A Comparative Study Between ASME B16.5 and EN1092-1 Weld Neck Flanges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nowadays, the most extensively used flange standards in the pressure vessels and pipping industry worldwide are ASME B16.5 and EN 1092-1. There has been a lot of hesitation in allowing easy functionality and interchangeability between the two standards because there is little or no information that compare them. The first standard has been in use since its first approval and publication in 1927. While the European standard was approved by CEN in 2001, it is based on DIN flange standard that was adopted in 1928. Although these standards have been evolved through the years it is worth conducting a comparative study of their present forms to help the design engineer comprehend the difference between the two standards in order to make an informed decision regarding the use of these standards in pressure vessel and piping projects around the world. This paper compares the integrity and leak tightness of these two standard flanges and covers the sizes from 15 mm to 600 mm (NPS 0.5 to 24) and all nominal pressures from PN10 to PN400 and classes 150 to 2500. The study compares parameters such as flange rotation, the maximum stresses in the flanges, the gaskets contact stresses, the bolts loads and the level of tightness. The analyses are conducted using the analytical model describe in paper PVP2023-10936 using SA105 and flange materials at room temperature for the bolt-up and pressure conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".