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

net/publication/333301671

Thermo-Mechanical Evaluation of the Performance and Integrity of a HDPE

Stub-End Bolted Flange Connection

Article in Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Transactions of the ASME · May 2019
DOI: 10.1115/1.4043844

CITATIONS READS

7 2,114

3 authors, including:

Imad Barsoum Zuheir Barsoum

Khalifa University KTH Royal Institute of Technology
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,222 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 2,494 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Imad Barsoum on 23 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


I. Barsoum1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The Petroleum Institute,
Khalifa University of Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 2533,
Abu Dhabi, UAE
e-mail: imad.barsoum@ku.ac.ae
Z. Barsoum
Department of Aeronautical and
Vehicle Engineering,
Division of Lightweight Structures,
Royal Institute of Technology—KTH,
Teknikringen 8,
Stockholm 100 44, Sweden
M. D. Islam
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The Petroleum Institute,
Khalifa University of Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 2533,
Abu Dhabi, UAE
Thermomechanical Evaluation of
the Performance and Integrity
of a HDPE Stub-End Bolted
Flange Connection
In this study, the integrity of a manhole structure made of a 78 in. high density polyethyl-
ene (HDPE) stub-end, steel ring, and blind flange, sealed with a compressed nonasbestos
fiber (CNAF) gasket is investigated by means of a parametric finite element analysis
(FEA). A coupled thermomechanical nonlinear FEA model is built, comprising of a heat
transfer and a structural model, which allows modeling the complex thermal and
mechanical loads and their interactions present during the operation of the manhole. The
temperature-dependent elastic–plastic HDPE material constitutive behavior and the
temperature-dependent nonlinear response of the CNAF gasket are accounted for in
the model. Factors influencing the performance and integrity of the manhole such as
stud-bolt pretorque level (Tb), internal pressure (Pi), and outer temperature (To) are con-
sidered. Based on the results, the integrity and performance of the structure are assessed
in view of a leakage through the gasket criterion and a yielding of the HDPE stub-end
criterion. The FEA results reveal that both Tb, Pi, and To significantly influence the per-
formance (i.e., leakage) of the gasket and the integrity (i.e., yielding) of the HDPE stub-
end. At 40  C, it is possible to find a safe operational window for a range of Tb and Pi val-
ues, where no leakage through the gasket or yielding of the stub-end occurs. However, as
the temperature is increased this safe operational window decreases considerably, and at
80  C safe operation cannot be guaranteed where leakage, yielding, or both simultane-
ously, will lead to loss in performance and integrity of the manhole structure.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4043844]

Keywords: HDPE, bolted flange, stub-end, gasket, finite element analysis, leakage,
yielding, failure assessment chart

1 Introduction (CNAF) gasket with nitrile rubber binder in a bolted steel flange
connection. Sawa et al. [14] evaluated through finite element anal-
Plastic pipelines made of high density polyethylene (HDPE)
ysis (FEA) the sealing performance of a box-shape bolted steel
have been successfully used in the petrochemical industry and
flange connection subjected to internal pressure by accounting for
water supply industry as an alternative to metallic pipes because
the nonlinear characteristics of the gasket material. Do et al. [9]
of their high resistance to corrosive environments, high level of
addressed the issue of the contact stress level unbalance around
flexibility, and toughness. However, flanged bolted joints of large
the flange when bolts are subjected to initial tightening in a steel
diameter stub-end HDPE pipes, as shown in Fig. 1, are rather sen-
bolted flange connection. Based on their FEA results, an analytical
sitive to the operating conditions such as pressure, temperature,
model is proposed to assess the effect of bolt spacing and its
bolt arrangement, and choice of gaskets. Inadequately designed
impact on the gasket contact stress distribution. The combined
bolted connections in HDPE piping can lead to leakage. The con-
thermal and mechanical behavior of bolted steel flange connec-
sequences are expensive measures such as retightening of bolts or
tions have also been studied in the past [5,6]. However, none of
replacement of gaskets of pipes buried under ground or installed
the aforementioned or available studies has addressed the
subsea. In severe scenarios and when operated at elevated temper-
atures, the retightening of bolts can, in combination with an
increased operating pressure, lead to failure of the HDPE pipe and
stub-end. The choice and type of gasket have also a significant
effect on the performance of the connection. The hardness or stiff-
ness of the gasket material has to be less than the HDPE material
such that it can compress and seal tightly during installation.
Bolted flanges and their performance and leak tightness behav-
ior have been the subject of numerous studies in the past, either
experimentally, by means of finite element method or analytically
[1–14]. Luyt et al. [13] used a nonlinear finite element model to
analyze the creep behavior of a compressed nonasbestos fiber

1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 20,
2018; final manuscript received May 21, 2019; published online July 17, 2019.
Assoc. Editor: Sayed Nassar. Fig. 1 HDPE stub-end flange

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2019 by ASME OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051206-1
 Table 1 Factors and their range used in the FEA

Pi Internal pressure (Bar) 4 6 8 10

Tb Bolt torque (Nm) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
To Outer surface temperature ( C) 40 60 80
Tw Water temperature ( C) 40

Table 2 Thermal and physical properties

HDPE Steel Gasket (CNAF)

