savings can exceed the

energy savings obtained from switching to variable
f
frequency di
drives, trimming
ti i impellors,
i ll or re-sizing
i i
pumps in many applications.
z Selection of inappropriate sealing systems can place
significant additional thermal energy requirements
on plant utilities.
z Sealing systems found in many industrial
applications (even when functioning as intended) are
extremely wasteful of energy, and their thermal
power consumption can exceed the power output of
the driver itself.

19
 2/24/2011

Conclusions
z Improved technology sealing systems available today
can eliminate the need for energy-wasting systems
that result in cooling/dilution of the process and the
need for downstream separation/evaporation, re-
heating, and/or effluent treatment.
z Data available from FSA members for 28,000 high
temperature pumps show frequent use of energy-
wasting seal support systems.
z A significant initiative will be needed to educate
industry on the potential for energy savings through
the adoption of improved sealing system designs.
z Publicize the Handbook and Webinar

20