EFFICIENT ASSEMBLY OF PRESSURE VESSEL BOLTED JOINTS
Warren Brown
Syncrude Canada, Alberta, Canada
brown.warren@syncrude.com
ABSTRACT
This paper details the results of recent testing and experience
into the assembly of bolted joints. Pressure boundary bolted joint
assembly procedures are examined and details are presented that
result in a reduction in the required effort to assemble any given joint
by more than 50%. The selection of correct assembly load levels is
addressed and suggestions for joint integrity improvement are made.
Experimental results are also presented on the use of bolt lubricants
and the effect of temperature on the lubricant properties.
INTRODUCTION
In past years the correct procedure for assembling bolted
joints on exchangers, piping and pressure vessels was not a well-
documented subject. There were general guidelines in books on
bolted joints, such as Bickford [1], however these were often not
specific enough. Frequently, an external bolting contractor or
consultant was employed to provide suitable answers. The situation,
at the plant level, was improved with the release of the Fluid Sealing
Association bolting pamphlet [2]. In recent years, ASME recognised
the deficit and released PCC-1 [3]. This document provides a formal,
well-written guideline that instructs end users on the assembly of
bolted joints.
Recently, however, there has been industry experience and
several research projects that have pointed to the fact that it was
possible to assemble a joint with less effort than the methods outlined
in PCC-1. The industry and research efforts were aimed at decreasing
the required effort by reducing the complexity of the bolting pattern
and by increasing the bolt load at a faster rate. The research work
commenced independently in both Japan and Canada. The Japanese
work was funded by the JPVRC and Japanese industry. It has been
presented on several occasions at the ASME PVP (Tsuji[4],
Takaki[5] and Kumakura[6]). The Japanese research work is being
formulated into a standard industry procedure, for certain gasket
types, which utilises primarily circular bolting passes.
The other research project, which commenced in 2001, was
undertaken at Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, Canada and was
funded by industry and the PVRC. The project examined heat
exchanger joint integrity issues, including bolting patterns and bolt
torque. This paper presents some of the information and conclusions
from that research project. The results of the PVRC project support
both industry and the Japanese research conclusions; that it is
possible to further streamline pressure vessel and piping bolted joint
assembly. In so doing, industry is served by both reduced costs and
improved joint integrity.
BOLTED JOINT ASSEMBLY PROCEDURES
The objective of a bolting procedure is to tighten the bolted
joint to the desired gasket stress level, whilst doing this in such a way
so as to not damage the sealing capabilities of the joint during the
tightening process. This is commonly achieved by specifying a
gradual increase in bolt stress for each bolting pass and also by using
a bolting pattern during the first few bolting passes. A typical
example of this approach (for a 24 bolt joint) is outlined in Fig. 1.
This bolting procedure is perhaps the most commonly used procedure
and is taken from the ASME PCC-1 [3] bolted joint assembly
guidelines.
The effectiveness of this bolting pattern in achieving the
desired objective is historically well proven. However, the use of this
pattern is somewhat complex, in that the bolt numbers must be
marked on the flange prior to tightening and the pattern followed
closely to ensure bolts are not missed. Additionally, for the first three
passes, the pattern requires that the fitter must go from one side of the
joint to the other between tightening actions. This is particularly
arduous for larger diameter flanges, in awkward locations, where
heavy bolt assembly equipment must be used. This often creates
resistance in the field to the implementation of this bolting procedure.
 type joint. The bolt stress levels were controlled and measured using
specially constructed bolt load gauges. A variety of different gasket
24 1 types were tested, including Corrugated Metal (CG), Kammprofile
2 2 1st Pass = 20% (PG), PTFE and Spiral Wound (SW) gaskets.
22 3 2nd Pass = 60%
21 4 3rd Pass = 100%
4th , 5th ,.. = 100%
20 5 All passes in star
19 6 pattern except the
4th and subsequent
18 7 which are circular
pattern (i.e.:
17 8
1,2,3,4,…) and are
16 9 repeated until the
15 10 nuts do not turn.
1 11
13 12

Figure 1 – BP1 [ASME PCC-1 Procedure]

24 1
2 2 1st 4 bolts = 20% Figure 3 – RA.S.T. Test Rig
22 3 2nd 4 bolts = 60%
21 4 All other = 100% 1

All passes in 0.9

20 5 quadrant pattern 0.8
19 6 except the 2nd and
Tightening Efficiency

0.7
subsequent which
0.6
18 7 are circular pattern
0.5
(i.e.: 1,2,3,4,…) Pass #1
17 8
and are repeated 0.4 Pass #2
Pass #3
16 9 until the nuts do 0.3
Pass #4
15 10 not turn. 0.2 Pass #5
14 11 Pass #6
0.1
13 12
0
CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 PG1 SW1 SW2 SW3 PTFE1 PTFE2 PTFE3
Figure 2 – BP4 [Quadrant Procedure] Gaske t De scription

Figure 4 – Assembly Efficiency vs. Pass Number

There has been recent field experience that indicates that it is
possible to achieve the desired objective, with a much less complex
bolting procedure. A series of laboratory tests were conducted in
order to try and quantify if this was indeed possible. Three other
bolting procedures were examined, these procedures are listed
following:
1. BP2 – Same pattern as BP1, except the bolt stress is increased
more rapidly (20% for the first four bolts, 60% for next four
bolts and 100% thereafter). In addition, only two star pattern
passes are performed, the remaining passes are a circular pattern
until nuts do not turn.
2. BP3 – Circular Pattern: Bolts 1,13,7,19 are initially tightened in
3 steps to 100% (20%, 60% and 100%) and then the joint is
tightened in a circular pattern (1,2,3,4,...) at 100% until the nuts
do not turn.
3. BP4 – Quadrant Pattern: The first pass utilizes a pattern that is
simpler than the star pattern (Fig. 2). The bolt stress levels are
increased from 20% for the first four bolts, to 60% for the next
four bolts and 100% after that. Only one pattern pass is
performed, after that the bolts are tightened in a circular pattern.
The testing was performed on the RA.S.T (RAdial Shear
Tightness) test rig (Fig. 3), which is a 24 bolt, 24” heat exchanger
The achieved assembly efficiency (fraction of the desired
final load that is achieved at the end of each bolting pass) for each
pass and a variety of gasket types, using similar bolting procedures to
BP2 and BP4, is presented in Fig. 4. The most obvious conclusion
that can be drawn from this graph is that the final fraction of desired
bolt load that is achieved is highly dependent on the number of passes
that are performed. A bolting procedure that has only three passes is
unlikely to achieve much more than 80% of the desired bolt load.
However, another aspect that may be seen from Fig. 4 is that
the required number of passes depends on both the gasket type and
the assembly stress levels. This is most evident by comparison of the
PG1 and PTFE3 tests. In the case of the PG1 gasket the desired bolt
stress was achieved in only 3 passes. Conversely, after 6 passes the
PTFE3 test had less than 85% of the desired load. This difference is
due to the fact that the PG1 gasket is much harder than the PTFE3
gasket. However, the PTFE3 results were particularly bad due to the
fact that the desired bolt load was selected (unknowingly) to be just
above a "knee" in the gasket deflection-load curve. This therefore
caused the load to stall at the load corresponding to the "knee" stress
level. The term "knee" is used to denote where there is a relatively
large change in gasket compression, for a small change in gasket
load. This same gasket performed closer to the other PTFE gaskets
when tightened to a much higher or much lower stress level (thus 3000
avoiding the "knee").
2500
All of the bolting procedures achieved the desired final bolt

Distance Moved (inches)

load, given enough passes. However, the effort required to achieve 2000
this load was dramatically different between the tested bolting 67%
procedures. Figure 5 shows the assembly efficiency for each of the 1500
bolting procedures on the RA.S.T test rig, using a 3.2mm (1/8inch)
thick expanded PTFE gasket. 1000
30%
23%
1.0
500
0.9

0.8 0
Assembly Efficiency

BP1

BP2

BP3

BP4
0.7
0.6 Pass1 Pass2 Pass3 Pass4 Pass5 Pass6

0.5
Figure 6 - Pattern Effort Comparison
0.4
0.3 Whilst it is encouraging to see such high levels of saving in
0.2 effort associated with the modified passes, one must always keep in
0.1
mind that the required effort will multiply exponentially if the utilised
procedure damages the gasket during assembly and causes
0.0
operational leakage necessitating re-assembly of the joint. Gasket
BP1

BP2

BP3

BP4

Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4
Figure 5 - Procedure Efficiency Comparison
It is apparent from this graph that BP1 required 6 passes to
achieve a gasket load close to the desired value. This compares with
only 4-5 passes for the other bolting procedures. There is therefore a
direct saving associated (in this case) of a 17% reduction in the
failure due to poor assembly is often seen in the field (for example,
Pass 5 Pass 6 buckling of a spiral wound gasket). To examine the effect of the
various procedures on gasket performance, testing of a variety of
gasket types for each of the procedures was conducted. The tests
performed on PTFE gaskets were the most revealing of these tests.
0.014
0.012
Flange Gap (inches)

number of passes. Other gaskets, which compress less, will give an 0.010
even larger reduction in effort. However, the indicated reduction in
0.008
effort does not fully demonstrate the achieved saving in assembly
effort. A circular pass requires much less effort than a pattern pass, 0.006
due to the fact that the tightening head is moved directly from one 0.004
bolt to another, rather than to the other side of the joint. A more
accurate measure of the level of effort for each of the procedures is 0.002
shown in Fig. 6. This graph outlines the distance that the tightening 0.000
head must be moved, from nut to nut, to complete each pass of the Quad 1 Quad 2 Quad 3 Quad 4
different procedures for the 24" flange. This measure is more closely Assem. BP1 Assem. BP2 Assem. BP3 Assem. BP4
indicative of the level of effort associated with each of the bolting
Post T est BP1 Post T est BP2 Post T est BP3 Post T est BP4
patterns.
Figure 7 - Procedure Comparison, Flange Gap
The percentage values that appear above each column give
the percentage of total movement for that bolting procedure, by Figure 7 shows gap measurements between the RA.S.T. rig
comparison to BP1. As can be seen, there is a dramatic reduction in flanges, at the middle point of the four quadrants (i.e: at 45°, 135°,
the required work from BP1 to BP2 (33% reduction) and an even 225° and 315° angular positions) for the four bolting procedures. The
more dramatic reduction for BP3 and BP4 (77% and 70%). It is deflection results are presented for identical 3.2mm (1/8inch) PTFE
therefore evident that there are major labour savings to be obtained gaskets, both immediately after assembly and then after heating for
from the optimisation of bolting procedures. 10 hours at 175°C (350°F). Since even compression of the gasket is
an important measure of the effectiveness of a bolting procedure, the
above graph clearly demonstrates which of the bolting procedures are
superior. Perhaps surprisingly, it is not BP1 that achieved the most
even compression of the gasket. It was, in fact, BP2 that achieved,
essentially, a uniform compression of the gasket. The reason for this

can be easily seen in Fig. 5. For BP1 the circular passes (pass 4
onward) commenced when the average gasket stress was only 50% of
the final value, whereas for BP2 the average gasket stress was 70% of
the final value when the circular passes commenced. Commencing
the circular passes at a higher stress avoided the uneven gasket
loading that was evident in the other gasket bolting procedures.
The level of uneven compression for patterns BP1 and BP3
clearly indicates that these two procedures, for this gasket type, are
more likely to cause joint leakage. Procedure BP4 was superior to
BP1 and BP3, but was not as good as BP2. This is not due, however,
to the bolting pattern. It was due to the fact that BP2 has an additional
pattern pass when compared to BP4. If the number of pattern passes
is made identical, it was then demonstrated that the two procedures
became comparable in terms of even gasket compression.
It is clearly evident, therefore, that increasing the bolt stress
level more rapidly greatly improves the effectiveness of the bolting
procedure. It is also possible to reduce the required effort by using a
simplified bolting pattern, without risk of damage to the gasket.
However, caution should be taken when using only the circular
bolting pattern (BP3), as this may result in gasket failure with softer
gaskets (PTFE, Spiral Wound, Soft Sheet).
FURTHER REDUCING EFFORT
Further savings in effort to assemble non-critical joints can be
made by reaching a compromise between load application accuracy
and load application speed. To assemble a joint using only a torque
wrench is rather laborious when compared to methods such as
pneumatic or hydraulic nut-runners or air impact methods. The later
methods, whilst much faster, offer very little in the way of accurate
torque control. However, accurate load control is really only
necessary during the tightening of the first few bolts (the first pass of
BP2 or the first four bolts obtaining 100% for BP3 or BP4) or during
the final few circular passes. This is due to the fact that the gasket is
being loaded gradually and so over-tightening one bolt (or all bolts)
in the intermediate passes will not actually affect the final gasket
stress distribution (and therefore sealing performance).
For all gasket types, the bolt load will be significantly reduced
when the neighboring bolts are tightened, except during the final few
circular passes. An example of this can be seen in Fig. 8. This graph
shows the bolt stresses for the first 6 bolts during the first part of the
initial circular pass for bolting procedure BP4. As can be seen,
although all of the bolts are tightened to around 390MPa, the final
bolt stress is much lower once the neighboring two bolts are
tightened. In fact, in this case (a spiral wound gasket in the RA.S.T
test rig) the average bolt load after the first circular pass was around
30% less than the target value of 390MPa. Following this logic, it
therefore would not have mattered if the bolts were over (or under)
tightened during this pass by 30%.
400
350
300
Bolt Stress (MPa)
250
200
150
Bolt #1 Bolt #2
100
Bolt #3 Bolt #4
50 Bolt #5 Bolt #6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Bolting Action
Figure 8 - Bolt Stress Changes During Bolt-Up
If a nut-runner or air impact is selected (or the air or hydraulic
pressure regulated) to ensure that it will not apply more than the
maximum desired load (which will often be bolt yield) it is entirely
feasible to assemble a joint starting with (in the case of a BP4
pattern) a torque wrench for the first twelve bolts, then move to air
impact for the next 2-3 passes (until the nut rotates less than a flat,
say) and then go back to the torque wrench for the final circular
passes (until the nut no longer rotates). This also makes sense in
terms of when to use the most appropriate tools, as the initial passes
are the most laborious, due to the gasket compression being the
greatest. Final quality control is possible by "inspection" of a few
bolts with a torque wrench. This ensures that the desired bolt load is
achieved, whilst allowing the fitters to use a procedure that employs
very little effort.
BOLT LOAD REQUIREMENTS
To a degree, the actual bolt load level is less important than
the even application of the load via a bolting procedure. In general,
an accuracy of ±30%, which is often associated with torque load
control, is sufficient for all but the most problematic of joints.
However, one company's "problematic joint" may be another's "run-
of-the-mill" joint. The difference generally lies in the knowledge of
the company's personnel regarding the actual load to tighten a given
joint and how to best achieve that load.
Load selection is normally best characterized by the statement
"the higher load, the better the seal". The maximum bolt load that can
be applied without damage to the joint should be specified in all
cases. Selection of the highest possible load maximizes the chances
of overcoming other factors that cause leakage, such as thermal
loading and gasket relaxation. In an appropriately designed joint, the
limitation on maximum bolt load will be either bolt yield or
maximum gasket load. Bolt yield is easily calculated, whereas gasket
maximum load is much more "subjective". This depends on the
application (especially flange stiffness and gasket constraint), which
is why it is difficult, and not often done, to list allowable maximum
gasket stress levels. Some examples of maximum gasket stress levels
that are used as "rules-of-thumb", and are based on demonstrated
successful operation, are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 - Maximum Gasket Stress Level Examples
Gasket Type *1 Maximum Stress MPa (ksi)*2
Spiral Wound - unconstrained *3 70 (10)
Spiral Wound - constrained *4 400 (60)*5
Corrugated Metal 400 (60)
Kammprofile 550 (80)*6
Expanded PTFE *7 40 (6)
Filled PTFE *7 70 (10)
Notes : 1) All gaskets (except PTFE) are typically SS/graphite construction
2) Gasket assembly stress calculated on full gasket area
3) e.g.: between raised faces without inner or outer rings
4) e.g.: constrained between an inner ring and a recessed flange
5) Max. suggested by manufacturer was 2/3 of this value, thus
limiting the gasket capability by 1/3 more than necessary.
6) At these stress levels flange rotation may be excessive for this
gasket type, causing difficulty in sealing
7) Highly dependent on flange rotation levels and the operating
temperature. These limits are based on a flange operating at 150°C
(300°F) and designed with flange rotation levels limited to 0.2°.
As can be seen from this table, the maximum load that may be
applied to a gasket is very much dependent on the joint configuration
and, in most cases, is much higher than often thought. However, to
achieve successful use of these higher loads, particular care must be
taken to ensure a good bolting procedure. If using torque control, it is
applied during winter as compared to summer may be as high as 30%
to 50%. Obviously if these sort of factors are not accounted for
during joint assembly then it will be very difficult to improve plant-
wide joint integrity.
Two other factors that have a large effect on final achieved
load accuracy are the bolt/flange condition and the amount of
lubricant used. In many plants, the stud bolts are re-used and may,
therefore, be corroded. It is not hard to imagine that a corroded bolt
will not allow the same level of load control via torque. In addition,
flanges will often become galled at the nut location with repeated
joint assembly, which will also have a large effect on the level of load
control that is possible. The effect of the second factor, amount of
lubricant used, is somewhat less apparent. However, these two factors
have a fairly similar level of consequence and this is detailed below
in the tests outlined in Fig. 10.
40
New Studs - Thin Lube
35
New Studs - Thick Lube
30
Frequency (%) Old Studs - Thick Lube
25
20
15

necessary to be confident that the specified torque will generate the 10

desired load. It is not advisable, for example, to specify a bolt load of 5
80% of yield if the load application accuracy is worse than 30% (as
0
bolt yield may occur). The bolt load corresponding to a given applied -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40 50 60
torque is often calculated from the following equation: Bolt Load Scatter (% Error)

F = T/(K.D) [1] Figure 10 - Effect of Bolt Condition / Lubricant Level

where: T = applied torque (N.m, ft-lbs), D = bolt nominal diameter
(m, ft), F = bolt load (N, lbs), K = dimensionless "Nut Factor"
The most obvious factor that will influence whether the desired load
will be achieved is knowledge of the lubricant properties being used.
In a series of tests that were conducted using B7 bolts and different
lubricants it was found that the manufacturer's published values of
"K" were often not accurate (ref. Fig. 9). In some cases the difference
between tested and manufacturer's listed value was more than 50%.
0.20
0.18
Nut Factor "K"
Figure 10 shows the bolt load scatter for a variety of tests on
common bolt types (B7, B8 and B16) and a range of sizes (from ¾"
to 1¼"). The frequency listed on the y-axis is the percentage of bolts
that were within the x-axis scatter range (effectively a population
distribution graph for bolt load scatter). The graph demonstrates that
the error level for new, properly lubricated bolts is, as expected, in
the ±30% range. By comparison, well-lubricated old bolts (corroded
but thoroughly wire brushed to remove build-up) and new bolts with
only a light application of lubricant exhibit error levels in the ±50%
range. Translating this to the effect on joint integrity means that the
maximum specified bolt load for old or poorly lubricated bolts should

0.16 be no more than 50% of bolt yield. On the other hand, new, properly
0.14
lubricated bolts can be loaded much higher (to at least 70% of bolt
yield) as one can be much more confident of the accuracy of the load.
0.12
In addition, the new, properly lubricated bolts will further improve
0.10
joint integrity as the loading will be more even and the bolts will be
0.08 loaded nearer to the desired level. One can, therefore, easily increase
0.06 joint integrity by using new bolts, hardened (ASTM F436) washers
-5 (23) 25 (77) 40 (104) 100 (212) 200 (392) and excessive amounts of lubricant.
Assembly Temperature °C (°F)
Copper #1 (K=0.16) Copper #2 (K=0.12)
Moly #1 (K=0.1) Moly #2 (K=0.08)
Nickel #1 (K unavail.) Nickel #2 (K=0.15) SUMMARY - MAXIMISING JOINT INTEGRITY
Note: The Nut Factor listed above is from manuf. literature for the lubricant. One of the reasons that pressure vessel and piping joint
Figure 9 - Example Lubricant Nut Factors assembly remains a mystery for many is that there are a multitude of
factors at play that all interact to determine if a given joint will seal or
In addition, another factor that is evident from the graph is that not. What may work for a refinery, may not work at all for a chemical
the actual temperature during joint assembly affects the nut factor. plant and vice-versa. However, joint integrity can be maximised in
For some lubricants the difference in achieved load for a given torque
any plant when the following, equally important, factors are
considered:
1) Personnel - without people who are willing to push the limits
and experiment with joint assembly and, equally, others that
are willing to accept change, it is very difficult for any plant
to improve joint integrity
2) Gasket Selection & Configuration - the selected gasket must
be appropriate for the service. The joint should be configured
to restrain the gasket and keep it intact during assembly and
operation. The moment arm between the bolts and gasket
should be minimised. Thermal loading that can cause flange
radial movement and fail gaskets (ref. Brown [7]) must also
be accounted for in gasket selection. Gaskets claiming to be
the panacea for all joint leakage should be used with caution,
as they rarely improve the situation. The gasket should be of
as simple construction as possible, as complexity leads only
to more ways it can (and will) fail.
3) Load selection - the selected load should be maximised for
the given application. Where this proves not to be sufficient
then joint modification (different bolts, gasket or gasket
configuration) or "hot-torquing" (re-torquing of the bolts at
around 200°C (400°F), with modified nut factor - ref. Fig. 9)
should be employed.
4) Utilise proper load control and an appropriate bolting
procedure. Both of these factors depend on the individual
plant and it takes a relatively simple program to establish the
appropriate limitations within any plant. A suitable starting
point is to study the achieved load for a specified torque
using a simple load cell, ultrasonics, bolt length measurement
or even a hydraulic tensioning head connected to a pressure
gauge.
5) Personnel and Procedures (again) - without proper training of
personnel, appropriate quality control and good record
keeping of bolting procedures it is not feasible to improve
joint integrity, as it will never be possible to properly
determine exactly why a joint has leaked. If you can not
determine why a joint has leaked then it is not feasible to
determine the most appropriate solution to the problem.
6) Accept Failures as Learning - We learn the most from joint
failures and are able to greatly improve any integrity program
from the learning gained. One of the most important, and
often overlooked, ways to determine why a joint has leaked is
to examine the gasket. Often the reason for the failure is in
plain sight (over-compression or buckling, under-
compression, physical destruction, chemical degradation or
oxidation, excessive flange rotation, etc…).
Employing these simple guidelines will enable most plants to
immediately achieve a very high level of joint integrity. In addition,
the learning along the way will subsequently enable the ultimate goal
(100% leak-free operation) to be achieved shortly thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS
It has been demonstrated that the integrity of pressure vessel
and piping bolted joint assembly can be increased, whilst decreasing
the effort expended, by increasing the bolt load more rapidly. In fact,
this is where the majority of saving in joint assembly effort can be
made without any reduction in joint integrity.
It is also possible to simplify the bolting pattern and still
maintain the desired level of integrity. It should be noted, however,
that the bolting pattern has less effect on expended effort than does
increasing the bolt load more rapidly. The possible level of
simplification is also highly dependent on gasket type and it is
recommended that, for softer gasket types (PTFE, Soft Sheet and
Spiral Wound) at least one or two pattern passes are used.
It has also been detailed that joint integrity may be greatly
improved by following a plan that includes testing of the lubricant
being employed, the use of new bolts, hardened washers and
excessive lubricant levels. In addition, the specified bolt load should
be selected to be as high as possible.
Further details of these tests will be published as a Welding
Research Council Bulletin by the Pressure Vessel Research Council.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank the companies and individuals
who supported the original Pressure Vessel Research Council project
from which the results presented in this paper were taken;
M. Derenne & L. Marchand - Ecole Polytechnique / TTRL
R. Brodzinski - BP Refining Technology, USA
S. Yuen - Shell Canada
A. Bausman - Eastman Chemicals
The Pressure Vessel Research Council is also thanked for
providing funding and, perhaps more importantly, the platform from
which research projects such as this one can be launched.
REFERENCES
[1] Bickford, J.H., 1998, "Gaskets and Gasketed Joints", Marcel
Dekker, New York, USA
[2] Fluid Sealing Association, 2001, “Gasket Installation
Procedures; Assuring Joint Integrity and Maximum Safety”, Fluid
Sealing Association, Wayne, PA, USA (www.fluidsealing.com)
[3] ASME PCC-1. 2000, “Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted
Flange Joint Assembly”, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
NY, USA
[4] Tsuji, H. 2001, "Tightening Sequence of Bolted Flange Joint",
special presentation at the ASME PVP 2001 Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia, U.S.A.
[5] Takaki, T., Fukuoka, T. 2003, "Methodical Guideline for Bolt-Up
Operation of Pipe Flange Connections", ASME PVP 2003
proceedings, 457, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 23-30.
[6] Kumakura, S., Saito, S. 2003, "Tightening Sequence for Bolted
Flange Joint Assembly", ASME PVP 2003 proceedings, 457,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 9-16.
[7] Brown, W. 2002, “The Suitability of Various Gasket Types for
Heat Exchanger Service”, Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2002,
ASME, Vancouver, Canada, 433, pp. 45-51