Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Three-dimensional finite element analysis

of single-bolt, single-lap composite bolted joints:
Part II––effects of bolt-hole clearance
C.T. McCarthy 1, M.A. McCarthy *

Composites Research Centre, Materials and Surface Science Institute, Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering Department,
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Available online 11 November 2004

Abstract

Three-dimensional finite element models have been developed to study the effects of bolt-hole clearance on the mechanical behav-
iour of bolted composite (graphite/epoxy) joints. In Part I of this two-part paper, the model was developed in the finite element code
MSC.Marc and validated against experiments and other finite element solutions. In this second part of the paper, results from the
model showing the effects of clearance in single-lap, single-bolt joints are presented and compared with experimental results. Both
quasi-isotropic and zero-dominated lay-ups are studied. It is shown that increased clearance leads to increased bolt rotation,
decreased bolt-hole contact area, and decreased joint stiffness. In single-lap joints, clearance is shown to cause three-dimensional
variations in the stress distribution in the laminate, and these variations are also dependent on the lay-up; the radial and tangential
stresses in each ply are shown to illustrate this point. Finally, a prediction of the failure onset load using HashinÕs failure criteria is
given and the results are compared with experimental results.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Composite; Bolted joints; Clearance; Failure onset; Finite element analysis

1. Introduction modelling. No previous three-dimensional study on var-

In this paper, three-dimensional finite element analy-
sis is used to examine the effects of bolt-hole clearance
on the mechanical behaviour of single-lap bolted com-
posite joints. The single-lap, single-bolt joint studied
here is a standard configuration used for characterisa-
tion of mechanically-fastened joints in MIL-HDBK-17
[1,2] and in ASTM standard D 5961/D 5961M - 96 [3],
and since clearance significantly alters the three-dimen-
sional stress state in single-lap joints, this configuration
provides an interesting topic for three-dimensional
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 61 202222; fax: +353 61 202944.
E-mail address: michael.mccarthy@ul.ie (M.A. McCarthy).
1
Present address: Materials Ireland, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
iable clearance has been found in the literature. In Part I
of this two-part paper, a finite element model was devel-
oped in the non-linear finite element code MSC.Marc,
and validated against experiments and other finite ele-
ment solutions. In this second part of the paper, the
model is used to examine the effects of clearance and
again comparisons are made with experimental results.
To date, a number of studies have considered the ef-
fects of clearance in pin-loaded joints (i.e. a single plate
loaded by one or more pins), which is often considered
representative of the central lap in a double-lap joint.
These studies have been mostly analytical [4–6] or
numerical [7–18] with just a few including experimental
results [15,19,20]. From these studies, a number of con-
clusions have been drawn regarding the stresses at the
hole. The bolt-hole contact area has been shown to

0263-8223/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.09.023
160 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
reduce significantly with small amounts of hole oversize,
resulting in increased peak bearing or radial stress
[4,8,10,13,14,16]. The contact area has also been found
to increase with load in clearance fit joints, but not in
neat-fit joints [4,10,13,16]. The location of the peak cir-
cumferential stress has been found to vary with clear-
ance, generally being found to be near the end of the
contact region [4,10,13]. Hyer et al. [4] also pointed
out that the direction of the peak circumferential stress
changes with clearance, which could affect joint
strength. The effect of clearance on the magnitude of
the circumferential stress seems to depend on whether
friction is included in the analysis [10,13], and is not as
significant as the effect on radial stress magnitude. Neg-
ative tangential stresses have also been reported at the
bearing plane (in front of the bolt) when large clearances
are present [10].
In the above studies on pin-loaded specimens the
strain and bolt-hole contact pressure have been quite rea-
sonably assumed to be constant through the thickness. In
single-lap joints however, it has been shown [21] that
these quantities vary through the thickness, being great-
est at the shear plane or faying surface. Therefore the ef-
fects of clearance in single-lap joints can only be studied
with three-dimensional analysis. In addition, in the
majority of the above studies, homogeneous anisotropic
material properties have been used for the laminates.
This is useful for an initial analysis of the effects of clear-
ance on laminate stresses, but is of no value for predicting
failure since the stresses in each ply are not determined.
Because of the increase in magnitude of the peak bearing
stress, as well as the change in direction of the peak cir-
cumferential stress, many researchers have postulated
that increasing clearance should result in reduced load
capacity for the joint [4,10,14,16]; however only a few pa-
pers have included an analysis of failure [15,19], or experi-
mental evidence to support this claim [15,19,20].
The present work seeks to address the above deficien-
cies in the literature, by using three-dimensional analysis
to study the effects of clearance in single-lap joints,
including a presentation of stresses in each ply for differ-
ent lay-ups, and an analysis of failure initiation using
HashinÕs failure criteria [22]. Comparisons with experi-
mental results are made. The analysis highlights some
of the potential pitfalls with using such models (e.g.
due to the presence of singularities in the model) and
provides an evaluation of their capability to predict fail-
ure initiation. The present analysis can be considered as
a necessary pre-cursor to performing a more complex
progressive failure analysis.
2. Problem description
The joint under investigation is a single-lap, single-
bolt configuration, subjected to a quasi-static tensile
Table 1
Clearances in present study
Clearance code Nominal clearance (lm)
C1 0
C2 80
C3 160
C4 240
load. The specimen geometry is based on an ASTM
standard [3] and can be found in Part I. The composite
laminates were manufactured from a carbon fibre/epoxy
material (HTA/6376) and two different lay-ups were
used: one quasi-isotropic with stacking sequence [45/0/

45/90]5s, the other zero-dominated with stacking
sequence [(45/02/
45/90)345/02/
45/0]s. A nominal
8 mm diameter Titanium alloy bolt together with a steel
nut and washers were used to connect the two laminates.
The clearances under examination are shown in Table 1
and represent percentage clearances of 0%, 1%, 2% and
3%; they are coded C1–C4 for reference. Clearances C1
and C2 are within current aerospace tolerances, while
C3 and C4 are slightly outside. The latter two are thus
of interest in examining the possible effects of out-of-tol-
erance aerospace holes (or fasteners), and also in non-
aerospace applications. The bolts were torqued to
0.5 Nm (‘‘finger-tight’’) using a calibrated torque
wrench. Further details of the problem, and the finite
element model can be found in Part I.
3. Joint deformation
The deformed shape of the single-bolt joint model
with a C1 (neat-fit) clearance is shown together with
the actual deformation in Fig. 1. It can be seen that
the finite element model displays similar deformation
characteristics to the experiment, including bolt tilting,
and secondary bending of the laminates, which is caused
by an eccentric load path through the joint. Actual out-
of-plane displacements could not be compared because
no measurements were taken in the experiment. Second-
ary bending and joint twisting were discussed in Part I of
this paper, so no more consideration is given to these is-
sues here.
A section through the mid-plane, showing the motion
of the washers is shown in Fig. 2. As can be seen, the
washers slide relative to the bolt head and nut and lose
contact with the bolt head and nut in some locations.
Additionally, the clearance between the bolt and washer
opens up on one side of the bolt, but closes on the other.
This affects the through-thickness constraint applied to
the laminate, which as shown by Tong [23] can affect
the initial failure load of the joint. This highlights the
value of modelling the washers discretely and not con-
sidering them an integral part of the bolt, as is often
assumed [21].
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
Fig. 1. Deformation characteristics of a C1 clearance joint: (a)
experiment and (b) simulation.
Fig. 2. Movement of washers.
The deformation and rigid body motion of the bolt at
an applied load of 5 kN is shown for the C1 and C4
clearance cases in Fig. 3(a) and (b) respectively at a mag-
nification factor of 1 (actual deformation). As can be
seen, bolt rotation occurs, with more rotation in the
C4 case than in the C1 case (approximately 2 versus
1 measured graphically). At higher displacement mag-
nification levels, significant bolt bending is also evident
(not shown). Also shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b) are contour
plots of the shear stress, s13, in the bolt, which is maxi-
mum (excluding the singular stresses at the re-entrant
edges) at the location of the joint shear plane. This is
due to high load transfer across the bolt in this region.
It is interesting to note that the shear stress in the bolt
161
Fig. 3. Deformation, rigid body motion and shear stress distribution
for the bolt at applied load of 5 kN. (a) C1 clearance joint and (b) C4
clearance joint.
is higher in the C4 case, which is due to the load being
transferred over a reduced contact area, as will be shown
in the next section.
4. Effect of clearance on load take-up and joint stiffness
Fig. 4(a) shows the initial part of the load deflection
curves obtained from experiments on C1 and C4 clear-
ance joints, with attempts at best-fit lines. The results
shown are for a quasi-isotropic lay-up. The conclusions
from this figure are:
• A reduction in slope (stiffness) due to increasing clear-
ance is clearly visible.
• The C4 joint has a slight tendency to stiffen as load
increases, i.e. between 5 kN and 9 kN the curve is
slightly above the straight-line. This is not exhibited
by the C1 joint. Above about 9 kN the slope drops
due to the development of damage in the joint.
162 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175

Fig. 4. Load–displacement curves for a C1 and C4 clearance joint (quasi-isotropic lay-up): (a) experiment and (b) simulation.

• There is a delay in load take-up for the C4 clearance
joint that is slightly larger than the nominal clear-
ance. This also occurred for both the C2 and C3
clearance joints (not shown). Recall from Part I of
this paper that the bolts were initially centred in the
hole using a special jig, so this delay is due to the fact
that the clearance has to be taken up before the bolt
makes contact with the hole.
Fig. 4(b) shows the load–deflection curve for C1 and
C4 clearance single-bolt joints obtained numerically.
Apart from the fact that the models are slightly stiffer
than the experiments (as outlined in Part I), the trends
in the experiments and simulations are similar. The
model shows a delay in load take-up approximately
equal to the clearance, as in the experiments. Attempts
at best-fit straight lines are also shown in Fig. 4(b) and
it can be seen that both curves show some initial non-lin-
earity, but after this, the C1 curve is essentially linear. In
contrast, the C4 curve shows a slight tendency to stiffen
with increasing load, as was observed experimentally.
However, in the simulation, the stiffness does not drop
off at high loads, since the material properties in the
model were linear elastic. Comparing the two best-fit
lines, it can be seen that the models predict a reduction
in stiffness due to increasing clearance (as in the experi-
ments). The same observations were also evident for
joints with a zero-dominated lay-up.
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175 163

To provide a more quantitative measure of the stiff- ance increases, joint stiffness decreases, and it is also evi-
ness changes due to clearance, the joint stiffness was dent that the finite element models provide an accurate
measured between 2 kN and 7 kN, for which the experi- prediction of this loss in stiffness.
mental load–deflection curves were essentially linear. The explanation for these variations in stiffness lies in
Tables 2 and 3 show the change in stiffness as the clear- the development of the contact area between the bolt
ance is varied from neat-fit (C1) to 240 lm (C4), for both and the laminate. Fig. 5 shows the growth of the contact
the experiments and the finite element models, for a area between the bolt and one of the laminates in the C1
quasi-isotropic and zero-dominated lay-up respectively clearance joint. It can be seen that the contact area gets
(for the zero-dominated lay-up only C1 and C4 clear- up to its final value quite quickly, with a contact angle of
ances were tested––hence the absence of results for C2 160–170 which is fairly constant through the thickness.
and C3 clearances in Table 3). It is evident that as clear- This angle is in close agreement with two-dimensional
analytical and finite element solutions [4,10,24]. In the
experiment, the bolt was found to leave a silver-coloured
Table 2 imprint on the inside of the hole as shown in Fig. 5(d)
Reduction in joint stiffness as a function of bolt-hole clearance–– (highlighted for clarity). This is an indication of the
simulations versus experiments (quasi-isotropic lay-up) maximum contact area that developed during the exper-
C1 C2 C3 C4 iment and was found to closely match that predicted by
Model stiffness (kN/mm) 31.56 30.14 28.96 27.98 the finite element model.
Percentage change from C1 –
4.5%
8.24%
11.34% In contrast, in the C4 joint, shown in Fig. 6, signifi-
(models) cant contact is not made until clearance is taken up,
Percentage change from C1 –
1.9%
7.3%
10.4%
and initial contact is over a very small contact arc. As
(experiments)
the load increases, the bolt tilts, and the contact area
grows quite gradually. Even at high loads, the contact
area is still much less than in the C1 joint with a value
Table 3 of 100–105 at the shear plane, reducing to 55–60 at
Reduction in joint stiffness as a function of bolt-hole clearance–– the free face of the laminate. Because the contact angle
simulations versus experiments (zero-dominated lay-up) varies considerably through the thickness, comparisons
C1 C4 with two-dimensional solutions are not possible. This re-
Model stiffness (kN/mm) 36.44 32.44 sult highlights the importance of examining the effects of
Percentage change from C1 –
10.98% clearance in single-lap joints three-dimensionally. Note
(models) that the contact area in the model again agrees well with
Percentage change from C1 –
10% the imprint left by the bolt in the experiment. The grad-
(experiments)
ual nature of the increase in contact area explains the

Fig. 5. Development of the contact area in the C1 joint: (a) initial contact, (b) intermediate, (c) final contact and (d) experiment.

Fig. 6. Development of the contact area in the C4 joint: (a) initial contact, (b) intermediate, (c) final contact and (d) experiment.
164 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
Table 4
Percentage increase in stiffness as a result of changing from a quasi-
isotropic to a zero-dominated lay-up (as a percent of the quasi-
isotropic stiffness) for C1 and C4 clearance joints
C1 (%) C4 (%)
Simulation 13 13.7
Experiments 11 11.9
continuing stiffening of the C4 joint with increasing
load, while the lower final contact area explains the
lower stiffness of the C4 joint compared to the C1 joint.
As a result of having more fibres aligned along the
loading direction, the zero-dominated joints would be
expected to be considerably stiffer than the quasi-iso-
tropic joints (the un-notched zero-dominated laminates
are approximately 42% stiffer in the axial direction than
the un-notched quasi-isotopic laminates––see Table 3 in
Part I). Table 4 shows the percentage increase in joint
stiffness as a result of changing the material from a
quasi-isotropic to zero-dominated lay-up for both the
simulations and experiments. It can be seen that the dif-
ference in joint stiffness due to the change in lay-up is
much less than for the un-notched laminates, which is
because stiffness of the laminate is only one contributor
to the stiffness of the joint, with other effects such as bolt
Fig. 7. Radial and tangential stresses in C1 and C4 clearance joints (quasi-isotropic lay-up) with homogeneous, orthotropic material properties, at
5 kN applied load. (a) Radial stress, C1 clearance, (b) tangential stress, C1 clearance, (c) radial stress, C4 clearance and (d) tangential stress, C4
clearance.
bending clearly being important contributors. The pre-
dicted difference in joint stiffness due to lay-up is in close
agreement with the experimental results.
5. Effect of clearance on stress distribution around the
hole boundary
The effects of clearance on the stress distribution in
the laminate around the hole boundary are presented
in this section. The results from models that used homo-
geneous anisotropic material properties for the lami-
nates are shown in Section 5.1. Even though these
results do not give the correct values for the stresses in
each ply, they provide a useful link with previous work
involving two-dimensional models that assumed homo-
geneous properties, and give an overview of the effects
of clearance without the complexity present in the lay-
ered stress results. The stresses in each ply are presented
in Section 5.2.
5.1. Results from using homogeneous material properties
Fig. 7 shows the radial and tangential stresses at the
hole edge obtained from models with homogeneous
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
material properties (see Table 3 in Part I for these prop-
erties). The results in Fig. 7 are for the quasi-isotropic
lay-up. The applied load level for these graphs was
5 kN, because at this load experiments for all joint con-
figurations indicated elastic behaviour without detecta-
ble damage. The stress is seen to vary through the
thickness being highest at the shear plane, which is in
agreement with [21]. The following effects of clearance
are evident:
• The peak radial stress increases with increasing clear-
ance (due to the load being distributed over a smaller
contact area).
• The location of the maximum tangential stress varies
with clearance, generally being near the end of the
contact region. This also implies that the direction
of the peak tangential stress changes.
• The magnitude of the peak tangential stress increases
slightly with increasing clearance.
All of these findings are in agreement with previous
two-dimensional studies on clearance [4,10,13]. In addi-
tion, it can be seen that compressive tangential stress ex-
ists at the back of the hole (h ffi ±180) in both clearance
cases, and at the bearing plane (h ffi 0) in the C4 clear-
ance case. This was also noted in [10] and the reason for
its occurrence is illustrated in Fig. 8, which shows the
deformed shapes of the C1 and C4 holes at high magni-
fication. It can be seen that in both cases the hole de-
forms from a circular to a more oval shape leading to
compressive tangential stresses at the back of the hole,
while in the C4 case a localised reduction in radius of
curvature under the bolt occurs (the hole locally folds
in on itself) which leads to the compressive tangential
stresses at the front of the hole (h ffi 0).
Finally before leaving these results it should be
pointed out that the stresses at the intersection of the
hole edge with the shear plane are entirely mesh depend-
ent, since as was shown in Part I, a singularity exists at
Fig. 8. Hole deformation at high magnification in C1 and C4 joints: (a) C1 clearance and (b) C4 clearance.
165
this location due to edge contact between the tilted bolt
and the hole edge. The stresses at the shear plane in Fig.
7 would thus increase without limit with increasing mesh
refinement, as was shown in Fig. 20 of Part I (the stres-
ses a small distance away from the shear plane are rela-
tively insensitive to the mesh as was also shown in Fig.
20 of Part I). Therefore the maximum values of the stres-
ses in Fig. 7 can only be used for comparing different
clearance cases.
5.2. Results from using layered material properties
In this section, the stresses in each ply, through the
thickness of the laminate for joints with different clear-
ances (C1 and C4) and lay-ups (quasi-tropic and zero-
dominated) are presented. The stresses are plotted at
the centre of each ply and the applied load level for all
figures was 5 kN.
The radial stress distribution for the C1 clearance,
quasi-isotropic joint is shown in Fig. 9. The highest ra-
dial stress occurs in layer no. 2, which is the second
ply from the shear plane and is orientated at 0 with
the loading direction. As can be seen, all the 0 plies
are most highly stressed at the 0 location (the bearing
plane), all the +45 plies are most highly stressed near
the +45 location and all the
45 plies are most highly
stressed near the
45 location. The 90 plies experience
their highest stresses at an angle less than ±90 which
varies through the thickness; the angle is less than
±90 since the contact angle is less than 180.
The tangential stresses around the hole boundary for
the C1 quasi-isotropic joint are shown in Fig. 10. The
tangential stress in each layer is positive except for some
plies near the free surface of the laminate at the back of
the hole (h ffi ±180). These negative stresses are due to
ovalisation of the hole as noted above. The highest tan-
gential stresses overall occur in all the 0 plies near the
90 location (net-section plane). The highest tangential
stresses in the +45 plies occur near the
45 location
166 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175

Fig. 9. Radial stress distribution in each layer of the C1 clearance quasi-isotropic ([45/0/
45/90]5s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at the shear plane).

Fig. 10. Tangential stress distribution in each layer of the C1 clearance quasi-isotropic ([45/0/
45/90]5s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at the shear
plane).

because the +45 plies are stiffest in the tangential direc-
tion at this point. The opposite is also true for the
45
plies. A second, but lower peak is also experienced in the
+45 and
45 plies at locations of 135 and
135
respectively. Again this is due to the plies being stiffest
at these locations. Finally, the stresses in the 90 plies
are highest at the 0 location, once again due to their
high stiffness in the tangential direction at this location.
Thus, for the C1 quasi-isotropic joint, the highest tan-
gential stresses occur in each ply at locations along the
hole boundary where they are stiffest in the tangential
direction.
The radial stress distribution for the C4 clearance,
quasi-isotropic joint is shown in Fig. 11. Similarly to
the C1 joint (Fig. 9), the highest radial stresses occur
in the 0 layer nearest the shear plane (layer No. 2),
but the stress in this ply is much higher in the C4 case.
Interestingly, quite high stress levels exist in the C4 joint
all the way through the thickness, whereas in the C1
joint (Fig. 9) the stresses tend to drop off to very low lev-
els as the free surface of the laminate (i.e. ply no. 40) is
approached. Fig. 11 shows that the radial stresses in the
0 plies are highest at the 0 location, as for the C1 case.
However, differently from the C1 case, the +45 and
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
Fig. 11. Radial stress distribution in each layer of the C4 clearance quasi-isotropic ([45/0/
45/90]5s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at the shear plane).

45 plies do not peak at their stiffest locations, but at
an angle of approximately +15 and
15 respectively.
This is due to the contact pressure being applied over
a reduced contact angle. The peak radial stress value
for these plies is also increased compared to the C1 case.
Although difficult to visualise in Fig. 11, the 90 plies
experience very low levels of radial stress at any location
around the hole boundary with low peaks occurring at
the 0 location.
The tangential stresses around the hole boundary for
the C4 quasi-isotropic joint are shown in Fig. 12. Differ-
ently from the C1 joint (Fig. 10), the tangential stresses
are negative in a region bounded by the ±30 location in
all plies except for two 90 plies located nearest the shear
plane. In addition, the negative tangential stresses at the
back of the hole (h ffi ±180) experienced in the C1 case
are more pronounced in the C4 case. This is in line with
the findings for homogeneous properties in the previous
section, and is due to the changes in the deformed shape
of the hole due to clearance, as shown in Fig. 8. The
peak tangential stress has also increased slightly and un-
like the C1 case, occurs in the +45 and
45 plies, not
in the 0 plies. This is in line with the finding from the
previous section and from [4,10,13] that the peak tan-
gential stress shifts towards the bearing plane (0 loca-
tion) in the presence of clearance.
The radial stress distribution for the C1 clearance,
zero-dominated joint is shown in Fig. 13. Similar trends
to those observed for the C1 quasi-isotropic joint (Fig.
9) are seen in the zero-dominated joint. The main differ-
ence is that the peak stress in the 0 ply located nearest
the shear plane (ply no. 2) is reduced because there are
two 0 plies to share the load at this location compared
167
to one in the quasi-isotropic joint. This is true for all the
0 plies through the thickness. Interestingly, the stresses
in the ±45 plies are only slightly affected by the change
in lay-up (compare Fig. 9 with Fig. 13). The tangential
stress distribution is shown in Fig. 14. Again similar
trends exist to those in the C1 quasi-isotropic joint.
The main difference is that the tangential stress in the
0 plies at the 90 location are reduced, again due to
having two 0 plies stacked together.
The radial and tangential stresses for the C4 joint
with a zero-dominated lay-up are shown in Figs. 15
and 16 respectively. By comparing with the previous
three-dimensional stress graphs, it is evident that the
change in stress state in going from a C1 joint to a C4
joint is the same for a zero-dominated joint as it is for
a quasi-isotropic joint. Such characteristics as the in-
crease in radial stress in all the plies and the change in
sign of the tangential stresses at the bearing plane are
also observed with increasing clearance in the zero-dom-
inated case. However, the negative tangential stresses at
the bearing plane and the back of the hole are not as
pronounced as in the quasi-isotropic case (compare
Figs. 16 and 12). The stresses are lower in the 0 plies
in the zero-dominated case, which is due to the increase
in the number of 0 plies sharing the load.
6. Effect of clearance on damage and failure initiation
To investigate the damage state in both the matrix
and fibres, HashinÕs failure criteria [22] were evaluated
around the hole boundary. The graphs in this section
are all shown at the load level that was found to cause
168 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175

Fig. 12. Tangental stress distribution in each layer of the C4 clearance quasi-isotropic ([45/0/
45/90]5s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at the shear
plane).

Fig. 13. Radial stress distribution in each layer of the C1 clearance zero-dominated ([(45/02/
45/90)345/02/
45/0]s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at the
shear plane).

the first occurrence of compressive fibre failure in each that first fibre failure may correlate with the first signi-
joint. As will be seen considerable matrix damage al- ficant loss in joint stiffness. To test this hypothesis, a
ready exists at these load levels, but it is postulated here comparison with experimental load–deflection curves is
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175 169

Fig. 14. Tangential stress distribution in each layer of the C1 clearance zero-dominated ([(45/02/
45/90)345/02 /
45/0]s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at
the shear plane).

Fig. 15. Radial stress distribution in each layer of the C4 clearance zero-dominated ([(45/02 /
45/90)345/02/
45/0]s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at the
shear plane).

given in Section 7. The approach is similar to that used
in [25], which postulated that damage initiation, as de-
tected by a change in stiffness of the specimen, may be
governed by the peak ply strain in the fibre direction.
Note that to predict ultimate failure, a method such as
the point or average stress criterion [26] or progressive
damage analysis should be used because damage causes
significant re-distribution of local stresses. A progressive
damage analysis of these joints will be presented in a
later publication. Note also that HashinÕs criteria were
evaluated at the second gauss point from the hole (i.e.
approximately 0.5 mm from the hole in the radial direc-
tion). This was done to avoid the singular stresses in the
plies closest to the shear plane, near the intersection of
the hole edge with the shear plane. This is reasonable
since in practice, these singular stresses would not exist,
170 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175

Fig. 16. Tangential stress distribution in each layer of the C4 clearance zero-dominated ([(45/02/
45/90)3 45/02/
45/0]s) joint (layer No. 1 is located at
the shear plane).

since contact would not occur over a line, but over an and C on the components of the strength tensor S de-
area due to local deformations and early formation of note material strength in tension and compression
matrix damage. respectively. Since the material is insensitive to the sign
Four different failure modes are considered as shown of the shear stresses, the superscripts are omitted on
below [22]: the shear strengths S12, S13 and S23.
The stress tensor at each gauss point around the hole
Tensile matrix failure mode, r22 + r33 > 0
boundary was extracted from the model output file. This
1 2 1 2 data is output from MSC.Marc in the global coordinate
ðr22 þ r33 Þ þ ðr
r22 r33 Þ
S 223 23
2
S T22 system and thus had to be transformed to obtain the
1 2 principal stresses in each ply. The transformed stress
þ ðr þ r213 Þ ¼ 1 ð1Þ tensor was used along with the strength data shown in
S 212 12
Table 5 to evaluate the failure criteria (Eqs. (1)–(4)).
Compressive matrix failure mode, r22 + r33 < 0 The strength data was obtained from an industrial part-
"
2 # ner in the research project BOJCAS [27] and the values
1 S C22 1 2 shown are typical mean values with no reduction due to
C

1 ðr22 þ r33 Þ þ 2 ðr22 þ r33 Þ
S 22 2S 23 4S 23 scatter or defects.
1 2 1 Fig. 17 shows the location of the first fibre compres-
þ 2
ðr23
r22 r33 Þ þ 2 ðr212 þ r213 Þ ¼ 1 ð2Þ sive failure in a C1 quasi-isotropic joint as predicted by
S 23 S 12
the above failure criteria. This occurred in the second
Tensile fibre failure mode, r11 > 0 ply from the shear plane, i.e., the first 0 ply, at a load

2 level of 9.43 kN or a bearing stress of 227.3 MPa. The
r11 1
T
þ 2 ðr212 þ r213 Þ ¼ 1 ð3Þ bearing stress, rbr, was calculated from the following
S 11 S 12
equation:
Compressive fibre failure mode, r11 < 0 Pb
rbr ¼ ð5Þ
r11 ¼
S C11 ð4Þ Dt
where rij, (i,j = 1, 2, 3) is the stress tensor and Sij, (i, where Pb is the bolt load, D is the hole diameter and t is
j = 1, 2, 3) is the strength tensor. The superscripts T the laminate thickness.

Table 5
Material strength data for HTA/6376 (from BOJCAS project [27])
S T11 (MPa) SC
11 (MPa) S T22 (MPa) SC
22 (MPa) S T33 (MPa) S T33 (MPa) S12 (MPa) S23 (MPa) S31 (MPa)
2200 1600 70 250 50 300 120 50 120
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175 171

Fig. 17. Location of compressive fibre failure in the C1 quasi-isotropic and C4 quasi-isotropic joints.

Fig. 18. C1 quasi-isotropic ([45/0/
45/90]5s) joint–compressive matrix failure at a load of 9.43 kN or a bearing stress of 227.3 MPa.

Fig. 18 shows the extent of compressive matrix failure
at this load level and as can be seen, extensive failure in
this mode has occurred at the bolt-hole contact interface
(h < ±85) starting at the shear plane and ending about 5
plies beyond the laminate mid-plane. These failures
coincide with the high compressive radial stresses at
these locations in Fig. 9. Matrix compressive failure at
the back of the hole (h ffi ±180) throughout the lami-
nate thickness is also evident. The location of this dam-
age concurs with the compressive tangential stresses at
the back of the hole, as shown in Fig. 10. One feature
to note is that the damage is not symmetric about the
bearing plane (h = 0) in the off-axis plies. Very little ma-
trix tensile failure and no tensile fibre failures were de-
tected at this load level.
The location of first fibre compressive failure in the
C4 quasi-isotropic joint was the same as that for
the C1 quasi-isotropic joint. However differently from
the C1 joint, failure occurred at a joint load of 7.6 kN
or bearing stress level of 178 MPa. The extent of com-
pressive matrix damage at this load level is shown in
Fig. 19 and as can be seen, the entire hole surface has
been detected to fail in this mode. The reasons for this
are as follows. Comparing Fig. 11 with Fig. 9, it can
be seen that high compressive radial stresses exist all
the way through the thickness in the C4 joint, which is
not the case in the C1 joint (hence the matrix failure
in all plies in the vicinity of the bearing plane). In addi-
tion the compressive tangential stresses at the back of
the hole are more pronounced in the C4 joint than in
the C1 joint (compare Fig. 12 to Fig. 10) resulting in ma-
trix failures at this location also (note that Figs. 9–12 are
at a load level of 5 kN so the stresses at 7.6 kN would be
higher than in these figures). No tensile fibre or tensile
matrix failures were detected for this joint at this load
level.
Fig. 20 shows the location of compressive fibre failure
in the C1 zero-dominated joint, which occurred at a load
level of 11 kN or bearing stress level of 264 MPa. Fibre
compressive failure initiates in the 0 ply but also in
the +45 ply at the shear plane. As can be seen in Fig.
13, the radial stresses in the +45 ply at the +45 loca-
tion are of the same magnitude as the radial stresses in
the 0 ply at the 0 location and so failure is just as likely
to initiate in the +45 ply. The extent of compressive ma-
trix damage at this load level is shown in Fig. 21. As can
172 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175

Fig. 19. C4 quasi-isotropic ([45/0/
45/90]5s) joint–compressive matrix failure at a load of 7.6 kN or bearing stress level of 178 MPa.

Fig. 20. C1 zero-dominated ([(45/02/
45/90)345/02/
45/0]s) joint–compressive fibre failure at a load of 11 kN or bearing stress of 264 MPa.

Fig. 21. C1 zero-dominated ([(45/02/
45/90)345/02 /
45/0]s) joint–compressive matrix failure at a load of 11 kN or bearing stress of 264 MPa.

be seen this damage pattern is similar to the C1 quasi-
isotropic case (shown in Fig. 18) but more damage is
present at the back of the hole in the zero-dominated
case. This is most likely due to the higher load level in
Fig. 21.
Finally, the first compressive fibre failure in the C4
zero-dominated joint was in layer no. 2 (0 ply closest
to the shear plane) at the same location as in the C4
quasi-isotropic joint (shown in Fig. 17) and occurred
at a load of 8.3 kN or bearing stress level of 180 MPa.
Differently from the C1 zero-dominated case, failure in
this mode was only detected in the 0 ply, due to the fact
that the peak radial stress is much higher in the 0 plies
than in the +45 plies (Fig. 15), unlike the C1 case (Fig.
13). The extent of compressive matrix damage at this
load level is shown in Fig. 22. As can be seen, the
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175 173

Fig. 22. C4 zero-dominated ([(45/02/
45/90)345/02 /
45/0]s) joint–compressive matrix failure at a load of 8.3 kN or bearing stress level of 180 MPa.

damage is confined to a narrower region when com-
pared to the C1 zero-dominated joint (Fig. 21) at the
bolt-hole contact interface and less damage is evident
at the back of the hole. This result is also in marked con-
trast to the result for the C4 quasi-isotropic joint (Fig.
19) and is due to the lower value of the compressive tan-
gential stresses in zero-dominated case (compare Fig. 16
with Fig. 12). For this joint, no tensile matrix or tensile
fibre failures were detected at this load level.
7. Predicted failure initiation loads in comparison to
experimental results
The stresses predicted to cause first fibre failure deter-
mined above from all the joints are shown together with
experimental results in Fig. 23. The experimental results
are plotted as the bearing stiffness versus the bearing
stress. The bearing stiffness is the slope of the bearing
stress–bearing strain curve, averaged with a moving win-
dow size of 7 points (as suggested in [20]). The bearing
stress was calculated from the load cell, using equation
(5). The bearing strain was calculated according to the
ASTM standard [3] from a pair of extensometers placed
around the overlap region of the joint (see [20] for fur-
ther details):
ðd1 þ d2 Þ=2
ebr ¼ ð6Þ
KD
where d1, d2 = displacements in extensometers 1,2, and
K = 1.0 for double shear tests and 2.0 for single-shear
tests (so K = 2.0 here). The graphs in Fig. 23 show where

Fig. 23. Experimental joint bearing stiffness variations with increasing applied bearing stress, together with model predictions of first fibre failure.
(a) Quasi-isotropic, C1 clearance, (b) quasi-isotropic, C4 clearance, (c) zero-dominated, C1 clearance and (d) zero-dominated, C4 clearance.
174 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
loss of joint stiffness occurs more clearly than the origi-
nal stress–strain curves would. Several repeats of each of
the four cases in Fig. 23 were performed, and the graphs
presented represent average behaviour seen in each
group of specimens. The figures show quite clearly (as
was noted earlier) that the stiffness gets up to its maxi-
mum value quite quickly in the C1 cases (Fig. 23 (a)
and (c)) but more gradually in the C4 cases (Fig. 23
(b) and (d)). They also confirm that the maximum
stiffness attained in the C4 cases is less than in the cor-
responding C1 cases, and that the stiffness of the zero-
dominated joints is greater than the quasi-isotropic
joints. The notion of an extended ‘‘linear region’’ is also
seen to be something of a myth, since the stiffness in all
cases is constant only over a very small range of applied
stress, if at all.
In general, the predictions of the bearing stress at
which first fibre failure occurs obtained from the model
coincide quite well with the imminent occurrence of a
sharp drop off in stiffness in the experimental results.
The models correctly predict that the stiffness drops off
earlier at higher levels of clearance. The curve that fits
the predictions least well is the zero-dominated joint with
a C1 clearance. In this case a gradual loss of stiffness starts
to occur at a very low stress level (about 125 MPa); how-
ever, the stress predicted for first fibre failure does coin-
cide with a change to a much sharper rate of stiffness
reduction. In the zero-dominated lay-up, the pairs of
adjacent 0 plies initially provide a very stiff foundation
for the bolt to press against, but perhaps this stiffness is
lost early on due to buckling of these plies or delamina-
tion from the surrounding plies. A delamination initia-
tion analysis will be reported in a later publication.
8. Concluding remarks
In this paper, three-dimensional finite element analy-
sis was used to examine the effects of bolt-hole clearance
on the mechanical behaviour of single-lap bolted com-
posite joints, and comparisons were made to experimen-
tal results. No previous three-dimensional study on
variable clearance has been found in the literature. The
main findings from the study are summarised below.
• Clearance results in increased bolt rotation, decreased
bolt-hole contact area, and decreased joint stiffness.
Joints with clearance tend to gradually increase in
stiffness with increasing applied load, whereas neat-
fit joints do not. Three-dimensional finite element
analysis has proved capable of quantifying these
effects with a high degree of accuracy in comparison
to experimental results.
• In single-lap joints, the stress distribution in the lami-
nate is non-uniform through the thickness, and clear-
ance causes three-dimensional variations in this
stress distribution; these variations are also dependent
on the lay-up. When homogeneous material properties
were used in the models, clearance resulted in
increased peak radial stress, a shift of the location of
the peak tangential stress towards the bearing plane,
slight increase in the peak value of the tangential stress,
and compressive tangential stress at the bearing plane.
• The radial and tangential stresses in each ply were
recovered from models using layered solid elements.
As clearance increased, the peak radial stress
increased significantly in all plies. The peak tangential
stress also increased and a change in sign was observed
at the bearing plane (h = 0). All these findings are
consistent with the findings from using homogeneous
properties and from previous two-dimensional studies
on clearance [4,10,13]. An interesting finding was that
the peak radial and tangential stresses in the 0 plies
were lower in the zero-dominated joints than in the
quasi-isotropic joints because two 0 plies are stacked
together and thus share the load.
• HashinÕs failure criteria [22] were evaluated around
the hole boundary to investigate the damage state
at a load level where first fibre compressive failure
was detected. The criteria were evaluated at 0.5 mm
from the hole boundary to avoid the mathematical
singularity present at the intersection of the hole edge
with the shear plane. For all joint configurations it
was found that considerable matrix damage had
occurred at both the contact interface and the back
of the hole at these load levels. The matrix damage
was primarily due to compressive radial stresses in
front of the bolt and compressive tangential stresses
at the back of the hole. The extent of this matrix dam-
age may affect the subsequent propagation of damage
in the laminate and should be investigated using pro-
gressive damage analysis. A progressive damage anal-
ysis of these joints will be reported on in a later
publication. Very little tensile fibre or matrix failure
was detected at these load levels for all joint configu-
rations, which was expected since the joints were sized
to fail in the bearing failure mode.
• The predicted load levels for first fibre failure were
compared with experimental results for the variation
in joint stiffness with increasing load level. In general
it was found that the predicted load for first fibre fail-
ure coincided well with onset of a sharp drop in the
experimental joint stiffness. The zero-dominated con-
figuration with neat-fit clearance exhibited early loss
of stiffness, which may be due to out-of-plane motion
of the pairs of adjacent 0 plies or delamination of
these plies from surrounding plies, which was not
detected by the present analysis.
The results presented provide an exposition of the
main effects of clearance in single-lap composite joints,
which should provide a useful reference for future more
 C.T. McCarthy, M.A. McCarthy / Composite Structures 71 (2005) 159–175
complex studies involving progressive damage analysis,
the results of which can sometimes be difficult to inter-
pret. It has been found that bolt-hole clearances only
slightly outside those used in the aerospace industry
have a significant effect on the stiffness and failure onset
load of composite bolted joints and thus clearance
should be taken into consideration when designing com-
posite joints.
References
[1] DODSSP, Polymer Matrix Composites, MIL-HDBK-17, DOD-
SSP, Naval Publications and Forms Center, Standardization
Documents Order Desk, Building 4 D, 700 Robbins Ave.,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094.
[2] Shyprykevich P. Characterization of bolted joint behaviour: MIL-
HDBK-17 Accomplishments at standardization. Journal of
Composites Technology and Research 1995;17(3):260–70.
[3] ASTM standard D 5961/D 5961 M––96, Standard test method for
bearing response of polymer matrix composite laminates, 1996.
[4] Hyer MW, Klang EC, Cooper DE. The effects of pin elasticity,
clearance, and friction on the stresses in a pin-loaded orthotropic
plate. Journal of Composite Materials 1987;21(3):190–206.
[5] Kradinov V, Barut A, Madenci E, Ambur DR. Bolted double-lap
composite joints under mechanical and thermal loading. Interna-
tional Journal of Solids and Structures 2001;38:7801–37.
[6] Fan WX, Qiu CT. Load distribution of multi-fastener laminated
composite joints. International Journal of Solids and Structures
1993;30(21):3013–23.
[7] Chutima S, Blackie AP. Effect of pitch distance, row spacing, end
distance and bolt diameter on multi-fastened composite joints.
Composites Part A 1996;27 A(2):105–10.
[8] Rowlands RE, Rahman MU, Wilkinson TL, Chiang YI. Single
and multiple bolted joints in orthotropic materials. Composites
1982;13(3):273–9.
[9] Pradhan B, Kumar R. Stresses around partial contact pin-loaded
holes in FRP composite plates. Journal of reinforced plastics and
composites 1984;3(1):69–84.
[10] Naik RA, Crews Jr JH. Stress analysis method for a clearance-fit
bolt under bearing loads. AIAA Journal 1986;24(8):1348–53.
[11] Ramamurthy TS. New studies on the effect of bearing loads in
lugs with clearance fit pins. Composite Structures 1989;11:135–50.
[12] Kim SJ, Kim JH. Finite element analysis of laminated composite
plates with multi-pin joints considering friction. Computers and
Structures 1995;55(3):507–14.
175
[13] Ko HY, Kwak BM. Contact analysis of mechanically fas-
tened joints in composite laminates by linear complementarity
problem formulation. Composite Structures 1998;40(3–4):187–
200.
[14] Lanza Di Scalea F, Cappello F, Cloud GL. On the elastic
behaviour of a cross-ply composite pin-joint with clearance fits.
Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 1999;12:13–22.
[15] Pierron F, Cerisier F, Grediac M. A numerical and experimental
study of woven composite pin-joints. Journal of Composite
Materials 2000;34(12):1028–54.
[16] Chen WH, Lee SS, Yeh JT. Three-dimensional contact stress
analysis of a composite laminate with bolted joint. Composite
Structures 1995;30:287–97.
[17] McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA, Padhi GS. 9th Annual Confer-
ence, Association for Computational Mechanics in Engineering,
University of Birmingham, 8–10 April 2001, p. 111–14.
[18] McCarthy MA, McCarthy CT, Padhi GS. 9th Annual Confer-
ence, Association for Computational Mechanics in Engineering,
University of Birmingham, 8–10 April 2001, p. 123–26.
[19] DiNicola AJ, Fantle SL. Bearing strength behaviour of clearance-
fit fastener holes in toughened graphite/epoxy laminates. In:
Camponeshi Jr ET, editor. Composite Materials: Testing and
Design, ASTM STP 1206, vol. 11. Philadelphia: American Soci-
ety for Testing and Materials; 1993. p. 220–37.
[20] McCarthy MA, Lawlor VP, Stanley WF, McCarthy CT. Bolt-hole
clearance effects and strength criteria in single-bolt, single-lap,
composite bolted joints. Composites Science and Technology
2002;62:1415–31.
[21] Ireman T. Three-dimensional stress analysis of bolted composite
single-lap joints. Composite Structures 1998;43:195–216.
[22] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites.
Journal of Applied Mechanics 1980;47:329–34.
[23] Tong L. Bearing failure of composite bolted joints with non-
uniform bolt to washer clearance. Composites Part A 2000;31:
609–15.
[24] deJong T. Stress around pin-loaded holes in elastically orthotropic
or isotropic plates. Journal of Composite Materials 1977;11:
313–31.
[25] Naik RA, Crews Jr JH. Ply level failure analysis of a graphite/
epoxy laminate under bearing-bypass loadings. In: Garbo SP,
editor. Composite Materials: Testing and Design, ASTM STP
1059, vol. 9. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 1990. p. 191–211.
[26] Whitney JM, Nuismer RJ. Stress fracture criteria for laminated
composites containing stress concentrations. Journal of Compos-
ite Materials 1974;8:235–65.
[27] McCarthy MA. BOJCAS: bolted joints in composite aircraft
structures. Air and Space Europe 2001;3/4(3):139–42.