half the raw FM value for expansion loads. The corresponding B16.5 pressure rating.

.5 pressure rating. Therefore, it is envisaged that the

selected values of FM are shown in Table 2. It is also
recommended that these values be reduced again for the
sustained load case (since the sustained load case will have a
greater impact on joint relaxation). Therefore, for sustained
load cases, the values shown in Table 2 should be divided by
two.
method outlined in this paper should be extended to include
actual assessment of the effects of flange and bolt creep
relaxation using the methods outlined in Brown [13].
Unfortunately, due to the lack of good material data for
assessing creep/relaxation in joints, this is only possible in
relatively few material combinations at the moment.

This approach meets the previously stated prerequisites,
in that it is tied to the flange ratings, is based on a method that
includes mechanical interaction and is based on a limit
obtained versus the likelihood of flange leakage. The nominal
safety margin of 2 used to establish the values of FM shown in
Table 2 could, of course, be adjusted to suit site preferences.
In addition, the assembly bolt loads used for the calculation
are based on ASME PCC-1 Appendix O calculations, where
the bolt load is maximized. If another approach is used, then it
may be necessary to adjust the values of FM downward in
order to ensure that the desired level of conservatism exists.
If the new approach is applied to the NPS 26, cl.300
leakage case, the calculated acceptable external load is
equivalent to 11% of pipe yield for thermal expansion cases
and 7% of pipe yield for sustained load cases. Therefore, if it
had been applied, the new method would have avoided
leakage, since external loads at the flange would have had to
have been much lower, necessitating piping re-design. In
addition, it can be seen that the new method is less
conservative than applying just the Equivalent Pressure
method, since the sustained case limit is 40% higher and the
thermal expansion case limit is 120% higher.
One final interesting note is that if the effects of
mechanical interaction were not included, some of the results
would be significantly different. The ratio of FM including
mechanical interaction divided by FM without including
mechanical interaction is shown in Table 3. It can be seen that,
as expected, since the higher classes of joints have much
stiffer bolts and flanges, the bolt load is predicted to increase
on those joints with the application of pressure (for a spiral
wound gasket) and therefore there is a higher buffer against
leakage indicated once mechanical interaction is included.
Conversely, for some of the larger diameter joints in lower
classes, the bolt load is predicted to decrease as the external
load is applied, which means that the buffer against leakage is
much smaller (by up to 30%) if the effects of mechanical
interaction are included in the analysis.
In addition to addressing piping analysis, the methods
used in this paper (mechanical interaction and leakage buffer)
can also be applied to custom designed flanges. The advantage
of incorporating that approach is that it reduces the level of
conservatism in the method, since presently the ASME VIII,
Div. 2 method uses a conservative assumption for determining
both bolt area and flange strength. In addition, it is worth
noting that the current method included in that code, which
allows for force re-distribution due to flange distortion, was
found to be less significant than allowing for component
flexibility and mechanical interaction. Mechanical interaction
affects both flange and gasket stress levels.
CONCLUSIONS
The method presented in this paper allows for additional
conservatism to be removed from the use of the Equivalent
Pressure and Equivalent Force methods, while still allowing
some conservatism in order to encourage good piping design
practices to be followed. The method does assume however
that the bolt material strength is A193-B8 cl.2 or stronger and
that the joints are assembled to a reasonably high assembly
bolt stress, based on ASME PCC-1 Appendix O. Adjustment
of the method would be required if either one of those
assumptions is not correct for the case in question.
The approach used can also be applied to custom flange
design, however this requires the incorporation of principals
from both ASME PCC-1 Appendix O and mechanical
interaction.

FUTURE WORK
The method outlined includes allowance for the effects of
creep by using the flange rating as a basis for the limit.
However, the flange ratings do not accurately reflect the true
mechanism for flange joints, which is creep/relaxation (Brown
[14]). The relaxation of the bolt and flange material will
significantly affect the ability of the joint to seal at a much
lower temperature than the creep limit used in the ASME

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/25/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use