Static Resistance Bolted Circular Flange Joints
Static Resistance Bolted Circular Flange Joints
Static Resistance Bolted Circular Flange Joints
M. Hjiaj
INSA, Rennes, France
I. Ryan
CTICM, Saint-Aubin, France
ABSTRACT: Bolted flange joints are commonly used for both support and continuity connections of
tubular members in a variety of structures such as trusses, communication tower pylons, chimneys, pylons
for wind turbines and ski-lift installations as well as lighting and road signal posts. It is usual to design
the flange joints such that the ultimate limit state static resistance is governed by that of the attached
tubular section. A design method suited for tensile loading of the tubular section can be readily adapted
to deal with bending also. Based on the work of Igarashi et al., a closed form solution for the ultimate
tensile resistance of a bolted flange joint is derived. The effects of contact between the two opposite
flanges are also considered. A design approach similar to that of the Eurocode 3 for T-stubs is developed.
A finite element model analysis considering elastoplastic behaviour and contact shows good agreement
with published experimental results and with the analytical model. A parametric study indicates that the
proposed analytical model should be valid for a large range of joints.
1
INTRODUCTION
NT
nb : Number of bolts
R
Tube
tt
Rb
bolt
e1
tf
R0
Rf
Figure 1.
Flange
e2
27
YOUNG10.indb 27
10/13/2010 7:41:41 PM
Vr+dVr
Mr+dMr
M
Vr
ANALYTICAL MODEL
Mr
Model assumptions
rV
Vr
Figure 2.
rV
Vr
M r + rV
Vr
B
Mpl,f
Mpl,f
F M = t 2/4
r
r f
(1)
Tresca
D
Figure 3.
Von Mises
(2)
2
where M pl , f f y, f t f 4 is the plastic bending
moment per unit length with
fy,f = yielding strength of the steel of flange.
For regime BC:
d
M r ) = M ppl
(rM
dr
M = tf2/4
While the von Mises criterion is usually appropriate to model the plastic behavior of steel, it
often proves to be difficult to apply for ultimate
load calculations. The Tresca criterion is used
instead. The expression of the Tresca yield condition for moments per unit lengths Mr and M takes
exactly the same form as it does for the stresses r
and (See Figure 3). Steel is assumed to be elastic
perfectly plastic.
Failure mechanisms considered in this study
involve regimes AB and BC (see Figure 3), only. For
these regimes, the equilibrium equation becomes:
For regime AB:
d
M r ) = M ppl
(rM
dr
(4)
(3)
28
YOUNG10.indb 28
10/13/2010 7:41:42 PM
NT
m
e2
B
Q
Figure 4.
e1
(5)
where
3
e1 As
R 0
= e2 min 1;
1
,
, R = 4
R
t f Lbleff
e e +1
R ,0 = 2 1 3 .
(e2 e1 )
with Lb = equivalent length of a bolt of sectional
area; As and leff the equivalent length of the connection per bolt as defined in EN1993-1-8 (2005).
The application of the above expression to circular flange joints underestimates the distance
n due to the effect of circular symmetry. However this will lead to overestimating the prying
force and thus will give safe results for the joint
resistance involving bolt failure. The radius of the
circle along which the prying force, Q, is uniformly
distributed is given by:
Re = Rb + n Rf
(10)
AB
BC
Mpl,f
Mr
R0
Rb
Re Rf r
(6)
-Mpl,f
(7)
(8)
Mr (Re) = 0
(9)
NT,1,pl /2R
Mpl,t
/2Rb
Q/2Re
where
M pl ,t f y,ttt2 4 , is the tube wall plastic bending
moment per unit length with
fy,t = yield strength of the tube steel.
29
YOUNG10.indb 29
10/13/2010 7:41:43 PM
( )
Mr
M pl
1= R 1 +
n1 1
where
n1 =
NT 1 pl
, k2 =
2 M pl , f
( )=M
Mr R
pl f
< Rb
n1
(11)
Approximation
R0
,
R
Exact
k2 ) + M pl ,t
M pl f .
(n1 ) ln
1
r
x=e-k1
(12)
( )
M r R M pl
1
k1 + ln 1 +
n1 1
n1 1
=0
(13)
l2
C
A
l1
e2
l3
C
D
where
Figure 7.
R
k1 = ln b .
R
A closed form solution of equation (13) has been
obtained but it involves complicated expressions.
By expanding the function ln (1+ x) in expression
(13) about zero using a Taylor series the following
simpler solution is obtained:
( )
k ) + Mr R
(14)
k1
For a blank flange, the ratio n1 calculated via
expression (14) is presented in Figure 6 and compared to the exact solution of equation (13). The
approximate solution slightly overestimates n1.
Note that for ring flange the exact and approximate solution are similar.
NT 1 pl =
2 M pl , f
NT
pl
M pl f nb 4
l2
l3
pl
M pl f nb i
4 ; 2 + 4
(16)
where
e
2.3
R 2f m 2
Rb
(15)
30
YOUNG10.indb 30
10/13/2010 7:41:45 PM
e'
FT, pl 2 + 4 Mpl, f
m
AB
Mpl,f
Mr
m
e
e2
R0
FT, pl = 4 Mpl, f
Re
Rb
NT,2-1,pl /2 R
z
Ft,pl /2 Rb
Mpl,t
Q/2 Re
Figure 8.
M r (r ) = M pl f ( n
(18)
( + ) R + Ft pl (Re Rb )
, n2
NT 2
2 pl
2 M pl , f
Re R
( )
M r + M pl
= R 1 +
n2 2 1
Mr R
(17)
It is to be noted that mode 2-1 may occur only if
the following condition is verified:
R
2 2 Ft pl
ln b .
r
2 M pl , f
r
where
2 M pl , f Re R
) ln
( )
M r + M pl
= R 1 +
n2 1 1
1
n2
Rb
F t pl
(k1 k3 )
1 2 M pl , f
M r R + M pl
= k3 + l 1 +
n2 2 1
( )
(19)
where
k3 = ln
Re
.
R
31
YOUNG10.indb 31
10/13/2010 7:41:49 PM
NT,4,pl = Afy,t
BC
AB
Mpl,f
Mr
R0
(22)
2.6
Rb
Re
-Mpl,f
(23)
NT,2-2,pl /2 R
z
Mpl,t
Ft,pl / 2 Rb
SIMPLIFIED METHOD
3.1 Objective
The analytical model proposed in paragraph 2 is
applicable to all types of circular flange joints.
However, the expressions for mode 1 and mode
2 type failures developed in section 2 may not be
very convenient for design office use. In this section, we propose a simplification by firstly neglecting the influence of the tube wall bending moment
which is particularly relevant for the common case
of relatively small wall thickness to flange thickness. Secondly many joints used in steel construction have either blank flanges or ring flange for
which R0 is equal to R. The simplifications proposed here are applied to the latter two types of
joints. In the particular case of ring flange joints
whose hole radius R0 is less than that of the tube
R, the method proposed in this paragraph for ring
flange joints gives safe results. For mode 2 failure
(bolt failure in the presence of prying forces) mode
22 can be taken.
Obviously, joint resistance corresponding to
mode 3 and mode 4 are given by expressions (21)
and (22) for all types of circular flange joints.
The tensile resistance of a ring flange joint is
calculated using the new expressions for modes 1
and 2 in addition to those for modes 3 and 4. For
design purposes, relevant partial safety coefficients
need to be introduced into the expressions given
above and below.
Q/ 2 Re
NT
2 2 pl
( )
2 M pl , f k + M r R + + F t
k3
ppl
[k3 k1 ]
(20)
The above expression involve terms that are
related to the flange bending resistance, tube bending resistance and bolt tensile resistance.
2.4
(21)
3.2 Method for ring flange joint
pl
1
2 M pl f 1 +
k1
e
M pl , f nb in 4 ; 2 + 4
(24)
32
YOUNG10.indb 32
10/13/2010 7:41:51 PM
Ft ppll 1 k1
NT
pl
3.3
Contact elements
(25)
pl
2
2 M pl f 1 +
k1
e
M pl , f nb in 4 ; 2 + 4
(26)
Figure 11.
joint.
pl
1
2 M pl f 1 + + Ft
k
3
ppll
k1
1
k3
(27)
(MPa)
fu
4.1
Numerical model
Collapse :
r=10
r=
Figure 12.
u +1
Sj/10
N T,u
N T,pl
Sj
u
Figure 13.
33
YOUNG10.indb 33
10/13/2010 7:41:52 PM
4.3 Comparisons
Plastic resistances obtained via the analytical
model and the simplified method has been compared with the predictions of the numerical model
for joints presented in paragraph 4.2.
Furthermore a comparison has been made with
the experimental results given by Igarashi et al
(1985) and interpreted also with the ECCS method.
In the latter comparison, steel mechanical properties used in the analytical model are those obtained
experimentally by Igarashi et al. (1985).
In Figure 14, the tensile resistance obtained
via tests (numerical or experimental) and analytical results are compared. The Plastic resistance is
underestimated by the analytical model for thin
flanges.
In Figure 15, the tensile resistance obtained
via tests (numerical or experimental) and the
predictions given by the simplified method are
compared. The plastic resistance obtained via
the simplified method seems to be not far from
the resistance predicted by the analytical model
Joints
Rf (mm)
nb
Rb (mm)
tf (mm)
Tube
d* (mm)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
100
100
160
160
190
458
526
526
620
70
70
120
120
150
422
462
462
570
20
25
102030
3040
40
40
40
4060
40
76,1*8
76,1*6
114,3*8
168,3*10
216,3*10
762*12,5
762*16
762*6
1020*10
16
16
20
20
24
24
24
24
30
6
8
8
8
12
24
24
24
3050
Elements
fy (MPa)
fu (MPa)
y (%)
Bolt 8.8
Bolt 10.9
Flange
Tube 216,3*10
Tube 762*12,5
Tube 762*6/16
Other tube
640
900
371
420
355
235
371
840
1050
730
562
630
360
562
18
18
30
30
30
30
30
34
YOUNG10.indb 34
10/13/2010 7:41:54 PM
Figure 15.
tests.
SUMMARY
In this paper, an analytical model has been proposed to evaluate the tensile resistance of bolted
flange joints of circular tubes. This model is an
extension of the model proposed by Igarashi et al.
In the extended model the effect of the position of
the prying force as well as the local resistance of
the tube are better accounted for.
35
YOUNG10.indb 35
10/13/2010 7:41:54 PM