Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2013
July 14-18, 2013, Paris, France

PVP2013-97814

Improved Analysis of External Loads on Flanged Joints

Warren Brown
Integrity Engineering Solutions
Dunsborough, Western Australia
wbrown@integrityes.com

ABSTRACT external loads and results in an under-loaded gasket, by

External loads on bolted flanged joints must be assessed
in order to be in compliance with ASME and other
international pressure vessel and piping codes. However, in
the case of the ASME B31.3 piping code or ASME VIII,
Division 1 pressure vessel code, there is not specific guidance
on how to assess these loads. This has created a situation
where piping designers have employed a variety of methods,
ranging from very conservative to possibly non-conservative.
A review of historical joint external load experiments is made
in this paper, which highlights the relatively low risk of joint
leakage due to external loads. In addition, an improved
method of assessing the acceptability of external loads for any
given joint is introduced and compared to both test results and
existing assessment methods. The method presented is based
on probability of leakage for standard piping joints using the
method outlined in Appendix O of ASME PCC-1 [1]. This
allows, in some cases, a much higher acceptable load than
typically employed when using traditional methods such as the
Equivalent Pressure method. By allowing higher external
loads, it is possible to reduce the footprint of a process unit,
which saves money, while maintaining safety.
INTRODUCTION
The effects of external loads on joint integrity can be
summarized with the following statement: “with the exception
of joints at high temperature, external forces and bending
moments will have little effect on the integrity of a properly
assembled joint until the loads exceed normal piping
allowable design stress levels”. The more significant effect is
where an external load is applied during assembly, which
requires some of the bolt load to go into overcoming the
comparison to the aligned joint case. If the external loads are
reacted by external means (alignment pins, chain-blocks,
hydraulic alignment tools, etc…) then once the joint is
assembled to the appropriate bolt stress, upon release of the
external means of alignment, the residual external bending
moments will have little effect on the joint integrity.
However, this does not mean that allowing high levels of
external load on joints is a good idea. At the design phase it is
prudent to limit the external loads on a joint due to the fact
that not all joints are properly assembled and the design piping
loads are often increased in the field due to underestimation of
pipe or insulation weight, or fabrication tolerances and fit-up
issues. In addition, forcing the piping designer to consider
(and limit) external loads on bolted joints encourages good
piping layout practice (e.g.: not using the joint as the base for
a cantilever that supports the entire piping system, for
example). Without conservative limits on allowable joint
external loads, the piping designer is allowed to resort to poor
piping layout practices.
So the selection of an appropriate method for assessing
the effect of piping bending moments and external loads
during the design phase becomes a task in trying to set a limit
that encourages good piping design, but is not so conservative
so as to require a significant increase in the number of piping
supports or expansion loops. This paper examines previous
test results and existing methods of assessing the effect of
external loads. In order to address limitations in current
approaches, a new method of assessing the maximum

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 acceptable level of external loads is outlined. The method
results in a simple modification to the Equivalent Force
method that is easily incorporating into piping and flange
design procedures. The goal is to demonstrate an approach
that can be applied industry wide, or specifically tailored on a
custom basis for each site or project by taking into
consideration not only the actual operating conditions of the
piping system, but also the gasket selection and joint assembly
parameters used. The level of conservatism of the method can
be adjusted, in order to suit the risk profile versus design
optimization goals of a project or site.
BACKGROUND
There have been many tests conducted to determine the
maximum acceptable bending moment or external load that
may be applied to a joint prior to leakage occurring. Table 1
outlines a summary of several joint leakage tests that have
been performed on varying sizes and classes of standard
piping joints. It can be seen that the majority of tests did not
record any increase in leakage with applied bending moments,
even though the applied moment was often in excess of 50%
of pipe yield (well above the allowable piping design bending
moment). In the cases where leakage was recorded, either the
joint was purposefully assembled with a very low assembly
bolt load and/or the applied internal pressure was in excess of
twice the rated flange pressure.
The reason why the bending moment has little effect on
the sealing of the joint is that the flanges act to smooth the
reduction in load over the gasket perimeter, as the flange must
bend prior to coming out of contact with the gasket. In the
traditional treatment of external loads (Equivalent Force or
Equivalent Pressure) outlined in Koves [2], the force-balance
is performed assuming a rigid flange and that the outer bolts
transfer the entire load. In the updated methods used in ASME
VIII, Div. 2 [3] and outlined in Koves [2] and Koves [4], the
deformation of the flange in spreading the reaction of the
external load around the bolt circumference is included.
A comparison of different methods of analysis of external
loads as shown in Koves [3] indicates that the Equivalent
Pressure method is very conservative when used within
ASME VIII, Div. 1 flange analysis. This is due to the double
effect of the equivalent pressure acting as a force in the
equation and also being applied to the stress required to seal
the gasket via the “m” factor. If the same equation is used, but
it is applied as a force only (i.e.: the Equivalent Force method)
then the method is less conservative than the Equivalent
Pressure method, but still quite conservative by comparison to
test data. Since it incorporates flange deformation, the Koves
method, which was incorporated in ASME VIII, Div 2 is even
less conservative.
Prior to the Koves work, a study that recognized much of
the limitations of the traditional methods and included
examination of joint leakage tests was performed by
2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Rodabaugh [5]. The methods employed in that study
incorporated the effects of mechanical interaction to establish
the amount of conservatism for traditional methods such as the
Equivalent Pressure method. It was identified that there was
significant conservatism in the traditional methods and an
alternative method was proposed based on the bolt and flange
strength. That method was incorporated into ASME III,
Subsection NC [6] as NC-3658.3.
In addition, more recent studies have shown that the effect
of external loads can be accurately confirmed with FEA and
that prediction of leakage, which is found to be proportional to
gasket deformation, can be achieved (Takagi [7]). However, it
is typically impractical to rely on FEA for general piping
design.
EXAMPLE CASE
To illustrate the significance of some of these limitations
on existing methods, an actual joint leakage case caused by
bending moments will be examined. In this case, a NPS 26, cl.
300, ASME B16.47 Series B flange leaked after only a few
months in operation at around 510°C (950°F). An analysis of
the piping system and joint indicated that a severe bending
moment was present at the joint. An outline of the FEA model
used and the analysis results obtained for this case are shown
in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In this case, if the residual pressure
between the operating pressure and the flange rating is
translated into an allowable moment using the Equivalent
Pressure method, then the allowable bending moment is only
around 5% of the operating pipe yield. At the other end of the
spectrum, the allowable moment in accordance with NC-
3658.3 is equal to 26% of ambient pipe yield. The actual
applied load which caused the leakage was about 20% of
ambient pipe yield.
The NC-3658.3 method is not conservative in this case,
since it is coupled to material yield and therefore doesn’t
consider the effects of creep/relaxation on the likelihood of
joint leakage. This is acceptable in the context of ASME III
Subsection NC, since design in the creep range is not allowed.
This example highlights the risk with applying the ASME III
approach to other codes of construction. Conversely, the
Equivalent Pressure method is tied to the flange rating, which
does consider the effects of creep, due to the significantly
reduced flange rated pressures once creep/relaxation becomes
significant. This reduction is shown in Fig. 3, where the flange
rating reduction ratio is plotted in addition to the material
yield reduction ratio for grade 1.1 material. It can be seen that
the flange pressure rating reduces rapidly once creep becomes
significant (around 750°F). However, even in this example
case where leakage occurred, the Equivalent Pressure method
still appears overly conservative (under-predicting the leakage
moment by a factor of 4).
In this example, the cause of the leakage was found to be
that the applied piping sustained load was excessive due to the
 original design not considering bending moment limits on the
joint (resulting in twice the Equivalent Pressure limit being
applied, per a later piping assessment). In addition, the piping
insulation became wet in the field and doubled the piping
sustained load case (resulting in a further doubling of the
weight load). From this example, it can be seen that it is
important to consider creep relaxation when looking at
allowable bending moments and that external piping loads at
the design stage should be set conservatively, as they can
easily be exceeded in the field by unforeseen circumstances.
It is noted that as a high temperature joint, this case is
more susceptible to external loads than normal piping systems,
but this raises the question of what level of conservatism is
appropriate at the design stage. A more conservative method
such as using the Equivalent Force method to determine the
joint bending moment limit by taking the remaining pressure
between the flange rating and the line operating pressure has
generally been found to be acceptable and has found good
usage and successful operational history within industry. This
method is generally found to be workable in most piping
design scenarios, however on occasion it will force the piping
designer to employ the next pressure class of flange (cl.300 in
a nominal cl.150 system, for example). However, this will be
to the benefit of the operational integrity of the system. It
should also be kept in mind that it is easier to rectify leakage
issues at the design stage, rather than once the plant is
operational.
However, using the Equivalent Force method will result
in a more complex and costly plant. The higher the complexity
of the plant, then the more potential there is for maintenance
costs and longer term operating problems which may impact
safety. For example, piping spring hangers are a maintenance
item, which may cause joint leakage if they fail. Therefore
reducing the number of spring hangers used in a piping system
will positively impact system maintainability and safety in the
longer term.
With all of the above analysis methods and test results, it
should be remembered that they are based upon the “perfect
joint” scenario, where the assembly is monitored, the flanges
are aligned, flat and in good condition. All of these additional
factors that act to reduce the achieved gasket stress will come
into play in the actual field case and they will reduce the
margin of tolerance that the joints have for external loads. In
addition, sustained external loads will act to increase the
amount of gasket relaxation that occurs (particularly at higher
temperatures). Therefore, while a joint may see no leakage in
a laboratory experiment for a given applied moment, this does
not mean that the same joint in the field would not relax over
time under the influence of the moment and eventually leak.
The ability of joints to withstand very high external loads in
the perfectly assembled condition is proven, so this is more a
case of finding the balance between sufficient conservatism at
3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
the design stage and allowing sufficient tolerance between the
imposed limit and the actual system integrity limit in order to
ensure that the other operational, fabrication and assembly
variables that act to reduce the design limit do not result in
system integrity being compromised. In summary, it is
possible to demonstrate that the joint will take significant
external loads, however, the question that should be asked is:
“given the other variables that come into play with assuring
joint integrity, what is an acceptable level of external load at
the piping system design stage?”.
PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT APPROACHES
If the ASME III approach is applied to other applications,
then it must be ensured that the applicability limits of ASME
III (particularly at high temperature) are recognized. In
addition, it should be recognized that the ASME III limits are
applied to the piping analysis cases used in the nuclear
industry, which are potentially significantly more conservative
than the load cases and combinations used in other industries.
Therefore it is likely that if the ASME III approach is applied
in another context it may well not be conservative. In addition,
it is based only on the flange and bolt strength and therefore
neglects the likelihood of joint leakage, which should be
assessed based on gasket stress levels. It also neglects any
advantage associated with the joint operating at a pressure
lower than the rated pressure (since the external load limits are
established without consideration of the operating pressure).
However, offsetting that advantage is the potential for needing
to redo the piping assessment if the system design pressure is
increased at a later date.
The use of the Equivalent Pressure or Equivalent Force
methods is likely to result in a very conservative limit being
established, which will result in unnecessary complexity in the
piping system. The approach outlined in ASME VIII, Div 2
uses the Equivalent Force method to establish the required bolt
area for the joint and then the Koves method to determine the
effect of the external loads on the flange stresses. In those
methods, the effects of mechanical interaction are neglected.
This is a significant oversight, since depending on the joint
component relative stiffness, the bolt load may not change,
may reduce or may increase as the bending moment is applied.
In simple terms, the flange system has three loads acting on it
once the external loads are applied (Fig. 4). As the external
loads are applied, the gasket load is reduced and depending on
the component flexibilities, the bolt load may increase or
decrease.
This effect may be best envisaged by looking at extreme
cases: Case 1 – bolts are very stiff and gasket is very flexible.
In this case as the flanges move, since the bolts are stiff the
bolt stress level will change a lot. Since the gasket is flexible,
a small amount of flange movement will not change the gasket
stress. In this case, the reaction of the joint system to the
applied external load will be an increase in the bolt stress
equal to the applied load and almost no change in gasket
 stress. Therefore, from a practical perspective the external
loads will have a significant effect on flange stresses and no
effect on joint leakage. Conversely, if the bolts are extremely
flexible and the gasket is extremely stiff, then when the
external load is applied, the bolt load will not change and the
gasket stress will reduce in proportion to the applied load. In
this case, the flange stresses will not change, but the likelihood
of joint leakage will increase in proportion to the applied
external loads.
The actual case will be somewhere in between these two
extreme cases. If the change in bolt and gasket stress for the
previous example (NPS 26, cl.300 Series B) joint is examined
with a kamprofile gasket fitted (Fig. 1), it can be seen that the
applied bending moment has very little effect on the flange
stresses and mostly results in the gasket stress reducing. This
means that if the method used in ASME VIII, Div. 2 is applied
to this joint with a kamprofile gasket, then the flange stress
levels will be significantly over-predicted. Therefore, ideally
ASME VIII, Div.2 would be revised to incorporate joint
component mechanical interaction, such that unnecessary
conservatism is removed from the method.
NEW APPROACH PREREQUISITES
Given the preceding cautions regarding the use of the
current methods, the following points were considered
important in establishing a new method:
a) Should be based on flange rating in order to account,
in a rough non-conservative way, for creep/relaxation
b) Should include the effects of mechanical interaction
on the gasket and flange loads.
c) Limit should be established based on the likelihood of
the joint leaking, since that is the predominant failure
mode.
d) Due to a variety of unknown factors at the design stage
(assembly efficiency, additional loads, poor
fabrication tolerances, etc…) the method should be
conservative.
e) In addition, conservatism is also desired in order to
encourage better piping design.
NEW APPROACH OUTLINE
The basis of the development of the new approach was to
incorporate two established joint analysis methods in order to
determine the acceptable level of external loads on standard
piping joints. The mechanical interaction effects were assessed
using the methods outlined in Brown [12]. The level of effect
of the load transfer from the gasket and bolts as a consequence
was determined for each flange size and class. An example of
how the inclusion of elastic interaction improves the results of
the assessment, verified by comparison to Elastic-Plastic FEA
results, is shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 for a NPS 14, cl.600 joint
with a spiral wound gasket. It can be seen that the gasket stress
reduction results match the FEA result much more closely
when it is included and the outcome is therefore less
conservative. At this point it is worth noting that both
4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Rodabaugh and Koves also indicated a preference for
including elastic interaction effects in the analysis, for this
same reason.
The second phase of the development of the new
approach was to use the methods outlined in ASME PCC-1-
2010 Appendix O to calculate the required assembly bolt load
for each joint size and class using a spiral wound gasket and
A193-B8 cl.2 bolt material. The bolt material was selected
such that the results would be applicable to the widest range of
joints and will be conservative compared to B7 or B16 bolting
in the class 150 to class 600 ratings. The method was used, as
outlined in Brown [13], to determine the buffer against
leakage for each joint when assembled to the calculated
assembly bolt stress and with the full ASME B16.5 rating
ceiling pressure applied (from ASME B16.5 Table A-1). An
example of this is shown in Fig. 7 for the NPS 14, cl.600
example case. It can be seen that the buffer against leakage for
this case is 14% of bolt yield, which corresponds to a
reduction in gasket stress of 82.7 MPa (12 ksi) before leakage
is expect. If the gasket stress buffer is divided by the gasket
stress lost due to hydrostatic end force from the rated pressure,
then a ratio is established that represents the fraction of the
rated pressure above which the joint maybe taken prior to
leakage occurring (FM). The below Eq. 1 is then used to
determine if the applied external loads are acceptable or not.
16𝑀𝐸 + 4𝐹𝐸 𝐺 ≤ 𝜋𝐺 3 �(PR − PD ) + FM PR � [1]
Where:
ME = Operating external moment
FE = Operating external tensile force
G = Gasket reaction diameter
PR = Flange pressure rating at design temperature
PD = Flange design pressure
FM = Moment factor, in accordance with Table 2.
This moment factor (FM), without conservative
adjustment, is plotted for each of the joints examined in Fig. 8
for B16.5 flanges, Fig. 9 for B16.47 Series A flanges and Fig.
10 for B16.47 Series B flanges. It can be seen that in some
cases, there is significant additional capacity of the joint above
what would typically be considered when using the Equivalent
Pressure or Equivalent Force methods alone. However, the
graph is somewhat deceptive, since a large value of FM for a
class 150 joint will likely still be a small additional external
load when compared to the smaller values associated with
higher pressure classes (since the value of FM is multiplied by
PR).
As previously discussed, a conservative adjustment to the
raw values shown in the figures is necessary to account for
possible additional assembly and alignment issues. The values
of FM are adjusted by nominally selecting as uniform as
possible value across all joint sizes that corresponds to about
 half the raw FM value for expansion loads. The corresponding
selected values of FM are shown in Table 2. It is also
recommended that these values be reduced again for the
sustained load case (since the sustained load case will have a
greater impact on joint relaxation). Therefore, for sustained
load cases, the values shown in Table 2 should be divided by
two.
This approach meets the previously stated prerequisites,
in that it is tied to the flange ratings, is based on a method that
includes mechanical interaction and is based on a limit
obtained versus the likelihood of flange leakage. The nominal
safety margin of 2 used to establish the values of FM shown in
Table 2 could, of course, be adjusted to suit site preferences.
In addition, the assembly bolt loads used for the calculation
are based on ASME PCC-1 Appendix O calculations, where
the bolt load is maximized. If another approach is used, then it
may be necessary to adjust the values of FM downward in
order to ensure that the desired level of conservatism exists.
If the new approach is applied to the NPS 26, cl.300
leakage case, the calculated acceptable external load is
equivalent to 11% of pipe yield for thermal expansion cases
and 7% of pipe yield for sustained load cases. Therefore, if it
had been applied, the new method would have avoided
leakage, since external loads at the flange would have had to
have been much lower, necessitating piping re-design. In
addition, it can be seen that the new method is less
conservative than applying just the Equivalent Pressure
method, since the sustained case limit is 40% higher and the
thermal expansion case limit is 120% higher.
One final interesting note is that if the effects of
mechanical interaction were not included, some of the results
would be significantly different. The ratio of FM including
mechanical interaction divided by FM without including
mechanical interaction is shown in Table 3. It can be seen that,
as expected, since the higher classes of joints have much
stiffer bolts and flanges, the bolt load is predicted to increase
on those joints with the application of pressure (for a spiral
wound gasket) and therefore there is a higher buffer against
leakage indicated once mechanical interaction is included.
Conversely, for some of the larger diameter joints in lower
classes, the bolt load is predicted to decrease as the external
load is applied, which means that the buffer against leakage is
much smaller (by up to 30%) if the effects of mechanical
interaction are included in the analysis.
FUTURE WORK
The method outlined includes allowance for the effects of
creep by using the flange rating as a basis for the limit.
However, the flange ratings do not accurately reflect the true
mechanism for flange joints, which is creep/relaxation (Brown
[14]). The relaxation of the bolt and flange material will
significantly affect the ability of the joint to seal at a much
lower temperature than the creep limit used in the ASME
5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
B16.5 pressure rating. Therefore, it is envisaged that the
method outlined in this paper should be extended to include
actual assessment of the effects of flange and bolt creep
relaxation using the methods outlined in Brown [13].
Unfortunately, due to the lack of good material data for
assessing creep/relaxation in joints, this is only possible in
relatively few material combinations at the moment.
In addition to addressing piping analysis, the methods
used in this paper (mechanical interaction and leakage buffer)
can also be applied to custom designed flanges. The advantage
of incorporating that approach is that it reduces the level of
conservatism in the method, since presently the ASME VIII,
Div. 2 method uses a conservative assumption for determining
both bolt area and flange strength. In addition, it is worth
noting that the current method included in that code, which
allows for force re-distribution due to flange distortion, was
found to be less significant than allowing for component
flexibility and mechanical interaction. Mechanical interaction
affects both flange and gasket stress levels.
CONCLUSIONS
The method presented in this paper allows for additional
conservatism to be removed from the use of the Equivalent
Pressure and Equivalent Force methods, while still allowing
some conservatism in order to encourage good piping design
practices to be followed. The method does assume however
that the bolt material strength is A193-B8 cl.2 or stronger and
that the joints are assembled to a reasonably high assembly
bolt stress, based on ASME PCC-1 Appendix O. Adjustment
of the method would be required if either one of those
assumptions is not correct for the case in question.
The approach used can also be applied to custom flange
design, however this requires the incorporation of principals
from both ASME PCC-1 Appendix O and mechanical
interaction.
 REFERENCES
[1] ASME, 2010, PCC-1, “Guidelines for Assembly of Pressure
Boundary Bolted Joints”, ASME, NY, NY, USA
[2] Koves, W.J., 1996, “Analysis of Flange Joints Under External
Loads”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Feb, v.116, p. 59-63
[3] ASME VIII, Division 2, 2010, “Rules for Construction of
Pressure Vessels – Alternative Rules”, ASME, New York
[4] Koves, W.J., 2005, “Design for Leakage in Flanged Joints under
External Loads”, Proceedings of the ASME PVP Conference,
Denver, USA, PVP2005-71254
[5] Rodabaugh, E.C., Moore, S.E., 1976, “Evaluation of the Bolting
and Flanges of ANSI B16.5 Flanged Joints – ASME Part A Design
Rules”, ORNL NRC-5 Publication 2913-3
[6] ASME, 2010, ASME III, Division 1, Subsection NC, Class 2
components, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components” , ASME, NY, NY, USA
[7] Takagi, Y., Tori, H., Sawa, T., Omiya, Y., 2010,”Effect of
External Bending Moment on the Sealing Performance of Pipe
Flange Connection”, Proceedings of the ASME PVP Conference,
Bellevue, USA, PVP2010-25180
[8] Nash, D.H., Abid, M., 2000, “Combined External Load Tests for
Standard and Compact Flanges”, International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping, v.77, p.799-806
[9] Bibel, G., Fath, T., Palmer, W., Reidesel, R., Westlind, T., 2001,
“Experimental Leak Testing of 16-inch Class 300 RFWN Flange
With and Without External Bending Moment”, Welding Research
Council Bulletin 461, NY, USA
[10] Birembaut, Y., Ledauphin, T., Masi, V., Bouzid, H., Derenne,
M., Martelli-Garon, P., 2002, “The Effects of Bending Moments on
Bolted Gasketed Joints”, Welding Research Council Bulletin 473
Part A, NY, USA
[11] Marchand, L., Derenne, M., 2002, “Effect of the Gasket Type
on the Behavior of NPS 4 Class 150 Bolted Flanged Joints Subject to
External Bending Moments”, Welding Research Council Bulletin 473
Part B, NY, USA
[12] Brown, W., 1993, “Design and Behaviour of Bolted
Joints” 3rd International Conference on Fluid Sealing,
CETIM, Nantes, France, pp. 111-121
[13] Brown, W., McKenzie, W. Ryan, S., 2007, “Obtaining Leak-
Free Bolted Joint Operation by Returning to Basics”, Proceedings of
the NPRA RCM-2007 conference, San Diego, USA, RCM-07-85
[14] Brown, W., 2010, “High Temperature Flange Design", ASME
STC-LLC Project, STP-PT-036, ASME, NY, NY, USA

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 – External Load Test Result Summary

Test Maximum Leakage Estimated

Flange Flange Test Bolt Assembly
Source Gasket Type Press. Applied Moment % of Pipe
NPS Class Medium Stress (MPa)
(barg) Moment (Nm) (Nm) Yield
Rodabaugh
12 150 Asbestos Water 43 275 79,100 50,840 29
[5]
28 275 79,100 79,100 45
3 150 Asbestos Water 43 68 4,745 2,034 29
26 68 4,745 4,745 68
110 138 4,745 No Leak 68
4 300 Asbestos Water 30 60 7,344 3,954 30
10 60 7,344 7,344 56
110 123 11,299 No Leak 86
Nash [8] 4 900 Spwd Graph 230 361 15,800 No Leak 47
Bibel [9] 16 300 Spwd Graph He 50 276 154,563 No Leak 42
Sheet Graph He 50 207 154,563 No Leak 42
Sheet Fiber He 50 130 154,563 No Leak 42
Birembaut
1.5 300 Fiber Sheet He 40 162 3000 No Leak 148
[10]
Graph Sheet He 40 162 3000 No Leak 148
Spwd Graph He 40 243 3000 No Leak 148
8 300 Fiber Sheet He 40 162 32,000 No Leak 47
Marchand
4 150 ePTFE He 22 172 8600 7000 52
[11]
Corrugated
He 22 172 8600 No Leak 66
Graph
vPTFE He 22 172 8400 No Leak 66
Spwd Graph He 22 172 9000 No Leak 66
Spwd Graph He 22 345 8900 No Leak 66

Table 2 - Flange moment factor (FM)

Flange pressure class

150 300 600 900 1500 2500
ASME B16.5 ≤ NPS 12 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
ASME B16.5 12 < NPS ≤24 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 --
ASME B16.47 Series A 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 -- --
ASME B16.47 Series B <NPS 48 Note 1 Note 1 0.13 0.13 -- --
ASME B16.47 Series B ≥NPS 48 0.1 Note 2 -- -- -- --
Notes:
1. FM = 0.1 + (48- NPS)/56.
2. FM = 0.1, except NPS 60, Class 300, in which case FM = 0.03.

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 - (FM) including interaction divided by (FM) without
mechanical interaction included; Spiral Wound gasket

Flange Class
150 300 600 900 1500 2500
Nominal Pipe Size (in.)

0.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2

0.75 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4
1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4
1.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5
2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.5
2.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6
3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.9
4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.9
5 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.0
6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.1
8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.2
10 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.0
12 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.4
14 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.7
16 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.6
18 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.6
20 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.6
24 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.6
26 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2
28 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1
30 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 Figure 2 – NPS 26, cl.300 ASME B16.47B FEA Model
32 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2
34 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
36 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2
38 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 cl.150
40 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1 cl.300 & higher
42 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 Material Yield
Reduction Ratio

44 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.8

46 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1
0.6
48 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.2
0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Material Temperature (°F)
Figure 3 – Flange Rating vs. Yield Reduction; Gr. 1.1 Matl.

Figure 1 – FEA Model Gasket and Bolt Stress Levels

8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Min. Op. Hydro Thermal Relaxation Seating Buffer Target & Spread Flange Limit

EXTERNAL LOAD
1 14%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Percentage of Bolt Yield
Figure 7 – NPS 14, cl.600 Appendix O Calculation Graph

5.00 B16.5, cl.150

B16.5, cl.300
4.50
B16.5, cl.600
4.00 B16.5, cl.900

3.50 B16.5, cl.1500

Moment Factor (FM)

B16.5, cl.2500
3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Pipe NPS
Figure 4 – Flange Load Equilibrium Under External Loads
Figure 8 – Moment Factor Results; B16.5 Flanges
2.50
Bending Moment Applied (N.m x 10-5) B16.47A, cl.150
0 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.5 B16.47A, cl.300
45 311
2.00 B16.47A, cl.600
40 E-P FEA 276 B16.47A, cl.900
Change in Bolt Stress (MPa)

Eq. Press
Change in Bolt Stress (ksi)

35
Moment Factor (FM)

242
Elast. Inter. 1.50
30 207
S8D2
25 173
20 138 1.00

15 104
10 69 0.50
5 35
0 0
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Bending Moment Applied (in.lb x 10-6) Pipe NPS
Figure 5 – NPS 14, cl.600 Bolt Stress Comparison
Figure 9 – Moment Factor Results; B16.47 Series A

Bending Moment Applied (N.m x 10-5) 1.40

B16.47B, cl.150
0 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.5 B16.47B, cl.300
25 173 1.20 B16.47B, cl.600
E-P FEA B16.47B, cl.900
1.00 cl.150 & cl.300 Limit
20 Eq. Press 138
Gasket Stress Loss (ksi)

Gasket Stress Loss (MPa)

Moment Factor (FM)

Elast. Inter.
0.80
15 S8D2 104
0.60
10 69
0.40
5 35
0.20

0 0
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Bending Moment Applied (in.lb x 10-6) Pipe NPS
Figure 6 – NPS 14, cl.600 Gasket Stress Comparison Figure 10 – Moment Factor Results; B16.47 Series B

9 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use