Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bolted
Flanged Joints:
New Methods
and Practices
CONTENTS
1.
2.
Flange Selection
Dr David Nash, University of Strathclyde
Simon Earland, Earland Engineering
Dr David Nash & Simon Earland
3.
Gasket Selection
Dr Gavin Smith, Novus Sealing Limited
Dr Gavin Smith, Novus Sealing Limited
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Leak Management
Ed Versluis, James Walker Rotabolt
James Walker
15.
Case studies
No content in proceedings
Robert Noble
Robert Noble
Technical Services
Leader Hydratight
Bolted Joint
Material
Control
Material
Control
Coded
Welder
Competent
Personnel
Documented
Procedure
Documented
Procedure
NDT
Verification
Hydrotested
Hydrotested
Integrity
tested
Records
Records
In Service Inspection
Permanent joint
Subject to Breakout
The Bolted Joint and the PED:PED applies to permanent joining with permanent
joints defined in Article 1 as:
2.8. 'Permanent joints` means joints which
cannot be disconnected except by destructive
methods
The Bolted Flanged joint being capable of
disconnection therefore is viewed as temporary!
This is an advantage not a reason for reduced
standards of management and control.
To carry out these approvals the third party must perform examinations
and tests as set out in the appropriate harmonized standards or equivalent
examinations and tests or must have them performed.
EQMS no:5144-AC
10
Flange Selection
Dr David Nash, University of Strathclyde &
Simon Earland, Earland Engineering
11
12
Flange Selection
Simon Earland, Earland Engineering Ltd & David Nash, University of Strathclyde
INTRODUCTION
This paper covers the important features of the main types of flange and indicates some
typical uses.
Flanges are used for a variety of applications in pressure systems, including piping, valves,
nozzles and access openings on vessels and other equipment, and girth flanges on vessels and
heat exchangers. Many of these flanges will be standard, off the shelf items; others will be
custom designed for a specific application.
Normally, flanges are specified on the basis of a pressure requirement. Thereafter, other
loadings and deflection or leakage requirements, or even welding, installation or access
requirements may drive the rationale for flange selection. The intention of this paper is to
present an overview of bolted flange types, including both standard and specialist flange
designs.
STANDARD FLANGES
The most common type of flange used for pressure equipment is the standard piping flange.
These are supplied in accordance with various national and international standards such as:
EN 1092 Flanges and their joints Circular flanges for pipes, valves, fittings and
accessories, PN designated
EN 1759 Flanges and their joints Circular flanges for pipes, valves, fittings and
accessories, class designated
ASME B16.5 Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings: NPS through NPS 24 Metric/Inch
Standard
ASME B16.47 Large Diameter Steel Flanges: NPS 26 through NPS 60 Metric/Inch
Standard
EN ISO 10423 (ANSI/API Specification 6A) - Petroleum and natural gas industries.
Drilling and production equipment. Wellhead and Christmas tree equipment
Flanges to ASME B16.5 are often referred to as ANSI flanges because the standard was
originally published by ANSI (American National Standards Institute), but it is now published
by ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). The European standard EN 1759 is
based on the ANSI/ASME standard B16.5, and EN 1092 is based on DIN standard flanges.
Flanges are selected according to their nominal size, DN for metric or NPS for inch sizes (also
referred to as NB), and their pressure - temperature rating.
The main advantages of these standard flanges are:
Readily available from a range of manufacturers
Design calculations are not normally required
Pressure ratings recognised by the main piping and pressure vessel design codes
Standard dimensions
Wide range of gaskets available in standard sizes
Disadvantages:
They tend to be overly large and heavy compared with modern designs
Some problems with high seating stress gaskets and low pressure rating flanges
There are two main systems for flange rating, the American system of class designated flanges
given in ASME B16.5 and EN 1759, and the European system of PN designated flanges given in
EN 1092 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
In the oil, gas and petro-chemical industries class designated flanges are generally specified.
The same is true in other industries, such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals where the plant is
operated by an American based company. For plants operated by European based companies
PN designated flanges are often specified.
13
Type 6B
Type 6BX
Segmented
52 to 540 (2 1/16 to 21 680 to 762 (26 to 30) )
20.7 (3000)
52 to 527 (2 1/16 to 20 680 to 762 (26 to 30) )
34.5 (5000)
52 to 279 (2 1/16 to 11) 346 to 540 (13 5/8 to 21 35 to 103 x 108
)
(1 3/8 to 4 1/16 x 4 )
13
69.0 (10000) 46 to 540 (1 /16 to 21 )
103.5 (15000) 46 to 476 (1 13/16 to 18 )
138.0 (20000) 46 to 346 (1 13/16 to 13 5
/8)
14
Standard flange dimensions are tabulated in both metric units (mm) and US customary units
(inches). Information is given in the standard for evaluating the rated working pressure for
elevated temperatures.
A new edition of EN ISO 10423 was published in December 2009, but has not yet been issued
as a BS EN ISO standard.
PN designated flanges
EN 1092 covers the pressure designations PN 2.5, PN 6, PN 10, PN 16, PN 25, PN 40, PN 63,
PN 100, PN 160, PN 250, PN 320 and PN 400, and sizes from DN 10 up to DN 4000 (for PN 2.5
flanges). The upper size limit reduces for the higher pressure ratings.
The PN designation indicates the pressure rating of the flange in bars at ambient temperature.
The maximum allowable pressures at other temperatures are obtained from the pressure temperature rating tables given in the appropriate part of EN 1092. Part 1 covers steel flanges,
Part 2 covers cast iron flanges, Part 3 covers copper alloy flanges and Part 4 covers aluminium
alloy flanges. Standard flange dimensions are also tabulated.
Flange configurations
Standard flanges are available in a variety of combinations of type of flange and facing. The
types of flange include weld neck, long weld neck, slip-on, socket welding, lapped, threaded
and blind.
The most commonly used facings are raised face, flat face and ring joint, but other facings
such as tongue and groove and O-ring groove are also used.
Weld neck - this type of flange has a tapered hub at the back of the flange and is butt welded
to the pipe or nozzle neck, as shown if Figure 1. The butt weld can be subjected to volumetric
examination (radiography or ultrasonics) to ensure a high integrity joint. This type of flange is
widely used in the oil, gas, petro-chemical and power generation industries.
15
Slip-on - this type of flange fits over the outside of the pipe or nozzle neck and is attached
with fillet welds at the back and the face of the flange, as shown in Figure 3. The welds can
only be checked by surface examination techniques. This type of flange is not recommended
for high temperature applications or cyclic service.
16
17
Table 2 Pressure class designation and ASME rating ceiling values to ASME B16.5
Pressure class
Class
abbreviation
Nominal
pressure
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
PN
PN
PN
PN
PN
PN
150
300
600
900
1500
2500
150
300
600
900
1500
2500
20
50
110
150
260
420
Taper-Lok
The Taper-Lok Weld Neck Assembly is a compact flange comprised of a male flange, a
female flange, a seal ring, and a complete set of studs and nuts.
Taper-Lok is a registered trade mark of Taper-Lok Corporation.
The design is made up of two converging angles based on the wedge principle. The male nose
is a 20 angle cone, and the female contains a 10 pocket. The Taper-Lok seal ring, with
comparable angles, sits in between the flange components and acts as a door stop by
creating a wedge. The tapered seal ring geometry design ensures a significant length of the
sealing surfaces as contact forces are generated between both the male and female
components; this geometry is what gives all Taper-Lok flanges a self-energizing and
pressure-energizing seal. Taper-Lok flanges require lower bolt loads than standard
connections. The seal ring is generally made of the same material as the flange and is
reusable.
Standard Taper-Lok connection sizes range from 1/2" to 83" with varying wall thicknesses,
sealing pressures up to 40,000 psi, and temperatures ranging from -350 to 1600 F.
Variations of the basic weld neck design are available for blind flanges, long weld neck flanges,
heat exchanger closures, swivel flanges and other applications.
Desflex
The Desflex compact flange is manufactured by Destec Engineering Ltd and uses a D type
metal-to-metal seal which is flush with the bore of the flange. The flange stresses during
assembly are controlled by limiting the flange rotation via a small gap at the outer edge of the
flange. The flanges are more resistant to external bending, and excessive bolt tightening
cannot overstress the flange.
Desflex flanges are available in sizes from 1 NPS up to 40 NPS, and pressure rating classes
300, 600, 900, 1500 and 2500. Destec provide their own pressure rating tables that are based
on the stress analysis methodology in ASME VIII Division 1, Appendix 2.
Desflex flanges are available as weld neck, blind and swivel flanges.
Verax
The concept of the Verax compact flange (VCF) originated as far back as the early 1950s. The
VCF does not principally use seal rings or a gasket, although these can be added if required.
This means that normal installation and assembly of equipment can be easier as components
should slip into place. Since there is no gasket present, the assembly operates in a static
mode. Verax specify that the bolts should be tightened to 80% of the yield strength, so once
assembled and tightened, the bolt loads remain steady and do not change over time when the
pressure is applied. This is not the case with a gasketted joint.
Verax claim that the VCF reduces corrosion in the assembly as neither the flange faces nor the
loaded part of the bolts are exposed to the internal media or external environment. As there is
full metal-to-metal contact, interface corrosion is eliminated.
The VCF system performs well on the failure mode evaluation analysis, and risk of leakage is
minimised with this approach. Annual monitoring of the VCF system is not required and VCF
systems comply with the 4 year schedule in accordance with US-EPA legislation.
The VCF must be handled with care and be assembled correctly. Most VCF joints have a
greater number of smaller bolts than standard flanges. This gives more uniform bolt load
around the circumference and better feel for the operator, but takes more time.
18
In addition, the mating faces must be scratch free. Some minor scratches are permitted, but
since this face is the primary seal, good operator training and installation procedure must be
adopted.
PROPRIETARY CLAMP CONNECTORS
Clamp connectors consist of a pair of hubs for that are welded to the ends of the pipe (similar
to a flange), and a seal ring; but the normal flange bolts are replaced by a clamp set, which
can be rotated around the hubs to suit the most practical position.
There are several designs available, including Grayloc, Taper-Lok, Vector Techlok and Destec.
Clamp connectors are used in a variety of industries, including oil and gas (onshore, offshore
and subsea applications), petro-chemical and power generation.
The advantages include:
Many designs use a reusable seal.
High quality of leak tightness.
Smaller and lighter than conventional flanges.
Only four bolts to tighten, making maintenance simpler and quicker.
No periodic retightening of the bolts is required when the connector is in service.
Disadvantages
Most piping and vessel codes do not give automatic exemption from design calculations.
Can only be joined to another flange of the same type.
Some designs have male and female flanges.
Compared to a standard flange, clamp connectors are significantly lighter and smaller. There
are only four bolts to tighten, making maintenance considerably simpler and quicker. No
periodic retightening of the bolts is required when the connector is in service.
Grayloc
The Grayloc connector has three basic components the metal seal ring, the two hubs and
the clamp assembly.
The metal seal ring achieves a self-energised and pressure-energised bore seal that will hold
vacuum or external pressures. The hubs are welded to the ends of the pipe, and as they are
drawn together by the clamp assembly the seal ring lips deflect against the inner sealing
surface of the hub, forming a self-energising seal. The two piece clamp assembly is the
primary pressure retaining component, not the bolting. The clamp carries all the internal
pressure loads as well as axial and bending loads transmitted by the pipe.
Grayloc is a registered trade mark of Oceaneering International Inc.
Taper-Lok
The Taper-Lok Clamp Connector is similar to the Grayloc connector, but utilises the tapered
sealing ring as fitted to the Taper-Lok compact flange.
Vector Techlok
The Vector Techlok Clamp Connector is similar to the Grayloc connector, and utilises a selfenergised and pressure-energised metal seal ring at the bore of the flange.
Destec G-Range
The Destec G-Range clamp connector is also similar to the Grayloc connector, and utilises a
self-energised and pressure-energised metal seal ring at the bore of the flange.
CUSTOM DESIGNED FLANGES
Custom designed flanges are used when the diameter does not match that of a
standard flange, or when a better optimised design is required. For example, standard ASME
B16.5 flanges generally have a fairly small number of large bolts, rather than a larger number
of smaller bolts. This increases the bolt circle diameter and flange outside diameter, which in
turn increase the bending moment in the flange and hence the flange thickness. The end result
is a flange that is considerably heavier than an optimised design. When expensive alloy
materials are being used this will have significant cost implications.
19
Flange design methods are given in most pressure vessel design codes, such as EN 13445,
ASME VIII and PD 5500. Most of these are based on what is generally known as the Taylor
Forge Method. Alternative design methods are given in the EN 1591 series of standard. These
design methods will be covered by other presentations at this seminar.
Custom designed flanges are commonly used for the girth flanges in shell and tube heat
exchangers, vessels and other pressure equipment where there is a requirement for sections
to be removable.
The advantages of using a custom designed flange are:
Can be designed for the specific design conditions.
Designed for specific flange, bolting and gasket materials.
Usually smaller and lighter than a standard flange.
Disadvantages:
Design calculations must be performed.
Longer delivery time compared with a standard off the shelf flange.
Total cost may be greater than a standard flange.
QUICK RELEASE OPENINGS
Many bolted flanged joints stay in service for long periods (several years) without being
dismantled. Others, such as access openings, may be dismantled and reassembled on a
regular basis, and this will affect the type of flange selected.
One option is to use a design similar to a traditional bolted flange, but with swing bolts or
quick release clamps instead of conventional through bolting.
20
21
22
Gasket Selection
Dr Gavin Smith, Novus Sealing Limited
23
24
GasketSelection
DrGavinSmith,TechnicalDirector
NovusSealingLimited
Toensuresafeoperationofabolted
flangeconnectionthegasketmustbe:
Correctly SELECTED
OftherightQUALITY
ProperlyASSEMBLED
25
Fluid
Temperature
Pressure
Thegasketshouldbesuitableforthe
designoroperatingconditions:
Theprocessfluidattheoperating
temperature
Theoperatingtemperature
Theoperatingpressure
Thereisawealthofdatafromboth
gasketmanufacturersandplant
historyonthecompatibilityof
gasketmaterialswithprocessfluids
However,despiteallthisknowledge
problemsdooccur
Agood(orbad)examplearethe
numerousfailuresofnitrile
elastomersealsthatoccurredonthe
changefromDieseltoBioDiesel
26
FailureofNitrile
GasketsinBioDiesel
Gasketsmaysealwellinitially
butcanfailovertimeat
temperature
CreepandStressRelaxation
Agasketmaysealwell
initiallybutovertimewilllose
loadwhichmayresultin
flangeleakage
Oxidation
Graphitewilloxidiseat
elevatedtemperatureata
ratedeterminedbythe
temperature,theoxygen
concentrationandthequality
27
OxidationofGraphiteinaSpiralWoundGasket
Theresistanceofagasket
materialtotheinternal
pressureisrelatedtoitsability
towithstandtheloadapplied.
GasketStressisthekey
parameter:Definedastheas
thetotalappliedboltload
dividedbythecompressedarea
ofthegasket
Gasketstressdefinestheload
bearingcharacteristicsofthe
gasketandisusedtocalculate
thetorqueappliedtothebolts
duringassembly.
28
Everygaskethasaminimumandmaximumstress
GasketStress
Max
Min
10
11
12
StudNumber
GasketStress
Nonmetallicgasketshavealowminimumandlow
maximumstress
Max
Min
1
10
11
12
StudNumber
29
Metallicgasketshaveahighminimum
andhighmaximumstress
GasketStress
Max
Min
10
11
12
StudNumber
2 FlangeSizebyPressureClass
30
Settingthetargetstress
GasketStress
Max
Target
Stress
Min
10
11
12
StudNumber
Temperatureeffectswillreducethestressonthe
gasketsignificantly(allgasketrelax!)
GasketStress
Max
Target
Stress
Relaxation
Service
Stress
10
11
12
StudNumber
31
Solutionistosetstudloadshighandselecta
gasketwithhighresistancetorelaxation
Max
GasketStress
Target
Stress
Relaxation
Service
Stress
Min
10
11
12
StudNumber
GasketSelectionforHeatExchangers
Thetwomainreasonsflange
connectionsonheatexchangers
leakare:
GasketLoadLossfrom
Relaxation
InabilitytoTolerateRelative
MovementBetweenthe
Flanges
32
DifferentialExpansioninaHeatExchanger
Differential Radial Expansion Of Channel and Shell Flanges, Relative To The Tubesheet, Over
21 Days
0.002
Channel Flange
Shell Flange
10:08
5:08
19:38
0:08
14:38
9:38
4:38
19:08
14:08
9:08
23:38
4:08
18:38
13:38
8:38
23:08
3:38
18:08
13:08
8:08
22:38
3:08
17:38
12:38
7:38
22:08
2:38
17:08
12:08
7:08
21:38
2:08
16:38
11:38
-0.001
21:08
0.001
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
Exchanger Channel Side
Flow Stalls
-0.005
Second Restart of
Exchanger
-0.006
-0.007
Startup Following
A Plant Shutdown
-0.008
-0.009
Normal Operation
For This Exchanger
-0.01
"X" Axis Shows Time With Data Taken Every 30 Minutes
EffectofDifferentialExpansion
DifferentialExpansionleadsto
differentialmovementbetween
thematingflanges
Flangemovementresultsin
shearingofthegasketorleadsto
slippageatthegasket/flange
interface
DoubleJacketedgasketsare
unabletotoleratethismovement
betweentheflanges.
33
FailureofaDoubleJacketedGasket
Graphitefacedgasketsarethebest
solutionforheatexchangerapplications
CorrugatedMetalGasket
CamprofileGasket
SpiralWoundGasket
34
Quality
Oncethegaskethasbeencorrectlyselected
itmustbemanufacturedtothehighest
quality
Unfortunately,failuresdotopoorquality
gasketsremainaproblem
Asanexample,letshavealookatthe
Camprofile.
ThesealingintegrityofaCamprofilerelies
uponprecisestandardsofmachining
35
Therearethreemethodsofmanufacture
Bendandweldpreprofiledstrip
Bendandweldstripandprofile
Lasercutringsandlatheprofile
Failureduetopoorqualityweld
36
Failureduetopoorqualityweld
BendandWeldconstruction.Poor!
37
BendandWeldConstruction
ReallyPoor!!
Weldsmustbemachineddowntothe
sameheightasthemetalcore
FailurePoint
thinnermaterial
andnoserrations
38
Thebestsolutionisnowelds
Allgraphitelooksthesame,butlooks
canbedeceiving!!!
Basicoxidationtestat600C,4hours
39
Butashcontentdoesnotguarantee
oxidationrate
WeightLoss
AshContent
0.8
5
4.5
0.7
4
0.6
A sh content %
W eight Loss %
3.5
0.5
2.5
0.4
0.3
1.5
0.2
1
0.1
0.5
0
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
Sample D
Sample E
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
Sample D
Sample E
Thereliabilityoftheflangedjointdependson
competentcontrolofthejointmakingprocess
Welllubricated
studsandnuts
Controlled
Tightening
Trained
technicians
40
Conclusions
Agasketisarelativelylowcostitembutitiscriticaltothe
safeoperationofanyplant.
Toensuresafeoperationagasketmustbe:
CorrectlySelected
Oftherightquality
ProperlyAssembled
Useyourgasketprovider.Theyhaveawealthofdataand
experiencethatcanensurealeakfree,safeplant.
ContactDetails
DrGavinSmith
TechnicalDirector
NovusSealingLimited
Tel:07785247202
email:gsmith@novussealing.com
41
42
Rod Corbett
43
44
45
46
Good thread fatigue resistance as the most common form of bolt failure is
fatigue.
2.3 Application of high strength bolting
We have mentioned that increased tensile strength enables the use of fewer and
smaller diameter fasteners, resulting in weight reduction.
