The global magazine for pump users and suppliers

COVER REPORT:
THE NIDEC WAY
Offering complete solu ons
for their customers
Page 8

SPECIAL TOPIC: OIL & GAS

In this issue of Pump
Engineer magazine:
The Pump Protector: Chevron
takes on subsea challenges
Page 12
AssociaƟon Extra: An interview
with Germany’s VDMA Page 20
A brief history of changes in API
standard 610 for centrifugal
pumps Page 30
The new buying criteria for 30
dollar oil Page 38
www.pumpengineer.net 1
Volume 8, April 2016 www.pumpengineer.net
 2
1of TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 ͷ PART 1
rt
Pa

A brief history of changes in API

PART ONE standard 610 for centrifugal pumps
Gopal Murti breaks down the history of API 610 and explores how the details have changed from the
very first edition published in 1954 to the 12th edition, which will be released early in 2016.
By Gopal MurƟ, Senior Consultant, The Augustus Group

API 610 was first published in This article describes the changes The title changes show that the
1954 and is now running into its which are of interest to pump users scope was gradually expanded
11th Edition. It has grown from a and targeted to readers in the from an exclusive focus on
20-page document to a massive operating, maintenance, and safety refineries to the entire spectrum
220-page document. Earlier, engineering disciplines. It will of the hydrocarbon processing
mechanical seals were part of cover a brief history starting from industry, both upstream and
API 610, but are now issued as a the 5th Edition. Please see Table 1 downstream. API pumps now
separate document API 682 (4th for an outline of when each Edition cover oil & gas production,
Edition, 2014, 268 pages). If we of API 610 was released. refineries, petrochemicals,
add API 682 to API 610, it becomes chemicals, fertilizers, and power
a massive 452-page (220+268 = The first and foremost visible generation. For heavy duty pump
488) document, almost the size of change is in the title itself. Titles applications in non-petroleum
a design manual! API 682 itself has have changed as follows: industries, API 610 advises to
grown from 125 pages (1st Edition) refer to ISO 9905.
to 268 pages (4th Edition). 1st and 2nd Editions: “API
Specifications for Pumps for The efforts of consolidation are
The next revision, the 12th Edition, is General Refinery Services” perfectly understandable. API
due in early 2016. This edition will has taken massive efforts in the
have important additions, deletions, past 20 years to amalgamate and
3rd to 7th Editions: “Centrifugal
and editorial changes. Readers expand the scope of existing
Pumps for General Refinery
are advised to refer to a paper by documents, rather than creating
Services”
Roger L. Jones and Frank Korkowski2 new documents. This is a win-win
for details. Proposed changes may situation for all parties, including
8th Edition:“Centrifugal Pumps for
be divided into two parts: regulators, designers, and end
Petroleum, Heavy Duty Chemical
users. Fewer specifications allow
1 Changes concerning pump and Gas Industry Services”
for a better understanding of the
manufacturers and application subject, help reduce project costs,
engineers. 9th Edition to date: “Centrifugal reduces equipment and spares
Pumps for Petroleum, inventories, and most importantly
2 Changes concerning pump Petrochemical and Natural it helps plant operators and
end users and field personnel. Gas Industries” technicians operate plants
safely. Some examples of API
API Std 610 Year API Std 682 Year
consolidation efforts include:
1 EdiƟon
st
1954
2 EdiƟon
nd
1957 API 1110: This document
3 EdiƟon
rd
1960 previously covered testing of
liquid pipeline only. Now it also
4 EdiƟon
th
1965
covers gas pipelines.
5 EdiƟon
th
1971
API 6D: This document previously
6th EdiƟon 1981
covered valves meant for
7th EdiƟon 1989 cross-country pipelines only.
8 EdiƟon
th
1995* 1st EdiƟon 1994 Now, it also covers valves for
9 EdiƟon
th
2003 2 EdiƟon
nd
2002 in-plant piping.
10 EdiƟon
th
2004 3 EdiƟon
rd
2004 API 520: This document covered
11 EdiƟon
th
2011 4 EdiƟon
th
2014 pressure-relieving systems for
12th EdiƟon 2016 refineries only as late as 2008.
In the 2014 edition, the word
Table 1: Years of release for the different editions of API 610 and API 682. Please note ‘refinery’ was deleted, and
that mechanical seals are separate from the 1995 Edition.1 changed to ‘sizing, selection,

Pump Engineer, April 2016 30

11_Gopal_Part 1.indd 30 3/23/2016 8:49:44 PM


and installation of pressure
relieving devices’, which is
more generic and covers all the
hydrocarbon process
industries.
There is still a lot of work to be done
to rationalize various codes and
standards. For example, system
integrity for liquid pipelines is
covered by API 1160, while system
integrity for gas pipelines is
covered by ASME B31.8S. Maybe
one day, both documents will
be amalgamated into a single
document entitled “System
integrity for oil and gas pipelines.”
In this article, we focus on the
implications of the latest changes
of API 610 in the forthcoming
12th Edition. We will also briefly
discuss important changes made
in past editions, where the author
was associated with the changes.
This will give an idea of how
industry standards evolve over a
period of time in order to keep
pace with the latest technological
developments.
Major changes in past
editions
Up until the 5th Edition, API 610
included unbalanced and balanced
mechanical seals. Unbalanced
seals were specified for non-critical
applications. It was thought that
unbalanced seals were economical
compared to balanced seals,
and could be used for moderate
duties. However, it was later found
that the operating parameter
limits for unbalanced seals were
arbitrary and the differential cost
of production of unbalanced and
balanced seals became marginal.
Unbalanced seals were, therefore,
deleted from later editions in
gradual steps. The 6th Edition of API
610 made a compromise statement
saying: “Seals shall be balanced
seals unless stated otherwise
by purchaser.” The 7th Edition
of API 610 completely removed
unbalanced seals. Table 2 shows
the table from the 5th Edition of
API 610.
Up until the 7th Edition, API 610
included separate material
www.pumpengineer.net
11_Gopal_Part 1.indd 31
TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 ͷ PART 1
recommendations for pumps
intended for process plants
(on-plot areas) and transfer and
loading areas (off-plot areas). The
understanding was that off-plot
pumps were meant for product
transfers between storage tanks
to rail and road tankers, and not
subjected to harsh service in
terms of pressure and temperature
parameters. Consequently, a lower
metallurgy would be acceptable
for off-plot services. Table 3 shows
an abstract from the 5th Edition of
API 610.
Later on, it was realized this
distinction increased spare
parts inventories and created
interchangeability issues.
Perceived benefits were not
realized. Therefore, the material
table was revised and on-plot and
off-plot material grades merged
into one, keeping in view more
stringent requirements. This was
a good effort on the part of API.
Although pressure range was
merged, for strange reasons a
column titled “Pressure range”
nge
ng
n ge is
is
still retained with the word
d All
for all listed services.
API is making efforts to reduce
the number of columns in the
materials table. It appears they
are not getting rid of the ‘Pressure
Range’ column in the 12th Edition.
This column is superfluous and
needs to be deleted.
With the 11th Edition, API
introduced support for electronic
data inter-change (EDI) for
engineering contractors, end
users, and pump manufacturers.
In an EDI system, each pump
TABLE 1—Limits for Unbalanced Seals
Seal Inside
Diameter
(Inches)
½ to 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Over 2 to 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 2: Table 1 from the 5th Edition of API 610, showing limits for unbalanced seals.
Don't miss Part 2 of the
article!
This is Part 1 of a 2-part series.
Part 2 covers the safety concerns
addressed in the 12th EdiƟon of
API 610, plus a few concerns that
are not addressed.
parameter (suction pressure,
discharge pressure, NPSHA,
NPSHR) is provided a unique
field name and pump data
can be shared electronically
between all parties, instead of
the paper datasheets currently
in use. All parties can have
their own database, ensuring
the same field names are used
for identifying each parameter.
This way, they do not need to
share the main program. EDI
is very efficient as there are no
errors. A pump manufacturer can
computerize pump selection and
keep records. An engineering
contractor can create their
database according to project,
while end users can keep their
database according to the plant
or units. Essentially, you can use
any output format. Therefore, it is
important that superfluous entries
are avoided in EDI. The pressure
range column creates
an unnecessary prompt for data
entry in the software, with users
having no options
ion
ons
o ns but
bu
bu to choose
a default entry:
y: All .
y:
One more minor concern is the
introductory statement: “Table
G.1 is intended to provide general
guidance for on-plot process plants
and off-plot transfer and loading
Sealing
Shaft Speed Pressure
(Rpm) (Psig)
Up to 1,800 100
1,801 to 3,600 50
Up to 1,800 50
1,801 to 3,600 25
31
3/23/2016 8:49:45 PM
 TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 ͷ PART 1

APPENDIX E
MATERIAL CLASSES FOR CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS
CAUTION: This table intended as a general guide. It should not be used without knowledgable review for the
specific services involved.

On Plot Off Plot Temperature Pressure Note

Process Transfer Range Range Material Reference
Service Plant and Loading (Deg F) (Psig) Class Number
Fresh water, condensate, cooling X X Under 212 All I-1 or
tower water I-2
Boiling water and process water X X Under 250 All I-1 or 7
I-2

Table 3: Appendix E from the 5th Edition of API 610, showing material classes.

services.” This statement made
sense for first major revision of
this table when on-site and off-site
metallurgies were merged.
Readers were used to seeing
separate columns for both in earlier
editions when pump scope was
confined to refinery services alone.
With this standard now becoming
universal for the entire hydrocarbon
processing industry, this statement
is redundant now and should be
deleted. The terminology ‘on-plot
process plants and off-plot
transfer and loading services’,
may be confusing in the upstream
industry because generally all
pumps are transfer pumps in
upstream industry. An abstract
from the 11th Edition of API 610
can be seen in Table 4.
Major changes in the 12th
Edition
So far, we have reviewed some of
the changes in past editions with an
emphasis on mechanical seals and
pump metallurgy. We will now look
into some of the proposed changes
in the forthcoming 12th Edition. We
will focus on changes that affect
the end users. Design changes
at higher levels, such as bearing
selection criteria, performance test
points, base-plates, pressure rating
changes, high-energy definitions
for certain pump types, structural/
dynamic analysis changes, and
nozzle loads are not discussed in
this paper. Such changes are not of
major concern to end users and are
best handled by manufacturers and
design engineers, as end users
do not play any role here.
Deletion of cast iron,
Ni-resist, and bronze
materials
Cast iron, Ni-resist, and bronze
components are proposed
to be removed from material
groups I-1, I-2, S-1, and S-3. The
apparent reason is because North
American foundries have stopped
pouring pressure castings in
the above materials. API intends
recommending C-6, S-5, and S-6
group materials in lieu of the
deleted groups. The axe will fall
for pressure casings. Some inner
case parts such as wear rings,
throat bushings, and sleeves
would continue to be supplied in
cast iron for classes, such as S-4.
An undesirable fallout due to the
elimination of I-1, I-2, S-1, and S-3 is
that some engineers may assume
existing pump sets with I-1, I-2, S-1,
and S-3 metallurgies are no longer
in conformity with API 610. It may
trigger projects to replace such
pumps with S-5 or C-6 metallurgy,
as proposed in the 12th Edition.
This would be unnecessary, since
API 610 does not prohibit using
unlisted metallurgies. Also, revised
API specifications are not intended
to be applied retroactively.
Table G.1 — Material class selecƟon guidance
Service
Fresh water, condensate, cooling tower water
Boiling water and process water
120 to 175 250 to 350
Table 4: Annex. G from the 11th Edition of API 610, showing pressure range.
API 610, clause 6.12.1.1 on
materials, makes it clear that
alternative materials may be
recommended for a service,
including materials that can
improve life and performance in
service. However, this clause is
written to give the purchaser an
impression as to which material
class from the API table they
should try for first, but then the
vendor is able to offer an alternate,
unlisted metallurgy if needed.
Most vendors refrain from offering
an alternate metallurgy for fear of
receiving a rejection for the bid.
This clause would remain
unchanged in the 12th Edition. The
author believes that this clause
should be reworded to make it a
two-way street. It should effectively
say either the purchaser or seller
can choose an alternate unlisted
metallurgy, as long as it is proven
in service. A majority of end users
would take this clause literally,
instead of its true intention. They
would insist on using the listed
materials. The delisted materials
would be wasted.
End users should understand
that API 610 does not provide
Temperature range Pressure Materials Ref.
°C (°F) range class note
< 100 < 212 All I-1 or I-2 —
< 120 < 250 All I-1 or I-2 a
All S-5 a
> 175 > 350 All S-6, C-6 a

Pump Engineer, April 2016 32

11_Gopal_Part 1.indd 32 3/23/2016 8:49:48 PM


any guidelines for strength
calculations for pump
components, such as casings,
impellers, shafts, or couplings. It is
solely the vendor’s responsibility.
This is in contrast to static
machinery — like pressure
vessels, piping, and pipelines
— wherein design checks for
pressure components is the
purchaser’s responsibility. The
purchaser is liable to pay for all
damages in case of equipment
failures. Therefore, for static
equipment, using the materials
not listed in relevant design codes
becomes a bone of contention and
is often discouraged, even though
they are permitted by codes in
most cases.
This variation in the approach
to codes should be treated as
a big bonus by purchasers of
rotating machinery. To the best
of the author’s knowledge, no
rotating machinery standard
requires pressure design checks
by purchasers or their consultants.
Therefore, they should not hesitate
using unlisted materials, and just
use proven metallurgies. CI-Ni is
a trusted and proven metallurgy
for various water services. It
might become unlisted because
of commercial reasons rather than
technical reasons. Hopefully, API
will restore this in future editions,
knowing that API standards are
used worldwide and CI-Ni-resist
castings are popular in other
regions. Representation from end
users would also be useful.
It is the author’s opinion that
existing users may continue with
I-1 and I-2 metallurgies (CI-Ni
pumps). They may also continue
to order replacement spares in
the same metallurgy. Both are
excellent materials and offer
lower NPSHr due to excellent
casting characteristics, meaning:
Fluidity: that is capability to fill
small pores and cavities
Ability to cast thin sections
without wrapping
Low shrinkage
Excellent machinability
www.pumpengineer.net
11_Gopal_Part 1.indd 33
TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 ͷ PART 1
A commentary on CA15
metallurgy
As I-1 and I-2 metallurgies would
be withdrawn, the proposed
alternate is C-6 (12% Cr). Up until
the 10th Edition, Grade CA15 was
the workhorse for both pressure
castings and general castings,
under the C-6 (12% Cr) group.
CA6NM was offered as an option.
In the 11th Edition, API removed
CA15 for pressure casting and
CA6NM became the sole option.
General castings continued
as CA15. In the proposed 12th
Edition, API suggests removing
CA15 for general castings as
well. Therefore, CA6NM would
become the sole option.
Complete removal of CA15 from
all scenarios is indeed a very good
move by API. CA15 is a difficult
metallurgy in terms of castings.
It has a high shrinkage rate and
higher rejection rates. In the
mid-1970’s and 1980’s, foundries
were often seen offering austenitic
stainless steel (A-7) in lieu of CA15
without any price implications.
The higher cost of CA15 rejections
paid off for CA15. CA6NM was not
popular those days.
A commentary on CA6NM
metallurgy
I-1 and I-2 metallurgies largely
covers the water services (fresh
water, condensate, cooling tower
water, boiling water, and process
water), but they will now be
served by CA6NM. CA6NM is
superior compared to CA15 in
all aspects. CA6NM is an iron-
chromium-nickel-molybdenum
alloy that can be hardened
by heat treatment. It has an
improved resistance to attack
by sea water due to the addition
of nickel and molybdenum. The
impact strength is about twice as
high, as is resistance to damage
from cavitation effects. This later
property (resistance to cavitation
damage) is highly desirable for
most rotating machinery. Heavy
sections and complex shapes
can be cast in CA6NM with less
difficulty than CA15 — again a
highly desirable property for
rotating machinery components.
This article is in 2 parts. Next part to be
published in next issue of the magazine.
Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum,
Petrochemical and Natural Gas
Industries
ANSI/API STANDARD 610
ELEVENTH EDITION, SEPTEMBER 2010
ERRATA, JULY 2011
ISO 13709:2009 (IdenƟcal), Centrifugal pumps
for petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas
industries
Table
bl 5: The
h title h 11th edition
i l ffor the di i off
API 610.
For castings, which may require
unlikely weld repairs, CA6NM
offers the additional advantage
of not requiring preheating. A
major application of alloys has
been in large hydraulic turbine
runners for power generation.
Readers may refer to the “Steel
Casting Handbook”3 published
by the Steel Founders’ Society of
America for details of both CA15
and CA6NM.
Cost difference is marginal.
Considering rejection rates
of CA-15, CA6NM may in fact,
prove to be cheaper. There
is yet another option. Those
who intend to use I-1 and I-2
metallurgies may opt to specify
ISO standard 13709:2009. It is
identical to API 610 (11th Edition).
API has decided to terminate
the arrangement with ISO to co-
brand API 610 with ISO 13709.
ISO would continue with their
2009 edition and no changes are
proposed in near future. Please
refer to Table 5 for the current
title of the 11th Edition.
References:
(1) American Petroleum
Institute, 1220, L Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20005, USA,
ANSI/API Standard 610,
various editions.
(2) 43rd Turbo-machinery &
30th Pump Users Symposia
(Pump & Turbo 2014)
September 23-25, 2014,
Houston, TX, pumpturbo.
tamu.edu, paper by Roger L.
Jones and Frank Korkowski.
(3) Steel Founders’ Society
of America. 780 McArdle
Drive, Unit G, Crystal Lake,
IL 60014, USA
33
3/23/2016 8:49:49 PM
 The global magazine for pump users and suppliers
Cover Report:
R+W Coupling Technology
relaunches LP disc pack
couplings Page 10

Special Topic:
Sealing Technology
In this issue of Pump
Engineer magazine:
Speaking with a PMO Coordinator
at BP’s Whiting Refinery | Page 14
Association Extra: Interview
with France’s PROFLUID | Page 24
Part 2: A brief history of
changes in API standard 610 for
centrifugal pumps | Page 32
Tech Article: Energy efficiency and
emissions reduction in wastewater
management | Page 36
www.pumpengineer.net 1
Volume 8, June 2016 www.pumpengineer.net
TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 — PART 2

PART TWO
A brief history of changes in API
standard 610 for centrifugal pumps
In Part 2 of 2 of his article series, D. Gopalkrishna Murti covers the safety concerns addressed
in the 12th Edition of API 610, plus a few concerns that are overlooked.

By D. Gopalkrishna Murti, Senior Consultant, The Augustus Group

Safety concerns covered

by the 12th Edition
One thing that has not changed since 1971 (5th Edition)
and may remain unchanged in 12th Edition is wear
ring running clearances. This feature controls leaks
across close clearance wear rings (also known as
throat bushings), affects pump efficiency, and affects
fluid pressure in the seal chamber area. The lower the
clearance, the lower the leakage to low pressure areas,
the lower the chance of pumped fluid leaking into the
atmosphere. Thus, it is directly related to the safety
of pumps, whether a mechanical seal or traditional
packing is used. Refer to Figure 1. The decision is
not to reduce the clearances. This is in spite of vast
improvements in wearing materials and utilization
of non-metallic materials, plus absence of galling
Pump
Casing
tendencies — all of which would allow lower clearances
without the erosion of surfaces. All of this is good news
for safety engineers and environmentalists, since it
Clearance
shows that pumps have been safely operating for the
past 35 years on this important design aspect.

Bearing oil & housing temperatures: Excessive bearing

oil and housing temperatures have been an area of
persistent concern for pump-sets operating in hot Wear
climates in unattended locations, such as oil fields in Ring
Middle Eastern countries. This concern applies more to Impeller
smaller pumps using non-pressurized bearing systems.
In the 12th Edition, oil and the housing temperature rise
Figure 1 : Typical centrifugal pump showing wearing ring clearance
limit is reduced to 70°C (160°F) from 82°C (180°F). (not changed since 1971).
If bearing temperature sensors are fitted, the
temperature rise limit is reduced to 75°C (170°F) from
93°C (200°F). This is a good move and helps pumps Read part 1 online!
run for longer and without breakdowns. Another good
feature is that constant level oilers (Figure 1, Item 8) on Enter the hashtag in your Twitter to read
bearing housings shall be retained, since they serve Part 1 of 2 of D. Gopalkrishna Murti’s article.
as a good indicator for operators to quickly see from a
distance whether the lube oil needs to be topped-up. #GopalArticles
Currently, API 610 only covers coupling guards only,
which leaves the shaft area exposed. Clause 7.3.3

Pump Engineer, June 2016 32

 TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 — PART 2
from the 12th Edition shall cover exposed shaft areas,
including the area between pump bearing housing(s)
and mechanical seal(s). Refer to Figure 2. It will not
simply be an extension of the coupling guard. A
perforated or wire mesh guard is to be provided to
prevent accumulation of seal emissions, liquid, or
vapor. This additional safety feature may not necessitate
upgrading existing pump-sets. End users who want
compliance can provide this using the company’s
existing Management of Change (MOC) procedures.
Coupling Exposed
Guard
Shaft
Factory fitted
Guard for
exposed shaft
Figure 2: The exposed areas of the pump shaft should be covered
with a ventilated guard (top). The figure shows a pump already
supplied with such a guard (bottom).
Areas of concerns with the 12th Edition
A safety concern is usually the ½” NPT seal gland
connections used for mechanical seals. Leaks through
threaded connections are always a concern and many
plant fires have been attributed to the presence of
threaded connection joints either in pump-sets or
elsewhere. API discussed this issue. However, API may
retain NPT connections with a qualifying statement: “If
proper field installation practices are followed, then
NPT is fit for the purpose.” The 11th Edition has a bulleted
paragraph (6.4.3.3) addressing a higher integrity joint.
www.pumpengineer.net 33
This is something which requires rubber O-rings so that
the joint does not depend on thread contact alone to seal
the pumped fluid (Figure 3).
API insists on proper field installation practices, which
is a good statement. However, proper manufacturing
and installation practices are not the end of safety. Real
safety starts in the operating field. We have seen, in
the absence of lifting hooks, technicians inadvertently
using seal piping to lift pumps, particularly small
pumps (Figure 4A). This is convenient and does the
job, but it causes untold damage to the seal piping joint.
Technicians, at times, use flange bolt holes for attaching
lifting hooks. This also causes damage to flange faces
and adds to potential leak problems. Some vendors
provide hooks on pump casings, which is a good
practice (Figure 4B).
API should make lifting hooks mandatory. As per OSHA,
the maximum weight personnel is required to lift is
32 kgs (70 lbs) to avoid back injuries. So, for anything
above this weight, mechanical means are to be used.
The NIOSH limit is 23 kgs (51 lbs). This makes pumps as
small as 50mm (2”) inlet/outlet entitled for provision of
lifting hooks. This addition would have cost implications
as casting patterns have to be replaced.
Rubber
O’Ring
Figure 3: Fragile screw joints using soft elastomers are not recommended.
Not a good
Seal Piping for practice
small pumps, used
as Lifting Ear
Figure 4A: Pump casing without lifting ear.
TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 — PART 2

diameter, and bolt diameter differs in certain sizes.

Good
practice
Lifting Ear
Not specified in API. Offered by
few mfrs. A desired feature.
Figure 4B: Pump casing with lifting ear.
Seal welding of NPT connections is often done to arrest
leaks through NPT joints. This has helped prevent fires
due to leakage from NPT joints, and also an economical
solution. Seal welding is done using low heat input
electrodes to avoid heat damage to mechanical seal
components and thin SS tubing. API 610, clause 6.4.3.1
prevents seal welding of threaded connections.
However, this clause refers to all auxiliary connections
to pressure casing, except seal glands, which implies
our field practice of seal welding is valid.
The 12th Edition of API 610 would disassociate itself
from ISO 13709 and imperial units will take precedence
over metric units. This is a reversal from past editions,
wherein metric units presided over imperial units.
While this is a good move, some concerns would remain
with the 12th Edition as follows:
Paragraph 6.4.2.2 would continue to state (except the
deletion of reference to cast iron): “All steel flanges
shall, as a minimum requirement, conform to the
dimensional requirements of ISO 7005-1 PN50...”.
These variations are visible enough to raise alerts from
safety engineers and from third-party insurance teams
who critically look for such lapses. Due to variations,
field engineers end up doing all sort of modifications,
searching for longer bolts, sometimes enlarging bolt-
holes in the pump flange, and so on. Figures 5A and 5B
depict one such situation. It should be known that ISO
allows threaded bolt holes and a nut is not required at
both ends, while ASME requires through and through
bolting with one nut at each end.
To avoid confusion, it is suggested that API 610 adheres
to ASME standards (ASME B16.5 for sizes up to 24-inches
and B16.47 for sizes 26-inches through to 60-inches) and
that the reference to ISO be completely deleted. If we
continue with both standards, it is very difficult for pump
manufacturers and pump inspectors to visualize mating
issues in the field. None of these two important partners
are responsible for checking this. An inspector cannot
reject the pump, as the pump manufacturer would say
that the pump conforms to API. In the instance shown in
Figure 5A, the pump was rejected because intrusion of
the drilling bit in the pump body was not acceptable and
a stud with two nuts was mandatory.
There is also inconsistency as to which edition of ISO
7005 is being referred to in the 11th and 12th Editions
of API 610. ISO 7005 (1st Edition, 1991) was an 88-page
document listing flange dimensions for all the pressure
ratings, including PN50, as referred to in API 650. The
Figure 5A: Pump flange drilled to ASME standard on a pump body cast to
ISO standard.

A footnote further says: “For the purpose of these

provisions, ISO 7005-1 PN50 and EN 1759-1 Class 300
Permitted by Required by
are equivalent to ANSI/ASME B16.5 Class 300 and ANSI/ ISO-7005 ASME-B16.5
ASME B16.47 Class 300.” The statement that ISO 7005 is
equivalent to ANSI/ASME B16.5 is factually not correct.
These two standards are not identical. The intention of
the statement: “For the purpose of these provisions…”,
means pressure-temperature ratings are alike. That
is a perfect statement for the pump design engineers
and manufacturers. They can go ahead with the pump
flanges of either standard. But what happens when the
pump reaches the field for installation?
ASME B16.5 and ISO 7005 are not identical in as far as
dimensions are concerned. Flange thickness, bolt hole
Figure 5B: Bolting permitted by ISO versus bolting required by ASME.

Pump Engineer, June 2016 34

 TECHNICAL ARTICLE: HISTORY OF API 610 — PART 2

latest ISO 7005-1 issued in 2011 (2nd Edition) is trimmed
to 22-pages. All dimensional and pressure-rating tables
have been removed from this edition and are now
included in EN 1092-1:2007 (126-page document). EN
1092 does not have PN50. It has old DIN classes: PN2.5,
PN6, PN10, PN16, PN25, PN40, PN63, PN100, PN160,
PN250, PN320, and PN400. Going by foregoing, it is
clear API is still referring to ISO 7005-1, 1st Edition! It is
apparent that ISO has a big gap between revisions of
its standards. For instance, the 2 Edition was issued
nd
after 20 years. During this period ASME B16.5 has
seen a minimum of four editions. Therefore, complete
disassociation between API and ISO is desirable. They
cannot keep pace with each other.
The paragraph 6.4.2.2.2 has the statement: “ANSI/ASME
B16.47 flanges with nominal outside diameter (O.D.) >
0.125 in (3.2 mm) shall be approved by the purchaser.”
There appears to be a slipup here. ANSI/ASME B16.47
flange covers large diameter steel flanges, size
26-inches through 60-inches.

Standard Edition Pages Remarks

ISO 7005 1991 88 Includes dimensional tables and PN50 as referred by API 610.

ISO 7005 2011 22 Dimensional tables removed, BN-EN-1092* is referred.

*BS-EN-1092-1 2007 126 Have dimensional tables, but, PN50 is missing.

Issued in 1998, 2003, 2009, and 2013;
ASME-B16.5**
older history is not available.

Table 6: History of ISO 7005 & ASME-B16.5 | * ASME standards (unlike API) do not state Edition nos., like 1st, 2nd… 11th Edition.
They just state year of revision. It would be a good idea to state the revision number to facilitate tracking.

About the author

D. Gopalkrishna Murti

Gopal Murti, P.Eng. is a Senior Consultant at

The Augustus Group, LLC. He has over 40 years’
experience in design, troubleshooting, plant
integrity, reliability management, and field
consulting for the hydrocarbon processing
industry. Murti has contributed over 30 revisions/
additions to various codes based on his field
experience, including API, ASTM, ASME, and BSI.
He is the author of several articles published
in Chemical Engineering, the Oil & Gas Journal,
and articles through the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, USA. Murti obtained his B.E. degree
from Jiwaji University in India. He is a Professional
Engineer in Canada and India, with a Texas P.E.
designation in progress. He can be contacted at:
gmurti@theaugustusgroup.com.

www.pumpengineer.net 35