The Anatomy of a Pump Failure: A Case Study

EASA Convention 2013

Mandalay Bay Resort
Las Vegas, NV
July 1, 2013

Presented by

Gene Vogel
Pump & Vibration Specialist
Electrical Apparatus Service Association
St. Louis, MO
 THE ANATOMY OF A PUMP FAILURE: A CASE STUDY

By Gene Vogel
Pump & Vibration Specialist
Electrical Apparatus Service Association, Inc.
St. Louis, MO

the opening. The water injection line connected to the

CASE STUDY #1 tension nut was twisted, kinked and had pulled loose
• 800 hp (600 kW) from the ‘T’ fitting as the tension nut and tube had turned
• 890 rpm about ¼ turn, apparently from shaft friction.
• 28” (71 cm) bowl diameter The pump was disassembled in place to facilitate
• 6 pump stages removal through a roof hatch. During disassembly, the
• 20” (51 cm) above ground following was noted:
discharge • After removing the motor and the discharge elbow, so

Some salient features of this FIGURE 1: LEAK DISCOVERED

pump: AT THE TENSION NUT
• Pump has a shaft enclosing tube
tension nut with a single retaining
bolt
• Shaft enclosing tube is unsup-
ported through the length of the
42’ (13 m) column
• Shaft enclosing tube is attached
at the pump discharge casing by
means of a short tube coupler of
slightly smaller diameter than the
enclosing tube
• Shaft enclosing tube is 5 sections
of various lengths
• Line shaft is 5 sections of various
lengths
• Column is 4 sections of various
lengths
• Clean water is injected into the
shaft enclosing tube at the tension
nut and into the suction bell bear-
ing at the bottom of that bearing
• A common supply line feeds the
water injection to both the tension
nut and suction bell bearing, with
a ‘T’ fitting at the top
• The suction is fitted with a wire
screen strainer and anti-vortex
baffle assembly

The pump failure was noticed due to a large discharge

of water at the tension nut on the top of the pump
(Figure 1). The tension nut and the attached shaft enclos-
ing tube was lifted from the proper installed location by
about 1 ½”, allowing pumpage to be discharged through

1
 that the first column section was exposed, the shaft
and enclosing tube were unrestrained radially and FIGURE 2: BROKEN STRAINER BASKET
were easily moved several inches (or centimeters)
radially inside the column.
• As sections of the column, shaft enclosing tube and
line shaft were removed, the shaft enclosing tube
remained lifted, apparently being held by friction
between the line shaft and line shaft bearings. The
tube assembly had lifted until the coupler bearings
contacted the line shaft couplings.
• The water injection line to the suction bell bearing
was strapped to the outside of each section of the
column. When the last strap was released, the line
dropped into the well. When it was later retrieved,
the wire screen strainer and anti-vortex assembly,
(strainer/baffle assembly), was dangling on the
horizontal section of the line. The welds attaching
the screen to the mounting ring had broken. The
mounting ring was still attached to the suction bell.
(See Figure 2.)
• The coupler that connected the shaft enclosing tube
to the pump discharge casing was broken, apparently
from fatigue (Figure 3). The coupler was a slightly constructed from a piece of pipe, (a casting).
smaller diameter than the enclosing tube, and was • When the pump mounting base plate was removed, it

FIGURE 3: BROKEN COUPLER

2
 FIGURE 4: POOR GROUTING
was apparent that the grouting had been very poorly
installed (Figure 4). Presumably, such poor mounting
could allow excessive pump vibration.
Discussion of the pump failure focused on the follow-
ing questions:
• What caused the shaft enclosing tube coupler to fail?
-- Could it have been damaged during pump as-
sembly by forcing the enclosing tube radially while
tightening the threaded connections?
-- Could it have failed due to excessive vibration
from normal operating forces, since the tube
was unrestrained radially throughout the 42’ (13
m) column sections, and the pump grouting was
poorly installed?
-- Could excessive bearing friction, caused by a loss
of lubricating water injection, have precipitated
the failure?
• What caused the shaft enclosing tube assembly to
lift?
-- Hydraulic pressure of the pump discharge head
against the bottom face of the tube assembly?
-- Threading effect of the spiral grooves in the ID of
the line shaft bearings?
-- An undefined axial force resulting from misalign-
ment of the line shaft bearings?
3
-- Perturbed pressure field from the hydrodynamic
action of the bearing lubrication?
• Why didn’t the shaft enclosing tube assembly drop
when the pump stopped rotating?
-- Marking on the line shaft matched the pattern of
the line shaft bearing bore suggesting the shaft
stuck to the bearings.
• Did the failure of the strainer/baffle result from exces-
sive vibration, or from normal operating forces and
poor design?
• Did the strainer/baffle failure precipitate the shaft
enclosing tube failure by causing a loss of lubrication
injection pressure?
The failure and subsequent analysis of the pump con-
dition raised questions which, for the most part, could
not be answered from the evidence available. Several
plausible scenarios are possible:
1. The tube coupler could have failed from excessive
vibration, allowed by the absence of radial restraint
of the tube, and/or because of poor grouting of the
base plate. It is certain that resonance frequen-
cies were present in the tube assembly, but it is
not known what those resonant frequencies might
have been, or if they were excited by the rotat-
ing speed, harmonics of rotating speed, or other
 exciting forces from the pump operation. In this
scenario, the strainer/baffle failure is unrelated to FIGURE 5: REDESIGNED COUPLER
the tube coupler failure.
2. The tube coupler could have failed simply because
it was inadequate to withstand normal operating
vibration and forces. That is, the vibration was not
excessive, the size and material of the coupler was
inadequate to withstand normal vibration, thermal
stress and bearing friction force. In this case also,
the strainer/baffle failure is unrelated to the tube
coupler failure.
3. The coupler could have failed because it was dam-
aged during installation. It is possible that when
applying force to tighten the shaft enclosing tube
connections at the coupler bearings, undo radial
force was applied which caused a crack to develop FIGURE 6: RUBBER WEB SUPPORTS
in the tube coupler. The presence of a small crack
would not have been evident to the installers.
Normal operating forces and vibration then would
cause the crack to propagate until failure occurred.
In this case also, the strainer/baffle failure is unre-
lated to the tube coupler failure.
4. The initial failure could have been the strainer/
baffle assembly breaking loose from the mounting
ring, allowing it drop onto the lubricating water in-
jection line. The dangling strainer/baffle assembly,
agitated by pumpage flow into the pump, could
have broken the water injection line, causing loss
of pressure, both at the suction bell and at the
tension nut at the top of the shaft enclosing tube, FIGURE 7: MODIFIED STRAINER/BAFFLE
since both are fed from a common ‘T’ connection.
Subsequently, increased friction in the line shaft
bearings resulted in increased force and vibration
which precipitated the tube coupler failure.
While the available evidence did not support a definite
conclusion of the sequence of failure events, consulta-
tion with the pump manufacturer resulted in several
design changes to replacement parts. These changes
addressed all of the potential failure causes.
• The tube coupler, which had failed, was redesigned
with a larger OD (thus greater wall thickness) and
was constructed from forged steel rather than cast
pipe material. (See Figure 5.)
• Rubber web supports were supplied to fit between
the column sections and the shaft enclosing tube,
providing radial support at each column section.
(See Figure 6.)
• The construction of the strainer/baffle was modified, the pump is operated. Also, the base plate was mounted,
so that the baffle was welded directly to tabs on the leveled and grouted in a satisfactory manner to support
mounting ring, rather than the baffle being supported the weight, forces and vibration of the pump operation.
by the strainer screen alone. (See Figure 7.) It is believed that the reconditioned pump and instal-
In addition to the redesigned replacement parts from lation will operate satisfactorily, without a subsequent
the manufacturer, vibration transducers where mounted failure of the shaft enclosing tube, coupler, or of the
at the suction bell in the radial direction, with cable strainer/baffle assembly.
brought to the surface, to allow analysis of vibration when

4
 FIGURE 8: BADLY DAMAGED IMPELLER

CASE STUDY #2 FIGURE 9: PUMP CASING SHOWS

SLIGHT DAMAGE
SPLIT CASE PUMP IMPELLER FAILURE
• Allis-Chalmers 12x10, Model 8810
• 500 hp (375 kW)
• 1780 rpm
• 6000 gpm (22700 l/m), 250 ft. (76 m) head
• Double suction, stainless steel impeller, 23.25”
diameter
• Inline, stainless steel casing

The impeller on this pump was found to be badly dam-

aged (Figure 8). There is evidence of catastrophic failure
with fractures of vanes and both shrouds, and chunks
of the impeller missing, apparently ejected from the
pump during the failure. The impeller also shows vane
surfaces at the suction and especially at the discharge
with a deformed and mottled surface. This evidence on
a stainless steel impeller is typical of that resulting from
cavitation and severe turbulence.
The fractured impeller with chunks broken off of it
initially appears to have been damaged by contact with
metal or rock debris. However, inspection of the impeller
suction eye shows no evidence of contact with any such
debris. Further, a piece of debris large enough to lodge
between the impeller discharge and the casing cutwater
could not have entered the pump via the impeller suc-
tion eye. The spacing and clearance between the vanes
is too small to admit debris that could have caused the
damage to the impeller discharge. It is also unlikely
that debris could have entered the pump through the
discharge nozzle. The pump casing showed slight mark-
ings where the ejected piece of the impeller may have

5
struck (Figure 9), but there was no evidence of markings
that could have resulted from a foreign object damaging FIGURE 10: TIPS OF IMPELLER VANES
the impeller. It is reasonable to conclude that no foreign FEATHERED FROM PEENING
object or debris could have entered the pump volute to
cause this damage to the discharge of the impeller.
The tips of the impeller vanes at the discharge of the
impeller are deformed in a smooth rounded manner, with
the vane tip feathered from peening (Figure 10). There is
also evidence of peening on the vanes at the suction of
the impeller. The mottled appearance of the surfaces, and
the evidence of peening, are telltale signs of cavitation
and flow turbulence. It is also reported that the outside
of the pump casing showed signs of heat stress.
Severe flow turbulence, including areas of cavitation
would result from operating the pump with the discharged
blocked, (closed discharge valve). High temperature
would also result from operating in that dead head
condition. It is believed that the combination of severe
turbulence and heat, resulting from running the pump
with the discharge closed, resulted in the impeller failure.