Bolted Flange Joints Under External Moments: An Analysis Using the Compound Gasket Approach for Spiral Wound Gaskets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is common to rate a piping system to its weakest component to maximize flexibility for future operations. In many situations, the bolted flange joint is the lowest rated component. Rating a system for its full flange rating reduces the flange’s capacity to carry external bending moments. In the past, moments on flanged joints have been evaluated by using the concept of equivalent pressure, first presented in the Kellogg Design of Piping Systems. Operating moments are converted to an equivalent pressure. This equivalent pressure is added to the design pressure and compared against a limit. According to conventional practices, the design pressure plus the equivalent pressure must not exceed the rating pressure. Consequently, designing up to the flange rating pressure presents an issue, since no margin is left for the effects of external moments on flange joints. Depending on the circumstances, many designers have compensated by permitting the combined design pressure and equivalent pressure to be as high as twice the flange rating. In this paper, the authors demonstrate a robust methodology to define an appropriate limit for operating moments on bolted flange joints. Using the calculation methodologies of EN-1591-1, the authors calculate the maximum external moment that various classes of standard ASME B16.5 flanges (for Group 1.1 materials) can tolerate over a range of temperatures and present a representative sample. Conclusions are drawn about appropriate limits for moments on flanges and are compared to results using the equivalent pressure method.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".