Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 44

Annex G Alternative design rules for flanges and gasketed flange


GA Introduction
Since more than sixty years the traditional calculations of flange connections are based on estimated required
gasket forces for assemblage and working conditions; and it is assumed that the actual forces are equal the
required forces (c.g. AD-Merkblatt B8, ASME VIII, PD 5500 and EN13445-3, Clause 11).
Already in 1951 in [1] it was stated " ... that the actual conditions existing in a bolted joint will be considerably
different from those assumed ... "; but there was not detected a consequence of this knowledge in an official
flange calculation method. Similar knowledge was found in [2]; however the planned norms was realised for
several parts of vessels, but not for flange connections.
The works [4] to [8] consider both essentials for the calculation of flange connections:
(1) The actual forces shall be not greater than the allowable forces (usual strength calculation).
(2) The actual forces shall bc not less than the required forces (required for leak tightness).
Both conditions may bc written as the following general condition for bolted connections:
Required forces d Actual forces d Allowable forces (GA-1)
The required forces are determined for no loss of contact (force greater equal zero) or for a minimum gasket
pressure necessary for tightness.
The actual forces may be calculated under the assumption of elastic deformations between assemblage and
subsequent load cases, where only the assemblage condition may be assumed.
The allowable forces in all cases are limited by an assumed safety against the limit load, where the limit load
should be calculated for ductile materials of flanges and bolts.
These principles were applied in the calculation methods [4], [6], [8] with convincing success: At no of the so
designed (and correspondingly manufactured) flange connections untightness occur. For some cases of
untightness at existing flange connections (designed anyhow) the calculation methods show possible reasons for
the untightness, and these reasons was justified in practice. (An example for the latter was a heat exchanger,
designed for ca. 40 bar and ca. 400 °C according to AD-Merkblatt. Calculation with [8] shows it should be tight,
although some times it was untight: The flange to gasket surfaces was not correct flat. After re-machining these
surfaces was flat enough and since this time the untightness is removed.)
NOTE: The methods [4], [6], [8] do not include modern tightness parameters. Its tightness criterions are no other
than e.g. in DIN 2505 [3]. Untightness there is e.g. an acoustic or optic phenomenon.

GB Elasticity of flange connections

GB-1 Axisymmetric shell
The most flanges are ring like parts welded to an axisymmetric shell. The shell may be cylindrical, conical
or spherical. Figure GB-1 shows such a system.

99 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

Figure GB-1 Flange ring and shell

Coordinates are u (meridional), v (circumferential) and w (normal to the middle surface) or r (radius) and z
(axial distance) respectively.
U, V, W are displacements corresponding to u, v, w. 4 = W' = dW/du is an inclination.
Forces per length unit are Nuu, Su and Nvv; Moments per length unit Muu and Mvv.
Values at the end of the shell are designated by a subscript S (shell). (In the case of SS - to avoid negative
signs - the direction is assumed opposite to Su .)
rc dr / du  sin M ; zc dz / du  cos M (GB.1-1)
du rK ˜ dM rK = const . (GB.1-2)
Equilibrium conditions:

r ˜ N uu c  sin M ˜ N vv  r ˜ Su / rK 0 (GB.1-3)
r ˜ Su c  cosM ˜ N vv  r ˜ N uu / rK  P ˜ r 0 (GB.1-4)
r ˜ M uu c  sin M ˜ M vv  r ˜ Su 0 (GB.1-5)
Elastic relations:

100 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

N uu > U 'U ˜Q ˜ sin M / r  W ˜ 1/ rK  Q ˜ cosM / r @ ˜ ES ˜ eS / 1  Q 2 (GB.1-6)
N vv > U '˜Q  U ˜ sin M / r  W ˜ Q / rK  cosM / r @ ˜ ES ˜ eS / 1  Q 2 (GB.1-7)
M uu > W cc  W c ˜Q ˜ sin M / r @˜ ES ˜ eS3 / >12 ˜ 1  Q 2 @ (GB.1-8)
M vv > W cc ˜ v  W c ˜ sin M / r @ ˜ ES ˜ eS3 / >12 ˜ 1  Q 2 @ (GB.1-9)
From equations (GB.1-5, -8, -9) the shear force is:

Su  W ccc  W cc ˜ sin M / r  W c ˜ Q ˜ cos M / r ˜ rK  sin 2 M / r 2 ˜ E S ˜ eS3 / 12 ˜ 1  Q 2 @
(GB.1-10) > @
From the given equations are derived two differential equations for the displacements U and W. These are solved
approximately with the following general result:
U A0  A1 ˜ u / l S  >A2 ˜ cos u / l S  A3 ˜ sin u / l S @ ˜ exp  u / l S (GB.1-11)
W C0  C1 ˜ u / l S  >C2 ˜ cos u / l S  C3 ˜ sin u / l S @ ˜ exp  u / l S (GB.1-12)
1/ 4
­° ½°
4r 2 ˜ eS2
r | rS ; M | M S
lS ®
> ¾
°̄ 12 1  Q 2 ˜ cos 2 M
°¿ @ (GB.1-13)

With the given deformations WS and 4S at the boundary u = 0 (r=rS; boundary conditions), and writing
r=rS=dS/2, the following results were found:

SS > W  W ˜ k ˜ 2l  4  4 ˜ k ˜ l @˜ E ˜ e ˜ 2 cos M / d 2 2 2 (GB.1-14)

> W  W ˜ k ˜ l  4  4 ˜ k ˜ l @˜ E ˜ e ˜ 2 cos M / d
S 0 1 S S 0 2 S S S S S
2 3 2 2 (GB.1-15)
MS S 0 2 S S 0 3 S S S S S
S S ˜ sin M S  FS  FR / S ˜ d S (GB.1-16)
cos M S
FS P ˜ d S2 ˜ (preliminary abbreviation) (GB.1-17)
FS ˜ k 4  FR ˜ k 6 D ˜ 'TS ˜ d S
W0  S (GB.1-18)
S ˜ E S ˜ eS ˜ cos M S 2 cos M S

FS ˜ k5  FR ˜ k 7
40 (GB.1-19)
S ˜ E S ˜ eS ˜ l S ˜ cos 2 M S
The additional coefficients k1 to k7 and the value 40 are included to facilitate numerical comparison with the
analytical solution, for which:
k1 = k2 = k3=1; k5 = k7 = 0; (40=0) (GB.1-20)
Q  rS / rK ˜ cos M S
k4 = 1+ k6; k 6  (GB.1-21)
GB-2 Conical hub with cylindrical shell
The elastic stiffness of the system sketched in Figure GB-2 has been calculated numerical. (Computer program
ROSCHA, TU Dresden).

101 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

GB-2 Conical hub with cylindrical shell

For simplicity it was assumed that the system could be represented by an equivalent cylindrical shell as follows:
e1 = eE= e2; rE = r0+eE/2
From equations (GB.1-14,-15) with cosMS = 1 and W0 = 0, 40 = 0 it follows:

S2 >W ˜ k ˜ 2l  4 ˜ k ˜ l @˜ E ˜ 2er >W ˜ 2l

2 1 1 2 2
1 S
2 2 E
 4 2 ˜ l E2 ˜ E S ˜ E2

MS >W ˜ k ˜ l  4 ˜ k ˜ l @˜ E ˜ 2er >W ˜ l

2 2
1 2 3
1 S
2 2 E  4 2 ˜ lE ˜ ES ˜
2 3 e
1/ 4 1/ 4
ª 4r 2 ˜ e 2 º ª 4r 2 ˜ e 2 º
l1 « 1 12 »

«¬12 1  Q »¼
lE « E E »
«¬12 1  Q »¼

Calculations were performed for the following values:

d1/e1=10 … 1000; E 1,5; 2,0; 3,0; 4,0; 6,0.
Ȟ=0,30; F 0,55; 1,10; 2,20; 4,40.
2r1 ˜ e1
From the results the factors k1, k2, k3 are obtained.
Then by comparison of the coefficients in equations (GB.2-1, -2) it follows:
1/ 2 1/ 5
eE rE 2 / 3 § rE · eE e E § rE ·
k1 ; ¨¨ ¸¸ k 21/ 2 ; ¨¨ ¸¸ k 32 / 5 (GB.2-4)
e1 r1 © 1¹
r e1 e1 © r1 ¹
Each set of parameters gives three different results for eE/e1. However the differences are not large and therefore
neglected. All results are fitted approximately by the following formula:
1  E  1
e1 E /3 F
eE eE
For ȕ = 1 and for Ȥ = 0 this formula gives 1 ; for F Ÿ f E , all as required.
e1 e1

The effective diameter dE is limited as follows:

d E , max min^d1  e1  eE ; d 2  e2  e E ` (GB.2-6a)
d E , min min^d1  e1  eE ; d 2  e2  eE ` (GB.2-6b)
For all cases shall be used the mean value:

102 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

d E ; max  d E ; min
dE (GB.2-7)
This may be shown to be exact for cylindrical inner surface, cylindrical outer surface and cylindrical middle
surface also.

GB-3 Flange ring without shell

For simplicity is assumed that the radial section of the flange ring remains undeformed. Its total radial
displacement UF and rotation ĬF (Figure GB-1) cause a tangential stress V vv with a resultant force and a resultant
moment in the radial section as follows:
V vv U F  rS ˜ aF ˜ 'TF  4 F ˜ z F ˜ EF / rS  xF (GB.3-1)
RF  ³³ V vv ˜ dA  U F  rS ˜ a F ˜ 'TF ˜ E F ˜ AF / rF  4 F ˜ E F ˜ BF / rF (GB.3-2)

MF  ³³V vv ˜ z F dA  U F  rS ˜ aF ˜ 'TF ˜ EF ˜ BF / rF  4 F ˜ EF ˜ CF / rF (GB.3-3)

AF 1
rF ³³ rS  xF dA (GB.3-4a)

BF z
rF ³³ rS FxF dA (GB.3-4b)

CF z F2
rF ³³
rS  xF
dA (GB.3-4c)

Equilibrium conditions ring:

RF  N S sin M S  S S cos M S rS  P ˜ r z F dz F
³ (GB.3-5)

MF  N S cosM S  S S sin M S ˜ rS ˜ hH  M S ˜ rS 
˜ hG  P ˜ ^³ r
3e  r ˜ rdr  r z F ˜ z F dz F
³ `
d d
Integration regions: 0 d z F d eP ; 0 d r d Ge .
2 2
Equilibrium conditions shell:

N S cosM S  S S sin M S rS FR d  eS cosM s 2

P S (GB.3-7)
2S 8
FQ P ˜ d Ge
˜ (GB.3-8)
the following equations are found (with minor simplifications):

 N S sin M S  S S cosM S S
dP d
RF  P ˜ eP ˜ (GB.3-9)
2 2
FG ˜ hG  FR ˜ hH  FQ hH  hP d
MF   MS ˜ S (GB.3-10)
2S 2
For a flange ring with rectangular cross section the following holds (with rS  x F | ):
bF eP  eQ bF ˜ eF (GB.3-11a)

e 2
P  eQ2 bF ˜ eF2 ˜
1  2O
2 2

e 3
P  eQ
bF ˜ eF3 ˜
1  3O  3O2
3 3
eF e P  eQ ; O (GB.3-12)

103 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

Within the flange width bF the bolt holes are subtracted partially by

d5 S ˜ d3
d 5e d5 ; pB (GB.3-13)
pB nB
d5 d
This is based on a proposal in DIN 2505 in 1972 [3]. It is exact in both extreme cases Ÿ 0 and 5 Ÿ 1,0 ;
pB pB
therefore it is assumed general.
The effective bolt circle diameter d3e<d3 takes account of the difference between chord and arc in the calculation
of lever arms. A simple geometric estimation gives:

§ 2 ·
d 3e d 3 ¨1  ¸ (GB.3-14)
¨ n2 ¸
© B ¹
GB-4 Flange ring connected to shell
To connect flange ring and shell the following conditions are to be realized (Figure GB-1):
WS ; 4S 4F (GB.4-1)
cosM S
Equations (GB.3-2,-3,-9,-10) and (GB.1-14,-15,-16) then gives two equations for UF and ĬF. Their solution for
ĬF (UF later is not required) is:

4F ^FG ˜ hG  FQ ˜ hH  hP  hQ  FR ˜ hH  hR  ES ˜ S ˜ rS ˜ eS ˜ hS ˜ aS ˜ 'TS  a F ˜ 'TF `˜ ZEF

In the method Annex J (with respect to the equivalent cylindrical shell, see GB-2) is simplified:
a S ˜ 'TS a F ˜ 'TF and ES=EF
(These simplifications in a future edition should be waived.) Note that the parameters hQ and hR (defined in the
method) contain some effects of deformation without a moment on the flange ring.
The simplified equation (GB.4-2) is presented also in the method (equation (G.8-16)). It is basically for the
calculation of forces in the different load cases. For a flat closure (blank flange, plate with flange ring) an equal
equation may be derived, where only some parameters are different (given in the method).
A loose flange and its stub or collar may be calculated also with the same equation, again with slightly different
parameters only. For the loose flange the equation is more simple:
4L ^FB ˜ hL `˜ Z F / E F (GB.4-3)

GB-5 Elastic stiffness of bolts

The axial elastic elongation of the bolts shall be:
FB ˜ X B
UB (GB.5-1)
Here is (see Figure G.3-2):
­° l le 0,8 ½° 4
® 2  2  ¾˜
XB (GB.5-2)
°̄ d Bs d Be d B 0 °¿ S ˜ n B
The last term in the brackets is an approximation for the elastic deformation of the two nuts or one nut and bolt

GB-6 Elastic stiffness of the gasket

The axial elastic diminution of the thickness of the gasket shall be:
U G FG ˜ G (GB.6-1)
Here as an approximation was found:

104 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

eG / AGt ˜ bGt  eG / 2 (GB.6-2)
bGe  eG / 2
The last factor is based on the assumption that the axial compressed width of the gasket is linear increased (with
an angle of 45°) from the effective width bGe maximum up to the theoretical width bGt.
The possible creep of the gasket is approximately taken into account by a "creep factor" gC, using EG ˜ gc instead
of EG . Always EG = Eo + K1 · Q is the unloading modulus of the gasket after being taken to pressure load Q.
(This is for unloading of the gasket after assemblage is typical for flange connections.)

GB-7 Elastic deformation of the whole flange connection

In the assembly condition all parts of the flange connection are coupled by internal forces (assembly bolt load).
For no loss of contact is allowed in all subsequent load conditions the following geometric relation must be hold
(see Figure G.3-1 and Figure GB-1):
^>4 F ˜ hG  4 L ˜ hL @Flange1  >4 F ˜ hG  4 L ˜ hL @Flange2  U B  U G ` I 0
^>4 F ˜ hG  4 L ˜ hL @Flange1  >4 F ˜ hG  4 L ˜ hL @Flange2  U B  U G  'U I ` I z 0 (GB.7-1)

(For integral flanges and for blank flanges is 4 L ˜ hL 0 .)

The equations for 4F and 4L (given above) and the global equilibrium condition for all load cases (all I)
FB FG  FQ  FR (GB.7-2)
then give:
FG (0) ˜ YG (0)  FQ (0) ˜ YQ (0)  FR (0) ˜ YR (0) FG ( I ) ˜ YG ( I )  FQ ( I ) ˜ YQ ( I )  FR ( I ) ˜ YR ( I )  'U ( I )
This is the fundamental equation relating force changes in the flange connection.
The flexibility parameters YG, YQ, YR are positive; they (and 'UI,) are defined in Annex G. (Slightely deviating
from Annex G here the load condition identifier I (or 0) is written in brackets. This seems to be more clear and it
announces that this information may be waived - as done in G.7.)
In general is FQ(0) = 0 (no fluid pressure in assemblage). If preliminary all loads additional to the fluid pressure
are ignored (FR(0) = FR(I) = 0 and 'U(I) = 0) then it follows (assume FQ(I) > 0 for P(I) > 0):
FB (0) FG (0) ; FG (0) ˜ YG (0) FG ( I ) ˜ YG ( I )  FQ ( I ) ˜ YQ ( I ) (GB.7-4)
This equation shows, that with an increasing internal fluid pressure the gasket force always decreases.
For traditional flange connections in general is hH ! hG and YQ (I ) ! YG I | YG 0 . Then it follows:

§ YQ ( I ) ·
YG (0)
FB I FG ( I )  FQ ( I )  FQ ( I ) ˜ ¨1 
FG 0 ˜ ¸  FB 0 (GB.7-5)
YG ( I ) ¨ YG ( I ) ¸
© ¹
In these cases with an increasing internal fluid pressure the bolt load also decreases. (This is not general, but
often so.)
If (to ensure leak tightness) the required gasket force in a subsequent condition FG(I) is known, then from the
general equation (GB.7-3) follows a required gasket force in the assembly condition:
FG ( I ) ˜ YG ( I )  FQ ( I ) ˜ YQ ( I )  FR ( I ) ˜ YR ( I )  FR 0 ˜ YR 0  'U ( I )
FG (0) t (GB.7-6)
YG (0)
(Here is included the usual presupposition FQ(0)=0.) This corresponds to equation (G.6-10).
Annex G, equation (G.6-9) defines the required force FG(I) by the maximum of two values. The first represents
the tightness at the gasket, the second is to avoid loss of contact at the bolts. (The bolt load theoretical
could be FB(I) < 0 for cases with negative fluid pressure and/or external load.)

105 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

GC Limit loads of flange connections
GC-1 Axisymmetric shell
Description and figure see Annex GB-1. Only different is the following task: instead of the elastic deformation
now shall be calculated the load carrying capacity, which is given by the limit load.
Dimensionless forces and moment are used as follows:
N uu N vv Su
nuu ; nvv ; su ; (GC.1-la)
f S ˜ eS f S ˜ eS f S ˜ eS
M uu M vv
muu 4
f S ˜ eS2 ; mvv
˜ eS2
; 4
f S (GC.1-lb)

As in EN13445-3 defined here fS is the nominal design stress of the shell, used for allowable loads instead of the
yield stress for the real limit loads.
If the fluid pressure is small (P/fs « 1) the following limit load condition shall be fulfilled for all sections in all
axisymmetric shells. (It is based on the Mises criterion):

\ >1  n 2
uu  nuu ˜ nvv  nvv
 3su2 @  34 m
˜ nvv  mvv ˜ nuu 2  muu

 muu ˜ mvv  mvv
t 0 (GC.1-2)
To write the equilibrium conditions equation (GB.1-3 to -5) for the dimensionless forces and moments equation
(GC.1-la, -lb) the following dimensionless coordinate and modified notation is used:
u r rS
[ ; U ; N (GC.1-3)
rS ˜ eS 1/ 2 rS rk ˜ cosM S

c d / du o q d / d[ c ˜ rS ˜ eS 1 / 2 (GC.1-4)
Equations (GB.1-3 to -5) now become:

w ˜ U ˜ nuu q  sin M ˜ nvv  U ˜ su ˜ N ˜ cosM S 0 (GC.1-5)

w ˜ U ˜ su q  cosM ˜ nvv  U ˜ nuu ˜ N ˜ cosM S 

P r
˜ 0 (GC.1-6)
f S eS
w ˜ U ˜ muu q  sin M ˜ mvv  U ˜ su ˜ 4w 2 0 (GC.1-7)
The parameter w indicates which terms are important.

With these equations nuu, nvv and su can be expressed by muu and mvv (including derivatives). For the shell is not
very flat (sinM/w « 1 is negligible) and the plastic zone is small ( U | 1 and M | M S ) were found the following
nuu GR (GC.1-8)
nvv G Q  N ˜ nuu  (GC.1-9)
4 cos M S
The here used loading parameters correspond to Annex G, equations (G.7-10, -11):
P ˜ rS FR
GQ ; GR (GC.1-10)
f S ˜ eS ˜ cos M S f S ˜ 2SrS ˜ eS ˜ cos M S
Equations (GC.1-8, -9) are based on the equilibrium conditions and they do not include mvv.
For such case this value may be determined by optimisation of the limit load condition equation (GC.1-2):
w< 1  3 / 2 ˜ nuu ˜ nvv
0 o mvv muu ˜ (GC.1-11)
wmvv 2  3 / 2 ˜ nuu

Substitution of this mvv into equation (GC.1-2) and neglecting su gives the following limit load condition:

106 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

muu d
4 § 3 2 ·
˜ ¨1  nuu ¸ ˜ 1  nuu
3 © 4 ¹
 nuu ˜ nvv  nvv
@ (GC.1-12)

Solving equation (GC.1-12) for nvv and equating equation (GC.1-9) gives a differential equation for
qq 2 2
muu (depending on muu and nuu ) which despite its complicated form can be integrated analytical with the
following result (j = ±1 is determined later):

4§ 3 2 ·
¨1  nuu ¸ ˜ > j ˜ f m*  n* ˜ m* @  const.
q 2
uu 8 cos M S ( GC.1-13)
3© 4 ¹
3 muu
m* (GC.1-14a)
4 1  3 n2
G Q  N  1 / 2 nuu
n* (GC.1-14b)
3 2
1  nuu

f m* arcsin m*  m* 1  m*2 º» (GC.1-14c)
2 «¬ ¼
wf m*
1  m*2 (GC.1-14d)
Equation (GC.1-7) with the mentioned simplifications gives

m q 2
uu 16 ˜ su 2 ˜

Equations (GC.1-13, -15) give the shear force su, as a implicite function of the coordinate [. The plastic
zone may have the following boundaries:
[ 0 : m* m*0 m* S ; su su 0 sS (GC.1-16a)
[ [1 : m* m*1 ; su su1 0 (GC.1-16b)
w su 0 2
The value su0 shall be maximum. The unknown value m*1 is determined from 0 , giving:

 j ˜ 1  m*21  n* 0 ; m*1 k1 ˜ 1  n*2 ; k1 r1 (GC.1-17)

Then for the changed direction sS = -su0 (see figure GB-1) and with js = sign(sS) it was found:
4M S
mS k M ˜ cM ; 1 d k M d 1 (GC.1-18)
f S ˜ eS2

cos M S ˜ c M ˜ c S ˜ 1  j S ˜ k M
sS jS ˜ (GC.1-19)
f S ˜ eS dS

The variable kM (-1 ” kM ” +1) is defined by m*0 m* S k M 1  n*2 . The factor cM then follows immediately from
the above formulae; cS is found after some simplifications.
It is used ț = 0 for conical and cylindrical shell; ț = 1 for spherical shell.
(For more details may be asked the CEN REPORT [9] to EN 1591-1.)

GC-2 Cortical hub with cylindrical shell

To obtain an equivalent cylindrical shell thickness eD such that its limit load is equal to the real shell e1 with hub
e2, 1H, the system in Figure GB-2 is analysed.
For very small hub length F « 1 based on the foregoing was found the following:
d1 ˜ e1

107 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

| 1  2,33F (GC.2-1)
For median hub length a numerical procedure gave some results as follows:
eD m2 § s2 · 3
; ¨¨ ¸¸ (GC.2-2)
e1 m1 © s1 ¹
For very large hub length the asymptotic result is known:
e D e2
E (GC.2-3)
e1 e1
All these results finally are represented by the following approximation (similar equation (GB.2-5)):
E  1 ˜ F
> E / 3 4  F 4 @1 / 4

GC-3 Flange ring without shell

The ring to be calculated is shown in Figure GB-1; it is assumed to have a rectangular cross section. Its
allowable design stress is fF, and the assumed stress distribution is as follows:
V vv r f F for eQ d z F d z 0 (GC.3-1a)
V vv # f F for z0 d z F d eP (GC.3-1b)
The coordinate for the sign change zF = z0 is yet unknown.
The resultant force and the resultant moment in the rectangular radial section are as follows:

RF  ³³V vv dA r f F ˜ bF ˜ 2 z0  eQ  eP (GC.3-2)

MF  ³³V vv ˜ z F dA r f F ˜ bF ˜ > eQ2  eP2 / 2  z 02 @ (GC.3-3)

r  eP  eQ
f F ˜ bF
z0 (GC.3-4)
­ § RF · ½
° ¨ ¸ °
M F r f F ˜ bF ˜ ®
° eQ  e P 2
RF ˜
e P  eQ ¨© f F  bF ¸¹ °

# ¾ (GC.3-5)
° 4 f F  bF 2 4 °
° °
¯ ¿
With eQ  eP e F and a sign variable jm r1 this gives the limit load condition for the ring:

ª § e ·º § ·
˜ ¨¨ 4 P  2 ¸¸»  ¨ ¸ d1
jm ˜ « M F ˜  (GC.3-6)
«¬ f F  bF  e F f F  bF  e F © F ¹¼ © f F  bF  e F ¸¹
» ¨
2 e
The actual loadings are given in equations (GB.3-7,-9,-10) and may be written as follows:

d P ­°ª FR P ˜ d S  eS ˜ cosM S 2 º dS ½°
RF  P ˜ eP ˜  ®«  » ˜ tan M S  S S ˜ ¾ (GC.3-7)
2 °̄¬« 2S 8 ¼» cos MS °¿
FG ˜ hG  FR ˜ hH  FQ ˜ hH  hP dS
MF   MS ˜ (GC.3-8)
2S 2
GC-4 Flange ring connected to shell
Equations (GC.1-18,-19) give:

MS f S
˜ eS2 / 4 ˜ k M ˜ c M ; 1 d k M d 1 (GC.4-1)

108 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

SS f S ˜ eS ˜ j S ˜ k S ˜ eS
˜ cos M S ˜ c M ˜ c S ˜ 1  j S ˜ k M (GC.4-2)
Here is introduced a new factor kS ( 0 d k S d 1 ). This is for equation (GC.1-19) calculates the maximum or
minimum possible shear force in the shell, but equation (GC.4-2) represents the actual force between shell and
ring, which need not to be a maximum or minimum.
For use of equation (GC.3-6) a new parameter Ȍ is defined and with equation (GC.3-7) written as follows:
<  (GC.4-3)
f F ˜ bF ˜ e F
ª§ G Q
f S ˜ eS ˜ d S cos M S · d SS º
< ˜ «¨¨  G R ¸¸ tan M F  2G Q ˜ eP ˜ P  » (GC.4-4)
2 f F ˜ bF ˜ e F
«¬© 2 ¹ dS2
f S ˜ eS ˜ cos 2 M S »¼
Equation (GC.3-6) now may be written:

FG ˜ hG  FR ˜ hH  FQ ˜ hH  hP
ª § 4e · º e2 d
jm ˜ d «1  j M ˜< ˜ ¨¨ P  2 ¸¸ < 2 » ˜ f F ˜ bF ˜ F  j M ˜ M S ˜ S (GC.4-5)
2S «¬ © eF ¹ »¼ 4 2
The left side of this equation may be understand as the load and right side as the resistance. Variation of Ȍ
increasing from zero increases the resistance up to a maximum at < < opt (optimum value):

§ 2e ·
< opt j M ¨¨ P  1¸¸ (GC.4-6)
© eF ¹
As Ȍ depends on parameters jM, jS, kM, kS, the method Annex G gives some rules to find the best values. The
load ratio ĭF is the ratio of actual load to resistance. Since the resistance is influenced by the load, there is no
exact proportionality in the sense
(Permitted load) = (Actual load)/ ĭF.
Only for ĭF = 1,0 such an equation is always true.
For a flat flange (blank flange, plate with flange ring) comparable limit load equations are derived, where the
influence of the shell (if it exists) is ignored. However an additional check is provided for a potentially critical
section with a thickness eX < eF. (For integral flanges in general may be presupposed eX > e2; then such a check
is not necessary).
For loose flanges and their stub or collar the calculation as for integral flanges is applicable (some parameters
correspondingly changed). An question is the actual diameter d7 for the load transfer between loose flange and
stub or collar. For this is proposed to apply the optimum value for each load condition.
This not agrees with the diameter d70 being applied in the calculation of forces; however the calculated forces
may be approximations only, the load carrying capacity should be calculated as correct as possible. Especially
for thin walled collars an possible improvement of the load carrying capacity is presented by equation (G.7-31),
taking account of a supporting moment from the clamping on a flat gasket.

GC-5 Limit load of bolts

The maximum permissible tensile force of the bolts (sum for nB equal bolts) is:
FB f B ˜ AB (GC.5-1)
AB nB ˜ S / 4 ˜ ^min d Be ; d Bs ` 2
d B 2  d B3
d Be (GC.5-3)
The last equation represents ISO effective diameter.
Bolt tightening by torque-wrench causes a torsion moment in the bolt. In the usual design of bolted joints
this torsion moment is neglected. However in the discussion to EN 1591-1 and EN 13445-3, Annex G, it
was demanded to respect this torsion moment minimum for the assemblage. This is done and explained in
subclause G.8.4.

109 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

GC-6 Limit load of the gasket
The gasket is assumed to be a plastic deformable strip (design stress fG) between two rigid planes. For eG « bG the
stresses V xx V yy and V zz Q are functions of x only, independent of y and z. The system is sketched in
Figure GC-1.

Figure GC-1 Limit load of a gasket

Dimensionless force-values are defined as follows:

Q V xx V yy
p ; n xx ; n yy (GC.6-1)
fG fG fG
In the given case is nyy = nXX and the limit load condition becomes:
n xx  p d 1 ; p d 1  n xx (GC.6-2)
Equilibrium condition:
wV xx wn xx T
eG  2T 0 o 2 0 (GC.6-3)
wx wx f G ˜ eG
Surface condition (Coulomb friction and Tresca shear limit):

­ f ½
T d min ®P G ˜ Q; G ¾ ; Limit : p ˜ 2P G 1 (GC.6-4)
¯ 2 ¿
First solution of equations (GC.6-3,-4):
wn xx P
 1  n xx ˜ 2 G 0 (GC.6-5)
wx eG
§ P ·
n xx 1  exp¨¨ x ˜ 2 G ¸¸
© eG ¹

§ P ·
p 1  n xx exp¨¨ x ˜ 2 G ¸¸ (GC.6-6)
© eG ¹
This solution includes the boundary condition n xx x 0 0 . (Always is n xx d 0 and p t 0 .) It is valid for
1 x 1 § 1 ·
pd or d ln¨¨ ¸¸
2 ˜ PG eG 2 P G © 2P G ¹

110 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

Second solution of equations (GC.6-3, -4):
wn xx 1
 0 (GC.6-7)
wx eG
n xx Const. 

1  ln 2P G x
p 1  n xx  (GC.6-8)
2P G eG
1 x 1 § 1 ·
This solution is valid for p t or t ln¨¨ ¸¸ .
2P G eG 2 P G © 2P G ¹
For P G 0,20 the limit between both solutions is at x/eG = 2,29. Therefore for µG ” 0,20 the second solution occurs
only for bG/eG > 4,5, and for µG ” 0,10 it occurs only for bG/eG > 16.
The average pressure over the whole gasket width is:

2 § b ·
bG ³ pdx ; ¨0 d x d G ¸
© 2 ¹

The first solution gives:

bG ˜ P G §¨ bG ˜ P G ·
ª §b ˜P · º ¨ e
© ¹  ...
eG eG
˜ «exp¨¨ G G ¸¸  1» 1 
pav (GC.6-10)
bG ˜ P G ¬« © eG ¹ ¼» 2 6
The linear term for µG = 0,10 gives the factor cG in Annex G. For µG < 0,50 it is always conservative. It is of practical
importance e.g. for thin aluminium gaskets in high pressure vessels at high temperatures.

GD Diverse special effects

GD-1 Effective width of gaskets
If a flat gasket with a large width is used in a connection with thin flanges (e.g. traditional piping flanges) the
gasket pressure (compressive stress on the gasket surfaces) varies over its width; partially the gasket pressure
may be zero, for the gasket surfaces are separated from the flange surfaces. The calculation of this effect in the
following is shown for the assemblage condition.
The calculated effective gasket width then is assumed to be unchanged for all subsequent load conditions. This is
not exact but for simplicity it is assumed to be a reasonable approximation. (For this assumption full face gaskets
are excluded.)
(a) For a flat gasket the calculation model is shown in Figure GC-2.

111 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

Figure GC-2 Effective width of a flat gasket between two flanges

Notation: bGa = contact width; bGi = interim (ideal, calculated) width;

bGe = effective width; bGt = theoretical width;
Q = gasket pressure = comprssive stress.
Elastic rotation of both flanges:
ª§ Z ˜ h · § Z ˜h · º
FG ˜ «¨¨ F G ¸¸  ¨¨ F G
4 F 1  4 F 2 ¸¸ » (GD.1-1)
«© E F ¹ 1 © E F ¹ 2 »¼
Elastic deformation of gasket (for 0 d x d bGa ):

4 F 1  4 F 2 ˜ x k˜x (k = abbreviation) (GD.1-2)
EG E0  K1 ˜ Q (GD.1-3)
§ H·
Q >exp K1 ˜ H  1@ ˜ E0
| E0 ˜ H ˜ ¨1  K1 ˜ ¸ (GD.1-4)
K1 © 2¹
The resultant gasket force is

FG ³
S ˜ d Ge ˜ Q x dx 0 d x d bGa (GD.1-5)
acting at x = c, given by:

³ ³
c ˜ Q x dx c ˜ Q x ˜ xdx 0 d x d bGa (GD.1-6)
From this follows step by step:

1 § K ˜ k ˜ bGa ·
FG S ˜ d Ge ˜ E0 ˜ k ˜ b 2 ˜ ¨1  1 ¸ (GD.1-7)
2 Ga © 3 ¹
1  K1 ˜ k ˜ bGa
2 3
c bGa ˜ (GD.1-8)
3 1
1  K1 ˜ k ˜ bGa

112 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

2 FG ˜ eG
bGa (GD.1-9)
S ˜ dGe ˜ E0 ˜ 4 F 1  4 F 2 ˜ ¨1 
§ K1 ˜ k ˜ bGa ·
© 3 ¹
K ˜ k ˜ bGa
1 1
2 bGa  c
2 4
bGi bGa ˜
3 K1 ˜ k ˜ bGa

FG ˜ eG ˜ F k

S ˜ d Ge ˜ E0 ˜ 4 F 1  4 F 2 (GD.1-10a)

§ K ˜ k ˜ bGa ·
¨1  1 ¸
where F k © 4 ¹ (GD.1-10b)
§ K ˜ k ˜ bGa ·
¨1  1 ¸
© 3 ¹
For K1 ˜ k ˜ bGa «1 is

F k
K ˜ k ˜ bGa
1 1
With FG S ˜ d Ge ˜ b Ge ˜ Q , where Q is an average value, equation (GD.1-7) gives

2Q ˜ bGe
E0 ˜ k ˜ bGa (GD.1-12)
§ K ˜ k ˜ bGa ·
bGa ˜ ¨1  1 ¸
© 3 ¹
This value is required only in F(k) and connected to the (not very essential factor) K1. Therefore the only rough
approximation E0 ˜ k ˜ bGa | Q may be accepted. Further is simplified | 1 . Then:

FG ˜ eG
bGi bGe el (GD.1-13)

S ˜ d Ge ˜ 4 F 1  4 F 2 ˜ ¨ E0  K1 ¸
© 2¹
This is the equation for the elastic behaviour of the gasket, where 4 F 1  4 F 2 are to be substituted by equation
(GD.1-1). For the plastic behaviour is assumed:
bGe pl (GD.1-14)
S ˜ d Ge ˜ Qmax
True elasto-plastic deformation gives an effective width greater than for pure elastic and pure plastic
deformation; approximately:
el  bGe pl
bGe bGe bGi (GD.1-15)
The denomination bGi is used for the real effective width is limited as follows:
bGe min^bGi ; bGt ` (GD.1-16)
Note that the elastic modulus EG = E0 + K1 Q it is defined and measured for unloading/reloading (see GB-6).
Here it is used for initial loading also, because validated data for loading are missed.
(b) For a gasket with curved surfaces (simple contact) the following was calculated:
For elastic deformation (Hertzian contact) the contact width and the maximum contact pressure are:

2 32 1 Q 2
bGa ˜ FG ˜ r2 ˜ (GD.1-17)
S EG ˜ S ˜ d Ge

113 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

4 FG
Qmax ˜ (GD.1-18)
S S ˜ d Ge ˜ bGa
It is assumed this maximum contact pressure Qmax within the contact width bGa is equal the mean contact
pressure Q over the effective gasket widt bGe:
Qmax Q (GD.1-19)
S ˜ d Ge ˜ bGa
bGe bGa ˜ (GD.1-20)
1 Q 2
bGe 2SFG r2 ˜ (GD.1-21)
SEG d Ge

Finally here is simplified 2S 1  Q 2 | 6 (similar to 8/9 §1 for flat gaskets). The plastic effects are assumed equal
as for flat gaskets.

GD-2 Required internal forces

The required internal forces in flange connections are given by two general requirements:
(1) No loss of contact at all contact surfaces in all load conditions.
(2) Sufficient gasket pressure to prevent leakage in all load conditions.
In all subsequent conditions both requirements are represented by the following formula (G.6-9):
FG I min ^
max AGe ˜ Q I min ;  FQ I  FR I ` (GD.2-1)
In the assembly condition with I = 0 this formula also should be respected (although Q(0)min is under discussion),
however it is not sufficient:
Only by a sufficient large bolt load in assemblage the required gasket forces in the subsequent conditions can be
guaranteed. Therefore it must be {Formulae (GB.7-6) and (G.6-10), (G.6-11)}:

FG 0 t
^FG I min ˜ YG I  FQ I ˜ YQ I  FR I ˜ YR I  FR 0 ˜ YR 0  'U I ` FG' (GD.2-2)
YG 0
FG 0 t max FG 0 min ; FG' ` FG 0 req (GD.2-3)

GD-3 Scatter of bolt-load in assemblage

All bolt-tightening methods involve some degree of inaccuracy. The real bolt load in the assemblage load
condition (after bolt-tightening) therefore more or less deviates from the intended bolt load. The deviations have
a statistic character. The scatter-values are named by İ. They are assumed to decrease if the number of bolts
increases. Possibly the scatter values H  above the nominal load are different from the scatter values H  below
the nominal load.
For a connection with nB bolts the scatter depending relations are (see G.6.5.2):
FB 0,min d FB 0,nom d FB 0,max (GD.3-1)
FB 0, min FB 0, nom ˜ 1  H n  ; FB 0,max FB 0,nom ˜ 1  H n (GD.3-2)
3 3
1 1
nB nB
H n H 1 ˜ ; H n  H 1 ˜ (GD.3-3)
4 4
To ensure that the flange connection is tight (also for the minimum forces) and not overloaded (also for the
maximum forces) the following relations should be met (compare (GA-1)):
FB 0,req d FB 0,min d FB 0,nom d FB 0,max d FB 0,allowable (GD.3-4)
Therefore the bolting up parameters are to be defined for FB0,nom with the following conditions:

114 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

FB 0,req d FB 0,nom 1  H n (GD.3-5)

GD-4 Plastic deformation after assemblage, multiple assemblages

Due to the foregoing requirements {equations (GD.2-3) and (GD.3-5) } the real bolt load in assemblage always
is higher (may be considerably higher) than that required for the subsequent load conditions. Therefore a limited
lowering of the bolt load due to small plastic deformations may and shall be permitted. The design for
subsequent load conditions could be based on FG(0) = FGǻ. However repeated plastic deformation due to repeated
dismounting and reassemblage must be avoided. To avoid progressive distortion the plastic deformation is to be
limited: The design for subsequent load conditions should be based on FG(0) = FG(0)d, where the design assembly
gasket load FG(0)d may be greater than FGǻ.
The following considerations gives an estimation for FG(0)d :
Assemblage with a bolt load FB(0)max produces a maximal strain İmax. (Do not interchange İmax and the scatter
value ݱ). NR -times change of the bolt load from FB(0)max to a lower actual bolt load FB(0)act and back, in the worst
case is connected with a cumulative strain change:
§ FB 0 act ·
'H R | N R ˜ H max ˜ ¨1  ¸ (GD.4-1)
¨ FB 0 max ¸¹
It should be limited
'H R d C ˜ H max (GD.4-2)
§ C ·
FB 0 act t FB 0 max ¨¨1  ¸ (GD.4-3)
© N R ¸¹
For usual materials the nominal design stresses are such that İmax” 0,001 … 0,002, while the elongations
at rupture are İrupt• 0,1 … 0,2. Therefore the factor C could be assumed (conservative) as follows:
C | 10 C | 5...20 (GD.4-4)
If for subsequent load conditions is used a design load FB(I)d, the usual safety factor 1,50 against yield stress
guarantees that plastic deformations will not occur for FB(I)act < 1,5 FB(I)d. Therefore the minimum design
assembly bolt load to define the calculation bolt load in subsequent load conditions is assumed:

2 2 § C ·
FB 0 act | FB 0 max ˜ ¨¨1 
FB 0 d , min | ¸ (GD.4-5)
3 3 © N R ¸¹
This gives immediately:

­° ª2 § C · º ½°
FG 0 d max ® FG' ; « FB 0 max ¨¨1  ¸¸  FR 0 » ¾ (GD.4-6)
°̄ ¬« 3 © NR ¹ ¼» °¿
Based on the foregoing considerations an important hint to useful application of the method shall be given:
Normally for flange connections three or more load conditions are considered: Assemblage-, Test- and Operating
(one or more) conditions. The test pressure is higher than the operating pressures and therefore (by FGǻ) it
determines the required bolt load in assemblage. If one calculation is made for all three or more load conditions,
the test condition may be applied at any time, also after some operating cycles; the high bolt load required for
test is conserved over the operation cycles. This however in general is not necessary.
Normally the test pressure applies only once after assemblage, not after operating cycles. Therefore it may be
useful to make two calculations as follows: one for assemblage and all operating conditions, and a second for
assemblage and test condition. The second gives the more strong and therefore governing assemblage
requirements. During operating conditions possibly (not necessary) the bolt load lowers and the test pressure
then should not be allowed. However - if FB(0)d,min is met - this is no problem: After dismounting and
reassemblage all requirements are fulfilled!

GD-5 Load transfer diameter for loose flanges

The load transfer diameter d7 is the diameter of the circle where the resultant force (FB) between the loose flange
and the stub or collar acts. The value d7 is yet undetermined but limited: d7,min” d7 ” d7,max. For large internal
fluid pressure P and/or positive additional force FR obviously d7 will be near d7,min. For assemblage without P
and FR may be expected d7 near d7,max. If there is a flat soft gasket over the whole width of the stub or collar, the

115 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

diameter d7 may be calculated for equal rotation of loose flange and stub or collar: 4 L 4 F . In assemblage
with FQ = FR = 0 it follows:
4L FB 0 ˜ hL ˜ ; 4F FB 0 ˜ hG ˜ (GD.5-1)
E L 0 E F 0
d 3e  d 7 d 7  d Ge
hL ; hG (GD.5-2)
2 2
d Ge  d 3e ˜ N Z L ˜ E F 0
d7 d 7 0 ; N (GD.5-3)
1N Z F ˜ E L 0
In equation (G.5-63) this equation is combined with the basic limits d7,min” d7(0) ” d7,max.

GD-6 Conditions of applicability

The method Annex G gives many restrictions and validity limits. Some of them are short repeated and explained
in the following:
- The whole assembly is axisymmetric. Small deviations such as those due to a finite number of bolts are
permitted. There are four or more identical, uniformly distributed bolts.
x Axisymmetric geometry and loading are basically for all included calculations.
x Identical bolts are normally in use. The minimum number four is a compromise.
- The circular gasket is located entirely within the bolt circle on plane surfaces and compressed axially. Its
modulus of elasticity may increase with the compressive stress Q on the gasket.
x Full face gaskets (bolt holes within the gasket width) for simplicity are not taken into account.
Otherwise it would be necessary the effective gasket width to determine different for each load condition.
Gaskets outside the bolt circle are omitted for their only exceptional use.
x Gaskets on plane surfaces are mentioned for possible unexpected leakages at uneven surfaces.
x Gaskets compressed axially are mentioned for e.g. radially tightening gaskets are not
x The variable modulus EG = E0 + K1 Q is an approximation for a more general behaviour.
It is necessary to respect that in each case always must be EG > 0. (E0 < 0 is unacceptable!).
- The flange dimensions met the following conditions:
0,2 ” bF/eF ” 5,0; 0,2 ” bL/eL ” 5,0 and eF • max {e2 ; dB0; pB· {(0,01 ... 0,10) ·pB/bF }1/3
x The first limits are estimated for the acceptance of the ring with an undeformed cross section.
For bF/eF ” 0,1 commonly are assumed calculations for shells; for 10 ” bF/eF those for plates.
The reduced allowable load ratio ) max < 1,0 for d4/d0 > 2,0 equation (G.7-2) has a similar
It was introduced in TGL 32903/13 [8] for safety reasons; probably it can be waived.
x The last limit (more precise in G.8.1) is intended to restrict the non-uniformity of the gasket
compressive stress. It is based on a conservative estimate for the non-axisymmetric
deformation of the flange ring. It was included after discussion in CEN; probably it can be
waived. An alternative could be a comparable estimate to include in the check for tightness.
- The shell met the condition cosijS • 1/{ 1+0,01 · d s / es }

x This limit is introduced for the analytic solution for the elastic shell is approximately only (see
Annex GB-1 here). A numerical verification with two different computer programs shows no
serious contradictions, but it gave no better or more general solution.

GD-7 Experimental verification

The CEN REPORT [9] to EN 1591-1 in its Annex B gives information about measurements for bolt load and/or
tightness of nearly 20 flange connections (diameter 50mm, 100mm, 400mm, up to 1200mm). All measurements
more or less precise verify the basic calculations for required and actual forces.

116 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

GE Future work
(1) The simplification of equal elastic moduli and equal temperatures for flange and shell shall be omitted.
Different materials and temperatures of flange and shell should be respected. This requires (instead of the
used equivalent cylindrical shells) more precisely to investigate conical hub and shell, both for elastic
deformation and for limit load.
(2) Possibly present washers shall be explicitly included in the calculation. This includes to define dimensions
and material properties of the washers, but it is no problem.
(3) Some corrections could be recommendable to be compatible with future "Heat exchanger tubesheet flange
connections" (see Annex J-5). This includes e.g. to calculate a circular plate with a thicker flange at the outer
diameter, where the midplane of the plate is not those of the flange.
Also flange connections with non axisymmetric loadings could be calculated (also Annex J-5).
Instead of the limitation G.8.1 this effect then could be included in the check for tightness.
(4) It will be necessary to update the method so that the results of new gasket investigations may be applied (e.g.
[11], probably a new edition of EN 1591-2 [10]). However surely then again new gasket parameters will be
required which are not available, e.g. data for irreversible deformation.
(5) Possibly the effective gasket width could be calculated variable with the loading and depending on the load
cases. Then the to day open questions for full-face flanges and for spacer-seated flanges may be solved.

GF Bibliography
[1] Wesstrom, D.B. and Bergh, W.D.: "Effect of Internal Pressure on Stresses and Strains in BoltedFlanged
Connections"; Transactions of the ASME, July, 1951.
[2] Materialy k edinym normam i metodam rasceta na procnost sosudov i apparatov.
(Basics to unifyed normes and methods for strength calculation of vessels and apparates.)
Sovjet Ekonomiceskoj Vsaimopomoshci, Postojannaja Komissija po Mashinostroeniju, Sekcija
No. l2 (COMECON, Permanent Commission for Engineering, Section No. 12), Moskva, 1963:
6: "Flancevije sojedinenija" (Clause 6: Flange connections): Authors: Karasev, L.P. i Perzev, L.P.
[3] DIN 2505 (Vornorm Okt.1964, Entwurf Nov.1972, Vornorm Jan. 1986, Entwurf April 1990)
"Berechnung von Flanschverbindungen". Teil 1: Berechnung; Teil 2: Dichtungskennwerte.
[4] RichtlinienKatalog Eestigkeitsberechnungen (RKF), Behälter und Apparate; Teil 1, BR-A13:
"Apparatebauelemente. Flanschverbindungen" (Flange connections); Dresden 1971. 1973;
VEB Komplette Chemieanlagen Dresden, 1979 (Author: J.Wölfel).
[5] Wölfel, J. und Räbisch, W.: "Berechnung und Standardisierung von Flanschverbindungen"
Chemische Technik, Leipzig, August 1975.
[6] TGL 20360 (1977) "Flanschverbindungen. Berechnung auf Festigkeit und Dichtigkeit"
[7] Wölfel, J.: "Berechnung der Festigkeit und Dichtigkeit von Flanschverbindungen"
Maschinenbautechnik, Berlin, Juni 1985.
[8] TGL 32903/13 (1983) "Behälter und Apparate. Festigkeitsberechnung. Flanschverbindungen"
[9] CR 13642 (1999): CEN REPORT: "Flanges and their joints - Design rules for gasketed circular
flange connections - Background information"
[10] EN 1591-1: 2001: "Flanges and their joints - Design rules for gasketed circular flange connections
Part 1: Calculation method" (EN 1591-2: Gasket parameters.)
[1l] PERL = Pressure Equipment, Reduction of Leak rate: Gasket parameters measurement.
Project funded by the European Community (1998-2002). Coordinator: ASE Ltd Cambridge UK.

117 ©UNM 2004 – All rights reserved

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

test condition: 20 °C 44 bar

load condition 1: 206 °C 18 bar
load condition 2: 210 °C 26 bar

bolts: G41400 1Cr-1/5Mo (A193 B7)

16 x M20 (EN ISO 4014)
gasket: MPR® GASKET 'SP' PETRO 4,0mm
363 x 323 x 4,5 mm (2 pieces)

tightening device: torque wrench = wrench with measuring of torque


recommended assembly presetting: 400 Nm 0,229 mm 1988 kN

min. required assembly presetting: 245 Nm 0,140 mm 1217 kN

max. allowable assembly presetting: 419 Nm 0,239 mm 2080 kN

max. load ratio bolts: 0,88 (assembly)

max. load ratio flange 1: 0,96 (assembly)
max. load ratio flange 2: 0,96 (assembly)
max. load ratio gasket: 0,33 (assembly)
compliance of min. required gasket stress: 1,00 (assembly)

To model the flange with tube plate as practical as possible, the depth of the recesses has been
reduced so that the seals are in the main power circuit. To model the grip length and the thermal
expansion of the tube plate correctly, the height of the tube sheet has been taken into account by
expansion sleeves. Reducing the clamping length of the changes in the recesses is balanced with
the sleeve length.

calculated checked checked customer checked third-party

division amtec amtec

name - -

date 14.05.2014 14.05.2014


TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 1 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

input values

assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
temperature T 20 20 206 210 °C
internal pressure p 0 4,4 1,8 2,6 MPa
additional forces according EN 1092-1
external axial force FA 0 0 174 174 kN
external bending moment MA 0 0 0 0 kNm
remarks on loads For all components the same temperature is applied. Covering
additional loads according to DIN EN 1092-1 considered.


flange 1
type weld-neck flange
hub conical hub
code -
nominal pressure / nominal size -
blind hole no
outer diameter flange d4 440,00 mm
bolt circle diameter d3 398,00 mm
inner diameter flange d0 303,80 mm
diameter of bolt hole d5 22,00 mm
thickness of flange ring bF 35,00 mm
thickness of wall eS 10,00 mm
wall thickness at thick end of hub e2 18,00 mm
lenght of conical hub lH 32,00 mm

type of raised faces type F - recess

code DIN 2633
nominal pressure / nominal size PN16/DN50
height of raised face f1 0,00 mm
depth of recess f3 3,00 mm
outer diameter raised face d1 440,00 mm
outer diameter recess Y 366,00 mm
remarks on flange 1

flange 2
type weld-neck flange
hub conical hub
code -
nominal pressure / nominal size -
blind hole no
outer diameter flange d4 440,00 mm
bolt circle diameter d3 398,00 mm
inner diameter flange d0 303,80 mm
diameter of bolt hole d5 22,00 mm
thickness of flange ring bF 35,00 mm
thickness of wall eS 10,00 mm
wall thickness at thick end of hub e2 18,00 mm
lenght of conical hub lH 32,00 mm

type of raised faces type F - recess

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 2 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

code EN 1092-1 (2008)

nominal pressure / nominal size PN16/DN50
height of raised face f1 0,00 mm
depth of recess f3 3,00 mm
outer diameter raised face d1 440,00 mm
outer diameter recess Y 366,00 mm
remarks on flange 2

type of bolts screw
code EN ISO 4014
thread M20
pitch pt 2,50 mm
nominal diameter dB0 20,00 mm
basic pitch diameter dB2 18,38 mm
effekive diameter dBe 17,65 mm
number of bolts nB 16 -
clamping length lb 102,00 mm
diameter internal bolt di 0,00 mm
remarks on bolts

type of gasket Metal jacketed gasket with layers
quantity of gaskets 2,00
inner diameter inner ring dG0 323,00 mm
inner diameter gasket dG1 323,00 mm
outer diameter gasket dG2 363,00 mm
outer diameter centerring ring dG3 363,00 mm
gasket thickness eG 4,50 mm
rubber lining 0,00 mm
remarks on gasket

extension sleeve
inner diameter di 22,00 mm
outer diameter da 44,00 mm
length h 29,00 mm
remarks on extension sleeve Into account the level of the tube plate by extension sleeves.


material flange
material name/number AF 42 (C22 1.0402)
code EN 10083-2 (1996-10)
form of manufacture Aciers pour trempe et revenu
austenitic no
cast no
assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
temperature T F1 20 20 206 210 °C
strength parameter Rp0,2T 245 245 204 202 MPa
strength parameter Rp1,0T MPa
strength parameter RmT 440 440 403 401 MPa

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 3 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

modulus of elasticity EF 206000 206000 189490 189150 MPa

thermal expansion coefficient F
1,11E-05 1,11E-05 1,21E-05 1,22E-05 K -1
minimum rupture elongation A 19 %
determination of nominal design stress according to EN 13445
nominal design stress fF 233,3 233,3 136,0 134,7 MPa
covering nominal design stress fE 233,3 233,3 136,0 134,7 MPa
remarks on flange 1

material of bolts
material name/number G41400 1Cr-1/5Mo (A193 B7)
code Section II/Part D (06/11)
form of manufacture Aciers pour éléments de fixation d ≤64 mm
austenitic no
cast no
assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
temperature TB 20 20 206 210 °C
strength parameter Rp0,2T 724 724 724 648 MPa
strength parameter Rp1,0T MPa
strength parameter RmT 862 862 862 862 MPa
modulus of elasticity EB 204000 204000 204000 195800 MPa
thermal expansion coefficient B
1,15E-05 1,15E-05 1,15E-05 1,25E-05 K -1
minimum rupture elongation A 14 %
determination of nominal design stress according to Rp0,2/SB
safety coefficient SB 1,05 1,05 1,5 1,5 -
nominal design stress fB 689,5 689,5 482,7 432,0 MPa
remarks on bolts

material of extension sleeve

material name/number AF 42 (C22 1.0402)
code EN 10083-2 (1996-10)
form of manufacture Aciers pour trempe et revenu
austenitic no
cast no
assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
temperature TD 20 20 206 210 °C
strength parameter Rp0,2T 245 245 204 202 MPa
strength parameter Rp1,0T MPa
strength parameter RmT 440 440 403 401 MPa
modulus of elasticity ED 206000 206000 189490 189150 MPa
thermal expansion coefficient D
1,11E-05 1,11E-05 1,21E-05 1,22E-05 K -1
minimum rupture elongation A 19 %
determination of nominal design stress according to EN 13445
nominal design stress fD 233,3 233,3 136,0 134,7 MPa
remarks on extension sleeve Expansion sleeves material such as pipe plate.

gasket characteristics
gasket manufacturer LJC
gasket marking MPR® GASKET 'SP' PETRO 4,0mm
material Graphit
scope 40 bar - L 0.01
assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
temperature TG 20 20 206 210 °C

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 4 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

minimum gasket stress Q SMIN 86 15 15 15 MPa

max. gasket stress Q SMAX 300 300 300 300 MPa
modulus of elasticity EG 1952 1952 2241 2248 MPa
creep relaxation factor PQR 0,99 0,99 0,92 0,92 -
thermal expansion coefficient G
1,00E-05 1,00E-05 1,00E-05 1,00E-05 K -1
numerical constant of a gasket type c1 0,00 -
remarks on gasket characteristics

tightening device
nomenclature torque wrench = wrench with measuring of torque (only)

scatter of bolt force 1+

0,160 -
scatter of bolt force 1-
0,160 -
neglection of torsion moment no
number of re-assemblies NR 1 -
thread friction coefficient t
0,120 -
friction factor connecting surface n
0,120 -
remarks on tightening procedure

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 5 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

calculation results

check of validity

flange 1
ratio width/heigth of flange ok
uniformity of gasket stress not ok

flange 2
ratio width/heigth of flange ok
uniformity of gasket stress not ok

effective gasket geometry

effective gasket diameter dGe 343,00 mm
effective gasket width bGe 20,00 mm
effective gasket area AGe 21551,33 mm 2

axial flexibility modulus of bolts XB 2,92E-02 1/mm
rotational flexibility modulus of flange 1 ZF 3,16E-05 1/mm 3
rotational flexibility modulus of flange 2 ZF 3,16E-05 1/mm 3
axial flexibility modulus of gasket XG 2,09E-04 1/mm

assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
pressure force FQ 0 407 166 240 kN
axial force (addition bending moment) F R+ 0 0 174 174 kN
axial force (subtraction bending moment) F R- 0 0 174 174 kN
axial thermal expansion U 0,000 0,000 -0,008 0,010 mm

axial compliance
assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
axial compliance related to
gasket force YG 4,57E-07 4,57E-07 4,61E-07 4,67E-07 mm/N
pressure force YQ 4,87E-07 4,87E-07 5,17E-07 5,23E-07 mm/N
resulting additional force YR 4,36E-07 4,36E-07 4,62E-07 4,68E-07 mm/N

minimum forces
assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
minimum gasket force F Greq 1843 323 323 323 kN

internal forces in assembly

minimum assembly gasket force F Gdel 875 kN
required gasket force F G0req 1843 kN
required bolt force F B0req 1842 kN
gasket force (several assemblies) F G0d 875 kN

min. required assembly presetting

minimum assembly bolt force F B0min 1217 kN
corresponding bolt elongation l min 0,140 mm
corresponding torque Mmin 245 Nm

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 6 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

max. allowable assembly presetting

max. allowable assembly bolt force F B0max 2080 kN
max. allowable bolt elongation l max 0,239 mm
max. allowable torque Mmax 419 Nm

definition of assembly bolt force

chosen assembly bolt force F B0nom 1988 kN
corresponding bolt elongation l nom 0,229 mm
corresponding torque Mnom 400 Nm

internal forces in subsequent condition

assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
gasket force FG 2127 433 454 323 kN
bolt force FB 2127 840 794 738 kN
gasket stress Q 86 20 21 15 MPa

internal forces in subsequent conditions resulting from FB0nom (only informative)

assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
gasket force F Gmin 1848 1397 1342 1199 kN
F Gnom 1988 1535 1468 1324 kN
F Gmax 2127 1672 1595 1449 kN
bolt force F Bmin 1848 1804 1682 1613 kN
F Bnom 1988 1941 1809 1739 kN
F Bmax 2127 2079 1936 1864 kN
gasket stress Q min 86,0 64,8 62,3 55,6 MPa
Q nom 92 71 68 61 MPa
Q max 99 78 74 67 MPa

check of thightness criteria

assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
compliance of min. required gasket stress Q min >Q smin ok ok ok ok

check of admissibility of the load ratio

assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
allowable load ration B all
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
load ratio B
0,88 0,31 0,42 0,44
ok ok ok ok

flange 1
allowable load ration F all
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
load ratio F
0,96 0,43 0,73 0,71
ok ok ok ok

flange 2
allowable load ration F all
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
load ratio F
0,96 0,43 0,73 0,71
ok ok ok ok

allowable load ration G all
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 7 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

load ratio G
0,33 0,07 0,07 0,05
ok ok ok ok

flange rotation

flange 1 assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

min. flange rotation Fmin
0,42 0,47 0,46 0,46 °
max. flange rotation Fmax
0,49 0,54 0,53 0,52 °

flange 2 assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

min. flange rotation Fmin
0,42 0,47 0,46 0,46 °
max. flange rotation Fmax
0,49 0,54 0,53 0,52 °

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 8 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

detailed calculation results

calculation parameters

flange parameters
flange 1 flange 2
pitch between bolts pB 78,15 78,15 mm
eff. diameter of bolt hole d5e 11,67 11,67 mm
eff. bolt circle diameter d3e 394,89 394,89 mm
cross-section area of flange ring AF 2290,20 2290,20 mm 2
cross-section area of loose flange ring AL 0,00 0,00 mm 2
eff. width of flange ring bF 56,43 56,43 mm
eff. diameter of flange ring dF 371,90 371,90 mm
eff. thickness of flange ring eF 33,63 33,63 mm
equ. wall thickness for flexibility eE 13,90 13,90 mm
intermediate variable 1,800 1,800 -
mean diameter shell dE 317,70 317,70 mm
lever arm correction hP 8,06 8,06 mm
lever arm hG 25,95 25,95 mm
lever arm hH 38,59 38,59 mm
lever arm hL 0,00 0,00 mm
intermediate variable 0,288 0,288 -
intermediate variable 1,087 1,087 -
intermediate variable 0,000 0,000 -
correction factor cF 0,191 0,191 -
lever arm correction hS 12,29 12,29 mm
lever arm correction hT 16,88 16,88 mm
lever arm correction hQ 12,56 12,56 mm
lever arm correction hR -1,84 -1,84 mm
correction factor kQ 0,850 0,850 -
correction factor kR -0,150 -0,150 -
rotational flexibility modulus of flange ZF 3,16E-05 3,16E-05 1/mm 3
rotational flexibility modulus of flange ZL 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 1/mm 3

bolt parameters
eff. cross-section area AB 3916,70 mm 2
axial flexibility modulus XB 2,92E-02 1/mm

gasket parameters
theoretical gasket width bGt 20,00 mm
theoretical mean gasket diameter dGt 343,00 mm
theoretical gasket area AGt 21551,33 mm 2
gasket force for calculation of width F G0 1987,61 kN
interim gasket width bGi 20,00 mm
Effective gasket width bGe 20,00 mm
Effective mean gasket diameter dGe 343,00 mm
Effective gasket area AGe 21551,33 mm 2
axial flexibility modulus XG 2,09E-04 1/mm

internal forces

loads assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

axial fluid-pressure force FQ 0 407 166 240 kN
axial force (addition bending moment) F R+ 0 0 174 174 kN

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 9 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

axial force (subtraction bending moment) F R- 0 0 174 174 kN

differential axial expansion U 0,000 0,000 -0,008 0,010 mm

compliance of the joint assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
axial compliance related to FG YG 4,57E-07 4,57E-07 4,61E-07 4,67E-07 mm/N
axial compliance related to FQ YQ 4,87E-07 4,87E-07 5,17E-07 5,23E-07 mm/N
axial compliance related to FR YR 4,36E-07 4,36E-07 4,62E-07 4,68E-07 mm/N

minimum forces necessary for the gasket assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
min. gasket force in assembly F G0min 1842,64 kN
min. gasket force in sub. conditions F GImin 323,27 323,27 323,27 kN

internal forces in assembly condition assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
min. gasket force for sub. Conditions F Gdel 874,90 kN
min. gasket force for all conditions F G0req 1842,64 kN
min. bolt force for all conditions F B0req 1842,33 kN
scatter for global load above nom. value e+ 0,070 -
scatter for global load above nom. value e- 0,070 -
nominal bolt force F B0nom 1217,00 kN
check of min. bolt force FB0req ok -
max. bolt force F B0max 1302,19 kN
max. gasket force F G0max 2080,00 kN

internal forces in subsequent condition assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2
max. gasket force F G0d 874,90 kN
accumulation of plastic deformation no -

checking the admissibility of the load ratio

general flange 1 flange 2

reduced max. allowable load ratio 1,00 1,00 -
intermediate variable 1,45 1,45 -

bolts assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

twisting moment applied to bolt shank Mt, B 221,96 Nm
plastic torsion modulus IB 1440,57 mm 3
bolt load ratio B
0,88 0,31 0,42 0,44 -

gasket assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

gasket load ratio G
0,33 0,07 0,07 0,05 -

flange 1 assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

equ. wall thickness for load limit eD 16,56 mm
intermediate variable Q
0 0,180955 0,126989 0,185198 -
intermediate variable R
0 0 0,077425 0,078173 -
intermediate variable cM 1,153256 1,135505 1,134236 1,122273 -
correction factor (jS=-1) cS 0,785398 0,889574 0,823925 0,855154 -
correction factor (jS=1) cS 0,785398 0,676392 0,73513 0,698369 -
intermediate variable jM 1 1 1 1 -
intermediate variable kM 1 1 1 1 -
particular value opt
1 1 1 1 -
particular value 0
0 -0,053093 -0,037259 -0,054338 -
particular value max
0,425819 0,33902 0,371296 0,341766 -
particular value min
-0,425819 -0,502773 -0,469786 -0,492656 -

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 10 print date: 20.05.2014

LJC s.a.r.l. date: 14.05.2014
4 et 6, rue de Bièvre - BP 40046 calculated: -
92163 ANTONY Cedex checked: -
FRANCE revision: -

flange #: -
plant: -
ID code: -
nomenclature: -

Flange calculation according to EN 1591-1:2001 + A1:2009

particular value Z
0,425819 0,33902 0,371296 0,341766 -
resistance of flange WF 5,75E+07 5,47E+07 3,24E+07 3,15E+07 Nmm
flange load ratio F
0,96 0,43 0,73 0,71 -

flange 2 assembly test cond. load cond.1 load cond.2

equ. wall thickness for load limit eD 16,56 mm
intermediate variable Q
0 0,180955 0,126989 0,185198 -
intermediate variable R
0 0 0,077425 0,078173 -
intermediate variable cM 1,153256 1,135505 1,134236 1,122273 -
correction factor (jS=-1) cS 0,785398 0,889574 0,823925 0,855154 -
correction factor (jS=1) cS 0,785398 0,676392 0,73513 0,698369 -
intermediate variable jM 1 1 1 1 -
intermediate variable kM 1 1 1 1 -
particular value opt
1 1 1 1 -
particular value 0
0 -0,053093 -0,037259 -0,054338 -
particular value max
0,425819 0,33902 0,371296 0,341766 -
particular value min
-0,425819 -0,502773 -0,469786 -0,492656 -
particular value Z
0,425819 0,33902 0,371296 0,341766 -
resistance of flange WF 5,75E+07 5,47E+07 3,24E+07 3,15E+07 Nmm
flange load ratio F
0,96 0,43 0,73 0,71 -

TEMES fl.cal (Ver: 7.01) Page 11 print date: 20.05.2014


ASME-PVP 2002, Bolted Flange Connections

August 4-8, 2002, Vancover, British Colombia, Canada


Finn Kirkemo
Seaflex a.s.
P.O.Box 451
N-1373 Asker, Norway
Phone: +47 66 76 16 58
Fax: +47 66 76 16 30
E-mail: finn.kirkemo@seaflex.no

ABSTRACT For flat face flanges in metal-to-metal contact, separation

In the past 10 - 15 years, flange joints designed for metal- occurs at the bore for low pressure and external loads. The
to-metal face contact with self seating and pressure activated amount of separation depends upon the stiffness of the flange
seal rings have been used extensively in high-pressure and the amount of bolt preload. A high degree of preload also
applications in industrial piping, pressure vessels, pipelines, minimizes fatigue of the bolts during cyclic loading. On the
risers and associated equipment. These flange joints are other hand, such flanges require more bolting than comparable
generally much smaller and lighter, with smaller bolts, than raised face flanges since the bolt load is increased as a result
equally rated standard gasketed flange joints, and are often of the interaction of the flanges beyond the bolt circle.
called compact flange joints. This paper provides all necessary By tapering the face of the flanges, so that contact at the
information to design compact flange joints for pressure and bore occurs first during assembly, it is possible to design for
external loads and made from any suitable material. The paper zero separation at the bore or to limit the separation to an
includes design methods for design of the seal ring, flange and acceptable value based on the sealing characteristics of the
bolts in addition to assembly guidelines. Weld neck flanges, seal ring. When a self-seating and pressure activated seal ring
where the hub is of uniform thickness are discussed in detail. is used between the tapered faces, the major sealing force is
Similar method as presented has been applied to design applied where it is needed, i.e., inside the bolt circle close to
compact flange joints with great success for many years. the bore.
Haagen (1967) describes the design of a modified raised
INTRODUCTION face flange where one flange has a lip machined at the outer
Design codes typically recommend the use of standard edge. By controlling the initial gap between the lip and the
flanges, e.g. ASME B16.5, wherever possible. This mating flange, tightening the bolts to a predetermined stress
recommendation is based on proven safety and that a standard place the flanges in "controlled" metal-to-metal contact. As a
flange usually will be less expensive than a special one. result, at the design pressure: (a) flange separation is
However, due to leakage problems within some applications eliminated; (b) bending stress in the hub is minimized; and (c)
and due their large sizes, the development of improved flange the bolt stress is independent of internal pressure.
designs with higher leakage reliability and smaller sizes and Webjörn (1967) introduced a gasket free CFJ with a slight
hence lowers costs have emerged. Flanged joints designed for flange face taper using high strength bolts (ISO class 10.9)
metal-to-metal face contact is one example of such a joint. preloaded to 80 % of the bolt yield strength, see also Webjörn
Due to their size they are often called compact flange joints and Schneider (1980), Hyde et al (1988). Since then, other
(CFJs). CFJ proprietary designs have been introduced in the marked.

1 Copyright © by ASME

Most of these joints are utilizing a non-load carrying self-

seating and pressure activated seal ring located either at the
flange bore or in a seal groove. The increasing interest in the
industry to apply CFJs has resulted in a new flange standard, Girth weld
Lassesen at al (2002). The standard CFJ has flanges with a 6
slight face taper and is using a seal ring and high strength 5
bolts with equivalent strength to ASTM A193 B7 preloaded to
70 % of the bolt yield strength, see Fig.1. Seal
ring Toe
Flange half
Heel 5
Seal ring 3 2

Fig. 2 Flange joint characteristics

The flange ring is closely machined with a slightly face

angle to assure that upon assembly, bore contact is established
first for the flange faces. This is resulting in a gap at the
outside diameter prior to preloading the bolts, see Fig. 2. The
joint is closed using closely spaced bolts with high preload
spaced around a bolt circle that is close to the outside diameter
Bolts of the pipe or nozzle. The main design characteristics of a CFJ
Fig. 1 Compact flange joint 1. High contact stresses and local yielding is obtained at the
flange bore (heel) at bolting up, i.e. the heel is "seated".
The CFJs were typically applied in conditions with high- This means the heel may act as a seal if a certain
pressure, significant external loads and/or cyclic (dynamic) minimum heel compression load is provided in operation.
loading. However, the CFJs are applied in a larger extend in The smooth bore with heel contact eliminates turbulence,
standard process piping due to their weight, size, cost and erosion and crevice corrosion on flange faces.
safety against leakage. 2. The self-seating and pressure activated seal ring is located
A CFJ may be designed to offer the structural strength in a seal groove isolated from bolting up and piping loads
and fatigue strength of a welded joint. However, there is no and is not directly exposed to internal fluids. The seal ring
published well-established practice on the designing flange has sufficient leak tightness for a face separation
joints with tapered flange face, which is in contact outside the occurring at the structural capacity of the joint. The seal
bolt circle after tightening the bolts. The calculation rules of ring also does the final guiding of the joint at bolting-up.
ASME and EN do not apply for this type of joint. For the 3. The joint is designed and preloaded such that flange face
benefit of engineers whom design and use CFJs, the intention separation is avoided for normal operation conditions,
of this paper is to provide all necessary information to design hence the joint behaves like a rigid body with no moving
CFJs in metallic materials. Similar design method as presented parts. The bolt load is almost constant up to normal
here has been applied in many years to design of CFJs for operating loads. This reduces the risk for bolt fatigue
application to high-pressure vessels and piping in addition to failure and the risk for leakage due to wear, corrosion or
pipelines and risers. fretting of the seal ring during operation.
4. Most of the bolt preload and external forces are
CFJ DESCRIPTION transferred as contact forces between the flanges within
The CFJ described in this paper consists of two weld neck the bolt circle, hence bolt loads due to flange face contact
flanges, bolting and a seal ring, see Fig. 1. The distance from forces outside the bolt circle, i.e. bolt prying effects, are
the flange bore to the inside edge of the seal groove is named insignificant.
flange heel. The outer contact area of the flange face is named
flange toe, see Fig. 2.

2 Copyright © by ASME

5. Closing of the small gap at the flange toe may be used as bolt load depends solely on gasket pressure and internal
an indicator of obtaining the target bolt load during hydrostatic pressure. The elastic based calculation method for
bolting-up. Excessive bolt tightening or compressive these joints is that developed by Waters, et al in 1937, and the
external forces cannot damage the seal ring or the flange gasket factors introduced by Rossheim and Markl in 1943. It
as contact forces between the flanges balance these is often named the Taylor Forge method. In the latter, the bolt
forces. load must also balance the contact force between mating
6. The flanges have an elliptical transition between the ring flanges outside the bolt circle, and this involves the flange
and hub to obtain low stress concentration factors (SCFs). flexibility. The Taylor Forge method is subjected to several
Values in the range of 1.5 are normally observed with limitations, e.g. see list in PD 6438:1969.
respect to unit axial stress in the connected pipe. The The prEN 13445-3:1999 provides rules based on the
flange geometry and makeup influence the stresses at the Taylor Forge method for pressure design, however, it opens
girth weld connecting the flange to the pipe. A typical for use of a more modern alternative design method given in
SCF at the weld ID is 0.9 and 1.1 at the weld OD. These EN 1591. EN 1591 considers pressure, external axial forces
values have to be included in addition to the SCF and bending moments, nonlinear elastic behavior of the gasket
introduced by any geometry misalignment in a fatigue and axial thermal effects. The EN 1591 applies limit load
assessment of the girth weld. criteria for all parts of the flanged connection taking into
account the scatter of the bolt preload. The leak tightness and
DESIGN RULES strength criteria consider the life of the joint including bolting
up, test and operation. The EN 1591 method is considered to
Safety and failure modes be an improvement of the Taylor-Forge model.
The overall goal by design, material selection,
manufacture, testing, assembly, safety systems and Code safety factors
maintenance is to keep the failure probability for a flanged The justification of the code design stresses in pressure
joint below an acceptable level in service. Safety is achieved vessel and piping codes is experience, rather than rational
by incorporating appropriate design factors or safety factors analysis of the material response to the loading. ASME VIII
using calculations, e.g. formulas or finite element analysis, was first published in 1915. The design (membrane) stress
and experimental testing against relevant failure modes. The was originally taken as one fifth of the tensile strength. The so
design factor(s) accounts for the integrated uncertainty and called “safety factors” have come down from 5 in the original
possible bias in load effects and resistance. A safety factor is ASME code to 3.0 in ASME VIII Div. 2, to 2.4 in draft EN
defined as a failure load divided by the allowable or design codes, where other properties are also considered. However,
load. The following failure modes are normally considered in for the brittle steels of that time, tensile strength was an
flange joint design: excessive yielding (gross plastic adequate limiting property.
deformation), leakage, fatigue failure and unstable fracture. Presented code safety factors here are at the room
Excessive yielding means exceeding the plastic load temperature in order to simplify the comparisons. In present
carrying capacity of the joint. Leakage means exceeding a version of ASME B31.3 and ASME VIII Div. 2 the flange
target leak rate. Fatigue design involves minimizing flange design stress for ferritic steels is limited to the minimum of
stress concentrations or stress raisers, keeping the operating Rp0.2/1.5 and Rm/3. Rp0.2 is the specified minimum yield
bolt stress ranges low and avoidance of flange face separation strength at room temperature, and Rm is the minimum ultimate
to have no relative motions between seating surface and seal tensile strength at room temperature. For austenitic grades, the
ring/gasket to avoid seal degradation. This may be obtained by design stress is Rp0.2/1.5. Bolt design stresses for ASTM A193
an elliptical transition between flange and hub in addition to B7 bolting is the lower of Rm/5 and Rp0.2/4 in general,
using high bolt preload. Materials selection and qualification however, in Appendices 4, 5, and 6 of Section VIII Div. 2 is
are normally done to ensure that the materials are sufficiently the bolt design stress equal to Rp0.2/3. The allowable stresses
ductile and have sufficient fracture toughness. above are for pressure loading only.
When discussing ASME design stresses and standard
Design rules ASME B16.5 flanges, Rodabaugh (1972) makes an interesting
The codes provide design rules for raised face and flat remark: "B16.5 flanged joints do not necessary meets the
face to face connections, e.g. ASME VIII and EN 1591. criteria in the ASME Boiler Code. Experience and a more
However, the interaction between flange, gasket and bolts are detailed analysis indicate that it is not necessary to meet the
treated different in the various codes and considerable ASME Code rules in order to have a satisfactory flanged joint
discrepancies are found between these codes. and, on the other hand, meeting the ASME Code rules does
ASME VIII rules are applicable for design of two not necessary assure a good flanged joint for use in a
connection types subjected to pressure only; i.e. the ring type pipeline".
joint with the gasket as a load carrying element and full-face- For ferritic flange grades, the design stress is the smaller
contact type flanges with self-energized gaskets. In the former, of Rp0.2/1.5 or Rm/2.4 in prEN 13445-3:1999. For austenitic

3 Copyright © by ASME

grades, the design stress is Rp1.0/1.5. The bolt design stresses with a safety factor of 1.5 on the limit load also fulfills the
for the Taylor Forge method in prEN 13445-3:1999 is the requirements in ASME VIII, Div.2 Appendix 4. Using yield
lesser of Rp0.2/3 and Rm/4. Design stresses for bolts in EN 1591 point limit loads or plastic design for design of components
are determined as for flanges. requires that the materials exhibit sufficient fracture toughness
In designing API 10 000 psi and 15 000 psi flanged joints and ductility to ensure that it can attain the required plastically
in API 6A for wellhead equipment, the allowable stresses at deformed state without premature failure. It should further be
design pressure were set to Rp0.2/2.0 of the flange and the noted that a safety factor of 1.5 on yield strength is also
bolting materials to arrive at reasonable dimensions, applied in ASME B31.3 high-pressure piping, DIN 2505 for
Eichenberg (1964). The target prestress in the bolts for API 6A flanges and API Spec.6A for wellhead equipment including
flanges is Rp0.2/2.0, hence flange face separation is expected to flanges in addition to several steel structural, pipeline, e.g.
occur for external loads in excess to the design pressure and ISO 13623:2000, and riser codes.
for pressure testing. Properly made-up joints do not leak As the load is restricted to a level of 2/3 of the limit loads,
during pressure testing, as the crushed metal gasket is partly the degree of yielding or permanent deformation in a flange
pressure activated. This makes the API joint unsuitable in joint is restricted to small values, see Fig. 9, which will not
cases where cyclic external loads occurs in excess of the cause leakage or malfunction. In the case of cyclic loading,
design pressure. the subsequent strain portions are linear, ensuring shake down,
as long as the stress range is less than 2 times the yield
Limit analysis strength. For load changes between zero and maximum load,
Limit analysis addresses directly the design objective of swelling loads, differences of deformations are linear, if the
preventing gross plastic deformation with an agreed-upon safety factor of 1.5 against limit loads is used. The load
safety factor. Limit analysis with safety factors on yield characteristic of flanges is not swelling because the bolts
strength only presumes use of sufficient tough, ductile, sound preload the flange joint. Common ductile materials show
and strain hardening materials to ensure that flange joints can hardening effects in the stress strain relation that increases the
attain the required plastic deformed state before premature range of linearity compared to elastic perfectly plastic
failure. When the yield strength is applied, the resulting limit behavior.
load provides a physical connection between the calculated
load and the "real" capacity found by testing or elastic plastic CFJ DESIGN METHOD
finite element analysis, hence indicating the "true" safety
factor. General
In limit analysis, the loading includes only primary loads In ASME/EN ring type joints, the gasket separates the
such as pressure and weights. Stresses and strains generated flanges and is a load-carrying element. Therefore it must be
by bolt preload (fixed displacement) or temperature fields do strong enough to take the full bolt load when the bolts are
not affect limit loads. Such constraints produce external forces tightened and no pressure exists in the flange. The bolt load in
(reactions) that are self-limiting. flange consists of the load caused by pressure and external
For ferritic flange grades the code limit load is based on a loads trying to separate the flanges plus the load necessary to
"yield" strength equal to 1.5 x min (Rm/3 ; Rp0.2/1.5) and 1.5 x keep the gasket tight, which load is assumed to be a multiple
min (Rm/2.4 ; Rp0.2/1.5) in ASME VIII Div.2 and EN 1591, of the unit pressure, exerted on the projected sealing area of
respectively. According to this approach, the calculated limit the gasket. A vicious circle is established thereby: The greater
load will be less than the yield-point limit load of the flange the bolt load, the greater the gasket width and seating area to
unless Rp0.2/Rm is less than 0.5 or 0.63 for the ASME and EN support it, in turn necessitating an increase in bolt load.
code respectively. Consider a flange made of ASTM A105 Enormous gaskets and bolts can be designed this way.
with Rm=485 MPa and Rp0.2=250 MPa and ASTM A694 F52 If flanges are made up face-to-face, this arrangement will
with Rm=455 MPa and Rp0.2=360 MPa. In this case is the support the bolt load when no pressure is on the flanges; and
safety factor against its yield-point limit state 1.55 and 2.37 if the seal ring is self seating only a small initial load is
for A105 and A694 F52 for the ASME code limit load. High necessary to establish sealing. Therefore the bolts have to
strength steels, duplex stainless steels (which are treated as carry only the pressure and external load plus any small axial
ferritic) and steel bolts suffer from this as the ratio of yield to component of the seal ring contact pressure. Thus the seal ring
tensile strength for these steels is close to 0.9. cross section becomes independent of the bolt load. The
Based on the author's experience, yield point limit loads present design method applies to circular bolted flange
fit very well with elastic ideal plastic finite element analysis connections with self-seating and pressure activating seal ring
and gives lower bounds compared to experimental testing, with metal-to-metal face contact.
hence the code safety factor seems to be varying. However, It is important to note that the operating bolt load is
ASME VIII, Div. 2 Appendix 4 gives a safety factor of 1.5 on relative insensitive to the changes in preload up to a certain
the capacity obtained by experimental testing. It may then be point where separation occurs and that thereafter the two loads
argued that yield-point limit load analysis may be performed are essentially the same, see Fig. 3. This is a desirable

4 Copyright © by ASME

characteristic of CFJs; it means that if the assembly load Leak tightness

(preload) in the bolts, FB0, is close to the normal operating A "tight" joint, implying one with zero leakage, is an
loads the subsequent application of pressure and external outdated concept, as a joint will always have a leak rate. This
loading will have no significant effect on the actual operating has been recognized in the EN 1591-2 and also in the
loads in the bolts. proposed ASME Appendix BFJ entitled Bolted Flanged Joint
Design. A "leak tight joint" may be a connection with a
Applied separation force
nitrogen gas leak rate less than 1x10-5 - 1x10-6 cm3/sec/mm
FB sealing diameter, measured at atmospheric pressure at normal
Bolt force

Bolt force operating conditions. The seal rings leak tightness is to be

checked at both low and high pressure due to the pressure-
activating characteristic of the seal ring. Low pressure sealing
Preload performance of the seal ring may be improved by using O-
FB 0
rings on the outer flanks.
Face A safe and reliable seal against liquids and gases under
contact pressure cannot be achieved with compressive forces that
Zero preload
produce elastic deformations at the interface areas only,
regardless the degree of surface finish, Butcher (1973). With
plastic flow of the material, surface asperity differences are
leveled out and the leakage flow passage is blocked. Sufficient
Applied separation force
leak tightness of the CFJs are achieved by the following
experience based requirements:
Fig. 3 Bolt force – applied separation force 1. Seating of the seals at bolting up by plastic deformation
of the seal interface areas.
There are three separate elements of CFJ which must act 2. Average contact pressure of 2 times the internal pressure
to provide a leak tight joint. They shall be considered in the over a contact width of 1 mm during operation.
following order: seal system design, bolting design and flange
3. A surface roughness not exceeding Ra=0.8 µm as defined
design. A well-designed CFJ must have sufficient contact
in ISO 4287 applied for the heel and the seal ring and seal
pressure on sealing faces to keep the joint tight without
ring seating area. Lower surface roughness may be
overstressing the flange and bolting material. The contact
required for sealing helium and hydrogen.
pressure is applied to the seal ring sealing faces by means of
The seal ring or flange heel may be plated with soft
elastic spring back forces and internal pressure and the heel
metals such as silver or gold or coated with a thin film of
seal contact forces are applied by means of the bolting.
viscous oil, MoS2 or Teflon to provide a relatively soft
surface, which flows into minor imperfections of the flange
Excessive yielding seating/seal ring at bolting up and improve leak tightness. The
The CFJ strength sizing is performed by limit load
selection of plating or coating should based on the allowable
methods using design stress based on yield strength. As the
leak rate, the viscosity (density) of the fluid, flange roughness
CFJ has flange face to face contact only pressure and
and the application temperature.
separation forces need to be considered in the CFJ design. In
both flanges and bolts, a design stress equal to Rp0.2/1.5 of the
respective material may be used for normal operating
Seating of the sealing system is achieved by requiring that
conditions considering design pressure and external loads.
a contact pressure corresponding to yielding are obtained over
This ensures a balanced strength design between bolting and
a fictitious contact width equal to 1 mm of the heel and the
flanges. It is important to include pressure and resulting
seal ring, see Fig. 4. The heel is seating during bolting-up due
separation forces in the CJF design as this is governing the
to the flange face taper and high bolt preload. The seal ring is
dimensions and bolting. For bolting up condition the bolt
seated when metal-to-metal contact occurs at the bore.
design stress is Rp0.2/1.05, see prEn 13445-3:2002 and EN
The seal ring must also perform a number of other
1591:2001. Bolt stresses are based on the root diameter. For
different jobs in addition to create a seal between the mating
extreme design loads and accidental (survival) loads a safety
faces, to function properly. It must do the final guiding of the
factor of 1.25 and 1.0 may be applied. A CFJ may also be
flange halves during bolting up and be easily to install and
designed to have equivalent limit load capacity as the
connecting pipe. Analytical based load-bearing capacities for
The flange bore, B, may be established as follows
pipes subjected to pressure, tension and bending can be found
B = Do − 2 × eP (1)
in Kirkemo (2001).
where Do is the pipe/hub outside diameter in mm, eP is the
pipe wall thickness. The inside diameter of the free seal ring

5 Copyright © by ASME

DRi is chosen equal to the pipe/neck outside diameter, see Fig. hoop direction. The groove seal surface bears against a contact
5, radius on the seal ring. The radial force on the ring, FR,r,
DRi = Do (2) generating a contact pressure corresponding to yielding over a
This ensures that the distance from the inside edge of the 1 mm height, when neglecting the effect from the flank angle
groove to the bore is almost equal to the connecting pipe wall as cos(15°)=0.97, is given by
thickness, hence, the inner flank of the groove resists any FR , r = π × DRi × 1× R p , R (5)
pressure and external loads applied to the connecting pipe. where Rp,R is the seal ring yield strength. Naming bRs as the
The flange surfaces are slightly conical so that they only meet ring thickness at the sealing diameter Ds, the hoop stress in the
at the inner edge after seating the seal ring. This ensures ring subjected to a radial force FR,r becomes, see Fig. 6,
contact stresses in excess of yield strength at the inner edge 2 × FR ,r
after bolting-up, i.e. heel seating. × DRi
π × DRi × H R
σh = = R p,R (6)
Free position 2 × bRs
Stand off D
bRs = Ri (7)
bR = bRs + R × tan (ϕ − 2 ) (8)
Assembled position
where bR is the total radial width of the seal ring and (ϕ-
2) = 13° is the lower flank angle of the seal ring, see Fig. 6.
Seating loads

Self seating Free position

D Ri

Contact forces HR H R,s =
Pressure activated ϕ = 15o Q



Fig. 4 Sealing system

Made up position
The height of the ring, HR, is arbitrary taken as,
H R = 2 × Do (3) Original position
This produces a ring height of 15.5 mm for a 2 in. pipe, and
33 mm for a 10 in. pipe.
The flank angle of the groove ϕ is set equal to 15°. This
angle is also applied by the Grayloc type seal ring (1964). The B
ring is double cone, with cone angles of 15-2=13° and
15+2=17°. A theoretical line contact for sealing is neither
desirable nor feasible. The double cone seal ring has therefore
a contact radius of 5 mm, Butcher (1979). The height of the Fig. 5 Seal ring and groove dimensions
upper flank is 1/6 of the total height, HR, of the seal ring as
shown in Figs. 5 and 6. This gives an axial distance between It should be noted that the seal width is independent of
the two sealing lines HR,s as follows the yield strength. This method of sizing has been applied with
H R ,s = 2 3 × H R (4) great success for seal ring metals with yield strength in the
The initial seating stress of the seal ring is created by the range of 350 MPa to 720 MPa. Compressive stresses in the
wedging action of an inclined seal surface, Fig. 5. The range of yield stress in the ring direction might result in
wedging action of the seal groove compresses the ring in the buckling of the ring if the slenderness is low even if the ring is
guided in the seal groove with outside contact pressure. Based

6 Copyright © by ASME

on calculations and testing it can be indicated that buckling  H 

will not govern the width of the seal ring for the applied DGo = DRi + 2 ×  bRs + R × tan (ϕ ) (13)
 3 
design method and yield strength range. Experience has also
shown that these rings have sufficient shear strength to do the DS = DGo − × H R × tan (ϕ ) (14)
final guiding of the flanges during bolting-up.
AR = H R ×
(bR + bRs ) (15)
Ds The groove width N is made such that the ring will no
interfere with the groove when flanges are lined up and bolts
are inserted in the bolt holes. The corners of the seal ring and
17o groove are rounded with radiuses. To assist assembly, the seal
FR ,r
rings can be retained in the flanges by making an outer recess
in the ring, see Fig. 6, and using a retainer fixed to the flange
13o 2
pi HR face.
3 The seal rings have shown by elastic plastic element
FR ,r analyses and testing to have sufficient gas leak tightness at
normal operating conditions and sufficient water tightness up
bRs to the structural capacity of the CFJ. Note that the flange
rotation at the limit capacity of the CFJ increase the sealing
bR action as the seal groove moves inwards due to flange
During assembly, the compressed seal ring exerts an axial
Fig. 6 Seating of seal ring force on the flange seat. This make-up (seating) force
The width of the groove, N, is made such there is a radial FR 0,a = π × R p , R × AR × tan (ϕ + θ ) (16)
interference, I=Rorig-Rfinal, between the unseated and seated where θ is the friction angle in °. θ = atan(µR), where µR is the
(made up) seal ring diameter sufficient to generate yielding in friction coefficient between the seal ring and seating face. The
the ring direction during bolting-up to insure initial seating. axial component of the seal ring retaining force FR,a during
The amount of initial radial compression I necessary to testing and operation conditions is
generate yield stress in hoop direction of a ring with an actual  H × DS × pi 
yield (or flow) strength 50% higher than minimum specified, FR ,a = π × tan (ϕ − θ ) ×  R p ,R × AR + R ,s  (17)
 2 
is given as
1.5 × R p ,R  where pi is the internal fluid pressure in N/mm2. The first part

I = 0.5 ×  (DRi + 2 × bR ) ×  + 0.2 (9) in Eq. (17) is the retaining force for zero pressure, i.e. elastic
 ER  spring back force and the last part is the pressure induced
where ER is the seal ring modulus of elasticity in N/mm2. A retaining force, see Fig. 6.
margin of 0.2 mm is included in Eq.(9) to cope with
manufacture tolerances of ring and groove. The gap between BOLTING AND FLANGE OUTLINE DESIGN
the flanges at the seal groove when the seal ring is in initial With the size and shape of the seal ring and groove
contact is named stand off. The stand off, SO, necessary to established, the next step is a calculation of bolt size and a
generate the radial interference, I, is given as, see Fig. 5, determination of the flange outline, except the thickness. The
I bolting should be selected to maintain the required
SO = (10)
tan (ϕ ) compression on the flange faces with internal pressure and
The depth of groove, Q, is made sufficient deep to avoid external loads acting, i.e. the flange face contact when subject
interference with the seal ring considering compression of the to normal operating design loads. Fig. 7 illustrates the
heel regions and not too deep in order to avoid to large notation used for dimensions, forces and lever arms. The
rotations of the ring in the groove during make up, forces are considered to be uniformly distributed on the
Q = 0.51 × H R + 0.2 (11)
Theoretically, the hydrostatic pressure extends only to the
The width of seal ring groove including mating clearance to inside diameter of the flange. However, mechanical damage of
groove inner diameter, N, outside diameter of the seal ring the flange heel and not sufficient bolt tension tend to permit
groove, DGo, and fluid sealing diameter Ds, and seal ring cross the confined fluid to creep over the heel face. In order to be on
section area AR becomes: the safe side, the design of the CFJ is based on the worst
N = bR ,s + max (1.5; I + 0.5) + × tan (ϕ ) (12) possible sealing condition, namely, a hydrostatic pressure
3 extending to the sealing diameter of the seal ring.

7 Copyright © by ASME

section area using the root diameter of all bolts, AB,act, equals
or exceeds the minimum required bolt area AB,min give by Eq.
Feq (18). Single bolt root areas are given by Eq. (55).
The bolt spacing and bolt circle diameter must be
FD sufficient to provide the necessary makeup tool clearances.
Make-up tools may include standard socket, hydraulic torque
wrench or tension tool as appropriate, see Fig. 8. The bolt data
Do hD given in Table 1 is based on access for use of hydraulic torque
tools available in the marked. The selected tools should have a
torque capacity of minimum 30 – 50 % in excess that
necessary to make-up the lubricated bolt. The reserves are
considered necessary for disassembly after a period in service.

hR eF
FR ,a

FT hT g

O Fig. 8 Hydraulic torque and tension tool

The wrench clearance Rmin in Table 1 is added to the

Fig. 7 Flange dimensions and loads minor half axis ye to determine the minimum bolt circle
diameter, K:
The bolt load must balance the sum of the total K = Do + 2 × ( y e + Rmin ) (21)
hydrostatic end force, the axial component of the seal ring The wrench clearance is the radial distance from bolt circle
retaining force, and the equivalent axial separation force. diameter to start ellipse. The minor half axis ye of the neck
Therefore the minimum required root area of the bolts ellipse is given by
becomes  e 
F + FR , a + Feq ye = min 3; P  (22)
AB , min = Q (18)  2.5 
fB The major half axis xe is 3.5 times the minor half axis
where xe = 3.5 × ye (23)
π The selection of the elliptical transition ensures low fillet
FQ = × DS2 × pi (19)
4 stresses between the flange and hub.
4 Next, the distance between bolts must be calculated and
Feq = FE + × ME (20)
K checked against the minimum bolt spacing dimension in Table
and where fB is the bolt design (allowable) stress in N/mm2, FQ 1, to guard against torque tool interference,
is the equivalent axial separation load due to pressure π
nB = (24)
(pressure trust) in N, FE the is external (additional or  Bmin 
effective) axial tension in N, ME is the external bending arcsin  
 K 
moment in Nmm and K is the bolt circle diameter in mm. The
where Bmin is the minimum pitch (bolt center-center distance).
axial separation force from the external moment is calculated
The flange outside diameter O then becomes
as in EN 1591.
The number of bolts should be divisible by 4 and bolt O = K + 2 × E min (25)
sizes may not be selected less than ½ in. Smaller bolt sizes are where Emin is the radial distance from bolt circle diameter to
prohibited in some codes due to the risk of overstressing flange outside diameter, assuming nut corner is flush with
during make-up. With these considerations, the size and flange outside diameter, see Table 1. The hub length lH in mm
number of bolts are selected, so that the actual bolt cross is estimated as

8 Copyright © by ASME

l H = max ((xe + 10 + e p / 2 ) ; 25) (26) 4 δ     3 × δ Q2 


c M =  −  + δ R   × 1 −  + δ R2  
where a minimum length of lH is assumed to be 25 mm to  
3  2     4 
allow for weld access during welding/NDT. The length in 
excess of xe is sufficient to account for a straight part between cS = cM × (0.8 − 0.6 × δ Q + 0.4 × δ R ) (38)
end ellipse and weld bevel.
bF =
(O − B ) − L (39)
At this time, all flange main dimensions except the flange and fF and fP are the flange and pipe/hub design stresses,
thickness eF are know. The internal flange (warping) moment respectively, in N/mm2, bF is the radial width of flange ring
M due to load acting on the flange is the product of the excluding the bolt hole diameter in mm, δQ and δR are pressure
resulting load and its moment arm, see Fig. 7. The applied and external loading parameters, and cS and cM are correction
moments have to be resisted by the moment capacity of the factors. Eq.(34) is based on Draft.2, 1992 of the EN 1591. The
flange, hence, the flange thickness can be determined. limit load of the flange ring in EN 1591 is corrected to be in
The internal flange moment for operation conditions is line with the theoretical flange ring limit load. EN 1591
resulting from the sum of pressure end load, external loads subtracts only a partial bolt hole diameter, while limit load
and the seal ring retaining load for the relevant conditions as analysis require that the total bolt hole diameter L shall be
follows: applied to establish the flange radial width.
M F = (FD + Feq )× hD + FT × hT + FR , a × hR (27)
where Bolt Threads AB1 Bmin Rmin Emin L
π size per inch
FD = × B 2 × pi (28) in. mm2 mm mm mm mm
π 1/2 13 81.1 29.1 16.3 12.8 15.0
FT =
× Ds2 − B 2 × pi ) (29) 5/8 11 130.2 35.1 19.5 15.6 18.0
hD = K − B − e p 2 ) (30) 3/4 10 194.8 42.3 24.0 18.3 22.0
7/8 9 270.4 49.3 28.2 21.1 25.0
hT = (2 K − B − D s ) 4 (31)
1 8 355.4 56.6 32.8 23.8 29.0
hR = (K − D s ) 2 (32)
1 1/8 8 469.4 62.1 35.6 26.6 32.0
and FD is hydrostatic end force applied via the pipe to flange 1 1/4 8 599.3 70.7 41.4 29.3 35.0
in N, FR is seal ring retaining load in N, FT is hydrostatic end
1 3/8 8 744.9 76.3 44.2 32.1 39.0
force due to pressure on flange face in N. The moment arms
1 1/2 8 906.5 82.3 47.5 34.8 42.0
hD, hR and hT are the radial distances from bolt circle to circle
on which FD, FR and FT acts in mm. The loads acting on the 1 5/8 8 1083.8 90.2 52.6 37.6 45.0
flange are assumed uniformly distributed around the 1 3/4 8 1277.0 95.7 55.4 40.3 48.0
circumference of the circles of diameters. 1 7/8 8 1486.0 101.5 58.4 43.1 51.0
Proper allowance has to be made if connections are 2 8 1710.9 110.1 64.3 45.8 54.0
subjected to external loads. In cases where the external loads 2 1/4 8 2208.1 122.3 71.0 51.3 61.0
are not know, the equivalent axial tension acting on the CFJ 2 1/2 8 2768.6 138.4 81.5 56.8 67.0
may be chosen as
2 3/4 8 3392.5 149.7 87.4 62.3 73.0
Feq = × Do2 × pi (33) 3 8 4079.7 161.0 93.2 67.8 80.0
3 1/4 8 4830.3 172.1 98.8 73.3 86.0
The internal flange moment capacity, i.e. the limit load, of
the flange including support from the neck is given by: 3 1/2 8 5644.2 181.8 103.0 78.8 92.0
3 3/4 8 6521.4 194.3 110.0 84.3 99.0
2 × bF × eF2 × f F + 
4 8 7462.0 205.8 116.0 89.8 105.0
π  
WF = × 2.2 × cS × eF × eP × d P × e p × f P +  (34) where
4   AB1 is the cross section area of a single bolt using the root
c M × d p × e 2p × f P 
diameter in mm2, see Eq. (55)
where L is the bolt hole diameter
p ×d Table 1 Bolt and torque wrench data.
δQ = i P (35)
2 × f P × eP
FR The first and last part of Eq.(34) is ring and pipe wall
δF = (36) thickness internal flange moment resistance. The reduction
π × f P × d P × eP factors cM and cS take into account the reduction of the

9 Copyright © by ASME

bending-carrying capacity and shear force capacity of the pipe design with balanced strength between flange and bolts,
cross section assuming von Mises yield criterion. The factors excludes any flange interacting outside the bolt circle, hence
are based on pipe wall yielding and not the actual cross any additional bolt stress generated due a prying effect can be
section yielding capacity, see Kirkemo (2001). The middle neglected. The back face of the flange is made parallel to front
part contains the support effect of a radial force from the pipe face in the made-up position; hence, bending in the bolts is
for the ring. If the value in the root giving cM is negative the reduced to a minimum.
hub/pipe is overloaded. Hoop stress caused by internal Considerable elastic and elastic plastic finite element
pressure is neglected in the flange ring, however, included in analyses, Fig. 9, have been performed to justify the applied
the strength contribution from the connecting hub/pipe. limit load based design and stiffness equations. Capacities
The flange ring thickness can now be calculated by should be determined using elastic-plastic finite element
requiring that WF should be equal to MF by an iterative solver analysis to avoid the necessity of dividing the stresses into
available in spreadsheets. The initial flange face angle θ in primary and secondary stress categories and linearisation of
radians is calculated as stresses as required in elastic analysis. The structural capacity
M is determined by increasing the loads nearly to the point of
θ = 0 min (40) instability (maximum) or when the local strains exceed 5 %.
The design capacity is found by dividing the structural
M 0 min = nB × FB1min × hD (41) capacity by 1.5. Only limited permanent deformation occurs at
where M0min is the minimum applied bolting up internal flange this load level, see Fig. 9.
moment in Nmm, KF is the elastic stiffness of the integrated
flange ring and cylinder and FB1min is the minimum bolt force
for one bolt in N. KF is given by
E × π × bFe × eF3
KF = F (42)
3 × d F × cF
and the correction factors are as follows

c F = 0.91 × (1 + γ × ϑ ) 
( )
1 + γ × ϑ 4 + 6 × ϑ + 6 × ϑ 2 
 (43)
+ 3 × γ 2 × ϑ 4  Flange capacity

γ = (e P × d F ) (bFe × d P ) (44) 7000.0

ϑ = 0.4 × d P × e P e F
Calculated yield point
(45) 6000.0
limit load

(O − B ) − L
Elastic plastic FEA

bFe = (46)
Total separation force

2 4000.0
Design capacity = 2/3 yield point limit load

L × nB
Le = L (47)

π ×K 2000.0
FEA notch
strain limit

d P = B + eP (48)
(O + B)

dF = (49)
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
Total strain in neck
The flange stiffness takes into the adjoining effective
cylinder shell (eP , d P ) by multiplication with c F . The factor Flange ring rotation


c F is modified by the 0.91 factor compared to factor given in

EN 1591. Furthermore, the constant in ϑ is 0.4 compared to 6000.0
Calculated elastic
Calculated yield point limit load
Elastic plastic FEA
the 0.55 factor applied in EN 1591. The effective gap at the 5000.0

flange toe g is calculated as, Fig. 7,

Separation force


g = 0.9 × tan (θ )×
Design capacity = 2/3 yield point limit load

As the toe gap is 90% of the theoretical elastic value, closing 2000.0

of this gap during bolting up is an indicator of some minimum 1000.0

applied bolt preload.

Due to the initial flange face angle, most of the bolt 0.0
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 1.4000 1.6000 1.8000

preload and external loads are transferred as contact forces Rotation, deg

between flanges within the bolt circle due to flange taper. This Fig. 9 Finite element analysis of flange ring
in combination with stiff flanges and flexible bolts and a

10 Copyright © by ASME

ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATIONS maximum bolt assembly force in N, ε is the residual bolt

Successful sealing a flanged connection depends on all preload scatter value and ∆B is the bolt transfer loss for tension
components of a well-designed flange system working well tool, (= 0 for torque tool). The tension tool preload transfer
together. These include not only design of sealing system, loss may be calculated by
bolting and flange as a system but also assembly guidelines. d dB0
Initial bolt loads in ASME B16.5 flanged joints have not ∆ B = 0.9 × B 0 = 0.9 × (53)
lB 2 × eF + 0.8 × d B 0
always been accurate. Rodabaugh (1972) states: "In field
installation of B16.5 flanged joints the initial bolt stress is where lB is the effective (clamp) bolt length in mm and dB0 is
seldom controlled; the pipe fitter simply tightens the bolts to the nominal bolt diameter in mm (=25.4 mm for 1").
what he considers to be an appropriate amount". Tightening Bolt preload scatter values (standard deviation) 5 - 8 %
groups of bolts in a gasketed ASME joint results in significant have been obtained for lubricated (MoS2) galvanized ASTM
elastic interaction. Individual bolts can loose up to 95 % of A193 B7 bolts using a friction value of 0.12. Using friction
their initial preload, Bibel (1995). Bibel (1995) further states values on the high side ensures that the mean bolt preload are
that final bolt load can be as low as 45 % of design even after on the high side, hence the mean value minus the scatter is
three pass bolt-up procedure. However ASME has recognized higher than the minimum required bolt preload. The bolt-
the importance of guidelines for flange joint assembly by preload scatter for ASME value of a CFJ B16.5 ring type
issuing ASME PCC-1 (2000). Typical target bolt prestress in joints are typical the double of what is obtained by CFJs.
ASME bolted flanged joints has changed from 275 MPa (40 Gasketed ASME bolted flange joints have higher bolt
ksi) in 1972, Rodabaugh (1972), to 345 MPa (50 ksi) today, interaction and larger bolt bending due to flange rotation than
ASME PCC-1 (2000). CFJs which have metal-to-metal face contact and almost zero
Only qualified assemblers with calibrated torque wrench, bending due to parallel flanges after make-up.
hydraulic or other tensions shall assemble bolted flange An adequate estimate of the relationship between
connections like ASME B16.5 joints and CFJs. Assembly tightening torque and axial force in the bolt for ASTM A193
must be to a written procedure, which is qualified by test to bolts and ASTM A194 heavy hex nuts is computed as follows
achieve the minimum residual bolt load. Typical steps in M Bt ,nom = (0.16 p + 1.23 × µ B × d B 0 ) × FB10nom (54)
assembly of CFJs are as follows: where MBt,nom is the nominal (target) bolt torque in Nmm, p is
1. Clean and examine the CFJ components before assembly the thread pitch in mm (=25.4/n), n is the number of thread per
is started. All sealing surface shall be free from inch (=8 for 8UN threads), µB is the average friction
mechanical damage and rust and have appropriate surface coefficient on thread and under nut, FB10nom is the nominal
finish. (target) axial preload in the bolt in N (=fB0nom x AB1), fB0nom is
2. Align flanges and bolt holes such that the bolts easily can the nominal (target) initial bolt stress in Nmm2 and AB1 is the
be installed. bolt root area of a single bolt in mm2 given by
3. Install the seal ring carefully between flanges, check that π
the seal ring slightly rocks in the groove (stand off) and AB1 = (d B − 1.3 p ) 2
bring the flanges together without damaging the seal ring. The actual minimum bolt preload should be in the level of 2/3
4. Lubricate nut load-bearing surfaces and bolt ends with of the bolt tension yield capacity. This ensures that the sealing
specified lubricant. surfaces are in a stable condition (static) for normal design
5. Install bolts and nuts hand-tight, then "snug up" to 15 Nm conditions, i.e. there are no relative movements of sealing
to 30 Nm. Number each bolt. surfaces. The bolt utilization ratio UR at bolting up is
6. Tighten the bolting evenly to specified torque values in a 2 2
cross-pattern tightening sequence. After full torque is 1 F   12 
UR = ×  B 0 max  + 3 M Bt ,max ×  ≤ 1 (56)
applied, apply at least one final torque to all nuts in a f B0  AB1   π × d B3 0 
clockwise direction until all torque is uniform and check
where UR is applied load divided by allowable load, fB0 is the
that the flange gap is closed.
bolt design stress at bolting-up and the maximum torque value
All preload methods involve some degree of inaccuracy,
is given as:
which should be accounted for. The scatter in bolt preload is
M Bt , max = M Bt , nom × (1 + ε ) (57)
accounted by the scatter value ε for the bolt preload as
follows: and MBt,max=0 for hydraulic tensioners. During bolting-up the
F torque is primary load while the wrench is loaded, however,
FB10 nom = B10 min (51) after make-up, the torque is secondary. This means that torque
1− ε
can be neglected in the subsequent load conditions.
1+ ε + ∆
FB10 max = FB10 nom (1 + ε + ∆ ) = FB10 min (52)
where FB10min is the minimum bolt force in N, FB10nom is the Bolted flanged joint materials should be applied below
nominal (average) bolt assembly force in N, FB10max is the
the lower bound of the creep range, e.g. 370 °C for ferritic

11 Copyright © by ASME

steels, due to creep, causing relaxation in bolt and seal ring, It should be noted that selection of other materials, pipe
and eventually the joint may leak. The load capacity for the wall thickness and external loading would change the
CFJs at temperature is established by using the actual yield dimension of the CFJ.
strength at temperature. For material strength at temperature, it
should be noted that EN uses minimum yield and tensile Table 3 10" CL1500 CFJ and ASME comparison
strength values while ASME uses strength values based on Characteristic CFJ ASME B16.5
average temperature dependent trend curve. Outside diameter 418.2 mm 584 mm
For thermal applications the bolt, seal ring and flange Thickness 71.1 mm 108 mm
materials should not have coefficients of thermal expansion, Total length 130.5 mm 254 mm
which are differing too much. The bolt load will in general Bolting 16 x 1 1/8" x 12 x 1 7/8" x
change with temperature. The axial bolt load at temperate 215 mm 345 mm
FB1,T may be expressed by
Weight each flange1) 57 kg 205 kg
FB1,T = FB10 min × F ,T + AB1 × EB ,T × (α B − α F )× (T − To ) (58) Weight bolting 21 kg 73 kg
EF , 0 Weight torque tool 2.5 kg 12.5 kg
where EF,T and EF,0 is the flange elastic modulus at temperature 1) Weight of one flange half with pipe length equal to total
T and assembly temperature T0, respectively, EB,T is the bolt ASME flange length is 73 kg.
elastic modulus at temperature T, αB and αF is the thermal
expansion coefficients of the bolt and flange, respectively. The
following may be observed from the expression: 273 mm
1. The bolt force will reduce with increasing temperature
with equal thermal expansion in bolt and flange due to the
drop in elastic modulus with increased temperature.
2. Higher thermal expansion in bolts than in flange will
reduce the bolt load with increasing temperature.
3. Lower thermal expansion in the bolts than in flange will
increase the bolt load with increasing temperature.
The axial bolt load at temperature including primary and
secondary axial load effects should be kept below the yield 12 stud bolts
1 7/8x345 mm
strength at temperature to avoid permanent deformation of the
bolt, hence avoid reduction of bolt preload when the joint is
returned to room temperature.
Note that the seal ring and bolts are thermally shielded 16 stud bolts
1 1/8x225 mm
against direct influence from internal fluids and external
thermal sources like fire.
119.1 mm
An example of a CFJ sizing is given in this section. The mm
CFJ consists of 2 weld neck flanges with materials according
to ASTM A694 F52. The stud bolts strength and threads are in
accordance ASTM A193 B7 while the seal ring material is 415 mm
ASTM A694 F65. The flanges are connected to pipes with
Do=273.1 mm (10") and wall thickness eP=26 mm. The flange 584 mm
connection is designed for a pressure of 258 bar, an equivalent
tension equal to 1511 kN, Eq.(33), and a temperature of 20°C.
Fig. 10 Comparison of 10" CL1500 CFJ and
The minimum target prestress is 2/3 yield strength. For more
equivalent ASME B16.5 joint (dotted)
details see Table 2.
The comparable ASME B16.5 flanged joint is a 10"
CL1500 ring type joint. The CFJ is considerably lighter and
smaller than the ASME B16.5 flanged joint including torque
Conventional flange designs with load carrying gaskets
tools, see Table 3. In Fig. 10, the CFJ is compared with the
have major shortcomings wrt. to leakage reliability and
B16.5 flange joint. Main dimensions and weights are given in
inability to cope with cycling loading and temperature. A
Table 4.
design method for CFJs is presented and applied in an
example for a flange design. The design principles of a CFJ
presented in this paper are sound and offer many fundamental

12 Copyright © by ASME

advantages over the conventional type of joint, apart from Pressure Vessel Technology, Part 1, Design and Analysis,
reduced weight and size. In the author's opinion, CFJs should September 29 – October 2, ASME, pp.155-164.
gradually find their way into general industrial applications 14. Hyde, T.H., Lewis, L.V. and Fessler, H., 1988, "Bolting
due to their leak reliability records. However, design codes and loss of contact between cylindrical flat-flanged joints
should address these types of joints in future. without gaskets,", Journal of strain analysis Vol.23, No.1.
15. ISO 13623:2000, Petroleum and natural gas industries –
REFERENCES Pipeline transportation systems.
1. API Spec. 6A, 1999, Specification for Wellhead and 16. ISO 4287:1977, Geometrical Product Specifications
Christmas Tree Equipment. (GPS) - Surface texture: Profile method - Terms,
2. ASME, 2001, Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section definitions and surface texture parameters.
VIII, Division 1 and 2, ASME International, New York, 17. Kirkemo, F., 2001, "Burst and gross plastic deformation
NY. limit states equations for pipes: Part 1 – Theory," ISOPE
3. ASME B16.5, 1996, Pipe flanges and flanged fittings. 2001.
4. ASME B31.3, 1996, Process piping. 18. Lassesen, S., Nybråten, O. and Eriksen, T., 2002,
5. ASME PCC-1-2000, Guidelines for pressure boundary "NORSOK L-005; Compact flanged connections (CFC) –
bolted flange joint assembly. the new standard," ASME PVP 2002.
6. Bibel, G., 1995, "Summary of PVRC research on bolted 19. "Pipe connection", Chemical Engineering, April 26, 1965,
flange assembly," PVP-Vol.307, ASME. 72, (9), 183-4.
7. BS PD6438:1969, A review of present methods for design 20. Rodabaugh, E.C., 1972, "Background of ANSI B16.5
of bolted flanges for pressure vessels. pressure-temperature ratings," API, Preprint 54-72.
8. Butcher, H.H., 1973, "Fundamental principles for static 21. Rossheim, D.B., Markl, A.R.C., 1943, "Gasket loading
sealing with metals in the high pressure field," ASLE constants," Mech. Eng., Vol.65, p.647-648.
Transactions, Volume 16, 4, pp.304-309. 22. Scwaigerer, S., 1954, "Die berechnung der
9. DIN 2505 Part 1 Draft 1990, Calculation of flanged Flanschverbindungen im Behälter- und Rohrleitungsbau,"
joints. Z.VDI 96, pp. 7-12.
10. Eichenberg, R., 1964, "Design of high-pressure integral 23. Waters, E.O., Wesstrom, D.B., Rossheim, D.B. and
and welding neck flanges with pressure-energized ring Williams, F.S.G., 1937, "Formulas for stresses in bolted
joint gaskets," ASME Paper No.63-Pet-3, J. of flanged connections," Trans.ASME, April.
Engineering Industry, May 1964, 86, (2), 199-2-4. 24. Webørn, J., 1967, "Flange design in Sweden," ASME
11. EN 1591-1:2001, Flanges and their joints – Design rules Paper 67-PET-20.
for gasketed circular flange connections – Calculation 25. Webørn, J. and Schneider, R.W., 1980, "Functional test of
method. a vessel with compact flanges in metal-to-metal contact,"
12. prEN 13345:2002 (March), Unfired pressure vessels. WRC Bulletin No. 262.
13. Haagen, T., 1967, "New flange connection for large
pressure vessels," First International Conference on

13 Copyright © by ASME

Table 2 Example sheet of CFJ sizing

Pipe/hub outside diameter Do 273.1 mm Yield strength, flange/hub Rp,F 360.0 N/mm2
Pipe/hub wall thickness eP 26.0 mm Yield strength, bolting Rp,B 720.0 N/mm2
Design pressure pi 25.8 N/mm2 Yield strength, seal ring Rp,R 450.0 N/mm2
External equivalent load Feq 1.51E+06 N Safety factor, operating SP 1.50
Elastic modulus, flange EF 200000 N/mm2 Safety factor, bolting up S0 1.05
Elastic modulus, seal ring ER 200000 N/mm2 Groove flank angle ϕ 15
Seal ring/seating friction coef. µR 0.10 Minimum target prestress fB0min 480.0 N/mm2
Bolt/nut friction coefficient µB 0.12 Bolt preload scatter ε 0.05
Flange/pipe bore B 221.1 mm Radial interface I 0.70 mm
Inside diameter of ring DRi 273.1 mm Stand off SO 2.60 mm
Height of ring HR 33.1 mm Width of groove N 12.71 mm
Minimum ring width at Ds bRs 8.26 mm Outside diameter of groove DGo 295.53 mm
Width of ring bR 10.81 mm Depth of groove Q 17.06 mm
Ring cross-section area AR 315.1 mm2 Fluid seal diameter Ds 289.6 mm
Ring retaining load FRa 2.73E+05 N No. of bolts nB 16
Total hydrostatic end force FQ 1.70E+06 N Bolt size dB 1 1/8 in
Minimum required bolt area ABmin 7258 mm Bolt hole diameter L 32.0 mm
Actual bolt area ABact 7511 mm Diameter of bolt circle K 365 mm
Minor half ellipes yE 10.4 mm Outside diameter of flange O 418.2 mm
Major half ellipse xE 36.4 mm Hub length lH 59.4 mm
Pipe hydrostatic end force FD 9.906E+05 N Operation internal flange MF 1.966E+08 Nmm
Flange hydrostatic end force FT 7.092E+05 N Flange ring thickness eF 71.1 mm
Internal flange moment, FD MD 1.475E+08 Nmm Bolting up internal flange mom. M0 2.045E+08 Nmm
Internal flange moment, FT MT 3.888E+07 Nmm Flange rot. due to min. preload θ0 0.27 o
Internal flange moment, FR MR 1.028E+07 Nmm Initial gap at flange toe gF 0.42 mm
Maximum tension, torque FB1max 2.592E+05 N Tension tool transfer loss ∆B 16 %
Bolt torque, target Mt 1225 Nm Tensioner tension, target Ft 2.970E+05 N
Bolting up load ratio - torque URMt 0.97 Bolting up load ratio - tension URFt 0.92

14 Copyright © by ASME