Você está na página 1de 14

Heinz P. Bloch is a Consulting Engineer with offices in West Des Moines, Iowa.

Before retiring from Exxon in 1986


after over two decades of service, Mr. Bloch’s professional career included long-term assignments as Exxon
Chemical’s Regional Machinery Specialist for the United States. He has also held machinery-oriented staff and
line positions with Exxon affiliates in the United States, Italy, Spain, England, The Netherlands and Japan.
Troubleshooting and reliability improvement missions have taken him to process plants and manufacturing
facilities in 30 or more countries on all six continents. He has conducted hundreds of public and in-plant courses
internationally.

Mr. Bloch is the author of over 300 technical papers or similar publications. His 14 comprehensive books and a
searchable CD-ROM on practical machinery management include texts on failure analysis, failure avoidance,
compressors, steam turbines, oil mist lubrication and practical lubrication for industrial facilities. These
groundbreaking books have been used for reliability improvement lectures and maintenance cost reduction
consulting worldwide. In addition, Mr. Bloch holds five U.S. and many international patents relating to high-speed
machinery improvements.

Mr. Bloch graduated from the New Jersey Institute of Technology with B.S. and M.S. degrees (Cum Laude) in
Mechanical Engineering. He was elected to three National Honor Societies, is an ASME Fellow, and maintains
registration as a Professional Engineer in New Jersey and Texas. Mr. Bloch is the Reliability/ Equipment Editor of
the monthly publication Hydrocarbon Processing.

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
14

Field Experience with Dual-Face Magnetic Bearing


Housing Seals

CASE STUDIES COMPILED FOR PRESENTATION AT


TAMU PUMP 2005
By
HEINZ P. BLOCH, Consulting Engineer
(hpbloch@mchsi.com)
West Des Moines, Iowa
and
JOHN BRIGHT, Manager, Testing (jtb@aesseal.co.uk)
AESSeal, Ltd., Rotherham, Yorkshire, UK

Heinz Bloch Technical Paper 2005

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
Field Experience with Dual-Face Magnetic Bearing Housing Seals

CASE STUDIES COMPILED FOR PRESENTATION AT TAMU PUMP 2005


By
HEINZ P. BLOCH, Consulting Engineer (hpbloch@mchsi.com)
West Des Moines, Iowa
and
JOHN BRIGHT, Manager, Testing (jtb@aesseal.co.uk)
AESSeal, Ltd., Rotherham, Yorkshire, UK

Abstract

It has long been recognized that lube oil contamination vastly reduces the life of pump bearings. This
prompted the American Petroleum Institute (API) and pump users to seek out and recommend
preventive measures, including devices such as rotating non-contacting labyrinth bearing housing
seals (“bearing isolators”) and contacting-face rotating magnetic seals. All of these measures have
one primary objective: the extension of bearing life through reduction, and possibly even the virtual
elimination, of lubricant degradation. Two typical case histories are presented.

Various factory tests, the development of cost justifications and a thorough review of field experience
have established the viability and effectiveness of cartridge-type magnetic dual-face bearing
protectors. As of late 2004, these devices must be considered the best available means of preventing
external contaminants from degrading the lubricant in bearing housings for industrial machinery. The
bearings of pumps, gears, mixers, small turbines, fans, blowers, star feeders, conveyor lines, rotary
drum filters, and literally hundreds of other shaft-driven and bearing-supported types of equipment
can be effectively sealed with dual (or “double”) face magnetic seals. Four examples and their
respective cost justifications are highlighted.

Quantifying the effects of contaminated lube oil

The fundamental reasons for favoring hermetic sealing devices for bearing housings can be derived from basic
physics (Amonton’s Law) and the technical literature. As regards Amonton’s Law we will recall that, upon cooling,
the density of a gas mixture will increase. For a closed volume, a pressure reduction would result. However, if this
cooling takes place in a bearing housing and a path or opening exists to the external environment, ambient air will
be induced to flow into the housing. Should the air contained in the bearing housing heat up again later, the
reverse would take place and warm air would be expelled into the surrounding atmosphere until the pressures are
equalized.

