Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences

David Scott

June 2011

Introduction
This study was prompted by a
question regarding the design of a
joint between RHS beams and SHS
columns. The joint was loaded in
shear and torsion and employed
endplates and through-bolts thus:
The forces involved were relatively
modest and the bolt shear resulting
from the combined torsion and
direct shear was in the range 30-50
kN. A question was raised
regarding this design requesting a
check on the bending in the long
bolts. This prompted the present paper to explore the nature of bending in bolts
and pins, provide an explanation as to the reason bending in bolts is generally
ignored in design calculations and to determine whether this unusual situation
warrants a different approach from the conventional calculation methods set out in
BS5950 and elsewhere.
Forces on a bolt
Considering a bolt in singe shear, the
forces from the plates bearing on the
fastener are as shown opposite:
These forces are not in equilibrium, as
there is an overall unbalanced moment.
More on this later; first drawing the shear
force diagram, we get the following:

Technical paper number 1

page 1

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

As the net area under the shear

force diagram is not zero, it is
clear that a net change of
bending moment must occur
from one end of the bolt to the
other. The maximum rate of
change of the bending moment
occurs in the middle of the bolt
(where the shear force is at a
maximum). Furthermore, the
forces and geometry have
rotational symmetry; hence so
must the bending moment diagram. These observations are sufficient to allow the
bending moment diagram to be sketched as above.
The first point of interest in this diagram is the location of the point of contra-flexure,
which is coincident with the shear plane in the bolt. This forms a large part of the
explanation as to why bolts are designed for shear, not bending: The two forces are
not coincident, where shear is
applied, bending is zero.
A second point to note is that
equal and opposite moments are
applied at the bolt head and nut.
These moments provide the overall
equilibrium missing in the first
diagram.

They are generated by direct bearing forces at

the edges of the head and nut as shown
opposite:

Technical paper number 1

page 2

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

This observation has several practical implications:

i)

Bolts must have a connection at the head and nut sufficiently rigid and strong
to transmit the moment. Thus the essential difference between a bolt (or rivet)
and a pin is the presence or absence of such moment resisting joints at its
ends

ii)

In a situation where pure shear is applied to a bolt, there remains a prying

force applied to the nut. Thus any nuts incorrectly engaged on the threads
carry a risk of catastrophic failure by prying of the nut, even where direct bolt
tension is zero.

iii)

There is a compressive force passing through the connected pieces. For bolts
passing through hollow sections, it is therefore vital that this compressive force
can be resisted or else the connection will not be effective as the side wall of
the hollow section will crush. Thus either a CHS tube must be used as a sleeve
as is shown below or else the wall of the section must be capable of resisting
the resulting force, which is calculated later in this paper.

Illustration of reinforcing of thin-walled SHS section to resist clamping forces (ref 4)

Technical paper number 1

page 3

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

Examining the magnitude of the forces involved let, let us now consider the case of
grade 8.8 fasteners. The strength of these components is given in BS 5950 as follows:
Bearing on S275 material

460 N/sq mm

Shear

375 N/sq mm

Tension

560 N/sq mm

Shear capacity = Tensile stress area of bolt at thread x 375 N

Bearing capacity = Bolt diameter x bearing length x 460 N
Equating shear and bearing capacity, 375.pi.Dr2/4 = D.L.460
Where D= bolt diameter, Dr = reduced diameter at threads and L= bearing length
Dr is approx 0.88D, hence L may be calculated and is approximately D/2
Thus the full shear capacity of the bolt is utilised when the width of steel plates
connected is around half the bolt diameter. The moment is given by
pv x bolt cross sectional area x diameter/4.
The tension in the bolt and compression in the joint is given by Moment at the end of
the bolt divided by half the width across flats of the head or nut.
Thus the moment and tension in the bolt can both be calculated. In the case of
grade 8.8 fasteners in the commonly used diameters, the results are tabulated
below. It can be seen that, when the bolt is fully loaded in shear, around 20% of the
bolt tension capacity and around 90 % of the moment capacity of the threaded
section of the bolt is used.

Technical paper number 1

page 4

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

For an M20 fully threaded fastener loaded in shear at the design

limit of 92 kN, the stresses are as follows:
At the shear plane: fv = 375 N/sq mm, ft=128 N/sq mm
At the head or nut: fb=500 N/sq mm, ft = 128 N/sq mm
It should be remembered that even although the tension capacity of the fastener is
quoted as 560 N/sq mm, the yield for the bolt is 80% of 800N/sq mm by definition of
the grade, that is 640 N/sq mm.
To further consider the implications of this state of stress, let us compare them to the
Von Mises yield criteria. At the shear plane, the Von Mises criteria indicate that
yielding is occurring.

Technical paper number 1

page 5

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

However, out-with the shear zone, where the direct stress is 128 +/500 N/sq mm, no yielding occurs. This again illustrates that the bending stresses are
not critical and may be safely ignored for design purposes.

Technical paper number 1

page 6

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

Using the Von Mises criteria, the BS5950 interaction formula for
combined shear and tension, which allows full shear capacity to be utilised in
combination with 40% of the tensile capacity, produces a result out-with the yield
criteria thus:

Although this perhaps says more about the unknowns associated with predicting the
onset of yield in a multidimensional stress state, it nevertheless suggests that a closer
examination of the interaction between shear and tension in bolts would be
worthwhile at this juncture.

Technical paper number 1

page 7

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

Reference 3, citing testing evidence from the University of Illinois,

shows a good correlation between an elliptical interaction curve and test data. This
is based on shear strength of 0.62 x Tensile strength. It is reproduced opposite:

BS 5950 (ref 1) has the following interaction formula:

And the Eurocode (ref 2) uses the following formula.

Technical paper number 1

page 8

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

As each alternative design method also uses different strengths, this

is best understood by plotting the various interaction curves on a graph:

From this it can be seen that the BS 5950 design method is in good agreement with
the Univ of Illinois test results, albeit using a simplified and conservative formula. The
Eurocode approach, in contrast, gives much lower tension capacity in the presence
of high shear. Looking at the tension generated in a bolt when loaded to the
maximum shear permitted under BS5950, we see that both The BS5950 and Univ of
Illinois methods show this to be acceptable, but that it falls out-with the Eurocode
criteria. This is clear evidence of over-conservatism in the Eurocode, as the tension
Technical paper number 1

page 9

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

associated with maximum shear (about 20% of Pt) must exist and
clearly should be reflected in the interaction formula.
Thus we may conclude that consideration should be given to the use of an elliptical
interaction formula:
Ft2/Pt2 + Fv2/Pv2 <= 1.0
for use when designing joints to the Eurocode
For situations where long bolts are used, it is clear from the foregoing that the
bending moment in the bolt is not increased, but the length of shank exposed to the
moment is greater. Hence the bending deflection of the bolt and rotation of the bolt
head/nut are likewise greater. This inevitably leads to a situation where, for long grip
lengths, the rotational flexibility of the head/nut is such that the full moment will not
be developed before the onset of bolt failure. Hence for long grip lengths, the shear
must also be restricted if a situation where a significant moment at the bolt shear
plane is to be avoided. It is for this reason, rather than bending of the bolt per se,
that the shear capacity for bolts with long grip lengths is restricted by BS 5950.
Hence, in the joint design that prompted this enquiry, the reduction for long grip
lengths should be applied and provision made for the presence of clamping forces
in the design/detailing of the wall of the SHS section column. However, no specific
checks on bolt bending are necessary.
In summary, it is the rigid connection between the bolt head and nut and the shank
and the presence of clamping forces which place the joint in compression and the
fastener in tension that characterise the performance of a bolt. The bending and
tensile stresses out-with the shear zone are not critical and are therefore ignored for
design purposes. The limiting shear stress, being derived from test results,
automatically includes an allowance for the tension in the fastener that results from
the clamping forces, which are circa 20% of the tension capacity of the bolt. Thus a
simple calculation of shear capacity, based on codified values is sufficient to check
the capacity of the fastener.

The bolt tension and shear interaction formula of Eurocode 3 is shown to be

conservative and an elliptical interaction curve, as recommended in reference 3 is
suggested as an alternative.

Technical paper number 1

page 10

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

Pins
In contrast to bolts, pins have no rigid connection to
heads/nuts at their ends, instead relying on thin plates
or split pins to prevent the pin being displaced from
the joint.
Thus the bending moment at the free end of the pin
must be zero. Hence the following applied load and
shear force distribution applies:

This gives rise to a bending moment distribution such as:

Technical paper number 1

page 11

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

It can be seen that a significant moment applies at the shear zone

and thus the interaction of moment and shear must be considered in the design,
with a reduced moment capacity being calculated in situations where applied
shear exceeds 60% of the shear capacity of the pin. Shear capacity is taken as 0.9A
x 0.6 py, where A is the cross sectional area of the pin. A second check is also
required further along the pin where bending is a maximum although shear is zero.
It has become common to assume a
uniform loading on a pin from the
connected plies as shown opposite.
However, in many cases, this will
overestimate the bending in the pin.
In accordance with the basic safe
theorem for plastic design (which
states that if a set of internal forces
can be found which are in
equilibrium with external loads, and
which are everywhere less than the
capacity of the material, then the
structure is safe), it is perfectly
appropriate to apply the load as
close to the shear plane as is
permitted by the bearing strength of
the materials employed.

Technical paper number 1

page 12

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

As a final illustration of the importance of the clamping force in bolt

performance and the absence of such forces in pins, it is useful to look back to the
silver bridge disaster which occurred in 1967 in America. This major structure, which
spanned the Ohio River, was a chain-link suspension bridge utilising suspension
cables made from twin high tensile steel eye-bars, joined with pins. One cold
December night, one eye-bar, affected by stress corrosion cracking, suffered a
sudden brittle failure. Although the second eye-bar could have safely carried the
whole load, the loss of one bar left the load on the pin unbalanced. The pin twisted
around and the other eye bar slipped off, resulting in the loss of the whole
suspension cable and consequently the collapse of the entire bridge.

Technical paper number 1

page 13

Technical paper number1

Bolts and Pins; An explanation of their differences
David Scott

June 2011

Conclusion
Although simple design methods may be used in checking the capacity of bolted
joints, it is important to bear in mind the full range of forces employed. In particular
the presence of tension in the fastener, clamping the joint together is an essential
aspect of bolt performance. Where detailing does not ensure that such forces can
be generated, either due to the use of very long bolts or the presence of thinwalled, unreinforced hollow section members then normal bolt design methods will
need to be modified.

References:
1. BS 5950: The Structural Use of Steelwork in Building; part 1, code of practice for
design, welded and rolled sections.
2. BS EN 1993-1-8; Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-8: Design of
Joints
3. Guide to Design Criteria for bolted and riveted joints, 2nd edition, Kulak et al
4. SHS Jointing, Corus Tubes

Technical paper number 1

page 14