To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

who has built a tool for determining torque?

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
torque is a pretty undefined description of the amount of rotational force placed on something (when talking bolts). when using bolts it tends to be greatly affected by not only the size of the fastener, but the type, thread pitch, and lubrication (or lack thereof).

you can get most of it somewhat standardized though. i was wanting to make a test stand for testing torque. my idea is to use 4 of the harbor freight 20 ton cylinders, the rod diameter is 50mm, or close to 2 inches. which should make the converion of 8 inches fairly easy to do with the clamping force to find the torque.

mount all 4 to a base blade, leave a hole in the center of the base plate and cover plate for a 1" bolt (i say 1" instead of the 5/8 that most seem to be rated at so the clamping force doesn't get too high). and 4 rods for alignment on the outside (maybe i'll grab some linear bearings for the rods to slide through or brass bushings).

the idea is to produce a clamping force on the 4 cylinders and be able to read the pressure produced by each cylinder, add it together to get the total psi of clamping force, and use the standard formula for a 1" bolt being torqued down to get the actual torque applied to the bolt.



seems like a pretty simple concept, so why haven't many people built a rig to determine torque when the torque of things like impact guns seems to become a bit debate all the time? anyone ever built one? what kind of challenged am i looking at? :beer:
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

franzdom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
3,136
Location
NC
Torque is extremely well defined. However the clamping force for any given torque se4tting that is so tough to convert to.
 

lynnbilodeau

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
813
Location
Oklahoma
You are confusing torque and clamping force.
Both are well defined, and both are measurable.

Even if you determine the clamping force of your particular set up, it won't correlate to other situations. There are variables other than the torque applied to the nut or bolt.
 

Astro_Pneumatic_Tools

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
2,107
Location
South El Monte
If you want real numbers - drop us a PM and send your impact to us, we'll test it at our calibrated stations then send it back.

Just did this with about 8 impacts alongside developing our new 1822 Nano 3.85" long 450ft/lb Impact.

__________________
Chris P.
Product Manager
Phone# (800)-221-9705
image.php
 
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
Just get a Skidmore Wilhelm for testing impact guns. Works off the same concept that you're using. http://www.skidmore-wilhelm.com

those are extremely expensive, where a homemade rig that does the same thing as that (hydraulic load cell) would cost a fraction of the price.

Torque is extremely well defined. However the clamping force for any given torque se4tting that is so tough to convert to.

its not tough to convert to, torque on a bolt is equal to the diameter of the fastenerXthe tension(clamping force)Xcoefficient of friction. roughly, there are variations between the thread type, but a lot of it has been standardized and you can find the standards for the math easily.

Bolt stretch is measured to determine applied torque on large equipment requiring high torque values.

Here is a bolt loading calculator.
http://riverhawk.com/bolt-loading/

i'm not worried about bolt stretch, i'm staying in the realm of impact torque ranges, not torquing tools like a torque multiplier or hy-torque. especially with larger fasteners, the bolt stretch would be minimal compared to going to the required torque for the bolt size for maximum clamping force.

You are confusing torque and clamping force.
Both are well defined, and both are measurable.

Even if you determine the clamping force of your particular set up, it won't correlate to other situations. There are variables other than the torque applied to the nut or bolt.

they both correlate to each other through the equations given above. the other variables like the diameter, and friction are taken into account as well. lots of places use the same formulas with hydraulic load cells to determine the torque being applied in relation to the clamping force.

see the skidmore-wilhelm rigs above, they are the same thing and use the same math. just 25x as much as a home built one

If you want real numbers - drop us a PM and send your impact to us, we'll test it at our calibrated stations then send it back.

Just did this with about 8 impacts alongside developing our new 1822 Nano 3.85" long 450ft/lb Impact.

__________________
Chris P.
Product Manager
Phone# (800)-221-9705
image.php

i would love to be able to send out stuff on a regular basis, but aside from 2 3/4 impacts i do have, the 3 1/2 inch and the few 3/8ths, i'd more be using the rig in order to keep track of power loss over time through use and rebuilds. nothing real scientific about it where it has to be down to the +/- 2ftlbs or anything. i'd be happy to be within 50.
 
Last edited:

larry_g

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
16,872
Location
oregon
its not tough to convert to, torque on a bolt is equal to the diameter of the fastenerXthe tension(clamping force)Xcoefficient of friction. roughly, there are variations between the thread type, but a lot of it has been standardized and you can find the standards for the math easily.

.

coefficient of friction

There will be your killer. Steel on steel runs from .74 dry to .09 lubed. http://engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm

So what number are you going to use. Also do not forget the friction losses that you will have that are in the machine, cylinders, couplers and other moving parts. Your machine may give you a good guess but not close enough to calibrate tools. You could do a lot of calibration tables with different lubes, bearings, or other variables and get a closer reading machine. But to go from a pressure reading and mathematically derive the input torque your pissin in the wind.

lg
no neat sig line
 

Adam.C

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,490
torque is a pretty undefined description of the amount of rotational force placed on something (when talking bolts). when using bolts it tends to be greatly affected by not only the size of the fastener, but the type, thread pitch, and lubrication (or lack thereof).

you can get most of it somewhat standardized though. i was wanting to make a test stand for testing torque. my idea is to use 4 of the harbor freight 20 ton cylinders, the rod diameter is 50mm, or close to 2 inches. which should make the converion of 8 inches fairly easy to do with the clamping force to find the torque.

mount all 4 to a base blade, leave a hole in the center of the base plate and cover plate for a 1" bolt (i say 1" instead of the 5/8 that most seem to be rated at so the clamping force doesn't get too high). and 4 rods for alignment on the outside (maybe i'll grab some linear bearings for the rods to slide through or brass bushings).

the idea is to produce a clamping force on the 4 cylinders and be able to read the pressure produced by each cylinder, add it together to get the total psi of clamping force, and use the standard formula for a 1" bolt being torqued down to get the actual torque applied to the bolt.

seems like a pretty simple concept, so why haven't many people built a rig to determine torque when the torque of things like impact guns seems to become a bit debate all the time? anyone ever built one? what kind of challenged am i looking at? :beer:

OMG. I think every sentence is wrong. I must admit I can't follow the description of the test rig. Are you attemptng to clamp a hydraulic cylinder with a threaded fastener? How would you covert the hydraulic fluid pressure you could measure into bolt tension? What about elastic deformation of the plate. Actually, nevermind.

I think in the end you would never get there with an impact anyway. Why don't you do what IR does? Get a super strong torque wrench. Torque a big bolt to 1000ft lbs, then try to remove it with each gun. You will be able to reduce the torque for the smaller guns. Check IRs website for more info.
 
Last edited:

mechanicalmoron

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
178
Torque is totally understood and well defined - it's conversion to clamping force varies highly based on the situation.

That's why there's ballpark torque specs, that list a range. It'll do.

Being exacting is great, but you won't learn anything from this machine you're talking about building. If you want to know your torque output accuracy, find a torque test machine - if you want to convert that to clamping force, do the math for your individual fastener situation. Going backwards will be sloppy at best (as the whole thing is sloppy at best), and will tell you just enough that you can overthink things and mislead yourself.
 
Last edited:

mechanicalmoron

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
178
OMG. I think every sentence is wrong. I must admit I can't follow the description of the test rig. Are you attemptng to clamp a hydraulic cylinder with a threaded fastener? How would you covert the hydraulic fluid pressure you could measure into bolt tension? What about elastic deformation of the plate. Actually, nevermind.

I think in the end you would never get there with an impact anyway. Why don't you do what IR does? Get a super strong torque wrench. Torque a big bolt to 1000ft lbs, then try to remove it with each gun. You will be able to reduce the torque for the smaller guns. Check IRs website for more info.

Bear in mind that breaking torque is not the same as tightening torque, especially on dry fasteners.

I'd be inclined to think you'd learn more by trying to drive the bolt in whatever direction you already torqued it.
 
Last edited:

404

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
3,463
Location
Mass
Bolts stretch no matter how little load is on them. Re your design, consider the friction of the cylinder seals on you calculations.
 

Mooky

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
257
Location
PA
If you're truly interested in the relationships between torque; clamping force and fasteners, drop me a PM. I can send you an Engineering Standard that goes into great detail (brush up on your differential calculus, it's a Doosy).

Your rig will be highly dependent on the surfaces of the fastener and its interface to the load plate. If you're attempting to build a test stand, this introduces variables that will create a large statistical variation.

There's a good reason why the Skidmore-Wilhelm testers are so expensive. Simple, robust, and statistically repeatable.
 
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
coefficient of friction

There will be your killer. Steel on steel runs from .74 dry to .09 lubed. http://engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm

So what number are you going to use. Also do not forget the friction losses that you will have that are in the machine, cylinders, couplers and other moving parts. Your machine may give you a good guess but not close enough to calibrate tools. You could do a lot of calibration tables with different lubes, bearings, or other variables and get a closer reading machine. But to go from a pressure reading and mathematically derive the input torque your pissin in the wind.

lg
no neat sig line

my plans were to purchase bolts/washers etc from a reputable company where i can easily find numbers for them, not just grab some general hardware from the dollar bin. the only things making contact in this rig would be a nut, the threads, and washer, and to eliminate the washer, moly lube on it should significantly lower the friction enough so that it minimizes the impact on the final numbers (no guarantees until any testing is done though as to whether or not any moly would be necessary for repeatable outcomes)

OMG. I think every sentence is wrong. I must admit I can't follow the description of the test rig. Are you attemptng to clamp a hydraulic cylinder with a threaded fastener? How would you covert the hydraulic fluid pressure you could measure into bolt tension? What about elastic deformation of the plate. Actually, nevermind.

I think in the end you would never get there with an impact anyway. Why don't you do what IR does? Get a super strong torque wrench. Torque a big bolt to 1000ft lbs, then try to remove it with each gun. You will be able to reduce the torque for the smaller guns. Check IRs website for more info.

you think its wrong because you don't understand i take it? its a simple concept. a hydraulic cylinder works on the principle of Force=(Pressure) (Piston Area), so you know that when you clamp on the cylinder, you create a force on it, that force translates to the pressure gauge as a number. take that number and multiply it by the piston area and you'll know what your clamping force is. the clamping force is the number you need along with the bolt diameter, coefficient of friction for all things in the system, to get a torque number (it will never be exact because the coefficient of friction is always a variable, but it can be tested enough to find a standard)

Torque is totally understood and well defined - it's conversion to clamping force varies highly based on the situation.

That's why there's ballpark torque specs, that list a range. It'll do.

Being exacting is great, but you won't learn anything from this machine you're talking about building. If you want to know your torque output accuracy, find a torque test machine - if you want to convert that to clamping force, do the math for your individual fastener situation. Going backwards will be sloppy at best (as the whole thing is sloppy at best), and will tell you just enough that you can overthink things and mislead yourself.

the best way to learn is to learn from mistakes, and you can't make mistakes if you never do anything in the first place. aside from that, the best way to get a good ground is to start with something you have control of. like using a torque wrench to put 100-200-300-400-500-600 ft/lbs and checking the math and finding what the average coefficient of friction in the system/components is. after finding that and being able to accurately get within a certain amount using the same nuts/bolts, it shouldn't be difficult to then move on to finding the torque instead of using a set torque to find the one number that varies the most.

