Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Invisible elastic bolt model concept for finite element analysis of

bolted connections
Hadi Razavi a , Ali Abolmaali a,b,c, , Mehdi Ghassemieh d
a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308 Arlington, TX 76019, United States
b Structural Simulation Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308 Arlington, TX 76019, United States
c UT-Arlington Center for Structural Engineering Research, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308 Arlington, TX 76019, United States
d Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Received 23 February 2006; accepted 7 July 2006

Abstract

In accurate numerical modeling of bolted connections challenges are introduced due to the complexities encountered in meshing and providing
non-conforming mesh for the exact modeling of bolt assemblages which may undermine the monotonic convergence in the solution algorithms.
Thus, an elastic invisible bolt model is introduced to represent the bolts effect in the finite element modeling of bolted connections. The proposed
algorithm assigns three degrees-of-freedoms (DOF) to each bolts end that include; one translational, in the bolt axial direction, and two rotational.
Constraints are introduced for the DOF of the nodes in contact with the bolt head (or nut) such that they are permitted to move in the normal
direction of the bolt based on the bolt elongation and end rotations. This introduces a variable-sized element stiffness matrix for the elements in
contact with bolt ends. This bolt model is implemented in a general purpose cyclic plasticity-based finite element computer program, capable of
predicting energy dissipation of bolted surfaces. Finally, the proposed algorithm is validated using a benchmark case and a sensitivity study on a
hypothetical connection to ensure that the expected trend in energy dissipation is observed when geometric variables are varied.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bolt model; Finite element; Plasticity; Steel connection; Cyclic; Teehanger

1. Introduction (end-plate/angle thickness, bolt diameter, beam/column size,

Typical bolted connections consist of a beam welded to an
end-plate/angle, which is bolted to the column flange. Thus,
bolted surfaces commonly consist of two plates connected
via bolts, which are either snug tight (frictionless) or
fully pretensioned. The relationship between the beam end
moment versus connection relative rotation (M ) plays an
important role in identifying the ductility and energy dissipation
characteristics of bolted or bolted/welded connections. This
M relationship, which is highly sensitive to the connections
geometric variables, can typically be obtained by the cost
prohibitive full-scale experimental testing.
To eliminate the need for experiments for obtaining M
of the connection for changes in its geometric variables
Corresponding author at: University of Texas at Arlington, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, PO Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019,
United States. Tel.: +1 817 272 3877; fax: +1 817 272 2630.
E-mail address: abolmaali@uta.edu (A. Abolmaali).
etc.), researchers have developed finite element models (FEM)
of the connection domains for static and cyclic analyses.
The FEM of the connection domain requires modeling of the
connecting beam/column, end-plate (angle), welds, bolt shank,
bolt head/nut, and bolt pretension. In addition, contact surfaces
between the bolt head/nut and connecting surfaces are modeled.
Krishnamurthy [14,15] was among the pioneers to perform
FEM analyses of extended and flush end-plate connections,
which included elastic material behavior. Krishnamurthy et al.
(1979) extended the earlier study to develop a two-dimensional
plane stress FEM of bolted connection and conducted some
physical tests to confirm the analyses. The nonlinear material
properties were incorporated using secant module theory.
The pretension effect of the bolt was also considered by
applying forces at the bolt-end nodes and then applying the
resulting bolt elongations as specified displacements for the
subsequent external loadings. Krishnamurthy [16] developed
the finite element methodology, specifically for the analysis

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0143-974X/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.07.003
648 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657

of unstiffened, four bolt extended end-plate connections.

Based on the FEM analyses of a large number of geometric
configurations of the connection along with a series of
experimental tests, the design methodology was developed,
which was found in the 8th edition of the AISC Manual of
Steel Construction (1980). Ahuja [2] investigated the behavior
of stiffened extended end-plate connections with two rows
of bolts on either side of the tension flange of the beam.
Ghassemieh (1983) extended Ahujas study to incorporate
nonlinear material behavior of the end-plate and the bolts.
Kukreti et al. [20] presented an elasto-plastic finite element
model for the moment rotation relationship of a flush end-
plate connection. In this study bolts shank, head, and nut were
modeled using 3D brick elements, and the circular bolts shank Fig. 1. Invisible bolt connecting to bodies.
area was modeled with an equivalent rectangular area.
the bolt head/nut with the connecting parts, which introduces
Sherbourne and Bahaari [24] presented a three-dimensional
nonlinearity and increased computational time in the problem,
model for extended end-plate connections, which used plate
has been a major concern in the finite element modeling of
elements for end plate, beam, and column flanges, webs, and
the bolted connections. This, coupled with non-conforming
column stiffeners. Truss elements were used for the bolt shank,
elements, which are typically used to model bolt head
and the bolt head and nut were modeled with brick elements.
and shank, has introduced complexities in the connection
Choi and Chung [10] presented a three-dimensional finite
mechanism model. This complexity was observed by Kukreti
element model for the behavioral characteristics of end-plate
and Murray [20], Kukreti and Prasad [18], and Kukreti and
connections. Elastoplastic nonconforming solid elements were
Biswas [19]. In some cases such as those reported by Choi and
employed to model the bolts shank, head, and nut, which
Chung [10], non-conforming elements were employed for exact
resulted in a complicated bolt model. A variable-node element
and complicated bolt assemblage modeling, which may retard
was developed in this study for mesh refinement in sensitive
or damage the monotonic convergence unless an accurate patch
regions to be connected to coarser mesh regions. Sherbourne
test is conducted. Thus, this study presents an invisible bolt
and Bahaari [25] developed 3D FEM models to evaluate
model algorithm coupled with a contact algorithm to be used in
the applicability of the model to prying action and gradual
FEM of bolted connections. This means that while bolts need
plasticity of components of the connections. Similar studies not be meshed in the proposed algorithm, their effect will be
were conducted by Bose et al. [6] and Bursi and Jaspart [8], present in the system equilibrium equations.
and Mistakidis et al. (1997).
Ghassemieh and Kukreti [12], and Kukreti and Biswas [19] 2. Invisible bolt models
developed a cyclic plasticity-based 3D FEM algorithm to
predict hysteretic behavior of end-plate connections under low To model axial effects of the bolt shank, a truss element with
frequency cyclic loads. This incremental formulation included one axial degree-of-freedom (DOF) at each end is considered.
a unique algorithm for predicting possible crack initiation in the It is also assumed that bolt head and nut act as rigid plates
welded regions. in contact with connecting surfaces at all times and unable to
Bursi and Jaspart [7] studied the effect of the most important undergo bending. This means that all the nodes in contact with
issues in finite element modeling of the extended end plate bolt head (or bolt nut) move together in the axial direction
connections. These issues are constitutive relationships, step and are assigned the same normal DOF in the axial bolt shank
size, number of integration points, kinematic description, direction (Fig. 1). To include the effect of bolt stiffness, the
element types, discretization, modeling the bolts, and bolt axial stiffness of the bolt is added to the corresponding normal
prestressing. For the bolt modeling, they proposed a spin model DOFs of the shank ends, which takes the following form:
composed of rigid beam elements (in the bolt head plane) 
E A 1 1

connected to the beam located in the bolt center. K bolt = (1)
L 1 1
Among other FEM studies on bolted/welded connec-
tion Kukreti et al. [20], Kukreti et al. (1990), Kukreti and where E, A, and L are modulus of elasticity, cross sectional
Prasad [18], Wheeler et al. [27], Takaki and Fukuoka [26], area and length of the bolt shank, respectively. Also, the effect
Bahaari and Sherbourne [35], Nemati et al. [21], Hurrel [13], of prestress force in the bolt is incorporated by adding the
Chung and Ip [9], Piluso et al. [23], Gantes and Lemonis [11], following load vector to the total load vector at the normal DOF
Oldfield et al. [22] contributed immensely towards the under- of the bolt ends as follows;
standing and advancement of FEM analysis of bolted/welded  
1
connections. Fbolt = Fprest (2)
1
The aforementioned research studies and those not listed in
this paper have confronted challenges in accurately modeling where Fprest is the prestressing force of the bolt. Upon applying
bolt shank, bolt head, and bolt nuts. The contact between the bolt prestress, the bolt shrinks, and it releases some of
 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657 649

Fig. 2. Degrees-of-freedom assignment for 3D bolt model.

its initial prestress. On the other hand, after applying the

external loads, the bolt will regain its prestress depending on the
magnitude of the load. It should be kept in mind that in cyclic Fig. 3. Nodes in contact with bolt head or bolt nut.
or dynamic type loading, the level of prestress changes at each
cycle of load. This means that during analysis, the magnitude where Fprest , M2i , M3i , Fprest , M2 j , and M3 j are element
of the prestress is continuously changing and these changes are forces acting along N1i , N2i , N3i , N1 j , N2 j , and N3 j (Fig. 2),
taken into account in the analysis algorithm presented in the respectively.
later part of this paper. Thus, the prestress load is updated using Experimental testing conducted by Kukreti and Abolmaali
the following equation: [17], and Abolmaali et al. [1] indicated that during connection
testing (static or cyclic) the bolt head and nut would remain
EA
Fprest = (Fprest )int (U N1i U N1 j ) (3) rigid without undergoing bending deformations. This means
L that the bolt head and nut would rotate as a rigid plate about
in which U N1i and U N1 j are the normal displacements of the ith the centeroidal axis of the bolt shank at high load levels. Thus,
and jth bolt ends, respectively. the nodes in contact with the bolt head (or nut) move in the
To include the effects of bolt bending the bolt shank is normal direction of the bolt, based on the bolt elongation and
assumed to behave as a beam element connected to two end rotations.
rigid plates (bolt head and bolt nut). Fully-pretensioned bolt The normal translational DOF of the aforementioned nodes
behavior is assumed. Therefore, the DOFs corresponding to is directly dependent on the deformation of the bolt shank ends
shear deformation is neglected. (i.e., N2i , N3i , N2 j , and N3 j of Fig. 2). Therefore, the normal
The invisible bolt modeling approach assigns three DOFs at component of displacement is calculated using:
each end of the bolt, which consist of one translational DOF,
in the bolt axial direction, and two rotational DOFs for bolt U1kl = U1k + r3L U2k r2L U3k (6)
bending, as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the element stiffness matrix where U1k , U2k , and U3k are the normal and the two rotations of
for the bolt will take the following form: the bolt end, and r3L and r2L are the distances from the center
A 0 0 A 0 0 line of the bolt head (or nut) to the Lth node along U3k and U2k
0 4I 0 0 2I 0 directions, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3.
E 0 0 4I 0 0 2I
In this study, the 8-noded solid elements with 24 DOFs per
[K ] = (4) element are used. For the elements with node(s) in contact
L A 0 0 A 0 0

0 2I 0 0 4I 0 with bolt head (or nut), however, the total number of DOFs is
0 0 2I 0 0 4I different based on the number of nodes in contact with the bolt
head or nut. For an element with n nodes in contact with bolt
where E, A, I , and L are bolt modulus of elasticity, area, head or nut (n can vary from 1 to 4), the total number of DOFs
moment of inertia, and effective bolt length, respectively. The is:
moment of inertia, I , of the bolt cross section is taken to be
the same in both transverse directions, and the effective length, N = 24 n + 3 = 27 n. (7)
L, is considered to be equal to the total thickness of the two The sizes of stiffness matrix and load vector for the
connecting bodies. Thus, the bolt element forces are identified aforementioned formulation are (27 n) (27 n) and
as: (27 n) 1, respectively. This means that the size of element

Fprest
stiffness and load matrices vary depending on the number of

M2i


element nodes in contact with the bolt head and nut. It should be


M3i
noted that while for a regular element, the stiffness matrix has
{FBolt } = (5) only translational DOFs of its nodes, for an element in contact

Fprest

with bolt head (or nut), the element stiffness matrix contains
M2 j




M3 j the effect of the bolts axial and biaxial bending. Therefore,
650 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657

a transformation of coordinates is required to interpret the are assigned (one axial displacement in the bolt direction and
elements stiffness matrix in terms of the new set of DOFs. This two rotations to include bolt bending).
is done by using a transformation matrix which transforms the Step 2. Load vector determination
24 nodal DOF to the (27 n) DOF system as follows:
The bolt pretension is applied prior to the application of
{U } = [T ]{U 0 } (8) other service loads. So, bolt prestress is applied in the first load
cycle.
where {U } is the conventional elements nodal displacement For the first iteration of the first sub step in the bolt prestress,
vector, [T ] is the coordinate transformation matrix, and {U 0 } is Bolt prestress is
the proposed variable nodal displacement vector for elements  
in contact with the bolts head or nut. For an element with one 1
1
{F bolt }1 = (Fprest )int (13)
node in contact (n = 1) with bolt head/nut (say the 8th node), 1
coordinate transformation will take the following form:
but for the next iterations, bolt prestress is updated;
u1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0   
v1 EA


0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
m
{F bolt }i = (Fprest )int (U N1i U N1 j ) .

(14)
w



1




0 0 1 0 0 0 0
L 1

u 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

. After completing the solution for the bolt prestress,
= .. .. ..
..

. . . subsequent load cycles and their sub-steps are applied. The



u 8 0 0 0 0 1 r3l r2l entire program is run as a loop over load cycles. Load vector is



v8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 considered to be the applied load in a load step or the residual




w8 241

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24(27n) forces. Eq. (14) shows the relationship between the initial
prestress force and the calculated forces for the ith iteration of
u1

the mth load step, m {1F}i .
v1



w1 Step 3. Stiffness matrix calculations





u 2
For each element, based on the current status of yielding
. . (9) in different integration points, the elements stiffness matrix is
..


calculated.
u

1k


Step 3.1. In each integration point of each element

u 2k



If integration point is elastic or unloading takes place,

u 3k (27n)1
calculate elastic element stiffness matrix:
Thus, the element stiffness matrix of such elements is Z 1Z 1Z 1
calculated as follows: [K ]el = [K ]el + [B]T [D][B]|J |dr1 dr2 dr3 (15)
1 1 1
[K 0 ] = [T ]T [K ][T ] (10)
where [B], [D], [J ], and |J | are straindisplacement, stress
and the corresponding load vector is: strain, Jacobian matrix, and Jacobian, respectively.
If integration point is yielded, then the element stiffness
[F 0 ] = [T ]T [F]. (11)
matrix is calculated as:
After the incremental solution of the systems equations, in  2
each iteration bolt prestress forces can be updated (due to the ep e 1 E
Di jkl = Di jkl S i j S kl (16)
changes in the bolts length in the previous iteration) using: h 1+
Z 1Z 1Z 1
Fprest = (Fprest )int
EA
(U N1i U N1 j ). (12) [K ]el = [K ]el + [B]T [D]ep [B]|J |dr1 dr2 dr3 . (17)
L 1 1 1

Eq. (17) is used when the NewtonRaphson method is used

3. Cyclic plasticity finite element algorithm
Step 1. Degrees of freedom
For the ith iteration of the mth load step, degrees of freedom
(DOFs) are assigned based on supports, contact pairs and bolt
locations. Initially, all of the contact pairs are considered in
contact and they are given the same sets of DOFs. In the
next iterations, based on the contact status of each contact
pair, they can still have the equal DOFs or independent ones.
For the nodes in contact with bolt head or bolt nut, only two
transverse DOFs are assigned and for each bolt end three DOFs
but for the Modified NewtonRaphson method, Eq. (15) should
be used for both cases.
After calculating each elements stiffness matrix, a global
stiffness matrix is assembled.
Step 3.2. Bolt stiffness
For each bolt, the bolt stiffness of the 3D bolt model is
calculated using Eq. (4).
Step 3.3. Elements in contact with bolt head or bolt nut
For elements in contact with bolt head or bolt nut, the
elements stiffness matrix is calculated from Eqs. (8) and (9).
 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657 651

Step 3.4. Assembly of the global stiffness matrix Case (I) If the previous stress state was inelastic:
The last step is to assemble the elements stiffness matrices Initial estimate for residual stress;
to the global stiffness matrix m [K ]i .
0 = {1 } .
{1 }res i
Step 4. Solution of equations (32)
The incremental linear system simultaneous equations are Strain integrations:
solved;
Calculate the elasto-plastic part of the strain
m
[K ]i {1U }i = m {1F}i . (18) increment:

Step 5. Calculate strains and stresses {1}ep = {1}i . (33)

Steps 5 and 6 are done over all integration points of each
Break the elasto-plastic part of the strain increment to
element.
M equal parts:
Calculate strain increments:
In each step; ( j = 1, M)
{1}i = [B] {1U }i . (19) Calculate strain increment of this sub-increment:
Assuming a linear behavior, calculate stress increments: ep 1
{1} j = {1}ep . (34)
M
{1 }i = [D] {1}i . (20)
Calculate the plastic strain part of this sub-increment:
Update total strains and total stresses:
p ep
{1} j = [G]{1} j (35)
{}i+1 = {}i + {1}i (21)
{ }i+1 = { }i + {1 }i . (22) where

Calculate hydrostatic, deviatoric and reduced deviatoric 1 E T

[G] = {S} j {S} j (36)
stresses for the previous and the current stresses ({ }i+1 , { }i ). h 1+
 
The hydrostatic stress is: 2 E
h= C+ Fy2 (37)
p = kk (23) 3 1+
2 E Et
the deviatoric stress is: C= . (38)
3 E Et
1
{ } = { } p{i j } (24) The stress increment for this strain sub-increment is
3
calculated by using:
and the reduced deviatoric stress is
ep
{S} = { } {} (25) {1 } j = [D ep ]{1} j . (39)

where i j is the Kronecker delta and {} is the back stress Update total stresses:
(center of the yield surface).
The yield status of the integration point for { }i and { }i+1 { }ij = { }ij1 + {1 } j . (40)
is calculated by using: Update residual stresses:
1
j = {1 } j1 {1 } .
{1 }res
J2 = S i j S i j (26) res j
(41)
2
f (i j ) = 3J2 k 2 ( p ) = 0. (27) Calculate translation of yield surface using:
If ( f (i j ) toler) In the yielded region. (28) ep
{1}ij = 1 {1} j (42)
If ( f (i j ) < toler) In the elastic region. (29)
Calculate loading status of the integration point for path where 1 = 23 E p , and E p is the incremental slope of
the uniaxial stressplastic strain curve.
{ }i { }i+1 Update new coordinate of yield surface
f
 
if di j 0 loading is taking place. (30) {}ij = {}ij1 + {1}ij . (43)
i j
f Case (II) If the previous state was elastic.
 
if di j < 0 unloading is taking place. (31)
i j Calculate the fraction of the load sub-step in which
yielding has occurred:
If the current stress state is elastic, or unloading has occurred
the calculated stresses are correct.
r  
If the current stress state is inelastic and loading has occurred a1 + a12 + a2 23 Fy2 a3
two cases may arise: R= (44)
a2
652 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657

where Step 6. Calculate element nodal forces

T
In each element, using the total stresses calculated in step 6,
a1 = {S}i ({S}i+1 {S}i ) (45) nodal forces of the element can be evaluated as:
a2 = ({S}i+1 {S}i ) ({S}i+1 {S}i )
T
(46)
Z
{Fint }i = [B]T { }i dV. (61)
T
a3 = {S}i {S}i . (47) V
Also, residual nodal forces for each element can be calculated
Calculate stress level on the yield surface: as:
{ }i+1 = { }i + R {1 }i .
Z
(48)
0 {Fres }i = [B]T { }res dV. (62)
V
Initial estimate for residual stress:
Calculate total residual nodal forces on each node.
0 = (1 R) {1 } .
{1 }res i
(49) Step 7. Check contact status
Strain integrations: For each contact pair, contact status needs to be checked
Calculate the elasto-plastic part of the strain to see if it is changed compared to its status in the previous
increment iteration. Also, status of the unchanged contact pairs should be
recorded.
{1}ep = (1 R) {1}i . (50) These contact pairs are two types:
Break the elasto-plastic part of the strain increment Case (I) For the contact pairs that were assumed to be in
into M equal parts. contact in the previous iteration, the normal tractions
In each step: ( j = 1, M) acting between them is checked. If the forces are of
Calculate strain increment of this sub-increment: tensile type, it means they are trying to separate. So,
independent DOFs are assigned to them for the next
ep 1 iteration.
{1} j = {1}ep . (51)
M Case (II) For the contact pairs that were assumed to be
Calculate the plastic strain part of this sub-increment: separated in the previous iteration, their relative
normal displacement is calculated for overlapping. If
p ep
{1} j = [G]{1} j (52) overlapping between the contact pair has occurred for
the next iteration, equal DOFs are assigned to them.
where
1 E Step 8. Iteration on contact
T
[G] = {S} j {S} j (53) If none of the contact pairs have changed status, then
h 1+
  GOTO step 9.
2 E
h= C+ Fy2 (54) If any one of the contact pairs have changed status, then:
3 1+
2 E Et GOTO step 1.
C= . (55)
3 E Et Step 9. Iteration on material nonlinearity
Calculate the stress increment for this strain sub- When the program gets to this stage it means that for
increment: contact nonlinearity, convergence is achieved. If loading is in
ep
the inelastic regime, residual nodal forces are assigned as nodal
{1 } j = [D ep ]{1} j . (56) loads, and:
Update total stresses: Step 10. Check convergence of the material nonlinearity
For the first iteration on material nonlinearity:
{ }ij = { }ij1 + {1 } j . (57) GOTO step 3.
Update residual stresses: For next iterations on material nonlinearity,
Check to see if the displacement increment in this iteration,
j = {1 } j1 {1 } .
{1 }res res j
(58) is small compared to the total if
Calculate translation of yield surface using: k{1U }i k k m {U }i m1 {U }tot k (63)
ep
{1}ij = 1 {1} j . (59) where k k denotes vector norm-2.
Update new coordinate of yield surface: GOTO step 2.
Otherwise
{}ij = {}ij1 + {1}ij . (60)
Assign residual nodal forces as nodal loads, and
Update total stresses and total residual stresses. GOTO step 2.
 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657 653

Fig. 5. Deformed geometry of the t-stub.

Fig. 4. t-stub dimensions.

Here, {1U }i , m {U }i , and m1 {U }tot are displacement

increments in the current iteration, total displacement at the end
of the previous iteration, and total displacement at the end of the
previous load step, respectively.

4. Experimental verification
The proposed meshless model and the associated cyclic
plasticity computer algorithm with elastic bolt model were
compared with the result of a t-stub connection test reported
by Bursi and Jaspart [8]. The dimensions of the test specimen
are shown in Fig. 4. Due to the symmetric load and geometry
conditions, a 1/4 model is used for the FE modeling. Fig. 5
shows the deformed geometry obtained by the proposed Fig. 6. Comparison of loaddisplacement between FEM and the experiment
algorithms. Also, the comparison of the load-separation results for the t-stub test.
is shown in Fig. 6 which indicates that the FEM result virtually
duplicates that of the experiment. This comparison shows a
linear elastic behavior which is due to the load versus end-
plate separation without end-plate yielding. This behavior
is commonly observed when a relatively thick end-plate is
used. The algorithm presented is capable of predicting the
behavior due to end-plate yielding by using the cyclic-plasticity
formulation presented.

5. Algorithm verification
For algorithm behavioral verification, two plates are
considered which are bolted together and are fully in contact as
shown in Fig. 7. This simple model is capable of simulating the
response of contact, geometric, material nonlinearities. The bolt
is pretensioned to 70% of its maximum tensile strength (proof
load). The two plates are subjected to a loadingunloading
cycle by four tensile forces acting on the corners of the top plate Fig. 7. Two rectangular bolted plates with meshless contact and bolt model.
(Fig. 7). The bolt prestress is applied prior to the application
of the applied loads, which shows the algorithms capability trend of the results and the effects of different parameters, the
to handle non-proportional loading. To examine the behavioral thickness of the top plate and the bolt diameter are varied,
654 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657

Fig. 10. Deformed geometry due to bolt prestress and applied load for the two
Fig. 8. Deformed geometry due to bolt prestress and applied load for the two bolted plates problem (PL: 0.635 cm (1/4 in.), bolt: 1.270 cm (1/2 in.)).
bolted plates problem (PL: 0.318 cm (1/8 in.), bolt: 1.905 cm (3/4 in.)).

Fig. 9. Deformed geometry after unloading for the two bolted plates problem Fig. 11. Deformed geometry due to bolt prestress and applied load for the two
(PL: 0.318 cm (1/8 in.), bolt: 1.905 cm (3/4 in.)). bolted plates problem (PL: 1.270 cm (1/2 in.), bolt: 1.905 cm (3/4 in.)).

and the results are compared. The application of the load was
limited to loading, unloading, and reloading. For this particular
problem, the compressive forces are directly transferred to the
supports underneath the bottom plate which cause no global
effect. Fig. 7 also shows the mesh of the two bolted plates in
which the bolt mesh is invisible.
The parameters of the model were varied to capture the
behavior of the proposed algorithm. The size of the bottom
plate was fixed at 12.7 9.479 2.54 cm (5 3.732 1 in.),
and the thickness of the top plate was varied as follows;
0.318 cm (1/8 in.); 0.635 cm (1/4 in.), 1.270 (1/2 in.)
and 1.905 cm (3/4 in.). The bolt diameters used were:
1.270 cm (1/2 in.), 1.588 cm (5/8 in.), 1.905 cm (3/4 in.)
and 2.540 cm (1 in.). Fig. 8 shows the deformed geometry of
the top plate with thickness: 0.318 cm (1/8 in.), and the bolt: Fig. 12. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
1.905 cm (3/4 in.). In all cases the bolt prestress is applied prior 0.635 cm (1/4 in.), bolt: 2.540 cm (1.0 in.)).
to the corner loads. Fig. 9 shows the inelastic deformation of
the aforementioned problem after load removal. If the material In Figs. 1222, the loaddeformation plots of different
behavior was kept elastic this configuration would have been plate assemblages with different combinations of the top plate
the same as that due to the bolt prestress only. thickness and bolt diameter for a loadingunloading cycle are
Fig. 10 shows the deformed geometry of the case with presented. It is observed that for the thicker plates and smaller
plate thickness = 0.635 cm (1/4 in.) and bolt diameter = bolt diameters, less deformation occurs, and the behavior
1.270 cm (1/2 in.). As shown, deformation is decreased is either elastic or the effect of nonlinearity is negligible.
compared with that of Fig. 8 for the same magnitude of the load. For thinner plates and larger bolt diameters, however, more
The effect of the plate thickness on the deformational behavior deflection occurs with more chance of inelastic behavior. For all
of this bolted surface is further examined by increasing the plate of these cases, the enclosed area of the loaddeflection plots are
thickness to 1.270 cm (1/2 in.) and using 1.905 cm (3/4 in.) calculated, which measures the amount of energy dissipation in
bolt diameter as shown in Fig. 11. This figure shows that the each cycle. It is observed that the thicker plates with thinner bolt
deformation of the top plate is further reduced as anticipated. diameters dissipate much less energy than the ones with thinner
 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657
Fig. 13. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
1.270 cm (1/2 in.), bolt: 1.905 cm (3/4 in.)).
Fig. 14. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
1.270 cm (1/2 in.), bolt: 1.588 cm (5/8 in.)).
Fig. 15. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
0.318 cm (1/8 in.), bolt: 1.905 cm (3/4 in.)).
plates and larger bolt diameters. This trend follows intuition and
is also observed in the experimental testing of double web angle
connections conducted by Abolmaali et al. [1].
For the cases shown in Figs. 13, 14, 18 and 19, the
combinations of bolt diameter and plate thickness have caused
almost linear elastic responses, while in others, a much larger
enclosed area is observed (more energy dissipation). Fig. 22
shows the results of loading, unloading, and reloading applied
655
Fig. 16. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
0.3175 cm (1/8 in.), bolt: 1.588 cm (5/8 in.)).
Fig. 17. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
0.318 cm (1/8 in.), bolt: 2.540 cm (1.0 in.)).
Fig. 18. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
1.270 cm (1/2 in.), bolt: 2.540 cm (1.0 in.)).
to the bolted surfaces with 0.635 cm (1/4 in.) top plate
thickness and 1.588 cm (5/8 in.) bolt diameter. It is shown
that the reloading curve virtually follows the unloading path
and after reaching the previous yield point (point of unloading),
it follows the same path before unloading. This behavior is well
known as cyclic plasticity behavior of most materials in general,
and steel in particular.
656 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657
Fig. 19. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
1.905 cm (3/4 in.), bolt: 2.540 cm (1.0 in.)).
Fig. 20. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
0.635 cm (1/4 in.), bolt: 1.270 cm (1/2 in.)).
Fig. 21. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates (PL:
0.635 cm (1/4 in.), bolt: 1.588 cm (5/8 in.)).
6. Conclusion
An invisible bolt model algorithm for bolted/welded
connections is introduced. A general purpose cyclic-plasticity
finite element algorithm is developed to incorporate the bolt
model by considering coupling nonlinear material, contact, and
geometric phenomena. The proposed bolt algorithm eliminates
the need for defining the finite element mesh for the bolt shank,
Fig. 22. Loaddeformation of a half cycle for the two bolted plates with
reloading (PL: 0.635 cm (1/4 in.), bolt: 1.588 cm (5/8 in.)).
head, and nut. This model incorporates both the values of
axial and bending stiffness of the bolt in which three DOFs
are assigned to each bolt end that include; one translational
DOF in the bolt axial direction and two rotational DOFs.
The nodes in contact with bolt head (or nut) are restricted to
move in the normal direction of bolt and are dependent on the
bolts elongation and end rotations. This formulation introduces
a variable-sized element stiffness matrix for the elements in
contact with bolt ends.
The proposed algorithms and code implementation were
verified with an experimental study reported in the literature
for a t-stub connection. The invisible bolt model and the
associated code were used to conduct a parametric type study
on an example problem developed to simulate the behavior
of bolted connections. This simple problem was selected
in order to incorporate the combined effects of material
and contact nonlinearities. The bolt was prestressed to its
proof load and the top plate was subjected to four corner
tension forces (perpendicular to the plates) for a half cycle
of loadingunloading. For different values of the top plate
thickness and the bolt diameter, the loaddeformation loops
were plotted and compared. Also, the energy dissipation
characteristics of the parametric cases were calculated
and compared. The proposed invisible bolt algorithm was
determined to be capable of simulating the bolt effects in overall
connection behavior subjected to monotonic and cyclic loads.
Acknowledgement
The financial support of the National Science Foundation
Grant #0231404 is greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] Abolmaali A, Kukreti AR, Razavi H. Hysteresis behavior of semi-rigid
double web angle steel connections. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2003;59:105782.
[2] Ahuja V. Analysis of stiffened end-plate connections using the finite-
element method. A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. School
of Civil Engineering an Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma;
1982.
 H. Razavi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 647657
[3] Bahaari M, Sherbourne A. Finite element prediction of end plate
connection behavior. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997;123(2):
16575.
[4] Bahaari M, Sherbourne AN. Computer modeling of an extended end-plate
bolted connection. Computers and Structures 1994;52(5):87993.
[5] Bahaari M, Sherbourne AN. Behavior of eight-bolt large capacity endplate
connections. Computers and Structures 2000;77:31525.
[6] Bose B, Wang Z, Sarkar S. Finite-element analysis of unstiffened flush
end-plate bolted joints. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997;123(12):
161421.
[7] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Benchmarks for finite element modeling of bolted
steel connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1997;43(13):
1742.
[8] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Calibration of a finite element model for isolated
bolted end-plate steel connections. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1997;44(3):22562.
[9] Chung KF, Ip KH. Finite element investigation on the structural behavior
of cold-formed steel bolted connections. Engineering Structures 2001;23:
111525.
[10] Choi CK, Chung GT. A gap element for three-dimensional elasto-plastic
contact problems. Computers and Structures 1996;61(6):115567.
[11] Gantes CJ, Lemonis ME. Influence of equivalent bolt length in finite
element modeling of t-stub steel connections. Computers and Structures
2003;81:595604.
[12] Ghassemieh M, Kukreti AR. Application of kinematic hardening models
to cyclic plasticity structural analysis problems. Computers and Structures
1993;46(4):64763.
[13] Hurrel P. Good practice in modeling of pressure vessel bolted joints for
stress and fatigue analysis. In: Analysis of Bolted Joints. ASME; 2000.
p. 12334.
[14] Krishnamurthy N. Two dimensional finite element analysis of extended
and flush end-plate connections with multiple rows of bolts. Report to
AISC and MBMA, no. CE-AISC-MBMA-6. Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Auburn University; March 1975.
[15] Krishnamurthy N. Fresh look at bolted end-plate behavior and design.
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction 1978;
657
15(2):3949 [second quarter].
[16] Krishnamurthy N, Krishna VR. Behavior of spliceplate connections with
multiple bolt rows. Report submitted to the Metal Building Manufacturers
Association; February 1981.
[17] Kukreti AR, Abolmaali A. Momentrotation hysteresis behavior of top
and seat angle steel frame connections. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 1999;125(8):81020.
[18] Kukreti AR, Prasad R. Hysteretic behavior prediction of full and partial
penetration groove welded joints. International Journal of Computers and
Structures 1990;59(1):111.
[19] Kukreti AR, Biswas P. Finite element computer program to predict the
cyclic behavior and failure of end-plate connections. International Journal
of Computers and Structures 1990;65(1):12747.
[20] Kukreti AR, Murray TM, Abolmaali A. End-plate connection
momentrotation relationship. Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
search 1987;8:13757.
[21] Nemati N, Houedec D, Zandonini R. Numerical modeling of the cyclic
behavior of the basic components of steel end plate connections. Advances
in Engineering Software 2001;31:83749.
[22] Oldfield M, Ouyang H, Mottershead J. Modeling and simulation of
bolted joints under harmonic excitation. Materials Science Forum 2003;
440441:4218.
[23] Piluso V, Faella C, Rizzano G. Ultimate behavior of bolted t-stubs.
I: Theoretical model. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127(6):
68693.
[24] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari M. 3D simulation of end-plate bolted
connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994;120(11):312236.
[25] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari M. Finite element prediction of end plate
bolted connection behavior. I: Parametric study. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1997;123(2):15764.
[26] Takaki T, Fukuoka T. Bolt-up strategy for pipe flange connections using
finite element analysis. Analysis of Bolted Joints, PVP-vol. 405. ASME;
2000.
[27] Wheeler AT, Clarke MJ, Hancock GJ. FE modeling of four-bolt tubular
moment end-plate connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 2000;
126(7):81622.