What is the Advantage and Disadvantage of Pump Seal Oil

11 Apr.,2024

 

By Luke Biermann, Mechanical Seal Engineering

Pumps are essential components in a wide range of industries, including mining, water supply and treatment, power generation, food and beverage etc. The sealing mechanism of a pump is crucial in maintaining its efficiency and reliability. There are two primary options for sealing a pump: mechanical seals and gland packing. Each of these options has its unique advantages and disadvantages, and the choice depends on several factors.

Mechanical seals are a great choice for many industrial applications due to their superior sealing capabilities. Unlike gland packing, which relies on compression to create a seal, mechanical seals use a rotating and stationary element to create a barrier that can withstand higher pressures and temperatures. The reduced friction on the shaft leads to lower energy consumption and reduced maintenance costs.

Additionally, mechanical seals can handle a wide range of fluids, including corrosive and abrasive substances, making them more versatile than gland packing. The downside of mechanical seals is that their initial setup costs can be more than gland packing and require more specialized knowledge and equipment for installation and maintenance. This is why finding a reliable mechanical seal company is important.

Gland packing is an older sealing technology that is still in use in many applications. Gland packing consists of a braided rope or cord that is compressed into a stuffing box to create a seal. The advantage of gland packing is that it is cheaper and easier to install than mechanical seals. Gland packing is also more forgiving of misalignment and vibration, making it a better option for older or less efficient pumps.

However, gland packing is less efficient than mechanical seals and requires more frequent replacements due to wear and tear. Additionally, gland packing is not suitable for handling corrosive or abrasive substances, making it less versatile than mechanical seals.

How to choose between them

When choosing between mechanical seals and gland packing, several factors should be considered. The first is the type of fluid being pumped. If the fluid is corrosive or abrasive, mechanical seals are a better choice as they can handle a wider range of substances. Additionally, if energy efficiency is a priority, mechanical seals should be used as they provide less resistance on the shaft. However, if the pump is older or less efficient, gland packing may be a better option as it is more forgiving of misalignment and vibration.

Another factor to consider is the cost. Mechanical seals are more expensive initially than gland packing, but they also last longer and require less frequent replacements, leading to cost savings over time. Additionally, if the pump is being used in an application where downtime is critical, mechanical seals are a better option as they require less maintenance and can be replaced more quickly.

Finally, the expertise and knowledge of the maintenance team should be considered. Mechanical seals require more specialized knowledge and equipment for installation and maintenance than gland packing. If the maintenance team is not experienced in working with mechanical seals, gland packing may be a better option. A good mechanical seal supplier will provide support for installation and troubleshooting.

In conclusion, the choice between mechanical seals and gland packing for pump sealing depends on several factors, including the type of fluid being pumped, energy efficiency, cost, and the expertise of the maintenance team. Mechanical seals offer superior sealing capabilities and are more versatile, making them a preferred option in many industrial applications. However, gland packing is cheaper and easier to install and maintain, making it a better option for older or less efficient pumps. Ultimately, the choice should be based on a careful assessment of the specific needs and priorities of the application.

For more information, please visit mechsealengineering.com.au.

Environmental factors

The environment a seal will be exposed to is crucial when selecting the design and material.

There are a number of key properties that seal materials need for all environments, including creating a stable seal face, able to conduct heat, chemically resistant, and good wear resistance. In some environments, these properties will need to be stronger than in others. Other material properties that should be taken into account when considering the environment includes hardness, stiffness, thermal expansion, wear and chemical resistance. Keeping these in mind will help you to find the ideal material for your seal.

The environment can also determine whether cost or quality of the seal can be prioritised. For abrasive and harsh environments, seals may be more expensive due to the materials needing to be strong enough to withstand these conditions. For such environments, spending the money for a highquality seal will pay itself back over time as it will help prevent the costly shutdowns, repairs, and refurbishment or replacement of the seal that a lower quality seal will result in. However, in pumping applications with very clean fluid that has lubricating properties, a cheaper seal could be purchased in favour of higher quality bearings.

Common seal materials Carbon

Carbon used in seal faces is a mixture of amorphous carbon and graphite, with the percentages of each determining the physical properties on the final grade of carbon. It is an inert, stable material that can be self-lubricating. It is widely used as one of the pair of end faces in mechanical seals, and it is also a popular material for segmented circumferential seals and piston rings under dry or small amounts of lubrication.

This carbon/graphite mixture can also be impregnated with other materials to give it different characteristics such as reduced porosity, improved wear performance or improved strength.

A thermoset resin impregnated carbon seal is the most common for mechanical seals, with most resin impregnated carbons capable of operating in a wide range of chemicals from strong bases to strong acids. They also have good frictional properties and an adequate modulus to help control pressure distortions. This material is suited to general duty to 260°C (500°F) in water, coolants, fuels, oils, light chemical solutions, and food and drug applications.

Antimony impregnated carbon seals have also proven to be successful due to the strength and modulus of antimony, making it good for high pressure applications when a stronger and stiffer material is needed. These seals are also more resistant to blistering in applications with high viscosity fluids or light hydrocarbons, making it the standard grade for many refinery applications.

Carbon can also be impregnated with film formers such as fluorides for dry running, cryogenics and vacuum applications, or oxidation inhibitors like phosphates for high temperature, high speed, and turbine applications to 800ft/ sec and around 537°C (1,000°F).

Ceramic

Ceramics are inorganic non-metallic materials made from natural or synthetic compounds, most commonly alumina oxide or alumina. It has a high melting point, high hardness, high wear resistance and oxidisation resistance, so it is widely used in industries such as machinery, chemicals, petroleum, pharmaceutical and automobile. It also has excellent dielectric properties and is commonly used for electrical insulators, wear resistant components, grinding media, and high temperature components.

In high purities, alumina has excellent chemical resistance to most process fluids other than some strong acids, leading it to be used in many mechanical seal applications. However, alumina can fracture easily under thermal shock, which has restricted its use in some applications where this could be an issue.

Silicon carbide

Silicon carbide is made by fusing silica and coke. It is chemically similar to ceramic, but has better lubrication qualities and is harder, making it a good hard-wearing solution for harsh environments. It can also be re-lapped and polished so a seal can be refurbished multiple times over its lifetime.

It is generally used more mechanically, such as in mechanical seals for its good chemical corrosion resistance, high strength, high hardness, good wear resistance, small friction coefficient and high temperature resistance. When used for mechanical seal faces, silicon carbide results in improved performance, increased seal life, lower maintenance costs, and lower running costs for rotating equipment such as turbines, compressors, and centrifugal pumps.

Silicon carbide can have different properties depending on how it has been manufactured. Reaction bonded silicon carbide is formed by bonding silicon carbide particles to each other in a reaction process. This process does not significantly affect most of the physical and thermal properties of the material, however it does limit the chemical resistance of the material. The most common chemicals that are a problem are caustics (and other high pH chemicals) and strong acids, and therefore reaction-bonded silicon carbide should not be used with these applications.

Self-sintered silicon carbide is made by sintering silicon carbide particles directly together using non-oxide sintering aids in an inert environment at temperatures over 2,000°C. Due to the lack of a secondary material (such as silicon), the direct sintered material is chemically resistant to almost any fluid and process condition likely to be seen in a centrifugal pump.

Tungsten carbide

Tungsten carbide is a highly versatile material like silicon carbide, but it is more suited to high pressure applications as it has higher elasticity which allows it to flex very slightly and prevent face distortion. Like silicon carbide, it can be re-lapped and polished.

Tungsten carbides are most often manufactured as cemented carbides so there is no attempt to bond tungsten carbide to itself. A secondary metal is added to bind or cement the tungsten carbide particles together, resulting in a material that has the combined properties of both tungsten carbide and the metal binder. This has been used to an advantage by providing greater toughness and impact strength than possible with tungsten carbide alone. One of the weaknesses of cemented tungsten carbide is its high density.

In the past, cobalt-bound tungsten carbide was used, however it has gradually been replaced by nickel-bound tungsten carbide due to it lacking the range of chemical compatibility required for industry. Nickel-bound tungsten carbide is widely used for seal faces where high strength and high toughness properties are desired, and it has good chemical compatibility generally limited by the free nickel.

As Buna is a synthetic rubber copolymer, it performs well in applications requiring metal adhesion and abrasion-resistant material, and this chemical background also makes it ideal for sealant applications. Furthermore, it can withstand low temperatures as it is designed with poor acid and mild alkali resistance.

Buna is limited in applications with extreme factors such as high temperatures, weather, sunlight and steam resistance applications, and is not suitable with clean-in-place (CIP) sanitising agents containing acids and peroxides.

EPDM

EPDM is a synthetic rubber commonly used in automotive, construction and mechanical applications for seals and O-rings, tubing and washers. It is more expensive than Buna, but can withstand a variety of thermal, weather and mechanical properties due to its long-lasting high tensile strength. It is versatile and ideal for applications involving water, chlorine, bleach and other alkaline materials. Due to its elastic and adhesive properties, once stretched, EPDM returns to its original shape regardless of the temperature.

EPDM is not recommended for petroleum oil, fluids, chlorinated hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon solvent applications.

Viton

Gfptfe

GFPTFE has good chemical resistance, and the added glass reduces the friction of the sealing faces. It is ideal for relatively clean applications and is cheaper than other materials. There are sub-variants available to better match the seal to the requirements and environment, improving its overall performance.

Buna

Buna (also known as nitrile rubber) is a cost-effective elastomer for O-rings, sealants and moulded products. It is well known for its mechanical performance and performs well in oil-based, petrochemical and chemical applications. It is also widely used for crude oil, water, various alcohol, silicone grease and hydraulic fluid applications due to its inflexibility.

Viton is a long-lasting, highperformance, fluorinated, hydrocarbon rubber product most commonly used in O-Rings and seals. It is more expensive than other rubber materials but it is the preferred option for the most challenging and demanding sealing needs.

Resistant to ozone, oxidation and extreme weather conditions, including materials such as aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, halogenated fluids and strong acid materials, it is one of the more robust fluoroelastomers.

Choosing the correct material for sealing is important for the success of an application. While many seal materials are similar, each serves a variety of purposes to meet any specific need.

At some point in the life cycle of older pumps that still use gland packing seals to prevent, or, more accurately, limit process fluid leakage, you’ll look at the maintenance records and wonder if gland packing seals are still the best option. Would mechanical seals and seal support systems provide a better long-term solution? It’s really an exercise in weighing gland packing seal advantages and disadvantages on a pump by pump basis. 

There are multiple factors to consider in making that decision. Based on many years of working with California Bay Area refineries, I’ve seen all the ways that they can be weighed—and the effects of those decisions. Reliability issues in light of limited budgets and increasingly demanding Cal/OSHA and BAAQMD regulations are always top-of-mind lately. With those priorities at the forefront, I think you’ll see that mechanical seals offer some significant benefits compared to gland packing seals. 

Compare the Pros and Cons of Gland Packings vs Mechanical Seals 

Of course, the weight you put on each of these comparison categories will vary according to your immediate and long-term budget, local HSE requirements, technical considerations, space constraints, and integration with existing equipment. However, I think you'll see that in most circumstances, the benefits of gland packing seals are on the decline—especially as mechanical seal technology improves.

Let’s take a look at several categories of comparison when deciding about gland packing seal advantages and disadvantages: 

Purchase Cost

The initial costs of components and installation are a big lure for refineries to select gland packing seals, especially with many refinery budgets running on such thin margins right now. However, this is just one of the many considerations you should include in your cost/ benefit analysis. 

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Low cost of packing rings
  • Depending on the pumping process, can be the most economic sealing solution 
  • Can be significantly higher cost, depending on the type of seal, accompanying seal support system, and any infrastructure retrofitting costs 

Installation Process

From the perspective of time and cost, gland packings have the advantage—faster installation because of comparatively simpler design. The skills and experience of maintenance personnel play an important role in deciding the better option as well, though.

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Quick installation 
  • No need to open pump housing 
  • Depending on the type of packing, there may be no need to decouple the driveshaft 
  • Can be installed by maintenance personnel 
  • Longer installation time
  • Requires skilled maintenance engineers to properly install and align 
  • Pump housing must be opened and driveshaft decoupled

Durability

There’s no question that a mechanical seal—when properly maintained by a seal support system—wins the durability category. Reliability and process engineers need to justify the upgrade to a seal support system, though.

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Varies greatly, depending on the tightness of gland packing, seal material, and seal lubrication 
  • Overtightening will result in rapid wear and loss of lubricity
  • With a proper seal support system, mechanical seals should last a minimum of three years 
  • Monitoring of the seal support system and a preventative maintenance strategy can significantly extend mechanical seal life

Leakage

Depending on process conditions, loss of revenue-producing product, and safety or environmental concerns, the process engineer’s—and even the financial analyst’s—definition of acceptable leakage may be the factor that determines the gland packing vs. mechanical seal debate.

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Ideal leakage is one drop per minute of process fluid per inch of outside shaft diameter. However, leakage can be as much as 10 times greater. 
  • Only in the event of

    mechanical seal failure 

  • Dual seal arrangements offer the highest level of protection against leakage 

Ongoing Maintenance 

If you’re concerned about reducing maintenance costs associated with the frequency of inspections and replacements, then mechanical seals and seal support systems require a greater up-front investment but reduce maintenance demands in the long run.

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Periodic tightening of the gland 
  • Eventual replacement of packing rings, determined by the quality and consistency of maintenance practices
  • Monitor seal support system instrumentation to ensure proper seal chamber environment. 
  • For dual seals, add barrier/buffer fluid as needed to the seal pot  

Energy Usage

There’s a clear, measurable advantage offered by mechanical seals: they are far more energy-efficient. If you have dozens to hundreds of pumps using gland packing seals, an upgrade to mechanical seals and seal support systems will deliver long-term energy savings, especially with high utility costs in California. 

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Friction between gland packing seal and impeller shaft can use up to six times more energy compared to a mechanical seal
  • Results in minimum friction between seal faces and significantly greater energy efficiency compared to gland packing seals

Operational Costs

Energy and maintenance are the main factors here. Some mechanical seal support plans may have on-going supply costs that are canceled out by energy savings. In the long run, mechanical seals may pencil out to be the most cost-effective.

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • Higher energy costs 
  • Frequent tightening of the gland to minimize leakage 
  • Replacement of worn-out gland packings
  • Lower energy costs 
  • Supply of seal support system flush, buffer/barrier, or quench fluids—water/glycol, hydraulic oil, or nitrogen

Environmental Risk

For refineries operating under Cal/OSHA or BAAQMD regulations, any leakage that brings environmental risks requires immediate attention. When environmental factors weigh heavily in your decision, mechanical seals and seal support systems offer peace of mind.

Gland Packing Seal

Mechanical Seal

  • The leakage of wastewater or fugitive emissions can lead to fines or sanctions
  • Mechanical seal designs and configurations of seal support system options offer the best choice for minimizing the risk of process fluid leakage that could lead to fines or sanctions


Two other factors to consider with regard to gland packing seal advantages and disadvantages: bearing damage and lost product due to leakage. Depending on their proximity to the driveshaft bearings, even minute leakage over time could contaminate motor and shaft bearings. The result is significant costs tied to unplanned downtime and bearing replacements. The cost of repetitive equipment failures can quickly negate the initial advantage of gland packing seals’ lower installation and replacement costs. 

The other factor, leakage, is an inherent aspect of gland packing seals. In many instances, the leakage of process fluid, such as hydrocarbons, equates to lost revenue. 

Replacing a gland packing seal with a mechanical seal can result in long-term savings that more than repay the cost of the mechanical seal and seal support system installation.

The Switch to Mechanical Seals 

After you’ve applied the above criteria to your pumps and identified candidates where replacing gland packing seals disadvantages outweigh the advantages. In these cases, replacing them with mechanical seals and seal support systems makes sense. And you should seek the guidance of local mechanical seal and seal support stem vendors. Here’s why.

Mechanical seal vendors can advise you on the latest seal technology and variety of mechanical seal designs that best suit your specific processing needs. They’ll help you match the mechanical seal solution with the process fluid, temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions of each pump. This will eliminate the need for you to research the mechanical seal options and you’ll be assured of the best possible solutions for your specific needs.

Similarly, a local mechanical seal support vendor with substantial industry experience can advise you on the seal support system plans and configuration options available for each of the mechanical seals that are replacing gland packing seals. In comparison to mechanical seals, the range of seal support system options is far more complex. But an experienced mechanical seal vendor can explain why an API Plan 21 will provide longer seal life than API Plan 14, how good panel design and instrumentation reduce maintenance costs, or why API Plan 65B is the best solution to manage condensation of medium temperature fluids.

Swagelok has more than five decades of experience in helping petrochem refineries successfully make the transition from gland packing seals to mechanical seals and seal support systems. From initial on-site consultation and custom design of seal support systems to careful assembly and rigorous testing, Swagelok covers the full spectrum of mechanical seal support system services. 

To learn how Swagelok Northern California can help you obtain the best performance from mechanical seals that have replaced gland packaging seals, contact our team today by calling 510-933-6200.

About Paul Lesnau | Sales Manager, Business Development Manager, and Field Engineer

Paul holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from North Dakota State University. Before joining Swagelok Northern California, he was the West Coast Regional Sales Manager for an organization based in Illinois involved in pneumatic and hydraulic applications where he supervised product distribution throughout the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. While in this role, he was able to help provide technical and application-specific expertise to customers and distribution to drive specifications.

What is the Advantage and Disadvantage of Pump Seal Oil

Top Gland Packing Seal Advantages and Disadvantages to Consider in Comparison to a Mechanical Seal