It is certainly appropriate to anticipate that bearing housings that no longer have access to ambient air
environments will preclude oil contamination from external sources. But, how clean is the oil? The various
bearing manufacturers use such qualitative terms as ultra-clean, very clean, clean, normal, contaminated, and
Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005
Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
heavily contaminated to describe oil cleanness. However, quantitative data are needed for purposes of cost
justification or life-cycle-cost studies. We find these numbers in technical papers, articles and books that deal with
the quantitative effects of contaminated lube oil. Among the many references, only five technical data sources will
be mentioned here:

1. In Ref. 1, we find plots (provided by Dr. Richard Brodzinski, BP Oil, Kwinana, Western Australia) that
show bearing lives with oil contamination “normal” to be less than one-half of the lives of bearings
with oil labeled “clean.”

2. The marketing literature of Royal Purple, Ltd., Porter, Texas, (Ref. 2), contains tables (“Effect of Fluid
Cleanliness on Rolling Contact Bearing Life”) that assess and quantify the benefit of clean oil by
assigning a life extension factor. Using the example of an ISO 4406:99 cleanliness level of initially
22/19 and bringing it up to a new level of 14/11, Royal Purple’s experience shows bearing life
extended by a factor of four.

3. Oil analysis experts at Tulsa, Oklahoma-based NORIA Corporation (Ref. 3) consider an ISO 4406:99
cleanliness level of 23/20/17 typical for pumps. A level of 16/13/10 would be seen as “world class,”
and >28/25/22 as “evidence of serious neglect.” For a cleanliness improvement from NORIA’s
“typical” to NORIA’s “world class” and after converting its three-range numbers to the equivalent
two-range ISO numbers 20/17 and 13/10, Reference 2 would again give a bearing life extension
factor of four.

4. In Eschmann, Hasbargen and Weigand’s 1985 text “Ball and Roller Bearings”(Ref. 4, pg. 183),
European bearing manufacturer FAG emphasizes that the severity of the undesirable end effects of
contamination depends on the ratio of operating viscosity of a lubricant divided by its rated
viscosity (Fig. 1). While there obviously could be an almost infinite number of combinations in the
amount of contamination and ratios of viscosity, ratios of 0.5 to perhaps 1.0 are thought rather
typical. Using 0.5 for this ratio, and plotting from the mid-point of the zone labeled “contaminants in
lubricant” (Zone lll) to the mid-point of the zone labeled “high degree of cleanliness in the lubricating
gap,” (Zone ll) we would find a four-fold increase in bearing life for the cleaner oil. At a viscosity ratio
of 2, the projected bearing life increase traversing from “contaminated” to “clean” would be
approximately seven-fold. It should be noted that we are not here considering “ultra-clean” (Zone l)
oil, since it would be unrealistic to find this degree of cleanliness in field-installed process pump
bearing housings.

5. But the most authoritative data on the effects of lubricant contamination might perhaps be gleaned
from the General Catalog of one of the world’s leading bearing manufacturers, SKF (Ref. 5). For the
example shown in their catalog, SKF applied its New Life Theory to an oil-lubricated 45 mm radial
bearing running at constant load and speed. Under ultra-clean conditions (nc = 1), this example
bearing was calculated to reach 15,250 operating hours. The SKF catalog text goes on to explain that,
if the example were to be calculated for contaminated conditions such that nc =0.02, bearing life
would be only 287 operating hours.

Oil cleanliness condition and quantifying the benefits of clean oil

Reasonable engineering judgment considers hermetically sealed bearing housings fully capable of maintaining
“clean” oil conditions. Opinions to the contrary are without foundation and do not coincide with field experience.
As an example, Ref. 6, published in 1996, reaches the seemingly startling conclusion that “the type of bearing
housing closure device (labyrinth, lip seal, or magnetic seal) shows no significant correlation with either
particulate or water contamination levels.”
Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005
Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
However, this conclusion is easily explained by the fact that the bearing housings involved in the survey were all
fitted with vented filler caps and were thus allowed to “breathe.” In this context, and as if to corroborate Amonton’s
Law, “breathing” means that temperature expansion of the air/oil mixture floating above the oil levels causes the
gas mixture to be expelled through the vented filler cap into the ambient environment. Upon cooling of the air/oil
mixture, ambient air is again drawn into the bearing housings. This is very obviously an ongoing in-out process of
real consequence for plants located in unfavorable environments.

As Ref. 6 states, five out of seven sample plants were located in the Houston, Texas area, which competes with
Los Angeles for the worst industrial air pollution in the USA. Moreover, it is known that many, if not most, of the
tested pumps employed oil ring lubrication. Oil rings are sensitive to shaft horizontality and, when “sliding
downhill” often contact housing-internal stationary parts. This has been shown to cause ring wear and generally
serious oil contamination (Ref. 7).

The oil cleanliness condition of any bearing housing interior that is accessed by the surrounding ambient air might,
at best, be labeled “normal.” Rotating labyrinth seals have an open gap that allows communication between the
housing and ambient environment. While no definitive quantifiers are given that describe a refinery ambient, most
users are aware that considerable amounts of particulates and moisture exist in the ambient air of industrial
regions. A simple test situation may help in visualizing the issue.

Say, a new automobile is being washed and polished, and then left somewhere in the open near an industrial plant.
Three days later, a person takes a clean paper towel and swipes it over the hood of the car. Not surprisingly, the
paper towel will no longer be clean. We can certainly envision that a considerable amount of dust is likely to find
its way into bearing housings that continually “breathe” because of temperature expansion and contraction of the
air that fills the space above the oil level.

The severity of contamination can also be seen from the same study, Ref. 6, which had paradoxically concluded
that the amount of contamination found in pump bearing housings is independent of the type of bearing housing
seal employed. It found that bearing housings (with open vents) have particle contamination levels at least 10
times greater than recommended levels. Moreover, a staggering 54 percent of the more than 150 samples taken
from industrial pumps contained contamination levels more than 100 times greater than recommended!

Recall that bearing manufacturers are using the terms “clean” and “normal” to describe the degree of lubricating
oil contamination. It can be reasoned that bearing housings with closed vents and equipped with face-type seals,
or bearing protectors that employ mechanical seal principles and technology are able to keep the lubricant
“clean,” whereas rotating labyrinth seals designed with an air gap will allow the lubricant to degrade to the point
of “normal” contamination. As we consider all of the above, it is simply reasonable to accept the premise that
bearings lubricated with “clean” oils will live at least twice as long as bearings with oil in “normal” condition of
cleanness. Therefore, this doubling of bearing life is often used in the most conservative and simplest cost
justification calculations, as will be seen later.

Construction features of magnetically energized dual-face cartridge seals

In pumps equipped with magnetic bearing housing seals, the lubricant is totally contained while the atmosphere
is effectively excluded. Shafts are sealed with magnetic seals at each end of the frame. In general, the rotary
portion of the seal is fastened to the shaft by an O-ring that performs both clamping and sealing functions. The
opposing component is O-ring mounted in a stationary, which is then fitted into the pump housing or frame
adapter. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate two different configurations of the dual-face (or double-face) product.

Instead of springs to hold the faces together, one of the components of a modern dual-face magnetic bearing
housing seal is fitted with a series of small rare earth rod magnets. The two opposing parts are either a high
strength, corrosion-protected magnetic material or are made of a wear-resistant, low-friction face encased in a
Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005
Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
material attracted by the strong stationary rod magnets.

In dual-face magnetic seals two seal faces are magnetically held against their respective mating faces. Modern
seals (Fig. 3) use stationary nickel-plated samarium-cobalt magnets, a tungsten-carbide rotary, an antimony
carbon face on the side towards the housing-interior, and a bronze-filled Teflon face on the atmospheric side.
While single-face aerospace magnetic seals date back to the late1940’s, the new and improved dual-face
magnetic seals have only been fully operational since about 2002.

Properties of magnetically energized dual-face cartridge seals

Of the two types of dual-face magnetic seals shown in Figures 2 and 3, the one illustrated in Figure 3 has been
independently third-party tested with regard to its electrostatic and electromagnetic properties to ensure safe
operation in hazardous areas and potentially explosive atmospheres.

Dual-face magnetic bearing protector seals were subjected to independent testing to ensure ATEX compliance.
ATEX is the European safety standard for explosive environments and test results are contained in an ATEX
document which qualifies the double-face magnetic bearing protector seals that are the subject of this write-up.
These bearing housing seals have been certified for use in hazardous areas where a large numbers of Group II,
Category 2 equipment is required. The temperature classification is dependent upon the specific application. The
procedure and methodology contained in this document enable the end user to determine the safe use of the
dual-face magnetic seals in a given application.

Are there limitations?

The application options for dual-face magnetic bearing housing seals are almost limitless. They are presently used
on many pump configurations, including horizontal and vertical pumps, rotary lobe, progressive cavity and gear
pumps. Gear speed reducers and a wide variety of different machines found in pulp and paper mills, corn milling
equipment, different pillow blocks and rotary valves have also been successfully sealed with these dual-face
cartridge magnetic seals, which incorporate neither clips nor set screws. Their dimensional envelope fits many
locations where lip seals were originally installed. Yet, their clamping locations avoid contacting the shaft surfaces
worn off by lip seal contact.

The external faces of both of the modern dual-face magnetic seals show in Figs. 2 and 3 operate under dry
running conditions. They are designed for dry running and will to do so without distress as long as the internal
face is not too hot. With marginal (oil splash) lubrication on the inner face of the seal in Figure 3 and dry running
conditions on the outer face, allowable peripheral shaft velocities were 22 m/s. Assuming a 3-inch (~76 mm)
diameter shaft, it would rotate at slightly over 5500 rpm. At an 18°C (65° F) ambient, the resulting face
temperature would stay within the stipulated ATEX limitation of 85°C (185°F), see Fig. 4.

The internal face is made of antimony-infused carbon, selected for its desirable properties, including that of
optimal heat dissipation. Additionally, and regardless of actual need, the lubricant application conditions in pump
bearing housings are typically known to provide a small, or incidental, amount of oil to at least a segmented region
of the inboard sealing faces. The inboard faces of the aforementioned dual-face magnetic seal models (Figs. 2
and 3) are designed to operate quite well with this incidental thin film lubrication.

Still, to safeguard against blatant misapplication, the manufacturer warns against dry running. As a matter of
general policy, either continuous monitoring or other appropriate inspection and examination methods are
advocated so as to ensure correct equipment oil levels. Fortunately, the bearing housings of properly designed
pumps will always incorporate lube application methods that generate an oil fog that results in not only adequate
bearing lubrication but also a thin coating of oil for the seal faces and only the complete loss of oil could cause
Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005
Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
an unacceptable temperature increase at the inboard/outboard faces. Then again, that’s an academic concern
since deprivation of lube oil would invite catastrophic bearing failure in any case.

In general, the manufacturers of different bearing housing seals are reluctant to publish leakage data on their
respective devices. Occasionally, a test report finds its way into the hands of consulting engineers. However,
dual-face magnetic seals embodying the features illustrated in Fig. 3 have always won in laboratory tests against
every other bearing housing seal that’s presently on the market.

Case histories and cost justification

There are a number of areas that merit being considered in justifying the incremental cost of dual-face magnetic
bearing housing seals over the cost of simple lip seals or one of the various forms of straight and rotating labyrinth
seals.

Progressive, reliability-focused equipment users that seek to improve the profitability of their operations employ
Life Cycle Costing, or LCC. The conscientious application of LCC concepts will help reliability-focused plants
minimize waste. In the case of double-face magnetic bearing housing seals, LCC will often show dramatic
savings in operating and maintenance costs.

Life cycle component cost comparisons would compare the total lifetime cost to purchase, install, operate, and
maintain equipment with, vs. equipment without, magnetic bearing housing seals. The comparison would have to
include associated downtime, plus certain imputed values of having fewer failure events. Reliability-focused
plants include here the avoided cost of plant fires occasionally brought on by catastrophic bearing failures and
the implicit value of utilizing work force members that previously spent time on remedial tasks and are now free
to pro-actively work on preventive tasks.

