T. F.


Kwang II Ko
Graduate Student. University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolia, MO 65401

Member Stiffness and Contact Pressure Distribution of Bolted Joints
Member stiffnesses and the stress distributions in the bolts and members of bolted joints have been calculated for various bolt sizes, as well as thicknesses and materials of the members. The finite element method has been used to calculate the displacements and the stress distributions in the components of the bolted joint. Using axisymmetric elements, the bolted joint could be analyzed as a two-dimensional problem. Member stiffness ratios were calculated from the finite element results and compared with those calculated by a commonly used theory. The values were approximately comparable (16-30 percent difference) for the assumptions under which the theory was applied. Formulas and dimensionless curves which can be used to estimate the member stiffness ratios for several kinds of bolted joints are presented.

M. L. McKay
Graduate Student. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40503

Introduction The bolted joint is a type of mechanical connection which is used commonly for the construction of many types of structures. In fact, bolted joints are important in most of the mechanical devices and machines used in modern society. When a bolt (Fig. 1) is used to connect two members (plates), the bolt is normally preloaded with an initial tensile load. The purpose of the preload is to place the bolted member components in compression for better resistance to either static or cyclic external loads and to create force between the parts or members so that the shear loads can be resisted by friction forces. Variations in the magnitude of the tensile preload on a bolted joint can produce dramatic differences in the cyclic life of the connection. Accurate predictions of member stiffnesses are essential for determining proper preloads. When the external load P is applied to the bolted joint under initial preload Fh the resultant force in the bolt is




where F is the applied force, 5b is the deflection, E is the modulus of elasticity, L is the grip length (assumed to be unthreaded) of the bolt, andAb is the cross-sectional area based on the nominal diameter. However, the determination of the stiffness of the members presents more difficulties, and past analytical and experimental attempts to calculate it have been only partially successful. Better understanding of the forces, stresses, and deformations of bolted joints is necessary if member stiffnesses are to be accurately calculated.



F„ = -


kb + k,




and that of the connected members is kmP -Ft kh + k„

where kb is the stiffness of the bolt and k,„ is the stiffness of the members. Thus, the stiffnesses of the bolt and the members are needed for the calculation of the resultant force in the bolt and members of the joint when the external load is applied to the members. The stiffness of the bolt is determined from the ratio of the force applied to the bolt to the deflection of the bolt produced by the force, i.e.,

Fig. 1

Contributed by the Reliability, Stress Analysis, and Failure Prevention Committee for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received Jan. 1992; revised Dec. 1992. Associate Technical Editor: S. D. Sheppard.

Typical boiled joint


5 5 0 / V o l . 116, J U N E 1994

T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e A S M E

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Copyright © 1994 by ASME

materials. 116/551 Journal of Mechanical Design Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171. described in the next section.5d L c a °i °z grip length of bolt radial clearance half apex angle of pressure cone envelope preload stress in the bolt stress in the direction of the bolt axis JUNE 1994. The computations were performed for models of steel plates with various thicknesses. Edwards and McKee (1991) and Bickford (1990) cite the Association of German Engineers' suggestion to determine the member stiffness using an equivalent cylindrical area dependent on the size of the joint. Osman et al. Ito et al. many times this approach will not give an accurate representation of the actual member stiffness in the joint. We can. the plates are subjected to a compressive force.„ = displacement of member Ah = bolt cross-sectional area D = bolt head washer face diameter. Figure 2 shows the assumed member pressure cone envelope. 2 Equivalent pressure-cone-envelope any quantitative manner.asme. Fm. The object of the current research is to: (1) provide equations for the calculation of the member stiffness of a class of bolted joints with multiple connected layers of different materials. and Lardner (1965). He suggested the use of a pressure-cone method developed by Rotscher (1927) for stiffness calculation with variable cone angles which are generally larger than the cone angles so far theoretically calculated by other authors. = Fm --= P == kh --= km = = E == force in bolt initial force in bolt force in member external applied load stiffness of bolt stiffness of member modulus of elasticity Fig. see http://www. Vol. although it is not used in the derivation and only the lower pressure cone envelope is given in the figure.cfm . c. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. and Bickford.org/terms/Terms_Use. 1983. the bolts were replaced by uniformly distributed axisymmetric loads on the connected parts of the bolted joint. The value of the bolted joint in society cannot be given in Nomenclature Fh == = F. a thick plate with a symmetric circular or annular pressure loading and theoretical solutions were suggested by Sneddon (1946). is shown. Engineers and designers will continue to apply new ideas (Shigley and Mitchell. such as 30 deg. Some of the early work considered. The deflection of an element of the cone of thickness dz due to the compressive force is given by Fmdz dhm = EA The area of the element in Fig.216. however. Shigley and Mitchell (1983) and Shigley and Mischke (1989) have proposed a simpler method. In their studies. instead of two bolted plates. Detailed consideration of these effects will require further research. (1971) used a three-dimensional photoelastic analysis to predict the interface pressure distribution between the members. They point out that the member stiffness depends on the external loads on the joints.Several authors have suggested both theoretical and experimental methods to determine member stiffnesses and the pressure distribution between the members of bolted joints. Greenwood (1964). Little (1967) and Osgood (1979) indicate that more conservative results for member stiffness calculation will be realized with the use of an angle smaller than 45 deg. 2 can be expressed as A = ir(rl-r}) Z tan a + z tan a + D (4) D+d z tan a + D-d (5) d = nominal diameter of bolt t = member thickness h = displacement of bolt 5. etc. Nelson (1962). and the diameter of the bolt on the contact pressure distribution of various bolted joints that fall within the class of joints considered.5 times the bolt diameter be used to determine the area under compression and thus the member stiffness. 1990) as long as such fastening technology affects so much and so many.23. 1988. (2) and to further clarify the influence of member thicknesses. Fernlund (1961). by using a fixed standard cone angle of 30 deg to 45 deg. However. observe that bolted joints are critical for economic assembly and proper function of most of the mechanical devices of our society. Bradley et al. Gould and Mikic (1972) and also Tang and Deng (1988) have used finite elemental analysis (FEA) to find the pressure distribution between the members and also they noted that there was a radius at which flat and smooth members become separated. Basic Theory When plates of the same thickness are connected to each other by a bolt. (1977) have used ultrasonic techniques to determine the pressure distribution between the members of bolted joints for various surface topographies. (1976) discussed a design method for calculating an optimal bolt diameter required for a specific fatigue loading situation. The clearance. 1. Use of the smaller angle will generally preclude overestimation of the clamping stiffness in the joint and will also prevent overestimation of the allowable force taken by the bolt. material properties of the members. He has suggested that a hollow cylinder whose outside diameter is 1.67. Grosse and Mitchell (1990) give a general discussion of nonlinearities in bolted joints due to the application of external loads as well as bolt thread and interfacial friction. and thicknesses of the members.

as recommended in the Machinery's Handbook (1988) in accordance with those given in ISO Recommendation R273. Displacements and stresses in the axial z direction were used for the calculation of member stiffnesses. 3. in the bolt. that is. For multiple layers with different thicknesses and materials. Figure 4 shows the members in contact with the distance rc and separated beyond that distance due to member deformation. has been used to avoid interference between the bolt and the members due to radial deformation. In cases such as thick members it may be desirable to mix the fixed cone angle and equivalent cylinder methods in order to better approximate the actual pressure distribution for member stiffness.R/Ab . in this case. JUNE 1994 The material properties were assumed to be isotropic and elastic. The nodal point next to the last constrained nodal point was the point where separation between the two members began.216. a. The constraints performed a function similar to contact elements. Choudry. However. it was necessary to find the nodal point where separation began. because of axial symmetry. Constraints have been imposed on the contacting portions of the two members so that the displacements in the z direction would be identical. the axial constraints were imposed on a few nodal points starting from the radius of the hole. see http://www.. There were a number of nodal points along the contacting portions of the bolt head and nut and the members. The smallest element size was 0. and Green (1991) who used a uniform pressure in the first paper and a rigid washer in the second paper. 5 5 2 / V o l . The centroidal axis of the axisymmetric elements is the z-axis. rather than modeling the bolt. as for springs in series. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. Thus. has been applied on the cut surfaces as shown in Fig. Different element sizes were used to improve accuracy.r = a = d/2 b = D/2 OI.23.333 mm and there was no significant improvement in accuracy by using smaller elements. Thus. L c -a— ti X z VX Fig. At first. 4 Finite element model including the deformed geometry a b Fig. Axisymmetric parabolic quadrilateral elements have been used as the type of element for the finite element analysis. The average displacement of those nodal points in the z direction was used to calculate the stiffness of the members by dividing the member force (preload) by the average displacement. It has been modeled such that the bolt has been cut (separated) at the parting line of the plates and the distributed load. The radius rc represents the outer limit of the contact pressure distribution in the FEA model of the actual physical connection. only half of the bolted joint need be modeled.cfm . (5) into Eq. the fixed cone angle assumption must be carefully and consistently applied as for springs in series. then constraints were added to the next nodal points until the last constrained nodal point stress was almost zero and the stress of the next nodal point was tensile. Independent movement of the contacting members in the radial direction was allowed. 116. before the final constraints were imposed on the contacting surfaces of the members. the stiffness due to a single frustum is (7) ~{2tt&na + D-d)(D In (It tan a + D + d) + d) (D-d) and. km = k/2 for two plates of equal thickness. i CI ti H H 01 BB. Model Figure 4 shows the finite element model of the bolted joint including a deformed geometry plot which shows the plates separating at the critical radius. The member Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171. Substituting Eq. which could be used where the two layers come together to allow radial movement as well as axial separation. Assuming only one bolt or adequate spacing between the bolts and the edges of the attached plates at sufficient distance we can treat the problem as one having axial symmetry. it was fairly straightforward to simulate the function of contact elements via multipoint constraint equations. which represents the preload F-. It was also assumed that there was minimal friction between the two members and they could slide radially with respect to one another.org/terms/Terms_Use. If the stresses on the constrained points were found to be compressive.333 mm by 0. rc. an iteration method was used.asme.67. To determine the radial distance rc. there occurs a separation between the two members. smaller elements were used in the area of the model where rapid stress changes or high stress concentration were expected and larger elements were used in the area where the stresses were more uniform. It should be noted that this procedure produces results different from those of Gould and Mikic (1972) and Wileman. the plate members are in contact for a certain distance radially near the connected part and the members. Figure 3 is a schematic of the axisymmetric model showing the loading and dimensions. The existence of average clearance between the bolt and the hole of the members. for the region somewhat distant from the connected part. 3 Schematic of axisymmetric model Equation (5) does not account for the clearance space between the bolt and the hole in the members. Then. When a preload has been applied to a bolt. (4) and integrating the left hand side of the equation gives the deflection as 5=- dz D+d Z tan a + D-d Z tan a + - -KE irEd tan a In (2? tan a + D-d){D + d) (2? tan a + D + d)(D-d) vEd tan a (6) Thus.

