The Solution for Large Flange Couplings - Superbolt Expansion Bolts

[@babanramubhandari2557]

During 13-15 September at OGA event, in Kuala Lumpur, (Malaysia), not a single booth was representing about this modern concept of SUPERBOLT Technology. Instead, many companies were displaying about Hydraulic Torque wrench & heavy tooling for handling at Oil & Gas projects.

[@ryoungatlmidotnet]

I'm sold.

[@tdbsnr]

So, re. @1:45, I assume the split sleeve is also tapered inside to match the tapered stud & ensure full & even contact along its length? Interesting.

[@NordLockGroup]

Hi! That is correct - the sleeve internal taper bore matches that of the bolt.

[@jacks19822]

Love it thanks..

[@TheRealFOSFOR]

Looks great. However Why not just have separate alignment pins in such high precision flanges?

[@NordLockGroup]

Couplings such as these depend on two methods of drive: Friction - where through bolts are used to simply clamp the coupling flange together with sufficient clamp load that the friction area of the coupling faces is enough to transmit the torque generated by the turbine. This type sometimes employs keyways to assist in maintaining alignment, but not for drive (this is usually for smaller sized couplings). Shear - where the drive is transmitted not only by the clamp force, but also by the cross sectional shear area of the fitted bolts. Traditional fitted bolts are machined to tight tolerances to fit into the holes tightly. However, when these bolts are tightened, they reduce in diameter and therefore are not a truly fitted bolt and can lead to slippage of the coupling with bad results. The size and number of bolts is calculated for the safe transmission of the torque, which is why just two alignment pins cannot be used - they would not be sufficient to drive the coupling to its’ design criteria.

[@TheRealFOSFOR]

***** Ok then =) Thanks for the simple answer.

[@ocksee]

This looks like the most expensive bolt I've ever seen.

[@judsonkr]

Probably are the most expensive bolts you have ever seen. But labor will always be the most expensive part of your maintenance project. And, as humans are prone to error, the riskiest. The process depicted above greatly reduces the time spent making and unmaking these large couplings and time is,quite literally, money. Also, the less a human interacts with a task, especially a difficult one, the less risk there is of an injury or non-conformance. This also reduces the intrinsic risks of pulling a gall while removing an interference-fit bolt. Which would have to be repaired and great time and cost. And if your work is the critical path now you risk putting your customer into LDs. In other words, these bolts will easily pay for themselves.

[@jacks19822]

money isn't the issues when it comes to reliability and flexibility. This bolt is great, even if it cost 2~300USD or more The idea behind it genius, can be adopted in other, smaller locking systems too.

[@pegteam1714]

@@judsonkr ....I agree, Labour is often a very significant component of total cost, and the superbolt system is absolutely NOT a quick system to use. Other than compared to traditional close tollerence or shrink fit bolts, it is perhaps the slowest system on the market. Why you may ask? Well for a start there are often multiple stages or torquing to carry out for each of the jackbolts shown. If you don't torque the bolts, you don't know how much pre-load your generating, right?. So each of the small jackbolts are tightened to specific torque values, to a sequence pattern, in 3 or 4 stages until a final check pass is carried out at the peak torque value. Resulting in 30 or 40 tightening/torque process on a superbolt with only 10 studs. There are other mechanical systems on the market with one singular nut used to impart the load during installation and only one to de-tension during removal. So if labour content as mentioned above is 'the most expensive part of your maintenance project'....ask yourself which which will be the quicker install and save you the expense?..a) A 30 - 40 stage super bolt process....or B) A 1 nut, 1 stage process? Its even more challenging for a removal because as you de-tension the first jack bolt, the load is transferred onto the remaining 9, upon which their own individual compressional loads increase by a small %. The final few jack bolts end up with a tremendous load upon them, even with only a partial de-tensioning of the initial few. As Newton would tell you, the load/energy generated in the body of the coupling bolt doesn't disappear....when de-tensioning it just transfers to the final few jack bolts and they become even more difficult to break free. Again compare this to one of the 1 stage, 1 nut, mechanically driven expansion coupling systems on the market, and which do you think will be the quicker method?.....and I've not even touched on the many factors involved with so many individual studs, friction on long thread engagements, and the resultant generated load accuracy?? Just reality and food for your thoughts guys.....