2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

THE USE OF GASKET FACTORS IN FLANGE CALCULATIONS

Jaroslav Bartonicek GKN Gemeinschaftskernkraftwerk Neckar Neckarwestheim Germany

Manfred Schaaf AMTEC Advanced Measurements Lauffen Germany

Friedrich Schoeckle AMTEC Advanced Measurements Lauffen Germany

Hoher Steg 13 74348 Lauffen / N. Germany

ABSTRACT A flange calculation has to fullfill three major tasks. First the prestress value for assembly has to be determined. Then a tightness proof and a stress analysis have to be performed for every relevant state of operation. For reliable calculation results it is necessary that all parts of the assembly (i.e. flanges, bolts and gasket) are regarded. Using the example of a flanged joint of a steam generator of a nuclear power plant, the European development in gasket calculation in recent years and the necessary gasket factors are summarized in this paper. Some general conclusions are drawn. The use of gasket factors plays an essential role in calculations for flanged joints. Only if realistic gasket factors for the selected gasket of the joint (that have to be determined in tests explicitly) are used, above tasks of the calculations can be met. In Europe realistic gasket factors for use in calculations are standardized in prEN 13555 and in Germany in DIN 28090. Within the European standardization tasks there are two procedures for the calculation of flanged joints, actually. One is based on the ASME-code (incorporated in prEN 13445), the second one uses a limit load theory (prEN 1591). Whereas the ASME-procedure is only useful for formal stress analysis purposes, the EN 1591 procedure provides the tools for stress analysis and tightness analysis (including the output of a prestress value). The gasket factors that are necessary for this calculation are defined in prEN 13555. In Germany there is another procedure incorporated in the standards for nuclear power plants (KTA 3201.2/KTA 3211.2); this procedure is based on the German prestandard DIN E 2505. Stress analysis and tightness analysis is possible with this procedure, if appropriate gasket factors (prEN 13555) are used. Of course, FE-calculations are commonly used for more complex designs, too. Similar to the analytic calculation procedures, the use of realistic gasket factors is essential in these calculations.

INTRODUCTION GKN I is a nuclear power plant that was built in the early 1970s; the plant is in operation since 1976. Using the steam generator handhole flanged joints of this PWR power plant as an example, the development in gasket factors in conjunction with flange calculation methods are summarized and some "lessons learned" are extracted. In the first years of operation already, there were a few minor troubles with leakage of handhole and manhole junctions of the steam generators. Fig. 1 gives an overview over the steam generator and the handhole and manhole locations. Minor troubles in this case means small leakages, i.e. corrosion effects or some drops of water near gasketed joints, especially after pressure tests. But as the leaks were only small, the attempts to solve this problem did not get high priority. Finally, in 1986 there was a major leakage at a handhole closure of one steam generator. The leakage caused a forced outage of the plant for repair purposes, i.e. a time and thus money consuming procedure. Additionally the autorized inspectors and the licencing authorities became involved, thus it was necessary to provide a solution of the problem with adequate paperwork. Fig. 2 shows the original version of the handhole construction, Fig. 3 gives details about the gasket. 12 bolts (size M27) are used to tighten this flange closure construction of nominal diameter DN 200 mm. The gasket consists of a steel plate (outer diameter 244 mm, thickness 7 mm) with kamm-profile; there is a 0.5 mm silver topping on each side of the kamm-profile. Until that event mounting was done using torque wrenches; the necessary torque was derived from design data; the calculations and their results will be discussed in the next chapter. From the state of knowledge at that time, inaccurate mounting was assumed to be the reason for the leakage. Therefore the first goal was to optimize the

2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

steam nozzle

mounting procedure itself and as a second goal to provide training to the mounting staff. An optimal mounting can be achieved using hydraulic tensioners in combination with a control of elongation of the bolts; therefore this method was selected. It was necessary to modify the bolt design for this purpose, Fig. 4. The new bolts have an additional tensioning thread at the free end and for elongation measurement purposes - a rod in their center. With a special hydraulic tensioning device it is possible to prestress all bolts of the junction at the same time and with the elongation measurement the force in the bolts can be monitored during the entire prestress process (bolt elongation vs. force is calibrated). Principle schemes of the methods are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 The selected mounting procedure has some significant advantages: (a) All bolts are prestressed at the same time (one integrated ring of 12 tensioners). This results in a reliable prestress level and a small scatterband of the bolt forces. With the verification of the forces by elongation measurements the results are even better. (b) The time necessary for prestressing of a joint with the hydraulic tensioners in combination with the elongation mesurement (special snap-on design of the transducers) is comparable to the time necessary with torque wrenches (special tightening sequence in several load steps). But it is not necessary for the mounting staff to stay near the joint; especially the loading procedure can be supervised from a distance. Thus the radiation exposure of the mounting staff could be reduced significantly. (c) It is no problem to provide a prestressing protocol to the authorized inspectors. Parallel to the modifications to the tightening process, new calculations were performed to verify the necessary prestress value of the bolts and to demonstrate that the junction design is (still) in accordance with the standards (KTA 3201.2). The calculation will be discussed in more detail in the chapter below. The new tightening procedure was successful. In the following years there were no more leaks at these joints until 1998. Corrosion effects at the outer shell of a handhole near the gasket demonstrated, that there was a (very small) leak, again. This time, mounting could not be blamed because the responsible staff was able to prove the correct mounting procedure with a protocol. Finally, it was found that the metallic gasket plates were the reason for the leakage. The plates showed tolerances in dimensions; the thickness of the plate at the kamm-profile varied up to +/-0.25 mm along the circumference whereas a tolerance of +/-0.1 mm was the limit. The silver topping is not able to compensate for these tolerances completely. This was verified in full scale leak rate tests that were performed similar to the gasket testing procedure as outlined in prEN 13555. The test rig is shown in Fig. 7. Gasket stress was controlled using bolts equipped with strain gages, the leak rates were measured using the pressure decay method. The resulting leak rates vs. gasket stress are given in Fig. 8. The gasket factor Qmin(L=0.01) (determined on the loading part of the leak rate curve, see below) has a value of 65 MPa for the gasket with the low tolerance wheras it is 10 MPa higher with the gasket with higher tolerances. The unloading part of the leakage rate curve shows the same behaviour, i.e. the curve of the gasket with the bad tolerances is shifted to higher gasket stresses. As a consequence of this event, the quality control procedures for the parts of the flanged joints were modified. Meanwhile only gaskets with low dimension tolerances are in the warehouse.

manhole

feedwater nozzle

handhole

Fig. 1 : steam generator of GKN I

O 370 O 295

25

O 43 O 30

47

M27

O 200 O 204 O 244

85

Fig. 2 : handhole junction - old version (dimensions in mm)

R 42

2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

secundary - handhole (DN200)

7

tension nut
X Y
190 O 204 O 244
O

1x45

1,5

Detail X

F
,5 R1

force form hydraulic tensioner nut

0,5 5
O

244

0,5

Detail Y

closure

gasket
1

O O

190 204

flange

Fig. 3 : gasket for the handhole junction (dimensions in mm)

O 370 O 295

Fig. 5 : hydraulic prestressing (schematic plot)

25

O 43 O 30

47

M27

O 200 O 204 O 244

85

Fig. 4 : handhole junction - new version (dimensions in mm)

R 42

unloaded F = 0 l = 0

loaded F = 0 l = 0 l F

Fig. 6 : elongation measurement with internal rod (schematic plot)

2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

difference pressure transducer temperature transducer pressure transducer

reference volume closure

bolts with strange gages

gasket

deflection measurement transducers

Fig. 7 : test rig for leak rate measurements (pressure decay method)

gasket plate with kamm-profile (di: 204mm do: 244 mm)- silver topping thickness 0.5mm full line: tolerance in plate thickness 0.12 mm / dotted line: tolerance in plate thickness 0.24 mm
100

10

leak rate in mg/m/s

p = 80 bar

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001 0 20 40 60 80 100

gasket stress in MPa

Fig. 8 : measured leak rates

2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

COMMENTS TO THE HANDHOLE PROBLEMS The steam generators of GKN I were designed in the late 60s/ early 70s. For the secondary side of the shell non-nuclear codes as TRD, AD and DIN were used. As shown in detailled analysis in 1986 (after the leakage event) and 1996 (for a proof of component integrity) the formulas actually used for dimensioning are almost the same as those used during the design state. As a summary of these analysis it can be stated, that the design of the steam generators in general and thus the handholes still meets the actual standard requirements, even if the (stress) limits have changed (to lower values) with the years. Focussing on the handhole junction, the procedures to analize flanged joints have been modified with the years. Starting with force balances and very generalized gasket factors like k0,KD and k1 (as defined in the 1960s in DIN V 2505, see Tab. 1), the understanding especially of the gasket behaviour and the necessary gasket factors has changed. Additionaly, the calculation procedures were improved with the years, the actual state is discussed below. Nevertheless, even with the "simple" calculation procedures used during the design state combined with a lot of experience choosing the appropriate gasket factors (the gasket factors were not explicitly determined in tests at that time), it was possible to analize the joint and to evaluate a prestress value for the mounting of the handhole joints (bolt forcedesign: 70 kN). This force (transformed to torque) was applied to the bolts via torque wrenches during mounting until 1986. After the leakage in 1986 a new analysis was demanded. As there was a leakage, the old prestress value was doubted, additionally to the quality of the mounting procedure. Meanwhile more realistic gasket factors were defined (similar to the actual definitions, see Tab. 1), and the calculation procedure was almost the same as it is in the actual KTA-standard. However, there were no standards for the determination of the gasket factors and thus from todays point of view the gasket factors still were not reliable because they resulted from different test procedures (if tested). For the gasket used in the handhole junction for example, VU=125 MPa was given in standard tables (note that this value did not depend on a leak rate class). As Fig. 8 shows, this value is high compared to realistic values, determined in modern tests. With the gasket factors of 1986 (Tab. 1) a new prestress value was determined: bolt force1986: 110 kN. This force was (and still is) the resulting prestress value after tightening with the hydraulic tensioners. In conjunction with the latest event, the handhole joint was calculated once again, using the EN 1591 procedure and the realistic gasket factors determined in above tests (Fig. 8). For a leak rate class of L=0.01 (which is regarded to be "very good" for the given medium) QSMIN(0,01)=40 MPa was determined (note that the actual gasket factors that characterize the tightening behaviour depend on a tightness class). This value can only be achieved if a related Qprestress=90 MPa is applied during prestressing. Therefore, QSMIN(0,01) is the value that determines the tightness proof and Qprestress has to be considered in the stress analysis (the gasket factor QMIN(0,01) is less important within the actual calculation procedure, it can be used a a start point for an iterative calculation). The calculation with these gasket factors provided a bolt force of 80 kN. The actual calculation results in a lower necessary prestress value mainly due to the lower values of the gasket factors used. But as the junction design is able to bear the higher prestress value (from a stress analysis point of view), it was decided to stay with the old value. The actual demands on a reliable calculation and the authors experience are summarized in the following chapters.

FLANGE CALCULATION For reliable calculation results it is necessary that all parts of the assembly (i.e. flanges, bolts and gasket) and their interaction are regarded. Tasks of a Flange Calculation The first task of a calculation is to determine the prestress level of the joint. A prestress value is necessary for every flanged joint, therefore, this part of the calculation has to be done in each case. The prestress level depends on the gasket used and on the change of the loads between mounting and operation state. This change of the loads depends on the external loads and on the stiffness of the parts of the joint. Therefore a calculation must be performed, even if standardized flanges and bolts are used. Within this task the boundary conditions (respectation of the limits of the gasket in use) have to be considered. The prestress level (assembly state) depends on the tightness characteristics of the gasket (minimum necessary gasket stress after mounting and in operating state), on the stress limits of the parts of the flanged joint (flanges, bolts, gasket) and on the change of the gasket stress between assembly state and operation. The second task of a calculation is a stress analysis (prevent destruction for static loads), the third is a tightness analysis (to control emissions, i.e. to maintain a demanded tightness class). The calculations for use in tightness analysis and stress analysis have to use relevant and realistic gasket factors, regard stiffness of flanges, bolts and gasket, regard realistic operation loads like intenal pressure, external forces and moments, temperature, temperature distributions, deformations etc. determine the necessary gasket prestress level for assembly and determine gasket stress in operation. State of the Art regarding Calculation In European standards, there are two procedures for the calculation of flanged joints with the gasket floating between the flange plates, Fig. 9. One is based on the ASME-code (incorporated in prEN 13445), the second one uses a limit load theory (EN 1591). In Germany there is another procedure incorporated in the standards for nuclear power plants (KTA 3201.2/KTA 3211.2); this procedure is based on the German prestandard DIN E 2505. The ASME procedure is more or less a dimensioning guideline only applicable for a simplified stress analysis; it is not possible to perform a tightness analysis on this base. The gasket characteristics are included by use of formal gasket factors (not explicitly proved in tests). It is not possible to determine the necessary prestress value. It is not possible to perform a tightness analysis. With the EN 1591 procedure and with the procedure according to KTA it is possible to perform stress analysis and tightness analysis for flanged joints. Additionally, the necessary prestress values are provided, even the mounting procedure can be taken into account. All relevant loads (operation states) of a flanged joint are considered; it is possible to include external forces and moments (torsion moments only in KTA). The tightness analysis depends to a high degree on the use of realistic gasket factors. The necessary gasket factors are defined in prEN 13555 (most definitions are similar to DIN 28090).

2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

prEN 13445 (ASM E )

loads: - in t e r n a l p r e s s u r e - fo r c e s / m o m e n t s (via fic tive in te r n a l pressure) results : - stresses

K T A 3 2 0 1 .2 K T A 3 2 1 1 .2
loads: - in t e r n a l p r e s s u r e - fo r c e s / m o m e n ts - te m p e r a t u r e d iffe r e n c e s results : - stresses - d e fo r m a t i o n s / rotations - tig h tn e s s /le a k r a t e s

EN 1591
loads: - in te r n a l p r e s s u r e - f o r c e s / m o m e n ts - te m p e r a t u r e d iffe r e n c e s - r e la x a tio n results : - s tre s s e s - d e f o r m a tio n s / rotations - tig h t n e s s / l e a k r a t e s

Fig. 9 : calculation procedures layed down in European and German standards

AD-Merkblatt B7 1977
k0, KD k1

DIN V 2505 1964

k0, KD k1

DIN E 2505 1986 / 1990

VU BU = m * p VO

prEN 13555
QMIN(L) QSMIN(L) QSMAX QSMAX E0, KI gC

description
minimum assembly gasket stress minimum operation gasket stress maximum assembly gasket stress maximum operation gasket stress elastic recovery intercept, slope creep factor

k0, KD ED

BO ED / V

Tab. 1 : gasket factors used for calculation

2000 ASME PVP Conference, Seattle

With none of above calculation procedures, it is possible to perform a fatigue analysis, because neither of above calculation methodes allows to calculate local stresses explicitly. This can be done with appropriate FE-calculations, for example. There are no standards for flanged joints with metal-to-metal contact of the flange plates, neither for gasket factors (that are different to those of the floating gasket types) nor for calculation (analysis) procedures. Gasket Factors The gasket factors as defined in DIN 28090 and prEN13555 (that are used in EN 1591) are summarized in Tab. 1. These gasket factors can be classified in factors describing the tightening characteristics and factors describing deformation characteristics. Tightening Characteristics For every gasket there is a certain minimum gasket stress in the state of assembly (QMIN(L)), that is necessary to reach the requested leak rate (or tightness class). This minimum gasket stress is determined using the loading part of the curve e.g. in Fig. 8. During service, it is necessary to maintain at least a sufficient minimum gasket stress in every relevant operating state (QSMIN(L)). This minimum gasket stress depends on the applied predeformation of the gasket during mounting of the joint. The highest value of QSMIN(L) equals QMIN(L); with an increase in predeformation of the gasket during assembly the QSMIN(L) -value decreases. Regarding tightening characteristics, QSMIN(L) and the related Qprestress -value are the crucial input data into calculations. Deformation Characteristics To prevent destruction of the gasket or drastic changes in tightening capabilities, the upper limits of the gasket stress in the state of assembly (QSMAX(RT)) and in operation (QSMAX(T)) have to be regarded. To determine the changes of the gasket stress between the state of assembly and operation, the stiffness of the gasket - described using the elastic recovery (representated by the slope KI and the intersept E0) - is a necessary gasket factor. Finally, creep and relaxation of the gasket under operating conditions must be known, because this can result in a drastic unloading of the joint. gC is the gasket factor, that takes this characteristic into account.

CONCLUSIONS Not only with the presented example, but also with the experience and the development within the last 15 years (replacement of asbestos, more rigid environmental demands etc.) there are a few lessons learned: A flange leakage demonstrates deficits in preventive action. It is much more efficient to prevent the reasons for a failure than to try to control the results of a failure. In other words, it is economically highly reasonable to invest in measures to prevent leakage; thus the cost of repair and of forced outages as well as the effort for control of the emissions can be reduced to a minimum. Part of the preventive action is the analysis of the joint. In the analysis of flanged joints it is necessary to take all parts (bolts, flanges, gasket) into account. Every approach that neglects the interaction between the parts involves uncertainty. The most important tasks of a flange calculation are determination of the prestress level, stress analysis and tightness analysis. There are tools for the reliable analysis of flanged joints. In Europe there is the flange calculation standard EN 1591, that allows stress analysis as well as tightness analysis explicitly; the bolt forces for the mounting state can also be calculated. In a similar way this can be done with the calculation procedure provided in the German KTAstandard. The use of realistic gasket factors that are determined in standardized tests is highly important in calculations. Part of the preventive action is a qualified mounting, too. The mounting procedure must meet the demands on tightness. The mounting procedure has to be considered in stress and tightness analysis, the necessary prestress value has to be a result of a calculation. The mounting staff is involved in a quality process; therefore qualified personnel is necessary.