Record the reason for opening the pump<\/h2>\n
Before dismantling, collect the operating complaint and available maintenance history. Was the concern leakage, contamination, recurring packing problems or damage discovered during a planned overhaul? Record what was actually observed, when it occurred and which operating conditions were present. A general statement that the pump performed badly is not enough to connect an internal finding to the original problem.<\/p>\n
Check whether the pump has undergone previous repairs or a seal conversion. An old drawing may no longer represent the installed configuration. Ask for repair reports, replacement part records and approved modifications, then identify any mismatch for review. Do not force the recovered parts to match an obsolete document by silently changing the inspection description.<\/p>\n
Separate the inspection objective from a presumed diagnosis. Finding a worn bushing does not prove that it caused every reported symptom. Keep the operating evidence and dimensional evidence together, but allow the reviewer to decide whether other components or operating conditions also need attention.<\/p>\n Apply the site’s isolation, depressurization, draining and decontamination procedure before opening the equipment. Record the original component positions and any visible retention method before disturbing them. Use the approved removal procedure and tools. Do not strike or pry against a precision location simply because the bushing is difficult to move.<\/p>\n If packing or a lantern ring is present, record the recovered arrangement and preserve the identity of the removed components. Do not assume that the old arrangement was correct merely because the pump had operated with it. It is evidence to compare with the drawing, not an automatic assembly instruction for the replacement parts.<\/p>\n The Fluid Sealing Association’s Compression Packing Handbook<\/a> is a useful reference for understanding packing-system installation and component relationships. It provides general context; the supplied pump documentation remains the source for the actual bushing design and acceptance limits.<\/p>\n Document the as-found condition before cleaning. Then use the approved cleaning method and inspect the surfaces under adequate light. Look for scoring, uneven wear, damaged edges, corrosion, deposits, cracks or evidence of movement at the outer location. State where each feature appears and attach photographs that preserve orientation.<\/p>\n Inspect the mating shaft or sleeve over the relevant length. A measurement of the bushing alone cannot establish the complete running relationship. Record the condition of the housing location and retention features as well. If a part appears to have moved or rotated where it should have remained fixed, preserve that evidence for engineering review before attempting a repair.<\/p>\n The OISD inspection guidance hosted by ISPRL<\/a> includes pump-component inspection tasks. Use it as a reminder to inspect connected components rather than treating the removed bush in isolation. It does not establish that one clearance or retention method applies to every BorraPumps model.<\/p>\n Use suitable, identified measuring equipment and record the measurement conditions. Measure the relevant internal diameter at more than one orientation and axial position where the geometry permits. Measure the mating outside diameter at the corresponding locations. Keep the raw readings, not just an average that could hide uneven wear or a localized defect.<\/p>\n For a simple cylindrical pair, the measured diametral gap is the bushing inside diameter minus the mating outside diameter. That arithmetic describes a measurement relationship, not an allowable clearance. Record whether the drawing specifies a diametral or radial value, and keep units consistent. A radial specification must not be compared directly with a diametral measurement.<\/p>\n As a purely arithmetic example, subtracting a 50.00 mm measured outside diameter from a 50.30 mm measured inside diameter gives a 0.30 mm diametral gap. This example is not a recommended fit, a BorraPumps specification or a release limit. Actual acceptance requires the correct component drawing, measurement method and authorized wear criteria.<\/p>\n The table below separates the evidence to record from the decision that still needs equipment-specific criteria. It should be completed alongside the approved drawing and inspection procedure.<\/p>\n The general sources above support a systematic inspection approach. They do not supply missing acceptance values. If the drawing, material or wear criterion is unavailable, retain the measurements and refer the item for review rather than inventing a pass result.<\/p>\n A throat bush inspection should not replace inspection of the sleeve, packing space or other associated parts. Record whether visible damage lines up with a worn sleeve area or another recovered component. If the findings suggest an assembly or movement problem, preserve the relationship before the parts are cleaned, mixed or sent to separate workshops.<\/p>\n For the sleeve itself, use the complementary pump shaft sleeve inspection guide<\/a>. For the wider sealing arrangement, see mechanical seal versus gland packing<\/a>. These components require their own identification and criteria even when they are inspected during the same overhaul.<\/p>\n![\"ISW](\"https:\/\/borrapumps.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/borra-realistic-20261016-img-012.webp\")
Preserve the assembly evidence during removal<\/h2>\n
Inspect the cleaned part and its mating surfaces<\/h2>\n
Measure the relationship, not just one diameter<\/h2>\n
![\"CYZ-A](\"https:\/\/borrapumps.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/borra-realistic-20261016-img-019.webp\")
Use observations to support a clear decision<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n \nInspection area<\/th>\n Evidence to record<\/th>\n Decision needed<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Component identity<\/td>\n Part number, drawing item and original position<\/td>\n Does the part match the installed configuration?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Running surfaces<\/td>\n Bore and mating-surface readings by position<\/td>\n Are dimensions within the specified limits?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Wear pattern<\/td>\n Location, direction and photographs<\/td>\n Is further shaft or alignment investigation needed?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Outer location<\/td>\n Fit condition and evidence of movement<\/td>\n Is the housing location acceptable?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Retention<\/td>\n Condition of the specified locating or locking features<\/td>\n Can the approved retention arrangement be restored?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Passages or grooves<\/td>\n Identified features and obstruction evidence<\/td>\n Is cleaning or further review required?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Final disposition<\/td>\n Reuse, replacement or approved repair reference<\/td>\n Who has authorized release?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n Distinguish neighboring component problems<\/h2>\n