PVP2002-1087

1 Copyright by ASME

ASME-PVP 2002, Bolted Flange Connections
August 4-8, 2002, Vancover, British Colombia, Canada

DESIGN OF COMPACT FLANGE JOINTS






Finn Kirkemo
Seaflex a.s.
P.O.Box 451
N-1373 Asker, Norway
Phone: +47 66 76 16 58
Fax: +47 66 76 16 30
E-mail: finn.kirkemo@seaflex.no








ABSTRACT
In the past 10 - 15 years, flange joints designed for metal-
to-metal face contact with self seating and pressure activated
seal rings have been used extensively in high-pressure
applications in industrial piping, pressure vessels, pipelines,
risers and associated equipment. These flange joints are
generally much smaller and lighter, with smaller bolts, than
equally rated standard gasketed flange joints, and are often
called compact flange joints. This paper provides all necessary
information to design compact flange joints for pressure and
external loads and made from any suitable material. The paper
includes design methods for design of the seal ring, flange and
bolts in addition to assembly guidelines. Weld neck flanges,
where the hub is of uniform thickness are discussed in detail.
Similar method as presented has been applied to design
compact flange joints with great success for many years.

INTRODUCTION
Design codes typically recommend the use of standard
flanges, e.g. ASME B16.5, wherever possible. This
recommendation is based on proven safety and that a standard
flange usually will be less expensive than a special one.
However, due to leakage problems within some applications
and due their large sizes, the development of improved flange
designs with higher leakage reliability and smaller sizes and
hence lowers costs have emerged. Flanged joints designed for
metal-to-metal face contact is one example of such a joint.
Due to their size they are often called compact flange joints
(CFJs).
For flat face flanges in metal-to-metal contact, separation
occurs at the bore for low pressure and external loads. The
amount of separation depends upon the stiffness of the flange
and the amount of bolt preload. A high degree of preload also
minimizes fatigue of the bolts during cyclic loading. On the
other hand, such flanges require more bolting than comparable
raised face flanges since the bolt load is increased as a result
of the interaction of the flanges beyond the bolt circle.
By tapering the face of the flanges, so that contact at the
bore occurs first during assembly, it is possible to design for
zero separation at the bore or to limit the separation to an
acceptable value based on the sealing characteristics of the
seal ring. When a self-seating and pressure activated seal ring
is used between the tapered faces, the major sealing force is
applied where it is needed, i.e., inside the bolt circle close to
the bore.
Haagen (1967) describes the design of a modified raised
face flange where one flange has a lip machined at the outer
edge. By controlling the initial gap between the lip and the
mating flange, tightening the bolts to a predetermined stress
place the flanges in "controlled" metal-to-metal contact. As a
result, at the design pressure: (a) flange separation is
eliminated; (b) bending stress in the hub is minimized; and (c)
the bolt stress is independent of internal pressure.
Webjrn (1967) introduced a gasket free CFJ with a slight
flange face taper using high strength bolts (ISO class 10.9)
preloaded to 80 % of the bolt yield strength, see also Webjrn
and Schneider (1980), Hyde et al (1988). Since then, other
CFJ proprietary designs have been introduced in the marked.
PVP2002-1087
Most of these joints are utilizing a non-load carrying self-
seating and pressure activated seal ring located either at the
flange bore or in a seal groove. The increasing interest in the
industry to apply CFJs has resulted in a new flange standard,
Lassesen at al (2002). The standard CFJ has flanges with a
slight face taper and is using a seal ring and high strength
bolts with equivalent strength to ASTM A193 B7 preloaded to
70 % of the bolt yield strength, see Fig.1.

Flange half
Seal ring
Bolts

Fig. 1 Compact flange joint

The CFJs were typically applied in conditions with high-
pressure, significant external loads and/or cyclic (dynamic)
loading. However, the CFJs are applied in a larger extend in
standard process piping due to their weight, size, cost and
safety against leakage.
A CFJ may be designed to offer the structural strength
and fatigue strength of a welded joint. However, there is no
published well-established practice on the designing flange
joints with tapered flange face, which is in contact outside the
bolt circle after tightening the bolts. The calculation rules of
ASME and EN do not apply for this type of joint. For the
benefit of engineers whom design and use CFJs, the intention
of this paper is to provide all necessary information to design
CFJs in metallic materials. Similar design method as presented
here has been applied in many years to design of CFJs for
application to high-pressure vessels and piping in addition to
pipelines and risers.
CFJ DESCRIPTION
The CFJ described in this paper consists of two weld neck
flanges, bolting and a seal ring, see Fig. 1. The distance from
the flange bore to the inside edge of the seal groove is named
flange heel. The outer contact area of the flange face is named
flange toe, see Fig. 2.
Heel
Girth weld
Toe
Seal
ring
5
1
2
5
6
3

