COMPARATIVE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

pikotek VCS AND RTJ GASKET

Report By:

FEA Services
Flexitallic Ltd.
Dewsbury Road
Cleckheaton
West Yorkshire, BD19 5BT, UK
Tel: + 44 (0) 1274 851273

Prepared for
pikotek
Lakewood, Colorado

APRIL 1999
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The conventional gasket choice used to achieve fluid and/or gas seal in flowlines,
injection lines and other high-pressure joint applications are ring type joints (RTJ).
Where insulation is required, phenolic-type RTJ’s are used, but these are prone to
stress fracturing, wicking and catastrophic failure. Metallic RTJ’s have excellent
blow-out resistance and are impermeable, but offer very little useful recovery and are
thus sensitive to flange movements resulting from severe operating conditions and
external bending moments. Metallic RTJ’s can also be susceptible to corrosion.
A well proven and extensively tested alternative to the conventional RTJ is a
composite gasket design, which rose out of the need to solve the extreme corrosion
and sealing problems experienced with conventional RTJ connections on the North
Slope in Alaska during the 1970’s (1). This alternative, known as “Pikotek”, is made
up of a base of high strength glass reinforced resin (G10 material) bonded to a metal
sheet. The base contains two spring energised teflon seals which are recessed all the
way through to the metal core (refer to Figure 1).
Recent experimental testing of a Pikotek 6″ 1500 high-pressure gasket
demonstrated the gaskets ability to accommodate an internal pressure of 5,000psi and
130,000ft-lbs bending moment, without ant loss in seal integrity. The ASME B 16.5
rated working pressure of this flange joint at ambient temperature is 3,705psi (2).
An FEA study was conducted in order to assess how an equivalent 6″ 1500 RTJ
connection would perform under these conditions. The study involved establishing a
base model (for the Pikotek case) and A RTJ connection model with an oval style R46
RTJ. Compression tests where conducted and the results used to generate
representative FE material models for each of the respective gaskets. As the models
are axisymmetric to which bending moments cannot be applied, the pressure and
bending moment test conditions are converted to an equivalent internal pressure. The
results of the analyses are then compared and contrasted.

Helical spring Seal retainer composite liner (secondary seal)

Spring-energised radial face seal (Teflon insert) Metal core

Figure 1. Cross section through Pikotek gasket

2.0 CORROSION CONSIDERATIONS

A galvanic corrosion cell can be set up between dissimilar metals such as carbon steel
joined to stainless steel. In this case the carbon steel is the anodic metal which will be
corroded. Any gasket, which provides an adequate barrier to leakage and adequate
flange insulation or isolation when used in conjunction with suitable washers and

pikotek
1
sleeves, must ideally have excellent dielectric strength, a high compressive strength
and be impermeable.
Neoprene coated phenolic and phenolic RTJ’s are prone to stress fracture during
installation and moisture absorption, fluid and gas wicking after a short period. This
results in leakage and electrical continuity. Laminates, such as the glass reinforced
resin layers of the Pikotek gasket, whilst exhibiting a high compressive strength, are
also susceptible to fluid/gas wicking or migration along laminate layers. However, the
teflon seals, which are seated through the laminate and into the metallic core, prevent
any fluid migration beyond this point (refer to Figure 1). The metallic core also
bolsters the pressure resistance of the epoxy.
Table 1 compares the di-electric and compressive strength properties of phenolic
and epoxy resin used in the Pikotek gasket (1).

Table 1. Compressive and Dielectric strength of G10 and phenolic materials

Material Compressive Strength Dielectric Strength Max Operating temp
G10 79,000 500 VPM 350°F
Phenolic 29,000 200 VPM 225°F

3.0 PIKOTEK GASKET TESTING OVERVIEW

The full details of this test are reported elsewhere (3, 4). The tests were conducted by
Stress Engineering Services Inc., Houston in a 2.5million lb capacity load frame. The
tests involved a standard ANSI B16.5 6″ class 1500 raised face weld neck flange
assembly with an inner bore of 5.4″. The bolts (12 x 1 3/8″ B7’s) were pre-stressed to
30,000psi. Standard 6″ 1500 Pikotek gaskets were used.

3.1 Initial Pikotek gasket testing

The assembly was hydro-tested to 9,900psi for 60 minutes. During this period a 90psi
drop in pressure from 9,924psi to 9,834psi was recorded.
The water was then removed from the system and a Nitrogen pressure test
conducted. A pressure of 6,600psi was held for 30 minutes and then reduced to 0psi.
This Nitrogen pressure test was repeated for 10 cycles. During this test the largest
recorded drop in pressure was 46psi (6,648psi to 6,602psi). However no bubbles
appeared in leakage detection system.
After this, the assembly was subject to a bending test which involved applying a
bending moment of 50,000ft-lbs, then a pressure of 6,000psi and holding for 10
minutes. The bending test cycle was repeated 5 times during which time the
maximum recorded pressure drop was 42psi. No bubbles appeared in the leakage
detection system.
The assembly was dismantled and the gasket inspected. There was no visible
damage to the gasket other than a slight impression left by the outer diameter of the
raised face. As no leakage was detected during this rigorous process, some follow-on
testing was conducted.

3.2 Subsequent Pikotek gasket testing:

The assembly was hydro-tested to 7,500psi for 15 minutes and then Nitrogen pressure
tested to 5,000psi for 30 minutes. The object of these tests was to allow for
shakedown of the assembly and gauges, however no leakage occurred.

pikotek
2
 The assembly was then pressurised with Nitrogen to 5,000psi and a bending
moment in increments of 1,000ft-lbs every 30 seconds was applied. The object was to
continue applying the moment until leakage was detected or plastic deformation of the
assembly occurred. At 130,000ft-lbs plastic deformation of the assembly began to
occur, but still no leakage was recorded. The test was halted at this point.

3.3 Comments on Pikotek gasket testing results

The ability of the Pikotek gasket to withstand these extreme conditions is attributed to
the fact that the conformable yet essentially elastic (refer to Figure 2) base provides
contact out to the OD of the raised face of the flange, thus providing a wider footprint
for the flange. Also, the spring energised teflon inserts rebound to continue providing
a seal even after contact with the ID of the base is lost. As the flanges move apart
(due to hydrostatic end forces and bending), the teflon inserts, which are pressed
between the flange and the metallic core, follow this movement. Thus if any fluid
should migrate by wicking or through a gap formed due to rotation, the teflon inserts
will provide an impermeable barrier to leakage.

4.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES

Contact analyses involving bending moments of this sort are best modelled in 3D.
However, 3D modelling is both time intensive and expensive. Axisymmetric models
(2D) using Fourier mode elements can be used to simulate bending moments, but are
not necessarily best suited to contact type analyses as the contact is merely
extrapolated between the specified Fourier axes. Another way of assessing the effect
of bending on a flange assembly is to convert the bending moment to an equivalent
hydrostatic end force by some means and apply this to a straight-forward
axisymmetric model. This approach will demonstrate the worst case scenario
occurring at some point around the circumference of the assembly. The gasket
stresses can then be used to determine whether or not sealing criteria is met (i.e.
whether or not the potential for a leak path exists). This approach is both economical
and meaningful for comparative modelling of this nature. The FE code “Abaqus” is
used to analyse the problem in this way.

4.1 Conversion of bending moment to equivalent internal pressure

One way of predicting the combination of internal and external forces which would
result in leakage is to assume that leakage would occur when the make-up force of the
bolting is overcome by the applied bending moment and pressure end load (3). The
sum of forces in the longitudinal axis of the flanges gives:

Fbolt = Fbending + Fpressure

π
Fbolt = (Teffective ) + ( Pint ernal × DI2 )
4
where :
4M
Teffective is the representative force for the bending moment = , where D is the BCD
D
Pint ernal is the internal pressure
DI is the inner diameter of gasket (or ASME ' G' value = 6.724" for Pikotek gasket)

pikotek
3
From the testing, the Pikotek gasket withstood 5,000psi internal pressure and
130,000ft-lbs of bending moment. From the above relationship, the Fbolt required for
the Pikotek test conditions can be calculated as 676,747lbs. This is the make-up force
required to overcome the test conditions. If the bending moment is assumed to be
zero, then:

Fbolt = Fpressure
max

max
where Fpressure = Fpressure when Teffective = 0

From this relationship an equivalent internal pressure, which is representative of a

combination of the internal pressure and bending moment test conditions, can be
calculated as 19,058psi.

4.2 Compression tests and material model fit

In order that the gasket material behaviour can be numerically represented, load-
deflection test data is required. This data can then be converted to stress-strain curves
of the form required by the material model to be applied. The determined material
parameters are applied to a single element model and the resultant compression-
recovery output is compared to the test curve to verify the fit. Material models
available in the FE code “Abaqus” are used (5).

4.2.1 Pikotek gasket

The teflon inserts compress into the grooves at very low loads. The ASME m & y
values are 0 and 7500psi respectively. ROTT testing determined the teflon seating
stress to be less than 450psi (6). This was verified during compression testing on a
Pikotek gasket. As the teflon stress is so small in comparison to the surrounding base
stresses, the inserts are modelled linear elastically. A compression test was then
performed on the epoxy/metal core with the teflon seals removed. The axial load-
deflection data was converted into nominal stress-strain format. From Figure 2 it can
be seen that the base exhibits non-linear, near elastic properties. This behaviour can
best be described by a hyperelasticity model. A curve fitting procedure was carried
out on a single axisymmetric element and the material properties derived from this
procedure where applied to the FEA model. The material model fit is superimposed
on the curve derived from test data (Figure 2). From this Figure it can be seen that
the fit is more accurate at higher stresses and strains. However, overall the fit is
regarded as satisfactory and the model will generate realistic and meaningful results.

4.2.2 Zinc-plated soft iron RTJ

The compression testing of a RTJ gasket is not as straightforward as that of a flat disc
type gasket, which can be directly placed between the compression platens. In order
to determine the axial behaviour of an oval RTJ, grooves of corresponding standard
dimensions where machined into two flat metal discs. The RTJ was placed into the
grooves and the assembly then inserted between the platens. The axial load-deflection
data was recorded in the same fashion as for ordinary tests. To convert this data to
stress-strain, the contact area and actual strain had to be determined. The contact area
was calculated by determining the tangential contact area on the ID and OD of the
RTJ. The reported deflection data was adjusted to account for the actual axial
distance between the contact points, from which the strain was calculated. From
Figure 3 the non-linear elastic plastic nature of the RTJ under compression can be

pikotek
4
clearly seen. The response is typical of gasket materials and is not typical of classical
metal plasticity. This type of gasket behaviour can be represented by the newly
created “gasket” element found in the Abaqus element library. However, due to the
axial nature of the test data and the geometry of the gasket and contact surfaces, the
application of this element is not appropriate in this case.
In the absence of a material model representative of such material behaviour, a
best–fit was sought. Accurate representation of the material response is most
important in the window defining the state at full gasket compression and at the
anticipated recovery (i.e a window defining the higher stress strain combinations in
both compression and recovery).
After a trial and error process, a traditional elastic-plastic model was applied. The
model gives a good fit at the higher stress-strain combinations, however under
recovery the model curve starts to deviate significantly around 10,000psi. The ASME
minimum design seating stress for a soft iron RTJ gasket tested is 18,000psi. It is thus
deemed that the fit of the recovery curve below stresses of 10,000psi is not that
critical. It is regarded that these levels of stress on the RTJ are not sufficient to
continue generating a seal.

4.3 FE Models
The models were analysed with the FE code “Abaqus”. Two axisymmetric models
were created;
• a standard raised face assembly based on the 6″ class 1500 flange arrangement
subject to the testing discussed in section 2 above with a Pikotek gasket
• a standard 6″ 1500 RTJ assembly with an oval RTJ and same pipe wall thickness as
above
An annular ring of an area equivalent to the total bolt root area centered about the
BCD is used to represent the bolts. The ring is split through its horizontal middle, to
which the bolt stress is the applied, thereby pulling the bolt ends together and hence
applying the appropriate load onto the flanges and gasket. A bolt stress of 30,000psi
is applied to the Pikotek assembly as this was applied in the test. This is also the
recommended bolt pre-stress. For the RTJ assembly, a bolt stress of 45,000psi is
applied, as this is the pre-stress usually recommended in industry for this type of
connection.
Other than the difference in bolt pre-stress, both models are analysed in exactly the
same way. The analysis involved steps to bolt-up and then the application of the
internal pressure as determined in section 4.1 above. This involves applying a
boundary condition to the pipe walls and the pipe-ends (the equivalent hydrostatic
end-force).
The geometry and FE mesh detail of the Pikotek model can be found in Figure 4.
Contact is modelled between the flange faces and the base and the teflon inserts.
Contact is modelled between the teflon bottom and back and the appropriate base
surfaces. The material model determined from the test results was applied to the base.
The geometry and FE mesh detail of the RTJ model can be found in Figure 5.
Contact is modelled between the groove sides and the RTJ tangential surfaces. The
material model determined from the testing is applied to the RTJ.
The flange and bolt components of both models are modelled with appropriate
elastic properties. Thermal effects are not considered as the test was conducted at
ambient temperature.

pikotek
5
5.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

5.1 Pikotek assembly

The Pikotek assembly was analysed to verify the test conditions. Figure 6 shows the
axial stress distribution through the gasket as result of bolt-up (to 30,000psi bolt
stress). From this Figure it can be seen that the maximum compressive stress occurs
in the vicinity of the OD of the raised face. The tight contour intervals in this area are
as a result of the sudden transition from the free portion of the gasket (from the bolts
to the raised face OD) to the stressed portion of the gasket under the raised face. The
relative stiffness of the teflon inserts results in low compressive stresses in their
vicinity. The compressive stress seen by the base goes from 22,000psi at the OD of
the raised face to 2,000psi on the ID. This stress distribution is indicative of rotation
of the flange. However, this stress distribution is sufficient to coin the resin into the
flange faces (i.e. seat and seal).
The resultant axial stresses through the gasket for the simulated test conditions can
be found in Figure 7. The stress toward the OD of the raised face area is reduced to
around 13,000psi. There is only a slight reduction in stresses through the teflon
inserts. As isotropy is assumed, the high stresses at the ID of the gasket are attributed
to the application of the high radial internal pressure boundary, which induces an axial
stiffening response. It is not possible to verify to what extent this would happen in
reality. However, as the material is laminated, the strength of the material in the
radial sense is more likely to be less than in the axial sense and thus it is unlikely that
the axial stiffening response would be so large. In any even, it is the stresses of the
base in the vicinity of the teflon inserts which are more important. These should be at
least 2,000psi to prevent extrusion of the teflon insert. From Figure 7 it can be seen
that while there is a reduction in stress at the OD of the raised face (from 22,000psi to
13,000psi), the stresses in the vicinity of the inserts meet this requirement. The
resultant axial stresses in the Pikotek gasket for the simulated test conditions are also
sufficient to continue generating a seal.
When the gasket was removed after testing, the only deformation found on the
gasket was a slight marking in the region of the OD of the raised face. Such marking
is indicative of rotation. Evidence of rotation is also seen in the analysis results
(Figures 6 & 7).
The axial stress distribution in the flanges for the bolt-up and test condition can be
found in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. Yielding in the flange is most likely to occur at
the junction of the flange and the weld-neck and the hub and the pipe. Stresses in
these areas are initially caused by the clamping action of the bolts, which result in
flange rotation. The response of these areas to the application of internal forces will
depend upon reaction of the bolts (whether bolt stress is increased or reduced) and the
magnitude of the applied internal force. In this instance, the tensile stresses in the
flange-weld neck junction decrease from 19,500psi at bolt up to 8,500psi at test
conditions, while the tensile stresses in the hub-pipe junction increase from 10,500psi
at bolt up to 26,400psi at test conditions. The location of the higher stress in the hub-
pipe junction is significant, as this is where deformation was first noted during the
testing.
Von Mises Stress can be used as a failure indicator. If the Von Mises stress is in
excess of the yield strength then it can be regarded that failure will occur in this
region. The yield strength of the flange material is given at 75,000psi. In Figures 10
& 11, the Von Mises stress distributions can be found. For the bolt up condition, the
Von Mises stress seen at the junction of the flange and weld-neck is 18,000psi and at

pikotek
6
the hub-pipe junction is 7,000psi. For the simulated test conditions, the Von Mises
stresses increase considerably (see Figure 8). At the most vulnerable junction (the
hub to pipe), where the onset of plasticity was seen in the testing, the stresses are
increased to 97,300psi at the pipe ID to 75,000psi at the pipe OD. As there is a
correlation between the analytical result and what was experienced during testing, the
axisymmetric approximation of the bending moment test is deemed appropriate and
realistic.

5.2 RTJ assembly

Figure 12 shows the axial stress distribution through the gasket as result of bolt-up (to
45,000psi bolt stress). As the material model describes the axial behaviour of the
gasket, this criteria is used to assess its performance. From this Figure it can be seen
that the maximum compressive stress occurs along the tangential contact surfaces.
The maximum stress value of 49,000psi indicates that the area directly below the
contact surfaces has undergone the expected plastic deformation and is satisfactorily
seated.
The resultant axial stresses through the gasket for the simulated test conditions can
be found in Figure 13. There is a significant reduction in axial stress. The stress
beneath the contact surfaces is 5,000psi. As already discussed in Section 4.2.2 above,
the material model prediction is not accurate at recovery stress values of below
10,000psi. However, given the criteria that that stresses below 10,000psi are
insufficient for a RTJ gasket to maintain seal, it can be inferred that these conditions
represent the potential for a leak path.
With respect to the flanges, it can be seen from Figure 14 that in the critical areas,
at the junction of the flange and the weld-neck and the hub and the pipe, the tensile
stress is 30,000psi and 49,000psi respectively. These are significantly higher than for
the Pikotek case as the bolt pre-stress is 50% more (45,000psi) and the effects of
rotation will be increased. At the test condition, the tensile stress in the vicinity of the
flange - weld-neck junction are significantly higher than that for the Pikotek case.
From Figure 15 it can be seen that the stress in this area is 20,000psi vs the 8,500psi
for the Pikotek case (refer to Figure 9). This is due to the fact that this connection will
have a higher residual bolt stress and thus the effects of rotation will be more
significant on the flanges.
The Von Mises stresses for the bolt-up can be found in Figure 16. The Von Mises
stresses are a lot higher than for the Pikotek case as to be expected. The Von Mises
stress at the junction of the flange and weld-neck is 32,000psi and at the hub-pipe
junction is 46,400psi. It is interesting to note that there is also a concentration of
stress around the contact surfaces with the RTJ.
Using the Von Mises Stresses as a failure indicator, the stress values and
distribution for the test condition are essentially the same as for the Pikotek case (refer
to Figure 17), thus it can be deduced that yielding of the flange would occur for the
RTJ case as well.

pikotek
7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis on the pikotek 6″ 1500# raised face flange assembly match
the findings of the test. The analysis showed that whilst the flange had started to
yield, the pikotek gasket still maintained sufficient stress to continue generating a seal.
This is due to the near elastic properties of the base and the impermeable barrier
provided by the spring energised teflon inserts. The comparative analysis shows that
the potential for a leak path exists for a RTJ assembly subjected to the same test
conditions.

A pikotek gasket, as the teflon seals locate between the flange faces on the ID of a
standard RTJ groove, can be used to replace a RTJ gasket in a problematic
connection. Similarly the gasket can also be used to join together flanges of
dissimilar geometry and metal type. The properties of the base also provide the
gasket with good vibration absorption properties for connections located near
compressors. This allows the gasket to be re-used.

Based on these findings it is shown that the pikotek gasket out performs a RTJ in
extreme operating conditions of internal pressure

7.0 REFERENCES

(1) Breaker, J.V., Testing and application of an improved high pressure electrical
insulating flange gasket, Corrosion ’89, April 1989, New Orleans, Louisiana

(2) ASME/ANSI B16.5 –1988, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings.

(3) Alexander, C.R., and Fowler, J.R., Bend Test Conducted on the 6 inch 1500#
HP VCS Flange Gasket, Report for Pikotek by Stress Engineering Services,
Inc., January 1998

(4) Alexander, C.R., and Fowler, J.R., Experimental Testing of the Pikotek 6 inch
1500# HP VCS Flange Gasket, Report for Pikotek by Stress Engineering
Services, Inc., December 1997

(5) Hibbit, Karlson & Sorrenson, Inc., ABAQUS Standard Example Problems
Manuals and Users Manuals Version 5.8, USA, 1998.

(6) Bouzid, H., Derene, M., ROTT Testing of the Pikotek 4” class 300lb VCS
gasket style, TTRL, 1996

pikotek
8
 COMPARATIVE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
pikotek VCS AND RTJ GASKET

April 1999

Summary

This report comprises a description of work performed by Flexitallic FEA Services to

investigate the behaviour of a pikotek VCS gasket and a RTJ for the same service
conditions. The pikotek gasket concept was developed in the early 1980’s as an
alternative to RTJ gasket styles. The basis of the gasket is self-energising seals
contained in a matrix reinforced high-density composite material which is
permanently bonded to a corrosion resistant metallic core. The retainer has a high
compressive strength and hyperelastic properties, which allows the gasket to
accommodate relatively large flange movements and un-conformities.

Testing of the pikotek VCS gasket by Stress Engineering in Houston (December 1997
– January 1998) was conducted to determine its limitations. The tests involved
subjecting a 6-inch class 1500 ANSI B16.5 flange assembly to various hydrostatic,
internal pressure and bending moment applications. The gasket maintained a seal for
all conditions, including that of an internal pressure of 5,000psi (far in excess of the
3,705psi permitted design value) and a bending moment of 130,000ft-lbs.

In order to determine how a RTJ would behave under these conditions, an FEA
comparative study was conducted. The study involved the construction of a pikotek
and RTJ raised face assembly models, the testing of respective gasket materials and
the determination of material model parameters by curve fitting.

The results show that for the simulated test conditions, the pikotek gasket stress does
not go below that required to effect a seal, while the RTJ looses so much stress that
the potential for a leak path exists.

On this basis it is shown that the pikotek composite gasket design out performs the
metallic RTJ gasket style for extreme high-pressure applications.
 COMPARATIVE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
pikotek VCS AND RTJ GASKET

CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCITON 1

2.0 CORROSION CONSIDERATIONS 1

3.0 PIKOTEK GASKET TESTING 2

3.1 Initial Pikotek gasket testing overview 2

3.2 Subsequent Pikotek gasket testing 2

3.3 Comments on Pikote gasket testing results 3

4.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS 3

4.1 Conversion of bending moment to equivalent internal pressure 3

4.2 Compression tests and material model fit 4

4.2.1Pikotek gasket 4

4.2.2 Zinc-plated soft iron RTJ 4

4.3 FE Models 5

5.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 6

5.1 Pikotek assembly 6

5.2 RTJ assembly 7

6.0 CONCLUSION 8

7.0 REFERENCES 8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cross section through Pikotek gasket (page 1)
Figure 2. Pikotek base compression test data and FE material model fit
Figure 3. Oval RTJ compression test data and FE material model fit
Figure 4. Geometry and FE mesh of ANSI B16.5 6″ 1500# raised face connection
with Pikotek gasket
Figure 5. Geometry and FE mesh of ANSI B16.5 6″ 1500# RTJ connection with
oval RTJ gasket
Figure 6. Axial stress (psi) in Pikotek gasket for bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress
of 30,000psi)
Figure 7. Resultant axial stress distribution (psi) in Pikotek gasket for test
conditions (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
Figure 8. Axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at bolt-up
condition (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
Figure 9. Resultant axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at test
conditions (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
Figure 10. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at bolt-up
condition (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
Figure 11. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at test
conditions (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
Figure 12. Axial stress distribution (psi) through RTJ gasket for bolt-up condition
(initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
Figure 13. Axial stress distribution (psi) in RTJ gasket for test condition (initial bolt
stress of 45,000psi)
Figure 14. Axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at bolt-up condition
(initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
Figure 15. Axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at test conditions
(initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
Figure 16. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at bolt-up
condition (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
Figure 17. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at test conditions
(initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)

In providing this document, The Flexitallic Group makes no representation or warranty, express or implied as to
the sufficiency of the information contained therein for any purpose or of its freedom from defect, including but not
limited to freedom from patent infringement. The Flexitallic Group accepts no liability whatever for injury, loss or
damage of whatever description arising from the use of information contained in this document.
 18000

16000

14000

12000
Nominal Stress (psi)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Nominal Strain

Pikotek base test data Pikotek base material model

Figure 2. Pikotek base compression test data and FE material model fit
 60000

55000

50000

45000

40000
True stress (psi)

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12
Plastic log strain
RTJ test data RTJ material model

Figure 3. Soft Iron Oval RTJ compression test data and FE material model fit
 Spring-energised teflon seal

Re-inforced epoxy resin

Metallic core

Figure 4. Geometry and FE mesh of ANSI B16.5 6inch 1500 raised face connection with Pikotek gasket
Figure 5. Geometry and FE mesh of ANSI B16.5 6inch 1500 RTJ connection with oval RTJ gasket
 Raised Face OD

2,000psi 22,000psi

Low compressive stress in this area due Contour grouping in this area
to relative stiffness of teflon inserts due to transition from tensile
to compressive zone

Figure 6. Axial stress distribution (psi) in Pikotek gasket for bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
 Raised Face OD

2,000psi 22,000psi

High stress resulting from high pressure Stresses on base around teflon insert sufficient to
application radially and isotropic assumption prevent teflon seal extrusion and maintain a seal

Figure 7. Resultant Axial stress distribution (psi) in Pikotek gasket for test conditions (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
 Hub-pipe junction
compressive (10,500psi)

tensile

Flange-weld neck junction

(19,500psi)

Figure 8. Axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
 compressive
Hub-pipe junction
(26,400psi)
tensile

Flange-weld neck junction

(8,500psi)

Figure 9. Resultant axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at test conditions (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
 Hub-pipe junction
(7,000psi)

Flange-weld neck junction

(18,000psi)

Figure 10. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
 97,300 - 75,000psi
(relates to onset of failure
as seen in testing)

Figure 11. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for Pikotek case at test conditions (initial bolt stress of 30,000psi)
Figure 12. Axial stress distribution (psi) through RTJ gasket for bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
 Sufficient stress lost on contact surfaces
so that the potential for a leak path exists

Figure 13. Axial stress distribution (psi) in RTJ gasket for test conditions (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
 compressive
Hub-pipe junction
(50,000psi)
tensile

Flange-weld neck junction

(30,000psi)

Figure 14. Axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
 Hub-pipe junction
compressive (25,000psi)

tensile

Flange-weld neck junction

(20,000psi)

Figure 15. Resultant axial stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at test conditions (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
 Hub-pipe junction
(46,400psi)

Flange-weld neck junction

(32,000psi)

Figure 16. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at bolt-up condition (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)
 Hub-pipe junction
(97,200psi - 75,000psi)

Figure 17. Von Mises stress distribution (psi) in flange for RTJ case at test conditions (initial bolt stress of 45,000psi)