Anti-seize On Lugnuts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The use of anti-seize can significantly increase the tension in a bolt at a given torque.

Bolt Tension = Torque/K(diameter)

Note the "K" factor for various antiseize compounds can be from 0.11 to 0.15. A plated bolt is about 0.16 whereas a plain bolt "K" is about 0.3.

Going from K=0.3 to K=0.15 will double the bolt tension at a given torque.

Neverseez lists some "K" values:

http://www.neverseezproducts.com/antiseize.htm

Example:

My Toyota Sienna which has 1/2" black unplated wheel studs and recommends a torque of 77 ftlb = 924 inlb

Theoretical Bolt Tension = 924/0.3(0.5) = 6,000 lbs

If I add standard "neverseez" with K=0.13

Bolt Tension = 924/0.13(0.5)= 14,000 lbs

Hopefully this higher tension will not be enough to cause the studs to fatigue and eventually break.
 
I always use anti seize, because otherwise I won't be able to get the nuts off the next time. I've seen the bolt actually shear off due to the torque required to remove a corroded bolt/nut. I've never actually had a nut loosen off by itself. I also always put a tiny bit of anti-seize on spark plugs. the first car i ever owned, had one plug that could not be removed, so i anti-seize all the others ever since. it's interesting to learn the hazards of anti seize, and to avoid them by using the product sparingly.
 
For those that think antiseize is fine, how would you feel about me torquing the lug nuts on my Toyota to 177 ftlbs instead of the recommended 77 ftlbs?

From the 1/2" example in my post above

77 ftlbs plain dry = 6000 lbs bolt tension

77 ftlbs with neverseez = 14,000 lbs bolt tension

177 ftlbs plain dry = 14,000 lbs bolt tension
 
Given that a significant amount of your torque is taken up with the tapered face on tapered face (or flat face) which does the clamping, your example is grossly overstated...

Please repeat with rusty dusty bolts.

and I've seen no-one in this thread advocating using dry torque with antisieze...nor coating the bearing surface, which your example would need.

Even the most brain dead would notice that instead of taking snug plus around an 1/8 of a turn to 3 times as much.
 
I agree that if you feel you need to use antiseize then at least try to keep it on the threads only.

Even though I live in an area with lots of salt on the roads and my Toyota is 11 years old - the studs and lug nuts are not rusty or dusty. I have never had a problem undoing a lug nut but I set the torque to spec.

Plus you will have people that read this thread and put antiseize on a new car. And others who posted here might want to explain how they keep oil, WD40, etc off the tapered face.
 
fwiw, I have a torque wrench and NEVER use it. I do everything by hand and it's right at the same value when remove the bolt/nut.
 
Last decade, I've been playing with bolts...and some biggies.

200lbft is "finger tight" on a steam turbine.

I really do prefer strain tightening over torque, and I really do feel that manuals should have an easy reckoner for the roadside motorist of "snug plus...half a flat"

Torque and torque sticks tell you next to squat about what's really going on.
 
I agree that strain tightening is a superior way to torque a fastener. Unfortunately, not all of us have access to $4000 ultrasonic equipment to accomplish this.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


I really do prefer strain tightening over torque, and I really do feel that manuals should have an easy reckoner for the roadside motorist of "snug plus...half a flat"



But all automotive manuals typically provide a recommended torque for lug nuts. Not turn angle after snug.

Snug plus turn of nut method typically gets to the desired bolt tension plus or minus 15%.

Using a torque wrench or torque stick on a dry connection will get you to the desired bolt tension plus minus about 25%.

Tire shops typically use torque sticks. Tightening lubed studs with a torque wrench or torque stick will get you to the desired bolt tension plus up to 130%.
 
Originally Posted By: mva
The use of anti-seize can significantly increase the tension in a bolt at a given torque.

Bolt Tension = Torque/K(diameter)

Note the "K" factor for various antiseize compounds can be from 0.11 to 0.15. A plated bolt is about 0.16 whereas a plain bolt "K" is about 0.3.

Going from K=0.3 to K=0.15 will double the bolt tension at a given torque.

Neverseez lists some "K" values:

http://www.neverseezproducts.com/antiseize.htm

Example:

My Toyota Sienna which has 1/2" black unplated wheel studs and recommends a torque of 77 ftlb = 924 inlb

Theoretical Bolt Tension = 924/0.3(0.5) = 6,000 lbs

If I add standard "neverseez" with K=0.13

Bolt Tension = 924/0.13(0.5)= 14,000 lbs

Hopefully this higher tension will not be enough to cause the studs to fatigue and eventually break.


Your value of K=.3 seems unreasonably high. Depends on where you look up k-values, but there's quite a bit of variation depending on where you get your numbers.

How do you KNOW exactly what sort of plating your Sienna's lug studs use? Just guessing by looking at it? Or do you have it in writing? 'Cause Dacromet can be black. And it looks an awful lot like black oxide. Or black phosphate. Unfortunately we don't get full engineering specs on our vehicles.

Speaking of Dacromet, that's the sort of plating that's used on lots of lug nuts these days (most of them?). As Kestas has pointed out, it's A LOT like antiseize in composition. And I'll further point out that it has k-values similar to that of various antiseize compounds:

http://www.porteousfastener.com/pfconlin...dividual%20Copy[1].pdf

Have a look at the numbers at this link. If you believe THESE numbers (I've no doubt that conflicting numbers are readily available), then the difference between "neverseize paste", various Dacromet compounds, black oxide, and oil + phosphate is fairly insignificant.

So the situation here is not nearly as clear as you've suggested. And remember- when a vehicle gets a few years on it- plating wears off. Threads gall. And they rust. That's bound to affect this "nut factor" far more than a little antiseize.

Maybe we should be replacing lug nuts and studs every 3 years/30,000 miles... 'cause the book always knows best. Safety first!
 
onion, note also that mvas equation also contains the thread pitch information associated with the torque/tension calc.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
onion, note also that mvas equation also contains the thread pitch information associated with the torque/tension calc.


Right, but it should be useful for comparison... so long as it's apples-to-apples.
 
Originally Posted By: onion

Your value of K=.3 seems unreasonably high. Depends on where you look up k-values, but there's quite a bit of variation depending on where you get your numbers.

How do you KNOW exactly what sort of plating your Sienna's lug studs use?


Over 50% of the friction is at the tapered face of the lug nut, as Shannow pointed out. On my Toyota, the rims are stamped steel and if there ever was a coating on the rim or the lug nut faces it is not there now.

I do not know the exact finish of the wheel studs but I think I am safe to assume that the Toyota engineers took this finish into account when they specified the recommended torque. They would have realized the wheels get removed frequently since they also specify frequent tire rotations. They do not call for the use of any lubricant on the wheel studs.

The link below has some basic charts of recommended torques for lubricated versus plain bolts. If you scroll down to the SAE Grade 8 chart you will see that the recommended torque is cut in half for lubricated versus plain bolts at a given bolt tension.

http://www.portlandbolt.com/technicalinformation/bolt-torque-chart.html
 
All that is true enough. But as the numbers on my link clearly show that the k-factor for antiseize is quite close to that of Dacromet and several other common coatings. And as the original coating wears off, antiseize will likely keep the k-factor CLOSER to the original value than it would be otherwise.

As for your Yota- we just don't know what coating is on those studs. But your guess of .3 is definitely on the high side of possible values.

I think we have enough info here to safely conclude that antiseize is a non-issue for wheel studs with Dacromet coating. And as long as antiseize is applied only to the threads and not the bearing surface, it shouldn't be a huge issue for MOST thread coatings.

The biggest concern would be use of antiseize on originally uncoated threads. Personally it wouldn't (doesn't) bother me a bit... but mere mortals should exercise caution.
 
35.gif
This thread is getting good enough I'll link to it next time someone asks this question.

I still wonder about the "mechanical empathy" aspect of this. If you *FEEL* your lugs going on smooth, what would posess you to put some more goo on? (This is a symptom of my conservative nature-- not putting a "helper" on something important unless I really felt something was wrong/needed.)

If I had this dacromat stuff on my lug studs, and it hadn't worn off, I bet I would feel it when I start the lug nuts with my fingers. I at least can feel (subconsiously?) the "greasiness", probably in the change from static to sliding friction. Or maybe in the viscosity change when they're heated up from the friction of spinning them down.

That's a great sign to me that nothing more is needed.

32.gif
How does dacromat compare to the stuff they put on spark plug threads? I've had some $1 autolites with "black paint" on the threads that is allegedly an antisieze of some sort.
 
I'll bet the "black paint" is phos and oil.

I've looked at other plugs and find the threads are coated with nickel.

Dacromet (at least the one coating I looked at) is a mixture of pure aluminum metal flakes and pure zinc metal flakes, both around 20 micron in size, in an organic carrier that dries like paint.

Antiseize is typically pure metal flakes, also around 20 micron in size, in an organic carrier. The organic carrier doesn't dry and is probably some type of oil. The metal flakes are typically aluminum, copper, or nickel, depending on the type of antiseize you buy.

There are other antiseizes (e.g., carbon, teflon, MoS2, lead, etc.), but that's for another discussion.
 
Kestas- I reckon you're as qualified to answer this question as anybody that we're going to find... seeings how you work directly with the products in question.

We all know that lots of wheel studs these days have a Dacromet coating- but there are others. On MVA's Sienna, for example, what do you think the black coating is? Same black coating as this spark plug... or something else?
 
I can't speak for the Sienna specifically, but I've seen some wheel studs specified for phos and oil (GM and aftermarket applications). These studs look black and shiny when new. Probably the same as the spark plug you described.
 
That's what I suspected, but I'm not really qualified to say.

For what it's worth, the k-factor for "neversieze paste" is .17, whereas the k-factor for phosphate & oil is .18. But it's .13 for copper antiseize.



I think the numbers are pretty conclusive. For MOST coatings, including those most commonly used on wheel studs, the k-factor is in the .15-.22 range. Notable exceptions include a few zinc coatings. Even uncoated steel is within this range. Therefore:

If the following is true:

The wheel studs are not ZINC coated
Antiseize is applied to the threads only
Copper-based antiseize is avoided
Factory torque specifications are used


Then I see very little potential for problems from using antiseize on wheel studs.

numbers available here:

http //www.porteousfastener.com/pfconline/PDF/Tightening%20-%20Bulletin-Fastener%20Tightening%20Can%20Be%20Determined%20by%20Several%20Methods%20Individual%20Copy[1].pdf
 
That link is giving me trouble due to those included brackets ] [ interacting with this site's UBB setup. Remove the space after the http and it will work.

Here's the copied/pasted info in an unformatted and rather user-unfriendly form:

K” factors vary from .1 (very slippery) to .4 (very
tacky). Below is a list of K factors for currently used fastener finishes.
Torque conversions:
Foot pounds = inch pounds times .0833
Nm = inch pounds times .113
Fastener Finish K Factors
As received steel 0.18 GEOBLACK® 147 0.15 Magni 575 0.13
Black Oxide 0.20 GEOBLACK® ML 0.16 Magni 590 0.11
Cadmium plated nuts and bolts 0.19 GEOMET® 500 A 0.17 Magni 591 0.11
Copper based antiseize 0.13 GEOMET® 500 B 0.17 Magni 594 0.12
DACROBLACK® 107 0.14 GEOMET® 720 L 0.15 Never-Seize Paste 0.17
DACROBLACK® 127 0.15 GEOMET® 720 ML 0.17 Phosphate & Oil 0.18
DACROMET® 500 A 0.19 GEOMET® L 0.15 Plain 0.20
DACROMET® 500 B 0.19 GEOMET® ML 0.17 Rusty (exposed outdoors 2 wks) 0.39
DACROMET® L 0.15 GEOMET® P 0.20
SermaGard (Aluminum particles in a ceramic binder)
basecoat + wax
0.23
DACROMET® ML 0.17 GEOMET® XL 0.09 Xylan 5230 ( PTFE) 0.12
DACROMET® P 0.20 Graphite coatings 0.19 Zinc & Black (cr6) 0.22
DACROMET® XL 0.09
Hot dip galvanized - clean
and dry
0.23 Zinc & Clear (cr6) 0.22
Delta-Protekt KL 100 base coat with
Delta VH 301 topcoat
0.17 Machine Oil 0.21 Zinc & Clear (cr6) & Waxed Locknut 0.18
Delta-Protekt KL 100 base coat with
Delta VH 302 topcoat
0.19 Magni 510 0.15 Zinc & Olive (cr6) 0.22
Delta-Protekt KL 100 base coat with
Delta-Seal
0.23 Magni 5111 0.15 Zinc & Yellow (cr6) 0.22
Delta-Protekt KL 100 base coat with
Delta-Seal GZ
0.18 Magni 515 0.15 Zinc (mechanical) & Clear (cr6) 0.35
GEOBLACK® 117 0.20 Magni 560 0.13 Zinc-Cobalt electroplated finish 0.30
GEOBLACK® 137 0.17 Magni 565 0.13 Zinc-Nickel electroplated finish 0.30
Note: Values determined using DIN 946.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top