Density (kg/m3) 959 7850 1750

Specific heat (J/kg/ C) 2400 465 1250
Thermal conductivity (W/m/ C) 0.45 54 0.38
Thermal expansion (m/(m C)) 120  106 11.7  106 80  106

performance of HDPE stub-end bolted flange connections, in par-
ticular not while subjected to thermal and mechanical loads.
Hence, this study intends to investigate the combined effect of
several factors on the performance of a 78 in. SDR21 HDPE (PE
100) stub-end blind flange. The various factors to be considered
are: operating pressure (Pi), operating water temperature (Tw),
outer ambient temperature (To), and bolt torque/preload levels
(Tb). The main objective is to assess the integrity of the stub-end
through a parametric FEA such that bounds on the influencing fac-
tors can be derived from the results of the FEA study. The FEA
results will be assessed through performance criteria (e.g., leakage
through gasket and yielding of HDPE) such that operational
bounds can be determined in view of the assessment criteria. The
range of values of the influencing factors is given in Table 1 and
is derived from normal design and operational ranges typical for
such HDPE stub-end with steel blind flange. Most importantly
here, the effect of the outer surface temperature on the HDPE
stub-end, where the two extreme cases (e.g., To ¼ 40  C and
80  C), represents a flange fully buried case or fully exposed to
the sun case, respectively. The manholes are made of fabricated
stub-ends which are heat fusion welded to the HDPE pipe. A blind
steel flange and a slip-on ring flange are bolted together with 64
bolts, and a gasket is used to seal the connection. A commonly
used gasket material to seal HDPE stub-end steel flanged connec-
tions is elastomeric ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM)
due to its low hardness (e.g., 60–75 shore A hardness) in compari-
son to the HDPE material. This allows for lower torque levels to
produce a leak-tight seal and thus maintain the integrity of the
HDPE stub-end. However, hard gasket materials, such as CNAF,
may not seal properly and would require continuous retightening,
which could affect the integrity of the HDPE stub-end. Hence, a
CNAF gasket is considered in this study, and its performance is
evaluated to investigate the suitability in a HDPE stub-end steel
flanged bolted connection.
2 Thermal Properties
The thermal properties such as specific heat capacity, thermal
conductivity, and coefficient of linear thermal expansion of each
material involved in the FEA model are listed in Table 2. The
CNAF gasket (e.g., Klingersil C-4430) is made of a combination
of synthetic fibers bonded with nitrile butadiene rubber synthetic
rubber [15].
3 Mechanical Properties
3.1 Elastic–Plastic Behavior of High Density Polyethylene
at Room Temperature. Tensile tests on HDPE dumbbell speci-
men where conducted as per ISO 527-1 [16] at room temperature
(25  C) in order to obtain the elastic modulus and yield strength.
The dumbbell specimens were cut in the longitudinal direction of
the pipe section (PS), the stub-end section (SS), and across the
weld section (WS) from a new stub-end Fig. 2(a). The tensile tests
were conducted in an MTS Alliance RF/150, with a 150 kN load
cell, and strain was recorded with a Tinius & Olsen video exten-
someter as shown in Fig. 2(b).

Fig. 2 (a) Specimens cut from a new stub-end and (b) experimental setup for tensile testing

051206-2 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 3 Engineering tensile stress–strain curves (r versus e) of HDPE: (a) PS, (b) SS, and (c) WS

Table 3 Mechanical properties of HDPE determined experimentally at 25  C

Section #ID E (GPa) ISO 527-1 [16] Sy (MPa) ISO 527-1 [16] E (GPa) average Sy (MPa) average

PS PS1 1.912 29.898 1.961 29.780

PS2 2.009 29.662
SS SS1 1.676 28.361 1.731 28.773
SS2 1.786 29.186
WS WS1 1.648 28.480 1.661 28.280
WS2 1.673 28.079

Fig. 4 Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of HDPE: (a) elastic modulus E and (b) yield strength Sy

The experimental tensile engineering stress–strain curves for
each specimen set are shown in Fig. 3, where (a) pertain to the
PS, (b) to the SS, and (c) to the WS. As evident from Fig. 3, the
stress–strain curves look rather similar, and that all three sections
(e.g., pipe, stub-end, and weld) have approximately the same
mechanical response.
The elastic modulus (E) and yield strength (Sy) are obtained
from Fig. 3 in accordance with ISO 527-1 [16] and corresponding
values are presented in Table 3. On average, the elastic modulus
is E ¼ 1.961, 1.731, and 1.661 GPa for pipe, stub-end, and welds
section, respectively, and the yield strength is Sy ¼ 29.780,
28.773, and 28.280 MPa for pipe, stub-end and welds section,
respectively. The difference is rather insignificant; however, the
average values in Table 3 are used to represent the mechanical
properties of each section at the room temperature in the FEA
model.
3.2 Temperature-Dependent Mechanical Properties of
High Density Polyethylene Material. Several studies [17–19]
have investigated the effect of temperature on the mechanical
response of HPDE pipe material. In Ref. [18], the effect of
temperature on the tensile properties, e.g., elastic modulus E and
yield strength Sy, are determined for HDPE PE-100 pipe material
in the temperature range 10  C to 70  C. The effect is given by
the following two equations:
E ¼ ERT  kE ðT  TRT Þ (1)
Sy ¼ SyRT  kS ðT  TRT Þ (2)
where temperature T is given in degree celcius, ERT and SyRT are
the elastic modulus and yield strength at room temperature,
respectively, given by the average values in Table 3, TRT ¼ 25  C,
kE ¼ 11, and kS ¼ 0.305. The elastic modulus E and yield strength
Sy are in MPa. Using Eqs. (1) and (2) in combination with the
results in Table 3, it is possible to generate the temperature-
dependent mechanical properties for the HDPE material under
consideration. These are given in Fig. 4 and will be used to assign
each HDPE section (e.g., pipe, stub-end, and welds) in the FEA
model its corresponding elastic modulus and yield strength as
function of temperature.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051206-3


Fig. 5 Through-thickness behavior of Klingersil C-4430 gasket
[15]
3.3 Gasket Material. The gasket type under consideration
here is a compressed nonasbestos fiber type (e.g., CNAF), where
the leak tightness and integrity of the gasket is investigated. The
CNAF type gasket considered is a Klingersil C-4430 produced by
Klinger [15]. In Fig. 5 the nonlinear through-thickness behavior at
various temperatures for the gasket material is shown, pertaining
to stress versus gasket closure at 25  C and 100  C. This is used as
input in the FEA model to describe the through-thickness nonlin-
ear behavior of the CNAF gasket. The modulus of elasticity (i.e.,
membrane stiffness) of the gasket material is 1.8 GPa and 1.4 GPa
at 28  C and 200  C, respectively.
3.4 Steel Material. All the steel components, e.g., nuts, stud
bolts, blind flange, (ASTM A105), and the slip-on ring flange are
modeled as elastic solids with elastic modulus 200 GPa, Poisson’s
ratio 0.3, and density of 7850 kg/m3.
4 Estimation of Loads
4.1 Bolt Preloads. The stud bolts have nominal diameter
d ¼ 50.8 mm (2 in.), length 476 mm, pitch of 5 mm, and corre-
sponding nut height of 50.8 mm [20,21]. Both stud bolts and nuts
are made of hot dipped galvanized steel. Studs are of material
ASTM A193-B7 and nuts of ASTM A194-2H. Minimum proof
and ultimate strength of studs are Sp ¼ 640 MPa and Sut ¼
760 MPa, respectively. The tensile stress area of stud bolts is
At ¼ 2026 mm2 [20,21], which gives a proof load of Fp ¼ 1296 kN
per stud bolt. The relation between the torque and preload in bolts
is given by the simplified equation Tb ¼ K d Fi, where Tb is the
torque, d is the nominal diameter of bolt, Fi is the initial preload
in the bolt, and K is the so-called torque coefficient [20,21]. Con-
sidering lubricated stud bolts, the friction coefficient between
threads is 0.15 and between flat surfaces of the nuts and blind steel
flange is 0.10. This gives a torque coefficient of K ¼ 0.167, and
thus Fi ¼ 118 Tb, where Tb torque is in Nm and Fi force is in N.
According to Plastic Pipes Institute (PPI) guidelines for estima-
tion of torque levels for HDPE pipes steel flanged connections
[22], it can be derived for a 78 in. pipe with lubed nuts that the
minimum and maximum seating torque should be 750 Nmand
1100 Nm, respectively, for elastomeric gaskets (e.g., EPDM).
DVS-2210-1, Supplement 3 [23] describes the fundamental design
principles and requirements for flanged joints for above-ground
Table 4 Torque values, corresponding bolt preload and CNAF gasket characteristics as per Klinger [15] and DIN28090-1 [24]
Tb Bolt torque (Nm) 500
Fi Preload per bolt (kN) 59
Fi/Fp Bolt/proof load ratio — 4.5%
rEff Effective gasket stress (installation) (MPa) 5 10
r VU Required gasket pressure (installation) (MPa)
r BU Required gasket pressure (operation) (MPa)
051206-4 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
piping made of thermoplastics HDPE. It gives guidance on bolt
tightening torques for assembling flanged joints using the recom-
mended flat elastomeric (EPDM) seals. It can be derived from
Ref. [23] that for a 78 in. HDPE pipe steel flange connection a tor-
que of 690 Nm would be required to seal the connection if an
elastomeric EPDM seal is used. However, the manufacturer of the
CNAF gasket (Klingersil C-4430) recommends a torque level of
3500 Nm in order to maintain the leak tightness. Hence, a torque
range 500 Nm  Tb  3500 Nm as given in Table 4 is used in
the parametric FEA. In Table 4, Fi is the preload force per bolt
and Fi/Fp is the ratio between the preload and the proof load of
the bolt.
4.2 Gasket Characteristics. From the preload per bolt Fi, it
is possible to calculate the average gasket pressure or, as per DIN
28090-1 [24,25], the effective gasket surface stress rEff, after
installation of the gasket for each preload value using the follow-
ing equation:
4 N Fi
rEff ¼   (3)
p D2o  D2i
where the number of bolts N ¼ 64, the effective sealable outer
diameter of the gasket Do ¼ 2360 mm and inner diameter of the
gasket Di ¼ 1917 mm. The effective gasket surface stress rEff is
listed in Table 4, along with other gasket characteristics as per
DIN28090-1 [24,25] and Klinger [15]. The gasket characteristics
in Table 4 are applicable for temperature range between 40 and
80  C and internal pressure ranging from 4 to 10 Bar, assuming a
leakage tightness class of 0.1 mg/sm as per DIN28090-1 [24]. The
minimum gasket surface stress rVU is the least surface stress that
must be reached on the sealing area through the bolt forces during
installation. The value of rEff should always be larger than rVU
(e.g., rEff/rVU > 1) in order to fulfill the no-leakage requirements
at installation. As can be seen in Table 4, bolt torque values 500
and 1000 Nm do not fulfill this requirement at installation of the
CNAF gasket and thus higher torque values are required (e.g.,
Tb  1500 Nm) for leak tightness. The minimum required gasket
surface stress rBU is the minimum surface contact pressure that
should be maintained in the gasket during operation in order to
guarantee the tightness and prevent leakage.
4.3 Thermal Loads. Commonly HDPE flanged connections
and stub-ends are to be installed underground, or shielded, and not
exposed to sun in order to prevent the assembly from excessive
external thermal loads [26]. According to PPI guidelines [26],
direct exposure of HDPE to sunlight can raise the surface temper-
ature of the pipe up to 80  C. At this temperature level, the
mechanical properties such as the elastic modulus and the yield
strength of both the HDPE material and the gasket material are
significantly altered. It is assumed that the water temperature of
the fluid is constant 40  C, and hence, the inner surface in the FEA
model is prescribed a constant value Tw ¼ 40  C, whereas, the
outer surface temperature To is prescribed values in the following
range: To ¼ 40, 60 and 80  C.
