Modelling of Bolted Connections by The Finite Element Method: September 2017

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319695676
Modelling of bolted connections by the ﬁnite element method
Article · September 2017

DOI: 10.1002/cepa.76
CITATIONS READS
0 805
3 authors, including:
Paula Vilela Hermes Carvalho

Federal University of Minas Gerais Federal University of Minas Gerais
12 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Estudo Numérico de Vigas Híbridas de Aço View project
Fatigue fracture of old metallic structures (i.e. bridges, rails etc.) manufactured at the turn of the 19th and 20th century View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hermes Carvalho on 01 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Thematic Section: Solid Mechanics in Brazil 2017
Numerical simulation of bolted connections

Abstract
This article presents the modeling of a complete bolted connection based on Paula Moura Leite Vilelaa*
a model with one bolt connecting two or three plates. Initially, the behavior Hermes Carvalhoa
of this model with one bolt is analyzed by comparing it with existing bibli-
Oswaldo Teixeira Baião Filhob
ography for 3 different types of applied load: tension, shear and a combina-
tion of these two. This model includes all necessary considerations: contacts a Departamento
between the plates and the nut, head and shank of the bolt; contact between de Engenharia de Estruturas,
the plates, as well as friction between them; and pre-load on the bolt. The Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG,
model also responds properly to loads parallel and perpendicular to the con- Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil. E-mail:
tact surface between the plates, including prying action effects. These cali- [email protected], [email protected]
brated models are then introduced as super-elements in empty spaces left b Núcleode Estruturas, Universidade FUMEC,
on the full connection, through a relatively simple process using the finite Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil. E-mail: baiao@fu-
element software ANSYS®. Upon filling these spaces, two complete connec- mec.br
tion models are evaluated: one with a single plate and one between two T-
stubs. The results obtained with these models are compared with standard *Corresponding author
forecasts. These two connection types have a practical application in the way http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-78254338
they will be analyzed, and also as part of more complex connections: bolted
girder splices (in the region of web beam), beam-to-column connections Received: July 31, 2017
with splice plates or end plate connections, beam splices with end-plates, In Revised Form: April 21, 2018
etc. Accepted: May 14, 2018
Available Online: May 16, 2018
Keywords
Modeling of bolted connections, Simple shear connections, T-stub connec-
tions, Super-elements.
1 INTRODUCTION
During the last years, in the discussions involving structural analysis and global performance of steel struc-
tures, the semi-rigid behavior of the connections has become a topic of extreme importance, and was introduced in
the calculation procedures of AISC (1980) and, later, in the design methodology proposed by Eurocode 3 (1993).
The semi-rigid behavior of the connections has been incorporated into the practice of structural analysis, not
only because it better represents the actual behavior of the structure relative to its overall response, but also be-
cause it contributes to the design of more economical structural elements (Maggi et al., 2005).
Among the connecting means employed in the practice, the bolted connections distinguish themselves for the
simplicity and rapidity in the assembly process of steel structures. However, the large number of variables in this
type of connection - the thickness of the plates involved in the connection, the diameter and positioning of the fas-
teners, etc. - make it difficult to analyze their behavior (Queiroz et al., 2013).
There are numerous references in literature dealing with bolted connections through numerical analysis, and
most of them used one-dimensional and two-dimensional elements in the numerical models development. With the
advancements of finite element programs and with a greater processing capacity of the computers, a refinement in
the models is noticed, and these bolted connections started to be simulated with the use of solid elements, making
it possible to consider the nodal region stiffness more realistically.
Yilmaz and Bekiroglu (2014), for example, simulated bolts subjected to single and double shear loadings,
through ANSYS® software, evaluating the initial pretension influence on the behavior of these connections. The
models were developed with solid elements, the efforts between the parts were transmitted using contact elements,
however the thread geometry of the bolts was not considered. Moreover, Fransplass et al. (2015) investigated the
behavior of threaded steel fasteners subjected to combined tension and shear loading at elevated loading rates, also
using three-dimensional finite element model, but in this case, the thread geometry was simulated with high levels
of detail. This numerical simulation captured the overall physical behavior of the threaded assembly, yet the values
Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 2018, 15(10 Thematic Section), e94
Paula Moura Leite Vilela et al.
of ultimate load and initial elastic stiffness for all the load cases investigated were higher than the experimental
results obtained in Fransplass et al. (2015) research.
Since nodal region is composed of several elements with different behaviors, and the simulation of this region,
as well as the interaction between its components, makes bolted connections modeling complex, a finite element
model with one bolt connecting two or three square plates was developed in this work, in such a way that all the
necessary considerations were included: contact between the plates and the nut, the head and the shank of the bolt;
contact and friction between the plates; pretension in the bolt. This unitary model, that adequately responded to
forces acting parallel and perpendicular to the contact surface between the plates, capturing the effects of prying
action, was finally inserted in some complete connections, with different amount and position of the bolts, which
shows the versatility of this form of numerical modelling.
2 METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted for this study consists in:
• validating a finite element model with only one bolt through comparisons with experimental results available in the literature, considering
bolts subjected to tension, shear and a combination of tension and shear;
• inserting this model with one bolt in a complete connection, modeled with finite elements too, comparing the numerical results of these
connections with actual standards.
Two types of connections were chosen: with the bolt group loaded eccentrically and subjected, essentially, to
shear; and a T-stub type connection, where the bolts are subjected to tension. All models were developed using the
APDL language of software ANSYS®.
3 UNITARY NUMERICAL MODEL
3.1 Numerical model description

The element type used on the modelling of the components is SOLID186. The plates of the unitary model are
square and present a central hole with diameter that corresponds to the diameter of the standard hole indicated by
the AISC (2010) standard, bigger than the nominal diameter of the bolt. The geometry of the bolt – Figure 1 – pre-
sents some simplifications: the nut and the head of the bolt have the same diameter, D, and the same thickness, t,
with values based on American specifications for high-strength bolts, ASTM A325 (ASTM, 1985); the thread region,
whose effective area is equivalent to, approximately, 75% of the shank area, was modelled with the nominal diam-
eter of the bolt, however with a less resistant material.
Figure 1: Geometry of the bolt.
Equations 1-4 show how to obtain the mentioned diameter, D, and thickness, t:
1  W 
dnut  W   (1)
2 cos 30 
1  F 
dhead  F   (2)
2  cos 30  
dnut  dhead
D  (3)
2
Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 2018, 15(10 Thematic Section), e94 2/15
H1  H 2
t (4)
2
where dnut is the considered diameter of the nut, calculated using the average of the diameters inscribed and
circumscribed to the hexagon, represented, respectively, by W and W/cos 30° - see Figure 2;
dhead is the considered diameter of the bolt head, calculated using the average of the diameters inscribed and
circumscribed to the hexagon, represented, respectively, by F and F/cos 30° - see Figure 2,
H1, H2 is the height of the bolt head and of the nut, respectively.
Figure 2: Heavy-hex structural bolt and heavy-hex nut (ASTM, 1985).
The trilinear stress-strain relationship used to define the material property of the plates and of the thread and
shank portions of the bolt is shown in Figure 3. The first line segment represents the elastic range of the material,
with slope equivalent to the Young’s modulus, E, equal to 200 GPa (ABNT, 2008), and yield stress equal to fy. The
second and third line segments represent the plastic range, where it is assumed that the tensile strength, fu, is
reached when the deformation values exceed 2%. The ultimate deformation, εu, corresponds to the deformation
attained at the rupture of the material. Yield stress and tensile strength for the thread material are equal to these
values for the shank material of the bolt multiplied by 0.75 (Vilela, 2016).
Figure 3: Stress versus strain relationship of the unitary model materials.
For an adequate simulation of the contact between the parts, surface-to-surface contact elements TARGE170
and CONTA174 were used. In the determination of the contact pairs, the ANSYS® default values were adopted for
most of the parameters, except the FKN value for the contact pair established between the hole and the bolt, ad-
justed to 0.01 – recommended value for regions with bending deformations (ANSYS – 17.0, 2016). The tangent
stiffness factor, FKT, is calculated automatically by the software and is proportional to the normal stiffness and to
the friction coefficient, μ, assumed to be 0.3 – based on AISC (2010).
In the definition of the contact elements CONTA174, the KEYOPT(4) and KEYOPT(10) parameters were con-
sidered with a value of 2, which mean, respectively, that the contact detection occurs at the nodes of the contact
elements (and not at the Gauss points), and that the contact stiffness is updated at each iteration (not at each load
step).
It is important to check, through the command CNCHECK,DETAIL, the status of all contact pairs present in the
model before starting the simulation. The parts that should have been in contact since the beginning of simulation
must have “closed” contact status, which does not occur only for the region between the bolt and the plates hole,
that has “open” contact status due to the gap between these elements.
The bolt preload was applied through the PRETS179 element, like in Wang et al. (2013).
According to Salamet and Garlock (2010), for regions with high stress concentrations, such as on bolts and
plate holes, mesh convergence studies suggest 20 to 24 elements around the circumference of a typical bolt diam-
eter (22.225 mm to 31.75 mm). Figure 4 presents the mesh of the unitary model components, with 24 elements
around the circumference that define the diameter of the plate holes and bolt shank. The mesh configuration of the
rest of the model is based on this value, which resulted in a unitary model with 3240 elements for the plates dis-
cretization and 3888 elements for the discretization of the bolt.
Figure 4: Mesh of the unitary model.
Figure 5 shows an example of a full connection with empty spaces, where the unitary model is inserted. The
mesh of the matching edges must be the same so that the parts can be joined together.
Figure 5: Full connection with empty spaces.
3.2 Results
Several studies have shown that there are many variables governing the behavior of threaded steel fasteners
subjected to tension, shear or combined tension and shear loading conditions (Fransplass et al., 2015).
Rumpf and Fisher (1963) studied the behavior and performance of individual A325 high-strength bolts under
direct tension and torqued tension, Wallaert and Fisher (1964) determined the behavior of single high-strength
bolts under static shear loadings. Chesson et al. (1964) aimed at defining the strength and behavior characteristics
of single, high-strength bolts under static loadings of tension and shear. All these works were carried out as part of
the Large Bolted Joints Project, under the technical guidance of the Research Council on Riveted and Bolted Struc-
tural Joints, and the unitary model was validated according to the experimental results presented by these three
works, considering bolts subjected to tension, shear and a combination of these efforts. The main aspects of the
unitary model simulations (number of analysis, bolt diameters, plate thicknesses, etc.) are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Main aspects of the unitary model simulations.

Heavy head bolts subjected to:
Direct tension Double shear Combination of tension and single shear

Bolt diameter
22.225 mm 22.225 mm 19.05 mm
(nominal)
Grip length 104.8 mm 104.8 mm 40.6 mm
Thread length in grip 3.2 mm 3.2 mm 12.7 mm
Bolt grade A325 A325 A325
Bolt lot 8B 8B B and C
Bolt pretension no yes yes
Plate material - ASTM A440 ASTM A7
Plate thicknesses - 4 x 25.4 mm 2 x 20.3 mm
Number of tests 1 1 12
Figure 6 and Table 2 presents numerical and experimental results of two bolt series, B (ASTM A325) and C
(ASTM A354), for each T-S ratio evaluated in Chesson et al. (1964). T and S are, respectively, the tension and the
shear forces applied on the bolts while Tu is their ultimate strength in tension. The experimental interaction curve
proposed by the authors is also represented in Figure 6 (green curve).
In the last column of Table 2, it can be observed that the numerical results (blue points in Figure 6) showed
good agreement with the experimental results (red points in Figure 6) and the maximum difference between them
is of 5%. Further numerical results for the unitary model, which also showed good agreement with the experimental
ones, are not presented in this work. More details can be found in Vilela (2016).
Figure 6: Interaction curves for bolt types B and C.
Table 2: Numerical and experimental ultimate strengths for each T-S ratio, B and C bolt series.
Ratio between Ratio between
Numerical numerical simulation experimental
Experimental
simulation ultimate strength and ultimate strength and
Bolt T-S ultimate Difference
ultimate the numerical ultimate the experimental
series ratio strength (%)
strength strength in tension ultimate strength in
(kN)
(kN) (proportion tension (proportion
T-S = 1.0:0.0) T-S = 1.0:0.0)
1.0:0.0 183.0 1.000 183.76 1.000 0.4
1.0:0.42 174.6 0.954 179.98 0.977 3.1
1.0:0.67 167.0 0.912 172.72 0.938 3.4
B
1.0:1.0 162.1 0.886 164.58 0.894 1.5
0.42:1.0 155.6 0.850 154.49 0.839 0.7
0.0:1.0 155.2 0.848 156.76 0.852 1.0
1.0:0.0 215.7 1.000 219.07 1.000 1.6
1.0:0.42 208.9 0.968 219.43 1.002 5.0
1.0:0.67 195.9 0.908 201.95 0.922 3.1
C
1.0:1.0 188.3 0.873 194.30 0.887 3.2
0.42:1.0 188.2 0.872 179.40 0.819 4.9
0.0:1.0 183.4 0.850 181.27 0.828 1.2
4 COMPLETE BOLTED CONNECTIONS MODELS – ECCENTRICALLY LOADED CONNECTIONS
4.1 General
When the line of action of an applied load does not pass through the center of gravity of a bolt group, the
moment resulting from this eccentricity must be considered in the connection design. The eccentricity produces
both rotation about the centroid of the bolt group and translation of one connected element with respect to the
other. The combined effect of this rotation and translation is equivalent to a rotation about a point, defined as in-
stantaneous center of rotation, and its location depends on the geometry of the bolt group as well as the direction
and point of the load application (AISC, 2005).
The AISC Steel Construction Manual presents some tables that employ the instantaneous center of rotation
method for different bolt patterns and eccentric conditions. The available strength of the bolt group for any of the
arrangement of the tables is defined by ϕRn, which is equivalent to the coefficient C multiplied by ϕrn, the available
strength of a single bolt.

This work analyzes some configurations of eccentrically loaded bolt groups provided in the AISC manual, var-
ying the values of the horizontal component of the load eccentricity, ex, number of bolts in one vertical row, n, and
bolt spacing, s. All these variables are represented in Figure 7, that illustrates three of the complete eccentrically
loaded models that were simulated: the first has 3 bolts, spaced vertically by 76.2 mm; the second, 3 bolts spaced
by 152.4 mm; and the third, 5 bolts spaced by 76.2 mm. A typical mesh employed in these numerical models is also
displayed in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Geometric configurations and a typical mesh of the evaluated connections.
On the evaluated numerical models, a thickness of 25.4 mm was adopted for plate 1 and a thickness of 12.7
mm was used for plate 2, which length varies according to the value of ex. The friction coefficient between the plates
was considered equal to 0.3. All bolts are of type ASTM A325, have a diameter of 19.05 mm, thread length of 3.18
mm to guarantee shear plane out of the thread region, and an initial preload equal to, approximately, 70% of the
minimum specified tensile strength of the bolt. The material of the plates is ASTM A36. Table 3 describes the values
adopted for the definition of the trilinear curves of these materials.
Table 3: Values of the trilinear curve stress-strain for the materials of the complete model with eccentrically loaded bolt
group.
Stress (MPa) Strain (mm/mm)
0 0
Bolt shank fy,b = 635 åy,b = 0.003175
(ASTM A325) fu,b = 825 åu,b = 0.02
1.01 fu,b = 833.25 0.3
0 0
Bolt thread fy,bt = 476.25 åy,bt = 0.002381
(ASTM A325) fu,bt = 618.75 åu,bt = 0.02
1.01 fu,bt = 624.94 0.3
0 0
Plates fy,pl = 250 åy,pl = 0.00125
(ASTM A36) fu,pl = 400 åu,pl = 0.02
1.01 fu,pl = 404 0.3
4.3 Results
Table 4 presents a comparison between the values of the coefficients C recommended by the AISC manual and
the coefficients obtained through the numerical simulations for the indicated values of n, ex and s. This coefficient
was determined dividing the resistant shear force of the complete connection (last converged step) by the resistant
shear force of the unitary model.
Table 4: Variables of eccentrically loaded connections and respective coefficient values, C.
Ultimate strength of the unitary model = 145 kN

Ultimate strength of the Numerical AISC
s [mm] ex [mm] Difference (%)
complete model [kN] coefficient, C coefficient, C
50.8 319.5 2.20 2.23 1.4%
101.6 201.6 1.39 1.4 0.9%
76.2 152.4 140.1 0.96 0.97 0.6%
203.2 105.1 0.72 0.73 0.9%
n=3 254.0 84.5 0.58 0.59 1.4%
101.6 325.3 2.21 2.23 1.0%
152.4 254.9 1.73 1.75 1.1%
152.4
203.2 204.6 1.39 1.4 0.8%
254.0 166.9 1.13 1.15 1.5%
152.4 370.6 2.55 2.59 1.4%
n=5 76.2
254.0 235.4 1.62 1.66 2.3%
A good agreement was observed between the numerical results and the AISC (2005) recommended values.
Plates with different thicknesses were not evaluated, once numerically obtained coefficients C were calculated
based on the ultimate bolt resistance, that is, considering the attendance of the other ultimate limit-states applicable
to the plates. Figure 8 presents a distribution of von Mises stresses for the last converged step of the models with n
equal to 3 and 5, s equal to 76.2 mm and ex equal to 152.4 mm. When a group of bolts is eccentrically loaded, the
bolts of the extremities are the most requested. Such behavior can be seen in Figure 8, where the external bolts
failed, while the internal bolts did not develop all of their strength.
Figure 8: Distribution of von Mises stresses on eccentrically loaded bolt group models: a) n=3; b) n=5.
Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 present the load-displacement curves for all analyzed cases, on which the
ultimate strengths of the numerical models is defined. The node selected to plot all the graphs is localized at the top
right corner of the plate 2, and its total displacement value is the vector sum of the displacements along x-axis and
y-axis (there is no displacement out of the plane, along z-axis).
Figure 9: Load-displacement curves for numerical models with 3 bolts (n=3), spaced by 76.2 mm.
350
325.3
300
250 254.9
200 204.6
Force [kN]
166.8
150
100
ex = 101.6 mm
ex = 152.4 mm
50
ex = 203.2 mm
ex = 254 mm
0
0 5 10 15 20
Total displacement of the considered node [mm]
400
370.6
350
300
250
235.4
Force [kN]
200
150
ex = 152.4 mm
100 ex = 254 mm
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
5 COMPLETE BOLTED CONNECTIONS MODELS – T-STUB CONNECTIONS
5.1 General
The T-stub connection is one of the simplest connections where the bolts are subjected to tension. Depending
on the geometric characteristic and the material employed on the connection, additional forces near the flange ex-
tremities can appear. This effect, known as prying action, increases the effort in the bolt, and should be taken into
account in the analysis of the connection (Latour et al., 2014).
The American code provides a design procedure that includes the prying action, where bolt diameters and
connected flange thicknesses are determined in such a way that bolt resistance, as well as flange stiffness and
strength, are above the required.
Figure 12 presents the variables involved on consideration of prying action. The force per bolt can be deter-
mined by T+q, where T represents the tension force per bolt due to the external acting force, 2T, and q is the addi-
tional tension force per bolt due to prying action.
Figure 12: Prying forces in tee (AISC, 2005).
When the connection geometry is known, the available tensile strength including the effects of prying action,
Tavail, can be obtained multiplying the available tensile strength per bolt, B, by Q:
𝑇 =𝐵∙𝑄 (5)
where Q is the factor that represents the presence or not of sufficient strength and stiffness of the flanges to develop
all the available tensile strength of the bolts. The expressions used to calculate factor Q, showed in Table 5, depends
on the value of á’, a parameter that either maximizes the bolt available tensile strength for a given thickness or
minimizes the thickness required for a given bolt available tensile strength (AISC, 2005).
Table 5: Expressions used to calculate factor Q.
which means that the fitting has sufficient

if á' < 0 1 strength and stiffness to develop the full bolt
available tensile strength
2 which means that the fitting has sufficient

t
  1  '
strength and stiffness to develop the full bolt
if 0 ≤ á' ≤ 1
available tensile strength, but insufficient stiff-
 tc  ness to prevent prying action
2
t which means that the fitting has insufficient
if á' > 1   1    strength to develop the full bolt available tensile
 tc  strength
1  tc  2  ä, ñ and tc: geometric variables calculated ac-

    1
 1     t 
cording to AISC (2005);
 t: actual flange thickness

ASTM A325 bolts, with 19.05 mm diameter, and ASTM A572 Gr50 tee shapes were considered for evaluation
of the behavior of T-stub connection subjected to tension. Since bolts of these connections are essentially subjected
to tension, the thread material was used to define the shank and thread of these model bolts and the stress-strain
values are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Values of the trilinear curve stress-strain for the materials of T-stub connections.
Stress (MPa) Strain (mm/mm)
0 0
Bolt shank and
fy,bt = 476.25 åy,bt = 0.002381
thread
fu,bt = 618.75 åu,bt = 0.02
(ASTM A325)
1.01 fu,bt = 624.94 0.3
0 0
Plates fy,pl = 345 åy,pl = 0.001725
(ASTM A572 Gr50) fu,pl = 450 åu,pl = 0.02
1.01 fu,pl = 454.5 0.3
The variables in Figure 12 have the following values: distance between the holes, g, equal to 120 mm; distance
from the bolt centerline to the face tee stem, a, equal to 40 mm; tributary length per pair of bolts, perpendicular to
the page, p, equal to 120 mm. The other variable values are shown in Table 7, as well as the tee flange and web
thicknesses of the evaluated cases. Figure 13 illustrates one of the complete simulated T-stub model and a typical
mesh employed in this type of connection.
Table 7: Geometric variables of evaluated T-stub connections.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Flange thickness, tf (mm) 12.50 16.00 19.00 25.00 37.50
Web thickness, tw (mm) 12.50 16.00 16.00 16.00 25.00
b' (mm) 44.23 42.48 42.48 42.48 37.98
b (mm) 53.75 52.00 52.00 52.00 47.50
a' (mm) 49.53 49.53 49.53 49.53 49.53
Figure 13: Complete T-stub model and a typical mesh.
5.3 Results
Knowing the geometry of the connection, it is possible to calculate the required flange thickness, tc, to develop
the available tensile strength of the bolt, B, without the effect of prying action. Besides these values, Table 8 shows
the available strength of the evaluated connections, Tavail, considering the effect of prying action, if it occurs.
Table 8: Parameter values related to the T-stub models.

tf = 12.5 mm tf = 16.0 mm tf = 19.0 mm tf = 25.0 mm tf = 37.5 mm
tc (mm) 26.33 25.80 25.80 25.80 24.40
á' 2.288 1.086 0.573 0.044 -0.411
B (kN) 176.4 176.4 176.4 176.4 176.4
Q 0.404 0.690 0.789 0.972 1
Tavail (kN) 285.2 486.5 556.3 685.5 705.4
Tnumerical (kN) 294.0 454.0 510.0 646.0 702.0
Tnumerical / Tavail 1.03 0.933 0.917 0.942 0.995
For flange thickness equal to 12.5 mm, the last step considered in the numerical model occurred for a load
equal to 294 kN, when the stress level at the interface between the web and the flange reached the material strength
of the plates, indicating connection failure. Figure 14a presents the von Mises stresses for the last step of the men-
tioned tee, where it is possible to observe an accentuated bend of the plates and, also, the presence of extension
regions with stress above steel yield stress at the centerline of the holes.
For flange thickness equal to 25.0 mm, the last step considered in the numerical model occurred for a load,
Tnumerical, equal to 646 kN, close to the value indicated by the formulation of AISC (2005). Figure 14b shows the von
Mises stresses for this tee shape, where it is possible to observe a zone of intense plastification next to the web. Like
in the previous analyzed model, the material strength of the plates is reached at the interface between the web and
the flange.
For flange thickness equal to 37.5 mm, the last converged step occurred for a load, Tnumerical, equal to 702 kN,
which is equivalent to the available strength of the 4 bolts group. The high stiffness of flange tee shapes avoids the
occurrence of prying action effects, what is in accordance with the AISC (2005) standard. Figure 15 exhibits the von
Mises stresses diagram for the connection ultimate load, indicating the presence of few points with stress above
the yield limit.
Figure 14: Von Mises stresses for complete T-stub model with flange thickness equal to: a) 12.5 mm; b) 25.0 mm
Figure 15: Von Mises stresses for complete T-stub model with flange thickness equal to 37.5 mm.
Figure 16 presents the load-displacement curves for all analyzed cases. The node selected to plot all the graphs
is localized at the intersection of the web with the flange of T-stub, and its total displacement value is the displace-
ment along z-axis.
800
700
600
500
Force [kN]
400
300
tf = 12.5 mm
tf = 16.0 mm
200 tf = 19.0 mm
tf = 25.0 mm
tf = 37.5 mm
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 16: Load-displacement curves for T-stub numerical models.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This work developed a numerical methodology to evaluate the behavior of one bolt subjected to tension, shear
and a combination of these efforts, using software ANSYS®. This unitary model was inserted, subsequently, in two
types of complete connections, and the results were compared with standard predictions.
In the connections with an eccentrically loaded bolt group, it was possible to determine the coefficients C for
different geometric configurations and all of them presented good agreement with the values suggested by AISC
(2005). The maximum difference between the results was of 2.3%.
In the numerical T-stub connections, distinguished failure modes were observed for different evaluated flange
thicknesses. For flange thicknesses smaller than 19.0 mm, the failure was characterized by the rupture of the plates
due to bending. For flange thickness equal to 25.0 mm, the failure occurred simultaneously at the flange (intercep-
tion with the web) and at the bolts. When flange thickness is equal to 37.5 mm, there were no prying action effects,
occurring bolt ruptures due to direct acting of the external load through the tee web. The available strength of all
the evaluated models differ up to 9% in relation with that determined by AISC (2005).
Then, the proposed numerical methodology proves to be interesting, since it enables the evaluation of any
bolted connection, including connections not provided by the reference standards.
References
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Steel Construction Manual, 8th Edition, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL, 1980.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2005.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2010.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), High-Strength Bolts for Structural and Steel Joints, ASTM Des-
ignation A325M-84a, Philadelphia, 1985.
ANSYS – 17.0. Release 1.0 Documentation for Ansys. Canonsburg, United States, 2016.
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), NBR 8800:2008, Projeto de estrutura de aço e de estrutura mista
de aço e concreto de edifícios, Rio de Janeiro, 2008.
View publication stats

Chesson, E., Faustino, N. L., Munse, W. H. (1964). Static Strength of High-Strength Bolts under Combined Shear and
Tension, University of Illinois, March 1964.
Eurocode 3 (1993). Design steel of structures: Part 1.1 – General rules and rules for buildings – Revised Annex J:
Joints in building frames.
Fransplass, H., Langseth, M., Hopperstad, O. S. (2015). Experimental and numerical study of threaded steel fasteners
under combined tension and shear at elevated loading rates, International Journal of Impact Engineering 76: 118-
125.
Latour, M., Rizzano, G., Santiago, A., da Silva, L. S. (2014). Experimental analysis and mechanical modeling of T-stubs
with four bolts per row, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 101: 158-174.
Maggi, Y. I., Gonçalves, R. M., Leon, R. T., Ribeiro, L. F. L. (2005). Parametric analysis of steel bolted end plate con-
nections using finite element modelling, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61: 689-708.
Queiroz, G., Carvalho, H., Vilela, P. M. L., Garcia, L. B. L. (2013). Sobre as regiões nodais das estruturas de aço forma-
das por barras, Revista da Estrutura de Aço, v.2, No. 3, p. 206-217.
Rumpf, J. L. and Fisher, J. W. (1963). Calibration of A325 bolts, Lehigh University, Fritz Engineering Laboratory,
Report No. 288.5, December 1963.
Salamet, S. and Garlock, M. (2010). Guidelines for Modeling Three Dimensional Structural Connection Models using
Finite Element Methods. International Symposium “Steel Structures: Culture & Sustainability”. Istanbul, Turkey,
September 21-23.
Vilela, P. M. L. (2016). Modelagem de ligações parafusadas pelo método dos elementos finitos. Dissertation (in Por-
tuguese), Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Wallaert, J. J. and Fisher, J. W. (1964). Shear Strength of High-Strength Bolts, Lehigh University, Fritz Engineering
Laboratory, Report No. 288.20, July 1964.
Wang, Y. Q., Zong, L., Shi, Y. J. (2013). Bending behavior and design model of bolted flange-plate connection, Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 84: 1-16.
Yilmaz, O. e Bekiroglu, S. (2014). Numerical Simulations of Bolted Steel Connections in Single and Double Shear
under Pretension Effect. In: 11th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering. Istanbul, Turkey.

Modelling of Bolted Connections by The Finite Element Method: September 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling of Bolted Connections by The Finite Element Method: September 2017

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

Modelling of Bolted Connections by The Finite Element Method: September 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Modelling of bolted connections by the ﬁnite element method

Article · September 2017

Paula Vilela Hermes Carvalho

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Estudo Numérico de Vigas Híbridas de Aço View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical simulation of bolted connections

3 UNITARY NUMERICAL MODEL

3.1 Numerical model description

Figure 1: Geometry of the bolt.

Figure 2: Heavy-hex structural bolt and heavy-hex nut (ASTM, 1985).

Figure 3: Stress versus strain relationship of the unitary model materials.

Figure 4: Mesh of the unitary model.

Figure 5: Full connection with empty spaces.

Table 1: Main aspects of the unitary model simulations.

Direct tension Double shear Combination of tension and single shear

Figure 6: Interaction curves for bolt types B and C.

4 COMPLETE BOLTED CONNECTIONS MODELS – ECCENTRICALLY LOADED CONNECTIONS

4.2 Numerical model description

Figure 7: Geometric configurations and a typical mesh of the evaluated connections.

Stress (MPa) Strain (mm/mm)

Table 4: Variables of eccentrically loaded connections and respective coefficient values, C.

Ultimate strength of the unitary model = 145 kN

5 COMPLETE BOLTED CONNECTIONS MODELS – T-STUB CONNECTIONS

Figure 12: Prying forces in tee (AISC, 2005).

Table 5: Expressions used to calculate factor Q.

which means that the fitting has sufficient

2 which means that the fitting has sufficient

1  tc  2  ä, ñ and tc: geometric variables calculated ac-

5.2 Numerical model description

Stress (MPa) Strain (mm/mm)

Table 7: Geometric variables of evaluated T-stub connections.

Figure 13: Complete T-stub model and a typical mesh.

Table 8: Parameter values related to the T-stub models.

Figure 16: Load-displacement curves for T-stub numerical models.

Paula Moura Leite Vilela et al.

You might also like