Basis of Presentation and Accounting Policies	6 Months Ended
Basis of Presentation and Accounting Policies	Jun. 30, 2011
Basis of Presentation and Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Basis of Presentation and Accounting Policies	1. Basis of Presentation and Accounting Policies Basis of Presentation The accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2011, the related condensed consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, of Flowserve Corporation, are unaudited. In management’s opinion, all adjustments comprising normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of such condensed consolidated financial statements have been made. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements and notes in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 (“Quarterly Report”) are presented as permitted by Regulation S-X and do not contain certain information included in our annual financial statements and notes thereto. Accordingly, the accompanying condensed consolidated financial information should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements presented in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (“2010 Annual Report”). Ongoing Events in North Africa, Middle East and Japan – Ongoing political and economic conditions in North Africa have caused us to experience shipment delays to this region. We estimate that the shipments to this region that have been delayed resulted in lost or delayed opportunities for operating income of $2.5 million and $5.1 million for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively. We are closely monitoring the conditions in the Middle East and North Africa and, while there are many potential outcomes in each individual country that are difficult to estimate, based on current facts and circumstances as we understand them, it is possible that delayed shipments and bookings could continue throughout the remainder of the year. If the current conditions in North Africa persist, we estimate that the unfavorable impact on bookings through the end of 2011 could approximate $25 million. The preponderance of our physical assets in the region are located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and have, to date, not been affected by the unrest elsewhere in the region. We continue to assess the conditions and potential adverse impacts of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan earlier in the year, in particular as they relate to our customers and suppliers in the impacted regions, as well as announced and potential regulatory impacts to the global nuclear power market. We did not experience any significant adverse impacts due to shipment delays, collection issues or supply chain disruptions during the first half of 2011; however, we have experienced a small amount of lost or delayed bookings in the region in the second quarter and anticipate we could continue to experience lost or delayed bookings in the region through the end of 2011. We are also closely monitoring the effects of the Japan crisis on the global nuclear power industry. While it is difficult to estimate the effect of the Fukushima plant shutdown on the global nuclear power market, we believe that there has been a related reduction in orders in the second quarter that could continue throughout 2011, which may affect both bookings and sales in the second half of 2011. Venezuela – As previously disclosed in our 2009 and 2010 Annual Reports, effective January 11, 2010, the Venezuelan government devalued its currency (Bolivar) and moved to a two-tier exchange structure. The official exchange rate moved from 2.15 to 4.30 Bolivars to the United States (“U.S.”) dollar for non-essential items and to 2.60 Bolivars to the U.S. dollar for essential items. Additionally, effective January 1, 2010, Venezuela was designated as hyperinflationary, and as a result, we began to use the U.S. dollar as our functional currency in Venezuela. On December 30, 2010, the Venezuelan government announced its intention to eliminate the favorable essential items rate effective January 1, 2011. Our operations in Venezuela generally consist of a service center that both imports equipment and parts from certain of our other locations for resale to third parties within Venezuela and performs service and repair activities. Our Venezuelan subsidiary’s sales for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 and total assets at June 30, 2011 represented approximately 1% or less of our consolidated sales and total assets for the same periods. Although approvals by Venezuela’s Commission for the Administration of Foreign Exchange have slowed, we have historically been able to remit dividends and other payments at the official rate, and we currently anticipate doing so in the future. Accordingly, we used the official rate of 4.30 Bolivars to the U.S. dollar for re-measurement of our Venezuelan financial statements into U.S. dollars for all periods presented. As a result of the currency devaluation, we recognized a net loss of $8.6 million during the six months ended June 30, 2010. The loss was reported in other income (expense), net in our condensed consolidated statement of income and resulted in no tax benefit. The elimination of the favorable essential items rate, effective January 1, 2011, had no impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. We have evaluated the carrying value of related assets and concluded that there is no current impairment. We are continuing to assess and monitor the ongoing impact of the currency devaluation on our Venezuelan operations and imports into the market, including the Venezuelan subsidiary’s ability to remit cash for dividends and other payments at the official rate, the future ability of our imported products to be classified as essential items and the ability to recover exchange losses, as well as further actions of the Venezuelan government and economic conditions in Venezuela that may adversely impact our future consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Accounting Policies Effective January 1, 2011, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements — a consensus of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Emerging Issues Task Force,” which resulted in expanded disclosure requirements regarding our revenue recognition policy (see “Revenue Recognition” below). Our adoption of ASU No. 2009-13, effective January 1, 2011, had no impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Except for the incremental revenue recognition policy disclosure included below, no other changes have occurred to our significant accounting policies in the six months ended June 30, 2011. Our significant accounting policies are detailed in Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in our 2010 Annual Report. Revenue Recognition Revenues for product sales are recognized when the risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the customers, which is typically based on the contractual delivery terms agreed to with the customer and fulfillment of all but inconsequential or perfunctory actions. In addition, our policy requires persuasive evidence of an arrangement, a fixed or determinable sales price and reasonable assurance of collectability. We defer the recognition of revenue when advance payments are received from customers before performance obligations have been completed and/or services have been performed. Freight charges billed to customers are included in sales and the related shipping costs are included in cost of sales in our condensed consolidated statements of income. Our contracts typically include cancellation provisions that require customers to reimburse us for costs incurred up to the date of cancellation, as well as any contractual cancellation penalties. We enter into certain contracts with multiple deliverables that may include any combination of designing, developing, manufacturing, modifying, installing and commissioning of flow management equipment and providing services related to the performance of such products. Delivery of these products and services typically occurs within a one to two-year period, although many arrangements, such as “book and ship” type orders, have a shorter timeframe for delivery. We aggregate or separate deliverables into units of accounting based on whether the deliverable(s) have standalone value to the customer and when no general right of return exists. Contract value is allocated ratably to the units of accounting in the arrangement based on their relative selling prices determined as if the deliverables were sold separately. Revenues for long-term contracts, including separate units of accounting from multiple-deliverable contracts, that exceed certain internal thresholds regarding the size, complexity and duration of the project and provide for the receipt of progress billings from the customer are recorded on the percentage of completion method with progress measured on a cost-to-cost basis. Percentage of completion revenue represented approximately 8% of our consolidated sales for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Revenue on service and repair contracts is recognized after services have been agreed to by the customer and rendered. Revenues generated under fixed fee service and repair contracts are recognized on a ratable basis over the term of the contract. These contracts can range in duration, but generally extend for up to five years. Revenue on fixed fee service contracts represented approximately 1% of our consolidated sales for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. In certain instances, we provide guaranteed completion dates under the terms of our contracts. Failure to meet contractual delivery dates can result in late delivery penalties or non-recoverable costs. In instances where the payment of such costs are deemed to be probable, we perform a project profitability analysis, accounting for such costs as a reduction of realizable revenues, which could potentially cause estimated total project costs to exceed projected total revenues realized from the project. In such instances, we would record reserves to cover such excesses in the period they are determined. In circumstances where the total projected revenues still exceed total projected costs, the incurrence of unrealized incentive fees or non-recoverable costs generally reduces profitability of the project at the time of subsequent revenue recognition. Our reported results would change if different estimates were used for contract costs or if different estimates were used for contractual contingencies. Accounting Developments *Pronouncements Implemented* In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” which requires additional disclosures on transfers in and out of Level I and Level II and on activity for Level III fair value measurements. The new disclosures and clarifications of existing disclosures are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures of Level III activity, which are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Our adoption of the Level I and II disclosure guidance, effective January 1, 2010, and Level III disclosure guidance, effective January 1, 2011, had no material impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In September 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (ASC 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements — a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force,” which addresses the accounting for multiple-deliverable arrangements to enable vendors to account for products or services separately rather than as a combined unit and requires expanded revenue recognition policy disclosures. This amendment addresses how to separate deliverables and how to measure and allocate arrangement consideration to one or more units of accounting. As noted above, our adoption of ASU No. 2009-13, effective January 1, 2011, had no impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-28, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (ASC 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts — a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force,” which modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. This amendment requires an entity to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists and to consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. Our adoption of ASU No. 2010-28, effective January 1, 2011, had no impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-29, “Business Combinations (ASC 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations — a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force,” which specifies that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. This amendment also expands the supplemental pro forma disclosures under ASC 805 to include a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. Our adoption of ASU No. 2010-29, effective January 1, 2011, had no material impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. *Pronouncements Not Yet Implemented* In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (ASC 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income,” which specifies that an entity has the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. This amendment requires an entity to present on the face of the financial statements reclassification adjustments for items that are reclassified from other comprehensive income to net income. ASU No. 2011-05 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. We do not expect the adoption of ASU No. 2011-05 to have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations. The presentation and disclosure requirements shall be applied retrospectively for all periods presented.