2/8/12 P egieeig - API .

ANSI
1/3 .eg-i.c/iehead.cf?id=170147
Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Go Find A Form Go
Join
Directory
Search
Tell A Friend
Whitepapers
Jobs
Home > Forums > Nechanical Engineers > Activities > Pump engineering Forum
API vs. ANSI pumps
thread+07-1701+7
curve3104 (Nechanical) 8 Nov
06
12:01
!'m sure this has been addressed previously, but wanted to know if anyone could help me out quickly....
!'m working on a project for a gasolineffuel oil terminal, where fuel is delivered to tanks via a pipeline and pumped from the tanks to tanker trucks
for delivery. We are adding new tanks and pumps. Pumps are located within the emergency containment area, but should operate at ambient
temperatures and no more than 100 psig.
AP! pumps are much more robust and handle higher temperatures and pressures. However, ! have heard that for any hydrocarbon handling, no
matter what the conditions, always use an AP! pump. !s this simply a CYA statement by engineers or is it actually worth the extra cost? Ny
opinion is an ANS! pump will do the job. Any thoughts??
BigInch (Petroleum) 8 Nov
06
13:59
Not to be too funny about this, but do you really think they could sell AP! pumps just 'cause ! wanted to CNyA?
Big!nch -born in the trenches.
http:JJvirtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com
curve3104 (Nechanical) 8 Nov
06
1+:09
Being an engineer myself, ! like to CNyA sometimes. But, in this case, ! think it's a little extreme. ! am hoping to get some opinions from others to
confirm that, or learn something that will change my mind. ! don't want our client paying 3-+ times the cost unless it is going to benefit them.
Also, !'ve worked previously in sales and you would be amazed at the marketing tactics to attract engineers to buy a product.
BigInch (Petroleum) 8 Nov
06
1+:5+
OK. But just remember its comparing apples to oranges and you usually get what you pay for... or don't.
For lo press, lo temp, non-critical services, non-hazardous substances, lo stress conditons, ! don't see anything wrong with using ANS! pumps. For
critical services, ! wouldn't touch one with a 1f2 joint of pipe. With AP!s, you know what you're going to get before you open the box.
See your company spec. As you note, some project or company specs simply require AP! for any and all hydrocarbon service.

Big!nch -born in the trenches.
http:JJvirtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

Magnm Machine Tools
Suppliers-Press Brakes, Guillotines Plate rolls & Flanging Machines
www.magnummachinetools.co.a
Shae Thi
2/8/12 P egieeig - API . ANSI
2/3 .eg-i.c/iehead.cf?id=170147
TenPenn (Nechanical) 8 Nov
06
1+:56
! have been involved in two truck loading rack projects in the past two years. On one, located at a marine terminal, ANS! pumps were used,
worked well, delivery was great, customer pleased. On the other, which happend to be located on the refinery property, AP! pumps were used,
cost a whole lot more, delivery was longer, pumps work great.
!n my opinion, if you can go with ANS! pumps, do so. There is no compelling reason to go with AP! on such a simple application.
bingopin (Nechanical) 8 Nov
06
15:38
The low temp, low pressure conditions suggest an ANS! will do fine. ! would look at the "ANS! plus" features including big bore boxes and
improved l3fd+ shaft ratios. ! believe the installed cost delta is greater than the 3x to +x mentioned.
Artisi
(Nechanical) 9
Nov
06
3:56
Both will do the job, so will a couple of bucket. !t really comes down to the risk you wish to take, AP! are designed for hydrocarbon handling where
as ANS! are designed for chemical process. Sure, AP! are a lot more expensive and it would be in your interests to assertain why this is so by
looking carefully at the differences in design and then make an informed engineering decision in conjunction with a designer of hydrocarbon
handling installations, your insurance underwriters and probably any local authority having juristiction over industrial installations.
Phitsanulok
Thailand
hbw (Nechanical) 20
Nar
07
1+:09
ANS! pumps are available in ductile iron, stainless steel and other alloys. They are not available in carbon steel. Hydrocarbons, especially
gasoline, should not be handled in iron pumps. They will crack in the event of fire. AP! pumps are primarily available in carbon steel casings
which can endure fire exposure without cracking. AP! pumps should be used for gasoline. !t is a safety thing.
curve3104 (Nechanical) 20
Nar
07
16:32
! agree with the safety aspect. !t is traditional that refinerty operations use AP! pumps just because of that reason. However, a fueling terminal is
not at high risk for fires. !n most cases, the pump suction can be (and is most likely part of the operation) isolated by an automated control
valve. !f you had a fire, the fuel supply to the pump will be shut off. ! could be speaking out of turn, but ! don't believe !'ve ever heard of a fuel
terminal catching fire...at least not on a scale to produce a catastrophic failure in equipment.
stanier (Nechanical) 20
Nar
07
16:57
Perhaps you should look at the whole of life costs.
The purchase price represents a very small number in the life of a piece of plant. The AP! pump will prove more reliable and will be available for
longer times ie reduced NTBF. Ths requiring fewer maintenance resources.
What is the cost of the plant not being available? Would one incident over shadow the perceived difference in cost?
As an engineer ! start with the aim to provide the client with the best 8 safest technology available. Then ! expend time and energy looking at
lesser quality solutions to see if they can be justified. Project managers and procrement people tend t want to go straight for the cheapest solution
and get me to justify their desires to keep costs at the lowest point. They rarely have the skills to engineer things or look at the overall costs.
Engineers go to jail for their mistakes project managers just miss out on their bonus.
Specify the AP! pumps. !f the client wants a lesser pump then do his bidding providing that you make him or her fully aware of the risks or
consequences. Nake sure their is a HAZOP done and document the clients decision to go with the lesser pump.
2/8/12 P egieeig - API . ANSI
3/3 .eg-i.c/iehead.cf?id=170147
Yes you need to CMYA for in today's world there is no where to hide from the judicary. They hold the view that if the technology exists to make the
workplace safer it should be employed.
Geoffrey D Stone FIMechE C.Eng;FIEAust CP Eng
www.waterhammer.bigblog.com.au
TenPenn (Mechanical) 20
Mar
07
19:15
"ANSI pumps are available in ductile iron, stainless steel and other alloys. They are not available in carbon steel. Hydrocarbons, especially
gasoline, should not be handled in iron pumps. They will crack in the event of fire. API pumps are primarily available in carbon steel casings
which can endure fire exposure without cracking. API pumps should be used for gasoline. It is a safety thing."
ANSI pumps most certainly ARE available in carbon steel if you want them that way. From reputable pump manufacturers, at least.
curve3104 (Mechanical) 21
Mar
07
9:05
The client did request ANSI, therefore it is our job to confirm that will be acceptable (which we have, and it is).
checman (Mechanical) 21
Mar
07
13:02
I have worked with many fuel terminals in the past. Most all not attached to a refinery have used ANSI pumps. One that did use API pumps that
comes to mind was built when a company was flush with cash but they could not afford to overhaul the pumps 15 years later. Even a stainless
steel pump that would not crack in a fire would be more cost effective than an API pump. Some safety upgrades like a disaster bushing on the seal
gland can be purchased on an ANSI pump.
Join | Jobs | Advertise | About Us | Contact Us | Site Policies
Copyright 1998-2012 Tecumseh Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without express written permission.
Bole Filling Eqipmen
Leading South African Manufacturer. Contact us now for a quotation!
www.filtec.co.a