T. F.

Lehnhoff
Professor.

Kwang II Ko
Graduate Student. University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolia, MO 65401

Member Stiffness and Contact Pressure Distribution of Bolted Joints

Member stiffnesses and the stress distributions in the bolts and members of bolted joints have been calculated for various bolt sizes, as well as thicknesses and materials of the members. The finite element method has been used to calculate the displacements and the stress distributions in the components of the bolted joint. Using axisymmetric elements, the bolted joint could be analyzed as a two-dimensional problem. Member stiffness ratios were calculated from the finite element results and compared with those calculated by a commonly used theory. The values were approximately comparable (16-30 percent difference) for the assumptions under which the theory was applied. Formulas and dimensionless curves which can be used to estimate the member stiffness ratios for several kinds of bolted joints are presented.

M. L. McKay
Graduate Student. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40503

Introduction The bolted joint is a type of mechanical connection which is used commonly for the construction of many types of structures. In fact, bolted joints are important in most of the mechanical devices and machines used in modern society. When a bolt (Fig. 1) is used to connect two members (plates), the bolt is normally preloaded with an initial tensile load. The purpose of the preload is to place the bolted member components in compression for better resistance to either static or cyclic external loads and to create force between the parts or members so that the shear loads can be resisted by friction forces. Variations in the magnitude of the tensile preload on a bolted joint can produce dramatic differences in the cyclic life of the connection. Accurate predictions of member stiffnesses are essential for determining proper preloads. When the external load P is applied to the bolted joint under initial preload Fh the resultant force in the bolt is

Fb
Ob

AbE

(3)

where F is the applied force, 5b is the deflection, E is the modulus of elasticity, L is the grip length (assumed to be unthreaded) of the bolt, andAb is the cross-sectional area based on the nominal diameter. However, the determination of the stiffness of the members presents more difficulties, and past analytical and experimental attempts to calculate it have been only partially successful. Better understanding of the forces, stresses, and deformations of bolted joints is necessary if member stiffnesses are to be accurately calculated.

P/2

P/2

F = -

khP

kb + k,

+F,

(1)

and that of the connected members is kmP -Ft kh + k

(2)

where kb is the stiffness of the bolt and k, is the stiffness of the members. Thus, the stiffnesses of the bolt and the members are needed for the calculation of the resultant force in the bolt and members of the joint when the external load is applied to the members. The stiffness of the bolt is determined from the ratio of the force applied to the bolt to the deflection of the bolt produced by the force, i.e.,

1
P/2
Fig. 1

Contributed by the Reliability, Stress Analysis, and Failure Prevention Committee for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received Jan. 1992; revised Dec. 1992. Associate Technical Editor: S. D. Sheppard.

Tl
Typical boiled joint

P/2

5 5 0 / V o l . 116, J U N E 1994

T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e A S M E

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Copyright 1994 by ASME

Several authors have suggested both theoretical and experimental methods to determine member stiffnesses and the pressure distribution between the members of bolted joints. Some of the early work considered, instead of two bolted plates, a thick plate with a symmetric circular or annular pressure loading and theoretical solutions were suggested by Sneddon (1946), Fernlund (1961), Nelson (1962), Greenwood (1964), and Lardner (1965), etc. Bradley et al. (1971) used a three-dimensional photoelastic analysis to predict the interface pressure distribution between the members. Gould and Mikic (1972) and also Tang and Deng (1988) have used finite elemental analysis (FEA) to find the pressure distribution between the members and also they noted that there was a radius at which flat and smooth members become separated. The computations were performed for models of steel plates with various thicknesses. In their studies, the bolts were replaced by uniformly distributed axisymmetric loads on the connected parts of the bolted joint. Osman et al. (1976) discussed a design method for calculating an optimal bolt diameter required for a specific fatigue loading situation. He has suggested that a hollow cylinder whose outside diameter is 1.5 times the bolt diameter be used to determine the area under compression and thus the member stiffness. Edwards and McKee (1991) and Bickford (1990) cite the Association of German Engineers' suggestion to determine the member stiffness using an equivalent cylindrical area dependent on the size of the joint. Ito et al. (1977) have used ultrasonic techniques to determine the pressure distribution between the members of bolted joints for various surface topographies, materials, and thicknesses of the members. He suggested the use of a pressure-cone method developed by Rotscher (1927) for stiffness calculation with variable cone angles which are generally larger than the cone angles so far theoretically calculated by other authors. Shigley and Mitchell (1983) and Shigley and Mischke (1989) have proposed a simpler method, described in the next section, by using a fixed standard cone angle of 30 deg to 45 deg. Little (1967) and Osgood (1979) indicate that more conservative results for member stiffness calculation will be realized with the use of an angle smaller than 45 deg, such as 30 deg. Use of the smaller angle will generally preclude overestimation of the clamping stiffness in the joint and will also prevent overestimation of the allowable force taken by the bolt. However, many times this approach will not give an accurate representation of the actual member stiffness in the joint. Grosse and Mitchell (1990) give a general discussion of nonlinearities in bolted joints due to the application of external loads as well as bolt thread and interfacial friction. They point out that the member stiffness depends on the external loads on the joints. Detailed consideration of these effects will require further research. The object of the current research is to: (1) provide equations for the calculation of the member stiffness of a class of bolted joints with multiple connected layers of different materials, (2) and to further clarify the influence of member thicknesses, material properties of the members, and the diameter of the bolt on the contact pressure distribution of various bolted joints that fall within the class of joints considered. The value of the bolted joint in society cannot be given in Nomenclature Fh == = F, = Fm --= P == kh --= km = = E == force in bolt initial force in bolt force in member external applied load stiffness of bolt stiffness of member modulus of elasticity

Fig. 2

Equivalent pressure-cone-envelope

any quantitative manner. We can, however, observe that bolted joints are critical for economic assembly and proper function of most of the mechanical devices of our society. Engineers and designers will continue to apply new ideas (Shigley and Mitchell, 1983, and Bickford, 1988, 1990) as long as such fastening technology affects so much and so many. Basic Theory When plates of the same thickness are connected to each other by a bolt, the plates are subjected to a compressive force, Fm. Figure 2 shows the assumed member pressure cone envelope. The clearance, c, is shown, although it is not used in the derivation and only the lower pressure cone envelope is given in the figure. The deflection of an element of the cone of thickness dz due to the compressive force is given by Fmdz dhm = EA The area of the element in Fig. 2 can be expressed as A = ir(rl-r}) Z tan a + z tan a +
D (4)

D+d

z tan a +

D-d

(5)

d = nominal diameter of bolt t = member thickness h = displacement of bolt 5, = displacement of member Ah = bolt cross-sectional area D = bolt head washer face diameter, 1.5d

L c
a

grip length of bolt radial clearance half apex angle of pressure cone envelope preload stress in the bolt stress in the direction of the bolt axis
JUNE 1994, Vol. 116/551

Journal of Mechanical Design

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

r =
a = d/2 b = D/2 OI.R/Ab
, i

CI

ti

H H
01
BB.

L c
-a

ti

z VX Fig. 4 Finite element model including the deformed geometry

a b

Fig. 3 Schematic of axisymmetric model

Equation (5) does not account for the clearance space between the bolt and the hole in the members. Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (4) and integrating the left hand side of the equation gives the deflection as
5=-

dz D+d Z tan a + D-d Z tan a + -

-KE

irEd tan a

In

(2? tan a + D-d){D + d) (2? tan a + D + d)(D-d) vEd tan a

(6)

Thus, the stiffness due to a single frustum is

(7)

~{2tt&na + D-d)(D In (It tan a + D + d)

+ d) (D-d)

and, as for springs in series, km = k/2 for two plates of equal thickness. Figure 3 is a schematic of the axisymmetric model showing the loading and dimensions. For multiple layers with different thicknesses and materials, the fixed cone angle assumption must be carefully and consistently applied as for springs in series. In cases such as thick members it may be desirable to mix the fixed cone angle and equivalent cylinder methods in order to better approximate the actual pressure distribution for member stiffness. Model Figure 4 shows the finite element model of the bolted joint including a deformed geometry plot which shows the plates separating at the critical radius, rc. Assuming only one bolt or adequate spacing between the bolts and the edges of the attached plates at sufficient distance we can treat the problem as one having axial symmetry. Then, because of axial symmetry, only half of the bolted joint need be modeled. It has been modeled such that the bolt has been cut (separated) at the parting line of the plates and the distributed load, a,, which represents the preload F-, in the bolt, has been applied on the cut surfaces as shown in Fig. 3. The existence of average clearance between the bolt and the hole of the members, as recommended in the Machinery's Handbook (1988) in accordance with those given in ISO Recommendation R273, has been used to avoid interference between the bolt and the members due to radial deformation. Axisymmetric parabolic quadrilateral elements have been used as the type of element for the finite element analysis. The centroidal axis of the axisymmetric elements is the z-axis. 5 5 2 / V o l . 116, JUNE 1994

The material properties were assumed to be isotropic and elastic. Different element sizes were used to improve accuracy; that is, smaller elements were used in the area of the model where rapid stress changes or high stress concentration were expected and larger elements were used in the area where the stresses were more uniform. The smallest element size was 0.333 mm by 0.333 mm and there was no significant improvement in accuracy by using smaller elements. When a preload has been applied to a bolt, the plate members are in contact for a certain distance radially near the connected part and the members. However, for the region somewhat distant from the connected part, there occurs a separation between the two members. Figure 4 shows the members in contact with the distance rc and separated beyond that distance due to member deformation. Constraints have been imposed on the contacting portions of the two members so that the displacements in the z direction would be identical. Independent movement of the contacting members in the radial direction was allowed. It was also assumed that there was minimal friction between the two members and they could slide radially with respect to one another. The constraints performed a function similar to contact elements, which could be used where the two layers come together to allow radial movement as well as axial separation. Thus, before the final constraints were imposed on the contacting surfaces of the members, it was necessary to find the nodal point where separation began. To determine the radial distance rc, an iteration method was used. At first, the axial constraints were imposed on a few nodal points starting from the radius of the hole. If the stresses on the constrained points were found to be compressive, then constraints were added to the next nodal points until the last constrained nodal point stress was almost zero and the stress of the next nodal point was tensile. The nodal point next to the last constrained nodal point was the point where separation between the two members began. Thus, in this case, it was fairly straightforward to simulate the function of contact elements via multipoint constraint equations. The radius rc represents the outer limit of the contact pressure distribution in the FEA model of the actual physical connection. Displacements and stresses in the axial z direction were used for the calculation of member stiffnesses. There were a number of nodal points along the contacting portions of the bolt head and nut and the members. The average displacement of those nodal points in the z direction was used to calculate the stiffness of the members by dividing the member force (preload) by the average displacement. It should be noted that this procedure produces results different from those of Gould and Mikic (1972) and Wileman, Choudry, and Green (1991) who used a uniform pressure in the first paper and a rigid washer in the second paper, rather than modeling the bolt. The member Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Nominal Thread Diameter M8(8) M12(12) M16(16) M20(20) M24(24)

Dimensions of metric hex bolts Head Height 5.68 7.95 10.75 13.40 15.90 Head Diameter 13f 18 24 30 36 Clearance 0.5(1.0) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bolt Diameter (mm)

Table 5

Member stiffness of bolted joints Member Stiffness (MN/mm) for Al/St St/St Ci/St Al/Al Ci/Ci .694 .670 .653 .934 .904 .868 1.416 1.329 1.269 2.007 1.845 1.736 2.732 2.467 2.289 1.256 1.245 1.229 1.709 1.669 1.650 2.552 2.452 2.386 3.470 3.372 3.260 4.673 4.469 4.281 .895 .877 .860 1.220 1.174 1.144 1.820 1.736 1.671 2.556 2.403 2.283 3.470 3.201 3.007 .455 .451 .455 .609 .600 .590 .909 .888 .859 1.273 1.226 1.183 1.718 1.634 1.562 .676 .670 .661 .905 .894 .878 1.351 1.319 1.287 1.883 1.821 1.757 2.545 2.423 2.318

Hole Diameter 9(10) 14 18 22 26

Thickness Ratio of Members 12/20 16/20 20/20

All dimensions are given in mm. t Note that this value is not equal to 1.5d

12

12/20 16/20 20/20 12/20 16/20 20/20 12/20 16/20 20/20 12/20 16/20 20/20

16

Table 2 Case 1 6/10 8/10 10/10

Combinations of member thicknesses Case 2 12/20 16/20 20/20 Case 3 18/30 24/30 30/30 Thickness Ratio of Two Members 0.6 0.8 1.0
24

20

Table 3 Case 1 Aluminum Steel

Combinations of member materials Case 3 Cast Iron Steel Case 4 Aluminum Aluminum Case 5 Cast Iron Cast Iron Al: Aluminum, St: Steel, Ci: Cast Iron

Case 2 Steel Steel

Steel/Steel .., Aluminum/Aluminum Cast Iron/Cast iron Basic Theory, a = 30'

Table 4 Material

Mechanical properties of materials Modulus of Elasticity* 20.678E+4 10.290E+4 6.860E+4 Poisson's Ratio
0.30 0.34 0.30

Densityt
* 0.95

c = .5 mm for the M8 bolt T1/T2 = 20/20

Steel Cast Iron Aluminum

7.83E-6 7.20E-6 2.63E-6

.2" 0.85

V
..>"

.*" ..^""""-"

* Units of modulus of elasticity are N/mm 2 . t Units of density are kg/mm 3

K(St/St) 5.365291 E-2*xA2 + -3.933566E-1 x + 1.366381 E+0 . K(AI/AI) = 6.089153E-2'xA2 + -4.455611E-1* X + 1.516583E+0 K(C l/C 1) = 5.913646E-2'x"2 + -4.331226E-1'X + 1.492760E+0 K(BT) = 6.061733E-2"x*2 + -4.895763E-1*x + 1.853846E+0

....

. . . .

i . . . .

i . . . .

force, Fm, equals the preload, F,, in magnitude when there is no externally applied load, P, on the joint, see Eq. (2). The contact pressure distribution is the stress distribution in the z direction at the nodal points in the contacting region of the two members. As noted above, the stresses are compressive in the contacting region. Five sizes of metric hex head bolts were used as fasteners for the bolted joints of this study: M8, M12, M16, M20, and M24. All dimensions of the bolts and corresponding holes are shown in Table 1. A medium fit was used as the clearance hole diameter corresponding to each bolt. The clearance between the hole and the bolt is 1 mm except for the case of the M8 bolt clearance which was 0.5 mm. In order to have a consistent comparison of results, a 1 mm clearance was also used in the analysis of the M8 bolt. A distinct deviation of the results was noted for these 8 mm bolts with the recommended 0.5 mm of clearance. The stiffness ratio increased for the smaller clearance as would be expected. The thicknesses of the upper members were 12, 16, and 20 mm and the thickness of the lower member was fixed at 20 mm for most of the models. In order to study the more general case, various combinations of the thicknesses of the members' were investigated for M16 bolts. In these cases, the ratios of the member thicknesses were kept at 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 although the actual thicknesses were different for each case. The combinations of thicknesses are shown in Table 2. Steel, aluminum, and cast iron were used as the materials of the connected members. The combination of the materials is shown in Table 3. The mechanical properties of those materials are shown in Table 4.
Journal of Mechanical Design

Ratio of the Member Thickness to the Bolt Diameter, x (L/d)

Fig. 5

Comparison of the member stiffness ratio (basic theory vs. FEA)

Discussion of Results A large number of models were analyzed by finite element methods to find the displacements in the z direction in the contact areas of the members, the radii of separation of the members, and the stress distributions of the members. An average of the member nodal displacements under the head of the bolt was used to calculate the member stiffness km, i.e.
(8)

where Fm = - Ft is the initial force applied to the cross-section of the bolt. The member stiffnesses of various kinds of models under the initial force F-, = 1000 N are shown in Table 5. Comparisons of the stiffness ratios calculated by finite element analysis with the basic theory is shown in Fig. 5 as a function of the ratio of total member thickness L to the bolt diameter. The stiffness ratio K in Fig. 5 is dimensionless, i.e., K= Ed
Km

(9)

where E is the modulus of the material and d is the nominal diameter of the bolt. If the materials of the two members are different, the stiffness ratio of Eq. (9) cannot be calculated
JUNE 1994, Vol. 116/553

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 6

Comparison of basic theory and FEA member stiffnesses Member Stiffness (MN/mm) for Al/St Ci/St Basic' FEA Relative Theory Error(%) 12/20 16/20 0.868 0.801 1.297 1.185 1.977 1.784 2.778 2.481 3.697 3.276 0.694 0.670 0.934 0.904 1.416 1.329 2.007 1.845 2.732 2.467 (20.0) (16.4) (28.0) (23.7) (28.4) (25.5) (27.8) (25.6) (26.1) (24.7) Basic' FEA Relative Theory Error(%) 1.139 1.062 1.698 1.569 2.582 2.359 3.619 3.279 4.807 4.326 0.895 0.877 1.220 1.174 1.820 1.736 2.556 2.403 3.470 3.201 (21.4) (17.4)
0.75

Bolt Thickness Diameter Ratio of (mm) Members

K(M24) = 5.E-2'x"2 + -2.75E-1*X 1.088E+0 K(M20) = -3.75E-2-x"2 -6.75E-2-X 8.93E-1

I 0.8S
K(M8) = -2.5E-2-x2 t -1.815364E-16'x * 7.68E-1 K(M16) - -3.E-1 'x2 *17E-t 'x 6.43E-1

12 16
20

12/20 16/20 12/20 16/20 12/20 16/20 12/20 16/20

(28.2) (25.2) (29.5) (26.4) (29.4) (26.7)

K(M12) = 5.E-2'X"2 t -1.5E-1'x + 7.61E-1

Thickness Ratio, x (T1/T2) 24

(27.8) (26.0)

Fig. 7 The member stiffness ratio vs. thickness ratio of the members (for steel)

* The Basic Theory was applied using a 30 cone angle.

M20 M24

K(M24) = 8.750E-2'X"2 + -3.675E-rx +1.219E*0

1 1 '
* 0.95 c = 1.0 mm lor tho M8 bolt Tin? = 20/20 6

1
K(M20) = 1.25E-2'XA2 + -1.825E-1'X +1.023E+0 0.9 K(M8) = -5.E-2-x2 + 3.5E-2'x *8.18E-1

c 5=

U 0.8 K(M16) = 0.O0E+0'x"2 + -9.50E-2'X + 8.77E-1 K(M12) = -5.E-2'X2 2.5E-2'X * 7.36E-i

K(B T) = 6.061733E-2'xA2 + -4.B95763E-1-X 1.853846E+0 K(SVSt) = 2.696B73E-2'xA2 + -2.611078E-1"x + 1.213736E+0

Thickness Ratio, x (T1/T2)

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Ratio of the Member Thickness to the Bolt Diameter, x (L/d)

Fig. 8 The member stiffness ratio vs. thickness ratio of the members (for cast iron)

Fig. 6

Comparison of the member stiffness ratio (basic theory vs. FEA)

because the modulus of the material is different for each member of the bolted joint. Therefore, only the stiffness ratios for the cases of the same member materials are given in Fig. 5. Table 6 has been included to compare the member stiffness of joints, composed of different materials, with the basic theory. The differences between the stiffness ratios calculated by the finite element analysis and the basic theory are significant for all models. For the model with the members made of steel, the stiffness ratio was found to be farther from the values from the basic theory. For the models with the M8 bolt and 0.5 mm clearance, large differences were found. The stiffness ratios by the basic theory as well as FEA decrease until the value L/d is 3.5-4.0 and increase slightly after that point. It is interesting that the reasons for the increase in stiffness ratio after a particular L/d ratio were different for the basic theory and the FEA methods. In the basic theory the increase occurred because the washer face diameter of the head for 8 mm bolts had a value of 13 mm, which is greater than 1.5c? such that the pressurized contact area increased disproportionately. The FEA results for stiffness ratio increased because the clearance of 0.5 mm for 8 mm bolts was a disproportionate change in clearance. The clearance had been 1.0 mm for all other models. To test the effect of the clearance between the bolt and the hole, the hole diameter was changed from 9 mm to 10 mm for the model with the M8 bolt so that the clearance would be changed from the recommended 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, as with the other models. Some of the results are shown in Fig. 6. The difficulty with the 0.5 mm clearance is evident in Figs. 7-9.
5 5 4 / V o l . 116, JUNE 1994

__

K(M24) = 8.750E-2'X2 -3.775E-1-X + 1.239E+0

K(M20) = 2.500E-2-x"2 + -2.050E-VX + 1.042E+0

K(M8) = -5.00E-2,x"2 + 3.50E-2-X + 8.26E-1

I"
0.5 0.6

K(M16) = -10.00E-2-xA2 + 4.50E-2'x * 8.37E-1

K(M12) = O.OOEtO-x"2 -5.50E-2'x * 7.72E-1

0.7

0.B

0.9

1.1

Thickness Ratio, x (T1/T2)

Fig. 9 The member stiffness ratio vs. thickness ratio of the members (for aluminum)

The influence of the clearance between the bolt and the hole on the results is quite significant, (see Lehnhoff, McKay, and Bellora, 1992). Figures 5 and 6 also show that the basic theory using a fixed cone angle of 30 deg as presented by Shigley and Mitchell (1989) is not as accurate as it could have been by accounting for the clearance. However, Table 7 shows that a half apex angle of 30 deg is an improvement over an angle of 45 deg. The fact that an angle smaller than 30 deg provides more accuracy has also been discussed by Lehnhoff, McKay, and Bellora (1992).
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 7 Comparison of member stiffnesses for IW12 bolts and a grip of 40 mm

K^lO'N/mm) Shigley and Mitchell (1983) Pressure Cone Angle of 45 Tang and Deng (1988)" (Finite Element Analysis) Shigley and Mischke (1989) Pressure Cone Angle of 30" Edwards and McKee (1991) (Association of German Engineers)

K(AI/St) = 4.814056E-3'dA2* -2.529745E-2"d + 5.747527E-1 K(St/St)= 7.434391 E-3*dA2 + 2.299751 E-2*d +9.494811E-1 K(C I/St] = 5.890819E-3*dA2* -2.651238E-2'd > 7.204772E-1 . K(AI/AI) = 2.887087E-3'dA2 + -1.265212E-2'd + 3.635492E-1 K(C l/C 1 = 4.228621 E-3-d2 >-1.728853E-2,d + 5.314576E-1 Aluminum/Steel Stoel/Stosl Cast Iran/Steel Aluminum/Aluminum Cast Iran/Cast Iron

, .'

3.3

*
. * * ' * ' ' -BJ " " *

Lehnhoff, Ko and McKay (1992) (Finite Element Analysis)

The bolt and bolt head were not modeled in this study. The bolt head equivalent pressure was assumed to be uniform over a diameter (D) of 2d and the dearance was 0.5 mm.

Diameter, d (mm) Fig. 11

T2=20 T2=30

Member stiffness vs. bolt diameter ( n / 7 2

12/20)

1 *
0

K(T2=10) = 1.125Et0*x2 * -2.125E+0V + 1.921E+0

* 1 a
I/I

0.9

K(12/20) = 7.434391 E-3"dA2 -2.299751 E-2-d + 9.494811E-1 K(16/20) = 6.617616E-3'dA2 + -8.020714E-3*d+ 8.635291E-1 K(20/20) = 6.241868E-3'dA2 + -6.649598E-3'd + 8.627008E-1

w o > e tn '&

0.8

K(T2=20) = -1.50E-1-XA2 + 1.30E-1*X W.33E-1

Thickness Ratio, x (T1/T2) Fig. 10 Comparison of the member stiffness ratio (for the M16 bolt) Fig. 12 steel) Diameter, d (mm) Member stiffness vs. bolt diameter (member material: steel/

The basic theory usually assumes that D of Eqs. (5) and (6) is equal to 1.5 times the bolt diameter, d. Thus, by introducing the use of a hole diameter with the stated clearances rather than the bolt diameter into the classical model, significant deviations between the two sets of basic theory results would be expected. Research on this subject has been discussed by Lehnhoff, McKay, and Bellora (1992). Figures 7,8, and 9 show the stiffness ratios of the members as a function of the thickness ratios of the members for steel, cast iron, and aluminum, respectively. For each case, the thickness of the lower member was fixed at 20 mm and the thicknesses of the upper member were 12,16, and 20 mm. Typically, the stiffness ratio decreases almost linearly as the thickness ratio increases. The stiffness ratios in the models with the larger bolt sizes are generally larger than the stiffness ratios with smaller bolt sizes. However, for the case with the M8 bolt, this rule cannot be applied because the clearance between the bolt and hole is different from the other cases as mentioned previously. Formulas which can be used to predict the stiffness ratios of the members for various thicknesses and member materials have been developed from these results. Since the changes of the stiffness ratios are almost linear, second order functions are sufficient to represent the values. The values of the coefficients of the functions in the form of (10) K=ax +bx + c where x( T1/T2) is the thickness of the upper material divided by the thickness of the lower material (20 mm) are given in the figures. For more general application, some additional models with the Ml6 bolt and steel members were investigated, i.e., the upper members with thicknesses of 6, 8, and 10 mm were
Journal of Mechanical Design

combined with a lower member of thickness of 10 mm and the upper members with thicknesses of 18, 24, and 30 mm were combined with a lower member of thickness of 30 mm. These were in addition to the original models which were the combinations of the upper members with 12, 16, and 20 mm thicknesses with a lower member of 20 mm thickness. Figure 10 shows the comparison of the stiffness ratios of these models. The stiffness ratios of the models with thinner lower members is higher than the stiffness ratios of the models with thicker lower members and they decrease almost linearly as the thickness ratio increases. However, if the total thickness of the members is smaller than the diameter of the bolt, the stiffness ratio changes exponentially (Mischke, 1978, and Shigley and Mitchell, 1983), i.e., it increases rapidly as the thickness of the members decreases. This corresponds to the result of the model with an upper member of thickness 6 mm and a lower member of thickness 10 mm in Fig. 10. Figures 11 and 12 are examples of how the stiffness of the members varies as a function of the diameter of the bolt. The stiffness of the members always increases quite smoothly as the diameter of the bolt increases. During this study it was noted that the larger the sum of the moduli of the members, the larger the stiffnesses of the members. This is the reason that the modulus of elasticity is often called the stiffness. The differences in the stiffnesses between the models with upper members of 12, 16, and 20 mm thickness are very small when the diameter of the bolt is small but they increase with an increase in the diameter of the bolt. Figures 13-15 show the stress ratio distribution at the contacting surface of the two members as a function of the radius ratio. The stress ratio is the stress of the members divided by
JUNE 1994, Vol. 116/555

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

the initially applied constant stress in the bolt and the radius ratio is the radius of the members at which the stress is calculated divided by the constant radius of the hole. For Figs. 13-15, the diameter of the bolt was 8 mm and the thickness of the upper material 7*1 is different for each figure. Figure 13 shows that the stress ratios are almost the same for the members made of the same material. For the members made of different materials, Figs. 13 and 14 show that the maximum stress ratios are a little higher than those of the same materials. In Fig. 15, the maximum stress ratios of five cases are so nearly

the same that they are overlapped. The separation radii of the members are almost the same if the bolt sizes are equal, i.e., material properties of the members do not appear to significantly affect the separation of the members. The maximum radius ratio increases as the thickness of the upper member increases and as the diameter of the bolt decreases as shown in Figs. 13-15. The thickness of the members and the diameter of the bolt are the most important factors which influence the

0,18 Alumlnum'Stee! 0.16 0.14 . . - Steel/Steel Cast Iron/Steel Aluminum/Aluminum Cast iron/Cast Iron 0.12 I5 0.5

0(M8) = -5.062872E-3-xA2 + -3.293709E-2'X + 1.856985E-1 <7(M12) =-1.057469E-2'xA2 -f -1.475938E-1-X * 4.553391E-1 0(M16) =-6.698730E-2'XA2 + -1.724096E-1-X + 6.919004E-1 O(M20) m -1.269757E-1 'X A 2 + -2.529641 E-1 - x + 9.855340E-1 0(M24) =-1.636186E-1'xA2 + -4.079335E-1-x * 1.314850E+0 M8 M12

"s
M

6
M20 M24 0.3

.2 -1
"ra K J=
0 (A 0}

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 C(AI/St) = -3.315112E-3'xA2 + -2.157092E-2'x + 1.107433E-1 <T{SVSt) = -2.531436E-3*XA2 + -1.646854E-2'x + 9.284926E-2 a(C I /St) = -1.972755E-3*XA2 + -2.381218E-2'X + 1.085576E-1 0(A1/AI) = -2.113664E-3,XA2 + -1.715994E-2"x 9.151791E-2 0(C I /C 1) - -2.198745E-3*XA2 + -1.754577E-2'x + 9.313104E-2 1.5 2.5

</>

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Radius Ratio, x (r/(a+c)) Fig. 16 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 12/20, member material: steel/steel)

Radius Ratio, x (r/(a+c))

Fig. 13 Stress distribution at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 12120, bolt size: M8)

^.

w
'vs.

- - - - Steel/Steel Cast Iron/Steal Cast Iron/Cast Iron ^0.5 0

<J(M8) = -4.227368E-3-x''2 * -3.431988E-2'X 11.830358E-1 CT(M12) = -2.478755E-2-xA2 + -9.362796E-2'X + 4.044760E-1 CT(M16) = -5.301162E-2'XA2 + -1.846624E-VX + 6.695605E-1 O(M20) = -7.266330E-2-xA2 -3.281877E-VX 9.664275E-1 a(M24) = -8.097432E-2,XA2 + -5.008993E-1-X 1.261602E0 M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 0.3

D(Al/St) = -1.594861 E-3*XA2 + -9.904033E-3*x + 6.769414E-2 G(SI/St) = -1.641856E-3'xA2 + -7.295196E-3*x + 6.056636E-2 ' a(C I/St) = -1.687691 E-3'xA2 + -8.906055 E-3*x + 6.563977E-2 G(AI/At) = -1.444453E-3*xA2 + -7.798902E-3*x + 6.0208B5E-2 Q(C l/C I) = -1.563411E-3*xA2 + -7.410849E-3"x + 6.044478E-2

X
Radius Ratio, x (r /(a+c)) Fig. 17 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (11/ 72 = 12/20, member material: aluminum/aluminum)
Aluminum/Aluminum Cast Iron/Cast Iron Aluminum/Steel Cast Iron/Steel 0.6
'-:

Radius Ratio, x (r /(a+c))

Fig. 14 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 16/20, bolt size: M8)

\ \
\

O(MS) = -4.397490E-3"XA2 + -3.509153E-2-x 11.B62621E-1 a(M12) = -3.686132E-2"XA2 * -6.105524E-2-x + 3.890160E-1 C(M16) = -6.425646E-2-xA2 * -1.694878E-VX + 6.777741 E-1 O(M20) = -1.018877E-1-x"2 + -2.859206E-VX + 9.736151E-1 0(M24) = -1.171438E-1,xA2 + -4.610995E-VX * 1.286276E+0 MS M12

r.s

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04

Steel/Steel

h
0

"So.s
O 1)0,1

M16 M20 M24

oo

go.3
a(Al/AI)= -9.856715E-4*xA2 + -5.478127 E-3*X + 4.786611E-2 0{C VC I) = -9.987439E-4*xA2 + -5.645022E-3'x + 4.852383E-2 G(Al/St) a -9.238923E-4*xA2 + -6.032293E-3'x + 4.886194E-2 C(C I/St) = -9.8771 B3E-4*XA2 + -5.415038E-3*x + 4.764749E-2 O(StZSt) = -1.008614E-3*xA2 + -5.570715E-3'x + 4.838932E-2 1.5 2.5

</>

0 0 2 0.2

0.1 1 1.5

*..--. i A . . . . . . . i . . r*. i
0 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Radius Ratio, x (r/(a+c))

Radius Ratio, x (r /(a +c) Fig. 18 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 12/20, member material: cast iron/cast iron)

Fig. 15 Stress distributions at the contacting part of the members (71/ 72 = 20/20, bolt size: M8)

5 5 6 / V o l . 116, JUNE 1994

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

separation of the members. The modulus of the member material does not greatly affect the stress ratio distribution of bolted joints if the diameter of the bolt is small but the effect becomes more obvious as the diameter of the bolt increases, as seen by superimposing Figs. 16-18. Figures 16-18 show other combinations of stress ratios for a 12 mm thickness of the upper member and a 20 mm thickness of the lower member. These figures show that if the diameter of the bolt increases, the stress ratio changes due primarily to the reduced bolt preload stress since the preload force was kept constant for all bolts. Although the effect is exaggerated, it is evident that a fixed cone angle in the basic theory is an approximation which can only be accurate for a specified range of parameters. This is also observable in Table 6, where the relative error varies from 16-30 percent. Conclusions Formulas which can be used to predict the member stiffness ratios for various kinds of bolted joints are presented in the figures. The member stiffness ratios calculated by finite element analysis were not close to the ones calculated by the basic theory for a fixed cone angle of 30 deg. A smaller cone angle (half apex angle) would improve the agreement between the FEA results and the basic theory. However, the clearance between the bolt and hole seems to be a more direct factor which needs to be included in the theory before an optimum half apex angle is selected. A comparison was made with Tang and Deng's (1988) finite element model which was limited to joints with equal thickness plates. Comparison was also made to the equivalent cylindrical area approach cited by the Association of German Engineers as discussed earlier. Results from these methods and also those from the pressure cone approach for calculating member stiffness for a typical joint are given in Table 7. The joint modeled in Table 7 consists of two 20 mm thick steel plates being joined by an M12 steel bolt with a head diameter of 18 mm, except where noted. The following observations have been made in the course of conducting this study: For the member stiffness: (1) The influence of the clearance between the bolt and hole on the calculation of member stiffness ratio is significant. Smaller clearances imply greater member stiffnesses. (2) The member stiffness ratios decrease almost linearly as the thickness ratios of the members increase; however, if total member thickness is smaller than the diameter of the bolt, the changes vary nonlinearly. (3) The member stiffness ratio of the bolted joints with thinner total member thickness is higher than that of the bolted joints with thicker total member thickness although the thickness ratios of the members are the same. (4) The member stiffness always increases smoothly as the diameter of the bolt increases. (5) If the sum of the moduli of the members is increased, the member stiffness is increased. (5) The values for stiffness given by Lehnhoff and Ko (1991) should be reduced by a factor of two. For the stress distribution: (7) The maximum stress ratio decreases as the thickness of the members increases. (2) The thickness of the members and the diameter of the bolt are the most important factors which influence the

separation of the members. The material properties of the members do not greatly affect the separation radius of the members. (3) A fixed cone angle in the basic theory is a convenience that is accurate only for a specific range of joint parameters. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the valued assistance of Curtis Droege, Ronald Holland, and Michael Southern. Their efforts in confirming and verifying the results given here were almost as extensive as the original research project. We also appreciated the extra effort that provided the reworked figures for this paper. References
Bickford, J. H., 1990, An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2nd Ed. Bickford, J. H., 1988, "New Twists in Bolting," Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 5, May, p. 31. Bradley, T. L., Lardner, T. J., and Mikic, B. B., 1971, "Bolted Joint Interface Pressure for Thermal Contact Resistance," Transactions of the ASME, June, pp. 542-545. Edwards, K. J., and McKee, R. B., 1991, Fundamentals of Mechanical Component Design, McGraw-Hill, 1st Ed. Fernlund, I., 1961, " A Method to Calculate the Pressure Between Bolted or Riveted Plates," Transaction of Charmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, No. 245. Gould, M. M., and Mikic, B. B., 1972, "Areas of Contact and Pressure Distribution in Bolted Joints," Transactions of the ASME, August, pp. 864870. Greenwood, J. A,, 1964, "The Elastic Stresses Produced in the Mid-Plane of a Slab by Pressure Applied Symmetrically at Its Surface," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Cambridge, England, Vol. 60, pp. 159169. Grosse, I. R., and Mitchell, L. D., 1990, "Nonlinear Axial Stiffness Characteristics of Axisymmetric Bolted Joints," ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, Sept., Vol. 112, pp. 442-449. Holmes, H., 1988, "A Spiral Lock for Threaded Fasteners," Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 5, May, p. 36. Ito, Y., Toyoda, J., and Nagada, S., 1977, "Interface Pressure Distribution in a Bolt-Flange Assembly," ASME Paper No. 77-WA/DE-11. Lardner, T. J., 1965, "Stresses in a Thick Plate with Axially Symmetric Loading," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Series E, Vol. 32, June, pp. 458-459. Lehnhoff, T. F., and Ko, K. II, 1991, "Member Stiffness of Bolted Joints," Proceedings of Design Productivity International Conference, Honolulu, HI, Vol. 1, Feb., pp. 71-78. Lehnhoff, T. F., McKay, M. L., and Bellora, V., 1992, "Member Stiffness and Bolt Spacing of Bolted Joints," ASME WAM, Anaheim, CA, Recent Advances in Structural Mechanics, PVP-Vol. 248, Nov., pp. 63-72. Little, R. E., 1967, "Bolted Joints: How Much Give?" Machine Design, Nov., pp. 338-339. Machinery's Handbook, 1988, Industrial Press, Inc., Twenty-Third Edition, pp. 1665-1666. Mischke, C. R., 1978, class notes, Iowa State University. Nelson, C. W., 1962, "Further Considerations of the Thick Plate Problem with Axially Symmetric Loading," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 29, Vol. 84, Series E, pp. 91-98. Osgood, C. C , 1970, "Saving Weight on Bolted Joints," Machine Design, Oct., pp. 338-339. Osman, M. O. M., Mansour, W. M., and Dukkipati, R. V., 1976, "On the Design of Bolted Connections with Gaskets Subjected to Fatigue Loading," ASME Paper No. 76-DET-57. Rotscher, F., 1927, Die Maschinelemente, Springer Verlag, Berlin. Shigley, J. E., and Mitchell, C. R., 1983, Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, 4th Ed. Shigley, J.E., and Mischke, C. R., 1989, Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, 5th ed. Snedden, I. N., 1946, "The Elastic Stresses Produced in a Thick Plate by the Application of Pressure to Its Free Surfaces," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Cambridge, England, Vol. 42, pp. 260-271. ' Tang, J., and Deng, Z., 1988, "Better Stress and Stiffness Estimates for Bolted Joints," Machine Design, Nov. Wileman, J., Choudry, M., and Green, I., 1991, "Computation on Member Stiffness in Bolted Connections," ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, Vol. 113, pp. 432-437.

Journal of Mechanical Design

JUNE 1994, Vol. 116/557

Downloaded 21 Feb 2011 to 171.67.216.23. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm