Proceedings of PVP2008 2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference July 27-31, 2008, Chicago, Illinois,

USA

PVP2008-61708

Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress: Influence of Flange Type on Flange Load Limit

Warren Brown The Equity Engineering Group Shaker Heights, OH, USA iwbrown@equityeng.com

ABSTRACT In previous papers, practical limits on the maximum applied load for standard ASME B16.5 and B16.47 carbon steel, weld neck pipe flanges were examined. A new code equation for the tangential (hoop) stress at the small end of the hub for a weld neck flange was developed to facilitate calculation of the limits using elastic analysis. The results were verified against elastic-plastic Finite Element Analysis (FEA). In this paper, the work is extended to include other flange configurations, including loose ring flanges, slip-on flanges and flat plate flanges. This paper is a continuation of the papers presented during PVP 2006 and PVP 2007 (Brown [1,2]) and it extends the scope of the proposed methodology for determining flange stress limits in determining the maximum allowable bolt load for any given flange size and configuration. INTRODUCTION In the previous papers, the importance of knowing two basic values for the joint; minimum acceptable assembly bolt load and, more importantly, maximum acceptable assembly bolt load was highlighted. The reason that the maximum acceptable bolt stress is more important is that an optimal bolt load for joint assembly should always be biased towards the maximum acceptable load, as this gives the largest buffer against joint leakage. It could even be argued that one need not know the minimum acceptable bolt load, because by assembling to the maximum possible bolt load then we have given ourselves the greatest chance of sealing the joint. The maximum acceptable assembly bolt load is determined from examining the maximum load that can be taken by any one of the three joint components (bolts, gasket or flange). Unfortunately, the upper limit for both gasket and flange are not well defined. A selection of maximum gasket stress values were presented in a previous paper (Brown [1]), based on both laboratory test and field experience. This original work was expanded on and new code equations and elastic stress limits were proposed in a following paper (Brown [2]). In that paper, Elastic-Plastic (E-P) FEA results were presented for SA105 flanges that were actually based on lower strength material. Due to this, the subsequently developed code equation limits were overly

conservative. In this paper both the limits and results have been appropriately adjusted to represent the correct material that was analyzed. In addition to the maximum stress limit, a gasket may have a maximum flange rotation that it can accept prior to leakage. This limit must also be assessed to ensure that the specified bolt load will not cause excessive flange rotation, as outlined in the previous papers. In the previous papers by this author on the topic, the concept of maximum allowable bolt load for both standard pipe flanges (based on Elastic-Plastic FEA and code calculation) and limitations for non-standard flanges (based on code calculation) were examined. The FEA used to confirm the work included all standard ASME B16.5 flanges greater than 2 in. nominal bore and ASME B16.47, Series A flanges up to 48 in. nominal bore. The goal of this analysis was to determine the point of Gross Plastic Deformation (GPD) of each of the flanges, which is suggested as the point of maximum allowable bolt load for flange assembly. GPD is defined as the point where the rotation of the flange ring under applied bolt load becomes non-linear. This signifies that, at that point, the flange is taking on a permanent set and will, upon release of load, have residual flange rotation. In addition, the onset of GPD results in a rather rapid increase in flange rotation with applied load and so, therefore, it is likely that such rotation will cause joint leakage due to maldistribution of gasket stresses. This paper will focus on determining the maximum acceptable bolt load for other standard (slip-on and loose) and non-standard (flat plate) piping flanges based on both flange rotation and GPD limits. Only the assembly bolt load case is considered in this work, as this is generally considered sufficient due to the fact that gasket relaxation will reduce the bolt load during operation to a point below the flange or bolt material yield at temperature (during operation). If gasket relaxation is less than the reduction in material yield due to temperature then the specified assembly bolt load will need to be reduced by the ratio of yield at temperature divided by yield at ambient. This adjustment must also be made if the joint is to be tightened while hot.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Nominal Pipe Size (in.)