4.4 Internal Pressure. The normal operating pressure of the
cooling water supply piping system is 6.4 Bar. However, history
log of the pressure showed a pressure variation between 6.0 up to
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
118 177 236 295 354 413
9.1% 13.6% 18.2% 22.5% 27.3% 31.9%
15 20 25 30 35
14
5
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 6 The FEA model with thermal and mechanical boundary conditions
Fig. 7 Steady-state temperature distribution through the manhole at a constant water temperature Tw 5 40  C with outer tem-
perature: (a) To 5 40  C, (b) To 5 60  C, and (c) To 5 80  C
7.5 Bar. Hence, the range in internal pressure Pi considered in the
parametric FEA study covers the following range: Pi ¼ 4, 6, 8,
and 10 Bar.
5 Finite Element Model
A 3D nonlinear finite element model, as shown in Fig. 6, is built
in ABAQUS [27]. Since the geometry, material, and loading are
inherently of cyclic symmetric nature with 64 cyclic repetitive
segments, only one segment is modeled and cyclic symmetric
boundary conditions are prescribed to the cut out surfaces shown
in Fig. 6.
The FEA modeling approach utilized is a sequentially coupled
thermal–mechanical stress analysis. The distribution of the tem-
perature field in the manhole is obtained through a steady-state
heat transfer analysis. As shown in Fig. 6, the outer surfaces of the
manhole are exposed to a constant temperature To and a convec-
tive heat transfer coefficient of 28 W/m2/ C. The inner surfaces of
the manhole are exposed to water with a constant temperature Tw
and a convective heat transfer coefficient of 580 W/m2/ C. Con-
ductive heat transfer is defined between contacting surfaces and a
gap conductance coefficient of 1220 W/m2/ C is specified. Thus,
the thermal response of the model is driven through convective
heat transfer at the outer and inner surfaces. When performing the
heat transfer analysis, the model was meshed with second-order
three-dimensional hexahedral (DC3D20) and tetrahedral
(DC3D20) heat transfer elements.
The thermal properties such as thermal conductivity and spe-
cific heat are assigned to each material as per Table 2. The FEA
results from the heat transfer simulation, e.g., steady-state temper-
ature distribution through manhole, are shown in Fig. 7.
The sequential structural response of the manhole is obtained
by performing a mechanical stress analysis. In the first step of the
mechanical analysis, the pretensioning load Fi is applied to the
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
stud bolt as per Table 4. In the second step of the mechanical anal-
ysis, an internal water pressure Pi is applied to the inner surfaces
of the manhole as per Table 1. In the third step, the steady-state
temperature distribution obtained from the heat transfer step as
shown in Fig. 7 is imposed on the mechanical model. This will
permit thermal expansion of the parts and temperature dependent
mechanical material properties of the HDPE and gasket material
to be accounted for. Contacting surfaces are assigned a contact
interaction with a friction coefficient of 0.2. The HDPE material
is modeled as an isotropic elastic-ideally plastic solid with tem-
perature dependent mechanical properties given by Eqs. (1) and
(2) and Fig. 4. The HDPE material, steel blind flange, stud bolts,
and nuts are meshed with first-order reduced-integration contin-
uum elements (C3D8R). The gasket is meshed with so called
eight-node gasket elements (GK3D8) with a thickness of 5 mm.
This type of gasket element allows for modeling very complex
nonlinear and temperature-dependent through-thickness gasket
behavior, as shown in Fig. 5. Since the manhole structure below
the flange and stub-end is mainly buried underground, the outer
surface of the lower pipe section is kinematically coupled to a
spring, which is given a spring stiffness ksoil ¼ 1400 N/m [28] to
mimic the constraint imposed due to the surrounding soil backfill.
6 Assessment Criteria
The performance and integrity of the manhole are assessed,
based on the FEA results, in view of two assessment criteria. The
first is the leakage through the gasket criterion and the second is
yielding of the HDPE stub-end criterion. Both criteria are outlined
below.
6.1 Leakage Criterion—Gasket. In order to assess the leak
tightness of the flange-gasket-stub-end assembly, the compressive
contact stress rc along the gasket surfaces in contact with the
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051206-5
stub-end and the flange is evaluated from the FEA results. The
average contact stress rave
c is defined as the average contact stress
on the gasket surface (c.f. Eq. (6)). Hence, the safety factor against
leakage through the gasket is defined as
rave
c
SFL ¼ (4)
rBU
where rBU ¼ 5 MP (c.f. Table 4) and is the minimum gasket sur-
face contact stress required to sustain a leak tight connection at
operational conditions and thus SFL < 1 would imply leakage.
6.2 Yield Criterion—High Density Polyethylene Stub-End.
In order to assess the structural integrity of the stub-end HDPE
material, a safety factor against yielding is defined. The safety fac-
tor against yielding in the stub-end is defined as
Sy
SFY ¼ (5)
rvM
where Sy is the temperature-dependent yield strength given by
Eq. (2), at the desired temperature T and rvM are the von-Mises
stress obtained from the FEA solution evaluated in the stub-end.
Hence, a safety factor below one (i.e., SFY < 1) would imply
yielding.
7 Results—Thermal Analysis
The results from the thermal analysis, i.e., the steady-state tem-
perature distribution throughout the manhole structure, are shown
in Fig. 7. As can be seen, the surface temperature on the outer sur-
face of the stub-end remains rather unchanged due to low thermal
Fig. 8 FEA results showing: (a) the contact stress distribution rc over the gasket surface, (b)
close-up of the rc and the normalized axis along the gasket surface, and (c) failed gasket due to
