Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2016, Vol. 8(9) 1–8
Ó The Author(s) 2016
Calculation of the effective bearing DOI: 10.1177/1687814016668445
aime.sagepub.com
contact radius for precision tightening
of bolted joints

Hao Gong, Jianhua Liu and Xiaoyu Ding

Abstract
Torque control is usually the only method for tightening bolts in some precision assembly applications. However, the
scatter of the torque–tension relationship may significantly decrease the accuracy of the preload, which conflicts with
the high requirement for mechanical accuracy in such precision assemblies. An important, but often ignored, factor
affecting the accuracy of the torque–tension relationship is the effective bearing contact radius. In this article, a three-
dimensional finite element model of a typical bolted joint was developed to obtain the actual bearing pressure distribu-
tion, based on which the effective bearing contact radius can be further calculated. Then, a parametrical study was con-
ducted to systematically investigate the effects of various geometrical, material, and frictional factors on the effective
bearing contact radius. Based on the numerical results, a comprehensive and quantitative evaluation of the relative accu-
racy of each traditional method of calculating the effective bearing contact radius was made. In particular, it was found
that the effective bearing contact radius, calculated based on the assumption of uniform bearing pressure distribution,
was always relatively accurate regardless of the geometrical, material, and frictional conditions considered. This study
will be helpful in increasing the accuracy of preload, thus ensuring mechanical accuracy and quality for precision
assemblies.

Keywords
Bolted joints, torque control, effective bearing contact radius, precision assembly, finite element analysis

Date received: 31 March 2016; accepted: 17 August 2016

Academic Editor: Filippo Berto

Introduction tightening method for bolted joints because of the

Bolted joints are used widely in many applications due
to their ease of assembly and disassembly. The safety,
reliability, and quality of bolted joints are determined
largely by the magnitude and stability of the clamp load
or preload. To achieve a desired preload, various tigh-
tening methods have been developed, such as torque
control, torque–angle control, stretch control, and yield
control.1 Among these methods, the torque control
method is the most commonly used because it can be
implemented readily without using complex or expen-
sive tools. In several precision assembly applications,
such as some small-batch precision optical systems,2
the torque control method is usually the only applicable
restrictions on operating space and the limitations of
assembly cost. In order to ensure the preload accuracy
in precision assembly applications, the allowed percent-
age error of the torque–tension relationship might be as
small as several percents. For example, Li et al.2
numerically calculated the effects of preload on the
School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing,
China
Corresponding author:
Xiaoyu Ding, School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of
Technology, 5 South Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing
100081, China.
Email: xiaoyu.ding@bit.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
deformation of a 400-mm class reflecting mirror which
is a key part in a high-power solid laser facility. They
found that the peak-to-valley (PV) value of the wave-
front can change 2 nm when the preload changes only
1 N. For precision optical systems, the PV value is typi-
cally required to be smaller than 63 nm (i.e. l=10,
l = 0:6328 mm). Thus, even several percent errors of
the preload (e.g. when the preload is several hundred
Newton) may cause a considerable change on the PV
value. Therefore, there is a need to improve the accu-
racy of the torque–tension relationship to ensure pre-
load accuracy for precision assemblies using a torque
control tightening method.
Some analytical expressions of torque–tension rela-
tionship have been developed by Motosh3 and Nassar
and Yang4
 
tan a + mt sec b
T = F m b rb + rt
1  mt sec b tan a
 
p m rt
T = F m b rb + + t
2p cos b
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
tan a + mt cos a 1 + tan2 a + tan2 b
T = F mb rb + rt pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1  mt sin a 1 + tan2 a + tan2 b
ð3Þ
where T is the input torque, F is the preload, mb is the
friction coefficient between the turning head/nut and
its bearing surface, mt is the friction coefficient between
threads, a is the helix angle, b is the half of the thread
profile angle, rb is the effective bearing contact radius,
rt is the effective thread contact radius, and p is the
pitch of the threads.
It can be seen from equations (1) to (3) that the
torque–tension relationship of bolted joints is deter-
mined by geometric factors (a, b, and p), friction
coefficients (mb and mt ), and effective contact radii (rb
and rt ). Since the geometrical factors are fixed for a
specific type of bolted joint, the accuracy of the
torque–tension relationship depends mostly on the
accuracy of the friction coefficients and the effective
contact radii. In practice, friction coefficients are
affected by various factors, such as material class,5
surface roughness,6 tightening speed,7 and the num-
ber of tightening cycles.8 Thus, friction coefficients
may scatter considerably for the same type of bolted
joint.6 However, using proper surface coatings9 or
lubricants,7,10 the scatter of friction coefficients could
be reduced significantly. For example, Nassar and
Zaki9 demonstrated experimentally that the 1-s scat-
ter of friction coefficients could be controlled to less
than 5% using a zinc/aluminum coating composition.
Thus, the effects of friction coefficients on the accu-
racy of the torque–tension relationship can be
controlled technically to satisfy the requirements of
precision assembly applications.
In practice, the effective thread contact radius, rt , is
generally approximated by the mean thread radius. It has
been demonstrated that this approximation is sufficiently
accurate. Nassar et al.11 compared the effective thread
contact radius with the mean thread radius and found that
the percentage difference between them was generally less
than 1% regardless of the assumed pressure distribution.
However, the effects of the effective bearing contact
radius, rb , on the accuracy of the torque–tension relation-
ship have usually been overlooked. It can be seen from
equations (1) to (3) that the effective bearing contact
radius appears in the term Fmb rb which is the bearing fric-
tion torque component. It is the torque needed to over-
come the friction between the turning head/nut and its
bearing surface. Previous studies have demonstrated that
this component contributes about 50% to the torque–
ð1Þ
tension relationship.12 Therefore, the effective bearing con-
tact radius can have a significant effect on the accuracy of
torque–tension relationship.
ð2Þ
The effective bearing contact radius is defined as
follows13
Ð
rbmax
Pb ðrÞr2 dr
rbmin
rb = ð4Þ
Ð
rbmax
Pb ðrÞrdr
rbmin
where Pb (r) is the bearing pressure distribution, rbmin is
the minimum radius on the bearing surface, rbmax is
the maximum radius on the bearing surface, and r is a
variable that represents the distance to the axis. It can
be seen that the value of effective bearing contact radius
depends on the bearing pressure distribution. However,
there is no precise analytical expression of the bearing
pressure distribution, thus the effective bearing contact
radius cannot be directly calculated using equation (4).
In practice, the effective bearing contact radius has been
approximately calculated using different methods
rbmax + rbmin
rb = ð5Þ
2
rbmax + D=2
rb = ð6Þ
2
2 g2 + g + 1
rb = rbmin ð7Þ
3 1+g
1 g 4  4g + 3
rb = rbmin 3 ð8Þ
2 g  3g + 2
where g is the ratio of rbmax to rbmin , and D is the
nominal diameter of the bolt. The detailed explanation
of equations (5)–(8) can be found in Appendix 1.
Equations (5)–(8) only provide approximate
Gong et al. 3

evaluations of the effective bearing contact radius. If

too much error was introduced in these calculations,
the error of the predicted torque–tension relationship
would be relatively high. This would negatively impact
the accuracy of the preload of bolted joints, thus
decreasing mechanical accuracy and quality, especially
for precision assemblies. However, to the best of our
knowledge, there is no reported study that has systema-
tically analyzed the accuracy of the various methods
for calculating the effective bearing contact radius.
This will be the focus of this study.

Methodology
It is not trivial to accurately determine the value of rb
through experiments. Even though coatings and lubri-
cants can be used, the scatter of friction coefficients
cannot be completely avoided, thus can cause measure-
ment error on the effective bearing contact radius. One
potential way to accurately calculate the bearing pres-
sure distribution and effective bearing contact radius is
to use finite element analysis (FEA). In this study, a
three-dimensional (3D) finite element model of a typi-
cal bolted joint structure is built, and the torque control
strategy by directly applying a moment to the nut is
simulated.14–16 Then, the effective bearing contact Figure 1. 2D sketches of bolt, nut, and bolted joint: (a) bolt
radius is calculated based on the FEA results of bearing (and its bearing surface), (b) nut (and its bearing surface), and (c)
pressure distribution bolted joint.

P
n
Ai ri Pi
1
rb = Pn ð9Þ
Ai Pi
1

where Ai is the area of the ith element on the nut bear-

ing surface, ri is the distance from the center of the ith
element to the axis, Pi is the average pressure on the ith
element, and n is the total number of elements on the
nut bearing surface. Equation (9) is a direct discretiza-
tion of equation (4), thus its error will be negligible
if the element number, n, is high enough. Using
equation (9) as the reference, the relative accuracy of
various methods for approximating the effective bear-
ing contact radius can be analyzed and compared. Figure 2. Mesh of the entire bolted joint.
Specifically, a typical bolted joint structure is
modeled in this study. Figure 1 shows two-dimensional
(2D) sketches of the bolt, nut, and joint structures, The mesh of the entire bolted joint is shown in
where A=6.4 mm, B=15 mm, L=40 mm, D = 10 mm, Figure 2. It can be seen that the bolt head and nut are
S=15.7mm, E=18.1 mm, M = 8 mm, and H1 = H2 = simplified to cylinders for convenience of meshing. The
10.5 mm. A finite element mesh was built with the com- FEA was implemented using the commercial software
mercial preprocessor HyperMesh 12.0Ò. Here, the mesh ANSYS 14.5Ò. The mesh type is SOLID185. Young’s
of the bolted joint is generated based on a strategy con- modulus is 200 GPa, and Poisson’s ratio is 0.3. There
sistent with Fukuoka et al.’s17 method which accurately are four contact interfaces in this model. They are the
takes into account the helical geometry and generates an interfaces between the mating threads, nut and upper
orderly 3D hexahedral mesh for the bolted joint. plate, upper and lower plates, and bolt head and lower
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 3. Applying tightening torque using MPC184 elements.
Figure 4. Bearing pressure distribution (torque is 80 Nm, D is
10 mm, D0 is 11.2 mm, Young’s modulus is 200 GPa, and friction
coefficient is 0.15).
plate. A friction coefficient value of 0.15 is assigned to
all sliding interfaces for the basic model. To simulate
the torque control method, the target tightening tor-
que, 80 N m, is applied directly to the upper surface of
the nut using MPC184 elements, as shown in Figure 3.
Other boundary conditions include the following: (1)
the bolt head surface is constrained in all directions
and (2) the outer surfaces of the clamped plates are
constrained in the lateral direction but free to move
Figure 5. Bearing pressure distribution under different hole
clearances.
along the bolt axis. In addition, a grid refinement study
was conducted to determine the appropriate mesh den-
sity of the model.
Results and discussions
The bearing effective contact radius is obtained based
on the bearing pressure distribution. One example of
the bearing pressure distribution is shown in Figure 4.
In this section, the values of rb calculated using equa-
tions (5)–(8) are compared with those obtained with the
FEA model (equation (9)) under various geometrical,
material, and frictional conditions. The specific condi-
tions considered in this study include the value of hole
clearance (D0  D), the ratio of the maximum bearing
radius (rbmax ) to the minimum bearing radius (rbmin ),
the stiffness ratio of fasteners to clamped plates, and
friction coefficient.
Effect of hole clearance
To evaluate quantitatively the effect of hole clearance
on the accuracy of equations (5)–(8), FEA models with
three different values of hole clearance (0.225, 0.600,
and 0.975 mm) were built by changing the value of D0,
and the bearing pressure distribution and rb were
obtained. The bearing pressure distributions under
different hole clearances obtained from FEA are
shown in Figure 5. The values of rb calculated using
equations (5)–(8) and their percent errors compared
with the FEA results are also summarized in Table 1. It
can be seen that both equations (5) and (7) give rela-
tively good approximations of rb . The percentage errors
of these two equations are smaller than 1.7% in this set
for comparison. Equation (6) only gives a good approx-
imation when the hole clearance is very small. It can
also be seen that the accuracy of equation (8) is rela-
tively low over the entire range of hole clearance (with
a percent error generally .4%).
Gong et al. 5

Table 1. Error analysis under different hole clearances.

Hole FEA (mm) Equation Error Equation Error Equation Error Equation Error
clearance (mm) (5) (mm) (%) (6) (mm) (%) (7) (mm) (%) (8) (mm) (%)

0.225 6.5179 6.5375 0.3 6.425 21.43 6.6253 1.65 6.1628 25.45
0.600 6.7187 6.725 0.09 6.425 24.37 6.7877 1.03 6.3943 24.83
0.975 6.9043 6.9125 0.12 6.425 26.94 6.9549 0.73 6.6296 23.98

FEA: finite element analysis.

Table 2. Error analysis under different ratios of rb–max to rb–min.

g FEA (mm) Equation (5) Error (%) Equation (6) Error (%) Equation (7) Error (%) Equation (8) Error (%)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

1.57 6.7187 6.725 0.09 6.425 24.37 6.7877 1.03 6.3943 24.83
2.47 9.451 8.975 25.04 8.675 28.21 9.3981 20.56 8.1725 213.53
2.92 11.0927 10.1 28.95 9.800 211.65 10.7683 22.92 9.1233 217.75

FEA: finite element analysis.

relationship. For an ISO standard hexagonal bolt head

and nut, g is approximately equal to 1.5. It is generally
between 2 and 3 for most flanged heads and nuts.13 In
this study, FEA models with three different values of g
(1.57, 2.47, and 2.92) were built to evaluate the quanti-
tative effect of g on rb . The bearing pressure distribu-
tion under different values of g obtained from FEA is
shown in Figure 6. Values of rb under different values
of g obtained from the FEA and calculated using equa-
tions (5)–(8) are summarized and compared in Table 2.
It can be seen that the accuracy of equations (5)–(8)
generally decreases with an increase in g. However,
equation (7) can give relatively good approximations of
Figure 6. Bearing pressure distribution under different values rb over the entire range of g. Equation (5) only gives a
of g. good approximation of rb when g is relatively small
(1.57). Equations (6) and (8) do not give good approxi-
mations of rb over the entire range of g.

Effect of the stiffness ratio of fasteners to clamped

Figure 7. Bearing pressure distribution under various stiffness
ratios.
Effect of the ratio of rb–max to rb–min
The ratio of the maximum bearing radius (rbmax ) to the
minimum bearing radius (rbmin ), g, is another impor-
tant geometrical factor affecting the torque–tension
plates
To investigate the accuracy of equations (5)–(8) under
various material combinations, finite element calcula-
tions were conducted with three representative stiffness
ratios (the ratio of the elastic modulus of the fasteners
to the clamped plates): 2, 1, and 0.5. Specifically, the
elastic modulus of fasteners was fixed at 200 GPa, while
the elastic modulus of the clamped plates was varied
(100, 200, and 400 GPa). The bearing pressure distribu-
tion under different stiffness ratios obtained from FEA
is shown in Figure 7. Values of rb under different stiff-
ness ratios obtained from the FEA and calculated using
equations (5)–(8) are summarized and compared in
Table 3. It can be seen that both equations (5) and (7)
give relatively good approximations of rb for different
stiffness ratios. The percentage errors of these two
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Error analysis under different ratios of fastener to joint stiffness.

Stiffness ratio FEA (mm) Equation (5) Error (%) Equation (6) Error (%) Equation (7) Error (%) Equation (8) Error (%)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

0.5 6.6642 6.725 0.91 6.425 23.59 6.7877 1.85 6.3943 24.05
1 6.7187 6.725 0.09 6.425 24.37 6.7877 1.03 6.3943 24.83
2 6.8097 6.725 21.24 6.425 25.65 6.7877 20.32 6.3943 26.10

FEA: finite element analysis.

Table 4. Error analysis under different friction coefficients.

Friction coefficient FEA (mm) Equation (5) Error (%) Equation (6) Error (%) Equation (7) Error (%) Equation (8) Error (%)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

0.05 6.7091 6.725 0.24 6.425 24.23 6.7877 1.17 6.3943 24.69
0.1 6.7193 6.725 0.08 6.425 24.38 6.7877 1.02 6.3943 24.84
0.15 6.7187 6.725 0.09 6.425 24.37 6.7877 1.03 6.3943 24.83

FEA: finite element analysis.

much with the friction coefficient. In this set for com-

parison, both equations (5) and (7) still give relatively
good approximations of rb regardless of the value of
friction coefficient. The percentage errors of these two
equations are \1.5% for this data set. Again, the accu-
racy of both equations (6) and (8) is still relatively low
over the entire range of friction coefficient, with the
percent error .4%.

Validation of FEA results

Figure 8. Bearing pressure distribution under different friction
coefficients.
equations are \2% in this data set. The accuracy of
both equations (6) and (8) is relatively low over the
entire range of stiffness ratio, with the percentage error
generally .4%.
Effect of friction coefficient
To investigate the accuracy of equations (5)–(8) under
various friction coefficients, finite element calculations
were conducted with three representative friction coeffi-
cient values: 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15. For simplification, mb
and mt were set to be the same. The bearing pressure
distribution under different friction coefficients
obtained from FEA is shown in Figure 8. Values of rb
under different friction coefficients obtained from the
FEA and calculated using equations (5)–(8) are sum-
marized and compared in Table 4. It can be seen that
the value of rb obtained from FEA does not change
The FEA model in this study accurately takes into
account the helical geometry and has a high-quality 3D
hexahedral mesh, with a seamless transition between
the threaded section and the bolt shank. In addition, a
careful mesh refinement study was done to ensure that
the FEA results were grid-independent. Thus, it would
be expected that the FEA results and corresponding
conclusions obtained in this study are accurate. In
this section, the accuracy of the FEA model is
further validated by comparing the torque–tension rela-
tionship extracted directly from the FEA model with
equation (3), which is the most accurate analytical
torque–tension relationship to date. The results are
shown in Figure 9. All geometric, material, and bound-
ary conditions in the calculation are the same as the
basic model, discussed in section ‘‘Methodology.’’ The
rb value calculated using equation (7) is used as the
input of equation (3).
It can be seen that the torque–tension relationship
from the FEA model is almost the same as that calcu-
lated based on equation (3). The relative error between
these two sets of results is smaller than 0.5%. Given
that these two sets of results are obtained using
Gong et al.
Figure 9. Comparison of the torque–tension relationship
obtained from FEA and equation (3).
completely different strategies (numerical calculation
and analytical derivation), the consistency of the results
can be considered an evidence of the accuracy of both
models (FEA model and analytical expression).
Conclusion
In this article, a 3D hexahedral finite element model of
a typical bolted joint was built, based on which the tigh-
tening process of the bolt was simulated, and the actual
bearing pressure distribution was calculated. Then, the
effective bearing contact radius, based on the FEA
results of bearing pressure distribution, was obtained.
The relative accuracy of various methods of calculating
the effective bearing contact radius was analyzed sys-
tematically and compared. The effects of the hole clear-
ance, the ratio of the maximum to minimum bearing
radius (g), the stiffness ratio of fasteners to clamped
plates, and friction coefficient were considered and
discussed.
It was found that the effective bearing contact radius
calculated based on the assumption of uniform bearing
pressure distribution (equation (7)) was always rela-
tively accurate for the conditions considered in this
study. The relative error of equation (7) was generally
less than 2%. The mean bearing radius (equation (5))
can accurately evaluate the effective bearing contact
radius when g is relatively small. However, the accuracy
of equation (5) decreases significantly as g increases.
The percentage error of equations (6) and (8) varied sig-
nificantly between 4% and 18%. Particularly, the accu-
racy of these two equations decreases significantly as g
increases.
In conclusion, if the ratio of the maximum to mini-
mum bearing radius is relatively small (less than 2,
based on the results of this study), both equations (5)
and (7) can satisfy the requirements for precision assem-
bly applications. Otherwise, only equation (7) should be
used in precision assembly applications. Considering
7
that the allowed error of the torque–tension relation-
ship might be as small as several percents for precision
assembly applications, equations (6) and (8) are not
suitable for these applications. The results and conclu-
sions of this study can help to increase the accuracy of
the torque–tension relationship for tightening bolted
joints, thus ensuring mechanical accuracy and quality
for precision assemblies.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This research was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (grant no. 51675050 and
51605030).
References
1. Bickford JH. An introduction to the design and behavior
of bolted joints. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1995,
pp.417–418.
2. Li G, Wang H, Xiong Z, et al. Assembly accuracy study
of large optical units in high power laser system. J Mech
Eng 2015; 51: 116–122.
3. Motosh N. Development of design charts for bolts pre-
loaded up to the plastic range. J Manuf Sci E: T ASME
1976; 98: 849–851.
4. Nassar SA and Yang X. Novel formulation of the
tightening and breakaway torque components in
threaded fasteners. J Press Vess: T ASME 2007; 129:
653–663.
5. Nassar SA, El-Khiamy H, Barber GC, et al. An experi-
mental study of bearing and thread friction in fasteners.
J Tribol: T ASME 2005; 127: 263–272.
6. Nassar SA and Sun TS. Surface roughness effect on the
torque-tension relationship in threaded fasteners. Proc
IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2007;
221: 95–103.
7. Nassar SA, Ganeshmurthy S, Ranganathan RM, et al.
Effect of tightening speed on the torque-tension and wear
pattern in bolted connections. J Press Vess: T ASME
2007; 129: 426–440.
8. Jiang Y, Chang J and Lee CH. An experimental study of
the torque-tension relationship for bolted joints. Int J
Mater Prod Tec 2001; 16: 417–429.
9. Nassar SA and Zaki AM. Effect of coating thickness on
the friction coefficients and torque-tension relationship
in threaded fasteners. J Tribol: T ASME 2009; 131:
253–261.
10. Zou Q, Sun TS, Nassar SA, et al. Effect of lubrication on
friction and torque-tension relationship in threaded fas-
teners. Tribol T 2007; 50: 127–136.
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
11. Nassar SA, Matin PH and Barber GC. Thread friction
torque in bolted joints. J Press Vess: T ASME 2005; 127:
387–393.
12. Zou Q, Barber GC, Sun TS, et al. Contact mechanics
approach to determine effective radius in bolted joints. J
Tribol: T ASME 2005; 127: 30–36.
13. Nassar SA, Barber GC and Zuo D. Bearing friction tor-
que in bolted joints. Tribol T 2005; 48: 69–75.
14. Yu Q, Zhou H and Wang L. Finite element analysis of
relationship between tightening torque and initial load of
bolted connections. Adv Mech Eng 2015; 7: 1–8.
15. Izumi S, Yokoyama T, Iwasaki A, et al. Three-dimen-
sional finite element analysis of tightening and loosening
mechanism of threaded fastener. Eng Fail Anal 2005; 12:
604–615.
16. Ganeshmurthy S and Nassar SA. Finite element simula-
tion of process control for bolt tightening in joints with
nonparallel contact. J Manuf Sci E: T ASME 2014; 136:
549–558.
17. Fukuoka T, Nomura M and Morimoto Y. Proposition
of helical thread modeling with accurate geometry and
finite element analysis. J Press Vess: T ASME 2008; 130:
135–140.
Appendix 1
Formulas for calculating the effective bearing contact
radius
It can be seen from equation (4) that the value of the effec-
tive bearing contact radius is determined by the bearing
pressure distribution which is unknown. Therefore, in
practice, the effective bearing contact radius is approxi-
mately calculated using different methods. The simplest,
and a commonly used, method is approximating the effec-
tive bearing contact radius by the mean bearing radius,
rmb , as given by equation (5). Since rbmin is commonly
close to D/2, equation (5) is usually reduced to equation
(6).13 The effective bearing contact radius can also be cal-
culated using equation (4), based on the assumed bearing
pressure distributions. The most commonly used assump-
tion of the bearing pressure distribution is a uniform dis-
tribution.3,13 In that case, rb is calculated to be equation
(7). Another simple assumption of the bearing pressure
distribution is a linear decreasing distribution, which gives
the expression of rb as equation (8).13