Design Guidance for Bolted Joints

of Pultruded FRP Material

G.J. Turvey and P. Wang
Engineering Department, Lancaster
University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR.
6th CoSACNet Workshop, Warwick 11/09/02
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
Introductory Remarks
Failure Modes in Bolted Tension Joints
Stresses Adjacent to Bolt Holes
EUROCOMP Simplified Design Method (SDM) Assumptions
Material Property Requirements
Outline of Assessment Procedure
Dimensionless Stress Charts
Comparison of SDM Predictions with Test Results for
Single-Bolt Tension Joints
Concluding Remarks
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Two semi-empirical methods are presented in EUROCOMP
Design Code (EDC).
Simplified and Rigorous Design Methods (SDM & RDM).
Focus here on SDM.
Strictly speaking, SDM is not a design method.
SDM enables strength to be predicted for a limited range of
joint types.
Other methods have to be used to define/design joint
geometry.
SDM is Strength Assessment Component of an iterative
(trial and error) joint design process.
FAILURE MODES IN BOLTED TENSION JOINTS
F
r
N

F
c
F
s
F
t
Bearing
Cleavage
Shear out
Tension
Single-bolt joints in
EXTREN 500 Series 6.4
mm thick PFRP plate fail
in one of four modes.
Note: Dashed lines
denote failure planes.
FAILURE MODES IN BOLTED TENSION JOINTS
D
E
W
Failure
Mode
E/D W/D
Bearing 5 7
Cleavage 2 5
Shear 2 10
Tension 7 3


Failure mode is dependent on joint geometry, defined in
terms of E/D and W/D.
STRESSES ADJACENT TO BOLT HOLES
Three failure planes: bearing ( = 0
o
), tension ( = 90
o
) and
shear out.
Radial compressive stress is highest near to bearing failure
plane.
Note: Stress distribution shown corresponds to zero hole
clearance.
Tension
Failure Plane
Bearing
Failure Plane
Shear Out
Failure Plane
Bolt
F
r,s,t
F
r
Bearing Stress
Distribution
Bolt
F
r
STRESSES ADJACENT TO BOLT HOLES
Bolt
F
t
Tangential Stress
Distribution
Tangential tensile stress is highest near to tension failure
plane.
Shear stress reaches its peak value along shear out plane.
F
s
Shear Stress
Distribution
Bolt
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN METHOD (SDM)
ASSUMPTIONS
Bolts must be loaded in shear or tension.
Loading may be either concentric or eccentric in-plane.
Bolts are rigid in comparison to composite material.
Composite material is in state of plane stress.
Double-lap multi-bolt tension or compression joints are
practical types which may be assessed.
Failure arises in bearing, shear or tension mode when
stress due to bolt load exceeds material strength on one of
these failure planes.
MATERIAL PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS
PFRP material may be regarded as orthotropic. Properties
with respect to principal material axes (x, y) are sufficient to
enable SDM to be used.
EXTREN 500 Series 6.4mm thick plate.
Stiffness Properties:
E
x
= 15.2 GPa; E
y
= 11.1 GPa; G
xy
= 3.5 GPa

xy
= 0.3;
yx
= 0.22
Ultimate Tensile Strength Properties:

x
= 183 MPa;
y
= 83 MPa
MATERIAL PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS
Ultimate Strain Properties:
Tension

x
= 1.36%;
y
= 0.96%
Compression

x
= 1.1%;
y
= 1.7%
Shear

xy
= 3.6%
9 material properties required to apply SDM.
MATERIAL PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS
Where ultimate strains are unknown, EDC suggests:

t,crit
= 0.25% (tension)

c,crit
= 0.2% (compression)

s,crit
= 0.4% (shear)
Then only 4 elastic stiffnesses required.
OUTLINE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
P P
P/2
P/2
P
For a double-lap, multi-bolt, tension joint.
1. Use by-pass load tables in EDC (clause 5.2.2.4) to
determine load [F1a etc. (next slide)] on each bolt.
OUTLINE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
N

F1a
F1b
F2a
F2b
F3a
F3b
Domain 3a
2. Sub-divide joint into six domains one for each bolt.
OUTLINE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
4D
4D D
F
N

(a) (b)
(c)
3. Identify which of 6 basic load cases apply to each bolt domain.
[Note: Only 3 load cases shown - other 3 obtained by reversing
stresses/forces.]
4. For relevant load case, use dimensionless stress charts in EDC
to determine radial and tangential stresses around hole edge
and shear stresses along shear out planes.
OUTLINE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
5. Check radial, tangential and shear stresses less than or
equal to corresponding material design strengths at these
locations around hole edge and along shear out plane(s),
i.e.:
C
m
(
r
,

,
sn
)
s
(
r
,

,
sn
)
k
/
m
C
m
is correction factor for bolt bending, lack of stress
symmetry through the thickness etc.

m
is partial safety factor
( )
s
calculated values
( )
k
characteristic material strengths
Dimensionless radial stress chart corresponds to load case
(a). Note: S
b
= F/(Dt).
Three curves - two for unidirectional and one for quasi-
isotropic laminates.
In determining stress at any location () around hole, curve
which gives highest stress is used.

DIMENSIONLESS STRESS CHARTS

DIMENSIONLESS STRESS CHARTS
Similar charts given in EDC for tangential and shear stresses.
Dimensionless stress curve assumed unique for each
laminate.
Only true for open-hole (no bolt) case.
For filled or bolt-in-hole case, stress distributions depend on
magnitudes of applied load and hole clearance.
Clearance holes used in construction, but stress charts in
the EDC only valid for zero hole clearance.
DIMENSIONLESS STRESS CHARTS
Normalised Stress Chart (Radial)
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Degrees
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

R
a
d
i
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s
radial-20MPa
radial-40MPa
radial-60MPa
radial-80Mpa
radial-20MPa
radial-40MPa
radial-60MPa
radial-80Mpa
Dimensionless radial stresses adjacent to filled holes are
load dependent, even when the clearance is small (0.2
mm).
Hole clearance affects other stress distributions.
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
Single-bolt tension joint is equivalent to load case
(a).
No need to determine load share (by-pass) bolt
takes 100% of tensile load.
Strength of joint determined in three ways:-
1. Using stress charts given in EDC.
2. Using stress charts derived from ANSYS analysis
for zero hole clearance.
3. Using stress charts derived from ANSYS with
0.2mm hole clearance (as per joint tests).
4D
4D
D
F
N

(a)
Load case (a)
Stress factors determined from the dimensionless stress
charts:
Radial, tangential and shear stress factors determined from
EDC stress charts and charts derived from two types of
ANSYS FE analysis are given next:

,
, ,
; ;
s
r s sn s
r t s
b b b
K K K
S S S

= = =
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
EDC
0.60 0.4 2.80 0.00 90
0.62 0.3 0.65 1.10 45
0.59 0.2 1.60 1.35 0
K
s
x/D K
t
K
r

(degrees)
ANSYS (zero hole clearance)
0.51 0.4 1.93 0.00 90
0.54 0.3 0.40 0.93 45
0.52 0.2 0.05 0.75 0
K
s
x/D K
t
K
r

(degrees)
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
K
s
factor along shear plane varies between 0.4 and 0.5 with
increased stress.
ANSYS analysis with 0.2 mm hole clearance.
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90
0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 45
0.88 0.94 1.04 1.36 0
80 60 40 20

N
(MPa)

(deg.)
1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 90
0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 45
0.08 0.11 0.17 0.31 0
80 60 40 20

N
(MPa)

(deg.)
K
r
K
t
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
EXTREN 500 series PFRP properties, given on previous
slides, used to determine strengths at various
orientations ( ).
Setting strengths equal to stresses from stress charts (at
same orientations), failure loads in bearing, tension or
shear may be calculated.
Equations may be evaluated using K and values, given
earlier, to determine bearing (F
r
), tension (F
t
) and shear (F
s
)
failure loads at various orientations.
Lowest of calculated failure loads is joint failure load and failure
is in that mode.
,
, ,
,
s
r k
r
r
t k
t
t
s n k
s
D t
F
K
D t
F
K
D t
F
K

=
=
=
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
1. SDM predicts failure in tension at load of 4.3 kN.
Note: tension failure occurs on bearing plane.
13.4 0.4 4.7 90
13.0 0.3 6.4 9.4 45
13.7 0.2 7.9 4.3 0
Shear out
(kN)
x/D
Bearing
(kN)
Tension
(kN)

(degrees)
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
2. ANSYS for zero clearance case, predicted failure load is 6.9
kN, in tension mode.
15.8 0.4 6.9 90
14.9 0.3 7.6 15.3 45
15.5 0.2 14.3 137 0
Shear out
(kN)
x/D
Bearing
(kN)
Tension
(kN)

(degrees)
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
Upper table gives
ANSYS bearing failure
loads at various
locations (0.2 mm
clearance).
Lower table gives
corresponding tension
failure loads.
Shear out failure loads
not given here.
3. Predicted failure load is
7.0 kN and failure mode
is bearing.
90
7.0 7.0 7.0
8.2 45
12.2 11.5 10.3 7.9 0
80 60 40 20

N
(MPa)
(deg)
7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 90
18.5 18.8 18.8 12.1 45
85.4 62.1 39.6 22.2 0
80 60 40 20

N
(MPa)
(deg)
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
Predicted failure loads substantially lower than damage and
ultimate failure loads observed in joint tests.
Using EDC stress charts failure predicted at about one-third of
lowest failure load observed in joint tests. Moreover, location of
the predicted failure mode is incorrect!
13.7
13.7
Tension
27.8 24.0
Shear out
27.3 27.3
Cleavage
7.0
(bearing
at 45
o
)
6.9
(tension
at 90
o
)
4.3
(tension
at 0
o
)
17.7 13.3
Bearing
ANSYS
Failure Load
[0.2mm]
(kN)
ANSYS
Failure Load
[0mm]
(kN)
EDC Failure
Load
(kN)
Ultimate
Failure Load
(kN)
Damage
Load
(kN)
Actual Mode
of Failure of
Test Joint
COMPARISON OF SDM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST
RESULTS FOR SINGLE-BOLT TENSION JOINTS
SDM failure load predictions using stress charts, based on
ANSYS analysis, are 60 85% higher than those predicted
with EDC stress charts.
Failure modes and locations obtained using ANSYS stress
charts appear to be consistent.
Failure loads predicted using ANSYS stresses still only
about 50% of lowest joint failure loads.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SDM has been used to predict failure loads observed in
single-bolt tension joint tests.
Where hole clearance is present, stress charts used with
SDM are inaccurate stresses depend on magnitudes of
applied load and hole clearance.
ANSYS analysis was used to generate stress charts
accounting for effects of applied load and hole clearance.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SDM was used to predict joint failure load with improved
stress charts.
Predicted joint failure load increased by about 50%.
SDM predicts very conservative failure load for double-
lap, single-bolt tension joint in PFRP.
SDM does not take account of joint geometry, and may
predict wrong failure mode, e.g. tension failure on
bearing plane.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SDM requires material property data which is not always
available.
More research needed to develop practical methods for
predicting failure loads of bolted joints used in
infrastructure applications. Until they emerge full-scale
testing will remain preferred method of determining joint
strength.
HART-SMITH DESIGN APPROACH
Aerospace application since 1970s
Semi-empirical method giving semi-universal design charts
Valid for bearing and tensile modes of failure
Based on correlating theoretical stress concentration factors for
elastic isotropic materials to equivalent experimentally-derived
factors when material is orthotropic and mode of failure is net-
tension
For multi-row joints it is assumed that there is linear
superposition of bearing and tensile stress concentrations! Need
to know by-pass load (use FEA).
Requires a lot of information on mechanical properties and joint
strengths for a range of configurations (such as by varying plate
orientation, E/D, W/D, hole clearance, etc.)
HART-SMITH APPROACH JOINT TYPE A
Joint Type A - One column with two rows (12)
PFRP has Longitudinal orientation
SI project gave mean joint strengths for 12 geometries
and four environmental conditions (48 different groups)
Determine correlation coefficient for each group for each
environmental condition
Method does not account for different P/D or E/D ratios
Use conservative data to construct design charts
For RT (dry material as received) there are independent joint type A
test results from Canada. Plate material, bolt diameter, bolt torque,
clearance hole size are all different.
W
E
P
D
HART-SMITH APPROACH JOINT TYPE A
1x2 joints at RT and dry
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Ratio of bolt diameter to plate width D/W

R
a
t
i
o

o
f

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

j
o
i
n
t

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

t
o

b
a
s
i
c

p
l
a
t
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

P
/
(
F
t
u
*
W
*
t
)
SI project joint
test data
SI project joint
test data
SI project joint
test data
Canadian joint
test data
F
br
= 340 MPa
No tension
failure
Bearing failure
Tension
failure
Tension control
F
tu
= 183 MPa
Bearing control
Design envelope
W
E
P
D
1x2 joints at RT and wet (1000hrs)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Ratio of bolt diameter to plate width D/W

R
a
t
i
o

o
f

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

j
o
i
n
t

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

t
o

b
a
s
i
c

p
l
a
t
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

P
/
(
F
t
u
*
W
*
t
)
SI project joint
test data
SI project joint
test data
SI project joint
test data
F
br
= 290 MPa
F
tu
= 148 MPa
No tension
failure
Bearing failure
Tension
failure
Tension control
Bearing control
Design envelope
HART-SMITH APPROACH JOINT TYPE A
W
E
P
D
DESIGN APPROACHES - OBSERVATIONS
Preliminary studies indicate that we can use SIMPLE and
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY design approaches.
From limited joint test data the Hart-Smith approach can provide
load design charts which have semi-universal application. For a
joint type it may be possible to form a single chart that allows for
different environmental conditioning.
Knock-down factors require joint test data and will be limited to
similar (or same) joint parameters and environmental conditioning.
Knock-down factors are to be recommended until other design
approaches are shown to be reliable and generic.