high edge contact stress
051206-6 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
conductivity of the HDPE material in comparison to the steel.
Subsequently, the results in Fig. 7 are used as input in the mechan-
ical analysis to prescribe the temperature distribution throughout
the manhole at the various outer temperature levels, e.g., To ¼ 40,
60, and 80  C.
8 Results—Structural Analysis
Here, the results from the thermo-mechanical analysis are pre-
sented. Figure 8 shows the contact stress distribution rc , which
defines the normalized v-axis along the gasket surface, having a
value v ¼ 0 at the inner edge of the gasket and v ¼ 1.0 at the outer
edge of the gasket. As can be seen, the contact stress rc is highest
at about v ¼ 0.5, which is at where the outer edge of the stub-end
contacts the gasket. Such contact stress pattern could eventually
lead to failure of the gasket similar to the observed failure in
Fig. 8(c), which compares well with the contact stress pattern
from the FEA results (i.e., Figs. 8(a) and 8(b)).
8.1 Gasket Contact Stress After Application of Torque
(Installation). Figure 9(a) shows that the FEA contact stress
results rc along the normalized distance axis v (defined in
Fig. 8(b)), after application of the torque at room temperature
20  C and absence of internal pressure (e.g., Pi ¼ 0 Bar), which is
denoted the gasket installation stage. The contact stress
distribution varies quite considerably with both torque level Tb
and normalized distance v. As noted earlier, the maximum contact
stress appears at v ¼ 0.5, which is where the edge of the stub-end
is in contact with the gasket and is primarily due to the tilting of
the stub-end collar. In Fig. 9(b), the average and maximum con-
tact stress, rave max
c and rc ; respectively, over the gasket are shown.
The theoretical effective gasket surface stress values rEff obtained
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 9 Gasket contact stress after torque application (at installation)
Fig. 10 Contour plots of rc /rBU at 40  C and 80  C for various Tb and Pi (at operation)
from Eq. (3) is also plotted in Fig. 9(b), showing quite good agree-
ment with the FEA results. However, there is a minor deviation at
higher torque values, which is primarily due to the nonlinear con-
stitutive behavior of the gasket and the HDPE material and their
contact interaction, which is not accounted for in Eq. (3). It is evi-
dent in Fig. 9(b) that for torque values below 1000 Nm the con-
tact stress on the gasket does not meet the minimum installation
requirement of rVU ¼ 14 MPa, which is only met for higher torque
values.
8.2 Gasket Contact Stress After Application of Torque,
Pressure, and Temperature (Operation). After the torque is
applied (installation), the internal pressure and the thermal loads
(e.g., temperature distribution Fig. 7) are applied to resemble
operational conditions. In Fig. 10, the contour plots pertaining to
the ratio between the gasket contact stress and the minimum
required stress at operational conditions, i.e., rc =rBU , for various
Tb and Pi at outer temperature To ¼ 40  C and 80  C are shown.
As evident, both torque value Tb and temperature To have a signif-
icant effect on the ratio rc =rBU , whereas, the internal pressure Pi
has a moderate effect. It is interesting to note when the outer tem-
perature increases to To ¼ 80  C (e.g., Fig. 10), rc =rBU is essen-
tially zero for Tb ¼ 1000 Nm indicating complete leakage through
the gasket.
In Fig. 11, the gasket contact stress rc is plotted versus the
normalized distance v for internal pressure levels Pi ¼ 10 Bar
and at an outer temperature To ¼ 40 and 80  C. These results con-
firm the observation made above that the internal pressure level
Pi has a marginal effect on the gasket contact stress, whereas the
torque Tb and the outer temperature To has a significant effect on
rc . The FEA results in Figs. 10 and 11 are used to determine the
average contact stress rave
c over the entire gasket surface in con-
tact with the stub-end, which is evaluated with the following
equation:
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
ð 0:6
rave
c ¼ rc ðvÞ dv (6)
0
Hence, with Eq. (6) the average contact stress rave
c over the entire
gasket with respect to Tb, To, and Pi can be established and the
results are presented in Fig. 12.
Thus, in Fig. 12 the average gasket contact stress ravec deter-
mined from the FEA results and evaluated with Eq. (6) is plotted
versus Tb and Pi for temperatures To ¼ 40  C, 60  C, and 80  C,
respectively. The plane defining the minimum required gasket
stress at operational conditions (rBU ) is also plotted. Hence, for
rave
c above the rBU -plane, safety against leak tightness is guaran-
teed, however, for values below leak tightness is not guaranteed.
With the definition of the safety factor against leakage in Eq. (4)
and the FEA results, an expression can be established for the
safety factor against leakage SFL as function of torque level Tb,
internal pressure Pi and temperature To. Using regression analysis
on the FEA results, SFL is given by
h pffiffiffiffiffi i
SFL ¼ c0 þ c1 P2i þ c2 Tb þ c3 Tb Pi rBU (7)
where the factors co , c1 , c2 , and c3 are function of temperature To
and given by
co ¼ 0.043902 To6.2746
c1 ¼ 1.157  106 To28.2489  105 To0.012056
c2 ¼ 2.2791  103 To0.33516
c3 ¼ 4.8233  109 To2þ1.1737  107 Toþ3.5163  105
In Fig. 13 the safety factor against leakage SFL, pertaining to
Eq. (7), is presented in a leakage assessment chart with respect to
Tb and Pi and at the three different temperature 40  C, 60  C, and
80  C. Thus, for SFL  1 safety against leakage is guaranteed
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051206-7
 Fig. 11 Gasket contact stress rc versus normalized distance v at internal pressure Pi 5 10 Bar and outer
surface temperature (a) To 5 40  C and (b) To 5 80  C (at operation)

