Use of FEA to Determine

Bolted Joint Member Stiffness

Kurt Wiessmeyer
MECH4200 Simulation Based Design, Spring 2019
3/10/19
Wentworth Institute of Technology

550 Huntington Ave Boston, MA, 02115

 Table of Contents
Introduction…………………...……3
FE Analysis…………………….……..5

Results and Discussions……....14

Conclusions………………………….14
References……………………………15

2
 Introduction
In the design of machinery and machine elements, there are countless scenarios in
which two different parts need to be fastened together. One common method of fastening
utilizes nuts, bolts, and washers to hold two pieces together. By threading a bolt through two
components and tightening a nut on the other end, the bolt is elongated and put under tension,
acting as a sort of spring. The bolt head and the washer apply a clamping force on either side of
the two components, which secures the pieces together.
It is important to know how many bolts are needed to secure two parts together, and
this is based on the stiffness of the bolts used and the stiffness of the members to be fastened
together. Estimating the stiffness of the bolts is fairly straightforward, as they can be simplified
to cylinders under tension. The stiffness of the two members is a bit more complicated to
determine and depends on several factors. These factors include the elastic modulus of the
member material, the bolt diameter, the washer/bolt head diameter, and the bolt grip length.
This simplification can also only be used under the assumption that the two members are of the
same material and have the same elastic modulus. The simplification equation is shown below,
as well as a diagram of the compressed volume of the members.

Figure 1: Member stiffness simplification formula. Figure 2: Cross-section of compressed frustum.

The calculated values for member stiffness, found using the above formula, are shown
in the following table:

3
 Semi-Empirical Calculations:
Run Diameter d/L Grip Length Side Length Alpha Member Stiffness
# (d) [in.] Ratio (L) [in.] [in.] [°] k_m [lb/in]
1 0.875 0.05 17.500 12.250 30 8.6967E+06
2 0.875 0.1 8.750 7.000 30 9.5002E+06
3 0.875 0.375 2.333 3.150 30 1.3672E+07
4 0.875 0.75 1.167 2.450 30 1.9080E+07
5 0.875 1.25 0.700 2.170 30 2.6118E+07
6 0.875 1.75 0.500 2.050 30 3.3077E+07
7 0.875 2.375 0.368 1.971 30 4.1725E+07
8 0.875 3 0.292 1.925 30 5.0346E+07
Table 1: Calculated k_m values base on semi-empirical formula.

These semi-empirical calculations can give an estimate of the member stiffness which
can help determine the number of bolts needed for a given assembly. However, in order to
have a more confident stiffness value, Finite Element Analysis must be done to give more data
to compare to. Using SolidWorks’s simulation capabilities, eight different variations of bolted
members were tested under the same applied load. The simulation is a way to test the
members using CAD software, in order to show stress patterns and to determine the axial
displacement of either end of the bolt. By creating a solid model of a block with a through-hole
in the center and applying a clamping force around the hole on either side, one is able to
simulate a pair of same-material members under the force of a nut and bolt configuration.
Shown below is an example of a Von-Mises stress plot section view—the red areas represent
regions of high stress. The following FEA procedures were completed in order to gather the
necessary data.

Figure 3: Cross-sectional stress plot of a FEA simulation, showing deformed results.

4
 FE Analysis
Given data:

• Bolt size: 7/8”

• Material of members: Copper
• Diameter-Grip Length Ratios (d/L) to be tested:
o 0.05, 0.1, 0.375, 0.75, 1.25, 1.75, 2.375, 3.0
• Clamping force of bolt head/washer: 1000 lbs.
Objectives:
1. Use SW-Simulation to determine member stiffness values
2. Create stress plots showing the midplane of the clamped members
3. Compare the stiffness values obtained through simulation with the calculated results.
FEA Simulation Settings:
A convergence test was performed using run #4 as an example, in order to determine
the appropriate mesh size. I used a starting point of 0.20” as a global element size, and applied
a mesh control to the bolt, bolt head, and washer surfaces. Based on the following data, a
global element size of 0.20” and a local size of 0.05” was deemed appropriate for runs 4-8.
These values were increased for the first three runs, due to the fact that the models for these
simulations were much larger and required much greater processing power, causing the
software to crash.

Convergence of Run 4
Local Element Size (in.) Avg. y-disp. (in.) Convergence
0.150 3.333E-05 107.38
0.100 3.291E-05 106.02
0.075 3.182E-05 102.51
0.060 3.137E-05 101.06
0.050 3.104E-05 100.00

Element Size vs. Avg. y-displacement (in.)

3.350E-05
Avg. y-displacement (in.)

3.300E-05
3.250E-05
3.200E-05
3.150E-05
3.100E-05
3.050E-05
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160
Element Size (in.)

Table 2, Figure 4: Convergence table and graph for average y-displacement of run #4

5
 The following table lists the global mesh parameters as well as the local element sizes of
each simulation. (Note: the “local” section for each run refers to the bolt, bolt head, and
washer surfaces.)

Run # d/L Ratio Global Element Size Local Element Size

[in.] [in.]
1 0.05 0.5 0.25
2 0.1 0.25 0.15
3 0.375 0.2 0.1
4 0.75 0.2 0.05
5 1.25 0.2 0.05
6 1.75 0.2 0.05
7 2.375 0.2 0.05
8 3.0 0.2 0.05
Table 3: Mesh parameters for each simulation.

Figure 5: Mesh of the model used for run #4. Note the smaller element size along the bolt and bolt head surfaces.

In this simulation, there were no points of fixed geometry on the model—the inertial
relief setting was used instead. The clamping force of 1000 lbs was applied to the bolt head and
washer surfaces on the top and bottom, and the following stress plots were acquired:

6
 Axial Stress Plots:
Run 1:

Figure 6: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 1. Only the top half of the part is shown.

Run 2:

Figure 7: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 2. Only the top half of the part is shown.

7
 Run 3:

Figure 8: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 3.

Run 4:

Figure 9: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 4.

8
 Run 5:

Figure 10: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 5.

Run 6:

Figure 11: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 6.

9
 Run 7:

Figure 12: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 7.

Run 8:

Figure 13: Axial stress plot along the center of the model, run 8.

10
 The stress plots above give a graphical representation of the axial stresses endured by
the mating members, with the points of highest stress shown in red. As one can see, the shape
of the stress patterns are roughly similar to the frustrum shape which was used in the
preliminary calculations. The ability to see a cross-sectional view of the Von-Mises stress is
invaluable in the field of machine design, and can be used to determine weak points
throughout the part.

Along with the axial stress values, the average axial displacement of the washer and bolt
head faces were noted for each simulation. From these displacement data, the member
stiffness was calculated using Hooke’s Law, which states that the force of a spring is
proportional to its stiffness and its displacement. In this case, the stiffness was calculated with
the formula shown to the right.

The member stiffness values based off of the simulations are shown in the table below:
Bottom Avg. Top Avg. Member Stiffness
Grip Side Axial Axial Axial k_m(FEA) [lb/in]
Run Diameter d/L Length Length Clamping Displacement Displacement
# (d) [in.] Ratio (L) [in.] [in.] Load [lb] [in.] [in.]
1 0.875 0.05 17.500 12.250 1000 5.366E-05 -5.368E-05 9.316E+06
2 0.875 0.1 8.750 7.000 1000 5.086E-05 -5.084E-05 9.833E+06
3 0.875 0.375 2.333 3.150 1000 4.290E-05 -4.284E-05 1.166E+07
4 0.875 0.75 1.167 2.450 1000 3.108E-05 -3.110E-05 1.608E+07
5 0.875 1.25 0.700 2.170 1000 2.141E-05 -2.149E-05 2.331E+07
6 0.875 1.75 0.500 2.050 1000 1.615E-05 -1.616E-05 3.095E+07
7 0.875 2.375 0.368 1.971 1000 1.220E-05 -1.228E-05 4.085E+07
8 0.875 3 0.292 1.925 1000 9.817E-06 -9.921E-06 5.066E+07
Table 4: Member stiffness calculations based on simulation results.

As one can see, there are some discrepancies between the calculated and simulated
member stiffness values. The following table compares the two sets of data, using the formula
for relative error shown to the right.

11
 Relative Error Table
Run # d/L Member Stiffness, Member Stiffness, Relative
Ratio Calculated (k_m) [lb/in] Simulation (k_m(FEA)) [lb/in.] Error [%]
1 0.05 8.697E+06 9.316E+06 6.65%
2 0.1 9.500E+06 9.833E+06 3.38%
3 0.375 1.367E+07 1.166E+07 17.22%
4 0.75 1.908E+07 1.608E+07 18.64%
5 1.25 2.612E+07 2.331E+07 12.04%
6 1.75 3.308E+07 3.095E+07 6.87%
7 2.375 4.173E+07 4.085E+07 2.14%
8 3 5.035E+07 5.066E+07 0.63%
Table 5: Relative error between calculated and simulated values for member stiffness.

Relative Error of Member Stiffness vs. d/L Ratio

25.00%
Relative Error [%]

20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
d/L Ratio

Relative Error

Figure 14: Relative error vs. d/L ratio

Member Stiffness vs. d/L Ratio

6.00E+07

5.00E+07
Member stiffness [lb/in]

4.00E+07

3.00E+07

2.00E+07

1.00E+07

0.00E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
d/L Ratio

Calculated Member Stiffness (k_m) Simulation Member Stiffness (k_m(FEA))

Figure 15: Member stiffness vs. d/L ratio

12
 Using Microsoft Excel’s curve-fitting capabilities, I created the following exponential
curve using the formula shown to the right.

Exponential Curve Fit

4.500
y = 0.6992e0.595x
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 16: Exponential curve fit based on FEA simulation results.

13
 Results and Discussion
Utilizing the simulation function of SolidWorks has been very enlightening. By creating a
model, manipulating a few variables, and repeating the same static loading test, I was able to
come up with a valuable set of data to compare with preliminary calculations. As shown in table
5 and figure 15, there are differences in the two datasets ranging from less than 1% up to
almost 19% error. These errors can be attributed to a number of causes. One such cause may
be the mesh parameters chosen. The error curve is very strange in the sense that the smaller
models, with less overall elements, showed less error than the larger ones, despite having the
smaller models having finer meshes along the crucial areas. This is counterintuitive, as one
would assume the models with finer meshes would have more accurate results. However, this
could be due to the preliminary calculations as well. There may be a range of d/L ratios that do
not provide accurate results. After all, the equation used is meant only for preliminary
estimates, and should not be used without another source to compare to. Either way, a 19%
error is not entirely terrible, and may still be useful in some scenarios where there is enough
room for error.

Conclusions
The results obtained through SolidWorks’s simulation function have given a great deal
of valuable information. Looking back at the three objectives at the start, I was able to
complete all of them throughout the process. The first objective was to come up with a set of
member stiffness values based on the results of the simulations. By running the tests, gathering
the displacement data, and applying Hooke’s Law, the stiffness coefficient for each d/L ratio
was easy to find. The second objective—to create midplane stress plots for each model—was
also achieved through FEA. Each variation of diameter-to-length ratio yielded a different
pattern of stress throughout the midplane of the part. I noticed that there was an upward trend
of member stiffness as the d/L ratio increased. As such, the cross-section views of the axial
stress followed this trend. For the first few runs, the stress did not penetrate very far into the
model, in the axial direction. After these runs, the stresses travelled further into the middle of
the pieces, eventually branching out to the sides as well. This shows that the stiffness of a
bolted member is heavily dependent on the gauge length of the bolt compared to the diameter
of it. In general, it seems better to have a moderate amount of d/L ratio—not too much and not
too little. As shown in the first two runs, very large gauge lengths compared to the diameter
results in stress concentrated at the bolt head and washer surfaces. On the other hand, having
very little gauge length (see runs 5-8) results in high stress throughout the whole part. Using a
d/L ratio of between 0.375 and 0.75 seems to result in a well-distributed stress throughout the
piece, and this may be preferred in order to avoid failures. As such, I would recommend using a
bolt with a diameter-to-gauge length ratio in this range.

14
 References
• Richard G. Budynas and J. Keith Nisbett, Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, page
416-424, 10th edition, McGraw Hill Education, 2014.
• Culpepper, Martin. “2.72 Elements of Mechanical Design Lecture 10: Bolted Joints.” 2.72
Elements of Mechanical Design Spring 2009. 9 Mar. 2018.
• http://portal.ku.edu.tr/~cbasdogan/Courses/MDesign/course_notes/Joint_Stiffness.pdf

15