A simplified mathematical expression for life cycle cost (LLC) might be:

LCC = Cic + Cin + Ce + Co + Cm + Cdt + Cenv + Cd + Cf - Cv

Where:

LCC = Life Cycle Cost


Cic = Initial cost, purchase price
Cin = Procurement and installation, incremental cost
Ce = Energy costs (pump, driver & auxiliary services)
Co = Operation costs
Cm = Maintenance and repair costs
Cdt = Down time costs
Cenv = Environmental costs
Cd = Decommissioning and/or disposal costs
Cf = Fire damage cost
Cv = Gain due to pro-active use of re-assigned workforce

Suppose a facility had identified certain centrifugal pumps that suffered from disappointing bearing life and
suppose further that these pumps were installed in a contamination-prone environment. It is not difficult to
imagine bearings adjacent to steam quench injection points near mechanical seals, or bearings in mining pumps,
or in areas experiencing sandstorms to be at risk here. Moreover, given the earlier source data, it is more than
reasonable to anticipate a two-fold increase in bearing life with hermetically sealed bearing housings.
Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005
Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
One of the simplest and most straightforward ways to assess the benefits of dual-face magnetic seals over
sealing methods that allow an influx of atmospheric contaminants would be to look at a plant’s pump failure
frequencies and costs. The cost of a set of magnetic seals would be more than offset by the projected number of
bearing-related pump failure incidents. In virtually all cases so examined, upgrading to dual-face magnetic seals
will show payback periods of less than six months.

Simple payback calculation

Suppose a plant had centrifugal pumps with an average MTBF (mean-time-between-failures) of 2.5 years and
suppose further that the average repair is costing the plant $6,400, including burden, overhead, field and shop
labor, replacement parts, etc. The bearing housings are not hermetically sealed and there is clear evidence of
lubricant contamination. Sets of magnetic seals cost $640 and hold the prospect of extending pump MTBF to 5
years. The plant would avoid a $6,400 repair and, over a five-year period, would realize a payback of $6,400/$640
---a 10:1 ratio.

More elaborate benefit-to-cost calculations could take many forms, and only one of these, labeled a simplified
five-year benefit-to-cost calculation, is given here. It relates to a centrifugal pump that was originally equipped
with lip seals and is now being upgraded to dual-face magnetic seals:

Lip Seal-Equipped vs. Dual-face Magnetic Seals


________________________________________________________

Cic ----- (5 yrs)(2)($35) = $350 (2pc)($320) = $640

Cin ---- (0.08)($350) = $ 28 (0.08)($640)= $ 51


[Procurement cost is ~8% of component cost. Assume no modifications needed to mount cartridge-type
dual-face magnetic seals in pump bearing housing]

Ce ---- =$ 0 =$ 0
[Assumes no significant change in frictional energy magnetic seals vs. lip seals]

Co ---- = $186 = $ 45
[Cost of mineral-type lube oil, replaced once per year, vs. synthetic lube,
replaced once in 5 years. Includes labor for oil changes]

Cm ---- = $ 10,625 = $2,125


[Pumps being partially dismantled 5 times for lip seal installation, vs. once for magnetic seal installation.
The alternative of NOT replacing lip seals yearly would incur bearing failures and more costly repair inci
dents]

Cdt ---- =$ 0 =$ 0
[Assumes a facility with redundant, or “installed spare” pumps]

Cenv -- =$ 5 =$ 1
[Assumes Kyoto Protocol values in a signatory country]

Cd ---- =$ 0 =$ 0
[Assume waste oil will be mixed with furnace feed; hence, no disposal cost]

Cf ---- = $ 4,444 = $2,222


[Incremental cost due to a $4,000,000 fire occurring once per 1,500 pump failures per year in refinery

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
pumps. Assume one-third of these are bearing-related. Therefore,
$4,000,000/1500X33.3%X5yrs = $4,444]

Cv ---- = $ 500 =$ 0
[Imputed loss due to not being able to assign technical work force to perform proactive or preventive tasks
elsewhere]

Five-Year [One-Year] Totals: $ 16,138 [$3,228] $ 5,084 [$1,017]

Again, this calculation covers a five-year life for hermetic sealing with dual-face magnetic seals. As shown, an
incremental expenditure of (640-$70) = $570 for dual-face magnetic seals would return ($16,138-$5,084) = $11,054
over a five year period. The payback would be approximately 19:1.

Compared against any other means of sealing, i.e. housing seals that would allow “breathing” (ambient air
interchanges), dual-face magnetic seals win. The potential benefits might favor dual-face magnetic seals even
more if a plant were to opt not to replace its lip seals every year. In other words, not replacing lip seals would
likely result in more bearing replacements or even total pump overhauls and, in certain cases, unit downtime costs.
Likewise, it is noteworthy that studies with lip seals on centrifugal pumps being replaced twice every year show
cost breakdowns that again favor dual-face magnetic seals, and do so by greater margins.

Case History 1: Axially split case centrifugal pumps in boiler feed service

Although supplied by a well-known major manufacturer, five hot condensate pumps at a petrochemical plant had
been furnished with lip seals at their respective bearings. These lip seals leaked immediately upon startup, which
risked depleting the oil in the rather small volume (1 quart, or ~1 liter) oil sump.

Steam quench escaping from mechanical seals adjacent to the bearing housing seal area undoubtedly contributed
to the disappointing performance of the factory-supplied elastomeric lip seals. Water intrusion caused rapid and
repeated bearing failure, with estimated repair costs in the vicinity of $10,000 --- a per-event cost approximation
for multi-stage pumps in this size range (Ref. 7).

Since three sealing locations are involved per pump (Fig. 5), and with the incremental cost of three dual-face
magnetic seals remaining well below $1,000, avoiding even a single repair incident per year would equate to a
benefit-to-cost ratio in excess of 10:1. Indeed, the facility advised payback in the vicinity of one month.

Case History 2: Rotary valves and “Star Feeders”

In late 2003, the manufacturer of dual-face magnetic seal was asked to look into an ongoing problem of sealing
the stuffing boxes on a rotary valve (Fig. 6) at a bulk processing unit for powdery material. The valve, located at
the bottom of a bin that feeds highly abrasive powder to a pneumatic conveyor system, has upper and lower
shafts that penetrate both sides of the valve body. The shafts go through stuffing boxes that are packed with
braided packing.

The product caused unacceptably high shaft and sleeve wear in the area of the stuffing box. In fact, the stuffing
boxes had to be repacked every three days, causing many man-hours of labor and downtime associated with unit
operations.

The problem was solved by applying simple, basic sealing principles. The product had to be kept out of the
stuffing box and a suitable sealing device had to provide a positive seal to the atmosphere. A three-step process
Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005
Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
was implemented to accomplish just that:

• A throat bushing with a diametral shaft clearance of 0.010 inches (0.25 mm) and an O-ring placed in
an O.D. groove was fitted at the process side of the stuffing box (Fig. 7).

• A standard double-face magnetic bearing housing seal was placed into a machined gland follower
and the entire unit bolted to the stuffing box. The gland follower had a gasket on the nose that went
into the box so as to create a positive seal when tightened down. All leak paths for the product to exit
the valve stuffing box area were eliminated.

• An air purge at 3 psi (0.2 bar) was connected to each stuffing box so the box area maintained a
higher pressure that the valve body area. This relatively low pressure was sufficient to keep the
powdery product away from the box area and low enough to allow use of the double-face magnetic
seal without employing any lubrication provisions.

After eight months of running the valve has required no maintenance in the area of the stuffing boxes. No product
has leaked from the double-face magnetic seals and no shaft or sealing maintenance has been required to date.

The owners of the plant estimated the value of downtime avoidance--three days at $26,000/day--as $78,000.
Plant maintenance and the reduction in parts consumed were valued at $30,000. The plant estimated a combined
savings of $108,000 in a period of only eight months.

Case History 3: Vertically oriented axially split pumps at a water works

From Figures 8 through 10 it can be seen that the pillow block bearings are installed in close proximity to the
product sealing areas of these medium-pressure, 8,300 gpm (1,925 cubic meter/hr) water pumps. Water intrusion
and oil contamination required replacing the pillow blocks every six months.

With dual-face magnetic seals now having operated flawlessly for over 15 months and no water intrusion or
related distress foreseen, it has been said that a $400 upgrade has avoided in excess of $10,000 worth of repairs.
Investing in dual-face seals achieved a payback of two weeks.

Case History 4: Cooling tower fan drive gears*

Cooling tower gears are exposed to one of the most adverse environments encountered in modern industry. These
fan drive gearboxes are typically surrounded by clouds of water vapor that often contains a mix of treatment
chemicals. In turn, the chemically loaded vapors enter the gearboxes through casing vents and shaft protrusions.
Once inside, the water vapors may cause further damage by interacting with the lube oil additives.

The contaminating mixture caused severe rust formation on gears as well as bearing distress in eight of the
gearboxes at a major power plant in the Southern United States. Lip seal life did not exceed six months. With
restricted access to cooling tower internals, even early preventive measures seemed expensive. To gain access,
the cooling tower shrouds have to be opened and special cranes (“cherry pickers”) are brought to the site for
lifting duty. Temporary scaffolding is needed for some fan cell configurations; also, in some locations, safety and
health regulations require the wearing of cumbersome breathing apparatus. This would explain why gearbox
repairs costing around $30,000 per event are in the minority and repair costs involving gear-internal replacements
are very often in the $60,000 league.

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
By all accounts, replacing lip seals with dual-face magnetic seals at this power plant has resulted in extending oil
replacement intervals from previously six months to now every 24 months. Based on feedback from cooling
towers in petrochemical plant locations where moisture intrusion has been eliminated, cooling tower gearbox
failures should be a thing of the past at this power plant. The benefits exceed conversion and upgrading costs by
a factor of 10:1 and payback periods range from three to perhaps five weeks.

All of these case histories support the need to protect lube oil and bearings from external contaminants. Both
moisture and particulates can be kept away by “hermetically” sealing equipment bearing housings. Hermetic
sealing represents an improvement and life-extension measure practiced by reliability-focused plants in many
countries. The cost justification for these upgrades is easy to calculate and rapid paybacks are the norm in most
instances.

References

1. Bloch, Heinz P.; (©2000 / ISBN 0-88173-296-6), “Practical Lubrication for Industrial Facilities,” The
Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA, pp. 479

2. “Industrial Product Guide,” (2002) Royal Purple, Ltd., Porter, TX 77356

3. E-mail correspondence with James Fitch, NORIA Corporation, Tulsa, OK, (July, 2004)

4. Eschmann, Hasbargen and Weigand; (1995, ISBN 0-471-26283-8), “Ball and Roller Bearings,” John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pg. 183

5. SKF USA, Inc., (© 1991), Catalog 4000US, pg. 40

6. Adams, Erickson, Needelman and Smith, (1996) Proceedings of the 13th International Pump User’s
Symposium, Texas A&M University, Houston, TX, pp. 71-79)

7. Bloch, Heinz P. and Allan Budris; (2004, ISBN 0-88173-452-7), “Pump User’s Handbook: Life
Extension,” The Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA, pp. 210-213

Fig. 1: Contamination adjustment factor a23 vs. viscosity ratio (Ref. 4)

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
Fig. 2: State-of-art magnetically energized dual-face cartridge bearing housing seal
(Source: AESSeal, Inc., Rotherham, UK, and Knoxville, TN)

Fig. 3: Dual-face magnetic seal and O-rings (2, 4, 6, 10), snap ring (11),rotating face (1), stationary faces (3, 9b),
stationary magnets (8), magnet carrier (7), and outer body (5). (Source: AESSeal, Inc., Rotherham, UK, and Knoxville, TN)

Fig. 4: MagTecta ll ATEX Temperature Graph (@18 deg. C/ 65 deg. F ambient for oil splash (marginal lubrication)

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
Fig. 5: Multi-stage, axially split centrifugal pump in boiler feedwater service

Fig. 6: Rotary valve fitted with double-face magnetic seals

Fig. 7: Rotary valve stuffing box with double-faced magnetic seal and suitable purge gas (plant air) purge will
prevent both abrasive product escape and entry of ambient air

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.
Fig. 8: Axially split pump in vertical orientation at a municipal water facility in the United States

Fig. 9: Lower bearing region of vertically oriented pump requires effective protection against water intrusion

Fig. 10: Dual-face magnetic seal installed near lower bearing in vertically oriented water pump at a water treatment facility

Copyright © 2005 AESSEAL plc - AES / DOC / IN 4980 06/2005


Registered Trademarks: - AESSEAL® - AESSEAL plc - All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holder.

Você também pode gostar