. 5 is dimensionless. In order to study the more general case..6.289 1.331226E-1'X + 1. and the stress distributions of the members. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. and 1.934 .661 .e.. Steel.Ft is the initial force applied to the cross-section of the bolt. 5 Comparison of the member stiffness ratio (basic theory vs. and M24.318 Hole Diameter 9(10) 14 18 22 26 Thickness Ratio of Members 12/20 16/20 20/20 • All dimensions are given in mm..351 1.913646E-2'x"2 + -4.669 1. various combinations of the thicknesses of the members' were investigated for M16 bolts.853846E+0 .8.455 . In order to have a consistent comparison of results. see Eq.562 . .63E-6 .877 . a = 30' Table 4 Material Mechanical properties of materials Modulus of Elasticity* 20.909 .736 1. All dimensions of the bolts and corresponding holes are shown in Table 1. An average of the member nodal displacements under the head of the bolt was used to calculate the member stiffness km.183 1. The contact pressure distribution is the stress distribution in the z direction at the nodal points in the contacting region of the two members. t Units of density are kg/mm 3 K(St/St) 5. see http://www. . In these cases.0 1. i.671 2. FEA) Discussion of Results A large number of models were analyzed by finite element methods to find the displacements in the z direction in the contact areas of the members.30 — — Densityt * 0.895763E-1*x + 1. . Aluminum/Aluminum Cast Iron/Cast iron Basic Theory..23. A distinct deviation of the results was noted for these 8 mm bolts with the recommended 0.2" 0. and 20 mm and the thickness of the lower member was fixed at 20 mm for most of the models.650 2. .556 2. .asme.372 3.423 2.144 1..75 13.868 1.20E-6 2.229 1.469 4.860 1.455611E-1* X + 1.org/terms/Terms_Use.0 1. the stresses are compressive in the contacting region. M12. The member stiffnesses of various kinds of models under the initial force F-.545 2.859 1.^""""-" * Units of modulus of elasticity are N/mm 2 .600 . M16.718 1.0 24 20 Table 3 Case 1 Aluminum Steel Combinations of member materials Case 3 Cast Iron Steel Case 4 Aluminum Aluminum Case 5 Cast Iron Cast Iron Al: Aluminum.201 3.273 1.. K(AI/AI) = 6.329 1. P. V V V V . a 1 mm clearance was also used in the analysis of the M8 bolt.365291 E-2*xA2 + -3.0) 1.256 1. The combination of the materials is shown in Table 3.5 mm.403 2. Ci: Cast Iron Case 2 Steel Steel Steel/Steel .85 . If the materials of the two members are different.Table 1 Nominal Thread Diameter M8(8) M12(12) M16(16) M20(20) M24(24) Dimensions of metric hex bolts Head Height 5.83E-6 7.*" . Five sizes of metric hex head bolts were used as fasteners for the bolted joints of this study: M8.933566E-1 x + 1. and cast iron were used as the materials of the connected members.68 7.709 1.451 . i.905 .673 4. in magnitude when there is no externally applied load. aluminum.590 .5 mm for the M8 bolt T1/T2 = 20/20 Steel Cast Iron Aluminum 7.0 Bolt Diameter (mm) Table 5 Member stiffness of bolted joints Member Stiffness (MN/mm) for Al/St St/St Ci/St Al/Al Ci/Ci .0 although the actual thicknesses were different for each case.516583E+0 K(C l/C 1) = 5.95 c = . 0. Journal of Mechanical Design Ratio of the Member Thickness to the Bolt Diameter. Comparisons of the stiffness ratios calculated by finite element analysis with the basic theory is shown in Fig.670 .736 2.•>" .653 . M20.5(1. equals the preload. The stiffness ratio K in Fig.676 .452 2.757 2.821 1.0 1.290E+4 6. K= Ed Km (9) where E is the modulus of the material and d is the nominal diameter of the bolt. (2).678E+4 10.007 1. F.269 2.888 . The combinations of thicknesses are shown in Table 2. The thicknesses of the upper members were 12.245 1..878 1.30 0.089153E-2'xA2 + -4. x (L/d) Fig.860E+4 Poisson's Ratio 0. 116/553 Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.061733E-2"x*2 + -4.e. i . • force.732 2.283 3. = 1000 N are shown in Table 5. A medium fit was used as the clearance hole diameter corresponding to each bolt. . i .552 2.670 .366381 E+0 .894 . The stiffness ratio increased for the smaller clearance as would be expected.216. ..40 15.470 3.287 1. the stiffness ratio of Eq.007 .492760E+0 K(BT) = 6. . Fm.281 . . The clearance between the hole and the bolt is 1 mm except for the case of the M8 bolt clearance which was 0.386 3. on the joint.609 .90 • Head Diameter 13f 18 24 30 36 Clearance 0.226 1. the radii of separation of the members.820 1.6 0. (8) where Fm = . 16. St: Steel.95 10.34 0.319 1.455 .cfm . Vol. t Note that this value is not equal to 1. (9) cannot be calculated JUNE 1994.5 mm of clearance.883 1.67.470 3.845 1.694 .895 . 5 as a function of the ratio of total member thickness L to the bolt diameter.260 4. the ratios of the member thicknesses were kept at 0.8 1.5d 12 12/20 16/20 •20/20 12/20 16/20 20/20 12/20 16/20 20/20 12/20 16/20 20/20 16 Table 2 Case 1 6/10 8/10 10/10 Combinations of member thicknesses Case 2 12/20 16/20 20/20 Case 3 18/30 24/30 30/30 Thickness Ratio of Two Members 0.174 1.220 1. As noted above. The mechanical properties of those materials are shown in Table 4.634 1.467 2. .904 .416 1.

698 1.556 2.50E-2'x * 8. only the stiffness ratios for the cases of the same member materials are given in Fig.359 3.219E*0 1 1 ' * 0.619 3.0 mm.Table 6 Comparison of basic theory and FEA member stiffnesses Member Stiffness (MN/mm) for Al/St Ci/St Basic' FEA Relative Theory Error(%) 12/20 16/20 0.4) (29.7) (28.00E-2.E-2-x»2 + 3.4) (28.5 mm clearance.7) K(M12) = 5.062 1.807 4.0) Fig. see http://www. 9 The member stiffness ratio vs.4) (17.416 1.279 4. and Bellora.750E-2'X"2 + -3. 6.43E-1 12 16 20 12/20 16/20 12/20 16/20 12/20 16/20 12/20 16/20 (28. The differences between the stiffness ratios calculated by the finite element analysis and the basic theory are significant for all models.67.403 3. It is interesting that the reasons for the increase in stiffness ratio after a particular L/d ratio were different for the basic theory and the FEA methods.6) (26. JUNE 1994 __ K(M24) = 8. To test the effect of the clearance between the bolt and the hole.697 3.201 (21.868 0.061733E-2'xA2 + -4.7) Basic' FEA Relative Theory Error(%) 1. FEA) because the modulus of the material is different for each member of the bolted joint.220 1.1 Thickness Ratio.696B73E-2'xA2 + -2.asme. thickness ratio of the members (for steel) * The Basic Theory was applied using a 30° cone angle. Table 6 has been included to compare the member stiffness of joints.825E-1'X +1.18E-1 c 5= U 0.670 0.77E-1 K(M12) = -5.org/terms/Terms_Use.042E+0 K(M8) = -5.694 0. 7 The member stiffness ratio vs.E-2'x"2 + -2. McKay. The difficulty with the 0.8) (25. thickness ratio of the members (for aluminum) The influence of the clearance between the bolt and the hole on the results is quite significant.37E-1 K(M12) = O.0 and increase slightly after that point.0) (16.x"2 + 3. x (T1/T2) Fig.845 2. The fact that an angle smaller than 30 deg provides more accuracy has also been discussed by Lehnhoff.72E-1 0.95 • c = 1.216. large differences were found.895 0. • M20 M24 K(M24) = 8.5 mm clearance is evident in Figs.5 3 3.174 1.5E-2-x»2 t -1.239E+0 K(M20) = 2.815364E-16'x * 7.50E-2'x * 7.934 0.732 2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. In the basic theory the increase occurred because the washer face diameter of the head for 8 mm bolts had a value of 13 mm.23.-3. as with the other models.675E-rx +1.5 4 4.820 1.213736E+0 Thickness Ratio.50E-2'X + 8.cfm .801 1.B 0.00E-2-xA2 + 4.9 1 1. Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.775E-1-X + 1.0) (23.6 K(M16) = -10.007 1.736 2.E-2'X"2 t -1. x (T1/T2) 1.050E-VX + 1.326 0. the stiffness ratio was found to be farther from the values from the basic theory.36E-i K(B T) = 6.75E-1*X • 1.5-4.0 mm for all other models.5 0.185 1. Some of the results are shown in Fig.467 (20. (see Lehnhoff.61E-1 Thickness Ratio.E-2'X»2 • 2.OOEtO-x"2 • -5. However. 5 5 4 / V o l . the hole diameter was changed from 9 mm to 10 mm for the model with the M8 bolt so that the clearance would be changed from the recommended 0.8) (26.276 0.2) (25.4) » 0.853846E+0 K(SVSt) = 2.750E-2'X»2 • -3. Figures 5 and 6 also show that the basic theory using a fixed cone angle of 30 deg as presented by Shigley and Mitchell (1989) is not as accurate as it could have been by accounting for the clearance.0 mm lor tho M8 bolt Tin? = 20/20 6 1 K(M20) = 1. Therefore.4) (26. x (T1/T2) 24 (27.E-1 'x»2 *17E-t 'x • 6.5E-2'X * 7. Table 7 shows that a half apex angle of 30 deg is an improvement over an angle of 45 deg.139 1.569 2. The FEA results for stiffness ratio increased because the clearance of 0.26E-1 I" 0.611078E-1"x + 1.784 2. 116. thickness ratio of the members (for cast iron) Fig. The clearance had been 1.481 3.5 Ratio of the Member Thickness to the Bolt Diameter.088E+0 K(M20) = -3.7 0.977 1.8 K(M16) = 0.5c? such that the pressurized contact area increased disproportionately.470 3. 5. composed of different materials. 1992). which is greater than 1.877 1.1) (24.297 1.75 Bolt Thickness Diameter Ratio of (mm) Members I K(M24) = 5.68E-1 K(M16) .75E-2-X • 8.5E-2'x *8. For the model with the members made of steel. and Bellora (1992).93E-1 I 0.5) (26. McKay. with the basic theory.8S K(M8) = -2.023E+0 0.75E-2-x"2 • -6.582 2. 7-9.5) (27.4) (25.O0E+0'x"2 + -9.B95763E-1-X •1. x (L/d) Fig.25E-2'XA2 + -1. The stiffness ratios by the basic theory as well as FEA decrease until the value L/d is 3. 6 Comparison of the member stiffness ratio (basic theory vs.5 mm for 8 mm bolts was a disproportionate change in clearance.50E-2-X + 8.778 2.9 K(M8) = -5.500E-2-x"2 + -2.2) (29.5E-1'x + 7. 8 The member stiffness ratio vs.5 mm to 1.904 1. For the models with the M8 bolt and 0.5 5 5.5 2 2.329 2.

and Shigley and Mitchell. and 9 show the stiffness ratios of the members as a function of the thickness ratios of the members for steel. and aluminum. d (mm) Fig. For more general application.50E-1-XA2 + 1. if the total thickness of the members is smaller than the diameter of the bolt. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.814056E-3'dA2* -2. 24.747527E-1 • K(St/St)= 7.434391 E-3*dA2 + 2. The bolt head equivalent pressure was assumed to be uniform over a diameter (D) of 2d and the dearance was 0. The stiffness of the members always increases quite smoothly as the diameter of the bolt increases.•' 3.728853E-2. (5) and (6) is equal to 1. the thickness of the lower member was fixed at 20 mm and the thicknesses of the upper member were 12. Research on this subject has been discussed by Lehnhoff.23.887087E-3'dA2 + -1. for the case with the M8 bolt. and 20 mm. Typically. Since the changes of the stiffness ratios are almost linear. Ko and McKay (1992) (Finite Element Analysis) The bolt and bolt head were not modeled in this study. the larger the stiffnesses of the members.921E+0 — * 1 a I/I 0. * • • * ' * ' ' -BJ " " * Lehnhoff. this rule cannot be applied because the clearance between the bolt and hole is different from the other cases as mentioned previously. However. it increases rapidly as the thickness of the members decreases.. d.617616E-3'dA2 + -8. bolt diameter (member material: steel/ The basic theory usually assumes that D of Eqs. This is the reason that the modulus of elasticity is often called the stiffness. some additional models with the Ml6 bolt and steel members were investigated. The stiffness ratios of the models with thinner lower members is higher than the stiffness ratios of the models with thicker lower members and they decrease almost linearly as the thickness ratio increases. the stiffness ratio changes exponentially (Mischke. Figures 7. by introducing the use of a hole diameter with the stated clearances rather than the bolt diameter into the classical model. 1983).org/terms/Terms_Use.e. 116/555 Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.cfm .Table 7 Comparison of member stiffnesses for IW12 bolts and a grip of 40 mm K^lO'N/mm) Shigley and Mitchell (1983) Pressure Cone Angle of 45° Tang and Deng (1988)" (Finite Element Analysis) Shigley and Mischke (1989) Pressure Cone Angle of 30" Edwards and McKee (1991) (Association of German Engineers) K(AI/St) = 4.649598E-3'd + 8. Vol.228621 E-3-d«2 >-1.asme.204772E-1 .3 S X • ••* .494811E-1 K(16/20) = 6. .651238E-2'd > 7. McKay. The values of the coefficients of the functions in the form of (10) K=ax +bx + c where x( T1/T2) is the thickness of the upper material divided by the thickness of the lower material (20 mm) are given in the figures.16.494811E-1 K(C I/St] = 5. 1978. 8. K(AI/AI) = 2. These were in addition to the original models which were the combinations of the upper members with 12. During this study it was noted that the larger the sum of the moduli of the members. For each case.529745E-2"d + 5. the upper members with thicknesses of 6.020714E-3*d+ 8.5 times the bolt diameter. The stress ratio is the stress of the members divided by JUNE 1994.635291E-1 K(20/20) = 6. Figures 11 and 12 are examples of how the stiffness of the members varies as a function of the diameter of the bolt. Formulas which can be used to predict the stiffness ratios of the members for various thicknesses and member materials have been developed from these results. The stiffness ratios in the models with the larger bolt sizes are generally larger than the stiffness ratios with smaller bolt sizes.33E-1 Thickness Ratio. the stiffness ratio decreases almost linearly as the thickness ratio increases. Thus. 16.890819E-3*dA2* -2. and 20 mm thicknesses with a lower member of 20 mm thickness. However.216.67.299751 E-2-d + 9. cast iron. d (mm) Member stiffness vs. second order functions are sufficient to represent the values.125Et0*x»2 * -2.125E+0V + 1. 12 steel) Diameter. x (T1/T2) Fig.627008E-1 w o > e £ tn '& 0. 11 T2=20 — T2=30 Member stiffness vs. 10.265212E-2'd + 3.30E-1*X W. The differences in the stiffnesses between the models with upper members of 12.e. Figures 13-15 show the stress ratio distribution at the contacting surface of the two members as a function of the radius ratio. This corresponds to the result of the model with an upper member of thickness 6 mm and a lower member of thickness 10 mm in Fig. bolt diameter ( n / 7 2 12/20) 1 * 0 1 K(T2=10) = 1.314576E-1 Aluminum/Steel Stoel/Stosl Cast Iran/Steel Aluminum/Aluminum Cast Iran/Cast Iron . and 30 mm were combined with a lower member of thickness of 30 mm. i. i.241868E-3'dA2 + -6.434391 E-3"dA2 • -2.635492E-1 K(C l/C 1 = 4.299751 E-2*d +9. respectively. significant deviations between the two sets of basic theory results would be expected. 10 Comparison of the member stiffness ratio (for the M16 bolt) Fig. see http://www.5 mm. and Bellora (1992)..8 K(T2=20) = -1.9 K(12/20) = 7. and 20 mm thickness are very small when the diameter of the bolt is small but they increase with an increase in the diameter of the bolt.8. and 10 mm were Journal of Mechanical Design combined with a lower member of thickness of 10 mm and the upper members with thicknesses of 18. Figure 10 shows the comparison of the stiffness ratios of these models. Diameter.d + 5. 16.

05 0.397490E-3"XA2 + -3.23. .xA2 + -4.Steel/Steel Cast Iron/Steel Aluminum/Aluminum Cast iron/Cast Iron 0.886194E-2 C(C I/St) = -9.798902E-3*x + 6.105524E-2-x + 3.5 1 1.286276E+0 MS M12 r.664275E-1 a(M24) = -8.227368E-3-x''2 * -3.018877E-1-x"2 + -2.. For Figs.904033E-3*x + 6.008993E-1-X • 1. r*.724096E-1-X + 6.XA2 + -1.293709E-2'X + 1.410849E-3"x + 6. .-2. In Fig.3 . 15.org/terms/Terms_Use. x (r /(a+c)) Fig. 13-15.284926E-2 a(C I /St) = -1.5 2. x (r/(a+c)) Radius Ratio.08 0. .1 « M16 M20 M24 oo o go. • .1 1 1.5 3 3.594861 E-3*XA2 + -9.04 Steel/Steel h 0 "So.362796E-2'X + 4.686132E-2"XA2 * -6. For the members made of different materials. 13 and 14 show that the maximum stress ratios are a little higher than those of the same materials. member material: steel/steel) Radius Ratio.856985E-1 <7(M12) =-1.5 • % • = : .e.313104E-2 1. bolt size: M8) \ \ \ \ O(MS) = -4.919004E-1 O(M20) m -1.085576E-1 0(A1/AI) = -2.157092E-2'x + 1.715994E-2"x • 9. .5 </> 0. .5 3 3. i .06 0.570715E-3'x + 4.645022E-3'x + 4.008614E-3*xA2 + -5.859206E-VX + 9. x (r /(a +c) Fig.Steel/Steel Cast Iron/Steal — — Cast Iron/Cast Iron ^0. i. i A .. . .s O 1)0.769414E-2 G(SI/St) = -1. bolt size: M8) 5 5 6 / V o l . 116.238923E-4*xA2 + -6.67.--.764749E-2 O(StZSt) = -1. .786611E-2 0{C VC I) = -9.856715E-4*xA2 + -5.987439E-4*xA2 + -5. 13-15.266330E-2-xA2 • -3.3 a(Al/AI)= -9.855340E-1 0(M24) =-1.838932E-2 1.563411E-3*xA2 + -7.754577E-2'x + 9.736151E-1 0(M24) = -1.16 0. Figure 13 shows that the stress ratios are almost the same for the members made of the same material.B62621E-1 a(M12) = -3.3 • D(Al/St) = -1. material properties of the members do not appear to significantly affect the separation of the members.032293E-3'x + 4.687691 E-3'xA2 + -8.5 0(M8) = -5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. 14 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 16/20. 18 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 12/20.12 I5 0.830358E-1 CT(M12) = -2. Figs.425646E-2-xA2 * -1.5 2. The maximum radius ratio increases as the thickness of the upper member increases and as the diameter of the bolt decreases as shown in Figs.02 C(AI/St) = -3. the maximum stress ratios of five cases are so nearly the same that they are overlapped. x (r /(a+c)) Fig.057469E-2'xA2 -f -1.asme.198745E-3*XA2 + -1. 17 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (11/ 72 = 12/20.171438E-1. the diameter of the bolt was 8 mm and the thickness of the upper material 7*1 is different for each figure.113664E-3.694878E-VX + 6.062872E-3-xA2 + -3.097432E-2.431988E-2'X 11. x (r/(a+c)) Fig.314850E+0 M8 M12 "s M 6 M20 M24 ™ 0.261602E«0 M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 « 0.698730E-2'XA2 + -1.2 X 0.777741 E-1 O(M20) = -1.s 0.846624E-VX + 6. member material: aluminum/aluminum) Aluminum/Aluminum Cast Iron/Cast Iron Aluminum/Steel Cast Iron/Steel 0. .14 .509153E-2-x 11.5 0 <J(M8) = -4..563977E-2 G(AI/At) = -1.636186E-1'xA2 + -4. The thickness of the members and the diameter of the bolt are the most important factors which influence the 0.444453E-3*xA2 + -7.0208B5E-2 Q(C l/C I) = -1. member material: cast iron/cast iron) Fig.301162E-2'XA2 + -1.056636E-2 ' a(C I/St) = -1.• i 0 2 2.151791E-2 0(C I /C 1) .531436E-3*XA2 + -1.8771 B3E-4*XA2 + -5.529641 E-1 .972755E-3*XA2 + -2.5 4 Radius Ratio.295196E-3*x + 6. x (r/(a+c)) Fig..646854E-2'x + 9.478755E-2-xA2 + -9.610995E-VX * 1.cfm .890160E-1 C(M16) = -6.044478E-2 X Radius Ratio.5 2 2.6 '-••: Radius Ratio.x + 9.415038E-3*x + 4.07 0.315112E-3'xA2 + -2..XA2 + -5. 16 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 12/20.5 4 Radius Ratio.18 Alumlnum'Stee! 0. The separation radii of the members are almost the same if the bolt sizes are equal.906055 E-3*x + 6.475938E-1-X * 4.216.281877E-VX • 9.478127 E-3*X + 4.641856E-3'xA2 + -7. 15 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 20/20.2 °-1 "ra K J= 0 (A 0} O 0. JUNE 1994 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171. see http://www.695605E-1 O(M20) = -7.107433E-1 <T{SVSt) = -2.044760E-1 CT(M16) = -5. • —*—. bolt size: M8) ^.the initially applied constant stress in the bolt and the radius ratio is the radius of the members at which the stress is calculated divided by the constant radius of the hole.06 0.852383E-2 • G(Al/St) a -9.269757E-1 'X A 2 + -2. 13 Stress distribution at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 12120. w 'vs.381218E-2'X + 1.079335E-1-x * 1.5 </> 0 0 2 0.04 0.553391E-1 0(M16) =-6.

1976." Mechanical Engineering. 1967. 442-449. "Nonlinear Axial Stiffness Characteristics of Axisymmetric Bolted Joints. T. Mansour.. ' Tang. and Mitchell. Vol. Shigley. Honolulu.. McGraw-Hill. however. 1983.. "Stresses in a Thick Plate with Axially Symmetric Loading. R. I. Vol. "Areas of Contact and Pressure Distribution in Bolted Joints. "A Spiral Lock for Threaded Fasteners. T. Anaheim. The material properties of the members do not greatly affect the separation radius of the members. (3) The member stiffness ratio of the bolted joints with thinner total member thickness is higher than that of the bolted joints with thicker total member thickness although the thickness ratios of the members are the same. Ronald Holland.. R. However." Transactions of the ASME. E. N. 1962." Machine Design. (2) The thickness of the members and the diameter of the bolt are the most important factors which influence the separation of the members. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. R. McGraw-Hill. and Deng... Gothenburg.E. Wileman. Lardner. pp. 91-98.. I.. Conclusions Formulas which can be used to predict the member stiffness ratios for various kinds of bolted joints are presented in the figures. it is evident that a fixed cone angle in the basic theory is an approximation which can only be accurate for a specified range of parameters. "Member Stiffness of Bolted Joints. 245." ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Results from these methods and also those from the pressure cone approach for calculating member stiffness for a typical joint are given in Table 7. M." ASME Paper No.. 16-18. W. Die Maschinelemente.. No. L. 1946. M. Figures 16-18 show other combinations of stress ratios for a 12 mm thickness of the upper member and a 20 mm thickness of the lower member. J. These figures show that if the diameter of the bolt increases. O. 432-437. England. Cambridge. pp. Recent Advances in Structural Mechanics.. 1988. pp. Ito. and Mitchell. C. J.. and Mikic. 63-72. The joint modeled in Table 7 consists of two 20 mm thick steel plates being joined by an M12 steel bolt with a head diameter of 18 mm. 2nd Ed. Fundamentals of Mechanical Component Design. 5. 864870.. Iowa State University. Although the effect is exaggerated. 5. Nov. "Bolted Joint Interface Pressure for Thermal Contact Resistance. K. McGraw-Hill. II. Vol. Mechanical Engineering Design. 36.separation of the members. Vol. (3) A fixed cone angle in the basic theory is a convenience that is accurate only for a specific range of joint parameters. Vol. and Mischke. Gould. May. 77-WA/DE-11. "The Elastic Stresses Produced in the Mid-Plane of a Slab by Pressure Applied Symmetrically at Its Surface. 1992. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the valued assistance of Curtis Droege. August. We also appreciated the extra effort that provided the reworked figures for this paper. 1977. 458-459. 1988. McKay. June. 1927. 1st Ed. The modulus of the member material does not greatly affect the stress ratio distribution of bolted joints if the diameter of the bolt is small but the effect becomes more obvious as the diameter of the bolt increases." ASME Paper No.. and Bellora. and Michael Southern. L. (2) The member stiffness ratios decrease almost linearly as the thickness ratios of the members increase. 338-339. pp. Mechanical Engineering Design. D. B. if total member thickness is smaller than the diameter of the bolt. "On the Design of Bolted Connections with Gaskets Subjected to Fatigue Loading. C . The following observations have been made in the course of conducting this study: For the member stiffness: (1) The influence of the clearance between the bolt and hole on the calculation of member stiffness ratio is significant. J. 1964. and Dukkipati. Nelson. the changes vary nonlinearly. Osman. England. Toyoda. B. 1990. 1965. except where noted. Lehnhoff. References Bickford. 1978." Transaction of Charmers University of Technology. Greenwood. 42. 110. M.. J. I. Snedden. "Further Considerations of the Thick Plate Problem with Axially Symmetric Loading. J.. Lehnhoff. For the stress distribution: (7) The maximum stress ratio decreases as the thickness of the members increases. pp. 71-78." Proceedings of Design Productivity International Conference. as seen by superimposing Figs. Edwards. 31. M. Inc. No. and Green. Osgood. H.216. R. pp. C. Springer Verlag." Machine Design. 338-339. B. pp. Vol." ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN.. 4th Ed. (5) The values for stiffness given by Lehnhoff and Ko (1991) should be reduced by a factor of two. "Bolted Joints: How Much Give?" Machine Design. (4) The member stiffness always increases smoothly as the diameter of the bolt increases.. 1665-1666. F. H. Choudry.. W. No. 159169.. May. R.. J. T. Shigley... F. the clearance between the bolt and hole seems to be a more direct factor which needs to be included in the theory before an optimum half apex angle is selected.. Marcel Dekker. F. A. the member stiffness is increased. K. Series E. Machinery's Handbook. Feb.org/terms/Terms_Use. pp. Fernlund. This is also observable in Table 6. June. pp. pp. 260-271.. Mischke... T. "The Elastic Stresses Produced in a Thick Plate by the Application of Pressure to Its Free Surfaces. 1970. Cambridge. 1961. 113. p.asme. and McKee.. Journal of Mechanical Design JUNE 1994. M. "Saving Weight on Bolted Joints." ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics." Mechanical Engineering." ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics. and Mikic. 1. R. 1991.. H. the stress ratio changes due primarily to the reduced bolt preload stress since the preload force was kept constant for all bolts. R. Smaller clearances imply greater member stiffnesses. 1990. "Member Stiffness and Bolt Spacing of Bolted Joints.23. 1988. Oct.. C.. Berlin. 112. E. J. Nov. p. Grosse. C.. 110. I. see http://www. B. 1988. Vol. J.cfm .. " A Method to Calculate the Pressure Between Bolted or Riveted Plates. 1972. Z. Vol. Their efforts in confirming and verifying the results given here were almost as extensive as the original research project." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.. class notes. CA. Sept. V. L. A smaller cone angle (half apex angle) would improve the agreement between the FEA results and the basic theory.. Sweden.. "New Twists in Bolting. Twenty-Third Edition. Holmes. 1991. S. Little. 76-DET-57. Series E. J. 116/557 Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171. A comparison was made with Tang and Deng's (1988) finite element model which was limited to joints with equal thickness plates. where the relative error varies from 16-30 percent. J. 248. "Interface Pressure Distribution in a Bolt-Flange Assembly. 60. and Nagada.." ASME WAM. M.. M. pp. B.." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Nov. An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints. pp.. PVP-Vol. Lardner. 29. Comparison was also made to the equivalent cylindrical area approach cited by the Association of German Engineers as discussed earlier. Vol. Rotscher. 1991. 1971.. pp. 32." Transactions of the ASME.. Bradley. C. Inc. Bickford.. and Ko. "Better Stress and Stiffness Estimates for Bolted Joints. J. T. 542-545. The member stiffness ratios calculated by finite element analysis were not close to the ones calculated by the basic theory for a fixed cone angle of 30 deg. 84. Y.67. (5) If the sum of the moduli of the members is increased. 1989. Industrial Press. "Computation on Member Stiffness in Bolted Connections.. HI. V.. 5th ed. Vol.. Vol.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful