PUMPS, VALVES & SEALS


SEALS: SMALL, BUT MIGHTY


Tyler Monzel, Global Product Manager – Sealing Systems, Greene Tweed, says operators facing pressure to improve uptime, reduce emissions and extend maintenance intervals, need reliable sealing technology for use in all process conditions


F


or process operators and equipment engineers, seal selection has become a lifecycle reliability decision rather than a component-level purchasing choice. That broader responsibility is becoming urgent


as aggressive process conditions push equipment beyond traditional limits.


Industrial valve systems now face exceptional demands. Higher pressures, wider temperature swings, aggressive chemicals, hydrogen transport, carbon capture and efficiency targets are reshaping sealing expectations. Even minor leaks can carry major commercial, environmental and safety consequences.


This shift is changing the engineering conversation. Instead of evaluating seals primarily on upfront equipment or installation cost, operators increasingly need to assess total cost of ownership, including maintenance frequency, unplanned downtime, emissions exposure and long-term asset reliability. The challenge is acute across severe-service valves, pumps and compressors operating in energy, petrochemical, offshore and hydrogen applications. Equipment is exposed to conditions that push traditional elastomeric materials, including NBR and FKM, beyond their design limits. These materials were not designed for supercritical CO2, hydrogen permeation, deepwater pressure profiles or aggressive chemical streams. As operators adapt process equipment for new applications, sealing systems must withstand pressure cycling, chemical exposure, decompression events and media permeation in combination, not as isolated conditions. Long-term equipment performance depends on how sealing materials behave across the full operating envelope, including abnormal and transient events.


A seal may perform as expected at installation yet fail prematurely after prolonged exposure to swelling, thermal hardening, chemical degradation or compression set. In severe-service applications, the lower upfront cost of a conventional material can quickly be outweighed by replacement labour, intervention costs, production loss and compliance exposure. The problem is accelerated in hydrogen infrastructure, carbon capture projects and offshore


28


developments. Hydrogen is especially demanding because its small molecular size combined with extreme operating conditions intensifies permeation, pressure cycling and rapid gas decompression challenges. During decompression, hydrogen trapped within the elastomer expands rapidly as pressure falls, potentially causing blistering, cracking and seal failure. This becomes a severe issue in hydrogen and supercritical CO2 applications, where gas molecules can permeate deeply into sealing materials under pressure. If the material structure cannot tolerate that expansion, the seal fails from within.


The challenge is not limited to elastomeric seals.


In hydrogen pressure-relief systems, thermoplastic valve seats can creep over time, compromising sealing integrity. To address this, one engineering solutions company replaced legacy seat materials with Greene Tweed’s cross-linked PEEK polymer, Arlon 3000XT, which has maintained leak-tight performance above 20,000 psi and demonstrated 40 percent lower creep compared with conventional PEEK grades. Traditional material selection practices are no longer sufficient for severe-service environments. For seals in critical energy and process applications, nominal conditions alone rarely reflect real service exposure. Abnormal process conditions often create transient extremes that determine seal life. This is particularly problematic in valve systems,


where operators often specify seals according to steady-state conditions while underestimating transient events. A seal that tolerates standard operating temperatures may fail during startup cycles, shutdown sequences or pressure excursions that exceed its thermal or decompression limits. These conditions also have consequences


PROCESS & CONTROL ENGINEERING | SEPTEMBER 2026


beyond the seal itself. Fugitive emissions requirements and broader ESG commitments are forcing operators to reconsider leakage across process systems, which can create exposure to penalties, remediation costs, production disruption and reputational risk. That makes high-integrity sealing a risk-management decision. Historically, many facilities treated minor leakage as a maintenance issue to be managed reactively. Increasingly, operators view it as a design failure that should be engineered out of the system. Sealing technology represents the front line of emissions control in valves, pumps and compressors. Without high-integrity sealing systems, methane reduction targets or hydrogen containment strategies become difficult to achieve. Today, operators are evaluating sealing systems according to lifecycle performance rather than initial purchase cost alone. Seals must be judged by the risk they remove over the life of the asset, from unplanned maintenance and production loss to emissions exposure and system reliability.


High-performance FFKM compounds, advanced PEEK composites and engineered thermoplastics are specified where operators need extended maintenance intervals, lower leakage rates and reliability under severe conditions. Recent material development reinforces this shift


toward application-specific sealing performance. In high-pressure gas systems, seal reliability is often determined not by steady-state conditions but by how materials respond to pressure excursions and decompression events. Greene Tweed’s Fusion 938 was developed for these demanding environments, providing rapid gas decompression resistance for compressors, valves and pumps while meeting ISO 23936-2 standards. Its development reflects a broader industry trend toward elastomer compounds engineered around specific failure mechanisms and service conditions, helping operators improve reliability and better manage lifecycle risk.


Greene Tweed www.gtweed.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44