I agree with Abdul.The reason being: for static equipments,if we go in by meeting numbers,we in many cases will have to resort to slide plates, however, if we go in by the design by analysis route, where we may even go in for plastic analysis, this type of requirement( i.e. usage of slide plates) in many cases will not be required.

However with rotary equipments, there is no design by analysis route ( as least not known to me) and the issue is casing distortion and misalignment, hence very small numbers.Even though friction has a transient nature ,the momentary high loads during startup and shutdown also can create high loads which can result in casing distortion and shaft misalignment.However, I have a gut feeling ( I love to use the phrase for something which I cannot prove by mathematics or by experiments) that this momentary loading may not be contributing much to the alignment and distortion problem unless it is very high. However we have to follow the numbers mentioned in the standard as these equipments are highly strain sensitive. Personally I try to give more importance due to piping-pump misalignment related problems.

I have seen some consultancies follow the practise of not using friction ( in the analysis as well as non usage of pad ) at the first few supports close to pumps. They have an argument, coefficient of kinetic friction is a function of sliding velocity and drops down as the velocity increases. There will be some amount of vibration close to pumps and this will incresae the sliding velocity at supports thereby lowering the coefficient even further. I don't know how good this argument is.

In WRC 449,it is recommended that even if we are using low coefficient of friction at anti friction pads, the actual value of mu that should be used in analysis should be some percentage higher than the vendor recommended.

Best Regards