See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283495170

Joint strength of gasketed bolted pipe flange joint under combined internal
pressure plus axial load with different (industrial and ASME) bolt-up strategy

Article  in  ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part E Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 1989-1996 (vols · October 2015
DOI: 10.1177/0954408915614460

CITATIONS READS

4 3,391

4 authors:

Niaz Bahadur Khan Muhammad Abid

National University of Sciences and Technology COMSATS Institute of Informaton Technology, Wah Catt, Pakistan
32 PUBLICATIONS   310 CITATIONS    251 PUBLICATIONS   1,217 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammed Jameel Hafiz Wajid

University of Malaya Islamic University of Medina
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,191 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Finite Element Analysis of Assembly Process for Gasketed Bolted Flange Joints View project

Concrete filled steel tubes at elevated temperature View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Abid on 17 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
Joint strength of gasketed bolted pipe 0(0) 1–10
! IMechE 2015

flange joint under combined internal Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

pressure plus axial load with different DOI: 10.1177/0954408915614460

uk.sagepub.com/jpme

(industrial and ASME) bolt-up strategy

Niaz B Khan1, Muhammad Abid2, Mohammed Jameel1 and

Hafiz Abdul Wajid3

Abstract
Gasketed bolted flange joints are used in process industry for connecting pressure vessels and pipes. Design procedures
available in the literature mostly discuss structural strength, while sealing failure is still a big concern in industries.
Similarly, limited work is found in the literature regarding performance of gasketed bolted joints under combined loading.
A detailed 3D nonlinear finite element analysis is performed to study the strength and sealing of a gasketed bolted flanged
pipe joint under different bolt-up strategy (Industrial and ASME) and under combined internal pressure and axial loading.

Keywords
Bolt-up, gasketed, ASME, sealing, structural strength

Date received: 7 December 2014; accepted: 27 September 2015

Abid et al.12 performed the 3D nonlinear analysis of

Introduction
Strength or sealing failure of gasketed bolted flange
joints, whether small or large, is always a hazard and
may result in losses. Since there is rapid advancement
in technology in the last 10 years for high pressure and
external loading condition, there is a need for such a
joint which has adequate joint strength and sealing to
perform safely under given operating conditions.
Limited work is available in the literature for the
gasketed bolted pipe flanged joint under combined
internal pressure and axial loading. Previously,
three-dimensional nonlinear analysis of different
types of joints is performed by Power.1 Power studied
the variation of contact pressure and stress variation
in the flange and bolt. Contact pressure or interface
pressure was considered as main quantitative measure
for the sealing ability of the joints. Cao et al.2 also
performed three-dimensional analysis of gasket non-
linearity to study the joint strength under bolt-up and
operating conditions. Fukuoka and Takaki3 mainly
focus on the bolt scatter, tightening sequence and
bearing surfaces. Nelson et al.4 studied the sealing
capability of gasketed flange joints subjected to inter-
nal pressure at high temperature. Abid et al.5–8 also
performed 3D finite element modal analysis of gas-
keted bolted flanged pipe joints under bolt-up.
Gasketed flanged joint have been discussed in the
literatures9–11 under single loading. More recently,
non-gasketed flange joint under combined internal
pressure, axial loading and bending load. Joint
strength is evaluated at both the design pressure
(DP) and proof test pressure (PT).
From previous studies,3,13–16 it is concluded that
the key parameter responsible for the performance
of gasketed flanged joint is the bolt-up strategy.
Improper bolt-up may result in failure of joint both
in term of structural strength and leakage. In this
paper, which is extension of previous study performed
in the literatures,16–18 joint behavior is observed under
bolt-up strategy recommended by the ASME guide-
line19 as well as industrial bolt-up strategy which is
suggested in the literature20 with addition to com-
bined internal pressure plus axial loading. The study
is advancement in terms of bolt-up strategy
(Industrial and ASME BUP) and in terms of
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
2
Interdisciplinary Research Center, COMSATS Institute of information
Technology, Wah Cantt, Pakistan
3
Department of Mathematics, COMSATS Institute of information
Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Corresponding author:
Niaz B Khan, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: n_bkhan@yahoo.com

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

2 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
Table 1. Operating conditions.
Sr. # Loading Type of loading
1 Bolt tightening Industrial strategy20
ASME strategy28
2 Internal Pressure Design pressure (DP)
Proof test pressure (PT)
3 Combined loading Design pressure plus axial load (DP þAL)
Proof test pressure plus axial load (PT þAL)
combined loading (Internal pressure plus axial
loading) for the gasketed bolted flanged joint. It is
also observed that after improper bolt-up, the add-
ition of external load on joint may result in
worst condition, particularly combination of internal
pressure and axial load have more pronounced
effect.18
In this paper, the joint strength is examined under
different bolt-up strategies (ASME and industrial)
plus combined internal pressure and axial load. For
that purpose, 3-D finite element analysis (FEA) of
gasketed bolted flange joint is performed. Spiral
wound gasket is used in this study. The model used
in current study is already verified in Abid and
Khan.18 Table 1 shows the loading condition under
which the flange joint is analyzed in this paper.
Figure 1 depicts the dimensions of the model used
in current analysis. The dimensions are the same as
previously used in Abid and Khan,18 except the pipe
which length has been increased to 300 mm to study
the axial loading effects.
Finite element analysis
This paper is an extension to Abid and Khan,18 and
therefore all the geometrical dimensions of model are
exactly the same. Boundary conditions, mesh gener-
ation methodology, and element selection are also the
same as previously used. Since the model is symmetric
in terms of boundary conditions and geometry, half
gasket (w.r.t thickness) is modelled. The bolt is also
made by revolving the plane area pattern along its
shank axis in 360 . Only half of the bolt is modelled
because of symmetry in terms of loading and geom-
etry. The pipe of length 300 mm is modelled with
flange. Figure 2 shows the finite element model of
flange, bolt and gasket.
Element selection
In addition to the contact stresses in spiral wound
gasket, the required outputs from the analysis are
stresses in flange, bolt, and pipe. In ANSYS,22
SOLID45 is a solid structural element used for struc-
tural stress analysis of flange, pipe, and bolt in the
joint. It is defined by eight nodes with three transla-
tional degree-of-freedom at each node. SOLID45
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015
Load
Torque ¼ 505 Nm
Torque ¼ 700 Nm
15.3 MPa
23 MPa
DP ¼ 15.3 MPa AL ¼ 665 kN
PT ¼ 23 MPa AL ¼ 665 kN
element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening,
large deflection, and large strain capabilities.
Contact elements are used to define contact
between different surfaces of the model. In problems
involving contact between two boundaries, one of the
boundaries is conventionally established as the
‘‘target’’ surface, and the other as the ‘‘contact’’
surface. CONTA174 (contact element) is used in com-
bination with TARGE170 (target element) between
contact of flange face and gasket, top of flange and
bottom face of bolt, and bolt shank and inner face of
flange hole. CONTA174 is defined by four nodes and
is applicable to 3D structural contact analysis. It has
the capability to simulate contact and sliding between
3-D target surfaces.
For simulation of gaskets, 3-D linear interface
element defined by eight nodes, INTER195, is
selected. INTER195 is used with 3-D structural elem-
ent to simulate gasketed joint. The total number of
elements used in the finite element model of flange,
pipe, bolts, and gaskets is 32,639. Commercial finite
element analysis software ANSYS22 is used in current
study.
Material properties and boundary
conditions
In current study, bilinear kinematic hardening model
is used for elasto-plastic material properties, which is
previously practiced in Abid.13This model has two
linear gradient section. In first linear gradient section,
an elastic material is used which functions until the
yield stress and Young’s modulus of elasticity is the
gradient for this section. The second section is valid
beyond the yield stress and the gradient (plastic
modulus) of this section is 10% of the Young’s modu-
lus of elasticity.23 Table 2 shows the material proper-
ties of flange, pipe, bolt, and spiral wound gasket,
which are taken from the literatures.24,25 The spiral
wound gasket consists of v-shaped metal strip and
soft non-metallic filler (asbestos fibre) under pressure.
It has an inner and outer ring made of stainless steel.
In this analysis, simplified modeling method of gasket
nonlinearity for bolted flange joints is adopted
because of simplicity and cost.26
Figure 3 shows the boundary condition on the
flange joint. The flange is permitted to move in the
Khan et al. 3

Figure 1. Joint dimensions: (a) pipe flange and bolts, and (b) spiral wound gasket (all dimensions in mm).

Figure 2. (a) Flange, (b) gasket and (c) bolt.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

4 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Table 2. Material properties of flange, bolt and shank.

Parts As per code E (MPa) u Allowable stress (MPa)

Flange and pipe ASTM A350 LF2 173,058 0.3 248

Bolt ASTM SA193 B7 168,922 0.3 724
Gasket (Spiral wound) ASTM A182 164,095 0.3 207

Figure 3. Boundary conditions for combined internal pressure plus axial loading.

Figure 4. Loading sequence.

z-direction which provides flange rotation and actual
behavior of stresses in the gasket, bolt, and flange. On
the gasket bottom face, symmetry condition is
applied. The bolt is constraint in the radial direction.
To achieve pre-stress in the bolt, a displacement con-
straint in the y-direction is applied on the lower face
of the bolt shank. For internal pressure loading, a
load is applied on inner face of the pipe and flange.
Furthermore, endcap loading is applied across the
wall of the pipe end.
Figure 4 shows the loading sequence of BUP, IP
and axial loading in the current analysis. It is depicted
from the Figure 5 that first of all, the bolt is tightened
up as per ASME or Industrial strategy. After bolt-up,
internal pressure is applied on the inner surface of
pipe. After BUP and IP, axial load is applied at the

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

Khan et al. 5

Figure 5. Numbering of bolts (a) sequence-1 and (b) sequence-2.14

Table 3. Target stress at end of each pass.

Industrial BUP strategy ASME BUP strategy

Applied Bolt Target Applied Bolt Target

torque (Nm) preload (kN) stress (MPa) torque (Nm) preload (kN) stress (MPa)

210 37 57 140 24 38
310 54 86 420 73 115
400 70 112 700 122 191
505 89 145 –

Figure 6. Nomenclature of selected nodes on bolt shank.

end of pipe surface to study the combined effect of
loading.
Bolt preload and tightening sequence
Bolt preloads and tightening sequence are the
major parameters responsible for joint strength and
performance.
In this work, the methodology used for bolt
tightening sequence is the same as previously used in
Khan et al.16 All the bolts are tightened according to
ASME strategy19 and industrial recommendation20
using torque control method15,27 as shown in
Table 3. In order to achieve required pre-stress, a cer-
tain displacement (UY) is applied at the lower surface
of the bolt.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

6 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Figure 7. Exaggerated bolt stress variation at (a) ASME BUP þ DP, (b) ASME BUP þPT, (c) ASME BUP þ DP þAL and (d) ASME
BUP þ PT þAL.

In ASME BUP strategy,19 bolts are tightened with
increment of torque 140, 420 and 700 Nm, according to
sequence-1 (1, 5, 3, 7, 2, 6, 4, 8) (Figure 5(a)), and in
last pass all the bolts are tightened again to 700 Nm
according to sequence-2 (clockwise) (Figure 5(b)). In
industrial BUP strategy, bolts are tightened with incre-
ment of torque 210, 310, 400, and 595 Nm according to
sequence-1 and in last pass all bolts are tightened again
to the 595 Nm according to sequence-2.
Results and discussion
Bolt stress variation
Results for stress variation along the bolt nodes (as
per nomenclature shown in Figure 6) at bolt plus
internal pressure plus axial loading are show in
Figure 9. It is observed that more bolt bending behav-
ior is found during ASME BUP strategy in compari-
son with industrial bolt tightening strategy.
At ASME BUP, bolt stress variation of 200–
250 MPa between inner and outer nodes is observed
in almost all the bolt except in bolt 6 where 150–
170 MPa stress variation is observed (Figure 9).
Lower stress variation (20 MPa) in bolt-6 shows less
gasket contact stress in the vicinity of bolt 6. Overall,
more scatter stresses in ASME bolt-up strategy is
observed in comparison with industrial bolt-up
strategy.
After BUP, with addition of external combined
loading, i.e. internal pressure plus axial loading, it is
observed that bolt stress variation increased linearly.
Almost the same pattern is observed in all bolts, i.e.
stresses are increased resulting in more stress variation
in all the bolts. In the case of ASME case study, bolt
stress variation of 300–370 MPa between inner and
outer nodes is observed in bolts 2 and 8, where in
bolts 4 and 6 stress variation is 250–300 MPa
(Figure 9). It is observed from Figures 7 and 8 that
the maximum stress is at the corner of bolt head and
shank. The exaggerated views show the bolt bending
behavior. It is also observed that stresses in all the
bolts are within the allowable stress limits (723 MPa)
at the combined DP and PT plus axial loading (100–
665 kN). In the case of Industrial BUP plus IP plus
AL, the same behavior is observed with linear increase
in stresses. Figure 9 shows the bolt bending behavior
of four bolts for ASME and Industrial case study.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

Khan et al.
Figure 8. Exaggerated bolt stress variation at (a) industrial BUP þ DP, (b) industrial BUP þ PT, (c) industrial BUP þ DP þAL, and (d)
industrial BUP þ PT þAL.
Hub flange fillet
In ASME case study, maximum stress (S1 and SINT)
at hub flange fillet increased from 350 MPa and
289 MPa to 374 MPa and 304 MPa at design pressure
and to 378 MPa and 314 MPa at PT pressure plus. It
is found that maximum principal stress is more than
the ultimate stress of flange material at DP and PT
pressure, whereas the bending stress (SY) increased
from 245–250 MPa to 272–276 MPa at additional
axial load of 665 kN to DP and PT, which is
more than the allowable stress of flange material
(248 MPa) but less than ultimate strength of the
flange material (370 MPa). Stresses observed during
industrial bolt-up strategy with additional combined
loading are less than ASME bolt-up plus combined
loading.
From the above discussion, it is concluded that
stresses are higher than the ultimate stress limit at
combined internal pressure and axial loading. It is
also concluded from the above discussion that
higher bolt-up is better for improving sealing capabil-
ity, but it results in higher stresses at hub flange fillet
which reduces its strength.
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015
7
Gasket contact stress variation
The nomenclature of gasket model is shown in Figure
10. G1 shows the gasket node in front of bolt1, G2
show the gasket node in front of Bolt2, and so on. The
inner and outer sealing ring has been defined in order
to study the variation along the gasket width.
Figure 11 shows the contact stress variations for
ASME and Industrial cases along the outer and
inner sealing ring under additional axial loading to
the design pressure (Figure 11(a) to (d)) and proof
test pressure (Figure 11(e) to (h)). Gasket contact
stress pattern remains the same with additional
axial loading. However, reduction in stresses is
observed in both case studies under axial loading in
addition to the internal pressure resulting in gasket
relaxation.
In ASME case study, along the outer sealing ring,
it is observed that along G1–G3 locations, higher
stresses are observed compared to G5–G7 location.
Minimum contact stress of (97–100 MPa) is observed
along G5–G7 which is more than the seating stress
(68 MPa) recommended by the gasket supplier.28
Hence, it is concluded that at the outer sealing ring,
8 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

B2 B4 B6 B8 B2 B4 B6 B8
(a) 500

400
Stress (MPa)
300

200

100

0
100
525
665

100
525
665

100
525
665

100
525
665

100
525
665

100
525
665

100
525
665

100
525
665
PT

PT

PT

PT
BUP
DP

BUP
DP

BUP
DP

BUP
DP

BUP

BUP

BUP

BUP
(b) 500

400
Stress (MPa)

300

200

100

0
BUP

525
665
DP
100
525
665
BUP
100
DP

BUP

525
665
DP
100

BUP
DP
100
525
665
BUP
100
525
665
BUP
100
525
665
BUP
100
525
665
BUP
100
525
665
PT

PT

PT

PT
B-2/1 B-2/2 B-2/3 B-2/4 B-4/1 B-4/2 B-4/3 B-4/4
B-6/1 B-6/2 B-6/3 B-6/4 B-8/1 B-8/2 B-8/3 B-8/4
B2/1 B2/2 B2/3 B2/4 B4/1 B4/2 B4/3 B4/4
B6/1 B6/2 B6/3 B6/4 B8/1 B8/2 B8/3 B8/4

Figure 9. Bolt stress variation: (a) ASME case study and (b) industrial case study.

and PT pressure plus axial loading of 665 kN, respect-

ively. At additional axial load of 665 kN
to DP and PT, the gasket contact stress along
G5–G7 locations is less than the recommended
seating stress along the inner location only. It is con-
cluded from the above discussion that the joint is safe
at additional axial load of 665 kN to DP and PT
pressure.
In case of Industrial case study, FEA results shows
that at internal pressure (DP and PT pressure), gasket
contact stress along G4–G7 outer sealing ring is 48–
53 MPa and 44–50 MPa, respectively, which is less
than recommended seating stresses (68 MPa).28
Figure 10. Gasket nomenclature. Additional axial load of 665 kN with DP and PT
pressure further decreased the gasket contact stress
to 26–32 MPa and 25–30 MPa, respectively, along
the G4–G7 outer sealing ring providing more chance
there is no chance of leakage and the joint is safe of leakage. Although the contact stresses along G4–
under additional axial loading. G7 is not zero, but very less than recommended
Along the inner sealing ring, more scatter is seating stress (68 MPa), it provides some chances of
observed along the gasket locations G1–G4, whereas leakage. It is also observed that gasket contact stress
along the G4–G8 location, the stress variation is is less than the seating stress along all locations
small. Minimum stress is observed at G6 location around the gasket, at axial load of 525 kN in addition
where the gasket contact stress reduces from to the DP and at axial load of 400 kN in addition to
89 MPa at bolt-up to -63 MPa and 62 MPa at DP the PT pressure.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

Khan et al. 9

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8
(a) G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 (b)
-60
BUP

Gasket Stress (MPa)

-60 BUP

Gasket Stress (MPa)

DP
DP -80
-80
100 100
-100 525 525
-100
665
665
-120
-120
-140 Inner Sealing
Outer Sealing

Figure 11. Gasket contact stress variation in ASME BUP study [(a), (b), (c) and (d)] and Industrial BUP study[(e), (f), (g) and (h)].

Conclusions
4. Nelson NR, Prasad NS and Sekhar A. Effect of thermal
1. Gasketed joint load capacity is concluded better loading on sealing behavior of single and twin-gasketed
using ASME bolt-up strategy compared to the flange joints. Proc IMechE, Part E: J Process
industrial bolt-up strategy especially in terms of Mechanical Engineering 2015. Epub ahead of print 3
sealing capability. ‘‘No leakage’’ criteria is March 2015. Doi: 10.1177/0954408915574295.
observed in the joint even with addition of com- 5. Abid M, Maqsood S and Wajid HA. Comparative
bined loading application, while in terms of struc- modal analysis of gasketed and nongasketed bolted
tural strength the joint capability is adversely flanged pipe joints: FEA approach. Adv Mech Eng
affected. It is also concluded that higher bolt-up 2012; 4: 413583.
torque value resulted in weak structural strength. 6. Abid M, et al. Optimized bolt tightening procedure for
2. Lower bolt-up in industrial bolt-up strategy is different tightening strategies—FEA study. Proc
IMechE, Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering
concluded better for structural strength of the
2015. Epub ahead of print 4 June 2015. Doi: 10.1177/
joint, but there is chance of leakage. 0954408915589687.
Furthermore, the addition of combined internal 7. Abid M, Al-Grafi M and Wajid HA. Effect of bolt
pressure and axial load results in worst scenario behaviour on the performance of a bolted joint.
in terms of sealing capability, where the stresses World Appl Sci J 2013; 26: 89–96.
observed in majority of gasketed portion are much 8. Abid M, Khan YM and Nash DH. Assembly of
lower than the recommended seating stresses. gasketed bolted flange joints using torque control
of preload method: FEA approach. In: ASME 2013
pressure vessels and piping conference. American
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paris, France, 14–18
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with July 2013.
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of 9. Bouzid A-H, Derenne M and Chaarani A. Tightness
this article. prediction of bolted flanged connections subjected to
external bending moments. ASME 1998; 367: 61–68.
Funding 10. Sawa T and Shimizu A. A stress analysis of pipe flange
connections subjected to external bending moments.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
ASME 2000; 405: 85–94.
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
11. Cao J and Bell A. Elastic analysis of a circular flange
of this article: This research was supported by University
joint subjected to axial force. Int Pres Vessels Pip 1993;
Malaya Research Grant (UMRG – Project No. RP004E-
55: 435–449.
13AET), University Malaya Postgraduate Research Fund
12. Abid M, Awan AW and Nash DH. Determination of
(PPP – Project No. PG102-2014B).
load capacity of a non-gasketed flange joint under com-
bined internal pressure, axial and bending loading for
References safe strength and sealing. J Brazilian Soc Mech Sci Eng
1. Power D. A study of conventional and unconventional 2014; 36: 477–490.
flanged pipe joint styles using non linear finite element 13. Abid M. Experimental and analytical studies of conven-
analysis techniques, MPhil Thesis, Strathclyde tional (gasketed) and unconventional (non gasketed)
University, Glasgow, UK. 1997. flanged pipe joints (with special emphasis on the engin-
2. Cao B, Duan C and Xu H. 3-D finite element analysis of eering of ‘joint strength’and ‘sealing’). PhD Thesis, 2000.
bolted flange joint considering gasket nonlinearity. 14. Abid M and Hussain S. Bolt preload scatter and
J-Beijing Univ Chem Technol 1999; 26: 51–55. relaxation behaviour during tightening a 4 in-900#
3. Fukuoka T and Takaki T. Evaluations of bolt-up flange joint with spiral wound gasket. Proc IMechE,
sequence of pipe flange using three-dimensional finite Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 2008; 222:
element analysis. ASME 1999; 382: 87–94. 123–134.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

10 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

15. Fukuoka T and Takaki T. Finite element simulation of 24. Murray N and Stuart D. Behavior of large taper hub
bolt-up process of pipe flange connections with spiral flanges. proc. symp. pressure vessel research towards
wound gasket. J Press Vessel Technol 2003; 125: better design. Instit Mech Eng 1961; 133.
371–378. 25. Abid M. Stress variation in the flange of a gasketed
16. Khan K, Abid M and Chattha J. Gasketed bolted flanged pipe joint during bolt up and operating condi-
flange joint’s relaxation behaviour under different bolt tions. Scientia Iranica 2006; 13: 303–309.
up strategy. Proc IMechE, Part E: J Process Mechanical 26. Nagata S, Shoji Y and Sawa T. A simplified modeling
Engineering 2009; 223: 259–263. of gasket stress–strain curve for FEM analysis in bolted
17. Abid M and Nash D. Comparative study of the flange joint design. In: ASME pressure vessels piping
behaviour of conventional gasketed and compact non- conference. Vancouver, BC, Canada, 5–9 August 2002.
gasketed flanged pipe joints under bolt up and operat- 27. Takaki T and Fkuoka T. Finite element simulation of
ing conditions. Int J Press Vessel Piping 2003; 80: bolt-up process of pipe flange connections. Trans
831–841. ASME J Pressure Vessel Technol 2001; 123: 282–287.
18. Abid M and Khan NB. Stamina of a gasketed flange 28. Spiral wound gasket properties. Retrieved from
joint under combined internal pressure and axial load- www.klinger.co.uk.
ing. In: ASME 2010 10th biennial conference on engin-
eering systems design and analysis. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2010.
19. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Guidelines Nomenclature
for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly.
ASME PCC-1-2000. New York, NY: ASME Press, AL axial load (kN)
2000. BUP bolt-up
20. ES/090 Rev:1. Design and Engineering Practices DP design pressure (15.3 MPa)
(DEPs), DEP 31.38.01.15.Gen (Piping Class IP internal pressure (MPa)
Exploration and Production) 1998. PT proof test pressure (23 MPa)
21. European Sealing Association, ‘‘Guidelines for Safe SINT stress intensity (MPa)
Seal UsageFlanges and Gaskets.’’ Report no. ESA/ SWG spiral wound gasket
FSA 009/98, 1998, pp. 1–40. SY stress in axial (Y) direction (MPa)
22. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Elements manual, t.e., 2004.
S1 principal stress
23. Spence J, Macfarlane D and Tooth A. Metal-to-metal
UY displacement in axial direction (mm)
full face taper-hub flanges: finite element model evalu-
ation and preliminary plastic analysis results. Proc
IMechE, Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering
1998; 212: 57–69.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on November 4, 2015

View publication stats