0
Research Papers

Evaluation of Interfacial and Permeation Leaks in Gaskets and Compression Packing

[+] Author and Article Information
Ali Salah Omar Aweimer

Ecole de Technologie Superieure,
1100 Notre-Dame Ouest,
Montreal H3C 1K3, QC, Canada
e-mail: Ali-salah-omar.aweimer.1@etsmtl.ca

Abdel-Hakim Bouzid

Professor
Fellow ASME
Ecole de Technologie Superieure,
1100 Notre-Dame Ouest,
Montreal H3C 1K3, QC, Canada
e-mail: hakim.bouzid@etsmtl.ca

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 3, 2018; final manuscript received October 1, 2018; published online January 24, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Jovica R. Riznic.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 5(1), 011013 (Jan 24, 2019) (9 pages) Paper No: NERS-18-1071; doi: 10.1115/1.4041691 History: Received August 03, 2018; Revised October 01, 2018

The quantities of leak rate through sealing systems are subjected to strict regulations because of the global concern on radiative materials. The maximum tolerated leak is becoming a design criterion in pressure vessel design codes, and the leak rate for an application under specific conditions is required to be estimated with reasonable accuracy. In this respect, experimental and theoretical studies are conducted to characterize gasket and packing materials to predict leakage. The amount of the total leak is the summation of the permeation leak through the sealing material and the interfacial leak generated between the sealing element and its mating surfaces. Unfortunately, existing models used to predict leakage do not separate these two types of leaks. This paper deals with a study based on experimental testing that quantifies the amount of these two types of leaks in bolted gasketed joints and packed stuffing boxes. It shows the contribution of interfacial leak for low and high contact surface stresses and the influence of the surface finish of 0.8 and 6.3 μm (32 and 250 μin) resulting from phonographic grooves in the case of a bolted flange joint. The results indicate that most leakage is interfacial, reaching 99% at the low stress while interfacial leak is of the same order of magnitude of permeation leak at high stresses reaching 10−6 and 10−8 mg/s in both packing and gaskets, respectively. Finally, particular focus is put on the technique of precompression to improve material sealing tightness.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lasseux, D. , Jolly, P. , Jannot, Y. , and Omnes, E. S. B. , 2011, “Permeability Measurement of Graphite Compression Packings,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 133(4), p. 041401. [CrossRef]
Schaaf, M. , Klenk, T. , Vogel, R. , and Bartonicek, J. , 2005, “Tightness Characteristics of Packings,” ASME Paper No. PVP2005-71471.
Ueda, T. , and Fujiwara, M. , 1997, “Improved Gland Packings for Volatile Fluids,” 15th International Conference on Fluid Sealing, Maastricht, NL, Sept. 16–18, pp. 145–158.
Kockelmann, H. , Bartonicek, J. , Roos, E. , Hahn, R. , and Ottens, W. , 2009, “Long Term Behaviour of Stuffing Box Packings Under the Influence of Fluids at High Temperature,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77059.
Kazeminia, M. , and Bouzid, A. , 2018, “Leak Prediction Through Porous Compressed Packing Rings: A Comparison Study,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 166, pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
Kazeminia, M. , and Bouzid, A. , 2017, “Evaluation of Leakage Through Graphite-Based Compression Packing Rings,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 139(1), p. 011602. [CrossRef]
Roe, M. , and Torrance, A. , 2008, “The Surface Failure and Wear of Graphite Seals,” J. Tribol. Int., 41(11), pp. 1002–1008. [CrossRef]
Bouzid, H. , Derenne, M. , El-Rich, M. , and Yves, B. , 2004, “Effect of Flange Rotation and Gasket Width on Leakage Behavior of Bolted Flanged Joints,” Weld. Res. Council Bull., 496, pp. 1–23.
Ochoński, W. , 1988, “Radial Stress Distribution and Friction Forces in a Soft-Packed Stuffing-Box Seal,” J. Tribol. Int., 21(1), pp. 31–38. [CrossRef]
Denny, D. , 1957, “A Force Analysis of the Stuffing-Box Seal,” The Fluid Engineering Centre, Harlow, UK.
Geoffroy, S. , and Prat, M. , 2004, “On the Leak Through a Spiral-Groove Metallic Static Ring Gasket,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 126(1), pp. 48–54. [CrossRef]
Saeed, H. A. , Izumi, S. , Sakai, S. , Haruyama, S. , Nagawa, M. , and Noda, H. , 2008, “Development of New Metallic Gasket and Its Optimum Design for Leakage Performance,” J. Solid Mech. Mater. Eng., 2(1), pp. 105–114. [CrossRef]
Yanagisawa, T. , Sanada, M. , Tanoue, H. , Koga, T. , and Hirabayashi, H. , 1990, “Fundamental Study of the Sealing Performance of a C-Shaped Metal Seal,” Second International Symposium on Fluid Sealing, La Baule, France, Sept. 18–20, pp. 389–398.
Pérez-Ràfols, F. , Larsson, R. , and Almqvist, A. , 2016, “Modelling of Leakage on Metal-to-Metal Seals,” J. Tribol. Int., 94, pp. 421–7. [CrossRef]
Boqin, G. , Ye, C. , and Dasheng, Z. , 2007, “Prediction of Leakage Rates Through Sealing Connections With Nonmetallic Gaskets,” Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 15(6), pp. 837–841. [CrossRef]
Kockelmann, H. , and Hahn, R. , 2006, “High Grade Performance Proof on Gaskets for Bolted Flange Connections With Organic Fluids,” ASME Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93634.
Arghavani, J. , Derenne, M. , and Marchand, L. , 2003, “Effect of Surface Characteristics on Compressive Stress and Leakage Rate in Gasketed Flanged Joints,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 21(10–11), pp. 713–732. [CrossRef]
Grine, L. , and Bouzid, A.-H. , 2011, “Correlation of Gaseous Mass Leak Rates Through Micro-and Nanoporous Gaskets,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 133(2), p. 021402. [CrossRef]
Grine, L. , and Bouzid, A.-H. , 2013, “Prediction of Leak Rates Through Porous Gaskets at High Temperature,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(2), p. 0213021. [CrossRef]
Schaaf, M. , Schoeckle, F. , and Bartonicek, J. , 2008, “Concept for the Guarantee of the Integrity of Bolted Flanged Connections in a German Nuclear Power Plant,” ASME Paper No. PVP2008-61530.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Permeation and interfacial leaks: (a) packing ring and (b) gasket

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Precompression of PTFE packing to 41.3 MPa: (a) leaks at 7 MPa and (b) leaks at 41.3 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Contribution of permeation leak rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Radius of the capillary generated by the phonographic finish with: (a) CF gasket, (b) FG gasket, and (c) PTFE gasket

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Leak rates of PTFE gasket at: (a) 14 MPa, (b) 28 MPa, (c) 55.2 MPa, (d) 83 MPa, and (e) 110.3 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Leak rates of FG gasket at: (a) 14 MPa, (b) 28 MPa, (c) 55.2 MPa, (d) 83 MPa, and (e) 110.3 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Leak rates of CF gasket at: (a) 14 MPa, (b) 28 MPa, (c) 55.2 MPa, (d) 83 MPa, and (e) 110.3 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Equivalent void thicknesses of FG and PTFE packing rings at different gland stresses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Average of permeation leak over total leak of FG and PTFE packing rings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Permeation and total leak of PTFE packing at: (a) 7 and 14 MPa and (b) 28 and 41.4 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Permeation and total leak of FG packing at: (a) 7 and 14 MPa and (b) 28 and 41.4 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Gasket ROTT test rig and (b) universal packing test rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Precompression of FG packing to 41.3 MPa: (a) leaks at 7 MPa and (b) leaks at 41.3 MPa

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In