Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most current flange design methods use an equivalent pressure to treat bolted flange connections subjected to external bending loads. This oversimplified approach together with the lack of a proper assessment of the actual affected tightness make these methods inadequate for modern flange design. The substitution of the external applied moment by an equivalent pressure is excessively conservative and not realistic since it assumes that the achieved tightness is that of a gasket unloaded entirely to a minimum stress whereas in reality only a small section of it is, the rest of it is actually at a much higher stress. The successfulness of a valid analytical approach in yielding to an acceptable solution resides in its ability to account for the circumferential distribution of the gasket contact stress and its effect on leakage. This paper presents an analytical model based on the flexibility of the flange to treat flanges subjected to bending loads such as those produced by external moments and misalignments and capable of integrating leakage around the gasket circumference. The bolted joint sealing performance in the presence of such loads is evaluated using the new Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) gasket constants Gb, a, and Gs, obtained from room temperature tightness (ROTT) tests. The analytical results including leakage predictions are validated by comparison to those obtained numerically by finite element analysis and experimentally on different size flanges. The overconservatism of the equivalent pressure is demonstrated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".