Analysis of Historical Dry Gas Seal Failure Data

Abstract

While proper design and maintenance of dry gas seals is a well-understood topic, dry gas seal failures are still relatively common. These failures can result in frequent repairs and costly downtime. Although several case studies of individual failures are available, relatively few large-scale dry gas seal failure studies exist. Based on a review of existing literature, very little has been published on failure statistics aimed at improving seal reliability. As a part of an industry-funded dry gas seal reliability project, a failure database has been populated with information provided by both end users and original equipment manufacturers. The database includes details on dry gas seal and separation seal configuration, seal gas supply, operating history, conditions at time of failure, and failure symptoms, including any results from failure analyses performed by the survey respondent. In total, eight companies contributed 194 failures. Of these, 144 cases had root causes provided. From this database of failures, statistical analysis is used to determine common reasons behind dry gas seal failures in gas compression service. Failure trends are identified based on data collected, and corresponding recommendations are provided for improving dry gas seal reliability.

Predicting Dry Gas Seals Reliability With Machine Learning Techniques Developed From Scarce Data

“…The Oil and Gas (O&G) industry is one of the most profitable and dangerous, responsible for providing the most used fuel in the world, petroleum [1]. Nevertheless, there may be failures in the oil extraction and refining processes, leading to environmental, human, and financial losses [2]. In order to mitigate these risks, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly widespread in the area [3].…”

“…The DGS systems, represented in Figure 1.1, are essential components for sealing rotating equipment, preventing the process gas from going into the atmosphere [2,8]. These emerged as an alternative to mechanical seals to provide fewer contamination rates with the process gas and enable operation under high pressures, and rotations [9,10].…”

“…In the study presented in [2], a set of 194 dry gas seals, unidirectional and bidirectional, were evaluated in their operating conditions until failure due to different reasons. The highest failure cause presented was supply contamination, with 43 % of the cases, and 64 % of these were due to liquid contamination.…”

“…In order to adequately reproduce the physical behavior between the sealing faces, the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations is recommended [10]. The fluid that passes between the sealing faces comes from the discharge or specific locations of the compressor, and its composition, mainly composed of carbon chains, may vary depending on the application of the equipment [2,15]. Before going to the DGS, the fluid passes through a device (heater) that can increase its temperature in order to guarantee the requirements set out in [14].…”

“…However, few studies aim to increase the reliability and security of the system as required by [14]. Furthermore, as they are not intended for operation, they mostly assume an airflow, which is not valid in O&G applications [2,15].…”