123

Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour

during tightening a 4 in-900# flange joint with
spiral wound gasket
M Abid* and S Hussain
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology,
Topi, Pakistan

The manuscript was received on 16 August 2007 and was accepted after revision for publication on 20 November 2007.

DOI: 10.1243/09544089JPME160

Abstract: Gasketed bolted flange pipe joints are found prone to leakage during operating con-
ditions. Therefore, performance of a gasketed flange joint is highly dependent on the proper
joint assembly with proper gasket, proper gasket seating stress, and proper preloading in the
bolts of a joint. For a gasketed flange joint, the two main concerns are the joint strength and
the sealing capability. To investigate these, a detailed three-dimensional non-linear finite-
element analysis (FEA) of a gasketed joint is carried out using a spiral wound gasket. FEA results
are compared with the experimental results and are found to be in good agreement, hence vali-
dating the FE model developed. Bolt scatter, bolt bending, and bolt relaxation are considered to
be the main factors affecting the joint performance. In addition, the importance of proper bolt
tightening sequence and number of passes and the influence of elastic and elasto-plastic
material modelling on joint performance are also presented. Stress variation in the flange
due to flange rotation highlighted joint strength, and gasket contact/seating stress variation
highlighted the sealing performance during bolt up. Modelling the non-linearity of the
spiral wound gasket using non-linear elements highlights reduced joint strength and sealing
performance. Summarizing, a dynamic mode in a gasketed joint is concluded, which is the
main reason for its failure.

Keywords: bolt, relaxation, gasketed, joint, dynamic, tightening, sequence, spiral wound,
gasket

1 INTRODUCTION experimental and numerical investigations [4, 5] lim-

Gasketed pipe flange joints are widely used in
industry to connect pipe to pipe or pipe to equip-
ment. These are used in a wide variety of different
applications from water supply to high pressure and
high temperature processes. In a gasketed pipe
joint, problems of bolt bending, bolt preload scatter,
and joint relaxation is observed during joint assem-
bly, concluding its dynamic mode-of-load [1 – 3],
which results in poor sealing and strength. Some
*Corresponding author: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and
Technology, Topi, NWFP 23460, Pakistan. email: abid@giki.
edu.pk; mabid00@hotmail.com
ited to the linear elastic material modelling are
performed to estimate bolt preload scatter due to
the elastic materials interaction in the process of
successive bolt tightening. However, these do not
consider bolt bending behaviour, flange rotation,
and flange stress variation. Detailed experimental
studies are performed by Abid et al. [1 – 3] to highlight
these with special emphasis on joint strength
and sealing capabilities. In this study, a detailed
three-dimensional non-linear finite-element analysis
(FEA) of a gasketed joint is carried out using a spiral
wound gasket, of the type mostly used in the industry.
FEA results compared with the experimental results
are found to be in good agreement, thereby validating
the FE model developed. Bolt scatter, bolt bending,
and bolt relaxation are concluded to be the main

JPME160 # IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
124 M Abid and S Hussain
factors affecting the joint’s performance. Importance
of proper bolt tightening sequence and number of
passes is discussed. Stress variation in the flange
due to flange rotation highlighted the joint strength,
and gasket contact/seating stress variation high-
lighted the sealing performance during bolt up.
Modelling the non-linearity of the spiral wound
gasket using non-linear elements highlights reduced
joint strength and sealing performance. Summar-
izing, a dynamic mode in a gasketed joint is con-
cluded, which is the main reason for its failure. A
flange joint of 4 in 900# class is used in the present
study.
2 FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS
2.1 Modelling
Abid and Baseer [6] investigated the joint strength
and sealing capability under combined loading for
an axisymmetric three-dimensional model where
the preload of each bolt was the same using a solid
plate gasket. An angular portion of flange was mod-
elled with a bolt hole at required position. In the pre-
sent study, a full 3608 flange joint model is developed
to study joint relaxation behaviour during assembly.
For a spiral wound gasket, only the seal ring that
remains in contact with the flange was modelled.
The gasket is modelled by rotating area about the
y-axis through 3608 in 16 numbers of volumes. The
half thickness of the gasket due to its symmetry of
geometry and loading conditions is modelled. The
bolt is modelled by rotating area about its axis
through 3608 in four numbers of volumes and the
remaining seven bolts are generated by using sym-
metry in z-axis. The half-length of the bolt is mod-
elled by its planar symmetry. Only a small portion
of pipe is modelled to reduce computational time.
The resulting flanged joint model is shown in
Fig. 1(a). Commercial FEA software ANSYS [7] is
used during the analysis.
Fig. 1 (a) Full gasketed flanged joint (3608); volumetric mesh, (b) flange, (c) bolt, and (d) gasket
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
Table 1 Material properties
Parts As per code y Yield stress (MPa)
Flange/pipe ASTM A350 LF2 0.3 248.2
Bolt ASTM SA193 B7 0.3 723.9
2.2 Material properties
Allowable stresses and material properties for flange,
pipe, and bolt [8] are given in Table 1. An model is
constructed using elastoplastic material and it con-
sists of two sections each having a linear gradient.
The first section, which models the elastic material,
is valid until the yield stress is reached. The gradient
of this section is Young’s modulus of elasticity. The
second section which functions beyond the yield
stress, and models the behaviour of the plastic
material, has a gradient of the plastic tangent mod-
ulus, which for this study was 10 per cent of the
Young’s modulus of elasticity [2].
2.2.1 Spiral wound gasket material modelling and
simulation
Spiral wound gaskets are manufactured by winding a
V-shaped metal strip of stainless steel and a soft non-
metallic filler (asbestos fibre) under pressure. Its
inner and outer centring rings are made of stainless
steel. Gasket stiffness in the thickness direction is
determined by conducting a compression test. Gas-
kets can be modelled by two different methods: one
is a detailed model that shows non-linearity of
gasket stress – strain relation, and the other is a sim-
plified modelling that approximates gasket non-
linearity using two different elastic moduli according
to the condition of loading and unloading. The
detailed non-linear method is more complex, incor-
porating non-linear loading and unloading curves
with no limitation on data points (Fig. 2(a)). A
simple modelling technique is adopted in the present
work (Fig. 2(b)), which defines unloading behaviour
by specifying a straight line as in reference [9].
JPME160 # IMechE 2008
 Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour 125

Fig. 2 (a) Non-linear modelling technique, (b) simplified modelling technique, (c) gasket
material loading and unloading curves (stress versus strain) using simplified technique

Stress – strain relationships of a spiral wound gasket,
given in reference [9], for the calculation of elastic
unloading and non-linear loading are used. Table 2
illustrates the elastic moduli in loading and unload-
ing during each pass. For example, for pass 1, bolt
preload against 210 Nm torque is calculated as
37 kN, and the total bolt preload for eight bolts is
296 kN. Nominal average gasket stress defined by
the total bolt preload divided by the gasket bearing
surface area calculated is 30 MPa. Elastic modulus
in loading and unloading is calculated as 319 and
3186 MPa, respectively. Gasket material loading and
unloading curves using simplified method are plotted
in Fig. 2(c), where ‘L’ represent loading/compression
and 1, 2, 3, and 4 represents linear unloading in pass
1– 4, respectively. Since the torque applied at pass 5
is the same as that for pass 4, the gasket undergoes
compression and unloading during pass 5, which is
the same compression/unloading line defined for
pass 4.
2.3 Element selection
An eight-node structural SOLID45 lower order isoperi-
metric element is used for the modelling of flange, bolt,
and pipe. Three-dimensional ‘surface-to-surface’
CONTA174 contact elements, in combination with
TARGE170 target elements are used between flange
face and gasket, bolt shank and flange hole, and the
top of the flange and the bottom of the bolt to simulate
contact distribution. No friction was employed
between any of the surfaces, since it can reasonably
be assumed that the forces normal to the contact
surfaces would be far greater than the shear forces.
Due to the non-linearity of the gasket, INTER195
which is a three-dimensional, eight-node linear inter-
face element, is used in conjunction with the three-
dimensional linear structural element SOLID45 to
simulate the gasket using commercial software
ANSYS [7].
2.4 Meshing
Before volume mesh generation, an area mesh is cre-
ated on one side of the flange, bolt, and spiral wound
gasket by a specified number of divisions and space
ratio for each line. The hub-flange fillet and raised
face areas of the flange are fine meshed due to
stress concentration. The areas of bolt head, that is
in contact with the flange top is meshed with small
size elements, giving a fine mesh. The unmeshed
volume of flange is then filled with elements by
sweeping the mesh from the adjacent area through
the volume. A complete 3608 flange mesh is gener-
ated from the angular portion of the flange by sym-
metrical reflection, as shown in Fig. 1(b). For the
bolt, volumetric mesh is generated by sweeping the
mesh from an adjacent area through the volume
(Fig. 1(c)). In order to simulate non-linear gasket in
ANSYS, INTER195 interface elements are defined
and generated by meshing gasket volume ensuring
one element through thickness with correct node

Table 2 Elastic modulus, gasket stress, bolt preload, and bolt target stress against the torque applied in
each pass
Elastic modulus (MPa)

Pass Torque (Nm) Bolt preload (kN) Target bolt stress (MPa) Average gasket stress (MPa) Loading Unloading

1 210 37 57 30 319 3186

2 310 55 86 45 390 4407
3 400 70 112 60 450 5537
4 505 89 145 75 500 6598

JPME160 # IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
126 M Abid and S Hussain
numbering. The stress– strain curve is input to
characterize the through thickness response for
gasket material parameters. A three-dimensional
mesh of a spiral wound gasket is shown in Fig. 1(d).
2.5 Contact generation
To define the contact pair between flange and bolt
head, flange face areas are taken as the target surface,
and the bottom areas of the bolt head are taken as
contact surface. The same real constant numbers
are assigned to both the target and contact elements.
For contact pair generation between flange bottom
surface and gasket, flange bottom surface areas are
taken as target surface while gasket top surface
areas are taken as contact surface. The contact con-
dition is applied and friction is taken into consider-
ation at the interfaces between the flange and the
gasket. Friction coefficient is varied from 0.1 to 0.2,
however, its effects on interface stress distributions
is observed to be very small. To prevent rigid
motion of the flange during bolt up, contact is
defined between bolt shanks and the bolt holes in
the flange. As there is a gap between the two surfaces,
a contact surface offset of 1.61 mm is specified to
offset the entire contact surface (bolt hole) towards
the target surface (bolt shank).
2.6 Boundary conditions
The flange and the gasket are free to move in both the
axial and radial directions, providing flange rotation
and stress variation in flange, bolt, and gasket. Sym-
metry conditions are applied to the lower portion of
the gasket. Bolts are constrained in both the radial
and tangential directions along the neutral axis of
the bolt. An axial displacement is applied to the
bottom area of the bolt shank to obtain the required
prestress (Fig. 3(a)).
2.6.1 Bolt preloading
To ensure a proper preload in the joint during joint
assembly, the sequence in which bolts are tightened
Fig. 3 (a) Boundary conditions; bolt tightening (b) sequence 1 (c) sequence 2
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
during a pass has a considerable importance, as
joint relaxation mostly depends on this factor. In
the present work, following two sequences are used:
(a) sequence 1: 1,5,3,7,2,6,4,8 [2] (Fig. 3(b));
(b) sequence 2: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 [2] (Fig. 3(c)).
Bolts are tightened as per sequence 1 during the first
four passes and as per sequence 2 during the last
pass. Bolts are tightened one by one with the torque
control method [5], i.e. each bolt is tightened to a
target stress for a given pass. In the experimental
work [2], the author tightened the joint in increments
of torque 210, 310, 400, and 505 Nm as per
sequence 1. Finally, all the bolts were tightened
again to 505 Nm in one pass as per sequence 2 to
achieve uniform preload values. Target torques are
converted to the bolt preloads for each pass. In a sim-
plified form, for lubricated fasteners, the relationship
of bolt preload achieved against a given torque with
0.2 as factor of load loss due to friction is calculated
as per reference [10], i.e. T ¼ 0.2  F  D. Average
bolt stress is then calculated by dividing the bolt pre-
load by the nominal area of the bolt shank. The joint
is tightened to the target stress for each pass calcu-
lated as above. For this purpose, an optimization rou-
tine is developed and used in a manner that each time
axial displacement (UY) is applied to the bolt, and the
resulting stress on the midnode of the bolt shank
(close to the strain gauge location) [2] is compared
with the target stress. In the case of difference, UY
is incremented and comparison is made again. Simi-
larly, UY is incremented till it reaches an optimum
value for which the target stress in the bolt is
achieved. Table 2 shows the bolt preloads and
target stress calculated against the applied torques.
The magnitude of the axial displacement UY applied
to the bottom area of the bolt shank to prestress each
bolt to the target stress in each pass is given in
Table 3. Maximum displacement is applied to achieve
30 per cent of the yield of the bolt. Although this is
considered very low, it avoids gasket crushing, and
hence, maximum recommended torque applied by
the gasket suppliers is 505 Nm [2].
JPME160 # IMechE 2008
 Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour 127

Table 3 Axial displacement UY applied in each bolt for tightened to 57 MPa, gets almost relaxed at the end
different passes of pass 1, with a bolt stress of only 5 MPa, resulting
in 90 per cent of the preload relaxation. Figure 6(a)
Bolt Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5
shows the preload variation of bolt 1, which is tigh-
B1 0.176 0.270 0.367 0.445 0.540 tened first, during the tightening of other bolts in
B5 0.083 0.170 0.247 0.315 0.443 pass 1. Bolt stress reduces when neighbouring bolts,
B3 0.224 0.324 0.440 0.560 0.610
B7 0.070 0.158 0.230 0.283 0.450 bolt 2 and bolt 8, are tightened. This is due to the
B2 0.265 0.366 0.475 0.582 0.605 elastic interaction [3, 4] of the flange, as it deforms
B6 0.080 0.157 0.221 0.290 0.410 in the axial direction during bolt preloading, resulting
B4 0.222 0.333 0.455 0.540 0.500
B8 0.170 0.278 0.275 0.450 0.540 in the relaxation of the bolt closest to the bolt being
tightened. Figure 6(b) shows the effect of tightening
of one bolt, i.e. bolt 1 on all the other the bolts for
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS first pass. It is clear that tightening any bolt relaxes
its neighbouring bolts, although a slight rise in the
3.1 Bolt stress variation during bolt up stress is observed in the remaining bolts. Similarly,
an increase in the preload of the bolts on the opposite
To determine bolt relaxation and bolt bending beha- side is observed. At the end of the first pass, i.e. when
viour during tightening the bolts as per sequence 1 bolt 8 is being tightened, 27 – 38 per cent of preload
and 2, four nodes are selected at an angle of 908 on relaxation is observed in bolt 3 and bolt 7, respect-
shank of each bolt. B1/1 and B1/2 represent the ively. Bolts 2, 4, 6, and 8 remain completely relaxed
inner and outer nodes respectively, B1/3 and B1/4 during tightening of bolts 3, 5, and 7.
represent the side nodes, and B1/M represents the Figure 7 shows the detailed bolt preload variation
midnode on the bolt shank. Similar nomenclature when bolts are tightened as per sequence 1 and
is used for all other bolts. For average bolt stress, sequence 2. For all the bolts, almost same stress vari-
midnode on the shank of the bolt is selected ation pattern is observed for the first four passes as
(Figs 4(a) and (b)). Figure 5(a) shows relaxation of per tightening sequence 1. A uniform bolt preload
bolt 2 and bolt 4, when bolt 1, 3, and 5 variation is observed during the last pass as per
are tightened. Flange areas beneath bolt 2 and sequence 2. Maximum preload variations are
bolt 4 are compressed, resulting in their relaxation. observed for bolt 5, which is observed completely
Tightening all other bolts, bolt preload of bolt 1 relaxed for pass 1 to pass 3. The preload variations
increases and is concluded as a result of the flange for bolt 5 during each bolt 5 tightening are 56 MPa
joint opening/rotation, hence setting the bolt in ten- for the first pass, 70 MPa for the second, 83 MPa for
sion. Figure 5(b) shows how bolt 5 comes in tension the third, 110 MPa for the fourth, and 35 MPa for
when bolt 1 is tightened during pass 1. Similarly, a the last pass. Similarly, for all the bolts, an increase
slight increase in the stress is observed in the case in the stress is observed when tightening three bolts
of tightening all the other bolts, except neighbouring located on the other side. For example, preload of
bolts. It is also noted that bolt 1, which is initially bolt 3 increased when bolts 6, 7, and 8 (located at

Fig. 4 Nomenclature (a) side nodes (b) midnodes

JPME160 # IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
128
Fig. 5 Exaggerated deformation plots (a) bolt relaxation phenomena (b) flange opening
phenomena
the opposite side of bolt 3) are tightened. Tightening
neighbouring bolts relaxes the target bolt.
3.2 Scatter in bolt stress
Figure 8(a) shows a visible bolt scatter at the end of
each pass after tightening each bolt to a target
stress using the torque control method by Fukuoka
and Takaki [4] using FEA. This is due to the highly
non-linear behaviour of spiral wound gaskets during
loading and unloading. Bolt scatter variation at 69,
88, 121, 131, and 72 MPa is observed during
passes 1 to 5. The scatter in bolt stress is observed
to increase remarkably with each pass and the pre-
load variations are obvious at pass 4. Relatively
higher and uniform bolt stresses are achieved
during pass 5 (almost half of the pass 4) when
bolts are tightened as per sequence 2. This high-
lights the importance of the last pass as per
sequence 2. Bolts 1, 3, 5, and 7 are observed
almost completely relaxed for the first three
passes. This is due to the reason that these bolts
are tightened in advance of the neighbouring two
bolts. Relaxation of bolts 1, 3, 5, and 7 at the
Fig. 6 (a) Bolt 1 stress variation during pass 1, (b) stress variation effect on other bolts during
tightening of bolt 1 in pass 1
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
M Abid and S Hussain
completion of first pass is observed, whereas pre-
load of bolts 2, 4, and 8 is greater than the bolt
target stress. The reason is obvious, these bolts are
tightened as last four bolts in a pass and their
neighbouring bolts are tightened already, so these
have greater stresses than the target stresses. The
maximum difference in the bolt stress is observed
between bolt 4 (maximum) and bolt 5 (minimum)
for the first four passes and between bolt 3 (maxi-
mum) and bolt 6 (minimum) for the last pass.
The scatter in bolt stresses is substantial and
increases with the pass operation. Maximum scatter
among bolt preloads is observed at the fourth pass
with 133 MPa preload difference between bolts 4
and 5.
FEA results are compared with the experimental
results by Abid [2], for the same size of the pipe
flange joint. Figure 8(b) shows the bolt scatter
obtained experimentally. The same trend is observed
for all the passes with a slight difference in the mag-
nitude of the bolt preloads for average bolt stress.
Some of the factors that might cause the difference
between the FEA and experimental results are as
follows.
JPME160 # IMechE 2008
 Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour
Fig. 7 Bolt stress variation in all the bolts during
tightening for all passes
1. By converting the target torques to the bolt
preloads for each pass, a load loss factor of 0.2
was incorporated in the expressions in reference
[9], indicating that 20 per cent of the load is con-
verted into useful axial bolt load due to the
thread friction. However, in reality only a part of
the load (10 – 15 per cent) is converted into the
axial bolt load [1, 2].
2. In FEA, gasket’s non-linearity is calculated using
the analytical equations. However, the actual gas-
ket’s stress – strain curve might be different
because of the complex behaviour during loading
and unloading and no experimental data were
available.
3. During experiments, flange was partially con-
strained in the axial direction, whereas in FEA,
no axial constraint was applied.
4. Manufacturing error of the flange and gasket, sur-
face roughness, misalignment of the gasket with
the flange, bolt, lubricant, and gasket quality
[1, 2] might lead to the difference between exper-
imental results and the FEA.
However, overall, FEA results are in good agreement
with the experimental results, which prove the
validity of the FE model and analysis results.
Fig. 8 Scatter in bolt stress at the completion of each pass: (a) FEA (b) experimental
JPME160 # IMechE 2008
129
3.3 Bolt bending behaviour
Bolt bending behaviour along the four locations, i.e.
inner, outer, and side on each bolt shank at the end
of each pass is shown in Fig. 9. Bending behaviour
of each bolt is observed to be different from the
others, even for the same joint. Bolt 1, which is tigh-
tened first, B-1/1 (node on inner side) is in tension
and B-1/2 (node on outer side) is in compression,
but as the torque increases, difference in axial stress
between these two locations is increased and B-1/2
still show compressive stress, identifying increase in
bolt bending. Difference in axial stresses between
bolt nodes at side locations is also noticed, which
means that bolt 1 not only bends outward but also
sidewise. For bolt 5, the difference among inner and
outer nodes is little, however, B-5/4 is found in com-
pression and B-5/3 in tension, indicating that bolt 5
bending is mainly sidewise. With bolt up, the bolt 3
inner node goes to tension and the outer node into
compression; the difference increases rapidly with
increasing torque, and a smaller difference among
side nodes is noted. For bolt 7, sidewise bending is
noted, but as B-7/3 is in tension and B-7/4 in com-
pression, the difference between the inner and
outer nodes is negligible. The difference between
inner and outer nodes for bolt 2 is remarkable and
increases rapidly with each pass. The difference
between side nodes is smaller as compared to the
difference between the inner and outer nodes.
When B-6/4 is in tension and B-6/3 in compression,
the difference between side nodes is observed to be
greater than that between the inner and outer
nodes, and bending is maximum at pass 4 and is
minimized at last pass. Bolt 4 shows tensile stresses
at all bolt locations for all passes, and there is a
noticeable difference between the inner and outer
as well as side nodes with rapid increase due to
increasing torque, indicating bending in both the
directions, bolt 8 also shows with tensile stresses at
all locations, with an almost equal difference between
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
130 M Abid and S Hussain
Fig. 9 Bolt bending behaviour of all eight bolts in the joint
inner and outer and side nodes with maximum bend-
ing at pass 5. Bending of all the bolts is increased with
increasing torque and is observed maximum during
the last two passes.
3.4 Gasket behaviour during joint assembly
Nomenclature of selected nodes on gasket close to
each corresponding bolt is shown in Fig. 10.
3.4.1 Gasket deformation during bolt up
In order to understand the bolt relaxation and bolt
scatter behaviour during each pass, gasket condition
is monitored at the end of each pass. Plots of displace-
ments UX, UY, and UZ at the last pass are shown in
Fig. 11(a). From axial displacement (UY) plot it is
observed that the gasket shape is changed and the
gasket no longer retained its original shape. Gasket
deformation is remarkable after the last pass as its
surface being in contact with the flange is observed
sheared resulting in its permanent deformation. Vari-
ation of axial displacement along gasket circumfer-
ence with maximum at locations closer to bolt 2 and
3 and minimum at 1808 location is observed. For the
last pass, maximum axial displacement observed is
0.236 mm (near bolt 3) and minimum 0.023 mm
(near bolt 6). This concludes that the gasket under-
goes uneven compression circumferentially. It is
Fig. 10 Nomenclature of selected nodes on gasket
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
also observed that due to the elongation, outer
sealing ring has changed more or less to octagonal
shape.
Figure 11(b) shows the radial displacement (UX) of
the gasket with respect to flange at the end of last
pass. The maximum radial displacement noted is
almost 3 mm (at locations closer to bolt 1 and 5).
UX close to bolt 1 is 3 mm, while on the opposite
side (at 1808), it is 23 mm, which shows that during
bolt up, gasket stretches and shears in the radial
direction. Figure 11(c) represents the circumferential
(hoop) displacement (UZ) of the gasket at the end of
last pass. Maximum UZ of almost 3.5 mm (close to
bolt 3), shows that gasket during bolt up undergoes
rotation with respect to the flange, thus disturbing
the initial alignment with the flange and might poss-
ibly lead to leakage. Figure 12(a) shows the maximum
values of UX, UY, and UZ for all the five passes.
FEA results are compared with the detailed exper-
imental results by Abid [2], who has used four differ-
ent gaskets of the same material and dimensions used
in FEA. He has reported the bending of the centring
ring during joint assembly of one of the gaskets.
The spiral wound portion was reasonably com-
pressed, and along one location it was found more
compressed. The same gasket was used for the
second time to make the other joint. After making
the joint, it was disassembled and the gasket was
taken out to see its condition this time. This time it
was found to be more compressed less than the cen-
tring ring thickness on one side, i.e. some dents were
found along about 908 on one side and centring ring
was found more bent. A new gasket was used for
the third time to make the joint. After bolting up its
centring ring was not found bent. The gasket was
taken out after dismantling the joint to note its phys-
ical condition. Its spirals were found damaged from
one side along with a dent at about 1808. Then
another gasket was used for other series of tests.
After performing the experiments for different load-
ing, gasket was found reasonably compressed with
no damage to the spirals, however, seepage was
JPME160 # IMechE 2008
 Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour 131

Fig. 11 Gasket displacement at completion of last pass: (a) UY, (b) UX, and (c) UZ

observed from the joint during internal pressure
loading. Fourth gasket was used in the joint and
after dismantling the joint, the gasket was found in
a good condition.
3.4.2 Gasket stress variation during bolt up
Contact stress variations in the circumferential direc-
tion during bolt up at a node closest to bolt 1, marked
as G1 is shown in Fig. 12(b). It is observed that during
the tightening of the neighbouring bolts of bolt 1, i.e.
bolt 2 and bolt 8 and bolts at 908 to bolt 1 (bolt 3
and 7), there is an increase in stress at G1. While tigh-
tening bolt 4, 5, and 6, reduction in contact stress is
observed due to spiral wound gasket’s flexibility.
Figure 13(a) shows contact stress variation along the
outer diameter of the sealing ring during bolt up for
pass 1. Contact stress distributions pattern does not
show conspicuous changes after tightening fourth
bolt, i.e. bolt 7. This is because gasket is seated to
its minimum thickness during the tightening of first
four bolts. It is observed that at the end of the first
pass, the magnitude of contact stress significantly
vary in the circumferential direction in a sinusoidal
manner. Figure 13(b) shows contact stress distri-
bution along the outer diameter of the sealing ring
at the end of each pass. Contact stress variations are
observed to increase with each pass and are the
maximum at pass 4. These variations are substantial
even at the last pass when all the bolts are tightened
in clockwise sequence. Thus it is concluded that the
scatter in axial bolt stresses deeply affects the sealing
performance of a joint. Contact stresses significantly
vary in the circumferential direction and the vari-
ations are increased remarkably with each pass.
During all the passes, the maximum contact stress
difference is between bolt location G2 and G6.
Gasket areas along G2 and G3 are at higher stress
levels as compared to location G6 and G7. This indi-
cates the possible location of leakage from the
flange joint.
3.5 Flange stress variation during bolt up
FEA stress variation results are compared with the
experimental results by Abid [2] for the same size of
pipe flange joint. Nodes close to the strain gauge
location at 908 locations (top, bottom, right, and left
side) are selected and behaviour of the flange at the
top, bottom and side locations during the bolt up is
investigated. Principal stress variation in the axial
direction during bolt up at hub flange fillet and hub
centre are evaluated. Stress variation at hub pipe
fillet is not considered due to negligible small vari-
ation and is concluded due to the free flange

Fig. 12 (a) Maximum displacements (UX, UY, UZ) of gasket at the completion each pass,
(b) gasket contact stress variation along G1 during bolt up at pass 1

JPME160 # IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
132 M Abid and S Hussain

Fig. 13 Contact stress variation during bolt up (a) in pass 1, (b) at the end of each pass

movement in the axial direction, whereas in the
experimental results by Abid [2] axial movement is
constrained.
3.5.1 Stress variation at hub flange fillet
Figure 14(a) shows the principal stress variation in
the axial direction at the hub flange fillet using FEA.
During bolt tightening closer to the bottom and top
locations, stresses at side locations are observed
reduced and vice versa. Stress is maximum at a
location close to the bolt being tightened and mini-
mum along the location at an angle of 908. Tightening
bolts in star pattern (sequence 2), maximum stress
fluctuation is observed during tightening of first
four bolts (1, 5, 3, 7) in the respective pass. During
tightening the remaining four bolts (2, 6, 4, 8), stress
variation is reduced. Maximum scatter is observed
during bolt 5 tightening for the first four passes and
during bolt 6 tightening for the last pass. For

Fig. 14 Principal axial stress variation at hub flange fillet during Bolt up: (a) FEA (b) experimental

Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering JPME160 # IMechE 2008
 Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour 133

Fig. 15 Principal axial stress variation at hub centre during bolt up: (a) FEA (b) experimental

sequence 1, almost same stress variation pattern but
with higher magnitude during each pass is observed.
Although higher stresses are achieved at the last pass
but still a substantial stress variation is concluded.
Maximum axial stress of 245 – 255 MPa at flange side
and top locations during last pass shows yielding.
FE results are found in good agreement with the
experimental results in Fig. 14(b), however, maxi-
mum experimental stress is observed less than the
yield strength of the flange material. It might be due
to the greater clamp load loss, i.e. 85 –90 per cent
[1, 2] due to the thread friction in the experiments,
whereas in FEA 80 per cent load loss due to the fric-
tion is assumed.
3.5.2 Stress variation at the hub centre
Figure 15(a), shows almost the same axial stress vari-
ation pattern as for hub-flange fillet but with com-
paratively less values during bolt up. Relaxation is
observed during bolt 4 tightening. Each time, for
the next first higher torque values, the stress is maxi-
mum close to the bolt and minimum at an angle of
908. Tightening the first two bolts in all the passes

Fig. 16 After last pass: (a) principal stress in flange, (b) axial stress in bolt, (c) gasket stress

JPME160 # IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
134 M Abid and S Hussain
relaxed stresses at the sides. Maximum scatter is
observed during bolt 5 tightening. Comparing FEA
and experimental results in (Fig. 15(b)) almost similar
trend is observed, with more abrupt changes in the
experimental result along sides locations indicating
compressive stresses during tightening bolt 5 in
pass 3 and pass 4. It may be due to the reason of par-
tial constraining the flange in the axial direction,
which is neglected in FEA.
Axial principal stress variation in the flange, axial
stress in the bolt, and gasket contact stress at the com-
pletion of all the passes are shown in Figs 16(a) to (c).
4 CONCLUSIONS
From detailed comparative FEA and experimental
study following results are concluded.
1. FE model is verified with the experimental results
and is found in good agreement.
2. The joint integrity and sealing performance is
very much dependent on the material properties
of the gasket used in the joint. Using spiral wound
gasket, which is a non-linear gasket, relatively
large amount of flange rotation is observed due
to the gasket’s flexibility.
3. Bolt relaxation is obvious due to higher elastic
interactions in the non-linear gasketed joint and
flange rotation due to the gap between the
flanges.
4. Bolt scatter is prominent in all the bolts during all
the passes. The difference between the maximum
and minimum bolt stress is substantial and pre-
load variation and scatter are observed to
increase remarkably with increasing torque
during each pass.
5. Bending behaviour of each bolt is different and
unique from the others and bolt bending
increases with increasing torque and directions
along which bolt bends are different for different
bolts.
6. A substantial stress variations along hub flange
fillet and hub centre of joints with non-linear gas-
kets is observed, which increased with each pass.
7. Yielding is observed to initiate at hub flange fillet
during the last pass even at a bolt preload of only
25 –30 per cent of the bolt yield.
8. Gasket undergoes uneven compression circum-
ferentially. A substantial gasket stress variations
is concluded during bolt up, which under operat-
ing conditions can be worst resulting in substan-
tial leakages.
9. Owing to the gasket flexibility, rotation, non-
uniform compression, and physical damage (per-
manent deformation), a spiral wound gasketed
joint experiences large bolt scatter, bolt bending
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering
and relaxation and much greater individual bolt
preload variation with bolt up.
10. Bolt scatter, bolt bending, and bolt relaxation are
concluded the main factors affecting the joint’s
performance.
11. To control these the use of proper bolt tightening
sequence, number of passes is concluded
important.
12. Summarizing, a dynamic mode in a gasketed
joint is concluded, which is the main reason for
its failure.
REFERENCES
1 Abid, M. and Nash, D. H. Joint relaxation behavior of
gasketed bolted flanged pipe joint during assembly.
In 2nd WSEAS International Conference on Applied
And Theoretical Mechanics (MECHANICS’06), 2006,
pp. 319 –325.
2 Abid, M. Experimental and Analytical studies of conven-
tional (gasketed) and unconventional (non gasketed)
flanged pipe joints (with special emphasis on the engin-
eering of ‘joint strength’ and ‘sealing’). PhD Thesis, 2000.
3 Abid, M. and Nash, D. H. Bolt bending behavior in a
bolted flanged pipe joint: a comparative study. In
ASME International PVP Conference, 2006, pp. 1–9.
4 Fukuoka, T. and Takaki, T. Finite element simulation of
bolt-up process of pipe flange connections. J. Press.
Vessel Technol., 2001, 123, 282– 287.
5 Fukuoka, T. and Takaki, T. Finite element simulation of
bolt-up process of pipe flange connections with spiral
wound gasket. J. Press. Vessel Technol., 2003, 125,
371– 377.
6 Abid, M. and Baseer, U. 3-D nonlinear finite element
analysis of gasketed flanged joint under combined
internal pressure and different temperatures. J. Eng.
Mech. ASCE, 2006, 133(2), 1–8.
7 ANSYS Inc., ANSYS elements manual, 7th edition, 2006.
8 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Part D, American Society of Mech. Eng., 1998,
New York, USA.
9 Nagata, S., Shoji, Y., and Sawa, T. A simplified modeling
of gasket stress– strain curve for fem analysis in bolted
flange joint design. In ASME International PVP Confer-
ence 2002, 2002, vol. 433, pp. 53– 58.
10 European Sealing Association. Guidelines for safe seal
usage – flanges and gaskets. Report no. ESA/FSA 009/
98, 1998, pp. 1–40.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Takaki, T. and Fukuoka, T. Methodical guideline for
bolt-up operation of pipe flange connections (a case
using sheet gasket and spiral wound gasket). In ASME
International PVP Conference 2003, 2003, vol. 457,
pp. 23 –30.
JPME160 # IMechE 2008