Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598

www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

Equivalent axial stiffness of various components in bolted joints

subjected to axial loading
Feras Alkatan, Pierre Stephan, Alain Daidie ∗ , Jean Guillot
Laboratory of Mechanical Engineering of Toulouse, 135 Rangueil Avenue, 31077 Toulouse, Cedex 04, France

Received 27 June 2006; received in revised form 18 December 2006; accepted 30 December 2006
Available online 7 March 2007

Abstract
Managing the axial stiffness of various components in a bolted joint is a major industrial concern for modelling different tightening processes
and for accurate fatigue dimensioning. This paper presents a new approach for calculating the axial stiffness of the several elements of a
bolt (the head and the engaged part), the nut and the fastened plates. Finite element modelling based on deformation energy improves the
existing models and take in to account the type of materials and coefficients of friction of various elements in contact. From these corrections,
approaches for axial stiffness calculation based on empirical formulas are proposed for easier application and for future FE modelling bolted
joints using beam elements. Finally, the theoretical study is validated by an original experimental approach.
䉷 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bolted joint; Angle-controlled tightening; Axial stiffness; Bolt; Nut; Tapping; Contact; Modelling; Finite elements

1. Introduction a rigid body in simulating the interaction between the head of

Stiffness of the subassemblies in a bolted joint reflects the
overall behaviour of the assembly subjected axial loading which
is mainly displacement along the axis of the bolts. Thus, man-
aging the equivalent stiffness of the bolt, the nut and sub-
assemblies is necessary for dimensioning in fatigue, modelling
the tightening process and investigating the behaviour of these
assemblies under thermal stresses.
The 1986 VDI2230 recommendation which is the most fre-
quently used in industrial calculations and specialised research
works like those developed by Bickford and Nassar [1], Guillot
[2] was always questionable [3] and even completely modified
in some references like the 2003 VDI2230 [4]. A benchmark of
developed approaches anterior to 1990 can be found in Lenhoff
et al. [5]. However, it was the development of finite elements
which led up to more accurate models. One should note that the
main objective remains displacement along the axis of the bolt.
In this framework, Wileman et al. [6] considered the washer as
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 5 61 55 97 31; fax: +33 5 61 55 99 50.
E-mail address: alain.daidie@insa-toulouse.fr (A. Daidie).
0168-874X/$ - see front matter 䉷 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.finel.2006.12.013
the bolt and the part. Unfortunately, this approach appeared to
be irrealistic and inaccurate as shown by Guillot [3], Massol [7]
and Zadoks [8]. Lehnhoff et al. [5,9,10] calculated an average
equivalent displacement for the nodes at the contact zone to
simulate this interaction.
To validate this approach, Massol [7] conducted experimen-
tal measurements. Unfortunately, it was difficult to accurately
determine the deformation of the subassemblies along the
assembly axis. Thus, the results seemed mediocre.
In this paper, a new approach for stiffness calculation is pre-
sented: this approach takes into account the various geomet-
rical parameters, the coefficient of friction and the materials
properties in the case of axisymmetric loading.
Three-dimensional finite elements (FEM) are conducted to
calculate the apparent stiffness of the subassemblies using
the deformation energy method. Then, results are compared
to previous studies and validated by an original experimental
approach.
Finally, the various ratios necessary for stiffness calculation
are integrated in an empirical formula that can be easily pro-
grammable in a tool for industrial design office use.
590 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598

Nomenclature
Ad3 thread root area (mm2 ) Kbolt.tapping tapped hole and thread stiffness (N/mm)
Ap equivalent cross-section of fastened parts Lp height of bolted parts (mm)
(mm2 ) L∗p dimensionless height of bolted parts
A∗p dimensionless equivalent cross-section of fas- L0 length of bolt cylindrical part (mm)
tened parts L1 length of bolt threaded part (mm)
As bolt stress area (mm2 ) p pitch of thread (mm)
A0 bolt nominal cross-section (mm2 ) We nut deformation energy induced in the nut
D nut nominal diameter (mm) (N mm)
d bolt nominal diameter (mm) We part deformation energy induced in the bolted
Da diameter under bolt head (mm) parts (N mm)
Dext nut external diameter (mm) bolt correcting factor of the engaged part of the
Dp fastened plates diameter (mm) bolt
Dp∗ fastened plates dimensionless diameter bolt.nut stiffness correcting factor of the nut and the
Dt bolt hole diameter (mm) engaged part of the bolt
Dt∗ bolt hole dimensionless diameter bolt.tapping stiffness correcting factor of a tapped hole
Ebolt bolt modulus of elasticity (N/mm2 ) and the engaged part of the bolt
Ehead bolt head modulus of elasticity (N/mm2 ) head stiffness correcting factor of the bolt head
Enut nut modulus of elasticity (N/mm2 ) threaded stiffness correcting factor of the bolt
Epart fastened plates modulus of elasticity (N/mm2 ) threaded part
Etapping tapped part modulus of elasticity (N/mm2 ) tapping stiffness correcting factor of a tapped hole
Ftot applied axial load (N) 0 displacement due to clamping (on preload-
H nut standardised height (mm) ing F0 ) (mm)
h height of bolt head (mm)  coefficient of friction
Kbolt.nut stiffness of the nut and engaged part of the bolt eq equivalent coefficient of friction
(N/mm) 1 coefficient of friction between the bolt and
Khead bolt head stiffness (N/mm) the nut
Kp stiffness of fastened parts (N/mm) 2 coefficient of friction between the nut and
Kp∗ dimensionless stiffness of fastened parts the fastened plates
Ktapping stiffness of a tapped hole (N/mm)  tightening angle (degrees)

2. Problem set up
2.1. General approach
In the aim of developing a new general calculation method,
the overall assembly is partitioned into functional parts: the
threaded portion of the bolt, the bolt head, the threads engaged
in the nut, the fastened plates and the threads engaged in the
tapped subassembly (see Fig. 1). The local approach consists of
calculating the local rigidity of each of these functional parts.
It is then extended to a more global approach to calculate the
global stiffness of the bolted assembly. This classical approach
is similar to the one used in VDI 2230 recommendation [11].
2.2. Calculation of the equivalent stiffness
displacement along the axis, and consequently the length vari-
ation (see Fig. 2).
Using the elastic deformation energy for each element, the
equivalent stiffness can be deduced. Applying the principle of
energy conservation to the considered system (see Fig. 2a), and
considering a free unfrictional contact in the rigid plane (x, z):
2 F  = WB + Wp + Wf ,
1
(1)
where WB is the elastic deformation energy of the bolt, Wp
the elastic deformation energy of the part, Wf the dissipated
frictional energy at the interface head-part, and 21 F  the work
of the external forces.
Consequently, the two cases which can be investigated are
presented below.
2.2.1. Unfrictional contact under head

2 F  = WB + Wp .
Each subassembly is assimilated to a spring with an equiv- 1
(2)
alent stiffness (see Fig. 3). From finite element analysis, one
can conclude (see Fig. 3a) that under loading, the displacement Since the finite elements model show a linear behaviour, the
of the upper part of the screw () is proportional to the ap- stiffness of the springs can be calculated using the following
plied load F [12]. Calculating the stiffness KB and Kp of each relations:
element apart is justified since due to local deformations at F2 F2
KB = and Kp = . (3)
the interface head-part, it is difficult to accurately estimate the 2WB 2Wp
 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598 591

nut and threads in contact with the bolt threads in contact

in a tapped part
bolt threaded part

fastened plates

bolt cylindrical part d

bolt
bolt head

Fig. 1. Definition of the various functional parts in a bolted joint.

0.00

−0.02

−0.04

−0.06

−0.08

−0.10

−0.12

−0.14

−0.16
Y
−0.18
Z X
−0.20

Fig. 2. Displacement of the loaded assembly (mm).

This approach which neglects the frictional energy loss (Wf ) a b

at the contact interface head-part can be considered satisfactory μt=0 à 0,4 Wb
bolt
since for a standardised cylindrical head screw and for t = 0.2 (KB)
the difference between the total calculated flexibility (ST = Wp d
1/KB + 1/Kp ) and the “measured” flexibility S = /F is less Wf
Part
than 2% [12]. Dt Lp (Kp)
μc=0 z
2.2.2. Frictional contact under head y δ
For a frictional contact at the interface head-part, the direc- F
F,δ x
tion of the contact forces is modified and consequently WB and
Model of finite elements simulation Equivalent calculation model
Wp since as shown in Eq. (4), mechanical energy is dissipated
in the slipping area: Fig. 3. Definition of the equivalent model.

Wf = 21 F  − (WB + Wp ). (4)

F  is calculated by summing local values (Fi i ) at the nodes relation:

of the contact section. WB and Wp are the software outputs set WB + Wp + Wf = 21 F  = WB + Wp . (5)
out by summing the elastic deformation energy of each element.
One should note that the “springs” model (see Fig. 3b) does It can be easily verified that the frictional lost energy is
not simulate the frictional energy loss. However, the equivalent proportional to the elastic deformation energy, thus:
axial stiffness KB and Kp associated to the deformation energies

of the springs WB and Wp can be deduced using the following 2 F  = WB
1
+ Wp = (WB + Wp ), (6)
592 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598

Nut Tapped part

Bolt

Assembled Bolt Assembled Screw Assembled

parts parts parts

F F F

Fig. 4. Digital calculation equivalent models.

Bolt Nut z
θ r Contact
Webolt in contact
Wenut regions

Assembled part

3°

Fig. 5. Finite element meshing of the various regions.

where, 2.3. Modelling

F
= . (7) The finite element model was developed under the finite
2(WB + Wp ) element software I-DEAS [13]. The effects induced by the
From Eq. (3), one can deduce: helix angle are ignored since this angle has negligible effect on
the load distribution between the engaged threads as shown by
F2 F2 Fukuoka et al. [14] and Zhao [15]. Two types of meshing were
KB = and Kp = , (8)
2WB 2Wp investigated: a free meshing using 10 nodes linear bricks and
a mapped meshing with eight nodes bricks elements. The lat-
where ter was retained since it generates a better element repartition
WB = WB and Wp = Wp . (9) in the assembly and can be more advantageous for comparison
between different simulations and resolving contact problems.
From (7–9): An axisymmetric model is considered and the study is
  reduced to an angular portion of 3◦ since a preliminary study
F Wp
KB = 1+ , (10) on various angle sectors showed that starting from a portion of
 WB 3◦ the results are identical. This meshing is parametrised with
  the geometry of the model as shown in Fig. 4. The contact be-
F WB
Kp = 1+ . (11) haviour at the interfaces of the threads and at the nut-fastened
 Wp
plates can be defined independently from the mesh (see
Consequently, the equivalent stiffness KB Kp is calculated by Fig. 5). The boundary conditions are defined on the assem-
extracting out (WB , Wp , F, ) from the finite element simula- bly geometry in a cylindrical coordinate system (see Fig. 5).
tion. This approach is advantageous since it does not require Radial translations along the radial faces of the screw, the nut
displacement along the axis. Besides, it is simple and accurate and the assembled parts are restrained ( = 0). The bottom of
since the elastic deformation energy is precisely estimated with an assembled part is also restrained in displacement along z-
the finite element software. axis and the preload is applied by a imposed displacement ()
 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598 593

at the bottom of the fixation. This approach is advantageous
since several dimensional cases can be rapidly investigated.
3. Results and analysis
3.1. Stiffness of the bolt’s elements
Correcting factors are used to assimilate the threaded part,
the nut and tapping to the equivalent length of a cylindrical bar
with cross-sections As and A0 for the bolt head. Fig. 6 shows
the current method [2,16] and the new modified model which
takes into consideration the influence of the threads, the head,
and the part in bolt–nut contact.
The correcting factors are given by
Ebolt · As
bolt.nut = , (12a)
d · Kbolt.nut
Etapping · As
tapping = , (12b)
d · Ktapping
Ebolt · As
thread = , (12c)
L · Kthread
Ebolt · A0
head = . (12d)
d · Khead
3.2. Stiffness of threaded portion of the bolt
Many studies were conducted concerning the stiffness of the
threaded portion of the bolt (see Fig. 6), which is classically
assimilated to an equivalent section Aeq equal to the resistant
section [2,11]. The purpose of this study is to refine this value
by a weighting factor tread which corrects the threaded length
L1 without modifying the defined equivalent section.
Using the deformation energy method of several values for
the undimensionless parameter p/d for large and fine pitch
screws (see Fig. 7), brings up results very close to those ob-
tained in Section 1: the maximum relative variations, for sig-
nificant values of p/d are around 4.5%.
Consequently, the traditional use of an equivalent section
is justified. Practically, identical values are obtained for three
types of materials, independently from the type of pitch. The
evolution of the ratio As /Aeq with p/d is almost linear. The
coefficient thread refines the equivalent length of the threaded
part for fine and large pitch screw. Thus, a valid formulation
for all types of screw is given:
As p
thread = = 0.956 + 0.534 . (13)
Aeq d
3.3. Stiffness of the bolt’s head
Many studies have been conducted on the stiffness of the
bolts head [7]. In this framework, German rules VDI 2230
[4,11] recommend a corrective factor equal to 0.4 whereas Mas-
sol [7] introduced a ratio head related to the geometry. This
study assumes perfect adherence and does not take into con-
sideration the sliding of the head on the fastened plates and
consequently markedly modifies the zone of load introduction.
Results presented in this paper show a weak influence of the
nominal diameter of the bolt and the diameter of the subassem-
blies. Note that the correcting factor is about 4% greater for a
coefficient of friction close to 0. For a standardised head height,
the influential parameters are the diameter of the tapped hole
and the subassemblies materials (see Fig. 8).
For a coefficient of friction  = 0.2 and a standardised head
height (h = 0.65d), the ratio head is given by
   
dt − 1.05d Epart
head = 0.47 + − 0.04 −1 . (14)
d Ebolt
During the tightening process, radial deformation is set free
as if the “radial” coefficient of friction is equal to zero [12].
Thus, the ratio head given by the empirical formula (14) should
be increased about 3% whereas for a head height equal to the
nominal diameter (optimum bolt head stiffness [12]), this ratio
must be increased around 6%.
3.4. Stiffness of the nut and the engaged part of the bolt
It is important to accurately determine the axial stiffness of
the nut since it dispatches the entire load through the bolt to
the assembly Sawa and Maruyama [17] proposed a value of

a b c
αbolt-nut.d
0.8d or
αbolt-tapping.d
As
L1 As
L1+0.85d αthreaded.L1
Lp

L0 d A0
A0 L0+αhead.d
L0+ 0.4d
0.8d

d d

bolt initial calculation model new calculation model

Fig. 6. Calculation models relating to the bolt.

594 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598

the bolt.nut factor equal to 0.7 based on theoretical 3D studies The evolution of bolt.nut with the elasticity coefficients of
and experimental results. materials is practically linear (see Fig. 9b). Concerning the
From a finite element results, Fukuoka [18] suggests a value coefficient of friction, the bolt.nut decreases for  = 0.23 and
of 1.05 for a coefficient of friction equal to 0 and 0.65 for a then remains constant.
coefficient of friction equal to 0.4. However, he recommends For a bolt and a nut made of the same material, the value
a mean value equal to 0.85. Recently, Guillot [2] proposed a recommended by Guillot is found for  = 0 and bolt.nut = 1.1.
value of 1.1d instead of 0.4d (see Fig. 6) to take into account This value can be used in the case of torque tightening, since
the stiffness of the threads. Genelot [19] validated this proposal orthoradial sliding yields to a free distension of the nut and
for low coefficients of friction and large hole diameters. thus to a theoretical coefficient of friction equal to 0 [12].
Note that the German VDI recommendation [4] distinguishes The mean value gbolt.nut = 0.85 recommended by VDI [4]
between the rigidity Kbolt of the portion of the bolt inside the Fukuoka [18] is also found. Finally, these results lead to a
nut and the rigidity Knut of the nut itself: more general empirical formulation that takes into account the
coefficient of friction and the ratio of elasticity coefficients:
Ebolt · Ad3 For 0  0.23:
Kbolt = for bolt = 0.5, (15)
0.5d
bolt.nut = A − B., (17)
Enut · A0
Knut = for nut = 0.4. (16)
0.4d where
 
For two identical materials, bolt.nut = 0.85. This value is A = 1.1 +
Ebolt
− 1 0.54
equal to the mean value suggested by Fukuoka [18]. Enut
This paper shows a relatively low influence of the nominal  
Ebolt
diameter especially for a low coefficient of friction. Thus, a B = 1.65 + − 1 1.2
mean value is considered for the range of diameters between 6 Enut
and 36 mm. For 0.23:


Ebolt
bolt.nut = 0.71 + − 1 0.25. (18)
1.06
Enut

As/Aéq = 0.534*p/d + 0.956 One should know that friction coefficients bolt–nut 1 and
1.04 nut-fastened plates 2 do not have the same influence since
results show that the latter contributes around 60% in the cal-
As/Aéq

1.02 culation of bolt.nut . Consequently, an equivalent coefficient of

friction is given by
As/Aeq
1 Formula (As/Aeq)
21 + 32
eq = . (19)
5
0.98
0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 3.5. Stiffness of a tapped part
p/d

Fig. 7. Common function of variation of As /Aeq coefficient according to Numerous studies, based on experimental and digital tests,
p/d report ratio. have been conducted to investigate local behaviour at the thread

M20 ; h/d = 0.65 ; μ = 0.2 ; Dt = 21 M20 ; h/d = 0.65 ; μ = 0.2 ; steel/steel

0.8 0.8

t 0.7
formula
0.7 αhead = (Dt-d)/d + 0.43
0.6
αhead
αhead

0.6 0.5

αhead = -0.04Epart/Ebolt + 0.51 0.4

0.5 μ = 0.2
0.3 Massol
Formula
0.4 0.2
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Epart/Ebolt (Dt-d)/d

Fig. 8. head ratio in relation to the relative radial clearance (Dt − d)/d and the moduli of elasticity ratio Epart /Ebolt .
 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598 595

μ1=μ2=μ ; Steel-Steel μ=0

2.2
1.2

mean αbolt-nut = 0.54Ebolt/Enut + 0.55

1.8
Fukuoka
1

αbolt-nut
αbolt-nut

1.4

0.8
αbolt-nut = -1.65μ + 1.1 1
global
αbolt-nut = 0.71 Linear (global)
0.6 0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
μ Ebolt/Enut

Fig. 9. Correcting factor bolt.nut in relation to the coefficient of friction : (a) and the moduli of elasticity ratio Ebolt /Enut ; (b) for a standardised nut.

M16 ; μ=0 ; H variable

M16 ; μ=0 ; Dext variable
1.15
1.15
H=12,8 mm
H=16 mm
1.05 1.05 H=24 mm
H=32 mm
Dext=24 mm H=48 mm
Dext=36 mm
0.95
α

0.95 Dext=48 mm
α

Dext=72 mm
Dext=120 mm

0.85 0.85

H (mm) Dext (mm)

0.75 0.75
12 20 28 36 44 24 44 64 84 104

Fig. 10. Correcting factor  in relation to the height and external diameter of a non-standardised nut.

root [8,14] to define the fatigue resistance and evaluate the max- The curves presented in Fig. 11 match with the results of the
imum stress taking into consideration the probability of local previous study. One can conclude that the coefficient of friction
plastification. However, the main objective remains the equiv- and the materials are less influential. This can be justified since
alent local stiffness of the portion of the bolt engaged in the the considered part has a large diameter, and thus the radial
tapped hole (see Fig. 5). VDI recommendation [4] and Thomala deformations near the threading are negligible independently
[20] are the only ones to give results for fastened plates. In this from the coefficient of friction and the material.
framework, a preliminary study of nuts with different heights Hence, the following empirical formula is presented:
and diameters showed that the correcting factor remains some- For 0  0.33:
how constant with large height and diameter of tapped parts
(see Fig. 10). Consequently, for stiffness calculation, one can bolt.tapping = A − B., (20)
consider: H = 3Hstandardised and Dext = 5Da . where
One should note that the portion of a bolt in a tapping is a 
Ebolt
major constructive datum. However, a recent investigation [12] A = 0.78 + − 1 0.21,
showed that the stiffness of a tapped part barely varies for more Etapping
than seven engaged threads as shown by the results below, set  
Ebolt
out from a study in the elastic range. Practically, some threads B = 0.27 + − 1 0.15.
Etapping
may plastify and consequently lead to a more uniform load
distribution: a study covering this phenomenon is actually under For 0.33:
development.  
Ebolt
Since in the elastic domain, the coefficient bolt.tapping barely bolt.tapping = 0.7 + − 1 0.16. (21)
Etapping
varies with the nominal diameter, specifically for low coeffi-
cients of friction, it would be accurate to consider the mean Note that the objective of this study is to determine the
diameter. stiffness of the engaged portion of the bolt and the tapped
596 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598

1.2 1.4

1.1
αbolt-tapping = 1.016 1.2
αbolt-tapping = -0.57μ2 + 1.2
1 αbolt-tapping = 0.22Ebolt /Etapping + 0.56
αbolt-tapping

αbolt-tapping
Steel_Aluminium
0.9 1
Steel_Steel
0.8
αbolt-tapping = 0.69 0.8 αbolt-tapping = 0.17Ebolt /Etapping + 0.52
0.7 αbolt-tapping = -0.27μ2 + 0.78 2=0.1 2=0 2=0.3
2=0.2 2=0.4 2=0.5
0.6 0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
μ2 Ebolt /Etapping

Fig. 11. Correcting factor tapping in relation to the coefficient of friction between threads 2 and the moduli of elasticity ratio Ebolt /Etapping .

Dp
Consequently, the equivalent undimensionless cross-section
is
F
Ap
A∗p = ,
Da2
LP1
where Da is the diameter of the bolt head.
LP LP The various geometrical magnitudes of the bolted joint are
LP2 Dt also defined in relation to Da by the following relations:

Dp Dt Lp
Dp∗ = ; Dt∗ = ; L∗p = . (24)
Da Da Da
Da F Ap
As previously mentioned, numerous studies concerning the
definition of assembled parts equivalent model with equivalent stiffness of fastened plates were conducted. The most
same stiffness
interesting approach is based on the notion of a deformation
Fig. 12. Equivalent calculation model of the fastened plates axial stiffness. cone with the same stiffness as the subassemblies [5,11]. This
description features an assembly of parts with different diam-
eters by a purely geometric approach. Consequently, the angle
part with large dimensions. However, concerning the area be- of the cone, considered as an additional geometric parameter is
tween the standardised nut (Hnut-N ; Dext nut-N ) and the part related to the various characteristics of the assembly [21–23] by
(H ; Dext ), a general model using the previously defined co- various empirical relations. For cylindrical parts with the same
efficients bolt.tapping and bolt.nut and based on the results of diameter, Rasmussen [24] presents an empirical formula (24)
Fig. 11 is used. Eq. (22) represents the generalised model for: which was modified by Massol [2,7] and used by Vadean [16].
bolt.nut <  < bolt.tapping . This formula is consistent since it gives satisfactory results for
   a coefficient of friction close to 0 (see Fig. 13).
1 0.8d/H
 = bolt.tapping +
3 2 − 0.8d/H  1
  A∗p = (1 − Dt∗2 ) + (Dp∗2 − 1)
2 1.15d/Dext 4 2
+ (bolt.nut − bolt.tapping ). (22) ⎡ ⎤
3 4 − 3.45d/Dext 0.35 L∗p + 1 + 2L∗2
⎢ p −1 ⎥
× tan−1 ⎣ ⎦, (25)
3.6. Stiffness of fastened plates 2(Dp∗2 − Dt∗2 )

Under uniform load, the apparent stiffness of a part with an 

 1 ∗2 0.75(L∗p − 0.2)
equivalent cross-section Ap and a length Lp (equal to the length A∗p ∗2
= (1 − Dt ) + (Dp − 1)tan −1
.
of the assembly), is equivalent to the stiffness of fastened plates 4 2 (Dp∗2 − Dt∗2 )
as shown in Fig. 12. (26)
For each subassembly, the equivalent cross-section is de-
A full experimental design study covering a broad domain
duced from the compression stiffness using the following rela-
(1 Dp∗ 5; 0.02 L∗p 10) shows that the equivalent cross-
tion:
section scarcely depends on the nominal diameter of the bolt.
Lp · K p In fact, the influential parameters are the contact diameter of
Ap = . (23)
Epart the bolt head, thickness and diameter of the fastened plates and
 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598 597

M24 ; Lp*=3.33 Dp*=5 ; dt=25 mm

2
5
1.8
FEM_µ=0
1.6 4
Rasmussen (25)
Ap*_VDI_03
1.4 Formula (26)
1.2 3
Ap*

Ap*
1
FEM_μ=0
2
0.8 Rasmussen (25)
Formula (26)
0.6
VDI_03 1
0.4 FEM_μ=0.2

0.2 0
1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10
Dp* Lp*

Fig. 13. Equivalent cross-section in relation to the dimensions of the part.

the radial clearance at the hole. The coefficient of friction also

has a light influence on A∗p (from 5% to 10%). Tightening torque applied tothe nut
The Rasmussen formulation is modified and an easy ex-
pression for Ap (Eq. (26)) covering the case of thin parts Angle tightening measurement
and a coefficient of friction close to 0.2 at the interfaces is
Rigid support
developed. This formula covers most industrial cases and
highlights the influence of the various parameters. One can also Strain
Rosette
deduce from this study that Ap does not depend on the materi- fastened plates
als of the bolt and the fastened plates. Finally, a simple method
Cylindrical partof bolt
for extending this formulation for stacked parts with different
diameters and materials will be presented in a forthcoming
Top view of system
publication.

4. Experimental validation

The aim of the experimental validation is to determine the

stiffness of the subassemblies in the bolted joint. In the ex-
perimental set-up shown in Fig. 14, a tightening torque is ap-
plied on the nut for measuring the screwing angle whereas two Deformation gauges Blocked bolt head
deformation gauges and two rosette gauges are, respectively,
installed on the bolt to measure the axial tension and torsional Fig. 14. Equivalent cross-section in relation to the dimensions of the part.
moment. However, it is practically impossible to perform a
direct measurement on the length variation of the subassem- From Eq. (27), the stiffness of the bolt (Eq. (28)) and
blies. However, even if these assemblies are made of steel or the equivalent undimensionless cross-section A∗p Eq. (29)
light alloy and thus variations are extremely slight, the length characteristic of the stiffness of the fastened plates can be
variation of the bolt’s axis is not really materialised and there- deduced:
fore remains not accessible for direct measurement.  
P 1 1
The experimental approach is based on the assumption of the =  = Fi + , (27)
2 KB Kp1
linear variation of stiffness with Young modulus of elasticity
and loading. Thus, a double measurement is performed using a F1 − F2
batch of steel parts having an modulus of elasticity Ep1 and a KB = , (28)
Lp /Ap (F2 /Ep2 − F1 /Ep1 )
batch of aluminium parts with a modulus of elasticity Ep2 hav-
ing the same geometry. This approach was used by Massol [7] Lp (1/Ep2 − 1/Ep1 )
in FEM simulations. The relative imposed displacement gener- A∗p = . (29)
Da2 ·  (1/F2 − 1/F1 )
ates, respectively, a load F1 and F2 in the steel and aluminium
parts. The experimental results validate the Rasmussen modified
F1 and F2 are measured in the linear part of the curve, thus formula (see Fig. (16)) where the axial stiffness of the bolt
giving the load relatively to the screwing angle (see Fig. 15), is set out by summing the flexibility of the various elements.
for  given. The relative error is less than 8%.
598 F. Alkatan et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 589 – 598

Experiment points References

F
Steel [1] J.H. Bickford, S. Nassar, Handbook of Bolts and Bolted Joints, Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York, 1998.
[2] J. Guillot, Assemblage par Eléments Filetés; Modélisation et Calculs,
Axial load

Tech de l’ingénieur, Tome 1 B5560 à B5562, Paris, France, 1987, pp.

F1 Aluminium 1–56.
[3] J. Guillot, Assemblage par Eléments Filetés; Modélisation et Calculs,
Tech de l’ingénieur, Tome 1 B5563, Paris, France, 1997, pp. 1–11.
F2
[4] VDI 2230 Blatt 1, Systematische Berechnung Hochbeanspruchter
Schraubenverbindungen Zylindrische Einschraubenverbindungen, VDI
θ Richtlinien, ICS 21.060.10, VDI-Gesellschaft Entwicklung Konstruktion
Vertrieb, Fachberuch Konstruktion, Ausschuss Schraubenverbindungen,
Δθ Angle 2003, pp. 1–169.
[5] T.F. Lehnhoff, K.I. Ko, M.L. Mckay, Member stiffness and contact
Fig. 15. Equivalent cross-section in relation to the dimensions of the part. pressure distribution of bolted joints, ASME J. Mech. Des. 113 (1994)
432–437.
[6] J. Wileman, M. Choudry, I. Green, Computation of member stiffness in
bolted connections, ASME J. Mech. Des. 113 (1991) 432–437.
Test_Formulae Comparison [7] J. Massol, Etudes des Assemblages Boulonnés à Chargement Faiblement
2.4 Excentré Soumis à des Sollicitations de Fatigue, Ph.D. Thesis, No. 346,
INSA Toulouse, France, 1994.
2 [8] R.I. Zadoks, D.P.R. Kokatam, Investigation of the axial stiffness of a
bolt using a three dimensional finite element model, J. Sound Vib. 246
1.6 (2) (2001) 349–373.
[9] T.F. Lehnhoff, M.L. Mckay, V. Bellora, Member stiffness and bolt spacing
Ap*

1.2 of bolted joints, ASME PVP 248 (1992) 63–72.

0.8
Ap*_Formula_Lp=60
0.4 Ap*_experience_Lp=60
Ap*_VDI_Lp=60
0 [12] F. Alkatan, P. Stephan, J. Guillot, Stiffness calculation of the bolt’s
1 2 3 4
Dp*
Fig. 16. Principle of the experimental validation approach.
5. Conclusion
Axial stiffness of the various elements in a bolted joint is an
important criterion for problems related to such assemblies such
as the tightening angle, thermal stress and fatigue calculations.
In the case of cylindrical parts subjected to axisymmetric
loading, this paper presents an FE method based on the defor-
mation energy to calculate the stiffness of the bolt head, the nut
and the portion of the bolt engaged part in a tapped part and
also the stiffness of fastened plates.
Results are presented in the form of empirical formula figur-
ing the most influential parameters. This study also refines the
previous studies since it takes into consideration the influence
of the various parameters and covers the case of a tapped hole.
An original experimental study based on a double measure-
ment using two materials was developed to validate the results.
This study extends the knowledge about the stiffness in an
axisymmetric bolted joint and consists a core for future devel-
opments for more complex assemblies.
Finally, the developed formulas can be injected in FE sim-
ulations: bolts would be modelled by beams and it would be
possible to take into consideration linking and the influence of
the supporting zones.
[10] T.F. Lehnhoff, B.A. Bunyard, Effects of bolt threads on the stiffness of
bolted joints, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 123 (2001) 161–165.
Ap*_Formula_Lp=120 [11] VDI 2230, Blatt 1, Systematische Berechung Hochbeanspruchter
Ap*_experiment_Lp=120 Schraubenverbindungen Zylindrische Einschraubenverbindungen, Verein
Ap*_VDI_Lp=120 Deutscher Ingenieure, Verlag, Dusseldorf, 1986.
5 engaged and the tapped part in a bolted assembly, Fourth International
Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical
Engineering IDMME 2002, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2002, 1–9 CD-
ROM.
[13] UGS PLM Solutions Inc., I-DEAS Simulation Product Software, Release
10, 5400 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024, USA, http://www.ugs.com.
[14] T. Fukuoka, T. Takaki, Elastic plastic finite element analysis of bolted
joint during tightening process, ASME J. Mech. Des. 125 (2003)
823–830.
[15] H. Zhao, Stress concentration factors within bolt–nut connectors under
elasto-plastic deformation, Int. J. Fatigue 20 (9) (1998) 651–659.
[16] A. Vadean, D. Leray, J. Guillot, Bolted joints for very large
bearings—numerical model development, Finite Elements Anal. Des. 42
(2006) 298–313.
[17] T. Sawa, K. Maruyama, On the deformation of the bolt head and nut in
bolted joint, Bull. JSME 19 (128) (1976) 203–211.
[18] T. Fukuoka, Analysis of the tightening process of bolted joint with a
tensioner using springs elements, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 116
(1994) 443–448.
[19] P. Genelot, P. Vieville, W. Gunther, Modélisation du Serrage de Liaisons
Filetées par Tendeur Hydraulique, Revue Internationale d’ingénierie des
Systèmes de Production Mécanique, vol. 4, 2000, pp. 3–15.
[20] W. Thomala, Zur Berechnung der Erforderlichen Mutterhöhe Bei
Schraubenverbindungen, Konstruktion 47 (1995) 285–291.
[21] W. Lori, H. Gläser, Berechnung der Plattennachgiebigkeit bei
Schraubenverbindungen, Konstruktion 42 (9) (1990) 271–277.
[22] W. Lori, Untersuchungen Zur Plattennachgiebigkeit in Einschrauben bei
Verbindungen, Konstruktion 48 (11) (1996) 379–382.
[23] H. Lange, W. Lori, Verbesserte EF—Berechnung der Plattennachgie
bigkeit von Einschrauben Verbindungen, Unveröff Material des Arbert
saunchesses, VDI2230 2001.
[24] J. Rasmussen, A two body contact problem with friction, Euromech
Colloquium NR 110, Rimforsa, Italy, 1978, pp. 115–120.