You are on page 1of 4

I I

I,
'I
HOW TO SPECIFY PROCESS PUMPS
-
Allowable pump piping loads @
API 610 suggests testing to establish
allowable external forces by
piping on centrifugal pump nozzles.
Here are a test procedure and results
C. A. Simmon, Fluor Corp., Los Angeles
P u ~ ! P SHAFT MISALIGNMENT is the most common symp-
tom of pump start-up and operational troubles. Piping
str::tin imposed on the nozzles is the prime suspect. But
the strength and rigidity of the pedestals and base plate
are also questionable. Shaft misalignment and pedestal de-
flection have been related in our test stand. A recent test
carried out by Esso Research and Engineering, also con-
cluded that shaft misalignment was the most important
parameter in pump problems. Although the Esso loading
conditions were cliff erent, the conclusions drawn were
quitt> similar.
y
Fig. 1-0rientation of the forces and moments applied to
- the test pump and the location of deflection points.
98
The criteria given in API-Standard 610, Sections H
and 26 were the basis of imposed piping forces and mo-
ments applied to our test unit. Tests were performed at
Fluor's Task Force Center in Los Angeles over a period
of several months.
Pertinent parts of Sections 14 and 26 are reproduced
below to aid the reader in evaluating the conditions. Par-
ticular note should be taken of Sections 14 (f) and ( 26 ( i).
The API criteria
14. External Forces on Nozzles
a. The following criteria shall apply for pumps with
4-in. discharge nozzles or smaller (suction nozzles may
be larger), and where pump cases are constructed of
steel or alloy steel.
The forces contained herein are considered minimum
criteria and should be adjusted where the vendor has
experimental or test data pem1itting larger reactions.
The vendor shall submit comparable criteria for pump
cases constructed of cast iron.
b. Suction and discharge nozzles shall be designed to
withstand forces and moments from the thermal <:x-
pansion or contraction of piping. Piping reactions s' all
be computed in conformance with ANSI B31.3: p,:,o-
leum Refinery Piping, Sect. 319, "Code for Pressure
Piping," and shall be designed within the limiting critcri:1
set by this standard.
The modulus of elasticity shall be adjusted for the
operating temperature condition.
c. Each nozzle shall be capable of withstanding forces
from external piping determined by the following for-
mulas (see Fig. 1) .
F, = (F,/ + Fz
2
) l:.! ~ 2,000 lb.
F,, ~ 1.3 W ~ 160 lb per nom. in.
Fz ~ 1.0 W ~ 130 lb per nom. in.
F v (compression) ~ 200 lb per nom. in. ~ 1.2 W
F v (tension) :::; 100 lb per nom. in. ~ 0.5 W
Limit tension and compression forces to 2,000 lb.
Where:
F = force, in pounds.
Subscript r = resultant of forces.
Subscript x = axis parallel to shaft.
Subscript y = vertical 90 deg to shaft.
Subscript z = horizontal90 deg to shaft.
JV =weight of pump only, in pounds.
June 1972
')
d
r-
:h
l\'
of
"II
n
s.
Jl
.l:l
:es
)r-
Fr is the resultant she-:>r force in the plane of any spe-
Cilc flange bee.
d. Each suction and discharge nozzle shall be de-
to withstand the forces de-scribed in item (c)
''I the specific configuration. Unit stresses in e-ach
shall be limited to: one-third of the allowable
hat stresses for pipe sizes 4 in .. and .over; one-half. of
1.'Je allowable hot stresses for ptpe s1zes under 4 m.,
J:5 shown in ANSI B31.3, see Table 302.1A. The section
=.,dulus of the nozzle shall not be considered to be more
ci
1
an standard weight pipe.
e. )Iaximum a!lm,able pump deflections caused by
e:<ternai forces are considered under Par. 26.
{. The yendor may submit alternate criteria supported
, i;y calculations or test for larger pumps having a dis-
' charge flange greater than 4-in.
lli, Baseplate for Horizontal Pumps
c. Baseplate and pump supports shall be so constructed
JUJd the pumping unit so mounted as to minimize mis-
:Jlignment caused by mechanical forces such as normal
niping strains, internal differential thermal expansion,
, hydraulic piping thrust. The underside of fabricated
aseplates located under the pump and driver supports
1
hall be welded so as to reinforce cross members.
d. The baseplate for close-coupled pumps may be
omitted to meet the manufacturer's standard.
e .. \ sufficient number of grout holes, not less than
4 in. in diameter, shall be provided in the baseplate and
mall be readily accessible. Grout holes shall be arranged
so that oil will not accumulate over the open grout.
1
, f. \Vhen pumps are handling hot fluids, pedestals for
centerline-supported pun1ps shall be designed for sup-
cooling, if required, to maintain alignment.
g. The baseplate and pedestal support assembly on
pumps having a discharge nozzle of 4 in. or smaller shall
be adequate to limit the shaft displacement, when mea-
lUred at the coupling, to a maximum of 0.010 in. in any
direction \\hen subjected to the following loads. These
..... loads represent the total effect of all external mechanical
;"orces that may be applied to a fully grouted pump base.
'They are to be applied to the pump through the suction
and for discharge nozzle (see Fig. 1). See Par. 14 for
design criteria of each pump nozzle.
Af = 3.0 W* ft.-lb.
2: M
11
= 2.0 W* ft.-lb.
2: Mz = 1.5 W* ft.-lb.
Where:
Mx =moment in Y-Z plane.
M v = moment in X -Z plane.
M, = moment in X-Y plane.
W = weight of pump only, in pounds.
*Minimum W is 1,000 lb. in these computations.
h. For purposes of evaluating computed pLpmg-im-
P<>sed external moments and forces, they shall be trans-
ferred from both suction and discharge flanges to the
intersection of the X, Y, and Z axes. An algebraic sum-
mation shall then be made for comparison with the
llloment limitation given in item (g).
i. The vendor shall submit alternative criteria for
liYDROCARBON PROCESSING June 1972
pumps h:n-ing a disch:trge largcr tkm +-in. i\PS.
It is suggested that these criteria be as a result
of (('sts.
The test. For our purpose. the pump unit is defined as
the combined pump assembly including support pedestals
and base plate.
The pump and mounting set used was typical for a
centerline mounted pump in agreement with APT-Stan-
dard 610. We attached the test frame to the 4-in., 300-
pound ASA discharge flange after the frame had been
counterbalanced. including the effect of the test spring
components and flange bolts (see Fig. 2). gasket was
used on the flange, to relaxation under the test
loading. Stray load effects were eliminated, to reasonable
engineering standards, by independently supporting the
load frame.
To obtain the minimum moments specified in the
criteria, commercial pipe support springs were purchased
and tested for actual spring rates. Thus, we had reason-
able assurance that the test loads and moments could be
measured with some degree of accuracy. Load cells would
have been better but we are not a testing lab; a one-time
tcst did not justify the added expense.
The forces applied were computed on the basis of API
610, Section 14(b). The weight of the pump, only 462
pounds, was limiting. This may seem consCJTative to some
readers, but the test indicates it is not. The theoretical
stress limits given in Section 14(d) were exceeded, but
computed stresses were well within the elastic range. Our
objective was to produce the given moments on the pump
unit. The 4-inch nozzle seemed best to demonstrate the
elastic ability of the pump case. Loading both suction
and discharge nozzles becomes unduly complicated. Com-
bined suction and discharge forces can be resolved by an
algebraic summation at the centerline of the pedestal and
shaft. The elastic response of the pump, pedestals, and
base as a unit, should be similar if the resultants match
the criteria.
The moments applied were as given in Sectian 26 (g)
and as listed in Table 1. Fig. 2 shows that the moment
arms subject to the measured forces produce these
moments.
Deflections were measured, using dial indicators at vari-
ous points on the base plate and pedestals. The points
shown on Fig. 1 are the most significant. They also give
some measure of the relative elasticity of the pump case
mounting as webs related to that of the pedestal base
plate. The deflections of Points X, and are magnified
by a factor of slightly over two, when translated to the
end of the shaft as a component of the Y and Z deflec-
tion at those points.
The abbreviated test data presented in Table 1 are
typical for two conditions. Condition A is as manu-
factured, with the base filled with grout and set over 30
days. Condition B is with a wobble-plate support added
at the end of the bearing housing. Earlier tests are not
considered as significant although they provided direction
for the final tests. In all conditions, test readings were
considered valid if the dial indicators returned to zero
after removing the loads. Each test was repeated two or
more times with separate readings by two or more ob-
servers,
Reversal of the loads did not produce any significant
change in the unit tested, but could have a marked effect
99
'
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:. I
! !
I
II
r' '
!
,,
if l
f.
n
il
I
I
I
I:
I
i
ALLOWABLE PUMP PIPING LOADS
TABLE 1-Test deflections measured by dial
indicator
Condition A: Xo 0n hou5ing
Dial In ::\His
Con1ments
Loads Shaft I Pedestals
---:;:y-1- LZ 6X1T 6X;
X
1
, 41,11 12 .. > -p-ar-a-te--1-o-ad-,---
\ ;,.tl) -o
1
H 2.g
X t>IJO 1tJ.0 -O .. o I 2.<> 2.<> Mz = 1500 ft. 1b'.
i_0_!_0_- First
Y 1 I :390 - 0. 7 5 I 1 .. ) 1 IJ 1 0 \' Load
----- --. ----
y, . -135 - 0.75 + 1.5 0 ! 0

Y'
Y2 l -lt\0 - 0.751 +1.75 i 0 I 0 :'\lx = :JOOO ft. lbs.
---1--------------
_z __ o 1 -5.7 : o __
X
y
z
mo
i 2:lll
I -460
0.5 1 2.2 Combined
'
15.2 i -4.fi
i
All dPfle,tions returned to 0 whf:>n were removed.
Condition B: \Vith wobble plate added at bearicg
X GOO 9.\l i' -1.5 .11.5 I J..') I' :lrd Loa<] On
X
1
0 - 0.5 -2.2 0 ! 0 2ncl Load Off

2nd
1 ( Re5ultant Y =
I
2:JO 1b<.)
Y
1
0 0 -0.7 I 0 0 3rd Load Off
---,--- ----'----- ------- ------ --- -----------
Y' II - 1 tlO 0 - .5
1
0 () I 1st Load On
Y
2
U 0 O+ , 0 1J 4th Load On
Z-, -460 -Jo:5-):7_1,
z 0 10.0 -1.4 l.v I 1.5 ! ht Load OfT
100
Fig. 2-Test frame load locations.
SECTr:;N 6-8
on difTerent geometry. The deflections were o:
and recorded as loads were applied in the sequenct
in Table 1.
Examination of the results shm,n in Table 1
interpreted to show that for Condition .\, there
siderable elasticity in the pump casing mountir
Additional support seemed necessary so a
wobble plate was added at the coupling end of tr
ing housing. This becomes Condition B. Thou
totally effective, the pedestal deflections did
greater significance. Several Condition B readin!
made which met the 10-mil criteria. The r
chosen for Table 1 and Condition A were tl
fa\orable. For Condition B, the readings show
the least favorable.
Conclusions based on test stand:
1. I\ozzle loadings in agreement with the API critf
not impair rotating part clearances within th<
case.
2. It is practical to arrive at allowable loads from
with a non-destructive test using a refined a]
similar to the demonstration test.
3. Pump units are more sensiti\e to axial forces
moments about the Z axis, e\en with an added
at the bearing housing. Development of an ir
supporting structure is required to sustain
imposed piping loads.
4. The horizontal force ( Z) and moments ab
vertical axis (MY) cause considerably less dt
June 1972 HYDROCARBON PRo
T
l
I

L
,erved
listed
an be
s con-
; lugs.
th;-
be;<.
ch not
lSSU!l1C
' were
:tdings
most
1 were
ria will
pump
piping.
proach
x) and
,upport
1proved
10
minal
mt the
flection
at the coupling. Thev are second in importance :md
are improved by an additional bearing support.
S. The vertical force (Y) and moments about the shaft
centerline (1f" My) are negligible in effect. Ap-
parently, this loading could be increased without caus-
ing problems on top nozzles.
6. Future test stands should be improved in design to
permit more points of load application and measure-
ments. For example, loads applied at the pedestal
would permit sorting out the elfect of pure horizontal
forces vs. the same force and a given moment. We also
recommt>nd mechanical force gages to pennit a range
of from zero up.
The reader is asked to take particular note of Sec-
tions 14 (f) and 26 (i). Experienced piping analysts have
probably wondered, '"Why did the criteria set a limit of
4-inch discharge nozzles?"' As originally conceived, the
criteria were meant for application on nozzle sizes up to
10 inch, although the testing note was always part of
the concept. The API Committees decided, before extend-
ing the sizes covered or making testing mandatory, that
more information is needed on the inclusion of these
sections in specifications. A specifying engineer who
makes testing mandatory, may find himself with bidders
taking exception--or no bidders. The testing provision
must still be implemented by group action, involving
users and manufacturers.
API-Standard 610 should be accepted as a start to-
ward relating piping design to equipment design. In the
mrantirne. the pLmt oper,ltor mu't expect to make hot
::Jlignment checks and re-chc>cks. The re-checks may be
eliminated some dav. ii meaningful data are forthcoming
to coordinate the clt>sign of the pump supporting struc-
ture and piping.

The author v.ishcs to thank management of Fluor Corp. for cooperat-
ing in the concept and enabling the demonstration test. The partici
pation of United Pump Co. and their chief engineer, A. W. Elvitsky, is also
appreciated. Fluor engineers M. W. Beard, E. M. Fazioli, M. D. Losey and
R. B. Rabenstine contribute-d their comments and help in conducting the test.
The comments and interest shown by Norman Blair, chairman of the Me-
chanical Design Committee for A);Sl B31, also merits our thanks.
Indexing terms: 7, Bases/ :-1 o t Chemical/9, Dellections-7, lndi
cators-10, Loads-6, Nozzles-9, Pedestals9, Pumps9,
Spccifications-4, Scandards-10, StandslO, Supports-9, Testing-8.
About the author
C. A. SIMMON is a senior pipe stress
arwlyst with Fluor Corp., Los Angeles.
He supervises the Pipe Stress Analyst
Group, is a consultant on piping, com-
pnn y s tan dar d s and design criteria,
makes piping code interpretations, and
is imolved with the specification and
purchase of special piping components.
Jlr. Sinmwn attended the UCLA. He
has been a consultant to F. S. lVest Co.,
the City of Glendale, Calif., RexaU
Chemical Co., Atlantic-Richfield Co. and others in the field
of pipe stress analysis and vibration control. He is a regis-
tered professional engineer 1'n CaUfornia.
HOW TO SPECIFY PROCESS PUMPS
Pump performance characteristics
"Don't oversize the pump, it at all
possible." Operating at reduced
capacities can increase bearing
loads and produce hydraulic surging
similar to cavitation
Igor J, Karassik, Worthington Corp., Mountainside, N.J.
You CAN CHANGE a pump's operating point by changing
the speed (Fig. 1). The operating point is the intersection
of the head-capacity curve with the system-head curve. As
llYDROCARBON PROCESSING June 1972
the pump's speed is reduced, the head and capacity are
reduced.
You can change a pump's operating point by throttling
the discharge (Fig. 2). Throttling a valve in the pump
discharge alters the system-head curve by increasing the
friction losses.
ote: Altering the operating point by speed changes or
discharge throttling can be accomplished only if the avail-
able NPSH is equal to or exceeds the required
Modes of operation. There are two different modes of
pump operation \Yhich have a significant effect on pump
selection. In the first mode, there is a single operating
point for capacity and head. In the second mode, either
101
------------------------------------..-

You might also like