Gabriela Pricope Email: gp@magnusengineering.

net

Strength Analysis for a reusable fastener mounted through a hole with

access only through one side
Version 2.
Description:

Naming rules:

Fixture with pin - Design according to drawing 04502-0 CD

Fixture with bolts - Design according to drawing 04502-1 CD

The fastener that makes the scope of this design, with its versions, passed through a series of successive shape
optimization procedures, based on last main modifications, already mentioned. I tested each modification for the
main load cases:

Axial tensioning load (AA)

Shear load (SA)
Torsion load (TA)

as in the first stage of the project.

I used the results of the tests for further optimization proceedings, which I tested again.

The scope of all these operations was:

1. To create the design as strong as possible, with optimal shape, able to be manufactured at reasonable
costs.
2. To have a very clear idea about the behavior of this fastener compared with the standard mechanical
bolts.
3. To have some basic information about the behavior of this fastener for different variations in length at the
same size.

The operations performed were:

The modification of the 3D models for both versions of the fastener passing through successive shapes, up
to the final shape.
I created additional distinct 3D models for standard bolts used as proof for tests.
I ran analysis tests for the intermediate and final shape of the 3D models created for the designed
fasteners and for the standard bolts, used as proof.
I created four additional models for the fasteners at 0.5 and 1.5 length.
I ran analysis tests for the new fastener models with length variations.

The results of these operations:

1. The new construction of the two versions is shown in the 2D drawings 04502-0 CD rev B and 04502-1 CD
rev B, along with the related single part drawings:

1
 Gabriela Pricope Email: gp@magnusengineering.net

04502-1-1
04502-1-2
04502-1-3
04502-1-4
04502-2-1
04502-2-2
2. I created test reports for each analysis performed on final 3D models and collected the results in the Excel
sheet Strength analysis results v2

I made the tests for AISI 1020. It is expected as the behavior of the fasteners for other grades to follow the
tendencies recognized on AISI 1020 steel grade.

Conclusion
There were performed tests for the following load cases:

1. Axial tensioning load (AA) the connection was tested at the Yield strength limit and ultimate strength limit.
The load was applied on the wings of the anchors, on the direction of the hole axis, simulating a load applied
for separating the plates from the stack.
2. Shear load (SA) the connection was tested at the Yield strength limit and ultimate strength limit. The load
was applied on half of the anchors length, from the separation plane between plates up to the wings
(supposing that are two plates in stack with equal thickness). It was noted by making trials, that the critical
direction for the load is perpendicular to the flat face of the two anchors, in the direction of the dowel.
3. Torsion load (TA) - the connection was tested at the Yield strength limit and ultimate strength limit. The
torque was applied on the nut, on the direction of the holes axis

The load cases tested were numbered with the following pattern - 04502-xYZ-w where:

X can be

- 1 for the fastener having the anchors connected with a pin.

- 2 for the fastener having the anchors connected with 2 screws.
- 3 for a standard UNC proof fastener (bolt and nut) with comparable strength.

YZ can be

- AA for axial loading load case

- SA for the shear load case
- TA for the torsion load

W represents the number of the test depending on the grade and strength limit (yield or ultimate)

The Excel sheet Strength analysis results v2 contains:

Sheet Axial load: axial loads corresponding to the Yield strength and maximal tensile strength, for the two
versions of the fastener, compared with the standard bolts UNC #5/16-18, UNC #3/8-16, UNC #7/16-14 and UNC
#1/2-13.

2
 Gabriela Pricope Email: gp@magnusengineering.net

Sheet Shear load: shear loads corresponding to the Yield strength and maximal tensile strength, for the two
versions of the fastener, compared with the standard bolts UNC #5/16-18, UNC #3/8-16.

Sheet Torsion load: torsion loads corresponding to the Yield strength and maximal tensile strength, for the two
versions of the fastener, compared with the standard bolts UNC #5/16-18, UNC #3/8-16.

Sheet Different lengths: axial loads, shear loads and torsional loads corresponding to the Yield strength and
maximal tensile strength, for the two versions of the fastener, each of them in 0.5, 1 and 1.5 length iterations.

The tests were performed with two different CAE applications for the validation of the resulted values (Solidworks
Simulation and ANSYS).

Conclusions:
a. All the tests ran confirmed the new design as superior in strength, compared with the initial design.
b. The fixture with pin has slightly higher resistance on axial load as the fixture with bolts. The variation
in strength is 0.9 for the load case with load applied on head and 0.97 for the load case with load
applied on washer.
c. The strength to axial load applied to head on both versions of the fixture is lower than for a UNC
#5/16-18 bolt. The recommendation is to be specified, as a use rule for the user, to avoid mounting
the bolt on places where the load could action on head. This is a practice accepted and used in
industry.
d. The strength to axial load applied to washer on both versions of the fixture is higher than for a #7/16-
14 bolt, and lower than for a UNC #1/2-13. This is a notable performance for the fastener.
e. The strength to shear load is considerable lower for the fastener with screws (0.67 compared to the
fastener with pin). The strength to shear load for the fastener with screws is higher than for a UNC
#5/16-18 bolt. The strength to shear load for the fastener with pin is equal to a UNC #3/8-16 bolt
(1.02 variation).
f. The strength to torsion load for both versions of the fastener is very high, due to their specific
construction. This property should be seen only as a safety provision, as far as the torsion load usually
is met on high strength, preloaded bolts, which will not be our case.
g. The length factor for the fasteners works as follow:
i. The variation of the strength to axial load is not linear with the length variation. This happens
because the specific shape of the head prevails over the length parameter. While stressed,
the head of the anchors has load concentrators in points that varies unevenly.
ii. The strength to axial load varies less with length in the case of the fixture with screws.
iii. The strength to shear load drastically lowers with the growing in length. Both versions of the
fastener have the same behavior
iv. The strength to torsional load is consistently higher with the growing in length, but only for
the fastener with pin. The fastener with screws has a different behavior that can be explained
by the effect of the screws.
h. Even if the behavior of the two versions of the fastener is not the same, with more advantages for the
version with pin, the version with screws, shouldnt be excluded, if reasons as the manufacturing costs
could motivate it. They could be sold on different prices. If a potential user doesnt need higher
strength, will always chose the cheaper product.