This is of prime importance in the aerospace industry but is important in other
industries as reduced weight means reduced cost (smaller bolt quantities,
reduced diameters, smaller number of bolt holes, less tightening cycles). This
design concept as also been used in the design of latest technology wellhead
equipment where traditional 8 or 12 bolt flanges have been reduced to four or six
bolts of the same diameter. Whilst alloy steels and super alloys are capable of
developing much higher strength levels, their strength to weight ratio is not as
good as titanium. This advantage along with its excellent corrosion resistance
would seem attractive to the offshore industry but as yet hasnt been used
extensively.
2.3.1 True Strength of bolting
Medium carbon low alloy steels are used for high strength bolting that is used in a
wide range of environmental conditions ranging from the benign to the hostile.
Alloy steel bolting is relatively low cost but has a limited service life.
The increasing demand in most industries for longer service life with reduced
maintenance costs has led to the assessment and use of non-ferrous alloys which
have inherently superior environmental resistance. One design pre-requisite for
the candidate alloy is that it has similar mechanical strength and properties to the
alloy steel.
Many of the new alloy developments are produced with similar UTS and 0.2%
proof stress values to their steel counterparts. 0.2% proof stress is a traditional
bench mark for a bolts yield strength. The following schematic shows typical
stress strain curves for alloy steels and non-ferrous alloys. They may have
similar 0.2% proof stress values but their true elastic limit is significantly
different. With many alloys designed for use in hostile environment it is a fact
that their elastic strength capacity is significantly less than their medium carbon
low alloy steel counterparts. The effective strength reduction can be as much as
30-35% below the 0.2% proof stress value compared with a nominal 12-15%
with alloy steels. Indeed the British Steel Advisory centre has recommended that
engineers use elastic strength assessments based on 60% of the specified 0.2%
proof stress for austenitic stainless alloys.
47
48
Incremental load extensions tests, carried out on M22 all thread and double
ended studs manufactured from the relevant alloys, revealed the following true
elastic limits for various materials.
Alloy
condition
N/mm2
Monel k500
GR MA 18
Ferralium 225
Marinel 21A
-------------
Titanium Beta C
solution treated
0.2% proof
Stress N/mm2
655
649
720
true elastic
limit
475
441
487
834
679
solution treated
830
593
Austenitic Stainless
Work hardened
600
360
49
50
3 Corrosion resistance
Selection here not only depends on required strength but on the service
environment too. Ordinary alloy steel fasteners may be perfectly satisfactory in
certain applications and environments where merely protected by a surface
coating. They can be more cost effective than corrosion resistance materials.
However, let us concentrate on severe conditions where the fastener must have a
long life in a hostile environment.
3.1 The most common group of materials is stainless steels.
As the name implies, these steels are more resistant to rusting and staining than
plain carbon and lower alloy steels. The superior corrosion resistance is brought
about by the addition of chromium.
These are the four basic types:3.1.1 Austenitic stainless
E.g. 18% chromium -12% nickel
This type of material cannot be strengthened by heat treatment. Any strength
this stainless steel has comes from cold work or deformation during its production
cycle e.g. during raw material bar rolling or cold forging and thread rolling. As
indicated previously, their true elastic limit is significantly lower than the
specification stated 0.2% Proof Stress.
3.1.2 Martensitic
These steels are hardenable by heat treatment in the same way as carbon alloy
steels. Strength levels similar to low alloy steels can be achieved up to 1200 MPa
subject to section size. It is worth noting however that these steels are also
prone to lower than expected elastic limits compared to the specification stated
0.2 % Proof stress value.
3.1.3 Precipitation hardening
Precipitation hardening is a heat treatment process similar to hardening and
tempering with low alloy steels. This heat treatment can develop strength levels
as high as 1500 MPa with alloys such as PH13-8Mo and A286. In the offshore
industry the derivative for A286 is B17 or A453 660 grade primarily used for sour
gas applications or where higher strength is needed compared to austenitic
stainless steel.
3.1.4 Ferritic stainless steels
There is no demand for fasteners made from this material, they cannot be heat
treated and tend to be very notch sensitive and have very poor creep strength.
The material is used predominantly in acid handling applications.
The nominal compositions for stainless steels seem similar. However, the alloy
contents in the composition matrix determine whether the stainless steel is
austenitic or martensitic etc. Nickel and Nickel equivalent elements, such as
manganese, promote austenite. Chromium and chromium equivalent elements
such as molybdenum, promote martensite and ferrite type stainless steels.
51
52
53
Typical selection use for low temperature applications range from :Iron based A320 L7(BCC structure),
Austenitic stainless B8, (FCC structure)
A453 660/B17; Nickel based alloys include Inco 718 and Nimonic 80.
Many materials have a limited temperature range usage but the above illustrates
that selection for elevated temperatures features the same alloys for cryogenic
applications. Inco 718, PH138MO, A286, Wasploy and B17 have the advantage
of a wide temperature range. They all show excellent strength and ductility at low
temperatures, and retain tensile strength at their maximum utilisation
temperature. In offshore and energy sectors, alloys such as B8/B17 are used for
high and low temperature service.
54
6 Material Specifications
6.1 Structural Bolting
Most of the high performance structural bolting in industry is specified to a
strength level and is manufactured from medium carbon low alloy steels. In the
main, specifications such as 1SO 898, BS3692 allow the bolt manufacturer to
make the material selection for the strength grade required unless otherwise
stated by the customer. Provided he meets some basic minimum alloying
element requirement, he is supposed to have the experience and knowledge to
make the selection and thereby guarantee the mechanical property specification
e.g. 8.8 or 10.9 etc. The same can be said for SAE J429. A traditional imperial
material specification is BS1768 which also categorises by strength grade. The
DIN Euronorm specification tends to be different and categorises by material with
the material strength grade being determined by the bar stock or bolt diameter in
that material.
6.1.1 Strength.
The all embracing standard is covered by the B7 designation. The ultimate
tensile strength of B7 is regarded as high in energy industry and is a bench mark
for all other types of environmental alloy bolting such as duplex stainless and
cupro-nickel. Compared to structural steels, specifications such as ISO 898 10.9
grade, B7 strength is significantly lower however the lower hardness tends to be
below threshold levels for environmental embrittlement such as SCC and
hydrogen.
Comparative table B& versus 8.8 versus 10.9
B7 is covered by A193 and the similar BS 4882. The material alloy is a medium
carbon low alloy steel containing nominally 1% Chromium and 0.25%
Molybdenum. Both specifications are typified using a constant composition over
the full bolt diameter range. This means for larger diameter bolts, the B7 alloy
has insufficient hardenability to provide constant tensile strength across this
range Table . where the highest entry level B& strength is required on larger
diameters, designers often call for A540 B24. The alloy here is more commonly
known as SAE 4340. It is capable of much higher strengths than B7 and its
chromium, molybdenum and high nickel content of 2% creates deep hardenability
enabling high strength and ductility at the largest bolt diameters.
The A193 and BS 4882 specs extend to an elevated temperature capability
because of the alloy composition. BS 4882 stretches out the use of B7 to approx
450 C and then by adding Vanadium to create B16, the V resists tempering
effects pushing its allowable design usage to 525C. One could argue this is the
materials absolute limit so great care on service longevity and replacement
strategy has to be taken along with assured control on installed design bolt
tension objectives if it is to provide a cost effective bolted joint at these maximum
temperatures.
The B7 designation is mirrored by L7 for low temperature usage. Mechanically
and composition wise they are identical, the only difference being L7 has a low
temperature charpy test requirement. This qualifies it to be used at
temperatures of the order of minus 100C. As with B7, larger diameters have
lower tensile strength because of hardenability constraints.
Once again where there is a requirement for the larger diameters to have the
highest specification strength, L43 (4340) alloy must be used.
55
The increased toughness at through hardened strength from the higher nickel is
especially effective at lower temperatures found in LNG operations for example.
A320 also has some other strange material options including a plain carbon steel
with added Boron for hardenability. Having no experience of such a requirement,
the author can only summise, it is an economy option for high volume, small
diameter bolting on a process site;
6.1.2 Environmental selection - Lower Bolt Strength.
Where medium carbon low alloy steel fasteners are required to operate in
corrosion environments they need to be resistant to embrittlement mechanisms
such as stress corrosion and hydrogen. Immunity can be achieved by reducing
the strength/hardness of the fastener below a threshold value below which the
mechanism will not initiate.
In terms of hydrogen embrittlement and general stress corrosion cracking the
standard B7 strength hardness of the chromium molybdenum alloy is low enough
to ensure these types of failure will not occur. However certain, hostile
environments are such that the strength level has to be reduced to an even lower
threshold. Operating environments with high sulphur/hydrogen sulphide present
are such an example; the failure mechanism in these environments is sulphide
stress cracking. A193 and BS4882 designate the lower strength B7M as the
selection grade for such an environment.
6.1.3 Elevated / High temperature/ cryogenic applications.
Where operating temperatures exceed the absolute maximums for medium
carbon low alloy steels, the use of austenitic and precipitation hardening steel
alloys must be used for resistance to heat , creep and oxidisation and maintain
installed bolt tension/joint compression.
Austenitic stainless steels are designated B8. There are two versions, one high
strength A193 B8 class 2 or BS4882 B8X; the other low strength A193 B8 class I
or BS4882 B8 not X categorised. The lower strength B8, is in the carbide
solution treated condition and has a constant low tensile strength across the full
size range. Because austenitic stainless steels cannot be heat treated to increase
strength, higher strength requirements must come from the cold working and
subsequent deformation induced during fastener manufacture. As with larger
diameter carbon steel bolts having through hardening constraints for a certain
alloy composition, the effect of the cold work/deforming forces go from maximum
at bolt surface layers and steadily reduce the closer you get to the bolt cross
section core. On larger diameters the effect of higher strength surface layers
diminishes in terms of overall tensile strength of the total bolt cross section. BS
4882 illustrates clearly the rapid drop off in tensile strength, particularly the 0.2%
proof stress strength of B8X on bolt diameters in excess of 19mm diameter.
This is especially significant for flange bolting where metallic/semi metallic
gaskets are used. These gaskets require generally higher seating stresses and
subsequent design bolt stress to seal. Reducing proof stress and true elastic limit
potentially 30% below these tabulated values makes strength selection of B8
crucial. The situation becomes even more complex if hydraulic tensioner
tightening is being considered for installation. The hydraulic overload that has to
be applied to compensate for relaxation losses reduces the safety margin on
usable elastic strength or even disqualifies this methodology as bolt yield could be
exceeded.
56
Where gasket seating stress and true elastic limit is an issue, precipitation
hardening steels such as BS4882 B17 need to be considered. This alloy can boost
its strength thru heat treatment so is a natural selection option for higher
performance gasketted flanged joints. The similar ASTM designation is A450 660
grade. These materials also have a higher temperature capability up to 650/675.
For even higher bolt temperatures, high nickel super alloys such as Nimonic 80
and Inco 718 provide high strength with creep and oxidisation resistance in these
severe environments. The BS4882 categorisation for Nimonic bolting, is B80.
For cryogenic applications beyond the capability of medium carbon alloy steels
material selection mirrors that for high temperatures. Alloy selection is the same
and the same limiting strength factors apply in terms of providing the required
level of elastic strength enabling the bolt to deliver the design bolt tension that
assures bolted joint reliability/zero leak performance. Service temperatures down
to minus 200 250C are within these materials ranges for good strength and
ductility/toughness.
7 Summary
Material selection for any bolted application in terms of mechanical properties,
operating environment and service life is straightforward. The complications start
when budgeted cost does not correlate with technical/service specification. The
Offshore industry is notorious for stating extended service life but then being
totally unrealistic in the money it is prepared to spend on the fastener selected to
achieve the requirement. Often one ends up with coated alloy steel bolts being
used, rather than an inherent corrosion resistant bolt, against a 25 year life
expectancy in the splash zone. Similar lack of realism occurs on petrochemical
bolting exposed to high service temperatures and extended periods between
planned outages. Often medium carbon low alloy steel is the final selection when
precipitation hardening stainless bolts should have been used. Generally lower
cost alloy steels can be used in the more hostile environments but planned
maintenance / change out times will be shorter and more frequent. Its all down
to cost and subsequent in service risk.
57
58
Warren Brown
59
60
61
Unfortunately, any such improvements to the ASME method are not likely to be included in the
code updates in the near future, so it is advisable to step outside the standard design and analysis
practices in order to improve on the traditional ASME design method. The following sections will
outline the major areas of improvement that are required, whether there is a plan for inclusion of
them in the ASME code eventually and what can be done in the interim to improve the existing
method.
Required Improvements to the Current ASME Design Method
Inadequate Gasket Design Basis
One of the most significant areas of improvement that has received the bulk of the focus, in
terms of research, over the past 20 years is the need to better determine operating limits for the
gasket and apply that to flange design. The research effort commenced with the realization that
there was no reliable standard method of determining the values of m and y for new gasket
types that are not presently listed in Appendix 2. In addition to the need to determine the
minimum stress required to seal the joint and the minimum seating stress for a given gasket, in
flange design it would also be a significant advantage to know the bounds of application that are
acceptable for a given gasket. These bounds include such aspects as the maximum permissible
gasket stress (versus temperature) and the maximum permissible flange rotation (also versus
temperature). Unfortunately, in spite of the level of research into these topics, there is presently no
standard ASME or ASTM test methods that can be adopted for improving the ASME code and many
of the current international test methods that have already been adopted do not adequately
address the requirement or have inherent problems that make their application questionable.
In addition to the above mentioned improvements, the present m value used in the code
accounts for the required gasket sealing stress during operation and part of the reduction in gasket
load caused by pressure (which is why it is higher for stiffer gaskets). In most cases, the simple
ASME code method using the m value will result in a conservative treatment of the effects of
mechanical interaction in reducing the bolt load as pressure is applied. However, in some cases,
and in particular for large diameter joints with stiffer gaskets, the simple method currently
employed does not adequately cover the effects of mechanical interaction in reducing the gasket
load over and above the amount of the hydrostatic end force. Joints with a larger diameter and
stiffer gaskets will typically see a reduction in bolt load once pressure is applied and this means
that the total gasket load lost is the sum of the hydrostatic end force and the bolt load loss. For
those joints, there is risk that the current ASME method will provide a joint design that is prone to
leakage.
Disconnect Between Design and Operation
One of leading causes of joint leakage in the field is an inadequate initial assembly bolt load. In
many cases, this can be directly traced back to disconnect between the bolt load used for flange
design and the bolt load that must be applied in practice to achieve a leak free joint (typically in
excess of double the design load). Many well meaning engineers have fallen into the trap of
thinking that, because code limits should never be exceeded, the assembly bolt load should be
limited to the code design bolt load. This invariably provides an excellent training lesson for the
engineer in question when practically every joint leaks on start-up. There is no reason why the bolt
load used for flange design must be so low, other than to meet the current expected norms of
pressure vessel design for material stress limits.
62
63
Miscellaneous Improvements
While the following items cause fewer leakage issues, they are relatively easily addressed at the
design stage, and therefore warrant inclusion in this section. In the present ASME VIII, Div. 1,
Appendix 2 design method, there is no procedure outlined to address the effects of external
bending moments or external forces during operation on the integrity of the joint. Once again, if
this operational loading is quantified at the design stage, it is possible to strengthen the flange and
select an appropriate assembly bolt load to ensure that leakage will not occur.
For lower pressure joints, and especially those with very thin gaskets, there is presently no limit
in the Appendix 2 design method for flange bolt hole spacing. There are limits in other codes, such
as ASME III and TEMA, but at present it is possible to design a flange that meets the ASME VIII
code, but has bolt spacing that will result in regions of insufficient gasket stress between bolts,
which may lead to leakage.
For slip-on flanges that are designed to the ASME code, there is a clause that allows them to be
assessed as either integral (shell restrains the hub and the hub is assumed to taper over the hub
height, like a weld neck flange) or loose (shell is not connected to the hub). Obviously the real case
is neither of these and, in fact, using either of the methods can result in much higher stress levels
at the shell to hub junction than for similarly designed weld neck flanges. Additionally, the flange
rotation (and therefore mechanical interaction if calculated) will not be accurate due to the poor
representation of the hub and/or the connection of the hub to the shell.
Proposed ASME Code Revisions
As can be seen in the updated Table 1, the latest version of Appendix BFJ (the intended update
to ASME VIII, Div. 1 Appendix 2) includes most of the additional design improvements listed above
in one form or another. The work is still at an early stage in many cases and requires some
clarification and improvement prior to implementation, but at least the intent is there to make the
improvements. Unfortunately, the fact that the basis for Appendix BFJ is leakage based design,
means that there is little likelihood that it will be approved for publication in the near future and
therefore the other improvements are being held from publication as a consequence. There is a
significant amount of trepidation regarding the use of leakage based flange design among the
ASME code community. Industry experience with the leakage based method present in Appendix
BFJ is the converse of experience with the existing ASME code flange design method; one was
rapidly installed and has remained relatively unchanged for over sixty years, while the other has
been around for almost twenty years and has yet to gain any measurable acceptance within
industry. The reasons for the lack of acceptance of the method are numerous, but unfortunately
there has been little progress in addressing the issues, which undoubtedly points to significant
underlying problems. Even the currently proposed path forward, to include the appendix as an
optional non-mandatory requirement to the code, which would only be performed as a secondary
check to the existing Appendix 2 design, is still unlikely to meet with success. Therefore, in the
near term, designers and end-users will need to look to some of the following non-code methods
outlined in order to improve ASME code joint integrity at the design stage.
Non-Code Improvements to the ASME Design Method
Inadequate Gasket Design Basis
Unfortunately, the first item off the list is one where there really is no good standardized
solution to the problem. Individuals have had much success with the implementation of relatively
simple gasket stress limits (a required seating stress, a minimum stress required during operation
and a maximum permissible gasket stress & rotation). However the method of establishing these
stress limits is non-standard and is usually a combination of both laboratory test results and field
experience (as in Brown [1], for example).
64
The Pressure Vessel Research Council Sealing Reliability Council is presently attempting to
bring together current laboratory methods and end-user experience to establish suitable standard
procedures for determining these values, however as of present none exist.
Equations to include the effects of mechanical interaction on bolt load have been available since
just after the release of the present code method (Wesstrom, et. al. [2]). By incorporating the
equations outlined in that paper, or one of the many subsequent papers written by others using
this method, it is possible to accurately determine the effect of applied pressure on bolt load and,
therefore, on residual gasket stress during operation.
Disconnect Between Design and Operation
The issue of a design bolt load that is significantly less than the bolt load required to seal the
joint is being addressed by post construction documents such as ASME PCC-1 Appendix O
Assembly Bolt Load Selection [3], however it is good practice to think in terms of the actual
assembly load when designing the joint. For example, the original ASME code method did not
include assessment of the tangential stress at the hub to shell junction, because at the design bolt
loads typically used, this stress is always smaller than the other regions (Waters, et. al. [4]).
However, if the flanges are analyzed at normal assembly bolt load levels, then this stress can be
significant and is one of the indicators of an inadequate flange design. In addition, when gasket
stress limits are established by test, then these must be compared to actual expected bolt stress
levels, rather than design stress levels. Therefore, it is generally necessary to either adjust the
acceptable code bolt load and limits or perform a separate assessment after the code design
assessment to account for component limits based on actual bolt load.
Inadequate Joint Design for Integrity
The issues with large diameter low pressure joints are partially resolved by performing the
aforementioned mechanical interaction analysis. The remainder of the issues for those joints and
also for the excessively small and excessively large diameter bolt size joints are resolved by
specifying an acceptable ratio of bolt to gasket area that must be met for flange design. For
example, a suitable area ratio range for common graphite based gaskets used in refining (spiral
wound with inner & outer rings, kamprofile and corrugated) is a gasket area divided by bolt area
ratio of between 2.0 and 1.2, resulting in an assembly gasket stress of between 170 MPa and 240
MPa (25 ksi and 35 ksi) for an assembly bolt stress of 345 MPa (50 ksi). The gasket area should be
based on full width for the perimeter portion and half width for the pass partition portion.
In addition to controlling the relative bolt and gasket area ratios, it is good practice to ensure
that the flange is not the weak component in the joint. This ensures that it will not be possible to
damage the flange during assembly by applying excessive bolt load and it also enables the full
range of bolt stress to be used to seal the joint if it is required. Recent work in determining the
maximum acceptable load that a flange will take, which formed the basis of ASME PCC-1 Appendix
O, has established elastic assessment limits that give an indication of when the flange ring will
undergo gross plastic deformation (have permanent rotational deformation). The work is
summarized in a series of ASME PVP conference papers (Brown et. al. [5] to Brown [7]), however
the limits used in the papers changed with time as the method developed and so an overall
summary of the development is also planned to be published as Welding Research Council Bulletin
528. Using the equations and limits outlined in the papers, it is possible to determine both the
flange strength and the location of the flange weakness, which can be used as a limit during design
for the ensuring the flange is capable of taking, say, >80% of bolt yield. The method can also be
used as a post-construction calculation for the upper limit on assembly bolt load for flanges
designed without this minimum strength requirement.
65
66
Table 1 Comparison of Flange Design Methods (updated WRC Bulletin 514, Table 1)
ASME
VIII,
div.
1,
App 2
TaylorForge
Partial 4
Yes
Yes
Yes
ASME
VIII,
div.
2,
New
Rules 1
TaylorForge
Partial 4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ST/3.5,
Sy/1.5
No
9
ST/4,
Sy/1.5
Simplified
ST/2.4,
Sy/1.5
Yes 8
ST/4,
Sy/1.5
Simplified
Yes
ASME
Append.
BFJ 2
EN1344
53:2002,
Sect. 11
EN1591:2
001 3
TaylorForge
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TaylorForge
Partial 4
Yes
TGL
32903/13
Yes
Partial 5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TBD6
TBD6
TBD6
Simplified
Partial
ST/2.4, 7
Sy/1.5
No
ST/4,
Sy/3 10
Simplified
Yes
Yes
ST/2.4,
Sy/1.5
Yes (?)
ST/2.4,
Sy/1.5
Calculate
Partial 11
Partial12
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
12
Yes
Yes
67
References
[1] Brown W., Ryan S., McKenzie, W., 2007, Obtaining Leak-Free Bolted Joint Operation By
Returning to Basics National Petroleum Refiners Association Conference, Houston, Texas
[2] Wesstrom, D.B., Bergh, S.E., 1951, Effect of Internal Pressure on Stresses and Strains in
Bolted-Flange Connections, Transactions of ASME, 73, n.5, pp 508-568, ASME, NY, USA
[3] ASME PCC-1 Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Joint Assembly, 2010, ASME NY, USA
[4] Waters, E.O., Rossheim, D.B., Wesstrom, D.B., Williams, F.S.G., 1949, Development of
General Formulas For Bolted Flanges, Taylor-Forge & Pipe Works, Southfield, Michigan, Reprinted
by the PVRC in 1979.
[5] Brown, W., Reeves, D., 2006, Considerations for Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress
For Piping Flanges, Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2006, ASME, Vancouver, Canada, PVP2006ICPVT11-93094
[6] Brown, W., Reeves, D.., 2007, An Update on Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress For
Piping Flanges, Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2007, ASME, San Antonio, Texas, PVP2007-26649
[7] Brown, W., 2008, Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress: Influence of Flange Material
on Flange Load Limit, ASME PVP Conference, Chicago, IL, PVP2008-61709
[8] Brown, W., 2006, Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Bolted Joints, Welding Research
Council Bulletin 510
[9] Brown, W., 2010, High Temperature Flange Design, ASME-LLC, Project #3036, ASME, NY
[10] Koves, W.J., 2007, Flange Joint Bolt Spacing Requirements, Proceedings of the ASME PVP
2007, ASME, San Antonio, Texas, PVP2007-26089
[11] Brown, W., 2008, Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress Flange Limitations: Flange
Type, Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2008, ASME, Chicago, Illinois, PVP2008-61708
68
Overview of
Developments in EN
1591
Manfred Schaaf, AMTEC Services GmbH
Manfred Schaaf
69
70
Overview of Developments
in EN 1591
Manfred Schaaf
Content
CEN TC 74 Flanges and their joints
EN 1591 Part 1 to 5
Status quo
Latest developments
Future work items
71
CEN TC 74
H. Kockelmann
CEN/TC 74/WG 2
Steel flanges
H.-D. Engelhardt
CEN/TC 74/WG 3
A. Percebois
CEN/TC 74/WG 8
Gaskets
J. Hoyes
CEN/TC 74/WG 10
Calculation Methods
G. Taylor
72
EN 1591 Rules
EN 1591
Flanges and their joints - Design rules
for gasketed circular flange connections
EN 1591-1
CEN/TS 1591-3
prCEN/TR 1591-5
Calculation method
Calculation method
"Metal-to-metal contact"
Calculation method
"Full face gaskets"
EN 1591-2
CEN/TS 1591-4
Gasket parameters
Qualification of
personnel competency
73
EN 1591-1: Specifics
74
EN 1591-1: Amendment A1
DIN 28090-1
pr EN13555
Gasket Characteristic
VU/L
QMIN(L)
BU/L
QSMIN(L)
VO
QSMAX(RT)
BO
QSMAX
ED
E0E, GKI
modulus of elasticity
hD
gPCQR
Creep-relaxation factor
gasket characteristics
(prEN 13555 - draft 2001)
Testing Equipment
TEMES
fl.ai1
TEMES
fl.relax
Amendment
EN 1591-1: Amendment A1
DIN 28090-1
EN13555
Gasket Characteristic
VU/L
QMIN(L)
BU/L
QSMIN(L)
VO
QSMAX(RT)
BO
QSMAX
ED
EG
modulus of elasticity
hD
PQR
Creep-relaxation factor
gasket characteristics
(EN 13555 2004)
Testing Equipment
TEMES
fl.ai1
TEMES
fl.relax
Amendment
75
EN 1591-1: JWG
TC
EN
Chapter / Annex
Remarks
CEN/TC 74
Flanges and their joints
EN 1591-1+A1
CEN/TC 54
Unfired pressure vessles
EN 13445-3
Chapter 11
Taylor Forge
Annex GA
Annex D
Taylor Forge
Annex P
EN 1591-1
+ tables with gasket parameters
CEN/TC 267
Industrial piping and pipelines
EN 13480-3
CEN/TC 269
Shell and water-tube boilers
EN 12953-3
Chapter 9.3
"in accordance to
European Standards."
CEN/TC 69
Industrial valves
EN 12516-2
Chapter 10
EN 1591-1
or EN 13445-3
76
77
EN 1591-2: Example 1
EN 1591-2: Example 2
78
Calculation in 4 steps:
determination of the bolt tightening to reach the MMC
determination of the bolt tightening to maintain the MMC in
all the calculation situations
check of the admissibility of the leak-rate
check of the admissibility of the load ratio
79
80
81
82
83
Contact Data
For more detailed information, please contact us:
84
Failure Mechanisms of
Bolted Joints
- Bolting Aspects
Bill Eccles, Bolt Science Limited
85
86
87
Self-loosening is when the fastener rotates under the action of external loading. Flanged joints
are largely exposed to axial loading. Although research indicates that some degree of slight
loosening can result from axial loading, self-loosening of fasteners is usually as a result of
transverse joint movement, illustrated in figure 1.
Such transverse movement is undesirable for a flanged joint for several reasons. In the
presentation a failure involving the self-loosening of nuts of a flanged joint on a pressure
vessel containing an agitator assembly is discussed.
3. TENSILE OVERLOAD
On conventional flanged joints the load increase experienced by the bolts can be significant.
On a solid joint typical, the joint is relatively 'hard'. That is, the stiffness of the bolt is usually
significantly lower than the joint stiffness. Figure 2 shows a joint diagram illustrating this
condition. The proportion of the force that is applied to the joint which the bolt sustains
depends upon the relative stiffness of the bolt to the clamped material. With a 'hard' joint, the
bolt stiffness is low when compared with the stiffness of the joint. In such circumstances the
increase in the bolt loading when an external force is applied to the joint is relatively small.
88
One consequence of this is that the bolt cannot be tightened near to yield since there is the
risk that the bolt would be overloaded when the external load is applied. Typical target tensile
prestress values for bolts used in flanged joints is 50% of the minimum yield strength. With a
solid ('hard') joint, the target tensile prestress is more typically around 75% of the minimum
yield strength. One consequence of this is that if the wrong bolt material is used on flanged
joints it may only be revealed either during a pressure test or in service. On a solid joint, prestressed to a higher value, defective bolt material is more likely to fail at the time of assembly
and hence more easily detectable. Mentioned in the presentation are details of an accident due
to the bolts being overloaded during a pressure test on a flange.
4. FATIGUE FAILURE
Fatigue is often quoted as the commonest reason for bolts to fail in service. It is well known
that a part subjected to a varying load will fail at a significantly lower loading than one that
has been statically loaded. Fatigue is a progressive cracking of a part under the action of
alternating forces. Fatigue failure can take from thousands to millions of load cycles to occur,
dependent upon the stress level in the part.
It is well known that as the alternating stress increases, the number of cycles to failure
decreases. This is represented by an S/N diagram as shown in figure 4. The S stands for stress
and the N for the number of cycles. Most materials exhibit a knee in the S/N diagram. Beyond
this knee failure will not occur no matter how great the number of cycles. The strength
corresponding to this point is known as the endurance limit.
Possibly the most devastating engineering failure of 2009 occurred as a result of bolt fatigue at
the SayanoShushenskaya hydroelectric power station in central Russia on the 17 August. The
securing bolts on one of the turbine rotors failed resulting in water pressure lifting the 1650
tonne rotor into the turbine hall. This caused flooding of the turbine and engine rooms and a
transformer explosion leading to the deaths of 75 people. A report released on the 21
December 2009 by a Russian parliamentary commission found that the failure was due to
fatigue cracking in the 80 mm diameter bolts. Of the 80 bolts securing the turbine cover, at
least 6 bolts had missing nuts and 41 had fatigue cracks.
5. THREAD STRIPPING
Nut thickness standards have been drawn up on the basis that the bolt will always sustain
tensile fracture before the nut will strip. If the bolt breaks on tightening, it is obvious that a
replacement is required. Thread stripping tends to be gradual in nature. If the thread stripping
mode can occur, assemblies may enter into service which are partially failed, this may have
disastrous consequences. Hence, the potential of thread stripping of both the internal and
external threads must be avoided if a reliable design is to be achieved. When specifying nuts
and bolts it must always be ensured that the appropriate grade of nut is matched to the bolt
grade.
89
In order to satisfy the above requirement when applied to tapped holes, the length of thread
engagement required depends upon the relative strength of the threads. Rule of thumb is that
when both male and female threads are of similar strength then a length of engagement equal
to the diameter of the thread is usually required. For tapped holes in weaker materials longer
lengths of engagements are needed - depending exactly of the relative strengths.
One of the issues with thread stripping is that it is not obvious that it has occurred. Figure 5
illustrates what happen to the preload when thread stripping occurs. The nut stops in place but
retains only a minimal preload.
To illustrate the possible consequences of thread stripping, mention in the presentation will be
made of an accident that occurred on the USS Iwo Jima in the early 1990's. On October 30,
1990, the USS Iwo Jima experienced a catastrophic boiler accident whilst leaving Manama
harbour in Bahrain. A valve failed resulting in large amounts of steam from both the ship's
boilers being dumped into the boiler room. The valve controlled steam at a pressure of 40 bar
and 450 C. All ten people that were in the room at the time of the accident were killed. The
cause of the accident was attributed to the fitment of incorrect nuts.
90
Flexitallic
91
92
93
94
European Emissions
Legislation
Dr Brian Ellis, European Sealing Association
Dr Brian S. Ellis
95
96
European
Emission Legislation
Dr Brian S Ellis
Acronyms!
ESA ..
IPPC .
BAT ..
BREF
IPPC IEF
PED
97
Contents
Development of European environmental legislation
- types of EU legislation
IPPC
- Directive basics
- BAT
- BREF notes
Conclusions
Development of European
environmental legislation
140
120
Item s adopted
100
80
60
40
20
99
97
95
93
91
89
85
87
83
81
79
77
75
73
71
68
67
98
Development of European
environmental legislation - 2
European
Commission
Legislation
proposed
Council of
Ministers
Refinements
proposed
Opinion
sought
European
Parliament
Refinements
proposed
Member
States
Types of EU legislation
Regulation
Directive
Decision
Recommendation
Opinion
99
Key legislation
TA-Luft (D)
Integrated Pollution Control (UK)
VDI various (D) guidelines
UK
etc ..
European
Commission
/ Parliament
/ Council of
Ministers
EU Member
States
100
UK
IPC
TA-Luft
etc ..
VDI
guidelines
IPPC - 1
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC
(IPPC))
Directive 96/61 adopted in 1996
compliance for new plants required by end October 1999
compliance for existing plants by end October 2007
framework measure - provides for common EU emission
limits to be adopted subsequently
integrated approach for a potential pollutant across all media
which might be affected
101
IPPC - 2
applies to 6 categories of industry:
- chemicals
- energy
- production and processing of metals
- minerals
- waste management
- other
other
specific obligations on operators
- take all appropriate preventative measures against pollution
- ensure no significant pollution is caused
- avoid waste production
- recover waste produced or dispose of safely
- use energy efficiently
- take necessary measures to prevent accidents
- protect and clean up site upon cessation of industrial activity
IPPC - 3
identifies certain priority polluting substances, including:
- arsenic and its compounds
- asbestos
- carbon monoxide
- chlorine, fluorine and their compounds
- cyanides
- metals and their compounds
- nitrogen oxides and other nitrogen compounds
- organoorgano-halogen compounds
- organoorgano-phosphorus compounds
- organoorgano-tin compounds
- substances and preparations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic
or which may affect reproduction
- sulphur dioxide and other sulphur compounds
- volatile organic compounds (VOC
(VOCs)
102
IPPC - 4
each facility is subject to authorisation through permitting
emission limit and permits based upon Best Available
Techniques (BAT)
BAT)
BAT must consider:
- economic and technical viability
- use of lowlow-waste technology
- use of less hazardous substances
- improvements in recovery and recycling
- consumption of raw materials and water
- energy efficiency
- technical characteristics of the installation
- geographical location
- local environmental conditions
IPPC - 5
BAT interpretation will result in differences across EU
hence, requirement for exchange of information on national
assessments of BAT and emission limits
provides the basis for the publication of BAT Reference
(BREF)
BREF) notes
European IPPC Bureau established to publish BREF notes
IPPC Information Exchange Forum (IEF
(IEF)) established to
develop and review BREF notes
103
Emission monitoring
Energy efficiency
104
ESA contribution
Emission monitoring
Energy efficiency
Sealing Technology
105
IPPC Solvent
(VOC)
emissions
Emissions
from
industrial
plants
Large
combustion
plants
Waste
etc
incineration
ESA contribution - 2
Specifically of relevance to bolted flange
connections:
ESA developing programme to revise PED
aim to have bolted flange connections considered an
essential feature
feature
relevant CEN standards would be harmonised
harmonised
would encourage fitters / installers to be suitably
qualified (similar to requirement for welders)
106
Conclusions
Development of European emission legislation
Types of European legislation
Relationship between CommunityCommunity-wide and national legislation
Key elements of European emission legislation
IPPC Directive
Current developments in European emission legislation
ESA Sealing Technology BAT guidance note
- available for download from www.europeansealing.com
ESA developing programme to revise PED
www.europeansealing.com
107
Executive Committee
Elastomeric
& Polymeric
Seals
Division
Expansion
Joints
Division
Flange
Gaskets
Division
Mechanical
Seals
Division
Packings
Division
108
Sustainable development
Industry must reduce its overall emissions
A large proportion of
emissions are those
anticipated from industrial
processes
Fugitive emissions
Some emissions occur
through unanticipated leaks
in process systems .
.usually referred to as
fugitive emissions
109
Fugitive emissions
- the cost Iceberg
Visible costs
Invisible costs
Lost material
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
110
Rod Corbett
111
112
113
114
Management of Integrity of
Bolted Joints for
Pressurised Systems
Robert Noble, Hydratight
Robert Noble
115
116
Robert Noble
Technical Services
Leader Hydratight
Bolted Joint
Material
Control
Material
Control
Coded
Welder
Competent
Personnel
Documented
Procedure
Documented
Procedure
NDT
Verification
Hydrotested
Hydrotested
Integrity
tested
Records
In Service Inspection
Permanent joint
Records
Subject to Breakout
117
Just Nuts
and Bolts!
Gasket not on
compression
stop
My Arms
are
calibrated!
Gasket on
compression
stop
Flanges rotating
due to over
tightening
Lubrication
Green Tag
Leak Test
Passed!
Phase 1
No System
Phase 2
JDMS Used
Phase 3
JDMS Used
%Reduction in leaks
75%
75%
118
5%
4.80%
4.30%
4%
2.85%
3%
2.65%
2%
1.55%
1%
0.70%
0.52%
0%
% Leaks 2002 % Leaks 2003 % Leaks 2004 % Leaks 2005 % Leaks 2006 % Leaks 2007 % Leaks 2008
YTD
2002
2007
119
Ownership
Appoint a Champion
120
Establish Standards
Criticality Assessment
The range of services,
pressures and conditions
which bolted joints
experience varies
considerably. Each joint
should undergo a criticality
assessment which will
determine the levels of
inspection, assembly
control, tightening
technique, testing,
assurance and in-service
inspection relevant to the
joint.
Assess
Leak Potential
Service Fluid
Loss Potential
Local factors
Determine
Criticality Rating
Low
Med
High
Control
Competence
Witness
Integrity Test
Method
Verify
Inspect
121
122
In-service Inspection
In-service inspection of
bolted joints is an integral
activity to ensure the
continued integrity of the
joints and as such should be
built in to all relevant
inspection programmes.
This section looks at the
possible damage that can
occur, the inspection
methods available for
detection of defects and
mitigation measures that
can be put in place to
minimise such degradation.
Management of Leaks
The objective of a
correctly designed and
installed bolted joint is to
provide a long-term tight
seal and prevent ingress
or egress of fluids
through the joint.
However, leaks can
occur and managing the
investigation and repair
of the leak is essential to
avoid recurrence. It can
also provide useful data
for prevention on other
projects.
123
Analyse
Bolt Stress Relaxation from BS4882:1973 - Fig 9
1
100%
.res.B7
0.75
.res.B16
.res.B8
0.5
.res.B8M
0.25
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
800
Improve
Summary
A Management system is critical
Cover all of the elements
Appoint a champion
Apply Standards and Procedures
Assess criticality
Trained and competent people are key
Maintain a record and tagging system
Inspect joints and manage leaks
Analyse and Improve.
Copies of EI Guidelines available at
www.energypublishing.org
124
Warren Brown
125
126
127
The second change made to this section was the inclusion of a requirement to remove any
flange paint or coating from the nut seating surfaces when the paint or coating thickness exceeds
0.13mm (0.005 inches). This requirement was based on industry experience with joint leakage in
an offshore platform environment where the paint on standard flanges was excessively thick, led to
additional bolt load relaxation and contributed to joint leakage. The thickness limit guidance was
chosen to be an indication that a relatively thin layer of paint does not seem to affect joint
performance (as most standard flanges are supplied with some form of protective coating), but
that more than a thin layer is likely to lead to leakage and should be removed prior to joint
assembly. The third change is guidance that the machining of large diameter bolts for
reconditioning the threads is the preferred method. However, this will involve material removal
and, therefore, a finite life for the bolt. Periodic replacement of the bolts should be planned if
multiple reconditioning procedures are required on the same bolt.
In section 6.0 Installation of Gasket, commentary has been added to recommend that gaskets
are not re-used. This inclusion was made based on field experience with joint leakage or flange
facing damage where gaskets, in particular RTJ gaskets, are reused. Most gaskets are designed to
plastically deform in order to obtain a seal. This results in a reused gasket being harder than a new
gasket, which means that higher assembly bolt loads are required to obtain a seal, the gasket will
not seal as effectively, and damage to the flange facing may occur during assembly. An exception
to this recommendation is mentioned and that is the re-use of the metal core in grooved metal
gaskets with soft facing (kamprofile gaskets). For these gaskets, it has been shown that it is
possible to recondition them with a new facing layer and successfully reuse them in the same joint.
Table 1M and Table 1 were included in the first version of the document to be used as the basis
for establishing the required assembly torque value by multiplying the listed torque value with the
desired assembly bolt stress divided by the table reference bolt stress (345 MPa, 50ksi). However,
it was common practice within industry to quote these tables as PCC-1 recommending 50ksi as an
appropriate assembly bolt stress level. In fact, this was never the intent and so steps were taken in
the revised document to clarify this. The steps included changes to the table titles to include the
words Reference Values for Calculating, some updates to the wording on how to apply the
tables and also the inclusion of a new appendix, which outlines methods for determining the
required assembly bolt stress.
Section 7.0 Lubrication of Working Surfaces was updated to include a recommendation that
bolts be checked for free-running nuts during the bolt lubrication stage of assembly. This
requirement was introduced based on field and laboratory experience which indicated that
relatively small imperfections on the bolt or nut thread can have a significant impact on the
obtained bolt load when tightening the joint using torque or tension techniques.
In section 13.0 Joint Pressure and Tightness Testing, a caution has been added with regard to
the use of temporary gaskets during pressure and tightness testing (gaskets for which the joint
was not designed). This caution is based on industry experience where temporary gaskets have
blown out during pressure and tightness testing and caused personnel injury and fatality.
Appendix A: Training, Qualification and Certification of Joint Assembly Personnel
The lack of standardized qualifications for bolted joint assemblers has been identified as an
issue by many in industry and is a leading cause of joint leakage due to poor assembly practices.
In an effort to improve the status-quo, a significant revision to the existing PCC-1 Appendix A was
drafted. The new appendix outlines the requirements for a certification entity to create and
administer a training and assessment program for bolted joint assemblers that provides
certification of the assembler.
128
The appendix contains requirements for the minimum course content that must be taught in the
theoretical portion, requirements for a series of practical demonstrations, a practical assembly
exam that must be administered, requirements for maintenance of the certification and the
requirements for the certification entity to establish and maintain their ASME accreditation in order
to supply the certified assessment program. The appendix has three levels of assembler
qualification: Certified Bolting Specialist, Certified Senior Bolting Specialist and Certified Bolting
Specialist Instructor. Initial review of the available draft of PrEN/TS 1591-4 was conducted at the
start of preparation of PCC-1 Appendix A and alignment was sought in overall format and context
for the general requirements. In this way, it is hoped that the two certification requirements will be
compatible in such a manner that it will be possible to have one training and assessment system
that achieves both qualifications. One of the main differences between the two documents is that
the training curriculum and practical demonstrations are outlined in greater detail in PCC-1
Appendix A.
The new version of Appendix A will not be issued with the main document when it is published
in March 2010. This is due to the need approve and create the body within ASME that will
administer the program once published. The appendix will be on hold until this has been done and
will be released as an update via web page link to users of PCC-1 once everything is in place.
Appendix D: Guidelines for Allowable Gasket Contact Surface Flatness and Defect Depth
Previous industry guidelines for flange face flatness were based on manufacturing tolerances
and often did not reflect what was practical to achieve in the field. The guidelines also did not
address acceptable levels of minor local imperfection in the flange facing (pits, gouges and
scratches). In addition, the acceptable imperfections in the flange facing are dependent on the type
of gasket being employed. In terms of the flange flatness, which defines the amount of variation
that will be seen in gasket compression, the new limits in PCC-1 were set based on the amount of
compression that the gasket is subject to during assembly. Typical soft gaskets will compress in
excess of 1mm (0.04 inches) and therefore are much more tolerant of flange face flatness variation
than harder gasket types that compress much less than this amount. The amount of gasket
compression stress lost due to flange flatness out-of-tolerance will be proportional to the variation
divided by the gasket assembly deflection, so the tolerances specified in the appendix are varied
depending on whether a hard or soft gasket is employed. The caution is also made that a soft
gasket material (PTFE for example) may not exhibit soft behavior when applied as a thin gasket.
The flatness tolerances are related to separate radial and circumferential acceptance limits and
when these are combined the acceptable level of variation can be two to three times that of
existing flange fabrication flatness guidelines.
A note is also made regarding the acceptability of complementary distortion of mating flanges,
such as often occurs in shell and tube exchanger joints. For those, or similar joints, the orientation
of the flanges is fixed by pass partitions or nozzle locations and it is possible to have thermally
induced distortion on one flange that follows the other flange and does not therefore reduce the
joint integrity. In those cases, it is acceptable to apply the flatness tolerances to the gap between
the flanges, rather than for each flange independently. In addition, there is now a tolerance noted
for the acceptable height difference for pass partitions on exchanger flanges to ensure both that it
is not under or over compressing the gasket at that location. This requirement is based on
experience where neglecting to specify this value leads to machining only of the periphery of the
gasket, leaving the pass partition proud of the main seating surface, which often results in joint
leakage.
129
A second set of guidance is listed in the appendix for acceptable levels of local flange facing
imperfections (pits, gouges, scratches,). Once again, the acceptable levels are outlined relative to
the gasket material. Harder facing materials (steel, for example) will not conform to the
imperfection and will, therefore, be more sensitive to imperfections than gaskets that have a softer
facing material. The limits include assessment of closely-spaced imperfections and have acceptable
depth tolerances that are dependent on the type of gasket employed and the distance the
imperfection extends radially across the flange seating surface. The intent is that these limits can
be employed by an inspector to assess the flange facing condition as part of the standard
equipment inspection process and only if the noted damage falls outside of the listed limitations will
the joint be flagged for engineering inspection.
Appendix E: Flange Joint Alignment Guidelines
Previous flanged joint alignment guidelines were primarily obtained from fabrication
specifications (ASME B31.3, for example) and did not address the fact that the initial alignment
was not as critical as the inter-relationship between the initial alignment and the force required to
bring the joint into perfect alignment (system stiffness). The alignment guidelines for PCC-1 were
completely re-written to focus on geometry limits for alignment coupled with applied alignment
force limits. The new limits address the maximum acceptable load to bring the joint into alignment
in terms of the specified assembly bolt load. The acceptable load to bring the flanges parallel
(angular misalignment) is listed as a maximum of 10% of the specified bolt load for any bolt. The
maximum load to close an excessive axial gap between flanges is also a total of 10% of the
specified bolt load, with a maximum individual load of 20% for any given bolt allowed for the
combined limit. Simple figures illustrating the different types of misalignment have been added to
clarify the listed tolerances. Additional considerations, such as the importance of joint alignment
load on rotating equipment to avoid affecting shaft alignment and limits for when the assembler
must seek engineering guidance if alignment forces are excessive are also included.
Appendix F: Alternative Flange Bolt Assembly Patterns
The original version of PCC-1 contained a bolt assembly pattern and procedure that involved
tightening in a pattern pass at three different levels of assembly bolt load, completing a final
circular pass and then an optional additional circular pass four hours afterwards. This method has
been retained in the document for continuity and is referred to as the Legacy method. However,
since the initial release of PCC-1, considerable effort in research has gone into proving that faster
methods of assembly can be used that will achieve equal or better joint integrity. The theory
behind these improvements is based on using an appropriate pattern for the gasket being
employed and by increasing the bolt load at a much more rapid rate than the Legacy method.
Increasing the bolt load more rapidly is applicable to all gasket types. It reduces the number of
pattern passes required before proceeding to circular passes and generally results in a higher
average gasket stress being achieved prior to commencing the circular passes. If the gasket stress
is higher when the circular passes are commenced, the final compression on the gasket will be
more uniform. The relationship between the gasket type and the assembly pattern is determined
by how stiff the gasket is (how much compression occurs during assembly). For gaskets with
relatively little compression (kamprofile gaskets for example) it has been proven that a pattern
pass is not required and all that must be done is to tighten four opposing bolts in sequence to
ensure that the joint has initial alignment prior to proceeding to tighten the remaining bolts in a
circular fashion.
130
In addition, pattern passes using multiple tools have been included in the appendix in order to
reflect this common industry practice. All of the new pattern passes do not include the optional
final pass after a 4 hour wait and all include the additional instruction to continue tightening the
bolts until they no longer turn for the final pass. There are three new patterns introduced for single
tool application and two patterns for multi-tool. The single tool patterns include:
Modified Legacy Pattern: Similar to the Legacy pattern, but with bolt load increased to
the next level after every 4 bolts tightened, rather than after a full pattern pass. The
pattern includes one or two pattern passes (second optional, depending on gasket type)
and then a final circular pass until no nut turns.
Quadrant Pattern: Similar in configuration to the Modified Legacy, except the bolts do
not require numbering as, instead of using a cross-pattern for tightening the bolts, the
joint is divided into quadrants and the next bolt in each quadrant is tightened in order.
Bolt numbering is not required, as the next loose bolt in the next quadrant is always the
bolt that must be tightened. Two patterns are presented, one for flanges with 16 bolts,
where opposite quadrants are tightened successively and one for joints with > 16 bolts
where the next quadrant in a circular order is tightened.
Four-Bolt pattern: similar to the modified Legacy, except only four opposing bolts are
tightened in sequence and then a circular pattern is commenced.
The multi-tool patterns are similar to the Modified Legacy pattern and the Four-Bolt pattern. In
addition, the appendix contains guidelines for suitable measures for assessing the efficacy of other
alternative tightening patterns/procedures that are not included in PCC-1.
Appendix M: Hardened Washer Usage Guideline and Purchase Specification
The existing specification often referenced for through-hardened washers is ASTM F436, which
is actually a structural washer specification. That specification did not include higher alloy materials
and the washer outer diameters were in excess of common flange spot-face diameters used at the
nut contact surface. This resulted in the washer bridging the spot face, creating an undesirable
bending of the washer during assembly. The new PCC-1 Appendix M was written with the intent to
rectify these two issues and also to provide guidance on the service limits for the different
materials listed for washer manufacture. The service limits are based on single use (where
softening during operation will be acceptable, since they will not be reused) and multiple use
(where softening is not desirable). The service temperature limits outlined in the appendix are
based on metallurgical behavior for multiple usage and service experience for the single use limits.
The four materials listed in the appendix are intended to match commonly applied bolt materials
and significant effort was made to ensure that the washer thickness and material specification
resulted in washers that could be easily manufactured. The intent is for this appendix to eventually
be replaced by an ASTM specification, which is an effort that is already underway.
Appendix N: Reuse of Bolts
In many common joint sizes, it is practical to replace the bolting at every assembly in order to
maximize the chances of joint integrity. However, there is often a cost barrier that prevents this
from occurring. Appendix N has been written to ensure that more than cursory consideration of the
bolt material cost is assessed when making the decision. The cost of the new bolting material is
offset by the cost of reconditioning the old bolts and also the benefit to accuracy in achieved bolt
preload with new bolts. Guidelines are given as to when to re-use and when to replace bolts. In
addition, there is commentary on the appropriate methods for reconditioning bolts.
131
132
Conclusions
The ASME PCC-1:2010 version represents a step change in the level of detail provided for
guidance on bolted joint assembly and will represent a significant body of work for the international
improvement of bolted flanged joint integrity.
The undertaking and commitment by the committee members (listed following) was significant;
however it is believed that the benefit to industry from this revision will be commensurate.
Chair:
Mr. Clyde Neely (Becht Engineering Co., Inc.)
Members:
Mr. Joseph Barron (Northrup Grumman Newport News)
Dr. Warren Brown (Equity Engineering Group)
Mr. Edward Hayman (Superior Plant Services)
Mr. David Lay (Hytorc)
Mr. Gary Milne (Hydratight)
Mr. James Payne (JPAC, Inc.)
Mr. Clay Rodery (BP North American Products, Inc.)
Mr. Jerry Waterland (Virginia Sealing Products, Inc.)
133
134
Qualification of Personnel
Competency
DD CEN/TS 1591-4
John Hoyes, Flexitallic Ltd
J. R. Hoyes of Flexitallic
135
136
John Hoyes
Flexitallic
Sections of Presentation
Background Considerations
CEN Standardisation
Harmonisation with PED
137
Background Considerations
138
Objective
To Raise the Status, in the
context of the PED , of a Joint
Assembly Technician to that of a
Welder responsible for the welds
of the flanges being sealed
139
140
Competency Assessment
Systems Added to Training
Courses for North Sea
Technicians
Outcome was a Significant
Reduction in Incident Rate
CEN Standardisation
141
TC 74 WG 10 Calculation
Methods
Convenor, Robert Noble, Hydratight
TC 74 WG 8 Gaskets
Convenor, John Hoyes, Flexitallic
142
143
144
TS 1591 Part 4
Intended to be an Umbrella
Document Augmenting Current
Training Schemes by Adding
Competency Assessment
145
3 Months
6 Months
12 Months
Method of Competency
Assessment
Theoretical Question Paper
Practical Assessment during typical
Simulated on site assembly
Documented Work Place Evidence
146
Decision Taken by TC 74 to
Upgrade TS 1591 Part 4 to be a
Full EN Standard
This follows both the natural intended
path for a TS and the German chemical
industry view that a full EN is more likely
to be adopted
147
148
THANK YOU
149
150
A regulatory perspective on
bolted joints at high hazard
sites
Iain Paterson, HSE Offshore Division
151
152
153
The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 address the design and initial integrity of new
plant both onshore and on fixed offshore installations. Examples are given in the
presentation showing poor practice on new equipment including;
In the offshore sector, industry and HSE are working to reduce the number of
hydrocarbon leaks. Duty holders formally report all of their leaks to HSE and these are
stored in a database. HSE research report RR672 summarises the statistics from HSEs
offshore hydrocarbon release database. Over the eight year period 2001 to 2008, there
were a total of 579 major and significant hydrocarbon releases, decreasing from 110
such releases in 2001 to 60 in 2008. RR672 indicates that major and significant leaks
occur most often at: piping (21%), instruments (18%), and flanged joints (10%).
However, its difficult to pin point exactly what proportion of hydrocarbon leaks occur at
flanges.
A study looking at gas leaks greater than 25 kg (a substantial release that would have
serious implications if ignited) revealed that instruments, piping, flanges and valves are
the priority areas where industry and the regulator need to focus our attention. HSE
uses evidence such as this to inform our inspection priorities.
Typically, HSE interventions to inspect the integrity of the hydrocarbon containment
plant are based on our loss of containment manual that is publically available on our web
site. It addresses several key risk areas including bolted joints, leaks from small bore
fittings, and vibration induced fatigue failure of small bore piping connections. For
bolted joints, we use the Energy Institute guidelines as a model of good practice.
Bolted joints can be safety critical parts of the high hazard process plant and that their
integrity must be effectively managed throughout their life time.
154
155
156
A regulatory perspective
on bolted joints at high
hazard sites
Iain Paterson CEng MIMechE
Team Leader, Mechanical Engineering
HSE, Offshore Division
157
158
159
Initial integrity
Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999
(applies to new equipment onshore and offshore)
Missing bolts
Initial integrity ?
160
In-service integrity
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regs 1998
Regulation 6: Inspection
(2) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment
exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable
to result in dangerous situations is inspected (a) at suitable intervals; and
(b) each time that exceptional circumstances which are
liable to jeopardise the safety of the work equipment have
occurred,
to ensure that health and safety conditions are maintained
and that any deterioration can be detected and remedied in
good time.
In-service integrity ?
161
162
126/595
21%
Instruments 107/595
18%
Flanges
10%
59/595
163
Flanges
2008-9
2007-8
2006-7
2005-6
Not specified
www.hse.gov.uk/research/rr672
Risers
Turbine
Pump
Storage Tanks
Piping
Pressure Vessel
Pig Launchers
Instruments
Flange
Heat Exchanger
Drain
Filters
2004-5
Compressors
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003-4
2002-3
2001-2
Benchmarks:
HSE Loss of containment manual
www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/lossofcontainmen.pdf
164
Legislation downloads:
Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l30.pdf
COMAH 1999
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l111.pdf
PUWER 1998
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/puwer.pdf
165
166
Leak Management
Ed Versluis, James Walker Rotabolt
James Walker
167
168
Achieving:
Maximum
Maximum
bolt
force
bolt force
Ed Versluis
Sales Manager
James Walker Benelux
169
Costs of
Steam Quenching...
170
How effective is
leak sealing?
171
85%
of flange leaks
are caused by
incorrect bolt
loads
Why
does everyone
blame the
gasket?...
172
3 Keys
to Reliable Bolted Joints
DeJoint
sig
n
t
en
on
mp ity
Co ual
%
Bolt
Tension
173
Bolt Force
Operating
Gasket Stress
Possible
flange
bending or
"rotation"
Hydrostatic
Force
174
7\SLFDO
CNAF Gasket 1.5 mm thick, 20 bar
10
Leak Rate
0.1
0.01
0.000
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
Torque Tightening
Friction Estimate
175
412 kN / 42 Tonnes
4368 Nm
Min. torque:
2259 Nm (- 48.3%)
Max. torque:
5874 Nm (+ 34.5%)
176
Bolt #
Torque [Nm]
Calculated torque
7000
6000
Torque (Nm)
+34%
5000
4000
3000
-48%
2000
1000
0
1
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Bolt No.
Hydraulic Tensioning
177
Hydraulic Tensioning
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Load-Transfer Relaxation
1. Loading
2. Localised deformation
3. Distribution
4. Load losses
Limited access
3 Bolts tightened
by flogging
178
Leakage
Zone
Destruction
Zone
F max
+/- 40%
Flanges
Bolt force
Maximum
bolt force
F [kN]
Temp.
Pressure
Minimum
Bolt force
Temperature
0
kN
Bolts
James Walker 2006
Proces upset
Leakage
Zone
Destruction
Zone
F max
+/- 40%
Flanges
Bolt force
Maximum
bolt force
F [kN]
Temp.
Pressure
Minimum
Bolt force
Temperature
0
kN
Bolts
James Walker 2006
179
Leakage
Zone
Destruction
Zone
Bolt tension
+/- 5%
0
kN
Maximum
bolt force
Minimum
Bolt force
F [kN]
Ideal
Bolt force
180
Leakage
Zone
Destruction
Zone
Bolt tension
+/- 5%
Flanges
Maximum
bolt force
F [kN]
Temp.
Pressure
Minimum
Bolt force
Temperature
0
kN
Bolts
James Walker 2006
Proces upset
Leakage
Zone
Safety Margin
No leaks
guaranteed
Flanges
+/- 5%
Maximum
gasket,
flange- or
bolt force
F [kN]
Temp.
Pressure
Minimum
Bolt force
Temperature
0
kN
Destruction
Zone
Bolt tension
Bolts
James Walker 2006
181
2EXAMPLES
Refinery
3 Case Histories:
a)
b)
182
Powerformer
From Storage
Powerformer naphtha
183
184
Good
Engineering
Practice
185
Tubesheet
255 C
425 C
186
1.7/8 bolts
(B16 grade)
approx 20
clamp length
30.3 tonnes
target load
10.6:1 ratio
ok around
Actually to
bolt
r
e
p
s
e
n
60 ton the tension
to set
187