EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

TENSION RESISTANCE OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS

Experimental study on carbon, ferritic and austenitic steel specimens

Joo Santosa, Luciano Limab, Sebastio Andradea, Pedro Vellascob

a
Civil Engineering DepartmentPontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro PUC-Rio
paraduc@yahoo.com.br, andrade@puc-rio.br
b
Structural Engineering DepartmentState University of Rio de Janeiro UERJ
lucianolima@uerj.br, vellasco@uerj.br

INTRODUCTION
Stainless steel has been used in various types of constructions, due to its main characteristics
associated with high corrosion resistance, durability, fire resistance, ease of maintenance,
appearance and aesthetics [6]. Stainless steel is indicated, as a structural element in construction for
multiple reasons. Its high ductility allows its use in structures subjected to cyclic loadings, enabling
the dissipation of the energy before structural collapse. Despite these facts, current stainless steel
design codes like the Eurocode 3 1.4, [5], are still largely based on carbon steel structural analogies.
The search for a broader understanding of the actual behavior of stainless steel joints has motivated
investigations in various research centers like: Burgan et al. [2], Gardner and Nethercot[6] and
Bouchair et al [1]. The motivation was the search for the most cost-effective structure resulting
from an optimum joint design, as well as an improvement of the joint fabrication and assembly
costs. Experimental studies indicated that different types of collapses, especially due to
serviceability limitations, were observed in stainless steel joints with thin and thick plates under
shear. This article presents an investigation aiming to evaluate the tension capacity of carbon steel,
Ferritic and Austenitic stainless steel bolted structural elements. The results are discussed and
compared in terms of the stress distribution, and force-displacement curves, among others. The
results assessment was made by comparisons to the Eurocode 3 [4] provisions for carbon and
stainless steels.

1. EUROCODE 3 DESIGN CODE PROVISIONS

The current investigation uses the European code for stainless steel elements - Eurocode 3, pt 1.4
[5]. In this design standard, the failure modes for a plate with staggered holes under tension axial
forces are governed by two ultimate limit states: the gross area yield and the net area tension
rupture. The presence of staggered holes in the transversal section (see Figure 1), makes it difficult
to immediately identify the plates critical net section. This problem is not new, since Cochrane [3],
performed one of the first attempts to characterize staggered bolted connection failure modes by
using Equation (1) below. This expression adds a term to the original net width to obtain the final
net section area and it is still present in major steel design codes all over the world.
s2
bn = b d b + (1)
4p
In this equation,b is the plate width, db is the bolt diameter, s and p represent the staggered center to
centerhole distances measured parallel and perpendicular to the member axis. Eurocode 3, part 1.4,
[5]establishes the guidelines for the stainless steel plate design under tension forces. The structural
failure is associated to the smallest tension force considering two limiting states: gross cross-section
plastic resistance,Equation (2), or the ultimate net cross-section tension rupture,Equation (3).
Ag . f y
N pl, Rd = (2)
M0
where:Npl,Rd is the tension design plastic resistance, Ag is the plates gross area, fy is the steels
yielding stress, M0 is the partial safety factor, in this case equal to 1.
k .A .f
N u, Rd = r n u with k r = (1 + 3r (d 0 / u 0.3)) (3)
M2
where:An is the net cross-section plate area, fu is the steel tension rupture stress, kr is a factor for
stainless steel material, M2 is the partial safety factor, equal to 1.25, r is the ratio between the
number of bolts at the cross-section and the total joint bolt number, d0 is the hole diameter, u = 2.e2
but u p2in whiche2 is the edge distance measured from the bolt hole center to its adjacent edge, in
the direction perpendicular to the load direction and p2 is the hole center-to-center distance,
perpendicular to the load axis.
The tension plate design has also some additional provisions: for bolted joints, the hole width
should be considered 2 mm larger than the nominal bolt diameter.The net width should be
calculated first deducing from the initial gross width, all the holes present in it, and after that adding
for each staggered holes a value equal to s2/4p, where s and g, correspond to the considered
longitudinal and traversalhole spacing. The bolted joint critical net width is the smallest evaluated
net width for all the possible net ruptures.

2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
An innovative experimental program was performed aiming to evaluate the tension capacity of
carbon steel and Ferritic and Austenitic stainless steel plates with staggered bolts. The experiments
involved bolted cover plate joints made of stainless steels: Austenitic 304 and Ferritic 430 and a
carbon steel: USI300 [7]. Table 1presented the tests geometrical properties. The bolted joints were
made of two, 3 mm thick, stainless and carbon steel plates and two, 6 mm thick, carbon steel plates
used for transferring theload to the 3mm plates with a 5 mm gap - see Figure 2(a). The horizontal
bolt pitch, s, was modified in each test and the vertical bolt pitch, p, was 55 mm (see Figure 1). The
bolted cover plate joint tests were carried out on a 600kN Universal Lousenhausen test machine; see
Figure 2(b). The strain measurements were performed using linear strain gauges located in both
stainless steel plates named SG in Figure 1.
Table 1. Summary of experimental tests (Santos, 2014)
s p e1 e2 d0 tbase
ID STEEL bolts
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
E3_CARB_S30 30 55 40 17.6 14.7 carbon 6 6
E6_ CARB_S35 35 55 40 17.6 14.7 carbon 6 6
E29_AUST_S26 26 55 40 17.6 14.7 austenitic 6 6
E30_AUST_S30 30 55 40 17.6 14.7 austenitic 6 6
E54_FERR_S27 27 55 40 17.6 14.7 ferritic 6 6
E55_FERR_S30 30 55 40 17.6 14.7 ferritic 6 6

55 SG0 SG1 SG2

55

45 45
50

Figure 1. Cover plate joint detail and strain gauges location.

The tensile coupons test curves presented a nonlinear expected behavior, mainly for the stainless
steel see
s Figure 2(c).
2 The Austenitic
A annd Ferritic stainless
s steeel yield streess was dettermined using
% deformatiion, leadingg to a value equal to 350.6
a straighht line paralllel to the innitial stiffneess at a 0.2%
MPa annd 333.3 MP Pa while thhe ultimate tension streess was 7100.7MPaand 471.7 MPaa, respectiveely.
For the carbon steeel, yield strress valuewaas 386.8MP Pa and ultim mate tensionn 478.7 MP Pa. Figure 2(c)
2
also preesentsthe coomparative results of the t investig gated steels,, due to thee large straiin and stressses
associatted with thee investigateed problem.

800

700

600

500

400

Tension (MPa)
300 Austenitic
Ferritic
200
Carbon
100

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
D
Deformation ()

a) coverr plate layouut b) univversal test machine,

m 600
0kN c) A304,
A F4300 e USI300 stress
s versuus
strrain curves
Figurre 2. Santos [7
7] test layout.

Figure 3 presents the results from tests E3_CARB_S30, E30__AUST_S30 and E55_ _FERR_S30in
terms of
o the load versus
v axiaal displacem
ment curves. This figurre depicts tthe experim
mental ultim mate
loads ofo 308.9 kN, 456.44 kN andd314.8 kN for E3_C CARB_S300, E30_AU UST_S30 and a
E55_FE ERR_S30tessts, respectiively. Accoording to thee Eurocodee 3[5], Equaations (2) an nd (3), for the
E3_CAR RB_S30 tesst, the desiggn resistancces were 336.5kN for gross
g cross--section plaastic resistannce
and 3000.8 kN for ultimate net n cross-seection tensioon rupture (section wwith three holes).
h For the
E30_AU UST_S30 teest, these values
v weree 305.0 kN and 498.99 kN (net ssection with h three holees),
respectiively. Whilee for the E55_FERR_
E _S30 test, th
hese valuess were 289..7 kN and 330.6
3 kN (net
(
section with three holes), resspectively Inn these forrmulaethe partial
p safetyy factor waas taken to be
equal too 1.0.

600 600
E55_FERR_S30 E6_CARB_S35
E30_AUST_S30 E29_AUST_S26
500 500 E54_FERR_S27
E3_CARB_S30
CARB - An
FERR - Ag AUST - Ag
400 AUST - Ag 400
FERR - Ag
CARBON - An
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

300
300

200
200

100
100
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Dissplacement (mm)
Displacement (m
mm)

a) E3_CARB_S330 & E30_A

AUST_S30 & b) E6_CA
ARB_S35 & E29_STA
AIN_S26 &
E55__FERR_S30 E54__FERR_S27
7
Figure 3. Loaad versus disp
placement currves [7].

Figure 3 also indicates that in both tests, the test rup

pture occurred in the neet section paassing throuugh
two holles for E30__AUST_S330 and E55__FERR_S30 and threee holes for E3_CARB_S30 near the
joint syymmetry axxis. For the carbon steel test E3_ _CARB_S300 and the fferritic stain nless steel test
t
E55_FE ERR_S30 thhe theoretical and exxperimental values preesented a ggood agreeement but the
stainless steel test E30_AUST T_S50 pressented a larrger differennce in termms of the ulltimate design
equationn and test looads.
Figure 3 also preseents the resuults for testts: E6_CARRB_S35, E229_AUST_S S26 and E54 4_FERR_S27.
The ultimate loads were 297.5 kN, 458.7 kN and311.4 kN for E6_CARB_S35, E29_AUST_S26
and E54_FERR_S27 tests. According to the Eurocode 3 [4], Equations. (2) and (3), for the
E6_CARB_S35 test, the design resistances were 336.5 kN for gross cross-section plastic resistance
and 300.8 kN for ultimate net cross-section tension rupture (net section with two holes). For the
E29_AUST_S26 test, these values were 305.0 kN and 465.4 kN (net section with three holes),
respectively. And for the E54_FERR_S27 test, these values were 289.7 kN and 330.6 kN (net
section with three holes), respectively.
The Figure 4 indicates that in both tests, the rupture occurred in the section with the two holes
nearest to the joint symmetry axis. One more time the carbon steel test E6_CARB_S35 and ferritic
stainless steel E54_FERR_S27 theoretical and experimental values presented a good agreement
while the stainless steel test E29_AUST_S26, still showed a non-negligible difference for the
ultimate design equation and test loads.Considering the difference between the failure modes for the
stainless steel joints and carbon steel joint presented before, another test, E6_CARBON_S35, was
performed to investigate this issue where the horizontal bolt pitch was equal to 35 mm, as show in
Figure 4.
45 35 35 35 100 35 35 35 45

17,5
55
145

RuptureLine

55
17,5
400

Figure 4.Geometrical Model and the Rupture Line - E6_CARB_S35 [7].

The horizontal bolt pitch equal to 35 mm was considered the increase in the difference between the
load failure in sections with two and three bolts for carbon steel joint. If Equation. (1)is used for this
test setup the limit of the horizontal bolt pitch failure in sections with two and three bolts for carbon
and stainless steel joint is 40 mm. It can also be observed that the joint with bolt pitch rupture
occurred in the net section passing through two bolts, fact that is not in agreement with the
Eurocode 3 [5] provisions. This behavior must be further investigated ahead with additional tests.A
summary of these results is presented in Table 2. It may be concluded that for carbon steel and
ferritic stainless steel joints, a good agreement was observed comparing the theoretical and
experimental results. Alternatively, for the austenitic stainless steel joints, larger differences were
found in terms of ultimate (rupture) loads.
Table 2. Summary of experimental tests, Santos, [7]
Experimental Experimental EC3 EC3
%
Failure Ultimate Failure Ultimate EXP
ID
Mode Load (kN) Mode Load
(kN) EC 3
E3_CARB_S30 3H 308.9 3H 285.0 7.7
E6_ CARB_S35 2H 297.5 3H 292.7 1.6
E29_AUST_S26 3H 458.7 AB 305.0 33.5
E30_AUST_S30 2H 456.4 AB 305.0 33.2
E54_FERR_S27 3H 311.4 AB 289.7 6.9
E55_FERR_S30 2H 314.8 AB 289.7 7.9
2H: two hole net rupture; 3H: three hole net rupture and AB: gross section yielding
3. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
This paper presented an experimental program to investigate the structural response of the carbon
steel.austenitic and ferritic stainless steel plates with staggered bolts under tension. Initially the
experimental results were compared to theoretical results according to Eurocode 3, [4, 5],
provisions. For carbon steel and ferritic stainless steel tests, a good agreement was reached between
the design equation and the experiments;a fact that was not corroborated in the austenitic stainless
steel tests, where large difference were observed, mainly in terms of the ultimate load. A possible
explanation for these discrepancies could be related to the fact that the great majority of stainless
steel structural design codes are still based on carbon steel analogies. At this point, it is interesting
to observe that the stainless steel codes need to be improved in order to correctly evaluate the
stainless steel structural element behavior.
Table 2 presented a comparison between the experimental results and the Eurocode 3 provisions
(2003), for the already mentioned stainless steel tests, [7]. Differences of about 33.5% were found
when the Eurocode 3 [4]and the experimental results were compared.
This difference was also partly due to the natural conservatism present in most of the design
standard Eurocode 3, part 1.4, [5]. This conservatism is largely due to the lack of experimental
evidence regarding stainless steel response not yet present in literature. The investigation indicated
that when stainless steel is used in certain structural engineering applications like joints under shear
forces, the current design criteria based on deformation limits need to be re-evaluated,especially due
to the differences in the yieldsfor ultimate deformation and stress ratios.
The problem related to the real value of the horizontal bolt pitch of stainless and carbon bolted
tensioned members is certainly much more complicated and it is influenced by several other design
parameters. Further research in this area is currently being carried out, in order to consider
imperfections, residual stresses and the coupons rolling directions.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian National and State Science Support Agencies:
CAPES, CNPq and FAPERJ for the financial support granted to this research program. Thanks are also
due to APERAM and USIMINAS for donating the stainless and carbon steel plates used in the
experiments.

REFERENCES
[1] Bouchair, J., Averseng, A., Abidelah, Analysis of the behaviour of stainless steel bolted connections,
Internal Report - LaMI, Blaise Pascal University, France, 2008.
[2] Burgan B. A, Baddoo, N. R., Gilsenan, K. A., Structural design of stainless steel members - comparison
between Eurocode 3, Part 1.4 and test results. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 54, n. 1,
p.5173, 2000.
[3] Cochrane, V. H., Rules for Rivet Hole Deduction in Tension Members, Engineering News-Record, vol.
80, 1922.
[4] Eurocode3, EN 1993-1-1, 2003: Design of steel structures - Structures Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. CEN, European Committee for Standardisation, 2003.
[5] Eurocode3, EN 1993-1-4, 2003: Design of steel structures Part 1.4: General rules Supplementary
rules for stainless steel, CEN, European Committee for Standardisation, 2003.
[6] Gardner, L., Nethercot, D. A., Experiments on stainless steel hollow sections Part 1: Material and
cross-sectional behaviour. JournalofConstructional Steel Research, vol. 60, n.9, p. 12911318, 2004.
[7] Santos, J. DE J. dos, Comportamento Estrutural de Elementos em Ao Inoxidvel, DSc in
CivilEngineering, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014 (in portuguese).