SEPCO Air Seal (SAS)

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

This case study contrasts the SEPCO SAS Air Seal with a traditional contact seal, referred to here as Seal “C,” examining their performance, maintenance requirements, and overall cost implications through real-world customer experiences.


SEPCO SAS Split Seal
SEPCO SAS Split Seal

Introduction

In the demanding industrial sealing environments, selecting the right mechanical seal can significantly influence operational efficiency and long-term cost savings. This case study contrasts the SEPCO SAS Air Seal with a traditional contact seal, referred to here as Seal “C,” examining their performance, maintenance requirements, and overall cost implications through real-world customer experiences.

Overview of Seal Technologies

 

  • SEPCO© SAS Air Seal:
    • Type: Non-contact pneumatic seal.
    • Mechanism: Utilizes air to form a sealing barrier, minimizing wear and tear on shafts/sleeves.
    • Features: Allows for misalignment and axial/radial movement; designed for minimal air usage; typically operates without failure or parts replacement for years.
    • Maintenance: Rarely requires replacement parts; if needed, parts are reasonably priced.
    • Cost-Effectiveness: Lower life-cycle costs due to longevity, reduced air consumption, and infrequent need for replacements.
    • Special Considerations: FDA-compliant versions can be cleaned in place, enhancing suitability for industries requiring stringent hygiene like food and beverage.
  • Seal “C”:
    • Type: Contact air purge seal.
    • Mechanism: Uses air as a spring to press PTFE faces together, resulting in worn parts and potential shaft/sleeve damage.
    • Features: Limited shaft runout capability; significant air consumption.
    • Maintenance: Requires annual rebuilds and frequent replacement of high-cost parts.
    • Cost-Effectiveness: Higher life-cycle costs due to frequent maintenance, expensive repair kits, and shorter operational lifespan.
    • Special Considerations: Product ingress between seal faces can cause contamination; it is unsuitable for clean-in-place procedures.

      SEPCO SAS Installed
      SEPCO SAS Installed

Customer Experiences

  • Transition from Seal “C” to SAS:
    • A customer reported substantial cost savings by switching from Seal “C” to SAS, noting a drastic reduction in maintenance costs. Previously, the customer paid $1,200 for a 4.75-inch solid non-split rebuild kit for Seal “C,” with average costs of around $250 per shaft inch.
  • Spice Industry Application:
    • Another user in the spice industry noted that Seal “C” required replacements every six months due to the high operational speeds, which shortened the seal’s lifespan. After switching to SAS, the customer highlighted significant improvements in durability and cost savings, with an estimated $18K spent on replacing 16 seals over nine months with Seal “C.”
  • Food and Beverage Production:
    • A comparison showed that Seal “C” could not be cleaned in place and often allowed product contamination, a critical issue in food processing. In contrast, SAS seals remained clean and intact, requiring no disassembly and thus avoiding contamination risks.

Conclusion

The SEPCO SAS Air Seal offers superior performance, reliability, and cost-effectiveness compared to traditional contact seals like Seal “C.” By reducing maintenance needs, enhancing operational longevity, and preventing product contamination, SAS Air Seals provide a highly advantageous solution for industries that demand rigorous sealing performance and cleanliness. This transition optimizes operational efficiency and contributes significantly to reducing the overall cost of ownership, making SEPCO© SAS Air Seals a prudent choice in challenging industrial applications.