Mechanism and Machine Theory Vol. 18, No 6, pp. 421 430, 1983 Printed in Great Britain.

0094-114X/83 $3.00+ .00 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd.

DETERMINATION OF LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN A THREADED CONNECTION

DAVID L. M I L L E R Product Development, Department of Advanced Engineering, Cameron Iron Works, Houston, TX 7725 l, U.S.A. K U R T M. M A R S H E K Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. and M O H A M M A D R. NAJI Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67208, U.S.A.

(Receivedfor publication 30 May 1983)

Abstract--A new theory was developed for predicting the load distribution along the threaded portion of a connector. Distinction was made in development between a compression case (nut and bolt) and a tension case (turnbuckle). The load distribution was described using simple second order difference equations. The mathematics were verified by comparison with finite element analysis and with previous experimental and analytical investigations of threaded connections. An improvement in thread load distribution can be achieved by properly modifying thread geometry.
INTRODUCTION

This paper develops a theory for determining the load distribution in a threaded connection. The analysis procedure used is similar to the finite difference methods presented by Gerbert[1] and Marshek[2] for the evaluation of load distribution in belt and sprocket systems. The ability to accurately predict load distribution provides a way to determine connector load capacity for static and cyclic loadings. A number of authors have investigated the distribution of load along the threads of a threaded connection [3--11]. Using an extensometer on the outside of a nut, Goodier [6] investigated the distribution of thread loads and deformations. He showed that the load distribution was governed by a number of mechanisms: stretching of the bolt, compression in the nut, bending of the threads, and circumferential stretching. Het~nyi[3] investigated a variety of nut designs using a 3-dimensional "stress freezing" photoelastic method. By observing the distribution of load in the different designs, he found that by applying either a taper-thread nut or a nut with a tapered body, the fastener strength could be increased by 30%. Using a similar 3-dimensional photoelastic method, Allison[7] modeled buttress threads in a turnbuckle coupling. The load distribution and fillet stress concentration in the buttress thread which transmits the full tensile load sustained by an axisymmetric coupling unit was determined by stress freezing 3-dimensional photoelastic models. He also measured improvements in load distribution obtained by modifying the shaft and coupling profiles of the

mating components. It was determined that the inclusion of tapered sections does not offer any advantages in terms of load sharing or reduction in critical fillet stress for the configurations tested. The distribution of load obtained from the tests showed peaks at either end of the engaged threads [7]. The first theoretical method that included radial expansion of the nut was presented by Sopwith [5]. He deduced that the distribution of load along the length of a nut was not uniform due to the strains set up in the bolt and nut under load. By analyzing the strains, Sopwith obtained the load distribution along the thread helix. The various strains, excluding the axial tension in the bolt and compression in the nut, can be divided into three types: (1) bending deflection in the threads of bolt and nut, (2) axial recession due to compression in the threads of bolt and nut, and axial recession due to radial contraction of bolt, and (3) expansion of nut caused by radial pressure between bolt and nut. His method can be utilized for both the bolt and nut case and the turnbuckle case with symmetrical triangular thread forms. Sopwith's technique is also capable of analyzing systems with components of dissimilar materials. Stoeckly and Macke [4] developed a testing apparatus that actually measured the axial displacement of the threads. The axial thread displacements were converted to axial thread loads by coefficients determined from single-and triple-thread tests. The tests were performed on (1) a variety of tapered, linearly varying pitch diameters, and (2) straight, constant pitch diameter, American National eight-pitch threads, cut on 2 in. steel bolts. In addition to these 421

422

D. L. MILLERet

al.

tests, Stoeckly and Macke modified the Sopwith equations to accommodate tapered screw-thread connections in order to compare their experimental data with Sopwith's. They concluded that the coefficient of friction between the lubricated bolt and nut has little effect on the thread load distribution and, the maximum stress in a bolt for a given load is reduced by choosing the proper thread taper. Utilizing the data and techniques for load distribution, Heywood[8, 9] developed methods for calculating thread fillet stress, joint efficiency, and load carrying capacity. He also made significant advancement in the fatigue evaluation of threaded connections. He showed that determination and manipulation of load distribution played an important role in computing cyclic and static load capacity. More recent investigations into the distribution of loads in threaded connections have involved the use of finite element methods. O'Hara[10] for example, used 2-dimensional and 2-dimensional axisymmetric models of hypothetical thread profiles to compare his analysis to Heywood's. The thread projections were based on characteristic lengths and not on the dimensions of the real components. There were indications of general agreement with Heywood's equations, except for the root load. The larger error at the root was said to be due to the point load application which induced a higher stress gradient. Bretl and Cook[11] developed a unique finite element modeling technique for threaded connections. Instead of modeling individual threads, the thread zone is replaced by a layer of elements with orthotropic properties. The principal directions of orthotropy depend upon the thread geometry and upon the direction of load. Both tapered and conventional threads were considered on a nut and bolt configuration where the nut is in compression and the bolt in tension. Bretl and Cook's numerical results for conventional and tapered threads agreed well with theoretical and experimental results in the literature. The present paper gives a detailed description of spring models and the development of the finite difference equations used to predict the load distribution along the threaded portion of a bolt and nut connection and a pipe union connection. A solution technique is presented for each spring model. The paper also compares finite difference results to previous experimental and analytical investigations of thread connections. Similarities and differences are outlined for a variety of thread configurations and load cases. The results of these comparisons are graphically represented. The spring model method is shown to provide a viable alternative and/or supplement to the methods previously utilized for the determination of load distribution along the threads of a connection.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT

ponent and the stud, or male, threaded component. Either compression or tension load patterns are normally encountered by these components. Physical examples of so called compression or tension cases are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. In both cases, the stud component will be in tension and the body component will be in tension or compression. The loading on the body component dictates the load pattern. Two models will now be developed to analyze threaded connections and, as in the physical cases, will be classified as either compression or tension. The models will consist of an assembly of springs, simulating elements of the threaded connection. The interaction of these elements leads to the development of a second order difference equation. The

\\

Fig. 1. Compression case--nut and stud or bolt.

A A A A
A A A

The threaded connection is comprised of two major components: the body, or female, threaded com-

Fig. 2. Tension case--pipe union with straight threads.

Determination of load distribution in a threaded connection solution of this equation provides a method to predict the load distribution in the threaded portion of the connection.

423

The load F, which is applied on the stud, is transmitted through the root sections into the threads. From force equilibrium

Model I. Compression case

Model I will represent the compression case of the threaded connection. A diagram of the spring model for the compression case is shown in Fig. 3. The external load F, as shown, is distributed into the threads inducing compression in the body sections between threads, thus the name "compression case". As previously mentioned, the springs represent certain elements or characteristics of a threaded connection. In the model, the springs are connected at the nodes by other springs and/or rigid links. The links are only necessary for the visualization of the model. There are springs for the axial stiffness of the stud's root area with constant Ksc and for the axial stiffness of the body with constant Kb<. The spring with constant Kr is a composite spring which combines in series the axial stiffness of the threads in bending and shear and the radial stiffness of the body and stud sections. See [12] for the development of the equations used in the determination of the spring constants. The load F applied on the stud is carried into the threads by the load P, where P~ represents the load on the ith thread. The load S is the load on the stud sections between threads, where S~ is the load on the section between the i and i + 1 thread. The load L is the load on the body sections between threads, where Li is the load on body section i. The threads are numbered consecutively from the first to the last thread (Fig. 3). The threads can be thought of and simulated as concentric rings which connects stud springs Ksc and body springs Kb<. The concentric rings move axially. The stud rings and the body rings are connected through the composite spring Kr.
AXIS OF SYMMETRY

Pi=S~ , - S ~

l<i<n.

(1)

The loads P and S are determined by evaluating the elastic deflection of the spring elements in the model. The thread deflections are included in the composite spring constant Kr = P/fir, where fir is the combined axial component of deflection due to load P. It is assumed that the load P is applied at the mid-height of the thread. The effective body sections between the threads have a spring constant Kb<= LI3h<, where 6b< is the axial deflection due to load L. The load L is the summation of axial loads transmitted into and through a body section. For example, the load P which is carried by the last thread of the body must be transferred through all the previous body sections. The first active body section which is between the fixed end and the first body thread sees the sum of the loads Pi transferred into the threads. Stiffness of the stud sections between threads are simulated by spring constant Ks< = Sirs<, where 3s< is the elongation of the section due to load S. The thread rings of the stud have an absolute deflection u, which is a combination of thread deflections and body deflections (Fig. 4). The deflection of the kth ring is given by usk=brk+ ~ ~5~,< 1 _<k _<n
j=l k

(2)

and the elongation of the stud section between any two consecutive rings is

u,i-u,i+l =~<

l < i <n --1.

(3)

Substituting the expression for us from eqn (2) into

/
/ S

F"""Dc;;vv"""
Is K$C KIIC S" KIIC S

LAST ACTIVE THREA OF STUD

KsC Sn_2 Sn-I Ksc Sn_. Sn

bcL
\

II
BODY

.bo

,o I/

,<,>c
LAST OF BODY HREAD

~-FmST ACTfVE T.REAO

OF BODY

Fig. 3. Model I--compression case.

424

D.L. MILLERet al.

Us

Z
K$c S

US

A+I

S.;.

S.,:.+

STUD

~~ K ~ T P I , ~ + /
+1

BODY
Kb e Kbc

L.L+=

T M

Fig. 4. Thread section i and i + 1 of compression case.

eqn (3) yields

, V - , V +1+ Y. ~ , c - Z ,~,~=,~
j=] j=l

i+1

l<_i<_n-1.

(4)

where S, is the load in the stud section beyond the last active stud thread. For compatibility with the boundary conditions of this system, the S, term must equal zero. Equation (8) becomes
Lk = Sk

The i + 1 deflection summation term can be written

as i

1.

(9)

~ c + ~ +' ,
j=l

Substituting the expressions for P and L from eqns (1) and (9) into eqn (6) yields
[(Si
1 --

2S, + S,+ O/Kr] - S#Kb. = Si/Ksc,

(10)

and substitution into eqn (4) gives

3 / _ 3r"+' -- 6~+' = ~

l<i<n--1.

(5)

and multiplying through by K r and rearranging terms, eqn (10) becomes

Si+, - Si(2 + [Kr/Khc] + [Kr/K,c]) + Si i = 0. (1 l)

By replacing the deflections in eqn (5) with their equivalent spring constant ratios, produces
P # K T - P, + , / K r - L, + ,/Kb~ = S # K ~ .

(6)

Replacing the constant coefficient in parenthesis by fl, and indexing the terms by one, yields a second order difference equation of the form
Si+ 2 [~Si+ 1 .4- S i : O.

The load Lk can be written as

(12)

j=k

Equation (12) can be rewritten in the following form [13] (2 2 - 2fl + 1)S = 0 (13)

When eqn (1) is substituted into this form, the load L becomes Lk = '~ ~ _ , - S j
j=k

(7)

and carrying out the summation yields

Lk = Sk_~ -- S,

where 2 is the root(s) of the characteristic equation. The method for rewriting eqn (12) is similar to that used for differential equations of the second order. The roots of the characteristic equation are 21.2 = fl/2 +_ x/(fl 2 - 4)/2. (14)

(8)

Determination of load distribution in a threaded connection The complete solution of eqn (12) is given by
S i = A21 i + B).2 i
(15)

425

where A and B are arbitrary constants and the superscripts of the roots are exponents. The arbitrary constants are found by using the boundary conditions So=F S.=0

L. As in the compression model the load L is the combination of loads transmitted into the body sections in the axial direction. However,in the tension model, the first thread load P is carried through each successive body section. The last active body section (Fig. 5) carries the sum of the loads transferred into the threads. The load Lk equals
k

(16)
(17)

j=l

and substitution of eqn (1) yields

Lk = So - Sk.

where So and S, are defined in Fig. 3. After the constants are found, eqn (15) is used to calculate the remaining values of S. The values are then used in eqn (1) to determine the loads on the threads.
M o d e l II. Tension case

(18)

Model II represents the tension case of the threaded connection. The spring model is shown in Fig. 5. The difference between this model and the compression model is the location of fixity. In the tension model, fixity location is near the last active body thread. With the direction of the applied load F as shown, the loads transferred into the body threads would induce tension in the sections between threads, thus the name "tension case". Due to the similarity between the two models, the compression model description will adequately describe both configurations. However, the first active body section in the tension model follows the first active body thread. In the compression case the first active body section comes before the first active body thread. These differences will be accounted for in the mathematical model and are highlighted below. The first difference is in the determination of load

The next difference lies in the evaluation of the absolute deflection us. For the tension case, the deflection of a ring section is a combination of local thread deflection and the sum of the section deflections following this location (Fig. 6). Or, in mathematical terms
u, k =

6 / + ~ 6Jbc.
j=k

(19)

Combining of eqn (19) with eqn (3) leads to

6;-

j=l

6 c- E 6 c-j=i+l

(20)

The i deflection summation term can be written as

j=i+l

which when substituted into eqn (20) yields

6 r ' - 6r '+' + 6~c = 6~.

(21)

Ax,so
/
F Sn

-2. Ac.,vE
OF STUD S , - - / K I Ic S.

....Ao

STUD
K$C ~ S KIC e.

LABT# .REA
KIIc Sn_2 Sn-I K$c Sn_I Sn /,

I / I L,

%c

1, .... I L~ Kbc

I L- K~c

IL~f Kbc
BODY

, ,c

FIRST ACTIVE THREAD OF BODY

....L, ZLfo
OF BODY

Fig. 5. Model II--tension case.

MMT Vol. 18, No. 6- D

426

D.L. MILLERet al.

u:
I Ksc

J.+l

,u.

I
Sj.-I- I

STUD

BODY
L Kbc

L~+t

K be

Fig. 6. Thread section i and i + 1 of tension case.

Replacing 6 variables with their equivalent load to spring constant ratios, eqn (21) becomes
P , I K r - P,+ ,lKr + L,IK~< = S,/K,<.

equation. With the boundary conditions of S given as So = F (27) (28)

(22)

S. = 0

Elimination of the variables P and L using eqn (1) and eqn (18) leads to an equation of the form [(S,_, - 2S, + S,+ ,)/Kr] - S,/Kbc + So/Kb~ = S,/Ks~. (23) Multiplying by K r and rearranging terms gives

where SO and S, are defined in Fig. 5. The term So(Kr/K~J in eqn (25) is a constant, therefore, the form of the particular solution ~qwould also be a constant. By letting ~q equal a constant C and substituting S~ = C into eqn (25), the value of C can be found as
C = - F(Kr/Kbc)/(2 - fl).

(29)

S, +, - S,(2 + [Kr/KbJ + [Kr/K=]) + S,_l

=-So(Kr/Kbc).

(24)

Substituting eqn (29) with ~ = C into eqn (26) gives S~ = A2,~+ B22i - r(Kr/Kbc)/(2 - fl). (30)

Indexing this equation by one and letting fl equal the constant coefficient in parenthesis yields
S,+2 - flS,+, + S, = -So(Kr/Kbc ).

(25)

The homogeneous portion of eqn (25) can be written in the form of eqn (13), with the roots of the characteristic eqn 22 - 2fl + 1 found by eqn (14). The complete solution of the nonhomogeneous second order difference eqn (25) given as [13] Si = A21i + B22i + ~ (26)

The arbitrary constants A and B can be determined by utilizing the previously specified boundary condition of eqns (27) and (28). When this has been accomplished, eqn (30) is used to solve for the remaining values of S. These values are used in eqn (1) to determine the thread load P.
DISCUSSION

where ~ is any solution of the non-homogeneous equation, and 21,2 are roots of the characteristic

The spring models presented and their accompanying mathematical simulations provide a high degree of flexibility for modeling various thread configurations. These models are adaptable for a variety of thread profiles from Acme to Whitworth

Determination of load distribution in a threaded connection and also non-symmetrical type threads, e.g. buttress threads, under compression-or tension type loading conditions. This adaptability provides thorough coverage of conditions normally found in physical systems. One principal limitation of this spring model method is that the components must remain in the elastic region as the spring constants are determined from linear equations for deflection. Another limitation is the inability of the models to accommodate tapering threads. (As you move down the engaged length of thread from the first active thread, the pitch diameter changes as does the stiffness of the threads, body, and studs sections. If the stiffnesses change, the term fl of eqns (12) and (25) would not be a constant, thus invalidating the solution technique for the second order difference equations.) The simplifying assumptions such as friction is negligible, and the thread load is applied at the midpoint of the contact surface, along with the additional assumptions made in determining the spring constants, will all limit the overall accuracy in simulating a threaded connection. The degree to which these limitations and assumptions affect the accuracy of this analysis method will be evaluated in the next section by reviewing results from the literature and examining previous studies of thread connections.
CASE DESCRIPTIONS

427

The model was later sliced and photoelastic pictures were taken of the sections. The maximum stresses were determined from these pictures and were compared to the overall stress defined for each thread, a concentration factor k. The k factors indicate the magnitude of the load in each thread. With identical threads, the k factors are proportional to each other. It is with this premise that the load distribution in a conventional nut is interpreted (see [12] for more details). Case L Compression Case is also evaluated using a theoretical method developed by Sopwith[5] (see [12] for tabulation and details). The results for the photoelastic model, Sopwith's model, and the spring model for the same threaded connection are shown in Fig. 7. The load distribution results for each analysis are plotted as "percentage of the total load" transmitted in each thread versus "thread number i". The dimensional characteristics for the Whitworth thread were taken from [14] for a steel body and stud with a modulus of elasticity of 30 x 106 psi and a Poisson's ratio of 0.3. Case II. Compression condition The work of Stoeckly and Macke [4] will be used in Case II for comparison to the spring model for a compression type condition. Stoeckly and Macke determined the load distribution along the threads of a 2 in. dia. steel bolt having tapered and non-tapered nuts with American National eight-pitch threads. They also compared their results to a theoretical analysis based on the Sopwith method[4, 5]. The experimental approach by Stoeckly and Macke for determining the load distribution on the

In this section the procedures just developed will be used to determine load distribution in threaded connections previously ir~vestigated by experimental or analytical techniques. The resUlting load distribution will be compared and graphically presented. A computer program was developed to calculate the load distribution on the threaded portion of the connection. A more detailed description and listing of the program are given in [12]. The results for both the computer program and the previous work from [3-5] are tabulated in [12]. A total of 4 cases are examined in order to compare load distribution in tlrreaded connections. The first 2 cases represent the compression condition and the last 2 cases represent the tension condition. Case L Compression condition In this case, a 3-dimensional "stress freezing" method used by Hetrnyi[3] to investigate nut and bolt configurations will be utilized for comparison with the spring model. Hetrnyi modeled a conventional nut and 1 in. dia. bolt with standard Whitworth threads and 8 threads per inch were modeled in Bakelite. In a loaded condition, the model was annealed, by raising the temperature in about 3 hr to 120C, keeping it ~here for 1 hr, and then returning to room temperature. By this process, the elastic stresses and deformations produced at the elevated temperature became permanent, giving a solidified "frozen" pattern of the elastic stress distribution throughout the whole model.

25

20

I0-

I 2

J 3

I 4

i 5

I 6

I 7

I 8

Threod, i

Fig.. 7. Case I, Comparison of photoelastic, theoretical, and spring model of 1 in. dia. steel bolt and nut with 8 Whitworth threads/in. Compression condition with eight engaged threads. Photoelastic model A A, Theoretical O - - - O , Spring model . . . . .

428

D. L. MILLERet al. ically available finite element program called Ansys[15]. The results of the finite element analysis are compared to those from the spring model analysis. The axisymmetric model was constructed with Stiff 42 [15] 2-D isoparametric solid elements and Stiff 12 [15] 2-D interface elements. Both element types have axisymmetric options. The 2-D elements were used to model the stud, body and threads of the connection. The interface elements connected the two components at the threads and simulated the sliding of these surfaces. The interface elements are nonlinear, and the program requires an iterative solution where the stiffness matrix is reformulated after each iteration. The geometry of the axisymmetric model is that of a 1 in. nominal diameter, 8 UNC series, threaded section on the stud and body. The shank of the stud was cut back to the root diameter of the external threads. The outside diameter of the body is 1.5 in. with a height of 1.125 in. which permits a total of eight engaged threads. A load of 100 lbf was applied at the lower end of the stud shank by imposing a negative pressure. The body was fixed in the axial direction at its upper surface. Plots of the finite element model showing elements and nodes and a listing of the computer runs are given in [12]. The load distribution from the finite element analysis, the spring model analysis, and the theoretical analysis developed by Sopwith[5], are given in Fig. 9.
Case IV. Tension condition

threads involved measuring the axial displacement of the base of the threads on the bolt and the base threads on the nut. This was done at various axial positions. The axial thread displacements were converted to axial thread loads by coefficients determined from single and triple thread tests. The integrated total load determined from the thread deflections was compared to the measured total pull on the bolts by the test machine in order to check the accuracy of this method. The agreement obtained was claimed, and is reasonably good, particularly at the higher loads. The axial displacements of the threads were determined by drilling small exploratory holes to a depth close to the base of the threads in both the bolt and nut. Readings were taken with a dial indicator showing the change in distance from the top reference plate to the bottom of the particular hole. Repeated trials indicated that the accuracy of readings were in order of 0.0003 in. No permanent set was observed within the load range used. Stoeckly and Macke's measured load distribution and their accompanying theoretical distribution are used for comparison to the results from the spring model analysis. A mid range test load was used for comparison. The results from the spring model, Stoeckly and Macke's experiments, and Sopwith's theory, for a 2 in. dia., 8 UN stud and standard nut with 2 in. engagement are given in Fig. 8. The geometry for a 2 in. dia., 8 UN thread series was obtained from [14]. The material characteristics for a steel body and stud having a modulus of elasticity of 30 x l 0 6 psi and a Poisson's ratio of 0.3 were used.
Case I l L Tension condition

A tension case similar to that of Fig. 2 was examined using a finite element technique. An axisymmetric model was developed using a commer25

Using the previous finite element model of Case III, Case IV will investigate the load pattern in components of dissimilar materials. For this example, the body is an aluminum alloy with a modulus of elastiity of 14.8 x 106 psi and a Poisson's ratio of

z5 t
20-

I, i'\
IS-

20 11\\

i, "R ",~.'\,

,5-1 ~ \ x \\.?.
/.j. "-,'~-~,.--.~_..~ =._--::: ~ .-

/ /.:...

5--

I ~ I "
4

I ~ I ~ I ,', I ,'3 I ," I

8 I0 12 14 Thread, i

16

Thread, i

Fig. 8. Case II, Comparison of dial indication test rig, theoretical, and spring model of a 2 in. steel stud and nut with 8 UNC threads. Comparison condition with sixteen engaged threads. Dial indicator /~ A, Theoretical C)---Q), Spring model . . . . I .

Fig. 9. Case III, Comparison of finite element model, theoretical, and spring model of a l in. steel stud and body with 8 UNC threads. Tension condition with eight active threads. Finite element model /~ A, Theoretical C)---Q), Spring model Q . . . . O.

Determination of load distribution in a threaded connection 0.334. The model is identical to Case III except for these items. The results of the finite element analysis, the spring model analysis, and the theoretical analysis of Sopwith[5], are given in Fig. 10. Listings of computer results and Sopwith's theoretical results are given in [121.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

429

be an acceptable simplifying technique. The spring model does perform well utilizing that condition. A procedure has been presented for determining the load distribution along the threads given a configuration meeting the characteristics of either a compression or a tension case. These cases will adequately handle conditions normally found in threaded connections.
NOMENCLATURE

The results from the spring model analysis compare well in the cases examined, especially in Case I, with the 3-D photoelastic model. Also good comparison is obtained in Case II, with the dial indicator test results, and with Sopwith's theoretical results. For Cases III and IV, both tension conditions, the spring model analysis does not agree as well. With the other methods comparison is based on the premise that the other methods simulate the physical system with a higher degree of accuracy. This premise may not be correct as these other methods have inherent inaccuracies. A question that cannot be answered is, "which method produces correct results?". Each technique has its inaccuracies and shortcomings. The spring model analyses in all cases gave an excellent comparative indication of the load distribution. Although it was required that the connector materials remain in the elastic region, the spring models will accommodate a system that is experiencing slight local yielding at the root of the thread. These local high stress portions of the threads would have little effect on the overall displacements and therefore on the load distribution within the connection. This point was also brought out in Sopwith's research. Applying the thread loads at the midpoint of the thread contact surface was determined by Sopwith to
25

A, B, C F K~ K,c Kr

L n P S fl 6b~ 6~ fir ~-L2

Us

arbitrary constants applied stud load, external axial stiffness of body section between threads axial stiffness of stud section between threads composite spring constant which includes: K,t axial stiffness of stud thread in bending Kb, axial stiffness of body thread in bending Ks, axial stiffness of stud thread in shear Kbs axial stiffness of body thread in shear K,, radial stiffness of stud section Kbr radial stiffness of body section load on the body sections total number of active threads load on the threads, axial load on the stud sections absolute deflection of stud thread ring constant coefficient relative axial deflection of the springs with constant Ko~ relative axial deflection of Ks~ relative axial deflection of the springs with constant K r roots of the characteristic equation
REFERENCES

20-

15- xx,. i"

~ I0-

5-

, 2

, 3

, 4

; Threod~i

,
7'

, 8

Fig. I0. Case IV, Comparison of finite element model, theoretical, and spring model of a 1 in. steel stud and aluminum alloy body with 8 UNC threads. Tension condition with eight active threads. Finite element model

/~

A, Theoretical Q)---Q), Spring model . . . . 0 .

I. G. Gerbert, H. J6nsson, U. Persson and G. Stensson, J. Mech. Design, Trans. A S M E 100(2), 208-215 (1978). 2. K. M. Marshek, Mechanism and Machine Theory. 14, 135-139 (1979). 3. M. Hetrnyi, Trans. A S M E 65, A93-A100 (1943). 4. E. E. Stoeckly and H. J. Macke, Trans. A S M E 74(1), 103-112 (1952). 5. D. G. Sopwith, Inst. Mech. Engrs, Proc. 159(45), 373-383, 319-398 (1948). 6. J. N. Goodier, "The Distribution of Load on the Threads of SCrews", Trans. A S M E 62, AI0-A16 (1940). 7. I. M. Allison, Cong. Material Testing, 7th Lecture, Budapest, Hungary, Vol. 2, pp. 413-416 (1978). 8. R. B. Heywood, Designing By Photoelasticity. Chapman & Hall, London (1952). 9. R. B. Heywood, Designing Against Fatigue of Metals. Reinhold, New York (1962). 10. P. O'Hara, Proc. Army Syrup. Solid Mech. 1974. Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center, AMMRC MS 74-8, pp. 99-119 (1974). 11. J. L. Bretl and R. D. Cook, Int. J. Num. Methods Engng 14(9), 1359-1377 (1979). 12. D. L. Miller, Determination of Load Distribution in a Threaded Connection by Spring Model Analysis. M. S. Thesis, University of Houston (1982). 13. C. R. Wylie, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 4th Edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1975). 14. E. Oberg and F. D. Jones, Machinery's Handbook, 18th Edn Industrial Press, New York (1970). 15. G. J. Desalvo and J. A. Swanson, Ansys Engineering Analysis System User's Manual. Swanson Analysis Systems, Elizabeth, Pennsylvania (1972).

430

D . L . MILLER et al.

LA DETERMINATION

DE L A R E P A R T I T I O N

D'UNE

CHARGE

DANS

UN A S S E M B L A G E

FILETE

D.L.

Miller,

K.M.

Marshek,

M.R.

Naji

R~sum~ sur

Une

th~orie filet~e

nouvelle d'un

a ~t~

d~velopp~e Une

pour

pr~dire a ~t~

la r ~ p a r t i t i o n faite dans

de la c h a r g e

la p a r t i e le cas de

assemblage. (boulon

distinction et le cas

le d ~ v e l o p p e m e n t ~ vis). La r~sim-

entre

de c o m p r e s s i o n charge a ~t~ th~orie des

~ ~crou) des

de t e n s i o n

(tendeur

partition ples. ments iiorer filet.

d~crite a ~t~

par

dquations par une

aux d i f f e r e n c e s avec

du d e u x i ~ m e les analyses

ordre par

La n o u v e l l e finis et a v e c

v~rifi~e

comparaison

~l~am~ du

recherches

exp~rimentales le f i l e t a g e

et a n a l y t i q u e s par des

ant~rieures.

On p e u ~

la r ~ p a r t i t i o n

de c h a r g e

dans

modifications

de la g & o m ~ t r i e