×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange
5

Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
I am using an 8" 150# ASME B16.5 Blind flange with a 1/2" NPT connection drilled & tapped directly into the flange 3" off center. I am being told the Flange is no longer an ASME Flange and that calculations are required. I disagree for several reasons,
1.) The Flat head formulas in UG-34 don't change when there's a hole added. The addition of the hole is addressed in UG-39, so why would the thickness of an ASME flange change?
2.) ASME B16.5 allows holes less than 3-1/2" to be added to an 8" blind flange to create a reducing flange using the published press/Temp rating. I don't see why this can't still apply to small holes that are located off center and exempt from reinf per UG-39.
3.) The design in questions is exempt from Reinforcement per UG-39 & UG-36(c)(3) which implies the material removed is not enough to affect the integrity of the part with the hole. Why would this be different on a flange?
4.) Where does Sect. VIII Div.1 or B16.5 say that a flange thickness calculations is required when a hole is added to an ASME Blind Flange.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

It is indeed no longer a B16.5 flange, because that standard does not allow for off-center holes in a blind flange. If you are using this in ASME Section VIII, Division 1 construction, you would still be permitted to calculate the thickness of the flange on the basis that you described.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Bayardwv

Doing a quick search for offset tapped blind flanges with google came up with this thread here at eng tips.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=261110

Might be useful to you. Once you check that thread, use the function at the top for similar threads and you might get clearer insight to your question.

Regards,

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
Thanks everyone. this leads me to another question. I did run calc's per UG-34 but my problem is that I'm using a Spiral Wound Gasket & Intermediate Bolts, SA193B8M Cl.2. The Actual bolt load is less than the Required Bolt Load. I would not have picked up on that had I not run the UG-34 Calc.
B16.5, 5.3.2 allows the use of intermediate bolts provided the user verifies the ability to seat the gasket and maintain a sealed joint under operating conditions. Our previous Lead engineer determined that as long as the vessel was hydrotested with the service bolts and identical gasket and the joint did not fail we have met the intermediate bolt requirements. Should I assume that this no longer applies either?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
I forgot to ask in my last reply, WHERE in ASME B16.5 or Sect. VIII Div.1 does it state that once an off center hole is added to a blind flange its no longer an ASME flange?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

bayardwv, TGS4 hit it to the nail (as usual smile).
To directly answer your first question, VIII-1 (by means of UG-44) allows the use of fittings to listed standard (B16.5 included); B16.5 flanges only allow holes in the center; refer to B16.5 table 6.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
I guess one could say I'm playing games with the wording but Table 6, Note 1, doesn't specifically state "on center", therefore it is assumed and assumptions are not fact. In addition Table 6 is Specific to Reducing Flanges, and this is not the purpose of this offset hole. So my question is.....Where does the latest editions of ASME B16.5 or ASME Section VIII, Div.1, clearly state that a blind flange is no longer an ASME B16.5 flange after a hole has been placed off center?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

B16.5, paragraph 6.3.2.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

6.3.2 of the 2013 edt is about raised to flat face conversion - you sure TGS4?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Two questions.

1) is a blind flange classified as a fitting as per B16.5?

2) If it is classified as a fitting then would 6.12.2 qualify for tapping a blind flange as in making an Auxiliary Connection (which IMHO it is)

Just trying to figure out if I too have to raise questions for all the Offset tapped blinds that we have been using in our testing program. Not one failed yet.

As they say. Curious.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

6.2.3 - my mistype.

Quote (ASME B16.5, 2013 Edition)

6.2.3 Reducing Fittings. Center-to-contact surface or center-to-flange edge dimensions for all openings shall be the same as those of straight size fittings of the largest opening. The contact surface-to-contact surface or flange edge-to-flange edge dimensions for all combinations of reducers and eccentric reducers shall be as listed for the larger opening.

The center-to-flange edge sentence is my justification.

I suppose that it is possible that you could argue that you are creating an eccentric reducer without a hub...

Cuemaster64 - I don't think that this is an issue of safety, but one of compliance with the Standard.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
Is there anyway I can prove that a vent connection located of center, exempt from reinforcement per UG-39 can use the B16.5 ratings?

My justification is the B16.5 addresses holes in blind flanges for use as a reducing flange. This is not the intent of a tapped vent hole.

Sect. VIII UG-34 allows B16.5 blind flanges to be used as flat heads. No where does it say if a hole is added the B16.5 ratings don't apply.

In regards the response from TGS4, how can I argue that we're creating an off center eccentric reducer without a hub when 6.2.3 is saying the center of the opening and/or center to flange edge distance has to be the same as the largest opening?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
...and here I go again with yet another question.....6.2.3 is to address the required dimensions for Reducing Fittings. It does not apply the the hole location in a Reducing Blind flange, so now I'm back to my question where does B16.5 state that a nozzle hole has to be located on center?

....would anyone agree with that?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

This is obviously an angels dancing on the head of a pin argument. Clearly the small single vent hole is OK regardless WHERE in the flange it is placed. The question isn't whether or not the resulting part is adequately strong, or safe, but whether or not it is compliant with the text of B16.5.

Now when you start adding multiple holes, things get more interesting. And when you use ASME VIII appendix 2 and the basic design of the B16.5 flange without holes fails, where are you now?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
Then I would follow the rules for openings in Flat Heads, the same as I would if the head were designed as a flat cover per UG-34.
Thats part of my logic, UG-34 fomulas calculate flat heads with and wthout holes exactly the same way. The addition of holes has nothing to do with the requirements of designing a head in UG-34, so why would it effect the ASME B16.5 requirements. The addition of and requirements for holes in a flat cover are addressed in UG-39. If the holes added to the Blind Flange require reinforcement per UG-39 then thats when it has to be designed per U-34.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Unfortunately, for compliance with B16.5, any hole in a blind flange makes it a reducing flange. This standard simply doesn't have a provision for what you are trying to do. Doesn't make it wrong or unsafe, just not compliant with this particular standard. moltenmetal's comment is bang-on.

If for whatever reason you were stuck with needing to use a B16.5 flange, then your sole recourse would be to approach the Code Committee with a proposal for an addition of a clause permitting vent holes (small) in an off-centre location. See the Section in B16.5 Titled "Correspondence With The B16 Committee" on pge x of the 2013 Edition. If your need is urgent, you may qualify for a "Case". You could also attend the meetings - B16.5 falls under B16 Subcommittee C. The next meeting is March 23-26 in Vegas - contact the secretary for additional details.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

"Then I would follow the rules for openings in Flat Heads. . . "
Exactly! There is nothing 'magic' about B16.5 flanges, other than they are pre-engineered, readily available, and cheap. Calc it, add your offset hole [with reinf. if the calc's show it necessary, and grind off the "ANSI/ASME B16.5" stamping on the rim.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

bayardwv,
Rigidity is what it accounts for a flange design to prevent leak. If you compare how much area can be removed within the "y" dimension of a slip-on flange with a small hole removed in your blind, you can for sure doing nothing in your case and I can guarantee it will be fine. We have so many real cases from numerous projects, even 3 nozzles on a blind, never been a problem or concern.

Keep in mind the flat head reinforcement calculation UG-39 is not really good for blind because it does not take rigidity into consideration. UG-39 as well as UG-37, allows large deformation because that is not a concern. However, for flange and blind, deformation or rigidity is a major concern more than stress analysis. That is why you do not use formula in Appendix 2 to verify standard B16.5/ B16.47 flanges. These standard flanges are rigid enough even though they fail Appendix 2.

To let yourself feel and sleep better, do (1) compare with the area in a slip-on flange with a standard pipe installed within "y' dimension. (2) make sure the hole is inside the standard pipe diameter (3) run the head reinforcement calc per UG-39. You can use weldolet or reducer if you like to gain more area. Pad is fine. In you case, you need nothing.
And wait for years until someone invents better approach.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
I'm completely perplexed that many code fabricators are building code vessels using UG-34 & UG-39 as their design basis for adding small offset connections on blind flanges without providing calc's, and I can not find a code case or interpretation addrssing OFFSET nozzles.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Speaking as one fabricator, we would be supplying calcs for such a situation. If the design conditions are anywhere near the B16.5 flange ratings, then a standard B16.5 blind flange would likely fail the calcs, and we would resort to fabricating a custom blind flange from thicker plate.

Just one fabricator speaking...

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

My 2 cents,

Let's put aside what the code said, consider a flat head(blind flange), under pressure, most deflection is at the center, and stress, of course not considering bolting load around the edges. If a small opening with/without its reinforcement can be placed at the center, why can can't the same be placed off the center? where there is less stress, hence less compensation required for the removed material. Hence safer?


I do agree once flange dimension is modified, it is no longer a B16.5 flange, hence custom calculation. But I believe we all have seen vent/instrument holes drilled from the side of the flange, in between two hold holes. How would you do you calculation for this case?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Would it not be an Auxiliary Connection as Cuemaster noted ?
If B16.5 allows you to drill & tap through the side of a fitting why would it not allow drilling & tapping through the blind flange ?
Are they not both subject to the same pressures ?

6.12.1 Pipe Thread Tapping. Holes may be
tapped in the wall of a fitting if the metal is thick
enough to allow the effective thread length specified
in Fig. 3. Where thread length is insufficient or the
tapped hole needs reinforcement, a boss shall be added.

Only problem with that is 6.12.4 requires a 3/4" connection for an 8" fitting so the 1/2" connection would not be compliant with B16.5,
Cheers,
DD

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Dekdee - different things. And no one thinks that what the OP proposed wouldn't be fine. It's a compliance issue, not a safety issue.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Wouldnt this be a perfect topic for an interpretation to the B16.5 committee?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

I'd say it's about time B16.5 addressed this issue, especially since some of the B16.5 flanges fail the Appendix 2 calc when it is used as an alternative means to determine whether or not off-centre or multiple small tappings are a problem or not.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
I submitted an ASME interpretation request yesterday afternoon. I'll post their response. Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

bayardwv - excellent. This is how progress is made. We would all appreciate an update (even if it takes 1+ year(s)). Thanks for not succumbing to the default position of complaining but not doing anything about it - but for actually taking matters into your own hands and taking action. This is how the Codes and Standards Committees are supposed to act.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

I'll second TGS4's commentary. It is very easy to sit back and whine about an issue in the code. It is a far greater public service to follow up and write a coherent request to the Code Committee involved to (hopefully) provoke some action.

Well done, bayardwv!

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
UPDATE: as of today, Monday Nov.10, 2014, my ASME interpretation request status is...

Out for SC Ballot- the interpretation is currently balloted by the Subcommittee.

I was able to address my current problem by changing the spiral wound closure gasket from a CGI style to an LSI style which has a minimum seating stress ("Y") of 5,000 vs the CGI stress of 10,000. This allowed the ASME B16.5 flange to meet the required code calcs.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

bayardwv, thanks for taking the time to keep us up to date. Can you post a copy of the interpretation you've requested? Is the question and response available online somewhere?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

bayardwv - what's the tracking number (BC-14XXX)?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Any update on this interpretation?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

No news?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
Finally, here's the question submitted and their response,,,

Here's the question I submitted...
Are minimum thickness calculations per UG-34(c)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 required if an ASME B16.5 or B16.47 circular blind flange, used as an unstayed flat head, otherwise conforming to the requirements of UG-34(c)(1), has a hole added off center that meets the requirements of UG-39(a) and the nozzle opening size is exempt from reinforcement per UG-36(c)(3)?

Here is the reply I received...

Question (1). If a B16.5 or B16.47 blind flange is modified in a manner that is not covered by those standards, may pressure/temperature ratings of these standards be used in accordance with UG-44?

Reply (1). No.

Question (2). In the situation described in Question 1, would calculations using the design provisions of UG-34 and UG-39 be required?

Reply (2). Yes.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Unfortunate, that the question-answer that you received is unlike the question that you asked. However, the specific question that you asked would likely be considered to be "consulting".

This, to me, highlights the need to be attending the Code Committee meetings where these issues are going to be addressed. Frankly, if you had an interest in the answer, then you should be there when the issue is discussed.

What was the BC item number (the tracking number that you would have been provided)?

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

TGS4, why do you think the "question-answer was unlike the question [he] asked"? It was re-worded, yes; but it answers the original question while providing additional information for future uses (such as different modifications to B16.5 flanges).

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
The Item# for this inquiry is 14-1803. Unfortunately I wasn't aware that I could attend the meeting. I would truly enjoy seeing how this process works, as well as question the reply.

I also don't understand why they reworded my question in a way that no longer addressed my key points. I don't completely disagree with keyen's comments however I still plan on resubmitting with different wording.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Thank you for the tracking number. Indeed, the meetings are open to the public, so anyone can attend. And it is encouraged that anyone who has such a request for interpretations to attend to present their case and be part of the solution.

See, the ASME Codes are essentially run as a consensus committee of volunteers, who work in industry just like you and me. Each individual has become involved for their own unique reason, but often got started with a single issue, such as this one. The way the system works is that everyone gets involved, makes logical, yet passionate arguments for their issue, their peers listen and respond accordingly. My experience is that the group of engineers are extremely experienced, and very open-minded and fair. They only want what is in the best interests of public safety.

To see when meetings are, go to https://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/CommitteePages..... The future meetings link is on the top left. The next meetings are in Atlanta in a few weeks. You can register to attend (free) via https://www.asme.org/events/boiler-pressure-vessel....

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

2
The question 1 they gave you is so broad that the answer could not be anything other than "no".

To really answer your question, the committee would have to re-write the standard to define the conditions under which off-centred holes, or multiple smaller holes etc. would be considered safe modifications without requiring additional calculations or a de-rating of the blind flange. That would be a lot of work to do properly, so the easier and quicker answer is "no, read the standard as written".

Clearly it doesn't matter to the blind flange whether a small hole such as the one considered in the OP (a 1/2" NPT tapping in an 8" blind flange) is put in the dead centre of a blind flange or anywhere such that the small hole's OD is entirely within the ID of the flange's raised face. It would be easy enough for the committee to establish whether that is also true at the maximum permitted hole size which the standard permits for an on-centre hole in a standard (flat) rather than a high hub blind flange. But then there's the issue of multiple holes, and it starts to get fairly complex fairly quickly. Is it a simple matter of total hole area? I would imagine that if the total area of the holes is no larger than the area of the largest hole permitted on centre, multiple holes wouldn't matter wherever they were placed. But getting that written into the standard is a lot to ask, I guess. So instead of using engineering judgment, a lot of unnecessary calculations and work-arounds will be done. So it goes- it is the 2nd edge of the double-edged sword of codes and standards.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

(OP)
moltenmetal, perfectly said!

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Would this interpretation apply to the case of a lug being welded/screwed to the side of a blind flange for say a manway davit?

I am unable to locate any part of B16.5 that specifically includes permission to weld a lug on the side of blind flange, although I have been accused many times of having a "boy look" for things.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Holes drilled between stud holes, for use as orifice taps, jack screw locations etc., can be accommodated within certain limits. What are those limits? Not sure B16.5 gives thorough answers to those questions either.

Stuff welded to the side of the flange which puts no meaningful load on the flange in service, should not cause any problems as long as the welding process doesn't affect the metallurgy of the flange itself, i.e. welds done per ASME IX and examined properly shouldn't be a problem. Little different than bolting things to the extended threads of a couple of the flange studs.

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Quote (motenmetal)

Holes drilled between stud holes, for use as orifice taps, jack screw locations etc., can be accommodated within certain limits. What are those limits? Not sure B16.5 gives thorough answers to those questions either.

Orifice flanges are covered in ASME B16.36. Drilling holes in a B16.5 flange between stud holes will make your flange not compliant with B16.5

RE: Small Hole in ASME B16.5 Blind Flange

Quote (keyen)

Orifice flanges are covered in ASME B16.36. Drilling holes in a B16.5 flange between stud holes will make your flange not compliant with B16.5

by doing so make your flange not compliant with B16.5 but to B16.36, but isn't B16.36 flange has the same pressure temperature of B16.5?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources