ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Analytical evaluation of stresses and displacements of stuffing-box packing

based on a flexibility analysis
Mohammed Diany, Abdel-Hakim Bouzid 
Ecole de Technologie Superieure, 1100 Notre-Dame Ouest, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 1K3

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although stuffing boxes are old systems used to ensure stem valve sealing, the analytical developments
Received 2 December 2007 of the stresses and the displacements generated during assembly and operation are very limited and
Received in revised form seldom verified and the studies carried out on these devices are either restricted or not accessible.
16 November 2008
Moreover, even with the evolution of calculation and simulation means, studies based on numerical
Accepted 2 February 2009
Available online 12 February 2009
models are rare.
This work proposes a simplified analytical approach, using the theory of thick-walled cylinders to
Keywords: analyse the stresses and displacements in stuffing box systems. The magnitude and distribution of the
Packed glands lateral contact pressures generated at the housing–packing–stem interfaces as a result of the application
Contact pressure
of the gland axial stress are determined as a function of the radial flexibility of the different components
Analytical modeling
involved. The results of the developed approach are compared and validated against the more accurate
finite elements axisymmetric models.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the qualification tests procedures of the assembled valves. The

In a valve, there are two types of seal systems. The first type is
an internal sealing that characterizes the correct function of the
valve. This prevents the flow of the process fluid when the valve
is shut off. The second type is an external sealing which prevents
leakage to the outside boundary. This is achieved by two
categories of seals. The first one is a gasket found at the
connection between the valve and piping system and is of a
static nature. The second one is a packing found between the stem
and the valve body and is rather of a dynamic nature. The current
study is focused on the external sealing produced by packings.
The degree of sealing of a valve depends on the contact pressure
value generated at the interfaces of the housing, the stem and the
packing compressed using a gland as shown in Fig. 1. This
compression load is uniformly distributed in the circumferential
direction but varies along the axial direction of the stem.
Currently there is no standard design methodology that can be
used for the design and selection of packings or a standard test
procedure to qualify them. However presently there are two
standards [1–3] in Europe and America that have recently been
adopted. The first standard, ISO 15848, describes the test
procedure to evaluate the external stem and packing leakages in
the valves. Its first part deals with the classification system and
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 396 8563; fax: +1 514 396 8530.
E-mail addresses: mdiany@yahoo.com (M. Diany), hakim.bouzid@etsmtl.ca
(A.-H. Bouzid).
second part relates to the quality control of valve production lines
for which the fugitive emission standards are applied. The second
standard, API 622, establishes a uniform test procedure for the
evaluation of the performance of stem packing. The approach used
in the test defined in this standard provides a method to evaluate
valve packing independently of the manufacturer.
2. Background
Several research teams proposed analytical models, supported
by experimental studies, to characterize the behaviour of the
stuffing box packing. In 1960, Denny [4] showed that the ratio of
the radial stress over the axial stress, called lateral pressure
coefficient ratio, is constant without quantifying the stresses.
Ochonski [5] proposed a theoretical approach to determine the
distribution of the radial contact stress at the packing–stem and
packing–housing interfaces. He determined also the experimental
values of the lateral pressure coefficient for a braided packing of
asbestos yarn, impregnated with PTFE. The deformation of the
packing, stem and housing, fluid pressure and the friction forces in
the operating conditions have not been considered in his model.
Pengyun et al. [6] considered the axial balance and the
moment equilibrium to solve the problem. They substitute the
axial stress by concentrated forces but neglected the shearing
effect in the calculation of the ratio of the lateral pressure
coefficients. The relationship obtained is given by Eq. (1), and is
expressed in terms of the packing dimensions and the ratio of the

0301-679X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2009.02.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Diany, A.-H. Bouzid / Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986 981

Nomenclature q0 radial contact stress at the packing–housing interface

(MPa)
R1 inner packing radius (mm) u radial displacement (mm)
R2 outer packing radius (mm) w axial displacement (mm)
R3 outer housing radius (mm) sx axial stress in the packing at axial position x (MPa)
Y1, Y3 diameter ratios for packing and housing sD gland axial stress (MPa)
C1, C2 Mooney–Rivelin constants sr, sy, sl radial, tangential and axial stresses (MPa)
E1,2,3 elastic modulus for packing, stem and housing (MPa) mi friction coefficient between packing and stem
G1 packing shear modulus (MPa) m0 friction coefficient between packing and housing
Ki lateral pressure coefficient between packing and stem n1, n2, n3 Poisson’s coefficients of packing, stem and housing,
K0 lateral pressure coefficient between packing and respectively
housing el axial strain
qi radial contact stress at the packing–stem interface a coefficient
(MPa) b packing coefficient
aii matrix coefficients

friction coefficients at the two interfaces:
Ki m0 R2 3R2 þ 5R1
     
¼ (1)
K0 mi R1 5R2 þ 3R1
A more rigorous calculation [7] of the moments gives Eq. (2)
which is slightly different from Eq. (1):
Ki m0 R2 5R2 þ 7R1
     
¼ (2)
K0 mi R1 7R2 þ 5R1
Both methods do not allow calculating Ki and K0 separately, but
compare their values. This is independent of the load, the
dimensions and the mechanical characteristics of the stem and
the housing.
In this paper, it is proposed to calculate the lateral pressure
coefficients and their ratio using an approach based on the theory
of thick walled cylinders. These coefficients will be used to
determine the distributions of axial stress and axial displacements
of the packing. The effect of width and number of the packing
rings on the packing behaviour will be examined. The analytical
solution will be compared to the more accurate FEA.
the flexibility of the different components that interact in a
stuffing box packing assembly. The packing and the housing are
treated using thick cylinder theory whereas the stem is con-
sidered as a solid cylinder subjected to compression. Fig. 2 shows
the axisymetrical model used to treat the problem.
The stem and the housing box are made from steel with the
characteristics as summarized in Table 1. While for the FEA study
the packing made of graphite material is modeled with a hyper
elastic behaviour characterized by the Mooney–Rivlin constants
C1 and C2, calculated from the experimental compression curves
given in [8], the analytical model considers an elastic behaviour
with an elasticity modulus given by Eq. (3) [9]:
E1 ¼ 2ð1 þ n1 ÞG1 ¼ 4ð1 þ n1 ÞðC 1 þ C 2 Þ (3)
For the stem subjected to a radial pressure qi, the stresses are
given by
ssl ðR1 Þ ¼ 0
ssr ðR1 Þ ¼ qi
ssy ðR1 Þ ¼ qi (4)

3. Analytical model Using Hooke’s law, the radial displacement at the stem outside
diameter is
An analytical model that calculates the lateral pressure
R1 ð1  n2 Þ
coefficients Ki and K0 is presented in this section. It considers us ðR1 Þ ¼  qi (5)
E2

Stem Axis
qi qo
σx

qi qo
σ Gland
Housing
Packing
x
dx

R2
Packings
(1) Housing
Stem
R1 (2) (3)

Fig. 1. Packed stuffing-box. Fig. 2. Analytical model.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

982 M. Diany, A.-H. Bouzid / Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986

Table 1 or
Stuffing-box components material characteristics. " ! #
E1 Y 21  1
Stem Packing Housing  1 þ Y 21  n1 Y 21 þ n1 þ ð1 þ Y 2
3 þ n Y
3 3
2
 n3 q0
Þ
E3 Y 23  1
Subscript 2 1 3 þ 2qi þ n1 ðY 21  1Þsx ¼ 0 (13)
Ri (mm)  14.29 23.81
R0 (mm) 14.29 23.81 33.75 The system of Eqs. (12) and (13) can be written in a matrix form
Y 1.67 1.42
a11 2Y 21 n1 ðY 21  1Þsx
" #" # " #
E (MPa) 200 000 126 200 000 qi
n 0.3 0.4 0.3 ¼ (14)
2 a22 q0 n1 ðY 21  1Þsx