Fig. 2 Flange joint characteristics

The flange ring is closely machined with a slightly face
angle to assure that upon assembly, bore contact is established
first for the flange faces. This is resulting in a gap at the
outside diameter prior to preloading the bolts, see Fig. 2. The
joint is closed using closely spaced bolts with high preload
spaced around a bolt circle that is close to the outside diameter
of the pipe or nozzle. The main design characteristics of a CFJ
are:
1. High contact stresses and local yielding is obtained at the
flange bore (heel) at bolting up, i.e. the heel is "seated".
This means the heel may act as a seal if a certain
minimum heel compression load is provided in operation.
The smooth bore with heel contact eliminates turbulence,
erosion and crevice corrosion on flange faces.
2. The self-seating and pressure activated seal ring is located
in a seal groove isolated from bolting up and piping loads
and is not directly exposed to internal fluids. The seal ring
has sufficient leak tightness for a face separation
occurring at the structural capacity of the joint. The seal
ring also does the final guiding of the joint at bolting-up.
3. The joint is designed and preloaded such that flange face
separation is avoided for normal operation conditions,
hence the joint behaves like a rigid body with no moving
parts. The bolt load is almost constant up to normal
operating loads. This reduces the risk for bolt fatigue
failure and the risk for leakage due to wear, corrosion or
fretting of the seal ring during operation.
4. Most of the bolt preload and external forces are
transferred as contact forces between the flanges within
the bolt circle, hence bolt loads due to flange face contact
forces outside the bolt circle, i.e. bolt prying effects, are
insignificant.
2 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
5. Closing of the small gap at the flange toe may be used as
an indicator of obtaining the target bolt load during
bolting-up. Excessive bolt tightening or compressive
external forces cannot damage the seal ring or the flange
as contact forces between the flanges balance these
forces.
6. The flanges have an elliptical transition between the ring
and hub to obtain low stress concentration factors (SCFs).
Values in the range of 1.5 are normally observed with
respect to unit axial stress in the connected pipe. The
flange geometry and makeup influence the stresses at the
girth weld connecting the flange to the pipe. A typical
SCF at the weld ID is 0.9 and 1.1 at the weld OD. These
values have to be included in addition to the SCF
introduced by any geometry misalignment in a fatigue
assessment of the girth weld.
DESIGN RULES
Safety and failure modes
The overall goal by design, material selection,
manufacture, testing, assembly, safety systems and
maintenance is to keep the failure probability for a flanged
joint below an acceptable level in service. Safety is achieved
by incorporating appropriate design factors or safety factors
using calculations, e.g. formulas or finite element analysis,
and experimental testing against relevant failure modes. The
design factor(s) accounts for the integrated uncertainty and
possible bias in load effects and resistance. A safety factor is
defined as a failure load divided by the allowable or design
load. The following failure modes are normally considered in
flange joint design: excessive yielding (gross plastic
deformation), leakage, fatigue failure and unstable fracture.
Excessive yielding means exceeding the plastic load
carrying capacity of the joint. Leakage means exceeding a
target leak rate. Fatigue design involves minimizing flange
stress concentrations or stress raisers, keeping the operating
bolt stress ranges low and avoidance of flange face separation
to have no relative motions between seating surface and seal
ring/gasket to avoid seal degradation. This may be obtained by
an elliptical transition between flange and hub in addition to
using high bolt preload. Materials selection and qualification
are normally done to ensure that the materials are sufficiently
ductile and have sufficient fracture toughness.
Design rules
The codes provide design rules for raised face and flat
face to face connections, e.g. ASME VIII and EN 1591.
However, the interaction between flange, gasket and bolts are
treated different in the various codes and considerable
discrepancies are found between these codes.
ASME VIII rules are applicable for design of two
connection types subjected to pressure only; i.e. the ring type
joint with the gasket as a load carrying element and full-face-
contact type flanges with self-energized gaskets. In the former,
bolt load depends solely on gasket pressure and internal
hydrostatic pressure. The elastic based calculation method for
these joints is that developed by Waters, et al in 1937, and the
gasket factors introduced by Rossheim and Markl in 1943. It
is often named the Taylor Forge method. In the latter, the bolt
load must also balance the contact force between mating
flanges outside the bolt circle, and this involves the flange
flexibility. The Taylor Forge method is subjected to several
limitations, e.g. see list in PD 6438:1969.
The prEN 13445-3:1999 provides rules based on the
Taylor Forge method for pressure design, however, it opens
for use of a more modern alternative design method given in
EN 1591. EN 1591 considers pressure, external axial forces
and bending moments, nonlinear elastic behavior of the gasket
and axial thermal effects. The EN 1591 applies limit load
criteria for all parts of the flanged connection taking into
account the scatter of the bolt preload. The leak tightness and
strength criteria consider the life of the joint including bolting
up, test and operation. The EN 1591 method is considered to
be an improvement of the Taylor-Forge model.
Code safety factors
The justification of the code design stresses in pressure
vessel and piping codes is experience, rather than rational
analysis of the material response to the loading. ASME VIII
was first published in 1915. The design (membrane) stress
was originally taken as one fifth of the tensile strength. The so
called safety factors have come down from 5 in the original
ASME code to 3.0 in ASME VIII Div. 2, to 2.4 in draft EN
codes, where other properties are also considered. However,
for the brittle steels of that time, tensile strength was an
adequate limiting property.
Presented code safety factors here are at the room
temperature in order to simplify the comparisons. In present
version of ASME B31.3 and ASME VIII Div. 2 the flange
design stress for ferritic steels is limited to the minimum of
R
p0.2
/1.5 and R
m
/3. R
p0.2
is the specified minimum yield
strength at room temperature, and R
m
is the minimum ultimate
tensile strength at room temperature. For austenitic grades, the
design stress is R
p0.2
/1.5. Bolt design stresses for ASTM A193
B7 bolting is the lower of R
m
/5 and R
p0.2
/4 in general,
however, in Appendices 4, 5, and 6 of Section VIII Div. 2 is
the bolt design stress equal to R
p0.2
/3. The allowable stresses
above are for pressure loading only.
When discussing ASME design stresses and standard
ASME B16.5 flanges, Rodabaugh (1972) makes an interesting
remark: "B16.5 flanged joints do not necessary meets the
criteria in the ASME Boiler Code. Experience and a more
detailed analysis indicate that it is not necessary to meet the
ASME Code rules in order to have a satisfactory flanged joint
and, on the other hand, meeting the ASME Code rules does
not necessary assure a good flanged joint for use in a
pipeline".
For ferritic flange grades, the design stress is the smaller
of R
p0.2
/1.5 or R
m
/2.4 in prEN 13445-3:1999. For austenitic
3 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
grades, the design stress is R
p1.0
/1.5. The bolt design stresses
for the Taylor Forge method in prEN 13445-3:1999 is the
lesser of R
p0.2
/3 and R
m
/4. Design stresses for bolts in EN 1591
are determined as for flanges.
In designing API 10 000 psi and 15 000 psi flanged joints
in API 6A for wellhead equipment, the allowable stresses at
design pressure were set to R
p0.2
/2.0 of the flange and the
bolting materials to arrive at reasonable dimensions,
Eichenberg (1964). The target prestress in the bolts for API 6A
flanges is R
p0.2
/2.0, hence flange face separation is expected to
occur for external loads in excess to the design pressure and
for pressure testing. Properly made-up joints do not leak
during pressure testing, as the crushed metal gasket is partly
pressure activated. This makes the API joint unsuitable in
cases where cyclic external loads occurs in excess of the
design pressure.
Limit analysis
Limit analysis addresses directly the design objective of
preventing gross plastic deformation with an agreed-upon
safety factor. Limit analysis with safety factors on yield
strength only presumes use of sufficient tough, ductile, sound
and strain hardening materials to ensure that flange joints can
attain the required plastic deformed state before premature
failure. When the yield strength is applied, the resulting limit
load provides a physical connection between the calculated
load and the "real" capacity found by testing or elastic plastic
finite element analysis, hence indicating the "true" safety
factor.
In limit analysis, the loading includes only primary loads
such as pressure and weights. Stresses and strains generated
by bolt preload (fixed displacement) or temperature fields do
not affect limit loads. Such constraints produce external forces
(reactions) that are self-limiting.
For ferritic flange grades the code limit load is based on a
"yield" strength equal to 1.5 x min (R
m
/3 ; R
p0.2
/1.5) and 1.5 x
min (R
m
/2.4 ; R
p0.2
/1.5) in ASME VIII Div.2 and EN 1591,
respectively. According to this approach, the calculated limit
load will be less than the yield-point limit load of the flange
unless R
p0.2
/R
m
is less than 0.5 or 0.63 for the ASME and EN
code respectively. Consider a flange made of ASTM A105
with R
m
=485 MPa and R
p0.2
=250 MPa and ASTM A694 F52
with R
m
=455 MPa and R
p0.2
=360 MPa. In this case is the
safety factor against its yield-point limit state 1.55 and 2.37
for A105 and A694 F52 for the ASME code limit load. High
strength steels, duplex stainless steels (which are treated as
ferritic) and steel bolts suffer from this as the ratio of yield to
tensile strength for these steels is close to 0.9.
Based on the author's experience, yield point limit loads
fit very well with elastic ideal plastic finite element analysis
and gives lower bounds compared to experimental testing,
hence the code safety factor seems to be varying. However,
ASME VIII, Div. 2 Appendix 4 gives a safety factor of 1.5 on
the capacity obtained by experimental testing. It may then be
argued that yield-point limit load analysis may be performed
with a safety factor of 1.5 on the limit load also fulfills the
requirements in ASME VIII, Div.2 Appendix 4. Using yield
point limit loads or plastic design for design of components
requires that the materials exhibit sufficient fracture toughness
and ductility to ensure that it can attain the required plastically
deformed state without premature failure. It should further be
noted that a safety factor of 1.5 on yield strength is also
applied in ASME B31.3 high-pressure piping, DIN 2505 for
flanges and API Spec.6A for wellhead equipment including
flanges in addition to several steel structural, pipeline, e.g.
ISO 13623:2000, and riser codes.
As the load is restricted to a level of 2/3 of the limit loads,
the degree of yielding or permanent deformation in a flange
joint is restricted to small values, see Fig. 9, which will not
cause leakage or malfunction. In the case of cyclic loading,
the subsequent strain portions are linear, ensuring shake down,
as long as the stress range is less than 2 times the yield
strength. For load changes between zero and maximum load,
swelling loads, differences of deformations are linear, if the
safety factor of 1.5 against limit loads is used. The load
characteristic of flanges is not swelling because the bolts
preload the flange joint. Common ductile materials show
hardening effects in the stress strain relation that increases the
range of linearity compared to elastic perfectly plastic
behavior.
CFJ DESIGN METHOD
General
In ASME/EN ring type joints, the gasket separates the
flanges and is a load-carrying element. Therefore it must be
strong enough to take the full bolt load when the bolts are
tightened and no pressure exists in the flange. The bolt load in
flange consists of the load caused by pressure and external
loads trying to separate the flanges plus the load necessary to
keep the gasket tight, which load is assumed to be a multiple
of the unit pressure, exerted on the projected sealing area of
the gasket. A vicious circle is established thereby: The greater
the bolt load, the greater the gasket width and seating area to
support it, in turn necessitating an increase in bolt load.
Enormous gaskets and bolts can be designed this way.
If flanges are made up face-to-face, this arrangement will
support the bolt load when no pressure is on the flanges; and
if the seal ring is self seating only a small initial load is
necessary to establish sealing. Therefore the bolts have to
carry only the pressure and external load plus any small axial
component of the seal ring contact pressure. Thus the seal ring
cross section becomes independent of the bolt load. The
present design method applies to circular bolted flange
connections with self-seating and pressure activating seal ring
with metal-to-metal face contact.
It is important to note that the operating bolt load is
relative insensitive to the changes in preload up to a certain
point where separation occurs and that thereafter the two loads
are essentially the same, see Fig. 3. This is a desirable
4 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
characteristic of CFJs; it means that if the assembly load
(preload) in the bolts, F
B0
, is close to the normal operating
loads the subsequent application of pressure and external
loading will have no significant effect on the actual operating
loads in the bolts.
Face
contact
forces
Bolt force
Applied separation force
Applied separation force
B
o
l
t

f
o
r
c
e
Zero preload
0 B
F
B
F
Preload

Fig. 3 Bolt force applied separation force

There are three separate elements of CFJ which must act
to provide a leak tight joint. They shall be considered in the
following order: seal system design, bolting design and flange
design. A well-designed CFJ must have sufficient contact
pressure on sealing faces to keep the joint tight without
overstressing the flange and bolting material. The contact
pressure is applied to the seal ring sealing faces by means of
elastic spring back forces and internal pressure and the heel
seal contact forces are applied by means of the bolting.
Excessive yielding
The CFJ strength sizing is performed by limit load
methods using design stress based on yield strength. As the
CFJ has flange face to face contact only pressure and
separation forces need to be considered in the CFJ design. In
both flanges and bolts, a design stress equal to R
p0.2
/1.5 of the
respective material may be used for normal operating
conditions considering design pressure and external loads.
This ensures a balanced strength design between bolting and
flanges. It is important to include pressure and resulting
separation forces in the CJF design as this is governing the
dimensions and bolting. For bolting up condition the bolt
design stress is R
p0.2
/1.05, see prEn 13445-3:2002 and EN
1591:2001. Bolt stresses are based on the root diameter. For
extreme design loads and accidental (survival) loads a safety
factor of 1.25 and 1.0 may be applied. A CFJ may also be
designed to have equivalent limit load capacity as the
connecting pipe. Analytical based load-bearing capacities for
pipes subjected to pressure, tension and bending can be found
in Kirkemo (2001).
Leak tightness
A "tight" joint, implying one with zero leakage, is an
outdated concept, as a joint will always have a leak rate. This
has been recognized in the EN 1591-2 and also in the
proposed ASME Appendix BFJ entitled Bolted Flanged Joint
Design. A "leak tight joint" may be a connection with a
nitrogen gas leak rate less than 1x10
-5
- 1x10
-6
cm
3
/sec/mm
sealing diameter, measured at atmospheric pressure at normal
operating conditions. The seal rings leak tightness is to be
checked at both low and high pressure due to the pressure-
activating characteristic of the seal ring. Low pressure sealing
performance of the seal ring may be improved by using O-
rings on the outer flanks.
A safe and reliable seal against liquids and gases under
pressure cannot be achieved with compressive forces that
produce elastic deformations at the interface areas only,
regardless the degree of surface finish, Butcher (1973). With
plastic flow of the material, surface asperity differences are
leveled out and the leakage flow passage is blocked. Sufficient
leak tightness of the CFJs are achieved by the following
experience based requirements:
1. Seating of the seals at bolting up by plastic deformation
of the seal interface areas.
2. Average contact pressure of 2 times the internal pressure
over a contact width of 1 mm during operation.
3. A surface roughness not exceeding R
a
=0.8 m as defined
in ISO 4287 applied for the heel and the seal ring and seal
ring seating area. Lower surface roughness may be
required for sealing helium and hydrogen.
The seal ring or flange heel may be plated with soft
metals such as silver or gold or coated with a thin film of
viscous oil, MoS
2
or Teflon to provide a relatively soft
surface, which flows into minor imperfections of the flange
seating/seal ring at bolting up and improve leak tightness. The
selection of plating or coating should based on the allowable
leak rate, the viscosity (density) of the fluid, flange roughness
and the application temperature.
SEALING SYSTEM DESIGN
Seating of the sealing system is achieved by requiring that
a contact pressure corresponding to yielding are obtained over
a fictitious contact width equal to 1 mm of the heel and the
seal ring, see Fig. 4. The heel is seating during bolting-up due
to the flange face taper and high bolt preload. The seal ring is
seated when metal-to-metal contact occurs at the bore.
The seal ring must also perform a number of other
different jobs in addition to create a seal between the mating
faces, to function properly. It must do the final guiding of the
flange halves during bolting up and be easily to install and
remove.
The flange bore, B, may be established as follows
P o
e D B = 2 (1)
where D
o
is the pipe/hub outside diameter in mm, e
P
is the
pipe wall thickness. The inside diameter of the free seal ring
5 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
D
Ri
is chosen equal to the pipe/neck outside diameter, see Fig.
5,
o Ri
D D = (2)
This ensures that the distance from the inside edge of the
groove to the bore is almost equal to the connecting pipe wall
thickness, hence, the inner flank of the groove resists any
pressure and external loads applied to the connecting pipe.
The flange surfaces are slightly conical so that they only meet
at the inner edge after seating the seal ring. This ensures
contact stresses in excess of yield strength at the inner edge
after bolting-up, i.e. heel seating.
Stand off
Free position
Stand off
Free position
Stand off
Free position
Stand off
Free position
Contact forces
Seating loads
Self seating
Pressure activated
Assembled position
Operating
Contact forces

