This appendix presents background information regarding bolting preload and safety factors used in bolting design.
During assembly in the OEM shop, the BOP/LRMP stack is “built up” by placing one RAM on top of another and bolting them together at the flanges. A ring gasket is placed between the flange faces and bolts (or studs and nuts) are tightened. The procedure for tightening flange bolts must conform to various industry and OEM specifications to ensure bolts are tightened as evenly as possible.1,2 Flange bolting procedures include the following:
___________________
1 API Engineering bulletin EB 962D, March 29, 2016.
2 John H. Bickford, “An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints;” Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, John H. Bickford, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1995.
Drilling rig contractors use the same technique when maintaining a BOP stack is on the deck of the rig. Industry also has the ability to tightening bolts and nuts when the BOP stack is deployed underwater using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV).
The tensile preload for closure bolting must provide sufficient clamping force between flanges, seal rings, or component faces so that they remain sealed when flange connectors are subjected to service loading conditions.
API Spec 17D specifies the following tensile preloading of flange bolts:
Thus, the bolt preload alone makes these bolts highly loaded, with little room for additional loading despite the fact that additional tensile loads on the bolts are minimal until the flange preload is exceeded.
The flange bolt installation is a process that is critical to flange performance and integrity. This is particularly true for achieving the required tensile preload on a flange bolt. API Spec 17D, Section 7.5.5 merely recommends the following regarding bolting makeup torque,5
The use of calibrated torque or bolt-tensioning equipment is recommended to ensure accurate make-up tension.
There are many methods that can be used to impose the required fastener preload. These include the following:
___________________
3 API Specification 17D, ISO 1 3628-4, 2nd Edition, May 2011, Section 5.1.3.5, p. 19.
4 API Specification 17D, 1st Edition, August 1, 1996, Section 303.4, p. 22.
5 API Specification 17D, ISO 13628-4, 2nd Edition, May 2011, Section 7.5.5, p. 66.
___________________
6 J.E. Shigley, Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972, pp. 291-320.
7 Tentec, “Tensioners,” http://www.tentec.net/tensioners.php, accessed May 2017.
8 Atlas Copco, “Bolt Tightening Solutions,” http://www.atlascopco.co.uk/en-uk/itba/products/Bolt-tightening-solutions, accessed May 2017.
9 Torq/Lite, “Hydraulic Torque Wrenches,” http://www.torqlite.com/, accessed May 2017.
10 K.H. Brown, C. Morrow, S. Durbin, and A. Baca, Guideline for Bolted Joint Design and Analysis: Version 1.0, SAND2008-0371, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., January 2008.
11 Lester Burgess, discussions with Nancy Cooke and Bill Capdevielle, May 31, 2017, presented to the committee on August 28, 2017.
Estimates for the uncertainty range of effective bolt tensile loading when exact torque is applied is on the range of ±25 to 30 percent.14,15,16 Uncertainty in the application of torque on fasteners is caused by several factors, some of which aren’t controlled by standards and specs. Examples are the effect of thread manufacturing tolerances and friction factor (nut factor) to be used for particular lubricants and coatings.17
There are also some indications that the thread manufacturing technique influences bolt preload accuracy and variability. Figure J.1 shows the how the residual preload (as indicated by bolt stretch) can vary for cut threads and for rolled threads after a two-pass bolt-up procedure.18
Schoberg estimated the efficiency of using torque to generate bolt tension.19 As shown in Figures J.2 and J.3, estimated that 10 percent of the applied torque resulted in elastic preloading of a bolt that clamps components together. He further
___________________
12 Bill Capdevielle, discussions with ITH Engineering at the 2017 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Tex.
13 Boltight Limited, “Introduction to Ultrasonic Bolt Load Measurement,” http://www.boltight.com/products/echometer.html, accessed May 2017.
14 K.H. Brown, C. Morrow, S. Durbin, and A. Baca, Guideline for Bolted Joint Design and Analysis: Version 1.0, SAND2008-0371, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., January 2008.
15 Lester Burgess, discussions with Nancy Cooke and Bill Capdevielle, May 31, 2017, presented to the committee on August 28, 2017
16 J.H. Bickford, An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints, Third Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1995.
17 R.S. Shoberg, PE, “Engineering Fundamentals of Threaded Fastener Design and Analysis,” PCB Load and Torque, Inc., Farmington Hills, Mich.
18 J.H. Bickford and M.E. Looram, Good Bolting Practices, A Reference Manual for Nuclear Power Plant Maintenance Personnel, Volume 1: Large Bolt Manual, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 1987.
19 R.S. Shoberg, PE, “Engineering Fundamentals of Threaded Fastener Design and Analysis,” PCB Load and Torque, Inc., http://www.hexagon.de/rs/engineering%20fundamentals.pdf.
estimated that 50 percent of the torque was consumed by underhead friction and 40 percent of the torque is consumed by thread friction. He concludes that, “an increase in either friction component of 5 percent can reduce pre-load tension by half.”20
The maximum allowable design loads for flange bolts is decreased by a factor of safety. “Factor of safety (FoS), also known as safety factor (SF), is a term describing the structural capacity of a system beyond the expected loads or actual loads. Essentially, how much stronger the system is than it usually needs to be for an
___________________
20 Ibid, p. 5.
intended load.”21 The purpose of a safety factor is to accommodate any variations or uncertainties regarding actual loads and bolt properties.22 The safety factor is determined by the following equation:23

Design Strength can be defined in several ways, but two commonly used are:
The traditional factor of safety is based on ultimate tensile strength. However, on ductile metals in a pressure connection it is not inappropriate to check the factor of safety on both ultimate tensile strength and yield,24 since a flange connection whose bolts yield enough can fail to maintain pressure boundary, even if they have not fractured. As discussed later in this appendix there does not appear to be any industry practice to examine bolts for plastic deformation unless they have deformed enough to leak, or fractured entirely.
API Specification 17D, “Specification for Subsea Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment,” specifies bolt loading limits as a percentage of yield stress (not ultimate tensile strength), because plastic deformation of bolts is as undesirable an event as an actual bolt failure if it leads to failure of the connector to maintain the pressure boundary of the well.
A similar design parameter is the margin of safety (MoS),25 sometimes referred to as the safety margin. The margin of safety describes “ratio of the strength of the structure to the requirements.” The margin of safety can be calculated by the following equation:26
___________________
21 Mechanical 360, “Factor of Safety and Margin of Safety,” https://www.mechanical360.net/updates/factor-of-safety-and-margin-of-safety, accessed November 10, 2017.
22 E.A. Avallone, T. Baumheister III, and A.M. Sadegh, Marks Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 11th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 2007.
23 Mechanical 360, “Factor of Safety and Margin of Safety,” https://www.mechanical360.net/updates/factor-of-safety-and-margin-of-safety, accessed November 10, 2017.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.

or
Margin of Safety = Factor of Safety – 1
Similarly, a yield margin of safety could be defined substituting the yield load for the failure load.
The yield margin of safety for flange bolts can be derived from the working stress limitations specified in API Spec 17D, which recommends the following:
It is useful to compare the safety margins for subsea wellhead and Christmas tree equipment, as specified in API Spec 17D, to the safety margins for surface wellhead and Christmas tree equipment, as specified in API Spec 6A.29 For surface wellheads bolt preloading is specified at only 50 percent of yield; the operational bolt loading remains at 83 percent of yield.
Consider that the operational loading on the onshore Christmas tree bolts would be mainly from internal pressure on the connector, which is known to a high degree of certainty. Piping support systems would virtually eliminate any external loads on the connectors such as tension or bending moments. Additionally, the flange bolts themselves are not exposed to the potentially corrosive underwater environments (including cathodic protection) as the subsea flanges being considered in this study report.
Subsea wellhead and Christmas tree bolts suffer additional and greater integrity risks, including:
___________________
27 API Specification 17D, ISO 1 3628-4, 2nd Edition, May 2011, Section 5.1.3.5, p. 19.
28 API Specification 6A, ISO 10423:2009 (Modified), 20th Edition, October 2010, Section 4.3.4, p. 28.
29 API Specification 6A, ISO 10423:2009 (Modified), 20th Edition, October 2010, Section 4.3.4, p. 28.
The above four factors place significant and often uncertain environmental stress and loading on subsea bolts.
Perhaps the most critical factor in considering the appropriateness of the safety factors implied by API RP 17D is the accuracy of the bolt preloading technique—for both surface and subsea applications. As discussed above in the section on Bolt Preloading, torqueing is a very inaccurate method for achieving bolt preload. The ±25 to 30 percent accuracy range of using torque to preload bolts and nuts should be considered when determining the suitability of 20.5 to 50 percent (preload and operating) safety margins. It is problematic to consume 50 to 60 percent of a very narrow bolt preload safety margin with preload variability. This margin should be set accounting for uncertainty.