Problems with B16.5 and B16.

47 Flange Standards ‐ Warren Brown ‐ PVP2013‐97813  Page 1 of 4 

ASME B16.5 FIGURES 8 and 9 – HUB ANGLE

B16.5 Figure 8 and Figure 9 address the acceptable hub dimensions for a weld neck flange. The requirements per
Figure 8 are reproduced in Fig. 3 of this paper. It can be seen that the hub angle per this diagram is allowed to be in
the range of 18° to 45°. In some cases the hub has a significant influence on the strength of the flange, therefore this
allowable range is not desirable from a flange strength perspective. For example, if Elastic-Plastic FEA in
accordance with WRC 538 (Brown [5]) is performed on a NPS 20, cl.150, SA105 flange with both a full length hub
and a 45° angle hub when assembled to the maximum permissible bolt stress (as noted), the difference in stress
distribution at the point of gross plastic deformation of the flange is substantial (Fig. 4). In addition, if the rotation of
the flange due to applied bolt load (Fig. 5) is examined, it can be seen that the 45° hub is substantially weaker and
therefore significantly more likely to leak.

If the closed-form method in WRC 538 is used to compare the reduction in full hub height vs. actual hub height
(Fig. 6) it can be seen that on average, the flange strength has not reduced much until the hub is 75% of the full hub
height. In fact, 70% of the flanges will still be at 90% or better strength level compared to a full hub height case.
However, the strength goes down significantly after that and, in addition, even at 75% hub height the worst case
flange has a strength of only about 60% of the full hub. So it is clear that the strength of some flanges reduces
rapidly as the hub height gets smaller. If the 45° case is examined for a range of flange sizes and classes (Fig. 7),
then it can be seen that for class 150 flanges, the strength is less than 20% of the full hub case for a large portion of
the common flange sizes. The situation improves with the higher pressure classes, however class 300 are still
reduced to 30% of the full hub height case and class 600 are reduced to 40% of the full hub height.

Therefore, there is a significant effect of the shorter hub height and, once again, no reason why the flanges cannot be
manufactured to maximize the hub height. In fact, perhaps luckily or by virtue of the fact that it is cheaper to
produce a full hub height flange, current
manufacturing practice is to manufacture
flanges with almost full hub height.
Therefore, it is recommended that the
minimum hub height is limited to greater
than 75% of the full hub height. If the
flange strength is examined for that case
(Fig. 8) it can be seen that the strength is
reduced to as low as 60% of the full hub
height case for class 150 joints. The class
300 and 600 also are still reduced
significantly. However, that level of
reduction is probably considered
acceptable, particularly since cl.150 flanges
are limited by bolt strength in general, and
will provide sufficient tolerance that most
of the existing flange manufacturers will
likely not have to modify their existing
designs in order to comply.

ASME B16.47
B16.47 does not have an equivalent figure
to B16.5 Figures 8 and 9. There does not
appear to be a limit on the minimum
permissible hub height for these flanges.
Obviously this is a worse situation than
B16.5 and should be addressed in the same
fashion as recommended for B16.5.
 
Problems with B16.5 and B16.47 Flange Standards ‐ Warren Brown ‐ PVP2013‐97813  Page 2 of 4 

 
Problems with B16.5 and B16.47 Flange Standards ‐ Warren Brown ‐ PVP2013‐97813  Page 3 of 4 

 
Problems with B16.5 and B16.47 Flange Standards ‐ Warren Brown ‐ PVP2013‐97813  Page 4 of 4