FE Analysis of Flanges

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
OF 3-1/8” AND 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B

FLANGES
Prepared For
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, DC
April, 2011
STRESS ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

Houston, Texas
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
OF 3-1/8” AND 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGES
PN 1101084, Rev. 0
Prepared for
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, DC
Prepared By:__________________________
Venkata P. Nadakuditi
Analyst
Prepared By:__________________________
Andreas Katsounas, PE
Principal
Reviewed By:__________________________
S. Allen Fox, PE
Principal
Stress Engineering Services, Inc.

13800 Westfair East Drive
Houston, Texas 77041-1101
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-195
APRIL, 2011
PN1101084/LR1101084_RevA.doc
API
Finite Element Analysis of 3-1/8” and 4-1/16” 5Ksi API 6B Flanges April, 2011
LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
The scope of this report is limited to the matters expressly covered. This report is prepared for
the sole benefit of the American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. In preparing this report,
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. (SES) has relied on information provided by American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Stress Engineering Services, Inc. (SES) has made no
independent investigation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information and has
assumed that such information was accurate and complete. Further, Stress Engineering Services,
Inc. (SES) is not able to direct or control the operation or maintenance of client’s equipment or
processes.
All recommendations, findings and conclusions stated in this report are based upon facts and
circumstances, as they existed at the time that this report was prepared. A change in any fact or
circumstance upon which this report is based may adversely affect the recommendations,
findings, and conclusions expressed in this report.
NO IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

PURPOSE SHALL APPLY. STRESS ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. MAKES NO
REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OR USE OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS, OR CONCLUSIONS OF THIS REPORT WILL
RESULT IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS OR PERFECT RESULTS.
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 1 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

API
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF 3-1/8” AND 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGES
SUMMARY
Stress Engineering Services (SES) performed elastic three-dimensional (3D) finite

element analysis of the 3-1/8” and 4-1/16” 5ksi API 6B flange connectors under
combined loading to determine the API Bulletin 6AF and 6AF2 type load rating charts.
The load combinations and allowable stress and leakage criteria, defined in API
contracts PRAC 86-21 (resulting in API Bulletin 6AF through axisymmetric analyses)
and PRAC 88-21 (resulting in API Bulletin 6AF2 through 3D analyses), were used to
generate the load rating charts. At the request of API, the flanges were not evaluated
for thermal effects of 250°F internal and 30°F external temperature differential. The
applied loads were bolt preload, tension, bore pressure, and bending moment. This
report describes the analytical work performed by SES.
The 3D half-symmetry analysis model of one side of the flange connector consisted of
8-noded solid elements for both the flange and the bolts. The linear elastic analysis
was performed with the ABAQUS general purpose analysis program. The gasket was
not modeled, but rather a circumferential line of nodes along the gasket groove was
axially restrained. Symmetry boundary condition were applied at the flange and bolt
symmetry planes.
The models were subjected to four individual unit loads; 52.5ksi bolt makeup, 1000psi
bore pressure with the associated pressure end load, tension of 10000psi axial pipe
stress, and bending moment that resulted in 10000psi stress at the extreme fiber of the
pipe. The last three loads were applied without any initial makeup load in the bolts.
The analysis results were post-processed to obtain unit load linearized stress
components for limiting cross sections in the hub and flange, and to obtain unit bolt and
gasket loads. The stress components were combined for each desired load
combination and compared against the allowable stress and sealability criteria for
52.5ksi and 40ksi bolt preloads.
Two different types of rating charts are provided (see Attachment C-2). The API 6AF
(PRAC 86-21) type rating chart shows (in a single plot, see Figures 2 for 3-1/8” and
Figure 6 for 4-1/16”) the controlling curves for all criteria. The API 6AF2 (PRAC 88-21)
type rating charts show the curves based on the sealability criteria, and the stress
criteria (hub, flange, bolt) in separate plots (see Figures 3 and 4 for 3-1/8” and Figures 7
and 8 for 4-1/16”). The hub pipe body section controlled the stress criteria.

API
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this work was to evaluate the load carrying capacity of the 3-1/8” and 4-
1/16” 5ksi API 6B flange connectors and generate rating charts in the same format as
API Bulleting 6AF2.
This was accomplished using and 3D linear elastic finite element analysis using the
same load combinations, allowable stress criteria and leakage criteria defined in API
contracts PRAC 86-21 (resulting in API Bulletin 6AF through axisymmetric analyses)
and PRAC 88-21 (resulting in API Bulletin 6AF2 through 3D analyses). At the request
of API, the flanges were not evaluated for thermal effects of 250°F internal and 30°F
external temperature differential. The applied loads were bolt preload, tension, bore
pressure, and bending moment.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Three-dimensional linear elastic finite element analysis was used to determine the
stresses and loads in the flange connections. The ABAQUS general purpose finite
element program Version 6.5 was used.
To ensure linear behavior (similar to API 6AF and 6AF2) the gasket was not modeled
and the bolt head nodes were tied to the corresponding flange nodes.
Description of Geometry
The geometry of the 3-1/8” and 4-1/16” 5ksi API 6B flange connectors was based on
API 6A Nineteenth Edition (July 2004). The basic minor diameter of the bolt was used.
Description of Model
The analysis models were generated in PATRAN and then converted to ABAQUS input
format. Solid elements, ABAQUS C3D8 were used for the analysis. These 8-node solid
elements were used to model the flange and the bolts. The element mesh density (see
Figure 1 for 3-1/8” and Figure 5 for 4-1/16”) was finer than the typical mesh density
used in API 6AF2.
The gasket was not modeled, but rather a circumferential line of nodes along the gasket
groove was axially restrained. These were the nodes on the outer diameter of the
bottom of the groove. Symmetry boundary condition were applied at the flange and bolt
symmetry planes. Symmetry boundary condition was used at the XY plane of flange
symmetry and the two half bolts. Symmetry boundary condition was also used at the
XZ plane of symmetry of the bolts.
The bolt nut or bolt head nodes were tied to the corresponding nodes of the flange.
The hub (pipe body) was extended for a sufficient distance (2 diameters) beyond the
discontinuity in order to avoid end effects. This was greater than the minimum required
distance 2.5*sqrt(rt), where r is the radius and t is the wall thickness of the hub end.

API
The bending moment load was transferred to the hub end section through an ABAQUS
*KINEMATIC COUPLING definition relating the degrees of freedom of a referenced
node to the nodes of the hub end. The bolt preload was applied using an ABAQUS
*PRETENSION definition.
Mesh plots are provided in Figures 1 and 5, and Attachment B.
Assumptions
The assumptions were identical to the API 6AF2 assumptions. Selected assumptions
are provided below:
- the elastic material was represented by 29000ksi modulus of elasticity and 0.3
Poisson’s ratio,
- the bending moment was applied as a bending moment load and not as a
stress. The applied bending moment for the 3-1/8” flange was 10163ft-lbs and
for the 4-1/16” flange was 16943ft-lbs, which resulted in 10000psi stress at the
extreme fiber of the hub,
- for post-processing purposes the yield strength of the flanges at operating and
test conditions was 60ksi, and for the bolts the yield strength was either 105ksi or
80ksi.
Load Cases
The model was subjected to four individual unit loads; 52.5ksi bolt makeup, 1000psi
bore pressure with the associated pressure end load, tension of 10000psi axial pipe
stress, and bending moment that resulted in 10000psi stress at the extreme fiber of the
pipe. The last three loads were applied without any initial makeup load in the bolts.
For makeup the applied load in each bolt was:
41499lbs (20750bs for the half bolts) corresponding to 52.5ksi giving a total bolt
load of 332kips for the 8 bolts for the 3-1/8” flange
52484lbs (26242lbs for the half bolts) corresponding to 52.5ksi giving a total bolt
load of 420kips for the 8 bolts for the 4-1/16” flange
The applied bore pressure was 1000psi. The pressure was applied along the bore and
to the face of the flange up to the seal groove outside diameter (API 6A “G” dimension).
The corresponding pressure end load of 8143lbs or 603psi pressure was applied at the
hub end for the 3-1/8” flange. For the 4-1/16” flange the pressure end load was
14387lbs or 818psi pressure
The applied tension load was 135042lbs for the 3-1/8” flange, and 175819lbs for the 4-
1/16” flange corresponding to 10000psi hub end pressure.
The applied bending moment was 10163 ft-lbs for the 3-1/8” flange, and 16943 ft-lbs for
the 4-1/16” flange, which resulted in 10000psi stress at the extreme fiber of the hub.
API
Linearized Stresses
The stresses given by the elastic finite element solutions contain peak as well as
membrane and bending stresses. The membrane and membrane plus bending
stresses are obtained by determining the linear, statically-equivalent stress distribution
across a section for each stress component, referred to as "linearized stresses." This is
accomplished by calculating the surface bending and average stress for a linear
distribution that has the same first moment and the same resultant as the actual stress
distribution. The ABAQUS linearization routine was used.
The stresses were linearized along 4 cross-sections in the symmetry plane on the
tension side of bending (see Figure 1 and 5). Note that the corresponding sections on
the compression side of bending were also considered in the post-processing program
by reversing the sign of the stresses for the bending load.
Leakage Criterion
Leakage was assumed to occur when the compressive reaction force due to makeup, at
the gasket node on the tension side of bending, was equal to the sum of the tensile
reaction loads from pressure, tension, and bending moment loads. This is a
conservative assumption since it neglects the gasket’s ability to work as a pressure-
energized seal, but is the same assumption made for API 6AF and 6AF2.
Stress Criteria
The stress criteria for the hub, flange and bolt are the same criteria used for API 6AF
and 6AF2, which were based on ASME code stress categories using the basic
allowable membrane stress intensities defined by API 6A.
The basic allowable membrane stress intensity is defined in API 6A as:
Sm = 2 3 Sy
where, Sm is the design stress intensity at rated working pressure, and Sy is the
minimum specified yield strength in the flange/hub.
€
The allowable stress intensity for hydrostatic pressure testing is:
ST = 0.83Sy
where, ST is the general primary membrane stress intensity at hydrostatic test

pressure in the flange/hub.
€
The allowable tensile stress in the closure bolting is:
SA = 0.83Sy
€
API
where, SA is the maximum membrane stress in the bolting for all loads, and Sy is
the specified minimum yield strength of bolting. This allowable is applied only to
membrane stress since bolt bending stresses are ignored.
The basic allowable stresses as well the classification of stresses into primary and
secondary stresses (for each cross-section) form the basis for establishing stress limits
for selected load combinations. Attachment A provides excerpts from the SES report
(PRAC 86-21) and from API 6AF2 (PRAC 88-21) on the load conditions, classification
and allowable stresses.
Stresses due to makeup only are classified as primary stresses at all sections.
Stresses due to hydrostatic test pressure only are also classified as primary stresses
using the increased allowable specified for this case. Stresses due to makeup with test
pressure is considered to be a primary stress in flange sections (with the increased
allowable), but is considered a secondary stress in all other sections. Stress due to any
combination of tension, working pressure, and moment is a primary stress at all
sections. In flange sections, makeup added to pressure, tension and moment is a
primary stress. However, this is a secondary stress at the hub sections.
Load Rating Methodology
The post-processing program developed for PRAC 86-21 was modified from processing
four stress components (for axisymmetric analysis) to six stress components (for 3D
analysis). The program automated the calculation of bending moment capacities at
various tension and pressure combinations for each makeup condition (52.5ksi and
40ksi). The program combined unit load linearized stress components to compare
against the allowable values reporting also the controlling section. The program
combined unit load gasket and bolt load results to check leakage (zero gasket load) and
bolt stresses against bolt allowable stresses.
The component stresses were combined to stress intensity values rather than the von
Mises stresses. The ASME code is based on the maximum shear stress theory of
failure, which is more conservative than the distortion energy theory.
Two different types of rating charts are provided. The API 6AF (PRAC 86-21) type
rating chart shows (in a single plot) the controlling curves for all criteria. The API 6AF2
(PRAC 88-21) type rating chart shows the curves based on the stress criteria (hub,
flange, bolt) and the curves based on the sealability criteria in separate plots.

API
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Analysis results are summarized in the form of load combination rating charts, which are
the deliverables of this work (see Attachments C-2 and D-2). The load rating chart for
the combined leakage and stress criteria (API 6AF type) is provided in Figures 2 and 6.
The load rating charts for the leakage and stress criteria separately (API 6AF2 type) are
provided in Figures 3, and 4, respectively for the 3-1/8” flange and Figures 7, and 8,
respectively for the 4-1/16” flange.
The stress based rating is controlled by the stresses in the hub Section #2 in the tension
side of bending due to the primary loads.
The leakage based rating loads are always lower that the stress based rating loads, but
as noted earlier the selected leakage criteria is conservative. In fact this is the reason
that for API 6AF2 the ratings were published separately for the leakage and stress
criteria.
The bolt allowable stresses did not control any of the rating loads even with the 80ksi
bolts. Evaluation of cross-sections and loads at the sealing nodes on the plane (off the
symmetry plane) between bolts on the tension and compression side of bending has
shown that the stress and loads at the symmetry plane controlled the flange rating.
In addition to the stress criteria of Attachment A, the stress intensity of the combined
state of stress for selected load combinations was compared to a triaxial stress limit of
4*Sm, which was not exceeded. This was checked at the controlling bending moments
of Figures 2 and 6 for zero tension with zero and 5000 psi pressure, and likewise at a
tension of 200 kips for 3-1/8”, and 240 kips for 4-1/16”.
Stress intensity (TRESCA) contour plots are provided in Attachment C-1 and D-1 for
each of the four load cases. The axial stress (S22) contour plot is provided for the
bending moment solution.
A comparison of the results of this analysis to the published data in API Technical
Report 6AF2 is provided in Attachment E. Based on stress criteria the combined load
charts predicted by this analysis are higher than the published API TR 6AF2 charts, and
based on leakage criteria the combined load charts predicted by this analysis are
almost the same as the published API TR 6AF2 charts.
ATTACHMENTS
The following attachments are included to support the above results:
Attachment A: Adopted Stress Criteria for API 6AF and 6AF2

Attachment B: Analysis Models
Attachment B-1: Analysis Model - 3-1/8” 5ksi API 6B flange
Attachment B-2: Analysis Model - 4-1/16” 5ksi API 6B flange
Attachment C: Analysis Results for 3-1/8” 5ksi API 6B flange

API
Attachment C-1: Stress Contour Plots

Attachment C-2: Load Combination Rating Charts
Attachment D: Analysis Results for 4-1/16” 5ksi API 6B flange
Attachment D-1: Stress Contour Plots
Attachment D-2: Load Combination Rating Charts
Attachment E: Comparison of FEA Results to API Technical Report 6AF2
Load Combination Charts

API
Nodes Around
Circumference
Fixed in the
Axial Direction (uy=0)
Typical Bolt/Stud
XZ Symmetry
Boundary
Conditions
For Middle of
XY Symmetry
Bolts/Studs (uy=0)
Plane Boundary
Conditions (uz=0)
4
Hub Sections; 1 and 2 1
Flange Sections; 3 and 4
1 2
Tension Side of Bending Linearized Section Locations

(View of the Symmetry Plane on Tension Side)
FIGURE 1
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL – 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B

API
FIGURE 2
API 6AF TYPE RATING CHART – 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B
API
FIGURE 3
API 6AF2 TYPE RATING CHART (LEAKAGE CRITERIA) – 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B
API
FIGURE 4
API 6AF2 TYPE RATING CHART (STRESS CRITERIA) – 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B
API
Nodes Around
Circumference
Fixed in the
Axial Direction (uy=0)
Typical Bolt/Stud
XZ Symmetry
Boundary
Conditions
For Middle of
Bolts/Studs (uy=0) XY Symmetry
Plane Boundary
Conditions (uz=0)
4
Hub Sections; 1 and 2 1
Flange Sections; 3 and 4
1 2
Tension Side of Bending Linearized Section Locations

(View of the Symmetry Plane on Tension Side)
FIGURE 5
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL – 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B

API
FIGURE 6
API 6AF TYPE RATING CHART – 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B
API
FIGURE 7
API 6AF2 TYPE RATING CHART (LEAKAGE CRITERIA) – 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B

API
FIGURE 8
API 6AF2 TYPE RATING CHART (STRESS CRITERIA) – 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B
API
REFERENCES
1. “Capabilities of API Flanges Under Combination of Loading PRAC 86-21,”

Stress Engineering Services, Prepared for API, October 1987.
2. "Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree", API Spec, 19th Edition, July
2004.
3. "Technical Report on Capabilities of API Flanges Under Combinations of Load",
API 6AF (Formerly Bulletin 6AF), 2nd Edition, September 1995.
4. "Bulletin on Capabilities of API Flanges Under Combinations of Load – Phase II",
API TR 6AF2 (Formerly Bulletin 6AF2), 2nd Edition, April 1999.

ATTACHMENT A
ADOPTED STRESS CRITERIA FOR API 6AF AND 6AF2

ATTACHMENT B
ANALYSIS MODELS
ATTACHMENT B-1
ANALYSIS MODEL - 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

Z Y
X
Z Y
X
Y
Z X
Y
Z X
ATTACHMENT B-2
ANALYSIS MODEL - 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

Y
Z
X
Y
Z
X
Y
Z X
Y
Z X
ATTACHMENT C
ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

ATTACHMENT C-1
STRESS CONTOUR PLOTS

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+1.352e+05
+6.000e+04
+5.500e+04
+5.000e+04
+4.500e+04
+4.000e+04
+3.500e+04
+3.000e+04
+2.500e+04
+2.000e+04
+1.500e+04
+1.000e+04
+5.000e+03
+3.780e−01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF MAKE UP LOAD

Increment 1: Step Time = 1.000
Primary Var: S, Tresca
Z X Deformed Var: U Deformation Scale Factor: +1.000e+00
S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+3.514e+04
+1.500e+04
+1.376e+04
+1.251e+04
+1.127e+04
+1.003e+04
+8.786e+03
+7.543e+03
+6.300e+03
+5.057e+03
+3.814e+03
+2.572e+03
+1.329e+03
+8.599e+01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF END TENSION

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+6.690e+03
+5.000e+03
+4.585e+03
+4.170e+03
+3.754e+03
+3.339e+03
+2.924e+03
+2.509e+03
+2.094e+03
+1.679e+03
+1.263e+03
+8.482e+02
+4.331e+02
+1.790e+01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+2.016e+04
+1.500e+04
+1.375e+04
+1.251e+04
+1.126e+04
+1.001e+04
+8.764e+03
+7.517e+03
+6.270e+03
+5.022e+03
+3.775e+03
+2.528e+03
+1.281e+03
+3.359e+01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF BENDING MOMENT

S, S22
(Avg: 75%)
+1.738e+04
+1.200e+04
+1.000e+04
+7.101e+03
+4.652e+03
+2.203e+03
−2.468e+02
−2.696e+03
−5.146e+03
−7.595e+03
−1.004e+04
−1.249e+04
−1.494e+04
−1.739e+04
−1.739e+04

Primary Var: S, S22
ATTACHMENT C-2
LOAD COMBINATION RATING CHARTS

3-1/8" - 5,000 PSI API 6B - FLANGE
BORE PRESSURE vs BENDING MOMENT WITH TENSION
Bolt Makeup Stress = 52,500 psi - Stress & Leakage Criteria
5000
4000
Ten
sio
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
n=
=5
0,0
0 lb
=1
3000
00
00,
s
=1
lbs
000
50,
=2
lbs
000
2000 00,
=2
000
lbs
50,
lbs
000
lbs
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
BENDING MOMENT (Thousand Ft-lbs)

5000
4000
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
3000
Ten
sio
n=
=5
0,0
0 lb
=1
2000
00
00,
s
=1
lbs
000
50,
=2
lbs
000
00,
1000
=2
000
lbs
50,
lbs
000
lbs
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
3-1/8" - 5,000 PSI API 6B - FLANGE
Bolt Makeup Stress = 52,500 psi - Leakage Criteria Only
5000
4000
Ten
sio
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
=5
n=
0,0
0 lb
=1
3000
00
00,
s
=1
lbs
000
50,
=2
lbs
000
00,
=2
2000 000
lbs
50,
lbs
000
lbs
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

5000
4000
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
3000
Ten
sio
=5
n=
0,0
2000
0 lb
=1
00
00,
s
=1
lbs
000
50,
=2
lbs
000
00,
1000
=2
000
lbs
50,
lbs
000
lbs
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
3-1/8" - 5,000 PSI API 6B - FLANGE
Bolt Makeup Stress = 52,500 psi - Stress Criteria Only
5000
4000
Tension
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
= 50,00
= 100,0
= 150,0
3000
= 0 lbs
= 200,0
= 250,0
0 lbs
00 lbs
00 lbs
00 lbs
00 lbs
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

5000
4000
Tension
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
= 50,00
= 100,0
= 150,0
3000
= 0 lbs
= 200,0
= 250,0
0 lbs
00 lbs
00 lbs
00 lbs
00 lbs
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
ATTACHMENT D
ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

ATTACHMENT D-1
STRESS CONTOUR PLOTS

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+1.458e+05
+6.000e+04
+5.500e+04
+5.000e+04
+4.500e+04
+4.000e+04
+3.500e+04
+3.000e+04
+2.500e+04
+2.000e+04
+1.500e+04
+1.000e+04
+5.000e+03
+2.727e−01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF MAKE UP LOAD

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+5.269e+04
+1.500e+04
+1.376e+04
+1.251e+04
+1.127e+04
+1.002e+04
+8.778e+03
+7.533e+03
+6.289e+03
+5.044e+03
+3.800e+03
+2.556e+03
+1.311e+03
+6.669e+01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF END TENSION

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+1.110e+04
+5.000e+03
+4.585e+03
+4.170e+03
+3.755e+03
+3.340e+03
+2.924e+03
+2.509e+03
+2.094e+03
+1.679e+03
+1.264e+03
+8.488e+02
+4.336e+02
+1.850e+01
Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE

S, Tresca
(Avg: 75%)
+3.321e+04
+1.500e+04
+1.375e+04
+1.250e+04
+1.126e+04
+1.001e+04
+8.762e+03
+7.514e+03
+6.267e+03
+5.019e+03
+3.772e+03
+2.524e+03
+1.276e+03
+2.889e+01

S, S22
(Avg: 75%)
+1.711e+04
+1.200e+04
+1.000e+04
+7.147e+03
+4.721e+03
+2.294e+03
−1.324e+02
−2.559e+03
−4.985e+03
−7.412e+03
−9.838e+03
−1.226e+04
−1.469e+04
−1.712e+04

Primary Var: S, S22
ATTACHMENT D-2
LOAD COMBINATION RATING CHARTS

4-1/16" - 5,000 PSI API 6B - FLANGE
5000
4000
Ten
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
sion
= 80
=
3000
0 lb
,000
= 16
s
lbs
0,00
= 24
2000
0 lb
0,00
= 32
s
0 lb
0,00
s
= 40
1000
0 lb
0,00
s
0 lb
s
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

5000
4000
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
Ten
3000
sion
= 80
=
0 lb
,000
= 16
2000
s
lbs
0,00
= 24
0 lb
0,00
1000
s
= 32
0 lb
0,00
s
0 lb
0
s
0 20 40 60 80 100
4-1/16" - 5,000 PSI API 6B - FLANGE
5000
4000
Ten
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
sion
= 80
=
3000
0 lb
,000
= 16
s
lbs
0,00
= 24
0 lb
2000
0,00
= 32
s
0 lb
0,00
s
= 40
0 lb
1000
0,00
s
0 lb
s
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

5000
4000
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
Ten
3000
sion
= 80
=
0 lb
,000
= 16
2000
s
lbs
0,00
= 24
0 lb
0,00
1000
s
= 32
0 lb
0,00
s
0 lb
0
s
0 20 40 60 80 100
4-1/16" - 5,000 PSI API 6B - FLANGE
5000
4000
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
Tension =
= 80,000
= 160,000
3000
= 240,000
= 320,000
= 400,000
0 lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
2000
lbs
lbs
1000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

5000
4000
BORE PRESSURE (Psi)
Tension =
= 80,000
= 160,000
3000
= 240,000
= 320,000
= 400,000
0 lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
2000
lbs
lbs
1000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
ATTACHMENT E
COMPARISON OF FEA RESULTS TO API TECHNICAL REPORT 6AF2 LOAD

COMBINATION CHARTS
ATTACHMENT E
COMPARISON OF FEA RESULTS TO API TECHNICAL REPORT 6AF2 LOAD

COMBINATION CHARTS
This attachment provides a comparison of the analysis results for 3-1/8” 5ksi API 6B and 4-1/16”
5ksi API 6B to previously published load combination charts of API technical report (TR) 6AF2.
The data is also compared to selected data from API TR 6AF charts. For this discussion “Current
FEA” refers to the work done for this report (“Finite Element Analysis of 3-1/8” and 4-1/16” 5Ksi
API 6B Flanges,” April 2011).
The comparison is provided mostly for bolt make-up of 52500 psi, and for zero tension and the
first increment of tension.
Figures E-1 and E-4 show that there is good agreement between the leakage load combination
charts.
However, there are differences when comparing the hub stress based load combination charts of
API TR 6AF2 to the results from this work and to the corresponding data from API TR 6AF.
Figure E-2 provides a comparison of the API TR 6AF2 hub stress based chart for 3-1/8” 5ksi 6B
and data from this current FEA and API 6AF. At zero tension and low pressure, the API TR 6AF
data was controlled by the hub stresses. Figure E-2 shows extrapolated data from API TR 6AF
assuming that the leakage criteria is excluded. Figure E-2 shows that the 3-1/8” 5ksi 6B rating of
this FEA analysis (based on hub stress) is higher than the previous data in API TR 6AF2.
Additional observation that can be made are (a) the slope of the API TR 6AF2 hub stress charts are
different than the slopes of the charts of this FEA and API TR 6AF, while the last two have similar
slopes, (b) the change in tension from zero to the first increment results in a larger change in
bending moment for API 6AF2 compared to this FEA and API TR 6AF for which the change was
about the same. Similar observations can be made when comparing the data for 4-1/16” 5ksi 6B,
which is provided in Figure E-5.
Furthermore, for this analysis work (and sizes) the allowable loads were controlled by hub stress
and not flange stress. This is not always true for the API TR 6AF2 rating charts of these two
flanges. Figures E-3 and E-6 show that for higher internal pressure the API TR 6AF2 stress
criteria based plots are controlled by the flange stresses, while at lower pressure they are controlled
by the hub stresses.
The differences in the results of the various analyses can be attributed to differences in mesh
density, analysis program, element type, and symmetry used. This analysis work uses finer mesh,
the ABAQUS program, ABAQUS C3D8 3D solid elements, and half-symmetry boundary
conditions. API TR 6AF and API TR 6AF2 provide the corresponding details that were used.
In summary, based on stress criteria the combined load charts predicted by this analysis are higher
than the published API TR 6AF2 charts, and based on leakage criteria the combined load charts
predicted by this analysis are almost the same as the published API TR 6AF2 charts.
Current FEA
FIGURE E-1
COMPARISON OF CURRENT FEA RESULTS TO API TR 6AF2 RATING CHART
3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B (LEAKAGE)
Current FEA
API 6AF
42.1 46.7
34.3 38.9
FIGURE E-2
COMPARISON OF CURRENT FEA RESULTS (AND API TR 6AF) TO API TR 6AF2 RATING
CHART
3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B (HUB STRESS)
Portion of API TR 6AF2 Chart
Controlled by Flange Stress
(and not Hub Stress)
FIGURE E-3
API TR 6AF2 RATING CHART
3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B (FLANGE STRESS)
Current FEA
FIGURE E-4
COMPARISON OF CURRENT FEA RESULTS TO API TR 6AF2 RATING CHART
4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B (LEAKAGE)
Current FEA
API 6AF
65.7 74.5
53.5
62.6
FIGURE E-5
COMPARISON OF CURRENT FEA RESULTS (AND API TR 6AF) TO API TR 6AF2 RATING
CHART
4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B (HUB STRESS)
Portion of API TR 6AF2 Chart
Controlled by Flange Stress
(and not Hub Stress)
FIGURE E-6
API TR 6AF2 RATING CHART
4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B (FLANGE STRESS)

FE Analysis of Flanges

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FE Analysis of Flanges

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

OF 3-1/8” AND 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B

STRESS ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc.

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-195

LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

NO IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 1 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF 3-1/8” AND 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGES

Stress Engineering Services (SES) performed elastic three-dimensional (3D) finite

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 2 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 3 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

Mesh plots are provided in Figures 1 and 5, and Attachment B.

For makeup the applied load in each bolt was:

The basic allowable membrane stress intensity is defined in API 6A as:

where, ST is the general primary membrane stress intensity at hydrostatic test

Load Rating Methodology

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 6 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

The following attachments are included to support the above results:

Attachment A: Adopted Stress Criteria for API 6AF and 6AF2

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 7 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

Attachment C-1: Stress Contour Plots

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 8 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

Tension Side of Bending Linearized Section Locations

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 9 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

Tension Side of Bending Linearized Section Locations

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 13 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 15 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

1. “Capabilities of API Flanges Under Combination of Loading PRAC 86-21,”

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 17 Letter Report No. – PN 1101084

ADOPTED STRESS CRITERIA FOR API 6AF AND 6AF2

ANALYSIS MODEL - 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

ANALYSIS MODEL - 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-1/8” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

STRESS CONTOUR PLOTS

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF MAKE UP LOAD

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF END TENSION

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF BENDING MOMENT

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF BENDING MOMENT

LOAD COMBINATION RATING CHARTS

Bolt Makeup Stress = 40,000 psi - Stress & Leakage Criteria

Bolt Makeup Stress = 40,000 psi - Leakage Criteria Only

Bolt Makeup Stress = 40,000 psi - Stress Criteria Only

ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 4-1/16” 5KSI API 6B FLANGE

STRESS CONTOUR PLOTS

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF MAKE UP LOAD

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF END TENSION

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF BENDING MOMENT

Y Step: Step−1, APPLICATION OF BENDING MOMENT

LOAD COMBINATION RATING CHARTS

Bolt Makeup Stress = 40,000 psi - Stress & Leakage Criteria

Bolt Makeup Stress = 40,000 psi - Leakage Criteria Only

Bolt Makeup Stress = 40,000 psi - Stress Criteria Only

COMPARISON OF FEA RESULTS TO API TECHNICAL REPORT 6AF2 LOAD

COMPARISON OF FEA RESULTS TO API TECHNICAL REPORT 6AF2 LOAD

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen