FEATURE

From API 682 1st Edition to the ISO 21049 standard

By Chris Fone John Crane, Slough, UK The US National Standard, API 682 1st Edition, when published in 1994 had the potential of revolutionizing the supply of seals to the hydrocarbon process industries. It was a standard driven by plant operators to reduce cost and improve seal reliability. However, recognition took many years, and in 1998 the API embarked on the ambitious task of developing a 2nd Edition, and a joint program to convert the document into an ISO standard. ISO 21049 was finally published in February 2004. This article summarizes the development and changes in the 2nd Edition API 682 until its launch in 2002, and how it subsequently grew into ISO 21049 to become a mature seal standard with international approval.
Many articles have been written about the content of the first edition, and this will not be repeated here. Development of a second edition for API 682 was always going to be a challenge, and API was to add to the difficulties by choosing this standard and its partner, API 610, to be part of a globalization program and to be jointly developed as ISO Standards. This was to counteract the criticism of an American bias in the original documents. Joe Thorpe of Aramco Services was tasked with chairing the API 682 Task Force, and the work was jointly managed by a subcommittee of APIs Committee for Refinery Equipment and ISOs Committees ISO TC 115/SC3-WG1 and ISO TC 67/SC6. The following major objectives were set: The joint issue of API 610 9th Edition, API 682 2nd Edition and their ISO equivalents. The removal of all clauses in API 610 that directly relate to the seal specification. There would be no duplication of information between the two standards. For example, the seal chamber dimensions would be retained in API 610, whereas the seal Flush Plans would only be displayed in API 682. Extend the sealing solutions in API 682 to cover critical applications in the chemical process industry, and ensure the standard does not constrain the use of internationally applied chemical pumps with API 682 seals. Investigate solutions for reducing the capital cost of API 682 sealing solutions without compromising reliability. Include new, proven sealing technologies developed since the publication of the 1st Edition. Extend the scope to include services above 260C (500F).

Introduction
Since 1994 the first edition of API Standard 682, entitled Shaft sealing systems for centrifugal and rotary pumps, has steadily grown in stature and acceptance by both the sealing industry and plant operators. Today it is the default purchasing specification for a large number of users of mechanical seals in the hydrocarbon process industries, including nearly all the major global operators. It is a standard developed primarily by process plant operators, with the objective of having a specification that reduces their mechanical seal operating costs. This objective was based on rationalizing the design and material options for the major proportion of API 610 process pump applications, and having a seal and installation specification that had

proven reliability in the field. To reinforce this intent, the scope of API 682 has the well known and controversial statement relating to seal reliability: that have a high probability of meeting the objective of at least three years of uninterrupted service. Implementation of the standard in the 1990s was challenging for the seal industry, because of the technical compromises. These were necessary to adjust designs to fit pumping equipment that did not dimensionally conform to the more recent editions of API 610, Centrifugal pumps for petroleum, heavy duty chemical, and gas industry services. Gradually, however, pumps were updated, confidence grew and the true added value of API 682 became realized. However, it still had a considerable North American bias, and this made it complicated to apply in many parts of the world.

Figure 1a. Dual unpressurized seal with an external, dry, non-contact containment seal.

Figure 1b. Dual pressurized, non-contact seal with a gas barrier in a back-to-back arrangement.

Sealing Technology November 2004

FEATURE
gas barrier seals, and non-contacting liquid lubricated seals. Traditionally, dual unpressurized seal arrangements have used a liquid buffer fluid to lubricate the outer containment seal. In the 2nd Edition this arrangement is retained, but also included are outer containment seals that can achieve the reliability goals of the standard while operating in a gas, without the need for a buffer liquid (Figure 1a). In practice the dry-running containment seal will be exposed primarily to vaporized process fluid leakage from the primary seal or a separately injected buffer gas. Dry-running containment seals may employ a dry contacting or non-contacting technology, and although either can be used, the standard indicates a preference for non-contact designs. The application of modern face treatments to achieve a non-contacting function with gas lubrication is a well established technology that has been successfully applied in centrifugal pumps. It is arranged in a dual pressurized seal arrangement using a gas (normally nitrogen) as a barrier fluid, and is now included in the standard. A typical arrangement is shown in Figure 1b. Sealing vaporizing hydrocarbon liquids very close to their vapor pressure and excluding a dual pressurized arrangement is a challenge, but using non-contacting face designs does provide a solution to this. Even though there is only a limited need for this treatment, the Task Force felt that it was important to include it in the new edition. The potential primary seal leakage rates may be higher than a traditional seal, and the services are often hazardous, so the standard only considers the technology being used with a dual unpressurized arrangement and a dry-running secondary containment seal.

Figure 2. Seal arrangement and options in API 682 2nd/ISO 21049.

Work started on the 2nd Edition of API 682 in 1998, and was recognized as a formal work item by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in early 2001. Unfortunately the publication schedule did not meet its targets, and API 682 2nd Edition was formally published in July 2002, whereas its sister document, referenced as ISO 21049, was not published until February 2004.The same difficulties occurred with API 610 9th Edition, which was published in January 2003 whereas its equivalent ISO 13709 was published in July of the same year. In all four cases the documents were different; this will be explained subsequently.

Changes between 1st and 2nd Editions of API 682

All the major objectives were achieved in the 2nd Edition with the changes addressed as follows.

Categories
To manage the introduction of critical chemical applications, it was decided to give operators the choice of specification level and cost. This was provided by the introduction of the concept of seal categories. Three categories were designated (Category 1, 2 and 3) to differentiate the type of pump into which the seal will be installed, the operating window, the design features, and the testing and documentation requirements.

Category 1 seals are intended for non-API 610 (ISO 13709) pumps. These will generally be applied in machines with ASME B73 largebore or ISO 3069 Type C seal chambers. This category is applicable for temperatures between 40C and 260C (40F to 500F) and pressures to 21 bar g (300 psig). The seal will be provided with minimal documentation, and the qualification testing may be limited. Category 2 seals are intended for API 610 (ISO 13709) pumps. This category is applicable for temperatures between 40C and 400C (40F to 750F) and pressures to 41 bar g (600 psig). The seal will be provided with minimal documentation, and the qualification testing may also be limited. Category 3 seals are also intended for API 610 (ISO 13709) pumps. These seals will be provided for the more demanding services. This category is applicable for temperatures between 40C and 400C (40F to 750F) and pressures to 41 bar g (600 psig). Design features shadow the 1st Edition, and will include a distributed flush and floating throttle bushings for single seals. The seal must have been accepted according to the full qualification test procedures and provided with additional documentation.

Seal arrangements
Some operators have considered the very tight rationalization of seal arrangements and materials in the 1st Edition too restrictive, and so the 2nd Edition has relaxed the options slightly, but retained its strategy by always having a default recommendation. Figure 2 summarizes the default and options, together with the semidescriptive code used in the standard. An arrangement 1 seal can now be specified in the standard with a fixed throttle bushing (1CW-FX) as well as a floating design (1CW-FL). Arrangement 2, the dual unpressurized configuration, includes the liquid buffer design from the 1st Edition (2CW-CW), but now it can be used with a dry-running secondary containment seal (2CW-CS). This latter is available with both a normal liquid lubricated primary seal and the non-contact face design (2NC-CS). The dual pressurized seal arrangement (arrangement 3) can be now used with either a liquid or gaseous barrier fluid. The 1st Edition restriction to a liquid-lubricated face to back (tandem) arrangement (3CW-FB) now has a back to back option (3CW-BB) and a face to

New seal technologies

Three new seal technologies have been introduced in the second edition: dry-running secondary containment seals, dual non-contacting

Sealing Technology November 2004

FEATURE
mon use, and the Task Force decided to retain the reference Plan 53, but separate the systems by using an alphanumeric; thus the existing reservoir-based API system is now classified as Plan 53A. An alternative barrier supply system, commonly applied in Europe and informally referenced as 53 Modified, will be now be formally recognized as Plan 53B. This system uses a bladder accumulator to provide a reservoir volume and pressure retention. The barrier is circulated around a closed loop that incorporates a heatexchanger. In a similar way to Plan 53A, a barrier make-up system is required, but alarm and fill warnings are all based on pressure switches or transmitter signals. A less common barrier system that uses a differential piston accumulator instead of the bladder design of Plan 53B is also now included in API 682 2nd/ISO 21049. The piston accumulator takes a pressure signal from the process seal chamber and amplifies this by a margin to pressurize the barrier system. The advantage is that the pressure differentials across the inner seal and barrier pressure are minimized, and track the true process pressure acting on the seal. This barrier system is now classified as Plan 53C. The exit process management system from the intermediate chamber of a dual unpressurized arrangement with dry containment seals has two new Flush Plans. Plan 76 is for managing a vapor-only primary seal leakage, and comprises a connection to a flare or recovery system with an in-line flow restriction orifice. A pressure gauge and high-level pressure switch, placed upstream of the orifice, indicate when the leakage flow is increasing excessively, and when attention must be paid to the condition of the primary seal. Plan 75 operates in a similar manner, but includes an intermediate liquid collection reservoir and level gauge upstream of the vapor-only orifice. This enables the separation of any process condensate before entering the flare or recovery system, and hence is a preferred option with hydrocarbon mixtures that have a significant proportion of liquid under atmospheric conditions. Some process services using a dual unpressurized arrangement with dry-running containment seals, require the addition of an inert buffer gas flow into the intermediate chamber. The supply system for this buffer gas is classified as Plan 72, and comprises a filter and pressure control valve connected to a gas supply. Downstream is an orifice or flow control valve to assist control and setting the system, while pressure switches and flow meters are used to monitor and warn of malfunctions. Plan 72 is intended to be used in conjunction with an exit Plan 75 or 76 system. In some circumstances an operator may not require a Plan 72 when first installing the equipment, but may wish to have a buffer gas connection provision in the gland plate if the service or hazard changes. This simple option is referenced as Plan 71. The inclusion of gas-lubricated, non-contact, dual pressurized seals in the new standard also

BY VENDOR IF SPECIFIED
FSH PBL FI FI F I P L C V

BY PURCHASER

GAS BARRIER PANEL

GAS BARRIER INLET

VENT

GAS BARRIER OUTLET

GBI

GBO

PLAN 74

SEAL CHAMBER FOR PLAN 74

Figure 3. Flush Plan 74 for dual pressurized gas barrier seals.

Start Intended Service Identified Select Seal Category Desired Non Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon Non-Flashing Sheet 3 Select Type Sheet 4 Select Type Flashing Sheet 5 Select Type

Sheet 6 Select Arrangement

Sheet 7 Select Flush and quench

Sheet 8 Select Flush and quench

Sheet 9 Select Flush and quench

Sheet 10 Select Buffer or Barrier Fluid

Done

Figure 4. Summary chart of seal selection in API 682 and ISO 21049.

face option (3CW-FF). The new gas barrier lubricated technology defaults to a back to back arrangement (3NC-BB), but with options for a face to face (3NC-FF) or a face to back (3NC-FB) design.

Flush plans and auxiliary hardware

The new seal technologies have required the expansion of the 1st Editions auxiliary piping arrangements or Flush Plans, and the new standard has taken the opportunity to also include additional systems that were recognized as reliable and in worldwide use. Described below are the main Flush Plan changes. Supporting

these in the standard are additional specifications on new accessories and auxiliary system components. Plans 11 and 13 are occasionally combined to improve flush flows and venting on vertical equipment. To clarify this specification, a new Plan 14 has been included in API 682 2nd/ISO 21049 which already existed in the API 610 8th Edition. The 1st Edition only included a single, auxiliary system for liquid barrier, dual pressurized seals. This system was based on a pressurized reservoir, and referenced Plan 53. Different systems that provide the same function are in com-

Sealing Technology November 2004

FEATURE
requires the addition of a gas barrier system. In the same manner as Plan 72, the source gas is filtered and a pressure regulator and gauge, in combination with a warning pressure switch, manage the barrier pressure. Flow is regulated by the leakage rate from the dual seal itself, but is monitored for condition by a flow meter. The new system arrangement is referenced as Plan 74, and is shown in Figure 3.

Seal coding
It was recognized by the API Task Force that the API 610 seal coding system was unable to manage the more recent changes in the industry, and the system proposed in the 1st Edition of API 682 had few supporters. A new four-section coding structure, intended to only assist at the budget planning stage of a project, was developed for API 682 2nd/ISO 21049. This presumes both default material and design selection. The first section defines the category (C1, C2 or C3). The second specifies the arrangement (A1, A2 or A3), and the third the seal type (A, B or C). The fourth section lists the combination of Flush Plans intended. An example of a code is C2 A2 A 1176. This refers to a category 2, dual unpressurized seal, using elastomeric pusher seals. The Flush Plan includes a process flush to the primary seal, Plan 11, and a Plan 76, exclusively applied with dry-running containment seals.

Seal qualification testing

One of the strengths of the 1st Edition was to provide qualification tests in which seal vendors would be required to prove the suitability of their products for a given service. Seals tested under the 1st Edition are by default qualified for these new standards. However, API 682 2nd and ISO 21049 expand on these requirements by adding tests for the new seal technologies. Full qualification testing is still required for all three categories, but as a concession component parts qualified in a Category 3 design may also be used in Category 1 or 2 designs without further testing, as long as certain criteria are met. The acceptance criteria for all the tests are now included in the standard. Dry-running containment seals are required to expand the existing dual seal test by operating for a further 100 h on propane at 0.7 bar g (10 psig) and the same period on diesel at 2.8 bar g (40 psig) with static testing between phases. Gas-lubricated, non-contact, dual pressurized seals are required to be tested through the same rigorous procedure as a liquid-lubricated dual seal, but there is also an additional test procedure to check operation under variable barrier-gas pressure. A static period of full reverse pressure is followed by a dynamic phase, during which the gas supply is isolated and re-established after 1 minute. The final phase is another static test, with the supply again isolated and checks made on changes to the barrier condition.

Progress from API 682 2nd Edition to ISO 21049

The challenge of jointly publishing the API and ISO versions of both pump and seal standards at the same time was too much for the Task Force and standards organizations to manage. To add to the complication, each standard has different rules concerning content, structure, layout and procedural voting. The publication progress of the new pump standard was ahead of the seal standard, yet it relied on its availability. To accelerate publication of the seal standard, advantage was taken of the faster voting system of API, and the API 682 2nd Edition was published in July 2002 without the equivalent ISO standard. ISO had seen an early version of the standard when voting positively on a New Work Item in April 2001, and the drafting committee had contributed to the content of the document published as API 682 2nd Edition. However, the ISO DIS (Draft International Standard) issued for international voting was the First Page Proof of the published 2nd Edition. The vote was positive, but the log of comments submitted for the Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) amounted to 350 items, of which nearly 20% were of a technical nature. Final assembly of a standard for an FDIS vote should never be underestimated for a document 195 pages long. With considerable help from all sides, particularly Shell Global Solutions, the FDIS document was issued and voted positive in the latter months of 2003, but still with an additional 165 editorial adjustments required! ISO 21049 was finally published in February 2004.
Figure 5. The new Plan 65 in ISO 21049 for single seal leakage management.

Changes from API 682 2nd Edition to ISO 21049

There are, as might be assumed from the above history, many significant editorial improvements in ISO 21049, but there are very few significant technical alterations that are worthy of comment in this summary. The gland plate spigot or rabbet fit has been clarified, and the same treatment has been apportioned to the specification of flow meters and flow indicators. There were significant changes to the Seal Selection Annex and Data Sheets, but the main alterations were to some of the Flush Plans. Plans 53B, 53C and 72 were adjusted, and a new Flush Plan 65 was added. This new Plan ( Figure 5 ) describes a system for managing and warning of excessive leakage from a single seal.

Seal selection
The Annex in the 1st Edition, comprising charts and decision-trees (such as is shown in Figure 4) to help engineers choose the correct seal type, arrangement and flush plan, has been expanded to include the additional seal technologies. Their function is primarily to offer alternative methods of hazard or emission management, so the decision-tree designed to help the engineer choose a seal configuration is greatly enlarged.

Seal data sheets

The correct communication of data and commercial specification is fundamental to the transactional process, and equipment data sheets are now a central part of this. The 1st Edition introduced them specific to mechanical seals for the first time, but they were criticized for being lengthy and complicated. The new standards have remodelled the documents, reduced the number of pages and endeavored to make them more user-friendly.

What will happen to API 682?

The objective of having identical standards was not achieved between the API 682 2nd Edition and ISO 21049. However, the ISO document has been voted by the API as an identical National Standard, and has thus become the 3rd Edition of API 682. This cobranded document was published in September 2004.

Sealing Technology November 2004

FEATURE

Conclusion
The 1st Edition of API 682, originally published in 1994, has been developed and matured via a 2nd Edition into a new, internationally approved and published standard, ISO 21049.

Contacts: Chris Fone, John Crane UK Ltd, Buckingham House, Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4LU, UK. Tel: +44 1753 224000, Fax: +44 1753 224224, Web: www.johncrane.com

www.bsi-global.com

API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Tel: +1 202 682 8375, Web: api-ep.api.org/publications International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Case postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 749 0111, Web: www.iso.ch

BSI Customer Services, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL, UK. Tel: +44 20 8996 9001, Web:

Rotary shaft lip seals A tale of two standards

By Syd Croft Consultant, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK Rotary shaft elastomeric lip seals are probably the most common form of dynamic seal in the world. An ISO Standard for these seals has existed for many years, and is periodically updated in line with current technical and administrative requirements. As plastic seals, particularly those manufactured from PTFE, have become popular, a parallel standard covering these seals has been introduced. Here Syd Croft, the Convenor of the ISO Working Group involved, provides some background and information on the current status of these two standards.
may also be used for the sealing or exclusion of water and other fluids. In the beginning, or at least as far back as we need to be concerned here, there was ISO 6194. This is an ISO Standard dealing with elastomeric lip-type rotary shaft seals, and is split into five parts. These are: Part 1: Nominal dimensions and tolerances. Part 2: Vocabulary. Part 3: Storage, handling and installation. Part 4: Performance test procedures. Part 5: Identification of visual imperfections.

Introduction
Rotary shaft lip seals are normally used with atmospheric pressure on the air side, to seal fluids at pressures from 0 to 30 kPa (0.3 bar) above atmospheric. Since they are used in far greater quantities than any other used for this purpose,

they are commonly referred to simply as rotary shaft seals. However, to be technically correct, the description lip-type must be added to differentiate them from the many other seal designs that may be used on rotating shafts. They are primarily used for the sealing of oil and greases for bearings and similar duties. However, they

ELASTOMER

METAL CASE AIR SIDE LUBRICANT SIDE

H R t

Unfortunately, the initial preparation of the standard was an extended process split between two Working Groups, and the five parts were issued separately at quite different times, which has caused a subsequent complication that will be discussed later. Concurrent with ISO 6194, in the UK there was BS 1399. This standard covered the same technical areas as ISO 6194, but was divided only into three parts. Although the original ISO 6194-4 incorporated a very good dynamic test, for some reason it lacked a low-temperature test. Fortunately such a test was already incorporated in BS 1399. Therefore, when ISO 6194-4 came up for fiveyearly review, the opportunity was taken to incorporate the low-temperature test used in the British standard.

HINGE POINT

Plastic seals
During the 1980s the use of rotary shaft lip-type seals incorporating polytretafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing elements became increasingly common. While PTFE seals had been around for some time, they had been used mainly in the petrochemical industry for sealing aggressive fluids, and other industrial applications with poor or no lubricating fluid. However, an American engine manufacturer found that its

RADIAL INTERFERENCE

Figure 1. Typical construction of an elastomeric rotary shaft lip seal.

10

Sealing Technology November 2004