Bolts stretch no matter how little load is on them. Re your design, consider the friction of the cylinder seals on you calculations.

i've considered a few things that may affect the outcome, but with enough testing i think it wouldn't be too difficult to find what the friction is in the system

If you're truly interested in the relationships between torque; clamping force and fasteners, drop me a PM. I can send you an Engineering Standard that goes into great detail (brush up on your differential calculus, it's a Doosy).

Your rig will be highly dependent on the surfaces of the fastener and its interface to the load plate. If you're attempting to build a test stand, this introduces variables that will create a large statistical variation.

There's a good reason why the Skidmore-Wilhelm testers are so expensive. Simple, robust, and statistically repeatable.


oh i am very interested in a lot of things. its why im entertaining the idea of tossing 2-300 at what is essentially scrap to build something entertaining and possibly useful in the end.

like i stated in an earlier reply my plan to control the variable of friction in the testing is to find out what my averages are through controlled testing before moving on to using the control number to produce torque numbers.
 
Last edited:

zkling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
16,939
I think the problem many, including myself are having with your post(s) is the opening line of "torque is a pretty undefined description of the amount of rotational force placed on something". I understand what you are getting at, but that opener is very technically lax to be polite.

Essentially what you are describing to build is a hydraulic load cell. That is how Skidmore testers work. I'd suggest you start by reading up on their site about the dos, dont's, cans, cant's and how to's for their machines. That would give you a better understanding of what needs to be accomplished. Essentially what they do is establish a base line to take into account the size of fastener being used which becomes a factor that they can account for in testing.

I'd also suggest you look up the theory of vibration transmissibility. That is what separates torque wrenches, impact wrenches and allows torque sticks to work.

Do you have a range of torques you would like to be able to test? It is going to require some thinking to build a test stand that will be non cumbersome kinetically. Off the top of my head I don't know of any hollow/rig hydraulic load cells (which is what Skidmore uses) available for cheap. I think enerpac makes a series of load cells, but I think the are all solid piston type. You might be able to have a pusher design where the bolt pushes on a the top of a solid cylinder, but the intersection point would require some though to negate point friction. Possibly a heavy thrust bearing. Skidmore, has done all the testing and has the data to correlate and back it up. That is why their products, like any certifiable test product commands a premium. That is my very quick 2¢ :beer:
 
Last edited:
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
I think the problem many, including myself are having with your post(s) is the opening line of "torque is a pretty undefined description of the amount of rotational force placed on something". I understand what you are getting at, but that opener is very technically lax to be polite.

Essentially what you are describing to build is a hydraulic load cell. That is how Skidmore testers work. I'd suggest you start by reading up on their site about the dos, dont's, cans, cant's and how to's for their machines. That would give you a better understanding of what needs to be accomplished. Essentially what they do is establish a base line to take into account the size of fastener being used which becomes a factor that they can account for in testing.

I'd also suggest you look up the theory of vibration transmissibility. That is what separates torque wrenches, impact wrenches and allows torque sticks to work.

Do you have a range of torques you would like to be able to test? It is going to require some thinking to build a test stand that will be non cumbersome kinetically. Off the top of my head I don't know of any hollow/rig hydraulic load cells (which is what Skidmore uses) available for cheap. I think enerpac makes a series of load cells, but I think the are all solid piston type. You might be able to have a pusher design where the bolt pushes on a the top of a solid cylinder, but the intersection point would require some though to negate point friction. Possibly a heavy thrust bearing. Skidmore, has done all the testing and has the data to correlate and back it up. That is why their products, like any certifiable test product commands a premium. That is my very quick 2¢ :beer:


absolutely, i know where you are coming from and i left the opening vague because it is very vauge, even the skidmore testers rely on the friction being relatively the same. if you use the same test bolt a certain amount of times your coefficient of friction changes as well. as it wears together, there is more contact area and requires more torque to achieve the same clamp force. the thing that gave me the idea for it was using the enerpac cylinders at work. we have a multitude of different cylinders including dual work cylinders that have a spot in the center between the two for a bolt, but are exceptionally tall for a test stand type. and also pass thru design which allows a bolt to go through the center, but then you lose working area of the piston and can only apply so much force to it without exceeding the maximum psi it's capable of.

i understand the idea behind the theory of vibration transmissibility and why force applied to a torque wrench or a lever is different than an impacting force. its not something that i am too worried about in this because the end result of both forces i am after is the clamping force, if an impact wrench is rated at 400 ft/lbs of torque, i want to be able to compare that to a torque wrench calibrated to 400 ft/lbs and see where both fall on the scale. it's fairly easy to calibrate a torque wrench using weights and a vise to within a DIY range.

as nice as it would be to just purchase a skidmore unit for "dicking around", i don't see dropping the coin to do so. also, i don't see doing a push type as a pull would be much simpler, able to keep the variables to a minimim by only have the nut turn, it's possible to use a heavy duty thrust washer under the nut, but like i said before, enough repeatability and you can find what your coefficient should be when using the right washer for the bolt as well. i appreciate the feedback.






just so this is clear, the only reason i bring this is up is because it's a hot topic. there are a ton of impact wrenches out there, people fighting over which does this, which does that. and nobody on the board with any real testing rigs that has taken a slew of different guns and compared them to each other. even if a finished rig is so unpolished that it varies +/- 40ftlbs, that is still enough to say that gun-X performs at 340 +/-40ftlbs and gun-Y performs at 450 +/-ftlbs instead of going over manufacturer provided marketing numbers. if anybody else thinks they can do it better, by all means go ahead, or drop the coin and buy a real rig for 4k. but whats the harm in some harmless garage test stand bulding?
 

larry_g

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
16,872
Location
oregon
as it wears together, there is more contact area and requires more torque to achieve the same clamp force.

Can you provide a cite for that statement? Can you also provide a frictional equation that includes the area?

lg
no neat sig line
 

Adam.C

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,490
One last time. Skip the whole fastener tension science project. You don't understand the theory because it's complicated. This isn't a simple P/A job. It's NASTRAN for starters. And friction would probably require some sort of test gear to get right.

You will need some sort of super torque wrench to calibrate your rig. Use the torque wrench instead to torque up a big *** bolt, then see if you can remove it with your rattle guns.
 
Last edited:
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
Can you provide a cite for that statement? Can you also provide a frictional equation that includes the area?

lg
no neat sig line

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict.html

Like all simple statements about friction, this picture of friction is too simplistic. Saying that rougher surfaces experience more friction sounds safe enough - two pieces of coarse sandpaper will obviously be harder to move relative to each other than two pieces of fine sandpaper. But if two pieces of flat metal are made progressively smoother, you will reach a point where the resistance to relative movement increases. If you make them very flat and smooth, and remove all surface contaminants in a vacuum, the smooth flat surfaces will actually adhere to each other, making what is called a "cold weld". Once you reach a certain degree of mechanical smoothness, the frictional resistance is found to depend on the nature of the molecular forces in the area of contact, so that substances of comparable "smoothness" can have significantly different coefficients of friction.
One last time. Skip the whole fastener tension science project. You don't understand the theory because it's complicated. This isn't a simple P/A job. It's NASTRAN for starters. And friction would probably require some sort of test gear to get right.

You will need some sort of super torque wrench to calibrate your rig. Use the torque wrench instead to torque up a big *** bolt, then see if you can remove it with your rattle guns.

*cough* you mean like a 600 ft/lbs 36" long torque wrench and a 20x torque multiplier?

thanks for all the "helpful" advice.

if i do build it and work out all the bugs to where it can get within 5% of the actual torque, i'd count it as a success considering how i won't have access to certain things, but fine tuning can easily be achieved. i do have access to a machine shop to have things made like extra large hardened washers, and mills to make sure all the surfaces are as flat as possible, not to mention ovens for hardening all parts of the stand. so resources aren't scarce.


why are you so stuck on tightening with a torque wrench and then trying to loosen with an impact to determine "nut busting torque". that is hardly a scientific way to determine how strong an impact is, simply allowing that nut and bolt to sit overnight would cause a huge difference in what the impact would be capable of doing.
 
Last edited:

larry_g

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
16,872
Location
oregon
But if two pieces of flat metal are made progressively smoother, you will reach a point where the resistance to relative movement increases. If you make them very flat and smooth, and remove all surface contaminants in a vacuum, the smooth flat surfaces will actually adhere to each other, making what is called a "cold weld".

How are you going to achieve this point of surface finish, cleanness, and flatness in the interface between your nut and bolt just by running it back and forth? Assuming you could achieve this, how do you determine when you have crossed the point of lowest friction and are starting to increase again due to cold welding?

oh i am very interested in a lot of things. its why im entertaining the idea of tossing 2-300 at what is essentially scrap to build something entertaining and possibly useful in the end.

i do have access to a machine shop to have things made like extra large hardened washers, and mills to make sure all the surfaces are as flat as possible, not to mention ovens for hardening all parts of the stand. so resources aren't scarce.

You say toss 2-300 at it then go on to say have things made in the shop, do you get all your shop work for free?


like i stated in an earlier reply my plan to control the variable of friction in the testing is to find out what my averages are through controlled testing before moving on to using the control number to produce torque numbers.

This is the only thing you have said that I tend to agree with. As I said earlier
You could do a lot of calibration tables with different lubes, bearings, or other variables and get a closer reading machine.
post #8

Good luck on your adventure and post up your machine as you develop it.

lg
no neat sig line
 
Last edited:
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
How are you going to achieve this point of surface finish, cleanness, and flatness in the interface between your nut and bolt just by running it back and forth? Assuming you could achieve this, how do you determine when you have crossed the point of lowest friction and are starting to increase again due to cold welding?

in order to determine there has been a change you should probably be doing regular calibrations, like any measuring tool should have. same way you determine a spring in a click type torque wrench hasn't started getting weak, etc.

the whole deal of the friction between two surface being a lot tends to be on the extremes of both ends. either you have extremely large peaks of one surface with very little surface area (not very many peaks) digging in to the other surface, causing it to gouge and grab until it wears down. somewhere in the middle you have smoother, flatter surfaces that are many in number but higher in surface area so they are no longer gouging or grabbing, and when the two surfaces eventually wear together the peaks and valleys are flattened out and match each other so well that the contact area becomes so great, its is like they are "cold welded". its a basic principle, and i wouldn't worry about it too much because it can be avoided by changing out the test fastener when it becomes too big of a problem seen after a calibration.

i certainly wouldn't devote too much of my time pulling apart, cleaning, polishing, roughing, or anything on something that can be swapped out for a new piece to bring the rig back into "spec"


as simple as it sounds, using a calibrated torque wrench to give you a specific torque, on a specific size bolt, giving you a specific psi clamping force (repeated many times) can give you an average of numbers to use in order to determine what the coefficient of friction would be on that specific fastener and the whole setup. once you have that you can use the known value of the friction, and instead reverse the process to determine how much torque was applied with a different tool.

there is no reason to extensive testing into every single variable imaginable because most of it has already been done and can be found in research and papers all over the place online. "Never memorize what you can look up in a book". or to put those words in another form. if someone else has already done the work, why not use the proven theories to your advantage and save time.
 
Last edited:
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
You say toss 2-300 at it then go on to say have things made in the shop, do you get all your shop work for free?

yes, machine shop at work is a tool and die shop. just the same that when they need certain things done for their personal projects by us, they are able to spend a few minutes during slow times to fiddle with side projects. tons and tons of scrap steel and scrap parts are always being thrown out and can be bought for scrap price no problem. just the perks of working electro-mechanical maintenance for a good company.


i don't know whether or not i will go through with building it or not yet, i made this thread hoping somebody had some insight if they had tried to make a simple rig before, it seems like nobody has cared, the torque value threads end up being a bunch of speculation and people asking if somebody has put it on a test stand before or not. the biggest cost of this is going to be the cylinders. which will run about 40 a piece or so. the rest can be had by grabbing tossed scrap and going to town. might even be able to procure some super heavy duty washers for enerpac pullers that they think they want to throw out next week as well.
 

ncfh

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
777
Why reinvent the wheel, as you have said so yourself? I very much doubt that you will be able to build a test rig that will provide meaningful, repeatable data with the stated budget, free machine time or not.

Even the lab grade equipment admits the data is not repeatable over the time frames you suggest, and that's with a permanent location, in a controlled lab environment, and five plus decades of continuous improvement into their product.

Sounds like the co you work for probably has a calibration lab at the least, go make friends.

Calibration or referencing a standard is much different than the derivations you suggest. And the one off rigs made to generate useful, repeatable data in these situations make the lab calibration equipment look like a bargain.

Do we even need to discuss sample size?
 

Adam.C

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,490
if i do build it and work out all the bugs to where it can get within 5% of the actual torque, i'd count it as a success considering how i won't have access to certain things, but fine tuning can easily be achieved.

How again will you get within 5%? Analytically? You intend to measure the force a bolt produces, then analytically determine the torque, is that right?

When I specifiy a bolt torque as an aerospace engineer, my intention is to produce a certain clamping force. If I used that theorhetically derived torque, there would be no clamping force. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of torque we apply to a fastener is reacted by friction. Different studies have produced different numbers, but generally, 40-50% of torque is reacted in friction under the driven element (e.g. bolt head). Another 40% could be lost in the threads.

So how this works in the real world is, we strain gage bolts, get a calibrated torque wrench (actually something a bit more complicated than that) and test how much torque needs to be applied to produce the desired clamp up (as measured by the strain gage). That data is then published in table form for every MIL SPEC bolt and nut combination we use, with lube requirements, washer requirements, and assumptions about hole quality and parent materials.

You won't get within 50% with the plan you have suggested thus far. This is a very complicated topic as several of us have tried to tell you. I'll leave it here so this thread will be hopefully of interest to the greater population:

1) Testing the torque output of an impact wrench is junk science. I'm quite certain manufacturers set up test rigs of some sort to justify the numbers they advertise. The best rigs would measure torque directly, not by determining torque based on clamp-up pressure as has been suggested here.

But the real world problem remains that the torque we need to loosen a fastener on a car has to overcome friction, possibly caused by corrosion, which is essentially unknowable. Fortunately, fasteners on passenger cars only get so big and rust can only do so much. My sense is, any gun putting out over 500ftlbs of reverse torque is probably good enough. Beyond that, choosing one manufacturers' product because they say 650ftlbs vs another firms 900ftlbs could make no difference in use.

My guess is what seperates the cordless guns and various air guns is the durability of their batteries or seals. This further negates the manufacturers' test numbers and in my mind validates users' anecdottal experiences. The first time you use your battery gun you may get 500ftlbs. The 10th time you use that same battery, you could be getting appreciably less.

2) Said before but worth saying again: Torque is there to produce preload in the fastener, aka clamp-up on the assembled components. When engineers like me specify torque, what we want is clamp up AND consistent clamp-up. As mechanics, having the best torque wrench isn't as important as knowing how to torque a fastener correctly. Here are some tips:

a) Regardless of what the document says- lube everything. No bolt should be installed dry (see * below). Apply a light film of mineral oil (at least) on the threads, shaft, and especially under the head, and on the washer. Make sure all mating surfaces are free from dirt and grit. You can torque either the nut or head side. Choose based on what side is cleaner, smoother, flatter, or harder. You want to torque the lower friction side.

* Dry fasteners do what is called "stick-slip". Torquing bone dry hardware could produce more or less clamp up. When you turn a dry fastener, the force required to over come static friction and get the fastener moving, creates momentum which can just as easily result in over-torquing as under torquing. When I talk about a lubed fastener, I mean something with grease or sealant on it. Our numbers (which everyone else uses) for "dry parts" are typically numbers for fasteners with dry film lube applied by the manufacturer. There are no torque numbers for bone dry, slightly corroded, threads are a little bit gritty, bolts. The reason is (what I've been trying to say all along) friction is a significant contributor to clamp-up and friction of such a fastener is unknowable. Oil everything! (I use 3-in-1).

b) Final torque must be achieved while the wrench is moving (due to the difference between static and kinetic friction). If, after ratcheting, you begin the next pull and the wrench instantly releases or clicks, you must loosen the fastener and start again.

c) Snap On's tests indicate we pull too hard, and for too long after the wrench clicks. This results in over-torquing, according to Snap On. That's why they made the early warning beep system. But you can learn to just anticipate the click by wrenching slowly. As soon as the wrench starts to release, stop there.
 
Last edited:

Grigg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
268
Location
Lexington, VA
I don't quite follow or understand why and what you actually hope to gain form this exercise...

However, you can save a lot of trouble and just use a hollow hydraulic cylinder as the "machine". If your plan doesn't work out you will have saved yourself a lot of time and effort in not making something special and then worthless. If it does work you've done it with a simpler and perhaps more repeatable setup.
In the end you'd still have a nice hollow hydraulic cylinder which can be reused or sold.
http://www.enerpac.com/en/industria...products-and-systems/hollow-plunger-cylinders
 

Davefr

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
11,820
Location
OR
a) Regardless of what the document says- lube everything. No bolt should be installed dry (see * below). Apply a light film of mineral oil (at least) on the threads, shaft, and especially under the head, and on the washer. Make sure all mating surfaces are free from dirt and grit. You can torque either the nut or head side. Choose based on what side is cleaner, smoother, flatter, or harder. You want to torque the lower friction side.

^^^ The problem is almost all torque specs/charts assume the fasteners are dry. If you lube the fasteners and use dry specs you'll end up overtorquing and possible shear the fasteners.

I agree that more accurate torquing could be achieved with clean lubricated fasteners and a spec. that reflects that. However that doesn't exist in the real world.
 
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
How again will you get within 5%? Analytically? You intend to measure the force a bolt produces, then analytically determine the torque, is that right?

that was purely a guess, i'm sure you could have deduced that from the way it was worded without anything to back up that claim.

When I specifiy a bolt torque as an aerospace engineer, my intention is to produce a certain clamping force. If I used that theorhetically derived torque, there would be no clamping force. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of torque we apply to a fastener is reacted by friction. Different studies have produced different numbers, but generally, 40-50% of torque is reacted in friction under the driven element (e.g. bolt head). Another 40% could be lost in the threads.

understood, the clamping force lost through friction without the same torque applied is something i am well aware of, should i put this in capitals so you don't miss it for a third time?

So how this works in the real world is, we strain gage bolts, get a calibrated torque wrench (actually something a bit more complicated than that) and test how much torque needs to be applied to produce the desired clamp up (as measured by the strain gage). That data is then published in table form for every MIL SPEC bolt and nut combination we use, with lube requirements, washer requirements, and assumptions about hole quality and parent materials.

also understood, not something that needs explaining that there are plenty of tables out there that tell you to install a bolt clean and dry, to X torque and you should achieve X clamping force, that is why i also previously stated that predetermined values have already been tested thoroughly eliminating the need to make my own tables for this purpose. should i also put this in caps so you don't miss it?

You won't get within 50% with the plan you have suggested thus far. This is a very complicated topic as several of us have tried to tell you. I'll leave it here so this thread will be hopefully of interest to the greater population:

pure speculation

1) Testing the torque output of an impact wrench is junk science. I'm quite certain manufacturers set up test rigs of some sort to justify the numbers they advertise. The best rigs would measure torque directly, not by determining torque based on clamp-up pressure as has been suggested here.

your opinion for sure, everybody knows the torque put out by an impact wrench is not the same as say a hy-torque, but you can definitely get a number that has a correlation between the two types of tools. if your impact gun can get a bolt to the same clamping force as a torque wrench, you can say that the torque wrench produces the same "torque" as whatever your torque wrench was set to.

But the real world problem remains that the torque we need to loosen a fastener on a car has to overcome friction, possibly caused by corrosion, which is essentially unknowable. Fortunately, fasteners on passenger cars only get so big and rust can only do so much. My sense is, any gun putting out over 500ftlbs of reverse torque is probably good enough. Beyond that, choosing one manufacturers' product because they say 650ftlbs vs another firms 900ftlbs could make no difference in use. \

i never mentioned using this or anything i was talking about to try to determines what kind of torque it takes to loosen a bolt which could have a million variables to what is making it tighter or looser. this is a good filler though for your paper. most common sense tells somebody that an impacting action work much better at loosening rusted or corroded fasteners because it breaks up deposits on the threads lowering the amount of actual torque it takes to break it loose from a stand still

My guess is what seperates the cordless guns and various air guns is the durability of their batteries or seals. This further negates the manufacturers' test numbers and in my mind validates users' anecdottal experiences. The first time you use your battery gun you may get 500ftlbs. The 10th time you use that same battery, you could be getting appreciably less.

how is this coming into play at any point with any of the previous conversation? the manufacturer can make any claim they want as long as its backed up by proven testing, just like previous peoples claims of just "tighten a bolt and see if you can break it loose" is IR's "nut busting torque" rating, which isn't a real rating of torque, its simply just telling you what you can loosen with enough rattling after it's been tightened to that specified torque. and if you search enough, or ask, i'm sure you can find out how they came to their conclusions of their ratings.

2) Said before but worth saying again: Torque is there to produce preload in the fastener, aka clamp-up on the assembled components. When engineers like me specify torque, what we want is clamp up AND consistent clamp-up. As mechanics, having the best torque wrench isn't as important as knowing how to torque a fastener correctly. Here are some tips:

this has been mentioned before as well when talking about faux numbers with guns and the difference between a torque rating, a clamp rating, and the friction that causes the difference between the two.

a) Regardless of what the document says- lube everything. No bolt should be installed dry (see * below). Apply a light film of mineral oil (at least) on the threads, shaft, and especially under the head, and on the washer. Make sure all mating surfaces are free from dirt and grit. You can torque either the nut or head side. Choose based on what side is cleaner, smoother, flatter, or harder. You want to torque the lower friction side.

* Dry fasteners do what is called "stick-slip". Torquing bone dry hardware could produce more or less clamp up. When you turn a dry fastener, the force required to over come static friction and get the fastener moving, creates momentum which can just as easily result in over-torquing as under torquing. When I talk about a lubed fastener, I mean something with grease or sealant on it. Our numbers (which everyone else uses) for "dry parts" are typically numbers for fasteners with dry film lube applied by the manufacturer. There are no torque numbers for bone dry, slightly corroded, threads are a little bit gritty, bolts. The reason is (what I've been trying to say all along) friction is a significant contributor to clamp-up and friction of such a fastener is unknowable. Oil everything! (I use 3-in-1).

you are not a bolt manufacturer and don't know what they do to determine their numbers. take for instance these l9 bolts, we would consistently torque them to the required rating and do it dry because the manufacturer has specific instructions on lubrication and installation.

https://www.kimballmidwest.com/Catalog/MarketingText/L9 Torque Chart.pdf

2. Do not alter the coating as this can result in erratic and unpredictable clamp loads. Do not use supplementary lubricants.
4. When tightening L9 bolts, use the recommended torque values. The self lubricating properties of the system reduce
required torque so that in some cases they may be below those needed to tighten Grade 8 bolts.


even in the case of the fastener NOT having a dry coating lube. when you apply your "3 in 1" you have no idea how that changes the properties of the friction. you should use whatever the manufacturer recommends for install, dry or whatever lube, they will have done the testing already for that lube, different lubes all have different values

b) Final torque must be achieved while the wrench is moving (due to the difference between static and kinetic friction). If, after ratcheting, you begin the next pull and the wrench instantly releases or clicks, you must loosen the fastener and start again.

this is common knowledge, i'm sure anybody who has done any professional installations knows plenty about the mechanics of static friction on a bolt and how to use a torque wrench.
c) Snap On's tests indicate we pull too hard, and for too long after the wrench clicks. This results in over-torquing, according to Snap On. That's why they made the early warning beep system. But you can learn to just anticipate the click by wrenching slowly. As soon as the wrench starts to release, stop there.

more common knowledge, you can still achieve the same results with a regular wrench as well, you don't need a special electronic one, having a good feel for the bolts, how far the wrench may travel and your speed will keep you from going past the click point.

look. pretty much everything you wanted to say is already known and understood, and not only that common knowledge for a lot of people. i understand you really really really really really think nothing will work unless a certified company makes it and puts out a 200 page report on how long they tested it so they can sell a million units easier.

the things you tried to reiterate again i've already expressed my concern for. i'm not walking into this stuff blind, then you also provided completely false information about lubricating a bolt no matter what (with 3 in 1...). which is just plain dumb, if you go by the manufacturers specifications for the bolt you'll achieve the desired numbers. simply deciding to do whatever you want will change your outcome drastically.
 
Last edited:
OP
K

Kracin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,666
Location
Omaha, NE
Why reinvent the wheel, as you have said so yourself? I very much doubt that you will be able to build a test rig that will provide meaningful, repeatable data with the stated budget, free machine time or not.

Even the lab grade equipment admits the data is not repeatable over the time frames you suggest, and that's with a permanent location, in a controlled lab environment, and five plus decades of continuous improvement into their product.

Sounds like the co you work for probably has a calibration lab at the least, go make friends.

Calibration or referencing a standard is much different than the derivations you suggest. And the one off rigs made to generate useful, repeatable data in these situations make the lab calibration equipment look like a bargain.

Do we even need to discuss sample size?


so without knowing what i have already or have access to you doubt i can build something where the only cost will be a few small cylinders? thats fine. apparently i have to pay myself for my own time involved or something, the cost after procuring scrap supplies is .15 per pound plus the couple of cylinders, next to nothing.

no, no equipment for determining torque, most places won't have them, instead they will have the equipment which puts out a calibrated torque amount

sure, what kind of sample size are you thinking?


I don't quite follow or understand why and what you actually hope to gain form this exercise...

However, you can save a lot of trouble and just use a hollow hydraulic cylinder as the "machine". If your plan doesn't work out you will have saved yourself a lot of time and effort in not making something special and then worthless. If it does work you've done it with a simpler and perhaps more repeatable setup.
In the end you'd still have a nice hollow hydraulic cylinder which can be reused or sold.
http://www.enerpac.com/en/industria...products-and-systems/hollow-plunger-cylinders

i'm aware there are plenty of enerpac cylinders available, the cost of said cylinders is far beyond what i am willing to pay for a fun project.

Epic. :lol: Someone who started their thread with the statement "torque is a pretty undefined description" telling someone else that they don't understand.

Epic indeed. same person continues going on about impossibilities while another company produces this exact equipment at a large cost. sounds epic to me as well. i said he didn't understand because he was claiming it was impossible to do something that is already being done and sold (while spreading false information about lubricating bolts).

Thanks for a positive contribution to my thread. :thumbup:
 

FMC1959

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
2,305
Location
Montreal, Canada / Upstate NY
This has been a great read. Like in the Medical community, the Society of American Engineers and so many other communities, there will always be dissenting views. This thread should be made a sticky, and anyone wanting to know anything about torque (beyond should I get a clicker or electronic torque wrench) can learn a lot here without having to read very long (and dry) whitepeapers on the subject :thumbup:
 

srmofo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
6,161
Location
SW ohio
^^^ The problem is almost all torque specs/charts assume the fasteners are dry. If you lube the fasteners and use dry specs you'll end up overtorquing and possible shear the fasteners.

I agree that more accurate torquing could be achieved with clean lubricated fasteners and a spec. that reflects that. However that doesn't exist in the real world.

Im also concerned about a fastener working its way back off without a little friction. Cars are not stationary pieces of art. They are subjected to almost constant vibrations of varying frequencies. Having a critical fastener come loose because it was super clean, and lubed up is much more of a concern to me then having the torque spec 100% accurate.

My only question about this thread is why? The gun will either remove the bolt or it wont. Theres so many variables involved that it just doesn't matter how accurate the advertised numbers are as long as it does its job. Ive always kept my IR guns on 2 or 3 anyways.
 

Adam.C

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,490
Im also concerned about a fastener working its way back off without a little friction. Cars are not stationary pieces of art. They are subjected to almost constant vibrations of varying frequencies. Having a critical fastener come loose because it was super clean, and lubed up is much more of a concern to me then having the torque spec 100% accurate.

I should have added this qualifier - You need some sort of lube to achieve an accurate clamp up. Dry doesn't mean dry, it means dry film lube. Fastener torque retention is handled differently in aerospace applications. We use self-locking hardware AT LEAST. Critical bolts get 2 forms of locking, torque striping and regular inspection.

For automotive applications, it has long been debated whether lubing lug nuts (for example) helps you achieve the correct preload, results in too much preload, or will result in loss of torque. I certainly don't know the answer. FWIW, I have always (30 years) applied anti-sieze compound to my vehicles' lug nuts.
 

Adam.C

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,490
Epic indeed. same person continues going on about impossibilities while another company produces this exact equipment at a large cost. sounds epic to me as well. i said he didn't understand because he was claiming it was impossible to do something that is already being done and sold (while spreading false information about lubricating bolts).

Thanks for a positive contribution to my thread. :thumbup:

You are right. Nobody wants to hear that the device they imagined is beyond their capabilities or impossible. By all means get building and please report what you learn.
 

Mooky

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
257
Location
PA
You've effectively alienated the best source of true engineering on this topic (Adam C). Aerospace designs are the zenith of technology.

Torque is being supplanted by direct measurement of fastener stretch using ultrasonic transducers embedded in the fastener. Torque is an inferred value for bolted joint design and subject to a variety of variables. Aerospace and critical process equipment (nuclear, highly toxic chemical (my field)) industries have done the testing using very intensive statistical analysis.

Your rig would be interesting and many have applauded you for the idea. A far better place to pose this question would be a machine design forum. Eng-tips, mechanicaldesignforum, etc. Be prepared for some in depth discussions and likely some constructive push-back.
 
Last edited:

ncfh

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
777
so without knowing what i have already or have access to you doubt i can build something where the only cost will be a few small cylinders? thats fine. apparently i have to pay myself for my own time involved or something, the cost after procuring scrap supplies is .15 per pound plus the couple of cylinders, next to nothing.

no, no equipment for determining torque, most places won't have them, instead they will have the equipment which puts out a calibrated torque amount

sure, what kind of sample size are you thinking?
Some of us do this kind of thing professionally. And years of parsing thousands of proposals from ambitious, but inexperienced people from all kinds of backgrounds, you tend to develop a rough idea of a person's capabilities by what is proposed, and more importantly by what has been overlooked and/or oversimplified.

Attitude also plays an important part in any endeavor. So far this has been a friendly engineering review, high level and gentle at that. If this were a professional scenario, you would have been bounced out the door before you knew what hit you. Now I'm not trying to beat you up or start a flame war. I really don't care. But you seem like a smart, goal oriented person. If you want to parlay those rough qualities into design or engineering career, you'd better get used to redirecting criticism constructively. We're only trying to help.

Just so you know, nobody just believes manufacturer spec sheets in critical and/or costly applications. You qualify it yourself. Always.

Adam C. hasn't misled you either. If 3-1 lubricant is his process, and he has validated it, then its fine, for his process. There are no rules that demand one utilize a component as explicitly intended by the manufacturer.

My point is why? Just to satisfy yourself? Then do it. Do you want to make a gross comparison between product A and product B, then do it.

But if you want to provide the World with relevant and actionable data, ie a reference, then you have quite a task. Here's a hint, you won't be building just one rig. Qualifying your materials alone... arrgh. I give up. It just seems you could be directing your time and energies into something more rewarding, and ultimately useful.

Come back with a drawing and process and I will constructively critique it if you like, no time for mechanical engineering lessons with net-ittude.

Who am I?

Some jerk who asks questions and subjects humans to 7 Tor and −452.2°F while shooting a LINAC at their gooey bits for money.

It's a living.
 

Adam.C

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,490
You've effectively alienated the best source of true engineering on this topic (Adam C). Aerospace designs are the zenith of technology.

Sorry. I'm not alientated. My post wasn't intended to be snarky or passive aggressive. I can see that what I'm saying isn't helping. I meant what I said, nobody likes being told they can't do something. I really hope he goes for it.

My concern is really for him. I've read many scientific reviews in magazines and on the internet where some guy (like Woodstockva) goes to a lot of work to try to help people, then everybody argues with his assumptions and negates his findings. The reviewer gets defensive and everything becomes a mess. I was really just trying to help him avoid that, but I admit my tone was discouraging. He will be better off simply building something, learning from that, and coming back with questions if he has any. I would predict that the hydraulic pressure, when converted to torque will indicate the big milwaukee gun is producing 120ftlbs of torque. The other 800ftlbs will be lost in friction with no good way to predict or correlate it to the recorded values.

And just to set the record straight- I have designed and manufactured bolts, both in my home shop and for industry (landing gear). Bolt manufacturers do not establish torque numbers. Torque is application dependent. And there are no real "standards". You can find torque numbers published by the US Army, the Air Force, Machinery's Handbook, and industry. Most serious industrial users use (steal) the aerospace numbers developed by the big aerospace firms like Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing etc. And these numbers are ALL based on testing of very specific bolts in very specific applications. Not sure how the car companies do it.

One last go back on lubing bolts. Every bolt installed in a car factory has some film of oil on it from manufacturing. Every bolt. Nothing in a big industrial setting like that is dry as we define dry.

The numbers my company produced list "dry" and "wet" torque values. "Dry" = dry film lube, mineral oil from manufacturing, no added anything. "Wet"= primer, sealant, or grease. There are no torque values for that chalky, slightly oxidized, covered with brake dust caliper bolt I just pulled out of my land rover. The reason is, no big industry consumes used bolts. We use brand new bolts, still fresh with a light film of oil to keep them from oxidizing.
 
Last edited:

sberry

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
35,747
Location
Brethren, Michigan
Oil everything! (I use 3-in-1).
Good!!!!!!! We use common penetrating spray but the Snappy wrench manual says plain as day, all values are for lightly lubed clean threads.
I also wonder what the point is?
 

sberry

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
35,747
Location
Brethren, Michigan
Having a critical fastener come loose because it was super clean, and lubed up is much more of a concern to me then having the torque spec 100% accurate.
Although it may not seem so this is critical to get it tight. If it isn't its not because its slippery it backed off but because it didn't clamp up tight and prevent joint movement.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom