Flange disassembly - An underrated

source of safety incidents

While much has been written about tire importance of correctly assemblingflunged joints to ensure
the reliability and safety o/tlre joint, there has been relatively little published about the potentialfor
incidents during disassembly o/these joints.

Despite ASME PCC-l offering a warning and guidance on the disassembly of thick flanges and gen-
era/ good practices in various training documents avoidable incidents still occur.

This paper presents jormal studies and case histories that can be used to formalize and strengthen
procedures and technician training. The paper will include scenarios o/flange disassembly both with
and without intemal pressure and wil/highlight Ihe potential for incidents that could arise from
them. Finite element analysis and case histories will be used where applicable to support or illustrate
the results.

Samuel Tait
Methanex NZ Ltd.

potential for safety incidents will be highlighted

using case hi stories.
Introduction
langed joints are widely used in pressure The resu lts appear to contradict the current per-

F piping, pressure vessels, and heat ex-

changers in petro-chemical industries.
The need for joint integrity while a plant
ceived wisdom and highlight the need for more
focus to be placed on flange disassembly.

is running has resulted in lots of research and Current Information

many papers being written about the importance
of correct1y assembl ing a flanged joint. Howev-
er when it comes to di sassembly of these joints
there is relatively little information available
about the potential for safety incidents.
In thi s paper the current perceived received wis-
dom will be reviewed and compared with results
from finite element modelling. The effects of
flange thickness will be considered as well as
the bolt removal sequence, the bolt removal se-
quences compared are the cross pattern from
ASME PCC-I 20 I Y and rotational order. The
Currently there is very little infonnation avai la-
ble about the di sassembly of flanged joints.
Paragraph 15 in ASME PCC- I 20 13 provides
some adv ice on flange disassembly. First it
highlights the importance of ensuring the system
is completely pressure free prior to the joint be-
ing opened. While thi s is written in most proce-
dures, incidents still occur due to joints being
disassembled with pressure behind them.

2015 127 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 Elastic recovery of the clamped components is
considered particularly when loosening bolts in
a rotational order, stating that this "can result in
excessive loads on the relatively few remaining
bolts". It points out the potential for galling be-
tween the nut and potential and subsequent po-
tential for torsional overload. To mitigate this
ASME PCC-I 2013 recommends loosening the
bolts in a cross pattern. According to ASME
PCC-I 20 13 the reported incidents of disassem-
bly difficulties have typically involved
a) Flanges larger than DN 600 (NPS24)
b) Flange thicknesses greater than 125mm
(Sin.)
c) Bolt diameters M45 (1 %in.) and larger.
It suggests that a disassembly procedure meet-
ing the criteria of ASME PCC-I 20 13 paragraph
15.1 may be desirable for such joints.
A paper presented at the 2002 ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference titled Finite El-
ement Simulation of the Disassembly Process of
Pipe Flange Connections 2 provides infonnation
about the mechanical behavior of flanged con-
nections during disassembly. The key parame-
ters assessed in the paper are flange size, flange
rating and bolt removal sequence.
reduced when the bolts are removed in two or
more passes.
Finite Element Analysis
After a near miss at Methanex New Zealand
Ltd. where a nut rapidly dislodged while disas-
semb ling a 42" blind flange, Matrix Appli ed
Computing Ltd. were contracted to model the
flange to provide greater understanding of the
bolt loads in the flange during disassembly. This
initial investigation included two flange thick-
ness dimensions, the bolt removal sequence was
the cross pattern recommended by ASME PCC-
I 2013. It confirmed that the load on the remain-
ing bolts increases as bolts are removed, as
found in the 2002 finite element simulation. The
increase in bolt loads is caused by elastic recov-
ery of the flange, there was no internal pressure
or pipe stresses included in the model. The
magnitude of the bolt loads seen in the simula-
tion also reinforced the need for care and con-
sideration when disassembling large diameter
flanges.

The analysis found that the maximum bolt load

seen during flange disassembly increases with
increasing flange size and rating class. This is
consistent with the infonnation provided in
ASME PCC-l 2013.

Both the cross pattern recommended in ASME

PCC-I 2013 and rotational order were modelled
as bolt removal sequences in the paper. It was
found that the bolt loads generated by the star
pattern are significantly higher than the bolt
loads generated by removing the bolts in rota- Figure 1. Screenshot from thick flange unbolt-
tional order. This was validated with experi- ing animation
mental results. This result is inconsistent with
the information presented in ASME PCC-I
2013. Another important finding of the analysis
was that maximum bolt loads are significantly

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 128 2015

 ..• sembly versus the in itial bo lt load prior to di sas-
sembl y .

•• -+-42 in Blind filnl!.

100 MP, psk!t

. -42in Pipe·Pipe,
1.0
lOOMP,sasket
12
•
.5 -... 42in Blind f1anse,
-2 2.0 no I,$let
•• 1.5
~ -18in el'lI 300
blind liallle, 100
S
1.0 MP,psket

.....-
Figure 2. Screenshot from thin flange unbolting
animation
Unexpectedly, the bolt loads in the thin flan ge
were signifi cantly higber than the bolt loads
seen in the thick flange . As can be seen on the
stud highlighted with a red circle in Figure I,
the thick flange, the stresses are mostly in the
yellow and orange areas of the scale (400MPa-
500MPa). While in Figure 2, the thin flan ge, the
stresses are mostly in the red region of the scale
(600MPa) and the max imum stress is in the grey
area (739MPa+), this is above the yie ld strength
of a standard B7 or B 16 stud. This result was
counter-intuiti ve and is anomalous to the current
infonnation from ASME PCC- I 20 13 that bolt
loads during disassembly increase with increas-
ing flange thickness.
The investigation was expanded to try and un-
derstand th e anoma ly from the original results
where the bolt loads in the thin fl ange were
higher than the bolt loads in the thick flan ge.
The original 42in. pipe to blind fl ange model
was expanded to include a pipe to p ipe j oi nt,
and a gasket. An 18in. class 300 flange was also
modelled for comparison. As per the 2002 finite
element simul ation, the resul ts were plotted as a
bolt load ratio against the bolt removal se-
quence, the removal sequence modelled was the
cross pattern from ASME PCC-I 20 13. The bolt
load ratio is the force on the bolt during disas-
- 18 1n elus 300
0.5 + 1 - - blind flall8e, no
s,$ltt
0.0 .... 18in elm 300,
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 100 MP, psk!l,
Remov,1 Sequtnct low eloMl
Figure 3. Bolt load ratio during disassembly of
42 in. and 18 in. flanges
All of the scenari os saw th e bolt load ratios in-
crease in a simila r pattern to that published in
the 2002 paper with the loads increasing in ste ps
to a maximum followed by a rapid drop in load
for the last few bo lts. There were too many vari-
ables to draw any valid compari sons between
diameters and thicknesses.
The mode ls were adjusted so that one variable
could be examined at a time. A 24in. flange
which is the largest standard ASME B16.5 3
flange was modelled in stead of the 42in. flange
which was not a standard size. To compare di-
ameters a standard ASME 81 6.5 12in. flange
was mode lled instead of the 18in. flange. The
model includes a gasket of standard ASME
816.204 dimensions, the properties of the gasket
are assumed to be the same as carbon steel
based on the assumptions that the flange faces
will pull up against the outer a nd inner ring of
the gasket and that there is very little relaxation
of the spira l wound part of the gasket during
fl ange di sassembly. Class 300, 600, 900 and
1500 fl anges were modelled.

2015 129 AMMONIA TECHNI CAL MANUAL

 2.5
~ 1 2i n Class 3 00

2.0 ~ 1 2i n Class 600

i..... 1.S
o
~ 12in

- 1 1 i n Class 1 500
C lass 900

.~
~ '-+- 2 4in C lass 300
~ 1.0 ___ 2 4in Class 600
~

~ 2 4in Class 900

0 .5
- - 2 4in Class 1 500

0.0
o 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14 1 6 1 8 20 22 2 4
Removal Sequence

Figure 4. Bolt load ratio during disassembly of various classes of J2in. and 24in.jlanges

B
With the number of variables reduced the results
became more consistent. Whi le there was
remarkably little difference between the 12 inch
, .r
and 24 inch flanges, the result that stands out is
the 24 inch class 300 flange. This has
1 J .S f

~
• ,"
significantly higher bolt loads than all of the
other flanges as is particularly noticeable when -+-O.SI. cross. blind fl~nle
S
..... I.Ot. cross. blind Ilan,e
compared with the 24 inch class 600 flange that O.S
_ 1.St. cross. blind flanae
also has 24 bolts. This backs up the findings

~.
- 2.Ot. cross, blind Ilanae
from the original model of the 42 inch flange
that a thinner flange produces higher bolt loads
0
0 , • , 8
" " ..
Removal Sell"ence
16 18
" "
during disassembly. Notably, the peak load ratio
is 2.24 times the original bolt load meaning Figure 5. Boll load raflo durmg disassembly of
there is a real possibility of yielding the stud. 24in. class 300 pipe to blindjlange with varying
thicknesses
There are geometrical differences between the
class 300 and class 600 flanges other than just The same simulation was run for a pipe to pipe
the thickness. To focus purely on the thickness flange joint with similar results. The half thick-
the 24 inch class 300 flange was modelled with nes s flange had unexpectedly low bolt ratios,
varying thickness while keep all other dimen- but the remainder of the thicknesses fo llowed
sions constant. The thicknesses modelled were the expected pattern. It was noted during the
original thickness (I), 0.51, 1.5t, and 2.0t. The model that the half thickness fl ange deflected to
pipe to blind flange model demonstrated the ex- the point where the two flange faces contacted
pected behaviour with the bolt load ratio de- each other, reducing the energy stored by the
creasing with increasing flange thickness. fl ange and explaining the unexpectedly low bolt
ratios.

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 130 2015

 2.5

in one such case at a petroleum refinery a spool

2 piece on the discharge side of a pump was be ing
removed. Unfortunately the pump discharge
va lve had not seated correctly resulting in inad-
equate isolation. As the last bolt was being re-
- O.St, cross, pipe-pipe moved the flange seal broke causing a process
_ LOt, cross, pi pe-pipe leak that escalated into a fire.
0.5 __ 1.51, cross, plpe· plpe

_ 2.0t, cross, pipe-pipe Investigation into the incident identified fai ling
o
o 2 , 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
\ to follow the flange un-bolting procedure as a
22 24 contributing factor. The procedure requires the
Removill Sequence
Figure 6. Bolt load rallo durmg dlsassemhly of 24m. flange seal to be broken while there are four
class 300 pipe 10 pipejlal/ge with varying thicknesses. studs remaining in the joint. This helps mitigate
any unexpected release of energy. In this in-
In the 2002 finite element simulation it was stance it would not have prevented the leak, but
identified that removing the studs in rotational it would have reduced the risk to the craftsmen
order rather than a star pattern resulted in lower disassemb ling the joint.
bolt load ratios. The 24 inch class 300 flange
simulation seen in Figure 5 was run again re- As was reported at the 2014 Ammonia Safety
moving the bolts in rotational order. The results Symposium workshop, another incident in-
confirmed those of the 2002 study with the max- vol ved a major girth flange sealed with a lip seal
imum bolt load ratio seen only 1.51 compared gasket that was being disassembled while inter-
with 2.24 for the star pattern. nal pressure remained. The nature of a lip seal
gasket allowed significant unbolting to occur
1.6 without loss of containment. However the lip
,.. seal gasket had distorted to the point where it
required replacing which is not a tri vial task,
1.2 making thi s a significant incident. While the
flange was being disassembled the wamjng
O.st, clockwise, blind
flange
sign s that internal pressure remained were pre-
E 0.8 sent to the technicians, but were not recogni zed .
••
~ 0.6
...... 1.Ot, clockwise, blind
flange The warning signs reported were the remaining
S - l .St, clockwise, blind
0. 4 flange
studs becoming progressively harder to remove
- 2.Ot, clockwise, blind as the flange was disassembled.
0.2 - '---"'n'!""
!l,',___---'
o Case History - Near Miss, Methanex New Zea-
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 W 20 22 M land Ltd
Removal Sequence The bottom flange on a vertical heat exchanger
Figure 7. Bolt load ratio during disassembly of 24in. was being di sassembled on a plant that had been
class 300 pipe to blind flange, studs removed in rota-
shut down for four years. The nuts were being
tiona/ order
gas cut as they were seized, while cutting the
fourth to last stud the nut rapidly and unexpect-
Case Histories
edly di slodged and fell to the ground twenty feet
There have been several incidents due to flanges below.
be ing di sassembled when the system was not
completely pressure free.

2015 131 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 Lubrication
Bolt up sequence

The theoretical training is follo wed by a practi-

cal session on a purpose built flange joint test
rig; this allows supervisors to confinn that the
technician has understood the training and is ca-
pable of applying it in practice.

Figure 8. Vertical heat exchanger

This was recorded as a potential major incident

due to the dropped object and a Taproot® inves-
tigation was carried out. One of the root causes
identified in the investigation was the flange
joint assembly procedure not specifically ad-
dressing the disassembly of large flanges. The
procedure states that " large flange sizes require
a specific disassembly procedure to avoid over- Figure 9. Flange training test rig
loading studs" but does not include any further
guidance o f the procedure to be followed. As a result of thi s research flan ge disassembly
has also been included in the training. This
The finite element analysis presented in this pa- hi ghlights the potential for incidents due to in-
per was initiated as a corrective action from the creasing bolt loads during the disassembly pro-
in cident in vesti gation. cess and the need to be completely certain that
the system is pressure free. Another important
Flange Disassembly Training facet added to the training is the requirement to
ensure the seal on the joint is broken with a min-
Methanex New Zealand Ltd currently has in-
house flanged joint assembly training that all imum of four studs remaining; this reduces the
impact of any potential incidents due to pressure
staff and contract mechanical maintenance tech-
nicians complete. This compri ses of practical in- remaining in the system.
fonn ation on the importance of assembling a
flange correctly including: The flange training test rig has been modified to
mimic interna l pressure using an internal spring
Flange and stud condition and technicians are required to disassemble the
flange during the training. This will help give
Gasket se lection
the technician a feel for the telltale sign of inter-
Flange alignment

AMMONIA TEC HNICAL MANUAL 132 2015

 nal pressure remaining in the joint, the increase
in bolt loads and consequent increase in torque
required to remove the nuts during di sassembly.
Conclusions
Current information indicates the potential for
safety incidents during disassembly and is
backed up by case histories. The current per-
ceived wisdom is that care needs to be taken
when di sassembling thick large diameter flanges
and that a star pattern is the best order to remove
the studs, however, recent work has called this
recommendation into question.
References
I. AS ME, 2013, "Guidelines for Pressure
Boundary Flange Joint Assembly",
ASME PCC-I - 2013
2. Takaki, T. and Fukuoka, T., 2002, "Fi-
nite Element Simulation of the Disas-
sembly Process of Pipe Flange Connec-
tions", PVP2002 -1091
3. ASME, 2013, "Pipe Flanges and
Flanged Fittings", ASME B 16.5 - 20 13
4. AS ME, 20 12, "Metallic Gaskets for Pipe
Flanges", ASME B 16.20 - 2012

Further research using finite element modelling

confirms the potential for incidents but is con-
trary to some of the current information. It indi-
cates care should be taken when disassembling
all flanges that are large in diameter regardless
of thickness and that the bolt loads seen during
disassembly actually decrease with increasing
flange thickness. The analysis shows that the
bolt loads can be reduced by removing the studs
in rotational order rather than in a cross pattern.
Another method to reduce bolt loads demon-
strated is removing the studs in two or more
passes instead of in a single pass.

Steps that can be taken to reduce the potential

for safety incidents during disassembly of large
diameter flanges include:

Highlighting the risks associated with

disassembly of large diameter fl anges in
procedures and training
Removing studs from large diameter
flanges in rotational order rather than a
star pattern, and with multiple passes.
Use of a flange joint training test rig to
mimic a flange being di sassembled with
pressure behind it
Highlighting the "at ri sk" flanges that
require care during disassembly on the
bolt torque chart

2015 133 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 134 2015