Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference

PVP2013
July 14-18, 2013, Paris, France

PVP2013-97036

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE SEALING BEHAVIOR OF SPIRAL WOUND GASKETS

José C. Veiga
Gustavo Monteiro da Silva
Nelson Kavanagh
Teadit Indústria e Comercio Ltda.
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

ABSTRACT

Spiral wound gaskets are used worldwide in piping and

equipment flanges and can be manufactured in several
combinations of materials, in a wide range of dimensions,
winding densities and shapes. This paper shows factors like
winding density, surface finish and flatness that have major
influence in the sealability which are not specified by the current
Spiral Wound ASME B16.20 gasket standard.

INTRODUCTION Figure 2: Spiral wound gasket

Most Spiral Wound Gaskets (SW) are produced For general service applications the winding metal is
according to ASME B16.20 – 2007 Metallic Gaskets for Pipe Stainless Steel or a Nickel Alloy, with Flexible Graphite or
Flanges [1]. This standard indicates the dimensions and PTFE as filler. The ASME B16.20 standard specifies the metal
manufacturing tolerances for ASME B16.5 [2] and ASME 16.47 strip nominal thickness as 0.19 mm (0.0075 in). There is no
[3] flanges. Because SW Gaskets are widely used by industry in specification for the filler thickness. A compression test
process piping and equipment they have been subjected to a specification requires a thickness of 3.30 mm (0.130 in) when
wide range of research [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. the gasket is subjected to a compression force, which varies
The preferred design per ASME B16.20 for SW according to the size and the flange pressure class. There is no
Gaskets consists of a sealing element with alternating plies of sealability performance specification, no surface finish or
metal and a soft filler wound spirally as shown in Figure 1, with flatness criteria.
an inner ring and an outer guide ring as shown in Figure 2. The Failures due to the inward buckling of SW Gaskets are
nominal sealing element thickness is 4.45mm (0.175 in), the a known problem within the industry. Several reports, studies
inner and outer rings are 3.2mm (0.125 in). [10, 11, 12] and a US Patent [13] have linked these failures to
the gasket construction. To prevent it the ASME B16.20
Standard was reviewed in 2007 to recommend that all SW
Gaskets should be fitted with an inner ring regardless of filler
type. Previous editions required inner rings only for PTFE filled
gaskets. For this paper all gaskets tested were with inner rings.
Studies have been performed with spiral wound gaskets
showing differences of compressibility according the winding
density [14]. These studies showed large compressibility
variations for the same gasket dimensions. SW Gaskets have
been developed with “low stress capabilities” to address the lack
Figure 1: Spiral wound gasket winding of bolt load in Class 150 flanges [15, 16].
At the PVP 2011 Conference the authors presented a
paper [17] showing the influence of winding density on the
gasket performance. This paper is a continuation of the studies.
1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Over 300 sealability tests were performed with many different The elongation was used to calculate the bolt load and gasket
gasket configurations. In addition to the gasket density, other stress. All dimensions were measured at room temperature.
characteristics like cupping and surface finish were tested. Figure 5 shows the bolt elongation measurement.
The main objective of this paper is to summarize and
register these test results, so they are available for information
and reference.

TEST RIGS

All tests were performed in ASME B16.5 welding neck

(WN), raised face (RF) flanges manufactured in ASTM 105
forged carbon steel [18]. Sealing surfaces per ASME (PCC-1
2010 Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint
Assembly [19]) for SW Gaskets is 3.2 - 6.4 µm (125 - 250 µin).
Figures 3 and 4 shows the 6 in Class 900 and the 3 in – Class
150 respectively.

Figure 5: Bolt elongation measurement

TEST MEDIA PRESSURE AND LEAK DETECTION

Methane was the test media. It was chosen to establish a

correlation with field surveys as mandatory by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fugitive Emission
regulations. Measurements were performed using Thermo TVA
1000 Volatile Organic Compound Analyzer [21] with readings
in parts per million (ppm).
Test Pressure was 20 bar (290 psi). All tests were at
room temperature.
To reduce the effects of air currents in the laboratory,
the flange edges were sealed with a plastic tape with one orifice
for the probe and another orifice opposite to the probe location
as shown in Figure 6. This way the values show the Methane
concentration in a constant flow. It is more severe that the EPA
Figure 3: 6 in – Class 900 Test Rig
Method 21 [22], which verifies the concentration in the flange
vicinity.

Figure 6: Leak detection

Figure 4: 3 in – Class 150 Test Rig

All stud materials were ASTM SA-193-B7 [20] with

machined ends to allow a precise bolt elongation measurement.
2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
GASKET DISPLACEMENT MEASUREMENT TEST PROTOCOL

To measure the gasket displacement, transducers were The Test Protocol was designed to reproduce field
installed on the flange edge, 120 degrees apart, as shown in conditions of gasket installations. The ends of the studs were
Figure 7. prepared to obtain elongation measurements with a micrometer.
The stud stretch is used to calculate the gasket stress. Three
displacement transducers were equally positioned around the
flanges edges. The gasket seating stress was limited in the
maximum yield strength of the studs and applied in steps.

A summary of the Test Protocol is as follows:

1 – Measure the thicknesses of the specimen before and after

testing.
2 – Install flanges without gasket and record the initial
displacement transducer value. This value is the zero
displacement in charts.
2 – Install gasket and studs. Hand tighten nuts.
3 – Measure the initial stud lengths and record the value of the
displacement transducer. The difference between this and the
initial value is the gasket thickness.
4 – Tighten the studs to the required gasket stress using 3 cross
pattern rounds, followed by two more rotational patterns.
Figure 7: Gasket displacement transducers 5 – Measure and record stud length.
6 – Seal flange edges with tape with two opposite orifices.
7 – Pressurize with methane gas at 20 bar (290 psi);
TEST GASKETS 8 – After 30 minute, measure the leakage in ppm with probe in
orifice.
All gaskets were with inner rings in stainless steel type 9 – Repeat steps 4 to 8 for each tightness step.
304, carbon steel guide rings. Windings were in 304 stainless 10 – Loosen studs and record the displacement transducer value.
steel and flexible graphite filler.
Stainless steel has a density of approximately 8 g/cm3
and Flexible Graphite of 1 g/cm3 so gaskets which have more TEST RESULTS FOR WINDING DENSITY
windings per gasket sealing width have more steel wraps,
consequently, more density. The results are a summary of over 300 sealability tests.
All gaskets tested were manufactured with high purity Several gasket constructions were produced changing a specific
Flexible Graphite filler. The filler protrusion is, approximately, characteristic to evaluate its influence on the sealability. Due to
0.2 mm (0.008 in) from the metal wraps as shown in Figure 8. the quantity of tests only the most representative ones are shown
in this paper. Each chart shows a comparison of two gaskets
with changing only one specific characteristic.
The winding density is the characteristic that mostly
influences the sealing behavior of spiral wound gaskets. It was
noticed after the initial tests that the sealability was being
provided by the guide ring contact with the outside diameter of
the flange raised face, as shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. To
verify this effect tests were performed with grooved guide rings
(Figure 11). Figure 12 and Table 1 show the sealability
difference of gaskets with and without a grooved guide ring. It
can be seen that the grooved guide ring gasket does not exhibit
the same performance. To eliminate this effect all further testes
Figure 8: Filler protrusion
were performed with grooved guide rings.

Low density spiral wound gaskets were those where the

sealing windings per mm (in) were in the range of 0.818 - 1.132
(20.77 - 28.75), while high density SWG were in the range of
1.491 – 1.863 (37.87 – 47.32).

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Figure 12: Grooved x Non-Grooved Guide Ring

Figure 9: Flange x Guide Ring contact Gasket seating Leakage (ppm)

stress (psi)
Grooved Non Grooved Non
grooved grooved
5311 5221 5200 256
9190 9663 2300 119
13498 14254 1470 62
17879 18894 803 15
26592 24124 300 7.5
35395 35252 200 3.5
53204 48076 119 2.0
Table 1: Grooved x Non-Grooved Guide Ring

Figure 10: Flange x Guide Ring contact illustration Charts in Figures 13, 14 and 15 and Tables 2, 3, 4 show
the typical test results for Low Density Gaskets (LD) and High
Density Gaskets (HD). The following differences can be seen:
- All HD gaskets show an improved sealability at the same
seating stress level. This property is extremely important to meet
EPA Consent Decree [23] Fugitive Emissions requirements.
- HD gaskets exhibit less strain and no guide ring contact. The
last two points in charts show the winding thickness recovery,
which is greater for HD gaskets. This property indicates that HD
gaskets have a better buffer against media pressure fluctuations
and joint creep.

Figure 11: Grooved Guide Ring

Figure 13: SW 3 in – Class 150 – Low x High Density

4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Gasket seating Gasket strain Leakage (ppm) Gasket seating Gasket strain Leakage (ppm)
stress (psi) (mm) stress (psi) (mm)
Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
density density density density density density density density density density density density
2223 3192 0 0 2415 684 4033 4918 0 0 329 6.2
3666 4660 0.11 0.08 1132 202 8887 9688 0.35 0.11 221 5.4
6515 7477 0.23 0.19 554 70 17141 14006 0.68 0.38 98 4.4
8343 8926 0.41 0.28 383 39 23251 19954 0.82 0.52 55 3.3
10016 11602 0.56 0.42 324 24 31216 28595 1.09 0.66 26 1.8
12352 13447 0.70 0.47 286 13 39689 39674 1.20 0.80 10 1.6
Recovery 0.12 0.29 61797 62301 1.30 0.87 5.2 0.8
Table 2: SW 3 in – Class 150 – Low x High Density Recovery 0.24 0.69
Table 4: SW 6 in – Class 900 – Low x High Density

TEST RESULTS FOR WINDING CUPPING

During the manufacturing process the winding can become

cupped due to the force applied to densify the winding. This
cupping tendency increases with the gasket size. An experiment
was performed to verify the sealability behavior of a cupped
winding of a 6 in – class 900 gasket. Figure 16 shows a cupped
winding.

0 1

Figure 14: SW 6 in – Class 300 – Low x High Density

Gasket seating Gasket strain Leakage (ppm)

stress (psi) (mm)
Low High Low High Low High
density density density density density density Figura 16: SW sample with cupped winding
10033 7335 0 0 349 38
12721 10136 0.14 0.09 263 20 The cupped winding was checked using a Coordinate
16653 14793 0.39 0.18 150 19 Measuring Machine Mitutoyo CRT-PM7106 and found a 0.204
21692 19090 0.60 0.30 63 11 mm (0.008 in) cupping. Figure 17 shows how this measurement
27212 26567 0.82 0.46 17 3.0 was determined.
32227 36642 0.96 0.62 9.0 1.0
40164 46274 1.15 0.84 3.0 0.8
Recovery 0.34 0.69
Table 3: SW 6 in – Class 300 – Low x High Density

Figure 17: Measurement of a SW cupped winding by CMM

Figure 18 and Table 5 show the difference of cupped and

non-cupped gaskets with the same winding characteristics. It can
be seen a significant difference in performance. The maximum
allowed cupping that does not affect sealability was not
determined. Since this characteristic appears to be very
important to assure the gasket sealability, it should be subject to
a future research.
Figure 15: SW 6 in – Class 900 – Low x High Density

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Figure 18: SW 6 in – Class 300 – Winding cupping Figure 20: SW 6 in – Class 900 – Winding Surface Finish

Gasket seating Gasket strain Leakage (ppm) Gasket seating Leakage (ppm)
stress (psi) (mm) stress (psi)
Cupped Non Cupped Non Cupped Non Sample A Sample B Sample A Sample B
cupped cupped cupped 3.07 µm 1.84 µm 3.07 µm 1.84 µm
5636 7335 0 0 1917 38 5885 4918 4430 6.2
10918 10136 0.19 0.15 1005 20 9617 9688 3250 5.4
13844 14793 0.45 0.39 226 19 13858 14006 680 4.4
17006 19090 0.71 0.73 69 11 21890 19954 148 3.3
25020 26567 0.93 0.96 18 3.0 29234 28595 34 1.8
39177 36642 1.22 1.15 4.0 1.0 39513 39674 14 1.6
49655 46274 1.32 1.26 3.5 0.8 63537 62301 12 0.8
Recovery 0.91 0.87 Recovery
Table 5: SW 6 in – Class 300 - Winding cupping Table 6: SW 6 in – Class 900 – Winding Surface Finish

TEST RESULTS FOR SURFACE FINISH TEST RESULTS FOR FILLER PROTRUSION

Gaskets available in the market have the winding surface According to ASME B16.20 “the filler shall be essentially
finish that varies from each manufacturer and also from the same flush with, but not below, the metal winding on both contact
manufacture. This characteristic is not subject to any standard faces of the gasket”.
specification. Experiments were performed changing the surface As seen in the authors previous paper [17] gaskets with the
finish to evaluate is influence on the gasket sealability. filler flush and metal winding as shown in Figure 21 exhibit high
Figure 19 shows the difference between the samples tested. leakage values in a wide range of stresses if compared with
The roughness average measured with a Mitutoyo Surftest 301 gaskets that have the filler protruding beyond the metal
as 3.07 µm (1.2 x 10-4 in) for Sample A and 1.84 µm (7.2 x 10-5 windings, as shown in Figure 22 and Table 7.
in) for Sample B. The sealability comparison of samples with
different surface finish is shown in Figure 20 and Table 6
The winding surface finish showed a major influence on the
gasket sealability and it should be subjected to further research
to determine a maximum value and a measurement procedure.

Figure 21: Filler flush with winding metal

(a) Sample A 3.07 µm (b) Sample B 1.84 µm

Figure 19: Roughness

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Figura 22: SW 6 in – Class 900 – Filler protrusion Figure 24: Influence of cupping in a SW sample

Gasket seating Gasket strain Leakage

stress (psi) (mm) (ppm)
Gasket seating Gasket strain Leakage (ppm) 4868 0 5.0
stress (psi) (mm) 7735 0.20 3.2
Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler
12204 0.42 1.4
flush protruding flush protruding flush protruding
17905 0.58 1.0
with with with
23269 0.69 0.8
metal metal metal
36181 0.90 0.3
4853 5021 0 0 3695 5.7
45752 0.94 0.6
9533 9833 0.38 0.21 1972 3.9
Recovery 0.55
14952 15321 0.66 0.56 438 2.3
Table 8: Influence of cupping in a SW sample
19551 18624 0.82 0.68 255 1.9
27305 28337 1.02 0.75 60 1.3
For reference the guide ring cupping was evaluated using a
38996 35198 1.09 0.83 19 0.8
Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) as show in Figure 25.
61212 63864 1.29 0.95 5 0.3 The maximum measurement cupping value was 6.150 mm
Recovery 0.83 0.53 (0.24 in).
Table 7: SW 6 in – Class 900 – Filler protrusion

TEST RESULT FOR GUIDE RING CUPPING

When spiral wound gaskets are installed in the field very

often the guide ring becomes “cupped”. There are questions if
the sealability of gasket is affected.
Our tests showed that even with very high cupping there is
no reduction in sealability. Figure 23 shows a sample of a 4 in
class 2500 gasket with a cupped guide ring after the test. Figure
24 and Table 8 show the results.

Figure 25: Measurement of a SW guide ring by CMM

CONCLUSIONS

The authors PVP 2011 paper showed the importance of the

winding density and filler protrusion to assure a sealability level
that meets current EPA fugitive emissions requirements levels.
(a) SW sample before test (b) SW sample after cupping These characteristics have been submitted to the ASME B16.20
Committee for a revision of the current SW Gasket standard.
Figure 23: SW sample (a) before and (b) after cupping However, it is necessary that other gasket characteristics like the
winding cupping and surface finish be addressed to provide a
low leak gasket. Even though it is visually ugly, a cupped guide
ring showed no detrimental effect on the gasket sealability.

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Our final recommendation, based upon the test results, is to Kavanagh and D. Reeves, Proc. Of the ASME PVP
create test protocols and approval criteria that includes Conference, 2011.
characteristics that influence the sealability, to assure that the [18] ASTM A-105 Standard Specification for Carbon Steel
gasket meets the EPA current Fugitive Emissions requirements. Forgings for Piping Applications – ASTM International,
100 Harbor Drive, West Conshosocken, PA, USA, 2010.
[19] ASME PCC-1 -2010 Guidelines for Pressure Boundary
REFERENCES Bolted Flange Joint Assembly, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY
[1] ASME B16.20 – 2007 Metallic Gaskets for Pipe Flanges, 2010
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 3 Park [20] ASTM A-193 Standard Specification for Alloy Steel and
Avenue, New York, NY 2008 Stainless Steel Bolting Materials for High Temperature
[2] ASME B16.5 – Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, Pressure Service and Other Special Purpose Applications –
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 3 Park ASTM International, 100 Harbor Drive, West
Avenue, New York, NY 2008 Conshosocken, PA, USA - 2010.
[3] ASME B16.47 – Large Diameter Steel Flanges NPS 26 to [21] Toxic Vapor Analyzer, TVA1000B - Thermo Fisher
NPS 60, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 3 Scientific Inc, 27 Forge Parkway, Franklin, MA, USA
Park Avenue, New York, NY 2008 [22] Method 21 - Determination of Volatile. Organic Compound
[4] Jenco, J.M. and Hunt, E. S., 2000 “Generic issues effecting Leaks, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
spiral-wound gasket performance” International Journal of DC, USA – February 2000.
Pressure Vessels and Piping 77,pp. 825-830. [23] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Dow Chemical
[5] Sealing Performance Evaluation of Pipe Flange Connection Co. Settlement – July 29, 2011, Washington, DC, USA
with Spiral Wound Gasket under Cyclic Thermal Condition,
Y. Takagi, T. Sawa, H. Torii, Y. Omiya, , ASME 2009
Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Prague,
Czech Republic
[6] FEM stress Analysis and Sealing Performance Evaluation in
Pipe Flange Connections with Spiral Wound Gasket
Subjected to External Bending Moments, , T. Sawa, T.
Iwamoto T, K Funada, and Y. Omiya, Proc. of the ASME
PVP Conference, 2008
[7] Thermal gaskets stress analysis and evaluation of sealing
performance in pipe flange connections with spiral wound
gaskets under elevated temperature and internal pressure T.
Sawa, Y. Takagi, T. Tatsuoka, Proc. of the ASME PVP
Conference, 2005.
[8] Bolt preload scatter and relaxation behaviour during
tightening a 4 in 900# flange joint with spiral wound gasket,
M Abid and S Hussain, Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part E: J.
Process Mechanical Engineering, 2008
[9] The Suitability of Various Gaskets Types for Heat
Exchanger Service, 2002, Brown, W., ASME Pressure and
Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[10] Understanding and Addressing Radially Inward Buckling
(RIB) in Spiral-Wound Gaskets (SWG), J. M. Jenco, JJenco
Inc, May 2005
[11] FSA-MG-501-02 – Standard Test Method for Spiral Wound
Gaskets, The Fluid Sealing Association, 2002
[12] Failure of Spiral Wound Graphite Filled Gaskets– The
Health and Safety Executive of Great Britain, March 2008
[13] Anti-Buckling Spiral Wound Gasket – R. W. Chster, D.G.
Malgee, G. David, P. F. Malgee, A. F. Waterland III -
United States Patent number 5,964,468 – Oct 12, 1999
[14] Analysis of the Compression Behavior of Spiral Wound
Gaskets, A. F. Waterland, III A. H. Bouzid, ASME 2009
Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Prague,
Czech Republic
[15] Spiral Wound Gaskets – Kurt Allen, Walter Stephan –
United States Paten 5,275,423 – January 4, 1994
[16] Spiral Wound Gaskets – Kurt Allen, Walter Stephan –
United States Paten 5,161,807 – November 10, 1992
[17] The influence winding density in the sealing behavior of
spiral wound gaskets, J. C. Veiga, C. F. Cipolatti, N.
8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME