Analysis of Blind-Bolt Connections in Hollow Sections: Failures in Static Loadings

ANALYSIS OF BLIND-BOLT CONNECTIONS IN
HOLLOW SECTIONS: FAILURES IN STATIC

LOADINGS
by
Ahmad Qarirul U’yun bin Mohd Yusoff
session 2021/2022
Final year research project report submitted to the

Faculty of Engineering
University of Malaya
In partial fulfilment of the requirement to the
Bachelor’s degree of Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
June 2022
PENGAKUAN OLEH PELAJAR
Saya, Ahmad Qarirul U’yun Bin Mohd Yusoff, dengan ini mengakui bahawa kecuali
di mana perakuan telah dilakukan, karya yang dipersembahkan di dalam tesis ini
adalah karya asal saya, dan tidak pernah dikemukakan secara sepenuhnya atau
sebahagiannya, sebelum ini untuk melayakkan mana-mana anugerah akademik lain.
Kandungan latihan ilmiah ini adalah hasil daripada kerja yang telah saya jalankan sejak
daripada tarikh permulaan rasmi untuk projek tesis yang disahkan tersebut.
Tarikh : 24/6/2022 Tandatangan :
Nama Penuh : Ahmad Qarirul U’yun Bin Mohd Yusoff
No. K.P. : 950802-03-5125
No. Matrik : 17151222/1
i
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE
I, Ahmad Qarirul U’yun Bin Mohd Yusoff, hereby declare that except where due
acknowledgement has been made, the work presented in this thesis is my own, and has
not been submitted previously in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic
award.
The content of this graduation exercise is the result of the work I have been carrying
out since the official commencement date of the approved thesis project.
Date : 24/6/2022 Signature :
Full Name : Ahmad Qarirul U’yun Bin Mohd Yusoff
NRIC No. : 950802-03-5125
Matric No. : 17151222/1
ii
ABSTRAK
Sebagai bahan struktur, keluli mempunyai banyak kelebihan. Salah satunya ialah
kawalan kualiti pembuatan untuk bahan ini boleh dipastikan dengan ketat. Di samping
itu, keluli struktur adalah bahan yang sempurna untuk digunakan dalam kaedah
pembinaan pasang siap. Dalam struktur, kebanyakan anggota struktur keluli
disambungkan dengan bolt dan nat. Walau bagaimanapun, susunan bolt dan nat secara
konvensional menyebabkan cabaran yang ketara terutamanya semasa kerja
penyambungan anggota struktur ke bahagian berongga keluli. Untuk mengatasinya,
jenis bolt baharu dicipta – bolt buta (blind bolt). Bolt buta membolehkan pemasangan
dari satu sisi dengan menyediakan mekanisme pengapit sendiri. Kertas ini menyiasat
bagaimana bolt jenis ini berfungsi di bawah beban statik. Ini dilakukan dengan
melakukan sejenis teknik berangka yang dipanggil Kaedah Unsur Terhingga (Finite
Element Method). Proses ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan pakej perisian FEM yang
dipanggil Ansys Mechanical. Sebelum analisis, beberapa model 3D sambungan bolt
buta dibina dengan menggunakan alat pelukis CAD terbina dalam yang dipanggil
SpaceClaim. Kemudian, proses pencerakinan (discretisation) dilakukan pada model.
Selepas itu, pelbagai syarat sempadan penting ditetapkan. Proses ini diikuti dengan
kajian parametrik yang bertujuan untuk menyiasat pengaruh saiz bolt, kekuatan bolt,
dan ketebalan plat hujung ke atas kekakuan sambungan. Daripada parameter ini,
kekuatan bolt dan ketebalan plat hujung menunjukkan beberapa tahap pengaruh dalam
kekakuan sambungan bolt buta. Lebih banyak kajian boleh dicadangkan untuk
mengesahkan keputusan daripada analisis berangka ini.
iii
ABSTRACT
As a structural material, steel poses numerous advantages. One of them is the
manufacturing quality control for this material can be stringently ensured. In addition,
structural steel is a perfect material to be used in the prefabrication construction
method. In structures, most of the steel structural members are connected with bolts
and nuts. However, the conventional bolt and nut arrangement causes a significant
challenge when it comes to connecting a structural member to a steel hollow section.
To overcome this, a new type of bolt is invented – a blind bolt. A blind bolt enables
installation from one side by providing a mechanism of self-clamping. This paper
investigates how this type of bolt performs under a static load. This is done by
performing a type of numerical technique called the Finite Element Method (FEM).
This process is done by using a FEM software package called Ansys Mechanical.
Before the analysis, some 3D models of the blind-bolted connection are built by using
the built-in CAD draughting tool called SpaceClaim. Then, the process of
discretisation is performed on the models. After that, various important boundary
conditions are set. This process is followed by a parametric study which intends to
investigate the influence of the bolt size, bolt strength, and the endplate thickness on
the stiffness of the connection. Out of these parameters, the bolt strength and the
endplate thickness show some degree of influence in the stiffness of the blind-bolted
connection. More studies can be proposed to verify the results from this numerical
analysis.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise Allah the Almighty for all the blessings and guidance to me so that I am able to
achieve this project. I would like to express my thankfulness to my parents for all the
guidance throughout this project. Special thanks also to my brothers for all the moral
support. Lastly, my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Fazaulnizam for giving me
the opportunity to conduct this research and for lending the useful knowledge and the
experience to guide me through this project.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Pengakuan oleh Pelajar i

Declaration by the Candidate ii
Abstrak iii
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures vii
List of Tables x
List of Symbols and Abbreviations xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of this Research 5
1.3 Scope of this Research 5
1.4 Thesis structure 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 8
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 17
3.1 Overview 17
3.2 Setting Up the Simulation for FEM 19
3.3 Performing Static FEM Analysis in Ansys 21
3.4 Conducting a Parametric Analysis 30
CHAPTER 4: STATIC FEM RESULTS 31
4.1 Development of Stresses in the Model 31
4.2 Propagation of Deformation in the Model 34
4.3 Relative Stiffnesses of the Model Components 35
CHAPTER 5: PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS 39
5.1 Part 1 – Effect of Bolt Size on the Stiffness 39
5.2 Part 2 – Effect of Bolt Steel Strength on the Stiffness 48
5.3 Part 3 – Effect of Endplate Thickness on the Stiffness 56
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS 65
6.1 Summary and Recommendations 65
6.2 Contribution to entrepreneurship, economic, environmental, and
socio-cultural progress 66
CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES 67
APPENDICES A1
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Comparison between a blind bolt and a standard bolt ............................... 2
Figure 1.2: Typical stress-strain curve of a material of a ductile material ................... 4
Figure 3.1: The process flow of the methodology of this study ................................ 17
Figure 3.2: Geometric details of the blind bolts ......................................................... 18
Figure 3.3: Screenshot of the main interface of Ansys Mechanical .......................... 19
Figure 3.4: Screenshot of SpaceClaim interface with the simulation model ............. 20
Figure 3.5: The illustration of the bilinear model of the stress-strain relationship in the
Ansys material library ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3.6: The discretisation of the model ............................................................... 23
Figure 3.7: Cross-section of the bolt connection and the contact conditions involved
.................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.8: The loading step of bolt pretension in Ansys .......................................... 27
Figure 3.9: Front and rear view of the connection model showing the supports and the
external load ............................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.10: Force convergence plot for M16 blind bolted connection model .......... 30
Figure 4.1: The results from the analysis of the M16 blind bolt, showing the location
of the yielding and the true deformation geometry .................................................... 31
Figure 4.2: F-Dt relationship of different components in M10 bolted connection .... 36
vii
Figure 5.1: F-Dt relationship of all the blind bolts in the models .............................. 39
Figure 5.2: F-Dt relationships with polynomial regression lines ............................... 41
Figure 5.3: The plot of the average stiffness against bolt diameter showing the region
of common stiffnesses ................................................................................................ 43
Figure 5.4: F-Dt relationship of the SHS with different bolt diameters ..................... 44
Figure 5.5: The plot of the average stiffness of SHS against bolt diameter............... 45
Figure 5.6: F-Dt relationship of the global reaction with different bolt diameters .... 46
Figure 5.7: The plot of the average global stiffness against bolt diameter ................ 47
Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the M16 bolt shank with different bolt strengths .... 48
Figure 5.9: The plot of the average stiffness of the M16 bolt against the bolt strength
.................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.10: F-Dt relationship of the endplate with different bolt strengths .............. 50
Figure 5.11: The plot of the average stiffness of the endplate against the bolt strength
.................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5.12: F-Dt relationship of the SHS with different bolt strengths .................... 52
Figure 5.13: The plot of the average stiffness of the SHS against the bolt strength .. 53
Figure 5.14: F-Dt relationship of the global reaction with different bolt strengths ... 54
Figure 5.15: The plot of the average global stiffness against the bolt strength ......... 55
Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the M16 bolt shank with different endplate thicknesses
.................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5.9: The plot of the average stiffness of the M16 bolt against the endplate
thicknesses ................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the endplates ............................................................ 59
viii
Figure 5.9: The plot of the average stiffness of the M16 bolt against the endplate
thicknesses ................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the SHS with different endplate thicknesses ........... 61
Figure 5.9: The plot of the average stiffness of the SHS against the endplate
thicknesses ................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the global reaction with different endplate thicknesses
.................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.9: The plot of the average global stiffness against the endplate thicknesses64
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Dimensions of the blind bolts ................................................................... 18
Table 3.2: Material properties of the nonlinear structural steel (bolts) ...................... 22
Table 3.3: Tightening factors for different bolt types ................................................ 26
Table 3.4: Bolt pretension magnitudes....................................................................... 27
Table 3.5: External forces applied to different bolt shank diameters ........................ 28
Table 4.1: The stress development of the blind-bolted connection model ................ 32
Table 4.2: Propagation of strain in the model ............................................................ 34
Table 5.1: The R2 values and the polynomial regression equations of each bolt
diameters .................................................................................................................... 40
Table 5.2: The bolt diameters and the calculated average stiffness ........................... 42
Table 5.3: The R2 values and the polynomial regression equations of SHS with
different bolt diameters .............................................................................................. 44
Table 5.4: The bolt diameters and the calculated average stiffness of SHS .............. 45
Table 5.5: The R2 values and the polynomial regression equations of the global with
different bolt diameters .............................................................................................. 46
Table 5.6: The bolt diameters and the calculated average global stiffness ................ 47
Table 5.7: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the M16 bolt
shank with different strengths .................................................................................... 49
Table 5.8: The bolt strengths and the calculated average bolt stiffness ..................... 49
Table 5.9: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the endplate with
different strengths....................................................................................................... 50
Table 5.10: The bolt strengths and the calculated average endplate stiffness ........... 51
x
Table 5.11: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the SHS with
different strengths....................................................................................................... 52
Table 5.12: The bolt strengths and the calculated average SHS stiffness .................. 53
Table 5.13: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the global
reaction with different strengths................................................................................. 54
Table 5.14: The bolt strengths and the calculated average global stiffness ............... 55
Table 5.15: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the M16 bolt
shank with different endplate thicknesses .................................................................. 57
Table 5.16: The endplate thicknesses and the calculated average bolt stiffness ........ 58
Table 5.17: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the endplates
.................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 5.18: The endplate thicknesses and its calculated average stiffness ................ 60
different endplate thicknesses .................................................................................... 61
Table 5.20: The endplate thicknesses and the average stiffness of the SHS.............. 62
different endplate thicknesses .................................................................................... 63
Table 5.22: The endplate thicknesses and the average global stiffness ..................... 64
xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CAD Computer-aided design
CFT Concrete-filled tubular section
D Diameter of blind bolt
Dt Total deformation
EC0 Eurocode – Basis of structural design
EC3 Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures
EHB Extended Hollo-Bolt
F Force
FEM Finite Element Modelling
K Tightening factor of the blind bolt
k Stiffness of a material
P Pretension of the bolt
T Required torque to tighten the blind bolt
ε Strain, i.e., the ratio of the elongation of a material per its initial
dimension
σ Stress, i.e., force per unit area experienced by a material
xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Recently, steel construction is gaining popularity across the globe. There is an
increasing number of applications of structural steel, especially on bridges and high-
rise buildings. This situation is enhanced by the era of prefabrication, where different
structural elements are fabricated off-site. Steel structures present significant
advantages in this method of construction as the fabrication of steel can be tightly
regulated, and the mechanical properties of structural steel can be strictly ensured. In
terms of member support, especially for building designs, steel structures typically use
either a combination of bolt systems or welding. The conventional type of bolts which
are extensively used in building design come in pairs – one bolt and one nut. This
requires every bolt to be installed from both sides. Despite being guaranteed in terms
of its strength, the method of installing the conventional bolt poses one major
limitation. And this limitation leads to the advent of a blind bolt. A blind bolt is a
special type of bolt which has a unique mechanism of installation that enables
installation from one side. This feature is important as it enables the installation where
access from both sides of the section is limited, especially in tubular sections and
concrete-filled sections.
1
(a) Blind bolt (b) Standard bolt and nut
Figure 1.1: Comparison between a blind bolt and a standard bolt
The understanding of the failure mechanism of a blind bolt as well as the
interaction with the main structure is still in progress. Therefore, this study intends to
contribute to the advancement of the understanding of this new type of bolt. This can
be achieved by investigating how this new type of bolt responds to different types of
loadings up until failure. Whilst there are numerous ways to observe the failure
mechanisms of the bolt, this study focuses on the numerical simulation through a
method called Finite Element Modelling (FEM).
The choice of numerical simulation over physical experimentation has some
considerable merits. Simulations are easy to be repeated. This is because the result
from this method is virtually free from instrumental error and human error if the
simulated model is built correctly. The financial investment for this method is
significantly less than the experimentation method. This is because there are no
laboratory work and material consumption required. However, most importantly, since
the purpose of this study is to investigate the performance of relatively newly
developed structural members, numerical simulation can be the precursor of physical
2
experimentations. Fundamentally, in this study, numerical simulation refers to the
application of a numerical method in solving a series of differential equations related
to physical quantities, such as stress and strain, which describe the condition of the
bolt after it is subjected to loading. The Finite Element Method (FEM) is one of the
most extensively used numerical simulations both in research and industry. It involves
the process of discretisation, where the model geometry is divided or meshed into
smaller parts with the same shapes such as triangles and quadrilaterals. Then, all the
differential equations about the stiffness of the model element and all the forces
applied are employed in these discrete geometries. Then, all the individual equations
for each mesh element are assembled into a larger system of equations that simulate
the entire properties of the system. In addition, similar to every typical differential
equation, boundary conditions must be set so that there will be meaningful solutions
to the equations. In structural analysis, the boundary condition can be in the form of
the forces applied and the fixity of the structural member, such as whether the
structural member is simply supported or fixed to other members.
In several parts of the world, including Malaysia, the structures are designed
with the reference to the specifications in Eurocode. There are 10 volumes of
Eurocode, numbered from Eurocode 0 (EC0) to Eurocode 9 (EC9). However, the three
volumes that are going to be referred to in this study, are EC0 and EC3. EC0 provides
an overview of the entire Eurocode publications. It outlines the fundamental concepts
of the structural analysis and the design methods applied in the later volumes.
Meanwhile, EC3 stipulates the guide for designing steel structures. In terms of the
3
actions on the structures, there are three main types, namely permanent action, variable
action, and accidental actions (European Committee, 2005). Permanent actions in a
structure are the summation of the structure self-weights and fixed equipment and
finishing. Meanwhile, variable action is the loads which vary throughout the lifetime
of the structure. This includes imposed loads, wind loads, and snow loads. Lastly, the
accidental load is the load which occurs in a significantly small chance and usually
happens in a brief time such as explosions or vehicle collisions. This study, however,
focuses on the loading conditions which represent the ultimate state design. Such a
limit state primarily focuses on the magnitude of loading until the structural material
passes its elastic limit, therefore, experiences yielding. In structural analysis
especially, it is useful to express the reaction of material upon experiencing external
loading as stress (σ), which equals the force per unit area, and strain (ϵ), which
represents the ratio of the deformation of the material per its original dimensions.
Figure 1.2 shows a stress-strain relationship of a ductile material.
Ul ima e s reng h
rac ure
Yield s reng h
Elas ic las ic
region region
Figure 1.2: Typical stress-strain curve of a material of a ductile material
4
The next three subchapters of this report briefly list the main objectives, the scope of
this study, and the structure of this thesis.
1.2 Objectives of this Research
• To investigate how does a selected type of blind bolt perform under
increasing static stresses
• To conduct a numerical analysis of the selected blind bolts by using the
Finite Element Method (FEM)
• To establish some important correlations between different parameters
during the numerical simulation
1.3 Scope of this Research
• This study will only involve some literature reviews to identify the gap in
knowledge from the past and recent research
• Only numerical analysis and some brief parametric analysis will be involved
in this study
• Physical experimentation is not covered in this study
• The parametric study focuses on the effect on different parameters
considered:
o The bolt sizes
o The structural steel strength
o The thickness of endplates
5
1.4 Thesis structure
This study will have 7 main chapters which can be outlined as follows.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
This is where the theoretical foundations pertinent to this study are laid. All the
important concepts will be explained briefly in this chapter.
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Several past research will be outlined to determine the possible research gaps and to
learn about the methodologies used.
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the process of the FEM employed in this study. The explanation
includes all the necessary steps and the conditions of the simulations.
CHAPTER 4 – STATIC FEM RESULTS
This chapter presents the basic output of the FEM process with Ansys Mechanical.
Some important discussions are also made in terms of the failure mechanism of the
chosen blind bolts.
CHAPTER 5 – PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
This chapter investigates and discusses the potential parameters which affect the
stiffness of the blind-bolted connection setup.
6
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS
This chapter concludes this research by outlining the key takeaways as well as
recommendations for future research. In addition, there are also some outlines of the
entrepreneurship opportunity related to this research as well as the economic,
environmental, and socio-cultural impacts in professional practice related to this study.
CHAPTER 7 – REFERENCES
This chapter lists all the materials referred to in this study.
7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Various research has been conducted to test the mechanical properties and the failure
mechanisms of blind bolts. In general, when comparing the previous studies, the
variations can be explained in the form of the research methodologies, the structural
members involved, and the types of failure of the bolts. There were a few research
methodologies that were identified. Some of which include reviews, experimentations,
analyses, and combinations of two or more methods mentioned. In terms of the types
of blind bolts, it was found that several studies utilised certain modified versions of
blind bolts available in the industry, whereas the others used the standard ones. For the
failure types, a large number of studies focused on both static and dynamic loadings,
whereas some of them investigated the performance of the bolts under fire conditions,
fatigue, and seismic loadings.
One of the examples of a review study is conducted by M. Cabrera, W. Tizani
and J. Ninic (2021), where they investigate the trends of previous research on several
types of blind bolt systems that were currently available in the industry. In the study,
there were four types of blind bolts critically described, which are Ajax ONESIDE
fastener, thread-fixed one-side bolt, T-shaped one-side bolt, and Lindapter® Hollo-
bolt. the author of this study compares the performance characteristics of these bolts
based on previous studies. The Ajax ONESIDE fastener is a type of blind bolt where
it has a split step-washer, a solid washer, and a structural nut. From the study, it was
explained that the strength characteristics of the bolt comply with the American
8
Standard AS4291.1 which pertained to the mechanical properties of steel bolts. The
thread-fixed one-side bolt was also found to be compliant with the resistance to seismic
loadings. For T-shaped one-side bolt, the author explained that the initial stiffness of
the bolt increases when it is slotted vertically, but decreases when slotted horizontally,
as compared to the standard high-strength bolts. Whereas the Lindapter® Hollo-bolt
shows some potential in the application of the moment-resisting connection (Cabrera
et al., 2021). In another study, T. Pokharel (2016) conducted a review on developing
structural systems for low to mid-rise buildings using moment resisting frames with
blind bolted connections with sufficient strength and stiffness to create a lateral force-
resisting system suitable for low to moderate seismic regions. In this study, Pokharel
provided some description of the design methods for structures that implements blind
bolts into the design. His research included some experiments and analyses to support
the design practice (Pokharel, 2016).
Besides, there are also several research which involve some experimentations
with some selected blind bolts available on the market. Li and Zhao (2021) conducted
an experimental study on blind bolted T-stub to square hollow section (SHS)
connections made by stainless steel. The authors identified several parameters which
affect the performance of the blind bolt T-stubs namely the blind bolt system, the
layout of the bolts, the thickness of the SHS, and the specimen configuration. The
experimental program featured in the study includes tests for a single bolt, T-stub, the
hollow section, and T-stub to hollow section. From the study, they concluded that the
mechanical properties of bind bolts are greatly affected by their interlocking
9
mechanisms (Li & Zhao, 2021). Meanwhile, Y. Liu, J. Chen, X. Zhang, and D. Tan
(2018) conducted an experimental study on the fatigue performance of a blind bolt
under axial-tension cyclic loads. From the results, it was found that different modes of
failure were observed at the standard bolt and the blind bolt. For the standard bolt, the
shank fracture was observed, whilst for the blind bolt, a sleeve fracture was observed
when it was subjected to static tension (Liu et al., 2018).
In addition, W. Tizani and T. Pitrakkos (2015) conducted experimental research
to investigate the performance of a newly developed blind bolt, intended for use in
constructing bolted moment-resisting connections to concrete-filled tubular steel
profiles. From their research, it was found that the connections to the steel hollow
unfilled section could not develop the full tensile capacity of the bolt. However,
different conditions were observed for the concrete-filled tubes. When the concrete is
filled into the tubes after the blind bolts were installed, the overall connection stiffness
increases, and the bending and the deformation of the tube decreases (Tizani &
Pitrakkos, 2015).
Apart from experiments, there are also some analysis studies. Under this type of
research, there are two sub-categories, which are parametric study and, Finite Element
Modelling (FEM). The two software applications mostly used are Ansys and Abacus.
Meanwhile, a parametric study is the study of the influence of different geometric or
physical parameters or both on the solution of the problem. This typically involves the
derivation of equations. One of the parametric studies surveyed is by Javora and Skejić
10
(2017), who studied the interactions between different bolt systems in beam-to-column
joints. In the study, 1,155 combinations of parameters define the behaviour of 5 chosen
blind bolt systems, namely generic blind bolt, Ajax ONESIDE fastener, Flowdrill,
Huck Ultratwist, and Hollo-bolt. These parameters include the strength of the columns,
the bolt size, the bolt grade, and the distance between the bolts. In the study, three main
failure modes were identified, which are the tensile force on the bolt, the bending of
the column face, and the bending of the endplate (Javora & Skejić, 2017).
Meanwhile. Zheng and Xia (2009) provided one of the earliest studies on the
FEM simulation of the blind bolt. The FEM simulation was conducted in a 3D FEM
software called Ansys. In the study, the author explained the method of idealisation of
the blind bolt thread. Instead of modelling the thread in 3 dimensions, the author used
node coupling to simulate the interaction between the bolt surface with the connected
block. The simulation procedures are as follows: the author defined the pretension
force. The pretension force has one degree of freedom of translation and has a
magnitude of 55 kN. After the simulation was completed, the author then conducted a
theoretical analysis of the bolt. The theoretical analysis involves the derivation of
principal equations, especially about the stress and strain of bolts loaded with axial
loads. In this process, the interaction of the bolt thread is explicitly modelled by the
existing equations. Then, the author proceeded with a comparison between the
theoretical analysis and the simulation and eventually concluded that the simulation is
consistent with the existing theories of bolt loading (Zheng & Xia, 2009).
11
In another study, A. M. Pascual, M. L. Romero and W. Tizani, (2015) provided
an advanced numerical model (FEM) to predict the fire behaviour of blind bolts in the
tension area of endplate connections between I-beams and concrete-filled tubular
(CFT) columns. A few analyses leading to the FEM were conducted by the author,
including nonlinear heat transfer analysis to test the bolt when it is subjected to thermal
load through conduction, convection, and radiation, as well as nonlinear stress analysis
to test the bolt under tensile stress. The results showed that the addition of concrete to
the inside of the column improves the connection's responsiveness in terms of FRR
and stiffness at high temperatures. When anchored blind bolts were used instead of
regular blind bolts, stiffer connections were achieved, although the FRR improvement
was dependent on plate thickness and steel bolt characteristics (Pascual et al., 2015).
Another FEM study was conducted by Cabrera, Tizani, Mahmood and
Shamsudin, (2020), which investigates the combined failure mode of the Extended
Hollo-Bolt (EHB) and the effect of the column thickness on the tensile behaviour of
the blind fastener by using 3D FEM. The authors constructed three full-scale 3D
models by using drafting software and conducted the simulation on the combined
loadings in finite element software called Abaqus. The study proves the reliability of
FEM in understanding the behaviour of blind bolts when subjected to loadings. This
can be shown from the comparison between the deformation in experimental data and
the FE analysis, the marginal error in initial stiffness is between 4 to 16%. In addition,
from the global displacement model, the FE model can predict the force-displacement
curve with different slenderness ratios of the column with 90% accuracy. However,
12
the author clarified that when the column is slender, the concrete tends to reach failure
first before the steel column itself. Therefore, it was suggested a study be conducted
to investigate the effect of differing infill concrete strengths and the column
slenderness ratio on the failure of the bolt (Cabrera et al., 2020).
Besides sole experimentations and simulations, there were also some studies
which incorporated both methodologies in one study. The purpose of this is often to
compare the results from these two methodologies. This way, the authors can verify
the validity of the simulations with the real data from the experiments. For example,
Mesquita et al. (2021) conducted a comparison study between 3D simulation with
experimental results on the performance of steel joints with Hollo-bolt. In the study,
the author compared numerical results with experimental data by using full-scale
prototypes under monotonic load. For this purpose, various 3D models were created
by using a mechanical CAD drafting software called Autodesk Inventor, which were
then imported to Ansys to perform numerical simulations. Then, the author used the
true geometrical and mechanical parameters of the individual profiles to perform a
numerical calibration. From the numerical simulation, it was found that the sleeves of
the hollo-bolts were the first component to fail in all tests, implying that they were
responsible for the joint's integrity. The author finally suggested that a parametric
study can be conducted to investigate the effect of varying the bolt's tightening torque
as well as the width and thickness of the tube profiles on he bol ’s performance
(Mesquita et al., 2021).
13
Meanwhile, Lee et al. (2011) researched to test the performance of T-stub
connection with blind bolt subjected to static loading. The test specimen of the research
was Ajax ONESIDE blind bolt. In the experiment set-up, a series of Ajax ONESIDE
blind bolts are attached to a T-stub and a square hollow section (SHS). The assembly
of the blind bolt included the bolt itself, a collapsible washer, a shear sleeve, a solid
washer, a nut, and an installation tool. The whole setup was also equipped with sensors
that can detect and record the strain of the specimen relative to the ground. From the
results, it was clear that the incorporation of bolt sleeves contributes to the strength
and the stiffness of the bolt system as it can reduce the bending of the bolt. Due to this
reason, the author recommended the use of sleeves, especially for the blind bolt of this
variant. The tolerance between the outside diameter of the sleeves and the bolt hole
determines their effectiveness. The sleeves are more effective in reducing bolt bending
and slide between the endplate and the tube face when the tolerance is tighter.
Additionally, the author also conducted a non-linear FEM simulation and found that
the FEM can accurately replicate the experimental results (Lee et al., 2011b).
Furthermore, significant variations in terms of the structural members under
study were found in previous research. The most apparent one is the use of steel hollow
sections, both unfilled and filled with concrete. Typically, the researchers who
conducted this study aim to investigate the deformation pattern of the bolt, known as
a local displacement, and the deformation of the entire connection system including
the members, known as global displacement. The influence of the structural member
on the performance of the bolt is also one of the key interests in this type of study. One
study conducted by Tahir et al. (2018) investigated the interactions of the moment
14
connection between an I-beam and a square hollow column with a blind bolt by the
method of numerical analysis and experiments. In both of these procedures, eight full-
scale specimens with four extended end plates and four-flush end plate external
connections were examined by subjecting them to monotonic stress. The joint's
moment-rotation curves, failure mechanism, starting stiffness, and connection
classification were measured and discussed. The results showed that the thickness and
kinds of end plates, as well as the size of the beam, can increase the moment capacity
and rotational stiffness of connections. However, the author also noted that there were
a few exceptions where for certain SHS dimensions, the ability for the connection to
obtain a partial strength connection status according to the EC3 classifications is
reduced when the beam size and end plate thickness are increased beyond a certain
amount (Tahir et al., 2018).
For hollow sections, it is apparent that the moment connection is one of the most
commonly tested connections in the previous studies. Moment connection is a type of
connection which allows the transfer of the bending moment of a beam to a column.
For example, Lee et al. (2011) conducted another study which comprises an
experiment and a numerical analysis on the beam-to-column moment connection with
blind bolts. The research was conducted in cooperation with two of the major
Australian industrial steel manufacturers which are Ajax Engineered Fasteners and
Australian Tube Mills to develop a range of blind bolts which can be used in the
construction industry. In the experiment setup, a T-stub blind bolted connection was
used, which consisted of a top and a bottom flanges and channels which are installed
15
to a backplate inside the SHS column connecting the flanges. The purpose of the
incorporation of channels inside the SHS is to shift the tension stress from the beam
flange to the rear face of the hollow section column, minimising strain on the flexible
column face, which can affect the connection's rigidity. As a result, with the same
thickness of the endplate, the extended T-stub connection with rear face support is
about five times stiffer than the T-stub connection. This demonstrated that the T-stub
blind bolt configuration is stiffer than a typical end plate connection, therefore is
suitable to be used in rigid connections in compliance with EC3 (Lee et al., 2011a).
16
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
Figure 3.1 shows the process flowchart of the methodology of this study.
Start
Retrieving the
blind bolt, the
endplate, and the
SHS geometries
Produce 3D model
of the connections
Perform dynamic
analysis with FEM
Conduct parametric
analysis
Interpret the
results
End
Figure 3.1: The process flow of the methodology of this study
The methodology of this study starts with selecting the specific blind bolt already
available in the industry. in this case, the blind bolt selected is from BlindBolt Asia.
There are three main products by this company which are “The Blind Bol ”, “Thin
17
Wall Bol ”, and “Heavy Du y Bol ”. The first one is chosen for modelling in this study
because it is the standard version of the blind bolt as shown in Figure 1.1 in Chapter
1. Then, the catalogue of the chosen blind bolt series is examined to obtain the required
geometries as well as the recommended bolt pretension. In addition, five blind bolt
diameters were chosen, namely M10, M12, M16, M20, and M24, to be analysed. The
geometric details of the blind bolt can be presented in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1 (Blind
Bolt Company, 2020).
Figure 3.2: Geometric details of the blind bolts
Table 3.1: Dimensions of the blind bolts
Bolt Anchor Fixing thicknesses Depth

Bolt length
diameter Clearance Min Max Clearance
M10 95 23 25 65 30
M12 120 26 30 85 35
M16 90 36 13 43 43
M20 110 44 21 56 56
M24 130 53 21 66 64
Note: All dimensions in this table are in mm.
18
3.2 Setting Up the Simulation for FEM
There are many software packages available which are capable of performing a FEM
simulation. However, in this study, Ansys Mechanical was chosen for this purpose as
demonstrated in Figure 3.3. Before running the simulation in Ansys, the simulation
model had to be constructed. This can be done in multiple ways with different CAD
draughting methods and then can be imported into Ansys Workbench, the main
interface of Ansys. Ansys also provides a built-in CAD tool called SpaceClaim, which
is used in this study. Figure 3.4 shows a screenshot of the SpaceClaim package. In
addition, the simulation model can be constructed in several ways depending on the
desired accuracy aimed for the simulation. For example, a 3-dimensional object can
be modelled as it is with varying levels of geometrical precision or be modelled as a
2D surface or 2D line. This study aimed to observe the failure mechanisms in great
detail. Therefore, all the steel connection setups were modelled in 3D.
Figure 3.3: Screenshot of the main interface of Ansys Mechanical
19
Figure 3.4: Screenshot of SpaceClaim interface with the simulation model
In the 3D model, the bolt was fixed to an unfilled SHS column with an extended
endplate to idealise a semi-rigid beam-to-column connection. For the column, an SHS
200/12 (square hollow section with the section dimensions of 200 × 200 mm and the
thickness of 12 mm) with an extended plate of the dimensions of 300 × 150 × 12 mm
is used. Also, both the endplate and the SHS would have holes which follow the blind
bolt diameter with an additional 1 mm tolerance. For example, in the setup for the M16
blind bolt, the holes on the endplate and the SHS would have a diameter of 17 mm.
This was done according to specifications from the Blind Bolt Company itself.
20
3.3 Performing Static FEM Analysis in Ansys
Generally, the methodology of the static FEM analysis in this study can be listed as
follows:
1. Identifying the material properties
2. 3D model discretisation
3. Identifying all boundary conditions
4. Setting up the analysis
5. Retrieve the results
3.3.1 Material properties
The chosen material was structural steel with a yield strength of 250 MPa. This was
the default material in the Ansys programme. However, it was intended to apply the
external load past the yield strength of the model. Hence, a non-linear structural steel
material was chosen from the material library in Ansys. The non-linear material differs
from the linear counterpart due to the stress-strain model that was attached to the
material properties. For linear structural steel, only a linear stress-strain relationship is
available, whereas, for the non-linear structural steel, the stress-strain relationship was
approximated by a bilinear model in the software, which can be demonstrated in
approximating the non-linear relationship by splitting the stress-strain curve into two
parts, separated at the yield point on the curve. On the left side of the yield point, the
gradient of the curve is Young’s modulus of he ma erial, whereas, on he righ side of
the yield point, the gradient is called the tangent modulus of the material. Young’s
modulus of the material is 200 GPa and the tangent modulus is just 1.45 GPa. In the
21
parametric analysis, which will be discussed in Chapter 5, two other structural steel
grades will also be used for bolts, which are S275 and S355.
Yield
poin
Tangen modulus
E E D
True s ress s rain curve
Young s Bilinear model
modulus S ress
S rain
Figure 3.5: The illustration of the bilinear model of the stress-strain relationship
in the Ansys material library
The following table describes the properties of the nonlinear structural steel used.
Table 3.2: Material properties of the nonlinear structural steel (bolts)
Parameters Default S275 S355

Density (kg/m3) 7,850
Young’s modulus (GPa) 200
Tangent modulus – in the 1.45
plastic region (GPa)
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Bulk modulus (GPa) 166.67
Shear modulus 76.92
Yield strength (MPa) 250 275 355
Ultimate Strength (Not available) 430 510
22
3.3.2 Discretisation
Similar to any typical FEM analysis, it started with the process of discretisation. This
involved creating subdivisions or meshing to the steel connection 3D model. It was
determined that the mesh size varied with the different elements in the steel
connection. This condition can be created in the Ansys Workbench by using the feature
called “Body Sizing”. These different mesh sizes can be listed as follows:
1. For the bolt shanks and the nuts – use 2.5 mm mesh, except for the M24 bolt
shank.
2. For the M24 bolt shank – use 5 mm mesh
3. For the endplate – use 10 mm mesh
4. For the SHS – use 25 mm mesh
The decision to vary the mesh sizing was pursued due to the limitation of the
computation resource and the lesser requirement for the accuracy of larger structural
members. Figure 3.6 shows the applied mesh sizing of the steel connection model.
Figure 3.6: The discretisation of the model
23
After the mesh was generated, various boundary conditions were specified before the
analysis was started.
3.3.3 Boundary Conditions
3.3.3.1 Boundary condition 1 – Contact conditions around the connection
After the meshing was generated, some of the individual meshes between different
bodies would be close together or touch each other. This would be detected by Ansys
algorithms and then would be listed in the interface. These are called contact
conditions. There are five types of contact conditions and each of them represents
different physical conditions of the interactions between a pair of bodies. The five
contact conditions can be listed as follows:
1. Bonded contact – the two bodies cannot separate and slide between each other
2. Rough contact – the friction coefficient between the surfaces of the two bodies
is assumed to be infinite. The two bodies are glued to each other
3. Frictional contact – the two surfaces of the bodies have a finite static friction
coefficient
4. Frictionless contact – the two bodies can separate and slide between each other
5. No separation contact – the two bodies can slide but not separate between each
other
However, in this study, only two contact conditions were utilised, which are the rough
and the bonded contact. The bonded contact was applied to the surfaces between the
bolt shank and the SHS as well as between the shank and the endplate. Meanwhile, the
24
rough contact condition was applied to all other contact surfaces in the model. This
can be illustrated in Figure 3.7.
Bol shank
u
Endpla e
layer E E D
SHS layer Rough con ac
Bonded con ac
Bol anchor
Figure 3.7: Cross-section of the bolt connection and the contact conditions
involved
3.3.3.2 Boundary Condition 2 – Bolt Pretension
Bolt pretension, also known as bolt preload, represents the force applied during the
tightening of the bolt which eventually creates compression inside the connection from
the clamping effect. From the technical sheet of the blind bolt, the bolt preload is not
specified directly. Instead, the manufacturer recommends the torque required to
tighten the bolts. The bolt pretension can be derived from the following equation:
𝑇 =𝐾 ×𝐷×𝑃 [3.1]
Where,
𝑇 Required orque o igh en he bol
𝐾 Tigh ening fac or (see Table 3.3)
𝐷 Diame er of he bol shank
𝑃 re ension of he blind bol
25
The following table shows the tightening factors commonly used:
Table 3.3: Tightening factors for different bolt types
K Type of bolt
0.2 Steel bolt without plating
0.15 Steel bolt with cadmium plating
0.28 Steel bolt with zinc plating
0.18 Steel bolt with lubrication
For the simulation setup, 𝐾 = 0.2 (steel bolt without plating) is used.
By applying the tightening factor, the bolt pretension force can be derived from the
equation 3.1, which results in the following equation:
𝑇
𝑃= [3.2]
0.2𝐷
For the first test subject, an M10 bolt is used. From the BlindBolt catalogue, the
recommended torque for the bolt of this diameter is 24 Nm. Therefore, the bolt
pretension is calculated as follows:
24
𝑃= = 12,000 N
0.2(0.01)
All the bolt preloads can be tabulated as follows:
26
Table 3.4: Bolt pretension magnitudes
Bolt size Shank Diameter (mm) Torque (Nm) Bolt Pretension (N)
M10 10 24 12,000
M12 12 30 12,500
M16 16 50 15,625
M20 20 65 16,250
M24 24 75 15,625
Then, under the Static Structural analysis settings, the loading step is set as 3. This is
to ensure that the external load is applied once the bolt pretension was fully applied.
The bolt preload was applied in step 1. Then, in steps 2 and three, the load is ‘locked’.
This can be demonstrated by the following figures.
Figure 3.8: The loading step of bolt pretension in Ansys
3.3.3.3 Boundary Condition 3 – Supports and External Load in Static Analysis
Due to the scope of this study, the simulation must not allow rigid body motion in the
simulation models. This condition can be achieved by limiting the external load to the
point where the test models only experienced elastic and plastic deformation, but not
total failure or rupture. In Ansys, the sub-program used for this purpose was Static
Structural. Whereas, if the material failure is intended, then Explicit Dynamics was
27
used instead. The external load was applied as a line load across the width of the
endplate to represent the force exerted from the transfer of load from a beam to a
column between the second and the third step of load application as demonstrated in
Figure 3.9: Front and rear view of the connection model showing the supports and the
external load. This virtual setup was essentially mimicking the standard pull-out test
of the standard bolts but without the total failure of the bolts. Different external load
is applied to each bol ’s diameter. These different forces can be tabulated in Table 3.5.
In addition, to ensure that the steel connection setup has adequate stability, fixed
supports were set at both ends of the SHS.
oad oad
i ed suppor
Figure 3.9: Front and rear view of the connection model showing the supports
and the external load
Table 3.5: External forces applied to different bolt shank diameters
Bolt diameter (mm) M10 M12 M16 M20 M24

Force applied (kN/m) 1,250 1,400 1,500 1,650 1,800
28
3.3.4 Setting Up the Static Failure Analysis in Ansys
After all the necessary boundary conditions were established, the solution can be set
up. To ensure the accuracy of the final results of the FEM, a few preliminary
adjustments were made in he “Analysis Se ings” in the left pane of the Ansys
Mechanical interface. The adjustments made are listed as follows:
1. Under “S ep Controls”
a. Number of steps :3
b. Auto time-stepping : On
c. Initial sub-steps : 30
d. Minimum sub-steps : 20
e. Maximum sub-steps : 150
2. Under “Solver Controls”
a. Large deflection : On
3. Under “Advanced”
a. Nonlinear data : On
Note that the “ arge deflec ion” se ing was urned on because i was in ended o
subject the bolted connection model under plastic strain conditions. Then, the analysis
was run. To ensure the reliability of the results, the Force Convergence plot was
checked. This can be done by going o he “Solu ion Informa ion” in he lef pane of
the interface and setting the “Solu ion Ou pu ” o “ orce Convergence”. The resul s
from the FE analysis are considered reliable when the force convergence line (the blue
line in Figure 3.10) falls below the force criterion line (the cyan line). An example of
a force convergence plot is displayed in the Force convergence plot for M16 blind
29
bolted connection model. All the force convergence plots are included in Appendix A
of this report. Then, under the solutions, all the intended results such as the Von-Mises
equivalent stress and strain were set up.
Figure 3.10: Force convergence plot for M16 blind bolted connection model
3.4 Conducting a Parametric Analysis
In this study, the parametric analysis refers to the investigation of different
independent parameters to the overall stiffness of the blind-bolted connection models
and the local stiffness of their components.
30
CHAPTER 4: STATIC FEM RESULTS
4.1 Development of Stresses in the Model
It is intended to locate the development of stresses in the various components of the
bolted connection model. Since the material fracture is not covered in this study, all
the results from the FE analysis will only indicate the locations of the yielding of the
material. An example of this is shown in the following diagram, where the red region
represents the area where the equivalent stress exceeded the 250 MPa yield strength of
the structural steel.
Figure 4.1: The results from the analysis of the M16 blind bolt, showing the
location of the yielding and the true deformation geometry
In addition, it is also important to look at how the stresses develop inside the model
with the gradual increment of the external load imposed on it. Based on the simulation
conducted, it was observed that the stress development for all blind bolt diameters was
31
almost completely identical. Table 4.1 shows an example of the development of stress
in the M16 bolted connection setup. The left column of the table shows the longitudinal
section view of the simulated model. Similar to Figure 4.1, the red region represents
the area where the steel yielding had occurred.
Table 4.1: The stress development of the blind-bolted connection model
FEM results Explanation
Stage 1 Stress developed inside the shank due to the
compression effect created by the bolt
pretension from the tightening process. At this
point, the bolt preloading is locked, and the
external force started to be imposed on the
model. The endplate and the SHS were
minimally affected by the bolt pretension
process.
Stage 2 After the external load was applied to the
model, the stresses started to develop further
in the shank and the nut as well as all other
elements. The load tended to be concentrated
at the location of the external load and spread
horizontally at the contact surfaces. All the
elements are still under elastic deformation at
this point.
32
Stage 3 The yielding started to occur in the bolt shank
and the top surface of the endplate. The
yielding formed a shear pattern starting at the
surface facing the centre of the endplate. This
was due to the eccentricity of the external load
applied relative to the position along the bolt
shank.
Stage 4 The endplate started to deform excessively
due to the external load. The yielding of the
steel covered almost the entire top surface of
the endplate. The excessive deformation
(Section view) created a pair of forces which acted
diagonally with the respect to the global
coordinate of the model. These diagonal
upward forces pushed towards the shank and
the nut, where at this point, the nut started to
(Plan view) experience elastic stress.
33
4.2 Propagation of Deformation in the Model
Because structural steel tends to have a significant magnitude of stiffness, the strain is
not necessarily visible before it yields. This is true for the connection model used in
this study. However, similar to stress development, it is essential to observe how the
strain is developing inside the bolted connection. This can be demonstrated in Table
4.2.
Table 4.2: Propagation of strain in the model
Stage 1 This was the early stage of the simulation,
where the bolt pretension was fully applied
and locked. Since the stress caused by the
pretension was relatively small, the strain
caused by it was almost zero. This condition
continued even after the external force was
applied.
Stage 2 At this frame, there was a significant
deflection observed at the endplate. The
maximum deflection at this location exceeded
2 mm. However, it is interesting to note that
the stress inside the endplate, as well as the
bolt shank, corresponds to Stage 3 in the stress
development; it already exceeded the yield
limit of the steel. This was because the bolt
34
shank is constrained by the bolt hole whilst
the endplate is free to move and separate.
Stage 3 This was at the end of the simulation, similar
to Stage 4 in stress development. The total
deformation at the endplate reached a
maximum of almost 10 mm. The deformation
was absolutely visible at this stage. However,
inside the bolt shank, significant total
deformation was only observed at the top part
of the shank, and the distribution of the
deformation was perpendicular to the
direction of the deformation of the endplate.
4.3 Relative Stiffnesses of the Model Components
The observed propagation of failure can also be further verified by investigating the
relationship between the applied force (F) and the total displacement (Dt) for each
component in the bolted connection. From this relationship, we can obtain the relative
stiffness, which is represented by its gradient. After some analyses were made, it was
found that all the bolted connection models show similar variation in terms of
stiffnesses in the connection components. In addition, when the total deflection for the
entire model and the endplate were obtained, it was found that the two data matched
completely in all models. This suggests that the endplate has the least stiffness among
35
all other components in all models. Therefore, this condition confirms the observation
made in subchapters 4.1 and 4.2. Figure 4.2 until Figure 4.6 show the force-
displacement relationship for all blind-bolted connection models.
200
180
160
140
120
Force (kN)
Bolt Shank
100
Series2
80
Endplate
60
SHS
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total Deformation (mm)
Figure 4.2: F-Dt relationship of different components in M10 bolted connection
250
200
150
Force (kN)
Bolt Shank
Global
100
Endplate
SHS
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
36
250
200
150
Force (kN)
Bolt Shank
Global
100 Endplate
SHS
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
300
250
200
Force (kN)
Bolt shank
150
Global
Endplate
100 SHS
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
37
300
250
200
Force (kN)
Bolt shank
150
Global
Endplate
100
SHS
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
The effect of the bolt diameter on the global stiffness and the stiffnesses of the
components are going to be discussed in the next part.
38
CHAPTER 5: PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
5.1 Part 1 – Effect of Bolt Size on the Stiffness
Figure 5.1 shows the stiffnesses of the bolts in all the bolted connections. From the
figure, it was observed that there were two pairs of bolts which have slightly similar
stiffness, which is the M10-M12 and M16-M20 pairs. The M24 has the highest
stiffness among all other fours. However, this observation needs to be verified further.
This can be done by obtaining the average stiffnesses. Due to the nonlinearity of the
F-Dt relationship, polynomial regression equations were obtained for all the bolt
diameters.
300
250
200
Force (kN)
150
100
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
M10 M12 M16 M20 M24
Figure 5.1: F-Dt relationship of all the blind bolts in the models
39
To generate the polynomial model of all the F-Dt relationships, it must be ensured that
the equation fits the original data well. The general form of a polynomial equation of
the nth order is shown as follows
𝑛
𝑦 = 𝑓(𝑥) = ∑ 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑟 [5.1]
𝑟=0
Where n is the order (the highest power) of the polynomial.
To ensure the reliability of the polynomial equation, the R2 value was also obtained.
This value represents how well the polynomial model fits with the original data. In this
study, a minimum of 0.8 is considered acceptable for this value. In addition, since the
y-intercept should be 0, then the term in equation 4.1 was set to be 0. Table 5.1
shows the generated polynomial equation and the R2 values for all bolt diameters.
Table 5.1: The R2 values and the polynomial regression equations of each bolt
diameters
Bolt
M10 0.9997
M12 0.9999
M16 0.9998
M20 0.9997
M24 0.9993
The following figure shows the F-Dt relationships for all bolt diameters and their
respective polynomial regression equation.
40
300
y = 18.338x3 - 108.34x2 + 264.54x
R² = 0.9993
250
y = 18.645x3 - 110.69x2 + 262.55x
R² = 0.9997
200 y = 36.83x4 - 105.82x3 + 8.1342x2 + 234.81x
R² = 0.9998
Force (kN)
150 y = 13.885x3 - 90.043x2 + 216.16x

R² = 0.9999
100
y = 11.095x3 - 86.726x2 + 221.71x
R² = 0.9997
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
M10 M12 M16 M20

M24 Poly. (M10) Poly. (M12) Poly. (M16)
Poly. (M20) Poly. (M24)
Figure 5.2: F-Dt relationships with polynomial regression lines
rom Hooke’s law, the stiffness is defined by the change in the force concerning the
elongation. Therefore, the average stiffness can be obtained by summing all the
individual stiffnesses across the deformation and then dividing with the change in the
deformation. The formula to find the average stiffness can be derived as follows:
rom Hooke’s law,
(ignoring he sign conven ion) [5.2]
Then, the tangent stiffness of an F-Dt relationship is,
𝑑𝐹
𝑘=
𝑑𝐷𝑡
41
Therefore, the average stiffness between an interval of deformation, 𝑘avg is,
𝑑𝐹
∫𝑎𝑏 𝑑𝐷
𝑑𝐷𝑡 𝑡 𝐹(𝑏) − 𝐹(𝑎) [5.3]
𝑘avg = =
𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎
An example of the average stiffness calculation can be demonstrated as follows:
For the M10 bolt:
𝑎 = 0, 𝑏 = 2
𝐹(𝑏) = 𝐹(2) = 11.095(2)3 − 86.726(2)2 + 221.71(2) = 185.276 kN
𝐹(𝑎) = 𝐹(0) = 0
𝐹(𝑏) − 𝐹(𝑎) 185.276 − 0

𝑘avg = = = 92.638 kN/mm
𝑏−𝑎 2−0
Then, the same calculations were repeated for the rest of the bolts. This can be
presented in the following table and figure.
Table 5.2: The bolt diameters and the calculated average stiffness
Bolt diameter (mm) 10 12 16 20 24
Interval 0 - 2.2 0 - 2.8 0 - 1.7 0 - 2.2 0 - 2.4
(kN/mm) 84.612 72.898 123.764 109.274 113.031
42
140
120
Average Stiffness (kkN/mm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Bolt diameter (mm)
Figure 5.3: The plot of the average stiffness against bolt diameter showing the
region of common stiffnesses
From this analysis, it was observed that the relationship between the average stiffness
of the bolts obtained from the polynomial equations was not significantly clear. The
only pattern that can be seen from Figure 5.3 was that the stiffnesses of the bolts form
two distinct regions, where the smaller two bolts were in proximity to each other, and
the rest have almost the same stiffness. However, this confirms the nature of the F-Dt
relationships of the bolts as demonstrated in Figure 5.2. The same analytical procedure
can be applied to the F-Dt relationships for the global stiffness and the SHS.
43
For SHS element:
300
y = 154.11x4 - 344.66x3 + 164.69x2 + 249.73x
R² = 1
250
y = 304.26x4 - 631.23x3 + 316.76x2 + 226.59x
R² = 0.9999
200
Force (kN)
150
100 y = 373.92x4 - 717.82x3 + 332.98x2 + 225.24x

R² = 1
50 y = 393.61x4 - 641.11x3 + 239.03x2 + 241.87x

R² = 1
y = 173.16x4 - 334x3 + 102.47x2 + 254.01x
0 R² = 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
M10 M12 M16 M20

Poly. (M20) Poly. (M24)
Figure 5.4: F-Dt relationship of the SHS with different bolt diameters
Table 5.3: The R2 values and the polynomial regression equations of SHS with
different bolt diameters
Bolt 𝑭 𝑹𝟐
M10 𝐹 = 173.16𝐷𝑡 4 − 334𝐷𝑡 3 + 102.47𝐷𝑡 2 + 254.01𝐷𝑡 1
M12 𝐹 = 393.61𝐷𝑡 4 − 641.11𝐷𝑡 3 + 239.03𝐷𝑡 2 + 241.87𝐷𝑡 1
M16 𝐹 = 373.92𝐷𝑡 4 − 717.82𝐷𝑡 3 + 332.98𝐷𝑡 2 + 225.24𝐷𝑡 1
M20 𝐹 = 304.26𝐷𝑡 4 − 631.23𝐷𝑡 3 + 316.76𝐷𝑡 2 + 226.59𝐷𝑡 0.9999
M24 𝐹 = 154.11𝐷𝑡 4 − 344.66𝐷𝑡 3 + 164.69𝐷𝑡 2 + 249.73𝐷𝑡 1
44
Table 5.4: The bolt diameters and the calculated average stiffness of SHS
Interval 0 - 0.93 0 - 1.03 0 - 0.93 0 - 1.12 0 - 1.22
(kN/mm) 199.713 238.026 214.834 217.010 217.500
240
235
230
Average Stiffness (kN/mm)
225
220
215
210
205
200
195
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Bolt diameter (mm)
Figure 5.5: The plot of the average stiffness of SHS against bolt diameter
45
For the global reaction:
300 y = -0.1068x4 + 3.0346x3 - 30.142x2 + 130.74x

R² = 0.9996
250
y = 0.7279x3 - 15.419x2 + 104.21x
R² = 0.997
200
Force (kN)
y = -0.1526x4 + 3.7689x3 - 32.763x2 + 125.39x

150
R² = 0.9998
100 y = -0.1307x4 + 3.2402x3 - 28.737x2 + 114.31x

R² = 0.9998
50 y = 1.9807x3 - 25.864x2 + 110.2x
R² = 0.9998
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
M10 M12 M16 M20

Log. (M20) Poly. (M20) Poly. (M24)
Figure 5.6: F-Dt relationship of the global reaction with different bolt diameters
Table 5.5: The R2 values and the polynomial regression equations of the global
with different bolt diameters
Bolt 𝑭 𝑹𝟐
M10 𝐹 = 1.9807𝐷𝑡 3 − 25.864𝐷𝑡 2 + 110.2𝐷𝑡 0.9998
M12 𝐹 = −0.1307𝐷𝑡 4 + 3.2402𝐷𝑡 3 − 28.737𝐷𝑡 2 + 114.31𝐷𝑡 0.9998
M16 𝐹 = −0.1526𝐷𝑡 4 + 3.7689𝐷𝑡 3 − 32.763𝐷𝑡 2 + 125.39𝐷𝑡 0.9998
M20 𝐹 = 0.7279𝐷𝑡 3 − 15.419𝐷𝑡 2 + 104.21𝐷𝑡 0.997
M24 𝐹 = −0.1068𝐷𝑡 4 + 3.0346𝐷𝑡 3 − 30.142𝐷𝑡 2 + 130.74𝐷𝑡 0.9996
46
Table 5.6: The bolt diameters and the calculated average global stiffness
Interval 0-7 0 - 9.3 0 - 9.8 0 - 10.9 0 - 11.5
(kN/mm) 26.206 22.171 22.652 22.625 22.733
26.5
26
25.5
25
24.5
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Bolt diameter (mm)
Figure 5.7: The plot of the average global stiffness against bolt diameter
Similar to the individual average stiffness of the bolts, the average global stiffness, and
the stiffness of the SHS in all setups show no correlation with the bolt diameter. This
is especially true for the SHS force versus displacement relationship, where the data
for all bolt diameters were relatively close to each other. In addition, there were some
anomalies found in the stiffness versus bolt diameter relationship. For example, in
Figure 5.7, the M10 bolt setup has the highest stiffness compared to the rest.
47
Meanwhile, the average stiffness of the SHS in the M12 bolt setup is the highest. Even
if the anomalies were omitted in the analysis, it was still impossible to establish any
meaningful relationship between the bolt diameter and the stiffness of the connection.
Therefore, more parameters need to be studied to look for any discernible pattern.
5.2 Part 2 – Effect of Bolt Steel Strength on the Stiffness
This part explores the use of two more bolt steel strengths, namely S275 and S355.
Here, the same methodology with the previous part was employed. However, the
independent parameter was the steel strength, and the controlled parameter was the
bolt diameter and the dimensions of the endplate and the SHS. Only an M16 bolt shank
is used in this section.
For the bolt shank:
250
200 y = 106.5x4 - 275.56x3 + 115.75x2 + 225.57x

R² = 0.9998
Force (kN)
150 y = 28.06x3 - 147.74x2 + 285.57x

R² = 0.9995
100 y = 36.83x4 - 105.82x3 + 8.1342x2 + 234.81x

R² = 0.9998
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Total deformation (mm)
S275 S355 Default

Poly. (S275) Poly. (S355) Poly. (Default)
Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the M16 bolt shank with different bolt strengths
48
Table 5.7: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the M16
bolt shank with different strengths
Bolt
strength 𝑭 𝑹𝟐
(MPa)
250 𝐹 = 36.83𝐷𝑡 4 − 105.82𝐷𝑡 3 + 8.1342𝐷𝑡 2 + 234.81𝐷𝑡 0.9998
275 𝐹 = 28.06𝐷𝑡 3 − 147.74𝐷𝑡 2 + 285.57𝐷𝑡 0.9995
355 𝐹 = 106.5𝐷𝑡 4 − 275.56𝐷𝑡 3 + 115.75𝐷𝑡 2 + 225.57𝐷𝑡 0.9998
Table 5.8: The bolt strengths and the calculated average bolt stiffness
Bolt strength (MPa) 250 275 355
Interval 0 - 1.84 0 - 1.55 0 - 1.38
(kN/mm) 120.945 123.987 139.63
145
140
135
130
y = 0.1822x + 74.731
R² = 0.994
125
120
115
250 270 290 310 330 350 370
Bolt strength (MPa)
Figure 5.9: The plot of the average stiffness of the M16 bolt against the bolt
strength
49
For the endplate:
250
y = -0.0167x4 + 2.31x3 - 28.562x2 + 124.19x

R² = 0.9999
200
150
Force (kN)
y = -0.0773x4 + 3.0551x3 - 31.221x2 + 125.5x

R² = 0.9999
100 y = -0.1564x4 + 3.8434x3 - 33.184x2 + 125.99x

R² = 0.9998
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S275 S355 Default

Figure 5.10: F-Dt relationship of the endplate with different bolt strengths
Table 5.9: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the
endplate with different strengths
Bolt
(MPa)
250 𝐹 = −0.1564𝐷𝑡 4 + 3.843𝐷𝑡 3 − 33.184𝐷𝑡 2 + 125.99𝐷𝑡 0.9998
275 𝐹 = −0.0773𝐷𝑡4 + 3.0551𝐷𝑡 3 − 31.221𝐷𝑡 2 + 125.5𝐷𝑡 0.9999
355 𝐹 = −0.0167𝐷𝑡 4 + 2.31𝐷𝑡 3 − 28.562𝐷𝑡 2 + 124.19𝐷𝑡 0.9999
50
Table 5.10: The bolt strengths and the calculated average endplate stiffness
Interval 0 - 9.83 0 - 6.29 0 - 5.96
(kN/mm) 22.577 30.755 32.48
35
30
25
y = 0.0766x + 6.1406
R² = 0.6304
20
15
10
0
250 270 290 310 330 350 370
Bolt strength (MPa)
Figure 5.11: The plot of the average stiffness of the endplate against the bolt
strength
51
For the SHS:
250
200 y = 402.89x4 - 773.12x3 + 337.19x2 + 233.91x

R² = 1
150
Force (kN)
y = 302.59x4 - 605.62x3 + 246.13x2 + 246.41x

R² = 1
100
y = 373.92x4 - 717.82x3 + 332.98x2 + 225.24x
R² = 1
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
S275 S355 Default

Figure 5.12: F-Dt relationship of the SHS with different bolt strengths
Table 5.11: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the SHS
with different strengths
Bolt
(MPa)
250 𝐹 = 373.92𝐷𝑡4 − 717.82𝐷𝑡 3 + 332.98𝐷𝑡 2 + 225.24𝐷𝑡 1
275 𝐹 = 302.59𝐷𝑡4 − 605.62𝐷𝑡 3 + 246.15𝐷𝑡 2 + 246.41𝐷𝑡 1
355 𝐹 = 402.89𝐷𝑡 4 − 773.12𝐷𝑡 3 + 337.19𝐷𝑡 2 + 233.91𝐷𝑡 1
52
Table 5.12: The bolt strengths and the calculated average SHS stiffness
Interval 0 - 1.03 0 - 1.03 0 - 0.96
(kN/mm) 215.267 188.07 201.556
220
215
210
205
200
195
190
185
250 270 290 310 330 350 370
Bolt strength (MPa)
Figure 5.13: The plot of the average stiffness of the SHS against the bolt
strength
53
250
200 y = 0.0044x4 + 2.0544x3 - 27.643x2 + 123.34x

R² = 0.9998
150 y = -0.0558x4 + 2.7962x3 - 30.307x2 + 124.64x

Force (kN)
R² = 0.9998
y = -0.1526x4 + 3.7689x3 - 32.763x2 + 125.39x

100 R² = 0.9998
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S275 S355 Default

Figure 5.14: F-Dt relationship of the global reaction with different bolt strengths
Table 5.13: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the global
reaction with different strengths
Bolt
(MPa)
250 𝐹 = −0.1526𝐷𝑡4 + 3.7689𝐷𝑡 3 − 32.763𝐷𝑡 2 + 125.39𝐷𝑡 0.9998
275 𝐹 = −0.0558𝐷𝑡4 + 2.7962𝐷𝑡 3 − 30.307𝐷𝑡 2 + 124.64𝐷𝑡 0.9998
355 𝐹 = 0.0044𝐷𝑡 4 + 2.0544𝐷𝑡 3 − 27.643𝐷𝑡 2 + 123.34𝐷𝑡 0.9998
54
Table 5.14: The bolt strengths and the calculated average global stiffness
Interval 0 - 9.83 0 - 6.29 0 - 5.96
(kN/mm) 22.565 30.752 32.495
40
35
30
25
y = 0.0768x + 6.0675
20 R² = 0.6317
15
10
0
250 270 290 310 330 350 370
Bolt strength (MPa)
Figure 5.15: The plot of the average global stiffness against the bolt strength
For all the force-displacement relationships with these different bolt strengths, the
polynomial equations were successfully generated. The polynomial equations in this
part almost completely fit with the raw data generated from Ansys. This can be shown
by the R2 values which range from 0.9995 to 1. Unlike the individual bolt sizes, the
bolt strength as a parameter shows some degree of correlation between the strength
55
and the global as well as the local stiffnesses of most components, except the SHS.
This is especially true for the blind bolt itself, where the R2 value generated from the
linear correlation shows the value close to 1. For the global stiffness and the endplate,
both the force-displacement and the stiffness-bolt strength relationships show
similarities between each other. The correlation between the average stiffness and the
bolt strength was fair but significantly less than that of the bolt strength and the bolt
stiffness. This suggests that even by increasing the bolt strength, without the proper
support from the endplate, the stiffness for the entire blind-bolted connection would
not be improved. One of the ways to increase the endplate stiffness is by increasing its
thickness. This will be discussed in the next part of this parametric study.
5.3 Part 3 – Effect of Endplate Thickness on the Stiffness
This part discusses how the stiffness of the blind-bolted connection is affected by the
endplate thickness. Similarly, the force-displacement relationships were obtained for
the entire model and its individual components. There were four different endplate
thicknesses were used, including the one used in the previous parts, which are 10 mm,
16 mm, 20 mm, and 24 mm.
56
For the bolt shank:
250
y = 433.25x4 - 908.35x3 + 528.11x2 + 168.03x

R² = 0.9997
200
y = 269.66x4 - 666.59x3 + 414.97x2 + 172.98x
R² = 0.9997 y = 36.83x4 - 105.82x3 + 8.1342x2 + 234.81x
R² = 0.9998
150
Force (kN)
y = 199.36x4 - 446.33x3 + 204.52x2 + 191.58x

R² = 0.9997
100
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
10 mm 16 mm 20 mm 24 mm
Poly. (10 mm) Poly. (16 mm) Poly. (20 mm) Poly. (24 mm)
Figure 5.16: F-Dt relationship of the M16 bolt shank with different endplate
thicknesses
Table 5.15: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the M16
bolt shank with different endplate thicknesses
Endplate
thickness 𝑭 𝑹𝟐
(mm)
10 𝐹 = 199.36𝐷𝑡4 − 446.33𝐷𝑡 3 + 204.52𝐷𝑡 2 + 191.58𝐷𝑡 0.9997
16 𝐹 = 36.83𝐷𝑡4 − 105.82𝐷𝑡 3 + 8.1342𝐷𝑡 2 + 234.81𝐷𝑡 0.9998
20 𝐹 = 269.66𝐷𝑡4 − 666.59𝐷𝑡 3 + 414.97𝐷𝑡 2 + 172.98𝐷𝑡 0.9997
24 𝐹 = 433.25𝐷𝑡4 − 908.35𝐷𝑡 3 + 528.11𝐷𝑡 2 + 168.03𝐷𝑡 0.9997
57
Table 5.16: The endplate thicknesses and the calculated average bolt stiffness
Endplate thickness (mm) 10 16 20 24
Interval 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1
(kN/mm) 139.800 173.954 191.020 223.040
250.000
200.000
150.000
y = 5.7746x + 80.899
100.000 R² = 0.988
50.000
0.000
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Endplate thickness (mm)
Figure 5.17: The plot of the average stiffness of the M16 bolt against the
endplate thicknesses
58
For the endplate:
250
y = -6.0421x4 - 6.5351x3 + 11.692x2 + 161.55x
R² = 1
200 y = 7.8758x4 - 40.665x3 + 35.339x2 + 130.26x

R² = 1
y = -0.1564x4 + 3.8434x3 - 33.184x2 + 125.99x

150 R² = 0.9998
Force (kN)
y = -0.1282x4 + 3.2001x3 - 27.625x2 + 102.17x

R² = 0.9998
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10 mm 16 mm 20 mm 24 mm
Figure 5.18: F-Dt relationship of the endplates
Table 5.17: The polynomial regression equations and the R2 values of the
endplates
Endplate
(mm)
10 𝐹 = −0.1282𝐷𝑡4 + 3.2001𝐷𝑡 3 − 27.625𝐷𝑡 2 + 102.17𝐷𝑡 0.9998
16 𝐹 = −0.1564𝐷𝑡4 + 3.8434𝐷𝑡 3 − 33.184𝐷𝑡 2 + 125.99𝐷𝑡 0.9998
20 𝐹 = 7.8758𝐷𝑡4 − 40.665𝐷𝑡 3 + 35.339𝐷𝑡 2 + 130.26𝐷𝑡 1
24 𝐹 = −6.0421𝐷𝑡4 − 6.5351𝐷𝑡 3 + 11.692𝐷𝑡 2 + 161.55𝐷𝑡 1
59
Table 5.18: The endplate thicknesses and its calculated average stiffness
Interval 0 - 9.8 0 - 9.8 0 - 2.6 0 - 1.7
(kN/mm) 18.122 22.705 85.671 132.855
140
120
100
80
60 y = 8.4838x - 83.628
R² = 0.854
40
20
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure 5.19: The plot of the average stiffness of the M16 bolt against the
endplate thicknesses
60
For the SHS:
250
y = -0.6164x4 - 104.28x3 + 66.859x2 + 274.35x

R² = 1
200
150
Force (kN)
y = -98.612x2 + 317.35x
R² = 0.9994
y = 373.92x4 - 717.82x3 + 332.98x2 + 225.24x
100 R² = 1
y = 1333.3x4 - 1630.2x3 + 562.67x2 + 206.89x

50 R² = 0.9997
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
10 mm 16 mm 20 mm 24 mm
Figure 5.20: F-Dt relationship of the SHS with different endplate thicknesses
with different endplate thicknesses
Endplate
(mm)
10 𝐹 = 1333.3𝐷𝑡4 − 1630.2𝐷𝑡3 + 562.67𝐷𝑡2 + 206.89𝐷𝑡 0.9997
16 𝐹 = 373.92𝐷𝑡4 − 717.82𝐷𝑡 3 + 332.98𝐷𝑡 2 + 225.24𝐷𝑡 1
20 𝐹 = −98.612𝐷𝑡 2 + 317.35𝐷𝑡 0.9994
24 𝐹 = −0.6164𝐷𝑡4 − 104.28𝐷𝑡 3 + 66.859𝐷𝑡 2 + 274.35𝐷𝑡 1
61
Table 5.20: The endplate thicknesses and the average stiffness of the SHS
Interval 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6
(kN/mm) 245.613 247.386 258.183 276.791
280.000
275.000
270.000
265.000
y = 2.1628x + 219.14
260.000 R² = 0.8136
255.000
250.000
245.000
y = 0.2418x2 - 5.9956x + 281.39
240.000 R² = 1
235.000
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure 5.21: The plot of the average stiffness of the SHS against the endplate
thicknesses
62
250 y = -27.681x3 + 34.812x2 + 153.77x

R² = 0.9999
y = 16.071x4 - 76.967x3 + 79.735x2 + 115.37x
R² = 0.9999
200
y = -0.1526x4 + 3.7689x3 - 32.763x2 + 125.39x
R² = 0.9998
150
Force (kN)
y = -0.1254x4 + 3.1433x3 - 27.286x2 + 101.67x

R² = 0.9998
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10 mm 16 mm 20 mm 24 mm
Figure 5.22: F-Dt relationship of the global reaction with different endplate
thicknesses
with different endplate thicknesses
Endplate
(mm)
10 𝐹 = −0.1254𝐷𝑡4 + 3.1433𝐷𝑡3 − 27.286𝐷𝑡2 + 101.67𝐷𝑡 0.9998
16 𝐹 = −0.1526𝐷𝑡4 + 3.7689𝐷𝑡 3 − 32.763𝐷𝑡 2 + 125.39𝐷𝑡 0.9998
20 𝐹 = 16.071𝐷𝑡4 − 76.967𝐷𝑡 3 + 79.735𝐷𝑡 2 + 115.37𝐷𝑡 0.9999
24 𝐹 = −27.681𝐷𝑡 3 + 34.812𝐷𝑡 2 + 153.77𝐷𝑡 0.9999
63
Table 5.22: The endplate thicknesses and the average global stiffness
Interval 0 - 9.8 0 - 9.8 0 - 2.6 0 - 1.7
(kN/mm) 18.124 22.652 84.848 132.952
140
120
100
80
60 y = 8.471x - 83.599
R² = 0.853
40
20
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure 5.23: The plot of the average global stiffness against the endplate
thicknesses
In this part, all the polynomial regression equations almost perfectly fit with the raw
data from the Ansys FEM. After the stiffnesses were obtained from the regression
equations, it was apparent that the endplate thickness did affect the stiffness of the
other components in the blind-bolted connection. This can be supported by the R2
values ranging between 0.8 until 0.988.
64
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary and Recommendations
This research has successfully performed the numerical analysis of a series of blind-
bolted connection systems. The process of discretisation of the 3D model was
performed effectively by using appropriate variable mesh sizes, ranging from 2.5 mm
for the bolt to 25 mm for the SHS. The analyses in the Ansys Mechanical were
performed under the convergence criteria, where the force convergence falls below the
force criterion line. These are the main takeaways from this study:
• The development of stresses inside the bolted connection was observed, and
there were some patterns on how the stresses propagate. The bolt pretension
created internal compressive stress which was induced by the tightening
process of the bolt. The endplates tended to yield first as expected as the
resistance or the support at the endplate were the least. The yielding of the
endplate pushed the top part of the bolt sideways, therefore inducing shear
stresses to the bolt.
• From the parametric analysis, all the parameters show some variation in the
correlation with the stiffness of the blind-bolted connections. There was no
noticeable effect from the changing of the bolt size to the overall stiffness.
Meanwhile, when the bolt strength increases, the overall stiffness also
increases, except for the SHS. However, it was found that the endplate
thickness had the strongest effect on the stiffness of the blind-bolted
connection.
65
• More studies can be proposed to establish relationship between the bolt size
and other parameters.
6.2 Contribution to entrepreneurship, economic, environmental, and socio-
cultural progress
In terns of the entrepreneurship opportunity, the advent of blind bolt can benefit in a
number of ways. One of them is it can path some new ways to the development of
proprietary bolt technology. This will accelerate the development of more
improvements to the existing bolted connection method and technology.
In terms of the economy, the blind bolts are capable to simplify some steel
construction methods, particularly the ones that involve steel hollow sections. This can
be achieved by eliminating the need to install the bolted connection from both sides of
the hollow sections. This will in turn save the construction time, and therefore, the
construction cost as well as these two quantities are highly dependent on each other.
From the simplification of the construction method, more and more structures
can be constructed by using steel. This poses some advantages to the environment.
This is because structural steel is highly recyclable. The recyclability of this material
is becoming more crucial in this modern era as many structures are aging and showing
a lot of serviceability problems. The blind bolts can aid this process from easier process
of disassembly.
Lastly, blind bolt can ease the assembly of building materials by prefabrication.
This is perfect for the socio-cultural progress as this enables custom modular buildings
with beautiful architecture to be designed and constructed.
66
CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES
Blind Bolt Company. (2020). Blind Bolt Technical Data.
https://www.blindboltasia.com/blind-bolt-technical-data/
Cabrera, M., Tizani, W., Mahmood, M., & Shamsudin, M. F. (2020). Analysis of
Extended Hollo-Bolt connections: Combined failure in tension [Article].
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105766
Cabrera, M., Tizani, W., & Ninic, J. (2021). A review and analysis of testing and
modeling practice of extended Hollo-Bolt blind bolt connections. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 183, 106763.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106763
European Committee. (2005). EN 1990:2002 Eurocode: Basis of structural design
Javora, A., & Skejić, D. (2017). Resis ance assessmen of beam-to-column joints with
different blind bolt systems. Tehnicki vjesnik/Technical Gazette, 24(4).
Lee, J., Goldsworthy, H. M., & Gad, E. F. (2011a). Blind bolted moment connection
to sides of hollow section columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
67(12), 1900-1911. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.06.007
Lee, J., Goldsworthy, H. M., & Gad, E. F. (2011b). Blind bolted moment connection
to unfilled hollow section columns using extended T-stub with back face
support. Engineering Structures, 33(5), 1710-1722.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.02.008
Li, Y.-L., & Zhao, X.-L. (2021). Experimental study on stainless steel blind bolted T-
stub to square hollow section connections [Article]. Thin-Walled Structures,
167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108259
67
Liu, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, X., & Tan, D. (2018). Fatigue behaviour of blind bolts under
tensile cyclic loads [Article]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 148,
16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.05.019
Mesquita, A., da Silva, L. S., & Jordão, S. (2021). 3D numerical models of steel joints
with hollo-bolts–a comparison with experimental results. In Modern Trends in
Research on Steel, Aluminium and Composite Structures (pp. 328-334).
Routledge.
Pascual, A. M., Romero, M. L., & Tizani, W. (2015). Fire performance of blind-bolted
connections to concrete filled tubular columns in tension. Engineering
Structures, 96, 111-125.
Pokharel, T. (2016). Development and evaluation of building frames with blind-bolted
connections http://hdl.handle.net/11343/128062
Tahir, M. M., Mohammadhosseini, H., Ngian, S. P., & Effendi, M. K. (2018). I-beam
to square hollow column blind bolted moment connection: Experimental and
numerical study. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 148, 383-398.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.06.012
Tizani, W., & Pitrakkos, T. (2015). Performance of T-stub to CFT joints using blind
bolts with headed anchors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(10),
04015001.
Zheng, X., & Xia, W. (2009). Numerical Simulation of Blind Hole Bolt Connection
with 3-D Finite Element Approach. 2009 Second International Conference on
Information and Computing Science,
68
APPENDICES
Force convergence for all models
M10 Bolt:
M12 Bolt
M16 bolt:
A1
M20 bolt:
M24 bolt:
A2
A3

Analysis of Blind-Bolt Connections in Hollow Sections: Failures in Static Loadings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Blind-Bolt Connections in Hollow Sections: Failures in Static Loadings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYSIS OF BLIND-BOLT CONNECTIONS IN

HOLLOW SECTIONS: FAILURES IN STATIC

Final year research project report submitted to the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

sebahagiannya, sebelum ini untuk melayakkan mana-mana anugerah akademik lain.

Tarikh : 24/6/2022 Tandatangan :

Nama Penuh : Ahmad Qarirul U’yun Bin Mohd Yusoff

No. K.P. : 950802-03-5125

No. Matrik : 17151222/1

Date : 24/6/2022 Signature :

Full Name : Ahmad Qarirul U’yun Bin Mohd Yusoff

NRIC No. : 950802-03-5125

Matric No. : 17151222/1

pembinaan pasang siap. Dalam struktur, kebanyakan anggota struktur keluli

konvensional menyebabkan cabaran yang ketara terutamanya semasa kerja

penyambungan anggota struktur ke bahagian berongga keluli. Untuk mengatasinya,

dipanggil Ansys Mechanical. Sebelum analisis, beberapa model 3D sambungan bolt

SpaceClaim. Kemudian, proses pencerakinan (discretisation) dilakukan pada model.

mengesahkan keputusan daripada analisis berangka ini.

As a structural material, steel poses numerous advantages. One of them is the

structural steel is a perfect material to be used in the prefabrication construction

challenge when it comes to connecting a structural member to a steel hollow section.

installation from one side by providing a mechanism of self-clamping. This paper

discretisation is performed on the models. After that, various important boundary

support. Lastly, my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Fazaulnizam for giving me

experience to guide me through this project.

Pengakuan oleh Pelajar i

Figure 1.2: Typical stress-strain curve of a material of a ductile material ................... 4

Figure 3.2: Geometric details of the blind bolts ......................................................... 18

Figure 3.3: Screenshot of the main interface of Ansys Mechanical .......................... 19

Ansys material library ................................................................................................ 22

Figure 3.6: The discretisation of the model ............................................................... 23

Figure 3.8: The loading step of bolt pretension in Ansys .......................................... 27

external load ............................................................................................................... 28

of the yielding and the true deformation geometry .................................................... 31

Figure 5.2: F-Dt relationships with polynomial regression lines ............................... 41

of common stiffnesses ................................................................................................ 43

Figure 5.8: F-Dt relationship of the endplates ............................................................ 59

Table 3.1: Dimensions of the blind bolts ................................................................... 18

Table 3.3: Tightening factors for different bolt types ................................................ 26

Table 3.4: Bolt pretension magnitudes....................................................................... 27

Table 4.2: Propagation of strain in the model ............................................................ 34

different bolt diameters .............................................................................................. 44

different bolt diameters .............................................................................................. 46

shank with different strengths .................................................................................... 49

reaction with different strengths................................................................................. 54

shank with different endplate thicknesses .................................................................. 57

different endplate thicknesses .................................................................................... 61

different endplate thicknesses .................................................................................... 63

CAD Computer-aided design

CFT Concrete-filled tubular section

D Diameter of blind bolt

EC0 Eurocode – Basis of structural design

EC3 Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures

EHB Extended Hollo-Bolt

FEM Finite Element Modelling

K Tightening factor of the blind bolt

P Pretension of the bolt

T Required torque to tighten the blind bolt

σ Stress, i.e., force per unit area experienced by a material

Recently, steel construction is gaining popularity across the globe. There is an

increasing number of applications of structural steel, especially on bridges and high-

structural elements are fabricated off-site. Steel structures present significant