where
For the housing considered as a cylinder subjected to an internal
pressure, the stresses at the inside diameter are given by E1
a11 ¼ 1  n1 þ Y 21 þ n1 Y 21 þ ð1  n2 ÞðY 21  1Þ
E2
shl ðR2 Þ ¼ 0
and
shr ðR2 Þ ¼ q0 !
1 þ Y 23 E1 Y2  1
h
sy ðR2 Þ ¼ q0 (6) a22 ¼ 1 þ n1 þ Y 21  n1 Y 21 þ ð1  n3 þ Y 23 þ n3 Y 23 Þ 12
E3 Y3  1
Y 23  1
The solution of this system is
Using Hooke’s law, the housing radial displacement at inside
diameter is a22  2Y 21
qi ¼ n1 ðY 21  1Þsx (15)
2
4Y 21  a11 a22
R2 ð1  n3 þ ð1 þ n 3 ÞY 3 Þ
uh ðR2 Þ ¼ q0 (7) and
ðY 23  1ÞE3
2  a11
For the packing considered as a cylinder subjected to internal and
q0 ¼ n1 ðY 21  1Þsx (16)
4Y 21  a11 a22
external pressures, the stresses at the inside and outside radii are
given by Lamé as The lateral pressure coefficients are, therefore,

spl ðR1 Þ ¼ sx a22  2Y 21

Ki ¼ n1 ðY 21  1Þ (17)
spr ðR1 Þ ¼ qi 4Y 21  a11 a22

2Y 21 1 þ Y 21 and
spy ðR1 Þ ¼ q0 þ qi (8)
Y 21 1 Y 21  1 2  a11
K0 ¼ n1 ðY 21  1Þ (18)
4Y 21  a11 a22
spl ðR2 Þ ¼ sx Finally, the lateral pressure coefficient ratio is given by
spr ðR2 Þ ¼ q0 Ki q a22  2Y 21
1þ Y 21 2 ¼ i ¼ (19)
spy ðR2 Þ ¼  q0 þ qi (9) K 0 q0 2  a11
Y 21 1 Y 21 1
For the calculation of the packing axial displacements, an approxi-
The displacements of the packing at the inside and outside radii mate method based on an elastic packing behaviour is proposed.
using Hooke’s law are Knowing the packing stresses at any given axial position x,
Hooke’s law may be used to give the axial displacement as
R1
up ðR1 Þ ¼ ½2Y 21 q0 þ ð1 þ Y 21 þ n1 Y 21  n1 Þqi dw 1
ðY 21  1ÞE1 l ¼ ¼ ½s  n1 ðsy þ sr Þ (20)
2
dx E1 l
þn 1 ðY 1  1Þsx  (10)
At the packing ID, using the conditions of Eqs. (8), this
deformation is given by
R2
up ðR2 Þ ¼ ½ð1 þ Y 21  n1 Y 21 þ n1 Þq0 þ 2qi " !#
ðY 21  1ÞE1 dw 1 1 þ Y 21 2Y 21
l ¼ ¼ sx  n1 qi þ 2 qi  2 q0 (21)
þ n1 ðY 21  1Þsx  (11) dx E1 Y1  1 Y1  1

The compatibility of displacement at the interface radii R1 and R2 with

are expressed by Eqs. (12) and (13): sx ¼ sD ebx
At R1:
qi ¼ K i sx
up ðR1 Þ ¼ us ðR1 Þ q0 ¼ K 0 sx (22)

or Therefore,
E1 dw
 2Y 21 qo þ ½1 þ Y 21 þ n1 Y 21  n1 þ ð1  n2 ÞðY 21  1Þqi ¼ asD ebx (23)
E2 dx
2
þn 1 ðY 1  1Þsx ¼ 0 (12)
with
At R2: " #
1 2n1
a¼ 1þ 2 ðK i  Y 21 K 0 Þ (24)
up ðR2 Þ ¼ uh ðR2 Þ E1 Y1  1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Diany, A.-H. Bouzid / Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986 983

By integration expression (23) with the condition that no Table 2

displacement is allowed at the lower packing surface, is found Comparison between analytical and FE models.

asD Ki K0 Ki/K0
wðxÞ ¼ ½ebl  ebx  (25)
b
Eq. (1) – – 1.470
Eq. (2) – – 1.533
Analytical model 0.649 0.653 0.994
MEF 0.600 0.591 1.016
4. Finite element model

The validation of the proposed model is carried out using

ANSYS 10 software [9]. It consists of simulating the behaviour
1.6
of the packed stuffing box subjected to an axial gland stress. To
study the effect of the applied axial stress on the axial distribution
of the lateral contact pressure at the packing–stem and pack- 1.5

Lateral pressure coefficients ratio, Ki/Ko

ing–housing interfaces and the influence of the friction coeffi-
cients at these locations, an axisymmetric finite element model 1.4
of the packed stuffing box, presented in Fig. 3, is used. The 2D
4-nodes, hyper elastic element was used to model the packing FEA ν = 0.25
1.3
material. Mooney–Rivlin material model characterized by two
Analytical
constant C1 and C2 calculated from the experimental compression
curve was employed. 1.2 Eq.(1) [6]
The distributions of the radial and axial stresses along the Eq.(2) [7]
packing axial direction together with the axial displacements 1.1
were obtained for various imposed axial gland stresses and for
various friction coefficient values. The lateral pressure coefficients
1
are then calculated for the compressed flexible graphite packing.
To examine the effect of the number of the packing rings on the
behaviour of the stuffing box, 2–8 rings were considered. The 0.9
rings have an inner diameter of 28.6 mm and a width of 9.5 mm.
Three gland stresses of 10, 35 and 50 MPa were applied to the 0.8
packing with various values of friction coefficient ranging from 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.15 to 0.25. Axial stress, σD (MPa)

Fig. 4. Lateral pressure coefficients ratio vs gland axial stress.

5. Results and discussions

The proposed analytical model suggests that axial and radial

contact stresses are independent of the applied gland load and is 0.8
constant for all vertical positions. Furthermore, the relationships 0.15
(17) and (18), show that the lateral pressure coefficients Ki and K0 0.75 0.175
Friction coefficient
are independent of the friction coefficient but are a function of the 0.20
Lateral pressure coefficient, Ki

mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the assembly 0.25

components. In addition, for the data used in this study, Ki and 0.7
Axial gland pressure

Stem 0.65 10 MPa

Housing
0.6

0.55 35 MPa
Packing

0.5 50 MPa

0.45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of packing rings

Fig. 5. Inside lateral pressure coefficient.

K0 values are found quite similar as may be appreciated from

Table 2. The finite element analysis confirms this finding. The ratio
of Ki/K0 is close to one and is independent of the applied
gland stress as shown in Fig. 4. It is to be noted that Eqs. (1)
Fig. 3. FE model of stuffing box packing. and (2) taken from Refs. [6,7] give rather large ratios close to 1.5.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

984 M. Diany, A.-H. Bouzid / Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986

The values of Ki and K0 calculated by the proposed model are
also validated with those obtained experimentally by Bartonicek
et al. [10].
The finite element analysis allowed a further look onto the
effect of the applied gland stress, the friction coefficient and the
number of packing rings on the lateral pressure coefficients. Fig. 5
presents the results of such effects on the inner lateral pressure
coefficient Ki. For the same axial stress, the effect of the friction
coefficient is less significant since at most less than 10% is
observed with a 50 MPa gland stress. Of particular importance is
the lateral pressure coefficient decrease with increased gland
stress. Nevertheless, in all cases the lateral pressure coefficient
ratio was found to approach unity as indicated in Fig. 6. This ratio
remains constant at all times even after some relaxation has taken
place [11].
1.01
Friction coefficient
1.005
Lateral pressure coefficients ratio, Ki/Ko
Figs. 7 and 8 show the effect of the gland stress and the friction
coefficient on the axial displacement using FE analysis and the
analytical model for 5 and 6 packings, respectively. These figures
show that for a given vertical position, when the gland stress
increases or the friction coefficient decreases, the displacement
increases. The displacement increases from almost zero at
the lower packing surface to reach a maximum value at the
upper surface. Although these figures show a similar trend,
the comparison with the analytical model is clearly indicated in
Figs. 9 and 10 for gland stresses of 35 and 50 MPa. It is to be noted
that the difference between the two methods depends on the
friction coefficient and the gland stress. The scatter is wider at
the mid-axial position and is about 20% when sD ¼ 50 MPa and
m ¼ 0.25. For all other lower friction coefficients and axial packing
stresses, the difference is not significant.
Although the hyper elastic material defined by the Moon-
ey–Rivlin model is the nearest available Ansys material that
Axial stress
0.15 7 σD
0.175 Rectangle : 35 MPa

Triangle : 10 MPa
0.20 Star : 50 MPa
1 6
0.25
Axial displacement, w (mm)
50 MPa
0.995 5 Friction coefficient
Solid line : 0.15
0.99 Dotted line : 0.20
4
Dashed line : 0.25 35 MPa
0.985
3

0.98
2

0.975
1 10 MPa
0.97
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
Number of packing rings 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Axial position (mm)
Fig. 6. Lateral pressure coefficient ratio.
Fig. 8. Analytical axial displacements for six packing rings.

6 σD 5
σD
4.5
5
Axial displacement, w (mm)

Friction coefficient 50 MPa 4 σD = 35 MPa

Axial displacement, w (mm)

Solid line : 0.15 3.5 Friction coefficient

4 Dotted line : 0.2
Dashed line : 0.25 3 0.20
35 MPa 0.25
3 2.5
Solid Line : FEA
2 Dashed line : analytical model
2
1.5

1
1 10 MPa
0.5

0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Axial position (mm) Axial position (mm)

Fig. 7. FE axial displacements for five packing rings. Fig. 9. Analytical and FE packing axial displacements for sD ¼ 50 MPa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Diany, A.-H. Bouzid / Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986 985

20
6 σD

Radial contact pressure, qi and qo (MPa)

15
5 σD = 50 MPa
Axial displacement, w (mm)

Friction coefficient 10 qi

4 0.20 5 μ = 0.15
0.25 35 MPa
σD
3 0
Solid Line : FEA
Dashed line : analytical model
Number of packing rings
-5
2
2 3 4
qo
-10 5 6 7
1 8

-15
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -20
Axial position (mm) 20 40 60 80 100 120
Axial position (mm)
Fig. 10. Analytical and FE packing axial displacements for sD ¼ 35 MPa.
Fig. 12. Radial contact stresses qi and q0.

6 20
σD σD

5 σD = 35 MPa 18
Radial contact pressure, qi (MPa)
Axial displacement, w (mm)

Friction coefficient
16
4 σD = 35 MPa
Solid line : 0.15 μ = 0.15
Dotted line : 0.2
Dashed line : 0.25 14
3
Number of packing rings
12
8
2
6 10 Numbers packing rings
3
2 3
1 4 5
8
6 7
8
0 6
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Axial position (mm) Axial position (mm)

Fig. 11. FE packing axial displacement for sD ¼ 35 MPa. Fig. 13. Superimposed radial contact pressure distributions.

characterizes packing behaviour, its constants are determined by a
tri-axial stress test and is only considered for the loading case.
Notwithstanding, it is believed that the shear effect not accounted
for by the analytical model is what causes this difference. In
addition, the representativeness of the packing material behaviour
by Mooney–Rivlin model can be questionable to a certain extend.
Recent study [12,13] suggests that porous bodies such as
exfoliated graphite packing are modeled using modified Cam–Clay
material behaviour which in general can describe soil and rock
because such materials consolidate under pressure and are prone
to shear. Nevertheless, for the purpose of validation of the
developed analytical model during initial loading, the Moon-
ey–Rivlin model is considered acceptable. Fig. 11 shows the axial
displacement for deferent number of packing rings and friction
coefficients for the same axial stress.
The effect the number of packing rings on the contact pressure
distributions of qi and q0 along the vertical position is also shown
in Fig. 12. It is evident that, for a given position, both interface
contact stresses increase with a decrease of the number of packing
rings. The curves show a substantial decrease of contact stress at
the opposite side of the gland in the case of high number of
packing rings. Besides being a source of leakage paths, this low
compressed region may provide space for relaxation to take place.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the superposition of the contact pressure
distribution curves of different number of packing configurations.
A change in the coordinate system is conducted to bring the
contact surface between the gland and the first packing at the
same axial position. The resulting outcome is a perfect overlap
of the eight curve cases with all the points laying on one curve
with the exception of a few points that are the subject of end
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

986 M. Diany, A.-H. Bouzid / Tribology International 42 (2009) 980–986

7 therefore could be used as a tool for the design of stuffing box

σD packing. In particular, the model could be used to optimise the
number of the packing rings depending on the level of tightening
6 and the operating conditions.
Radial contact pressure, qo (MPa)

5
σD = 10 MPa
μ = 0.20
4
3
2 scientific knowledge.
Numbers packing rings
1
0 procedures for type testing of valves; 2006.
10 30 50 70
Axial position (mm)
Fig. 14. Radial contact stress at packing-housing interface for sD ¼ 10 MPa and
m ¼ 0.20.
effects. These curves could be used to select the number of
packing rings required to guaranty the sealability of the stuffing
box packing system based on an acceptable criterion. For example,
the number of packing can be limited to those having a contact
stress above a multiple value of the fluid pressure.
6. Conclusion
An analytical model based on thick cylinder theory has been
developed to model the stem-packing-housing interaction. The
model gives reliable contact pressure distributions at the inter-
faces and can predict the deformations involved. The results from
the developed model agree with those of FEA and experimental
studies of the literature. The model suggests that the contact
pressure ratio is close to one, while the interface contact pressure
depends on several parameters including geometry, materials and
friction. The model has potential in predicting contact stress as a
function of geometry, materials, friction coefficient and load and
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for partially
financing this study. They also wish to thank Dr. Le Van Ngan and
Henry Champliaud for their help and generosity in sharing their
2 3 References
5 6
7 8 [1] ISO 15848-1. Industrial valves—measurement, test and qualification proce-
dures for fugitive emissions—part 1: classification system and qualification
90 110 [2] ISO 15848-2. Industrial valves—measurement, test and qualification proce-
dures for fugitive emissions—part 2: production acceptance test of valves;
2003.
[3] API 622. Type testing of process valve packing for fugitive emissions, 1st ed.
2006.
[4] Denny DF. A force analyse of the stuffing-box seal. Research report 550, BHRA,
the Fluid Engineering Centre, Harlow, England; 1957.
[5] Ochonski W. Radial stress distribution and friction forces in a soft-packed
stuffing-box seal. Tribology International 1988;21(1):31–8.
[6] Pengyun S, Kuangmin C, et al. Theoretical analysis of the lateral pressure
coefficients in a soft-packed stuffing-box seal. Tribology International
1997;30(10):759–65.
[7] Diany M, Bouzid A. Evaluation of contact stress in stuffing box packings. In:
2006 ASME-PVP conference, paper no. PVP2006-ICPVT11-93083, Vancouver,
British Columbia; 2006.
[8] Klenk T, Kockelmann H, Roos E, Bartonicek J, Schoeckle F. Characteristics and
testing techniques for stuffing box packings, vol. 382. 1999 ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Division, PVP; 1999. p. 135–43.
[9] Ansys. Standard manual, version 10. Ansys Inc.; 2005.
[10] Bartonicek J, Schoeckle F. Approach to a correct function of stuffing boxes.
Computer technology—1996: applications and methodology, vol. 326.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping
Division (publication) PVP; 1996. p. 115–21.
[11] Diany M, Bouzid A. Analytical modelling of creep relaxation of stuffing box
packing. In: 2007 ASME-PVP conference, paper no. PVP2007-26094, San
Antonio, TX, USA; 2007.
[12] Nı́ Ruaidhe M, Torrance AA. Developing a finite element model of exfoliated
graphite valve packings. In: Proceeding of the 17th international conference
on fluid sealing; 2003. p. 95–109.
[13] Roe M, Torrance A. Performance prediction of exfoliated graphite seals: 1.
Determination of parameters and verification of model. Sealing Technology
2008;4:6–13.