BLIND BOLTED MOMENT RESISTING CONNECTIONS TO

STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS

T. Barnett, School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK

W. Tizani, School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK
D. A. Nethercot, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College,
UK

ABSTRACT

Tests using a new blind bolt in an arrangement designed to represent the tensile
region of a moment transmitting endplate connection between a hollow section column
and an open section beam are reported. The results demonstrate that this bolt
possesses the strength and stiffness necessary to achieve a satisfactory connection.
Calculations based on the component approach of EC3 predict that because the
flexibility of the SHS face will, for most joint arrangements, limit the connection’s
moment capacity, the strength of the blind bolt will normally be more than is required to
match the strength of the equivalent joint configured with ordinary dowel bolts.

INTRODUCTION

The use of structural hollow sections (SHS) as columns in multi- storey construction is attractive
due to aesthetics and a high strength to weight ratio. However, their use in this capacity is
inhibited by problems in making connections to other members. Early developments in
overcoming the connection problem included fully welding the connection, which, in the UK
context, is not an attractive site option. The use of standard dowel bolts is often impossible as
there is rarely access to the inside of the tube to allow for tightening. The use of components
such as gusset plates and brackets overcomes this problem, but is not generally considered
aesthetically pleasing. To allow for convenient and efficient connection, several techniques have
been devised which permit bolt installation and tightening from one side of the connection only,
i.e. blind bolts. Commercially available examples include Flowdrill (1), the Huck High Strength
Blind Bolt (2), and the Lindapter Hollobolt (3).

It is the purpose of an ongoing research project to modify the original Hollobolt so as to extend
its use to moment resisting connections in steel framed buildings. An important feature of this
research is to develop a fundamental understanding of the behaviour of the SHS face when
subjected to moments from a connection. To date, tests performed elsewhere (4) have proven
that it is possible to design nominally pinned connections (intended primarily to transfer vertical
shear) to SHS columns using the Hollobolt and Flowdrill fasteners. The capacities of the bolts
and the SHS face are sufficient to withstand a predominantly shear load and the limited tensile
loads arising from structural integrity requirements. A guide for the design of connections of this
sort is available (5).

340
BOLT DEVELOPMENT

An important design consideration for connections involving SHS is that high local forces do not
induce unduly large deformations in the relatively thin walls of the tubular member(s). A
particular example of this is the EC3 (6) limitation on the face out of plane deflection of an RHS
to 1% of the chord face.

In order to maximise the performance of bolted endplate moment resisting beam to SHS column
connections, it was therefore necessary to ensure that sufficient clamping force could be
generated between the plies for separation between the endplate and the RHS column face to be
minimised. At an early stage of the research project, the original Hollobolt was altered so that
the expanding sleeve clamped directly to the underside of the joint [Figure 1]. This arrangement,
hereinafter referred to as the Reverse Mechanism Hollobolt (RMH), has been shown through a
series of tests to significantly improve the clamping force between the connected plies as
compared with the original arrangement. Details of the clamping force assessment are reported
elsewhere (7).

Figure 1: The Reverse Mechanism Hollobolt (RMH).

CONNECTION TESTS

Annex J of EC3 (6) covers moment connection design between open sections by use of the
‘component method’. This is a technique that considers the connection as a series of
components, each of which has a specified design check performed upon it. These, in turn, are
based upon identification and representation of all possible failure modes and load transfer
paths. In the tension region of the connection, the bolts and connected plies may be modelled as
a pair of equivalent tee stubs, which represent the flange and web of the column, and the web
and end plate of the beam. Failure of an equivalent tee stub is due to either (a) flange bending
(i.e. mode i) failure, (b) flange bending and bolt tension (i.e. mode ii) failure, or (c) bolt tension
(i.e. mode iii) as illustrated in Fig 2, with the particular form of failure depending upon the
thickness of the connected elements and their material properties.

341
 Figure 2: Mode i (left), ii (centre), and iii (right) failure mechanisms (6)

In order to place maximum demand on the bolts during testing, and to effectively model
the tension region of a moment resisting connection to an open section, it was decided to
place the bolts in back to back tee stubs. The arrangement shown in figure 3 was
devised, thereby allowing for convenient testing in a standard tensile machine. Large
sections were used to encourage a bolt failure, with failure loads of 333kN, 264kN, and
283kN for modes i, ii, and iii failure respectively. The latter two failure loads were
calculated assuming that a standard M16 bolt was present between the plies, and
provide a load which was expected to be greater than that for a corresponding blind bolt.
In order to evaluate the possible presence of prying force in the bolts arising from double
curvature of the plates in a mode ii failure, plate deflections were monitored in the first
few tests by placing linear transducers at the plate edges and the bolt lines. In later
tests, once it had become evident that prying action was not occurring, the transducers
at the plate edges were removed.

Figure 3: Tee stub test arrangement with RMH

342
The purpose of these back to back tee stub tests was to determine the suitability of the
RMH for use in moment resisting connections by measuring its strength and stiffness. In
order to provide a comparison with the performance of the RMH, a series of five tests
were performed using the same arrangement, but with the Lindapter Hollobolt as the
fastener. In all tests, M16 bolts were used as preliminary calculations had suggested
that the inherent flexibility of a SHS face would limit any potential advantage from using a
larger bolt size.

Results of the first series of eight RMH tests, expressed as a load / plate separation
relationship, are shown in figure 4. From this, it is evident that the initial clamping force
exerted on the plates from the expansion mechanism was exceeded at a tension of
approximately 230kN. Loading continued until a bolt failure occurred at a load of
between 350-450kN, with a plate separation of approximately 2mm. Bolt failure was due
to a sudden expansion of the flared legs against the underside of the joint [Figure 5].
Almost immediately after failure of the first bolt in the assembly, a second bolt failed in
exactly the same manner.
600

500

400
Load (kN)

300

200

100

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Displacement (mm)

Figure 4: Load v. plate separation for the RMH tee stub tests.

The load v. plate separation relationships for the five tests performed using the Lindapter
Hollobolt are presented in figure 6. These indicate that, although the ultimate failure of
the assembly was typically in the region of 450kN, the initial clamping force of the bolts
was exceeded at a tension of approximately 90kN with excessive plate separation
following immediately. Ultimate failure occurred with a plate separation of between 6 and
8mm by a ductile shearing of the legs of the Hollobolt against the inside face of the
assembly.

343
 Figure 5: Failure of the RMH.

600

500

400
Load (kN)

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Displacement (mm)

Figure 6: Load v. plate separation for the Lindapter Hollobolt tee stub tests.

Comparing the tee stub test results with the EC3 annex J (6) component method
predictions, it is apparent that the behaviour of the RMH exhibited a mode ii / mode iii
failure mechanism. This was due to ultimate failure being bolt tension, but with minimal
plate separation. The Hollobolt, however, demonstrated purely mode iii failure, as there
were large plate separations at the bolt failure load.

Although the behaviour of the tee stubs connected with the Hollobolt demonstrated that
development of moment resistance in a connection is compromised by the very large
deformations, the use of this fastener in nominally pinned connections is adequate, as
any tensile load requirements arising from structural integrity criteria are below the initial

344
clamping force [British Steel Tubes and Pipes (5)]. The behaviour of the tee stubs joined
with the RMH, however, indicated that its use in a moment resisting connection is
feasible, with the ultimate capacity of the bolt actually being greater than that of a
corresponding standard bolt. The failure mechanism, though, might, at first sight, be
considered undesirable as it occurs suddenly with very little deformation.

However, in an application such as a moment resisting connection to SHS, the sudden

failure mechanism is unlikely to be an issue, due to the thin wall limiting the level of load
that may be resisted by the connection. It may therefore be anticipated that the wall
dimensions will restrict the connection to a mode i plate failure or mode ii combined bolt
and plate failure. This point is explored further in the next section.

INFLUENCE OF THE SHS FACE FLEXIBILITY

British Steel Tubes and Pipes (8) have provided theoretically derived equations for the
determination of the face plastification capacity of a SHS, using yield line analysis
[Equation 1], and for the SHS punching shear capacity [Equation 2]. Assuming a
nominal yield stress of 275 N/mm² for the SHS material, and a geometrical bolt
arrangement as used in the standard tee stub tests, calculations using this equation
demonstrate that, unless a relatively thick section such as a 200x200x12.5 SHS is used,
the flexibility of the SHS face is likely to be the limiting factor.

2 p yctc2
Fc
1  E1
>K  1.51  E 
1 1
0.5
1  J 1 0.5 @
Equation 1
Fps  
4 S ˜ d 2 ˜ tc 0.6 ˜ p yc
Equation 2

The use of these equations has shown that a 200x200x8 SHS possesses a theoretical
face yielding and punching shear capacity of 123kN and 431kN respectively. Compared
with the strength and stiffness of the RMH this means that failure of the SHS face is
critical. A larger tube size of 200x200x10 provides enhanced theoretical face yielding
and punching shear capacities of kN and kN respectively, again less than the capacity of
the RMH.

The largest tube size that was investigated, i.e. 200x200x12.5, demonstrated that the
RMH and Hollobolt possess capacities larger than the theoretical capacity of the SHS
wall. At the yield capacity of the wall (316kN), there is approximately 0.5mm plate
separation with the RMH, which is unlikely to exceed serviceability criteria.

It should be noted, however, that subtle changes in the bolt layout may significantly affect
the capacity of the SHS face. Recalculation of the SHS face yield load for a range of bolt
pitches and gauges indicate that the smaller bending moment in the hollow section face
resulting from a large bolt gauge provides a greater face capacity, as would be expected.

345
Furthermore, interaction between the rows of bolts is also of significance. The greater
the bolt pitch, the less the interaction, hence, a greater face capacity results. When the
bolt pitch and gauge are 75mm, the theoretical yield load of a 200x200x12.5 SHS
becomes 252kN, which is less than the capacity of an arrangement with four RMH.
However, an increase in gauge and pitch to 120mm (the largest practical gauge) results
in a capacity of 430kN, which is likely to cause a sudden flaring of the legs of the RMH.
The effects of change in bolt gauge and pitch are demonstrated for 200x200x8 and
200x200x12.5 SHS in figures 7 and 8 respectively.

200x200x8 RHS
fy = 275 N/mm 2 180
M16 blind bolt.
160
140
120
Plastification Load 100
(kN) 80
60
40
20
0 120
105
75

85

90
95

Bolt Pitch (mm)

105

Bolt Gauge (mm) 75

115

Figure 7: Effect of change in gauge and pitch for 200x200x8 SHS

200x200x12.5 RHS
fy = 275 N/mm 2 450
M16 blind bolt. 400
350
300
Plastification load 250
(kN) 200
150
100
50
0
115
75

85

105
95

95

Bolt Pitch (mm)

105

85

Bolt Gauge (mm)

115
75

Figure 8: Effect of change in gauge and pitch for 200x200x12.5 SHS

A series of ‘modified’ tee stub tests has been prepared in order to ascertain the efficacy
of the yield line theory presented above. It is felt that these tests, where a length of
hollow section tube is placed between the tees, will provide details of the yield line
shape on the face of the tube, and the load required to cause yield, thereby validating

346
the theory. Further aims of this series are to determine the potentially complex
interaction between the RMH and the SHS, and to evaluate the applicability of the EC3
component method to the tensile region of a moment connection to SHS.

In order to facilitate the understanding of the bolt / SHS interaction, an intermediate

series of tests has been arranged where standard dowel bolts are the connector. It is
hoped that this series will provide details of the tubes yielding mechanism without
interference from the blind bolt.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard tee stub tests have shown that the RMH possesses sufficient strength and
stiffness for use in a moment resisting connection. It has been demonstrated
theoretically, however, that the flexibility of the SHS face may limit the moment capacity
of the connection when thin walls and narrow bolt gauges are employed. Therefore,
further series of tests are suggested using a modified tee stub arrangement to determine
whether the full capacity of the RMH may be employed. Also, it is hoped that these tests
will validate previously a published theoretical model of the tube face failure mechanism.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work described in this paper was carried out at the University of Nottingham with
support from Lindapter International and British Steel (Corus) Tubes and Pipes. The
assistance of Mr. Simon Klippel and Mr. Neil Gill of Lindapter and Mr. Noel Yeomans and
Mr. Eddy Hole of British Steel is gratefully acknowledged.

NOTATION

n  1 p  n d
K1 2
B  3tc 
g
E1
B  3tc 
d
J1
B  3tc 
B= The width of the hollow section wall
tc = wall thickness
n= number of rows of bolts
p yc hollow section design strength
g= bolt gauge
d= hole diameter

347
REFERENCES

(1). FLOWDRILL, Flowdrill B.V., Holland, (1993).

(2). HIGH STRENGTH BLIND BOLT, Huck International, Japan (1990).
(3). HOLLOBOLT, Lindapter International, U.K (1995).
(4). BANKS, G., “Hollobolt Joint Shear Tests”, Memos 129 & 146, British Steel Plc,
Rotherham (1997).
(5). BRITISH STEEL TUBES AND PIPES “SHS Jointing: Flowdrill & Hollobolt” (1997).
(6). EUROCODE 3, “Design of Steel Structures. Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for
Buildings” DD ENV 1993-1-1 (1992).
(7). BARNETT, T., TIZANI, W., and NETHERCOT, D., “Report on the Clamping
Behaviour of the Lindapter Hollobolt and a Blind Bolt Prototype” Internal Interim Report,
the University of Nottingham (1999).
(8). BRITISH STEEL TUBES AND PIPES “Hollofast and Hollobolt System for Hollow
Section Connections” CIDECT Report No. 6G-14(A)/96 (1996).

348