Fig. 4 Sealing system

The height of the ring, H
R
, is arbitrary taken as,
o R
D H = 2 (3)
This produces a ring height of 15.5 mm for a 2 in. pipe, and
33 mm for a 10 in. pipe.
The flank angle of the groove is set equal to 15. This
angle is also applied by the Grayloc type seal ring (1964). The
ring is double cone, with cone angles of 15-2=13 and
15+2=17. A theoretical line contact for sealing is neither
desirable nor feasible. The double cone seal ring has therefore
a contact radius of 5 mm, Butcher (1979). The height of the
upper flank is 1/6 of the total height, H
R
, of the seal ring as
shown in Figs. 5 and 6. This gives an axial distance between
the two sealing lines H
R,s
as follows
R s R
H H = 3 2
,
(4)
The initial seating stress of the seal ring is created by the
wedging action of an inclined seal surface, Fig. 5. The
wedging action of the seal groove compresses the ring in the
hoop direction. The groove seal surface bears against a contact
radius on the seal ring. The radial force on the ring, F
R,r
,
generating a contact pressure corresponding to yielding over a
1 mm height, when neglecting the effect from the flank angle
as cos(15)=0.97, is given by
R p Ri r R
R D F
, ,
1 = (5)
where R
p,R
is the seal ring yield strength. Naming b
Rs
as the
ring thickness at the sealing diameter D
s
, the hoop stress in the
ring subjected to a radial force F
R,r
becomes, see Fig. 6,
R p
Rs
Ri
R Ri
r R
h
R
b
D
H D
F
,
,
2
2
=

=

(6)
Hence
R
Ri
Rs
H
D
b = (7)
( 2 tan
3
+ =
R
Rs R
H
b b ) (8)
where b
R
is the total radial width of the seal ring and (-
2) = 13 is the lower flank angle of the seal ring, see Fig. 6.
Ri
D
R
H
R s R
H H
3
2
,
=
R
b
Rs
b
SO
o
15 =
N
Q
B
Free position
Made up position
S
D
B
Original position
Go
D


Fig. 5 Seal ring and groove dimensions

It should be noted that the seal width is independent of
the yield strength. This method of sizing has been applied with
great success for seal ring metals with yield strength in the
range of 350 MPa to 720 MPa. Compressive stresses in the
range of yield stress in the ring direction might result in
buckling of the ring if the slenderness is low even if the ring is
guided in the seal groove with outside contact pressure. Based
6 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
on calculations and testing it can be indicated that buckling
will not govern the width of the seal ring for the applied
design method and yield strength range. Experience has also
shown that these rings have sufficient shear strength to do the
final guiding of the flanges during bolting-up.

r R
F
,
r R
F
,
Rs
b
o
17
o
13
R
b
R
H
3
2
i
p
s
D

Fig. 6 Seating of seal ring

The width of the groove, N, is made such there is a radial
interference, I=R
orig
-R
final
, between the unseated and seated
(made up) seal ring diameter sufficient to generate yielding in
the ring direction during bolting-up to insure initial seating.
The amount of initial radial compression I necessary to
generate yield stress in hoop direction of a ring with an actual
yield (or flow) strength 50% higher than minimum specified,
is given as
( ) 2 . 0
5 . 1
2 5 . 0
,
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
R
R p
R Ri
E
R
b D I (9)
where E
R
is the seal ring modulus of elasticity in N/mm
2
. A
margin of 0.2 mm is included in Eq.(9) to cope with
manufacture tolerances of ring and groove. The gap between
the flanges at the seal groove when the seal ring is in initial
contact is named stand off. The stand off, SO, necessary to
generate the radial interference, I, is given as, see Fig. 5,
( ) tan
I
SO = (10)
The depth of groove, Q, is made sufficient deep to avoid
interference with the seal ring considering compression of the
heel regions and not too deep in order to avoid to large
rotations of the ring in the groove during make up,
2 . 0 51 . 0 + =
R
H Q (11)
The width of seal ring groove including mating clearance to
groove inner diameter, N, outside diameter of the seal ring
groove, D
Go
, and fluid sealing diameter D
s
, and seal ring cross
section area A
R
becomes:
( ) ( ) tan
3
5 . 0 ; 5 . 1 max
,
+ + + =
R
s R
H
I b N (12)
( )|
.
|

\
|
+ + = tan
3
2
R
Rs Ri Go
H
b D D (13)
( ) tan
3
2
=
R Go S
H D D (14)
( )
2
Rs R
R R
b b
H A
+
= (15)
The groove width N is made such that the ring will no
interfere with the groove when flanges are lined up and bolts
are inserted in the bolt holes. The corners of the seal ring and
groove are rounded with radiuses. To assist assembly, the seal
rings can be retained in the flanges by making an outer recess
in the ring, see Fig. 6, and using a retainer fixed to the flange
face.
The seal rings have shown by elastic plastic element
analyses and testing to have sufficient gas leak tightness at
normal operating conditions and sufficient water tightness up
to the structural capacity of the CFJ. Note that the flange
rotation at the limit capacity of the CFJ increase the sealing
action as the seal groove moves inwards due to flange
rotation.
During assembly, the compressed seal ring exerts an axial
force on the flange seat. This make-up (seating) force
becomes
( ) + = tan
, , 0 R R p a R
A R F (16)
where is the friction angle in . = atan(
R
), where
R
is the
friction coefficient between the seal ring and seating face. The
axial component of the seal ring retaining force F
R,a
during
testing and operation conditions is
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2
tan
,
, ,
i S s R
R R p a R
p D H
A R F (17)
where p
i
is the internal fluid pressure in N/mm
2
. The first part
in Eq. (17) is the retaining force for zero pressure, i.e. elastic
spring back force and the last part is the pressure induced
retaining force, see Fig. 6.
BOLTING AND FLANGE OUTLINE DESIGN
With the size and shape of the seal ring and groove
established, the next step is a calculation of bolt size and a
determination of the flange outline, except the thickness. The
bolting should be selected to maintain the required
compression on the flange faces with internal pressure and
external loads acting, i.e. the flange face contact when subject
to normal operating design loads. Fig. 7 illustrates the
notation used for dimensions, forces and lever arms. The
forces are considered to be uniformly distributed on the
circumference.
Theoretically, the hydrostatic pressure extends only to the
inside diameter of the flange. However, mechanical damage of
the flange heel and not sufficient bolt tension tend to permit
the confined fluid to creep over the heel face. In order to be on
the safe side, the design of the CFJ is based on the worst
possible sealing condition, namely, a hydrostatic pressure
extending to the sealing diameter of the seal ring.
7 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
a R
F
,
B
F
D
h
L
F
e R
h
T
h
K
O
P
e
T
F
D
F
eq
F

B
o
D
e
y
e
x
H
l
g

Fig. 7 Flange dimensions and loads

The bolt load must balance the sum of the total
hydrostatic end force, the axial component of the seal ring
retaining force, and the equivalent axial separation force.
Therefore the minimum required root area of the bolts
becomes
B
eq a R Q
B
f
F F F
A
+ +
=
,
min ,
(18)
where
i S Q
p D F =
2
4

(19)
E E eq
M
K
F F + =
4
(20)
and where f
B
is the bolt design (allowable) stress in N/mm
2
, F
Q

is the equivalent axial separation load due to pressure
(pressure trust) in N, F
E
the is external (additional or
effective) axial tension in N, M
E
is the external bending
moment in Nmm and K is the bolt circle diameter in mm. The
axial separation force from the external moment is calculated
as in EN 1591.
The number of bolts should be divisible by 4 and bolt
sizes may not be selected less than in. Smaller bolt sizes are
prohibited in some codes due to the risk of overstressing
during make-up. With these considerations, the size and
number of bolts are selected, so that the actual bolt cross
section area using the root diameter of all bolts, A
B,act
, equals
or exceeds the minimum required bolt area A
B,min
give by Eq.
(18). Single bolt root areas are given by Eq. (55).
The bolt spacing and bolt circle diameter must be
sufficient to provide the necessary makeup tool clearances.
Make-up tools may include standard socket, hydraulic torque
wrench or tension tool as appropriate, see Fig. 8. The bolt data
given in Table 1 is based on access for use of hydraulic torque
tools available in the marked. The selected tools should have a
torque capacity of minimum 30 50 % in excess that
necessary to make-up the lubricated bolt. The reserves are
considered necessary for disassembly after a period in service.


Fig. 8 Hydraulic torque and tension tool

The wrench clearance R
min
in Table 1 is added to the
minor half axis y
e
to determine the minimum bolt circle
diameter, K:
(
min
2 R y D K
e o
+ + = ) (21)
The wrench clearance is the radial distance from bolt circle
diameter to start ellipse. The minor half axis y
e
of the neck
ellipse is given by
|
.
|

\
|
=
5 . 2
; 3 min
P
e
e
y (22)
The major half axis x
e
is 3.5 times the minor half axis
e e
y x = 5 . 3 (23)
The selection of the elliptical transition ensures low fillet
stresses between the flange and hub.
Next, the distance between bolts must be calculated and
checked against the minimum bolt spacing dimension in Table
1, to guard against torque tool interference,
|
.
|

\
|
=
K
B
n
B
min
arcsin

(24)
where B
min
is the minimum pitch (bolt center-center distance).
The flange outside diameter O then becomes
min
2 E K O + = (25)
where E
min
is the radial distance from bolt circle diameter to
flange outside diameter, assuming nut corner is flush with
flange outside diameter, see Table 1. The hub length l
H
in mm
is estimated as
8 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
( ) ( ) 25 ; 2 / 10 max
p e H
e x l + + = (26)
where a minimum length of l
H
is assumed to be 25 mm to
allow for weld access during welding/NDT. The length in
excess of x
e
is sufficient to account for a straight part between
end ellipse and weld bevel.
FLANGE RING THICKNESS AND FACE ANGLE
At this time, all flange main dimensions except the flange
thickness e
F
are know. The internal flange (warping) moment
M due to load acting on the flange is the product of the
resulting load and its moment arm, see Fig. 7. The applied
moments have to be resisted by the moment capacity of the
flange, hence, the flange thickness can be determined.
The internal flange moment for operation conditions is
resulting from the sum of pressure end load, external loads
and the seal ring retaining load for the relevant conditions as
follows:
( )
R a R T T D eq D F
h F h F h F F M + + + =
,
(27)
where
i D
p B F =
2
4

(28)
( )
i s T
p B D F =
2 2
4

(29)
( ) 2
p D
e B K h = (30)
( ) 4 2
s T
D B K h = (31)
( ) 2
s R
D K h = (32)
and F
D
is hydrostatic end force applied via the pipe to flange
in N, F
R
is seal ring retaining load in N, F
T
is hydrostatic end
force due to pressure on flange face in N. The moment arms
h
D
, h
R
and h
T
are the radial distances from bolt circle to circle
on which F
D
, F
R
and F
T
acts in mm. The loads acting on the
flange are assumed uniformly distributed around the
circumference of the circles of diameters.
Proper allowance has to be made if connections are
subjected to external loads. In cases where the external loads
are not know, the equivalent axial tension acting on the CFJ
may be chosen as
i o eq
p D F =
2
4

(33)
The internal flange moment capacity, i.e. the limit load, of
the flange including support from the neck is given by:
(
(
(
(

+
+
=
P p p M
P p P P F S
F F F
F
f e d c
f e d e e c
f e b
W
2
2
2 . 2
2
4

(34)
where
P P
P i
Q
e f
d p

=
2
(35)
P P P
R
F
e d f
F

=

(36)
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2
2
2
4
3
1
2 3
4
R
Q
R
Q
M
c

(37)
( )
R Q M S
c c + = 4 . 0 6 . 0 8 . 0 (38)
( )
L
B O
b
F

=
2
(39)
and f
F
and f
P
are the flange and pipe/hub design stresses,
respectively, in N/mm
2
, b
F
is the radial width of flange ring
excluding the bolt hole diameter in mm,
Q
and
R
are pressure
and external loading parameters, and c
S
and c
M
are correction
factors. Eq.(34) is based on Draft.2, 1992 of the EN 1591. The
limit load of the flange ring in EN 1591 is corrected to be in
line with the theoretical flange ring limit load. EN 1591
subtracts only a partial bolt hole diameter, while limit load
analysis require that the total bolt hole diameter L shall be
applied to establish the flange radial width.

Bolt
size
A
B1
B
min
R
min
E
min
L
in.
Threads
per inch
mm
2
mm mm mm mm
1/2 13 81.1 29.1 16.3 12.8 15.0
5/8 11 130.2 35.1 19.5 15.6 18.0
3/4 10 194.8 42.3 24.0 18.3 22.0
7/8 9 270.4 49.3 28.2 21.1 25.0
1 8 355.4 56.6 32.8 23.8 29.0
1 1/8 8 469.4 62.1 35.6 26.6 32.0
1 1/4 8 599.3 70.7 41.4 29.3 35.0
1 3/8 8 744.9 76.3 44.2 32.1 39.0
1 1/2 8 906.5 82.3 47.5 34.8 42.0
1 5/8 8 1083.8 90.2 52.6 37.6 45.0
1 3/4 8 1277.0 95.7 55.4 40.3 48.0
1 7/8 8 1486.0 101.5 58.4 43.1 51.0
2 8 1710.9 110.1 64.3 45.8 54.0
2 1/4 8 2208.1 122.3 71.0 51.3 61.0
2 1/2 8 2768.6 138.4 81.5 56.8 67.0
2 3/4 8 3392.5 149.7 87.4 62.3 73.0
3 8 4079.7 161.0 93.2 67.8 80.0
3 1/4 8 4830.3 172.1 98.8 73.3 86.0
3 1/2 8 5644.2 181.8 103.0 78.8 92.0
3 3/4 8 6521.4 194.3 110.0 84.3 99.0
4 8 7462.0 205.8 116.0 89.8 105.0
where
A
B1
is the cross section area of a single bolt using the root
diameter in mm
2
, see Eq. (55)
L is the bolt hole diameter
Table 1 Bolt and torque wrench data.

The first and last part of Eq.(34) is ring and pipe wall
thickness internal flange moment resistance. The reduction
factors c
M
and c
S
take into account the reduction of the
9 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
bending-carrying capacity and shear force capacity of the pipe
cross section assuming von Mises yield criterion. The factors
are based on pipe wall yielding and not the actual cross
section yielding capacity, see Kirkemo (2001). The middle
part contains the support effect of a radial force from the pipe
for the ring. If the value in the root giving c
M
is negative the
hub/pipe is overloaded. Hoop stress caused by internal
pressure is neglected in the flange ring, however, included in
the strength contribution from the connecting hub/pipe.
The flange ring thickness can now be calculated by
requiring that W
F
should be equal to M
F
by an iterative solver
available in spreadsheets. The initial flange face angle in
radians is calculated as
F
K
M
min 0
= (40)
D B B
h F n M =
min 1 min 0
(41)
where M
0min
is the minimum applied bolting up internal flange
moment in Nmm, K
F
is the elastic stiffness of the integrated
flange ring and cylinder and F
B1min
is the minimum bolt force
for one bolt in N. K
F
is given by
F F
F Fe F
F
c d
e b E
K


=
3
3

(42)
and the correction factors are as follows
( )
( )

+
+ + +
+ =
4 2
2
3
6 6 4 1
1 91 . 0



F
c (43)
( ) ( )
P Fe F P
d b d e = (44)
F P P
e e d = 4 . 0 (45)
( )
e Fe
L
B O
b

=
2
(46)
K
n L
L L
B
e

(47)
P P
e B d + = (48)
( )
2
B O
d
F
+
= (49)
The flange stiffness takes into the adjoining effective
cylinder shell by multiplication with . The factor
is modified by the 0.91 factor compared to factor given in
EN 1591. Furthermore, the constant in
(
P P
d e , )
F
c
F
c
is 0.4 compared to
the 0.55 factor applied in EN 1591. The effective gap at the
flange toe g is calculated as, Fig. 7,
( )
2
tan 9 . 0
B O
g

= (50)
As the toe gap is 90% of the theoretical elastic value, closing
of this gap during bolting up is an indicator of some minimum
applied bolt preload.
Due to the initial flange face angle, most of the bolt
preload and external loads are transferred as contact forces
between flanges within the bolt circle due to flange taper. This
in combination with stiff flanges and flexible bolts and a
design with balanced strength between flange and bolts,
excludes any flange interacting outside the bolt circle, hence
any additional bolt stress generated due a prying effect can be
neglected. The back face of the flange is made parallel to front
face in the made-up position; hence, bending in the bolts is
reduced to a minimum.
Considerable elastic and elastic plastic finite element
analyses, Fig. 9, have been performed to justify the applied
limit load based design and stiffness equations. Capacities
should be determined using elastic-plastic finite element
analysis to avoid the necessity of dividing the stresses into
primary and secondary stress categories and linearisation of
stresses as required in elastic analysis. The structural capacity
is determined by increasing the loads nearly to the point of
instability (maximum) or when the local strains exceed 5 %.
The design capacity is found by dividing the structural
capacity by 1.5. Only limited permanent deformation occurs at
this load level, see Fig. 9.


Flange capacity
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
Total strain in neck
T
o
t
a
l s
e
p
a
r
a
t
io
n
f
o
r
c
e
Design capacity = 2/3 yield point limit load
Calculated yield point
limit load
Elastic plastic FEA
FEA notch
strain limit

Flange ring rotation
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 1.4000 1.6000 1.8000
Rotation, deg
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
io
n
f
o
r
c
e
Elastic plastic FEA
Calculated yield point limit load
Design capacity = 2/3 yield point limit load
Calculated elastic
rotation

Fig. 9 Finite element analysis of flange ring

10 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATIONS
Successful sealing a flanged connection depends on all
components of a well-designed flange system working well
together. These include not only design of sealing system,
bolting and flange as a system but also assembly guidelines.
Initial bolt loads in ASME B16.5 flanged joints have not
always been accurate. Rodabaugh (1972) states: "In field
installation of B16.5 flanged joints the initial bolt stress is
seldom controlled; the pipe fitter simply tightens the bolts to
what he considers to be an appropriate amount". Tightening
groups of bolts in a gasketed ASME joint results in significant
elastic interaction. Individual bolts can loose up to 95 % of
their initial preload, Bibel (1995). Bibel (1995) further states
that final bolt load can be as low as 45 % of design even after
three pass bolt-up procedure. However ASME has recognized
the importance of guidelines for flange joint assembly by
issuing ASME PCC-1 (2000). Typical target bolt prestress in
ASME bolted flanged joints has changed from 275 MPa (40
ksi) in 1972, Rodabaugh (1972), to 345 MPa (50 ksi) today,
ASME PCC-1 (2000).
Only qualified assemblers with calibrated torque wrench,
hydraulic or other tensions shall assemble bolted flange
connections like ASME B16.5 joints and CFJs. Assembly
must be to a written procedure, which is qualified by test to
achieve the minimum residual bolt load. Typical steps in
assembly of CFJs are as follows:
1. Clean and examine the CFJ components before assembly
is started. All sealing surface shall be free from
mechanical damage and rust and have appropriate surface
finish.
2. Align flanges and bolt holes such that the bolts easily can
be installed.
3. Install the seal ring carefully between flanges, check that
the seal ring slightly rocks in the groove (stand off) and
bring the flanges together without damaging the seal ring.
4. Lubricate nut load-bearing surfaces and bolt ends with
specified lubricant.
5. Install bolts and nuts hand-tight, then "snug up" to 15 Nm
to 30 Nm. Number each bolt.
6. Tighten the bolting evenly to specified torque values in a
cross-pattern tightening sequence. After full torque is
applied, apply at least one final torque to all nuts in a
clockwise direction until all torque is uniform and check
that the flange gap is closed.
All preload methods involve some degree of inaccuracy,
which should be accounted for. The scatter in bolt preload is
accounted by the scatter value for the bolt preload as
follows:

=
1
min 10
10
B
nom B
F
F (51)
( )

+ +
= + + =
1
1
1
min 10 10 max 10 B nom B B
F F F (52)
where F
B10min
is the minimum bolt force in N, F
B10nom
is the
nominal (average) bolt assembly force in N, F
B10max
is the
maximum bolt assembly force in N, is the residual bolt
preload scatter value and
B
is the bolt transfer loss for tension
tool, (= 0 for torque tool). The tension tool preload transfer
loss may be calculated by
0
0 0
8 . 0 2
9 . 0 9 . 0
B F
B
B
B
B
d e
d
l
d
+
= = (53)
where l
B
is the effective (clamp) bolt length in mm and d
B0
is
the nominal bolt diameter in mm (=25.4 mm for 1").
Bolt preload scatter values (standard deviation) 5 - 8 %
have been obtained for lubricated (MoS
2
) galvanized ASTM
A193 B7 bolts using a friction value of 0.12. Using friction
values on the high side ensures that the mean bolt preload are
on the high side, hence the mean value minus the scatter is
higher than the minimum required bolt preload. The bolt-
preload scatter for ASME value of a CFJ B16.5 ring type
joints are typical the double of what is obtained by CFJs.
Gasketed ASME bolted flange joints have higher bolt
interaction and larger bolt bending due to flange rotation than
CFJs which have metal-to-metal face contact and almost zero
bending due to parallel flanges after make-up.
An adequate estimate of the relationship between
tightening torque and axial force in the bolt for ASTM A193
bolts and ASTM A194 heavy hex nuts is computed as follows
(
nom B B B nom Bt
F d p M
10 0 ,
23 . 1 16 . 0 + = ) (54)
where M
Bt,nom
is the nominal (target) bolt torque in Nmm, p is
the thread pitch in mm (=25.4/n), n is the number of thread per
inch (=8 for 8UN threads),
B
is the average friction
coefficient on thread and under nut, F
B10nom
is the nominal
(target) axial preload in the bolt in N (=f
B0nom
x A
B1
), f
B0nom
is
the nominal (target) initial bolt stress in Nmm
2
and A
B1
is the
bolt root area of a single bolt in mm
2
given by
(
2
1
3 . 1
4
p d A
B B
= )

(55)
The actual minimum bolt preload should be in the level of 2/3
of the bolt tension yield capacity. This ensures that the sealing
surfaces are in a stable condition (static) for normal design
conditions, i.e. there are no relative movements of sealing
surfaces. The bolt utilization ratio UR at bolting up is
1
12
3
1
2
3
0
max ,
2
1
max 0
0

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
B
Bt
B
B
B
d
M
A
F
f
UR

(56)
where UR is applied load divided by allowable load, f
B0
is the
bolt design stress at bolting-up and the maximum torque value
is given as:
( ) + = 1
, max , nom Bt Bt
M M (57)
and M
Bt,max
=0 for hydraulic tensioners. During bolting-up the
torque is primary load while the wrench is loaded, however,
after make-up, the torque is secondary. This means that torque
can be neglected in the subsequent load conditions.
THERMAL CONSIDERATIONS
Bolted flanged joint materials should be applied below
the lower bound of the creep range, e.g. 370 C for ferritic
11 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
steels, due to creep, causing relaxation in bolt and seal ring,
and eventually the joint may leak. The load capacity for the
CFJs at temperature is established by using the actual yield
strength at temperature. For material strength at temperature, it
should be noted that EN uses minimum yield and tensile
strength values while ASME uses strength values based on
average temperature dependent trend curve.
For thermal applications the bolt, seal ring and flange
materials should not have coefficients of thermal expansion,
which are differing too much. The bolt load will in general
change with temperature. The axial bolt load at temperate
F
B1,T
may be expressed by
( ) (
o F B T B B
F
T F
B T B
T T E A
E
E
F F + =
, 1
0 ,
,
min 10 , 1
) (58)
where E
F,T
and E
F,0
is the flange elastic modulus at temperature
T and assembly temperature T
0
, respectively, E
B,T
is the bolt
elastic modulus at temperature T,
B
and
F
is the thermal
expansion coefficients of the bolt and flange, respectively. The
following may be observed from the expression:
1. The bolt force will reduce with increasing temperature
with equal thermal expansion in bolt and flange due to the
drop in elastic modulus with increased temperature.
2. Higher thermal expansion in bolts than in flange will
reduce the bolt load with increasing temperature.
3. Lower thermal expansion in the bolts than in flange will
increase the bolt load with increasing temperature.
The axial bolt load at temperature including primary and
secondary axial load effects should be kept below the yield
strength at temperature to avoid permanent deformation of the
bolt, hence avoid reduction of bolt preload when the joint is
returned to room temperature.
Note that the seal ring and bolts are thermally shielded
against direct influence from internal fluids and external
thermal sources like fire.
EXAMPLE OF CFJ DESIGN
An example of a CFJ sizing is given in this section. The
CFJ consists of 2 weld neck flanges with materials according
to ASTM A694 F52. The stud bolts strength and threads are in
accordance ASTM A193 B7 while the seal ring material is
ASTM A694 F65. The flanges are connected to pipes with
D
o
=273.1 mm (10") and wall thickness e
P
=26 mm. The flange
connection is designed for a pressure of 258 bar, an equivalent
tension equal to 1511 kN, Eq.(33), and a temperature of 20C.
The minimum target prestress is 2/3 yield strength. For more
details see Table 2.
The comparable ASME B16.5 flanged joint is a 10"
CL1500 ring type joint. The CFJ is considerably lighter and
smaller than the ASME B16.5 flanged joint including torque
tools, see Table 3. In Fig. 10, the CFJ is compared with the
B16.5 flange joint. Main dimensions and weights are given in
Table 4.
It should be noted that selection of other materials, pipe
wall thickness and external loading would change the
dimension of the CFJ.

Table 3 10" CL1500 CFJ and ASME comparison
Characteristic CFJ ASME B16.5
Outside diameter 418.2 mm 584 mm
Thickness 71.1 mm 108 mm
Total length 130.5 mm 254 mm
Bolting 16 x 1 1/8" x
215 mm
12 x 1 7/8" x
345 mm
Weight each flange
1)
57 kg 205 kg
Weight bolting 21 kg 73 kg
Weight torque tool 2.5 kg 12.5 kg
1) Weight of one flange half with pipe length equal to total
ASME flange length is 73 kg.

12 stud bolts
1 7/8x345 mm
16 stud bolts
1 1/8x225 mm
415 mm
584 mm
71.1
mm
119.1 mm
273 mm

Fig. 10 Comparison of 10" CL1500 CFJ and
equivalent ASME B16.5 joint (dotted)

CONCLUSIONS
Conventional flange designs with load carrying gaskets
have major shortcomings wrt. to leakage reliability and
inability to cope with cycling loading and temperature. A
design method for CFJs is presented and applied in an
example for a flange design. The design principles of a CFJ
presented in this paper are sound and offer many fundamental
12 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
advantages over the conventional type of joint, apart from
reduced weight and size. In the author's opinion, CFJs should
gradually find their way into general industrial applications
due to their leak reliability records. However, design codes
should address these types of joints in future.
REFERENCES
1. API Spec. 6A, 1999, Specification for Wellhead and
Christmas Tree Equipment.
2. ASME, 2001, Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section
VIII, Division 1 and 2, ASME International, New York,
NY.
3. ASME B16.5, 1996, Pipe flanges and flanged fittings.
4. ASME B31.3, 1996, Process piping.
5. ASME PCC-1-2000, Guidelines for pressure boundary
bolted flange joint assembly.
6. Bibel, G., 1995, "Summary of PVRC research on bolted
flange assembly," PVP-Vol.307, ASME.
7. BS PD6438:1969, A review of present methods for design
of bolted flanges for pressure vessels.
8. Butcher, H.H., 1973, "Fundamental principles for static
sealing with metals in the high pressure field," ASLE
Transactions, Volume 16, 4, pp.304-309.
9. DIN 2505 Part 1 Draft 1990, Calculation of flanged
joints.
10. Eichenberg, R., 1964, "Design of high-pressure integral
and welding neck flanges with pressure-energized ring
joint gaskets," ASME Paper No.63-Pet-3, J. of
Engineering Industry, May 1964, 86, (2), 199-2-4.
11. EN 1591-1:2001, Flanges and their joints Design rules
for gasketed circular flange connections Calculation
method.
12. prEN 13345:2002 (March), Unfired pressure vessels.
13. Haagen, T., 1967, "New flange connection for large
pressure vessels," First International Conference on
Pressure Vessel Technology, Part 1, Design and Analysis,
September 29 October 2, ASME, pp.155-164.
14. Hyde, T.H., Lewis, L.V. and Fessler, H., 1988, "Bolting
and loss of contact between cylindrical flat-flanged joints
without gaskets,", Journal of strain analysis Vol.23, No.1.
15. ISO 13623:2000, Petroleum and natural gas industries
Pipeline transportation systems.
16. ISO 4287:1977, Geometrical Product Specifications
(GPS) - Surface texture: Profile method - Terms,
definitions and surface texture parameters.
17. Kirkemo, F., 2001, "Burst and gross plastic deformation
limit states equations for pipes: Part 1 Theory," ISOPE
2001.
18. Lassesen, S., Nybrten, O. and Eriksen, T., 2002,
"NORSOK L-005; Compact flanged connections (CFC)
the new standard," ASME PVP 2002.
19. "Pipe connection", Chemical Engineering, April 26, 1965,
72, (9), 183-4.
20. Rodabaugh, E.C., 1972, "Background of ANSI B16.5
pressure-temperature ratings," API, Preprint 54-72.
21. Rossheim, D.B., Markl, A.R.C., 1943, "Gasket loading
constants," Mech. Eng., Vol.65, p.647-648.
22. Scwaigerer, S., 1954, "Die berechnung der
Flanschverbindungen im Behlter- und Rohrleitungsbau,"
Z.VDI 96, pp. 7-12.
23. Waters, E.O., Wesstrom, D.B., Rossheim, D.B. and
Williams, F.S.G., 1937, "Formulas for stresses in bolted
flanged connections," Trans.ASME, April.
24. Webrn, J., 1967, "Flange design in Sweden," ASME
Paper 67-PET-20.
25. Webrn, J. and Schneider, R.W., 1980, "Functional test of
a vessel with compact flanges in metal-to-metal contact,"
WRC Bulletin No. 262.
13 Copyright by ASME
PVP2002-1087
Table 2 Example sheet of CFJ sizing
WELDING NECK AND INTEGRAL COMPACT FLANGE JOINT DESIGN
DESIGN BASIS
Pipe/hub outside diameter D
o
273.1 mm Yield strength, flange/hub R
p,F
360.0 N/mm
2
Pipe/hub wall thickness e
P
26.0 mm Yield strength, bolting R
p,B
720.0 N/mm
2
Design pressure p
i
25.8 N/mm
2
Yield strength, seal ring R
p,R
450.0 N/mm
2
External equivalent load F
eq
1.51E+06 N Safety factor, operating S
P
1.50
Elastic modulus, flange E
F
200000 N/mm
2
Safety factor, bolting up S
0
1.05
Elastic modulus, seal ring E
R
200000 N/mm
2
Groove flank angle 15

Seal ring/seating friction coef.
R
0.10 Minimum target prestress f
B0min
480.0 N/mm
2
Bolt/nut friction coefficient
B
0.12 Bolt preload scatter 0.05
SEAL RING AND GROOVE CALCULATIONS
Flange/pipe bore B 221.1 mm Radial interface I 0.70 mm
Inside diameter of ring D
Ri
273.1 mm Stand off SO 2.60 mm
Height of ring H
R
33.1 mm Width of groove N 12.71 mm
Minimum ring width at Ds b
Rs
8.26 mm Outside diameter of groove D
Go
295.53 mm
Width of ring b
R
10.81 mm Depth of groove Q 17.06 mm
Ring cross-section area A
R
315.1 mm
2
Fluid seal diameter D
s
289.6 mm
BOLTS AND FLANGE OUTLINE CALCULATIONS
Ring retaining load F
Ra
2.73E+05 N No. of bolts n
B
16
Total hydrostatic end force F
Q
1.70E+06 N Bolt size d
B
1 1/8 in
Minimum required bolt area A
Bmin
7258 mm Bolt hole diameter L 32.0 mm
Actual bolt area A
Bact
7511 mm Diameter of bolt circle K 365 mm
Minor half ellipes y
E
10.4 mm Outside diameter of flange O 418.2 mm
Major half ellipse x
E
36.4 mm Hub length l
H
59.4 mm
FLANGE THICKNESS AND INITIAL FLANGE TAPER CALCULATIONS
Pipe hydrostatic end force F
D
9.906E+05 N Operation internal flange
moment
M
F
1.966E+08 Nmm
Flange hydrostatic end force F
T
7.092E+05 N Flange ring thickness e
F
71.1 mm
Internal flange moment, F
D
M
D
1.475E+08 Nmm Bolting up internal flange mom. M
0
2.045E+08 Nmm
Internal flange moment, F
T
M
T
3.888E+07 Nmm Flange rot. due to min. preload
0
0.27
o
Internal flange moment, F
R
M
R
1.028E+07 Nmm Initial gap at flange toe g
F
0.42 mm
ASSEMBLY CALCULATIONS FOR SINGLE BOLT
Maximum tension, torque F
B1max
2.592E+05 N Tension tool transfer loss
B
16 %
Bolt torque, target M
t
1225 Nm Tensioner tension, target F
t
2.970E+05 N
Bolting up load ratio - torque UR
Mt
0.97 Bolting up load ratio - tension UR
Ft
0.92

14 Copyright by ASME