I need to stop myself. What is too much…is too much.

I think there is a reconciliatory way for all the stuff.

1. Psychologically, the first step is to understand what the equivalent pressure is.
For me it is just a mathematical substitution in a mathematical model which is based on a physical model. The mathematical substitution result cannot be better than the physical model.

The Kellogg model is providing an "over-conservative" evaluated equivalent pressure.

The VIII Div2 model has in the background researches, FEA models and tests.
The equivalent pressure calculated by following this model must be more realistic.
It is a big argument to follow this model: it is now a model within a BPV AMSE code, not an external work.

2. When evaluating the EQP for piping flanges by following the VIII Div2 model, we can provide some margin for the unknowns considering, for example, 0.75m or less instead of m.

3. To limit p+pe as p_rating (the Kellogg approach) seems to be reasonable for piping flanges, since the gasket reaction is pressure proportional.
We might consider this limit for the total pressure applied on the piping flanges.

4. The ASME VIII Div2 relations "as are" (for the stress evaluation and J factor evaluation) and/or the Coade model can be applied for the corroded conditions, somehow in line with the piping codes intentions.

I understand the ASME Piping codes don’t intend to specify a method, for accounting the external forces and moments applied on flanges, and B31.1 Appendix II is just one acceptable method.
Mr. Breen and Mr Luf, your personal opinion on this matter (it would be negative…) shall be highly appreciated.
If you have a little time, please, what is your personal engineering opinion on a method based on ASME VIII Div2?
Thank you.

My best regards.