ELASTIC-PLASTIC FEA Axisymmetric elastic-plastic FEA was performed on the selected flanges with material properties for SA-105 or SA182-F304 and an elastic-plastic stress-strain function as shown in Fig. 1. In all cases a spiral wound gasket (dimensions per ASME B16.20) was modelled using the full stress vs. deflection curve obtained from test with the uniaxial gasket elements (GK4AXN) available in the ABAQUS commercial software program. The elastic modulus in the bolt hole region of the flange ring was adjusted to account for the reduction of elasticity in the tangential direction due to the presence of the bolt holes. The bolt was modelled using plane stress elements with an area equivalent to the cross-section of all of the bolts and the width was adjusted, such that the bending moment of inertia for the plane stress model was equal to the actual bolt case. Both the gasket and nut surface were modelled with contact, which allowed separation of the surfaces as the flange rotated (which reduces the effective moment arm as the flange rotates). The bolt load was applied using the ABAQUS *PRELOAD command, which reduces the length of the mid-plane bolt elements until the desired load is obtained. The preload was applied in 10% of bolt yield increments to a final yield value of 105ksi (for SA193-B7 bolting material < 2-1/2 in. diameter). No adjustment was made for the reduction in yield for larger diameter studs, as the goal was to determine the maximum permissible bolt load prior to GPD, rather than to determine the maximum % of bolt yield. ANALYSIS METHOD AND RESULTS The pipe wall thicknesses and material yield properties used in the analysis are listed in Brown [2]. The gasket type used in the analysis was a spiral wound gasket in accordance with ASME B16.20. For the weld-neck flanges, the elastic-plastic FEA models were run for each case and the flange rotation (defined as the rotation occurring at the mid-plane of the flange ring) versus bolt load information from the FEA output was analysed to determine the bolt load prior to the change in the slope of the load vs. deflection curve becoming two times greater than the initial slope. This is a nominal limit selected by the author that allows a standard determination of the onset of GPD, although in many cases the accuracy of this determination for the FEA was only within a 10ksi range, due to the rather large increments chosen. The large FEA load step increments were chosen in order to minimize the computer time required to obtain the results. The resulting maximum assembly bolt loads from the elastic-plastic FEA prior to onset of GPD were used to develop closed-form solutions to determine the maximum permissible assembly bolt load limits for individual joint geometries (including different gaskets, pipe wall thicknesses and flange materials). The closed-form solutions used the current code (ASME [3]) flange stress equations and also included the development of an equation for tangential (hoop) stress at the small end of the hub (ST0). The development of the new equation followed the original approach used for development of the ASME code equations (Waters [4]), and resulted in a new f factor that relates tangential stress at the shell to hub junction to longitudinal stress at the ring to hub junction, in the same way that the existing f factor relates longitudinal stress at the hub to shell junction to longitudinal stress at the ring to hub junction. In order to determine the maximum permissible load on the flange, the value of ST0 was limited to material yield (Sy), since it is a

membrane stress. It was found that this worked well for the flanges where yield occurred at the shell to hub junction, however for flanges with long hubs, the yield location was at the ring to hub junction and therefore further limits on the other stress components were imposed in order to establish overall limits for the determination of the maximum permissible flange assembly load (as limited by the flange). The following revised limits were found to give the best agreement when compared to the elastic-plastic FEA results. ST0 < Sy ST < 1.5 Sy SH < 2.0 Sy (ST + SH/f) < 3.0 Sy (1) (ST0 + SH) < 3.0 Sy (SR + ST) < 3.0 Sy Using these limits, the maximum assembly bolt stress limits shown in Table 1 were calculated for the range of standard SA-105 weld-neck flange sizes and ratings. There was generally good agreement found between the FEA results and the closed-form solution, with less than 10% difference between most values. Table 1 Calculated GPD Bolt Loads; Weld-Neck Flanges
Flange Class
150 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
65.2 83.5 105.0 64.6 58.3 78.5 105.0 73.0 103.3 84.5 81.6 89.0 82.4 69.4 31.6 28.0 33.0 25.1 23.2 30.0 30.6 28.9 31.6 32.0 34.5 32.2

300
44.9 41.2 57.1 81.3 105.0 86.0 89.0 92.7 88.0 65.9 57.7 68.5 65.4 53.0 35.1 38.3 42.0 39.5 43.0 37.8 80.8 77.7 84.2 98.0 105.0 76.0

600
74.7 56.3 79.0 91.8 96.2 91.4 95.3 82.1 81.6 74.4 73.7 86.2 69.9 65.3 52.1 51.4 64.8 57.5 67.1 58.6 90.3 91.9 90.8 92.6 99.6 87.8

900
48.1 54.7 75.0 60.5 67.9 78.8 67.1 64.4 71.6 76.3 77.1 77.4 79.1 79.2 65.0 57.8 67.4 66.7 60.6 63.2 79.9 77.2 84.9 82.6 81.6 90.6

1500
59.9 64.0 62.7 71.4 76.6 87.7 83.5 91.0 80.3 70.3 70.6 75.6 72.7 69.7

2500
64.8 71.9 77.0 65.8 72.6 77.6 80.8 78.8 86.2

Note: the shaded cells represent values that are lower than 50ksi bolt stress.

Since the closed-form solution is based on standard code equations, it is a relatively simple step to apply these formulae to alternative flange configurations, using the rules presently defined in ASME [3]. It should be noted, that presently the code instructs the user to analyse optional type flanges (slip-on flanges) as integral flanges. This requirement is generally more stringent than allowing them to be analysed as loose flanges and will result in a more robust design. In addition, the code instructs the value of g0 to be equal to the vessel wall thickness for slip-on type flanges, which is not appropriate, as this is the equivalent of specifying a weld-neck (tapered) hub. In this paper, the code approach and the approach of using the actual dimension for the small end of the hub is used, which means that for non-tapered hubs g0 equals g1. In order to verify the

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

applicability of the method to the different geometries being analysed an Elastic-Plastic FEA of a selection of geometries was conducted and the results were compared to the closed-form solution to verify accuracy. The first geometry case that was run, was actually a weldneck flange, but with a modified hub dimension. This case highlights the wide variation in flanges that are possible using ASME B16.5, where the hub height is not defined, only the overall flange height. The specification on hub dimensions in ASME B16.5 allows a hub angle of up to 45 degrees. This configuration is, obviously, a much different flange than one where the hub extends the full length of the flange height. The GPD results, both FEA and closed form, are outlined in Fig. 2 for a NPS 4, cl.600 flange and in Fig. 3 for a NPS 20, cl.150 flange for SA182-F304 material. It can be seen that in both cases GPD occurs much earlier for the 45 degree hub case as compared to the full height hub. This is particularly apparent in the NPS 20 joint, where GPD occurs at 17ksi for the 45 degree hub, as compared to 70ksi for the full hub height case. In both cases, it can be seen that the closed form solutions gave good agreement with the FEA results. Plots of the flange tangential (hoop) stresses for both cases for the 4in. and 20in. cases are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. The second case run was the case of a flat plate flange, having identical dimensions to a NPS 20, cl.150 ASME B16.5, SA182-F304 flange, but without the hub. This flange geometry was run with three cases, a loose hub (not connected to the pipe wall, similar to a lap joint flange) and two cases connected to the pipe wall, one with a 4.78mm wall thickness and the other with a 7.62mm wall thickness. The objective was to compare the three cases with FEA results and the closed form solution in order to confirm that the closed form solution gave acceptable results. In the case of the closed form solutions, the flange is analysed as a loose ring flange when not connected to the wall and an integral flange when connected to the wall. The GPD results from both FEA and closed form are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the flat plate flange, without a hub, is a relatively weak flange and that welding it to the pipe wall stiffens the arrangement significantly. In the case of the loose flange, the limit state is tangential (hoop) stress in the ring. For the connected flanges, the limit state is hoop stress in the connected pipe wall due to the flange bending. The closed form solution for the loose flange agrees well with the FEA results. The integral flanges appear to conservatively predict GPD, as compared to the FEA results. However, the limit state of the closed form solution is the pipe wall stresses, and when the FEA stress plots are examined (Fig. 7) it can be seen that a lower GPD value (limited by pipe wall stresses) would seem appropriate, as the wall is yielded through the cross section. The third case that was examined was a slip-on flange, both in the loose (unattached to the pipe wall) and welded configurations. Once again, a NPS 20, cl.150, SA182-F304 flange was used as an example, with hub dimensions as per ASME B16.5. The hub was connected to two different wall thickness pipes (4.78mm and 7.62mm) with two different insertion lengths into the slip-on flange. The first case modelled a either a minimally inserted pipe case or the case where the slip-on is welded only at the hub location and not near the flange face. The second case would represent when the pipe was fully inserted into the flange and a fillet weld made at both the hub and flange bore locations. The GPD results for the thin and thick walled pipe cases are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, respectively. The corresponding FEA component stress results for the 4.78mm wall

thickness case are shown in Fig. 10 to Fig. 12. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement when the slip-on flange is treated as a loose ring. The point of GPD appears to be accurately predicted by the new stepped closed form solutions (explained following) for both wall thickness cases, however there is an initial amount of plasticity that occurs in the FEA results that is not reflected in the closed form solution and therefore there is a significant difference in the calculated flange rotations. One interesting result from the analysis on the connected flange cases is that the extent of connection appears to make a relatively minor impact on the rotation and point of GPD. This is encouraging, as it means that the same limits should be applicable to most commonly found applications of connected slip-on flanges. The second aspect that is apparent from the analysis is that the representation of the slip-on flange as an integral flange, per the present requirements of the code (ASME [3]) or by assuming that the flange is integral and using g0 = g1 is not accurate. For the present code case the point of GPD is under predicted and for the fully integral case, the flange rotation is grossly under predicted and the point of GPD is not over predicted (non-conservative). When the original work is examined (Waters [4]) it is apparent why this is the case. The original development included two types of flanges. Integrally connected flanges, for which factors F and V were developed and loose ring flanges, for which the factors FL and VL were developed. The reason why the equations do not work for the welded slip-on flange case, is that the original development assumes that the pipe or vessel wall thickness is equal to the hub small end thickness for an integral flange. In the case of a welded slip-on, this is quite obviously not the case, as the pipe or vessel wall is generally considerably thinner than the hub thickness. In order to accurately assess slip-on flanges, it was necessary to go back to the original development of Waters [4] and extend that to the case of a stepped flange, where the pipe or vessel wall thickness (hereafter referred to a g2) is different from the hub small end thickness (g0). By manipulating the equations for the connected shell in the development of the integral flange factors, it is possible to insert the value of g2 into the calculation and therefore generate a third set of flange factors (FS and VS) for stepped flange configurations. These factors can be accurately used to represent both the stresses and deformation in a flange where the pipe or vessel wall thickness (g2) is significantly different to the hub thickness (g0). These new flange factors are used in place of the original factors (F and V) in the integral flange stress equations. At the extremes of geometry; g2/g0 ratio tending to 0.0 or g2/g0 ratio tending to 1.0, the results of this equation tend to the integral flange (F and V) and loose ring flange (FL and VL) factors respectively, as would be expected. The equations for the flange factors were developed for a range of g2/g0 within the range or 0.1 to 0.6, which is expected to describe most flange configurations. Flanges with ratios above 0.6 can be treated as integral flanges with g2 = g0 and below 0.1 extrapolation can be performed between the stepped solution and the loose ring solution if required. However, it is likely that sufficient accuracy would be obtained by simply using the value of 0.1 for ratios below that value and 0.6 for ratios above this value. The equations for FS and VS were developed for the case of g0/g1 equal to 1.0 (i.e.: a straight hub). A similar development can be performed for other cases, and when this is done there appears to be a relatively minor influence on the results for small hub angles. It is therefore suggested that the factors determined for g0/g1 equal to 1.0 can be used for most hub configurations, and if a check is required for configurations that are significantly different from this ratio, then

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

it would be appropriate to compare the results obtained between the integral (F,V) and stepped (FS, VS) equations. The developed equations were generated by determination of a range of FS and VS values using the system of equations used in Waters [4] for the given range of the three different ratios (g0/g1, g2/g0, and h/h0) that describe the shape of the hub. These values were then input into curve fitting software to generate an equation that accurately (within the given range) describes the value of FS and VS for any given geometry. These factors can also be represented in the traditional graph format, and these graphs are shown in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14. It should be noted that for values of h/h0 above 1.0, the result is identical to the value at 1.0 and is the same as the standard integral flange solution, indicating that the hub length is sufficiently long that it is bending and passing little effect onto the shell wall. Once the new factors are used in both the stress and rotation equations, it can be seen in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 that the results are in good agreement with the FEA results and give a sufficiently accurate prediction of both GPD and rotation. The equation used to define both factors is: 2 2 g h g h h g a +c +e.ln 2 +g +i. ln 2 +k .ln 2 h0 g0 h0 h 0 g0 g0 FS , VS = 2 2 h g h g h g 1+b +d .ln 2 +f +h. ln 2 +j .ln 2 h g h g 0 0 0 h 0 g0 0 Where the values a through k are defined per the below table:

reduced if applied to a gasket where it is appropriate to limit the flange rotation during operation. The bolt load in Table 2 should be linearly reduced by the ratio of the maximum desired flange rotation divided by the flange rotation listed in Table 3. A comparison between the GPD loads for weldneck and slip-on flanges are shown in Table 4, which lists the ratio of the weldneck load to the slip-on load for each flange size and class. It can be seen that the maximum assembly load for the slip-on flanges can be up to 60% less when compared to weldneck flanges. Given the range of values and inconsistency across sizes and classes, it does not appear that it is possible to use one table for both types of flanges even with a multiplier to reduce the load for the slip-on case. Table 2 Calculated GPD Bolt Loads; Slip-On Flanges
Flange Class
2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 150 300 600 900 1500 105.0 52.2 83.0 61.4 59.9 77.4 46.5 59.5 54.7 64.0 103.5 64.7 81.6 75.1 57.2 86.2 87.1 67.7 64.7 98.3 73.5 71.4 87.4 66.4 71.8 77.7 105.0 78.1 74.7 66.2 69.2 68.4 62.4 62.2 97.8 69.1 61.0 67.9 64.6 41.1 49.9 73.1 65.7 46.4 53.6 73.8 81.4 54.5 79.2 74.6 70.6 62.1 72.3 76.0 77.6 57.3 72.5 76.6

Table 3 Flange Rotation (deg.) at GPD; Slip-On Flanges

Flange Class
2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 150 300 600 900 1500 0.03 0.28 0.21 0.14 0.10 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.40 0.32 0.27 0.21 0.52 0.38 0.27 0.21 0.64 0.43 0.30 0.20 0.73 0.49 0.33 0.20 0.84 0.57 0.38 0.22 1.02 0.59 0.40 0.27 1.09 0.66 0.47 0.33 1.14 0.70 0.50 0.33 1.26 0.76 0.52 0.33 1.34 0.80 0.52 0.34 1.38 0.86 0.55 0.33 1.52 0.91 0.58 0.33

a b c d e f g h i j k

0.982634253 -1.349190596 -1.544346815 0.570487533 0.262651782 1.260508765 1.384917314 0.093155462 0.090531969 -0.644972722 -0.330072273

0.802498966 -0.41880463 -1.515821747 0.884947634 -0.480427025 5.95650358 4.336219615 0.206726608 0.049751454 0.141528162 0.912545573

The results of the new equations and their prediction of rotation and GPD were also examined for a NPS 18, cl.300 flange (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16). It can be seen that in this case there was significant difference between the partially inserted and fully inserted pipe cases. However, by using the new factors, the stepped solution predicts the point of GPD conservatively for the fully inserted case, and therefore is sufficiently close to the partially inserted case that it would be considered equally applicable. In the case where the wall thickness gets significantly larger, the effect of partial versus full insertion could be studied by using the stepped solutions with a flange ID equal to the pipe ID for the fully inserted case and equal to the flange ID for the partially inserted case. The closed-form GPD results for the welded slip-on, SA105 flanges are in general lower than the weldneck flanges (Table 2). It can be seen that the majority of them are still above the nominal value of 50ksi (shaded yellow). The associated flange rotation at the calculated GPD bolt load is shown in Table 3, in order that these may be used in determining if the maximum assembly bolt load should be

Table 4 Ratio of GPD Bolt Loads; Weldneck/Slip-On

Flange Class
2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 150 300 600 900 1500 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0

CONCLUSIONS Allowing a 45 degree hub in ASME B16.5 does not appear to be a good idea, as it results in a much weaker flange. Luckily (or by design), most flange manufacturers use the full hub height when

Nominal Pipe Size (in.)

Nominal Pipe Size (in.)

FS

VS

Nominal Pipe Size (in.)

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

fabricating a standard flange and so therefore this has not been an issue within industry. However, given the results contained in this paper and the fact that this hub configuration is rarely used, it would seem logical to tighten the allowable hub dimensions in ASME B16.5 to exclude the 45 degree hub option. Improved joint leakage performance can be expected if the bolt assembly stress is set by calculation of the actual gasket stress, with an upper limit that avoids damage to the joint components. The newly introduced calculation of the stepped flange factors, coupled with limits on the magnitude of the existing code calculated stresses, have been shown to accurately predict the actual maximum acceptable assembly bolt load for several standard flange configurations. The same methodology and stress limits have been shown to be applicable to both connected (weld-neck, slip-on and flat plate) flanges and loose (lap joint) flanges. The results presented in this paper will be, in general, conservative by comparison to the actual case, in part due to the fact that minimum material properties are used and actual material properties tend to exceed minimum by 10% or more. The calculated results presented in Table 2 and 3 may, therefore, be used directly to set an upper limit on acceptable assembly bolt load for standard SA105, ASME B16.5 slip-on flanges. The only risk with using these values would be if the actual wall thickness was significantly less than the values presented in Brown [2] or if the gasket dimensions were significantly different from the values used, resulting in a significantly larger value of hg. Alternatively, for a given piping specification or, based on the minimum wall thickness across all piping specifications on a individual sites, more accurate maximum allowable bolt loads may be calculated using the equations presented in ASME [3] and this paper and using the stress limits outlined in this paper. In specifying these values, it is implicit that the load be accurately applied, otherwise flange GPD may occur if the actual achieved bolt load is significantly above the specified value. An example of this would be the use of an incorrect nut factor when determining the assembly bolt torque. The final goal of this work is to define assembly bolt load tables for flange assembly within a plant environment. An assembly bolt load table is constructed by considering all maximum allowable bolt stress limits, including the limits due to the flange and bolt outlined in this paper, maximum bolt load allowed for the gasket and maximum allowable flange rotation. Depending on the selected limits for maximum allowable gasket stress, it may be possible to construct one table for all flanges in a plant or it may be necessary to construct several tables for different gasket types. Further work is required to extend this analysis across a wider variety of flange dimensions and materials, such as custom designed pressure vessel flange configurations. Confirmation of the proposed limits for those types of flanges, versus elastic-plastic FEA, would demonstrate the broad applicability of the method. In addition, the effect of high bolt loads on fatigue and creep life of flanges should be examined in order to demonstrate the broad applicability of these results, which are based on static assembly stress results only.

REFERENCES [1] Brown, W., Reeves, D., 2006, Considerations for Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress For Piping Flanges, Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2006, ASME, Vancouver, Canada, PVP2006ICPVT11-93094 [2] Brown, W., Reeves, D.., 2007, An Update on Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress For Piping Flanges, Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2007, ASME, San Antonio, Texas, PVP2007-26649 [3] ASME. 2007, ASME VIII, Div 1, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Appendix 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, NY, USA [4] Waters, E.O., Rossheim, D.B., Wesstrom, D.B., Williams, F.S.G., 1949, Development of General Formulas For Bolted Flanges, Taylor-Forge & Pipe Works, Southfield, Michigan, Reprinted by the PVRC in 1979.
500 450 400 350 Stress (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.00E+00 SA182 F304 SA105

2.00E-02

4.00E-02

6.00E-02

8.00E-02

1.00E-01

Strain

Figure 1 SA105 and SA182-F304 Elastic-Plastic Curve

1 0.9 0.8 Flange Rotation (degrees) 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Fraction of Bolt Yield (105ksi) FEA - Full Hub FEA - 45deg. Hub Code Equations - Full Hub Code Equations - 45deg. Hub

Figure 2 4in., cl.600 45deg. Weldneck Results

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

FEA - Full Hub FEA - 45deg. Hub Code Equations - Full Hub Code Equations - 45deg. Hub

Figure 6 20in., cl.150 Flat Plate Flange GPD Results

2.5 Flange Rotation (degrees)

1.5

0.5

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Bolt Yield (105ksi) 1 1.2

Figure 7 20in., cl.150 Flat Plate Hoop Stress Results

NPS 20, cl.150, Slip-On Flange, 4.78mm w.t.
3 2.5

Figure 3 20in., cl.150 45deg. Weldneck Results

84ksi Bolt Stress

73ksi Bolt Stress

Flange Rotation ()

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Fully Inserted Partially Inserted Non-Welded Code - Integral New Code - Stepped Code - Loose Code - Present

0.8

Figure 4 4in., cl.600 Hoop Stress

Fraction of Bolt Yield (105ksi)

Figure 8 20in., cl.150, 4.78mm w.t. Slip-On Flange GPD

84ksi Bolt Stress

53ksi Bolt Stress

NPS 20, cl.150, Slip-On Flange, 7.62mm w.t.

3

2.5

Flange Rotation ()

Fully Inserted Partially Inserted Non-Welded Code - Integral New Code - Stepped Code - Loose Code - Present

1.5

0.5

Figure 5 20in., cl.150 Hoop Stress

NPS 20, cl.150, Flat Plate Flange with No Hub
2 1.8 1.6

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fraction of Bolt Yield (105ksi)

Figure 9 20in., cl.150, 7.62mm w.t. Slip-On Flange GPD

Flange Rotation ()

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Welded (7.62mm wt) Welded (4.78mm wt) Not Welded Code - Integral (4.78mm) Code - Integral (7.62mm) Code - Loose

Fraction of Bolt Yield (105ksi)

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Figure 10 20in., cl.150, 4.78, Slip-On FEA Hoop Stress

2.5

NPS 18, cl.300, Slip-On Flange, 9.53mm w.t.

Flange Rotation ()

1.5
Fully Inserted

Partially Inserted Non-Welded Code - Integral

0.5

New Code - Stepped Code - Loose Code - Present

Figure 11 20in., cl.150, 4.78, Slip-On FEA Long. Stress

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Fraction of Bolt Yield (105ksi)

Figure 15 18in., cl.300, 9.53mm w.t. Slip-On Flange GPD

Figure 12 20in., cl.150, 4.78, Slip-On FEA Radial Stress

0.1 g2/g0 1 10 h/(sqrt(B.g0) 0.005 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 16 18in., cl.300, Slip-On FEA Hoop Stress

FS 1

0.1

Figure 13 Graph of FS
0.1 g2/g0 1 1000 h/(sqrt(B.g 0) 0.005 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

100

10

VS

0.1

Figure 14 Graph of VS

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/28/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms