Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
(OP)
Guys,
API 17D (Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems - Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment) has included in its second edition a requirement for flange make-up with bolts at 70% yield stress with an allowance of ±3% (see below).
“Closure bolting of all 6BX and 17SS flanges shall be made up using a method that has been shown to result in a stress range between 67 % and 73 % of the bolt’s material yield stress.”
Is there anybody knows a feasible and reasonable practice that could be used to assure a bolt tension in a so narrow limit?
Thanks for helping,
HotStab.
API 17D (Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems - Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment) has included in its second edition a requirement for flange make-up with bolts at 70% yield stress with an allowance of ±3% (see below).
“Closure bolting of all 6BX and 17SS flanges shall be made up using a method that has been shown to result in a stress range between 67 % and 73 % of the bolt’s material yield stress.”
Is there anybody knows a feasible and reasonable practice that could be used to assure a bolt tension in a so narrow limit?
Thanks for helping,
HotStab.





RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Regards,
Mike
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
I fear that, for this narrow tolerance range, even using a very precise control, all the bolts in the flange shall be simultaneously made-up and stretch controlled.
All this, in my opinion, is far from a reasonable practice for an equipment assembly shop.
If I am wrong, please, let me know.
HotStab.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
What I would suggest is that regardless of torquing method, you have a well calibrated torque equipment and have it certified for use by a recognized authority (standard). Your procedures and Quality Control Program would automatically dictate this under your QPI. That way, you have the method and the method of measurement suscribing to a specific set of standards.
Don't get all torqued up over some 3% allowance.
Regards,
Cockroach
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
i'd've thought it was an analytical exercise.
i'd've also thought that design guides would have said something more like "consider the effects of preload scatter, assume adverse preload; ie for gapping analysis assume the minimum preload is applied, ..." I've heard that torque wrench preload scatter is +- 1/3 (ie between 67% and 133% of target).
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Do you even know what the yield stress of the material is, within ±3%?
My first thought on reading this was that you mis-interpreted a requirement to strain the bolt by 3%. Upon re-reading the OP, it is obvious that you did not, but perhaps someone else did.
--
JHG
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Standard error in measurement is 5%, yet you're trying to hit 3% torque allowance. If you look at the point raised by DrawOH, material yield is based on the 2% offset method, so you now introduce much more uncertainty into the measurement. So it is ridiculous to expect someone to be 70% +/- 3% within torque measure for tightening a bolt. It makes me shake my head.
I would be thinking about the spirit of the code, not the letter of the code thereof.
Regards,
Cockroach
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
http://www.skidmore-wilhelm.com/bolt_testing.htm
You may also find Section 7 on Pre-installation Verification in Specification for Structural Joints Using High-Strength Bolts to be of some help - http://boltcouncil.org/files/2009RCSCSpecification...
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
The description the OP provided is hopelessly impractical, if the intent is to truly achieve that preload. Maybe they're insisting on great precision of an imprecise process "just because."
This site seems to say API has published torque specs.
http://www.woodcousa.com/about_17d.htm
" API Spec 17D requires closure bolting tension of 67% to 70% of the yield strength of the bolts (L7 / B7); torque tables included in API Spec 17D provide torque values intended to achieve this tension."
If so, Then the quest is for a torque wrench with 3% accuracy and torque to the middle value.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
CAUTION: API Spec 17D requires flange connection bolt tightness (tension stress in the bolt) equal to 67% to 70% of the specified minimum yield strength of L7/B7 bolts. When using some lubricants and/or anti-corrosion coatings on bolts, tightening bolts consistent with the torque tables shown in API Spec 17D may in fact produce tension closer to the actual yield strength of the bolts. Operators should use an alternate method to measure tension in the bolts to confirm the applicability of this table.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
When BX joints were first devised in the 1950's for 15k flanges the design premise was for 50% yield of B7 / L7, though the later higher loads for subsea items are presumably indended for higher security and to take account of the use of newer corrosion resistant alloys with higher strength.
The API standard gives torques based upon assumed friction, though to achieve a higher % accuracy, then the easiest way is with a load-indicating bolt (e.g. "RotaBolt" and others can be found from various manufacturers), where a mechanical strain gauge is installed in the bolt which is set to lock a cap at the desired axial force. These are used sub-sea with a "divers wheel" so can be checked whilst wearing gloves.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
I've only seen it in the oil patch a few times, believe it comes from the aircraft industry. Regardless, it would give you the accuracy you seek without the friction worries due to lubricants.
Regards,
Cockroach
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
The famous Mitford sisters were instructed to prepare budgets to enable them to survive on 500£ per month. This would have been quite some time ago, so it should not have been difficult. Nancy Mitford was supposed to have started hers with the line item "Flowers: 490£".
I think the material specifications are blowing your error budget. Everything else is added on to that.
--
JHG
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
http://www.turnasure.com/
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
http://www.innovationplus.com/index.php
http://www.intellifast.de/
Hydraulic tightening is another option, many suppliers out there.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
The concern is not an inspector check. The standard states that the accuracy of the make-up method shall be proven. In fact, not only the method used but also the operational staff shall be qualified. As stated:
“Written procedures, incorporating the features of these provisions shall be developed for use by the qualified connection assemblers. The applied torque/tension in the written procedures shall be qualified for some relevant bolt sizes with actual material, coating and lubrication.
...
The use of qualified assembly procedures and qualified assemblers is analogous to the general requirements for welds, where use of qualified welding procedures and qualification of welders is present industry practice.”
Ok, let’s qualify a method. The problem is that, for my concern, there is no practical method for this.
Any torque procedure is out. Even the temperature effects on grease shall represent more than 3% deviation.
DTIs (direct tension indicators) do not achieve the required precision and usually only focus on a minimum tension value.
Let’s be precise and use hydraulic tensioners. Only if all bolts are tensioned at the same time the scatter of tension values might be narrow enough. But this would require one precious and rare feature in subsea equipment: space. To be simple: it is not feasible!
Even if a NASA technology were used, like a ultrasonic method for stretch control, the precision would be covered up by errors cause by deviations in material properties (elastic module of the materials or yield stress of bolt material).
API is requiring a miracle and for nothing. Because there is no reason for a so tough requirement. These are my conclusions.
Thank you all for so valuable comments.
HotStab.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Good point about the minimum.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
To be brief about it, torque procedures (using torque wrenches) are often qualified to great accuracy thru careful control of the variables (fastener condition, lubricants, etc) by measuring bolt stretch. Don't recall what degree of accuracy can be achieved offhand. As I said these are qualified procedures, in practice bolt stretch is not measured on the assembly.
Maybe youi need to contact www.boltscience.com
Regards,
Mike
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
The thing that I find semi humorous about this is that the yield strength of the bolt,nut and flange material is allowed to vary by much more than this allowance. Plus, just because you maintain initial tension at that tolerance, what are you doing to control the gasket properties to a tolerance similar and how much preload loss does the assembly have over time. Even if you were to somehow build a flange up and hit that target during the assembly, if you come back in 24 hours, your residual clamp load will be out of spec.
Whoever wrote this spec obviously never actually built up many (or any) flanges in the field, they must be lab based.
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/...
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
This link gives accuracy of various bolt tensioning methods and supports most of what the other threads are saying.
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Screws/Prel...
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Or maybe I'll just take a cab to work and not worry about it. Seems like less work.
Regards,
Cockroach
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
Regards,
Mike
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
The brain trust(s) that thought up those requirements in API have admitted that there are various errors in the document, subject to comment and revision by the members. There are methods of guaranteeing +/- 3% accuracy, but they are time consuming, and subject to many areas of disagreement. For instance, is the actual Yield/Tensile strength of each and every component within the specified range? Remember, you are stretching a real stiff rubber band, and the stiffer it is, the more pull required to energize it. Also, do you modify your preload procedure per each individual threaded member if the mechanicals vary by more than 3%?
Any torque system is dependent ( 40% of the turning effort is applied to offset friction in the threaded and/or clamped members) on the friction coefficient. Another big dose is offset by angular discrepancies of the threaded members (class 1, 2, or 3, A,B, or C fit?).
Could a suitable hydraulic/mechanical tensioning system generate the required preload/stress, repeatedly and reliably? Yes, but verification would require external measurement (mechanically -depth rods or micrometers- or ultrasonically.
Ask your customer for clarification/guidance, as he is the person who is ultimately the final judge of what/how you are furnishing.
Good luck,
Rick
RE: Bolt make-up to ¦3% tension
I believe whenever possible A bolt tensioning spec should be more like a field goal.
If it clears the crossbar 10 feet above the ground IT'S GOOD!!
Insisting on a "bullseye" spec without danged good reason is misplaced effort.
The flange joint covered by the API spec is metal-to-metal. The compression of the ring gasket is set and limited by the groove machined in the flange face. It seems apparent that making up the joint and compressing the gasket requires only a portion of the bolts' clamp load, with the rest available to resist external loads that undersea piping will be exposed to.
"The connection make-up force and external loads shall react primarily on the raised face of the flange."
Although it is not stated, I think the API spec with a teeny torque spec tolerance for specifically treated (Fluoropolymer Coating) bolts is probably their effort to achieve consistent clamping on flange joints approaching, but not exceeding yield strength of the bolts. Yes, clarification by API would be a good thing.
For the last couple of decades the folks at API have impressed me with the thoroughness and thoughtfullness of their specs. They consistently provide a road map of what needs to be done to ensure problems are avoided. There are dozens of pages including work sheets devoted to rotor repair and balancing, and shop inspection. Sometimes there may appear to be some "overkill", but I can easily imagine those extra details were included because members of the panel had suffered thru some of the genuine nightmares that result when a component receiving a standard repair at a decent local shop was a little out of the ordinary.
An example of the "extras" is the insistence on runout checks during disassembly and multiple stages of repair and assembly.
Over the last 4 years I heard more than one shop say (after a BIG expensive problem emerged) stuff like "oh we didn't check that" or "we didn't check it after we cut the keyways" or "look at this chip on the micrometer. Someone must have dropped it."
"Gee it never did THAT before." "I've been doing this for 20 years."
I know engine builders who routinely assemble engines without checking actual rod and main bearing clearance, or make any effort to confirm installed valve timing. They feel since it works OK most of the time, they are willing to take the chance they will have to "eat" an engine every now and then (although a few have proven they really intend to deflect any problem back to the customer).