Pump Failure Analysis SYNOPSIS In this article, thorough analysis of Root Cause of Failure is followed by a detailed field case study of a seal failure of a pump at a refinery. Human factor, logistics and team assignment is analysed, along with tracking technical aspects of a problem. Actual data for a pump operation around the failure period is related to mean time between failures (MTBH). A follow-up monitoring plan, after problem evaluation and correction, is established. This article is an interesting and informative case study for practicing plant engineers and maintenance and operating personnel, to compare notes and learn. Introduction lailure analysis is an analytical technique used F professionals of all fields and in all functions to protect against potential problems in process and products. The identifiable and measurable physical condition of an item, which may be equipments/person or system, and which indicates that the functional failure is about to occur or is in the process of occurring, is, known as potential failures. The term potential implies, strong probability of occurrence. For example: a ‘Temperature of running equipment parts (bearing housing, casing of lube oil, etc). a a a Visible leaks and wear. Vibration level indicating frequent bearing failure gear failure. What is a Failure Mode? Failure Mode is the likely cause for the condition of each failure state. In other words, it is the manner in which an item could potentially fail to meet the functional requirement, or design intent, or both, acceptable to the end user. Some typical failure modes: © Bent © Broken © Contaminated © Incorrect adjustment This article is republished with permission from Pump, Magazine, USA (www.pump-magazine.com). MAINTENANCE Wear particles in gear box oil showing imminent | Sourav Kumar Chatterjee ia © Internal leak © Jamming | - What Is A Failure Effect? Failure effect indicates the result of failure and | makes us realize the following; | 2 Amevidence that the failure has occurred. @ Safety, environmental and social consequences. 2 The way in which the production or operation or tem is getting affected AUTHOR Sourav Kumar Chatterjee is Manager- Rotary Equipment, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai. He is a chartered Mechanical Engineer having over 20 years experience and an expert in operation and maintenance of rotary equipment, failure analysis, reliability studies, et ‘Chemical Industry Digest. Nov-Dec 2002MAINTENANCE 3. The physical damage caused by the failure. 2 Action to be taken to repair/revive/cure the system and arrest further deterioration. Some typical failure effects for leakage of hydrocarbon are: Low pressure Low flow No production Erratic operation No control High vibration Poor performance Rough finish Unstable Data collection The success of a failure analysis greatly depends on data collection. Out of so much data, the technique of picking up relevant data accurately is a highly skilled job. For an equipment failure, the following steps may be followed: Identify the equipment & component 1 2. Find out potential failure mode or failure effect 3 Find out designed parameters (constructional & operational) - Note observations on operating parameters (during failure) & constructional parameter (on dismantling). Analysis . . . . . . . . . © Operating parameter fluctuation © Intermittent operation . Deterioration of product quality Objectives of Failure Analy: 2 To find out root cause of failure and take remedial action Probable] auses a Recognize and evaluate the potential failure modes. 3 Higher organizational, environ- mental, social and human security Design/Normal operati Parameters \ ig & constructional Logic Filter Comparison for deviation and logical zeroing on root cause area substantiated by observation data at field, on process condition, failed = Root Cause components, type of deviation etc ft and safety: Operating | | Field ] [ Operating | [ Operating 2 Identify actions, which could parameter | | observations] | parameter | | parameter | eliminate or reduce the chance of at time of | | Data | at time of | | at time of potential failure from occurring. failure {failure _| [failure 2 Cost control Higher productivity Documentation of the process for future reference and monitoring Core View of Failure Event A formalized approach is of utmost necessity to carry out effective and successful failure analysis. Such concept generally comprises of five main activities: 2 Data collection 2. Formulation of probable cause areas a Analysis bo Remedial measure 3 Documentation Formulation of Probable causes @ Probable Cause ascertainment: © Type of equipment and accessories ‘© Constructional features Service condition Type of component failed Nature of failure Potential failure modes observed before failure eevee Last maintenance details and MTBF Remedial Measure Remedial measure is adopted based on area of root cause and feasibility study for implementation. # Des n problem ~ Installation problem D - ‘Chemical Industry Digest. Nov-Dec 2002MAINTENANCE % Assembly problem % Maloperation % Raw material/spare part problem Documentation Documentation of entire failure analysis event must be done in designated item field and in prescribed format highlighting details of event and total observations, analysis considerations, justification for selecting appropriate measures, implementation details, effect and observations after implementation, updatetion of P&ID/Datasheet/ drawing indicating cause, date and agency involved. Case Study: ECS Seal Failure of LPG Pump Data Collection 1A - Equipment EQPT Type - Centrifugal pump back pull out design Tag No. - 14P19 Location — - Cr. LPG Service - C34C4 (Propane+Butane+ propylene) 1 B-Mechanical parameter ~ NU3I0/7310°2 - ECS seal Double tandem Flushing Plan 02,62 water quenching Bearing type Seal type Sealbox venting to closed flare - PlanG Lubrication type - Oil splash lubrication Lube oil grade - Turbinol-68 Suction and dish.nozzle size-6"*300 & 4*300 MOC of Major parts - SS-410, $S-316, CS Cooling Plan 1C- Operation parameter Service fluid - Cracked LPG Temp. - 45C Flow - 115 m?/hr Sp-gr - 0.49 Diffhead — - 75m NPSHr = 1.0m - 210 PSI - 263.5 PSI - 1450 - 28 m'/hr | Vapour pressure at p.t 200 PSI 1D- monitoring facility Online ~ Primary seal failure detection facility Alarm/trip connected - Seal failure alarm Failure detection probability - Fair 2Incident Failure mode and effect -Both primary & secondary (ECS) seal leak. Time of failure - Ist May 2002 at 3 AM Detected by - Operation personnel Immediate action taken - Pump stopped and isolated immediately Safety hazard -Yes Environmental Hazard - Continuous leakage of LPG through seal Failure Reporting time - Ist May 2002 at 10 AM 3-Input process condition Suction condition trend OK. Temperature trend - constant Suction flow trend—N/A Suction source level/pressure - Suction drum pressure & level trend constant 4-Output process condition Discharge flow trend - Though the reflux flow trend found constant, Heavy fluctuations observed in LPG run down flow and back pressure. Discharge Temperature trend N/A Discharge pressure trend N/A 5-Observations at site Cooling/flush Line and jacket condition - Cooling water lines found through and clear. Scaling found inside stuffing box jacket. L.O Condition - Good No contamination observed. Coupling condition - Good and intact Foundation condition—OK Alignment readings on decouple - Within Limit Suction and dish piping alignment - no piping stress Piping Foundation condition - In order ECS Seal system - Flare vent line found plugged 6-Observation - dismantle Bearing condition - Bearings found good and intact no radial and axial play observed. Bearing housing condition - OK Seal parts condition - heavy pitting on seal ring mating face; seal ring packing ( “O” ring) totally burnt; heat marks on Insert mounting burnt and ‘Chemical Industry Digest. Now-Dee 2002 61MAINTENANCE damaged, rotary unit springs found broken in pieces; | was replaced with ECS seal. dust of carbon found around seal parts observations | Last overhauling details with activities— ‘on secondary seal: Wave springs broken, bellow found | Bearings were changed, ECS seal was installed. punctured; rotary face and packing good and intact; | Parts used from OEM /local - OEM. heat marks on shaft at sleeve sitting portion. Vibration trend since last O/H Shaft condition /runout - OK run out 0.001" Impeller /lock nut condition - lock nut intact impeller | Probable Cause Area found cracked at back shroud Sleeve/bush condition & clearences - wear marks on sleeve at steam purge bush position Bend shaft Wearing conditions & clearences - Rubbing marks on | Bearing failure both wear rings. Clearances found 0.045" and 0.05" | Mis- alignment against design 0.026" & 0.030" front and back, | Loose rotor assembly respectively. (Suction and discharge) Sealing system problem Condition of other related parts - coupling teethes well. Throat bush clearance also found increased by | Based on 0.015" ‘Type of equipment and accessories MTBF 12 months Constructional features Last PM & obervations - 11th April, 2001 BCW lines | Service condition were clear, coupling condition was good, bearing | Type of component failed good, foundation bolts OK, alignment was off | \jature of failure Realignment was carried out, coupling run out OK — | pstontial failure modes observed before failure Last failure details and cause - Pump was removed p : for seal leak on 14/03/2001. Subsequently, single seal -@8t maintenance details and MTBF Starvation ‘|Detailed DE BEARING | analysis and Discussion | x Heat mark on | me _| seal parts, sleeve H | and fatigue failure |of wave spring —a— | bellow of second seal and spring of primary seal eventually reveal that the parts were exposed to high temperature and —— high stress, causing catastrophic failure | Fig 1). Moreover, the alarm was not Vibration level A | activated on failure, = | which is a major H flaw in ECS seal “yo | system and calls for se jimmediate rectification. It may be noted that this s g ¢ £ £ seal was installed in ¥ March 2001 and the vapour recovery ‘Time period line has been a ‘Chemical Industry Digest. Nov-Dec 2002MAINTENANCE Normal operating Parameters ‘Suction /Discharg Starvation a Bend Shaft Primary parameters Flowlevel trend O.K. Funout should be within (002 inch e Ruled out No deviation Ruled out =a Vib 4mmisee LO found clean Funout checked Within .001 inch VIB.1OMM/SEC LO condition No abnormal trend within Repo! Bearing condition “clean I Noise Ruled out Found good ,no play No abnormal noise ted during operation Mis: alignment Loose sembly [Sealing system problem lushing lan 11,62 Etectve — isting plan 02,62 Tolerance (Diiver-driven) 002 inch Tolerance (piping) Shaft Deflection 0d2inch No Devito) | Ruled out Alignment (river-driven) [mgeler Location of Foose SS eo [Roan Ruled out aio Lock nut Found tigh Seal chamber Efe Seal vent Found plugged no axial shift Noticed ‘Alarm system root calls for details } Alarm annunciation not hooked up to | “Control room Fig 1 - Analysis ‘Chemical Industry Digest. Nov-Dec 2002 connected to the flare system only in April 2002. During the operation of seal this was kept plugged, as LPG is a prohibited item to release to the atmosphere It is evident from observations of failed parts that the primary seal failed first and could not be noticed, as the alarm system did not work. The seal kept on running and only on failure it got exposed, leading to hazardous situation. Failure of Primary seal The flushing pian 02.62 (Water quench) for this service always has probability towards getting inadequate seal flush. This is because of the pump design, which has back wearing and throat bush restriction to stuffing box ‘along with impeller balancing holes. Due to this design, the stuffing box pressure is always equal to the suction pressure, which is very close to vapour pressure at process temperature. Hence, rise in temperature at seal box can create vapourization at seal box and faces, leading to loss of seal face lubrication. More dead end vapour recovery system also did not allow the vapours at primary seal face and got accumulated at ECS seal box, pressurizing the ECS seal box and increasing loading on the ECS seal After some time the heat generated due to seal friction would add more and more heat to the entrapped vapour, causing the rise of pressure due constant volume. This enhanced pressure will act the secondary seal box at O.D and on the inner diameter of the primary seal insert, squeezing off any possible lubrication film, which is already constrained due to type of flushing plan. Thus compression units were subjected to abnormalenhanced pressure, along with high heat due to lubrication and less rubbing of the seal faces. In this, case, the primary seal leak took place due to inductee seal flush (evident from heat mark and carbon dust) followed by the above explained reverse pressure as causing damage of “O” rings and compression unit springs. Pitting on the seal face appears to be due to blistering as a result of heat concentration. The hair line crack on the impeller surface across the radius was also due to corrosion fatigue because of un- equilibrium Cyclic stress due to flow variation within, a corrosive environment as the H,S content in LPG is 15,000 PPM. . Failure of ECS seal This failure was the result of high load on wave spring due to vapour concentration at seal box and rapid wear due to high face loading and lack of lubrication. Actually, this seal face has less contact area so that heat generation be less and designed for operating under minimum box pressure. Once the first The wearing clearances increased due to temporary rotor bow at impeller end while operating under fluctuating load condition away from BEP. Scale formation in stuffing box jacket further caused poor cooling effect and heat dissipation Calculation of heat generation at seal faces Pressure-velocity factor PV=(diff.pracross seal face (b-k)+Psp} Vm Heat Generation at seal Q = C1 (PVFAo) B.T.H/Watt b = sealbalancing ratio 0.7 K = Prgradient factor, 0.3 for light liquid Psp. = spring pressure = 0.45 bar Vm = velocity at mean diameter 3.14x65x3000/1000 x 60 = 10.5 m/sec f = coefficient of friction,0.07 for C/TC Combination | Ao = Seal face area of seal ring = .001 sq.m C1 = 1 for St unit PV = {(12-0.45) x (0.7-0.3) + 0.45} x 10.5 = 53.025 bar Q = 1x53.025 x0.07 x0.001 =0.037 watt /sec=0,097, 4.18=0.009 cal /sec* | Or Q = 0.009 x60 x60=31 cal /hr *Cal = watt/J— J=4.18 Jules/sec seal is failed, it provides service for a short period. | This undissipated heat will cause rise in temperature of LPG vapor at constant volume, and the rise per hour could be calculated by using gas law PIV1/T1 =P2V2/T2 Root cause of failure The improper flushing plan and lack of vapour escape facility is the root cause of failure of primary seal. The non-function of the alarm system and absence of vapour recovery connection are the root causes for ECS seal failure. The lack of cooling due to jacket scale is also cause to accelerate the failure. Remedial Measure 1. Seal flush system modification to API plan 11 that will maintain higher stuffing box pressure and enough flush. | 2. De-scaling of stuffing box jacket and thor | inspection during preventive maintenance | carried out. The diff.temperature of cooling monitored for effective heat dissipatior The vapour recovery line to be conr to flare header. Rectification of alarm annur s ¥ failure Execution agency and time frame Activity No 1,2,4 by maintenance. operation/PAD Item 1 in consultation with seal manufacturer ¢ next available opportunity tem Rest of the items to be implemented immediat by Instrument section. Documentation | Six months observation: | Updatating of history to be done after satisfactory operation for period of one year. & | / When responding to advertisements remember to mention U Chemical Industry Digest al industry Digest. Nov-Dec 2002