FUGITIVE EMISSIONS EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND EQUIVALENCY

Jay Abrahimzadeh
Joe Steinke
Control Components Inc.
ABSTRACT

Fugitive Emissions requirements, compliance, and use have gained momentum in the oil and gas industry
over the past 10 years which has created new challenges for valve suppliers. In an effort to address this
challenge, various government organizations and industry leaders have designed and authored varying
fugitive emission tests and specifications. However the variability of measurement techniques, test fluid
medium and testing methods has left the seal and valve suppliers in the challenging position to establish
uniform specification requirements, qualification and test procedures. Depending on the fugitive emissions
requirement there can be a significant impact on cost, delivery, manufacturing and qualifications testing on
the hardware and equipment to be supplied. One of the most important variables among the various fugitive
emissions specifications is the leakage rate measurement methods. Two of the predominant specifications
ISO 15848-1 and Shell 77/300/312 use different leakage rate measurement techniques and test procedures.
ISO requires a total/global measurement method where Shell uses sniff measurement to determine leakage
rate; while parts-per-million (PPM) or concentration measurements are specified per ISO 15848-2 production
testing and EPA method 21. This paper will review and determine the relationship between the various
leakage rate measurement techniques and present test data obtained in laboratory experiments to show the
correlation between different leakage measurement methods. Performance and qualification between
various valve/seal designs and industry standards can be better understood and correlated.

INTRODUCTION

Fugitive Emissions requirements and compliance have gained momentum in the oil and gas industry over
the past 10 years. This has created new opportunities and challenges for valve and seal suppliers. Various
government organizations and industry leaders have authored number of fugitive emission specifications and
qualification requirements. However the variability of measurement techniques, test fluid medium, and
testing methods have left the seal and valve suppliers in challenging position to meet the varying leakage
requirements, qualification and test procedures. Depending on the fugitive emissions requirement there can
be significant impact on cost, delivery, manufacturing, and qualifications testing on equipment supplied. This
paper will review and determine if a relationship between the various leakage rate measurement techniques
can be established and present test data obtained in laboratory experiments. The result is helpful to
understand performance and qualification between various valve/seal designs and industry standards.

TEST SPECIFICATION OVERVIEW

Fugitive emission test procedures are frequently divided in two parts. Prototype qualification tests are where
a valve is tested at operating pressure and temperature for a high number of cycles. A production test is then
done on a sample of the proven design at a lower number of cycles and frequently a reduced pressure. One
of the most important variables among the various fugitive emissions specifications is the leakage rate
measurement methods. Two of the predominant prototype procedures, ISO 15848-1 and Shell 77/300, use
different test methods and leakage rate measurement units. ISO 158484-1 requires a total/global
measurement method and measured in absolute volume leakage rates. Shell 77/300 uses sniff
measurement with absolute leakage rates where some leakage can be lost during sniff measurement. ISO
15848-2 and Shell 77/312 are used for production tests, and both procedures use a sniff test in PPM to
measure leakage.

1
 1. Vacuum Enclosure
2. Helium-Inlet 1. Stem
3. Mass Spectrometer 2. Sniff Probe

Figure 1, Global vs. Sniff testing

LEAKAGE RATE CORRELATIONS

The purpose of this test was to investigate how the total vacuum leakage rate results can be correlated with
sniff leakage rate results and PPM concentration measurements as there is no direct conversion between
these measurements units. Being able to correlate these different measurement values would be very helpful
to extrapolate performance of a seal across multiple Fugitive Emissions specifications and estimate the seal
performance.

In order to generate an absolute leakage for comparative testing, calibration standards with a variety of
leakage rates were obtained. These calibrated leaks could then compared versus sniffed absolute leakage
and ppm leakage values.

TESTING VARIABLES AND EQUIPMENT

The test fixture used (Figure #2) was a double ended bonnet with a stem extended through the fixture. This
test fixture accommodates installation of two sets of packing, one on the top of the test fixture and one on the
bottom. The helium calibrated leak is introduced between the sets of packing, and the upper set of stem
packing is intentionally damaged to introduce different leak paths. The fixture had a relatively small volume,
and a pressure gage would identify when a stable pressure (and associated external leakage) existed in the
test fixture.

2
 Figure 2, Stem Packing Test Setup

Two different mass spectrometer devices were used, a Pfeiffer HLT-570 and Varian 979. The Pfeiffer HLT-
570 has capability of measuring absolute leakage, sniffed absolute leakage, and PPM. The Varian 979 can
measure absolute leakage and sniffed absolute leakage. The vacuum flow pulled by the Varian was
measured which allowed the calculation of the ppm leakage by dividing the absolute sniffed helium leakage
by the total vacuum flow. The total leak source is provided by four standard calibrated helium leak sources
ranging from 4.76E-2 atm-cc/sec to 1.00E-06 (atm-cc/sec) to cover a range of possible leak rates. A
pressure gauge was used to measure the packing box pressure. When the largest helium leak source
(4.76E-02 atm-cc/sec) was attached and packing was installed, the maximum internal pressure was
recorded to be as high as 22 psi. Since the bottle pressure on the leak source was 2000+ psi, back pressure
from the fixture would have relatively little impact on the leakage rate.

SIMULATION OF LEAKING PACKING

Packing type used is V-ring made virgin Teflon material. To simulate damaged to the packing, packing box,
or stem, a number of intentional leak paths were generated on the packing by cutting axial V-groves on the
ID or OD of the packing. To simulate damage mechanisms on valves which would cause leakage, 5 different
configurations were used. The cuts were made deep enough so the packing would not seal when torqued.

Local damage on a stem such as a scratch, one V-cut (1-ID damaged) was cut on the packing.

To simulate the distributed damage or wear on a stem or wear on the packing ID, 8 V-cuts (8-ID
damaged) were cut on a second packing set.
To simulate a scored packing box, one V-cut (1-OD damaged) and (8-OD damaged) cuts were
rd th
made on 3 . and 4 set of PTFE packing.

As a final control, the packing was not placed in the packing box, and a spacer with clearance on
the ID and ID was used.

3
Figure 3: V-Rings Packing with Intentional Damage (V-cut); From left to right One point ID- Damaged,
eight point ID-Damaged, one point OD-Damaged, and eight point OD-Damaged

TEST MEASUREMENTS

Stem packing leak rates were taken at pre-marked radial locations to determine if there is a relationship
between measurements and location of the intentional leak path (damaged points) on each packing set. An
example of the sniff probes measurements on pre-marked location is shown in Figure 6. Measurements
were taken at 8 incremental points around the stem/packing area from 0 to 360 where 0 is a repeated
measurement. Stem packing leakage measurements were taken in atm-cc/sec and PPM with both the
Varian 979 (QVmeasured) and Pfifer (QPmeasured). The Varian 979 mass spectrometer was set at vacuum test
point pressure of 500 mTorr, the lower end of the recommended operating range for the instrument.

Figure 4, 8-OD Damaged Packing Installation and alignment

of the damaged location with pre-marked follower

Figure 5, 8-ID Damaged Packing Installation and alignment

of the damaged location with pre-marked follower

4
 Figure 6, Sniffing measurements taken at the stem
and follower interface in from 0 to 360

EXPERIMENT OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Appendix 1, Figures 1, 2 and tables 1-4 are the summary of the experiment results. In general from this
experiment it is evident that sniff measurements either in atm-cc/sec or PPM should be considered a
qualitative measurements not strict quantitative measurement method. The test variables includes; test
measurement equipment, test technician, air flow velocity in direct vicinity of the point of measurement,
sniffer probe flow rate, packing type, type of packing damage, and measurement location.

A detailed observation of the test data is given below;

1. Measurements taken using both machines show large variations. It is conceivable to get entirely
different results by repeating this experiment (Appendix 1, Tables 1-3).

2. The ID damaged seals show higher measured leak rates than OD- damaged seals. This may be due
to the natural capture effect of the packing follower and flange which will create a collection groove,
which leakage can migrate to more easily to the mass spectrometer on the ID than the OD.

Figure 7, Packing Cavity

3. The location of the maximum or minimum Qmeasured leak of the ID damaged packings (1-ID & 8 ID
damaged) was random and not related to the damage location or the helium leak source location.
This is likely due to the distance from the leak point and the leak measurement point which is
separated by the height of the packing flange and follower.

5
 4. The single damaged point on the OD of the packing box (1-OD-Damaged) shows higher leakage
rate than the (8-OD-Damaged seal). This is expected, as the helium leakage is not distributed
around the packing box on a single point leakage/failure location.

5. Normally the packing box ID/seal OD interface is static seal and does not get damaged as easily
as the dynamic surface of the stem/packing contact. We would not expect to see the packing OD as
the major source of the valve stem packing box leaks.

6. The Varian mass spectrometer volumetric flow on sniff testing is 3 times the flow of the Pfeiffer mass
spectrometer.
7. Some of the causes of inconsistencies in trying to measure sniff testing in PPM are shown in Figure
7. The air flow velocity impacts the results more than any other variable. But the impact cannot be
quantified, mass spectrometer measures concentrations of helium. Slight variation of the air flow in
the vicinity of the sniffer probe has significant effect in the helium concentration measured in the
given air volume.

Figure 8: Valve Stem Packing Sniffing Measurements with Mass Spectrometer

8. Because of the variations in leakage measurement, it was decided to present only the 8 point ID
damage leakage for comparison of absolute leakage rate versus the sniffed ppm values, table 3
Appendix 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings and analysis of this work show a very large variance test values. Repeating the FET tests can result
in different values which are not good for either the valve manufacturer or the equipment owner. It should be
noted that the performance of the packing in a controlled environment may not represent actual performance
of packing in the field. Variations in contamination, lubrication retention, stability of the control loop, etc., can
all have an impact on the long term leakage from the stem packing. Conclusions from this test are identified
below.

1. All the sniffed leakage measurements (Qmeasured) in atm-cc/sec show significant lower measured
helium concentration than the source Qleak (Appendix 1, Figure 1-2 & Tables 1-2). This difference is
lower by 1/3 to 3 orders of magnitude depending on where the leakage occurs. This is a little
surprising when leakage is being measured within a test area of a few square inches. The worst
case for missed leakage occurs when there is uniform damage on the OD of the packing. This type
of damage mechanism is the least likely to occur. If uniform OD damage is eliminated, the variation

6
 range is 1/3 to 2 orders of magnitude. What this means is that if a valve passes an ISO15848-1
prototype test with global capture, it should easily pass a sniff test with the same amount of leakage
criteria.

2. There is difference in sniffed testing with different mass spectrometers with different volumes of
suction flow, both in absolute leakage captured and in PPM captures. The Varian mass
spectrometer with larger amounts of suction flow seems to capture more net leaked gas than the
Pfeiffer. However, the larger suction gas flow dilutes the helium captured to provide a lower ppm.
Depending on whether the sniff test criteria is in absolute leakage rates or ppm, a choice of test
equipment may make the difference between a pass or fail.

3. Industry standards for VOC measurements will vary from 50ppm to 500ppm depending on
specification and local requirements. Methane being a much heavier gas will leak at the rate of
helium. For comparing ISO leakage rates to ppm VOC requirements:

a. Comparing for 50ppm VOC, an ISO 15848-1 Class B leakage for a 1 stem is approximately
4.4E-5 scc/sec. Per Table 3, an absolute leakage rate of 5.4E-4 helium will provide
concentrations averaging of 70ppm helium. Accounting for the difference in density and an
order of magnitude reduced leakage, a wide safety margin is achieved for 50ppm levels
methane.
b. Comparing for 500ppm VOC, an ISO 15848-1 Class C leakage for a 1 stem is
approximately 4.4E-3 scc/sec. Per Table 3, an absolute leakage rate of 5.11E-3 helium will
provide concentrations averaging of 300ppm helium. Accounting for the difference in
density, the ISO 15848-1 Class C leakage should achieve 500ppm levels for methane.

7
 APPENDIX , Test Data

Sniff Measurements Using Pfeiffer HLT-570 Mass

Spectrometer Figure A1: Valve
1.00E-01
Qleak (Std. Stem Packing Sniffing
Leak) Measurements,
1.00E-02
Various Packing Type
QPmeasured (atm-cc/sec)

QPmeasured
(1-ID)
1.00E-03
QPmeasured
1.00E-04 (8-ID)

QPmeasured
1.00E-05
(8-OD)

1.00E-06 QPmeasured
(No Packing)
1.00E-07 QPmeasured
(1-OD)
1.00E-08
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01

Qleak (atm-cc/sec)

Sniff Measurements Using Varian 979 Mass Spectrometer

1.00E-01
Qleak (Std.
Leak) Figure A2: Valve
1.00E-02
Stem Packing Sniffing
QV measured (atm-cc/sec)

QVmeasured (1-
1.00E-03
ID) Measurements,
Various Packing Type
QVmeasured (8-
1.00E-04 ID)

QVmeasured
1.00E-05
(8-OD)

1.00E-06 Qvmeasured
(No Packing)
1.00E-07 Qvmeasured
(1-OD)
1.00E-08
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01

Qleak (atm-cc/sec)

8
 APPENDIX, Test Data, contd.

Qleak
(atm-cc/sec) 4.76E-02 5.11E-03 5.10E-04 9.80E-06 Table A1
No Packing 3 3 8 4 Qleak/QVmeasured
1 Damgd Pt. ID 5 96 6 98 Sniff Test (atm-cc/sec)
8 Damgd Pt ID 10 11 9 4 using Varian 979
1 Damgd Pt OD 19 190 6 7
8 Damgd Pts OD 358 1381 1020 980
Ideal ratio is 1 that is when 100% of std. leak is measured

Qleak
(atm-cc/sec) 4.76E-02 5.11E-03 5.10E-04 9.80E-06
Table A2
No Packing 5 34 3 25
Qleak/QPmeasured
1 Damgd Pt. ID 9 57 5 25
Sniff Test (atm-cc/sec)
8 Damgd Pt ID 11 16 10 25
using Pfeiffer HLT-570
1 Damgd Pt OD 32 151 6 7
8 Damgd Pts OD 166 616 1700 20

Qleak
(atm-cc/sec) Table A3
4.76E-02 5.11E-03 5.10E-04 9.80E-06 8 Point Damaged ID
Varian 979 (1) 319-2875 ppm 159-273 ppm 9-51 ppm 0.01-0.36 ppm Sniff Test in PPM using
2387-8987 Pfeiffer and Varian
Pfeiffer HLT-570 ppm 211-561 ppm 88-138 ppm 1 ppm
(1) Calculated using measured atm-cc/sec and sniff probe flow rates