Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2013
A TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF RAISED FACE VERSUS RING
JOINT FLANGES
Christopher D. Reichert Barry Messer
Hatch Ltd. Fluor Canada Ltd.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada Calgary, Alberta, Canada
ABSTRACT
On new construction projects, designers are frequently
faced with the choice of whether to use raised face or ring joint
flanges for piping systems. Often, decisions are made based on
flange types used in the past, without due consideration for the
merits of either style. On major piping projects, the decision
can have significant and far reaching impacts for the owner of
the facility, from a cost, constructability, and operational point
of view.
The authors of this paper studied several recent projects in
North America and Europe and performed a technical
comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each style of
flange. The authors also performed a comprehensive estimate
of the cost differential between using the different styles of
flanges. The provision of both technical and economic data in
one paper is intended to provide a resource of data that
designers need to make an informed decision about which style
of flange to use.
INTRODUCTION
On a recent project, the authors were asked to provide
recommendations regarding flange style use for high pressure
piping systems. The client’s existing practice was to use ring
type joint flanges for all systems class 900 and greater. The
authors’ recommendation was to use raised face flanges with
spiral wound gaskets, as it was determined that the use of ring
type joint flanges would lead to increased cost with a potential
reduction in reliability and quality.
In preparing the recommendation, the author’s considered
many different technical and cost advantages and disadvantages
of each style of flange. This paper presents a summary of
findings and recommendations. To highlight cost differences,
the authors used historical data from a recent petrochemical
project to determine quantities and costs of flanges and gaskets.
This paper is divided into three main sections. The first
section deals exclusively with a technical comparison of raised
face flanges versus ring type joint flanges. The second section
July 14-18, 2013, Paris, France
PVP2013-97710
Larissa C. Reichert
Engineering Consultant
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
contains an estimate of the differences in cost between the two
styles of flanges. The third section highlights some potentially
major costs that a designer should consider, but may be difficult
to quantify. A brief summary of conclusions and
recommendations is presented at the end.
NOMENCLATURE
RF raised face
RTJ ring type joint
SECTION 1 – TECHNICAL COMPARISON
History
The RTJ flange became popular when asbestos gaskets
were in common usage. Asbestos gaskets were typically sheet
gaskets, and they were not suitable for high pressure
applications due to the increased possibility of blowout.
Because of this danger, RTJ flanges became a commonly
specified joint in higher pressure applications.
Around 1989 asbestos-containing gaskets began to be
banned or restricted in the United States [1]. Spiral wound
gaskets began to gain popularity as the use of asbestos declined.
Over the years, improved manufacturing techniques and
materials lowered the cost and increased the reliability of spiral
wound gaskets, which resulted in their increased usage at
higher pressures. Today, many owners use RF flanges with
spiral wound gaskets in high pressure, critical applications.
Within North America, the use of RTJ flanges for new
construction projects has become a relatively rare occurrence.
Reliability
Discussions with several major gasket manufacturers
indicate that there are fewer issues with leakage using RF
flanges than with RTJ flanges. Further discussions with facility
owners, designers, and engineers for major petrochemical
companies yielded similar responses. The general consensus
1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
was that, given an option between RF and RTJ flanges for new
construction, all would recommend using RF flanges.
There was some disagreement with regards to whether or
not an RTJ connection will perform better during startup and
shutdown. Some users feel that in cases of rapid thermal
swings, an RF flange with a spiral wound gasket performs
better than an RTJ flange with a ring joint gasket. The concern
with the ring joint gasket is that it has a small thermal mass and
is in direct contact with the process fluid, making it more
susceptible to differential thermal expansion/contraction in
situations where a rapid thermal change occurs.
For similar reasons, many users feel that RF flanges are
less likely to leak during a fire than RTJ flanges.
Gasket Conformability
Because an RTJ flange uses a relatively hard metallic
gasket, it is difficult for the gasket to fill imperfections in the
gasket seating surface. Accurately machined surfaces with a
smooth finish, as well as gaskets that have not been abused or
scratched are required to successfully seal a joint.
By comparison, the gaskets used in RF flanged joints
typically contain non-metallic fillers and may contain
compressible (deformable) metallic windings. These properties
cause the gaskets to have high conformability. On a macro
level, this permits the gasket to correct for slightly warped or
deformed flanges. On a micro level, this permits the gasket to
successfully seal small scratches and imperfections in the
gasket seating surface.
Gasket Compressibility/Recovery
Ring joint gaskets, being metal, behave in an elastic
manner, with a small degree of yielding (due to very high
contact stress) along the line of contact with the flange. This
high contact stress allows ring joint gaskets to successfully seal
fluids at very high pressures. The high stiffness of the gasket
means that it compresses very little during assembly, and any
operating conditions that lead to flange separation could readily
cause the joint to leak.
RF flanges, with semi-metallic gaskets are typically much
more compressible, with a good degree of recovery. This
permits some degree of flange separation to occur without
losing gasket stress as rapidly as would occur with a solid metal
gasket [2].
Flange Geometry
RTJ flanges and RF flanges are fabricated to identical
thicknesses, however the flange facings differ. In an RF flange
class 600 and greater, the raised face thickness is 7mm. In an
RTJ flange, the facing is the same thickness as the groove [3].
As such, the minimum thickness through the flange will be
7mm less for an RTJ flange than for an RF flange. The lesser
thickness in the RTJ flange will result in higher stresses.
In addition to having higher stresses, an RTJ flange has a
groove cut into the face. This groove acts as a stress riser,
leading to higher localized stresses, and may act as an initiation
point for cracks, which is especially concerning in fluid
services that contain crack inducing agents.
Troubleshooting Leaking Joints
For an RF flange with a spiral wound gasket, a target bolt
stress of 50,000 psi is commonly used [4]. Where problems are
encountered, the simplest fix for a leaking joint is often to
increase the bolt load [5]. It is not uncommon for engineering
companies or facility operators to specify bolt stresses of
65,000 psi (or higher), to help compensate for misalignment
and moments on the flange in operation [6].
With an RTJ flange and ring joint gasket, bolt stresses
cannot be raised without increasing the risk of cracking of the
flange. This risk may eliminate the use of higher bolt loads to
seal leaking flanges. Some possible methods for fixing
problem joints would include replacing gaskets, re-machining
the gasket seating surfaces, or re-fitting the piping to provide
better alignment. These are all costly and time consuming
procedures. These methods of troubleshooting problem joints
may also be used with an RF flange design.
With an RF flange design, problem flanges can also be
addressed by changing the gasket type. Rather than spiral
wound gaskets, a kammprofile gasket could be used, permitting
higher bolt stresses, lowering gasket seating stresses, and
decreasing the possibility of blowout, crushing, or extrusion of
the gasket [7]. In most cases, substitution of alternate gaskets
is not a ready and reliable fix for an RTJ flange.
Through discussions with various users, the authors found
general agreement that RTJ flanges require more trouble-
shooting during assembly, hydrotesting, and startup.
Discussions with construction personnel and analysis of past
projects indicate that (for experienced pipefitters) it takes about
twice as much time to troubleshoot RTJ flange fit-up as is
required for RF flanges. With inexperienced pipefitters, even
more time would be required to troubleshoot leaking joints.
Workforce Familiarity with RTJ Flanges
The authors estimate that at least 50% of pipefitters in
western Canada have limited or no experience with the
assembly of RTJ flanges. This inexperience increases the risk
of poor assembly practices, which can lead to problems both
during startup and during operations. Designers should
consider the experience level of local labor when deciding
which joint style to specify.
As noted earlier, one critical problem regarding RTJ
flanges is that high stress in the flange may lead to cracking at
the root of the groove. This problem may be exacerbated by
pipefitters overtorquing bolts. Overtorquing bolts on an RF
joint is much less likely to result in cracking of the flange.
Prior to making up of a joint, the fit-up and cleanliness of
the flanges and gaskets must be verified. With RTJ flanges,
inexperienced fitters may use the ring joint gasket to act as an
alignment guide when bringing the flange faces together.
Misalignment between flanges, imperfections in the flange
facings, or foreign substances on the gasket or flange will cause
the gasket sealing surface to be “dragged” across the surface of
2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
the groove, potentially scoring the seating surface and in-
creasing the risk of leakage.
The problem of worker unfamiliarity with RTJ flanges may
be addressed through proper training, which would add costs
not typically incurred for RF flanges.
Inspection Techniques
For lower risk boltups, quality control procedures may
require the use of breakaway torque to verify that sufficient
load has been placed on the bolts. This technique typically will
only verify that nut rotation does not begin below a certain
level of torque. It is subject to significant human error in
practice and is not an accurate measure of the bolt load. The
reliability of breakaway torque as an inspection method is not
good for joints that have not been recently torqued, and is only
a fair inspection method for recently torqued joints [8]. This
quality control method may not do an adequate job of
identifying overtorquing that could lead to cracking in RTJ
flanges. For this reason, it may not be appropriate to use
breakaway torque as an inspection method for RTJ flanges.
For more critical applications, ultrasonic bolt elongation
measurements may be used to verify actual bolt loads. For
projects using RF flanges, this verification would normally
include selected class 900 piping and all piping class 1500 and
higher. If RTJ flanges are used, this verification should be
extended to all class 900 services to reduce the risk of cracking
the flanges.
Because of the increased risk of cracking in an RTJ flange,
inspection costs will need to be higher for the same level of
reliability.
Configuration
An RTJ flange has a ring joint gasket that seats in a groove.
RTJ flanges must be capable of spreading far enough apart to
permit insertion of the gasket. Often, a removable spool is
required to allow sufficient movement in the pipe. In contrast,
RF flanges can usually be spread far enough apart to permit
insertion of a gasket without requiring a removable spool.
Adding removable spools increases the number of joints,
which increases both cost and potential leak points. These
spools may necessitate additional access for lifting devices,
which is normally not included in cost comparisons between
RTJ and RF type systems.
The configuration requirement for RTJ flanges eliminates
the possibility of close coupling equipment. As such, more plot
space or additional structural steel may be required to permit
interconnecting piping between equipment.
The grooves in a flange may also create issues during
fabrication of high-alloy equipment. Performing an overlay on
an RTJ flange may be very difficult in comparison to an RF
flange. In some cases, purchase of solid alloy flanges may be
required at an increased cost.
Availability
Within the authors’ region, spiral wound gaskets are used
much more frequently than ring joint gaskets. For common
metallurgies, spiral wound gaskets are readily available in all
standard sizes. For non-standard sizes, manufacturing facilities
are located within the region, which speeds up delivery time.
One concern with ring joint gaskets is that special heat
treatments may be required on certain gaskets. This
requirement may impact delivery or necessitate the purchase
and storage of extra gaskets.
The subject of gasket availability is typically only a
concern where custom gasket metallurgies, fillers, or heat
treatments have been specified.
Service Factors
As previously stated, RTJ flanges are more susceptible to
cracking than RF flanges. When exposed to environments
where cracking is a concern, this problem can become
aggravated. There have been a number of incidents where
austenitic RTJ flanges cracked at the groove as a result of either
polythionic acid stress cracking or chloride stress cracking. As
such, RTJ flanges may need to be avoided in services where
cracking agents exist.
Maintenance
The requirement to spread flanges for gasket insertion and
removal makes maintenance activities more difficult to perform
for RTJ flanges than for RF flanges. RTJ flange systems
greatly complicate the task of inserting or swinging blinds and
may require the removal of breakout spools.
After repeated assemblies/disassemblies of an RTJ
connection, it is not uncommon to find deformation to the
flange seating surfaces. To fix this damage, remachining or
replacement of the flange may be required. These procedures
are costly, time consuming, and difficult to plan for during a
shutdown.
Some owners now cut out all RTJ flanges and replace them
with RF flanges whenever a joint is disassembled because there
is a high possibility that RTJ connections will require rework
for successful reassembly. There is some disagreement as to
whether or not this practice is more cost effective than only
trying to troubleshoot problem flanges.
SECTION 2 – COST COMPARISON
The authors performed a cost estimate for the use of RTJ
flanges versus RF flanges for a recently completed piping
project in Alberta. The estimate considered 3,200 connections
in pressure ratings of class 900 and greater, in sizes from NPS
3/4 through NPS 20. The project was built with RF flanges.
Real purchasing data and costs for construction were compiled
where available. This data was then used to estimate the cost to
build the project using RTJ flanges.
The project under study did not use flanged connections
for either hydrotest vents/drains, or for process vents/drains. If
a project were to use flanged vents and drains, the percentage
of small diameter flanged connections would increase
significantly and could have an effect on any analysis.
Although cost data will not necessarily be applicable in
other regions, this estimate will give designers an idea of
3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
factors to consider when determining which joint type to use in
their particular installation. Additionally, this estimate will
provide designers with useful “order of magnitude” costs for
different aspects of construction. All costs are in Canadian
dollars.
Cost of Installation
A survey of historical data indicates that installation costs
for making up an RTJ connection are between 10% and 35%
higher than for making up an RF connection. For the purposes
of this study, the manhour factors quoted in the Estimator’s
Piping Man-Hour Manual by John S. Page have been used,
which states that an RTJ flange will take 25% longer to make
up than an RF flange [9]. The project under study utilized
controlled torquing procedures, ultrasonic measurement of bolt
loads, and the contractors were working on a cost reimbursable
basis. These factors significantly impacted the productivity of
the bolting crews. To reflect actual conditions, the authors
calculate that a productivity factor of 3.6 should be applied to
the manhour factors quoted by Page. A direct hourly rate of
$66 per hour was used based on market conditions in the
region.
The authors calculate the total cost to install RF flanges
was $1,396,000, and estimate the cost to install RTJ flanges
would be $1,745,000 representing a cost premium of 25% for
using RTJ flanges.
Cost of Flanges
For the project under study, an analysis was done on the
material cost for using RF flanges versus RTJ flanges. The
project purchased a total of 2,255 flanges in class 900 and
greater pressure ratings. There was a discrepancy between the
number of flanges purchased (2,255) and the number of joints
assembled (3,200) as flanges on equipment, instruments, and
valves were not included in the total count of flanges.
A supplier provided a quotation for current costs of both
RF and RTJ flanges. The quotation was based on A105N
material, in wall thicknesses suitable for full pressure rating,
with a 24 week delivery. The percentage premium paid for RTJ
flanges was calculated for each size/pressure rating. On the
project being analyzed, 88% of the flanges purchased were
A105N material. The authors felt it would be appropriate to
use this “spot” premium for any material type, without
introducing significant error.
This spot premium was then applied to historical purchase
data for the entire 2,255 flanges to reflect pricing changes over
the three year duration of the project. Fluctuating material
costs are not uncommon for large multi-year projects.
It should also be noted that the premium was applied to
blind flanges, which was a subjective assumption. A relatively
small number of blind flanges were used for the project; so
further investigation was not considered warranted.
The authors did not apply the premium to flanges on
valves, instruments and equipment. It was believed that the
incremental cost of an RTJ flange on these items would be
minor and application of the premium would skew the results
of the comparison.
The authors calculate that the total material cost of the RF
flanges was $370,000, and estimate that the total material cost
for RTJ flanges would be $482,000 representing a cost
premium of 30% for using RTJ flanges. This calculation does
not include the cost of flanges required for breakout spools
needed to facilitate assembly of RTJ connections, which is
covered later.
Cost of Gaskets
3,200 spiral wound gaskets in various metallurgies were
purchased for the project. It was felt that some of the highly
specialized metallurgies and purchasing requirements for the
gaskets on the project would skew the estimate, so the project’s
gasket cost was recalculated assuming only 304L spiral wound
gaskets with a carbon steel centering ring and a stainless steel
inner ring were used. For comparison purposes, pricing was
obtained from a local supplier for soft iron ring joint gaskets to
be used with RTJ flanges.
The authors calculate that the total gasket cost for the RF
flanges was $20,000, and estimate that the total gasket cost for
RTJ flanges would be $111,000, representing a cost premium of
455% for using RTJ flanges. This calculation does not include
the cost of gaskets required for breakout spools needed to
facilitate assembly of RTJ connections, which is covered later.
The use of specialized alloys may increase the differential cost.
Although not covered in this estimate, the designer should
consider that gasket costs will be recurrent if gaskets are
replaced each time a joint is broken.
Cost of Nuts and Bolts
Rather than using the actual cost of nuts and bolts
purchased for the project, the authors have calculated the cost
using only A193-B7 bolts and A194-2H nuts. As with the
gaskets, it was felt that some of the highly specialized
metallurgies used in the nuts and bolts might skew the estimate.
The authors calculate that the total cost for nuts and bolts
was $253,000. This cost does not change between RF flanges
and RTJ flanges. This calculation does not include the cost of
nuts and bolts required for breakout spools needed to facilitate
assembly of RTJ connections, which is covered later.
Cost of Inspection
The authors calculate that approximately $100 per bolted
connection was spent on inspection activities, bringing the total
cost for inspection on the project to $320,000. This cost does
not change between RF flanges and RTJ flanges. This
calculation does not include the cost of inspecting additional
joints required for breakout spools needed to facilitate assembly
of RTJ connections, which is covered later.
Cost of Troubleshooting
For RF flanges, it is estimated that an additional 5% of the
manhours required to make up the joints would be required for
troubleshooting during testing, commissioning, and startup.
4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
For RTJ flanges, a factor of 15% of the make-up manhours is
estimated for troubleshooting. These factors are highly
dependent on the skill of the workforce, and could be
substantially higher.
Using these factors, the authors estimate that the total cost
to troubleshoot RF flanges was $70,000, and estimate the cost
to troubleshoot RTJ flanges would be $262,000 representing a
cost premium of 274% for using RTJ flanges. This calculation
does not include the cost of troubleshooting additional joints
required for breakout spools needed to facilitate assembly of
RTJ connections, which is covered later.
Additional Cost of Breakout Spools
RTJ flanges require that the flanges be spread in order to
insert the gasket. This may necessitate additional joints that
would not be required for RF flanges, especially at connections
to equipment. Discussions with several piping design leads
indicated that the number of joints (not flanges) required to
permit assembly of an RTJ piping system would be anywhere
from 50% to 100% higher than that required for an RF piping
system.
To get a better idea of the number of additional joints
required, purchasing patterns for the project under study were
carefully analyzed to determine appropriate factors.
No additional allowance was given for blind flanges,
which would not require any additional flange sets to permit
break out.
For flanges NPS 3 and smaller, it was assumed that most
installations would involve either instrumentation connections
or piping that was flexible enough to be readily spread for
gasket installation. For flanges in these sizes, the authors
estimated that an RTJ system would require 5% more flanges
than an RF system.
For flanges NPS 4 and greater, different factors were
applied depending upon how the flanges were purchased. The
data from the project was broken out by purchase order number,
pipe line number, and quantity of flanges; it was possible to
speculate how the flanges were used. Three different cases
were considered:
1. Orders involving a single flange for a single pipe line
number have a high degree of probability of being a
single connection to a piece of equipment, and would
likely require the purchase of two additional flanges to
build a breakout spool. For this case, it is estimated
that an RTJ system would require 200% more flanges
than an RF system.
2. Where more than one flange was purchased for a single
pipe line number, the probability increases that the final
installation would have sufficient flexibility to permit
assembly and disassembly of the joints. Where two to
four flanges were purchased, it is estimated that an RTJ
system would require 100% more flanges than an RF
system.
3. Where five or more flanges were purchased for a single
pipe line number, there is a high probability that
sufficient flexibility would exist in the piping system to
disassemble many of the joints. For this case, it is
estimated that an RTJ system would require 50% more
flanges than an RF system.
Based upon these assumptions, it was calculated that an
additional 576 flanges, or 288 joints, would be needed to permit
assembly and disassembly of the RTJ system.
Using the numbers developed earlier, it is estimated that
the cost of additional flanges would be $283,000, nuts and bolts
would be $52,000 and gaskets would be $19,000. For these
joints, it is estimated that the cost of make-up would be
$235,000, inspection would be $29,000, and troubleshooting
would be $35,000.
Each additional flange added to the system would require
one weld. No allowance has been added for stress relief of
heavy wall piping as the spools would have needed to undergo
a furnace stress relief whether or not RTJ flanges were used.
The additional cost for welding of additional flanges is
estimated to be $431,000. This was calculated using the Page
factors for welding of flanges, cut and bevel of pipe, preheat of
weld, x-ray on 50% of welds, and applying a productivity
factor of 1.5 for shop fabrication.
Additional costs for shop handling, welding of alloy
piping, or additional elbows/fittings required to achieve suitable
flexibility for assembly have not been included.
Additional Training
Workforce unfamiliarity with RTJ flanges necessitates
training to improve the quality of the finished product and to
cut down on rework. The authors estimate that the cost of
additional workforce training for installing RTJ flanges would
be $50,000.
Summary of Cost Comparison for Past Project
After estimating the costs associated with installation of
RF versus RTJ flanges, the authors calculated the percent
premium that would result from installing an RTJ system.
Using this premium, the results of this estimate can be
extrapolated to other large projects. With all direct costs
included, the authors estimate that an RTJ system will cost at
least 77% more than an RF system. Smaller projects would
need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
It should be noted that the costs below do not include any
indirects. Premiums have not been calculated for welding or
training, as these costs were not incurred for an RF system.
The welding cost refers to the costs associated with fabricating
breakout spools to permit assembly of an RTJ flange.
Item RF Cost RTJ Cost Premium
Make-up $1,396K $1,980K 42%
Flanges $370K $765K 107%
Gaskets $20K $130K 550%
Bolts/Nuts $253K $305K 21%
Inspection $320K $349K 9%
Troubleshooting $70K $297K 324%
5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Welding $0K $431K N/A
Training $0K $50K N/A
Total $2,429K $4,307K 77%
Regardless of whether RF or RTJ flanges are used, the
designer should note the VERY small cost of the gaskets
relative to the total cost of the flanged joints. Frequently,
decisions on projects are made based upon which gasket costs
less, when in reality, this should not be the most important
factor considered when designing a system.
SECTION 3 – POTENTIAL MAJOR COSTS
When performing the technical and cost comparisons, a
number of items were identified that could have significant cost
impacts on a project, but were very difficult to quantify. This
section provides a brief overview of some big dollar items that
a designer should consider when determining which style of
flange to use.
Configuration of Exchangers/Equipment
Use of RTJ connections excludes the possibility of close
coupling equipment and exchangers. The need to be able to
separate the flanges could require adding elevation between
equipment, changing locations of nozzles to the sides of
exchangers, reorienting pumps, or adding jumper spools of
piping. An arrangement like this could increase the footprint of
stacked exchangers. In one situation analyzed, it was
anticipated that additional piping, steel and labour required to
avoid close coupling equipment could have cost up to $100,000
per stack of exchangers. The actual cost was impossible to
accurately quantify without a detailed analysis of several
layouts, which was not justified at the time. If close coupling
of equipment is desired, the designer should keep flange style
selection in mind when performing preliminary equipment
layout.
Startup Schedule
For many projects, a modularized approach to construction
is employed, which maximizes the use of closure welds and
minimizes the number of field hydrotests of completed piping
systems. This approach increases the probability that flanges
will leak during commissioning and startup as a faulty joint is
unlikely to be discovered until the joint is pressurized. Hence,
the selection of a flange/gasket system that is reliable and easy
to troubleshoot becomes critical to controlling cost and
schedule during startup and commissioning.
Delays during commissioning and startup may be very
costly. A one day delay in operations could easily cost millions
of dollars in lost revenue. Considering the huge expense
associated with delays, it makes good sense economically to
use a flange system that is less likely to encounter problems
during startup. As discussed previously, minimizing
hydrostatic testing, low workforce familiarity with RTJ flanges,
tight tolerances required for make-up, and past history showing
that RTJ flanges will require more troubleshooting on startup
makes the use of RTJ flanges a potentially expensive
proposition.
A designer should consider the impact of testing, startup,
and commissioning delays when selecting which style of flange
a project should use.
Leakage During Operation
Leakage during operation of a high pressure system can be
very costly and potentially hazardous. Bolts should never be
torqued while a joint is under pressure without very careful
attention to the possibility of overstressing a bolt or flange.
Cooling down the joint can lead to an increase in bolt stress and
cause bolts to yield. With that in mind, hot torquing of joints
can be an effective way to avoid shutting down a unit to fix
minor leaks.
Both RF and RTJ flanges carry the risk of yielding bolts
due to hot torqueing; however, bolts are relatively inexpensive
to replace. An RTJ flange carries an increased risk of
overstressing the flange due to hot torquing, which may crack
the flange. This risk reduces the ability of operations to fix
leaks through hot torquing, and increases the probability that a
unit or process needs to be shut down to repair leaks.
If a unit does need to be brought down to fix a leaking
joint, RTJ flanges may require that multiple joints be broken
apart in order to correct a single joint. This will increase the
number of replacement gaskets and the probability that a
previously tight joint will leak when the unit is restarted.
Damage to seating surfaces of a flange during shutdowns
may necessitate remachining of flange faces. Ring joint
gaskets are much less capable of sealing flange face
imperfections than gaskets used with RF flanges. Additionally,
where RF flanges have been used, the operators have the option
to try different styles of gaskets, such as kammprofile, prior to
resorting to remachining. As such, damage to RTJ flange
seating surfaces is more likely to substantially increase the
length of time a unit needs to be shut down.
Several experienced owner/operators are currently engaged
in programs to systematically replace all RTJ flanges with RF
flanges. The direct cost to perform this on an operating facility
can easily run into the tens of millions of dollars. If there is any
possibility that a facility will want to move away from the use
of RTJ flanges in the future, the designer should avoid the use
of RTJ flanges at all costs.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The authors of this paper have come to a number of
conclusions regarding the use of RTJ flanges versus RF flanges.
1. The use of RTJ flanges on new construction projects
should generally be avoided. There are a number of
technical reasons for this, and the cost data presented
would indicate that there are few good reasons to
choose to use RTJ flanges. Over the years, sufficient
experience has been gained by industry to show that RF
flanges may be used safely in high pressure applications
through proper design, assembly, and gasket selection.
6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 2. As a rule of thumb, an RTJ installation will cost
roughly 77% more than the equivalent RF installation.
3. The cost of a gasket should not be the primary factor
looked at when making an economic decision about the
use of a certain style of joint, as it is relatively minor
compared to the total installed cost of a flanged
connection.
Although the authors have generally recommended the use
of RF flanges for new construction projects, they realize that
there are situations where an RTJ flange may be a better choice.
This paper provides a list of technical details that designers
should consider when making a flange or gasket selection.
Additionally, where a designer wishes to perform a detailed
cost estimate for the use of either style of flange, this paper
provides a framework that ensures the estimate will address
many issues commonly missed.

FUTURE WORK
The authors of this paper intend to perform an analysis of
other styles of flanges, such as compact flanges and hub type
connectors versus raised face flanges to determine the real
technical and economic benefits of using each.

REFERENCES

[1] Bickford, J. H., 1995, An Introduction to the Design and

Behavior of Bolted Joints, Taylor & Francis Group, New
York, NY, p. 691
[2] Czernik, D. E., 1996, Gaskets – Design, Selection, and
Testing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 46-47
[3] ASME, 2009, ASME B16.5 Pipe Flanges and Flanged
Fittings: NPS ½ Through NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
NY
[4] ASME, 2000, ASME PCC-1-2000 Guidelines for Pressure
Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, p. 8
[5] Brown W., 2006, “Flange Assembly Bolt Load Selection
Based on Leak before Break Analysis”, PVP2006-ICPVT-
11-93075, Proceedings of ASME PVP2006, ASME,
Vancouver, British Columbia
[6] Seipp T. G., Reichert C., Messer B., 2007, “Bolted Flange
Joints Under External Moments: An Analysis Using the
Compound Gasket Approach for Spiral Wound Gaskets”,
PVP2007-26841, Proceedings of ASME PVP2007, ASME,
San Antonio, TX
[7] BSI, 2001, DD ENV 1591-2:2001, Flanges and their joints
– Design rules for gasketed circular flange connections –
Part 2: Gasket parameters, British Standards Institute,
London, p. 6
[8] Bickford, J. H., 1995, An Introduction to the Design and
Behavior of Bolted Joints, Taylor & Francis Group, New
York, NY, p. 262
[9] Page, J. S., 1999, Estimator’s Piping Man-Hour Manual,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA, p. 84

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME