See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270953639

The effect of bolt length in the fatigue strength of M24×3 bolt studs

Article  in  Engineering Failure Analysis · December 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.09.010

CITATIONS READS

9 1,361

5 authors, including:

Sandro Griza
Universidade Federal de Sergipe
64 PUBLICATIONS   262 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandro Griza on 31 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

The effect of bolt length in the fatigue strength of

M243 bolt studs
Sandro Griza a,⇑, Marcio Erick Gomes da Silva a, Silvando Vieira dos Santos a, Everton Pizzio b,
Telmo Roberto Strohaecker b
a
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência e Engenharia dos Materiais, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil
b
Programa de Pós-graduação em Engenharia de Minas, Metalúrgica e de Materiais, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study we evaluated the effect of bolt length on the fatigue behavior of joints with
Received 10 April 2013 bolt studs used in the flange/housing assembly of a gas compressor for polyethylene poly-
Received in revised form 9 September 2013 merization. The bolt stud used is the M243 class 8.8. Two different bolt lengths were eval-
Accepted 19 September 2013
uated. A slim spread sleeve was used in the case of the longer bolts. The torque control was
Available online 27 September 2013
used to achieve the tightening preload. However, the preload and cyclic strains were mon-
itored. The fatigue strength increases with increasing bolt stud length, even with the use of
Keywords:
the slim spread sleeve. The study showed a difference between the theoretical and the
Fatigue
Bolt’s length
experimental load factor for the case of short joints.
Bolt stud Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Joint stiffness

1. Introduction

Among the many types of joints used in the industry, bolt tightening is one of the most used due to some advantages such
as easily and quickly assembly and disassembly, the low costs and the ability to withstand transversal and longitudinal
loads.
Bolts are used in the member’s joint for centuries, even in systems with high responsibility. However, fatigue failure of
bolted joints remains a concern, since the failure of only one bolt can promotes the instability and the consequent loss of an
entire system [1,2]. Bolt fatigue strength depends on the magnitude of cyclic stresses it experiences. The stress amplitude of
the bolt depends on the external axial load, and also depends on the stiffness of the joint, i.e., the bolt and the tightened
members. However, several factors seem to be still unsolved regarding to the calculation of the joint stiffness and the portion
of cyclic load effectively experienced by the bolt. The issue regarding to the influence of the bolt length on the fatigue
strength of the bolted joints, for example, is not completely understood. Does the stiffness of the joint the same as predicted
by the linear theory, regardless of the member’s thickness, i.e., regardless of the bolt length? There are few studies available
in the literature on the distribution of the bolt stress depending on the bolt length [3]. However, practical observation shows
that longer bolts are more resistant to fatigue even when tightened to a same preload, or torque, of the shorter bolts.
This study was encouraged by the observation of the fatigue failure of bolt studs applied in a gas compressor for polyeth-
ylene polymerization. Fig. 1 shows the fracture aspect of the bolt. Several ratchet marks along the thread radius can be seen.
The flat fracture with beach marks followed by the roughest final fracture is typical fatigue features.
The pre-compressor has five compression stages until to send the gas to a hyper compressor and it has also five stages
with 160 MPa of pressure at the end of the cycle. Each compression stage occurs in cameras that are supported by a gateway.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 79 21056888; fax: +55 79 21056845.

E-mail addresses: griza@ufs.br, sandro.griza@gmail.com (S. Griza).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.09.010
398 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406

Fig. 1. Fatigue fracture of the M24 bolt stud. It can be seen the several ratched marks along the thread radius, the flat fracture with beach marks followed by
the roughest final fracture.

It is fixed by a flange bolted to the housing, where the connecting rod/crankshaft assembly works. The highest frequencies of
bolt failures occur in the first stage of the pre-compressor. This stage has a suction and discharge pressure of respectively
3.8 MPa and 10.2 MPa. The flange is tightened to the housing through 16 bolt studs M243 class 8.8. Fig. 2 shows the
flange/housing assembly and the bolts numbered. According to the company’s engineering maintenance team, the failures
occur in the four bolts placed at the top and four bolts placed at the bottom of the flange. The company’s engineering
maintenance team suggested to increase the length of the bolts. So, a spread sleeve was designed to allow for the tightening
the long bolts on the flange. Fig. 2 shows some tightened spread sleeves. The frequency of the bolt failures decreased after
the modification.
This result can be seen as counterintuitive taking into account the linear theory of bolted joints. The stress amplitude
imposed to the bolt depends on the member’s stiffness. As lower is the member stiffness with respect to the bolt stiffness,
as higher is the stress amplitude experienced by the bolt. When a slim spread sleeve is used, one should suppose the de-
crease in member’s stiffness and the decrease in the fatigue strength of the bolt. On the other hand, for a same bolt diameter,
increasing the bolt length causes a reduction of its stiffness, and compensation could occur regarding to the joint stiffness.
Then, this study aims to investigate the relationship between the fatigue strength and the length of the bolt stud. Fatigue
experiments reproducing the industrial condition of the bolt in service were evaluated. Two hypotheses were tested: (1)
increasing the bolt length actually causes the increase in the bolt fatigue strength, despite of the slim spread sleeve use
and (2) increasing the bolt length reduces the joint stiffness and the fatigue strength of the joint.

2. Fundamentals

The linear theory considers a bolted joint as a set of springs which experience the same magnitude of elastic deformation
when the bolt is tightened on the members. The linear theory is still accepted and included in most of the textbooks of

Fig. 2. Sixteen bolt studs tightening the flange on the pre compressor housing. Bolts are counted clockwise from 1 to 16. The bolts 15, 16, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10
are those in which the fracture is more frequent. It can be seen the spread sleeve tightened to the bolts 15, 16, 1 and 2.
 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406 399

mechanical engineering design [4–6]. A good reference about this issue is Williams et al. [7]. The relationship between the
stress amplitude and the mean stress applied to the bolt depends on the stiffness of all the joint elements, and it is defined as
the slope of the lines in Fig. 3. Therefore, it is possible to estimate the portions of the external axial load applied to the bolt
and to the members. The axial load of the bolt (Fb) is obtained from the joint stiffness constant (C), according to Eqs. (1) and
(2) respectively. These equations consider the external load applied in the joint (P), the bolt stiffness (Kb) and the member’s
stiffness (Km). The trigonometric relations of the diagram allow obtaining the mean stress and the stress amplitude of the
bolt. Then, the product between C and P leads to the cyclic load experienced by the bolt. The mean load applied to the bolt
(Fm) is given by Eq. (3), and the bolt load amplitude (FA) is given by Eq. (4).
Fb ¼ C  P þ Fi ð1Þ

Kb
C¼ ð2Þ
Kb þ Km

Fm ¼ F i þ CP=2 ð3Þ

F A ¼ F b  F m ¼ C  P=2 ð4Þ
The models which use the linear theory for the calculation of the bolted joint stiffness available in the literature are the
cone pressure model, with a cone angle of 30° [4–6], the model by Wileman et al. [8] and the model by Alkatan et al. [9]. The
cone model is still employed in the design of bolted joints (See Fig. 4).
The elastic resilience is inversely proportional to the stiffness. According to the VDI 2230 standard [10], the elastic resil-
ience of the bolt, dS, is determined according to Eq. (5), where l is the unthread length, d is the bolt’s nominal diameter; AN is
the nominal cross section; Ad3 is the cross section of thread at minor diameter; lGew is the length of the free loaded threads;
lG = 0.5d and lM = 0.33d are the substitutional extension length for the deformation of the engaged threads in each end.
0:4d l lGew lG lM
dS ¼ þ þ þ þ ð5Þ
EAN EAN EAd3 EAd3 EAN
The resilience of the clamped parts (dP) in the case where there are two rotationally symmetrical deformation cones is
calculated according to Eq. (6), and in the case where there is a spread sleeve, the resilience must be calculated according
to the sum of Eqs. (6) and (7); where dW is the bearing diameter under the nut; dh is the hole diameter of the clamped parts;
lH is the sleeve height, lK is the clamping length, w = 1 for these joint types; u = 30°. The VDI standard defines the load factor,
according to Eq. (8). This load factor is equal to the stiffness constant of the Eq. (2). The load factor can be given by Eq. (9),
where FSA is the cyclic load imposed to the bolt due to a given external cyclic load P.
h i
ðdW þdh ÞðdW þwlK tg udh Þ
2 ln ðdW dh ÞðdW þwlK tg uþdh Þ
dP ¼ ð6Þ
wEp pdh tg u

4lH
dsleev e ¼ 2 2
ð7Þ
EpðdW  dh Þ

dP
U¼ ð8Þ
dP þ dS

Fig. 3. The diagram of the load versus elongation of the bolted joint subjected to the external axial load. CP is the cyclic load experienced by the bolt.
400 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406

Fig. 4. Volume of the material used to calculate the member stiffness by the cone method in a bolt stud joint. D is the top contact diameter, d is the hole
diameter, t is the member thickness, a is the half angle of the cone.

F SA
U¼ ð9Þ
P
The proof load (Fp) is the maximum load that the bolt can withstand without acquiring permanent deformation. It cor-
responds to the proportionality limit of the material. Therefore, bolts used in structural applications should be tightened to
proof load or above [4]. Additionally, it is recommended that the Eq. (10) should be used in the establishment of the preload
(Fi):

Fi ¼ 0:75  F p for non-permanent joints:

Fi ¼ 0:90  F p for permanent joints: ð10Þ

A good estimation of the torque required to provide a given preload is obtained from Eq. (11), where p (mm) is the thread
pitch, l is the friction coefficient between male and female threads and the under head friction coefficient (considering the
same materials in contact), d2 (mm) is the mean thread diameter (d2 = d  0.6495p), and du (mm) is the under head mean
diameter [10,11]:

T ¼ F i ½0:16p þ 0:58ld2 þ 0:5ldu ð11Þ

3. Materials and methods

Seventeen bolt studs M243 class 8.8 [12] were manufactured in AISI 4140 steel quenched and tempered to 30 HRC. Nine
bolts were made in the original length used in the compressor and they were named here as short bolt, 120 mm length. The
other eight bolts having the modified length were named long bolt, 173 mm length (Fig. 5). The threads were rolled before
the heat treatment. Three of the short bolts were used for tensile tests, hardness and microstructural characterization. The
compatible nuts with 19 mm height and compatible washers were obtained commercially.

3.1. Mechanical and microstructure characterization

Three specimens with 12.5 mm diameter were machined for tensile tests, and it was performed in accordance with ASTM
A370 [13]. The hardness tests were evaluated in the HRC scale. The purpose of the tests was to verify if the bolts manufacture
was suitable for the class 8.8, and to obtain the material properties for defining the tightening preload. The yield strength
was obtained with 0.2% strain. The chemical composition was performed on three samples through optical emission spec-
trometer. Three metallographic samples were prepared to analyze the plane of symmetry of the bolts containing the threads.
The microstructure was observed by optical microscopy.

3.2. Fatigue test and torque load control

A device was designed to reproduce the form of the joint in service (Fig. 6). The size, geometry and materials used in the
joint of the compressor were taken into account in the design. Therefore, for the case of the short bolt assembly, the mem-
bers were made to involve the cone used in the resilience calculation. The housing is 33 mm thick and is made of steel
(E = 200 GPa). The gateway is made of gray cast iron (DIN GG 25, E = 180 GPa) and has 50 mm thickness. The spread sleeve
 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406 401

Fig. 5. The original M243 bolt stud with 120 mm length, applied in the pre compressor and the modified 173 mm length bolt.

Fig. 6. Device applied in the fatigue tests.

is 50 mm long, 35 mm external diameter, 26 mm internal diameter and is made of 24CrMo5V steel (E = 200 GPa). The device
can be used in tests for both short and long bolts.
The torque of 540 Nm was applied based on the properties obtained in the tensile tests and applying Eqs. (10) and (11).
All surfaces were in dry condition. The friction coefficient of 0.15 was considered suitable for both steel/steel contact and
steel/cast iron contact [10,14]. The proof load of 85% of the yield strength was used to calculate Fi. The torque was applied
through a wrench ranging from 520 to 1000 Nm (5% maximum error).
Torque control was adopted to reproduce the practice use. Moreover, in order to analyze the strains induced in the bolt
rod as a function of the torque and the external load (P), uniaxial electrical strain gages (Kyowa KFG-02-120C111-N15-C02)
were used. A hole (4 mm diameter) was machined in the sleeve and in the gateway to pass the extensometer wires. The sen-
sors were located in the half length of the unthread portion of the bolt studs. Strains were measured at least in three bolts of
each length. The axial strains induced by the torque and by the external load were measured with HBM Spider8 signal con-
ditioners equipment and software Catman 4.0. As to increase the data reliability all electrical strain gages were calibrated
with precision electrical resistors with 19,880 X ± 0.01% and 5880 X ± 0.01% (Vishay Micro-measurements).
402 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406

At least six bolts of each length were tested to obtain the S–N curve; taking 5 million cycles as the test limit [15]. A
hydraulic servo controlled actuator (MTS model 661.31F_01) with 1000 kN of capacity was used for the sinusoidal cyclic load
application. The load ratio was 0.1 and the frequency was 5 Hz. Bolt fractures were analyzed in low magnification and in
scanning electron microscope (SEM).

4. Results

4.1. Mechanical and microstructure characterization

The material showed tensile strength of 981 MPa (SD 10.6); yield strength of 859 MPa (SD 11.2), elongation of 21% (SD
1.5); necking of 62% (SD 0.6); 30 HRC hardness (SD 1). The tensile test results of one specimen are presented in Fig. 7.
The results of the chemical composition are shown in Table 1. The microstructure is composed of tempered martensite
(Fig. 8). Fig. 9 shows the flow lines resulting from the thread rolling.

4.2. Fatigue test and torque load control

The measured strains were converted into axial stress by means of the elastic modulus of the bolts (Table 2). There is no
significant difference between the stress amplitude and preload stresses for the two groups (One way Anova p 6 0.05). How-
ever, the mean value of the stress amplitude and preload stress were respectively, 27 MPa, and 721 MPa for long bolts and
38 MPa and 650 MPa for short bolts. The Haigh diagram (Fig. 10) was performed to compare the results with those of Burgu-
ete and Patterson [16]. The mean stresses were obtained from the sum of the preload stress and the stress amplitude.
The load factor for both long and short joints are, respectively, 0.3 and 0.4, as can be given from Eq. (9), and using the
measured strains. Table 3 shows the variables used in order to obtain the load factor applying Eqs. (5)–(8). Fig. 11 shows
the joint dimensions used in the calculation. The modulus E was assumed as 180 GPa for the members and 200 GPa for
the bolts and sleeve. According to this analytical calculation, the load factors are, respectively, 0.3 and 0.2 for the long
and short joints.
The fatigue tests showed higher fatigue strength for the long joints. Fig. 12 shows the S–N curves for the two bolt length.
The estimated fatigue limits for 5 million cycles of the long and short joints are, respectively, 190 MPa and 175 MPa. The
possibility of bending load during the tests with the spread sleeve could hinder the comparison of the results. However,
the fracture appearance was the same for both bolt lengths. It suggests that all the bolts were subjected to a major axial load.
The fracture analysis showed fatigue propagation aspect nucleated at several points along the perimeter of one thread root.
The several ratchet marks in Fig. 13 are regarded to the several nucleating points. The SEM analysis showed striations on the
fatigue propagation (Fig. 14).

5. Discussion

The results of the tensile tests showed that the bolts manufacture was according to class 8.8. The results were also used to
determine the tightening preload. The thread rolling process provides a uniform compressive stress state in a plasticized
layer at the root of the thread, which is the critical region for fatigue crack nucleation. Then, it is expected that the fatigue
strength will be higher for the case of bolts with rolled threads. It should be taken into account in the case of comparisons of
the fatigue results with those of bolts manufactured by another route, even for the same bolt class [16]. The fracture analysis
sustains that cyclic load was mainly axial in both bolt lengths. In the failure analysis of the compressor bolts, the bending
component must be taken into account, as evidenced by the analysis of the in service fractured bolts (Fig. 1). Other factors

Fig. 7. Results of the tensile test of one specimen.

 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406 403

Table 1
Chemical composition of the bolt’s material (% weight).

C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni
0.38 0.24 0.86 0.02 0.02 1.21 0.15 0.08

Fig. 8. Tempered martensite of the AISI 4140 steel used in the bolt’s manufacturing.

Fig. 9. Flow lines near the thread radius resulting from the rolling.

Table 2
Preload stress and stress amplitude of the bolts.

Bolt type Preload stress (MPa) Mean (MPa) Standard deviation

Long 669 674 770 773 721 58
Short 605 651 693 650 44
Alternate stress (MPa)
Long 52 16 – 14 27 22
Short 80 16 18 – 38 36

can be considered in the whole bolt compressor failure analysis, as the specified torque that is lower than that used in the
present study, bolt manufacture that not considers rolling threads, vibrations and so one. But the subject of the present study
is limited to the fatigue strength analysis regarded to the bolt length.
The study was performed on samples of actual size in an attempt to properly reproduce the geometric shape of the joint
in service. However, fatigue tests on M24 bolts exhibit some difficulties. One of the major limitations is the low cyclic loading
frequency. Therefore, only six short bolts and eight long bolts were tested, and it determines only a trend of the fatigue re-
sults [15].
404 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406

Fig. 10. Haigh diagram showing the results of the two bolt types (long and short) and compared to the results of Burguete and Patterson [16].

Table 3
Variables used in the Eqs. (5)–(8). The lengths are in (mm), areas are in (mm2) and the resiliencies are in (mm/MN).

Bolt type d dW dh AN Ad3 lGew lG lM l lK dP dsleeve dS

Long 24 35 26 452.4 283.5 30 12 8 70 50 0.64 0.58 1.90
Short 24 35 26 452.4 283.5 25 12 8 25 50 0.64 – 1.14

Fig. 11. Joint dimensions used in the calculation of the resiliences.

Fig. 12. S–N curves for the long and short bolt studs.
 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406 405

Fig. 13. Fatigue fracture of a M24 long bolt tested.

Fig. 14. Fatigue striations shown in the SEM examination.

As observed by Croccolo et al. [17], it is really difficult to find in technical literature systematic and effective experiments
concerning fatigue tests performed on screws or bolts. Even more difficult is to find studies that take into account the tight-
ened members also, not the bolt only. The tightening of bolts that do not undergo fatigue loads seems to be well understood
and the existing theories seem to be enough to ensure the safety of the joining against the loosening. However, in the case of
external cyclic loads, the prediction of stresses in the bolted joint apparently is not fully understood. This prediction becomes
important for increasing the reliability of bolted joints.
Fatigue tests showed that the longer joint have higher fatigue strength than the shorter one. The Haigh diagram (Fig. 10),
showed the same trend than that of Burguete and Patterson [16], but with lower values, and it can be due to some differences
as manufacture process and bolt size, i.e., machined threads M24 versus commercially rolled threads M12.
The load factor obtained from the measured strains with and without the spread sleeve is respectively 0.3 and 0.4. More-
over, the analytical calculation showed an inverse behavior; the load factor was, respectively, 0.3 and 0.2, for the long and
short joints. There is a difference between the analytical and experimental load factor in the case of the short joint. The
experimental is twice the analytical.
The load factor is proportional to the external load shared to the bolt. Therefore, the portion of the load experienced by
the long bolt should be lower for the same external load P, according to Eq. (1) and according to the experimental measure-
ments. The increase in fatigue strength for a given preload or torque should occur through reducing the bolt stress ampli-
tude. Then, the introduction of the spread sleeve should have increased the member’s stiffness and decreased the bolt
stiffness. It decreased the load factor, and not the contrary, as obtained from the analytical calculations.
There were no significant differences between the preload of the two groups after the same torque. Moreover, longer bolts
experienced higher mean preload (Table 2). The longer joints experienced higher fatigue strength, i.e., higher cyclic external
load P. Despite the fact the Haigh diagram is coherent with Burguete and Patterson [16], the external cyclic load was higher
406 S. Griza et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 397–406

for the long joints. Ultimately, the fatigue strength can be evaluated by the load P which the joint withstands. For example, to
maintain the equality of the Eq. (1) with the increase of load P, the stiffness constant C, or the preload Fi, or both, must be
reduced. In our experiments, the load P increased with decreased experimental load factor, as expected.
The concern is regarding to the analytical prediction of the load factor for the short joint. Some studies suggest that the
deformed volume of the members to be involved in the calculation of the stiffness is smaller than that predicted by the cone
method [7,9]. Others have shown that nonlinearity should be taken into account in a joint subjected to external load [18,19].
The long bolt is more slender, more resilient, and less stiff than the short one. Then, the effect of reducing the bolt stiffness
appears to be more pronounced for predicting the joint stiffness.
Another possibility is that the bolt deformation produced by the tightening is not homogeneous. The longer bolt receives
higher elongation for a given torque, but part of this elongation is focused in the first loaded threads after the face of the nut,
and it leads to greater mean stress and lower stress amplitude of the bolt, with consequent increase in the fatigue strength.
This possibility can be tested if it is possible to measure simultaneously the torque and the extension of the bolt. But it is not
so easy to measure the bolt elongation in the first loaded threads after the face of the nut. However, higher preload was eval-
uated to the longer bolts from the strain measurements.
The use of the spread sleeve causes joint shape change, i.e., the short bolt is surrounded by the higher volume of member’s
material. However, if the joint stiffness is an important factor in the joint design, it would be convenient to achieve fatigue
tests on different bolt lengths and respective member’s thicknesses, but without the use of the spread sleeve. Such studies
are already being performed by our research group and should be published soon.

6. Conclusion

This study showed that increasing the bolt length for the same tightening torque tends to increase the fatigue strength of
the joint. It indicates that the effect of reducing the bolt stiffness by the length increasing is more pronounced than the mem-
ber’s stiffness reduction due to the introduction of a slender spread sleeve.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the financial support of CAPES, CNPq and FINEP.

References

[1] Griza S, Bertoni F, Zanon G, Reguly A, Strohaecker TR. Fatigue in engine connecting rod bolt due to forming laps. Eng Fail Anal 2009;16:1542–8.
[2] Griza Sandro, de Andrade Carlos Eduardo C, Batista Wilton W, Tentardini Eduardo K, Strohaecker Telmo R. Case study of Ti6Al4V pedicle screw failures
due to geometric and microstructural aspects. Eng Fail Anal 2012;25:133–43.
[3] Kulak GL, Fisher JW, Struik JHA. Guide to design criteria for bolted and riveted joints. 2 ed. Chicago; 1987.
[4] Shigley JE, Mischke CR. Mechanical engineering design. 6th ed. McGraw Hill; 2001.
[5] Bickford JH. The handbook of bolts and bolted joints. Hardback edition. Dekker; 1998.
[6] Norton RL. Machine design: an integrated approach. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall; 2000.
[7] Williams JG, Anley RE, Nash DH, et al. Analysis of externally loaded bolted joints: analytical, computational and experimental study. Int J Press Vessels
Pip 2009;86:420–7.
[8] Wileman J, Choudhury M, Green I. Computation of member stiffness in bolted connections. J Mech Des 1991:113.
[9] Alkatan F et al. Equivalent axial stiffness of various components in bolted joints subjected to axial loading. Finite Elem Anal Des 2007;43:589–98.
[10] VDI Handbuch Konstruktion 2230. Systematic calculation of high duty bolted joints – joints with one cylindrical bolt; 2001.
[11] Croccolo D, De Agostinis M, Vincenzi N. Failure analysis of bolted joints: effect of friction coefficients in torque–preloading relationship. Eng Fail Anal
2011;18:364–73.
[12] ISO 898–1. Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy steel – Part 1: Bolts, screws and studs with specified property classes –
coarse thread and fine pitch thread; 2009.
[13] ASTM A 370, Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel products; 2012.
[14] Hirasata K, Hayashi K, Inamoto Y. Friction and wear of several kinds of cast irons under severe sliding conditions. Wear 2007;263:790–800.
[15] ISO 3800. Threaded fasteners – axial load fatigue testing – test methods and evaluation of results; 1993.
[16] Burguete RL, Patterson EA. The effect of mean stress on the fatigue limit of high tensile bolts. J Mech Eng Sci, Part C 1995;209:257–62.
[17] Croccolo D, Agostinis M, Vincenzi N. A contribution to the selection and calculation of screws in high duty bolted joints. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2012;96–
97:38–48.
[18] Lehnhoff TF, Wistehuff WE. Nonlinear effects on the stiffness of bolted joints. J Pressure Vessel Technol 1996:118.
[19] Lehnhoff TF, Bunyard BA. Effects of bolt threads on the stiffness of bolted joints. J Pressure Vessel Technol, ASME 2001;123:161–5.

View publication stats