Fig. 12 FEA results showing gasket stress rave

c versus Tb and Pi at: (a) 40  C, (b) 60  C, and (c) 80  C

Fig. 13 Leakage assessment charts: (a) 40  C, (b) 60  C, and (c) 80  C

(e.g., green box in Fig. 13) and for SFL < 1 leakage occurs (e.g.,
red box in Fig. 13). As can be seen in these leakage assessment
charts, in order to guarantee leak tightness at 40  C a torque level
of at least 2000 Nm is required, and at 80  C a torque level of at
least 3000 Nm is required, which also confirms the torque level
of 3500 NM recommended by the CNAF gasket manufacturer.
8.3 Deformation Mode of Manhole Assembly. In Fig. 14,
the deformed shape of the manhole assembly is shown at opera-
tional conditions, at various torque levels Tb and internal pressure
levels Pi at 60  C. The contour FEA results pertain to the plastic
equivalent strain, where epe > 0 indicates plastic deformation due
to yielding is prevalent.
One can see for low pressure and torque levels as in Fig. 14(a)
with Tb ¼ 500 Nm and Pi ¼ 4 Bar, no plastic deformation (e.g.,
epe ¼ 0) is present and the safety factor against yielding SFY ¼ 5.09.
However, leakage will take place since SFL ¼ 0.16. If the torque
level is kept low (e.g., Tb ¼ 500 Nm) and the pressure is further
increased, i.e., Pi ¼ 8 Bar as in Fig. 14(b), both leakage and yielding
takes place (SFY ¼ 0.29 and SFL ¼ 0.04), which is also evident by

051206-8 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 14 Plastic equivalent strain (epe ) in stub-end after application of torque Tb and internal pressure Pi at outer temperature
To 5 60  C, with corresponding safety factors SFL and SFY

Fig. 15 Yielding safety factor in stub-end SFY versus Tb and Pi at: (a) 40  C, (b) 60  C, and (c) 80  C

Fig. 16 Yielding assessment charts at: (a) 40  C, (b) 60  C, and (c) 80  C

the deformed shape of and the widespread plastic strain in the stub-
end. Hence, this rotation or bending deformation mode of the stub-
end collar, which is denoted here as cupping, is caused mainly by an
increased internal pressure at lower torque levels leading to leakage
and prevalent plastic deformation at the neck and collar of the stub-
end.
On the other hand, when the torque level is increased in order
to prevent leakage as shown in Figs. 14(c) and 14(d) with
Tb ¼ 3000 Nm, significant plastic deformation develops in the
collar of the stub-end, which leads to a deformation mode here
denoted as step formation. This is apparent between the edge of
the ring flange and the collar of the stub-end. Hence, step forma-
tion is primarily caused by excessive torque levels.
8.4 Yielding Safety Factor After Application of Torque,
Pressure and Temperature (Operation). In Fig. 15, the FEA
results pertaining to the safety factor against yielding SFY in the
stub-end is presented with respect to the torque level Tb and
pressure level Pi at various temperatures. The safety factor is
defined as the ratio between the yield strength of the HDPE
material at the given temperature and the von Mises effective
stress in the neck region of the stub-end obtained from the FEA
results (i.e., SFY ¼ Sy =rvM ). Similarily, SFY is presented in so
called yielding assessment charts in Fig. 16 at various
temperatures.
As evident from Fig. 16 the yielding assessment charts, the
trend in nonsatisfactory safety factor (SFY < 1) is of twofold with
respect to Tb and Pi. One at low Tb and pressure Pi levels which
leads to cupping and conforming to the mode of deformation in
Fig. 14(b). The other is at high Tb leading to step formation and
conforming to the mode of deformation in Figs. 14(c) and 14(d).
In addition, the temperature has a significant effect on SFY, as
evident from Figs. 15 and 16. As the temperature increases, the
SFY decreases. Thus, step formation and the cupping failure mode
become prominent at rather low Tb and Pi levels when tempera-
ture is increased (i.e., Fig. 16(c)).

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051206-9

 Fig. 17 Leakage versus yielding FAC at: (a) 40  C, (b) 60  C, and (c) 80  C
8.5 Failure Assessment Charts—Leakage/Yielding. In
Fig. 17 so called failure assessment charts (FACs) are presented,
which essentially combine the FEA results from the leakage
assessment charts in Fig. 13 and the yielding assessment charts in
Fig. 16. The FACs in Fig. 17 are rather powerful tools in assessing
failure in structures that possess multiple and simultaneous failure
modes, such as leakage and yielding as in the case of the manhole
assembly. The independent variables in the FACs are the torque
Tb, internal pressure Pi, and temperature To and the FACs
outcomes are color-coded such that: safe operations from both
leakage and yielding (S, green), leakage (L, orange), yielding (Y,
yellow), simultaneous leakage and yielding (LY, red). As is evi-
dent from the FAC in Fig. 17(a), at 40  C there is a rather large
window of Tb (2000–3000 Nm) and Pi (4 to 8 Bar) for when nei-
ther leakage nor yielding will occur, indicated by safe operation
(S, green). As temperature increases to 60  C in Fig. 17(b), this
window decreases to become rather narrow and at 80  C in
Fig. 17(c), it becomes nonexistent. This indicates that at 80  C,
none of the torque and pressure levels will guarantee safe opera-
tion with the CNAF gasket and will in the long term result in
either leakage through the gasket yielding of the stub-end (i.e.,
cupping or step formation) or both depending on the Tb and Pi
values used.
9 Conclusions
In the current study, the integrity of a manhole structure made
of a 78 in. HDPE stub-end, steel ring, and blind flange with a
CNAF gasket which is investigated by means of a parametric
FEA. A coupled thermo-mechanical nonlinear FEA model is built,
comprising of a heat transfer and a structural model, which allows
modeling the complex thermal and mechanical loads and their
interactions present during operation of the manhole. The
temperature-dependent elastic–plastic HDPE material constitutive
behavior and the temperature-dependent nonlinear response of the
CNAF gasket are accounted for in the model. Factors influencing
the performance and integrity of the manhole such as stud-bolt
pretorque level (Tb), internal pressure (Pi), and outer temperature
(To) are considered. Based on the results, the integrity and per-
formance of the structure are assessed in view of a leakage
through the gasket criterion and a yielding of the HDPE stub-end
criterion.
It is found that the integrity and performance of the manhole is
highly influenced by Tb, Pi, and To. Essentially, two different
stub-end deformation failure modes are revealed by the FEA
results. At low Tb and an increased Pi, plastic deformation is prev-
alent in the HDPE stub-end neck due to plastic rotation and bend-
ing (i.e., cupping) of the collar, which also leads to leakage
through the gasket. Plastic deformation is also prevalent at high
Tb levels, which leads to a step formation between the steel ring
flange and the HDPE stub-end collar.
Temperature has also a significant effect on both the integrity
and performance of the manhole structure, as can be
051206-10 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
comprehended from the FACs in Fig. 17. At outer temperature
40  C it is possible to find a safe operational window for a range
of Tb and Pi values where no leakage through the gasket or yield-
ing of the stub-end occur. However, as temperature is increased
this safe operational window decreases considerably, and at 80  C
safe operation cannot be guaranteed and leakage, yielding or both
simultaneously, will lead to loss in performance and integrity of
the manhole structure. This is mainly attributed to the choice of
gasket, i.e., CNAF gasket, which has rather high stiffness and
shore hardness in comparison to the HDPE material, especially at
higher temperatures (e.g., 80  C). Hence, in order to guarantee
leak tightness in such scenario, excessive torque Tb levels need to
be applied which will in turn affect the integrity of the manhole
through yielding of the HDPE stub-end. An EPDM elastomeric
rubber gasket with a steel core reinforcement and integrated O-
ring at the inner edge has an overall lower stiffness than HDPE
and would be a more suitable choice for the current manhole
structure. Such gasket would require much lower torque levels to
maintain leak tightness and hence not affect the integrity of the
HDPE stub-end, as is also the recommendation in the DVS 2210-
1 standard for the design of flanged joints in above-ground piping
made of thermoplastics [23].
References
[1] Bouzid, A.-H., and Derenne, M., 2002, “Analytical Modeling of the Contact
Stress With Nonlinear Gaskets,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124(1),
pp. 47–53.
[2] Estrada, H., and Parsons, I., 2002, “Design Procedures for an FRP Stub-Flange
Joint,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124(4), pp. 397–404.
[3] Sawa, T., Ogata, N., and Nishida, T., 2002, “Stress Analysis and Determination
of Bolt Preload in Pipe Flange Connections With Gaskets Under Internal Pres-
sure,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124(4), pp. 385–396.
[4] Bouzid, A.-H., and Champliaud, H., 2004, “Contact Stress Evaluation of Non-
linear Gaskets Using Dual Kriging Interpolation,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel
Technol., 126(4), pp. 445–450.
[5] Bouzid, A.-H., and Nechache, A., 2005, “An Analytical Solution for Evaluating
Gasket Stress Change in Bolted Flange Connections Subjected to High Temper-
ature Loading,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 127(4), pp. 414–422.
[6] Fukuoka, T., 2005, “Finite Element Analysis of the Thermal and Mechanical
Behaviors of a Bolted Joint,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 127(4), pp.
402–407.
[7] Abid, M., Chattha, J. A., and Khan, K. A., 2007, “Finite Element Analysis of a
Gasketed Flange Joint Under Combined Internal Pressure and Thermal Tran-
sient Loading,” ASME Paper No. PVP2007-26602.
[8] Abid, M., Khan, K. A., and Chattha, J. A., 2008, “Performance of a Flange Joint
Using Different Gaskets Under Combined Internal Pressure and Thermal
Loading,” Advanced Design and Manufacture to Gain a Competitive Edge,
Springer, London, pp. 855–864.
[9] Do, T. D., Bouzid, A.-H., and Dao, T.-M., 2011, “Effect of Bolt Spacing on the
Circumferential Distribution of the Gasket Contact Stress in Bolted Flange
Joints,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 133(4), p. 041205.
[10] Fukuoka, T., Nomura, M., and Nishikawa, T., 2012, “Analysis of Thermal and
Mechanical Behavior of Pipe Flange Connections by Taking Account of Gasket
Compression Characteristics at Elevated Temperature,” ASME J. Pressure Ves-
sel Technol., 134(2), p. 021202.
[11] Omiya, Y., Sawa, T., and Takagi, Y., 2014, “Stress Analysis and Design of Bolted
Flange Connections Under Internal Pressure,” ASME Paper No. PVP2014-28606.
[12] Estrada, H., 2015, “Analysis of Leakage in Bolted-Flanged Joints Using Con-
tact Finite Element Analysis,” J. Mech. Eng. Autom., 5, pp. 135–142.
Transactions of the ASME
 [13] Luyt, P., Theron, N., and Pietra, F., 2017, “Non-Linear Finite Element
Modelling and Analysis of the Effect of Gasket Creep-Relaxation on
Circular Bolted Flange Connections,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 150, pp. [20]
52–61.
[14] Sawa, T., Tenma, K., Kobayashi, T., and Kurosawa, R., 2017, “Finite Element [21]
Method Stress Analysis and Evaluation of the Sealing Performance in Box-
Shape Flange Gasketed Connections Subjected to Internal Pressure,” ASME J. [22]
Pressure Vessel Technol., 139(5), p. 051202.
[15] KLINGER, 2015, “Klingersil C-4430: A Universal Material With [23]
Outstanding Stress Retention and Resistance to Hot Water and Steam (Data-
sheet),” KLINGER, Bradford, UK.
[16] BS EN, 2012, “Plastics Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 1: General [24]
Principles,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland,
Standard No. BS EN ISO 527-1. [25]
[17] Merah, N., Saghir, F., Khan, Z., and Bazoune, A., 2006, “Effect of Temperature
on Tensile Properties of HDPE Pipe Material,” Plast. Rubber Compos., 35(5), [26]
pp. 226–230.
[18] Es-Saheb, M. H. H., 1996, “The Temperature Effects on High Density Polyeth- [27]
ylene (HDPE) Pipes,” Eng. Sci., 8(1), pp. 47–60.
[19] Hachour, K., Ferhoum, R., Aberkane, M., Zairi, F., and Abdelaziz, M. N., [28]
2009, “Experimental Characterization and Effect of the Triaxiality on
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
View publication stats
the Behavior of the HDPE,” Damage and Fracture Mechanics, Springer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 43–48.
Oberg, E., Jones, F. D., Horton, H. L., Ryffel, H. H., and Geronimo, J. H., 2004,
Machinery’s Handbook, Industrial Press, New York.
Shigley, J. E., 2011, Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill
Education, New York, p. 10.
Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), 2011, “Bolt Torque for Polyethylene Flanged
Joints,” Plastic Pipes Institute, Irving, TX, Standard No. TN-38.
DVS, 2006, “Industrial Piping Made of Thermoplastics: Design and Execution Above-
Ground Pipe Systems, Flanged Joints: Description, Requirements and Assembly,” Ger-
man Welding Society, Dusseldorf, Germany, Standard No. DVS 2210-1.
DIN, 1995, “Static Gaskets for Flange connections—Part 1: Characteristic Values
and Test Procedures,” DIN, Berlin, Germany, Standard No. DIN 28090-1:1995-09.
Czernik, D. E., 1996, Gasket: Design, Selection, and Testing, McGraw-Hill
Professional, New York.
Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), 2008, Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe, Plastic Pipe
Institute, Irving, TX.
Simulia, 2018, “ABAQUS version 6.14,” Dassault Systèmes Simulia,
Providence, RI.
Moser, A. P., and Folkman, S. L., 2001, Buried Pipe Design, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051206-11