Case Study: Evaluating the Long-Term Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of SEPCO SAS Air Seals

 Choosing the right sealing solution is critical for efficiency and cost savings in tough industrial settings. This case study compares the SEPCO SAS Air Seal with a traditional contact seal (Seal “C”), highlighting performance, maintenance, and cost benefits based on real customer experiences.

Seal Technology Comparison

• Type: Non-contact pneumatic seal
  
• How It Works: Uses air to create a sealing barrier, reducing wear on shafts/sleeves

• Key Features: Handles misalignment and movement, low air usage, lasts years without failure

• Maintenance: Rarely needs parts; affordable replacements

  Cost Benefits: Lower long-term costs due to durability and minimal upkeep

• Special Note: FDA-compliant versions support clean-in-place for food and beverage industries

Seal “C” (Traditional Contact Seal)

• Type: Contact air purge seal

• How It Works: Air presses PTFE faces together, causing wear and potential shaft damage

• Key Features: Limited movement tolerance, high air consumption

• Maintenance: Needs annual rebuilds and costly part replacements

• Cost Benefits: Higher costs due to frequent maintenance and shorter lifespan

• Special Note: Prone to contamination; not suitable for clean-in-place processes

Real-World Results

• Switching to SAS: One customer saved significantly by replacing Seal “C” with SAS, cutting maintenance costs. Seal “C” rebuild kits cost $1,200 for a 4.75-inch seal (~$250 per shaft inch).

• Spice Industry: Seal “C” failed every six months due to high speeds, costing $18,000 to replace 16 seals in nine months. SAS improved durability and slashed expenses.
• Food & Beverage: Seal “C” allowed contamination and couldn’t be cleaned in place, unlike SAS, which stayed clean and contamination-free without disassembly.