See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267593717

Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Structural Joints Using Nuts and Bolts

Conference Paper · January 2011

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2011-62905

CITATION READS
1 759

3 authors, including:

Hamid M. Lankarani
Wichita State University
201 PUBLICATIONS   3,164 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling of friction-stir butt-welds View project

Crashworthiness and Occupant Safety View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid M. Lankarani on 27 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2011 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
Denver, Colorado
November 11-17, 2011

IMECE2011-62905
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL JOINTS
USING NUTS AND BOLTS

Prasannakumar S. Bhonge Brian D. Foster Hamid M. Lankarani

Department of Mechanical Department of Aerospace Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Wichita State Engineering, Wichita State Engineering, Wichita State
University, Kansas, USA University, Kansas, USA University, Kansas, USA

ABSTRACT For most analyses, a simplification of the model involves

The majority of the structural failures of mechanical
structures and systems are found in joints rather than continuous
material. Joints have historically consisted of assemblies
involving nuts, bolts, screws, etc. and the design and analysis of
these joints can be quite challenging. This work provides two
baselines on the finite element modeling (FEM) methods and
analysis of a nut and bolt joint. The first baseline involves a
basic modeling method using linear calculation of 2D plates and
bar elements, and the second baseline involves one of the more
complex methods using non-linear calculation of 3D solids.
The two methods are described for modeling of a joint for two
test conditions, namely the double shear joint in tension with
two different bolt sizes and two plate thicknesses. First, the
simplified method of rigid elements and equivalent strength
beam elements is considered. This technique lacks the
simulation of bearing stresses, stress concentration at the bolt
hole location, and bending stiffness of the bolt. The second
method, uses 3D models that provides the actual nut and bolt
surfaces, bearing stresses are introduced in the joint modeling.
Classical hand calculations are carried out on the static tests and
compared with the FEM results. Additionally, the effects of
element mesh refinement on the nut and bolt contact surfaces,
and types of contacts are analyzed for the 3D models. A
parametric study is carried out on the stresses developed and
stress concentration factors.
INTRODUCTION
The majority of the structural failures are observed in
joints of structural assemblies such as a nut-bolt joint, a screw-
threaded bolt-hole joint, or a rivet joint. An analysis of a
structural joint can contain a multitude of parameters since there
are many factors involved. In addition to the generally obvious
parameters, such as externally applied loads and the size, shape
and material properties of the loaded specimens, there are also
stress concentrations in plate holes, in bolt/screw threading,
thermal cycling, vibration, cyclic fatigue, stress relaxation, bolt
preload, interface friction, out-of-plane loading, and many
others.
neglecting certain aspects of the physical problem to help break
the solution down to a manageable one for many applications.
This is especially true when a large number of fasteners are
used in an assembly. For some analyses where a fully
developed understanding of the physics of the problem is
required, an introduction into the analysis as many variables is
necessary. While this method may lose a degree of accuracy in
its simplification, the analysis is rather straight forward and
quick. The most detailed of models, while providing a more
accurate depiction of the model, the analysis is complicated,
and time consuming.
Many papers have been written on the subject of FEM
fastener modeling. Some handle the issue of fastener/joint
modeling, with the interest of quick calculation and simplified
modeling techniques. Other papers, which make up the
majority in this field, define models with ever-increasing
complexity and detail, with the aim of analyzing very minute
details of the problem. Examples of the former approach
include one from Cope and Lacy [1], where they utilized,
“explicitly modeled fasteners in combination with simplified
spring-rivet elements to model fasteners”. Another approach
introduced by Rutman and Bales-Kogan [2] models the fastener
with a series of springs and bar elements that match the stiffness
of the bolts. Examples of the latter approach include Reid and
Hiser’s [3] approach with the goal of modeling bolted joints
with slippage, and Alkatan, et-al, [4] where their goal was
analyzing equivalent axial stiffness of components in bolted
joints in axial loading.
The objectives of the preceding papers certainly differ
from each other, but the interesting characteristic we would like
to point out here is that there are different approaches analysts
take with the application of using FEM in their analyses.
In this paper, two modeling baseline methods are
investigated; first, a simple method of linear analysis modeling
the problem with 4 node, 2D plate elements (based on classical
plate theory) and equivalent strength beam (or bar) 2 noded
elements (12-Degrees of Freedom, DOF) with no detailing of
the plate holes, and secondly, modeling using solid elements in

1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

a non-linear solution scheme. These two methods are analyzed
for double shear lap joints, using standard sizes of AN3 and
AN4 bolts, and using two thicknesses of the joined members.
The methods are validated and confirmed using classical hand
calculations. The simpler numerical simulation is a static/linear
analysis carried out in NASTRAN [5], while the more complex
modeling and solid numerical simulation are carried out using
nonlinear/implicit FEM software package Altair Hyper-works
[6] and LSDYNA[7].
and constraints are chosen to ensure that the stresses do not
exceed yield limits in the aluminum plates, or the maximum
allowable double shear loads in the joining bolts. Average and
maximum stresses in the central plate and in bolt are illustrated
for a pull force of P as shown in Figure 1. The geometry details
are stated in Table 1.

THE DOUBLE SHEAR LAP JOINT

For this study, the double shear lap joint loaded in
tension was chosen to mitigate complications inherent in simple
lap joints, namely, the out-of-plane loading that introduces a
non-symmetrical moment down the length of the bolt.
The study of the problem utilizes two standard bolt sizes;
AN3 and AN4 steel bolts, and two joining member thicknesses,
0.063 (1.5875 mm) and 0.25 inches (6.35 mm). The bolt
material consists of AISI4340 steel and the plate material is
2024-T3 Aluminum [8]. The aluminum plates are each 5 inches
(12.7 cm) long and the width of each plate is such that they
maintain a minimum edge distance of 2 hole diameters (2D)
from each edge, resulting in an overall width of 4 hole Figure 1: Double shear lap joint.
diameters (4D). While maintaining the 2D edge distance
requirement, the overlap of the plates are also 4D. The loading

Table 1. Dimensions of double shear lap joint.

Plate Bolt Hole

Bolt Edge Dist
Tensile Load (lbs/N) thickness Width (in/mm) Diameter Diameter
Size (in/mm)
(in/mm) (in/mm) (in/mm)
AN3 405.75/1801.53 0.063/1.60 0.774/19.66 0.387/9.83 0.189/4.80 0.1935/4.91
AN3 1623.00/7206.11 0.25/6.35 0.77419.66 0.3879.83 0.189/4.80 0.1935/4.91
AN4 705.75/3139.33 0.063/1.60 1.028/26.11 0.514/13.06 0.249/6.32 0.2576.53
AN4 2823.00/12557.3 0.25/6.35 1.028/26.11 0.514/13.06 0.249/6.32 0.257/6.53

Classical Solution
Classical hand calculations were carried out for failure
modes such as tensile normal, tensile tear, shear tear, and
bearing. Details of these failure models are shown in Figure 2.
A stress concentration factor was incorporated in the lap
joint plate. Figure 3 shows a typical case of stress
concentration problem where stresses near hole are 2 to 3 times
higher than average stresses in the plate.

Corresponding stress values for two plate thicknesses and bolt

sizes were recorded in Table 2.
Figure 2: Failure Mode Details. [10]

2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 As an example of the classical solution, in the case of the
AN3 bolt and 0.25” plate when a pull force of 1625 lbs is
applied:
Therefore stresses near the hole, σpt(max) = P*K/A
where
P=1625 lbs
A=(0.774in-0.1935in)x0.25in = 0.145125 in2
σ(ave) = 11197.24 psi. (with no stress concentration
factor)

Stress concentration factor, K, for this case was determined to

be 2.42 [9]. Stresses near hole at point e and f shown in Figure
Figure 3: Stress Concentration, Plate with hole [11]
2.
Maximum stresses in plate, σpt (max) = 27097.32 psi OR
186829436 N/ m^2 (stress concentration factor included).

Table 2: Double shear lap joint. (In English units)

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING (FEM) method is modeling the joint using 3D brick elements (8 nodes)
Two baseline modeling methods were used to simulate for the plates, the bolt and the nut. This paper also introduces a
the double shear joint. The simplest method uses plate elements refinement of the 3D mesh and a change in stress is noted.
and most commonly used method uses an equivalent strength
beam (or bar) element to simulate the bolt, and 2 dimensional 2-Dimensional Plate and Bar Element Modeling
plate elements are used to model the mating plates. In some The simpler model with deflection output (AN3, 0.25 in
scenarios a hole is modeled in the 2D plate with rigid elements plates) is shown in Figure 4. The Von Mises Stress for the
joining the plate and the bolt, but for the purposes of this paper, same problem is shown in Figure 5. The Maximum Stress in
and for simplicity, the holes are removed for the 2D plate the longitudinal (normal x) direction is shown in Figure 6.
problem, and the plates are joined by the single bar element
(using steel for material properties and root diameter of the
bolt) as they connect to the plates with singular nodes.
Additionally, the aluminum plates are modeled with the mid-
planes of the aluminum plates, which physically remove any
contact and therefore, any interfacing loads that would be
transferred from one plate to the next. The more detailed

3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME


Figure 4: AN3 with 0.25in plates 2D plate modeling.
Figure 5: AN3 with 0.25in plates 2D plate modeling with
displacement output.
Figure 6: AN3 with 0.25in plates 2D plate modeling with
Von Mises stress output.
The complete numerical results of the FEM plate
analysis are tabulated in Table 3. The deflections match closely
with the classical solution, and the maximum normal stress that
is shown illustrates roughly what the normal stress should be
without a stress concentration factor. Additionally, 2D plate
element output illustrates that the maximum stress is located not
near where the hole would be, but instead, in front of the node
simulating the connection of the bolt. The model contains 80
elements in the AN3/0.25 model, and the analysis only required
1.3 seconds to calculate the output vectors.
4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
2-Dimensional Plate and Bar Element Modeling-
Discussion of the Results
Although the solutions were very quick, these solutions
pose three potential problems using this type of modeling.
Most importantly, the maximum stress does not incorporate the
stress concentration factor inherent with holes in plates. This
results in a lower normal stress in the plates than what is
expected. Secondly, the location of the maximum stress will not
be in the proper location. Note the location of the maximum
stress in Figures 7 and Figure 8. The maximum normal stress in
the plates (x direction) is located in front of the connection
between the plate and the bar element. The maximum normal
stress is expected to be located on the sides of the bar element,
not in front of it. Thirdly, the bolt reactions and stresses
indicate a simple beam model of the bolt that reflects what a
classical solution should show, however, deflection is likely
higher than what the physical problem will show, since there is
no physical contact down the length of the modeled bolt, and
the bolt only “contacts” the plates at 3 discrete nodes. This
does not usually pose a significant problem, however, with the
larger thicknesses of plates being modeled, total deflection goes
up, since the distance of the bar elements lengths are based on
the thickness of the plates that it joins.
Figure 7: AN3 with 0.25in plates 2D plate modeling with
normal stress output.
Figure 8: AN3 with 0.25in plates 2D plate modeling with
normal stress (x direction) output.
 Table 3: 2-Dimensional Plate Element Modeling Simulation Results

3D Solid Element Modeling

Figure 9 shows lap joint modeled using rigid spider and
beam element. A force of P lbs was applied on the end of the
single plate and other side is constrained for X, Y, and Z
translations. The solid model method used two methods to
model the bolt. The first method used the simpler beam (bar)
element with rigid spider elements connecting the edges of the
plate holes (refer to Figure 10). The second method utilized a
full solid model to simulate the bolt and nut combination, which
included the head (refer to Figure 11). Additionally, different
mesh densities were used and stress distributions were
compared with each other.
Figure 10: FEM of lap joint using traditional method.

Figure 9: Solid Model with bar elements for the bolt.

Figure 11: FEA of lap joint using solid elements.

5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 Figure 13: Joint by using solid elements

Effect of mesh refinement in solid modeling technique

Figure 12: Joint by using rigid elements and equivalent
strength beam elements
A typical example is shown from a seat application
where a joint is modeled using traditional bar elements and
using solid modeling techniques. In Figure 12, using beam
(bar) and spider elements, this technique lacks the simulation of
bearing stresses and pretensions. By providing actual nut and
bolt surfaces, bearing stresses and contact effects are introduced
in the joint, the model is shown Figure 13, illustrating the bolted
joint represented as a set of solid brick elements. This
modeling method also provides better representation of shearing
and bending phenomena in the joint [12].
FE Modeling of a nut and bolt using solid elements
involves utilization of polygon of six, twelve or more sides.
The number of sides used depends on size of the hole and
available solving power. In following example, areas of regular
polygon of 6 and 12 sides were calculated (inscribed circle and
circumscribed circle) and compared with area of the true circle.
Table 4 shows comparison of areas when a circle is
modeled using nth-sided polygon. For joint modeling in this
paper, a nut and bolt was modeled using 6 and 12 sides and
results were discussed.

Table 4: Bolt Area Cross Section Comparison.

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 The joint was analyzed for a higher and lower mesh
density. The hole in the plate and bolt were modeled using 12
sides and six or eight sides as shown in Figure 14 and
Figure 15.

3D Solid Element Modeling Discussion of the Results

i. Traditional Method using rigid spider and equivalent

strength beam element with solid elements

Figure 14: FEM of lap joint using high mesh densities.

Figure 16: Stress (X-Dir) and Stress pattern.

Figure 17: Displacement, Solid model with traditional bolt

element.

Figure 16 shows stresses and contours in the plate where

the nut and bolt combination are modeled using rigid spider
elements and equivalent strength beam elements. The maximum
Figure 15: FEM of lap joint using low mesh density. stress is 28310psi near bolt-hole matches close to the classical
solution maximum normal stress of 27097psi but the stress

7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

distribution is incorrect. The rigid connection in the spider
element causes this problem.
The maximum displacement where the pull force was
applied matches close to the classical solution result as shown
in Figure 17.

ii. Nut and Bolt using 3D Solid Elements Modeling

Figures 18 and 19 show the plate with a hole showing
high stresses in the proper locations for AN3 Bolt and 0.25 inch
plate. The maximum stress is 26760psi near the hole and it
matches closely to the classical solution with a maximum stress
of 27097psi and stress pattern as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 20: Displacement, with Solid Bolt.

Figure 20 shows displacement in the plate. The

maximum displacement at the loaded end was observed 0.013
inches matching well with the classical solution results.

In this example the bolt was in double shear, and

maximum shear stress was observed to be 39740psi and is
shown in Figure 21 which is higher than the classical solution
because of edge effect.

Figure 18: Normal Stress (X-Direction) using solid elements for

the bolt and nut combination, AN3 Bolt, 0.25inch plate.

Figure 21: Shear Stresses in AN3 Bolt, 0.25 inch plates.

For a plate thickness 0.0625inch and AN3 bolt, also

close correlation was observed when compared classical
solution results. Figure 22 and 23 show stresses in the plate near
bolt hole area and contour plot at maximum load P.

Figure 19: Normal Stress (X-direction) near the bolt hole, AN3
Bolt, 0.25inch plate.

8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Figure 22: Normal Stress (X-Direction), AN3 Bolt, 0.063 inch
plate.

Figure 24: Normal Stress (X-Direction), Coarse Mesh.

Figure 23: Normal Stress (X-Direction) in near hole area, AN3

Bolt, 0.063 inch plate.

iii. Effect of Mesh Size

Figure 24 shows stresses and contour near the bolt-

hole area for the coarse mesh. The pattern is similar to the
solution for the finer mesh, but the maximum stresses near hole
were reduced to 21530psi where as 27097psi classical
calculation. In this case Maximum displacement was observed
little higher than classical calculation results.
Figure 25: Displacement, Coarse Mesh, AN3 Bolt.
3D Solid Element Modeling Discussion of the Results
As expected, the fully non-linear solution of full solid
and refined finite elements provides a very detailed and
accurate solution compared to the classical solution. Coarser
meshes, and simplified elements simulating the bolts skew the
solution and show higher stresses in non-critical areas, and
areas of high stress show lower stress.

9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 The fully solid-modeled problem contained
approximately 6000 elements, and required 2 hours and 45
minutes for a converged solution. The solid model with
simplified bolt contained approximately 3500 elements, and the
converged solution required approximately 15 minutes.
Table 5: 3-Dimensional Solid Element Modeling Simulation Results
CONCLUSION
In this paper, two baselines of FEM fastener modeling
have been established. The first being the linear 2D plate
modeling method with bar elements for the most simplistic
approach, and the second one was more complex and time-
consuming, a non-linear, 3D solid model. In between these two
approaches exists a wide field in which calculation time and
accuracy of solutions are constantly traded-off.
The 2D approach eliminates factors such as bearing
loads, plate and bolt contacts, stress concentrations, friction
coefficients, fastener pre-tension, etc. This approach lends
itself to the calculation of joints involving very large numbers
of joints within an analysis, within a reasonable period of time.
In the 3D environment, many more variables are
included where stresses are combination of tension compression
and shear, bearing of bolt make very important role transferring
contact stress from one part to another. In case of solid structure
(where thickness of boss material are significant), modeling of
bolt using solid elements are highly recommended. It is also
recommended to have enough number of element layers when
modeling critical joints. In case of dynamic analysis where
element length is vital playing roll for solving time, sub
modeling of a critical joint also help predicting accurate joint
behavior.
10
The complete numerical results of the solid modeling FE
Method analysis are tabulated in Table 5.
If plate thicknesses are relatively small providing low
bearing areas, the 2D plate (shell) and 3D solid with spider/
beam are good options. In any case, if a large number of
fasteners are involved, the computation time for 3D solid
modeling methods involve a large amount of computation time.
It is also recognized that there is a wide range between
these two baselines which may see the introduction of new
elements representing joined/fastened assemblies or new
methodologies for simulating joints. The objective of this is
clearly to help an analyst to strike a balance between accurate
and quicker solutions. Providing the analyst with several
options will allow a decision in balancing the need for quick
solutions with accurate ones, and this paper shows where two
likely baselines should be reasonably drawn.
REFERENCES
[1] Cope, D. and Lacy, T “Modeling Mechanical Fasteners in
Single-Shear Lap Joints”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No.
6, pp1491-1497, 2004.
[2] Rutman, A., Bales-Kogan, J. “Multi-Spring Representation
of Fasteners for MSC/NASTRAN Modeling”, Boeing
Commercial Airplane Group.
[3] Ried, J., Hiser, N., “Detailed modeling of bolted joints
with slippage, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design”,
Vol. 41, pp. 547-562, 2005.
Copyright © 2011 by ASME
[4] Alkatan, F., “Equivalent axial stiffness of various
components in bolted joints subjected to axial loading,
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, Vol. 43, pp. 589-
598, 2007.
[5] MSC-DYTRAN, MSC Software Corporation, 2010
http://www.mscsoftware.com.
[6] ALTAIR, Altair Engineering. 2010. www.altair.com
[7] LS-DYNA. 2010. Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, http://www.lstc.com
[8] Metallic Materials Properties Development and
Standardization (MMPDS – 05). 2010.
[9] Peterson R., Stress Concentration. Factors, A Wiley
Interscience Publication, 1974.
[10] Shigley J.and Mischke C, Mechanical Engineering Design,
McGraw-Hill publication, 1993.
[11] Mahadevan K, Reddy Balaveera K, Design Data
Handbook, CBS Publishers, 1998.
[12] Bhonge P., “A Methodology For Aircraft Seat Certification
By Dynamic Finite Element Analysis”, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Wichita State University, Wichita, USA, 2008.

11 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

View publication stats