Esdu 84039b

ESDU 84039 Issued April 1986
With Amendments A and B

May 2006
Strength of angles and club-foot fittings

ESDU by Accuris Copyright material. For current status, contact ESDU.
(transmitting tensile loads)
Endorsed by
The Royal Aeronautical Society
ESDU 84039
ESDU DATA ITEMS
Data Items provide validated information in engineering design and analysis for use by, or under the supervision
of, professionally qualified engineers. The data are founded on an evaluation of all the relevant information, both
published and unpublished, and are invariably supported by original work of ESDU staff engineers or consultants.
The whole process is subject to independent review for which crucial support is provided by industrial companies,
government research laboratories, universities and others from around the world through the participation of some
of their leading experts on ESDU Technical Committees. This process ensures that the results of much valuable
work (theoretical, experimental and operational), which may not be widely available or in a readily usable form, can
be communicated concisely and accurately to the engineering community.
We are constantly striving to develop new work and review data already issued. Any comments arising out of your
use of our data, or any suggestions for new topics or information that might lead to improvements, will help us to
provide a better service.
THE PREPARATION OF THIS DATA ITEM
The work on this particular Item was monitored and guided by the Aerospace Structures Committee, which first
met in 1940 and now has the following constitution:
Chairman
Mr K.R. Obee — British Aerospace plc, Hatfield-Lostock Division
Vice-Chairman
Prof. J.G. ten Asbroek — Fokker-VFW N.V., Schiphol-Oost, The Netherlands
Members
Dr P. Bartholomew — Royal Aircraft Establishment
Mr J.K. Bennett — British Aerospace plc, Space and Communications Division
Dr. T.W. Coombe — British Aerospace plc, Weybridge-Bristol Division
Mr H.L. Cox — Independent
Mr G. Geraghty — Westland Helicopters Ltd
Mr K.H. Griffin — Cranfield Institute of Technology
Mr D. McConnell — British Aerospace plc, Aircraft Group, Civil Division
Mr I.C. Taig — British Aerospace plc, Warton Division
Mr K.van Katwijk* — European Space Agency, Noordwijk, The Netherlands.
*
Corresponding Member
The technical work involved in the initial assessment of the available information and the construction and
subsequent development of the Item was undertaken by
Mr M.E. Grayley — Head of Strength Analysis Group.

ESDU 84039
STRENGTH OF ANGLES AND CLUB-FOOT FITTINGS (TRANSMITTING TENSILE
LOADS)
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. NOTATION 1
2.1 General 1
2.2 Angle 1
2.3 Nut and Bolt – Assembly 2
2.4 Loads, Moments, Stresses and Deflections 2
2.5 Stiffnesses 2
2.6 Suffixes and Primes 3
2.7 Conventions 3
3. CONSIDERATION OF FAILURE CRITERIA 6
4. DESCRIPTION OF BEHAVIOUR OF A SIMPLE ASSEMBLY UNDER LOAD 7
5. SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES 11

5.1 Use of Pad Washers 11
5.2 Feet With Side Support 12
5.3 Double-Sided Feet 12
6. EXPERIMENTAL DATA 13
7. SYNOPSIS OF DESIGN PRECEPTS 13

7.1 Selection of Material for Angles and the Primary Design Criterion for the Joint
(Section 3) 13
7.2 Bolts (Section 4) 13
7.3 Simple Angles or Club-feet 13
8. DERIVATION 14
APPENDIX A ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF LEG AND FOOT 21
A1. INTRODUCTION 21
A2. NOTATION 21
A3. ANALYSIS WITH SIMPLIFIED INTERFACE PRESSURE UNDER THE FOOT 21
A4. ANALYSIS IGNORING FASTENER ASSEMBLY 23
i
ESDU 84039
APPENDIX B EXAMPLE 26
B1. INTRODUCTION 26
B2. ESTIMATION OF HEEL BENDING MOMENT USING SIMPLIFIED INTERFACE

PRESSURE UNDER THE FOOT (SEE SECTION A3) 26
B2.1 Estimation of Kb* 26
B2.2 Estimation of j 28
B2.3 Estimation of d'n 28
B2.4 Estimation of h 28
B2.5 Estimation of If and Il 28
B2.6 Solution of Equations (A3.1) to (A3.5) 29
B3. ESTIMATION OF HEEL BENDING MOMENT IGNORING FASTENER ASSEMBLY

(see Section A4) 30
B3.1 Estimation of h 30
B3.2 Estimation of b 30
B3.3 Estimation of µb 30
B3.4 Calculation of Mh 31
B4. BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS FOR THE TWO METHODS OF ANALYSIS 31
B5. ESTIMATION OF STRESSES 33

B5.1 The Foot 33
B5.2 The leg 33
B6. HEEL SEPARATION 33
ii
ESDU 84039
STRENGTH OF ANGLES AND CLUB-FOOT FITTINGS (Transmitting tensile loads)
1. INTRODUCTION
This Item deals with methods of estimating the stresses, deflection and ultimate load capacity of angles and
club-foot fittings that are assembled so as to provide a tensile load path across a join or through an
intervening member. Sketch 2.1 illustrates such an assembly that is designed to transmit a direct tensile
load across a bulkhead. There is a wide variety of designs of such joints and Sketch 2.2 illustrates some
of the more common components used.
For even the simplest joint the complex behaviour under load, resulting from the interplay of stiffnesses of
the various elements, is not amenable to accurate analysis. Accordingly, it is only possible to provide
simplified models that illustrate the major effects of the many factors that influence joint strength or
deflection. Such models have the advantage that they prescribe the bounds of influence of the major factors.
2. NOTATION
The following notation relates to the assembly illustrated in Sketch 2.1 but many of the elements of that
assembly occur in most angles or club-foot fittings.
Throughout this Item the component parts of the joint will be referred to using the names given in the labels
of Sketch 2.1. Thus, for example, the main fastener holding the angles together will be termed the bolt
although the data can be related to other types of fastener.
2.1 General
E modulus of elasticity of material N/m2 lbf/in2
G shear modulus of material N/m2 lbf/in2
I second moment of area about z-axis m4 in4
l length m in
t thickness m in
w width m in
2.2 Angle
a distance from bolt centre-line to leg centre-line (see Sketch 2.1) m in
e length of toe (see Sketch 2.1) m in
t2 0.2 per cent proof stress of angle material N/m2 lbf/in2
r internal radius at bend (or corner) between leg and foot m in

Issued December 1984
With Amendments A and B, May 2006
1
ESDU 84039
2.3 Nut and Bolt – Assembly
c distance from bolt centre-line to line of application of load m in
d nominal diameter of bolt m in
d' effective diameter of influence on foot of bolt head or nut m in

n
d outer diameter of washer m in

w
2.4 Loads, Moments, Stresses and Deflections

f direct stress N/m2 lbf/in2
M moment Nm lbf in
M max maximum permissible bending moment Nm lbf in
P load applied to joint (tensile positive) N lbf
Pb load in bolt N lbf
P bt bolt pretension N lbf
p bult nominal axial tensile strength of bolt N lbf
q shear stress N/m2 lbf/in2
yh heel lift m in
2.5 Stiffnesses
K axial or direct stiffness N/m lbf/in
µ rotational stiffness N m/rad lbf in/rad
2
ESDU 84039
2.6 Suffixes and Primes
A prime indicates an effective value of a quantity
B bulkhead
b bolt or ‘at bolt’, for loads and moments
f foot
h ‘at heel’, for loads and moments
l leg
n nut or bolt head
p pad washer (see Section 5.1)
w washer under nut or bolt head
2.7 Conventions
Positive loads, stresses and strains are tensile.
x parallel to foot, see Sketch 2.1
y parallel to leg, see Sketch 2.1
z orthogonal to x- and y-directions, see Sketch 2.1
Both SI and British units are quoted but any coherent system of units may be used.
3
ESDU 84039
P P
c
y
tl
y
x
ll lf
z
a e
tn
tw
tp
tf t
B
Bulkhead
Heel Toe
wn Foot
ww Pad washer
Washer
Bolt of nominal
Leg diameter d
Sheet with
stiffener
P P
z
wp wf
Sketch 2.1 Details of simple assembly with notation
4
ESDU 84039
(a) Simple formed angle (b) Extruded section angle (c) Cast angle
(d) Rectangular pad washer (e) Tapered leg and foot (f) Double-sided (a) type
(a) Double-sided machined angle (h) Formed angle with side support (i) Machined angle
(j) Corner fitting with side support

on adjacent sides
Sketch 2.2 Various designs of club-feet angles
5
ESDU 84039
3. CONSIDERATION OF FAILURE CRITERIA
Joints of the types illustrated in Sketches 2.1 and 2.2 can fail either in static strength, in fatigue or deflect
or deform beyond acceptable limits. Normally the maximum stress in the angle under a factored load would
be compared with an allowable stress in the angle material. However, the maximum stress is usually the
result of bending combined with other loads and is particularly difficult to estimate. Furthermore, the
bending can, in the more ductile materials, lead to formation of one or more plastic hinges. These give a
non-linear load deflection behaviour in which the deformations can be excessive giving significantly
modified geometry. This can lead to a final failure that may be in a different mode to that which was
assumed in the simple linear analysis used to determine the first plastic hinge. The final load may also be
well above that causing the first plastic hinge to develop. This is illustrated by Figure 1 which shows a
curve of deflection, measured as the heel-lift, plotted against increasing applied load obtained from tests
on the joint assembly shown with the figure. Initially the load causes no heel-lift owing to bolt
pretensioning. When heel-lift occurs it is approximately linear and therefore almost completely recoverable
on removal of the load. When yielding occurs the slope changes. As each location within the assembly
yields the slope changes with the general trend reducing the slope until failure occurs. However, in practice
significant distortion is usually – although not always – undesirable since it can cause redistribution of
loads into members not designed to accept them. In the less ductile (more brittle) materials existing stress
concentrations are likely to absorb all the available plasticity so that failure occurs before significant plastic
hinges can develop. Because of this, failure is not preceded by noticeable plastic deformation.
As a result of the behaviour described in the previous paragraph the choice of design criteria and material
for the angle are interlinked. In many designs the stresses will be required to be within the elastic limit of
the material under working loads. A further requirement may be the maintenance of a prescribed overall
joint stiffness or the prevention of leakage past the joint. Because limitations on deflection or deformation
are peculiar to the function of the joint each design must be considered separately and a suitable criterion
devised that ensures that the assembly performs its function satisfactorily. Most angles are manufactured
from ductile materials and the joints are designed against a proof stress limit and against a deflection limit,
which is fully recoverable on removal of load. The overload case, and its associated deflection and/or
deformation, is also of interest as is the ultimate failure load. Sufficient fatigue strength under the expected
service loading must also be ensured.
This Item considers only failure of the angle or nut and bolt assembly. The following is a list of the possible
failure modes in typical joints. The list cannot be exhaustive owing to the wide variety of designs possible.
(a) Nut and/or bolt failures
(i) Thread failure, either thread stripping or direct tensile failure.

(ii) Failure of shank at junction with head under combined tension and bending.
(iii) Unacceptable separation.
(b) Foot failures
(i) Break at bolt hole.

(ii) Break near edge of nut or bolt head nearest heel, under combined bending and shear.
(iii) Bearing and/or shear failure allowing nut or bolt head (with washer) to pull through foot.
(iv) Break below heel at start of corner radius.
(v) Unacceptable deformation.
(c) Leg failures
(i) Break above heel at start of corner radius.
6
ESDU 84039
(ii) Leg-to-sheet/stiffener attachment (for example, rivet failures in shear, bearing or head
failure).
(iii) Break at critical section in leg (for example, first rivet).
(iv) Unacceptable deformation.
4. DESCRIPTION OF BEHAVIOUR OF A SIMPLE ASSEMBLY UNDER LOAD
The behaviour of a simple club-foot fitting (such as those of Sketches 2.2(a), (b) and (c)) under load is
largely governed by the deflections and rotations of the foot and heel and the behaviour of the nut and bolt
assembly and the region of the foot that they clamp. Although these two major facets are interlinked it is
convenient to describe them separately and then to comment on their interaction.
The load is usually applied to the leg of the angle by a major load bearing structural member, such as a
stiffener, usually with an associated sheet as shown in Sketch 2.1. Typically such structural members are
capable of providing both lateral (x-direction) and rotational restraint against movement of the leg under
load. Such restraint comes into play when joint deflections or deformations occur. Major movements are
vertical movement of the leg coupled with a rotation about a point in the foot somewhere between the heel
and the bolt. The rotation principally occurs as a result of the non-alignment of the bolt with the load path.
Sketches 4.1(a) to (d) show four simple arrangements of the leg and surrounding structure. Sketches 4.1(c)
and (d) have much reduced moments at the heel of the angle and therefore less rotation would be expected.
Sketch 4.1(e) shows, for the simplified case of a totally rigid foot, how the bending moment diagram for
the foot changes with the distance c. Note that as c is reduced the bending moment at the bolt also decreases.
When c = a/2 the bending moments at the bolt and heel are equal but if c < a/2 the bending moment at the
heel exceeds that at the bolt. The dashed line on Sketch 4.1(e) indicates the form of the bending moment
diagram of a practical foot when c = a.
7
ESDU 84039
P P P P
c c c c
a e a e a e a e
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Bending moment (sagging positive)
2a
c=
a
c=
0
2
a/
c=
4
a/
c=
0
c=
a e
(e)
Sketch 4.1 Effect of fastener position in relation to load line on foot bending moments
8
ESDU 84039
The moments experienced by the leg and foot are controlled by many factors other than the major factor
of bolt offset from the load line. Appendix A provides two elastic analyses of the leg and foot using simple
beam theory. Both analyses provide Mh and this allows calculation of the other moments elsewhere in
either the leg or foot. The assumption of applicability of beam theory is most likely to be in error when
the bolt head is close to the heel thus reducing the effective foot length (j in Appendix A) to a dimension
not much greater than the foot thickness. For the equations of Appendix A to give a reasonable result j
should not be less than about 3tf . Below this value shear deflections should be considered. The influence
of a large corner radius in extruded or machined sections with a square heel further serves to reduce the
effective length. The stiffnesses employed in both analyses can only be estimated and so the influence of
the assumptions made in their calculation should be tested to determine their influence on the final moments
and deflections obtained. The analysis of Section A3 includes some account of the compression of the foot
resulting from bolt pretensioning but assumes that the load line is at the centre-line of the leg. The analysis
of Section A4 does not include the nut and bolt assembly but does allow the load line to be offset from the
leg centre-line.
In addition to bending moments the foot carries a maximum shear force of P and the leg a direct tensile
force of the same value. The limiting capacity of the leg at the heel can be determined using form factors.
The appropriate curve of Data Item No. Struct. 01.06.02* is repeated as Figure 2 of this Item for that purpose.
Figure 2 provides 6Mmax/(t2wltl2) plotted against Ptl/Mh . Calculation of Ptl/Mh and use of the figure to
obtain Mmax should result in a value of M max < M h otherwise progressive failure of the leg will occur. For
further notes on form factors see Data Item No. Struct. 01.06.00† .
The foot can fail in shear. The maximum shear stress in the foot occurs at the centre of the foot and its
elastic value is given by
1.5P
q f = ----------- . (4.1)
wf tf
The value of qf will be greater than that given by Equation (4.1) if the extreme fibres of the foot have yielded.
In designs where the foot and leg are formed from a strip, as, for example, that shown in Sketch 2.2(a), the
stiffness of the foot is very low in relation to that of the bolt and the leg (including its associated structure).
In these cases a simple model of foot behaviour can be constructed in which the bolt is taken to be rigid
but leg rotational restraint is included (see the sketch with Figure 3). The equation for the bending moment
at the side of the bolt is
 
 w n′ 
 1 – -------- 
w n′ 1 2c 
M b = Pc 1 – -------- – ---  ---------------------------------------------------  . (4.2)
2c 2 1
1 + --------------------------------------- 
 
 µl c  w′n  
 -----------  1 – -------- 
Ef If  2c 
The assumption of a rigid bolt head gives a conservative estimate of Mh . Effective values of w′n should
not exceed the across-flat dimension for the bolt head or nut. In wide feet, with wf greater than say 2wn ,
the value of w′n is probably close to zero.
*
Data Item No. Struct. 01.06.02 “Form factors for flanged sections under combined bending and axial load”.
†
Data Item No. Struct. 01.06.00 “Information on the use of Data Sheets 01.06”.
9
ESDU 84039
Contact area
Heel lift
(a) Low load
Contact area
Heel lift
(b) High load
Sketch 4.2 Showing that contact area decreases with increasing loading
Angles made from strip are particularly prone to failure of the foot in shear and bearing failure. Shear
failure can also occur across the foot, under the load P, as previously noted for thicker angles. Shear failure
can occur around the perimeter of the bolt head, nut or washer, although this is only possible if a small
diameter bolt is used. Such failure can be progressive since the majority of the load will be taken out on
that region of the bolt head closest to the heel; possibly as little as a quarter of the perimeter of the washer
or over the length of one flat of the head. Once failure starts it will link up with the high stress caused by
Mb . Bearing failure can similarly commence on one side of the bolt and proceed progressively to pull the
head through the foot. The strength of thin feet can be considerably improved by the use of pad washers,
see Section 5.1.
The behaviour of the nut and bolt assembly and the region of the feet and bulkhead that they clamp together
is described in Data Item No. 85021*. The load path through the joint is governed by the way the joint is
*
Data Item No. 85021 “Analysis of pretensioned bolted joints subject to tensile (separating) forces”.
10
ESDU 84039
loaded and the stiffnesses of the component parts. Also included in Data Item No. 85021 are equations for
the stiffness of the component parts of a joint and equations for their combination when analysing joint
behaviour.
As previously described there is usually a bending moment acting on the foot tending to pry the joint apart.
The behaviour of the foot under the moment is affected by the restraint provided by the nut and bolt
assembly. Similarly the moment at the bolt influences the load paths through the joint, particularly as joint
separation is approached. Sketch 4.2 illustrates the fact that the area of contact between the foot and
bulkhead changes with increasing load so that the effective stiffness of the foot is changing. Thus, the
behaviour of the joint is non-linear, particularly as joint separation is approached. This form of non-linear
behaviour may be recoverable on removal of load since it does not necessarily involve material yielding.
Because of this the behaviour may be acceptable and estimates of heel lift or separation load may be made
by reducing the effective area down to about half the value given by the initial value of d ′n . Note that these
assumptions also affect foot and heel moments and these should therefore be rechecked, using the reduced
stiffnesses, employing the methods of Appendix A.
In thin feet bolt pretensioning can induce small heel and toe lift under zero applied load. This occurs when
the bulkhead reaction just away from the bolt head overcomes the flexural stiffness of the foot and forces
it to curve up. This effect reduces e' to a value close to d ′n /2.
5. SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES
5.1 Use of Pad Washers*
Sketches 2.1 and 2.2 show angles with relatively thin legs and feet. The feet are reinforced by pad washers
that are fitted into the corner radius. This simple device is cheap and introduces the following benefits
which together provide a considerable improvement in load capacity.
(a) The bolt may be positioned closer to the leg so reducing foot bending moments, see Sketch 4.1.
(b) The flexural stiffness of the foot is increased.
(c) Heel deflections are reduced.
(d) Leg bending moments at the heel may be reduced, depending on the position of the load line.
(e) The bearing strength is increased if the bearing strength of the pad washer is higher than that of
the foot. This may allow use of a smaller diameter bolt placed closer to the heel.
A possible disadvantage is that continual flexing of the leg against the pad washer can cause fretting and
thus initiate a fatigue crack in the leg to foot radius.
Ideally the pad washer should almost cover the foot to ensure that the full benefit is obtained. For example,
the pad washer should extend to the end of the toe, to provide the largest possible moment arm for the bolt,
and be wider than the plain washer, to improve load distribution, but not wider than the foot. Choice of an
excessively thick pad washer will simply ensure that failure occurs in the bolt or leg.
One advantage of pad washers not noted above is that they can be fitted retrospectively if a joint is found
to be deficient in one of the points (a) to (e) listed above. If this is done a longer bolt must be fitted and
*
Pad washers may be known as “profile washers”, “stress pads” or “radiused washers”.
11
ESDU 84039
the stiffnesses of both the bolt and the foot assembly change. It is therefore necessary to recheck the leg
and the bolt to ensure that they can take the design load with the revised design.
5.2 Feet with Side Support
Sketches 2.2(h), (i) and (j) illustrate angles in which the feet are supported by one or two side members
attached to the leg. Such constructions are far stiffer than simple angles and are therefore recommended
for joints where stiffness is paramount. However, such constructions are expensive to manufacture. The
side members cannot be made too thin since their prime task is to provide a rigid edge along the foot so
ensuring that the foot (plus an effective portion of the sides) has a bending moment diagram similar to those
of Sketch 4.1. The reaction at the toe can induce a compressive stress along the edge of the side supports
at the toe end. This can cause local buckling which should be checked using Data Item No. Struct. 01.01.08*.
5.3 Double-Sided Feet
Sketches 2.2(f) and (g) show two examples of double-sided club-foot fittings. In the case of machined
fittings, such as those of Sketch 2.2(g), the symmetry prevents rotation and translation (in the x-direction)
of the heel. This effectively provides clamped end conditions for the foot at the heel. Thus, application of
beam theory to the section of foot between the side of the bolt head and the heel gives the following equations
for bending moments in the foot.
w′n µb c  w′n 
Pc 1 – -------- 1 + ---------------  1 – --------
2c 2E f I f  2c 
M h = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5.1)
µb c  w′n 
1 + -----------  1 – --------
Ef If  2c 
and
 w′n 
M b = Pc  1 – -------- – M h , (5.2)
 2c 
where 2P is the total load on the leg. Figure 4 provides a graphical presentation of Equations (5.1) and
(5.2). For relatively thin feet held by large bolts the curve for µb c/ ( Ef If ) → ∞ applies. Note that in this
case Mb → M h . For thicker, stiffer, feet bolt bending occurs and this ensures that Mh > M b . Thus, in
practice, failure of the foot would be expected to occur at the heel as a consequence of Mh . Note that this
analysis is subject to the limitations of beam theory noted in Section 4 and that shear stresses also exist.
Further, stress concentrations at the heel to leg radius will introduce additional higher local stresses.
In the case of double-sided fittings formed from back-to-back angles, as in Sketch 2.2(f), the restraint against
lateral movement at the heels is provided by the structure (sheet) between them. This should extend down
to, at least, the heel radius, as shown in Sketch 1.2(f), otherwise most of the benefits of double-sided
attachment will be lost.
*
Data Item No. Struct. 01.01.08 “Local instability of struts with flat sides”.
12
ESDU 84039
6. EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Derivations 1, 2, 3 and 6 provide data on 189 tests on club-foot fittings of various designs tested to failure.
It is not possible to make use of all the final failure data since the ultimate failure mode is not necessarily
the mode that renders the fitting unservicable, see Section 3 and Figure 1. Further, Derivations 1, 2 and 3
do not provide data on the pretension load on the bolt. This affects the stress distribution in the foot and
the joint separation load.
The final failure load is recorded for the majority of the tests. Figure 5 shows a comparison between the
calculated values of P at the heel in the leg using Figure 2 with the actual value of P at ultimate failure,
whether or not it occurred in the leg. In all these tests the applied load was offset from the leg centre-line.
Almost all the failure values were above the theoretical value. A small group occurs around the line with
the lowest points being 20 per cent below the theoretical value. The points where the test values exceeded
the theoretical values by a wide margin are generally associated with relatively small offset of the load line
from the leg centre-line. These cases are most sensitive to small changes in geometry as a result of leg
and/or foot deformations.
Figure 6 presents the ratio Pbult /P for tests in which the bolt failed. The results are plotted on curves relating
to the simplified analyses shown on Figure 6. Case 1 assumes a rigid foot with a bolt that has shank
extensional and flexural stiffness but a rigid head. Case 2 assumes a totally rigid bolt and head and a foot
of zero flexural stiffness so that Pbult = 2P. All the failures fall below the combined upper limit of the two
cases. No values of Pbult /P < 1.1 were recorded. Values of Pbult /P tended to rise with increasing c/ ( c + e ) .
7. SYNOPSIS OF DESIGN PRECEPTS
This section sets out some general design precepts usually observed in the design of angles and club-feet.
They are not immutable rules and are provided as a quick reference guide to the factors governing joint
design. Beside each factor is the section number of this Item that contains a fuller description of its influence.
7.1 Selection of Material for Angles and the Primary Design Criterion for the Joint (Section 3)
(a) A ductile material (having an elongation of about 8 per cent or above) is usually desirable. This
allows yielding to accommodate some uncertainties in stress analysis and/or overloads.
(b) Recoverable deflection under maximum loading governs most joints.
7.2 Bolts (Section 4)
(a) Select bolt type and diameter sufficient to accept maximum load. Assume a rigid foot and select
a bolt that yields just above P(1 + c/e).
(b) Ensure that the bolt assembly stiffness is less than that of the clamped members (feet and bulkhead).
(c) Ensure pretensioning technique achieves at least minimum desired pretension.
(d) Select a head with sufficient rigidity.
7.3 Simple Angles or Club-feet
(a) Reduce c to a minimum (Section 4).
13
ESDU 84039
(b) Select wf and tf to accept foot bending moments and shear loads and foot to heel radius (Section
4). Typically
(i) 2d < w f < 4d .
(ii) 2d < e < 3d .
(iii) Select largest possible corners radius, r, but not such that c is increased. Foot flexural
stiffness and resistance to bearing failure can be improved by fitting pad washers. Also a
larger corner radius, r, can be employed if a pad washer is fitted without increasing c
beyond that necessary for bolt assembly.
(c) Select wl and tl to accept moments and direct load and to accept loads from attachment(s) to
surrounding structure (Section 4). Typically
(i) tl < tf .
(ii) l f < l l < 5l f .
8. DERIVATION
This section lists selected sources that have assisted in the preparation of this Item.
1. BUTLER, K.E. Tension tests on aluminium-alloy tee-fittings (flange bending). The Bristol
THORNE. Aeroplane Company Ltd, UK, Engineering Development Laboratory,
KAY, G.H. Laboratory Note No. 781, September 1952.
2. JACKSON, A.C. Tension cleats. English Electric Aviation Ltd, UK. Test Note No. 1113,
October 1959.
3. WILLIAMS, N.B. Stiffness and permanent set investigations on cleat joint specimens.
Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd, UK, Structural Test Report No. T.824, July
1969.
4. LEWITT, C.W. Restraint characteristics of flexible riveted and bolted beam-to-column
CHESSON, E. connections. Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 500, University of
MUNSE, W.H. Illinois, USA, 1969.
5. ZOETEMEIJER, P. A design method for the tension side of statically loaded, bolted
beam-to-column connections. Heron, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1974.
6. RAIKER, J. Theoretical and experimental investigations into the strength and stiffness
of a class of “club feet” brackets. M.Sc. Thesis, College of Aeronautics,
Cranfield, UK, September 1981.
14
ESDU 84039
5 5
/16 in UNF bolt (S96)
and standard washer
9.5
L65
P 4.5 5 rad P
15.5 5
20
18
16
Final yield
14 Second yield
First yield
12
P
(kN)
10
8
Approximately linear behaviour with load
2
Bolt pretension prevents heel-lift
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Heel-lift (mm)
FIGURE 1 TYPICAL LOAD VERSUS HEEL-LIFT CURVE
15
ESDU 84039
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
6Mmax
t w t2
2 l l
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ptl
M
FIGURE 2 FORM FACTORS FOR SOLID RECTANGULAR SECTIONS IN BENDING AND TENSION
16
ESDU 84039
P
w n′
Mb
µl
µlc
EfIf
1.0
0
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.7
2
0.6 5
Mb
10
Pc
0.5 4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
wNn
c
FIGURE 3 MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT Mb IN THIN FEET
17
ESDU 84039
2P
Mh
Mb
w ′n Mh
Mb
µb
c
µb c
E f If
1.0
0
0.9 0.2
0.5
0.8
1
0.7
2
0.6
Mh 5
Pc
10
or 0.5 4
Mb 10
Pc 0.4 5
2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1 0.2
0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
wNn
c
FIGURE 4 BENDING MOMENTS IN DOUBLE-SIDED ANGLES
18
ESDU 84039
C Indicates failure of leg

x Indicates failure of bolt or foot
25
23
X
20 X
X X
X
X
X
18
X
X
15 X X
X
X X
Actual value X
of P at failure 13
kN X
10
0
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25
Value of P for leg calculated using form factors and undeformed geometry
FIGURE 5 COMPARISON OF THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL VALUES OF P AT ULTIMATE FAILURE

OF THE LEG WHEN THE LOAD LINE IS OFFSET FROM THE LEG CENTRE-LINE
19
ESDU 84039
Case 1 Case 2
Pb
P P
c e
wn
Pb
Rigid foot, bolt has both extensional Zero flexural stiffness foot,
and flexural stiffness rigid bolt and bolt head
Pb applied at bolt centre-line
d 2
16 ‰ c + e 
1
0
4 0.01
0.025
3
Case 2 x
0.05 x
Pbult 2 x
P x
x xxx
x x
x
xxx x x
x
x x x x
xx x 0.1
2 x x x
x
x xx
x xx x xx
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
0.2
x
1
0.25
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
c
c+e
FIGURE 6 COMPARISON OF BOLT FAILURE LOADS WITH SIMPLE THEORETICAL ESTIMATES

This page Amendment B
20
ESDU 84039
APPENDIX A ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF LEG AND FOOT
A1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides two methods of analysis of the moments, and hence the deflections, of the leg and
foot using simple, constant width, beam bending theory. Neither method is exact and both are subject to
the limitations of beam theory noted in Section 4. The methods should therefore be used primarily to
determine which factors are principally controlling the stresses and deflections (see notes in Section 4).
A2. NOTATION
The majority of the notation employed is that given in Section 1. Additional symbols are defined here,
while others are employed for convenience of the expressions used and these are defined in
Equations (A3.2) to (A3.4) and (A4.3) and (A4.4).
b distance from load line to centre-line of leg (shown positive on Sketch m in

A3.2(c))
h distance from heel to effective point of leg support m in
i loaded length of foot between bolt and heel (see Sketch A3.1) m in
j unloaded length of foot (i + j = c) m in
y ref distance from centroid of element to reference plane (see Section B2.5) m in
γj shear deflection of foot over length j m in
A3. ANALYSIS WITH SIMPLIFIED INTERFACE PRESSURE UNDER THE FOOT
In this simplified analysis the reaction to the bolt load is assumed to be provided to the foot by a semi-infinite
elastic foundation. The behaviour of the foot is modelled using beam theory. Sketch A3.1 illustrates the
model and shows the foot divided into three regions. The first region consists of a beam on an elastic
foundation under a uniformly distributed load; this region of the beam therefore has no slope and no bending
moment in it. The second region is a transitional region in which the beam is lifted, by a moment and shear
force that vary along the beam progressively so reducing progressively the distributed load. The third
region does not touch the foundation and has no uniform loading, simply a varying moment and a shear
force. The leg is a simple beam of constant ElIl with the load applied along its centre-line. The end of the
leg is clamped against rotation but is free to translate. Adjustment of h can be made to simulate other end
conditions for the leg. The leg and foot are assumed to have the same moduli, that is, El = Ef .
The solution results in the following transcendental equation in β from which the lowest positive value of
β is required.
21
ESDU 84039
h
Separation
point
ky per unit length
j yi
Elastic foundation Transitional Zero slope
region
c
Bolt centre line
Sketch A3.1
P
P
b
(shown positive)
P
µb
j j
c
(a) (b) (c)
Sketch A3.2
22
ESDU 84039
2A 2  Q
---------- ---- + B + tan β tanh β + ---- ( Q + B ) ( tan β + tanh β ) = 0
A
(A3.1)
Q 2  Q
where
1/4
 Kb 
A = j  ------------------------
- , (A3.2)
 4E f I f d′n 
1/2 1/2
If Q h If Q
B =  ----------  tanh ---  ----------  (A3.3)
 Il  j  Il 
and
2
Pj
Q = ----------- (A3.4)
Ef If
Solution of Equation (A3.1) for β allows calculation of Mh from
 tan β + tanh β 
M h = Pj  ----------------------------------- + 1 (A3.5)
 2A 
Figure A1 presents curves of β and ( tan β + tanh β ) plotted against (Q + B)A/Q for various values of
2A2[(Q/2) + B]/Q to facilitate rapid solution of Equations (A3.1) and (A3.5).
A4. ANALYSIS IGNORING FASTENER ASSEMBLY
In this simplified approach the region of the foot subject to the interface pressure (with the bulkhead)
generated by the bolt pretension is considered to be separate and is represented as a block having rotational
stiffness only, see Sketch A3.2(a). The remainder of the foot, between the edge of the block and the leg,
is assumed to act as a beam clamped to the block. This model is shown in Sketch A3.2 and it represents
angles such as that shown in Sketch A3.2(b) in which there is clearance below the foot away from the bolt.
The model introduces a load line that is offset from the leg centre-line and different leg and foot flexural
stiffnesses. The top of the leg is assumed to be simply-supported and held in translation. Adjustment of h
can be made to simulate other end conditions for the leg. The rotational restraint µ b is that for the complete
assembly shown dashed in Sketch A3.2(a). This includes contributions from the bolt, including the head
and any washers, and the foot and bulkhead beneath it. Estimation of µb is the major uncertainty in this
calculation. The lowest practical value is likely to be that associated with the flexure of the bolt, that is
EbIb/lb .
23
ESDU 84039
The analysis gives the moment at the heel as
C b
---- + D – -----
2 6j
M h = Pj ------------------------------- (A4.1)
1
--- + C + D
3
3 2
Pj  1 D M h j  1 D
and y h = -----------  --- + ---- – --------------  --- + ---- , (A4.2)
Ef If  3 C Ef If  2 C
El Il j
where C = ------------- (A4.3)
Ef If h
El Il
and D = --------- . (A4.4)
µb h
Shear deflection may be estimated from
6Pj
γ j = ----------------------- . (A4.5)
5w′f t f G f
24
3.0
Asymptotic to π
0.8
2A2[(Q/2) + B]/Q
2.9
0
0.01 0.7
2.8 0.1
0.2 0.6
2.7 0.5
0.4
2.6 0.4
0.6 0.3
2.5
0.8 0.2
Asymptotic to 2.365 0.1
2.4 1.0
0
tanβ + tanhβ
2.3
β -0.2
(rad) 1.5
2.2 -0.4
2.0 -0.6
2.1 -0.8
25
-1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000
-1.5
1.9 -2.0
-3.0
1.8
-4.0
-5.0
ESDU 84039
1.7
-10.0
-20.0
1.6 π -100
2
-4
1.5
10-2 2 3 4 5 6 8 10-1 2 3 4 5 6 8 100 2 3 4 5 6 8 101 2 3 4 5 6 8 102 2 3 4 5 6 8 103
(Q + B)A/Q
FIGURE A1
ESDU 84039
APPENDIX B EXAMPLE
B1. INTRODUCTION
The joint shown in Sketch B2.1 is required to take a maximum tensile load of 7 kN with a heel separation
of less than 0.25 mm. Details of all the dimensions and materials are provided with the sketch. The analysis
will be carried out in two major phases. First the heel bending moments will be estimated using the methods
of both Sections A3 and A4 and secondly the maximum stresses and deflections will be estimated using
the highest bending moments obtained.
B2. ESTIMATION OF HEEL BENDING MOMENT USING SIMPLIFIED INTERFACE PRESSURE

UNDER THE FOOT (SEE SECTION A3)
The bending moment at the heel is determined using Equations (A3.1) to (A3.5) which require values of
Kb , j, d'n , h, If and Il . These are estimated in Sections B2.1 to B2.5 inclusive.
B2.1 Estimation of Kb*
Owing to the symmetry of the joint about the bulkhead centre-line only the stiffness of the fastener assembly
on one side of the centre-line need be considered. To allow for the fact that the nut and bolt assembly is
not symmetric about this centre-line the stiffness of the complete assembly will be calculated and then only
that relating to half will be used. The complete stiffness consists of the axial stiffness of the nut and bolt
assembly from the outer faces of the opposed feet.
The effective length of the unthreaded portion of the bolt is taken to be extended by 20 per cent of the bolt
head thickness to make an allowance for bolt head flexibility. The resulting length is therefore
13.0 + 0.2 × 6.0 = 14.2 mm.
The contribution to the total bolt stiffness of this portion of the shank is
2
π × ( 8.0 × 10 – 3 ) × 196 × 10 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.694 × 10 9 N/m .
4 × 14.2 × 10 – 3
The effective length of the loaded threaded portion of the bolt, which is taken to extend one pitch into the
nut, about 0.75 mm, is estimated as
5.0 + 3.0 + 5.0 + 1.2 + 0.75 – 13.0 = 1.95 mm ,
giving the contribution to the total stiffness of
2
π × ( 7.2 × 10 – 3 ) × 196 × 10 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 4.09 × 10 9 N/m .
4 × 1.95 × 10 – 3
*
Methods of estimating Kb are dealt with in Section 1.6 of Data Item No. 85021 “Analysis of pretensioned bolted joints subject to tensile
(separating) forces”.
26
ESDU 84039
P = 7 kN P = 7 kN
400
Overall layout of bulkheads and fittings
Bolt assembly
8 mm bolt. Thread pitch 0.75 mm,
core diameter 7.2 mm.
Nut 12.6 mm across flats and washer

of 15 mm outside diameter. All having
E = 196 000 MN/m2
Fittings bulkhead and stiffener

All with
E = 72 000 MN/m2
G = 27 000 MN/m2
t2 = 460 MN/m2
B B Allowable shear stress of 166 MN/m2
6.7
1.2 5.0
3.0
13.0
6.0
Identical foot each side
Section AA
1.0 25.0
A A
25.0 30.0
3.0
1.0
13.5 11.5
Section BB
Sketch B2.1 All dimensions in millimetres
27
ESDU 84039
The contribution of the washer and nut (below the first complete thread) can similarly be estimated using
the across-flats dimension of the nut as follows.
2 2
π ( 12.6 × 10 – 3 ) – ( 8.0 × 10 – 3 ) × 196 × 10 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 7.48 × 10 9 N/m .
4 × ( 0.75 + 1.2 ) × 10 – 3
Thus, the total stiffness given by the above three components is
–1
–1 –1 –1 9
( 0.694 × 10 9 ) + ( 4.09 × 10 9 ) + ( 7.48 × 10 9 ) = 0.55 × 10 N/m .
The stiffness of half the assembly is therefore twice this value so that
K b = 2 × 0.55 × 10 9 = 1.1 × 10 9 N/m .
B2.2 Estimation of j
This is measured from the centre-line of the angle part of the leg. Assuming that heel lift is restricted to
the region beyond the direct influence of the nut the maximum value of j is
13.5 – 3.0/2 – 12.6/2 = 5.7 mm .
B2.3 Estimation of d'n
The value of d'n must be slightly greater than the across-flats dimension of the nut. As a conservative
assumption, the across-flats dimension of 12.6 mm will be taken.
B2.4 Estimation of h
In estimating h for Equations (A3.1) to (A3.5) account must be taken of the fact that the end of the leg is
assumed to be restrained against rotation so that it has zero slope. Sketch B2.1 shows that pairs of joints
are 400 mm apart so that, under load, the point of zero curvature will be half way along the 400 mm span.
Therefore, h will be taken to be 200 mm.
B2.5 Estimation of If and Il
The value of If is, ignoring the bolt hole,
3
I f = 25 × 10 – 3 × ( 5 × 10 – 3 ) /12 = 260 × 10 – 12 m 4 .
Since the leg is attached to the plate and its stiffener, and since h is associated with the stiffener, Il is the
effective second moment of area of the stiffener and its associated plate. Assuming the associated plate
width is thirty times its thickness the effective cross-sectional area is shown in Sketch B2.2. The value of
Il is then calculated as follows.
28
ESDU 84039
(b)
(a)
30 Reference plane
Sketch B2.2 Idealised stiffener section
Item Area yref Area × yref Area × y2ref Local Il

(mm2) (mm) (mm3) (mm4) (mm4)
Skin 30.0 0.5 15.0 7.5 2

Stiffener (a) 29.5 1.5 44.2 66.3 2
Stiffener side (b) 24.5 13.7 335.7 4599.1 1225
Σ 84.0 394.9 4672.9 1229
From the above table the distance from the reference plane to the neutral axis for bending is
394.9
------------- = 4.70 mm
84.0
and the second moment of area is
I l = 4672.9 + 1229 – 4.70 2 × 84.0 = 4050 mm 4 or 4.05 × 10 – 9 m4 .
B2.6 Solution of Equations (A3.1) to (A3.5)
From Equation (A3.2)
1/4
9
–3 1.1 × 10
A = 5.7 × 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = 1.05 .
4 × 72 000 × 10 × 260 × 10 – 12 × 12.6 × 10 – 3
6
–3 2
7000 × ( 5.7 × 10 )
Q = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ = 0.0121 .
72 000 × 10 6 × 260 × 10 – 12
1/2 1/2
 I f Q  260 × 10 – 12 × 0.0121
Now  ---------- =  ------------------------------------------------------
- = 0.0279
 Il   4.05 × 10 – 9 
29
ESDU 84039
so that, from Equation (A3.3),
 0.2 × 0.0279
B = 0.0279 tanh  ------------------------------- = 0.0210 .
 5.7 × 10 – 3 
From the values of A, B and Q the coefficents of Equation (A3.1) for use with Figure A1 are
2A 2 Q
---------- ---- + B = 4.93
Q 2
and
A
---- ( Q + B ) = 2.87
Q
The value of β may be obtained from Figure A1 as 2.03 and that of ( tan β + tanh β ) as –1.05 (alternatively,
Equation (A3.1) may be solved by trial and error to obtain the lowest positive value of β ). Then, from
Equation (A3.5),
 – 1.05 
M h = 7000 × 5.7 × 10 – 3  --------------------- + 1 = 20.0 N m .
 2 × 1.05 
B3. ESTIMATION OF HEEL BENDING MOMENT IGNORING FASTENER ASSEMBLY (see

Section A4)
The bending moment at the heel is determined using Equations (A4.1), (A4.3) and (A4.4). These require
estimation of b, j, h, If and Il . The values of j, If and Il are unchanged from those estimated in Sections B2.2
and B2.5.
B3.1 Estimation of h
In estimating h for Equations (A4.1) to (A4.4) account must be taken of the fact that the end of the leg is
assumed to be fixed in translation and free in rotation. Sketch B2.1 shows that pairs of joints are separated
by a 400 mm bay before fixing by a similar assembly. The leg is therefore effectively the stiffener together
with the associated plate and, in consequence, the bay width and the joints at each end control the effective
length h. Some rotational restraint is provided by the foot at the end of the bay and so, for a pin-ended
model, h lies between one and two bay widths. Taking an average value, h becomes 1½ × 400 = 600 mm.
B3.2 Estimation of b
From Section B3.1 it follows that the load is applied along the neutral axis of bending of the stringer plate
combination. Since this combination is effectively the leg the load is applied along the neutral axis of the
leg. However, the heel is not in line with the leg neutral axis and, since compatibility is taken to occur at
the heel, the value of b will be taken as the offset of the load line with respect to the heel. Thus, noting the
sign convention for b shown on Sketch A3.2(c),
b = 4.70 – 1.0 – 1.0 – 3.0/2 = 1.2 mm .
30
ESDU 84039
B3.3 Estimation of µ b
The estimation of µb is the major uncertainty in this particular calculation. The lowest possible value is
that associated with the flexural stiffness of the bolt assembly under the action of a moment and this gives
4
 EI  196 000 × 10 6 × π ( 8.0 × 10 – 3 )
µb = ∑  ------  = ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
 l b 64 ( 3.0/2 + 5.0 + 1.2 ) × 10 – 3
µ b = 5.1 × 10 – 3 N m/rad .
B3.4 Calculation of Mh
72 000 × 10 6 × 4.05 × 10 – 9
D = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.0953
5.1 × 10 3 × 0.6
and, from Equation (A4.3),
72 000 × 10 6 × 4.05 × 10 – 9 × 5.7 × 10 – 3

C = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.148 .
72 000 × 10 6 × 260 × 10 – 12 × 0.6
Then, from Equation (A4.1)
( 0.148/2 ) + 0.0953 – 1.2 × 10 – 3 / ( 6 × 5.7 × 10 – 3 )

M h = 7000 × 5.7 × 10 – 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/3 + 0.148 + 0.0953
= 9.29 N m .
The extreme values of Mh occur when µ b approaches zero or infinity. Thus, when
µ b → ∞ ( so that D → 0 ) M h → 3.23 N m
and when
µ b → 0 ( so that D → ∞ ) M h → 39.9 N m .
B4. BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS FOR THE TWO METHODS OF ANALYSIS
From Section B2 the heel bending moment is estimated at 20.0 N m. It follows that at the separation point
(see Sketch A3.1) the bending moment is
20.0 – 5.7 × 10 – 3 × 7000 = – 19.9 N m .
31
ESDU 84039
From the model (see also Sketch A3.1) the heel bending moment must be uniform along the length h. The
resulting bending moment diagram is shown in Sketch B4.1(a).
From Section B3 the heel bending moment is estimated at a minimum value of 9.29 N m. Therefore, at
the edge of the bolt head distant j from the heel, the bending moment is
9.29 – 5.7 × 10 – 3 × 7000 = – 30.6 N m .
The heel is distance b (that is 1.2 mm) out of line with the effective stiffener neutral axis. The bending
moment in the stiffener at distance h from the heel is zero since the load P is applied along its neutral axis.
However, with respect to a line through the heel the applied bending moment is
P × b = 7000 × 1.2 × 10 – 3 = 8.4 N m .
This is illustrated in Sketch B4.1(c). The bending moments acting at distance h up the stiffener are here
not important since the idealisation employed is designed to determine the moments in the leg and foot only.
32
ESDU 84039
P
Load line coincident with
b effective stiffener neutral
axis but b distant from leg
neutral axis
8.4
Moment about line through

leg neutral axis
Stiffener axis and leg axis h = 600 mm

assumed to be coincident (b = 0)
Leg neutral axis
Stiffener −30.6
h = 200 mm
−19.9
Leg
Foot
20 9.29
9.29 Foot neutral axis

20
j i
5.7 mm
(a) Method of Section A3 (b) Layout of structure (c) Method of Section A4

Sketch B4.1 Bending moment diagrams obtained using the methods of Sections A3 and A4
B5. ESTIMATION OF STRESSES
This is carried out using the largest bending moments obtained in Section B4.
B5.1 The Foot
The maximum bending moment is shown on Sketch B4.1(c) and is 30.6 N m. This produces extreme fibre
stresses of
30.6 × 12 × 2.5 × 10 – 3
--------------------------------------------------------------- = 294 MN/m2
3
25 × 10 – 3 × ( 5 × 10 – 3 )
33
ESDU 84039
which are below the material t2 of 460 MN/m2 .
The maximum shear stress in the foot is, from Equation (4.1),
q f = 1.5 × 7000/ ( 25 × 10 – 3 × 5 × 10 – 3 ) = 84 MN/m2
which is well below the allowable shear stress of 166 MN/m2 .
B5.2 The leg
At the heel the leg has a maximum bending moment of 20.0 N m and must also take the direct load of
7000 N. Applying the form factor curve of Figure 2 to the section just above the heel gives
Pt l 7000 × 3 × 10 – 3
------- = ------------------------------------------ = 1.05
M 20.0
so that, from the figure, 6M max / ( t 2 w l t 2l ) = 1.21 or
2
M max = 1.21 × 460 × 10 6 × 25 × 10 – 3 × ( 3 × 10 – 3 ) /6 = 20.9 N m
which is just above the applied moment of 20.0 N m.
B6. HEEL SEPARATION
This can be estimated using Equation (A4.2) and is
3 2
7000 × ( 5.7 × 10 – 3 )  1 0.0953 9.69 × ( 5.7 × 10 – 3 )  1 0.0953
y h = ------------------------------------------------------------------------  --- + ---------------- – ------------------------------------------------------------------------  --- + ----------------
72 000 × 10 6 × 260 × 10 – 12 
3 0.148  72 000 × 10 6 × 260 × 10 – 12  2 0.148 
–
= 48 × 10 6 m, or 0.048 mm.
From Equation (A4.5) the shear deflection at the heel is
–3
6 × 7000 × 5.7 × 10
γ j = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 14 × 10 – 6 m , or 0.014 mm.
5 × 25 × 10 – 3 × 5 × 10 – 3 × 27 000 × 10 6
Thus, the total heel deflection is estimated at
0.048 + 0.014 = 0.066 mm
which is well below the 0.25 mm limit required even with the very low value assumed for µb .
34
ESDU 84039
KEEPING UP TO DATE
Whenever Items are revised, subscribers to the service automatically receive the material required to update
the appropriate Volumes. If you are in any doubt as to whether or not your ESDU holding is up to date, please
contact us.
Please address all technical engineering enquiries and suggestions to:
ESDU International plc Tel: 020 7490 5151 (from the UK)
+44 20 7490 5151 (from outside the UK)
Fax: 020 7490 2701 (from the UK)
+44 20 7490 2701 (from outside the UK)
E-Mail: esdu@esdu.com
Website: www.ihsesdu.com
For users in the USA, please address all Customer Service and Support enquiries and suggestions to:
IHS Engineering Products Tel: 1 800 447 3352 (toll free number)
and Fax: 1 303 397 2599
Global Engineering Documents Website: www.ihs.com
www.global.ihs.com
ESDU 84039
Strength of angles and club-foot fittings (transmitting tensile loads)
ESDU 84039
ISBN 978 0 85679 503 8, ISSN 0141-4097
Available as part of the ESDU Series on Structures. For information on

all ESDU validated engineering data contact ESDU International plc,
27 Corsham Street, London N1 6UA.
ESDU 84039 deals with methods of estimating the stresses, deflection

and ultimate load capacity of angles and club-foot fittings which are
assembled so as to provide a tensile load path across a joint or through
an intervening member. For even the simplest joint the complex
behaviour under load, resulting form the interplay of stiffnesses of the
various elements of the joint is not amenable to accurate analysis.
Accordingly, the Item provides simplified models which illustrate the major
effects of the many factors which influence joint strength or deflection.
Such models have the advantage that they prescribe the bounds of
influence of the major factors. The Item lists design criteria for the joint
and possible failure modes for the various parts of a joint. Analysis of the
effect of the positioning of the bolt it included. Figures are also included
which show the relationship between the actual failure loads of the bolt
and leg found by experiment and the simplified theories for their
prediction.
© ESDU International plc, 2008
All rights are reserved. No part of any Data Item may be reprinted, reproduced, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, optical, electronic or mechanical including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without
permission from ESDU International plc in writing. Save for such permission all
copyright and other intellectual property rights belong to ESDU International plc.

Esdu 84039b

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

Esdu 84039b

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESDU 84039 Issued April 1986

With Amendments A and B

Strength of angles and club-foot fittings

(transmitting tensile loads)

THE PREPARATION OF THIS DATA ITEM

Mr M.E. Grayley — Head of Strength Analysis Group.

3. CONSIDERATION OF FAILURE CRITERIA 6

4. DESCRIPTION OF BEHAVIOUR OF A SIMPLE ASSEMBLY UNDER LOAD 7

5. SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES 11

7. SYNOPSIS OF DESIGN PRECEPTS 13

APPENDIX A ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF LEG AND FOOT 21

A3. ANALYSIS WITH SIMPLIFIED INTERFACE PRESSURE UNDER THE FOOT 21

A4. ANALYSIS IGNORING FASTENER ASSEMBLY 23

B2. ESTIMATION OF HEEL BENDING MOMENT USING SIMPLIFIED INTERFACE

B3. ESTIMATION OF HEEL BENDING MOMENT IGNORING FASTENER ASSEMBLY

B4. BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS FOR THE TWO METHODS OF ANALYSIS 31

B5. ESTIMATION OF STRESSES 33

B6. HEEL SEPARATION 33

E modulus of elasticity of material N/m2 lbf/in2

G shear modulus of material N/m2 lbf/in2

I second moment of area about z-axis m4 in4

a distance from bolt centre-line to leg centre-line (see Sketch 2.1) m in

e length of toe (see Sketch 2.1) m in

t2 0.2 per cent proof stress of angle material N/m2 lbf/in2

r internal radius at bend (or corner) between leg and foot m in

c distance from bolt centre-line to line of application of load m in

d nominal diameter of bolt m in

d' effective diameter of influence on foot of bolt head or nut m in

d outer diameter of washer m in

2.4 Loads, Moments, Stresses and Deflections

f direct stress N/m2 lbf/in2

M max maximum permissible bending moment Nm lbf in

P load applied to joint (tensile positive) N lbf

Pb load in bolt N lbf

P bt bolt pretension N lbf

p bult nominal axial tensile strength of bolt N lbf

q shear stress N/m2 lbf/in2

K axial or direct stiffness N/m lbf/in

µ rotational stiffness N m/rad lbf in/rad

A prime indicates an effective value of a quantity

b bolt or ‘at bolt’, for loads and moments

h ‘at heel’, for loads and moments

n nut or bolt head

p pad washer (see Section 5.1)

w washer under nut or bolt head

Positive loads, stresses and strains are tensile.

x parallel to foot, see Sketch 2.1

y parallel to leg, see Sketch 2.1

z orthogonal to x- and y-directions, see Sketch 2.1

Sketch 2.1 Details of simple assembly with notation

(j) Corner fitting with side support

Sketch 2.2 Various designs of club-feet angles

(a) Nut and/or bolt failures

(i) Thread failure, either thread stripping or direct tensile failure.

(b) Foot failures

(i) Break at bolt hole.

(c) Leg failures

(i) Break above heel at start of corner radius.

4. DESCRIPTION OF BEHAVIOUR OF A SIMPLE ASSEMBLY UNDER LOAD

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) Low load

(b) High load

5. SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES