Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2017, Article ID 1912724, 19 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1912724

Research Article
An Analytical Method for Determining the Load Distribution of
Single-Column Multibolt Connection

Nirut Konkong and Kitjapat Phuvoravan

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

Correspondence should be addressed to Kitjapat Phuvoravan; fengkpp@ku.ac.th

Received 23 March 2017; Accepted 28 May 2017; Published 6 July 2017

Academic Editor: Dimitris Rizos

Copyright © 2017 Nirut Konkong and Kitjapat Phuvoravan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of geometric variables on the bolt load distributions of a cold-formed
steel bolt connection. The study was conducted using an experimental test, finite element analysis, and an analytical method.
The experimental study was performed using single-lap shear testing of a concentrically loaded bolt connection fabricated from
G550 cold-formed steel. Finite element analysis with shell elements was used to model the cold-formed steel plate while solid
elements were used to model the bolt fastener for the purpose of studying the structural behavior of the bolt connections. Material
nonlinearities, contact problems, and a geometric nonlinearity procedure were used to predict the failure behavior of the bolt
connections. The analytical method was generated using the spring model. The bolt-plate interaction stiffness was newly proposed
which was verified by the experiment and finite element model. It was applied to examine the effect of geometric variables on the
single-column multibolt connection. The effects were studied of varying bolt diameter, plate thickness, and the plate thickness ratio
(𝑡2 /𝑡1 ) on the bolt load distribution. The results of the parametric study showed that the 𝑡2 /𝑡1 ratio controlled the efficiency of the
bolt load distribution more than the other parameters studied.

1. Introduction truss element. It is designed using a multiple bolt connection

with even bolt load distribution. The bolts in a row in the
A bolt connection is generally used in cold-formed steel loading direction are assumed to have an equal distribution
structures. It can result in a high-stress concentration at con- of load among the bolts. In an actual lap connection, the
tact regions, especially with thin cold-formed steel members. behavior of each bolt in a row is different due to an unequal
The shearing of cold-formed steel, bearing on material in load distribution that also results from the stiffness of the
front of the bolt, tearing of the cold-formed steel in the single bolt deformation and plate deformation between bolts
net section, and shearing of the bolt are the main failure as shown in Figure 1, where the evolution of the internal forces
modes of a single bolt connection. In multibolt connections, versus the applied force (𝑃) is demonstrated with a five-bolt
the failure modes are identified by numerical and analytical connection in which 𝛿 and 𝛿𝑏−𝑖 are the connection elongation
methods, with the results showing combined bearing failure and bolt deformation.
and net-section failure modes [1, 2]. The failure behavior In the first step, the connection evolves elastic behavior
of a multibolt connection is considered in two steps as (a) with the outer bolts being more loaded than the inner ones.
the load distribution between bolts, which is the process for In the second step, the outer bolt rows reach their elastic limit
considering the stress bypass in the multibolt connection, strength but the inner bolt rows are still in the elastic stage. In
and (b) local stresses analysis as the bearing stress and the third step, the plastic behavior is distributed to the inner
net-section stress around a critical hole, which is used to bolt rows. In the fourth step, the plastic behavior is developed
investigate ensuring a safety margin of connection [3–5]. in all the bolt rows. However, the limitation of the cold-
Practically, the lap shear connection is used for tension in a formed ductility between the bolt-plate in bearing may be
structural member such as the diagonal and tension chord reached before the connection develops full plastic strength.
2 Advances in Civil Engineering

Load deformation Bolt load Load of bolt 5 Load of bolt 4 Load of bolt 3
of connection
P P P P
Ppl P
Step 1
Pe P < Pe
𝛿 P 𝛿b-5 𝛿b-4 𝛿b-3
1 2 3 4 5
P 𝛿
P P P
Ppl Pe
Step 2 Pe
P = Pe
𝛿 P 𝛿b-5 𝛿b-4 𝛿b-3
12 34 5
P 𝛿 P P
P
Ppl Ppl
Step 3 P
e Pe < P < Ppl
𝛿 P 𝛿b-5 𝛿b-4 𝛿b-3
12 3 4 5
P 𝛿 P P P
Ppl Ppl
Step 4
Pe P = Ppl
𝛿 P 𝛿b-5 𝛿b-4 𝛿b-3
12 34 5
𝛿

Figure 1: Stages of force distribution in bolt connections [6].

These failures result in a lower average bearing stress value has a minimum yield strength of 550 MPa. The material
per bolt hole of the multibolt connection. In this case, the properties for G550 steels were specified by following ASTM
connection would not develop the ultimate bearing capacity Standards A370-07 [11] as shown in Table 1. Following the
as recommended by the design method [6, 7]. Bolt load pre- research objective and scope, the possibility of bolting shear
diction is a complex procedure involving the establishment failure was eliminated by using M5 Grade 8.8 steel bolts
of the bolt load distribution. The stiffness components (the conforming to ASTM A325M [12] as shown in Table 2.
axial stiffness of the plate and the interaction of the bolt-plate) The bolt connection specimen and the hole size are shown
must be included in the investigation of bolt load distribution. in Figure 2. The bolts and nuts were assembled with integral
However, the interaction stiffness of the bolt-plate is not washers that were tightened by hand, which allowed for slip
easily defined in a closed-form solution because the analysis in the connection after the initial loading.
requires knowledge of the influenced parameters such as the The bolt connection specimens were tested using a
shear deformation of the bolt, bending deformation of the universal testing machine (UTM) in the structural laboratory
bolt, bearing deformation of the plate, bearing deformation of Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, as shown in
of the bolt, and deformation of the plate between bolts. Figure 3(a). A typical bolted shear connection test setup is
Thus, the equation of the bolt-plate interaction stiffness in shown in Figure 3(b). The load and the axial deformation
industry today is derived by using a semiempirical approach were measured to describe the connection failure behavior.
based on the testing data [8–10]. The weakness of these The load was applied to the specimen using displacement
empirical equations is that they ignore the shear deformation control with a speed of 1 mm/minute. A linear variable
assumption in the bolt component which is dominated by the differential transformer (LVDT) was installed to measure the
short bolt length. elongation of a single bolt connection over a distance of
This study describes the method of analysis for deter- 200 mm from the center line. The load was gradually applied
mining the load distribution among bolts in a single-column until either the specimen failed or the specimen entered into
multibolt connection. A bolt-plate interaction stiffness equa- plastic deformation. Once the applied load began to drop,
tion is proposed which is verified by the experimental test and even though the specimen continued to elongate, the test was
finite element analysis (FEA). The experimental investigation stopped.
was performed using lap shear bolt connection testing and
the connections were fabricated from cold-formed steel. 3. Finite Element Model and Validation
2. Material Properties and Model Description In the present study, the ANSYS finite element package
[13] was used to predict the failure behavior of the bolt
The laboratory test was performed using G550 cold-formed connection as shown in Figure 4. Nonlinear finite element
steel with a plate thickness of 1.0 mm for the bolt connection analysis was used to compare and validate the results of the
test. G550 is a hot-dipped zinc-coated structural steel and single bolt connection test. The nonlinear geometry, material
Advances in Civil Engineering 3

100
Washer outside diameter = 15
15 and thinness = 2 d

15
30 F 1 mm
1 mm F
Hole size

F 1 dℎ
1 F
Bolt diameter, d (mm) Hole diameter, dℎ (mm)
Bolt diameter = 5
<12.7 d + 0.8
≥12.7 d + 1.6
Unit: mm
(a) Bolt connection geometries (b) Hole size

Figure 2: Bolt connection specimens.

Table 1: Material properties of cold-formed steel, G550-1T.

Test number
SD COV
CT-1 CT-2 CT-3 CT-4 CT-5 Mean
T (mm) 1.045 1.045 1.044 1.045 1.045 1.04 0.0004 0.04
W (mm) 12.64 12.65 12.59 12.58 12.52 12.59 0.0522 0.41
𝐹𝑦 (MPa) 608.47 605.77 605.90 617.50 606.46 608.82 4.9715 0.81
𝐹𝑢 (MPa) 627.00 622.50 625.50 630.00 620.00 625.00 3.8890 0.62
𝐸 (GPa) 213.51 213.49 213.49 213.58 213.58 213.53 44.1757 0.02
𝐹𝑢 /𝐹𝑦 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.0054 0.53
Remark. F y is the yield stress, F u is the ultimate stress, E is the modulus of elasticity, T is the plate thickness, W is the width of coupon test specimen, COV is
the coefficient of variation, and SD is the standard deviation.

Table 2: Material properties of bolts.

Test number
SD COV
BT-1 BT-2 BT-3 BT-4 BT-5 Mean
𝑑 (m) 4.93 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.94 4.95 0.019 0.393
𝐹𝑦 (MPa) 930.00 949.00 927.00 976.00 872.00 930.80 38.232 4.107
𝐹𝑢 (MPa) 963 930 963 997 909 952.40 33.908 3.560
𝐸 (GPa) 204.08 204.08 204.09 204.10 204.09 204.08 7.385 0.003
Remark. d is the bolt diameter.

nonlinearity, and contact problem were modeled in the finite conditions as pinned and roller support. The uniform load
element model. The cold-formed steel was modeled using was applied along the end plate line 𝐵 with the displacement
eight nodes with six degrees of freedom at each node shell control as shown in Figure 4(f). The static friction between
elements (SHELL281) as shown in Figure 4(b). the steel plates was neglected due to the smooth coating
Three-dimensional, 20-node solid elements (SOLID186) surfaces. The actual stress-strain values from the cold-formed
with three degrees of freedom at each node were used to steel tensile testing were converted to the true stress (𝜎true )
model the steel bolts and the washers, as shown in Figure 4(c). and strain (𝜎true ) which imposed a multilinear isotropic
Contact between the steel plates, steel bolts, washers, and wall hardening model as shown in Figure 4(g). It was converted
of the holes was defined as the contact elements (CONTA173 using
and TARGE170). The pure penalty contact algorithm was
used to solve the constrained optimization contact problem 𝜎true = 𝜎test (1 + 𝜀test ) ,
(1)
as shown in Figures 4(d)-4(e). The mesh size was controlled 𝜀true = ln (1 + 𝜀test ) .
by the aspect ratios (length-to-width ratio) which were
selected to be close to 1.0 for all components. Around the The large deflection option was activated to achieve nonlinear
bolt holes, fine mesh was utilized in order to transfer the geometry behavior. By turning on this option, iterative solv-
stress from the bolt to the cold-formed steel plate. The nodes ing and updating of the stiffness matrix based on the incre-
along the end plates were restrained with geometric boundary mental nodal displacements at each equilibrium iteration
4 Advances in Civil Engineering

UTM rod, load cell

Upper grip

LVDT
Fixed gage Data
lengths logger

Specimen

Lower grip

UTM rod
(a) Test apparatus (b) Test specimen

Figure 3: Bolted connection test setup.

Bolt (SOLID186)
Washer (SOLID186)
Cold-formed steel (SHELL281) x

z
(a) Geometry model
fp = kp xp
Steel bolt
z

Contact element (CONTAC174) x

8 CONTAC174
L󳰀 O󳰀
L P kp kp kp kp xp
O X W
6 4
2 5
P L K󳰀
z0 4 O I󳰀 O
P
y0 M
6
I N P N󳰀 TARGET170
7 V M󳰀
5 K
K 5 U 3 I z I J󳰀 Cold-formed steel
I 1 x0 Y L Z y
N 3 T S M N
1 3
M
4 2
fp = the contact force
I 1 K x J
6
J
z
y Q
R xp = the contact penetration
J
2 x Target element (TARGET170) kp = the contact stiffness

(b) SHELL281 (c) SOLID186 (d) Contact element (e) Pure penalty algorithm
700
dx = 0 A 600
Axial stress (MPa)

dy = 0 500
400
dz = 0
(pined) 300
Fine mesh size
200
y 100
B 0
z x 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
dx = free
Axial strain (mm/mm)
dy = 0
dz = 0 Actual stress-strain (average)
(roller) True stress-strain
(f) Mesh and boundary condition (g) Actual stress and plastic strain

Figure 4: Geometry, element type, and material model of FEA.

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

12,000
10,000
8,000 Single bolt connection
Load (N)

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test FEA
Axial deformation (mm)

S-1 S-4
S-2 S-5
S-3 S-FEA

(a) Load-deformation curves (b) Failure mode

Figure 5: Load-deformation curves and failure mode of single bolted connection.

Table 3: Summary of the lap shear connection results. 5. Bolt-Plate Interaction Stiffness Analysis
Test Loading capacity, 𝑃𝑛,test (N) Failure mode 𝑃𝑛,test /𝑃𝑛,FEA In multibolt connections, the bolts in different rows carry
S-1 10,812 Bearing 0.97 different amounts of the load which depend on the bolt
S-2 10,660 Bearing 0.95 diameter, plate stiffness, and other geometry configurations
S-3 10,707 Bearing 0.96 [15, 16]. The connection stiffness is fundamental to under-
S-4 10,800 Bearing 0.97 standing the load transfer and the load distribution of the
S-5 10,758 Bearing 0.96 bolt connection. In accordance with the typical bolt, the
deformation of the steel bolt, illustrated in Figure 7, was
Mean 10,747 0.96
simplified as a short beam. The concept of bolt flexibility (𝐶𝑏 )
FEA 11,167 Bearing
prediction can be defined by
1 𝛿
𝐶𝑏 = = 𝑏, (2)
𝑘𝑏 𝐹
were performed into the nonlinear geometry analysis. Finally,
the Newton-Raphson algorithm was activated to obtain the where 𝑘𝑏 is the stiffness of the steel bolt, F is the applied force,
solution after each displacement increment. and 𝛿𝑏 is the bolt deformation.
An analytical beam theory with the shear deformation
and rotational bending effects included is the theory known
4. Single Bolt Connection Test Results as Timoshenko beam theory [17]. For Timoshenko beams,
plane cross-sections will rotate due to shear forces. The
The load capacity and failure mode of single bolt connection rotation (𝜃) and deflection of a beam (𝑢) are written by
tests are shown in Figure 5(a). The deformation shape 𝑥
from the experimental tests and the FEA showed that the 𝑀 (𝑠)
𝜃 (𝑥) = ∫ 𝑑𝑠 + 𝜃0 , (3a)
specimens were subjected to bearing failure as shown in 0 𝐸𝐼
Figure 5(b). The ratio of the ultimate loads between the 𝑥 𝑥
𝑉 (𝑠)
experiment and the FEA (𝑃𝑛,test /𝑃𝑛,FEA ) is shown in Table 3 𝑢 (𝑥) = ∫ 𝜃 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 − ∫ 𝑑𝑠 + 𝑢0 , (3b)
0 0 𝜅𝐴𝐺
and this indicates that the ultimate load capacity of the
experimental results was in good correlation with the FEA. where 𝑉0 , 𝑀0 , 𝜃0 , and 𝑢0 are constants of integration which
In order to identify the connection failure modes, the can be determined using the boundary conditions for the
Von-Mises stress contour was normalized by the ultimate particular problem, 𝐴 is area cross-section of the beam, 𝐺 is
stress of the cold-formed steel material as shown in Figure 6. a shear modulus of the beam, and 𝜅 is the shear coefficient
Hart-Smith [14] and He and Wang [2] have suggested due to the nonuniform distribution of shear stress along the
a method for bearing failure prediction of the shear con- cross-section. Figure 8 shows the assumption of the load
nection. The monitoring strain point at 𝐶, 𝐷, and 𝐸 is zero components of a steel bolt which was used to analyze the bolt-
when the connection suffers from bearing failure, and the plate interaction stiffness. Point 𝐴, point 𝐵, and point 𝐶 are
monitoring stress normalization at point 𝐶 is equal to 1 the reference points on the bolt that refer to the middle of the
for net-section failure. The stress-strain analysis of the FEA plate thickness and the bolt length.
results showed that the lap shear bolt connection suffered The bolt tolerated the bearing force, shearing force, and
from bearing failure. bending moment initiated by an eccentric load from the steel
6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Stress normalization Strain

1.0004 3.1592
∘
0
0.89658 2.8085
0.79278 2.4578
C C
0.68899 D B B 2.1071
D
0.5852 A 1.7564
E 𝜃 A
0.4814 E 1.4057
0.37761 1.055
0.27382 0.70431
0.17003 180∘ 0.35361
0.066233 0.0029019
1.3
Stress normalization

Strain (mm/mm)
1.0 2.5
0.8 2
1.5
0.5
1
0.3 0.5
0.0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
𝜃 (degrees)

Stress normalization
Strain

Figure 6: Stress normalization and strain distribution of bolt connection.

F=0 Plate 1 t1

t2 Plate 2

Bolt
𝛿b

A
F Plate 1 t1
C
t2 Plate 2
B

Bolt

Figure 7: Deformation of single bolt connection.

F
t1
A
𝜔1 t1
C V1
L
V2
B 𝜔2 t2

t2 F

Figure 8: Forces in bolt.

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Fixed support Fixed-free Fixed-free Fixed-free

A
𝜔1 t1 𝜔1 t1
C = + +
𝜔2 t2 𝜔2 t2
B M

Guiding support Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Figure 9: Statically indeterminate system.

x 𝛿B
𝜃B
L

y Load case 1 Load case 2 Load case 3

y y
𝜔 𝜔

MB
x x x

a b a b

L L L
0≤x≤a 0≤x≤a x=L
𝜔x2 𝜔x2 b MB L2
𝛿(x) = − (6a2 − 4ax + x2 ) 𝛿=− (3L − 2x + 3a) 𝛿B = −
24EI 12EI 2EI
MB L
a≤x≤L a≤x≤L 𝜃B =
EI
𝜔x3 𝛿=−
𝜔
(x4 − 4Lx3 + 6L2 x2 − 4a3 x + a4 ) 𝛿B = deflection at end B of the beam
𝛿(x) = − (4x − a) 24EI
24EI
𝜔a3 𝜔(L3 − a3 ) 𝜃B = angle of rotation at end B of the beam
𝜃B = 𝜃B =
6EI 6EI

Figure 10: Bending deformation of cantilever beam.

plates. The statically indeterminate system was divided in where 𝜃1 , 𝜃2 , and 𝜃3 are the bending rotation components due
Figure 9. to the loads 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀, respectively. 𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , and 𝛾3 are
A cantilever beam with partially uniform loads and end shear rotation due to the loads 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀, respectively.
moments idealizes the load components of a steel bolt. The bending rotation and shear rotation components can
The superposition analysis method was used to analyze the be written as (5a)-(5b) which refer to Figures 10-11.
bending deformation and shear deformation for a cantilever 𝜔1 𝑡13
beam carrying a uniform load of intensity over part of the 𝜃1 = − ,
6𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
span as shown in Figures 10 and 11.
The bending moment was introduced by eccentric force 𝜔2 (𝐿3 − 𝑡13 )
𝜃2 = , (5a)
from the plate. It was derived by sum of the rotation of the 6𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
neutral axis at the end of the bolt as shown in Figure 12. This 𝑀𝐵 𝐿
rotation can be rewritten by 𝜃3 = ,
𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
𝛾1 = 0,
𝜙 = 𝜙1 + 𝜙2 + 𝜙3 = (𝜃1 + 𝛾1 ) + (𝜃2 + 𝛾2 ) + (𝜃3 + 𝛾3 ) 𝛾2 = 0,
(4) (5b)
= 0, 𝛾3 = 0,
8 Advances in Civil Engineering

dx
x
𝛾
𝛿s d𝛿s
𝛾=
dx
L d𝛿s V

y Load case 1 y Load case 2 y Load case 3

𝜔 𝜔

MB
x x x

a b a b
L L L
𝜔b
V(x) = 0
𝜔 𝛾(x) = 0
x
𝛿s (x) = 0
x
a a x
0≤x≤a 0≤x≤a
b
V1(x) = −𝜔(x − a) Vx (x) = −𝜔b
𝜔(x − a) x 𝜔b 0≤x≤b
𝛾1(x) = − 𝛾3 (x) = −
𝜅AG b 𝜅AG V4 (x) = −𝜔(x − b)
x 0≤x≤b x 𝜔(x − b)
𝛿1(x) = ∫ 𝛾1 (x)dx 𝛿3 (x) = ∫ 𝛾3 (x)dx 𝛾4 (x) = −
0 V2 (x) = 0 0 𝜅AG
𝛾2 (x) = 0 a x
a x 𝛿4 (x) = ∫ 𝛾3 (x)dx + ∫ 𝛾4(x)dx
0 0
𝛿2 (x) = ∫ 𝛾1 (x)dx + ∫ 𝛾2(x)dx
0 0

Figure 11: Shear deformation of cantilever beam.

Fixed support Fixed-free Fixed-free Fixed-free

A
𝜔1 t1 𝜔1 t1
C +
= +
𝜔2 t2
𝜔2 t2 MB
B

𝜙1 𝜙2 𝜙3
Guiding support
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Figure 12: Rotation of the bolt.

where 𝐸𝑏 is the modulus of elasticity of the bolt, 𝐼𝑏 is the Thus, (4) can be rewritten as
moment of inertia of the bolt, 𝑡1 and 𝑡2 are the thickness of
the plate, 𝜔1 and 𝜔2 are the loads on the bolt, and 𝐿 is the 𝜔1 𝑡13 𝜔2 (𝐿3 − 𝑡13 ) 𝑀𝐵 𝐿
thickness of the connection. The force in the bolt (𝐹𝑏 ) can be − + + = 0. (8)
6𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏 6𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏 𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
presented by
The bending moment in the bolt can be rewritten as
𝐹𝑏 = 𝜔1 𝑡1 = 𝜔2 𝑡2 . (6)
3
𝜔2 ((𝑡1 + 𝑡2 ) − 𝑡13 − 𝑡12 𝑡2 )
The relationship of the uniformed load in the connection can 𝑀𝐵 = − . (9)
6 (𝑡1 + 𝑡2 )
be written by
The connection stiffness calculation was divided into two
𝑡
𝜔1 = 𝜔2 ( 2 ) . (7) main stiffness components being the bolt stiffness (𝑘𝑏 ) and
𝑡1 the contact stiffness (𝑘𝑐 ) as shown in Figure 13. The bolt
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Fixed support
M kb

A
𝜔1 t1 kc
C

B kc
𝜔2 t2

kb

M
Guiding support

Figure 13: Stiffness components of single bolt connection.

stiffness was analyzed by considering the flexural stiffness where 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝑀 are the flexural
(𝑘flex,𝑏 ) and the shear stiffness (𝑘she,𝑏 ) of the bolt. The contact deformation at point 𝐴 due to 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀, respectively,
stiffness was the interaction stiffness between the plate and which are defined by
the bolt which is referred to as the plate bearing stiffness
𝜔1 𝑡13
(𝑘bea,𝑝 ) and the bolt bearing stiffness (𝑘bea,𝑏 ). 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝜔1 𝑡1 = − (6𝑎2 − 4𝑎𝑥 + 𝑥2 ) , (13a)
The bolt-plate interaction stiffness (𝑘bp ) is associated with 24𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
the bending, shearing, and bearing stiffness of the assembly
parts. It can be written as the spring components using (10a)- 𝜔2 𝑏𝑥2
𝛿flex,𝐴,𝜔2 𝑡2 = (3𝐿 + 3𝑎 − 2𝑥) , (13b)
(10b): 12𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏

1 1 1 𝑀 (𝑥)2
= + 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝑀 = , (13c)
𝑘bp 𝑘𝑏 𝑘𝑐
(10a) 2𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
𝑎 = 𝑡1 ,
with
𝑏 = 𝑡2 ,
1 1 1
= + , 𝐿 = 𝑡1 + 𝑡2 , (13d)
𝑘𝑏 𝑘flex,𝑏 𝑘she,𝑏
(10b) 𝑡1
1 1 1 . 𝑥=
= + . 2
𝑘𝑐 𝑘bea,𝑝 𝑘bea,𝑏
The deformations of the bolt at point 𝐵 (𝛿flex,𝐵 ) can be written
In the bending stiffness component, the bolt deformation by
was analyzed using (3b) which ignored the shear deformation 𝛿flex,𝐵 = 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝜔1 𝑡1 + 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝜔2 𝑡2 + 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝑀, (14)
term as written by (11). 𝜃0 and 𝑢0 were set equal to zero for the
cantilever beam boundary condition. where 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝑀 are the flexural
deformations at point 𝐵 due to 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀, respectively,
𝑥 which are defined as
𝑢 (𝑥) = ∫ 𝜃 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 + 𝑢0 𝜔1 𝑎3
0 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝜔1 𝑡1 = − (4𝑥 − 𝑎) , (15a)
(11) 24𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
𝑥 𝑥
𝑀 (𝑠)
= ∫ (∫ 𝑑𝑠 + 𝜃0 ) 𝑑𝑠 + 𝑢0 .
0 0 𝐸𝐼 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝜔2 𝑡2
𝜔2 (15b)
The flexural deformation of the bolt was calculated by = (𝑥4 − 4𝐿𝑥3 + 6𝐿2 𝑥2 − 4𝑎3 𝑥 + 𝑎4 ) ,
sum of deformation at point 𝐴 and point 𝐵 as shown in 24𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
Figure 14.
𝑀 (𝑥)2
The flexural deformations of the bolt at point 𝐴 (𝛿flex,𝐴 ) 𝛿flex,𝐵,𝑀 = , (15c)
can be written as 2𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
𝑡2
𝛿flex,𝐴 = 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝜔1 𝑡1 + 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝜔2 𝑡2 + 𝛿flex,𝐴,𝑀, (12) 𝑥 = 𝑡1 + . (15d)
2
10 Advances in Civil Engineering

𝛿flex,A

A
A 𝛿flex,C
F Plate 1 t1 𝛿bolt = (𝛿flex,C − 𝛿flex,A )
C
C B + (𝛿flex,B − 𝛿flex,C )
t2 Plate 2 F 𝛿flex,B
B = 𝛿flex,B − 𝛿flex,A
N.A.

Bolt
𝛿bolt

Figure 14: Flexural deformation of the bolt.

The total bolt flexural deformation due to 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀 calculated by sum of deformation at point 𝐴 and point 𝐵 as
was defined using shown in Figure 15.
The deformations of the bolt at point 𝐴 (𝛿𝑠,𝐴 ) can be
𝛿flex,𝑏 = 𝛿flex,𝐵 − 𝛿flex,𝐴 written using
2 2
1 (𝑡1 + 𝑡2 ) (3𝑡1 + 13𝑡𝑡 𝑡2 + 3𝑡2 ) (16) 𝛿𝑠,𝐴 = 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝜔1 𝑡1 + 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝜔2 𝑡2 + 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝑀, (21)
=( ) 𝜔2 𝑡2 ,
128 𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏
where 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝑀 are the shear deformations
where 𝐹𝑏 = 𝜔2 𝑡2 . Thus, the total bolt flexural deformation can at point 𝐴 due to 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀, respectively, which are
be rewritten as defined using

3𝑡12 + 16𝑡22 𝑡2 + 16𝑡1 𝑡22 + 3𝑡23 𝑥 3𝜔1 𝑡12

𝛿flex,𝑏 = ( ) 𝐹𝑏 . (17) 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝜔1 𝑡1 = ∫ 𝛾1 (𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 = − , (22a)
128𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏 0 8𝜅𝐺𝑏 𝐴 𝑏
𝑥
The bolt bending flexibility (𝐶flex,𝑏 ) is defined as the ratio 𝜔2 𝑡1 𝑡2
of the bending deformation due to the force of the bolt which 𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝜔2 𝑡2 = ∫ 𝛾3 (𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 = , (22b)
0 2𝜅𝐺𝑏 𝐴 𝑏
can be calculated using
𝛿𝑠,𝐴,𝑀 = 0, (22c)
1 𝛿flex,𝑏
𝐶flex,𝑏 = = 𝑡1
𝑘flex,𝑏 𝐹𝑏 𝑥= , (22d)
(18) 2
3𝑡12 + 16𝑡22 𝑡2 + 16𝑡1 𝑡22 + 3𝑡23
= . where 𝐴 𝑏 is the cross-sectional area of the bolt and 𝐺𝑏 is the
128𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏 shear modulus of the bolt. The deformations of the bolt at
In the shear stiffness component, the bolt shear deformation point 𝐵 (𝛿𝐵 ) can be written using
is analyzed using (3b) in which the flexural deformation term
is ignored as written by (19). 𝑢0 is set equal to zero for the 𝛿𝑠,𝐵 = 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝜔1 𝑡1 + 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝜔2 𝑡2 + 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝑀, (23)
cantilever beam boundary condition.
where 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝑀 are the shear deformation
𝑥
𝑉 (𝑠) at point 𝐵 due to 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀, respectively, which are
𝑢 (𝑥) = − ∫ 𝑑𝑠 + 𝑢0 . (19) defined by
0 𝜅𝐴𝐺
The Timoshenko beam theory [17] proposed that the 𝑎 𝑥 𝜔1 𝑡12
shear stress is uniform over the cross-section. Actually, 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝜔1 𝑡1 = ∫ 𝛾1 (𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 + ∫ 𝛾2 (𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 = − , (24a)
0 0 2𝜅𝐺𝑏 𝐴 𝑏
it is not uniform over the cross-section. Thus, the shear
𝑎 𝑥
coefficient (𝜅) was introduced as a correction factor to allow
𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝜔2 𝑡2 = ∫ 𝛾3 (𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 + ∫ 𝛾4 (𝑥) 𝑑𝑥
the nonuniform shear strain to be expressed as a constant. 0 0
Hutchinson [18] proposed the shear coefficient equation of a (24b)
circular cross-section using 𝜔 𝑡 (8𝑡 + 3𝑡2 )
= 22 1 ,
8𝐺𝑏 𝐴 𝑏
6 (1 + ])2
𝜅= , (20) 𝛿𝑠,𝐵,𝑀 = 0, (24c)
7 + 12] + 4]2
where ] is the Poisson ratio. For ] = 0.3 for a steel bolt, the 𝑡2
𝑥= . (24d)
shear coefficient is 0.93. The shear deformation of the bolt was 2
Advances in Civil Engineering 11

𝛿s,A

A
A t1 𝛿s,C 𝛿bolt = (𝛿s,C − 𝛿s,A )
F Plate 1
C + (𝛿s,B − 𝛿s,C )
C B
t2 Plate 2 F = 𝛿s,B − 𝛿s,A
𝛿s,B
B
N.A.

Bolt
𝛿bolt

Figure 15: Shear deformation of the bolt.

The total bolt shear deformation due to 𝜔1 𝑡1 , 𝜔2 𝑡2 , and 𝑀 was Similarly, the bearing stiffness of the steel bolt was calculated
defined using in the same way using the same manner which was written as

3 𝑡1 + 𝑡2 𝜎bea,𝑏 = 𝐸𝑏 𝜀bea,𝑏 , (30a)

𝛿𝑠 = 𝛿𝑠,𝐵 − 𝛿𝑠,𝐴 = ( ) 𝜔2 𝑡2 , (25)
8 𝜅𝐴 𝑏 𝐺𝑏
𝑃 𝑡𝑑𝐸𝑏
𝑘bea,𝑏 = = = 𝑡𝐸𝑏 . (30b)
where 𝜔1 = 𝜔2 (𝑡2 /𝑡1 ). Thus, the total bolt shear deformation 𝛿bea,𝑏 𝑑
can be rewritten by
Thus, the bolt bearing flexibility (𝑐bea,𝑏 ) and the plate bearing
3 𝑡1 + 𝑡2 flexibility (𝑐bea,𝑝 ) can be calculated using
𝛿𝑠 = ( ) 𝜔2 𝑡2 . (26)
8 𝜅𝐴 𝑏 𝐺𝑏 1 1 1
𝑐bea,𝑏 = = + , (31)
The bolt shear flexibility (𝐶sd,𝑏 ) is defined as the ratio of shear 𝑘bea,𝑏 𝑡1 𝐸𝑏 𝑡2 𝐸𝑏
deformation due to the force of the bolt which is calculated 1 1 1
using 𝑐bea,𝑝 = = + , (32)
𝑘bea,𝑝 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝,1 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝,2
1 𝛿𝑠 3 (𝑡1 + 𝑡2 ) where 𝐸𝑝1 and 𝐸𝑝2 are the modulus of elasticity of plate 1 and
𝐶sd,𝑏 = = = . (27)
𝑘sd,𝑏 𝐹𝑏 8 𝜅𝐴 𝑏 𝐺𝑏 plate 2, respectively. Finally, the bolt-plate interaction stiff-
ness was newly proposed by the equilibrium of interaction
To calculate the bearing stiffness of the bolt and plate, the force between the bolt and the plate which can be written
bearing stiffness of connection was calculated by using the using
schematic diagram shown in Figure 16. The bearing stress
(𝜎br ) was defined by the applied load (𝑃) divided by the hole 1 3𝑡2 + 16𝑡22 𝑡2 + 16𝑡1 𝑡22 + 3𝑡23 3 (𝑡1 + 𝑡2 )
diameter and the plate thickness which is written as (28a). = 1 +
𝑘bp 128𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑏 8 𝜅𝐴 𝑏 𝐺𝑏
The bearing strain (𝜀br ) was defined by the plate bearing (33)
displacement divided by the hole diameter which is written 1 1 1 1
using (28b): +( + )+( + ).
𝑡1 𝐸𝑏 𝑡2 𝐸𝑏 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2
𝑃
𝜎bea = , (28a) A common method for modeling a connection stiffness
𝑑𝑡 association of the single bolt connection is represented by the
𝛿bea,𝑝 spring model as shown in Figure 17.
𝜀bea = . (28b) The matrix equation represented a single bolt connection
𝑑
which can be written as
The bearing stiffness of bolt hole was calculated by using
0 𝑘bp + 𝑘𝑝,2 −𝑘bp 0 𝑢1
linear stress-strain relationship as presented using { }
{ } [ ]{{ } }
[
0 } = [ −𝑘bp ]
𝑘bp + 𝑘𝑝,1 −𝑘𝑝,1 ] {𝑢2 } . (34)
{
{ } { }
𝜎bea,𝑝 = 𝐸𝑝 𝜀bea,𝑝 , (29a)
{𝐹3 } [ 0 −𝑘𝑝,1 𝑘𝑝,1 ] {𝑢3 }
𝑃 𝑡𝑑𝐸𝑝
𝑘bea,𝑝 = = = 𝑡𝐸𝑝 . (29b) The plate stiffness was calculated in two zones as shown
𝛿bea,𝑝 𝑑 in Figure 17(c). The plate zone represented the plate stiffness
12 Advances in Civil Engineering

𝜎bea,b

t z

x
Plate

𝜎bea,p d Bolt
d
Bolt hole A A󳰀 Deformation shape 𝜎bea,b
d
y d B󳰀 B
Deformation shape
x Compression zone
𝛿bea,p Compression zone
𝛿bea,b
(a) Bearing deformation in the plate (b) Bearing deformation in the bolt

Figure 16: Schematic diagram of bearing deformation in the plate and bolt.

kp,1
3 2
l1 F3
u3 u2
kbp
F Plate 1
Plate 2
z
1
x u1 kp,2
l2
(a) Connection model (b) Spring model

l1 − 0.5dℎ dℎ

k1-1
w1
(plate zone)
y
Plate 1 k1-2 (Bolt zone)

x k2-2
k2-1
w2
(plate zone)
Plate 2

l2 − 0.5dℎ
(c) Plate stiffness

Figure 17: The spring model of single bolt connection.

in front of the bolt. The bolt zone represented the plate was in good correlation with the FEA and the experimental
stiffness alongside the bolt. The stiffness of the plate was results. Figure 18(b) shows the fastener stiffness prediction
found considering a plate subjected to uniform tensile load by several known semiempirical methods comparing with
which is presented in Table 4. the proposed equation. The Grumman equation [8] is an
The stiffness, load vector, and the node displacement empirically derived fastener stiffness formula that was pre-
matrix have been implemented in the Maplesoft program sented by the Grumman Aerospace Corporation as given in
[19]. The load-deformation curve of node 3 was compared 2
1 (𝑡 + 𝑡 ) 1 1
with a single-shear bolt connection test result which is shown = 2 1 + 3.72 ( + ). (35)
in Figure 18(a). The results show that the analytical method 𝑘bp 𝐸𝑏 𝑑 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2
Advances in Civil Engineering 13

Table 4: Plate stiffness.

Stiffness Stiffness equation Value (N/mm)
1 1 1 1 1
+ = + 1/63692
𝑘𝑝,1 𝑘1-1 𝑘1-2 𝜔1 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝,1 / (𝑙1 − 0.5𝑑ℎ ) ((𝜔1 − 𝑑) 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝,1 ) /0.5𝑑ℎ
1 1 1 1 1
+ = + 1/63692
𝑘𝑝,2 𝑘2-1 𝑘2-2 (𝜔2 − 𝑑) 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝,2 /0.5𝑑ℎ 𝜔2 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝,2 / (𝑙2 − 0.5𝑑ℎ )
1
Equation (33) 1/50660
𝑘bp
Remark. 𝑘𝑝,1 and 𝑘𝑝,2 are the plate stiffness and 𝐸𝑝,1 and 𝐸𝑝,2 are the modulus of elasticity of plate 1 and plate 2.

12000 7500
10500
6000
9000
7500 4500

Load (N)
Load (N)

6000
4500 3000

3000
1500
1500
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Axial deformation (mm) Axial deformation (mm)

S-1 S-5 S-1 S-FEA

S-2 S-FEA S-2 Jarfall [8]
S-3 Spring model S-3 Huth [9]
S-4 S-4 Swift [10]
S-5 New proposed
(a) Comparison with tests and FEA (b) Comparison with other equations

Figure 18: Comparison of the load-deformation curve of the proposed spring model.

The fitting equation to the load-displacement curves of the The load comparison results showed that the stiffness values
single steel bolt connection type was proposed by Huth [9] from the Grumman equation [8] and the Swift equation
which is presented in [10] were conservative, which does not accurately reflect
the actual connection strength, especially for a single bolt
1 𝑡 + 𝑡 2/3
= ( 2 1) connection. The Huth equation [9] matched the testing data
𝑘bp 2𝑑 but the shear deformation of the bolt and bending deforma-
(36) tion of the bolt were ignored.
1 1 1 1
⋅ 3( + + + ).
𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2 2𝑡1 𝐸𝑏 2𝑡2 𝐸𝑏
The Swift equation [10] is a flexibility empirical equation 6. Bolt Load Distribution Analysis
that was established based on testing data of a single-shear An application of bolt-plate interaction stiffness analysis
metallic connection as given by for the multibolt connection is presented by the triple bolt
1 1.666 lap connection as in Figure 19. The structural model was
= assembled using the 1 mm thickness of cold-formed steel
𝑘bp 0.5𝑑 (√(𝐸 + 𝐸 )
𝐿 𝑇 plate-1 (√𝐸𝐿 + 𝐸𝑇 )plate-2 ) and a 5 mm diameter steel bolt. The analytical application
1 investigated the load applied distribution among the bolt
+ 0.86 ( (37) rows due to relative deformation between the top plate (plate
(√𝐸𝐿 + 𝐸𝑇 𝑡1 )plate-1
1) and bottom plate (plate 2).
1 The matrix equation representing the multibolt spring
+ ). model in Figure 20 can be written as (38), and the stiffness
(√𝐸𝐿 + 𝐸𝑇 𝑡2 )plate-2
components are presented in Table 5.
14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3

F = 5,000 N Plate 1 t=1

t=1 Plate 2
z

x Bolt diameter = 5

l1 = 100 l2 = 3d l3 = 3d l4 = 100

y
30
Unit: mm
x

Figure 19: Multibolt connection analysis.

l1 l2 l3 l4

la dℎ,1 lb dℎ,2 lc dℎ,3

k9 k7 k4 k9,2 k7,3 k7,2 k4,3 k4,2

k9,1 la = l1 − 0.5dℎ,1
F (plate zone) k7,1 k4,1 w1
7 u7 6 u6 4 u4 2 u2 (plate zone) (plate zone)
k8 k5 k2 Plate 1 lb = l2 − 0.5dℎ,1 − 0.5dℎ,2
y k6,3 k6,2 k3,3 k3,2 k1,2 Plate 2
w2 k6,1
lc = l3 − 0.5dℎ,2 − 0.5dℎ,3
k3,1 k1,1
5 u5 3 u3 1 u1 x ld = l4 − 0.5dℎ,4
(Bolt zone)

k6 k3 k1 ld
(a) Multibolt connection spring model (b) Plate stiffness

Figure 20: The multibolt connection stiffness.

Table 5: Calculation of stiffness.

Stiffness equation Stiffness component
1 1 1 𝜔2 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2 (𝜔2 − 𝑑ℎ,3 )𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2
= + 𝑘1,1 = , 𝑘1,2 =
𝑘1 𝑘1,1 𝑘1,2 𝑙𝑑 0.5𝑑ℎ,3
1 1 1 1 𝜔2 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2 (𝜔2 − 𝑑ℎ,3 )𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2 (𝜔2 − 𝑑ℎ,2 )𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2
= + + 𝑘3,1 = , 𝑘3,2 = , 𝑘3,3 =
𝑘3 𝑘3,1 𝑘3,2 𝑘3,3 𝑙𝑐 0.5𝑑ℎ,3 0.5𝑑ℎ,2
1 1 1 1 𝜔1 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 (𝜔1 − 𝑑ℎ,3 )𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 (𝜔1 − 𝑑ℎ,2 )𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1
= + + 𝑘4,1 = , 𝑘4,2 = , 𝑘4,3 =
𝑘4 𝑘4,1 𝑘4,2 𝑘4,3 𝑙𝑐 0.5𝑑ℎ,3 0.5𝑑ℎ,2
1 1 1 1 𝜔2 𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2 (𝜔2 − 𝑑ℎ,2 )𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2 (𝜔2 − 𝑑ℎ,1 )𝑡2 𝐸𝑝2
= + + 𝑘6,1 = , 𝑘6,2 = , 𝑘6,3 =
𝑘6 𝑘6,1 𝑘6,2 𝑘6,3 𝑙𝑏 0.5𝑑ℎ,2 0.5𝑑ℎ,1
1 1 1 1 𝜔1 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 (𝜔1 − 𝑑ℎ,2 )𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 (𝜔1 − 𝑑ℎ,1 )𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1
= + + 𝑘7,1 = , 𝑘7,2 = , 𝑘7,3 =
𝑘7 𝑘7,1 𝑘7,2 𝑘7,3 𝑙𝑏 0.5𝑑ℎ,2 0.5𝑑ℎ,1
1 1 1 𝜔1 𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1 (𝜔1 − 𝑑ℎ,1 )𝑡1 𝐸𝑝1
= + 𝑘9,1 = , 𝑘9,2 =
𝑘9 𝑘9,1 𝑘9,2 𝑙𝑎 0.5𝑑ℎ,1
1 1 1
, , Equation (33)
𝑘2 𝑘5 𝑘8
Remark. 𝑘1 and 𝑘9 are the stiffness of the plate from the bolt to the ends of plates, 𝑘3 , 𝑘4 , 𝑘6 , and 𝑘7 are the stiffness of the plate between bolts, and 𝑘2 , 𝑘5 , and
𝑘8 are the bolt-plate interaction stiffness.
Advances in Civil Engineering 15

5,000

4,000
dx = 0 A

Load (N)
y 3,000
dy = 0
dz = 0 2,000
z x
1,000

0
B 0 0.1 0.2
dx = free Connection deformation (mm)
dy = 0 Multibolt connection spring model
dz = 0 FEA
(a) Finite element model of triple bolt connection (b) Connection load
40 36.21
34.72 34.72 34.49
Load distribution (%)

35 30.56 29.28
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bolt 1 Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 2 Bolt 3 Bolt 3
(spring) (FEA) (spring) (FEA) (spring) (FEA)
(c) Load distribution

Figure 21: Connection load and load distribution of analytical model and FEA.

{ 0} 𝑘1 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 −𝑘2 −𝑘3 0 0 0 0 {𝑢1 }

{
{ }
} [ ]{{ } }
{
{ 0 }
} [ −𝑘 𝑘 + 𝑘 0 −𝑘 0 0 0 ]{{ 𝑢2 }
}
{
{ }
} [ 2 2 4 4 ] {
{ }
}
{
{ }
} [ ] {
{ }
}
{
{0} }
} [ −𝑘3 0 𝑘3 + 𝑘5 + 𝑘6 −𝑘5 −𝑘6 0 0 ]{ { 𝑢3 }
}
{
{ } [ ] {
{ }
{ } [ ] { } }
{ 0} = [ 0 −𝑘4 −𝑘5 𝑘4 + 𝑘5 + 𝑘7 0 −𝑘7 0 ] {𝑢4 } . (38)
{
{ }
} [ ] { }
{
{ 0 }
} [ 0 0 −𝑘 0 𝑘 + 𝑘 −𝑘 0 ]{{
{ 𝑢
}
}
}
{
{ }
} [ 6 6 8 8 ] {
{ 5 }
}
{ }
{ } [ ]{{ }
}
{
{ 0 }
} [ 0 0 0 −𝑘 −𝑘 𝑘 + 𝑘 + 𝑘 −𝑘 ] {
{ 𝑢 }
}
{ }
{ } [ 7 8 7 8 9 9 ]{{ 6 }
{ } { } }
𝐹
{ } [ 0 0 0 0 0 −𝑘 9 𝑘 𝑢
9 ] { 7}

The nodal deformation was calculated by inverting the stiff- load and load distribution indicated by the analytical model
ness matrix and multiplying by the load vector. The carried were in good agreement with the FEA. The load distribution
bolt load (𝑃) was calculated using results in Figure 21(c) have been expressed as a percentage
of the total connection load (𝐹). It can be seen that the load
𝑃1 = 𝐾8 (𝑢6 − 𝑢5 ) , was shared unevenly between each bolt. The uneven load
distribution in the triple bolt connection was analyzed using
𝑃2 = 𝐾5 (𝑢4 − 𝑢3 ) , (39) the parametric study.
𝑃3 = 𝐾2 (𝑢2 − 𝑢1 ) .
7. The Parametric Study of
To validate the analytical model, the finite element model was Multibolt Connection
generated for comparison with the analytical result as shown
in Figure 21(a). An analysis was performed in which material The analytical spring model as in the previous section was
failure was not involved in the study. Thus, the small applied used to examine the effects of various connection parameters.
load was modeled using a finite element model to investigate The parametric study calculated the load distribution of the
the load distribution behavior. The validation of the analytical bolt connection with variations in the bolt diameters, plate
model results is presented in Figure 21(b). The connection thickness (𝑡1 = 𝑡2 ), and the plate thickness ratio (𝑡2 /𝑡1 ). The
16 Advances in Civil Engineering

2.00 l
l eve
ity
sitiv
1.50 h s en
Hig
vel
itivity le

𝜓/𝜓ref
ns
1.00 Low se

0.50
m = dy/dx
Reference case
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
d/dref , t/tref and (t2 /t1 )/(t2 /t1 )ref

Figure 22: Concept of the sensitivity analysis.

geometry model and the load condition as in the previous Table 6: Bolt load distribution for variation in bolt diameter.
section were adapted in the parametric study. The efficiency Bolt load distribution (%)
(𝜓) of the load distribution of multibolt connection was 𝑑 (mm) Efficiency, 𝜓 (%)
Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3
proposed shown in
4 34.99 30.03 34.99 90.09
𝑛𝑃 6 34.53 30.95 34.53 92.84
𝜓 = 𝑛 min , for 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, . . . , 𝑛, (40)
∑𝑖=1 𝑃𝑖 8 34.27 31.46 34.27 94.37
10 34.11 31.78 34.11 95.33
where 𝑃𝑖 is the bolt load in the 𝑖-th row, 𝑃min is the smallest
load in the bolts, and 𝑛 is the number of rows in the 12 34.00 32.00 34.00 95.99
connection. Sensitivity analysis investigated these potential Remark. 𝑡1 and 𝑡2 = 1 mm and 𝑙1 and 𝑙4 = 100 mm.
changes and their impacts on inferences to be obtained
from the analytical model. The conception of sensitivity
was simulated as a semi-fixed support condition. Then, bolt 1
analysis is presented in Figure 22. The slope of the normalized
could not transfer the load before bearing failure or shearing
efficiency graph with respect to changes in the geometric
parameter was used to measure the sensitivity level. A steeper of the bolt failure occurred.
graph indicates a higher sensitivity level while a gentler From the parametric study results, it was clear that vary-
slope indicates a lower sensitivity level. In each case study, ing the geometries influenced the connection stiffness, which
the efficiency graph was normalized by the reference value. significantly affected the load distribution. The sensitivity
The reference cases involved bolt diameter of 8 mm, plate analysis results of the multibolt connection from variation
thickness of 1.0 mm, and 𝑡2 /𝑡1 of 3.0 which are used to in the bolt diameter, plate thickness, and 𝑡2 /𝑡1 are shown
analyze the sensitivity of variation in the bolt diameter, plate in Figures 23(b), 24(b), and 25(b). The sensitivity value was
thickness, and 𝑡2 /𝑡1 sensitivity, respectively. 0.0605, 0.0136, and −0.0646 for the bolt diameter, plate
Variation in the bolt diameter introduced efficiency thickness, and 𝑡2 /𝑡1 sensitivity, respectively. The variation in
of load distribution shown in Table 6 and Figure 23(a). 𝑡2 /𝑡1 showed high sensitivity with the triple bolt connection,
Increasing the bolt diameter had a significant effect on the with sudden decay when 𝑡2 /𝑡1 > 1. Thus, differences in
load distributions in a multibolt connection. The change the plate thickness should be emphasized in the connection
in the bolt diameter affected the proportion of the bolt- design.
plate interaction stiffness between the bolt and plates which
resulted in an even load distribution. 8. Conclusion
The efficiency of bolt load distribution had small changes
with increased plate thickness as shown in Table 7 and The bolt load distribution efficiency of a cold-formed steel,
Figure 24(a). The bolt-plate interaction stiffness and axial multibolt connection was presented. The analytical prece-
stiffness of the plates were related to the plated thickness, as a dence with a spring model was used to simplify the stiffness
change in the plate thickness produced an equal change in the of the bolt connection. A new bolt-plate interaction stiffness
bolt-plate interaction stiffness and the axial stiffness which equation was proposed which was verified by the FEA and
slightly changed the efficiency of load distribution. experimental tests. The spring model with bolt-plate interac-
The efficiency of load distributions was changed suddenly tion stiffness was used to estimate the bolt load distribution
with changes to the 𝑡2 /𝑡1 ratio as shown in Table 8 and of the multibolt connection. The results showed that the
Figure 25(a). analytical model was accurate and had good correlation
The efficiency of load distribution decreased when the with the FEA. Furthermore, the analytical procedure was
𝑡2 /𝑡1 ratio was greater than 1, but the carried load for the used to examine the efficiency of load distribution for the
first bolt row increasingly changed. Once the 𝑡2 /𝑡1 ratio was multibolt connection and these results showed an uneven
greater than 1 (𝑡2 /𝑡1 ≫ 1), the behavior of plate 2 was sharing of the load among bolts with one of them carrying
established as a rigid bar as shown in Figure 26. The steel the major component of the load. Thus, the stress distribution
bolt was constrained by the axial stiffness of plate 2 which of the major load carrying hole resulted in high-stress
Advances in Civil Engineering 17

50
45
40 1.10
Load distribution (%)

35
30 1.06
25 1.02 y = 0.0605x + 0.9326
20

𝜓/𝜓ref
15 0.98
10
0.94
5
Reference case
0 0.90
4 6 8 10 12 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Bolt diameter (mm) d/dref

Bolt 1
Bolt 2
Bolt 3
(a) Bolt load distribution (b) Parameter sensitivity

Figure 23: Bolt load distribution and sensitivity analysis results of varying bolt diameters.

50
45
40 1.10
Load distribution (%)

35
1.06
30
25 1.02 y = 0.0136x + 0.9884
𝜓/𝜓ref

20
15 0.98
10
0.94
5
Reference case
0 0.90
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Plate thickness (mm) t/tref

Bolt 1
Bolt 2
Bolt 3
(a) Bolt load distribution (b) Parameter sensitivity

Figure 24: Bolt load distribution and sensitivity analysis results of varying plate thickness.

50
45
40 1.10
Load distribution (%)

35
30 1.06
25 1.02 y = −0.0646x + 1.0642
𝜓/𝜓ref

20
15 0.98
10
0.94
5
Reference case
0 0.90
1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
t2 /t1 (t2 /t1 )/(t2 t1 )ref

Bolt 1
Bolt 2
Bolt 3
(a) Bolt load distribution (b) Parameter sensitivity

Figure 25: Bolt load distribution and sensitivity analysis results of the plate thickness ratio (𝑡2 /𝑡1 ).
18 Advances in Civil Engineering

Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3

Plate 1
F
t2 ≫ tt Plate 2

Figure 26: Effect of the 𝑡2 /𝑡1 ratio more than 1 (≫1) to the steel bolts.

Table 7: Bolt load distribution for variation in plate thickness. References

Bolt load distribution (%) [1] Y. Cai and B. Young, “Structural behavior of cold-formed
𝑡1 and 𝑡2 (mm) Efficiency, 𝜓 (%)
Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3 stainless steel bolted connections,” Thin-Walled Structures, vol.
0.40 34.75 30.51 34.75 91.52 83, pp. 147–156, 2014.
0.60 34.72 30.56 34.72 91.69 [2] Y. C. He and Y. C. Wang, “Load-deflection behavior of thin-
walled plates with multiple bolts in shearing,” Thin-Walled
1.00 34.67 30.67 34.67 92.01 Structures, vol. 55, pp. 51–63, 2012.
1.40 34.59 30.83 34.44 92.62 [3] F. R. Liu, L. B. Zhao, S. Mehmood, J. Y. Zhang, and B. J. A.
1.60 34.48 31.05 34.48 93.14 Fei, “A modified failure envelope method for failure prediction
Remark. 𝑙1 and 𝑙4 = 100 mm, 𝑙2 and 𝑙3 = 15 mm, 𝜔 = 30 mm, and 𝑑 = 5 mm. of multi-bolt composite joints,” Composites Science and Technol-
ogy, vol. 83, pp. 54–63, 2013.
Table 8: Bolt load distribution for variation in plate thickness ratio [4] J. Y. Zhang, F. R. Liu, L. B. Zhao, and B. J. Fei, “A novel character-
(𝑡2 /𝑡1 ). istic curve for failure prediction of multi-bolt composite joints,”
Composite Structures, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 129–136, 2014.
Bolt load distribution (%) [5] J. Zhang, F. Liu, L. Zhao, Y. Chen, and B. Fei, “A progressive
𝑡2 /𝑡1 Efficiency, 𝜓 (%)
Bolt 1 Bolt 2 Bolt 3 damage analysis based characteristic length method for multi-
1 34.72 30.56 34.72 91.69 bolt composite joints,” Composite Structures, vol. 108, no. 1, pp.
915–923, 2014.
2 38.14 30.65 31.21 91.95
[6] J. Henriques, J.-P. Jaspart, and L. S. da Silva, “Ductility require-
3 39.67 30.75 29.59 88.76 ments for the design of bolted lap shear connections in bearing,”
4 40.39 30.86 28.75 86.25 Advanced Steel Construction, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 33–52, 2014.
5 40.69 30.98 28.33 84.98 [7] G. L. Kulak, J. W. Fisher, and J. H. Struik, A Guide to Design
Remark. 𝑡1 = 1 mm, 𝑙1 and 𝑙4 = 100 mm, 𝑙2 and 𝑙3 = 15 mm, and 𝑑 = 5 mm. Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints & Sons, New York, NY,
USA, 1987.
[8] L. Jarfall, “Shear loaded fastener installations, Report KH R-
concentration which caused weakness in the mechanically 3360,” Tech. Rep., Saab-Scania, Sweden, 1983.
fastened connection. Moreover, increasing 𝑡2 /𝑡1 had a greater [9] H. Huth, “Influence of fastener flexibility on the prediction of
influence on the load distribution and efficiency of a multi- load transfer and fatigue life for multiple-row joints,” Symposia
bolt connection than changing the bolt diameter and plate Papers STPs ASTM STP927-EB, pp. 221–250, 1986.
thickness. The results of the study indicate that the practical [10] T. Swift, “Repair to damage tolerant aircraft,” in Proceedings of
the International Symposium on the Structural Integrity of Aging
design procedures with assuming equal load distribution
Airplane, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1990.
among the bolts may not be conservative because some
[11] ASTM A370-07b, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
components may be failed before the connection develops Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, American Society for
the full plastic strength. Finally, the proposed procedure Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
can be used together with the conventional design of the 2007.
bolt connection to get insight into the more realistic load [12] ASTM A325M, High strength bolts for structural steel joints
distribution. [Metric], American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1994.
[13] ANSYS, ANSYS user’s manual. Revision 15, ANSYS, Inc.,
Conflicts of Interest Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2014.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. [14] L. J. Hart-Smith, “Bonded-bolted composite joints,” Journal of
Aircraft, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 993–1000, 1985.
[15] V. P. Lawlor, M. A. McCarthy, and W. F. Stanley, “An experimen-
Acknowledgments tal study of bolt-hole clearance effects in double-lap, multi-bolt
composite joints,” Composite Structures, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 176–
The authors wish to acknowledge the Kasetsart University 190, 2005.
Research and Development Institute (KURDI) for providing [16] L. Feo, G. Marra, and A. S. Mosallam, “Stress analysis of
funding support and BlueScope Lysaght (Thailand) Limited multi-bolted joints for FRP pultruded composite structures,”
for material support. Composite Structures, vol. 94, no. 12, pp. 3769–3780, 2012.
Advances in Civil Engineering 19

[17] S. P. Timoshenko, “On the correction for shear of the differential

equation for transverse vibrations of prismatic bars,” Philosoph-
ical Magazine, vol. 41, no. 245, pp. 744–746, 1922.
[18] J. R. Hutchinson, “Shear coefficients for Timoshenko beam
theory,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 87–92,
2000.
[19] L. Bernardin, P. Chin, P. DeMarco et al., Maple Programming
Guide, Maple Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2012.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
(QJLQHHULQJ Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 201 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

https://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
$HURVSDFH
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
(QJLQHHULQJ
+LQGDZL3XEOLVKLQJ&RUSRUDWLRQ
KWWSZZZKLQGDZLFRP 9ROXPH
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 201-

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014