Reverse Loose Flange With Full Face Gasket

[Cobra17]

How do you handle reverse loose flanges with full face gaskets?

I have Compress and it can't do them, but because loose flanges don't take into consideration any of the shell/nozzle or connection, using the Taylor Forger method for a full face loose flange should be the same as a reverse loose full face... correct?

 

[FacEngrPE]

Some of us call this a flat faced slip on flange, or raised face slip in flanges.
Flat faced flanges, and full face gaskets are necessary when the flange is cast iron, to prevent cracking the flange from the bolting load. It is impossible to obtain recommended unit compression forces on full face gaskets without exceeding bolt yield.

Ring gaskets on flat face flanges, and full face or ring gaskets on raised face flanges calculate to approximately the same bolt loads, and allow reaching recommended gasket clamping loads easily.

Attached and linked is a copy of Gasket Calculator 4 - Garlock Sealing Technologies which allows calculating there recommended bolt torques.

 

[LittleInch]

How do you handle what exactly? The question is rather vague to say the least. What are we being asked to confirm?

Also can you define what is a "reverse loose flange" with a sketch or drawing to avoid any misinterpretation please.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[david339933]

Not sure who some of us are, but a FFSO flange is not the same as a reverse flange.

 

[Cobra17]

Attached are sketches of figure 2-13.2 from VIII-1 and what I'm trying to calculate, a reverse loose full face gasket flange. I'm trying to prove the Taylor Forge method is applicable.

 

[FacEngrPE]

I misunderstood your question.
thread292-400462
I recommend review the paper, The sketch showing loose and reversed flanges is different than your sketch.

 

[r6155]

@ Cobra17
See Figure UG-40 (a-2)

Regards

 

[Cobra17]

FacEngrPE: yes, the Taylor Forge Bulletin shows a picture of a hubbed reverse flange (AKA Integral reverse flange (figure 2-13.1)), I'm doing a loose reverse flange (Appendix 2-13.2), except my shell doesn't go down from the flange, as if it was in the end of a pipe, but the shell goes out from the flange, because it's nozzle, so no exact picture is shown in VIII-1 or the Taylor Forge Bulletin.

r6155: I'm not worried about area replacement or limits of reinforcement. Because the pad flange is not a B16.5 bolt pattern, or diameter I need to prove the 'flange' part of the nozzle.

I don't know what's bolting to the pad flange (another reverse flange, not a reverse flange), but more than likely it's just a full face flange per the Taylor Forge Bulletin, which is why I was hoping to treat my reverse loose flange as a full face loose ring flange, since loose flange calcs don't consider the shell or weld connections in any of the stress calculations.

 

[SnTMan]

Cobra17, since there are no rules given for your proposed construction I'd say you could apply / adapt the TF full faced design procedure to the reverse flange, subject to current U-2(g) rules, and perhaps with concurrence of your AI and / or client.

It would be your obligation to insure that various quantities are accurately translated from one design to the other.

Or you could just go with a construction that fits the available rules.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[r6155]

The post is a nozzle, it is a studded connection as I mentioned in UG-40 (a.2) , not a reverse flange.
This is a simple arrangement, see UG-43 (d).

Regards

 

[CuMo]

Try PD 5500 suggested working forms (14) & (15)

Also EN 13445-3 11.9 Reverse full face flanges