MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024186016 · doi:10.1115/pvp2007-26649

An Update on Selecting the Optimum Bolt Assembly Stress for Piping Flanges

2007· article· en· W2024186016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasketFlangePipingStructural engineeringStress (linguistics)Leakage (economics)Joint (building)Bolted jointCompressive strengthEngineeringComposite materialMaterials scienceFinite element methodMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to minimize the likelihood of leakage from flanged piping joints, it is a good practice to maximize the initial bolt assembly stress. Present bolting guidelines (ASME PCC-1 [1]) outline the use of a percent of bolt yield across all flange sizes and classes to set the assembly stress level. These guidelines do indicate that aspects such as component strength and gasket stress should be considered, however the most common application of the approach is to use a standard percentage of bolt yield across all flange sizes and classes. This approach does allow for adjustment for differences in material yield strengths (carbon steel versus stainless steel) and raised face (RF) versus ring type joint (RTJ) flange configurations. It does not, however, adjust for the difference in strength between standard pipe flange sizes nor the actual gasket stress achieved across all flange sizes and classes. Since there is no assessment of flange strength, such an approach may cause failure of joint components. In addition, because the standard percentage of bolt yield technique does not look at gasket stress, it is prone to gasket leakage due to low stress or gasket destruction due to over-compression for some joints. In addition, some joints may require bolt loads well in excess of the standard value to develop an acceptable gasket stress level in order to prevent leakage. This paper is a continuation of the paper presented during PVP 2006 in Vancouver (Brown [2]), which examined the variables that must be considered and drew some preliminary conclusions regarding the use of flange stress limits in determining the maximum allowable bolt load for a given flange size. Subsequent to writing that paper, further investigation found that the code calculated flange stresses are a poor indicator of the maximum acceptable bolt load. The most practical measure of this load is obtained by using elastic-plastic finite element analysis (FEA) to determine the point of gross plastic deformation of the flange. This paper details the maximum bolt load limit results of elastic-plastic FEA on most sizes of standard ASME weld neck flange sizes. The practical application of this method is in the development of standard bolt assembly stress (or torque) tables for standard pipe flanges using a given gasket type. In addition, a new code equation and additional limits are developed, by comparison to the elastic-plastic FEA results, which allow the determination of the maximum assembly bolt load for non-standard weld-neck flanges and standard weld-neck flanges with different bores, materials or gaskets than used in the elastic-plastic FEA presented in this paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207