Stress Analysis of ASME Section X Flanges Using Classical Lamination Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fiber Reinforced Plastic composite flanges are extensively used in pressure vessels and pipping systems working under harsh and corrosive environment. ASME section X gives the design procedure to follow to verify the mechanical integrity and leak tightness of these flanges. Unfortunately, this method treats FRP bolted flange joints using the same analytical approach as that of ASME section VIII div. 1 which is derived for metallic flanges. The approach was developed in the late 30’s for flanges having isotropic material properties while the flexibility of the flange different elements and their elastic interaction is ignored. In the absence of a suitable approach such as one based on classical laminate theory, the structural integrity of FRP bolted flange joints remains an issue and some flange classes and sizes will suffer structural failure. It is proposed to study ASME section X flanges using a recently developed model based on the classical laminate theory and the flexibility of the different elements to identify those critical ones that needs particular attention with regards to composite material selection and bolting and pressure limits. Parameters such as flange ring rotation and stresses in the bolts, flange and gaskets will be investigated. The study on the strength of FRP flanges described in ASME section X RD-620.1 table, will reveal the most critical size and class flanges and their highly stressed locations. The critical stresses and their locations on the flange will be given for each flange. The study will be conducted on flanges of NPS 1 to 48 and classes from 25 to 150. The analysis will be conducted on flanges fabricated out of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) laminates, manufactured with vinyl ester resins and various types of fibrous glass reinforcing. The study shows that FRP flanges of class 25 and 50 are most vulnerable and should be less loaded.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".