Tese Jose Henriques

Departamento de Engenharia Civil
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia

Universidade de Coimbra
DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS IN SHEAR

BOLTED CONNECTIONS
by
José Alexandre Gouveia Henriques
Dissertação para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Engenharia Civil

Especialização de Estruturas
Autor
José Alexandre Gouveia Henriques
FCTUC
Orientador
Prof. Doutor Jean-Pierre Jaspart
ULG
Co-orientador
Prof. Doutor Luís Alberto P. Simões da Silva
FCTUC
Novembro de 2007
To my parents
III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis is the outcome of research work realized at the University of Liège.
Therefore, before all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors and
friends Prof. L. Simões da Silva and Prof. J.P. Jaspart, who made this excellent and
gratifying experience possible. I cannot forget their contribution to this work through
their guidance, encouragement and critique.
For sharing their experimental data and results, which were very useful, I express my
thanks to: Prof. F. S. K. Bijlaard and Peter de Viers from Delft University of
Technology; Prof. Darko Beg and Primož Može from the University of Ljubljana.
A great part of this work involved the use of LAGAMINE code, software developed at
the ArGEnCo Department of the University of Liège, maintained in progress by the
“LAGAMINE group”. I would like to thank them for the assistance given, in particular
Mrs. A. M. Habraken, C. Henrard and F. Pascon.
To Mr. E. Piraprez I thank for sharing his knowledge and for all the documents he
provided.
I should also like to thank L. Ly for all his contribution in the analysis of the numerical
results and for the advice.
I wish to thank my colleagues, N. Boissonade and J. F. Demonceau, that through an

indirect way helped by sharing their experiences.
Finally, a special word of gratitude to my family and friends, for their support and
friendship.
V
ABSTRACT
This thesis presents ductility requirements for actual shear bolted connections. The
presence of imperfections in the fabrication process (as bolt diameter, hole diameter,
bolt alignment,…) can lead to situations where some bolts bear against the plates before
the others due to misalignment. The global behaviour of the connection is then affected
and more deformation capacity is therefore required locally.
With the purpose to evaluate the imperfections in bolted connections, analytical work,
based on the standards for execution of steel structures was done and the so-called
“worst” situations (layouts) were defined. From these, maximum gaps between the bolt
and the hole edges were obtained and used to determine the new demands of ductility.
The component approach prescribed by Eurocode 3 part 1.8 was applied in the analysis
of the connections. Three basic components were identified: the plate in tension, the
bolt in shear and the plate/bolt in bearing. The bolt in shear and the plate/bolt in bearing
were assembled and treated as the equivalent bolt zone component. The presented work
is focussed in the equivalent bolt zone component.
Parallel to the analysis of the global behaviour of the connections, work was done on
the basic components. Based in experimental work, formulae to express the behaviour
and to determine deformation capacity of the bolt in shear component were derived. A
numerical model to evaluate the plate/bolt in bearing component is also presented.
Experiments on shear bolted connections made of High Strength Steel were used to
validate the model.
Analytical work was done in the assembly of the basic components and formulae to
evaluate the available and the required deformation capacity, at the equivalent
component for a full plastic resistance of the connection, are proposed.
Finally, a ductility criterion for actual shear bolted connections, based on the local
(equivalent bolt zone component) available and required deformation capacity, was
derived.
VII
Resumo
Esta tese apresenta requisitos de ductilidade para ligações aparafusadas sujeitas a corte.
A presença de imperfeições devido ao processo de fabrico (diâmetro do parafusos,
diâmetro dos furos, posicionamento dos parafusos,…) pode conduzir a situações onde
alguns dos parafusos entram em contacto com a(s) placa(s) antes dos restantes devido à
falta de ajuste. O comportamento global da ligação é assim afectado e maior capacidade
de deformação é requerida localmente.
Com o propósito de avaliar as imperfeições em ligações aparafusadas, e de acordo com
as normas para a execução de estruturas de aço, foi realizado trabalho analítico para
determinar as situações (“Layouts”) mais desfavoráveis. Com base nestas, as folgas
máximas, entre parafuso e bordo do(s) furo(s), foram estabelecidas.
Na análise das ligações foi aplicado o método das componentes prescrito pelo
Eurocódigo 3 parte 1.8. Três componentes básicas foram identificadas: a placa à tracção,
o parafuso ao corte e a placa/parafuso ao esmagamento. O parafuso ao corte e a
placa/parafuso ao esmagamento foram agrupados e tratados como a componente
equivalente. O presente estudo centra-se nesta componente.
Paralelamente à análise do comportamento global da ligação, foi realizado trabalho ao
nível das componentes básicas. A partir de trabalhos experimentais, foram deduzidas
fórmulas para traduzir o comportamento e determinar a capacidade de deformação de
parafusos sujeitos ao esforço de corte. Igualmente, é proposto um modelo numérico para
avaliar a componente placa/parafuso ao esmagamento, o qual foi validado através do
uso de trabalhos experimentais em ligações aparafusadas sujeitas a corte feitas de aço de
alta resistência (HSS).
Com o objectivo de analisar e deduzir fórmulas para avaliar a capacidade de
deformação disponível e requerida ao nível da componente equivalente, e de forma a se
obter a resistência plástica da ligação, foi realizada o estudo do agrupamento das
componentes básicas.
Finalmente, é proposto um critério de ductilidade, para ligações aparafusadas sujeitas a
corte, baseado na capacidade de deformação disponível e na deformação requerida
localmente (componente equivalente).
IX
Résumé
Cette thèse présente les exigences de ductilité pour des assemblages boulonnés soumis
au cisaillement. La présence d’imperfections dues au processus de fabrication (diamètre
des boulons, diamètre des trous, positionnement des boulons,…) peut entraîner un
désalignement des boulons, ce qui peut conduire à des situations où quelques boulons
sont prématurément en contact avec les plaques.
Ayant comme but d’évaluer les imperfections, et en accord avec les normes pour
l’exécution des structures en acier, un travail analytique a été réalisé pour déterminer les
situations (‘‘Layouts’’) les plus défavorables. Les jeux maximaux entre le fût boulon et
le trou ont été établis sur base de ces situations.
Dans l’analyse des assemblages, la méthode des composants prescrite par l’Eurocode 3
partie 1.8 a été utilisée. Trois composants ont été identifiés: la plaque en traction, le
boulon cisaillé et la pression diamétrale plaque/boulon. Le boulon cisaillé et la pression
diamétrale plaque/boulon ont été assemblés et traités comme un composant équivalent.
Ce travail se concentre sur ce composant.
Parallèlement à l’analyse du comportement global des assemblages, une analyse des
composants basiques a été réalisée. À partir de travaux expérimentaux, des formules
pour traduire le comportement et déterminer la capacité des boulons soumis au
cisaillement ont été déduites et sont présentées dans cette thèse. Un modèle numérique
pour évaluer le composant pression diamétrale plaque/boulon est proposé. Ce modèle a
été validé par les travaux expérimentaux avec assemblages boulonnés cisaillés fait
d’acier de haute résistance (HSS).
Dans le but d’analyser et de déduire les formules, que évaluent la capacité de
déformation disponible et exigée pour obtenir une résistance plastique de l’assemblage,
une étude au niveau de l’assemblage des composants basiques a été réalisée.
Enfin, un critère de ductilité pour assemblages boulonnés cisaillés est proposé basé sur
la capacité de déformation disponible et sur la déformation exigée localement
(composant équivalent).
XI
table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................3
1.1 General considerations.......................................................................................................................3
1.2 Objectives of the thesis ......................................................................................................................5
1.3 Thesis Structure .................................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2 – EUROCODE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED CONNECTIONS IN

SHEAR ........................................................................................................................................................9
2.1 General considerations.......................................................................................................................9
2.2 Categories of bolted connections .......................................................................................................9
2.3 Failure modes in bolted shear connections ......................................................................................10
2.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................10
2.3.2 Shear failure of the bolt ...........................................................................................................10
2.3.3 Bearing failure.........................................................................................................................11
2.3.4 Shear failure of the plate..........................................................................................................12
2.3.5 Tension failure of the plate ......................................................................................................12
2.3.6 Eurocode considerations..........................................................................................................13
2.4 Evaluation of the basic and equivalent components ........................................................................13
2.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................13
2.4.2 Basic components.....................................................................................................................14
2.4.2.1 Bolt in shear ..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.2.2 Plate/bolt in bearing.......................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2.3 Plate in Tension ................................................................................................................................ 19
2.4.3 Equivalent component..............................................................................................................20
2.5 Design resistance of a group of fasteners ........................................................................................20
2.6 Long Joints ......................................................................................................................................23
2.7 Final considerations .........................................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 3 – EVALUATION OF THE IMPERFECTIONS/LACK OF FIT .................................27

3.1 General Considerations....................................................................................................................27
3.2 Normative and practical information on tolerances .........................................................................28
3.3 Reference case study........................................................................................................................30
3.4 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................30
3.5 Possible connection layouts .............................................................................................................31
3.5.1 Bolt and Hole diameters ..........................................................................................................31
3.5.2 Deviation definition .................................................................................................................32
3.5.3 Connection layout ....................................................................................................................33
3.5.4 Extension for double overlap connections ...............................................................................34
3.6 Extension to other cases...................................................................................................................36
3.6.1 M12 and M14 bolts ..................................................................................................................36
3.6.2 M27 and bigger bolts ...............................................................................................................39
3.7 Final considerations .........................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 4 – RESPONSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS..............................................45

4.1 General considerations.....................................................................................................................45
4.2 Derivation of design expressions to characterize the mechanical properties of bolts in shear.........45
XIII
table of contents
4.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................45

4.2.2 Assumptions and definition of the main mechanical properties of a bolt in shear...................46
4.2.3 Description of available tests...................................................................................................48
4.3.4 Derivation of unknown behavioural parameters .....................................................................51
4.2.4 Suggested approximate behavioural laws................................................................................56
4.3 Numerical model to evaluate the plate/bolt in bearing component..................................................59
4.3.1 Mechanical properties of the Steel – Large deformations field ...............................................59
4.3.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 59
4.3.1.2 Usual material characterization – Nominal Stress/Strain Curve ....................................................... 60
4.3.1.3 Correction of the materials behaviour – True Stress/Strain curves................................................... 61
4.3.1.4 Behaviour after necking ................................................................................................................... 65
4.3.1.5 The damage of the material .............................................................................................................. 67
4.3.1.6 Proposed constitutive law................................................................................................................. 67
4.3.2 Experimental work ...................................................................................................................69
4.3.2.1 Scope of the experimental research .................................................................................................. 69
4.3.2.1.1 Tests made at Delft University of Technology......................................................................... 69
4.3.2.1.2 Tests made at Ljubljana University.......................................................................................... 69
4.3.2.2 Material properties of the specimens ................................................................................................ 70
4.3.2.2.1 Delft steel properties ................................................................................................................ 70
4.3.2.2.2 Ljubljana steel properties ......................................................................................................... 70
4.3.2.2.3 Comparison of both corrections ............................................................................................... 71
4.3.2.3 Specimens configuration .................................................................................................................. 72
4.3.2.3.1 Delft Specimens ....................................................................................................................... 72
4.3.2.3.2 Ljubljana Specimens ................................................................................................................ 73
4.3.2.4 Experimental procedure.................................................................................................................... 75
4.3.2.4.1 Delft Tests ................................................................................................................................ 75
4.3.2.4.2 Ljubljana tests .......................................................................................................................... 76
4.3.2.5 Test results ....................................................................................................................................... 76
4.3.2.5.1 Delft results .............................................................................................................................. 76
4.3.2.5.2 Ljubljana results....................................................................................................................... 78
4.3.2.5.3 Commentary to the presented results ....................................................................................... 81
4.3.3 Numerical model......................................................................................................................83
4.3.3.1 Software used ................................................................................................................................... 84
4.3.3.2 Idealised model ................................................................................................................................ 84
4.3.3.3 FEM model....................................................................................................................................... 84
4.3.3.4 Extrapolation of results..................................................................................................................... 86
4.3.3.5 Evolution of the numerical model .................................................................................................... 87
4.3.3.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 87
4.3.3.5.2 Constitutive law ....................................................................................................................... 88
4.3.3.5.3 Bolt model................................................................................................................................ 90
4.3.3.5.4 Confinement effect................................................................................................................... 93
4.3.3.5.5 Friction coefficient ................................................................................................................... 97
4.3.3.6 Final model....................................................................................................................................... 98
4.3.3.7 Strain at failure ................................................................................................................................. 98
4.3.3.8 Validation of the proposed numerical model.................................................................................... 99
4.3.3.8.1 Delft specimens........................................................................................................................ 99
4.3.3.8.2 Ljubljana specimens............................................................................................................... 102
4.3.4 Comparison of the numerical model with EC3 approach ......................................................104
4.3.4.1 EC3 approach ................................................................................................................................. 104
4.3.4.2 Comparison .................................................................................................................................... 104
4.3.5 Comparison with analytical model derived for the evaluation of the initial stiffness of shear
bolted connections in timber structures ..........................................................................................106
4.3.5.1 Ly’s analytical model ..................................................................................................................... 107
4.3.5.2 Comparison between the numerical and the analytical model........................................................ 107
4.4 Plate in tension component ............................................................................................................108
4.5 Final Considerations ......................................................................................................................109
XIV
table of contents
CHAPTER 5 – ASSEMBLY OF THE BASIC COMPONENTS .......................................................113

5.1 General Considerations..................................................................................................................113
5.2 Evaluation of the available deformation capacity of the equivalent bolt zone component............113
5.2.1 The mechanical behaviour of each component ......................................................................114
5.2.1.1 Individual components ................................................................................................................... 114
5.2.1.2 Equivalent component.................................................................................................................... 115
5.2.2 Derivation of analytical expression to determine the available deformation capacity in the
equivalent bolt zone component......................................................................................................116
5.3 Derivation of analytical expressions to determine the required deformation capacity in actual shear
bolted connections ...............................................................................................................................120
5.3.1 Shear bolted connections with fitted bolts .............................................................................120
5.3.1.1 Elastic distribution of internal forces.............................................................................................. 121
5.3.1.2 Required deformation capacity....................................................................................................... 123
5.3.2 Numerical model....................................................................................................................124
5.3.2.1 The software - FinelG code ............................................................................................................ 124
5.3.2.2 Description of the numerical model ............................................................................................... 124
5.3.3 Validation of numerical model...............................................................................................127
5.3.3.1 Connections with fitted bolts.......................................................................................................... 127
5.3.3.1.1 Studied cases .......................................................................................................................... 127
5.3.3.1.2 Comparison of results ............................................................................................................ 129
5.3.3.1.2.1 Elastic distribution of forces .......................................................................................... 129
5.3.3.1.2.2 Required deformation capacity ...................................................................................... 131
5.3.3.2 Actual connections – 2 bolt rows.................................................................................................... 132
5.3.3.2.1 Required deformation capacity - Theoretical formula............................................................ 133
5.3.3.2.2 Studied cases .......................................................................................................................... 133
5.3.3.2.3 Required deformation – Comparison of results...................................................................... 134
5.3.4 Derivation of formulae for the required deformation capacity in actual shear bolted
connections .....................................................................................................................................135
5.3.4.1 Analytical analysis ......................................................................................................................... 135
5.3.4.1.1 Case A - Gap in just one bolt row .......................................................................................... 135
5.3.4.1.1.1 Case A1 - Gap in bolt zone number 1 ............................................................................ 136
5.3.4.1.2 Case B - Gap in four bolt rows............................................................................................... 140
5.3.4.1.2.1 Case B1 - Same gap in bolt zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 ............................................................. 140
5.3.4.1.2.2 Case B2 - Different gaps in all the bolt zones ................................................................ 142
5.3.4.2 Comparison between the analytical formulae and the numerical model......................................... 144
5.3.4.2.1 Required deformation............................................................................................................. 144
5.3.4.2.2 Plastic Deformation................................................................................................................ 148
5.3.4.2.3 Localization of the gap........................................................................................................... 149
5.3.4.3 Proposed formula ........................................................................................................................... 153
5.3.5 Generalization of the derived formula ...................................................................................153
5.3.5.1 Proposed formula ........................................................................................................................... 153
5.3.5.2 Validation of the proposed formula ................................................................................................ 153
5.4 Final Considerations ......................................................................................................................156
CHAPTER 6 – DERIVATION OF DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SHEAR BOLTED

CONNECTIONS ....................................................................................................................................161
6.1 General considerations...................................................................................................................161
6.2 Available and required deformation capacities..............................................................................162
6.2.1 Available deformation capacity .............................................................................................162
6.2.2 Required deformation capacity..............................................................................................165
6.3 Evolution of the criterion to define ductility requirements in shear bolted connections................166
XV
table of contents
6.3.1 Required Ductility: comparison between fitted bolts connections and actual connections ...166
6.3.2 Ductility levels .......................................................................................................................169
6.3.3 Fundamental parameters to express the criterion .................................................................170
6.3.3.1 Available and required deformation capacity ................................................................................. 171
6.3.3.2 Resistance of the basic components ............................................................................................... 171
6.4 Parametric analysis ........................................................................................................................174
6.4.1 Plates thickness, t...................................................................................................................174
6.4.2 Hole spacing, end and edge distance, e1, e2, p1, p2.................................................................175
6.4.3 Plates width, b........................................................................................................................178
6.4.4 Steel Grade ............................................................................................................................178
6.4.5 Bolt and hole diameter, d and d0............................................................................................179
6.4.6 Number of bolt rows and bolt lines, n1 and n2 .......................................................................180
6.5 Ductility criterion...........................................................................................................................181
6.6 Application of the ductility criterion..............................................................................................182
6.7 Final considerations .......................................................................................................................185
CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................189

CHAPTER 8 – FURTHER WORKS....................................................................................................195
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................199
ANNEX I – LY’S ANALYTICAL MODEL TO PREDICT THE INITIAL BEARING STIFFNESS
..................................................................................................................................................................205
I.1 Elastic theory of anisotropic plates, plane stress state ....................................................................205
I.1.1 Generation of the plane state of stresses ................................................................................205
I.1.2 Generation of the Airy’s function ...........................................................................................207
I.1.3 Calculation of stresses from Airy’s function...........................................................................208
I.1.4 Plate with a hole in the middle on which one imposes efforts ................................................209
I.2 Application .....................................................................................................................................211
I.2.1 Case in study...........................................................................................................................211
I.2.2 Problem analysis ....................................................................................................................211
I.3 Remark ...........................................................................................................................................213
I.4 Application of the model to Delft specimen A2020 .......................................................................213
ANNEX II - DERIVATION OF ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION TO DETERMINE THE

AVAILABLE DEFORMATION CAPACITY IN THE EQUIVALENT BOLT ZONE
COMPONENT........................................................................................................................................215
II.1 Equal behaviour of the plates ........................................................................................................215
II.1.1 Case 1 - Rb > 1.25 R p ,b .....................................................................................................215
II.1.2 Case 2 - R p ,b > αRb ...........................................................................................................217
II.1.3 Case 3 - 1 ≤ Rb R p ,b ≤ 1.25 ............................................................................................218
II.1.4 Case 4 - 1 ≤ R p ,b Rb ≤ α .................................................................................................219
II.2 Plates with different behaviour .....................................................................................................220
II.2.1 Case 5 - Rb > 1.25 R p ,b1 and R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 ............................................................221
II.2.2 Case 6 - R p ,b 2 > α Rb and R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 ................................................................222
II.2.3 Case 7 - Rb > 1.25 R p ,b1 and 1.25 R p ,b 2 ≥ R p ,b1 ≥ R p ,b 2 .............................................223
XVI
table of contents
II.2.4 Case 8 - R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 and 1.25 R p ,b 2 ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b 2 .............................................223
XVII
list of figures
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1 – a) Examples of shear bolted connections; b) single and double overlap connections. ........3
CHAPTER 2 – EUROCODE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED CONNECTIONS IN

SHEAR
Figure 2.1 – Bearing type bolted connections........................................................................................10
Figure 2.2 – Shear plane on a bolt. ........................................................................................................11
Figure 2.3 – Bearing deformation: a) in the plate; b) in the bolt (b)......................................................11
Figure 2.4 - a) Shear forces in the plate; b) shear failure. ......................................................................12
Figure 2.5 – Tension failure...................................................................................................................12
Figure 2.6 – a) Shear connection with three bolt rows; b) Mechanical model of behaviour. ................13
Figure 2.7 – Simplified mechanical model. ...........................................................................................13
Figure 2.8 – Components response: a) basic component; b) equivalent bolt zone component..............14
Figure 2.9 - Shear path, bearing and tension zone in bearing connections. ...........................................15
Figure 2.10 – Symbols for spacing of fasteners.....................................................................................16
Figure 2.11 – a) αb versus e1 and p1; b) k1 versus e2 and p2...................................................................17
Figure 2.12 – kb versus e1 and p1. ..........................................................................................................18
Figure 2.13 - Concentration of stresses in the vicinity of the hole.........................................................19
Figure 2.14 - Elastic distribution of forces. ...........................................................................................21
Figure 2.15 – a) None of the bolt rows yield; b) outsider bolt rows yield (elastic resistance of the
connection); c) the following bolt rows yield; d) the remaining bolt row yield (full plastic resistance of
the connection). .....................................................................................................................................22
Figure 2.16 – Application of the design resistance of a group of fasteners given in clause 3.7(1) of the
Part 1.8 of EC3. .....................................................................................................................................23
Figure 2.17 - Length Lj. .........................................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 3 – EVALUATION OF THE IMPERFECTIONS/LACK OF FIT

Figure 3.1 - Type of studied connection under study.............................................................................30
Figure 3.2 - Legend of the colours used in subsequent drawings. .........................................................31
Figure 3.3 - Maximum and minimum gaps for a M16 bolt. ..................................................................32
Figure 3.4 - Deviation definition. ..........................................................................................................32
Figure 3.5 - Layout for a connection with 2 bolts and 2 plates..............................................................33
Figure 3.10 - Layout for a connection with 4 bolts and 3 plates............................................................36
Figure 3.11 - Minimum and maximum gaps for one bolt with hole clearance of 1 mm for a M12 bolt.
...............................................................................................................................................................37
Figure 3.13. Layout for a connection with 3 bolts and 2 plates. ............................................................38
XIX
list of figures

Figure 3.15 - Maximum and minimum gaps for a M27 bolt. ................................................................39
CHAPTER 4 – RESPONSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS

Figure 4.1 – Generic tri-linear law applied to bolt behaviour................................................................46
Figure 4.2 – Scheme of the test layout...................................................................................................49
Figure 4.3 – Experimental curves for bolt grade 5.8..............................................................................49
Figure 4.4 – Experimental curves for bolt grade 8.8..............................................................................50
Figure 4.5 – Experimental curves for High Strength bolts. ...................................................................50
Figure 4.6 – Experimental and derived curves for bolt grade 5.8..........................................................56
Figure 4.7 – Experimental and derived curves for bolt grade 8.8..........................................................57
Figure 4.8 – Experimental and derived curves for High Strength bolts.................................................57
Figure 4.9 – Tension test. ......................................................................................................................60
Figure 4.10 – Nominal stress-strain curve. ............................................................................................61
Figure 4.11 – Comparison between true and nominal stress-strain curves. ...........................................62
Figure 4.12 – Scheme of a bar subjected to a tension test. ....................................................................63
Figure 4.13 – Necking phenomenon......................................................................................................65
Figure 4.14 – Scheme of the formation and propagation of voids.........................................................67
Figure 4.15 – Scheme of the evolution of the mechanical behaviour of a steel bar in a tension test. ....68
Figure 4.16 – Proposed curve for the constitutive law modelling. ........................................................68
Figure 4.17 – Nominal and true stress-strain curves for the material used in Delft...............................70
Figure 4.18 – Extraction location of the samples used in the tension tests............................................71
Figure 4.19 – nominal and true stress-strain curves from material used in Ljubljana. ..........................71
Figure 4.20 – Notation and specimen geometry. Delft tests. .................................................................72
Figure 4.21 – Notation and specimen’s geometry. Ljubljana tests. .......................................................73
Figure 4.22 – Delft’s test layout. ...........................................................................................................75
Figure 4.23 – Delft’s test set- up............................................................................................................75
Figure 4.24 – Ljubljana’s test layout. ....................................................................................................76
Figure 4.25 – Ljubljana’s test set-up. ....................................................................................................76
Figure 4.26 – Results of all the tested specimens from Delft. ...............................................................77
Figure 4.27 – Failure in three of the tested specimens...........................................................................78
Figure 4.28 – Test results of specimens B101 to B117..........................................................................80
Figure 4.29 – Tests results of specimens B118 to B125........................................................................80
Figure 4.30 – Failure in three of the tested specimens...........................................................................81
Figure 4.31 – Damage and crack initiation of specimens A2020 and A1020........................................82
Figure 4.32 – Damage and crack initiation of specimens B110 and B113. ...........................................82
Figure 4.33 – Specimen showing great deformation in the fractured zone............................................83
Figure 4.34 – Idealised model................................................................................................................84
Figure 4.35 – Mesh of the simulated plate.............................................................................................85
Figure 4.36 – 8 nodes brick element......................................................................................................85
XX
list of figures
Figure 4.37 – 4 nodes plane element. ....................................................................................................86

Figure 4.38 – Dimensions of the physical model (A2020 Specimen). ..................................................87
Figure 4.39 – Illustration of all the three constitutive laws....................................................................88
Figure 4.40 – Comparison between the different constitutive laws modelled. ......................................89
Figure 4.41 – a) Von Mises equivalent stress distribution – A2020_Nominal. b) Von Mises equivalent
strain distribution – A2020_Nominal. ...................................................................................................90
Figure 4.42 – Comparison between the two models, Corrected 1 and Corrected 2 (bearing deformation).
...............................................................................................................................................................90
Figure 4.43 – Bolt model. ......................................................................................................................91
Figure 4.44 – Comparison between the rigid and the flexible bolt models............................................92
Figure 4.45 – Distribution of stresses in the two models for two different load levels..........................93
Figure 4.46 – Deformation of the bolt at two different load levels........................................................93
Figure 4.47 – Localization of the nodes blocked in the model with rigid confinement.........................94
Figure 4.48 – Model with cover plate....................................................................................................95
Figure 4.49 – Scheme of the confinement effect given by the bolts head. ............................................95
Figure 4.50 – Comparison of the three models to study the confinement effect....................................96
Figure 4.51 – Plates deformation: a) Model without any confinement; b) Model with “rigid”
confinement; c) Model with confinement modelled with the cover plate..............................................97
Figure 4.52 – Load-displacement curve for four different values of the friction coefficient.................97
Figure 4.53 – Identification of the maximum equivalent strain in the load-displacement curves. ........99
Figure 4.54 – Load-displacement curves for A1210 specimen............................................................100
Figure 4.55 – a) Failure of the tested specimen A1210_2; b) Deformation of the numerical model
A1210 at point A in Figure 4.54. .........................................................................................................100
Figure 4.57– a) Failure of the tested specimen A1212_1; b) Deformation of the numerical model
Figure 4.59 – a) Failure of the tested specimen A1215_3; b) Deformation of the numerical model
Figure 4.60 – Load-displacement curves for B110 specimen..............................................................102
Figure 4.61 – a) Failure of the tested specimen B110; b) Deformation of the numerical model B110 at
point A in Figure 4.60..........................................................................................................................102
Figure 4.63 – a) Failure of the tested specimen B113; b) Deformation of the numerical model B113 at
point A in Figure 4.62..........................................................................................................................103
Figure 4.65 – Deformation of the numerical model B117 at point A in Figure 4.63...........................104
Figure 4.66 - Comparison using specimen A1212: a) numerical model and EC3 approach; b)
expression (4.45) and experiments. .....................................................................................................105
Figure 4.67 – Comparison using specimen A1215: a) numerical model and EC3 approach; b)
Figure 4.68 – Comparison using specimen A2020: a9 numerical model and EC3 approach; b)
XXI
list of figures
Figure 4.69 - Distribution of stresses consider in Ly’s Model.............................................................107

Figure 4.70 – Comparison between Ly’s analytical model and the numerical model. ........................108
Figure 4.71 – Numerical results by varying d0. ...................................................................................108
CHAPTER 5 – ASSEMBLY OF THE BASIC COMPONENTS

Figure 5.1 – Generic behaviour assumed for the bolt in shear and plate/bolt in bearing basic
components..........................................................................................................................................114
Figure 5.2 – Available deformation (δav) for case 1.............................................................................116
Figure 5.3 – Forces distribution in a double overlap connection. ........................................................117
Figure 5.4 – Elastic distribution of forces in shear bolted connections. ..............................................120
Figure 5.5 – Elastic distribution of internal forces in a connection with 3 bolt rows. .........................121
Figure 5.6 - Elastic distribution of internal forces in connections with 5 and 8 bolt rows...................122
Figure 5.7 – FinelG numerical model. .................................................................................................125
Figure 5.8 – Steel mechanical law modelled. ......................................................................................126
Figure 5.9 – Mechanical law for the spring modelling the equivalent bolt zone component considering
a gap between bolt shanks and hole edges...........................................................................................126
Figure 5.10 – Elastic distribution of forces for a 3 bolt rows connection. ...........................................130
Figure 5.11 – Elastic distribution of forces for a 5 bolt rows connection. ...........................................130
Figure 5.12 – Elastic distribution of forces for an 8 bolt rows connection. .........................................130
Figure 5.13 – Position of each bolt row...............................................................................................131
Figure 5.14 – Required deformation for connections with 3 bolt rows. ..............................................131
Figure 5.17 – Required deformation for connections with 2 bolt rows considering imperfections. ....134
Figure 5.18 – Scheme of the 5 bolt rows connection taken under study..............................................135
Figure 5.19 – a) Distribution of forces amongst the bolts; b) Deformation of the connection. ...........136
Figure 5.20 - Layout of the connection for case A1. ...........................................................................136
Figure 5.21 - Deformation state of the connection at the end of loading, case A1. .............................137
Figure 5.22 - Layout of the connection, for case A2. ..........................................................................138
Figure 5.24 - Layout of the connection, for case A3. ..........................................................................139
Figure 5.26 - Layout of the connection, for case B1............................................................................141
Figure 5.27 - Deformation of the connection at the end of loading, case B1.......................................141
Figure 5.28 - Layout of the connection, for case B2............................................................................142
Figure 5.29 - Deformation of the connection at the end of loading, case B2.......................................143
Figure 5.30 – Required deformation comparison between numerical model and formulae for group I.
.............................................................................................................................................................145
Figure 5.31 - Required deformation comparison between numerical model and formulae for group II.
.............................................................................................................................................................146
Figure 5.32 - Distribution of forces during loading for case 3 of group I............................................146
Figure 5.33 - Distribution of forces during loading for case 1 of group II. .........................................147
Figure 5.34 - % of the increase of load in each bolt zone during loading for case 3 of group I. .........147
XXII
list of figures
Figure 5.35 - % of the increase of load in each bolt zone during loading for case 1 of group II. ........148
Figure 5.36 - Plastic deformation of bolt zone 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the group I. .......................................148
Figure 5.37 - Plastic deformation at bolt zone 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the group II. ......................................149
Figure 5.38 - Comparison of the required deformation capacity for the 5 studied cases.....................150
Figure 5.39 - Relation between gaps to be considered in each bolt zone in order to assure that bolt j is
the last to achieve the plastic resistance...............................................................................................150
Figure 5.40 - Numerical results of the relation between gaps in each bolt zone..................................152
Figure 5.41 - Comparison between numerical simulations and formulae for a connection with 3 bolt
rows. ....................................................................................................................................................155
Figure 5.42 – Comparison between numerical simulations and formulae for a connection with 4 bolt
rows. ....................................................................................................................................................155
rows. ....................................................................................................................................................155
rows. ....................................................................................................................................................156
Figure 5.45 - Comparison between numerical simulations and formulae for a connection with 8 bolt
rows. ....................................................................................................................................................156
CHAPTER 6 – DERIVATION OF DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SHEAR BOLTED

CONNECTIONS
Figure 6.1 – Generic single overlap connection. .................................................................................162
Figure 6.2 – Mechanical behaviour of the basic components. .............................................................163
Figure 6.3 – Case illustrating a plate/bolt in bearing failure with lower elastic resistance of the bolt in
shear component. .................................................................................................................................164
Figure 6.4 – Geometrical data of the type of connection used.............................................................167
Figure 6.5 – Required and available deformation capacities for the idealized connections. ...............167
Figure 6.6 - Required and available deformation capacities for the idealized connection considering
imperfections in the connection layout. ...............................................................................................168
Figure 6.7 – Influence of the gap.........................................................................................................168
Figure 6.8 – Ductility Scheme. ............................................................................................................169
Figure 6.9 – Idealized connection considering imperfections and having a weak plate. .....................170
δ av
δ req
Figure 6.10 – Fundamental parameter . .....................................................................................171
Figure 6.11 – Criterion fundamental parameters. ................................................................................172
Figure 6.12 – Comparison between the different bolt grades using R p,b as a fundamental parameter.
Rb
.............................................................................................................................................................172
Figure 6.13 – Final fundamental parameters to define the criterion. ...................................................173
R p ,b
Figure 6.14 – Comparison between the different bolt grades using as a fundamental
Ru ,b
parameter. ............................................................................................................................................173
Figure 6.15 – e1 variation for a fixed value of t. ..................................................................................175
Figure 6.16 – Influence of the basic parameter e1................................................................................176
Figure 6.17 – Influence of the basic parameter p1. ...............................................................................176
Figure 6.18 – Influence of the basic parameter e2................................................................................176
XXIII
list of figures
Figure 6.19 – Influence of the basic parameter p2. ..............................................................................177

Figure 6.20 – min and max absolute of e1, p1, e2, p2. ...........................................................................178
Figure 6.21 – Comparison between the Steel grades S235 and S355. .................................................179
Figure 6.22 – Comparison between different bolt diameters: M16, M20 and M24.............................179
Figure 6.23 – Variation of the number of bolt rows and bolt lines. .....................................................180
Figure 6.24 – “Ductility functions” which express the criterion..........................................................181
Figure 6.25 – Comparison between Eurocode 3 criterion and the derived criterion for the examples
with one line of bolts (n2=1). ...............................................................................................................184
Figure 6.26 - Comparison between the Eurocode 3 and the proposed criterion for the examples with
two lines of bolts (n2=2). .....................................................................................................................184
ANNEX I – LY’S ANALYTICAL MODEL TO PREDICT THE INITIAL BEARING STIFFNESS

Figure I.1 – Coordinates system of a plate element. ............................................................................205
Figure I.2 - Convention of the normal vector of the contour in the analysis of the plate.....................207
Figure I.3 - Plate with a hole in the centre on which one imposes efforts. ..........................................210
Figure I.4 – Analytical model for the embedding component. ............................................................211
Figure I.5 – Efforts distribution along the hole edge. ..........................................................................212
ANNEX II - DERIVATION OF ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION TO DETERMINE THE

AVAILABLE DEFORMATION CAPACITY IN THE EQUIVALENT BOLT ZONE
COMPONENT
Figure II.1 – Available deformation (δav) for case 1. ...........................................................................216
Figure II.2 – Forces distribution in a double overlap connection. .......................................................217
Figure II.6 – Example of the case approached.....................................................................................221
Figure II.9 – Available deformation (δav) for case 7. ..........................................................................223
Figure II.10 – Available deformation (δav) for case 8. .........................................................................224
XXIV
notations
Notations
Latin Letters
A0 initial cross-section area
Ab shear area of the bolt
Ai cross-section area at the end of load step i
Ap gross cross-section area of the plate
Ap,net net cross-section area of the plate
b width of the steel plate
C3, C4 constants in the mathematical expressions of the σ*-ε* relation
d nominal bolt diameter
d0 hole diameter for a bolt
dM16 nominal diameter of M16 bolt
e1 end distance from the centre of a bolt hole to the adjacent end of a plate
measured in the load direction
e2 edge distance from the centre of a bolt to the adjacent edge of a plate
measured in the perpendicular load direction
E elasticity modulus
fmax maximum tensile strength
fu ultimate tensile strength of a steel plate
fub ultimate tensile strength of a bolt
fy yield strength of a steel plate
F1, F2, F3, F4 force transferred by the bolt zone 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively
Fe elastic force applied to a connection
Fi force at the end of a load step i
Fpl plastic force applied to a connection
Fv,Rd design shear resistance of a bolt per shear plane
Fb,Rd design bearing resistance
Fu maximum force achieved by a connection
Fr,c resistance of a shear bolted connection
FBW first bolt working in a shear bolted connection
XXV
notations
k1 bearing reduction factor associated to the edge distance e2 and spacing p2

kb bearing stiffness factor associated to the edge distance e1 and spacing p1
kb,s stiffness coefficient for the bolt in shear component
kp,b stiffness coefficient for the plate/bolt in bearing component
kt bearing stiffness factor associated to the thickness of a connected plate
L0 initial length
L0,x initial length along x
L0,y initial length along y
L0,z initial length along z
Li,x length along x at the end of load step i
Li,y length along y at the end of load step i
Li,z length along z at the end of load step i
Li length at end of a load step i
Lj length of a joint
n1 number of bolt rows
n2 number of bolt lines
nb number of bolt rows in shear
Npl,Rd design resistance of the gross cross-section
Nu,Rd design ultimate resistance of the net cross-section
p1 spacing between centres of adjacent bolts in a line in the load direction
p2 spacing measured perpendicular to load direction between adjacent lines
of bolts
Rb resistance of the bolt in shear component
Req resistance of the equivalent component
Ri resistance of the basic component i
Rp,b resistance of the plate/bolt in bearing component
Rp,t resistance of the plate in tension component
Ru,b ultimate resistance of bolt in shear
RB rest of the bolts (linked to the definition of FBW)
Sb bolt in shear stiffness
Seq stiffness of the equivalent component
XXVI
notations
Si stiffness of a basic component i

Sp,b plate/bolt in bearing stiffness
Sp,bi plate/bolt in bearing stiffness of the component i
Sp,t plate in tension stiffness
Sst,b bolt in shear strain-hardening stiffness
Sst,p,b plate/bolt in bearing strain-hardening stiffness
t thickness of a plate
V0 initial volume
V1 final volume
Greek Letters
α correlation factor to determine the ultimate resistance of a component
αb bearing reduction factor associated to the edge distance e1, spacing p1 and
the steel properties of the bolt and the plate
αv reduction factor associated to the location of the shear plane in a bolt
β correlation factor to determine the strain-hardening stiffness of bolts in
shear
βLF reduction factor associated to the length of a joint
γM0 partial safety factor for resistance of cross-sections whatever the class
γM2 partial safety factor for the resistance of bolts and plate/bolt in bearing
δav available deformation capacity of the equivalent component
δi deformation in bolt zone i
δ(p,b;b) limit of elastic deformation of the plate/bolt in bearing (p,b) or bolt in
shear (b) component
δgap gap consider in a bolt zone
δgap i gap consider in bolt zone i
δp,i plastic deformation in bolt zone i
δreq required deformation capacity to the equivalent component
δu,b ultimate deformation of the bolt in shear component
δu,p,b ultimate deformation of the plate/bolt in bearing component
δu,p,t ultimate deformation of the plate in tension component
δu deformation at maximum force in connection
XXVII
notations
δbEC3 bolt in shear deformation obtained from the Eurocode 3 approach

δDelft global deformation of connection using Delft specimens
δLjubljana global deformation of connection using Ljubljana specimens
δp,bnum model plate/bolt in bearing deformation obtained from the numerical model
δ’i gap in bolt i in a layout considering imperfections
∆Li variation of length at load step i
ε-98, ε+98 strains corresponding to the stress σ98 at 98% of fmax before and after the
maximum tensile load
ε*f logarithmic strain after rupture
εn nominal strain
εn,x nominal strain along x
εn,y nominal strain along y
εn,z nominal strain along z
εen,x elastic nominal strain along x
εen,y elastic nominal strain along y
εen,z elastic nominal strain along z
εpn,x plastic nominal strain along x
εpn,y plastic nominal strain along y
εpn,z plastic nominal strain along z
εrupt strain at rupture of the material
εt , ε* logarithmic strain (true strain)
ε*u logarithmic strain corresponding to (εuni)
εuni average strain of ε-98 and ε-98
η factor to determine the ultimate deformation of bolts in shear
υ Poisson’s ratio
ρ factor related to the number of bolt rows which defines the contribution
of the plate in tension deformation to the required deformation capacity
σ*f true stress at rupture
σn nominal stress
σt , σ* true stress
XXVIII
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 General considerations
In a steel structure, connections are used to transfer forces from one member to another.
A connection can be classified as Shear Bolted Connection when the forces to be
transferred between two different elements, induce pure shear in the bolts. This kind of
connections is regularly found in: pinned beam-to-column joints and beam splices joints
(Figure 1.1 a)) using cover plates. Usually, two types of shear connections, also called
lap connections, may be found: single and double overlap connections. In the first, two
elements are connected and the bolts are submitted to one shear plane, while in the
second three elements are connected and two shear planes are mobilised in the bolts
(Figure 1.1 b)).
a)
b)
Figure 1.1 – a) Examples of shear bolted connections; b) single and double overlap connections.
The connected elements, in this kind of joints can be the column flanges, the beam webs,
the beam flanges, splice plates, etc. Throughout this thesis, these elements are treated as
plates. Thus, two different elements are distinguished: connectors (bolts) and connected
elements (plates).
When a bolted connection is loaded in shear, forces are transferred from one plate to the
other (others) by plate-to-bolt contact. Neglecting the small friction developed between
the plates and the negligible bending of the bolt, four different resistance and
deformation modes should be considered:
Bearing.
3
Shear in the plates.

Tension in the plates.
Shear in the bolt shanks.
Having identified these main different resistance and deformation modes, the behaviour
of a shear bolted connection can be defined by the response of two different parts: the
bolt zone, where bearing and shear forces develop; and the plate between bolt holes,
where direct forces develop in the plate. Thus, the component method prescribed by
Eurocode 3 part 1-8 (CEN, 2003) can be efficiently applied to the problem. But for sake
of simplicity, the four above-mentioned resistance and deformation groups will be
regrouped in two components: (i) the bolt in shear and the plate/bolt in bearing (the
shear developed in the plates is considered in this component), which can be treated as
an equivalent component; and (ii) the plate in tension. If the plates are strong enough to
resist in tension, the load capacity of the connection is governed by the bolt zone
resistance. This specific situation is considered in the present thesis.
The load to be transferred between the plates is distributed non-uniformly amongst the
bolt rows. Ju et al. (2003) used a three-dimensional (3D) elasto-plastic finite element
method to study the structural behaviour of butt-type (overlap) steel bolted joints. Their
results confirmed that for linear elastic behaviour, each bolt in the connection resists a
different load, and the bolt adjacent to the applied forces transfers the maximum force.
In the analysis of shear connections, it is usual to consider steel as a material with
sufficient ductility, so that a uniform distribution of internal forces amongst the bolt
rows is allowed at ultimate state (plastic redistribution). However, this requires
sufficient deformation capacity from the components (plate/bolt in bearing and the bolt
in shear). If sufficient deformation is provided around each connector, a full plastic
redistribution may be noticed, otherwise failure is reached by lack of ductility and the
maximum external force to be transferred is lower than the full plastic resistance.
In the study mentioned above, Ju et al. (2003) showed that in the nonlinear range the
maximum load achieved by the connection is almost linearly proportional to the bolt
number arranged in the connection. The more highly stressed first bolt presents
sufficient plastic deformation to cause redistribution of load to the inner bolts.
In part 1-8 of Eurocode 3 (CEN, 2003) a full plastic distribution of forces can be
assumed as long as the length of the connection is limited. The code approach is the
subject of chapter 2.
Bolted connections under shear loading with fitted bolts have been studied by
Pietrapertosa et al. (2004). Their study showed that, inside the limits given by the code
and by practical guidance, sufficient ductility to achieve a full plastic redistribution of
the internal forces is available. However, bolted connections with non fitted bolts are
the common practice. The presence of imperfections has then to be taken in account.
The lack-of-fit introduces into the problem situations where the demands of ductility are
4
higher as some bolts may bear before the others. Wald et al. (Eurosteel 2002) addressed
this subject by simulating bolted connections with 8 bolt rows and considering the
extreme bolts to be in contact while the others had some gap to be annulled. They
showed that for certain values of gap, failure was first attained in the extreme bolts and
therefore a full plastic resistance was not reached.
1.2 Objectives of the thesis
Very few recommendations to ensure the ductile behaviour of connections with non
preloaded bolts under shear loading can be found in codes. In order to fulfil this lack,
the present thesis has as main objective the proposal of a criterion for ductility
requirements in shear bolted connections.
In order to achieve this main goal the following objectives were defined:
To study possible imperfections in real connections. Based on standards, all
kinds of imperfections and hole clearances which can contribute to the lack of
fit in the connection layout should be considered; the most unfavourable cases
should then be defined and analysed.
To characterize the mechanical behaviour of the basic components composing
the equivalent bolt zone component, according to the Eurocode
recommendations and the experimental and analytical works available in the
literature.
To propose a numerical model which is able to reproduce the plate/bolt in
bearing component. As the most complex component, it is of great interest to
have a powerful numerical tool which can be very helpful in the extension of
the present knowledge to characterize this component. New common situations,
as connections with High Strength Steel and/or with oversized or slotted holes,
can later be studied.
Based in the mechanical behaviour of the basic components, to evaluate the
available deformation capacity of the equivalent component by assembling the
basic ones.
To derive general formulae to determine the deformation capacity required in
the bolt zone components and allowing to reach, in actual shear bolted
connections, a full plastic resistance.
1.3 Thesis Structure
The present thesis is divided in eight chapters; each one describes the different studies
and proposals made. In Chapter 1 the subject is introduced; the objectives and
procedure followed are also exposed.
5
Chapter 2 presents the Eurocode recommendations for shear bolted connections. The
code approach is described and interpreted.
In Chapter 3 the evaluation of the imperfections/lack of fit according to actual
standards is reviewed. The most unfavourable layout of the bolts taking into account
clearances and tolerances in fabrication is defined and maximum values to be
considered in the “worst” situation are proposed.
As the behaviour of a connection depends on the response of each basic component
contributing to the global performance of the connection, in Chapter 4 the plate/bolt in
bearing and the bolt in shear, the two basic components, are analysed. For the bolt in
shear, expressions to characterize the mechanical behaviour, based on experimental
works made in Moscow by Karmalin and Pavlov (1989), are proposed. Then the
Lagamine code, a software developed at the University of Liège, is used to develop a
numerical model allowing to study the bearing behaviour in shear bolted connections.
The validation of this numerical tool is made by means of experiments realized by
Freitas et al (2005) at the Delft University of Technology and by Primož Može et al.
(2005) at the University of Ljubljana.
In Chapter 5 the assembly of basic components is done and the evaluation of the
available deformation capacity of the equivalent bolt zone component, based on the
mechanical properties of the basic components, is presented. General formulae to
predict the required deformation allowing to achieve a full plastic redistribution of
internal forces, taking into account the lack of fit, are derived. The analytical formulae
are validated by means of a numerical model using of FinelG code, the Liège home-
made non-linear FEM software.
In Chapter 6 analytical works aiming to derive ductility requirements in shear bolted
connections are presented. Based on the available and required deformation capacity of
the equivalent bolt zone component, a criterion is proposed and some worked examples
are presented.
Finally in Chapter 7 conclusions are presented while possible future research works to
be done are suggested in Chapter 8.
6
CHAPTER 2
EUROCODE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED
CONNECTIONS IN SHEAR
Chapter 2 –Eurocode design procedure for bolted connections in shear
Chapter 2 – Eurocode design procedure for bolted connections in

shear
Part 1.8 of EC3, which is dedicated to the design of joints in steel structures, is based on
the so-called component approach. The method consists (i) in the evaluation of each
basic component that makes contribution to one or more of the structural properties of
the joint and then (ii) in the assembly of these components. Eurocode 3 presents
guidelines to characterize the basic components and assemble them.
In Table 6.1, EC3 part 1.8 (6.1.3) presents a list of basic joint components. Each type of
joint is composed by several basic components. However, the identification of the
components which contribute to the joint behaviour is a task for engineers. Thus, the
analysis of shear bolted connections is not specifically treated. Relevant information is
found throughout the document.
In this chapter, the Eurocode information which is relevant for the present thesis is
presented: characterization of bolted connections, design resistance of individual
components, criteria for long joints and assembly of the bolt zone components in the
equivalent one.
2.2 Categories of bolted connections
In Eurocode two main categories of bolted connections are distinguished: shear

connections and tension connections. Each category is divided in different types; Table
2.1 presents the categories of bolted connections defined in the Eurocode.
Table 2.1 – Categories of bolted connections
Category Type
A Bearing
Shear connections B Slip-resistant at Serviceability
C Slip-resistant at ultimate
D Non-preloaded
Tension connections
E Preloaded
The present work will be focus in the category A: Shear Bolted Connections – Bearing
Type.
The bearing type joints are considered to resist by transferring forces through plate /bolt
contact. Non preloaded bolts are used and the small resistance by friction of the contact
9
Chapter 2 – Eurocode design procedure for bolted connections in shear
surfaces is neglected. The bolts are tightened in such a way that they cannot be
untightened by hand (snug-tightening); this tightening produces a small friction between
the plates which is overcome with the increasing of the load. Figure 2.1 illustrates this
type of connections.
Figure 2.1 – Bearing type bolted connections.
2.3 Failure modes in bolted shear connections
2.3.1 Introduction
The joint ultimate behaviour depends strongly on the failure mode. Therefore, it is
important to identify possible failure mechanisms. In bolted shear connections the
following four failure mechanisms can be found:
Shear failure of the bolt;
Bearing failure – hole elongation;
Shear failure of plate;
Tension failure of plate.
2.3.2 Shear failure of the bolt
The shear failure of the bolt is relatively brittle which is based on the pure resistance to
shear load capacity of the bolt material. The shear failure is defined by fracture of the
bolt at the shear plane and is located in the same plane where plates have contact, as
illustrated in Figure 2.2.
10
F
F
Shear Plane
Figure 2.2 – Shear plane on a bolt.
The number of shear planes in a bolt depends on the number of members the bolt
connects. The resistance of each is considered to be independent. As an example, if a
bolt is the weaker component, the load that can be transferred in double overlap
connections is twice the shear resistance of the bolt, providing that the applied load does
not exceed the resistance of a connected member.
2.3.3 Bearing failure
Bearing results from the contact between the bolt and the connected members, high
level of stresses concentrating in the vicinity of the bolt-plate contact zone. Yielding due
to pressure between the bolt shank and plate material may result in significant
elongation of the hole (excessive deformation around the hole), as shown in Figure 2.3
a). According to the bolt stiffness, some distortion of the bolt can take place, see Figure
2.3 b).
a) b)
Figure 2.3 – Bearing deformation: a) in the plate; b) in the bolt (b).
Bearing failure is the most ductile of the failures modes; it depends strongly on the
connected member’s material. Associated to bearing, depending on the material
between holes, hole dimensions and end edge distance, a second failure mode is noticed:
the shear failure of the plate.
11
2.3.4 Shear failure of the plate

As mentioned above, shear failure of the plate appears coupled with bearing failure.
This mode of failure is observed when the material in front of the hole or between holes
is insufficient to resist to the shear forces resulting from two distinct parts of the plate:
compressed and tensioned.
In Figure 2.4 a) the shear forces which provoke this type of failure are represented and
in Figure 2.4 b) the shear failure is illustrated.
a)
b)
Figure 2.4 - a) Shear forces in the plate; b) shear failure.
2.3.5 Tension failure of the plate

The tension failure occurs when the tensile stresses in the plate exceed the tension
resistance of the plate. The loss of material due to the drilling of the holes creates a
weak section in the plate, the net-cross section. Initially the member can be designed
based on its gross-section, but the reduced cross-section may decrease the tension
resistance and finally provoke a failure of the plate in tension. Figure 2.5 illustrates this
failure mechanism.
Figure 2.5 – Tension failure.
12
2.3.6 Eurocode considerations

Eurocode defines three failure modes: bolt in shear, plate/bolt in bearing, possibly
associated to shear of the plate, and plate in tension. These three failure mechanisms are
treated as basic components.
It is noticed that the shear failure of the plate is not treated separately. The reason for
this procedure is the fact that this mechanism is strongly linked with the bearing
phenomenon; in fact, in shear failure of the plate, bearing deformation is always
observed.
2.4 Evaluation of the basic and equivalent components
2.4.1 Introduction
As mentioned above, the Eurocode defines basic components for each part that
contributes to the behaviour of a joint. In 2.3.6 the basic components of a bolted shear
connection were presented. The component method, prescribed by Eurocode 3, can be
efficiently applied to model the connection in Figure 2.6 a), leading to the mechanical
model of Figure 2.6 b).
a)
Sp2 Sp2 Sp2

Sb Sb Sb
Sp1
b)
Figure 2.6 – a) Shear connection with three bolt rows; b) Mechanical model of behaviour.
A suitable simplified model is illustrated in Figure 2.7.
Seq Seq Seq F

e2
Figure 2.7 – Simplified mechanical model.
In the simplified model, the basic components which act in series are condensed into
one equivalent component. The evaluation of the basic and equivalent component
according to Eurocode recommendations is presented hereafter.
All the components are characterized by a simplified bi-linear mechanical behaviour as
illustrated in Figure 2.8. To define this law three parameters are determined: the initial
stiffness, the resistance and the ultimate deformation. The first two parameters are
13
determined according to Eurocode 3. However, for the deformation capacity, no

information exists in the Eurocode; therefore empirical expressions based on
experimental works will be used.
R R
Rc (pb;pt;b) Req
Sc (pb;pt;b) Seq
c (pb;pt;b) av
a) b)
Figure 2.8 – Components response: a) basic component; b) equivalent bolt zone component.
2.4.2 Basic components

2.4.2.1 Bolt in shear
In bearing type connections Eurocode allows to use of 4.6 bolt grade up to and
including 10.9. The most common grades are 4.6, 5.6, 6.5, 6.8, 8.8 and 10.9.
Table 3.4 of EC3 part 1.8 presents the design shear resistance which should only be
used in the case of bolts in holes with nominal clearances not exceeding those for
normal holes as specified in EC3 part 1.8 (2.8) Reference Standard, Group 7: Execution
of steel structures. In the case of fitted bolts the same design functions may be used.
The design shear resistance of a bolt (Fv,Rd) per shear plane, is:
α v f ub Ab
Fv , Rd =
γ M2 (2.1)
where the shear plane passes through the threaded portion of the bolt, Ab is the tensile
stress area of the bolt.
Shear tests on bolts show that the shear strength is about 60 % of the tensile strength
which is caused by secondary bending actions on the bolt due to excessive hole
clearance or by bearing of the plates. This reduction is reflected by the reduction factor
αv. αv is an empirical value derived from experiments and should be taken equal to 0.6 if
the shear plane passes through the unthreaded part, and 0.5 for bolt grades 4.8, 5.8. 6.8
and 10.9 if the shear plane passes through the threaded part.
14
The design resistance for shear through the threaded portion of a bolt should only be
used for bolts with rolled and cut thread according to EN1090. For bolts with cut
threads not according with EN1090, the design resistance for shear through the threaded
portion should be reduced by a factor of 0.85.
In Table 6.11, Eurocode 3 part 1.8 presents expressions to determine the stiffness
coefficients for the basic joint components. For, the bolt in shear component, the
stiffness coefficient is:
16 nb d 2 f ub
k b,s =
E d M 16 (2.2)
From this stiffness coefficient, knowing that the Eurocode considers two bolts per bolt
row, the initial stiffness of one bolt in shear (nb=1, one bolt row) can be derived.
8 d 2 f ub
Sb =
d M 16 (2.3)
For the ultimate deformation of a bolt in shear no information is found in the Eurocode.
Later, some values are proposed based on experimental works on bolts in shear
(Chapter 4).
2.4.2.2 Plate/bolt in bearing
The bearing resistance results from the plate thickness and the nominal bolt diameter.
However, associated to bearing there could be shear out and tension failure, as
Figure 2.9 - Shear path, bearing and tension zone in bearing connections.
The shear out of the plate decreases the resistance. Thus, two additional geometrical
dimensions should be taken in account: e1 (end distance) and p1 (pitch distance in the
direction of loading).
Bolt holes reduce the gross section of the plate which reduces the bearing resistance of
the connection. Therefore, the bearing resistance is a function of two other geometrical
15
dimensions, e2 (edge distance) and p2 (pitch distance in the perpendicular direction of

loading).
Figure 2.10 illustrates the symbols used for spacing, end and edge distances.
Figure 2.10 – Symbols for spacing of fasteners.
The positioning of holes should be such as to prevent corrosion and local buckling and
to facilitate the installation of the bolts. Eurocode 3 establishes limits, presented in
Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 – Minimum and maximum spacing and distances
Maximum
Distance and
Minimum
spacing Steels conforming EN 10025 except Steel conforming EN
EN 10025-5 10025-5
End distance, e1 1.2d0 4t+40mm Larger of 8t or 125mm
Edge distance, e2 1.2d0 4t+40mm Larger of 8t or 125mm
Smaller of 14tmin or
Spacing, p1 2.2d0 Smaller of 14t or 200mm
175mm
Smaller of 14tmin or
Spacing, p2 2.4d0 Smaller of 14t or 200mm
175mm
Taking into account the spacing, edge and end distances through the use of reduction
factors, the design bearing resistance defined in Eurocode is given by:
α b k1 f u dt
Fb , Rd =
γM2 (2.4)
The two reduction factors αb and k1 introduce in the resistance function the influence of
the relevant dimensions which are defined as follows:
16
 e1 p1 1 f ub 
α b = Min ; − ; ;1.0 
 3d 0 3d 0 4 f u  (2.5)
 e p 
k1 = Min  2.8 2 − 1.7;1.4 2 − 1.7;2.5 
 d0 d0  (2.6)
The influence of each dimension can be identified in Figure 2.11 a) and b), where the
two factors (αb and k1) are plotted as a function of each distance (e1, p1, e2, p2).
a)
2.6
(2.5)
2.4
2.2
2
k1
1.8
1.6
e2 p2
1.4
1.2
(1.5) (3)
0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
[e2 or p2]/d0
b)
Figure 2.11 – a) αb versus e1 and p1; b) k1 versus e2 and p2.
Figure 2.11 a) is shows that, according to Eurocode, the shear (tear out) which develops
in the plate does not influence the bearing resistance for values of e1 and p1 larger than
3d0 and 3.75d0, respectively. Figure 2.11 b), shows that, for values of e2 and p2, larger
than 1.5d0 and 3d0, respectively, the bearing resistance of the connection should not be
reduced.
17
In the reduction factor αb Eurocode concerns the possibility of having bearing of the
f 
bolt  ub  , instead of bearing of the plate. In such case, the tensile strength of the bolt
 fu 
material is decisive instead of the plate material.
The initial stiffness for the plate/bolt in bearing component is obtained from Eurocode
as for the bolt in shear component, by adopting the stiffness coefficient given by the
code.
Table 6.11, Eurocode 3 part 1.8 (6) gives the following expression to determine the
stiffness coefficient for non preloaded bolts in bearing:
24 nb k b k t d f u
k p ,b =
E (2.7)
From (2.7) the initial stiffness can be derived taking in account that the Eurocode
formula considers bolt rows with 2 bolts. The resulting formula is the following.
S p ,b = 12 k b k t d f u
(2.8)
The factors kb and kt are defined as follows:
 e p 
k b = Min  0.25 1 + 0.25;0.25 1 + 0.375;1.25 
 d d  (2.9)
 t 
k t = Min 1.5 ;2.5 
 d M 16  (2.10)
The influence of the geometrical properties (e1 and p1) on the bearing stiffness is
1.3
(1.25)
1.2
1.1
1.0
kb
0.9
0.8
e1 p1
0.7
0.6
(3.5)
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2
[e1 or p1]/d
Figure 2.12 – kb versus e1 and p1.
18
From an end distance of 3d0 the bearing stiffness is not affected by factor kb. For values
of p1 greater than 3.5 d0, kb is no longer controlled by this parameter. Summarizing, the
end and pitch distance, not only affect the bearing resistance but also the bearing
deformability.
The ultimate deformation of plate/bolt in bearing is based on the mechanical properties
of mild steel; an approximate value has been derived from experimental tests. No
recommendation is given in the Eurocode. In Chapter 4, an expression to estimate the
ultimate bearing deformation, taken from previous works, is presented.
2.4.2.3 Plate in Tension
As mentioned before, the plate in tension is not one of the components that will be
deeply focused in this work; it has already been the subject of many studies and is
therefore rather well known. However, the plate in tension failure mode must not be
completely disregarded and although being avoided in the majority of the hereafter
presented studies it seems of some interest to present a small description of the
Eurocode considerations.
Failure of the cross-section at the bolt holes will occur in the case that the edge distance
(e2) and/or pitch distance (p2) is too small in relation to the end distance (e1) and/or the
pitch distance (p1). Necking of the cross-section in this area happens which will lead to
the failure of the connection, recall Figure 2.5.
For sections with holes, Eurocode 3 part 1-1 defines as the design tension resistance the
smaller of:
Ap f y
N pl , Rd =
γ M 0 (ductile failure of the gross section) (2.11)
0.9 A p ,net f u
N u , Rd =
γM2 (brittle failure of the net section) (2.12)
The reduction of the cross-section introduces a discontinuity in the plate element (net
section); this discontinuity alters the stress distribution, this is reflected by a
concentration of stresses in the vicinity of the hole, as represented in Figure 2.13.
Figure 2.13 - Concentration of stresses in the vicinity of the hole.
19
Due to this non uniform distribution of stresses, the resistance of the net cross-section is
limited. The average strength of 0.9fu integrates this aspect of stress concentration; it
results from a statistical evaluation of test results.
Between 2 bolt rows, the plate in tension component is seen to be rather similar to an
element with constant cross-section in tension (therefore the influence of the reduction
of the cross-section due to the bolts holes on the plate tension stiffness is neglected).
The length of this element is defined by the distance between bolt rows, p1. The initial
stiffness of the plate in tension component can so be defined as follows.
E Ap
S p ,t =
p1 (2.13)
2.4.3 Equivalent component

The simplified model presented in Figure 2.7 shows that two of the three basic
components contributing to the behaviour of shear bolted connection can be merged in
one: the equivalent bolt zone component. In that model, this component represents the
behaviour of the plate/bolt in bearing and bolt in shear basic components.
According to the Eurocode, Bearing type connections either the design shear resistance
of the bolt or the design bearing resistance should not be exceed. Thus, the resistance of
the equivalent bolt zone component is defined by:
Req = Min (Fv , Rd ; Fb, Rd )

(2.14)
The stiffness of the equivalent component can be derived from the assembly of the basic
components and so determined as follows (single overlap connection):
1
S eq =
1 1 1
+ +
S b S p ,b1 S p ,b 2
(2.15)
The available deformation capacity of the equivalent component is governed by the

weaker of the basic components and should be determined by assembling their
behaviour. This subject is one of the key points of this work and is developed later on in
Section 5.2.
2.5 Design resistance of a group of fasteners
In 2.4 has been presented the evaluation of resistance of a fastener. The next question is
to evaluate the resistance of a group of fasteners in a joint. Two extreme situations can
be distinguished:
20
Stiff plates in tension (EA→∞), the distribution of forces amongst the fasteners
tends to be uniform;
Fully flexible plate (EA→0), only the external fasteners transfers load.
The real behaviour is in between these two extreme behaviours. In the elastic range, the
loads resisted by the bolts of a group vary and the bolts located at the end transfer
greater forces than the inner bolts, as illustrated in Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.14 - Elastic distribution of forces.
The plastic analysis of a bolted connection is a simple problem; according to the elastic
distribution of forces, the extreme bolts will reach their yield strength before the others;
then, as the load is increased, the end bolts will deform without any increasing of load if
some local ductility is available. The next inner bolts will also progressively reach their
yield strength while the external force is increased further. Figure 2.15 a) to d)
illustrates all the steps.
a)
b)
21
c)
d)
Figure 2.15 – a) None of the bolt rows yield; b) outsider bolt rows yield (elastic resistance of the connection); c)
the following bolt rows yield; d) the remaining bolt row yield (full plastic resistance of the connection).
When the bolt zone components have sufficient deformation capacity a full plastic
redistribution can be achieved. But if one of the bolt zone components has a more brittle
behaviour (small plastic deformation) the failure of the joint appears prematurely and
the resistance of the group of fasteners is reduced.
The design rules given by Eurocode 3 for a group of fasteners are based on a plastic
theory. The following recommendation is found in the code:
“The design resistance of a group of fasteners may be taken as the sum of the
design bearing resistances Fb,Rd of the individual fasteners provided that the
design shear resistance Fv,Rd of each individual fastener is greater than or equal
to the design bearing resistance Fb,Rd. Otherwise the design resistance of a group
of fasteners should be taken as the number of fasteners multiplied by the
smallest design resistance of any of the individual fasteners.” – EC3 part 1.8
(3.7), see Figure 2.16.
22
a) Fv , Rd ,i ≥ Fb, Rd ,i ∀i ⇒ FRd = ∑ Fb , Rd ,i
b) if not ⇒ FRd = n × min{b1 , s 2 , b3 , b4 , b5 }

Figure 2.16 – Application of the design resistance of a group of fasteners given in clause 3.7(1) of the Part 1.8 of
EC3.
In Figure 2.16, bi - Fv , Rd ,i ≥ Fb , Rd ,i and si - Fv , Rd ,i < Fb , Rd ,i . n is the number of bolt rows.
Eurocode bases this rule in the fact that shear failure of a bolt is much less ductile than
bearing failure.
If the entire bolt zone component presents a ductile failure mechanism (bearing), the
plastic deformation available will be large and all the bolt zone components can achieve
yielding. On the contrary, if the failure mechanism is less ductile (shear of the bolt) the
extreme bolts will fail quickly after they achieve yielding and no further redistribution
of forces can be done.
2.6 Long Joints
When one of the bolt yields, its flexibility increases and a more uniform distribution of
the load is achieved, see Figure 2.15 a) to d). If the joint is long, the required
deformation capacity of the first yield bolt is high. However, the available deformation
may be insufficient and therefore the equal load distribution is not reached. The end bolt
will achieve its limit deformation and failure occurs before the others have been fully
loaded.
In order to avoid this situation, Eurocode determines that when the distance Lj between
the centre of the end fasteners in a joint, measured in the direction of force transfer (see
Figure 2.17), exceeds 15d, the design shear resistance Fv,Rd of all the fasteners,
calculated according to Table 3.4 of EC3 part 1.8, should be reduced by multiplying it
by a reduction factor βLf.
L j − 15d
β Lf = 1 −
200d (2.16)
23
but 0.75 ≤ β LF ≤ 1.0 .
Figure 2.17 - Length Lj.
2.7 Final considerations
In the present chapter the Eurocode recommendations were reviewed. The existing
information in Eurocode mainly relates to the evaluation of the basic components. The
resistance of bolted shear connection with non preloaded bolts is based in the resistance
of the weaker component. Full plastic distribution of forces is considered to be achieved.
The shear resistance of all the fasteners is reduced if the length of the connection is
larger than 15d.
The provisions given in the Eurocode for long joints can be interpreted as a ductility
criterion; however, it could be too strict. For example, in a long joint (Lj > 15d), if the
bearing resistance is lower than the shear one, when applying factor βLF the decrease
induced to the shear resistance can make it lower than the bearing one. Though, in
reality the limit component is the bearing resistance which has a higher level of ductility
and therefore, some resistance is neglected.
In the other side, this criterion can be unsafe. In bolted connections with normal holes
imperfections can occur and some bolts can bear before others due to misalignment of
bolt holes. Extra ductility is required in these bolts in order achieve to full resistance as
suggested by the code.
24
CHAPTER 3
EVALUATION OF THE IMPERFECTIONS/LACK OF FIT
Chapter 3 –Evaluation of the imperfections/lack of fit
Chapter 3 – Evaluation of the imperfections/lack of fit
3.1 General Considerations
As in every construction type, imperfections related to fabrication have to be considered

in steel structures. In order to reduce the discrepancies between the perfect steel pieces
(nominal) and those actually fabricated, some limit values for these imperfections have
to be specified. They are called “tolerances”.
As far as the response of shear connections is concerned, the discrepancy between the
nominal and actual values of the bolt diameters, hole diameters and positions (pitches
and end distances) may affect the behaviour of the connections as the imperfections will
lead to a non simultaneous transfer of forces between the bolts, as it would be the case
for “perfect” connections.
Values of tolerances are given in European standard for the Execution of Steel
Structures and Aluminium Structures, prEN 1090-2 (CEN, 2005), in ISO/DIS 4759-1
(ISO, 1999) and in ISO 286-2 (2006). The precision of fabrication has been strongly
improved and, as a consequence, less severe tolerances than those indicated in the here-
above mentioned standards might be applicable.
In the present chapter, the set of imperfections which would lead to the highest demand
in terms of local deformation required to assume an equal distribution of the internal
forces in shear connections at failure is discussed.
To achieve a plastic distribution of forces within the connection (equal distribution of
forces at failure), deformation capacity is required from the bolt zones (and in particular
from the extreme ones), even if there is no imperfection and therefore if all the bolts
start to transfer forces simultaneously. Obviously, if there are imperfections (a bit over-
or under-sized bolts, hole misalignment, …), some bolts start to transfer forces while
others are not yet in contact with the plates, so that some extra deformation capacity is
required from the first loaded bolt zones.
In order to evaluate the maximum required deformation in a bolt zone, the so-called
“worst situation” is searched. It corresponds to the case in which:
at the beginning of the loading, the transfer of shear forces is only achieved by
one of the two extreme bolt rows;
in all the other bolts rows, the initial relative position of the bolt and of the
connected plates is such that the transfer of forces will have to be preceded by a
significant displacement of the plates (associated to the chosen maximum level
of the imperfections).
27
3.2 Normative and practical information on tolerances
The distances that can be considered between the bolt shanks and the hole edges depend
on the hole clearances and on the fabrication tolerances (hole diameters, bolt diameters,
hole deviation, end and pitch distances).
As already mentioned, these values are provided by European Standards prEN 1090-2
(CEN, 2005), ISO/DIS 4759-1 (ISO, 1999) and ISO 286-2 (2006).values of hole
clearances from prEN 1090-2 (CEN, 2005) are reported in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 - Hole clearances (mm).
Nominal bolt diameter M27 and

M12 M14 M16 M18 M20 M22 M24
(a) over
Nominal round holes 1 (b) (c) 2 3
Oversize round holes 3 4 6 8
Short slotted holes

4 6 8 10
(length) (d)
Long slotted holes

1.5d
(length) (d)
a) This applies also to pin not intended to act in fitted conditions

b) For coated fasteners, 1 mm nominal clearance can be increased by the coating thickness of the
fastener
c) Under conditions as specified in EN 1993-1-8, M12 and M14 bolts may be also used in 2mm
clearance holes.
d) For bolts in slotted holes the nominal clearances across the width shall be the same as the
clearances on diameter specified for nominal round holes.
In Table 3.2 the values for the bolt and hole tolerances are those of ISO/DIS 4759-1
(ISO, 1999) and ISO 286-2 → Class H13/h13. As there are several classes for different
types of industry, this class was chosen according to prEN 1090-2 (CEN, 2005).
28
Table 3.2 - Bolt and hole tolerances (mm).
Hole Nominal
Bolt Tolerances Hole Tolerances
Dimension
up to 3 0 / -0.14 0 / +0.14
3 <-≤6 0 / -0.18 0 / +0.18
6 < - ≤ 10 0 / -0.22 0 / +0.22
10 < - ≤ 18 0 / -0.27 0 / +0.27
18 < - ≤ 30 0 / -0.33 0 / +0.33
30 < - ≤ 50 0 / -0.39 0 / +0.39
Table 3.3 presents the values for the tolerances on the position of bolt holes suggested
in prEN 1090-2 (CEN, 2005).
Table 3.3 - Tolerances on the position of bolt holes (mm).
Permitted deviation
Criterion Parameter
Class 1 Class 2
Position of bolt holes

Deviation ∆ of a
centreline of an
individual bolt hole
|∆| = 2 |∆| = 1
from its intended
position within a group
of bolt holes
In the present study, the values listed below are considered. Some result from the above
tables; others have been adopted following contacts with steel fabricators:
The adopted clearances are those from Table 3.1;
The tolerance on bolt and hole diameters are taken from Table 3.2;
The deviation tolerance is assumed according to Table 3.3. Due to the good
fabrication accuracy level achieved nowadays, class 2 will be assumed. (From
the deviation tolerances and hole clearances, limits for the end and pitch
distances tolerance are directly derived).
In the present thesis, only normal round holes are considered.
29
3.3 Reference case study
The basic connection considered here is a single overlap connection with three bolt
rows and one line of bolts, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 - Type of studied connection under study.
Table 3.4 resumes the important data to consider in the study.
Table 3.4 - Data for the studied connection (mm).
Bolts M16
Bolt Diameter Tolerance - 0.27/0
Hole Clearances +2
Nominal Hole 18
Hole Tolerance 0/+ 0.27
Hole Deviation for Class 2 |1|
Nominal End Distance (e1) 30
Nominal Pitch Distance (p1) 75
3.4 Assumptions
In order to get the “worst situation”, some assumptions are made. These are the
following:
possibility to have different values of actual hole diameters in every plate;
possibility to have different hole deviations in every plate, and consequently
different values of pitch and end distances in every plate;
30
the bolt initially in contact with the plates is one of the outer bolts (henceforth
this bolt will be designated as FBW [First Bolt Working], while the notation RB
[Rest of the Bolts] will be used for all the others), this allows to maximise the
requested deformation capacity for the FBW bolts;
the “worst situation” searched results from the combination of all these
possibilities. Even if this is not the more realistic pattern, it could anyway
happen; and for sure it is the one leading to the highest request in terms of
ductility.
3.5 Possible connection layouts
On the basis of the previous assumptions, several attempts have been made to identify
the case where the maximum displacement is associated to the RB bolts and therefore
the case in which the high level of deformation capacity will be requested in the FBW
bolts.
In the present chapter, several drawings will be presented; thus, Figure 3.2 provides the
reader with a legend for the colours used in these drawings.
Bolts
Bolts axes
Holes deviation
Holes axes after deviation applied to the outer plates
Holes axes after deviation applied to the inner plate
Nominal plate geometry
Figure 3.2 - Legend of the colours used in subsequent drawings.
3.5.1 Bolt and Hole diameters

A lot of different layouts may be found because of the number of variables. In a first
step, according to the hole and bolt diameter tolerances, a minimum gap and maximum
gap are determined, just for a bolt, as shown in Figure 3.3.
31
Maximum gap Minimum gap
Conditions: Conditions:
- Bolt diameter 15.73mm => Tolerance applied -0.27mm - Bolt diameter 16mm => Tolerance applied 0mm
- Hole diameter 18.27mm => Tolerance applied +0.27mm - Hole diameter 18mm => Tolerance applied 0mm
*Total gap 2.54mm *Total gap 2mm
Figure 3.3 - Maximum and minimum gaps for a M16 bolt.
Thus, in order to start to fix some values and reduce the variables, the FBW bolt
diameter is considered in the next paragraphs to be 16 mm and the hole diameter 18 mm,
in order to have the minimum gap of 2 mm. For RB bolts, as a maximum gap is searched,
a 15.73 mm bolt diameter and 18.27 mm hole diameter will be used, resulting in a 2.54
mm gap. An extension of the conclusions of these paragraphs to other nominal bolt
diameters is provided in 3.6.
3.5.2 Deviation definition
In Table 3.4, the value of 1 mm is defined for hole deviation; this value can be applied
in any direction. According to this value and in order to have in the FBW bolt the
minimum gap and in the RB bolts the maximum one, the deviation should be applied in
the same directions and in opposite directions, respectively, as shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4 - Deviation definition.
32
It has to be noticed that there is no problem to put the bolts in the holes because the
clearance is 2 mm; this one may accommodate the 1 mm deviation applied in opposite
directions in the two plates.
With such a definition of the deviation, the limits of the two remaining parameters are
automatically defined: the spacing (p1) and the end distance (e1). Thus, for the present
example, the maximum and the minimum pitch and end values are the ones given in
Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 – Limits of pitch and end distances (mm).
Minimum Nominal Maximum
73 75 77
Pitch Distance
(p1)
p1 – 2 p1 p1 + 2
29 30 31
End Distance (e1)
e1 – 1 e1 e1 + 1
3.5.3 Connection layout

Firstly, using the previously expressed definitions and assumptions, a connection with
only two adjacent bolts is considered. For this situation, the maximum displacement is
defined as equal to 4.54 mm, as the FBW bolt is in contact with the plate and the RB bolt
has a gap of 4.54 mm, as shown in Figure 3.5.
F RB FBW
2 1
δ'2 = 4.54mm δ'1 = 0mm
Figure 3.5 - Layout for a connection with 2 bolts and 2 plates.
For a connection with three bolts and two plates, a similar layout is obtained. Once
again, the two RB bolts have a gap of 4.54 mm and the FBW bolt has no gap, if the same
considerations as in the previous case are applied. Figure 3.6 illustrates this situation.
33
F RB RB FBW
3 2 1
δ'3 = 4.54mm δ'2 = 4.54mm δ'1 = 0mm
From Figure 3.5 and 3.6, some conclusions can be drawn:

The maximum gap that can be obtained is 4.54 mm;
The pitch distance influenced by the deviation is the one between the FBW bolt
and the 1st RB bolt, its value is |2| mm;
The both end distances are influenced by the deviation, the one on the FBW side
by +1 mm and the other one by -1 mm;
The number of bolts in a connection does not influence the maximum
displacement that the FBW bolt has to accommodate before the RB bolts bear.
This is shown in Figure 3.7, for a connection with 4 bolts.
F RB RB RB FBW
4 3 2 1
δ'4 = 4.54mm δ'3 = 4.54mm δ'2 = 4.54mm δ'1 = 0mm
3.5.4 Extension for double overlap connections

In this type of connections there are two shear planes and consequently more layouts
than in a connection with just one shear plane.
34
If a connection with 3 plates is analysed, it is concluded that the two outer plates should
be identical, as they will move in the same direction; so if the maximum gap in the RB
bolts is sought, the deviation in these two plates must be applied similarly. In the inner
plate a deviation should be applied in the opposite direction. As for a single overlap
connection, the deviation direction should be for the RB bolts just the opposite to the
direction of the applied force.
For the FBW bolt, as in a single overlap connection, the deviation should be applied in
the same direction as the applied force.
Thus, identical results as for a single overlap connection are reached with 2, 3 or more
bolts, as it is shown in Figures 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10.
F/2 RB FBW
F
F/2
2 1
δ'2 = 4.54mm δ'1 = 0mm
F/2 RB RB FBW
F/2
3 2 1
δ'3 = 4.54mm δ'2 = 4.54mm δ'1 = 0mm
35
F/2 RB RB RB FBW
F/2
4 3 2 1
δ'4 = 4.54mm δ'3 = 4.54mm δ'2 = 4.54mm δ'1 = 0mm
3.6 Extension to other cases
The above presented cases are valid for any bolt diameter with a hole clearance equal to
2 mm; as matter of fact, the bolt diameter does not influence the layouts. So the
conclusions are valid for M16 up to M24 bolts, in normal holes. Anyway, because of
different tolerances, the maximum gaps are not equal for all these bolts, but as the
layouts are the same, the corresponding values are easily derived.
M12, M14, M27 and even larger bolts are frequently used in connections and therefore,
an extension of the previous conclusions to these cases is required.
From Table 3.1, the clearance for M12 and M14 bolts is defined as 1 mm, and for M27
and bigger bolts, 3 mm. According to these values, two situations have then to be
studied separately.
3.6.1 M12 and M14 bolts
It has been mentioned before that the bolt diameter does not influence the final result, so
only a connection with M12 bolts is considered hereafter. The data is described in Table
3.6.
36
Table 3.6 - Data of the studied connection (mm).
Bolts M12
Hole Clearances +1
Nominal Hole 13
Nominal End Distance (e1) 30
Nominal Pitch Distance (p1) 75
Similar assumptions to the cases presented in 3.5 are taken into account and the colours
in the following drawings have the same legend as in Figure 3.2.
Again the maximum and minimum possible gaps are first defined for just one bolt.
Figure 3.11 shows the obtained values.
Conditions:
- Bolt diameter 11.73mm => Tolerance applied -0.27mm Conditions:
- Hole diameter 13.27mm => Tolerance applied +0.27mm - Bolt diameter 12mm => Tolerance applied 0mm
*Total gap 1.54mm - Hole diameter 13mm => Tolerance applied 0mm
*Total gap 1mm
Figure 3.11 - Minimum and maximum gaps for one bolt with hole clearance of 1 mm for a M12 bolt.
The maximum gap is 1.54 mm and the minimum one is 1 mm.

In this case, due to the reduced clearance, the maximum deviation in each plate cannot
be applied because the bolts would not match in the hole. According to the drawings
presented in Figure 3.11, the maximum deviation that can be applied in the FBW and
RB bolts is limited to the above-mentioned gaps.
Besides this, the assumptions are similar to the ones presented before. Therefore, the
definition of the layouts is easily reached and is shown in Figures 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14.
37
F RB FBW
2 1
δ'2 = 3.08mm δ'1 = 0mm
F RB RB FBW
3 2 1
δ'2 = 3.08mm δ'2 = 3.08mm δ'1 = 0mm
Figure 3.13. Layout for a connection with 3 bolts and 2 plates.
F RB RB RB FBW
4 3 2 1
δ'2 = 3.08mm δ'2 = 3.08mm δ'2 = 3.08mm δ'1 = 0mm
38
This results in a gap of 0 mm for the FBW bolt and 3.08 mm for the RB bolts, and so in a
maximum gap of 3.08 mm, in all cases.
From the previous drawings, a similar layout of the bolts as in the connection with M16
bolts, is seen. Then, it can be concluded that the 3.08 mm value is also valid for a double
overlap connection, if an extension to this cases is made.
For that reason the layouts for these cases are not presented.
3.6.2 M27 and bigger bolts
For this type of bolts, as there is no limitation for the application of the deviation due to
the clearance of 3 mm, the layouts are equal to the ones presented for the M16 bolts, the
difference being the clearance of 3 mm. An example for a M27 is presented. Table 3.7
shows the data for the following layouts.
Table 3.7 - Characteristics of the studied connection (mm).
Bolts M27
Hole Clearances +3
Nominal Hole 30
Nominal End Distance 36
Nominal Pitch Distance 100
Conditions:
- Bolt diameter 26.67mm => Tolerance applied -0.33mm
Conditions:
- Hole diameter 30.33mm => Tolerance applied +0.33mm
- Bolt diameter 27mm => Tolerance applied 0mm
*Total gap 3.66mm
- Hole diameter 30mm => Tolerance applied 0mm
*Total gap 3mm
Figure 3.15 - Maximum and minimum gaps for a M27 bolt.
39
The maximum and the minimum gaps, for one bolt and one plate, are 3.66 mm and 3
mm, respectively.
From these values, a first layout with two bolts and two plates is defined, as shown in
Figure 3.16.
F RB FBW
2 1
δ'2 = 5.66mm δ'1 = 1mm
In this case, it is not possible to place the FBW bolt in such a way that there would be no
gap at all, because of the hole clearance of 3 mm; so the layout with the minimum gap
value is the one presented. For the RB bolts, the gap is thus equal to 5.66 mm. So the
displacement, to be accommodated by the FBW bolt after it bears and before the RB
bolts also bear is equal to 4.66 mm.
Figure 3.17 shows a connection layout with three bolts and two plates.
F RB RB FBW
3 2 1
δ'3 = 5.66mm δ'2 = 5.66mm δ'1 = 1mm
Similar results to those shown in Figure 3.16 are obtained.

For more then three bolts and for double overlap connections, the layouts are taken from
this one, reaching the same values.
40
As for M16 and M18-M24 bolts, the layouts are the same for M27 and bigger bolts, but
as the tolerances are different (see in Table 3.2), the final values for the maximum gap
are different.
In a bearing type connection, deformation capacity is required in the bolt zone so as to

allow a plastic distribution of internal forces to take place. The outer bolts are those
where the high ductility is required in a “perfect” connection, i. e. in which the actual
dimension are just identical to the nominal ones. The presence of unavoidable
fabrication imperfections may increase the ductility demand. This is the case if the outer
bolts bear first, while the inner bolts are not yet in contact with the plates. The extra
ductility is dependent of the gap to be accommodated by the outer bolts before the inner
ones transfer effectively shear forces. In this chapter, the so called “worst” situations
have been identified.
In a overlap bolted connection, single or double, with normal round holes, the
maximum gap that can be found depends on the hole clearance, the hole deviation, the
hole and bolt diameter tolerance.
Connections with bolts of different diameters but with same clearances are characterised
by similar layouts; and if they have the same tolerances, the value obtained for the
maximum gap is equal. According to this, five different groups can be defined. In Table
3.8, the gaps and the maximum displacements that can be achieved in each group are
presented.
Table 3.8 - Gaps in bolted connections (mm).
2, 3 or more Bolts
Bolts
FBW gap RB gap Max. Gap
M12-M14 0.00 3.08 3.08
M16 0.00 4.54 4.54
M18-M24 0.00 4.66 4.66
M27 1.00 5.66 4.66
over 1.00 5.78 4.78
The presented values are controlled by the two following parameters: the tolerance in
the hole deviation and the hole clearance.
41
For M12-M14 bolts, due to the reduced clearance, the maximum hole deviation cannot
be applied. While for M27 and bigger bolts, due to a bigger clearance, it is not possible
to put the FBW bolt immediately in contact with the plate.
The deformation the FBW bolt should be subjected to, when it is working alone, is
independent of the number of bolts that the connection has.
The fact that the connection is a single or a double overlap connection has no influence
and the same values are obtained.
Besides these maximum values for the gaps, the tolerance for the end and the pitch
distances can be also defined from presented cases. As it has been said before, these
parameters are influenced by the hole deviation but also by the hole clearance and hole
and bolt diameter tolerance; according to it, the values presented in Table 3.9 have been
defined.
Table 3.9 - Limits for end and pitch distances (mm).
End distance (e1) Pitch distance (p1)

Hole
Bolts
Clearances
Nominal Minimum Maximum Nominal Minimum Maximum
M12/M14 1 e1 e1 - 0.77 e1 + 0.5 p1 p1 – 1.27 p1 + 1.27
M16 2 e1 e1-1 e1+1 p1 p1 - 2 p1 + 2
M18 -
2 e1 e1 – 1 e1 + 1 p1 p1 – 2 p1 + 2
M24
M27 3 e1 e1 – 1 e1 + 1 p1 p1 – 2 p1 + 2
Bigger 3 e1 e1 – 1 e1 + 1 p1 p1 – 2 p1 + 2
Finally, a remark should be done. At a late stage of this thesis, a newer version of the
European standard for the Execution of Steel Structures and Aluminium Structures,
prEN 1090-2 (CEN, 2005) was available. In this new version (CEN, 2007), and as far as
the present work is concerned, no changes were noticed except for clause 6.6.2 b) where
actualized values for tolerance on hole diameters are provided. Due to the lack of time,
and because the expected influence is mainly numerical and no influence in the final
conclusion will be noticed, the revision of the present chapter according to the new
available standard has not been made.
42
Chapter 4
RESPONSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS
Chapter 4 –Response of the individual components
Chapter 4 – Response of the individual components
This chapter presents the work performed at the level of the basic components
composing the equivalent bolt zone component: the bolt in shear and the plate/bolt in
bearing.
The Eurocode 3 part 1.8 (CEN, 2005) provides design expressions to determine the
shear resistance and stiffness of the bolt. These ones are derived from the pure shear
strength of the bolt material and based on experimental evidence (IBBC BI – 88 – 087,
1988). The bolt in shear is considered as a brittle component and no information about
its deformation capacity can be found in the code. Since the present thesis is aimed at
proposing ductility criteria for shear bolted connections, an estimation of the
deformation capacity of bolt in shear is a fundamental aspect. Thus, based on the
available experimental tests made in Moscow (Streletsky et al, 1989) on the load
capacity and deformability of bolts in shear, and on the code approach, the
characterization of the bolt in shear component is done.
The Plate/Bolt in Bearing is a complex component as its behaviour is influenced by
phenomena such as: shear forces developed in the plate, net section deformability,
contact problems (bolt/plate), friction and confinement between plates. So, many
different parameters as bolt and hole diameter (d and d0), plate thickness (t), edge and
end distances (e2 and e1), spacing (p1 and p2), bolt and plate material (grade) should be
include in its characterization. As for the bolt in shear component, the code presents
design functions to determine the bearing resistance and the bearing stiffness. However,
these functions are mainly directed to mild steel and for connections with normal round
holes. With the objective of proposing a useful tool which can be used to extend the
actual knowledge to new common practices (connections with High Strength Steel,
oversized or slotted holes, etc), a numerical model to study the plate/bolt in bearing
component is presented.
4.2 Derivation of design expressions to characterize the mechanical

properties of bolts in shear
4.2.1 Introduction
Bolts are known as brittle parts of bolted connections because of their low deformation
capacity; however, in the majority of the connections, their resistance is higher than the
plates or the elements they connect, so that the maximum resistance of the connection is
reached before they reached their limit of resistance. Thereby, when one wants to define
the available deformation capacity of the equivalent component, the resistance and the
initial stiffness are sufficient to take into account the contribution of the bolt in shear.
45
However, the use of a thick plate or High Strength Steel can turn the bolt into the
“weaker” part of the connection and therefore its resistance and deformation capacity
govern the connection behaviour. In these cases, knowledge on bolt deformability is
necessary to define the available deformation of the equivalent bolt zone component.
This section presents how analytical expressions for the prediction of the mechanical
properties of bolts in shear have been derived on the basis of the available literature and
test results.
4.2.2 Assumptions and definition of the main mechanical properties of a bolt in
shear
The behavioural law assumed, for the bolt in shear, is an approximation of the real non-
linear load-deformation curves reported in experiments made in Moscow (Streletsky et
al, 1989), where some strain hardening is assumed (Figure 4.1). To define the
behavioural law, the following parameters should be determined:
Initial Stiffness, Sb
Limit of Elastic Resistance, Rb
Limit of Elastic Deformation, δb
Strain-Hardening Stiffness, Sst,b
Ultimate Resistance, Ru,b
Ultimate Deformation, δu,b
R
Ru,b
Rb Sst,b
Sb
b u,b
Figure 4.1 – Generic tri-linear law applied to bolt behaviour.
In the literature (Eurocode 3 part 1.8, 2005; IBBC BI – 88 – 087, 1988), analytical
formulae for the prediction of some of these parameters may be found; they are reported
below.
Initial Stiffness, Sb
The initial stiffness Sb is determined according to Eurocode 3 Part 1-8 (CEN, 2005) as
follows.
46
8 d 2 f ub
Sb =
d M 16 (4.1)
Elastic Resistance, Rb
Rb is considered as the elastic resistance in the model provided in Figure 4.1; it
corresponds in fact to the characteristic resistance provided by Eurocode 3 Part 1-8
(CEN, 2005).
Rb = α v f ub Ab
(4.2)
where αv is 0.5 or 0.6, that depends on the bolt grade and whether the shear plane
crosses the unthreaded part or not. Ab is the shear area of the bolt (nominal or stress
area).
o For bolt grades 4.6, 5.6 and 8.8 and shear in the threaded part (or for all
bolt grades when shear in the unthreaded part):
0.6 f ub Ab
(4.3)
o For bolt grades 5.8 and 10.9 and shear in the threaded part:
0.5 f ub Ab
(4.4)
Limit of Elastic Deformation, δb

A conventional limit of elastic deformation may be derived.
Rb
δb =
Sb (4.5)
As already said, expressions (4.1) to (4.5) are given in Eurocode 3 Part 1-8, but for the
following parameters no expressions are suggested; for their derivation, reference is
made to the available experiments.
Strain-Hardening Stiffness, Sst,b
The strain hardening stiffness will be defined as a percentage of the initial stiffness:
Sb
S st ,b =
β (4.6)
It seems difficult to define a unique value for the β factor which would fit all types of
bolts; in order to avoid too much conservatism for some bolt grades, a β value for each
bolt type will be defined.
47
Ultimate Resistance, Ru,b

The ultimate resistance is here defined as a function of Rb. To do so, the expressions
defined in IBBC BI – 88 – 087 (1988), are used, where strength functions and design
functions are presented. In this document, a distinction is made according to the place
were the shear plane crosses the bolt (unthread part or threaded part). In the present
thesis, as a safe assumption, the expressions given for the threaded part are used.
Consequently the pure shear stress τub is taken as 0.7 fub, so that the ultimate strength is
given by:
0.7 f ub Ab
(4.7)
The relation between Rb and Rub may then be derived:

o For bolt grades 4.6, 5.6 and 8.8
0 .7
Ru , b = Rb ≈ 1.15 Rb
0 .6 (4.8)
o For bolt grades 5.8 and 10.9
0 .7
Ru , b = Rb ≈ 1.4 Rb
0 .5 (4.9)
Ultimate Deformation, δu,b

The ultimate deformation is defined as a function of Sb and Rb, according to the ultimate
deformation reported in the Moscow tests (Streletsky et al, 1989); in order to use the
values presented in Eurocode 3 part 1.8, the ultimate deformation will thus have the
general format:
Rb
δ u ,b = η
Sb (4.10)
4.2.3 Description of available tests

The investigations of the load and deformation capacity of bolts subjected to shear made
in Moscow (Streletsky et al, 1989), were made with bolts M16, M20 and M24 for
grades 5.8, 8.8 and bolts with minimum tensile strength equal to 1100 MPa (high
strength). The tested specimens consisted of single bolted connections with two-shear
planes, see Figure 4.2; in order to avoid bearing deformation, the connected elements
were made of very high strength steel with tensile strength of about 2000 MPa and a
hardness of about 60HRC. In the total, 90 specimens were tested, including ten types of
bolts with various diameters and grades.
48
Figure 4.2 – Scheme of the test layout.
The following figures and table present the results obtained from the tests. Figures 4.3
to 4.5 present a relationship between the shear forces in one plane and shear
displacements of the tested bolts. A standard deviation of the experimental data is
visible. In Table 4.1, the values of bolt failure load at one shear plane and ultimate
displacement are shown. These values show a relative large ultimate deformability that
decrease with the increase of the bolt strength.
Figure 4.3 – Experimental curves for bolt grade 5.8.
49
Figure 4.4 – Experimental curves for bolt grade 8.8.
Figure 4.5 – Experimental curves for High Strength bolts.
50
Table 4.1 - Experimental output data.
Ru,b [kN] δu,b [mm]

Bolts Grade
M16 M20 M24 M16 M20 M24
5.8 63 – 72 97 – 110 137 – 150 2.9 – 3.4 3.4 – 3.8 4.1 – 4.4
8.8 81 – 93 124 - 141 175 – 193 2.2 – 2.5 2.6 – 3.0 3.1 – 3.5
High-strength 126 – 150 195 - 220 275 - 308 1.6 – 2.0 1.8 – 2.2 2.1 – 2.7
4.3.4 Derivation of unknown behavioural parameters

As mentioned, three grades of bolts were tested. In order to avoid a too conservative law
for some grades, a division in three groups was made: grade 5.8; grade 8.8 and High-
Strength bolts (where bolts of grade 10.9 are going to be included). The tested bolts
were M16, M20 and M24.
Grade 5.8
According to expressions (4.1), (4.2) and (4.5) the elastic characteristics are first
determined; Table 4.2 presents the obtained values.
Table 4.2 - Data for bolts grade 5.8
Bolts d [mm] fub [MPa] αv Ab [mm2] Sb [kN/m] Rb [kN] δb [mm]
M16 16 500 0.5 157 64.00 39.25 0.613
M20 20 500 0.5 245 100.00 61.25 0.613
M24 24 500 0.5 353 144.00 88.25 0.613
In (4.2), it is considered that the shear plane passes through the threaded part of the
shank. According to (4.9), the ultimate shear load can be determined and is given in
Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 - Ru,b for 5.8 bolts grade.
Bolts Ru,b [kN]
M16 54.95
M20 85.75
M24 123.55
51
Comparing these results with the ones obtained one can see that the analytical are
conservative values, as the determined ultimate load is about 10% lower than the
minimum reported. Therefore a correction is proposed, leading to a new factor to
multiply the limit of the elastic resistance, calibrated from the experimental results and
shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 - New factor for the bolt grade 5.8
Bolts Ru,b/Rb Proposed value
M16 1.61
M20 1.58 1.58
M24 1.55
In Table 4.4, Ru,b is the minimum failure load taken from Table 4.1 for 5.8 bolts grade
while Rb is evaluated through formula (4.1). A mean value of 1.58 is assumed; as
consequence (4.9) is rewritten as follows.
Ru ,b = 1.58 Rb
(4.11)
Table 4.5 presents the new resulting values for Ru,b.
Bolts Rub [kN]
M16 62.02
M20 96.78
M24 139.44
The ultimate deformation of the bolt is taken directly from Table 4.1, adopting the
minimum value; the factor η presented in (4.10) may then be obtained, as shown in
Table 4.6.
52
Table 4.6 - Factor η for 5.8 bolt grades.
Bolts δu [mm] η
M16 2.9 4.7
M20 3.4 5.5
M24 4.1 6.7
Finally, an approximated value of the strain-hardening stiffness is graphically evaluated

by taking into account all the parameters presented before. A value of 3.0 is so obtained
for the factor β of eq. (4.6), for bolts grade 5.8.
For the others bolt grade, the same procedure is used. The obtained values are presented
hereafter.
Grade 8.8
Table 4.7 - Data for bolts grade 8.8
Bolts d [mm] fub [MPa] αv Ab [mm2] Sb [kN/m] Rb [kN] δb [mm]
M16 16 800 0.6 157 102.40 75.36 0.735
M20 20 800 0.6 245 160.00 117.60 0.735
M24 24 800 0.6 353 230.40 169.44 0.735
Bolts Ru,b [kN]
M16 86.66
M20 135.24
M24 194.86
53
Table 4.9 - New factor for the bolt grade 8.8.
Bolts Ru,b/Rb Approximate selected value
M16 1.07
M20 1.05 1.05
M24 1.03
The new factor was achieved by decreasing the value of 1.15, used in (4.8), to 1.05.
Thus, (4.8) is rewritten as follows:
Ru ,b = 1.05 Rb
(4.12)
Table 4.10 presents the new values for Ru,b taking into account the new factor 1.05.
Bolts Ru,b [kN]
M16 79.13
M20 123.48
M24 177.91
Table 4.11 presents the values for η to be used in (4.10).
Table 4.11 - Factor η for 8.8 bolt grades.
Bolts δu* [mm] η
M16 2.2 3.0
M20 2.6 3.5
M24 3.1 4.2
54
Finally, for bolt grade 8.8, the factor β in eq. (4.6), is 7.0.
High-Strength bolts
Table 4.12 - Data for High-Strength bolts.
Bolts d [mm] fub [MPa] αv Ab* [mm2] Sb [kN/m] Rb [kN] δb [mm]
M16 16 1100 0.5 157 140.80 86.35 0.613
M20 20 1100 0.5 245 220.00 134.75 0.613
M24 24 1100 0.5 353 316.80 194.15 0.613
Table 4.13 - Ru,b for High-Strength bolts.
Bolts Ru,b [kN]
M16 120.89
M20 188.65
M24 271.81
Table 4.14 - New factor for the High-Strength bolts.
Bolts Ru,b/Rb Factor assumed
M16 1.46
M20 1.45 1.44
M24 1.42
From Table 4.14, a value of 1.44 is here considered as a consequence, (4.9) is rewritten
as follows:
Ru ,b = 1.44 Rb
(4.13)
Table 4.15 presents the new values for Ru,b taking into account the new factor 1.44.
55
Table 4.15. Rub for High-Strength bolts.
Bolts Ru,b [kN]
M16 124.34
M20 194.04
M24 279.52
Table 4.16. Factor η for High-Strength bolts.
Bolts δu* [mm] η
M16 1.6 2.6
M20 1.8 2.9
M24 2.1 3.4
The β factor, for High-Strength bolts, takes the value of 1.5.

4.2.4 Suggested approximate behavioural laws
The tri-linear curves, as proposed in Figure 4.1, can now be drawn using the parameter
values defined in 4.2.3. The following figures show a superposition of the derived
curves and the experimental ones.
Figure 4.6 – Experimental and derived curves for bolt grade 5.8.
56
Figure 4.7 – Experimental and derived curves for bolt grade 8.8.
Figure 4.8 – Experimental and derived curves for High Strength bolts.
It can be observed that for the bolt grade 8.8 the curves are very close to the maxima of
the experimental results, when compared with other grades. This seems to be due to an
incorrection in the plotting of the experimental results. By scaling the drawing, an
57
orange line was drawn, which represents the maximum load for the M24 bolts as
reported in Table 4.1, and one can observe that there is a significant difference. In the
absence of detailed information about the experiments, the results presented in Table 4.1
are taken.
In Table 4.17 expressions to estimate the ultimate deformation of bolts in shear, for the
bolts grade experimented, are proposed.
Table 4.17 - Ultimate deformation of bolts in shear.
Bolt size
Bolts Grade
M16 M20 M24
Rb Rb Rb
5.8 δ u ,b = 4.7 δ u ,b = 5.5 δ u ,b = 6.7
Sb Sb Sb
Rb Rb Rb
8.8 δ u ,b = 3.0 δ u ,b = 3.5 δ u ,b = 4.2
Sb Sb Sb
Rb Rb Rb
High-Strength δ u ,b = 2.6 δ u ,b = 2.9 δ u ,b = 3.4
Sb Sb Sb
An approximation of the stiffness for the strain-hardening zone, to be used in a tri-linear

behavioural law, has been derived. The proposed stiffness is here determined as a
function of the initial stiffness see Table 4.18.
Table 4.18 - Strain-hardening stiffness.
Bolts Grade Sst,b
Sb
5.8
2 .5
Sb
8.8
7 .0
Sb
High-Strength
1.5
58
4.3 Numerical model to evaluate the plate/bolt in bearing component
In bearing problems, numerical models should mainly consider (i): the contact between
the bolt shanks and the hole edges (contact problems) and (ii) the evolution of stresses
and strains in the plate up to failure. The numerical simulation of contact problems
deeply restricts the number of numerical tools available to study the phenomenon. The
numerical tool used in the present work is the LAGAMINE code, software developed
by the ArGenCo Department at the University of Liège.
As a three-dimensional problem, finite element simulation of the bearing component is
generally complicated. In addition, the combination of the nonlinear phenomena as:
material and geometrical nonlinearities, friction, slippage, contact, bolt-plate interaction
and fracture have to be reproduced. The correct reproduction of all these phenomena
increases the complexity of the model. However; too complex models are not suitable
for parametric study. So, a simple model that can reproduce as accurately as possible the
bearing behaviour is searched.
In order to develop a numerical tool that could be used later to improve the actual
knowledge on the “Plate/Bolt in Bearing” phenomenon, the present study focuses on the
simulation of the behaviour of the Plate/Bolt in Bearing component by means of finite
elements.
Given the impossibility to carry out experimental work, available tests made in others
Universities are used. Tests made on shear bolted connections at the University of
Ljubljana and at the Technical University of Delft are used to validate the numerical
model. In the absence of experimental work which addressed only the phenomenon of
bearing, the validation of the numerical model is done using experimental work on
bolted shear connections. The use of this type of tests influences the numerical model as
bearing is not isolated, so that other phenomena should also be taken into account.
The 3D finite element model results are compared with the experiments in terms of
stiffness, strength and ductility, what allows the reliability of the finite element model to
be evaluated and commented.
A comparison with EC3 – part 1.8 (CEN, 2005) recommendations and with a recent
analytical model aimed at predicting the initial “bearing” stiffness in timber connections
with steel fasteners developed by Ly (Ph.D., 2006), is done.
4.3.1 Mechanical properties of the Steel – Large deformations field
4.3.1.1 Introduction
The characterization of the material constitutive law is a fundamental step when
numerical models and experiments are to be compared. An incorrect reproduction can
be the point of departure for several divergences in the final results. The sensitivity of
the problem grows when the model enters in the plastic domain.
59
Usually, civil engineering problems only involve small deformations. The common
characterization of a material behaviour is made through simple tension tests which
have a limited accuracy in field of large deformations; however they are reliable for
structural design.
The study of the ductility properties obliges one to enter in the field of large
deformations which normally are beyond civil engineering problems. The usual
characterization of the material behaviour has a limited field of application and
therefore a more accurate characterization of the behaviour is required.
In the present sub-section, an interpretation of the usual tensile test is done in order to
achieve a more precise mechanical behaviour of the steel material.
4.3.1.2 Usual material characterization – Nominal Stress/Strain Curve
The tension tests used to characterize the construction steel material, also known as
Coupon Tests, are normalized in EN 10002 (2001) and consist of submitting a bar of the
material, straight and with a uniform cross-section except at the fixation to the machine,
to tension until fracture (Figure 4.9). The force is applied in the axis in order to avoid
bending. The extracted results depend mainly on the equipments available to realize the
tests. Normally, the results obtained consist in a Force-Elongation curve.
Fi Fi
Figure 4.9 – Tension test.
Subsequently, a Stress-Strain curve is derived considering the conservation of the cross-

section, as illustrated in Figure 4.10. The stress is determined according to the initial
cross-section (A0), and the strain according to the initial length (L0). Considering a
constant cross-section is an incorrect hypothesis which looses its validity with the
increase of the deformation; however in the domain of civil engineering the
deformations are limited to a level where neglecting the cross section actualization is
acceptable. In addition, the prediction of the maximum stress is on the safety side.
60
Figure 4.10 – Nominal stress-strain curve.
The engineering stress and strain, or also called nominal stress and nominal strain, are
defined as follows.
Fi
σn =
A0 (4.14)
Li − L0 ∆L
εn = ⇒ εn = i
L0 L0 (4.15)
In order to use expressions (4.14) and (4.15) the information needed to be gathered
summarizes, at each load step, to the applied force (Fi) and the distance between two
fixed points. After, the elongation (∆Li) of the bar is determined. The experimental
devices needed to collect all this information are therefore reduced as well as the
difficulty and cost of the test.
4.3.1.3 Correction of the materials behaviour – True Stress/Strain curves
The assumption of a constant cross-section when plasticity starts to appear is reflected
in a false stress which can be corrected if the actualized cross-section is used. However,
the usual available equipment is incapable to determine the actual cross-section and the
improvement of the nominal stress-strain as to be done by other means, e.g. mechanics
of materials.
For the strain many definitions are available, the most common and used being the
nominal or engineering strain, (expression (4.15)). In the literature the strain can be also
defined as: Green Strain, Almansi Strain and Logarithmic Strain. The latter is known as
the true strain and will be used in the present section.
Expressions (4.14) and (4.15) introduce errors in the material behaviour, errors that
become considerable with the increase of deformation. The true stress and the true strain
should be determined as follows.
Fi
σt =
Ai (4.16)
61
L 
ε t = ln i 
 L0  (4.17)
In Figure 4.11, a comparison between the nominal and true stress-strain curves is
illustrated. The main differences are expected to start from point A, where plastic
deformation starts to occur.
True
Nominal
Figure 4.11 – Comparison between true and nominal stress-strain curves.
The true strain expressed in (4.17) can be derived as a function of the nominal strain, as
follows.
 L0 + ∆Li 
ε t = ln  ⇒ ε t = ln (1 + ε n )
 L0  (4.18)
As for the strain, the true stress can be determined from the tests results used to derive
the nominal stress-strain curve although not as simply as in (4.18).
In order to obtain the true stress some of the principles of the mechanics of materials for
isotropic materials from the literature (Dias da Silva V., 1999; Cescotto S. et Massonet
C., 1997) are hereafter reminded.
In a tension test, the steel bar, even if it is mainly subjected to uni-axial tension, is in a
tri-dimensional state of stress and strain. Let’s consider the isolated action of a normal
stress σx, symmetrically applied to a given bar, as presented in Figure 4.12.
62
Figure 4.12 – Scheme of a bar subjected to a tension test.
As an isotropic material, the bar has symmetric characteristics relative to any plane.
Therefore, the bar can only deform through the variation of the size of all edges. The Y
and Z axis are in the same conditions relatively to X axis, so the deformation of the bar
in these two directions corresponds to shortening if tension is applied along X and
elongation in the case of compression.
< 0 if ε n, x > 0
ε n , y = ε n, z = f (ε n, x ) ⇒ 
> 0 if ε n , x < 0 (4.19)
In the linear zone, all deformations are proportional to the stress σx, i.e. the transversal
strains are proportional to the longitudinal ones.
ε ne, y = ε ne, z = −υε ne, x

(4.20)
However, when plastic deformation occurs, this proportionality is no longer valid. Pure
plastic deformations happen at constant volume therefore, the determination of the
strains εn,y and εn,z is based on a hypothesis of volume conservation.
V0 = V1 ⇒ L0, x L0, y L0, z = L1, x L1, y L1, z

(4.21)
where:
(
 L1, x = L0, x 1 + ε np, x )

(
 L1, y = L0, y 1 + ε n, y
p
)

(
 L1, z = L0, z 1 + ε n, z
p
) (4.22)
From (4.20):
ε np, y = ε np, z
(4.23)
63
Thus, (4.21) can be rewritten as:
( )(
1 = 1 + ε np, x 1 + ε np, y )2
(4.24)
εpn,y can be determined in function of εpn,x:
1
ε np, y = −1
(1 + ε ) p
n,x
(4.25)
The total strain is determined by adding the elastic part to the plastic one:
ε ntotal = ε ne + ε np (4.26)
Substituting (4.20) and (4.25) in (4.26) yields:
1
ε ntotal
,y = − 1 − υε ne, x
(1 + ε ) p
n, x
(4.27)
When the bar is deformed, the cross-section changes and therefore an actualized cross-
section should be determined according to the state of deformation:
Ai = Li , y Li , z
(4.28)
The updated dimensions of the bar are determined from the corresponding state of
deformation:
(
 Li , y = L0, y 1 + ε ntotal
,y )

(
 Li , z = L0, z 1 + ε n, z
total
) (4.29)
Substituting (4.29) in (4.28):
(
Ai = L0, z 1 + ε ntotal ) (
, y L0 , z 1 + ε n , z
total
) (4.30)
Taking into account the isotropic material, from (4.20) and (4.23), (4.30) can be
rewritten as follows:
(
Ai = A0 1 + ε ntotal
,y )
2
(4.31)
From (4.27) and (4.31), the updated cross-section can be determined from the strain in
the direction of loading:
64
2
 
Ai = A0  − υε ne, x 
1

 (1 + ε )
p
n, x

 (4.32)
Finally, the true stress is determined:
Fi
σt = 2
 
A0  e 
1
− υε n , x 
 (1 + ε )
p
n, x  (4.33)
4.3.1.4 Behaviour after necking

During the tension test, at a certain moment, somewhere in the tested bar, a local
constriction begins and the phenomenon called necking happens. The element looses its
uniformity; there is a region where the section is strongly reduced in comparison to the
rest of the element, see Figure 4.13.
Figure 4.13 – Necking phenomenon.
When necking begins, the response of the tensioned member is mainly controlled by the
local behaviour of the necked part. From this point, the determination of the true strain
has to be done locally which means the value measured experimentally gets far away
from the true one. A high level of deformation is achieved locally which is not
reproduce along the entire element.
The strain measured in the tension tests correspond to a mean value of strain which
results from measuring the elongation of the bar between the two distinct sections. The
length of the element between these sections is considerable when compared with the
length of the necking zone. While the bar maintains its uniformity, this value reproduces
well the behaviour of the material. However, when the necking starts, the strain
65
achieves locally high values of strain that are not well reproduced in the nominal curve.
Therefore, beyond necking the nominal curve is no longer acceptable.
The localization of the necking zone depends strongly on the micro-structure of the
material which makes its prediction not viable in a normal tensile test.
Given the impossibility to have acceptable values of the nominal strain, the equation
presented in (4.18) and (4.33) can no longer be used. Therefore, the behaviour of the
material from this point onwards is not predicted with accuracy.
In TC83 – CUS Fundamental Mechanical Properties of Material (1990), Kato proposes
mathematical expressions for true stress logarithmic strain relation. According to the
author, the true stress logarithmic strain in the necking portion can be expressed as
follows:
σ * = C 3ε * + C 4 (4.34)
where the constants involved are defined as:
σ *f − σ u*
C3 = *
ε f − ε u*
(4.35)
σ u*ε *f − σ *f ε u*
C4 =
ε *f − ε u*
(4.36)
ε uni =
2
(
1 −
ε 98 + ε 98+ )
(4.37)
ε u* = ln (1 + ε uni ) (4.38)

A 
ε *f = ln 0 
Af
  (4.39)
σ u* = (1 + ε uni ) f max (4.40)
Ff
σ *f =
Af
(4.41)
In expression (4.37) ε-98 and ε+98 are the strains corresponding to the stress σ98 at 98% of
fmax, before and after the maximum tensile load. In expression (4.39) Af is the minimum
cross-sectional area after fracture.
66
Finally, a remark on the decreasing branch observed in the nominal stress-strain curve
should be done. The lost of resistance presented by the tested element is observed not
due to a loss of resistance of the material, but because the element presents a zone with
reduce cross-section (element not uniform). Consequently, the load-carrying capacity of
the tested specimen decreases.
4.3.1.5 The damage of the material
Before fracture of the material there is a phenomenon which takes place at a
microscopic level and is due to a very severe necking, this is called the damage of the
material. Here, the material that could be considered continuum becomes discontinuous
due to the formation of voids, see Figure 4.14. The linkage of such voids causes the
eventual fracture of ductile tensile specimens.
Figure 4.14 – Scheme of the formation and propagation of voids.
When damage appears the true resistance of the material can then decrease which
explains part of the decreasing branch presented in the stress-strain curve.
4.3.1.6 Proposed constitutive law
The constitutive law that should be introduced in the software to model the material
behaviour is an important issue, and if the objective is to model ductility, the accuracy
of this law has some relevance.
From 4.3.1.1 to 4.3.1.5, the evolution of the stress-strain curve resulting from tensile
tests has been presented. In Figure 4.15, a schematic illustration of this evolution is
presented.
67
True
Nominal
Elastic range
Nominal aprox. True
Necking initiation Damage initiation
Plastic deformation initiation
Nominal diff. True
Figure 4.15 – Scheme of the evolution of the mechanical behaviour of a steel bar in a tension test.
In Figure 4.15, the middle dashed straight line limits the validity of the nominal strain
curve resulting from the procedure presented in 4.3.1.3. While in the elastic range there
are no relevant differences, from the left dashed line, the improvement of the Stress-
Strain curve is considerable and has reason to be done. Necking can be identified when
in the nominal curve the descending branch starts (middle dashed line). Finally, the
right dashed line marks the start of damage, the location of this line is symbolic as it
depends on the microstructure of the material; it can start with necking or later and
therefore can vary from specimen to specimen.
It has been seen that the real fracture of the material happens at a much higher strain
level than the usual one taken from tensile test due to the phenomenon of necking; this
is an important aspect and cannot be neglected if one wants to model ductility.
So finally, what is proposed to model the mechanical behaviour of the material is a
stress-strain curve as presented in Figure 4.16.
rupt
Figure 4.16 – Proposed curve for the constitutive law modelling.
68
The constitutive law proposed is based on the nominal stress-strain curve derived from
tension test corrected with the theory developed in 4.3.1.2. When the phenomenon of
necking starts, which can be identified in the nominal stress-strain curve by the
initiation of the descending branch, a plateau is proposed.
In 4.3.1.4, expressions proposed by Kato (1990) to obtain the behaviour of the material
in the necking portion have been presented; however, these expressions are not use as
the finite element employed in the numerical model is not able to reproduce fracture of
the material. The behaviour of the material in the necking portion is controlled by its
microstructure loosing the continuum state at the macroscopic level. Modelling the
material with a finite element which considers the material as continuum, no matter the
level of strain, extra resistance will be achieved. Thus, one has chosen to limit
maximum strength of the material to the maximum strength registered before necking,
where the material still behaves as a continuum.
The definition of a value for the strain at failure (εrupt in Figure 4.16) is difficult as it
depends on the microstructure of the material and must be based on specific tests. Some
values were found in the available literature; they are presented and compared later on.
These values can be used in future works on the subject.
4.3.2 Experimental work
When a numerical model is proposed, its validation is an important aspect as it shows
its reliability. In order to validate the numerical model, some experimental work is
needed. In the impossibility to realise tests, experimental work done on shear bolted
connection at the University of Ljubljana and at the Delft University of Technology
were used. In the present sub-section, the work done in these two universities is
presented.
4.3.2.1 Scope of the experimental research
4.3.2.1.1 Tests made at Delft University of Technology
At Delft, shear bolted connections made of high strength steel (S690) were tested. The
main aim of the study is to check if the rules for bearing, as they are presented in EC3,
are adequate for this type of steel. A correction function for the k1 factor of the bearing
resistance formula given by EC3 is proposed.
Two groups of tests were done; one bolt joints and two bolt joints. For the present work
only the group of one bolt joints is used.
4.3.2.1.2 Tests made at Ljubljana University
In Ljubljana, the same types of connections also made of high strength steel (S690)
were experimented. The scope of the work is to study the net cross-section failure and
the bearing of bolted connections made of high strength steel.
69
Three groups of tests were carried out; steel plates statically loaded until failure, bolted
connections with one and two bolt rows. The shear bolted connections with one bolt
row are used in the validation of the model.
4.3.2.2 Material properties of the specimens
The characterization of the material, as mentioned in 4.3.1, is an important issue for the
present work. Here, the nominal stress-strain curves reported in both experimental
works are presented and the respective treatment, showed in 4.3.1.2, is used in order to
derive a true stress – strain curve.
4.3.2.2.1 Delft steel properties
The steel used in the experiments was characterized by three tension tests carried out in
a specialized laboratory. All of the three specimens were parts of the strips used in the
tested joint.
The obtained nominal and true stress strain curves are presented in Figure 4.17. The true
stress-strain curve was derived using expressions (4.18) and (4.33).
900.0
800.0
A
700.0
600.0
Stress [MPa]
500.0
400.0
300.0 Nominal
True
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0%
Strain [%]
Figure 4.17 – Nominal and true stress-strain curves for the material used in Delft.
From point A, the real stress-strain curve is no longer correct, since necking has started.
However, equation (4.33) was still used to establish the true stress - strain curve beyond
the point A.
4.3.2.2.2 Ljubljana steel properties
Coupon tests were made for three specimens. Figure 4.18 presents the location of the
extracted samples. The steel plate from where they were extracted is the same used in
the experiments.
70
Figure 4.18 – Extraction location of the samples used in the tension tests.
The resulting nominal and true stress-strain curves are presented in Figure 4.19.
1000
900
A
800
700
Stress [MPa]
600
500
400
300
488.4 - Nominal
200
488.5 - Nominal
488.6 - Nominal
True
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Strain [%]
Figure 4.19 – nominal and true stress-strain curves from material used in Ljubljana.
In Figure 4.19, point A shows the limit of validity of the real stress-strain curve. In the
same figure are represented 3 experimental curves; comparing these curves one can
notice that until the maximum stress is achieved, stress-strain behaviour of all the
specimens is practically the same. Beyond point A, the difference is remarkable which
shows that necking is a phenomenon that varies from specimen to specimen depending
on the micro structure of the steel. And one should remind from Figure 4.18 that all
specimens were taken from the same steel plate and from almost in the same location.
4.3.2.2.3 Comparison of both corrections
In Figures 4.17 and 4.19, a comparison between the nominal stress-strain and the true
stress-strain curve can be observed. One can notice that a higher stress than the nominal
one can be achieved by the material. In fact, the true stress is about 8% higher than the
nominal for both groups of experiments.
From point A, the descending branch shows that the necking of the tested samples has
started. As mentioned before, this descending branch is not real at that point. There is a
reduction of load carrying capacity due to the reduction of section in the necked zone.
71
Nominal stress is determined according to the initial cross-section; consequently a

reduction is observed.
Both curves show a low ultimate strain, approximately 16% and 13%. But the real
ultimate strain should be much higher as the elongation is concentrated in the necking
zone. It is noted that according to EN 10002, the measurement is made through a long
element when compared to this zone.
4.3.2.3 Specimens configuration
4.3.2.3.1 Delft Specimens
Within the group of one bolt connections, 10 different configurations were defined. For
each configuration, 3 specimens were tested, which makes a total of 30 tested
specimens.
The different specimens were defined combining two main criteria:
Variation of the end/edge distance in order to achieve different values of k1 and
αb;
Bearing has to the failure mechanism of the specimen.
The bolts used are M24 diameter and 10.9 grade. Figure 4.20 illustrates the specimen
configuration and Table 4.19 summarizes the data of each specimen.
Figure 4.20 – Notation and specimen geometry. Delft tests.
72
Table 4.19- Data of the specimens tested in Delft.
Geometry Bolt
Test Number Plate
ID of tests b t Agross Anet d d0 Class
e1/d0 e2/d0 Class
[mm] [mm] [mm2] [mm2] [mm] [mm]
A1010 3 1.0 1.0 52 10 520 260 24 26 10.9 S690
A1210 3 1.2 1.0 52 10 520 260 24 26 10.9 S690
A1012 3 1.0 1.2 62.4 10 624 364 24 26 10.9 S690
A1212 3 1.2 1.2 62.4 10 624 364 24 26 10.9 S690
A1015 3 1.0 1.5 78 10 780 520 24 26 10.9 S690
A1215 3 1.2 1.5 78 10 780 520 24 26 10.9 S690
A1020 3 1.0 2.0 104 10 1040 780 24 26 10.9 S690
A1220 3 1.2 2.0 104 10 1040 780 24 26 10.9 S690
A2020 3 2.0 2.0 104 10 1040 780 24 26 10.9 S690
In the identification of all specimens the relation between the end and/or edge distances
and the hole diameter is expressed. In example, specimen A1215: 12 mean that the end
distance is 1.2 d0 and 15 mean that the edge distance 1.5 d0.
4.3.2.3.2 Ljubljana Specimens
From Ljubljana, only the group with one bolt connections is used to validate the
numerical model. In this group, 25 different configurations were defined. For each
configuration, just one specimen was tested.
As in Delft, the end (e1) and the edge (e2) distances were varied; however bearing
failure mode was not imposed.
Three types of bolts were used: M27 diameter and 10.9 grade; M27 diameter and 12.9
grade; and, M22 diameter and 12.9 grade. In Figure 4.21 a specimen’s scheme is shown,
and in Table 4.20 all the data relative to each specimen are presented.
e2
O30 b
e2
120 e1
Figure 4.21 – Notation and specimen’s geometry. Ljubljana tests.
73
Table 4.20 – Data of the specimens tested in Ljubljana.
Geometry Bolt
Test Number of Plate
ID Test t Agross Anet d d0 Class
e1/d0 e2/d0 b[mm] Class
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
B101 1 3.0 1.0 60.0 10 600 300 27 30 10.9 S690
B102 1 1.2 1.2 72.0 10 720 420 27 30 10.9 S690
B103 1 1.5 1.2 72.0 10 720 420 27 30 10.9 S690
B104 1 2.0 1.2 72.0 10 720 420 27 30 10.9 S690
B105 1 3.0 1.2 72.0 10 720 420 27 30 10.9 S690
B106 1 2.5 1.35 81.0 10 810 510 27 30 10.9 S690
B107 1 3.0 1.35 81.0 10 810 510 27 30 10.9 S690
B108 1 3.35 1.667 100.02 10 1000.2 700.2 27 30 10.9 S690
B109 1 1.0 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B110 1 1.2 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B111 1 1.5 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B112 1 2.0 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B113 1 2.5 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B114 1 3.0 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B115 1 3.0 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B116 1 1.5 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B117 1 1.5 1.5 90.0 10 900 600 27 30 10.9 S690
B118 1 1.5 2.0 120.0 10 1200 900 27 30 12.9 S690
B119 1 2.0 2.0 120.0 10 1200 900 27 30 12.9 S690
B120 1 2.5 2.0 120.0 10 1200 900 27 30 12.9 S690
B121 1 3.0 2.0 120.0 10 1200 900 27 30 12.9 S690
B122 1 3.5 2.0 120.0 10 1200 900 27 30 12.9 S690
B123 1 4.167 1.6667 80.0 10 800 560 22 24 12.9 S690
B124 1 4.167 1.4167 68.0 10 680 440 22 24 12.9 S690
B125 1 4.167 1.1667 56.0 10 560 320 22 24 12.9 S690
74
4.3.2.4 Experimental procedure

4.3.2.4.1 Delft Tests
A force driven testing machine was used to test all specimens. To measure the bearing
deformation, two LVDT were used. The tested connections configuration consists of
two joints: the tested one and a strongest one. The tested specimen is clamped in an
anchorage device made with the strongest joint; the specimen was placed so that all the
plates were aligned. Figure 4.22 illustrates the test layout.
Figure 4.22 – Delft’s test layout.
With its self-weight, the tested plate and the bolt gets in contact before the bolts tight, in
this way initial slip of the plates is avoided. Subsequently, the bolts were hand-tightened.
The load was applied up to failure of the tested specimens.
In Figure 4.23 one can see the test set-up of one of the tested specimens.
Figure 4.23 – Delft’s test set- up.
75
4.3.2.4.2 Ljubljana tests

The tests were made in a 1000kN testing machine. Special forks were made to connect
the specimens. These forks were exposed only to elastic deformation. Inductive
displacement transducers were fixed in the fork and in the specimen to measure relative
displacements between them. Bolts were snug tightened. Figure 4.24 shows the test
layout.
Figure 4.24 – Ljubljana’s test layout.
The specimens were loaded until failure. In Figure 4.25 the test set-up is shown.
Figure 4.25 – Ljubljana’s test set-up.
4.3.2.5 Test results

For both test programmes, force-displacement curves were reported, the failure modes
were identified, the maximum load and the displacement at maximum load determined.
Hereafter, the results for the two different test programmes are presented.
4.3.2.5.1 Delft results
Table 4.21 summarizes the relevant results.
76
Table 4.21 – Delft test results.
Test Specimen Fu [kN] δu [mm] Failure mechanism
A1010 178.1 5.4 Bearing
A1012 183.1 5.0 Bearing
A1210 209.0 4.1 Net Section
A1212 226.2 4.8 Bearing
A1015 192.0 5.7 Bearing
A1215 228.2 5.6 Bearing
A1020 195.3 4.7 Bearing
A1220 240.6 5.1 Bearing
A2020 390.8 11.7 Bearing
In all the specimens, except A1210 which presented a net section failure mode, a
bearing failure mechanism has been achieved, as predicted by Eurocode provisions. The
values in Table 4.21 are average, resulting from 3 tests carried out for each
configuration.
In Figure 4.26, load-displacement curves of all the tested specimens are plotted.
450
400
350
300
F [kN]
250
A1212
200
150
A1210
100
50
A1010 A1012 A1215 A1020 A1210 A1212 A1215 A1220 A2020
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
u [mm]
Figure 4.26 – Results of all the tested specimens from Delft.
The comparison between A1210 (black) and A1212 (light blue) shows that the net
section failure has less ductile behaviour than the bearing failure, as these two
specimens have the same end distances and achieve different failure modes. Specimens
A1210 show that EC3 is too much conservative for edge distance e2 ≤ 1.2d0.
77
With the increase of the end distance, the deformation at failure (δmax) increases as well
as the ultimate force. On the other hand, with the increase of the edge distance, δmax and
the ultimate force are approximately the same.
All the specimens showed a relevant bearing deformation, and failure was reached by
shearing of the plate. In A2020, it was possible to identify transverse tension fracture at
the end of the plate combined with shear fracture, see Figure 4.27 c). In Figure 4.27,
photographs of three tested specimens with different configurations show their failure
mode.
A1212_3 A1210_2 A2020_1
a) b) c)
Figure 4.27 – Failure in three of the tested specimens.
Figure 4.27 a) and c) show two specimens who failed by shear of plate, considerable
bearing deformation is observed which confirm that these two types of failure are
associated. In Figure 4.27 b) net cross section failure mode is observed; small
elongation of the hole is noticed.
4.3.2.5.2 Ljubljana results
Table 4.22 presents the results obtained at Ljubljana.
78
Table 4.22 – Ljubljana test results.
Test Specimen Fu [kN] δu [mm] Failure Mechanism
B101 262 2.4 Net Section
B102 273 5.1 Bearing
B103 342 6.1 Net Section / Bearing
B119 530 12.0 Bearing
B120 629 19.5 Bearing
79
The specimens experimented at Ljubljana had different configurations and no failure

mechanism was imposed by a preliminary design; therefore, many presented Net
Section failure modes.
Figures 4.28 and 4.29 shows the load-displacement curves reported. As for the Delft
tests, the bearing failure mode exhibit higher ductility when compared with net section
failure.
500
450
B106
400 B113 B114
350 B117
B111
300 B103
F [kN]
B110
250
200
B104
B102
150
B108 B115
B101 B107 B109 B116
100 B105
50
B112
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
u [mm]
Figure 4.28 – Test results of specimens B101 to B117.
800
700
600
500
F[kN]
400
B119
300
B122
B123
B121
200 B124
B120
B118
100
B125
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
u [mm]
Figure 4.29 – Tests results of specimens B118 to B125.
In Figure 4.30, some of the failures modes obtained are shown.
80
a) b) c)
Figure 4.30 – Failure in three of the tested specimens.
The specimen in Figure 4.30 a) presents a bearing failure mode; transverse tension
failure at the plate extrimity is observed. In Figure 4.30 b) the specimen failed by shear
of the plate, considerable bearing deformation is noticed. Finally, the specimen in
Figure 4.30 c) presents a net cross-section failure, but some bearing deformation is also
observed.
4.3.2.5.3 Commentary to the presented results
It is clearly identified in both groups of tests that bearing failure mode is much more
ductile than net section failure.
One can observe, in some cases, that the bearing failure mode as defined in EC3, is not
purely bearing, this failure mode is often associated with a shear failure mode. The end
distance (e1) controls the failure mode achieved; low values of e1 gives shear/bearing
failure modes and for high values of e1, only bearing failure appears. Low values of e2
cause net section failure. The tension that develops in front of the hole (at the end edge)
is also considerable; in fact it can be seen in some specimens (B110, B112 and A2020)
that part of rupture develops in this zone.
The phenomenon explained in 4.3.1.4. (Damage) can be identified roughly in Figures
4.26, 4.28 and 4.29. Figures 4.31 and 4.32 highlight this phenomenon for two
specimens.
81
450
Possible Damage Initiation

400
350
300
F [kN] Possible Crack Initiation
250
Possible Damage Initiation

200
150
A1020 A2020
100 Possible Crack Initiation
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
u [mm]
Figure 4.31 – Damage and crack initiation of specimens A2020 and A1020.
550
500 B113
450
400 Possible Damage Possible Crack Initiation

Initiation
350
F [kN]
300
B110
250
200
150 Possible Damage Initiation

Possible Crack Initiation
100
50
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
u [mm]
Figure 4.32 – Damage and crack initiation of specimens B110 and B113.
The loss of resistance presented by the specimens, in the absence of instability

phenomena, can be explained by the formation of voids and their development. Thus, as
the hereafter presented numerical model is not able to reproduce this phenomenon it
will be impossible to follow the load-displacement curve from the maximum value
onwards. One can also observe that, from the beginning of the damage, the specimens
present a considerable ductility, if the failure mode is bearing/shear.
Finally, a remark must be done; in Ljubljana, a group of specimens were tested in
tension were marked with squares. This allows to visualize the deformation achieved by
the specimen along its length. Locally in fracture zone, it appears that the deformation
achieved seems clearly higher than the one reported in the nominal stress-strain curves.
Figure 4.33 shows one of these specimens.
82
Figure 4.33 – Specimen showing great deformation in the fractured zone.
The squares in the cracked zone before loading had size equal to the ones at the
extremes. After the test, the differences are obvious; the squares are now rectangles with
a longitudinal side (side in the loading direction) approximately twice as long when
compared to the initial length.
Incidentally, if one assumes that at the end, the elongation of the “square” is twice the
initial, the true strain would be:
ε t = ln(2) ⇒ ε t ≈ 70% (4.42)
It is a rough calculation, but it is a value that can give an approximation of the true
strain the material can support which is much higher than the one reported in the
nominal curve; this confirms the theory presented before. One cannot forget that the
ultimate strain depends strongly on the micro-structure of the material which can
strongly vary from specimen to specimen; however, it seems clear that the value 13%
(Figure 4.19) is an unreal value. Because tensile tests are normalized for all steels, it is
clear that lower grade steels are more ductile than S690. However, for numerical
proposes (where strain is calculated at discrete spots, this argument is very relevant).
4.3.3 Numerical model
The numerical model is a useful tool in the analyses of the mechanics of structures and
materials. A simple model can save time and money; however the accuracy can
decrease with simplicity. The optimum is to find a model as simple as possible but at
the same time with sufficient accuracy. The numerical analyst is therefore faced to
choices related to: node number, integration point number through element thickness,
time-step size for constitutive law integration. These choices depend on the available
resources, problem geometry, type of loading and required accuracy.
In the present sub-section, the numerical model proposed is presented. Physicals
phenomena that could influence the behaviour of the model are discussed and the
validation of the model is done.
83
4.3.3.1 Software used

The software used is LAGAMINE. LAGAMINE code is a research tool which evolved
with time. LAGAMINE is composed by two parts: (i) PREPRO, a pre-processor that
reads data from an “engineer-type” data file and transforms them into “finite element-
type” data, checking their consistency; (ii) LENABO, the program that performs the
non linear analysis after reading some additional data for the solution strategy.
The main reason to use this software is its availability to perform numerical calculations
of large deformation problems including contact problems, which could not necessarily
be done by other available software.
4.3.3.2 Idealised model
Although all the available experiments are done with double overlap bolted connections
a simplified model that could simulate only the bearing component of the main tested
plate is proposed. At the end, results are extrapolated in order to be compared with the
tests.
The basic model to study the bearing component consists of a plate with a hole which is
pushed, in the longitudinal direction, by a rigid element (bolt). The plate is fixed in the
opposite end direction. Figure 4.34 shows an illustration of the idealised basic model.
Figure 4.34 – Idealised model.
Throughout the development of each analysis the model received several improvements
in order to achieve the required level of accuracy. The changes made result from the
introduction of some physical parameters that initially were supposed not to have
relevant influence. Thus, the final model is the outcome of the analysis of several
parameters.
4.3.3.3 FEM model
The mesh of the plate is defined using the simplification allowed by the symmetry of
the problem. Therefore half of the width and of the thickness is modelled, as illustrated
in Figure 4.35.
84
a)
b)
Figure 4.35 – Mesh of the simulated plate.
Half of the plate is modelled for symmetry reason; boundary conditions are defined
accordingly. In Figure 4.35, the green triangles represent the support conditions,
displacements are blocked in Y and Z direction. Blue fixations symbolize symmetry
conditions.
The plate is modelled using the 3D volume elements (BLW3D – Figure 4.36) available
in LAGAMINE. This element is defined by 8 nodes and 1 Gauss integration point.
Figure 4.36 – 8 nodes brick element.
For the bolt, two models were done. Initially, the bolt was modelled as a rigid element,
no deformation being considered. Subsequently, to test its influence, a deformable bolt
85
was modelled. The same simplifications due to symmetry were used. The bolt mesh is
presented in the next sub-section when the influence of its deformability is studied. The
same type of finite elements is used.
To model the contact problems, plane elements (CIF3D – Figure 4.37) able to model the
three-dimensional mechanical contact problem were used. The CFI3D is composed by 4
nodes and 4 Gauss integration points.
Figure 4.37 – 4 nodes plane element.
4.3.3.4 Extrapolation of results

Before presenting any result from the numerical simulations a remark must be done. As
one can observe from 4.3.3.2, the idealised model is composed by a single plate;
however; in the experiments double overlap connections are used. So, in order to
compare results, an extrapolation of the numerical results must be done.
In Delft and in Ljubljana, the test set-up is different which means that different
extrapolations have to be used (remember Figures 4.20 and 4.22). In Ljubljana, cover
plates are used increasing the resistance of the outer plates.
From the numerical simulation only the bearing deformation of the tested plate is
extracted, while in the tests the contribution of outer plates and bolt are taken into
account in the reported load-displacement curves. So, when a comparison between the
numerical model and experiments is done the contribution of outer plates and bolt has to
be added to the bearing deformation of the plate simulated numerically.
The contribution of the outer plates is based on an assumed similar behaviour between
these plates and the tested one. For the Delft models, as there is no cover plate, half of
the bearing deformation is added to determine the global deformation, see expression
(4.43). For the Ljubljana models it was assumed that the outer plates had double
thickness due to the cover plate. Therefore a quarter of the bearing deformation was
added, see expression (4.44). For both models the contribution of the bolt is determined
using Eurocode provisions for bolts in shear.
3
δ Delft = δ pnum
,b
mod el
+ δ bEC 3
2 (4.43)
86
5
δ Ljubljana = δ pnum
,b
mod el
+ δ bEC 3
4 (4.44)
Note that the deformation of the bolt is determined taking into account that in a double
overlap connection two shear planes exist.
Finally, in order to make a distinction between deformations (bearing deformation and
global connection deformation), it must be mentioned that later one refers to bearing as
the deformation of the simple tested plate, what means that no extrapolation is done; so
only results from the numerical model are considered.
4.3.3.5 Evolution of the numerical model
4.3.3.5.1 Methodology
The model finally used for the simulations is the result of sensivity analyses to: (i) the
constitutive law introduced in LAGAMINE; (ii) the modelling of the bolt as a
deformable or rigid element; (iii) the confinement effect given by the outer plate, and
the resulting friction effect between the plates.
The contact between bolt and plates, and between plates, requires the definition of a
friction coefficient. This parameter that can influence the resistance of each specimen
does not influence the general behaviour as: deformation, initial stiffness, failure mode,
etc. All the parameters referred before are simulated with a coefficient of 0.3 (usual
value); later a more precise value is calibrated.
Each one of the mentioned parameters (constitutive law, bolt modelling and
confinement effect) is analyzed individually, meaning that when one parameter is study
the others are defined as in the final model. An exception is made to the friction
coefficient because its main influence is on the resistance.
In order to avoid many simulations, only one of the specimens is used. The chosen
specimen is taken from Delft experiments. A2020 is the chosen specimen and its
dimensions are reproduced in Figure 4.38.
Figure 4.38 – Dimensions of the physical model (A2020 Specimen).
87
4.3.3.5.2 Constitutive law

Three different constitutive laws were analyzed: (i) the nominal stress-strain reported in
the experiments (Nominal); (ii) a corrected law neglecting the necking phenomenon
(Corrected 1), and in which a decreasing branch is considered after the maximum; and
(iii) a corrected one considering the existence of the necking (Corrected 2), with no
decreasing branch after the maximum. The three constitutive laws are illustrated in
Figure 4.39.
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
Stress [MPa]
500.0
400.0
300.0
Nominal Corrected_1 Corrected_2

200.0
100.0
0.0
0.00% 2.50% 5.00% 7.50% 10.00% 12.50% 15.00% 17.50% 20.00%
Strain [%]
Figure 4.39 – Illustration of all the three constitutive laws.
In Figure 4.39, the constitutive law in blue represents the nominal stress-strain curve
derived from tensile tests. The maximum stress achieved by the material is lower and it
is considered that the material cracks at approximately 18% of strain. Thus, a lower
resistance of the numerical model is normally achieved and the calculation stops earlier
than the tests.
For the constitutive law presented in green in Figure 4.39 a correction is made
according to equations (4.18) and (4.33); however the necking is neglected what means
that a descending branch is considered for low values of strain. As no information was
found for the real ultimate strain, no limit was considered.
Finally, the constitutive law represented in red corresponds to a corrected law
considering necking; therefore no decrease of stress was considered. In the impossibility
to have an exact model of the material behaviour for high values of strain, a plateau was
assumed when the maximum strength is achieved. No limit to the strain was introduced.
In Figure 4.40 the F-d curve of the three models is compared. Experimental results are
added in order to compare the accuracy of each model.
88
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00 A
F [kN]
250.00
200.00
Test_1 Test_2 Test_3 A2020_Nominal A2020_Corrected_1 A2020_Corrected_2

150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.40 – Comparison between the different constitutive laws modelled.
From Figure 4.40, some observations are made:

The model with nominal constitutive law is stopped very early due to a small
value of εlim. It shows clearly that the real strain capacity of the material is much
higher than the nominal value derived. The stresses achieve high values for a
low deformation of the connection (compared to the ultimate deformation), as
shown in Figure 4.41 a). In Figure 4.41 b) distribution of equivalent strain is
shown; from this figure the zone where failure will start to develop can be
identified. The state of stress and strain presented corresponds to the point A
(pink point) in the load-displacement curve.
a)
89
b)
Figure 4.41 – a) Von Mises equivalent stress distribution – A2020_Nominal. b) Von Mises equivalent strain
distribution – A2020_Nominal.
The two models with the corrected laws show that the nominal constitutive law
looses its validity not only when the plastic deformation achieves considerable
values. The model “Corrected 1”, where the plateau in the stress-strain curve is
assumed to start from the epsilon limit derived in the tension test, suffers a
reduction of resistance due to the loss of resistance in the material. It can be
observed by a small “wave” in the load-displacement curve. While for the
model “Corrected 2”, the numerical simulation shows a response similar to the
experimental one. The two models, Corrected_1 and Corrected_2, are compared
in Figure 4.42, where just bearing deformation of the tested plate is reported.
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
F [kN]
250.0
200.0
A2020_Corrected_1' A2020_Corrected_2
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.42 – Comparison between the two models, Corrected 1 and Corrected 2 (bearing deformation).
4.3.3.5.3 Bolt model

In the experiments strong bolts were used in order to have a “weak” plate that controls
the global deformation and failure of the connection. Therefore, a rigid bolt was initially
modelled. The rigid bolt is modelled by means of a rigid foundation. The bolt is
90
replaced by a rigid cylinder which is considered as not deformable. Modelling the bolt
with rigid foundation has the main advantage of avoiding the bolt modelling, what
simplifies the model and reduces the time of calculation.
Considering the bolt as a fully rigid element is unrealistic. The deformability of the bolt
can influence the stress distribution in the plate after contact. The way stresses diffuse in
the plate vary from a flexible bolt to a rigid one; in the first case, a much wider
dispersion of stresses may be expected, while for the later a concentration of the stresses
can be observed.
In order to check the influence of the bolt deformability, an additional simulation with a
deformable bolt has been done. As mentioned before, the bolt was modelled with the
same type of finite elements than those used to model the plate. Using the symmetry of
the problem only half of the bolt is considered, the head is not considered in the model
(see Figure 4.43).
Figure 4.43 – Bolt model.
The supports of the bolt were defined by taking into account the symmetry of the
problem (blue supports). Additional supports are considered in the X direction to model
the reaction given by the external plate (green supports); these supports are located at
external part of the bolt that is supposed to contact with the external plate (3 upper
levels – 2 layers of elements). This distribution of the supports gives an approximate
idea of the real flow of stresses through the bolt.
The bolt material was modelled by a simple bilinear law. The Young’s modulus
considered is the same as for the plate and the ultimate strength is taken as equal to the
value reported in the tension tests of the bolt made in Delft. In Figure 4.44, the F-d
curves of the two models are compared.
91
450.00
B
400.00 A
350.00
D
300.00
F [kN] C
250.00
200.00
Test_1 Test_2 Test_3 A2020_BR A2020_BF

150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.44 – Comparison between the rigid and the flexible bolt models.
It is obvious, from Figure 4.44, that the two models give practically the same result; this
shows that the bolt does not influence the behaviour of the connection in terms of the
global response. In Figure 4.45, stress and strain distributions at two different levels for
both simulations are shown.
a) Strains - flexible model b) Stresses- flexible model
c) Strains - rigid model d) Stresses - rigid model
Low level of load.
e) Strains – flexible model f) Stresses – flexible model
92
g) Strains – rigid model h) Stresses – rigid model
High level of load.
Figure 4.45 – Distribution of stresses in the two models for two different load levels.
All figures in the left [a), c), e) and g)] represent the state of strain of the models; in the
right [b), d), f) and h)] the state of stresses is shown. Figures 4.45 a), b), e) and f)
correspond to the model with flexible bolt; Figures 4.45 c), d), g) and h) correspond to
the model with a rigid bolt. Finally the first four figures [a) to d)] are taken at a low
level of load, while the last four [e) to h)] are taken at a high level of load. Figure 4.45 a)
and b) correspond to point B in the load-displacement curve; Figure 4.45 c) and d) to
point A; Figure 4.45 e) and f) to point D; and Figure 4.45 g) and h) to point C (Figure
4.44).
Figure 4.46 shows the deformation of the bolt in the plane of symmetry (ZX) at the two
load levels represented before. It can be seen that its deformation is quite small.
a) b)
Figure 4.46 – Deformation of the bolt at two different load levels.
In Figure 4.46 a) the deformation of the bolt, is shown at low level of load. In 4.46 b),
the same type of figure is shown for a higher level of load. In black is represented the
initial configuration of the bolt while in red, the deformed shape. One can observe that
there is not a significant difference between both and that the deformation of the bolt is
almost imperceptible.
4.3.3.5.4 Confinement effect
The numerical model described before is so used to study the bearing phenomenon.
However, double overlap connections, which introduce phenomena that are not directly
related with bearing (in a simple plate), are used to validate the numerical model. In
93
order to verify the accuracy of this tool some of these phenomena cannot be neglected
as they have some influence on the response of the specimens.
Aceti et al. (2003) made numerical simulations on joints in shear with a single bolt and
studied the restraining effect of the nut and/or washer, on the overall joint behaviour,
with non preloaded bolts. The finite element calculation showed an increase of
resistance coming from the restraining of the plate deformation in the vicinity of the
hole due to presence of the nut, washer and bolt head.
In the tests, the two outer plates confine the tested one when the bolt is tightened (the
bolts are snug-tight). Once the bolt’s shanks enter in contact with the plate, the zone in
front of the bolt is in compression and the plate deforms by inflation. If no confinement
is considered the plate is free to deform. Therefore, a stiffer response is expected if the
confinement effect is modelled.
To model the confinement, two models were studied:
in the first, at the top surface of the tested plate the nodes are constrained in the
transverse direction; this represent a extreme situation where confinement is
directly “applied” to the tested plate, see Figure 4.47.
in the second, part of the outer plate is modelled; this appears as an
approximation of the real situation where the confinement is influenced also by
the deformation of the external plate, see Figure 4.48.
Figure 4.47 – Localization of the nodes blocked in the model with rigid confinement.
In the first model (Figure 4.47), the zone which was defined to be blocked has been
defined taking into account the following assumptions:
Only half part of the refined meshed zone that is in contact is considered (zone
where the deformation of the plate may be affected by the confinement of the
cover plates).
The area which is supposed to be affected by the confinement is determined by
approximation using the same principles than those applicable to connections
with preloaded bolts. The pre-stress diffuse through the plate thickness from the
bolt head affecting a certain area of the plates. According to the available
literature, Bourrier et al (APK, 1996), ratios between the bolt shank cross-
94
section and the plates area affected may vary from 1 to 9. Here a value has been
determined by considering a propagation of the effect through a line of 45º
starting from the edge of the bolt head. So, the area of the plate which is
blocked is considered 6.4 times the bolts shank cross-section.
The selected nodes to be blocked are the ones which fulfil the two previous
requirements.
a)
b)
Figure 4.48 – Model with cover plate.
In the second model (Figure 4.48), the confinement is given by the presence of the
external plate. The external plate is blocked in the region which will be in contact with
the bolt head, Figure 4.49.
External Plate
Constrain given by the bolt head
Bolt Centre
Bolt Shank, External Plate

modeled as rigid
element
Main Plate
Bolt's Head in contact with external plate
Figure 4.49 – Scheme of the confinement effect given by the bolts head.
95
The part of the bolt head which will be in contact with the plate is represented in red in
Figure 4.49.
In order to check the influence of the confinement, a third model is simulated. In this
one, no confinement is considered; neither the presence of the external plate nor the
transverse constraint of the main plate in the compression region is considered. The
results of the three models are presented in Figure 4.50.
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
F [kN]
200.00
150.00
Test_1 Test_2 Test_3 A2020_WC A2020_RC A2020_Confined

100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.50 – Comparison of the three models to study the confinement effect.
Figure 4.50 shows that the model without any confinement effect is less stiff (curve in
light blue – A2020_WC). In green (A2020_RC) is presented the model with the “rigid”
confinement. When comparing this model to the model with the external plate (red
curve – A2020_Confined), a stiffer (in the elastic part) but however less resistant model
is observed. The model without any confinement achieves the same resistance as
A2020_RC. This fact can be explained by the absence of friction forces in both models.
An approximation to the contribution of the friction to the resistance of the connection
can be derived by the difference between the curve in red and in green. However, one
must remember that the friction effect depend on the friction coefficient; a value 0.3 has
here been used. In next sub-section, the influence of this coefficient is analyzed.
Figure 4.51 shows the influence of the different models on the deformation of the main
plate near the contact zone.
a) b)
96
c)
Figure 4.51 – Plates deformation: a) Model without any confinement; b) Model with “rigid” confinement; c)
Model with confinement modelled with the cover plate.
The three figures represent the middle plane of the plate (XZ plane). On the right, the
relevant part of the plate, the compression zone, is presented. In Figure 4.51 a) it is clear
that the plate is free to deform; in Figure 4.51 b) no deformation happens in the blocked
region; Figure 4.51 c) shows that some deformation can happen even if the cover plate
is modelled; however, the deformation is limited due to the presence of the cover plate.
4.3.3.5.5 Friction coefficient
The friction coefficient is a parameter related to the contact problem. In the present
work, two different regions with contact problems are defined: the contact between bolt
and plates, and the contact between both plates.
The same friction coefficient is taken in both contact regions. The value usually taken
for contact problems between steel surfaces is 0.3 which has been adopted in all the
models presented before.
In the literature, some values were found for an approximate value of the friction
coefficient to use for contact surfaces clamped by bolts; the values presented for contact
surfaces steel on steel vary from 0.15 to 0.25, i.e. lower values than the ones used above.
So, the influence of this parameter is studied by varying it from 0.15 to 0.25. In Figure
4.52, the comparison between the different values taken for the friction coefficient is
shown. Three additional values were tested: 0.15; 0.20 and 0.25.
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
F [kN]
200.00
150.00
Test_1 Test_2 Test_3 A2020_Fric_0.15 A2020_Fric_0.20 A2020_Fric_0.25 A2020_Fric_0.30

100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.52 – Load-displacement curve for four different values of the friction coefficient.
97
The friction coefficient for the same material can vary according to different factors as:
wrinkled or smooth surfaces; dry or lubricated surfaces; pressure between surfaces; test
velocity; etc. As no information is given in the test reports, the value which fits better
the presented model is taken. From Figure 4.52 this value is equal to 0.20 (green curve).
The same value has been used by Ju et al. (2003) in the finite element analyses of bolted
connections where friction between plates was not neglected.
From the figure, one can see that the main influence of this parameter appears in the
post-elastic region, on the resistance of the model.
4.3.3.6 Final model
The final model is the result of the study presented in 4.3.3.5. The parameters studied
are here presented as they are going to be used for the numerical simulation of all the
available specimens.
The assumptions taken for these parameters are hereafter summarized, with their final
values:
Constitutive law – Stress-Strain curve with the correction, no limit for the strain
(Corrected_2 in 4.3.3.5.2);
Bolt – rigid bolt is model (un-deformable bolt);
Confinement – the outsider plate is added to the model in order to introduce the
confinement effect;
Friction effect – the value of 0.20 is taken.
4.3.3.7 Strain at failure
In the constitutive law for steel presented in 4.3.3.5, no limit has been imposed to the
strain. As mentioned, the definition of a value of the strain at failure is difficult as it
depends on the material microstructure; and no experimental information is available.
In the literature dedicated to the ductile fracture of steel, Lemaitre (1985) and Chi et al
(2006), some values of ultimate strain at rupture were found. In the first publication, a
model of isotropic ductile damage based on a continuum damage variable, on the
effective stress concept and on thermodynamics is derived. The author presents the
evolution of ductile damage for several materials based on that model. For structural
steel, the one-dimensional strain at failure achieved values between 0.8 and 0.9. Chi et
al (2006) proposed a relatively simple model, known as the micromechanics-based
stress modified critical strain (SMCS), to evaluate conditions for ductile fracture. The
finite element calculations revealed that the material achieved 0.9 of equivalent plastic
strain. The material used was S355.
In Figure 4.53, the moment at which these values of equivalent strain are reached during
the simulations are indicated in the load-displacement curve (black and blue point).
98
450.00
e=0.9
400.00
350.00
e=0.8
300.00
F [kN]
250.00
200.00
Test_1 Test_2 Test_3 A2020

150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.53 – Identification of the maximum equivalent strain in the load-displacement curves.
The results show that, in the experiments, the material was able to support higher
deformations. However, taking as a limit 0.9, the global deformation of the connection
is considerable (≈ 16.5mm); therefore, for a simple model, these limit values can be
considered as safe and acceptable.
Though the definition of this limit strain value, the moment at which the simulation has
to be stopped may be defined and so the ductility of the plate/bolt in bearing may be
evaluated.
4.3.3.8 Validation of the proposed numerical model
The validation of the numerical model is based in the comparison of the load-
displacement curves; from Delft experiments, an image of the failure for each specimen
was available therefore; these are used and compared with the deformation of the
numerical model. Obviously the numerical model is not able to predict failure; but
however a similar deformation should be found.
4.3.3.8.1 Delft specimens
Three additional specimens were simulated. One of the specimens which exhibited a
net-section failure mode is included to show the accuracy of the model for this type of
failure mode too. The specimens numerically simulated are A1212, A1210 and A1215.
99
A1210
250.00
200.00 A
150.00
F [kN]
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.54 – Load-displacement curves for A1210 specimen.
a) b)
Figure 4.55 – a) Failure of the tested specimen A1210_2; b) Deformation of the numerical model A1210 at point
A in Figure 4.54.
A1212
250.00
A
200.00
150.00
F [kN]
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
u [mm]
100
a) b)
Figure 4.57– a) Failure of the tested specimen A1212_1; b) Deformation of the numerical model A1212 at point A
in Figure 4.56.
A1215
250.00
A
200.00
150.00
F [kN]
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
u [mm]
a) b)
Figure 4.59 – a) Failure of the tested specimen A1215_3; b) Deformation of the numerical model A1215 at point
A in Figure 4.58.
From the load displacement curves one can observe that the numerical model has a good
accuracy. Initial stiffness and resistance are rather well approximated. The simulation of
A1210 specimen shows the numerical model is appropriate when dealing with other
types of failure: here, Net Section Failure.
101
Figures 4.54, 4.57 and 4.59 show that the numerical model achieved the correct
deformation shape. Strong elongation of the hole and “increase” of the plate width is
observed in Figure 4.57 and 4.59, the complete tear out is impossible to be observed due
to the incapacity of the model to simulate completely the failure. In Figure 4.54 the
necking of the net cross-section is perfectly simulated by the numerical model.
4.3.3.8.2 Ljubljana specimens
The numerical model was also tested with the Ljubljana’s specimens. Three specimens
were simulated; one of the specimens that showed a net-section failure and the other
two, bearing failure. The specimens numerically simulated are B110, B113 and B117.
B110
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
F [kN]
150.00
Test B110
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.60 – Load-displacement curves for B110 specimen.
a) b)
Figure 4.61 – a) Failure of the tested specimen B110; b) Deformation of the numerical model B110 at point A in
Figure 4.60.
102
B113
600.00
500.00 A
400.00
F [kN]
300.00
Test B113
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
u [mm]
a) b)
Figure 4.63 – a) Failure of the tested specimen B113; b) Deformation of the numerical model B113 at point A in
Figure 4.62.
B117
400.00
350.00 A
300.00
250.00
F [kN]
200.00
Test B117
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
u [mm]
103
Figure 4.65 – Deformation of the numerical model B117 at point A in Figure 4.63.
For the specimen B117 no photo of the specimen’s condition after the failure was
available.
Good approximation is observed. As for the Delft specimens, the numerical model has
good accuracy in the elastic and post-elastic zones. The numerical and real behaviour,
start to have some discrepancies when the damage of the material starts as the numerical
model is not able to reproduce it.
4.3.4 Comparison of the numerical model with EC3 approach
The current Eurocode 3 approach for plate/bolt in bearing component is restricted to
connections made of mild steel up to S460. However, nowadays, High Strength Steel is
more and more in use. In the absence of specific information for this type of steel,
Eurocode recommendations for mild steel are anyway applied. Therefore, it is of
interest to compare the numerical results and the Eurocode approach.
4.3.4.1 EC3 approach
The EC3 approach for the plate/bolt in bearing component consists in the evaluation of
two parameters: the initial stiffness and the resistance. In Chapter 2 the code approach
was reviewed.
For the ultimate deformation, no recommendation is given in the Eurocode. Jaspart
(Ph.D., 1991) suggested an analytical expression to estimate the deformation capacity
for plate/bolt in bearing. That expression is used in this thesis.
Fb, Rd
δ u , p = 11 (4.45)
S p ,b
where Fb,Rd and Sp,b were defined in equations (2.4) and (2.8), respectively.
4.3.4.2 Comparison
Two distinct comparisons are made hereafter. First, the initial bearing stiffness and the
bearing resistance according to the code recommendations are compared with the
numerical results. After, a comparison between the expression (4.45) to determine the
ultimate bearing deformation and the experimental curve is made.
104
Three specimens from Delft experiments have been used. The specimens chosen were
A1212, A1215 and A2020; data can be reminded in Table 4.19. These specimens were
taken in order to have cases with a variation of e1 and e2 from small to higher values
[1.2d0 → 2d0].
The mechanical properties of the steel plates are taken from Eurocode recommendations
using the nominal values for a S690 therefore; fu was taken equal to 770 MPa.
In Figures 4.66 a), 4.67 a) and 4.68 a) the comparison with the code approach is
presented. The numerical results used correspond to the pure bearing behaviour of the
main plate, no extrapolation is therefore required. No confinement was considered.
The ultimate deformation using expression (4.45) determines the bearing deformation of
one plate. In order to compare with experimental results an extrapolation is used
applying expression (4.43). Comparison can be seen in Figures 4.66 b), 4.67 b) and 4.68
b).
250.00
250.0
200.00
200.0
150.0 150.00
F [kN]
F [kN]
δu
100.0 100.00
A1212_Numerical A1212_EC3 Test_1 Test_2 Test_3
50.0 50.00
0.0 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
u [mm] u [mm]
a) b)
Figure 4.66 - Comparison using specimen A1212: a) numerical model and EC3 approach; b) expression (4.45)
and experiments.
250.0 250.00
200.0 200.00
δu
150.0
150.00
F [kN]
F [kN]
A1215_Numerical A1215_EC3
Test_1 Test_2 Test_3
100.0
100.00
50.0
50.00
0.0
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
u [mm]
u [mm]
a) b)
Figure 4.67 – Comparison using specimen A1215: a) numerical model and EC3 approach; b) expression (4.45)
and experiments.
105
450.0 450.00
400.0 400.00
350.0 350.00
300.0 300.00
δu
250.00 Test_1 Test_2 Test_3
F [kN]
F [kN]
250.0
200.0 200.00
A2020_Numerical A2020_EC3
150.0 150.00
100.0 100.00
50.0 50.00
0.0 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
u [mm] u [mm]
a) b)
Figure 4.68 – Comparison using specimen A2020: a9 numerical model and EC3 approach; b) expression (4.45)
and experiments.
The presented results show that:

In terms of resistance, Eurocode evaluation for specimen A1212 is not conform
to the numerical model; there are differences up to 44%. This difference is
justified by two aspects: first the fact that the Eurocode assumes a lower value
of the ultimate resistance when compared with a real one; secondly, and most
relevant, the reduction factors defined by Eurocode are not appropriate for High
Strength Steel. The e2 parameter penalizes excessively the bearing resistance.
Finally, it has also to be reminded that the nominal yield strength, and not the
actual one, has been considered when computing the bearing resistance
according to Eurocode 3.
For the models A1215 and A2020, the deviation in the results (resistance) is
much lower, about 20%. Here, the lower ultimate resistance of the steel used by
Eurocode approach is the main explanation.
For the initial stiffness, all models present more a less the same differences. The
code approach is more flexible than the model. However, one must notice that
the code uses the ultimate strength of the steel to determine the initial stiffness,
as for the resistance; some differences can be owed to a lower nominal value
than the real one. Secondly, the code is directed to mild steel and therefore in
the application to HSS some deviations may be expected.
Finally, the estimation of the ultimate deformation (δu) using expression (4.45)
presents, except for model A1212, results very close to the ones observed in
experiments. The great difference for model A1212 is justified by the fact that
expression (4.45) is based on the resistance determined by the code approach;
and this was showed to be not appropriate when dealing with low edge
distances in plates made of High Strength Steel.
4.3.5 Comparison with analytical model derived for the evaluation of the initial
stiffness of shear bolted connections in timber structures
A recent analytical work has been developed to predict the embedding stiffness,
equivalent to bearing stiffness, for timber (Anisotropic material), by Ly (Ph. D., 2005).
106
The analytical model was successfully validated. Therefore, it seems of interest to

compare here with the present numerical model. In the present sub-section, the
analytical model developed by Ly is adapted to Steel (isotropic material) and a
comparison with the numerical model is done.
4.3.5.1 Ly’s analytical model
Ly’s work had the objective to fill a lack of knowledge in the characterization of
connections in timber structures. His work was based on the component method used in
Eurocode 3 to characterize connections in steel structures. Ly improved the knowledge
on the “embedding” component through the derivation of an analytical model. This
model is hereafter summarized.
The model was developed under the basis of the elastic theory of anisotropic plates,
plane stress state, which satisfies the following hypotheses:
The forces are applied to the plate in planes parallel to the middle surface;
The distribution of forces is strictly symmetrical in relation to the middle
surface;
The plates deformation during loading are supposed to be small.
In the analytical model, the diameter of the hole is considered equal to the diameter of
the bolt. Thus, the surface of contact is equal to half of the hole perimeter, assuming a
distribution of stresses as shown in Figure 4.69.
Figure 4.69 - Distribution of stresses consider in Ly’s Model.
The problem has been studied in the elastic domain, assuming small deformations; the
connector is supposed to be in perfect contact with timber. For the reader who wants to
know more about Ly’s model, the model is detailed in Annex I.
4.3.5.2 Comparison between the numerical and the analytical model
The comparison between the analytical and the numerical model is made in Figure 4.70.
Specimen’s A2020 from Delft tests has been used. In Annex I, the calculation of the
initial stiffness for this specimen using Ly’s model is presented.
107
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
F [kN] 200.0
150.0
A2020 Ly's Analytical Model

100.0
50.0
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
u [mm]
Figure 4.70 – Comparison between Ly’s analytical model and the numerical model.
From the figure, it can be observed that the analytical model is stiffer than the numerical
model. However, it must be taken in account that Ly’s model considers d = d0 which is
not the case in the numerical model.
Figure 4.71 shows numerical simulations where a variation of the hole diameter has
been done. It can be observed that the initial stiffness varies according to the hole
diameter. The same figure shows a good accordance between analytical and numerical
model when, in the numerical model, d is taken equal d0, as in the Ly’s model.
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
F [kN]
200.00
150.00
100.00
A2020_d0=24mm A2020_d0=24.5mm A2020_d0=25mm A2020_d0=25.5mm A2020_d0=26mm
A2020_d0=26.5mm A2020_d0=27mm A2020_d0=27.5mm A2020_d0=28mm Ly's Analytical Model
50.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
u [mm]
Figure 4.71 – Numerical results by varying d0.
4.4 Plate in tension component
The work in this thesis mainly focuses on the equivalent bolt zone component and on its
deformation capacity to redistribute forces. The plate in tension is therefore less relevant.
Hence, no specific work has been done here.
The resistance and the deformation capacity does not intervene in the problem however,
the deformability of a plate in tension has an important influence on the distribution of
forces amongst bolt zones. The stiffness of the plate in tension will be determined here
as in expression (2.13) of Chapter 2.
108
4.5 Final Considerations
In the present chapter, the basic components bolt in shear, plate/bolt in bearing and plate
in tension have been treated. The mechanical behaviour of the bolts in shear has been
derived based on experimental works available in the literature. A numerical model to
evaluate the plate/bolt in bearing component has been proposed. Reference has been
made to the plate in tension component.
The information available about experiments on bolt under shear is reduced and some
lack of accuracy has been observed. As remarked, the experimental curve for bolt grade
8.8 seems incorrect; Figure 4.7 shows the discrepancy between the available
information pieces. The line orange presents the maximum load reported (Table 4.1) for
this bolt grade while in black is represented the load-displacement curve reported
(Figure 4.4). In fact, the derivation of the ultimate resistance for each bolt grade showed
an unexpected result for the bolt grade 8.8 according to the obtained results for the
others bolt rows. The correlation factor between the elastic and the ultimate resistance
has been determined according to the strength functions (expression 4.7) and according
to the experimental results. For bolt grade 5.8 and 10.9, the strength functions were
conservative while they were unsafe for bolt grade 8.8. However, in the absence of
more experimental work available on bolts in shear, the derived behaviour is later used.
The investigation showed that, in order to simulate ductility, a real behaviour of the
material is demanded; therefore, the usual nominal Stress-Strain curves are not suitable.
The real fracture appears at much higher levels of strain than the usually reported ones.
The real behaviour of material in large deformation problems depends on the
microstructure of the material. So, phenomena like necking and damage of the material
cannot be neglected. A correction to the nominal Stress-Strain curve was done and an
assumption was made for the modelling of the constitutive law: a plateau is assumed
after the maximum stress is achieved and no limitation of the strain is considered. Based,
on the literature related to ductile fracture of steel, values that can be used in simple
model to predict fracture showed safe results when compared to the real fracture (Figure
4.53).
The experiments used double overlap connections. The numerical model consists in one
simple plate; therefore some phenomena which are not directly related to the bearing
deformation have been introduced in the model, as confinement and friction effects. Part
of the external plate has been modelled.
The model was successfully validated by the experiments Net-section failure was also
simulated with success. Therefore, the suitability of the numerical model is assured.
Eurocode 3 part 1.8 approach has been compared with the numerical simulation; it has
been observed that in the case of High Strength steel some improvement should be
brought to the expressions enabling to determine the resistance and the initial stiffness.
109
The influence of edge distance as it is previewed by the code for mild steel has a limited
application to HSS.
The estimation of ultimate bearing deformation has been successfully compared with
experiments, except for test A1212 where the wrong prediction of the bearing resistance
explains the difference of results. However, one must notice that the expression (4.45)
has been derived for mild steel which presents higher ductility than HSS. So, it seems
that this expression is suitable for later use when estimating the ultimate bearing
deformation.
The comparison between the numerical model and Ly’s model showed that the ratio
between the hole and the bolt diameters influences the initial stiffness. Increase of the
flexibility with the increase of the ratio is observed. Ly’s model is based on a ratio equal
to 1; therefore more rigid behaviour than the real one is observed when the Ly’s model
is applied to cases where the ratio is bigger than 1. New works are presently in progress
to derive analytical models where the variation between the bolt and the hole diameter is
taken in account, reference may be done to Hung’s work (Master Thesis, 2007).
The relevant characteristic of the plate in tension component required in this thesis is the
stiffness.
110
Chapter 5
ASSEMBLY OF THE BASIC COMPONENTS
Chapter 5 – Assembly of the basic components
5.1 General Considerations
The originality of component method is to consider any connection as a set of

individual basic components, Jaspart (Cost C1, 1999). In the present chapter, the
assembly of the individual basic components is done in order to derive the available and
the required ductility in shear bolted connections.
The ductility offered by a bolted connection, subjected to a shear force depends on the
available deformation capacity of two components: the plate in tension and the
equivalent bolt zone component. As mentioned before, the plate in tension component is
assumed as “known” in the present thesis; therefore only the evaluation of the available
deformation capacity in the bolt zone is done.
In order to ensure a full plastic resistance of the connection, sufficient ductility to
redistribute forces must be supplied by the equivalent bolt zone component. The
deformation necessary to allow a redistribution of forces is associated to the number of
bolt rows and the stiffness of the plate in tension component. Thus, even if the present
investigation is centred on the equivalent bolt zone component, in the evaluation of the
required deformation capacity, the relative stiffness of the steel plate in tension cannot
be neglected.
5.2 Evaluation of the available deformation capacity of the equivalent

bolt zone component
The deformation available in the “equivalent bolt zone component” is obtained through
the “association” of two basic components; the bolt in shear and the plate/bolt in
bearing. So, each basic component must be characterized separately and their
deformation capacity evaluated. Subsequently an assembly must be done according to
their resistance and deformability.
In this section, the analytic procedure for the assembly is presented; it refers to the
behaviour of each individual component. A behavioural law is assumed for these
components based on the results presented on Chapter 4 and in the Eurocode
recommendations. A generic tri-linear law (R-δ curve) is assumed.
The aim of this study is to derive, for different common cases (single overlap
connections with two similar plates and two different plates, double overlap
connections), analytical formulae for the evaluation of the available deformation
capacity of the equivalent bolt zone component (δav).
113
5.2.1 The mechanical behaviour of each component

5.2.1.1 Individual components
In order to associate the contribution of each component into an equivalent one, a
generic behavioural curve (R/δ) is defined. As a simplification of the non-linear
behaviour, the generic tri-linear law (R/δ curve) illustrated in Figure 5.1 is adopted.
αR (p,b;b)
Sst (p,b;b)
R (p,b;b)
S (p,b;b)
(p,b;b) u (p,b;b)
Figure 5.1 – Generic behaviour assumed for the bolt in shear and plate/bolt in bearing basic components.
The tri-linear curve presented in Figure 5.1 is characterized by the following parameters:
the elastic resistance (R); the elastic deformation (δ); the ultimate resistance (Ru); the
ultimate deformation (δu); the initial stiffness (S) and the strain hardening stiffness (Sst).
The elastic resistance (R) and the initial stiffness (S) are determined according to
Eurocode 3 part 1.8 recommendations, was already presented in Chapter 2. The
remaining parameters can be defined as presented hereafter.
For the plate/bolt in bearing, the ultimate bearing resistance is defined as a function of
the elastic resistance, as proposed by Pietrapertosa et al. (2004).
Ru = 1.25 R
(5.1)
In the analytical work presented in Chapter 4, formulae to determine the ultimate

resistance of the bolt in shear have been proposed. Since these formulae vary according
to the bolt grade, a generic formula is assumed.
Ru = α R
(5.2)
In (5.2), α is the correlation factor depending on the bolt grade; values of α are proposed
in Section 4.2.
The stiffness of the Strain-hardening zone (Sst) and the ultimate deformation (δu) are
defined through empirical expressions. For the plate in bearing, an approximation for
the initial stiffness is defined as follows, Jaspart (Ph.D., 1991).
114
S p ,b
S st , p ,b =
40 (5.3)
For the initial stiffness of the bolt in shear, a generic expression is proposed, as it
depends on the bolt grade.
Sb
S st ,b =
β (5.4)
In (5.4), β is a factor depending on the bolt grade; some values for β are presented in
Section 4.2. For the ultimate deformation no expression is presented, here one uses δu,i.
The reader can find empirical expressions in Chapter 4.
To conclude the characterization of the behavioural curve presented in Figure 5.1 the
conventional elastic limit of deformation is defined as:
R
δ =
S
(5.5)
Finally, according to expressions (5.1) to (5.5), knowing the elastic resistance, the initial
stiffness and the ultimate deformation of a component, all the behavioural parameters
can be evaluated.
5.2.1.2 Equivalent component
The definition of the equivalent bolt zone component results from the spring model,
presented in Chapter 2, used to express the behaviour of a shear bolted connection. The
springs which model the plate/bolt in bearing and the bolt in shear work in series;
therefore their behaviour can be represented by an equivalent one. So, the behaviour of
the latter can be derived from the one of the individual components.
In Chapter 2, expressions to determine the elastic resistance and the elastic limit of
deformation of the equivalent component are presented. These expressions are used
hereafter:
1
S eq =
∑ S i−1 (5.6)
Req = Min( Ri )
(5.7)
where Si and Ri are the initial stiffness and resistance of the individual component i,
respectively. Seq and Req are the stiffness and resistance of the equivalent component.
The complete behaviour of the equivalent bolt zone component is derived from the
assembly of the, response of each individual component. Based in the law proposed for
115
the individual components, the resulting law can be a tri-linear or a multi-linear,

according to the relative the resistances of the basic components. Consequently, many
cases can be found. Some of these are hereafter analyzed and the ultimate deformation
of the equivalent bolt zone component is determined (δav).
5.2.2 Derivation of analytical expression to determine the available deformation
capacity in the equivalent bolt zone component
According to the configuration of the connection (single or double overlap, identical or
different of plates), different expressions can be derived to evaluate the available
deformation capacity. However the procedure is based on the same principles. In order
no to be too repetitive, only one case is presented hereafter. In Annex II the reader can
find the derivation of the expressions for the 8 cases.
The case analyzed hereafter considers a “weak” plate/bolt in bearing component which
can be expressed as follows:
Rb > 1.25 R p ,b
(5.8)
The connection fails by bearing and the bolt is exposed only to elastic deformations.
Consequently, the available deformation in the equivalent bolt zone component is
governed by the plate/bolt in bearing.
According to expression (5.7), the resistance of equivalent component is equal to the
resistance of the plate/bolt in bearing component.
Req = R p ,b
(5.9)
The available deformation in the equivalent bolt zone can be derived by assembling the
mechanical behaviour of the basic components as illustrated in Figure 5.2.
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
αRb
Plate/bolt in bearing
Rb
1.25 Rp,b
Rp,b
Sp,b
Sb
Seq
u,b u,p,b av
Figure 5.2 – Available deformation (δav) for case 1.
116
Considering just one plate (not realistic situation as at minimum there will be two plates)
the available deformation of the equivalent component is expressed from Figure 5.2 as:
Req Req 0.25 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+
S eq S p ,b Sb
(5.10)
In this expression, the first term relates to the elastic deformation of the equivalent
component, where the initial stiffness (Seq) is obtained through expression (5.6), so
envolving the deformation of the two constitutive components. As mentioned before,
the plate/bolt in bearing is the “leading” component of the available deformation
capacity. Consequently, all its deformation capacity should be considered (second term),
though it must be noticed that the elastic deformation of the equivalent component
already considers the elastic deformation of the plate therefore; this one has so to be
subtracted. Finally, as the resistance of the equivalent component achieves 1.25Rp,b, the
deformation of the bolt after Req must be taken in account (third term).
In the case of having two plates (single overlap connection), expression (5.10) should be
modified as the deformation of the second plate must be taken in account. So:
Req Req 0.25 Req

δ av = + 2 * (δ u , p ,b − )+
S eq S p ,b Sb
(5.11)
The correction consists in the factor 2 added in the second term, as the deformation of
the two plates are considered in the calculation of Seq.
For a double overlap connection, the modification to be made in (5.10) is different as
two plates will never reach Req (all plates considered to be equal) and as in the bolt,
there will be two shear planes, according to the distribution of forces illustrated in
Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 – Forces distribution in a double overlap connection.
Thus, instead of applying the factor 2 in the second term of expression (5.10), a new
term should be added and the one related to the bolt in shear should be modified. The
new term should consider the deformation of the plates on the right side (Figure 5.3),
when the load goes from Req up to 1.25Req. While for the bolt in shear, when the applied
force is bigger than Req, a change should be made due to the presence of two shear
planes (each shear plane transfers F/2). Thus, the expression (5.10) is rewritten as
follows:
117
Req Req 0.125 Req 0.125 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+ +
S eq S p ,b Sb S p ,b
(5.12)
Let notice that the plates on the right side have the same properties, and so equal force
distributions and displacements are reported in the same direction; this means that only
the deformation of one must be considered. Finally, the calculation of the equivalent
stiffness must take into account the forces distribution and the two shear planes in the
bolt. For the connection in Figure 5.3 the initial stiffness of the “equivalent bolt zone
component” may be evaluated as follows.
1
S eq =
1 1 1
+ +
2 S b S p ,b 2 S p ,b
(5.13)
In Annex II a total of 8 cases are analyzed. Some of these cases are used later in
Chapter 6; the derived expressions are summarized in Table 5.1. In this table, two
cases must be differentiated: one where the plates are considered to have the same
mechanical and geometrical properties and another one where the latter are different.
118
Table 5.1 – Summary of the derived expressions to determine δav.
Plates with equal mechanical and geometrical properties
Single Overlap Connections Double Overlap Connections
Case: Rb > 1.25R p,b
Req Req 0.25 Req Req Req 0.125 Req 0.125 R eq

δ av = + 2 * (δ u , p ,b − )+ δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+ +
S eq S p ,b Sb S eq S p ,b Sb S p ,b
Case: R > α Rb
p ,b
Req Req (α − 1) Req Req Req / 2 (α − 1) Req (α − 1) Req / 2

δ av = + (δ u ,b − ) + 2* δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ +
S eq Sb S p ,b S eq Sb S p ,b S p ,b
Case: 1 ≤ Rb R p ,b ≤ 1.25
Req Req Re,b − Req (1.25Req − Re,b ) R eq R eq 0.125 R eq Re ,b − 0.5 Req (0.625 R eq − R e ,b )
δ av = + 2 * (δ u , p ,b − )+ + δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+ + +
S eq S p ,b Sb Sb β S eq S p ,b S p ,b Sb Sb β
Case: 1 ≤ R p ,b Rb ≤ α
Req Req Rp,b − Req (1.25Req − Rp,b ) Req Req / 2 R p ,b − 2 Req ( 2α Req − R p,b ) α * Req / 2
δav = + (δu,b − ) + 2* + 2* δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ + +
Seq Sb S p,b S p,b 40 S eq Sb S p ,b S p,b 40 S p ,b
Plates with different mechanical and geometric properties
Single Overlap Connections
Case : Rb > 1.25R p,b1 and R p ,b1 > 1.25R p ,b 2

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b 2 − )+ +
S eq S p ,b 2 S p ,b1 Sb
Case: R p,b 2 > α Rb and R p,b1 > 1.25R p,b 2
Req Req (α − 1) Req (α − 1) Req

δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ +
S eq Sb S p ,b1 S p ,b 2
Case: 1 . 25 R b > 1 . 25 R p , b1 and 1 . 25 R p , b 2 ≥ R p , b1 ≥ R p , b 2
Req Req R p ,b1 − Req 1.25 Req − R p ,b1 0.25 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b 2 − )+ + +
S eq S p ,b 2 S p ,b1 S p ,b1 40 Sb
Case: R p ,b1 > 1.25R p ,b 2 and α Rb ≥ R p ,b 2 ≥ Rb
Req Req Rb − Req 1.25 Req − Rb 0.25 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b 2 − )+ + +
S eq S p ,b 2 Sb Sb β S p ,b1
119
5.3 Derivation of analytical expressions to determine the required

deformation capacity in actual shear bolted connections
In a shear bolted connection subjected to a force F, the elastic distribution of forces

amongst the bolt rows is unequal, Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) and Ju et al. (2003).
External bolt zones transfer higher load than internal ones, as presented in Figure 5.4 for
a case where all the bolts are in contact with the plate before the loading starts (fitted
bolts). Consequently, external bolt zones yield before the internal ones.
F F<Fe
Fpl
Fe
C1 C2 C3 C2 C1
Figure 5.4 – Elastic distribution of forces in shear bolted connections.
In order to achieve a full plastic resistance of the connection, sufficient ductility must be
available in the bolt zone. The required ductility is associated to the deformation
capacity of the external equivalent bolt zone component.
Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) proposed general expressions to determine the required
deformation of the equivalent bolt zone component for fitted bolts. Based in this study,
the same type of expressions for actual connections, taken in account the imperfections
(misalignment, holes clearances, lack-of-fit, etc), are derived in the present section.
In Chapter 3, the connection layouts requiring the higher demand in terms of ductility
were defined and maximum values of the gap between bolt shanks and hole edges were
established. Those values are used now to derive formulae enabling to determine the
required deformation capacity in the equivalent bolt zone component in actual shear bolt
connections.
A numerical model, based on the use of the Finel G code (Liège homemade software),
is presented. The model is first validated through a comparison with the formulae
derived by Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) for fitted bolts. Subsequently, it is used to verify
the analytical work achieved for connections with non-fitted bolts and imperfections.
5.3.1 Shear bolted connections with fitted bolts
Before working on real connections, it seems appropriate to expose briefly the
methodology used by Pietrapertosa et al. (2004). These ones proposed formulae to
determine the elastic distribution of forces and the required deformation capacity for a
120
connection with 3 bolt rows (fitted bolts), Figure 5.5 a). The same analytical procedure
is used and the formulae, proposed by the referred authors, is later extended to
connections with 5 and 8 bolt rows (again for fitted bolts).
Figure 5.5 – Elastic distribution of internal forces in a connection with 3 bolt rows.
5.3.1.1 Elastic distribution of internal forces

From Figure 5.5 a), one can observe that, due to the symmetry of the connection, forces
transferred by the external components are equal and the remaining force is transmitted
by the internal one. According to this distribution, forces transmitted by the plates have
to be in equilibrium with the forces transferred by the bolt zone component, so leading
to the distribution of forces presented in Figure 5.5 b).
Each component, equivalent bolt zone component and plate in tension, will deform
according to the force it transfers, Figure 5.5 c).
F1
δ0 =
S eq
(5.14)
δ1 =
(F2 − F1 )
S eq
(5.15)
The distribution of forces amongst the bolt zones in the elastic range is derived by
expressing the compatibility of displacements between the plates and the bolt zones.
121
 1 p 
 + 1 
S EA p 
F1 = F 
eq
 1 p 
3 +2 1 
 S EAp 
 eq (5.16)
1
S eq
F2 = F
 1 p 
3 +2 1 
 S EA p 
 eq (5.17)
In expressions (5.16) and (5.17), F1 and F2 are the forces to be transferred by the
external and the internal equivalent bolt zone component, respectively.
Using the same procedure, the same type of expressions for the elastic distribution of
forces in the case of 5 and 8 bolt rows can be derived. Forces transferred by each bolt
zone are represented in Figure 5.6.
a)
b)
Figure 5.6 - Elastic distribution of internal forces in connections with 5 and 8 bolt rows.
For 5 bolt rows, according to Figure 5.6 a), the distribution of internal forces amongst
the bolts is the following:
( EA p ) 2 F + 4 EA p Fp1 S eq + 2 Fp1 S eq2

2
F1 =
5( EA p ) 2 + 10 EA p p1 S eq + 4 p1 S eq2
2
(5.18)
p1 S eq
F2 = F1 − ( F − 2 F1 )
EA p
(5.19)
F3 = F − 2 F1 − 2 F2
(5.20)
In the case of 8 bolt rows, according to Figure 5.6 b), the distribution should be as
follows:
122
( EA p ) 3 F + 12( EA p ) 2 Fp1 S eq + 20( EA p ) Fp1 S eq2 + 8 Fp1 S eq3

2 3
F1 =
8(( EA p ) 3 + 5( EA p ) 2 p1 S eq + 6 EA p p1 S eq2 + 2 p1 S eq3 )
2 3
(5.21)
p1 S eq
F2 = F1 − ( F − 2 F1 )
EA p
(5.22)
( EA p ) 2 F1 − 2 EA p Fp1 S eq + 6 EA p F1 p1 S eq − 2 Fp1 S eq2 + 4 F1 p1 S eq2

2 2
F3 =
( EA p ) 2
(5.23)
F
F4 = − F1 − F2 − F3
2 (5.24)
In expressions (5.19), (5.20), (5.22), (5.23) and (5.24), the values of the F1, F2 and F3,
are not substituted to avoid the presentation of too complex expressions.
5.3.1.2 Required deformation capacity
Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) considered a bilinear behaviour (elastic perfectly plastic), for
the equivalent bolt zone component and for the basic components, and derived the
required deformation capacity in a 3 bolt rows connection by increasing F up to 3 Req
(full plastic resistance is achieved). The deformation obtained in the external bolt zones
to achieve a full plastic resistance of the connection is the required deformation capacity.
In the referred work, the authors proposed the following general formula.
 1 p 
δ req = Req  +ρ 1 
 S eq EAp 
n1 / 2
with : ρ = ∑ (n
i =1
1 − 2i ) , for an even value of n1
( n1 −1) / 2
ρ= ∑ (n
i =1
1 − 2i ), for an odd value of n1
(5.25)
In the above expression, ρ is a factor which depends on the number of bolt rows.
In Table 5.2, formulae for the cases exposed before (3, 5 and 8 bolt rows) and which
will be used to validate the numerical model are presented.
123
Table 5.2 – δreq for 3, 5 and 8 bolt rows connection.
Number of rows Required deformation capacity δreq
Req
3
S eq
 1 p 
5 Req  +4 1 
S EA p 
 eq
 1 p 
8 Req  + 12 1 
S EA p 
 eq 
5.3.2 Numerical model

In the previous section, one can observe that with the increase of bolt rows the problem
becomes more complex. The complexity will grow even more with the introduction of
the imperfections. Therefore, a numerical model which can assist in the analysis is
proposed. In the present section, such a numerical model is presented.
5.3.2.1 The software - FinelG code
A brief description of the Liège home-made non-linear FEM software (FinelG)
potentialities is done hereafter. This finite element software allows one to solve:
Geometrically and materially nonlinear solid or structural problems under static
dead loads;
Linear and nonlinear instability problems, leading to buckling loads and
instability modes by an eigenvalue computation;
Dynamic problems, leading to eigenfrenquencies and vibration modes with due
account, or not, of the initial stresses;
Analysis of evolutive structures;
Spectral analysis of structures subjected to wind or seismic loading;
Linear and non-linear step-by-step dynamic analysis.
5.3.2.2 Description of the numerical model
In the shear bolted connections, the behaviour of the connection can be described as
follows:
Initially, a force is applied in the upper plate; it has to pass through the bolts,
from the upper plate to the lower one;
The bolts get in contact with the edges of the holes;
124
Due to the contact, plates deform by bearing and bolts by shear, while the plates
between bolts deform by tension.
In Chapter 2, Figure 2.6 and 2.7, the real and a simplified mechanical spring model
were presented, respectively. In Figure 2.6 b), the transfer of forces from the upper plate
to the lower one is modelled by three springs acting in series. These springs are merged
into a single one, Figure 2.7. The behaviour of the latter depends on the individual
response of the three springs and can be evaluated using the component approach
prescribed by the Eurocode 3 part 1.8 (CEN, 2005).
Based on the presented mechanical model, the numerical model used in FinelG is
defined. Making use of the simple model described before and avoiding the contact
problems, which are always difficult to manage, the numerical model is defined by
modelling the plate in tension behaviour through the use of beam elements and the bolt
zone by means of springs, Figure 5.7 a) and b).
a)
b)
Figure 5.7 – FinelG numerical model.
The relevant component to be analyzed is the equivalent bolt zone component; therefore
the plate in tension component has to be defined as stronger than the equivalent one.
Consequently, the plate’s dimensions have to be determined in order to avoid a failure
by tension.
The mechanical behaviour of each component is defined differently. For the equivalent
bolt zone component a bilinear law is used, as prescribed by the Eurocode 3 part 1.8
(CEN, 2005) and illustrated in Figure 2.8 b) (Chapter 2). Expressions to determine the
125
necessary parameters (initial stiffness and resistance) required to characterize the

mechanical behaviour of the basic and equivalent components are the ones presented in
Section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. The available deformation of the equivalent bolt zone
component is obtained according to Section 5.2.
The mechanical behaviour of the steel is modelled by a tri-linear law (Figure 5.8)
according to the steel grades properties prescribed by Eurocode 3 part 1.1 (CEN, 2003).
σ
fu
fy
E
e u
Figure 5.8 – Steel mechanical law modelled.
The present numerical model is also used later to simulate real connections. Therefore,
the mechanical behaviour illustrated in Figure 2.8 b) (see Chapter 2) should consider
the gap between bolt shanks and hole edges. When imperfections exist, the spring which
models the bolt rows which are not initially in contact with the plate should consider an
initial “non-resistance” plateau, as illustrated in Figure 5.9.
Req
Seq
gap av
Figure 5.9 – Mechanical law for the spring modelling the equivalent bolt zone component considering a gap
between bolt shanks and hole edges.
The proposed model is constituted by two plates, with rectangular cross sections, which
are linked by extensional springs that work in the direction of the plate’s axes and
placed at the bolt location. One plate is fixed in X and Y direction at one end (left one),
and is free at the other end, while the other plate is just fixed in Y direction at one end
126
(right one) and free in the other. Just one element is considered between two bolts. A
force is applied in the X direction at the right extremity of the plate which has no
fixations along this axis. The springs transfer the forces from one plate to the other.
Figure 5.7 b) shows the described model.
5.3.3 Validation of numerical model
The validation of the numerical model is made by comparing analytical formulae with
numerical results. Three groups of results are compared, for which analytical
expressions exist: the elastic distribution of forces for fitted bolts (3, 5 and 8 bolt rows);
the required deformation (same 3 cases); and finally, the required deformation for a
connection with two bolt rows considering imperfections.
5.3.3.1 Connections with fitted bolts
5.3.3.1.1 Studied cases
For fitted bolts, 3 groups of connections are studied. Single overlap connections with 3,
5 and 8 bolts are considered. Inside these groups, several cases (variation of the pitch
distance p1) are numerically simulated. The dimensions, steel grades of bolts and plates
are chosen in order to obtain the following requirements:
Plates most flexible as possible, in order to have a higher non-uniform
distribution of force amongst the bolts;
Avoid a “weak” plate in tension component that could cause the failure mode;
Consequently, either the plate in bearing or the bolt in shear should be the
“weaker” component.
According to the previous requirements, after fixing all dimensions and steel grades, the
only parameter that is varied is p1. By increasing this parameter, the flexibility of the
plate in tension component is increased without changing the failure mode.
In order to fulfil the previous requirements, the dimensions selected for the elements
may be found quite questionable in practical cases. However, in this section a
theoretical analysis is done. Therefore, no limitation to the dimensions of the elements
is imposed even if the used values are unrealistic.
The non-linear distribution of forces amongst the bolts increases with the flexibility of
the plate in tension component. That is why one defines a very thin plate. However, a
thin plate does not fulfil the above requirements as the plate will fail in tension. In order
to determine the elastic distribution of forces and the required deformation capacity of
equivalent bolt zone, two groups of data are established. Table 5.3 present the data to
check the distribution of forces (thinner plates) and Table 5.4 the data to compare the
required deformation capacity (stronger plates).
127
Table 5.3 – Geometric properties of the specimens used for elastic distribution of forces.
Bolts Plates
Case
d d0 t b e1 e2 p1 p2
Grade Grade
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
3
12 12 8.8 3 50 36 25 170 0 S275
bolts
5
12 12 8.8 3 50 36 25 170 0 S275
bolts
8
12 12 8.8 3 50 36 25 170 0 S275
bolts
Table 5.4 – Geometric properties of the specimens used in the required deformation capacity.
Bolts Plates
N°
Case
d d0 t b e1 e2 p1 p2 samples
Grade Grade
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
3
16 16 5.8 6 80 36 40 75=>195 0 S 275 25
bolts
5
16 16 5.8 9 80 36 40 75=>195 0 S 275 25
bolts
8
16 16 5.8 15 80 36 40 75=>195 0 S 275 25
bolts
In Table 5.3 only the number of bolt rows is varied from case to case. In Table 5.4
several specimens are defined for each number of bolt rows considered. The pitch
distance is varied in order to check that the increase of the flexibility of the plate in
tension changes the distribution of forces and therefore that the required deformation
capacity increases. For each case, 25 samples are numerically simulated. The pitch
distance (p1) is varied from 75mm to 195mm; increments of 5 mm were used. The
thickness of the plate has to be different for each number of bolts; the transferred load
increases with the number of bolts; consequently the resistance of the plate in tension
has to be increased to avoid its failure.
Table 5.5 and 5.6 present the mechanical properties of the group of data presented in
tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively.
128
Table 5.5 – Initial stiffness for the equivalent component of the connections defined in Table 5.3.
Case Seq [N/mm]
3 Bolt rows
5 Bolt rows 9154.50
8 Bolt rows
Table 5.6 – Mechanical properties for the connections defined in Table 5.4.
Equivalent bolt zone

component
Total resistance by the Resistance of the plate in
Case
bolt zone [N] tension component [N]
Seq Req δav
[N/mm] [N] [mm]
3 Bolt
17806.90 39250 4.97 117750 132000
rows
5 Bolt
23448.31 39250 4.13 196250 198000
rows
8 Bolt
31408.81 39250 3.46 314000 330000
rows
The resistance of the plate in tension presented in Table 5.6 has been determined
according to the Eurocode 3 part 1.1 (CEN, 2005), see Chapter 2 Section 2.4.1.3.Table
5.6 shows that:
The resistance of the equivalent bolt zone component does not vary, which
means the bolt in shear is the “weak” component;
The available deformation capacity decreases with the number of bolt rows as
the plate/bolt in bearing stiffness increases with the thickness;
In all cases it is guaranteed that the rupture will appear in the bolt zone.
5.3.3.1.2 Comparison of results
5.3.3.1.2.1 Elastic distribution of forces
A comparison between theoretical formulae [(5.16) to (5.24)] and numerical simulations
is done in Figures 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12, for an elastic distribution of forces.
129
Analytical FinelG
34
33.5
33
%F
32.5
32
31.5
31
Bolt row 3
Figure 5.10 – Elastic distribution of forces for a 3 bolt rows connection.
Analytical FinelG
22
21
20
19
%F
18
17
16
15
1
2
3
4
Bolt row 5
Figure 5.11 – Elastic distribution of forces for a 5 bolt rows connection.
Analytical FinelG
17
16
15
14
%F
13
12
11
10
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bolt row 7
8
Figure 5.12 – Elastic distribution of forces for an 8 bolt rows connection.
130
In the presented graphics, the horizontal axes represent the bolt row i and in the vertical
one the % of force transferred by the bolt row i, for a certain load level (elastic). Figure
5.13 illustrates the position of each bolt row.
F
1 2 3 F
F
1 2 3 4 5 F
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 F
Figure 5.13 – Position of each bolt row.
From the previous figures and the position of the bolt rows, one confirms that the
internal bolt rows transferred lower forces comparing to the external ones. Finally, all
figures showed a good agreement between theoretical formulae and numerical
simulations. But one has not to forget that connections with fitted bolts are here
considered.
5.3.3.1.2.2 Required deformation capacity
The analytical formulae presented in Table 5.2 are compared with the numerical
simulations in Figures 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16, for connections with 3, 5 and 8 bolt rows,
respectively.
Figure 5.14 – Required deformation for connections with 3 bolt rows.
131
In the above figures, the deformation required to have a full plastic resistance of the
connection according to the spacing (p1) is presented. In the numerical model the
required deformation capacity is obtained in one of the external springs. The
deformation that this spring achieves when the last spring (middle one(s)) reaches Req is
considered as the required deformation capacity (same assumption in the derivation of
the analytical procedure). The comparison between numerical and theoretical results
showed a good agreement. The results show that the required deformation capacity
increases proportionally with p1 due to the increase of the plate in tension flexibility
(higher differences in the elastic distribution of forces amongst the bolt zones).
5.3.3.2 Actual connections – 2 bolt rows
The derivation of the required deformation capacity in actual connections for a
connection with two bolt rows can be directly derived and therefore used in the
numerical model validation, before the derivation of the general formula for actual
connections. In these connections, imperfections lead to situations where some bolts
will be in contact with the plates while for others there is a gap between the bolts shanks
and the hole edges. The presence of imperfections in the connection will increase the
132
ductility demands. Thus, the first step in the analyses is to define how much should be
the gap and in which bolt zones it should be considered, see Chapter 3.
In the present study the goal is to derive into formulae that cover the most demanding
situations. Looking at an elastic distribution of forces it seems logical that this situation
will be covered if one considers one of the outer bolts in contact and all the rest with a
gap between the bolt shanks and the hole edges. The next question to be asked is how to
consider the gap in the bolts that are not in contact; should the same value of the gap be
considered in all or a different. This topic is treated later on, in the present section a two
bolt rows connection is analyzed; therefore no question on how to consider the gap is
raised. Maximum values have been presented in Chapter 3; however, in the present
situation, these values are not an important issue.
5.3.3.2.1 Required deformation capacity - Theoretical formula
A two bolt rows connection is the simplest case to be considered; therefore, the
determination of the required deformation is a simple procedure. One can observe that
the “worst situation”, taking into account imperfections, is to consider one bolt in
contact with the plate (from the beginning) and the other with a gap between the bolt
shank and the hole edge. Thus, in order to achieve a full plastic resistance of the
connection, the bolt which is contact (from the beginning) should be able to deform by
the following quantity:
Req
δ req = + δ gap
S eq
(5.26)
In expression (5.26), δgap is the gap considered between the bolt shank and the hole edge
in the second bolt region.
5.3.3.2.2 Studied cases
As for fitted bolt connections, the requirements for a flexible plate and a resistant plate
in tension are maintained. The data of the connection is presented in Table 5.7 and the
mechanical properties in Table 5.8.
Table 5.7 – Data for the connections with 2 bolt rows considering imperfections.
Bolts Plates
Case δgap
d d0 t b e1 e2 p2
Grade p1 [mm] Grade
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
2
12 13 10.9 2.5 120 36 60 75=>195 0 S275 3.08
Bolts
133
Table 5.8 – Mechanical properties of the presented connections.
Equivalent bolt zone

component
Total resistance by the Resistance of the plate in
Case
bolt zone [N] tension component [N]
Seq Req δav
[N/mm] [N] [mm]
2 Bolt
8055.50 29769.23 36.62 59538.50 82500.00
rows
Expression (5.26) shows that, for a two bolt rows connection, the required deformation
does not depend on the pitch distance p1. Several cases were numerically simulated
which validate this statement.
5.3.3.2.3 Required deformation – Comparison of results
In Figure 5.17, a comparison between the theoretical formula and the numerical
simulations is done.
Figure 5.17 – Required deformation for connections with 2 bolt rows considering imperfections.
From Figure 5.17, one can observe that, as for fitted bolted connections, formulae and
numerical results coincide. As expected, in a connection with 2 bolt rows the required
deformation is independent of the spacing p1.
Finally, after all the comparisons made between the already analytical formulae and the
numerical FinelG model, one can concluded that the numerical model is validated.
Hereafter, this numerical model is used to validate the derivation of more general
formulae including effects of imperfections and to study particular cases.
134
5.3.4 Derivation of formulae for the required deformation capacity in actual shear
bolted connections
In order to derive formulae to determine the required deformation capacity allowing to
achieve a full plastic distribution of forces in shear bolted connections taking in account
imperfections, a particular case of a five bolt rows single overlap connection is used.
Figure 5.18 represents a scheme of the connection and the bolts notation.
Figure 5.18 – Scheme of the 5 bolt rows connection taken under study.
In the present section, only bolt number 5 is assumed to be in contact with the plate
from the beginning of loading. The layout for the rest of the bolts will vary depending
on the case being studied.
5.3.4.1 Analytical analysis
5.3.4.1.1 Case A - Gap in just one bolt row
In order to simplify the analyses, the following assumptions are taken:
Just one bolt, from bolt 1 to 4, will have a gap, all the others will be in contact
with the plate;
This bolt is considered to be the last to achieve the Req, which means that the
full plastic resistance is then achieved;
The deformation of bolt number 5 when the full plastic resistance of the
connection is reached is the Required Deformation Capacity.
At the end of loading, when the full plastic resistance is achieved, irrespective of the
case, the distribution of forces and the deformation in the connection should be the one
presented in Figure 5.19 a) and b), respectively.
135
1 2 3 4 5
5 Req
4 Req 3 Req 2 Req Req
Req Req Req Req Req 5 Req
Req 2 Req 3 Req 4 Req
a)
1 2 3 4 5
5 Req
4Req*p1/EAp 3Req*p1/EAp 2Req*p1/EAp Req*p1/EAp
Req/Seq + δ ,
p1 Req/Seq + δp,2 Req/Seq + δ
p,3 Req/Seq + δ p,4 Req/Seq + δ p,5 5 Req
Req*p1/EAp 2Req*p1/EAp 3Req*p1/EAp 4Req*p1/EAp
b)
Figure 5.19 – a) Distribution of forces amongst the bolts; b) Deformation of the connection.
In Figure 5.19 b), δp,i is the plastic deformation at bolt zone i. From this figure, three
situations are studied according to the localization of the gap. The gap considered in
bolt zone number 2 is a similar situation to the gap in bolt number 4; therefore just the
first is analyzed.
5.3.4.1.1.1 Case A1 - Gap in bolt zone number 1
Figure 5.20 shows the first situation considered, in which only bolt number 1 has a gap.
When the force is applied to the connection, no force is transferred by this bolt. After
some deformation of the connection, contact between bolt and plate is achieved and the
bolt starts transferring load. All the other bolts transfer forces from the beginning and
they achieved Req before bolt number 1.
Figure 5.20 - Layout of the connection for case A1.
Consequently, supposing that there is sufficient ductility at the equivalent bolt zone
component, by the end of loading the resistance of the connection will be 5 Req. At this
stage, the gap is covered by the deformation of the connection and all the bolts except
number 1 suffer plastic deformation (δp,1 = 0), Figure 5.21.
136
Figure 5.21 - Deformation state of the connection at the end of loading, case A1.
Expressing the compatibility of displacements between the plates and bolt zones, the
plastic deformation of each bolt can be determined:
 4 Req  δ gap Req  Req  δ gap Req

(a ) p1 1 + − + + δ p , 2 = p1 1 + + +
 EA p  2 S eq  EA
 p

 2 S eq
 3Req  Req  2 Req  Req
(b ) p1 1 + + + δ p ,3 = p1 1 + + + δ p,2
 EAp  S eq 
 EA p  S
 eq
 2 Req  Req  3Req  Req

(c ) p1 1 + + + δ p , 4 = p1 1 + + + δ p ,3
 EA p  S
 eq
 Req  Req  4 Req  Req

(d ) p1 1 + + + δ p ,5 = p1 1 + + + δ p,4
 EA p  S eq 
 EA p  S
 eq
(5.27)
In (5.27), δp,i represents the plastic deformation in the bolt zone i. Solving the system of
equations (5.27), one obtains the plastic deformation in bolt zones 2, 3, 4 and 5:
3 Req
(a ) δ p ,2 = δ gap − p1
EAp
4 Req
(b ) δ p ,3 = δ gap − p1
EAp
3 Req
(c ) δ p ,4 = δ gap − p1
EAp
(d ) δ p ,5 = δ gap (5.28)
Comparing the plastic deformation obtained, one can observed that bolt zone number 5
suffers the biggest deformation, as expected. So, the deformation required in order to
have a full plastic resistance of the connection by the equivalent bolt zone component is
the following:
Req
δ req = + δ gap
S eq
(5.29)
137

The same procedure used for the previous situation is here applied. Bolt number 2 has a
gap and number 1, like the rest, has no gap, see Figure 5.22.
Figure 5.22 - Layout of the connection, for case A2.
The same type of scheme of the connection deformation presented in Figure 5.21 is
updated to the shown in Figure 5.23.
The equations which represent the compatibility of displacement are rewritten as

follows:
 4 Req  δ gap Req  Req  δ gap Req

(a ) p1 1 + + + = p1 1 + − + + δ p ,1
 EA p  2 S eq  EA
 p

 2 S eq
 3Req  δ gap Req  2 Req  δ gap Req

(b ) p1 1 + − + + δ p ,3 = p1 1 + + +
 EAp  2 S eq 
 EA p 
 2 S eq
(c ) p1 1 + + + δ p , 4 = p1 1 + + + δ p ,3
 EA p  S
 eq

(d ) p1 1 + + + δ p ,5 = p1 1 + + + δ p,4
 EA p  S eq 
 EA p  S
 eq
(5.30)
And the plastic deformations of bolt zones 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the following:
138
3 Req
(a ) δ p,1 = δ gap + p1
EAp
Req
(b ) δ p ,3 = δ gap − p1
EAp
(c ) δ p ,4 = δ gap
3 Req
(d ) δ p,5 = δ gap + p1
EAp
(5.31)
For the present case, the required deformation capacity to the equivalent bolt zone
component is given by:
Req 3Req
δ req = + δ gap +
S eq EA p
(5.32)

The last case considers the gap in bolt row number 3, Figure 5.24.
Figure 5.24 - Layout of the connection, for case A3.
The deformation at the end of loading is shown in Figure 5.25.
The equations of compatibility of displacements can be written as follows:
139
 4 Req  Req  Req  Req

(a ) p1 1 + + + δ p , 2 = p1 1 + + + δ p ,1
 EA p  S eq  EA
 p
 S
 eq
 3Req  δ gap Req  2 Req  δ gap Req

(b ) p1 1 + + + = p1 1 + − + + δ p,2
 EAp  2 S eq 
 EA p 
 2 S eq
 2 Req  δ gap Req  3Req  δ gap Req

(c ) p1 1 + − + + δ p , 4 = p1 1 + + +
 EAp  2 S eq 
 EAp 
 2 S eq
(d ) p1 1 + + + δ p ,5 = p1 1 + + + δ p,4
 EA p  S eq 
 EA p  S
 eq
(5.33)
And the respective plastic deformation in bolts 1, 2, 4 and 5 is the following:
4 Req
(a ) δ p,1 = δ gap + p1
EA p
Req
(b ) δ p ,2 = δ gap + p1
EAp
Req
(c ) δ p, 4 = δ gap + p1
EAp
4 Req
(d ) δ p,5 = δ gap + p1
EAp
(5.34)
Finally the required deformation to the equivalent bolt zone component is:
Req 4 Req
δ req = + δ gap +
S eq EA p
(5.35)
Through the evaluation of the equations (5.29), (5.32) and (5.35), one can observe that
if the last bolt to achieve Req is the middle one (case A3) the required deformation to the
equivalent bolt zone component takes its maximum value.
5.3.4.1.2 Case B - Gap in four bolt rows
In Section 5.5.4.1.1, it has been shown that as long as the last bolt to achieve Req is the
middle one, the maximum required deformation is obtained. However, only cases with
one bolt row with a gap have been studied. Hereafter, the analyses of a connection
where gaps are considered in all bolts exception in one of extreme bolts are done.
5.3.4.1.2.1 Case B1 - Same gap in bolt zones 1, 2, 3 and 4
The same gap is considered in bolt rows 1, 2, 3 and 4, as represented in Figure 5.26.The
elastic distribution of forces in a similar connection with fitted bolts showed that the last
bolt to achieve Req is bolt number 3 (δp,3 = 0). So, the interest of the analysis of this
140
situation is to know whether, considering gap in all the bolts but one of the extremes, a
maximum bigger than the obtained in 5.5.4.1.1 is found.
Figure 5.26 - Layout of the connection, for case B1.
In this case, the deformation to be considered at the end of loading in the connection is
the following:
Figure 5.27 - Deformation of the connection at the end of loading, case B1.
In the same way as in the previous section, expressing the compatibility of

displacements, the following equations are written:
 4 Req  Req  Req  Req

(a ) p1 1 + + + δ p , 2 = p1 1 + + + δ p ,1
 EA p  S eq  EA
 p
 S
 eq
 3Req  Req  2 Req  Req

(b ) p1 1 + + = p1 1 + + + δ p ,2
 EA p  S
 eq

(c ) p1 1 + + + δ p , 4 = p1 1 + +
 EA p  S
 eq
 Req  δ gap Req  4 Req  δ gap Req

(d ) p1 1 + − + + δ p ,5 = p1 1 + + + + δ p ,4
 EA p  2 S eq 
 EA p 
 2 S eq
(5.36)
Solving the system of equations, the plastic deformation in bolt zone 1, 2, 4 and 5 is
determined:
141
4 Req
(a ) δ p,1 = p1
EA p
Req
(b ) δ p ,2 = p1
EA p
Req
(c ) δ p, 4 = p1
EA p
4 Req
(d ) δ p,5 = δ gap + p1
EAp
(5.37)
Finally, the same required deformation for the equivalent bolt zone component is
obtained.
Req 4 Req
δ req = + δ gap +
S eq EA p
(5.38)
According to expressions (5.37), the main difference between the present case and the
case studied in 5.5.4.1.1 appears in the plastic deformation of bolts 1, 2 and 4. Thus, one
can conclude that, as long as the last bolt zone to reach Req, is the middle one, the
maximum required deformation capacity is achieved.
5.3.4.1.2.2 Case B2 - Different gaps in all the bolt zones
From the previous conclusion, the simplest case to obtain the middle bolt as the last to
reach Req is to consider only this one with a gap or all bolts less one of the extremes
with the same gap. Though, in the present section, an analysis of the effect of
considering different gaps in bolt rows 1, 2, 3 and 4 is done.
Because of the plates deformation, even if a bigger gap is considered in bolt rows 1, 2
and 4 than in number 3, this bolt can be the last one to achieve Req. Thus, the conditions
to have the third bolt as the last one to achieve Req are hereafter derived.
Considering that each bolt row (from 1 to 4) has a different gap (δgap,i), as represented in
Figure 5.28, a generic deformation of the connection can be represented as in Figure
5.29.
Figure 5.28 - Layout of the connection, for case B2
142
Figure 5.29 - Deformation of the connection at the end of loading, case B2.
From the two previous figures, the following system of equations that expresses the
compatibility of displacements between the plates and the bolt zones can be written:
 4 Req  (δ gap , 2 − δ gap ,1 ) Req  Req  (δ gap ,1 − δ gap , 2 ) Req

(a ) p1 1 +

+ + + δ p , 2 = p1 1 + + + + δ p ,1
 EA p  2 S eq 
 EA p  2 S eq
 3R  (δ −δ ) Req  2 Req  (δ gap , 2 − δ gap ,3 ) Req
(b ) p1 1 + eq  + gap,3 gap, 2 + + δ p ,3 = p1 1 +

+ + + δ p,2
 EA p  2 S eq  EA p  2 S eq
 2 Req  (δ gap , 4 − δ gap ,3 ) Req  3Req  (δ gap ,3 − δ gap , 4 ) Req
(c ) p1 1 +

+

+ + δ p , 4 = p1 1 +

+ + + δ p ,3
 EA p  2 S eq  EA p  2 S eq
 R  δ gap , 4 Req  4 Req  δ gap , 4 Req
(d ) p1 1 + eq −

+ + δ p ,5 = p1 1 +

+ + + δ p,4
 EA  2 S  EA p  2 S eq
p eq
(5.39)
Expressing δp,1, δp,2, δp,4 and δp,5 as a function of δp,3:
4 Req
(a ) δ p,1 = δ p,3 + p1 + (δ gap 3 − δ gap1 )
EA p
Req
(b ) δ p ,2 = δ p,3 + p1 + (δ gap 3 − δ gap 2 )
EA p
Req
(c ) δ p ,4 = δ p,3 + p1 + (δ gap 3 − δ gap 4 )
EAp
4 Req
(d ) δ p,5 = δ p,3 + p1 + δ gap 3
EA p
(5.40)
If the bolt zone number 3 is the last to reach Req it means that no plastic deformation of
this bolt zone is achieved (δ3 = 0) while the others deform plastically (δ1, δ2, δ4 and δ5
>0). In order to verify this situation, the following conditions should be fulfilled:
143
4 Req
(a ) δ gap3 ≥ δ gap1 − p1
EAp
Req
(b ) δ gap 3 ≥ δ gap 2 − p1
EA p
Req
(c ) δ gap3 ≥ δ gap 4 − p1
EA p
4 Req
(d ) δ gap 3 ≥ − p1
EA p
(5.41)
Finally, if the above presented conditions (5.41) are fulfilled, it is guaranteed that bolt
zone number 3 is the last to reach the plastic resistance. Consequently, the maximum
deformation is required to the equivalent bolt zone component in order to achieve a full
plastic resistance of the connection. A final remark must be done as far as the conditions
in given (5.41) are concerned, it is logical that a negative value of δgap3 has no physical
sense, therefore an additional condition must be added, δgap3 ≥ 0.
5.3.4.2 Comparison between the analytical formulae and the numerical model
The numerical model validated before is hereafter used to validate the derived formulae.
5.3.4.2.1 Required deformation
Several cases are numerically simulated. As concluded above, equal gaps in all the bolt
zones, except in one of the extreme ones corresponds to the maximum requirements in
terms of deformation. Thus, this condition is considered in the cases numerically
simulated.
Two groups of simulations are done: (i) one where the values of the gap considered are
bigger than or equal to the elastic deformation limit (δe) of the equivalent bolt zone
component; and (ii) another one which considers the smaller value of the gap. This
procedure is aimed at searching the influence of the fact that the bolt zone number 5 is
in its plastic or elastic domain when the other bolts start to transfer forces. Table 5.9
presents the data for the two groups.
Table 5.9 – Data of the connections numerically simulated.
Bolts Plates
Number of d d0 e1 e2 p1 p2
Grade t[mm] b[mm] Grade
bolts [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
5 16 18 5.8 9 80 36 40 195 0 S275
In Table 5.10, the mechanical data required to run the numerical models for both groups
are presented.
144
Table 5.10 – Mechanical properties of the equivalent bolt zone component.
Req [N] Seq [N/mm] δ [mm] δav [mm]
39250.00 23448.31 1.67 4.13
In Table 5.11, the simulated cases are defined.
Table 5.11 – Definition of the cases under study.
Case δgap [mm]

Group
1 2 3 4
I 1.67 [δ] 1.84 [1.1δ] 2.01 [1.2δ] 2.18 [1.3δ]
II 1.34 [0.8δ] 1.00 [0.6δ] 0.67 [0.4δ] 0.33 [0.2δ]
In Figure 5.30 and 5.31, the comparison between analytical formulae and numerical
results is done.
Figure 5.30 – Required deformation comparison between numerical model and formulae for group I.
145
Figure 5.31 - Required deformation comparison between numerical model and formulae for group II.
From both figures, one can observe that the derived formula and numerical simulations
give the same results. The fact that all the bolts with gap start transferring forces after or
before the bolt zone number 5 achieves its plastic resistance does not make any
difference. As expected from the analytical development presented in the previous
section, as long as the middle bolt has at least the same gap as the others, this one is the
last bolt to achieve Req. Thus, the derived formulae can be used.
In Figures 5.32 and 5.33, the distribution of forces during loading for one case of each
group is shown.
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
Find [kN]
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3 Bolt 4 Bolt 5
5.00
0.00
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00
Ftot [kN]
Figure 5.32 - Distribution of forces during loading for case 3 of group I.
146
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
Find [kN]
25.00
20.00
15.00

10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00
Ftot [kN]
Figure 5.33 - Distribution of forces during loading for case 1 of group II.
The presented figures show the sequence of reaching the plastic resistance. The last bolt
zone to reach plasticity is the number 3 (yellow curve – middle bolt). A deeper analysis
of the distribution of forces shows that after the bolt zone number 5 reaches its plastic
resistance, the increase of load in the connection is distributed amongst the other bolts
as if it was a 4 bolt rows connection. In Figures 5.34 and 5.35, one can observe the
percentage of the increase of load transferred by each bolt zone during the loading of
the connection.
120.0
100.0
% of the increase of Find

80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
Ftot [kN]
Figure 5.34 - % of the increase of load in each bolt zone during loading for case 3 of group I.
147
120.00
100.00
% of the increase of Find

80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
F [kN]
Figure 5.35 - % of the increase of load in each bolt zone during loading for case 1 of group II.
Analyzing Figures 5.32 and 5.34 together, one can observe that, for a total load applied
to the connection of 50kN, bolt zone number 5 has already reached plasticity. The
increase of load is then transferred by the rest of the bolts. From this load level onwards,
bolt zones 1 and 4 transferred the same percentage of load, but more than 2 and 3,
which transferred also the same percentage (behaviour of a 4 bolt rows connection), see
Figure 5.34. The deformation of the plate annuls the gaps in bolt zones sequentially,
from bolt zone 1 to bolt zone 4. Therefore, in Figure 5.32, it is possible to observe that
the bolts start to transfer load in this order. When all bolts are in contact, the connection
behaves as a 4 bolt row connection, because bolt row 5 has already reached plasticity.
Identical behaviour is observed in the second case presented, see Figure 5.33 and 5.35.
5.3.4.2.2 Plastic Deformation
Using the same numerical simulations, a comparison between the plastic deformation
experimented by the four bolt zones (1 to 4) and expressions (5.37) is done. Let
remember that the derived expressions estimate the plastic deformation in these bolt
rows when the full plastic resistance of the connection is reached. Figures 5.36 and 5.37
show the comparison.
0.25
0.20
Plastic Deformation [mm]
Case 1- Numerical Case 2- Numerical
0.15 Case 3 - Numerical Case 4 - Numerical
Case 1 - Analytical Case 2 - Analytical

0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Bolt zone
Figure 5.36 - Plastic deformation of bolt zone 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the group I.
148
0.250
0.200
Plastic Deformation [mm]

Case 1 - Numerical Case 2 -Numerical
Case 3 - Numerical Case 4 - Numerical

0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Bolt Zone
Figure 5.37 - Plastic deformation at bolt zone 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the group II.
This comparison confirms the agreement between the analytical and numerical models.
From both models, one can observe that the plastic deformation experimented by each
bolt zone (1 to 4) is independent of the value of the gap.
5.3.4.2.3 Localization of the gap
Section 5.5.4.1 has shown that the required deformation capacity in a shear connection
varies according to the last bolt zone reaching plasticity. In order to determine which
situation is the most demanding in terms of required deformation, numerical simulations
in which the position of the maximum gap varied, have been done in order to have
different cases with different bolt zones reaching at last the plastic resistance, have been
done. In Table 5.12, the 5 analyzed cases are presented. The maximum gap is checked
for different bolt zones. The geometric and mechanical properties of the studied cases
are equal to the ones presented in Table 5.9 and 5.10.
Table 5.12 – Gaps considered in each bolt for each studied case.
Case Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3 Bolt 4 Bolt 5
1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
2 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0
3 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.0
4 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 0.0
5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 0.0
In Figure 5.38, the deformation required from the equivalent bolt zones to reach a full
plastic resistance of the connection are compared.
149
Figure 5.38 - Comparison of the required deformation capacity for the 5 studied cases.
From case 2 to 5, the last bolt to reach Req is the one with the biggest gap, while for case
1, as in a connection with fitted bolts, the last bolt to reach Req is the middle one.
Identically to analytical analysis, if the last bolt to reach the plastic resistance is the
middle one, the maximum required deformation capacity for the bolt zone 5 is obtained.
In 5.4.1.2.2, expressions to determine the minimum gap in the middle bolt zone, in
relation to the gaps considered in the other bolt zones, have been presented. From those
expressions, the relation between the gaps in each bolt zone, for a 5 bolt rows
connection, can be derived as plotted in the following figure.
1.00
0.80
Gap1vsGap3 Gap2vsGap3 Gap1vsGap2

Gap j [mm]
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Gap i [mm]
Figure 5.39 - Relation between gaps to be considered in each bolt zone in order to assure that bolt j is the last
to achieve the plastic resistance.
Figure 5.39 represents three relations: bolt zone 1 – bolt zone 3; bolt zone 2 – bolt zone
3; and bolt zone 1 – bolt zone 2. Therefore, all the cases for a 5 bolt rows connection are
covered. The interpretation of Figure 5.39 is simple. Consider as an example, the
relation between bolt zone 1 and bolt zone 3 (blue line). The gap to be considered for
the bolt zone 1 is in the horizontal axis and for the bolt zone 3 in the vertical one. If the
gaps considered for these two bolts are marked in the figure, three situation can be
observed:
150
the point is above the blue line → the last bolt zone to reach Req , between these
two, is bolt zone 3;
the point is on the blue line → both bolt zones reach Req at the same time;
the plotted point is below the blue line → bolt zone 1 is the last, between both,
to reach Req.
The same procedure can be applied for all combinations.
Several numerical cases were done in order to verify the conditions presented in
expressions (5.41). The relation between the gaps to consider in bolt zone 2 and 3
(green curve in the Figure 5.39) are hereafter verified. First, the gap to be considered in
bolt zone 2 is fixed. Then using inequality (5.41 b)), the gap in bolt zone 3 is
determined. Three combinations are then analyzed: bolt zone 3 reaches Req before bolt
zone 2; both bolt zones reach Req at the same time; and bolt zone 2 reaches Req before
bolt zone 3.
Four different values of the gap in bolt zone 2 are considered. Therefore a total of 12
cases are studied. In Table 5.13 are presented the gaps considered in each bolt zone and
the expected order of reaching Req according to the green curve of Figure 5.39. Bolt
zone 1 is defined to be the first to reach Req, what is guaranteed by considering the same
gap as in the bolt zone which is expected to reach first the Req, between bolt zone 2 and
3. Figure 5.40 present the numerical results.
151
Table 5.13 – Gaps definition for each studied case.
Expected order of achieving Req

Case δgap,2 [mm] δgap,3[mm]
1st 2nd 3rd
1 0.40000 Bolt Zone 1 Bolt zone 3 Bolt zone 2
2 0.5 0.44983 Bolt Zone 1 Bolt zone 2 and 3 -
260
Bolt Row 1 Bolt Row 2 Bolt Row 3

240
220
Loading Step
200
180
160
140
120
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Case
Figure 5.40 - Numerical results of the relation between gaps in each bolt zone.
152
In the above figure, the order in which the bolt zones reach the plastic resistance is
presented. The vertical axis represents the computational load step; the smaller the load
step, the earlier the bolt zone reaches Req. The order presented in the figure verifies the
expected one.
5.3.4.3 Proposed formula
Further to the analysis presented above, a formula can be derived to evaluate the
maximum deformation capacity of the equivalent bolt zone component required to reach
a full plastic resistance, of a shear bolted connection with five bolt rows considering
imperfections (Actual connections). Several equations have been presented. As in the
present study, a maximum required deformation is sought, expression (5.38) is kept. If
one compares the formula presented in (5.38) with the formula for a case of fitted bolts,
it can be observed that the formula presented in (5.38) can be rewritten as follows.
δ req , Actual Connections = δ req , Fitted Bolts Connections + δ gap , Last Bolt to Achieve Req
(5.42)
It has also been demonstrated that the maximum required deformation is obtained when
the last bolt to reach the Req is the middle one. So, the layout presented in Figure 5.26
should be adopted.
5.3.5 Generalization of the derived formula
5.3.5.1 Proposed formula
From (5.25) and (5.42), a generalized formula can be derived to determine the required
deformation capacity for Actual Shear Bolted Connections:
 1 p 
δ req = Req  + ρ 1  + δ gap
 S eq EA p 
with
n1 / 2
ρ = ∑ (n1 − 2i ) for an even value of n
i =1
( n1 −1) / 2
ρ= ∑ (n
i =1
1 − 2i ) for an odd value of n
(5.43)
In this formula, δgap is the gap considered in the last bolt to reach Req, assuming that the
first bolt to reach Req is one of the extreme ones and that it has no gap before loading
starts.
5.3.5.2 Validation of the proposed formula
Connections with 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 bolt rows were numerically simulated and the results
compared with the derived formula. In Table 5.14 are presented the formulae for each
case numerically simulated.
153
Table 5.14 – Required deformation capacity for the 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 bolt rows connections.
N° of Bolt rows Required deformation capacity, δreq
 1 p 
3 Req  + 1  + δ gap
S 
 eq EA p 
 1 p 
4 Req  + 2 1  + δ gap
S EA p 
 eq
 1 p 
6 Req  + 6 1  + δ gap
S EAp 
 eq
 1 p 
7 Req  + 9 1  + δ gap
S EA p 
 eq
 1 p 
8 Req  + 12 1  + δ gap
S EA p 
 eq 
As for the connections with 2 and 5 bolt rows, the numerically simulated connections,
obey the following requirements:
The gap is considered in all bolt rows except in one the extreme ones;
The middle(s) bolt zone must be the last to reach Req (which is guaranteed by
the previous condition);
The dimensions of the plate must be defined in order to avoid a plate in tension
failure.
In the following figures, the comparison between numerical simulations and analytical
formulae are presented.
154
Figure 5.41 - Comparison between numerical simulations and formulae for a connection with 3 bolt rows.
Figure 5.42 – Comparison between numerical simulations and formulae for a connection with 4 bolt rows.
155
Figure 5.45 - Comparison between numerical simulations and formulae for a connection with 8 bolt rows.
For all the presented cases, numerical simulations and analytical formulae achieved the
same results. Consequently, one may consider suitable the use of the proposed formulae
to determine the required deformation capacity.
5.4 Final Considerations
In the present Chapter, the basic components, plate/bolt in bearing and bolt in shear,
have been assembled into the “equivalent bolt zone component”. Formulae to determine
the available deformation capacity (δav) and the required deformation capacity (δreq)
have been derived.
In order to determine the available deformation capacity, presented by the equivalent
bolt zone component, two main situations were considered: connections with equal and
different plates. From the proposed expressions, any case can be derived, as long as a
tri-linear R/δ curve is considered for the mechanical behaviour of the basic components.
The available deformation capacity of the equivalent component is controlled by the
“weaker” component. The maximum resistance of the equivalent component is equal to
156
the resistance of the “weaker” component and the maximum deformation capacity is
therefore limited by its deformation capacity.
The formulae derived to determine the required deformation capacity to reach a full
plastic distribution of forces in actual connections, showed that the gap considered in
the last bolt where Req is reached should be added to the required deformation capacity
derived from a similar shear connection with fitted bolts. The formulae obtained seem
logical. One can see that the transferred forces will be the same, irrespective of having
fitted or actual connections, as the resistance of the components will not change.
Consequently, plates between the bolt zones will deform by the same amount for both
situations. A full plastic resistance of the connection is obtained, if the first bolt to reach
its plastic resistance is able to deform the same amount as in a connection with fitted
bolts plus the gap considered in the last bolt to reach plasticity.
A numerical model has been presented and validated with formulae derived in a
previous work made by Pietrapertosa et al. (2004). After, the numerical model has been
used to validate the analytical work for actual shear bolted connections. The numerical
model is simple and consists in modelling the equivalent bolt zone component with
springs and the plates behaviour by means of beam finite elements.
The proposed formulae for available and required ductility are used in Chapter 6 in
order to derive ductility criteria in shear bolted connections. The numerical model is
then used in the simulation of some numerical examples.
157
Chapter 6
DERIVATION OF DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
SHEAR BOLTED CONNECTIONS
Chapter 6 – Derivation of ductility requirements for shear bolted connections
Chapter 6 – Derivation of ductility requirements for shear bolted

connections
Ductility is known as the capacity of the material to deform before failure. Shear bolted
connections are composed by two components with different levels of ductility. The
steel plates are known to be ductile, high deformation capacity, and bolts to be brittle,
low deformation capacity. Thus, the ductility presented by a bolted connection depends
strongly in its limiting component.
Nowadays, the use of high strength steel becomes frequent and bolts which were
supposed to be strong are exceeded by the steel strength so that, a problem of ductility
may appear. However, the limits of ductility cannot be defined only when the bolts are
the “weaker” element of the connection and boundaries may be found to determine
these limits.
In shear bolted connections, one may consider that sufficient ductility is available when
all the bolt zone components reach their maximum resistance and so that a full plastic
redistribution of forces is reached in the connection. Eurocode assumes that sufficient
ductility exists if the length of the connections doesn’t exceed 15 d0. Alternatively,
practical recommendations limit to 6 the maximum number of bolt rows in a connection.
A recent work made by Pietrapertosa et al (2004) showed that in shear bolted
connections with fitted bolts, the two criteria present considerable level of safety.
However, the usual connections are made of normal holes where clearances and
imperfections can lead to lack of fit and misalignment. This situation can increase the
demands of ductility required to reach a full plastic resistance therefore, the interest to
extend the study to actual connections.
In the present chapter, criteria allowing to define ductility requirements in actual shear
bolted connections are derived. In order to determine this required ductility, the
hereafter work is based on the available and required deformation capacities of the
equivalent bolt zone component. Thus, the expressions proposed in Chapter 5 are
fundamental to evaluate these two parameters.
Hence, the driven criterion is dependent on all parameters, geometrical and mechanical,
that influence the available and required deformation capacity. So, the following are
analyzed:
Steel grade of the plate;
Bolt grade;
Geometrical properties of connection [t, b, e1, e2, p1, p2, d, d0];
161
Number of bolt rows (n1 – in the direction of loading) and number of bolt lines
(n2 – in the perpendicular direction of loading), see Figure 6.1.
The criterion is based on a parametrical study which embodies all the referred
parameters. Therefore, in order to simplify the parametric analysis, only single overlap
connections are considered, as illustrated in Figure 6.1. Later an extension can be made
to double overlap connections.
Figure 6.1 – Generic single overlap connection.
The present work focuses on the equivalent bolt zone component; therefore failure by
plate in tension is neglected. However, one must not completely disregard this second,
component as its deformability plays a role in the distribution of forces amongst the
bolts.
6.2 Available and required deformation capacities
As already mentioned, the hereafter derived criterion is based on the available and
required deformation capacities. Thereby, before the analysis of each basic parameter
which can influence these two main ones, it is important to specify the generic formula
presented in Chapter 5 for the cases considered.
6.2.1 Available deformation capacity
General expressions to determine the available deformation capacity have been exposed
in Chapter 5. The derived expressions considered several situations as: single overlap
connections, double overlap connections, plates with different properties, based on
different thickness, etc. Here, the study focuses on single overlap connections where
plates are considered to have identical properties.
As shown in Section 5.2, the behaviour of the equivalent bolt zone component, and later
of the available deformation capacity, depends directly on the ratio between resistances
of the two basic components (plate/bolt in bearing and bolt in shear). According to the
162
properties of these two components, different levels of available deformation capacity

are defined.
The bolt behaviour depends on its grade, as observed in Chapter 4. Therefore, for each
bolt grade, different levels must be defined. For the plate/bolt in bearing the same type
of behaviour is considered, independently of the steel grade. In Figure 6.2 the
component behaviour is reminded.
R R
α Rb
1.25 Rp,b
Rp,b Sp,b/40 Rb Sb/β
Sp,b Sb
u,b
u,p,b
a) b)
Figure 6.2 – Mechanical behaviour of the basic components.
The parameters α and β needed for the mechanical behaviour of the bolts in shear have
been presented in Section 4.2.
According to Section 5.2, using the same type of plates in single overlap connections,
four different levels of available deformation capacity may be found. However, this is
only verified if α is equal to 1.25. In the present thesis, the three bolt grades used
presents values of α different from 1.25. As a result, a new level should then be included:
according to the values of α, cases where Rb is lower than Rp,b, failure may appear by
plate/bolt in bearing which should not happen if α was equal to 1.25 (and vice-versa).
Consequently, all the deformation capacity of the plate/bolt in bearing should be
considered. The situation described is illustrated in Figure 6.3, for 5.8 bolt grade. In
Table 6.1, are defined all the intervals for the bolt grades used later on are defined.
163
R Bolt in Shear
1.58 Rb
Req,u=1.25 Rp,b Equivalent component
Rp,b
Req=Rb
u,b u,p,b av
Figure 6.3 – Case illustrating a plate/bolt in bearing failure with lower elastic resistance of the bolt in shear
component.
Table 6.1 – Intervals and available deformation capacity for single overlap connections using 5.8, 8.8 or 10.9
bolt grades.
Bolt
Interval Limit δav
Grade
Req  Req  (0.25 Req )

Rb ≥ 1.25 R p ,b + 2 *  δ u , p ,b − +
S eq  S p ,b  Sb
 
Req  R  (R − Req ) (Ru , p ,b − Rb )

1.25 R p ,b ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b + 2 *  δ u , p ,b − eq  + b +
Seq  S p ,b  Sb Sb
 2.5
1.58 Req  Req  (Ru , p , b − Req )

5.8 Rb ≥ R p ,b ≥ Rb + 2 *  δ u , p,b − +
Seq  Seq  Sb
1.25  2.5
1.58 Req  R  (R − Req ) + 2 * (Ru ,b − Rp ,b )

+  δ u , b − eq  + 2 * p , b
1.58 Rb ≥ R p ,b ≥ Rb Seq  Sb  S p ,b S p,b
1.25 40
R eq  Req  (0.58Rb )
R p ,b ≥ 1.58 Rb +  δ u ,b −  + 2*

S eq  S b  S p ,b
Req  Req  (0.25 Req )

8.8 Rb ≥ 1.25 R p ,b + 2 *  δ u , p ,b −

+

Seq  S p,b  Sb
1.25 Req  Req  (Rb − Req ) (Ru , p ,b − Rb )

1.25 R p ,b ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b + 2 *  δu , p,b − + +
S eq  S  Sb Sb
1.05  p ,b 
7
1.25 R eq  R eq  (R − R p,b )
R p ,b ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b +  δ u ,b −  + 2 * u ,b

S eq  Sb  S p ,b
1.05 40
164
Req  R  (R − Req ) + 2 * (Ru ,b − R p,b )

+  δ u , b − eq  + 2 * p ,b
1.05 Rb ≥ R p ,b ≥ Rb Seq S S p ,b S p ,b
 b 
40
R eq  Req  (0.58Rb )
R p ,b ≥ 1.05 Rb +  δ u ,b −  + 2*

S eq  Sb  S p ,b
Req  Req  (0.25 Req )

Rb ≥ 1.25 R p ,b + 2 *  δ u , p ,b − +
 
Req  Req  (Rb − R eq ) (Ru , p ,b − Rb )

1.25 R pb ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b + 2 *  δ u , p ,b − + +
S eq  S p ,b  Sb Sb
 
1.5
1.44 Req  Req  (Ru , p ,b − Req )

10.9 Rb ≥ R p ,b ≥ Rb + 2 *  δ u , p ,b − +
1.25  
1.5
1.44 Req  R  (R − Req ) + 2 * (Ru,b − Rp,b )

+  δ u ,b − eq  + 2 * p ,b
1.44 Rb ≥ R p ,b ≥ Rb Seq  Sb  S p ,b S p ,b
1.25 40
R p ,b ≥ 1.44 Rb
Req  R 
+  δ u ,b − eq  + 2 *
(0.44Rb )
Seq  Sb  S p ,b
6.2.2 Required deformation capacity

According to the conclusions drawn in Chapter 5, the most demanding situation in
terms of required deformation capacity is assured when the last bolt zone(s) to reach Req
is/are the middle(s) one(s). In the case of fitted bolts, this situation is always guaranteed.
When imperfections are to be considered, the connection layout must respect some
conditions. In the referred chapter, one derived several conditions to reach the most
demanding situation. Considering every bolt zone with a gap, except one of the
extremes, which is assumed to be in contact from the beginning with plates, is one of
these conditions and is applied hereafter. One can remind the configuration, selected for
a connection with 5 bolt rows in the Figure 5.26.
In Chapter 3, maximum values that may be considered for gaps have been derived;
based on the standards for tolerances in fabrication process and they vary according to
the bolt diameter. The values here used are the ones presented in Table 3.8.
The derived formula (5.43) is used to determine the required deformation capacity.
165
6.3 Evolution of the criterion to define ductility requirements in shear

bolted connections
In the present section, the results from Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) on ductility
requirements in shear bolted connections with fitted bolts are reminded, after a
comparison is made using the same worked example and introducing the imperfections.
Based on this comparison, an analysis is made and fundamental parameters to express
ductility criteria are derived.
6.3.1 Required Ductility: comparison between fitted bolts connections and actual
connections
The worked example (Figure 6.4)selected by Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) is used to
compare the increase of the ductility required to reach a full plastic redistribution of
internal forces. The data of the worked example are presented in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 – Data of the worked example used by Pietrapertosa et al. (2004).
Plates Bolts
E [GPa] 206 Grade 10.9
fu [MPa] 510 fub [MPa] 1000
fy [MPa] 355 d [mm] 16
t [mm] 40
d0 [mm] 16
b [mm] 216
e1 [mm] 35
As [mm2] 157
e2 [mm] 80
p1 [mm] depends on n2
An [mm2] 201
p2 [mm] depends on n2
166
F
F
e2
p2
n2=1 -> 5
b
p1
e1
n1=1 -> 10
Figure 6.4 – Geometrical data of the type of connection used.
For the above example (fitted bolts), the variation of the required and available
deformation capacities with the number of bolt rows and files is reported in Figure 6.5.
In the same figure, the two only existing criteria, from Eurocode and practical
recommendations respectively, are illustrated.
1.7
Available and required deformation capacities [mm]
1.6
n1=6 n2=5
pratical criterion
1.5 δav n2=4
n2=3
1.4
n2=2
1.3 n2=1
δreq
1.2
1.1
15d EC3 criterion

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
n of bolt rows
Figure 6.5 – Required and available deformation capacities for the idealized connections.
To reach the full plastic redistribution of forces and consequently the full resistance of
the connection, the curve δav has to be above δreq. Figure 6.5 shows that the two criteria
are perfectly fulfilled.
The available deformation capacity depends only on mechanical behaviour of the basic
components composing the equivalent one are therefore, no variation is noticed if the
number of bolt rows or lines increases. On the other hand, the required deformation
capacity is affected by these two parameters; the increase of required deformation is
bigger with the increase of bolt lines than with bolt rows. The influence of bolt rows is
observed in formula (5.43) through the parameter ρ while n2 increases δreq by increasing
the plate deformation (Req increases with the increase of n2 while the plate in tension
stiffness remains constant).
167
As mentioned, the same example has been applied to actual connections: imperfections
are considered and, one of the extreme bolt rows is considered to be in contact with the
plate while the others have some displacement to undergo. A gap of 4.54mm should be
considered in a connection with M16 bolts in normal round holes according to Table 3.8.
Thus, the required deformation capacity is increase due to the gap. The obtained results
are shown in Figure 6.6.
7
av. and req. deformation capacities [mm]
4
dreq_n2=2 dreq_n2=3 dreq_n2=4 dreq_n2=5 dav
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
number of bolt rows (n1)
Figure 6.6 - Required and available deformation capacities for the idealized connection considering
imperfections in the connection layout.
The figure shows, contrarily to the example for fitted bolts, the required deformation is
much higher than the available one. Figure 6.7 presents a comparison between the
required deformation, the available deformation and the gap.
5
Req, Av and Gap
Req Av Gap
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
n1
Figure 6.7 – Influence of the gap.
The gap considered is almost twice the value of δav.

In the presented examples, the bolt in shear component is the weak component, what
explains the reduced available deformation capacity. In cases where the plate/bolt in
168
bearing component has a higher contribution to the deformation of the connection

sufficient ductility may be found.
Finally, a remark should be done. If one observes Figures 6.5 and 6.6, one notices
difference between the available deformation capacities of both examples; this
difference should normally not exist, even that with the introduction of the gap. The
justification of such a discrepancy is to be found in the fact that Pietrapetrosa et al. used
different values of α, to evaluate the mechanical behaviour of the bolt in shear
component, than those, derived in the analytical work presented in Chapter 4, used in
the example with imperfections.
6.3.2 Ductility levels
In the second example presented in 6.3.1, the available ductility was insufficient to
permit a full plastic redistribution of forces as the weak bolt “control” the behaviour of
the equivalent bolt zone.
One can also argue that, the value taken for the imperfection is too severe (the worst
case is considered, which should have lower probability to happen). However, in the
absence of other values that could be more realistic, in the present thesis, the maximum
values are used. In this way, the criterion is derived considering extreme situations
which later on can be improved.
As it is common knowledge, the bolt in shear has a brittle behaviour while the plate/bolt
in bearing presents high ductility level. So, connections which present a “weak”
plate/bolt in bearing component may exhibit sufficient ductility to enable a full plastic
redistribution of forces to take place. Based in this theory, one can draw the scheme of
Figure 6.8 as an approximation to a criterion for ductility requirements in shear bolted
connections.
Figure 6.8 – Ductility Scheme.
The presented Scheme has the purpose to clearly define that sufficient ductility is
expected when the plate/bolt in bearing is the weaker component, and in the other hand,
when the bolt in shear is weaker, insufficient ductility is expected.
169
In 6.3.1 the worked example showed that when the bolt is the weaker component the
available ductility is insufficient to achieve a full plastic distribution (validation of the
right part of the scheme presented in Figure 6.8). The same example is now taken but
the plate/bolt in bearing is transformed into the weak component by reducing the
thickness of the plate. In Figure 6.9, the obtained results are presented.
35
av. and req. deformation capacities [mm]
30
25
20
dreq_n2=2 dreq_n2=3 dreq_n2=4 dreq_n2=5 dav
15
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
number of bolt rows (n1)
Figure 6.9 – Idealized connection considering imperfections and having a weak plate.
The figure shows an opposite situation to the one presented in Figure 6.6. The available
deformation is considerably higher comparing to the required (validation of the left part
of the scheme presented in Figure 6.8).
However, why would the boundary be exactly at the border between weak bolt and
weak plate? Sufficient ductility can be achieved even when the bolt is weak as relevant
contribution of the plate/bolt in bearing deformation is noticed. One may expect that the
boundary moves to the “weak bolt” zone. The analysis must then focus on the
determination of the boundary correct position. In order to do so, it seems important to
take into account the formulae and intervals presented in Table 6.1; the evolution of the
available ductility should be studied, by referring to the different presented situations.
6.3.3 Fundamental parameters to express the criterion
In the presence of many basic parameters (listed in Section 6.1) that should be
considered, the selection of the fundamental parameters takes considerable importance.
The best situation should be the one in which a single parameter embodying all the
basic parameters would simply have to be checked to ensure the ductility of the
connection, so avoiding multiple sub-criteria which decrease the simplicity and repulse
engineers.
The derivation of the fundamental parameters to a good define ductility criterion in
shear bolted connections is hereafter presented.
170
6.3.3.1 Available and required deformation capacity

These two parameters are important ones. In 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, one observed that the
differences between both can be considerable. Here, will be considered as a ratio
“Available/Required deformation capacity” fundamental parameter.
So, if the ratio is bigger or equal to 1 the ductility presented by the equivalent bolt zone
component is sufficient to allow a full plastic distribution in the connection; if smaller,
ductility is insufficient (Figure 6.10).
av/ req
Sufficient Ductility
1
Insufficient Ductility
δ av
δ req
Figure 6.10 – Fundamental parameter .
6.3.3.2 Resistance of the basic components

The fundamental parameter presented above should be defined as a function of another
one. The ratio between the resistance of the two basic components, plate/bolt in bearing
and bolt in shear, is chosen. The ratio R p ,b appears to be a good parameter, as it
Rb
includes all geometrical and mechanical properties (basic parameters presented in

Section 6.1) that could influence the available ductility. In addition, such parameter
allows to establish a direct link with Table 6.1 which defines the contribution of each
basic component. Now, Figure 6.10 can be completed (Figure 6.11) and filled with
results of computations (Figure 6.12) so as to hopefully identify an appropriate ductility
criterion.
171
av/ req
1
Rp,b/Rb
Figure 6.11 – Criterion fundamental parameters.
First calculations showed that using the ratio R p ,b considerable differences are noticed
Rb
in the “ductility functions” in the important region δ av = 1 , according to the bolt grade.
δ req
For the three bolt grades considered, the respective curves establish different criteria. In
Figure 6.12, one can observed that for 5.8 bolts the available ductility is sufficient
if R p ,b ≤ 1.56 , while for 8.8 and 10.9 bolt grades the same ratio should take values smaller
Rb
than 1.04 and 1.42, respectively.
Figure 6.12 – Comparison between the different bolt grades using R p ,b as a fundamental parameter.
Rb
One observed that different α factors, to determine the ultimate resistance of the bolt in
shear component (check Table 6.1), explain such differences. It is noticed that the
position of the curves in the important region is strongly influenced by this factor;
consequently, if this ratio is used one is obliged to define a criterion for each bolt grade.
In order to fulfil the requirement of simplicity a new ratio is defined. The new ratio
is R
p ,b which still based on the components resistance.
Rb , u
172
av/ req
1
Rp,b/Ru,b
Figure 6.13 – Final fundamental parameters to define the criterion.
Though the use of this new ratio, results are much more grouped, as seen in the figure
below. A unique criterion may now be derived for all the bolt grades.
R p ,b
Figure 6.14 – Comparison between the different bolt grades using as a fundamental parameter.
Ru ,b
Figure 6.14 shows that the “ductility function” for the three different bolt grades
intersect the important boundary δ av = 1 approximately for the same values of R p ,b .
δ req Ru ,b
The observed gradient of variation is 0.03

According to this new ratio, all the intervals presented in Table 6.1 are covered if the
ratio R p ,b varies from 0.3 to 1.25; each range is defined by a different slope in the
Ru ,b
curves. One can observe that below 0.3 and above 1.25, the curves are “stabilised”.
Finally, an observation should be done. In the plate/bolt in bearing component the same
value of α is used (no matter the steel grade) consequently, no significant influence will
be find if instead of Rp,b one uses Ru,p,b in the ratio R . p ,b
Ru , b
173
6.4 Parametric analysis
The fundamental parameters defined in the previous section are the basis of the criterion
proposed. These are functions of the basic parameters listed in Section 6.1; in order to
understand their influence, a parametric analysis is presented hereafter.
According to the zone of influence, the basic parameters can be grouped together as
follows:
t, b, steel grade, e1, e2, p1, p2 –mechanical properties of the Plate/Bolt in bearing
component;
bolt grade –mechanical properties of the Bolt in Shear component;
d and d0 –mechanical properties of the both basic component;
n1 and n2 –global response of the connection.
For steel grades of the plates and the bolt grades, the following values are considered:
S235 and S355 steel grades;
5.8, 8.8 and 10.9 bolt grades.
Even restricting the analysis to the steel and bolt grades presented, one can observe that
many parameters should be analyzed. Therefore, for sake of simplicity, some are limited.
The number of bolt rows is limited to 10 and the number of bolt lines to 5. The
geometric parameters related to the layout of the bolt holes (e1, e2, p1, p2) are limited by
the code; consequently the width of the plate is limited. Three different bolt diameters
are used: M16, M20 and M24. Based on the bolt diameter and on the hole clearances
imposed by the code, the holes diameters are defined. No limit is imposed to the
thickness of the plates.
6.4.1 Plates thickness, t
The plate thickness is the only parameter that can modify the connection properties in a
way that all the intervals defined in Table 6.1 can be experimented without varying the
others. In fact, in the first calculations it has been noticed that, when analysing the
influence each parameter, the thickness should be varied in order to “cross” all the
mentioned intervals.
Such a situation is explicable for the parameters which have fixed values as: bolt grades,
d, d0, n1, n2. The spacing (p1 and p2) and the end (e1) and edge (e2) distance can vary
from a maximum to a minimum; however, it has been observed that, if the thickness is
not varied, a small range of the ratio R p ,b is only covered.
Ru ,b
Figure 6.15 shows the results obtained for a connection where only e1 varies from its
maximum to its minimum value.
174
3.15
3.1
3.05
2.95
δav/δreq
2.9
2.85
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
Rp,b/Ru,b
Figure 6.15 – e1 variation for a fixed value of t.
The figure shows that, for this variation of e1 between the maximum to the minimum
value, the ratio parameter R p ,b is not covered in all the range referred in Section
Ru ,b
6.3.3.2, [0.3;1.25]. In fact there is a small variation only, from 0.38 to 0.64.
Thus, it is concluded that all the other basic parameters must be analyzed, but by
varying the thickness of the plate simultaneously.
6.4.2 Hole spacing, end and edge distance, e1, e2, p1, p2
These four parameters are taken into account through the use of the reduction factors αb,
k1 and kb, in the calculation of the mechanical properties of the plate/bolt in bearing
component.
In Chapter 2 the limits imposed by the code to these parameters have been presented.
In the present analysis, each parameter is study separately by selecting the maximum
and the minimum value they can take. The thickness is the only parameter which varies
simultaneously, as explained above. The presented cases use: S355 steel grade, 10.9
bolts grade and M20 bolts. The number of lines and bolt rows is 5 and 10, respectively.
In the following figures results for each mentioned parameter are presented.
175
Figure 6.16 – Influence of the basic parameter e1.
Figure 6.17 – Influence of the basic parameter p1.
Figure 6.18 – Influence of the basic parameter e2.
176
Figure 6.19 – Influence of the basic parameter p2.
The above results show that there is a convergence in the shape of the curve obtained,
whatever is the considered parameter. More important than that is the fact that in the
most important region, the boundary between the sufficient and insufficient ductility
zones  δ av 
= 1 , the variation between the maximum and the minimum requirements is
 δ req 
small.
One can observe that e2 and p2 show a bigger variation, which means that the problem is
more sensible to these parameters. However, this variation is relative reduced: 0.949 for
the minimum and 0.972 for the maximum (gradient of 0.023).
For all the parameters, the difference between the extreme values (min and max) is
observed with the increase of the available deformation which corresponds to the
decrease of resistance of the plate/bolt in bearing component. For very low values of
resistance of the plate/bolt in bearing component the two curves show the same result.
This fact is consequence of a fine plate. If one remembers Table 2.2, the maximum
value for all parameters is calculated in function of the plate’s thickness however, when
t is too small the maximum is lower than the minimum therefore the minimum is taken
as maximum. With equal max and min is natural to have the same results.
For a very resistant plate/bolt in bearing, the two curves get close, what can be justified
by the low contribution of the plate/bolt in bearing component to the deformation of the
connection.
In the above presented cases, when a parameter (e1, e2, p1 and p2) was analyzed, the
others were fixed with their maximum values. Consequently, maximums are equal in all
cases while minimums may be considered relative, as one minimum is combined with
maximums. So, a calculation using the minimum values for all the parameters has been
done. Figure 6.20 present the absolute maximum and minimum results.
177
Figure 6.20 – min and max absolute of e1, p1, e2, p2.
A decrease of the minimum value of the ratio R p ,b is observed.

Ru ,b
In Figures 6.16 (e1) and 6.17 (p1), one can observe the max and min curves intersect.
The intersection of the two curves is explained by different values of t at the intersection
point. Figure 6.15 shows that for a constant value of t, a small variation of the
ratio R p,b with a variation of e1/p1 is noticed. Consequently, at the intersection point
Ru ,b
the plate’s thickness can not be the same. This phenomenon is not observed for the two
other parameters, e2 and p2.
6.4.3 Plates width, b
The plate width is a parameter determined as a function of e2 and p2 as follows:
b = 2e2 + (n2 − 1) p 2 (6.1)
The analysis presented above in 6.4.2 already includes the influence of the plate width
in the problem. The definition of maximum and minimum values for e2 and p2, already
include the extreme values of b.
6.4.4 Steel Grade
In order to study the influence of the steel grade, two mild steels were analyzed: S235
and S335. To compare the two steel grades, the two extreme situations defined in
Section 6.4.2 are used. Therefore, two situations are analyzed: the minimum and the
maximum values of e1, e2, p1 and p2. The bolt diameter, the number of bolt rows and the
number of bolt lines are the same as in 6.4.2. The obtained results are presented in
Figure 6.21.
178
Figure 6.21 – Comparison between the Steel grades S235 and S355.
The figure shows that, for the minimum values of geometrical parameters e1, e2, p1 and
p2, the different steel grades exhibit close results. While for the maximum values of
these more significant differences are noticed, but in the region where the available
ductility is clearly sufficient. In the vicinity of the ratio  δ av = 1 , all the curves are
 δ req 
close, what again shows a good convergence, whatever the steel grade is.
6.4.5 Bolt and hole diameter, d and d0
Three different bolt diameters have been analyzed: M16, M20 and M24. The same
assumptions than before are made. The thickness of the plate is varied in each case. The
steel grade considered is S355. Examples using the maximum and the minimum values
of spacing, end and edge distance are treated. Figure 6.22 present the obtained results.
Figure 6.22 – Comparison between different bolt diameters: M16, M20 and M24.
The Figure 6.22 is similar to Figure 6.21. The major discrepancies between bolt
diameters happen for the maximum values of the spacing, end and edge distances. As
for the steel grade, these differences occur where the level of ductility is clearly
sufficient. For the critical value of the ratio  δ  , all curves are very close.
= 1
av
 δ req 
179
6.4.6 Number of bolt rows and bolt lines, n1 and n2

Here the number of bolt rows (n1) and of bolt lines (n2) is varied. These two parameters
have to be distinguished from the precious ones. The ones analyzed before concern the
geometric dimensions of the connection, and influence the response of the basic
components. Here, n1 and n2, define the number of connectors transferring forces and, so
the length of the connection.
For each parameter, two extreme values, that make a variation on the level of
deformation capacity required, are assumed. The minimum number of bolt rows is 2
(n1=2), and the maximum is considered 10 (n1=10). For the bolt lines, 1 and 5 are the
values considered (n2=1 and n2=5). The covered examples, the results of which are
presented in Figure 6.23, consider: a variation of the thickness; the max and min values
for the spacing, end and edge distances; a steel grade S355; a bolt grade 10.9 and M20
bolts.
Figure 6.23 – Variation of the number of bolt rows and bolt lines.
As for the others parameters, Figure 6.23 shows that the curves are close when the
available ductility is small. The use of max or min values of spacing, end and edge
distances has again significant influence in the region where the available ductility is
sufficient. And again, in the important boundary  δ av 
= 1 the variation between curves
 δ req 
is small: from 0.983 to 0.941.
From the analysis of the curves in Figure 6.23, one can confirm that the number of bolt
rows has more influence on the required deformation capacity; for the same value of n2,
significant differences are reported according to the value of n1, while for, constant
values of n1 and different values of n2, the curves are practically the same (considering
constant values of e1, e2, p1 and p2).
180
6.5 Ductility criterion
In the previous section, the study of the influence of each parameter has showed that, in
the most important region  δ av = 1 , the “ductility function” exhibits small variation and
 δ req 
therefore that the proposal of a simplified ductility criterion may be contemplated.
However, in 6.4, one has considered separately the variation of each basic parameter, so
the obtained results can not be taken as absolute. As consequence, additional
calculations have been done, combining the variation of all basic parameters.
In Figure 6.24 all the “ductility functions” covering all the parameters and their
combination are superposed and again the derivation of a simple ductility criterion
appears possible. The functions presented in Figure 6.24 consider the following
parameters:
Steel grades: two steel grades are considered, S235 and S355;
Bolt diameters: three bolt diameters are included, M16, M20 and M24;
Bolt grades: three bolt grade are used, 5.8, 8.8 and 10.9;
Spacing, end and edge distances: the max and min values of e1, e2, p1 and p2 are
taken into account;
Width of the plates, b: by using max and the min values of e2 and p2, the
influence of the plate width is also analysed;
Thickness of the plate, t: the variation of t is made in order to cover the whole
R
ranges of variation of the ratio p ,b ;
Ru ,b
Finally, the number of bolt rows and lines varies: n1, from 2 to 10 and n2, from
1 to 5.
Figure 6.24 – “Ductility functions” which express the criterion.
181
Furthermore the variation of all the above-mentioned parameters is considered

separately, for each bolt grade, parameters are varied.
One can observe that the variation of the fundamental parameter R p ,b , close to the
Ru ,b
boundary between sufficient and insufficient ductility  δ av  is small, from 0.94 to

 δ req = 1
0.99. So, a safe and simplified ductility criterion may be suggested as follows:
 R p ,b
 If ≤ 0.94 ⇒ Fr ,c = n1 n 2 Req ( plastic distribution of int ernal forces allowed )
 Ru ,b

 If R p ,b
> 0.94 ⇒ Fr ,c < n1 n 2 Req ( plastic distribution of int ernal forces not allowed )
 Ru ,b
 (6.2)
6.6 Application of the ductility criterion
In order to apply the proposed criterion and to draw some conclusions, worked
examples are presented in this section. A comparison with the criterion for long joints
given by the code is also done.
Single overlap connections are used. Number of bolt rows varies from 2 to 8. Two
groups of connections are considered: with 1 and 2 lines of bolts. Two different
situations in each group are defined according to the criterion expressed in (6.2); one
where the fundamental ratio R p,b is smaller than 0.94, and another where its value is
Ru ,b
higher. Table 6.3 presents the data of the study cases.
182
Table 6.3 – Data of the worked examples.
n2 = 1 n2 = 2
R p,b R p ,b R p ,b R p ,b
≤ 0.94 > 0.94 ≤ 0.94 > 0.94
Ru , b Ru ,b Ru ,b Ru ,b
Bolt rows, n1 2–8 2–8 2–8 2–8
Bolt Grade 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9
d [mm] 24 24 24 24
Gap [mm] 4.66 4.66 4.66 4.66
Steel Grade S355 S355 S355 S355
t [mm] 15 20 20 23
b [mm] 200 200 200 200
e1 [mm] 35 35 35 35
e2 [mm] 100 100 35 35
p1 [mm] 80 80 80 80
p2 [mm] - - 130 130
Rp,b [kN] 201.96 269.28 222.96 256.41
Ru,b [kN] 254.16 254.16 254.16 254.16
Req [kN] 176.50 176.50 176.50 176.50
Seq [kN/m] 51850.00 65440.00 65440.00 72870.00
δav [mm] 36.15 5.08 19.45 4.69
“weak” Component Bolt in Shear Bolt in Shear Bolt in Shear Bolt in Shear
In the table, the significant geometrical and mechanical data are presented. The same
bolt grade and diameter is used in the four situations; the plate thickness is therefore
determined so as to verify the conditions for each case. The mechanical behaviour of the
basic and the equivalent component is assumed bi-linear, as considered in Chapter 5.
One can observe that the Bolt in Shear is the “weak” component in all the studied cases;
the resistance of the equivalent component is equal to its resistance. However, the
available deformation exhibits great variation due to different contributions of the
plate/bolt in bearing component to the deformation of the equivalent one.
183
The numerical model (using FinelG code) presented in Chapter 5 is used to determine
the total force achieved by the connection in each case. A comparison with the criterion
for long joints using expression (2.16) is made in the figures below.
1.2
15d
0.8
β
65d
n1=6 - Pratical
criterion
0.6
NC - Rpl/Rub<=0.94
Eurocode
NC - Rpl/Rub>0.94
0.4
0.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Lj [mm]
Figure 6.25 – Comparison between Eurocode 3 criterion and the derived criterion for the examples with one line
of bolts (n2=1).
1.2
0.8 15d
65d
β
0.6 n1=6 - Pratical

criterion
0.4 NC - Rpl/Rub<=0.94
Eurocode
NC - Rpl/Rub>0.94
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Lj [mm]
Figure 6.26 - Comparison between the Eurocode 3 and the proposed criterion for the examples with two lines of
bolts (n2=2).
In both figures, the horizontal axis represents the length of the joint, according to the
code, and the vertical axis, the reduction factor βLF for long joints (see Chapter 2). The
function of βLF is plotted in red. In blue and green are plotted the ratios between the
maximum force transferred in the numerical calculation (NC) and the total force that
could have been, transferred assuming that sufficient ductility is available (Fr,c = n1 n2
Req).
Both figures confirm that, if the condition expressed in (6.2) is verified, the available
ductility is sufficient to achieve a full plastic resistance of the connection even in joints
that exceed the limit imposed by the code. One can also observe that, in the case of a
low contribution by the plate/bolt in bearing component to the deformation of the
184
equivalent one, the available ductility is clearly insufficient and the maximum load the
connection is able to transfer is considerably reduced.
The comparison with Eurocode 3 criterion shows a significant difference. The code
establishes as main condition the length of the joint while the proposed criterion is
based on the contribution of the basic components to the available deformation of the
equivalent bolt zone component. For cases where ratio R p ,b is smaller than 0.94 (high
Ru ,b
contribution of the plate/bolt in bearing) the code approach is conservative while for
higher values of this ratio the code is on the unsafe side.
In the present Chapter, a criterion for ductility requirement in shear bolted connections
has been proposed. This criterion is based on the available and on the required
deformation capacities of the equivalent components.
To derive the criterion, fundamental and basic parameters have been defined. The first
express available ductility  δ av  and define the contribution of each basic component
 δ req 
to the deformation capacity of the equivalent component  R p ,b


 . These two
 Ru ,b 
fundamental parameters have been selected as they include all the basic parameters
which participate to the problem. The basic parameters represent all geometric and
mechanical properties of the connection.
According to the evaluation of the available deformation capacity five different levels of
ductility can be identified. The different levels result from different contributions of the
basic components to the deformation of the equivalent component.
The influence of all basic parameters has been analyzed.
Based in the fundamental parameters, “ductility” function has been plotted. This
function expresses the sufficient or insufficient ductility according to the contribution of
each basic component and has a clear boundary, δ av .
δ req = 1
According to the usual material and connections geometrie, several “ductility functions”
have been plotted and superposed. This superposition showed that in the important
region, close to above specified boundary, the plotted functions had small variation (of
maximum 0.05). Based in this evaluation, a simple criterion has been derived. The
proposed criterion consists in evaluate the participation of the basic components to the
equivalent component through the ratio R p,b .
Ru , b
The analysis presented in Section 6.5 showed that for values of the ratio smaller than
0.94, the available deformation presented by the equivalent component is sufficient to
have a full redistribution of the forces.
185
In Section 6.6 the proposed criterion has been applied. Some worked examples have
been presented and a comparison with Eurocode 3- part 1.8 has been done. From these
worked examples, two main conclusions can be drawn: first, the imperfections
considered in the study are probably too severe, and so a great reduction of the
connection resistance is observed, if the criterion is not fulfilled; second, the ductility
criterion given in Eurocode 3 may be conservative, but more important it may be unsafe
in some cases.
186
Chapter 7
CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 7 – Conclusions
In the present thesis a criterion has been proposed to check whether sufficient ductility
for full plastic redistribution of internal forces is available in actual shear connections
with non preloaded bolts. The study included the effects of lack-of-fit (deviation in the
holes position, clearances between holes and bolts, imperfections in the bolt and hole
diameter …) which lead to some bolts to bear before the others.
In order to evaluate the effects of imperfections the so-called most demanding situation
has been searched. According to European Standards, several layouts have been
analyzed and the “worst” situation defined. Maximum values of fabrication tolerance in
hole diameter, bolt diameter and deviation of holes have been applied.
The elastic distribution of efforts shows that external bolts transfer higher loads than
internal ones. Thus, imperfections have been applied in order to have one of the external
bolt rows transferring load before all the others. From the analysis of several layouts it
has been verified that imperfections should be applied in order to minimize the gap in
the external bolt zone which starts transferring load first and maximize the gap in all the
others. The values proposed vary according to the bolt diameter however the general set
of the connection is same. These values define extreme situations that can be observed
in a connection layout obeying to the standards recommendations.
The behaviour of shear bolted connections can be distinguished in two parts, the plate in
tension and the bolt zone. In this thesis relevance has been given to the second, where
shear and bearing forces develop. The code approach has been efficiently applied and
the two basic components (bolt in shear and plate/bolt in bearing) have been assembled
in the equivalent bolt zone component.
The evaluation of the available deformation capacity of the equivalent component
requires knowledge on the behaviour of the basic components. Thus, analytical work
has been done in the bolt in shear component using experimental work available in the
literature. From this work, empirical functions have been proposed to characterize the
behaviour of bolt in shear. The grades 5.8, 8.8 and 10.9 used in M16, M20 and M24
bolts have been analyzed. Results confirmed that ductility decreases with the increase of
the bolt grade. Errors have been detected in the results reported for bolt grade 8.8 as
curves and values reported are incoherent however, in the absence of more information,
some values were used. Tri-linear laws have been proposed using Eurocode design
functions. The ultimate deformation of bolt in shear is evaluated using these design
functions thus, a lack in the code can be filled and the ductility of bolt in shear
estimated.
A numerical model to evaluate the plate/bolt in bearing component has been proposed.
This model has been validated using experiments on shear bolted connections made of
High Strength Steel realized at Delft University of Technology and University of
Ljubljana. The model showed good accuracy in elastic and post elastic behaviour. The
189
prediction of failure is not yet possible and improvement by implementing finite

elements that can model the cracking of the material is needed. However, the actual
model seems a useful tool to improve knowledge in new common practices (use of HSS,
oversized and slotted holes, preloaded bolts) in which the code presents some lack.
The behaviour of the equivalent component is obtained through the assemblage of the
basic components. This assemblage has been done and expressions to determine the
available deformation capacity in the equivalent component have been proposed. The
proposed expressions show that the deformation available depends on the level of
contribution of the two components. The application of these expressions show the
expected results: high deformation is available if the plate/bolt in bearing has high
contribution to the global deformation while the opposite is observe if the bolt in shear
is the leading basic component. The presented expressions include a limited group of
situations considered the most usual. Based on these, any other situation can be derived.
In the work of Pietrapertosa et al. (2004) the evaluation of required deformation
capacity in shear bolted connections with fitted bolts has been done. Using the same
principles, this evaluation has been extended to actual shear bolted connections and the
effect of imperfections introduced. Higher deformation capacity is obviously required.
The obtained expression is similar to the one presented by the referred authors, the
modification consists in the addition of the gap presented by the last bolt zone to
achieve Req.
In order to help the analytical analysis, a numerical model by means of FinelG code has
been used. The use of this model helped in the understanding of the most demanding
situation in terms of required deformation. It has been observed that if the middle(s)
bolt(s) zone(s) are the last to achieve Req the “worst” case is considered. With aim to
confirm if the initial assumption, in the connections layout, verifies this condition, the
gaps considered in several bolt zones have been analyzed. As result, in the case of 5 bolt
rows connections, expressions which related the gaps to be considered have been
derived. Yet, more important, it has been observed that considering one of the extreme
bolts in contact with the plate and all the others with same gap the most requiring case is
obtained. Therefore the layouts proposed in Chapter 3 can be use.
Through the evaluation of the available and required deformation capacity in the
equivalent bolt zone component a criterion has been derived. Two fundamental
parameters have been defined to express the criterion; one considers the sufficient or
insufficient deformation capacity presented by the equivalent component  δ av  , while
 δ req 
the other takes in account the participation of each basic component in the global
deformation of the equivalent bolt zone component  R p,b  . Contrary to the Eurocode 3
 Ru ,b 
criterion, which is based on length of the joint, the proposed criterion is mainly based in
the “weak” component which has high participation in the deformation capacity of the
equivalent one. So, it considers that sufficient ductility to redistribute forces is achieve
190
when the plate/bolt in bearing component (ductile component) have a considerable

contribution.
The application of the proposed criterion showed that code criterion can be either
conservative either unsafe. It seems more appropriate to base the criterion in the
contribution of the basic components than in the length of the joint.
From the worked examples another conclusion is drawn which has relevant importance
for future works. The fact that imperfections were defined by considering extreme
situations showed to be too severe. In many cases the value of the gap is bigger than
ultimate deformation of bolt in shear which strongly limits the redistribution of forces in
connections with “weak” bolts. As fabrication process suffers considerable
improvements more accuracy is expected therefore the layouts considered in this thesis
have lower probability to happen.
Finally, a global commentary to all the work developed should be done. In this thesis
was chosen an approach which embodies all the aspects to be taken in account in actual
shear bolted connections. By doing so, the present thesis presents a procedure which
arrives in a criterion and therefore, due to the limited time, all the aspects which
contributed to them were study less deeply. However, all haven been approached and
the needed developments identified. Later any improvement can update the criterion
without any radical changes, some parameters may be modified but modifications
should be relative. So, one considers the work presented a good contribution to define
ductility requirements in shear bolted connections.
191
Chapter 8
FURTHER WORKS
Chapter 8 – Further works
The research work presented in this thesis is incomplete. The subject undertaken has
some complementary research lines to be investigated. Hereafter, one summarizes
future works that should be made to improve and extend the present.
The evaluation of the lack of fit (imperfections) in shear bolted connections has
been made in order to define the most unfavourable layout physically possible
and in line with the standards recommendations. The proposed layouts are too
severe. With the accuracy of the actual machinery used in the fabrication process
the derived values maybe extreme. Thus, statistical evolution of imperfections in
shear bolted connections can be done and new layouts defined.
The characterization of the mechanical behaviour of bolts in shear is based in
experimental work. However, the available reports have a lack of accuracy, as
shown in Chapter 4, for bolt grade 8.8. New experiments on bolts in shear
should be realized and the improvement of the analytical work, presented in this
thesis, done. Other bolt grades than 5.8, 8.8 and 10.9 may be included.
A numerical model to study the plate/bolt in bearing component has been
proposed however, the proposed numerical model is not able to predict failure.
This numerical model should be improved by including finite elements that can
be able to reproduce ductile fracture of the steel material. Experimental work to
validate this numerical work should be accomplished.
The proposed numerical work showed good accuracy, this model should be used
in parametric studies to improve the present knowledge in the evaluation of the
plate/bolt in bearing component, as initial stiffness and resistance.
The same model should be use to extend knowledge to new common situations
as connections with: oversized holes, slotted holes, High Strength Steel, pre-
loaded bolts, etc.
Analytical expressions to evaluate the available and the required deformation
capacity for the equivalent bolt zone component have been derived. These
formulae have been validated with a numerical spring model. Experimental
work on actual shear bolted connections that can assure the accuracy of the
proposed formulae should be done.
The ductility criterion presented should be improved with the improvement of
knowledge in any of the previous points. The same must be updated to other
cases as shear bolted connections with oversize and/or slotted holes, High
Strength Steel, pre-loaded bolts, double overlap connections, etc. In a later stage,
the criteria can improve the code.
In the case of insufficient ductility the reduction factor presented by the code
should be improved.
195
Finally, the plate in tension component has not been included in the criterion.
However, if limited resistance is presented by this component the load that can
be transferred by the connection may be reduced. The possible influence of this
mode of failure in the criterion should be analyzed.
196
REFERENCES
References
References
Aceti, R.; Ballio, G.; Capsoni, A.; Corradi, L (2003) – “A limit analysis study to
interpret the ultimate behaviour of bolted joints”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 60, 2004, 1333-1351.
Bourrier, P.; Brozzetti, J. et al (1996) – “ Construction métallique et mixte acier-béton

1 – Calcul et dimensionnement selon les Eurocodes 3 et 4”, Eyrolles, APK -
Association pour la promotion de l’enseignement de la construction acier, Acier –
Development Batiment et Travaux Publics, 1996.
Bursi, O. S.; Jaspart, J. P. (1997) – “Calibration of a finite element model for isolated
bolted end-plate steel connections”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 44, 1997,
224-262.
Bursi O. S.; Jaspart J. P. (1997) – “Benchmarks for finite element modelling of bolted
connections”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 43, 1997, 17-42.
CEN, European Committee for Standardization (2003) – “Eurocode 3: Design of steel

structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings”, Final Draft prEN 1993-1-
1, December 2003, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN, European Committee for Standardization (2001) – “Metallic materials – Tensile

testing – Part 1: Method of test at ambient temperature”, EN 10002-1:2001.

structures – Part 1-8: Design of joints”, Final Draft prEN 1993-1-8, December 2003,
Brussels, Belgium.

structures – Part 1-12: Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades
S 700”, Final Draft prEN 1993-1-12, February 2006, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN, European Committee for Standardization (2005) – “Execution of steel structures

and aluminium structures – Part 2: Technical requirements for the execution of steel
structures – Stage 34”, Draft prEN 1090-2, April 2005, Brussels, Belgium.
Cescotto, S.; Massonet, C. (1997) – “Mécanique des matéiaux”, De Boeck Université

2e édition.
Chi, W. M.; Kavinde; Deierlein, G. G. (2006) – “Prediction of ductile fracture in Steel

Connections using SMCS criterion”, Journal of Structural Engineering, February of
2006.
Dias da Silva, V. (1999) – “Mecânica e resistência dos materiais”, Zuari 2ª edição.
199
References
Freitas, S. T. (2005) – “Experimental research project on bolted connections in bearing

for high strength steel”, Final report of the framework of the Socrates-Erasmus program,
June 2005.
Hosford, William F.; Caddell, Robert M. (1993) – “Metal forming - Mechanicals and
metallurgy”, Prentice Hall 2nd edition.
ISO (1999) – “Tolérances des éléments de fixation – Partie 1: Vis, goujons et écrous –
Grades A, B et C”, Projet de Norme Internationale, ISO/DIS 4759-1.2.
ISO (2006) – “Système ISO de tolérance et d’ajustements – Partie 2: Tables des degrés
de tolérance normalisés et écarts limites des alésages et des arbres” – Norme Base”,
ISO 286/DIN 267 – 2.
Jaspart, J. P. (1991) – “Etude de la semi-rigidité des nœuds pouter-colonne et son

influence sur la résistance et la stabilité des ossatures en acier”, Ph. D. Thesis, M&S
Departement, Liège University, Belgium.
Jaspart, J. P. (1999) – “Recent advances in the field of structural steel joints and their
representation in the building frame analysis and design process”, COST C1 – Semi-
rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, University of Liège,
Brussels, Belgium.
Ju, S.-H.; Fan, C.-Y.; Wu, G. H. (2003) – “Three-dimensional finite elements of steel
bolted connections”, Engineering Structures 26, 2004, 403-413.
Kato, B. (1990) – “Tension testing of metallic structural materials for determining

stress-strain relations under monotonic and uniaxial tensile loading”, Rilem draft
recommendation, TC 83 – CUS Fundamental Mechanical Properties of Metals, 1990,
23, 35-46.
Lekhnitskii, S. G. (1968) – “Anisotropic plates”, Gordon and Breach science publishers.
Lemaitre, J. (1985) – “A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture”,

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, January of 1985, vol. 107.
Ly, L. (2006) – “Développement de modèles analytiques pour la prédiction du

comportement élastique des assemblages mécaniques à broches dans la construction en
bois”, Ph. D. Thesis, M&S Deparment, Liègie University, Belgium.
200
References
Karmalin, V. V. and Pavlov A. B. (1989) – “Load capacity and deformability of

bearing and friction-bearing connections”, Proceedings of the International
Colloqquium on Bolted and Special Structural Connections, USSR, Moscow, May 15-
20, pp. 52-60.
Moal, M. (2001) – “Non Preloaded Bolted Connection with Slotted Holes”, Diploma
Work, Blaise Pascal University, Clemont-Ferrand, France.
Moze, P. – “Report on local ductility of bolted connections made of high strength steel”,
draft of internal report.
Moze, P.; Beg, D.; Lopatic, J. (2006) – “Ductility and Strength of bolted connections
made of high strength steel”, International conference in metal structures “Steel – A new
and traditional material for buildings”, Poiana Brasov, Romania, Sptember 20-22, pp.
323-330.
Pietrapertosa C.; Piraprez E.; Jaspart J.P. (2004) – “Ductility requirements in shear
bolted connections”, ECCS/AISC Workshop: Connections in steel structures V:
Behaviour, Strength and Design, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3-4, pp. 335-345.
Snjider, H. H.; Ungermann, D.; Stark, J. W. B.; Sedlacek, G.; Bijlaard, F. S. K.;
Hemmert-Halswick A. (1988) – “Evaluation of test results on bolted connections in
order to obtain strength functions and suitable factors – Part A:Resultsl”, Background
report to Eurocode 3, BI-88-087, June, BYL/SNY/CS, pp. 19-28.
Wald, F.; Sokol, Z.; Moal, M.; Mazura, V.; Muzeau, J. P. (2002) – “Stiffness of cover
plate connections with slotted holes”, Eurosteel: Third European conference on Steel
Structures, Coimbra, Portugal, pp. 1007-1016.
201
ANNEXES
Annexes
ANNEX I – Ly’s analytical model to predict the initial bearing stiffness
In present annex the analytical model developed by Ly is presented and applied to

specimen A2020 from Delft experiments.
I.1 Elastic theory of anisotropic plates, plane stress state
I.1.1 Generation of the plane state of stresses

One considers an anisotropic plate in equilibrium solicited by forces that satisfy the
following hypotheses:
the forces applied to the plate act in parallel planes to the middle surface;
the forces distribution is strictly symmetric in relation to the middle surface;
the plate’s deformation during loading is suppose to be small.
According to these hypotheses, the studied plate may be represented by its middle
surface. Naming t its thickness; Xn and Yn the force components distributed over the
edge, per unit of surface; X, Y the volumic force components, per unit of volume over
the axes X, Y and Z.
x
0
h
z
Figure I.1 – Coordinates system of a plate element.
Knowing that the plane state of stresses in one point is constant over all the thickness,
henceforth one works with the mean stresses over the middle surface of the plate.
In the absence of volumic forces, the state of stresses in a point (x,y) should satisfy :
equilibrium equations:
∂σ x ∂τ xy 
+ = 0
∂x ∂y 

∂τ xy ∂σ y
+ = 0
∂x ∂y 
(I.1)
205
Annexes
constitutive equations:
ε x = a11σ x + a12σ y + a16τ xy 


ε y = a21σ x + a22σ y + a26τ xy 
γ xy = a61σ x + a62σ y + a66τ xy 
(I.2)
compatibility equations:
∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v
εx = ; ε y = ; ε xy = +
∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x
(I.3)
The piece submitted to a force distributed over the edge satisfies also:
σ x n x + τ xy n y = X n 

τ xy n x + σ y n y = Yn 
(I.4)
From the equations of equilibrium (I.1), one defines the so called Airy function as:
∂2 F ∂2 F ∂2 F
σx = ; σ y = ; τ xy = −
∂y 2 ∂x 2 ∂x∂y
(I.5)
From (I.3), one writes the compatibility of deformation condition as follows:
∂ 2ε x ∂ ε y ∂ γ xy
2 2
+ − =0
∂y 2 ∂x 2 ∂x∂y
(I.6)
If one refers to the expressions of εx, εy, γxy (γxy = 2εxy) - given by (I.2) – and of σx, σy,
τxy - given by (I.5), one obtains the differential equation to which the function of Airy
should satisfy:
∂4 F ∂4 F ∂4 F ∂4 F ∂4 F
a22 − 2a26 3 + (2a12 + a66 ) 2 2 − 2a16 + a11 4 = 0
∂x 4
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂x∂y 3
∂y
(I.7)
In the case of an orthotropic material whose the 2 main directions coincide with those of
axes (x,y), (I.7) changes as:
1 ∂4 F 1 2v12 ∂ 4 F 1 ∂4 F
+ ( − ) + =0
E2 ∂x 4 G12 E1 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 E1 ∂y 4
(I.8)
Where E1 and E2 are the Young modules according to the 2 main directions X and Y;
G12, the shearing modulus; υ12, the Poisson coefficient.
Now, one studies a surface S defined by two contours, C1 and C2.
206
Annexes
y Yn
n
Yn Xn
S n
C2 Xn
x
C1
Figure I.2 - Convention of the normal vector of the contour in the analysis of the plate.
The equation of contour can be defined by the parametric equations, x = x(s), y = y(s).
Then it should be defined the relation between the tangent ds and the normal n for C1
and C2, respectively:
dy dx
nx = ± ; ny = m
ds ds (I.9)
F should satisfy the edge conditions. In the case of imposed force, and introducing (I.9)
in (I.4):
∂F s 
= ∫ mYn ds + c1 
∂x 0 
∂F s

= ∫ ± X n ds + c2 
∂y 0
 (I.10)
In the case of imposed displacements, u* and v* are the displacements on the edge of
the plate:
u = u*; v = v* (I.11)
I.1.2 Generation of the Airy’s function

As mentioned above, the plane state of stresses in a plane piece will be solved by means
of the Airy’s function (I.7). This function can be rewritten under another form using 4
first-order differential operations:
D1D2D3D4F=0 (I.12)
with:
∂ ∂
Dk = − µk
∂y ∂x
(I.13)
where µk satisfies the characteristic equation:
207
Annexes
a11 µ 4 − 2a16 µ 3 + (2a12 + a66 ) µ 2 − 2a26 µ + a22 = 0

(I.14)
In the case of orthotropic material, (I.14) is simpler:
E1 E
µ4 + ( − 2v1 ) µ 2 + 1 = 0
G E2
(I.15)
It is obvious that the roots of the equation (I.15) are complex. The 4 roots will be as
below:
µ1 = α + β i, µ1 = α − β i, µ2 = γ + δ i, µ 2 = γ − δ i (I.16)
From Lekhnitskii (1968), the equation (I.12) leads to a function F in the form:
F = F1 ( x + µ1 y ) + F2 ( x + µ 2 y ) + F3 ( x + µ1 y ) + F4 ( x + µ2 y )
(I.17)
F1, F2, F3 and F4 are functions of ( x + µ k y )
Naming:
z1 = x + µ1 y; z2 = x + µ2 y; z1 = x + µ1 y; z2 = x + µ2 y
(I.18)
the function F can be expressed in another form:
F = 2 Re[ F1 ( z1 ) + F2 ( z2 )]
(I.19)
I.1.3 Calculation of stresses from Airy’s function

Defining:
∂F1 ∂F ∂2 F ∂ 2 F2
φ1 ( z1 ) = ; φ2 ( z2 ) = 2 ; φ '1 ( z1 ) = 21 ; φ '2 ( z2 ) =
∂z1 ∂z2 ∂z1 ∂z 22
(I.20)
On basis of the theory of plane state of stresses (Section I.1.1), the stresses and the
displacements in one point are calculated as follows:
σ x = 2 Re[ µ12φ '1 ( z1 ) + µ 22φ '2 ( z2 )] 


σ y = 2 Re[φ '1 ( z1 ) + φ '2 ( z2 )] 

τ xy = −2 Re[ µ1 φ '1 ( z1 ) + µ 2φ '2 ( z2 )]
(I.21)
u = 2 Re[ p1φ1 ( z1 ) + p2φ2 ( z2 )] − ω y + uo 


v = 2 Re[q1φ1 ( z1 ) + q2φ2 ( z2 )] + ω x + vo 
(I.22)
With:
208
Annexes
p1 = a11 µ12 + a12 − a16 µ1 , p2 = a11 µ 22 + a12 − a16 µ 2 


a22 a22 
q1 = a12 µ1 + − a26 , q2 = a12 µ2 + − a26 
µ1 µ2  (I.23)
ω, u0 and v0 is the arbitrary constants that characterize the displacements in translation

and in rotation of the plate without distortion (displacements of rigid body).
Knowing that the Airy’s function F can be described, either in the space of the real
variables (x, y), either in the space of the complex variables (z1, z2), formulae (I.10) and
(I.11) are modified as follows:
Imposed efforts distribution:
s

2 Re[φ1 ( z1 ) + φ2 ( z2 )] = m ∫ Yn ds + c1 
0 
s 
2 Re[ µ1φ1 ( z1 ) + µ2φ2 ( z2 )] = ± ∫ X n ds + c1 
0  (I.24)
Imposed displacements:
2 Re[ p1φ1 ( z1 ) + p2φ2 ( z2 )] = u * +ϖ y − u0 


2 Re[q1φ1 ( z1 ) + q2 µ 2φ2 ( z2 )] = v * −ϖ x − v0 
(I.25)
I.1.4 Plate with a hole in the middle on which one imposes efforts
Let's consider a plate made of a homogeneous anisotropic material of known shape and
presenting an hole of elliptic shape on which a distribution of efforts is applied. It
concerns the study of the state of stresses and distortions in one point of this plate. In
the case where the hole is small in relation to the plate and located far from the edge,
one supposes that the plate has undefined dimension and that there aren’t effects of edge
on the state of stresses and distortions of the points close to the hole. This case is treated
below.
As one can see in Figure I.3, x and y are the axes; aij, the elastic constants (Hook’s law);
a and b, the elliptic half axes; t, the thickness of the plate,; Xn, Yn, the components of the
efforts distribution on the edge of the hole following x and y; Px and Py, the integral
following x and y of the efforts distribution on the edge.
209
Annexes
y Yn
σv
Xn
Py n
a O
x
Px
b
Figure I.3 - Plate with a hole in the centre on which one imposes efforts.
The equation of the elliptic contour can be expressed on the parametric form:
x = a cos(θ ); y = b sin(θ ); 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π
(I.26)
Developing Xn and Yn in series of complexes, one obtains the complex expressions of

φ1(z1) and φ2(z2) (see(I.24)):
Py ∞

2 Re[φ1 ( z1 ) + φ2 ( z2 )] = θ + α 0 + ∑ (α m eimθ + α m e −imθ ) 
2π t m 
∞

Px
2 Re[ µ1φ1 ( z1 ) + µ2φ2 ( z2 )] = − θ + β 0 + ∑ ( β m eimθ + β m e − imθ ) 
2π t 
m
(I.27)
αm, αm, βm andβm are the complex coefficients obtained developing in series the right
part of (I.24); α0 and β0 are the arbitrary coefficients.
According to Lekhnitskii (1968), the solution of (I.27) can be expressed as follows:
∞
β m − µ2 α m − m 
φ1 ( z1 ) = A0 + A ln ζ 1 + ∑ ζ 
m =1 µ1 − µ 2 1 

∞
β − µ1α m − m 
φ2 ( z2 ) = B0 + B ln ζ 2 − ∑ m ζ
m =1 µ1 − µ 2 2 
(I.28)
where:
z1 + z12 − a 2 − µ12 b 2 z2 + z22 − a 2 − µ22 b 2

ζ1 = ; ζ2 =
a − i µ1b a − iµ2b
(I.29)
For the points over the hole edge, ζ 1 = eiθ ; ζ 2 = eiθ
A0 and B0 are the arbitrary constants concerning the displacements of the rigid body ω0,
u0, v0 - see (I.22) -; A and B are expressed implicitly:
210
Annexes
Py 
A+ B − A− B = 
2π tl 
Px 
µ1 A + µ 2 B − µ 1 A − µ 2 B = 
2π ti 
2 2 a P a P 
µ12 A + µ22 B − µ 1 A − µ 2 B = − 16 x − 12 y 
a11 2π ti a11 2π ti 

1 1 1 1 a12 Px a26 Py 
A+ B − A− B= +
µ1 µ2 µ1 µ2 a22 2π ti a22 2π ti 
(I.30)
Deriving φ1(z1) and φ2(z2), one obtains:
1 ∞
β m − µ2 α m − m 
φ '1 ( z1 ) = (A − ∑m ζ )
z −a −µ b
2
1
2 2 2
1
m =1 µ1 − µ2 1 

1 ∞
β − µ1α m − m 
φ '2 ( z2 ) = (B − ∑ m m ζ )
z2 − a − µ2 b
2 2 2 2
m =1 µ1 − µ 2 2 
 (I.31)
I.2 Application
I.2.1 Case in study
D
E2
E1
Figure I.4 – Analytical model for the embedding component.
Figure I.4 represents the sinking under the action of the force P, of a stem of diameter
D supposed infinitely rigid, in a plate of undefined measures made of an orthotropic
material whose properties are the following: elastic modules E1 and E2, Poisson
coefficient υ12 and shear modulus G12.
The "embedding" stiffness can be evaluated by the ratio between the applied force P on
the stem and the sinking on the orthotropic elastic state.
I.2.2 Problem analysis
The problem is studied in the elastic domain, on the hypothesis of small deformation;
besides, the stem is supposed in perfect contact against wood. The friction between the
stem made of steel and the wood is supposed inexistent. By contact between the stem
and wood, the force P is distributed on the side of the hole (diametrical pressure); the
211
Annexes
stresses reach their maximal value in B and decrease until annulling themselves in D’
and D’’.
D’
σr
P
B
D’’
Figure I.5 – Efforts distribution along the hole edge.
The proposed function to reproduce the distribution of the diametrical efforts on the
edge of the hole is the following:
2
σr = − 1, 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π
1 + 3sin 2 θ (I.32)
The function (I.32) is already normalized, σrmax=1. Therefore, the applied force P that
corresponds to this distribution will be calculated as follows:
2 3
Px = Dt ( arctanh( ) − 1), Py = 0
3 2 (I.33)
The hole is of circular shape; the parametric function that describes its contour is
therefore relatively simple:
x = R cos(θ ); y = R sin(θ ); 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π
(I.34)
Projecting the diametrical pressure on the reference axes (x, y), one obtains the
expression of the components Xn and Yn:
2 
Xn = ( − 1) cos θ ; 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π 
1 + 3sin θ 2


2
Yn = ( − 1) sin θ ; 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π 
1 + 3sin 2 θ 
(I.35)
Developing Xn et Yn in Fourier series:
+∞ +∞
X n = ∑ xm eimθ ; Yn = ∑ ym eimθ ; 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π ; m ∈ Z
−∞ −∞ (I.36)
Then:
212
Annexes
π π
1 1
xm =
2π ∫ -
2
π σ r cos θ e-imθ dθ ; y m =
2π ∫πσ
-
2
r sin θ e-imθ dθ
2 2 (I.37)
So:
+∞

∫ Yn ds = − ∑
m =1
(α m eimθ + α m e − imθ ) + c1 

+∞ 

∫ n ∑
imθ − imθ
− X ds = ( β e + β e ) + c
m =1
m m 2

(I.38)
with:
Rym Ry Rx Rx
α m = −i ; α m = −i − m ; β m = m ; β m = − m ; m ∈ Z *
m −m m −m (I.39)
The αm, αm, βm, βm obtained can then be introduced in formula (I.28) for the
identification of the functions φ1(z1) and φ2(z2), and finally the "embedding" stiffness
determined.
I.3 Remark
The applied force P and the deformation due to "embedding" effect are proportional to
radius R. Consequently, the "embedding" stiffness is independent of the hole radius R.
I.4 Application of the model to Delft specimen A2020
No adaptation of the analytical model to an isotropic material has been done. Its
application, to an isotropic material, consists in the substitution of the wood mechanical
properties by the steel ones (E1=E2, G12, υ12). The bearing stiffness is determined using
Mathematica code in the numerical resolution of Ly’s analytical model. The procedure
is presented here below.
213
Annexes
Analytical model introduced in Mathematica

Kemb@E1_, E2_, v12_, G12_D :=
ModuleA8e = 1, R = 1, M = 10, v21, a11, a22, a12, muSolve, sima, Px, µ1, µµ1, µ2, µµ2, A, AA, B, BB, a1, a2, b1, b2, ζ1, ζ2, p1, p2, q1,
q2, φ1, φ2, φ11, φ22, σx, σy, τxy, u, v, dis<,
v12
v21 = E2 ∗ ;
E1
1
a11 = ;
E1
1
a22 = ;
E2
v12
a12 = − ;
E1
E1 E1
muSolve = SolveA mu4 + J − 2 ∗ v12N ∗ mu2 +
0, muE;
G12 E2
i
j 2 y
z
sima = j
j z;
j è!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! − 1z
z
k 1 + 3 ∗ Sin@tD2 {
i y è!!!!
j 2 3 z
Px = e ∗ NA2 ∗ R ∗ j
j zE;
j è!!!! ArcTanhA 2 E − 1z
z
k 3 {
µ1 = mu ê. muSolve@@2DD;
µµ1 = mu ê. muSolve@@1DD;
µ2 = mu ê. muSolve@@4DD;
µµ2 = mu ê. muSolve@@3DD;
A = a1 + ∗ a2;
B = b1 + ∗ b2;
AA = a1 − ∗ a2;
BB = b1 − ∗ b2;
eq1 = A + B − AA − BB == 0;
Px
eq2 = µ1 ∗ A + µ2 ∗ B − µµ1 ∗ AA − µµ2 ∗ BB
− ;
2∗ π ∗ e∗
eq3 = A ∗ µ12 + B ∗ µ22 − AA ∗ µµ12 − BB ∗ µµ22
0;
1 1 1 1 a12 Px
eq4 = ∗A+ ∗B − ∗ AA − ∗ BB == ∗ ;
µ1 µ2 µµ1 µµ2 a22 2 ∗ π ∗ e ∗
AB = Solve@8eq1, eq2, eq3, eq4<, 8a1, a2, b1, b2<D;
8a1, a2, b1, b2< = 8a1, a2, b1, b2< ê. AB@@1DD;
1
ForA m = − M, m ≤ M, x@ mD = ∗ NIntegrateAsima ∗ Cos@tD ∗ −∗ m∗t, 8t, −Pi ê 2, Pi ê 2<E; m ++E;
2∗ π
1
ForA m = − M, m ≤ M, y@ mD = ∗ NIntegrateAsima ∗ Sin@tD ∗ −∗ m∗t, 8t, −Pi ê 2, Pi ê 2<E; m ++E;
2∗ π
R
ForA m = 1, m ≤ M, α@− mD = − ∗ ∗ y@− mD; m ++E;
−m
R
ForA m = 1, m ≤ M, β@− mD = ∗ ∗ x@− mD; m ++E;
−m
ζ1 = ∗t;
ζ2 = ∗t;
p1 = a11 ∗ µ12 + a12; p2 = a11 ∗ µ22 + a12;
a22 a22
q1 = a12 ∗ µ1 + ; q2 = a12 ∗ µ2 + ;
µ1 µ2
M β@− mD − µ2 ∗ α@− mD
φ1 = A ∗ Log@ζ1D + ‚ ∗ ζ1− m ;
m=1 µ1 − µ2
M β@− mD − µ1 ∗ α@− mD
φ2 = B ∗ Log@ζ2D − ‚ ∗ ζ2− m ;
m=1 µ1 − µ2
i M β@− mD − µ2 ∗ α@− mD y
∗j ∗ ζ1− mz
1
j z
φ11 =
∗ R ∗ HSin@tD − µ1 ∗ Cos@tDL jA − ‚
j
µ1 − µ2
z
z;
k m=1 {
i M β@− mD − µ1 ∗ α@− mD y
∗j ∗ ζ2− mz
1 j z
φ22 =
∗ R ∗ HSin@tD − µ2 ∗ Cos@tDL jB + ‚
j
µ1 − µ2
z
z;
k m=1 {
σx = 2 ∗ ReAµ12 ∗ φ11 + µ22 ∗ φ22E;
σy = 2 ∗ Re@φ11 + φ22D;
τxy = −2 ∗ Re@µ1 ∗ φ11 + µ2 ∗ φ22D;
u = 2 ∗ Re@ p1 ∗ φ1 + p2 ∗ φ2D;
v = 2 ∗ Re@q1 ∗ φ1 + q2 ∗ φ2D;
dis = Hu ê. t → 0L − Hu ê. t → PiL;
Px
E
dis
Bearing stiffness
K 0 = K emb [197048,197048,0.3,75787.7] ⇒ K 0 = 158501 N/mm
214
Annexes
ANNEX II - Derivation of analytical expression to determine the

available deformation capacity in the equivalent bolt zone component
Annex II presents the analytical analysis for the derivation of the available deformation
capacity in the bolt zone. A total of 8 cases are analyzed which are divided in 2 groups.
All the derived expressions have been presented in Chapter 5 in Table 5.1.
According to the configuration of the connection (single or double overlap, same or
different type of plates), different expressions can be derived to evaluate the available
deformation capacity. Therefore, some cases, considered the most commons, are
hereafter presented.
From the presented configurations, two sets are defined, one where the connecting
plates are considered to have equal resistance and another where one of the connected
plates is considered to be more resistant than the other(s).
II.1 Equal behaviour of the plates
In this set, four different cases should be considered, according to the relation between
the resistance of the two individual components (Rp,b / Rb).
The cases analyzed are the following:
Rb > 1.25 R p ,b
R p ,b > α Rb
1 ≤ Rb R p ,b ≤ 1.25
1 ≤ R p ,b Rb ≤ α
II.1.1 Case 1 - Rb > 1.25 R p ,b
In this case, the plate/bolt in bearing is the “weaker” component of the connection as its
ultimate strength is smaller than the resistance of the bolt in shear; so, the available
deformation in the “equivalent bolt zone component” is governed by the plate/bolt in
bearing. The ultimate resistance of the plate/bolt in bearing is below the elastic limit
resistance of the bolt consequently, the bolt will be in its elastic range for every load
level.
The resistance of equivalent component is equal to the resistance of the plate.
Req = R p ,b (II.1)
The case is illustrated in Figure II.1.
215
Annexes
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
αRb Plate/bolt in bearing
Rb
1.25 Rp,b
Rp,b
Sb
Sp,b
Seq
u,b u,p,b av
Figure II.1 – Available deformation (δav) for case 1.
Considering just one plate (not realistic situation as at minimum there will be two
plates), the available deformation of the equivalent component is expressed as:
Req Req 0.25 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+
S eq S p ,b Sb
(II.2)
In this expression, the first term respects to the elastic deformation of the equivalent
component which means the deformation of the two basic components are taken in
account. The plate/bolt in bearing is the “leading” component of the available
deformation capacity consequently, all its deformation capacity should be considered
(second term). Though, it must be noticed the elastic deformation of the equivalent
component already considers the elastic deformation of the plate therefore, it should be
subtracted. Finally, as the resistance of the equivalent component achieves 1.25Rp,b, the
deformation of the bolt after Req must be taken in account (third term).
In the case of having to plates (single overlap connection), expression (II.2) should be
modified as the deformation of the second plate must be taken in account.
Req Req 0.25 Req

δ av = + 2 * (δ u , p ,b − )+
S eq S p ,b Sb
(II.3)
The correction consists in the factor 2 added in the second term, as the deformation of
the two plates are considered in the calculation of Seq.
For a double overlap connection, the modification to be made in (II.2) is different, two
plates will never reach the Req (all plates considered to be equal) and in the bolt there
will be two shear planes, according to the distribution of forces illustrated in Figure II.2.
216
Annexes
Figure II.2 – Forces distribution in a double overlap connection.
Thus, instead of applying the factor 2 in the second term of expression (II.2), a new one
should be add and the one related to the bolt in shear modify. The new term should
consider the deformation of the plates on the right side (Figure II.2), when the load goes
from Req up to 1.25Req. While for the bolt in shear, when the applied force is bigger than
Req, a change should be made due to the presence of two shear planes (each shear plane
transfers F/2). Thus, the expression (II.2) is rewritten as follow.

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+ +
S eq S p ,b Sb S p ,b
(II.4)
II.1.2 Case 2 - R p ,b > αRb
The “weaker” component is the bolt in shear, as its ultimate resistance is lower than the
elastic resistance of the plate/bolt in bearing. So, the available deformation capacity of
the “equivalent bolt zone component” is governed by the bolt. The resistance of the
equivalent component is equal to the resistance of the bolt in shear.
Req = Rb
(II.5)
The behaviour of the individual components is represented in Figure II.3 and the
equivalent component derived.
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
1.25 Rp,b
Rp,b
αRb
Sp,b
Rb
Sb
Seq
u,b av u,p,b
217
Annexes
For the present case, the plate is in its elastic range no matter the load level. Hence,
considering just one plate, the available deformation capacity of the equivalent
component is obtained as follows.
Req Req (α − 1) Req

δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+
S eq Sb S p ,b
(II.6)
This expression is similar to (II.2), the difference appears in the second and third term,
due to “weak” bolt. The entire deformation of the bolt in shear should be considered to
determine the deformation of the equivalent component. The plate/bolt in bearing only
deforms elastically.
For a single overlap connection the last term of (II.6) should be multiplied by 2.
Req Req (α − 1) Req

δ av = + (δ u ,b − ) + 2*
S eq Sb S p ,b
(II.7)
In the case of a double overlap connection, the inequation which defines the present
case should be changed due to two shear planes in the bolt. If one wants to be kept the
main idea (“weak” bolt), the referred inequation should be rewritten.
R p ,b > 2 α Rb
(II.8)
Consequently (II.5) is rewritten as follows.
Req = 2 Rb
(II.9)
Finally, the available deformation capacity for this case is established.
Req Req / 2 (α − 1) Req (α − 1) Req / 2

δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ +
S eq Sb S p ,b S p ,b
(II.10)
II.1.3 Case 3 - 1 ≤ Rb R p ,b ≤ 1.25
As in case 1 the plate/bolt in bearing is the “weaker” component of the connection

however, its ultimate resistance is higher than the elastic resistance of the bolt in shear.
Consequently, expressions (I.3) and (II.4) are not valid and must be reformulated.
The available deformation capacity of the equivalent component is governed by the
plate/bolt in bearing, and part of the plastic deformation of the bolt must be added. In
Figure II.4 is represented the behaviour of all components.
218
Annexes
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
αRb Plate/bolt in bearing
1.25 Rp,b
Rb
Rp,b
Sb
Sp,b
Seq
u,b u,p,b av
Expression (II.1) stills valid and (II.2) must be rewritten.
Req Req Re,b − Req (1.25 Req − Re ,b )

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+ +
S eq S p ,b Sb Sb β
(II.11)
In (II.11) the contribution of the bolt deformation is determined by adding the elastic
deformation (third term) and the plastic deformation (fourth term).
For a single overlap connection, the available deformation capacity will be obtained as
follows.
Req Req Re ,b − Req (1.25 Req − Re ,b )

δ av = + 2 * (δ u , p ,b − )+ +
S eq S p ,b Sb Sb β
(II.12)
In the case of a double overlap connection, as before, the inequation that defines the
case must be rewritten. In order to maintain the correlation between bolt in shear and
plate/bolt in bearing resistance, the inequation should be rewritten as hereafter.
1 ≤ 2 Rb R p ,b ≤ 1.25
(II.13)
And the available deformation is defined as below.
Req Req 0.125 Req Re ,b − 0.5 Req (0.625 Req − Re ,b )

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b − )+ + + (II.14)
S eq S p ,b S p ,b Sb Sb β
II.1.4 Case 4 - 1 ≤ R p ,b Rb ≤ α
This case is very similar to the previous one however, instead of a “weak” plate there is
a weak bolt. So, the behaviour of the components should be represented as in Figure II.5.
219
Annexes
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
1.25 Rp,b
αRb
Rp,b
Rb
Sp,b
Sb
Seq
u,b av u,p,b
Thus, expression (II.5) stills valid for the present case and expressions (II.11) and
(II.12), for one plate and single overlap connection, respectively, should be rewritten as
follows.
Req Req R p ,b − Req (1.25 Req − R p ,b )

δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ +
S eq Sb S p ,b S p ,b 40
(II.15)
Req Req R p ,b − Req (1.25 Req − R p ,b )

δ av = + (δ u ,b − ) + 2* + 2*
S eq Sb S p ,b S p ,b 40
(II.16)
For a double overlap connection, as in the previous cases, the inequation which defines
the case must be rewritten.
1 ≤ R p ,b 2 Rb ≤ α
(II.17)
According to (II.9) and (II.17), the available deformation capacity can be evaluated as
follows.
Req Req / 2 R p ,b − 2 Req (2α Req − R p ,b ) α * Req / 2

δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ + +
S eq Sb S p ,b S p ,b 40 S p ,b
(II.18)
II.2 Plates with different behaviour
Situations where connected plates don’t have the same bearing resistance due to
different thickness and/or type of steel can be found in construction. In the presence of
these of situations, the previous presented expressions loose their validity and new ones
should be derived. Though, as many different relations between the components
resistance can be observed, only the cases for a single overlap connection will be
220
Annexes
analyzed, later other cases can be derived from the presented ones. Figure II.6 presents
an illustration of the case in study.
Figure II.6 – Example of the case approached.
In Figure II.6, plate 1 is presented with a bigger thickness than plate 2 in order to
identify the strongest plate; however this difference can appear from other
circumstances as different type of steels, different configurations, etc.
As mentioned, there are several possible combinations in the relation between the
components resistance even for a single overlap connection. So, just four cases will be
presented, as the others can be derived. The hereafter presented cases are:
Rb > 1.25 R p ,b1 and R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 (Plate/bolt 2 in bearing the “weaker”
component)
R p ,b 2 > α Rb and R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 (Bolt in shear the “weaker” component)
1.25 Rb > 1.25 R p ,b1 and 1.25 R p ,b 2 ≥ R p ,b1 ≥ R p ,b 2 (Plate/bolt 2 in bearing the
“weaker” component)
R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 and α Rb ≥ R p ,b 2 ≥ Rb (Bolt in shear the “weaker” component)
II.2.1 Case 5 - Rb > 1.25 R p ,b1 and R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2
In this first case, a sequential order of resistances is assumed. The ultimate resistance of
the plate/bolt 1 in bearing is lower than the elastic resistance of the bolt in shear. The
elastic resistance of plate/bolt 1 in bearing is higher than the ultimate resistance of the
plate/bolt 2 in bearing, (Figure II.7).
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
αRb Plate/bolt in bearing 1
Plate/bolt in bearing 2
Rb
1.25 Rp,b 1
Rp,b 1
Sb
1.25 Rp,b 2 Sp,b 1
Rp,b 2
Sp,b 2
Seq
u,b u,p,b2 av
u,p,b1
221
Annexes
The “strongest” component is the bolt and the “weaker” the plate 2, consequently the
available deformation capacity of the equivalent component will be governed by plate 2.
Req = R p ,b 2
(II.19)
Thus, the available deformation capacity of the equivalent component is determined as

follows.

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b 2 − )+ +
S eq S p ,b 2 S p ,b1 Sb
(II.20)
II.2.2 Case 6 - R p ,b 2 > α Rb and R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2
The present case is similar to the previous one, here instead of a “weak” plate there is a
“weak” bolt, but the sequential relationship between the resistances of the components
is maintained, as illustrated in below.
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
R Plate/bolt in bearing 1
1.25 Rp,b 1
Rp,b 1
1.25 Rp,b 2
Rp,b 2
Sp,b 1
αRb
Sp,b 2
Rb
Sb
Seq
u,b av u,p,b1
u,p,b2
As the bolt in shear is the “weak” component expression (II.19) must be rewritten as
follows.
Req = Rb
(II.21)
The available deformation (δav) should be determine as below.
Req Req (α − 1) Req (α − 1) Req

δ av = + (δ u ,b − )+ +
S eq Sb S p ,b1 S p ,b 2
(II.22)
222
Annexes
II.2.3 Case 7 - Rb > 1.25 R p ,b1 and 1.25 R p ,b 2 ≥ R p ,b1 ≥ R p ,b 2
The present case presents as the “weak” component the plate/bolt 2 in bearing and the
“strongest” is the bolt in shear. However, in this situation the plate/bolt 1 in bearing
contribute with some plastic deformation for the global behaviour of the “equivalent
bolt zone component”. Plate 1 remains the “strongest” plate, but its elastic resistance is
below the ultimate resistance of the plate 2. For this case expression (II.19) is valid and
(II.20) should be changed according to the new relationship between resistances of the
plates, as illustrated in Figure II.9.
R
Equivalent
Bolt in shear
αRb Plate/bolt in bearing 1
Rb
1.25 Rp,b 1
1.25 Rp,b 2
Rp,b 1
Rp,b 2 Sb
Sp 1
Sp 2
Seq
u,b u,p,b2 av
u,p,b1
Therefore, the available deformation capacity of the equivalent component is

determined as follows.
Req Req R p ,b1 − Req 1.25 Req − R p ,b1 0.25 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b 2 − )+ + +
S eq S p ,b 2 S p ,b1 S p ,b1 40 Sb
(II.23)
II.2.4 Case 8 - R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 and 1.25 R p ,b 2 ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b 2
Finally, in the last presented case the plate/bolt 2 in bearing remains as the “weak”
component, however the “strongest” one is plate/bolt 1 in bearing. The bolt in shear
fails before the plate/bolt 1 in bearing achieves its elastic limit. Its elastic resistance is
higher than the elastic resistance but lower than the ultimate resistance of the plate/bolt
2 in bearing. Case 8 is illustrated in Figure II.10.
223
Annexes
Equivalent
R Bolt in shear
1.25 Rp,b 1
Rp,b 1
αRb
1.25 Rp,b 2
Rb
Rp,b 2 Sb
Sp,b 1
Sp,b 2
Seq
u,b u,p,b2 av
u,p,b1
The expression (II.19) stills valid, however the general expression for the available
deformation capacity of the equivalent component must be changed.
Req Req Rb − Req 1.25 Req − Rb 0.25 Req

δ av = + (δ u , p ,b 2 − )+ + +
S eq S p ,b 2 Sb Sb β S p ,b1
(II.24)
224

Tese Jose Henriques

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tese Jose Henriques

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Departamento de Engenharia Civil

Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia

DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS IN SHEAR

José Alexandre Gouveia Henriques

Dissertação para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Engenharia Civil

I wish to thank my colleagues, N. Boissonade and J. F. Demonceau, that through an

CHAPTER 2 – EUROCODE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED CONNECTIONS IN

CHAPTER 3 – EVALUATION OF THE IMPERFECTIONS/LACK OF FIT .................................27

CHAPTER 4 – RESPONSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS..............................................45

4.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................45

CHAPTER 5 – ASSEMBLY OF THE BASIC COMPONENTS .......................................................113

CHAPTER 6 – DERIVATION OF DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SHEAR BOLTED

CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................189

ANNEX II - DERIVATION OF ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION TO DETERMINE THE

II.2.4 Case 8 - R p ,b1 > 1.25 R p ,b 2 and 1.25 R p ,b 2 ≥ Rb ≥ R p ,b 2 .............................................223

CHAPTER 2 – EUROCODE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED CONNECTIONS IN

CHAPTER 3 – EVALUATION OF THE IMPERFECTIONS/LACK OF FIT

Figure 3.14 - Layout for a connection with 4 bolts and 2 plates............................................................38

CHAPTER 4 – RESPONSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS

Figure 4.37 – 4 nodes plane element. ....................................................................................................86

Figure 4.69 - Distribution of stresses consider in Ly’s Model.............................................................107

CHAPTER 5 – ASSEMBLY OF THE BASIC COMPONENTS

CHAPTER 6 – DERIVATION OF DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SHEAR BOLTED

Figure 6.19 – Influence of the basic parameter p2. ..............................................................................177

ANNEX I – LY’S ANALYTICAL MODEL TO PREDICT THE INITIAL BEARING STIFFNESS

ANNEX II - DERIVATION OF ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION TO DETERMINE THE

k1 bearing reduction factor associated to the edge distance e2 and spacing p2

Si stiffness of a basic component i

δbEC3 bolt in shear deformation obtained from the Eurocode 3 approach

1.1 General considerations

Shear in the plates.

1.2 Objectives of the thesis

1.3 Thesis Structure

Chapter 2 – Eurocode design procedure for bolted connections in

2.1 General considerations

2.2 Categories of bolted connections

In Eurocode two main categories of bolted connections are distinguished: shear

Table 2.1 – Categories of bolted connections

Shear connections B Slip-resistant at Serviceability

Figure 2.1 – Bearing type bolted connections.

2.3 Failure modes in bolted shear connections

Figure 2.2 – Shear plane on a bolt.

Figure 2.3 – Bearing deformation: a) in the plate; b) in the bolt (b).

2.3.4 Shear failure of the plate

Figure 2.4 - a) Shear forces in the plate; b) shear failure.

2.3.5 Tension failure of the plate

Figure 2.5 – Tension failure.

2.3.6 Eurocode considerations

2.4 Evaluation of the basic and equivalent components

Sp2 Sp2 Sp2

A suitable simplified model is illustrated in Figure 2.7.

Seq Seq Seq F

Figure 2.7 – Simplified mechanical model.

determined according to Eurocode 3. However, for the deformation capacity, no

2.4.2 Basic components

dimensions, e2 (edge distance) and p2 (pitch distance in the perpendicular direction of

Figure 2.10 – Symbols for spacing of fasteners.

Table 2.2 – Minimum and maximum spacing and distances

End distance, e1 1.2d0 4t+40mm Larger of 8t or 125mm

Edge distance, e2 1.2d0 4t+40mm Larger of 8t or 125mm

Figure 2.11 – a) αb versus e1 and p1; b) k1 versus e2 and p2.

The factors kb and kt are defined as follows:

Figure 2.12 – kb versus e1 and p1.

Figure 2.13 - Concentration of stresses in the vicinity of the hole.