Physical Test Data For The Appraisal of The Design Procedures For Bolted - MTTRAM & TURVEY PDF

Physical test data for the appraisal
of design procedures for bolted

joints in pultruded FRP structural
shapes and systems
J T Mottram
1
and G J Turvey
2
1
University of Warwick, UK
2
University of Lancaster, UK
Summary
A review is presented of the tests undertaken to
characterize bolted joints (no adhesive bonding)
for pultruded fibre-reinforced plastic (PFRP)
structural shapes and systems. The review is
written with regard to the appraisal of existing
connection design procedures for plate-to-plate
bolted joints. It is shown that 15 uncoordinated
series of tests on single-bolt and multi-bolt double
lap joints provide 800 ultimate strength results.
Each of the series of tests had different objectives
and so different joint variables were studied. This
reflects the current state of guidance on joint
design and installation in pultruders design
manuals and elsewhere, which is shown to be
limited and inconsistent.
By rationalizing the number of variables the
authors have tested a further 900 joints in order
to generate a larger database of strengths and
modes of failure, which may be used to appraise
connection design procedures, such as the Hart-
Smith and EUROCOMP Design Code and
Handbook simplified and rigorous methods.
Observations are made on the findings from 16
series of tests with respect to the current state of
design of PFRP plate-to-plate bolted joints.
Key words: pultruded FRP structurals; bolted joints; test data
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:195222 (DOI: 10.1002/pse.154)
Introduction
Pultruded FRP (PFRP) structural shapes and systems
consist of thin-walled composite profiles having
overall dimensions up to 1000 mm (typically 300 mm
or less) and wall thicknesses up to 25 mm (typically
up to 13 mm). They have prismatic section and
first-generation structural shapes are I, angle, channel
and box[13]. Reinforcement is E-glass fibre in two
forms, namely unidirectional rovings and continuous
filament (or strand) mats. The matrix is a thermoset
resin such as polyester or vinylester, which often
contains filler and other additives. PFRP members are
used in primary load-bearing structures[4] with
mechanical fastening (fabricators often choose
stainless steel bolts) being the preferred method of
connection[5]. Primary joints are expected to provide
strength and stiffness to the PFRP structure
throughout its life[6]. Failure of such joints would
constitute major structural damage and be hazardous
to life. The safe and reliable design of bolted joints is
therefore clearly a priority.
The EUROCOMP Design Code and Handbook[6] is
an independent source of guidance for the design of
load-bearing structures of Glass Reinforced Plastic
(GRP) materials. The writers intended its
recommendations to be suitable to PFRP shapes and
systems. Section 5 in the Code and Handbook provide
guidance for connection design by bonding and
mechanical fastening. Section 5.2 covers mechanically
fastened joints with the principal methods of
connection by bolts and rivets. Clause 5.2.2.2 states
that the performance requirements of bolted and
riveted joints in shear can be satisfied either by testing
or by calculation. The following serviceability limit
state (SLS) and ultimate limit state (ULS) criteria given
in[6], are performance requirements that shall be
satisfied:
a) SLS criteria:
*
deflection due to excessive deformation of
fastener holes;
*
onset of nonlinear loaddeflection behaviour of
joint under constant load;
New Materials in Construction
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:195222
*
separation (at edges) of components or splice
plates fastened together;
*
weather tightness (and/or water tightness) of
joint;
*
fibre debonding or matrix cracking under load
or due to assembly techniques;
*
durability of unsealed edges,
*
fatigue endurance of GRP and fasteners.
b) ULS criteria:
*
ultimate load capacity of complete joint;
*
static failure of joined parts;
*
progressive failure of hole edge leading to
permanent hole elongation greater than 4% of
the hole diameter;
*
fatigue endurance of laminate and fasteners.
Turvey[4] has provided a brief overview of some of
the more noteworthy PFRP structures. In his paper he
emphazises the extensive use of bolting as the main
method of connection for structural shapes. His
overview focuses on moment connections, which are
required, for example, to join beam and column
members. Attention is also given to plate-to-plate
connections where the loading is in the plane of
symmetry and load transfer can be assumed to be in
bearing. Such a connection could be used, for
example, in splice and gusset plate joints in trusses[4].
At the time of writing Turvey observed that the
quality of the plate-to-plate joint test data was very
variable and that the series of tests were limited to a
small numbers of joint tests. The lack of coordination
and cross-correlation was felt to have reduced their
value somewhat.
Since Turveys overview paper[4] appeared the
authors have completed a project on the structural
integrity (SI) of bolted joints in PFRP structures. It
concerns PFRP plate-to-plate joints with single-bolt
and multi-bolt configurations. Fig. 1 shows a 2 2
multi-bolt joint with the various geometric ratios
defined. Staggering the bolt columns is an option in
design. If a joint has a single bolt, the plates width
W 2S. In this paper the completed project will be
known as the SI project. Its objectives were to:
*
test virgin/degraded double lap bolted joints with
practical details; loading was concentric and the
main forms of material degradation were room
temperature/wet and hot/wet conditioning;
*
start to understand the physical response and
damage mechanisms in joints under normal/
adverse conditions;
*
relate measured strengths and damage progression
to predictions by advanced finite element analysis;
*
transform damage tolerant design procedures[6,7],
used with composite materials in the aerospace
sector, into joint design guidance for use in
construction.
In this paper consideration is given to joint test data
for the design of plate-to-plate bolted connections[6].
In-plane loading can be concentric or eccentric in
nature. The material orientation of the joined PFRP
plates is important since their mechanical properties
change significantly with orientation[13]. In the
pultrusion process the direction of pull is the
longitudinal direction, while the direction normal to
this is the transverse direction. The unidirectional
roving reinforcement is aligned with the longitudinal
direction and so mechanical properties are higher in
this direction. The lower strength and stiffness
properties in the transverse direction are due to the
much lower volume fraction of glass fibres aligned in
this direction. In this paper the 08 orientation refers to
the longitudinal direction, while the transverse
direction is the 908 orientation. Off-axis angles
therefore range between these limits.
By co-ordinating the work at the two University
centres of Lancaster (LU) and Warwick (WU), and
including previous results from LU, there are now
some 1100 double lap-joint test results in the larger
database, many with geometric ratios and
environmental conditioning not previously tested.
Not only are ultimate strengths/loads and modes of
failures available from these tests, but also initial
failure strengths/loads. This provides a wide-ranging
and consistent body of data for the community to
appraise the available design procedures, examine
test variability and analyse for cross-correlation. The
Column
of bolts
E/D
P/D
P/D S/D S/D
D
First bolt row
Second bolt row
Concentric tension
Fig. 1 Plate-to-plate joint geometry definitions, D is bolt
diameter, E is end distance, S is side distance, and P is pitch
distance
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION 196
results of the SI project will make an invaluable
contribution to the characterization of PFRP bolted
joints. It is not only relevant to bolted joints for the
current range of pultruded profiles, but also provides
underpinning knowledge for similar mechanically
fastened joints using second-generation profiles,
which are now reaching the market place as the
pultrusion industry diversifies.
The papers contents are presented in three parts. In
the first part current practice in Europe and America
for PFRP bolted connections is reviewed in
conjunction with practice in structural steelwork. The
second part presents basic details of the previous
15 series of tests carried out to determine modes of
failure, strengths, and occasionally stiffnesses of
bolted plate-to-plate joints. Part three presents the
rationale behind the 900 joints tests of the SI project.
Where relevant, links are made between the test data
and the current rudimentary design specification, and
with the need to appraise and further develop
connection design procedures, such as the Hart-
Smith[7] and EUROCOMP Design Code and
Handbook simplified and rigorous methods[6].
Review of current practice
STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
Prior to summarizing the various recommendations
for current practice with PFRP bolted joints, it is
appropriate to summarize what is current practice
with joints in structural steelwork. Specifications for
bolted connections in steelwork as practised in
European countries are available[8]. Black ISO metric
bolts are the most commonly used. With regard to the
joint detailing shown in Fig. 1, the geometric ratios
E/D and S/D should not be less than 1.2 and P/D
should not be less than 2.2. The full bearing value of a
bolt through a connected plate cannot be developed if
the end distance is less than 2D. For end distances
lying between the minimum of 1.2D and 2.2D the
bearing value is reduced proportionally. In general
situations a clearance hole is present, often equal to
bolt diameter plus 2 mm. For bolt diameters 424 mm
the hole size is equal to bolt diameter plus 3 mm. Bolts
for bearing-type connections can be used with or
without pre-load. There are also high-strength friction
grip bolts where slip in the connection is not
permitted at the SLS or ULS, and for these joints the
load is carried entirely by static frictional force (there
is no bolt bearing). The minimum end distance E for
the full resistance is now 3D. Fitted bolts can be used
with the corresponding holes in steel members in
agreement with ISO fit b 11/H 11[8]. Only pre-loaded
(torqued) bolts can be used when the joint is to be
subjected to fatigue loading.
American practice is similar to that found in
Europe. For joints that are not slip-critical no pre-load
is required. Installation of high-strength bolts to
ASTM A325 (types 13) required a high level of
pre-load prior to 1985, regardless of whether or not it
was necessary. Nowadays, when these bolts are used
in bearing-type joints they need only be tightened to
the snug-tight condition. This condition is defined as
the tightness that exists when all parts in a joint are in
firm, but not necessarily continuous contact. To
generate a pre-load of 70% of the specified minimum
tensile strength of the bolt, the current specification
requires half-a-turn of the nut from the snug-tight
position (the actual degree of the turn is dependent on
the bolt length/D ratio and the disposition of outer
face of the bolted parts). This specification replaces
the need to apply a specified torque since it gives too
much variability in bolt tension. The clearance hole
size is constant at 1.6 mm (1/16 in). Hardened
washers to ASTM F436 with an outer diameter twice
the bolt diameter (same as in Europe) are not required
when A325 bolts are installed by the turn-of-nut
method; they are if these bolts are tightened by the
calibrated wrench method.
STRUCTURAL PFRP
For PFRP shapes and systems several pultruders have
written and maintained their own design manuals[13],
based on in-house testing and a national level of
knowledge and understanding. Each manual
provides specific recommendations for bolted
web-cleat beam-to-column joints and other simple
frame joints[5]. Joint details[13] often mimic equivalent
simple joints in structural steelwork[4]. The resistance
of web-cleat joints is, however, not governed by the
recommended joint geometric ratios in Table 1. The
table presents suggested minimum geometric ratios
for design of the strongest plate-to-plate bolted
joints; the material orientation is not specified. The
geometric ratios are defined in Fig. 1. In what follows
it is assumed that the P/D ratios are the same for the
bolt rows and columns. The geometric ratios in Table
1 are known to be valid for room temperature (RT)
conditions; RT is taken to be 20258C.
The design manuals of the US companies
Strongwell[1] and Creative Pultrusions Inc.[3] use the
minimum geometric ratios given in the American
Society of Civil Engineers Manual 63[9]. It is believed
that the writers of Manual 63 based these on those
given in the 1960 marine design manual for GRPs by
Gibbs & Cox Inc.[10]. These recommended minimum
ratios are for hand lay-up GRP materials (isotropic in
the plane) of unknown thicknesses and unknown bolt
and joint details. Therefore, the actual minimum
ratios might be expected to change when the joints are
of PFRP, as many variables will now be different.
Ratios from Fiberline Composites A/S[2], given in
Table 1, are identical with those given in the Danish
Standard DS456. Company and external laboratory
PULTRUDED FRP STRUCTURAL SHAPES AND SYSTEMS 197
tests have confirmed these ratios; none of the test data
has been made public.
The objective of specifying the minimum geometric
ratios given in Table 1, when there is a single-bolt, is to
have the strongest joint failing in the bearing mode
(this failure mode is often considered benign, because
it is characterized by progressive damage growth[5,6]).
Fig. 2 shows the fracture patterns (dashed lines) of
single-bolt joints failing in bearing and the other
distinct modes known as cleavage, shear-out and net-
tension. These four modes are for concentric tension
loading and a PFRP orientation of either 08 or 908.
Bearing is characterized by the PFRP material
crushing and delaminating in front of where the bolt
bears into the plate. Depending on the joints details
its integrity may remain while this damage region
grows, and the joint is still able to carry a substantial
load. As shown in Fig. 2 the fracture patterns of the
other three modes are characterized by significant
material rupturing, which is likely to occur over a
short period of time, and results in a joint that can
carry, post-failure, little or no load. Except for bearing,
the modes are deemed unacceptable in connection
design because of the brittle nature of failure[6]. Bolt
shear or pull-out failures[6] do not need to be
considered when steel bolts are used, because the bolt
diameter is normally large enough to prevent such
failures.
It is instructive to summarize and comment on
other differences in the limited practical guidance
given in the pultruders design manuals. Strongwell[1]
include tables of allowable loads for bolt bearing and
shear failures. The allowable loads for their own FRP
FIBREBOLT
1
assume a factor of safety of four. The
torque applied to these FRP bolts is not proportional
to the unthreaded cross-sectional area, and maximum
torques of 10.9, 21.7 and 32.5 Nm are recommended
for bolt diameters of 12.7 mm (1/2 in), 16.3 mm
(5/8 in) and 19.05 mm (3/4 in). The shear loads given
in[1], for structural (unless the first S is for stainless)
steel threaded bolts are of unknown origin. Hole
clearance is given as 1.6 mm (1/16 in) in the notes
accompanying the engineering drawings of details of
web-cleat frame connections. The type, size or use of
washers is not given.
Creative Pultrusions Inc.[3] gives specific guidance
for web-cleat frame connections joining their standard
shape structural members. Like Strongwell, this
....................................................................................................................................................
................
....................................................................................................................................
Table 1 Suggested and experimentally determined minimum joint geometric ratios for PFRP bolted joints (at room temperature and no
environmental conditioning)
Reference Plate
thickness t
(mm)
Bolt
diameter/
plate
thickness
D/t
Edge
distance/
bolt
diameter
E/D
Side
distance/
bolt
diameter
S/D
Width
distance/
bolt
diameter
W/D
Pitch
distance/
bolt
diameter
P/D
Clearance
hole size
(mm)
Washer
diameter/
bolt
diameter
[1] 6.3519.05 1.03.0 2.04.5 (3.0)
1
1.53.5 (2.0)
1
4.05.0 (5)
1
4.05.0 (5)
1
1.6
[2] 320 0.516.0 2.5, 3.5 2.0 44.0 44.0 1.0 2.0
[3] 6.3512.7 Unspecified 2.04.5 (3.0)
1
1.53.5 (2.0)
1
4.05.0 (5.0)
1
43.0 1.6 2.5
[6]
2
Unspecified 1.01.5 43.0 4 0.5W/D 4 3.0 43 (4)
1
50.05D 42.0
[13]
3
6.35 1.6 3.0 Single-bolt 4.0 Close fit
(0.10.3)
[14]
3
9.5319.05 0.51.0 5.0
4
Single-bolt 5.0
4
1.6
1
Recommended minimum design value
2
General glass-fibre-reinforced plastics (including PFRPs)
3
From joint tests with tensile load in direction of pultrusion (PFRP material orientation is 08)
4
D is hole diameter (bolt diameter and hole clearance)
Bearing Shear-out Net-tension Cleavage
Concentric tension
Resultant bolt
force
Fig. 2 Failure modes in single-bolt PFRP joints under concentric tension
pultruder recommends clearance holes equal to the
bolt diameter plus 1.6 mm. Based on steel construction
in the USA, the manual recommends high-strength
(minimum 700 N/mm
2
) steel bolts to A325 with grade
five coarse threads. For a 12.7 mm bolt diameter, the
specified low torque is 39 N m (37.5% of bolt proof
load) and the high torque is 77 Nm (75%). This
increases to 77 and 113 N m, respectively, for a
16.3-mm-diameter bolt. This guidance, of unknown
origin, goes against the current USA specification
when using A325 bolts to join steel parts. There is a
reference[3] to single-bolt joint tests performed with
steel grade 8 oversized washers (2.5 times hole
diameter). Such tests were used to construct a table
with bearing strengths defined by the 4% hole
elongation (in accordance with ASTM D5691). These
hole deformation strengths are typically 36% of the
material nominal compressive strength (i.e. 210 MPa)
in the direction of pultrusion.
Fiberline Composites A/S in Denmark gives
guidance for general practice. For plate-to-plate
connection design the manual[2] covers flat plates
(thicknesses 320 mm) fastened by A4 stainless steel
bolts (M6 to M48) in a lap-joint configuration. Simple
design equations, based on bearing, or net-tension or
shear-out failure are given to determine joint strength.
Two tables give bearing capacities at the ULS in the 08
and 908 orientations, with a factor of safety of three.
These tables enable many joint configurations to be
designed from their structural shapes. Hole clearance
is 1 mm for M6 to M48 bolts and the steel washers
under nut and bolt head are twice the bolt diameter.
No bolt torque is specified in the manual (on site a
torque 4100 N m is applied to M16 bolts).
Although none of the three manuals[13] specifies
that the shank in contact with the PFRP material must
be plain, the authors understand that this is standard
practice when steel bolts are used. Such practice is not
possible with Strongwells FRP bolts (FIBREBOLT
1
)
since they have a continuous moulded thread along
their whole length.
The EUROCOMP Design Code[6], in Clause 5.2.2.3,
provides general design requirements for glass-
reinforced plastics, which have their roots in the
aerospace industry. Prior to presenting the
recommended GRP minimum geometric ratios (see
Table 1), it needs to be understood that Clause
5.2.2.3(2) states that PFRPs do not always have a fibre
reinforcement construction which is ideal. By ideal
the code-writers are suggesting that single-bolt and
multi-bolt GRP joints, with suitable E/D, S/D and P/D
ratios, will fail in bearing with a high bearing strength
(i.e. a high joint load). The guidance is seen to be valid
for other GRP materials and should therefore be used
with caution when the connected parts are of PFRP.
Definition Clause 5.2.2.1, given in[6], introduce the
single-bolt joint failures depicted in Fig. 2 (however it
does not include cleavage) and says in 5.2.2.1(7)P that
Shear-out failure also occurs in highly orthotropic
laminates, such as pultruded laminates,
independently of the end distance. Clearly, if this
EUROCOMP definition is always true it precludes
the use PFRP bolted joints in all situations.
We turn now to the design requirements given in
Clause 5.2.2.3 and their implications for PFRP joint
details. Referring to Fig. 1 and Table 1 the minimum
values of E/D and P/D are 3, and S/D is
1.5 (S/D 5 P/D). The joint should be designed,
detailed and formed so that the fasteners (steel bolts
that should be self-locking or fitted with lock nuts,
type(s) not specified) are tightened to a pre-set torque
(not specified) to provide substantial clamping and
lateral restraint around the bolt holes. However, the
strength should be assumed to be that corresponding
to finger-tight conditions (not specified), in which
there is little or no lateral restraint; this is to allow for
the effects of creep, cyclic loading, fatigue and
vibration or their combination. The hole diameter
should not be less than the thickness of the thinnest
part being joined and be no more than one-and-a-half
times the thickness (t) (1 4D/t 41.5). Any clearance
should allow the bolt to be inserted easily, even when
all of the other bolts are in place and finger-tight, but
should not be more than 5% of the bolt diameter. Bolts
should be as tight as possible in the holes without
causing damage to the GRP parts. Great care is
required, therefore, in forming the holes. Washers
shall be fitted under the head and nut of the bolt and
shall have an internal diameter equal to the least
diameter of the hole(s) through which the bolt passes.
The least external diameter of the washer shall not be
less than twice the larger or largest diameter of the
holes. The thickness of the washer shall be sufficient
to provide an even surface pressure over the outer
GRP surfaces. Preferably, the thickness should be not
less than 20% of the thickness of the outermost part
through which the bolt passes.
There are further requirements given in 5.2.2.3 that
are adopted directly from practice in the aerospace
industry. It is seen that this guidance is
comprehensive and in a number of respects
corresponds to what is used in structural steelwork.
Not many of the detailed requirements are to be
found in the pultruders design manuals[13], nor is it
known whether they are appropriate for the design of
PFRP bolted connections.
What is clear from the review of current PFRP
practice is that it is neither coherent nor recognized,
and that it is loosely based on practice in steelwork
construction. By way of very limited, and
unpublished, in-house joint testing, two of the
pultruders design manuals[1,3] do provide engineers
with tables giving allowable bearing strengths for
PFRP plate-to-plate joint design. Guidance in the three
manuals[13] and EUROCOMP Design Code and
Handbook[6] is found to be different and not often
based on a sound scientific understanding gained
from physical testing and numerical modelling. The
specific requirement, derived from the aerospace
industry, to minimize (if not to eliminate) the hole
clearance[6] is the most noteworthy difference from
what is recommended by pultruders[13] and what is
generally practised in steelwork construction.
The question as to whether or not bolts should be pre-
loaded on installation is another important issue
which, as the summary shows, needs to be better
understood if we are to have reliable design
procedures for PFRP joints.
Single-bolt and multi-bolt joint tests:
previous series
As mentioned in the Introduction and the Review of
Current Practice, relevant and reliable data (strengths
and modes of failure) from joint tests are required to:
*
establish specified minimum joint configuration
details, such as the geometric ratios given in
Table 1;
*
underpin the characterization of PFRP joints;
*
assess and refine connection design procedures, as
given in[6] and[7].
Each joints loaddisplacement response and its
mode(s) of failure will be dependent on its specific
details and environmental conditioning. Fig. 3 shows
the two most common forms of loaddisplacement
(stroke) curves from PFRP single-bolt and multi-bolt
joints, tested under stroke control. Some joints fail at
the ultimate load without any significant warning.
This brittle loaddisplacement response is shown in
Fig. 3(a). Note that the ultimate load is attained when
the initial failure load is reached and damage occurs.
The ultimate failure load might occur at the same or
lower load, and at a higher stroke; such a joint does
not possess any damage tolerance[5, 6]. Other joints,
however, do suffer initial damage at a load well
below that for ultimate failure. Their more benign
loaddisplacement response is shown schematically
in Fig. 3(b), whereby once damage (e.g. due to
bearing) occurs there is a reduction in joint stiffness
up to a higher ultimate load. Such joints do possess
damage tolerance and their design is more suited to
the structural integrity design procedures, such as the
simplified and rigorous methods described in
EUROCOMP Design Code and Handbook[6].
In the context of PFRP bolted joints, damage
tolerance means that there is progressive damage
growth, often associated with bolt bearing when the
load is higher than that which causes initial material
damage.
What makes the scope of joint testing enormous
and possibly impractical to cope with is the large
number of joint variables that need to be studied to
cover those found in practice. Inherent test variability
is another important factor, not least because PFRP
materials can have a fibre reinforcement construction
that is nonuniform. The influence of this factor will be
shown later. Ideally, there should be a consensus on
what is a preferred test methodology; to date there is
no recognized test standard available to characterize
PFRP bolted joints.
Initial variables to be studied ought to include: the
type of loading, the materials (bolts and PFRP); the
plate thicknesses and orientations, the joint
geometries (see Fig. 1); the bolt arrangements and the
interface conditions (washer, torque, and clearance
hole). To include data that characterizes the long-term
durability and structural integrity of PFRP joints new
variables to be added to any initial set are likely to be
the serviceability (SSL) loading (creep and cyclic) and
the working environment (e.g. hot/wet, etc.).
Before we can embark on appraising, and further
developing design procedures it is necessary to know
the quality and limitations of the test data, if such
work is to succeed. In this paper nine tables are
presented that report, in a single source, the variables
studied in 16 series of tests on double lap-joints using
PFRP flat sheet materials[1127]. Loading is concentric
and, except as part of one series[15], always tensile. It is
usually applied short-term, by way of a monotonic
stroke rate. The number of joints tested are given in
the tables in parentheses and italic type, e.g. (25)
represents 25 tests. In the tables a question mark
L
o
a
d
L
o
a
d
Stroke Stroke
initial failure
ultimate failure
initial failure
ultimate failure
(a) (b)
Fig. 3 Typical loadstroke characteristics for single-bolt and multi-bolt PFRP joints under stroke controlled concentric tension:
(a) brittle load-displacement characteristic, no damage tolerance; (b) benign loaddisplacement characteristic, damage tolerance
identifies when that column entry has not been
reported in the source reference. The number of
question marks weakens the quality and increases the
limitations of the test results with respect to the
objectives listed above. Joint strengths (and
sometimes stiffnesses) derived from the test
loaddisplacement responses are to be found
elsewhere[1125], and were used to construct
Tables 25. The results from many of the tests in
Tables 69 have not been reported at the time of
writing this article.
PRE-SI PROJECT JOINT TESTS
Tables 2 and 3 present, respectively, a summary of the
concentric single-bolt and multi-bolt tests prior to the
start of the SI project. These 15 series of tests[1125]
were unco-ordinated and it is therefore unsurprising
to find that their scope is very wide ranging. All of the
joints were tested, accept for those by Erki[15], in the
double lap arrangement with either the central or
the outer two plates of PFRP, and, respectively, the
two outer plates or the central plate of structural
grade steel. It is noteworthy that the tests by Erki[15]
had the only joints with all three plates of PFRP.
Table 2 gives information on the 10 series of single-
bolt tests on 640 joints, while Table 3 gives the same
information on 5 series of multi-bolt tests on 160
joints. Tables 49 present equivalent information on
about 270 single-bolt and about 640 multi-bolt joint
tests from the SI project. To date, therefore, this gives a
total of about 1710 strength (and mode of failure)
data points, split 910: 800 between single-bolt and
multi-bolt configurations. Most of the 16 series of tests
had a degree of replication of two or three joints per
batch.
Each table summarizing the joint tests is
constructed of 12 (single-bolt) or 13 (multi-bolt)
columns. The columns are numbered in the first row
of a table. The reference number for the source of
information is given in column 12 or 13 (last), together
with the total number of joints tested. Columns 1 and
2 define the PFRP flat sheet material and the nominal
or measured thickness(es) used. The PFRP materials
were from three pultruders, with by far the majority
of the tests using Strongwell EXTREN
1
500 Series flat
sheet with nominal thicknesses of 6.35, 9.53 and
12.7 mm[1]. It is to be noted that the Fibreforce
Composites Ltd. materials labelled Grey 2, Yellow
and Grey 1 are custom flat sheets[12, 21]. Columns 36
present information on the bolts and their installation.
Except for the tests by Erki[15] (fifth series in Table 2)
the bolts were of structural steel grade. The range of
clearance hole sizes is large, varying from tight fitting
(say 0.10.3 mm clearance) to 6.35 mm[17]. Column 6
gives the bolt torque, or torques when this was a
variable to be studied. Irrespective of the bolt
diameter the torque was often either zero
(pin loaded), or finger-tight (believed to be
53 Nm). The washer size is relevant only if the outer
plates are of PFRP[14, 15], or if used to separate the
inner PFRP plate from the outer plates[12]. Column 7
shows that 15 series had the material orientation at 08
to the direction of loading. Eight series had the
material orientation at 908 and of these six also tested
with material at 458 and other material orientations. In
Tables 2 and 46, columns 8 and 9 give the geometric
ratios W/D and E/D (see Fig. 1). E/D values in
parentheses and underlined are for the single W/D
value given in bold type. Column 10 in Tables 3 and
79 gives the S/D ratios in the multi-bolt tests (Fig. 1).
Column 10 (single-bolt) and 11 (multi-bolt) give, when
available, the stroke or load rate, and information on
the environmental conditioning. Prior to the start of
the SI project, only 30 of the 800 joint tests reported in
Tables 2 and 3 had been subjected to wet ageing[19]
before the loading was applied at RT. None of the
series listed in Tables 2 and 3[1125] include tests on
joints whose temperature is above RT. For multi-bolt
joints, column 12 also presents the constant P/D ratio
in Table 3 and the variable P/D ratios in Tables 79.
Finally, column 11 (single-bolt) and 12 (multi-bolt)
give information on the joint configurations and in
Tables 2 and 3 a breakdown of the number of joints
per group of variables.
SINGLE-BOLT TESTS
Regarding the relevance of the test data in[1120] to our
progress in appraising and developing design
procedures, a number of points can be made from the
basic details given in Tables 2 and 3. Returning to
Table 1 the minimum geometric ratios proposed by
Rosner & Rizkalla[14] and Cooper & Turvey[13] were
supported by their single-bolt tests, in which the joint
variables E/D and W/D were varied from 1.33 and
13.33 (third and fourth row entries in Table 2). Both
series of tests used EXTREN
1
500 Series flat sheet
with a polyester matrix. To explain why the two series
recommend different minima (and different from
those given in the Strongwell design manual[1]), we
need look no further than the differences in the test
set-up. Rosner & Rizkalla used PFRP of thicknesses
9.53 mm (3/8 in), 12.7 mm (1/2 in) and 19.05 mm
(3/4 in), with a bolt hole 1.6 mm (1/16 in,[1]) larger
than the 19.05 mm diameter of the high-strength plain
shank steel bolt. The double lap tests had two outer
PFRP plates and an inner steel plate and standard
steel washers of outer diameter 2D were used. To
comply with Strongwells design manual[1]
specification for their proprietary FIBREBOLT
1
studs
and nuts, a constant torque equal to 32.5 Nm (24 ftlb)
was applied to the 19.05 mm diameter steel bolts. No
recommendation for bolt torque is given by
Strongwell[1] for steel bolts. They tested at a stroke
rate of 2 mm/min, loading at 08, 458 and 908 to the
direction of pultrusion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
l
a
p
-
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
P
F
R
P
f
l
a
t
s
h
e
e
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
-
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
T
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
(
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
-
t
u
r
e
)
[
1
1
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
[
1
2
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
C
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
P
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
s
I
n
c
.
1
2
.
7
A
3
0
7
m
i
l
d
+
h
i
g
h
-
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
.
7
(
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
)
I
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
f
i
t
2
.
7
D
2
o
f
f
1
3
.
5
0
,
4
0
.
8
,
8
1
.
6
,
1
1
2
.
4
,
1
6
3
.
4
09
0
44
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
6
1
,
2
,
3
?s
t
r
o
k
e
(
R
T
)
O
u
t
e
r
(
?
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
a
n
d
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
[
1
1
]
N
o
r
e
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
0
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
2
0
)
N
o
n
-
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
F
i
b
r
e
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
s
L
t
d
.
(
n
o
t
g
i
v
e
n
)
9
.
5
3
?
2
.
2
D
S
m
a
l
l
f
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
?
F
o
r
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
F
o
r
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
T
h
r
e
e
g
r
o
u
p
s
(
1
2
)
S
i
z
e
o
f
c
l
a
m
p
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
[
1
2
]
G
r
e
y
2
6
0
7
.
3
4
4
.
1
9
0
.
5
m
m
/
m
i
n
(
R
T
)
1
.
T
i
g
h
t
-
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
w
a
s
h
e
r
(
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
P
F
R
P
a
n
d
o
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
)
Y
e
l
l
o
w
?
2
.
S
t
e
e
l
p
l
a
t
e
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
a
l
l
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
a
r
e
a
G
r
e
y
1
?
3
.
S
m
o
o
t
h
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
t
e
s
(
a
s
2
.
)
Y
2
.
1
0
1
.
0
5
,
1
.
5
7
,
2
.
1
,
3
.
1
5
,
4
.
2
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
?
s
t
e
e
l
(
?
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
Y
3
.
1
5
1
.
0
5
,
2
.
1
,
3
.
1
5
,
4
.
2
,
6
.
3
Y
a
n
d
G
2
Y
4
.
0
1
.
0
5
,
2
.
1
,
3
.
1
5
,
5
.
2
,
6
.
3
,
7
.
3
4
0
G
2
3
.
1
5
4
.
2
,
5
.
2
,
6
.
3
,
8
.
4
,
1
0
.
5
3
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
(
9
5
+
3
)
G
2
4
.
7
2
5
.
2
,
6
.
3
,
7
.
3
,
9
.
4
4
,
1
3
.
6
G
2
7
.
3
4
6
.
3
,
8
.
4
,
9
.
4
4
,
1
0
.
5
,
1
2
.
6
,
1
4
.
7
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
1
0
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
3
5
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
T
i
g
h
t
f
i
t
(
0
.
1
0
.
3
)
N
o
n
e
0
,
3
,
3
0
(
t
o
r
q
u
e
w
r
e
n
c
h
)
0
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
7
4
,
4
,
4
,
(
1
.
5
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
)
,
4
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
?
s
t
e
e
l
(
?
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
[
1
3
]
S
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
2
,
4
,
6
,
8
,
1
0
5
,
5
,
5
,
5
,
(
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
)
1
0
k
N
/
m
i
n
2
,
4
,
6
,
8
,
1
0
6
.
5
,
6
.
5
,
6
.
5
,
6
.
5
,
(
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
.
5
)
(
R
T
)
3
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
(
8
1
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
8
1
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
9
.
5
3
1
2
.
7
1
9
.
0
5
1
9
.
0
5
h
i
g
h
-
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
1
.
6
(
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
s
l
i
p
o
f
1
.
1
m
m
)
?P
h
o
t
o
s
h
o
w
s
w
a
s
h
e
r
i
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
3
2
.
5
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
F
I
B
R
E
B
O
L
T
1
b
o
l
t
a
n
d
n
u
t
o
f
34
i
n
f
[
1
]
0(
2
2
)
0
,
4
5
,
9
0
(
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
)
0(
2
0
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
m
a
t
r
i
x
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
s
1
.
3
3
1
3
.
3
3
2
0
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
,
w
i
t
h
s
a
m
e
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
r
a
t
i
o
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
t
e
s
t
g
r
o
u
p
s
0
.
0
1
m
m
/
s
(
R
T
)
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
P
F
R
P
a
n
d
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
?
s
t
e
e
l
(
?
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
[
1
4
]
N
o
r
e
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
0
2
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
0
2
)
?
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
1
2
.
7
1
9
.
0
5
F
I
B
R
E
B
O
L
T
1
m
i
l
d
s
t
e
e
l
t
h
r
e
a
d
e
d
a
n
d
s
h
a
n
k
[
1
]
1
.
6
N
o
n
e
?
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
o
r
t
i
g
h
t
e
n
e
d
b
y
h
a
l
f
t
u
r
n
o
f
n
u
t
0
,
4
5
,
9
0
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
}
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
p
h
o
t
o
s
2
.
5
m
m
/
m
i
n
(
R
T
)
A
s
R
o
s
n
e
r
a
n
d
R
i
z
k
a
l
l
a
[
1
4
]
I
n
n
e
r
P
F
R
P
p
l
a
t
e
2
5
.
4
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
[
1
5
]
8
(
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
)
3
(
T
)
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
(
2
8
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
6
3
)
8
(
C
o
m
p
.
)
?
(
C
)
h
i
g
h
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
3
5
)
?
3
6
s
t
e
e
l
?
T
i
g
h
t
f
i
t
?
?
0
,
9
0
2
t
o
7
2
1
m
m
/
m
i
n
(
R
T
)
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
?
s
t
e
e
l
(
?
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
2
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
(
2
0
)
[
1
6
]
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
2
0
)
N
o
l
o
a
d
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
9
.
5
3
1
2
.
7
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
0
6
.
3
5
?
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
0
8
8
?
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
h
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
2
5
)
[
1
7
]
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
2
5
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
3
5
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
T
i
g
h
t
f
i
t
(
0
.
1
0
.
3
)
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
(
a
b
o
u
t
3
)
3
0
4
,
6
,
8
,
1
0
6
,
6
,
6
,
(
3
,
4
.
5
,
6
)
1
0
k
N
/
m
i
n
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
?
s
t
e
e
l
(
?
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
[
1
8
]
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
4
5
4
,
6
,
8
,
1
0
6
,
6
,
6
,
(
3
,
4
.
5
,
6
)
(
R
T
)
T
h
r
e
e
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
(
8
1
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
8
1
)
9
0
4
,
6
,
8
,
1
0
6
,
6
,
6
,
(
3
,
4
.
5
,
6
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
?E
X
T
R
E
N
1
6
2
5
s
e
r
i
e
s
v
i
n
y
l
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
3
5
1
2
.
7
s
t
e
e
l
A
S
T
M
A
3
2
5
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
1
.
6
P
i
n
-
l
o
a
d
e
d
,
n
o
w
a
s
h
e
r
(
s
p
a
c
e
r
s
?
)
P
i
n
-
l
o
a
d
e
d
0
5
3
,
4
,
5
0
.
6
4
m
m
/
m
i
n
(
R
T
,
d
r
y
)
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
7
6
.
2
m
m
s
t
e
e
l
(
6
.
4
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
(
1
5
)
[
1
9
]
3
0
,
4
5
,
9
0
6
5
(
R
T
,
d
r
y
)
(
5
,
4
,
5
)
0
,
9
0
0
55
55
(
2
2
o
C
w
e
t
)
(
R
T
,
h
u
m
i
d
)
S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
i
n
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
1
7
1
d
a
y
s
(
5
,
5
)
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
A
S
T
M
D
5
2
2
9
,
1
3
8
d
a
y
s
(
0
.
5
7
%
)
(
5
)
G
l
a
v
a
n
i
z
e
d
U
S
S
2
.
5
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
3
5
.
6
m
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
P
F
R
P
p
l
a
t
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
03
0
,
4
5
,
6
0
,
9
0
56
3
,
4
,
5
5
(
R
T
,
d
r
y
)
(
1
5
)
(
4
,
4
,
4
,
5
)
0
,
9
0
0
55
55
(
2
2
o
C
w
e
t
)
(
R
T
,
h
u
m
i
d
)
S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
i
n
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
1
7
1
d
a
y
s
(
5
,
5
)
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
A
S
T
M
D
5
2
2
9
,
1
3
8
d
a
y
s
(
0
.
5
7
%
)
(
5
)
(
6
1
d
r
y
,
3
0
w
e
t
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
9
1
)
?
9
.
5
3
1
2
.
7
s
t
a
i
n
l
e
s
s
s
t
e
e
l
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
C
l
o
s
e
f
i
t
5
0
.
8
?
0
t
o
3
4
J
(
N
m
)
(
6
.
8
,
1
3
.
6
,
2
0
.
3
,
2
7
.
1
,
3
3
.
9
J
)
?
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
0
,
1
5
,
3
0
,
4
5
,
6
0
,
7
5
,
9
0
?
(
R
T
)
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
s
t
s
(
t
h
r
e
e
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
f
r
o
m
F
i
g
.
4
)
(
2
1
)
[
2
0
]
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
s
e
e
a
l
s
o
[
1
7
]
?
b
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
T
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
W
/
D
7
a
n
d
E
/
D
4
.
5
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
t
e
s
t
s
(
f
o
u
r
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
f
r
o
m
F
i
g
.
5
)
(
2
4
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
4
5
)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
2
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
-
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
T
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
(
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
-
t
u
r
e
)
[
1
1
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
[
1
2
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Cooper & Turvey[13], in contrast, used a single PFRP
thickness of 6.35 mm (1/4 in) with a bolt hole slightly
larger (0.10.3 mm) than the plain shank M10 steel
bolt (grade 8.8). Their double lap-joints had outer steel
plates and the inner plate was PFRP, and no washers
were installed between the PFRP inner plate and steel
outer plates. Testing characterized the three different
torque levels of 0 Nm (pin-bearing), 3 N m (lightly
clamped) and 30 N m (fully clamped). Load was
applied at a constant rate of 10 kN/min, and the
material orientation was 08. The positive effect on
lateral constraint of increasing the torque from 3 to
30 N m increased the mean failure load (strength) by
50%. Recommending assembly with fully clamped
bolts, Cooper & Turveys parameters[13] in Table 1
were based on the resistance data at the lower
(finger-tight) torque of 3 N m. This is in accordance
with the EUROCOMP design code requirements from
Clause 5.2.2.3 given earlier. Both series support a
minimum W/D of 4 (higher than the value of 3 in the
Design Code and Handbook[6], and demonstrate that
the design manuals minimum E/D of 2 (Table 1) is too
low if failure is to be in bearing (Fig. 2).
All of the series in Tables 2 and 3 provide useful
data for the future preparation of generalized design
guidance (which might be based on several
connection design procedures). It is observed that the
15 series of tests each set out with their own specific
objectives. From the single-bolt series in Table 2 we
see that Abd-El-Naby & Hollaway[12] considered the
effect of friction (by changing the clamping area when
the bolt torque was finger-tight), and changing the
ratios W/D and E/D. Erkis tests[15] provide the only
compression loaded strength results (520 in number).
She compared the mean ultimate failure loads under
different torques when the bolts were FRP
(FIBREBOLT
1
) and steel. This showed that the FRP
bolt was the weak link and that the strength was
between 0.4 and 0.6 of its value when a steel bolt
would ensure that the PFRP failed first. Yuan,
Liu & Daley[17] investigated how strength changed
with clearance (06.35 mm, in increments of 1.6 mm).
They found that for a clearance above 1.6 mm there
was a decrease in joint strength with increasing
clearance. For the American recommended clearance
of 1.6 mm, the tests by Yuan et al. showed no load
reduction compared to the no-clearance situation.
Turvey[18] showed that if material orientation is not 08
there is little evidence of any benign failure under
tension loading. The failures for orientations of 308
and 458 were interesting, because they also showed
that cracks propagated along the unidirectional
rovings. Fig. 4 shows schematically the fracture
patterns as observed on the surface of joints with 30
and 45 degrees orientations. Turvey[18] saw that these
could be viewed either (negatively) as zones of
weakness, or alternatively (positively) as crack guides
and/or arresters. Steffen[19] was the first to show that
there is a strength reduction on ageing stress-free
PFRP joints in water (even at RT) prior to testing.
Finally, Yuan & Liu[20] looked at changing material
orientation and bolt torque for an unspecified joint
geometry that gave bearing failure for 08 orientation.
They conducted their tests according to ASTM D953,
Procedure A, Standard Test Method for Bearing
Strength of Plastics and found that the bearing
strength at 4% bolt hole deformation, as defined in
D953, compared favourably with the incipient failure
load (or initial failure load) in their test series. This
finding appears to contradict the findings of Yuan, Liu
& Daley[17].
Fig. 2 shows the four most common ultimate modes
of failure when the single bolts resistance does not
cause joint failure. Of these four, those of bearing,
shear-out and net-tension are considered as distinct
modes in various connection design procedures[2,57].
The tests on 08 material[1120] confirm that all these
modes can occur by changing E/D and W/D. No
series showed that the mode of failure changed on
increasing bolt torque (probably because the E/D
ratios were not less than 4 in these tests).
The degree of clamping between the plates does
raise the load for initial damage and causes the joints
post-yield response to show less damage growth.
Doyle[11] comments on the need to define a relative
joint displacement or some other predetermined value
to define the onset of (initial) bearing failure. When
the UD reinforcement is at 908 to the load the most
probable failure mode is net-tension (or cleavage,
which might be due to a tension rupture on one side
of the hole first)[14,15,1820]. Off-axis joint tests[14,18,20] all
show (Fig. 4) that the resultant crack patterns do not
correspond to one of the distinct modes shown in
Fig. 2. Several papers mention that failure could
appear to be a combination of the distinct modes in
Fig. 2[14,16,18,19]. These observations on failure will
influence joint design.
Most sources for the 10 series of tests cited
in Table 2 present a limited number of typical
loaddisplacement plots. Their characteristics can be
seen to fit one of the two common joint responses
shown in Fig. 3. The beneficial restraint on initial
failure from a clamping pressure when the bolt is
pre-loaded is seen to make the response in
Fig. 3(b) more likely. Vangrimde[28] has suggested
that the usefulness of the joint displacement is
dependent on what it measures. He states that
designers are not interested in hole elongation, but
rather in the local bearing deformation. He advocates
that the design property should be the bearing
displacement and not the elongation of the hole as
prescribed in ASTM D5961. In order to determine a
bearing displacement the second measurement point
must be at a sufficient distance from the hole such that
the stress concentrations no longer have an
influence[28].
Such a measurement methodology is not
universally recognised and so Vangrimdes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
3
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
l
a
p
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
P
F
R
P
f
l
a
t
s
h
e
e
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
-
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
D
)
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
0
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
-
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
S
/
D
[
1
1
]
T
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
(
t
e
m
p
)
[
1
2
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
(
)
[
1
3
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
N
o
n
-
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
F
i
b
r
e
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
s
L
t
d
.
6
9
.
5
s
t
e
e
l
C
l
o
s
e
-
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
0
.
1
m
m
F
r
o
m
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
[
1
2
]
w
a
s
h
e
r
h
a
d
o
u
t
e
r
f
2
.
2
D
i
n
n
e
r
S
m
a
l
l
l
c
l
a
m
p
i
n
g
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
f
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
)
0
7
.
3
6
,
1
5
.
7
6
.
3
2
?
A
l
l
P
/
D
1
0
A
l
l
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
s
t
e
e
l
,
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
C
h
a
n
g
e
d
s
t
e
e
l
p
l
a
t
e
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
?
)
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
1
2
)
?
[
2
1
]
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
2
)
G
r
e
y
2
B
l
u
e
1
44
f
1
D
00
1
2
.
6
6
6
.
3
2
6
B
l
u
e
2
N
o
m
i
n
a
l
C
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
P
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
s
I
n
c
.
S
e
r
i
e
s
1
5
0
0
1
2
.
7
1
5
.
9
h
i
g
h
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
t
e
e
l
0
.
1
2
7
m
m
0
.
0
0
5
i
n
c
h
t
i
g
h
t
f
i
t
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
?0
4
.
8
2
.
4
T
y
p
e
A
s
i
n
g
l
e
b
o
l
t
[
2
2
]
4
.
8
2
.
4
?
A
l
l
P
/
D
4
.
8
T
y
p
e
B
:
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
4
.
8
2
.
4
1
(
R
T
)
T
y
p
e
C
:
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
r
o
w
4
.
8
2
.
4
1
T
y
p
e
D
:
f
o
u
r
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
w
o
r
o
w
s
a
n
d
t
w
o
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
4
.
8
2
.
4
1
T
y
p
e
E
:
f
o
u
r
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
w
o
r
o
w
s
a
n
d
t
w
o
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
(
s
t
a
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
2
.
4
D
)
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
s
t
e
e
l
(
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
?
)
,
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
(
1
5
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
5
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
1
2
.
7
1
9
.
0
5
h
i
g
h
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
h
a
n
k
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
1
.
6
(
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
s
l
i
p
o
f
1
.
1
m
m
)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
b
o
l
t
s
,
s
e
e
R
o
s
n
e
r
R
i
z
k
a
l
l
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
s
e
r
i
e
s
[
1
4
]
3
2
.
5
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
F
I
B
R
E
B
O
L
T
b
o
l
t
a
n
d
n
u
t
o
f
34
i
n
f
[
1
]
0
,
9
0
4
5
0
,
9
0
4
5
0
,
9
0
0
,
9
0
0
,
9
0
4
.
9
,
7
.
4
,
9
.
8
6
,
1
2
.
3
3
9
.
8
6
4
.
9
,
6
.
1
7
,
7
.
4
4
.
9
7
.
4
,
9
.
8
6
,
1
2
.
3
3
,
1
4
.
8
4
.
1
1
,
4
.
9
3
,
5
.
7
5
4
.
9
,
6
.
1
7
,
7
.
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
1
.
8
5
,
3
.
0
8
,
4
.
9
3
0
.
7
3
,
1
.
0
4
,
1
.
3
5
0
.
7
3
,
1
.
0
4
,
1
.
3
5
N
/
A
0
.
5
4
,
0
.
8
5
,
1
.
1
6
0
.
0
0
1
m
m
/
s
R
T
A
l
l
P
/
D
4
T
y
p
e
A
:
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
T
y
p
e
B
:
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
r
o
w
T
y
p
e
C
:
t
h
r
e
e
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
T
y
p
e
D
:
t
h
r
e
e
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
r
o
w
T
y
p
e
E
:
f
o
u
r
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
w
o
r
o
w
s
a
n
d
t
w
o
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
(
1
0
5
)
[
2
3
]
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
P
F
R
P
,
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
t
e
e
l
(
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
?
)
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
a
m
e
a
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
b
y
R
o
s
n
e
r
a
n
d
R
i
z
k
a
l
l
a
[
1
4
]
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
0
5
)
?
1
2
.
7
1
5
.
9
s
t
e
e
l
t
i
g
h
t
f
i
t
?
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
2
7
t
o
8
1
?
0
4
.
8
4
.
8
4
.
8
4
.
8
N
/
A
N
/
A
?
O
n
e
t
o
f
o
u
r
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
(
?
)
[
2
4
]
0
.
2
5
4
,
0
.
3
8
1
,
0
.
5
8
4
0
.
8
1
3
,
?
4
.
8
4
.
8
N
/
A
R
T
2
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
(
?
)
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
s
t
e
e
l
(
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
?
)
,
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
2
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
t
h
r
e
e
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
S
u
g
g
e
s
t
s
r
e
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
2
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
2
)
?F
i
b
r
e
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
s
L
t
d
.
?
?
?(
t
i
g
h
t
f
i
t
)
?
4
p
i
n
n
e
d
?00
2
,
3
.
3
,
4
.
2
,
5
,
6
1
6
?3
N
/
A
3
?(
R
T
)
F
o
u
r
b
o
l
t
s
i
n
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
(
1
0
)
A
l
l
P
/
D
5
?
(
6
)
[
2
5
]
N
i
n
e
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
h
r
e
e
r
o
w
s
a
n
d
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
E
i
g
h
t
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
r
o
w
,
t
w
o
t
h
r
e
e
b
o
l
t
r
o
w
s
T
w
o
p
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
3
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
-
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
D
)
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
0
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
-
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
S
/
D
[
1
1
]
T
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
(
t
e
m
p
)
[
1
2
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
(
)
[
1
3
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
n
o
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
S
i
x
b
o
l
t
s
,
o
n
e
t
w
o
a
n
d
t
h
r
e
e
b
o
l
t
s
p
e
r
r
o
w
E
i
g
h
t
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
w
o
t
h
r
e
e
b
o
l
t
r
o
w
s
,
a
n
d
o
n
e
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
r
o
w
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
?
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
S
i
x
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
h
r
e
e
t
w
o
a
n
d
o
n
e
b
o
l
t
s
p
e
r
r
o
w
E
i
g
h
t
b
o
l
t
s
,
t
w
o
t
h
r
e
e
a
n
d
t
w
o
b
o
l
t
s
p
e
r
r
o
w
?
N
o
r
e
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
1
6
)
1
T
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
W
/
D
r
a
t
i
o
s
i
n
c
o
l
u
m
n
8
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
l
i
n
k
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
S
/
D
r
a
t
i
o
s
i
n
c
o
l
u
m
n
1
0
[
2
3
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
4
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
l
a
p
-
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
e
l
e
v
a
t
e
d
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
n
o
w
e
t
a
g
e
i
n
g
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
D
)
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
-
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
E
/
D
[
9
]
W
/
D
[
1
0
]
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
[
1
1
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
2
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
4
0
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
0
.
2
(
t
i
g
h
t
i
s
h
f
i
t
)
N
o
n
e
,
o
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
(
8
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
(
5
3
N
m
)
0
5227
751
0
3
R
T
,
4
0
o
C
,
6
0
o
C
,
8
0
o
C
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
C
l
e
a
v
a
g
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
a
r
-
o
u
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
N
e
t
-
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
[
2
6
]
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
3
4
5
5
7
R
T
,
4
0
o
C
,
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
(
t
o
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
2
5
6
0
o
C
,
8
0
o
C
C
l
e
a
v
a
g
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
T
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
2
1
0
S
h
e
a
r
-
o
u
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
W
a
n
g
)
7
3
N
e
t
-
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
2
9
0
5
7
R
T
,
4
0
o
C
,
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
2
5
6
0
o
C
,
8
0
o
C
C
l
e
a
v
a
g
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
2
1
0
S
h
e
a
r
-
o
u
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
7
3
N
e
t
-
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
[
2
7
]
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
3
*
F
o
u
r
e
l
e
v
a
t
e
d
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
n
o
a
g
e
i
n
g
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
.
(
1
3
2
)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
5
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
-
l
a
p
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
-
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
[
8
]
E
/
D
[
9
]
W
/
D
[
1
0
]
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
[
1
1
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
2
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
D
(
m
m
)
(
m
m
)
(
N
m
)
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
-
t
u
r
e
W
a
t
e
r
i
m
m
e
r
s
i
o
n
(
w
e
e
k
s
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
6
.
4
0
M
1
0
0
.
2
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
0
5
7
R
T
0
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
(
t
o
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
1
.
2
(
5
3
N
m
)
0
5
7
6
0
o
C
6
.
5
b
y
T
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
2
.
2
0
5
7
8
0
o
C
1
3
W
a
n
g
)
2
.
2
4
5
5
7
6
0
o
C
0
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
3
0
.
2
4
5
5
7
8
0
o
C
6
.
5
1
.
2
4
5
5
7
R
T
1
3
1
.
2
9
0
5
7
8
0
o
C
0
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
o
f
2
.
2
9
0
5
7
R
T
6
.
5
s
t
e
e
l
(
8
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
)
0
.
2
9
0
5
7
6
0
o
C
1
3
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
0
.
2
0
2
5
R
T
0
C
l
e
a
v
a
g
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
1
.
2
0
2
5
6
0
o
C
6
.
5
2
.
2
0
2
5
8
0
o
C
1
3
2
.
2
4
5
2
5
6
0
o
C
0
0
.
2
4
5
2
5
8
0
o
C
6
.
5
1
.
2
4
5
2
5
R
T
1
3
1
.
2
9
0
2
5
8
0
o
C
0
2
.
2
9
0
2
5
R
T
6
.
5
0
.
2
9
0
2
5
6
0
o
C
1
3
0
.
2
0
2
1
0
R
T
0
S
h
e
a
r
-
o
u
t
1
.
2
0
2
1
0
6
0
o
C
6
.
5
d
e
s
i
g
n
2
.
2
0
2
1
0
8
0
o
C
1
3
2
.
2
4
5
2
1
0
6
0
o
C
0
0
.
2
4
5
2
1
0
8
0
o
C
6
.
5
1
.
2
4
5
2
1
0
R
T
1
3
1
.
2
9
0
2
1
0
8
0
o
C
0
2
.
2
9
0
2
1
0
R
T
6
.
5
0
.
2
9
0
2
1
0
6
0
o
C
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
:
(
8
1
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
observation is a reason why the plots given
elsewhere[1120] cannot readily be compared. When the
mode of failure is bearing, the loaddisplacement
characteristics for 08 single-bolt joints, without
significant bolt torque, are seen to be similar to those
shown in Fig. 3(a)[13,14]. The initial part shows
virtually linear elastic behaviour up to the ultimate
load (a change in slope between 80 and 100% of the
ultimate load would indicate the presence of initial
failure). Following attainment of the ultimate load, the
load reduces to between 70 and 80% of its ultimate,
and remains constant (or increases if the failing
material in front of the bolt(s) is laterally restrained
and has nowhere to go), as the displacement increases
up to several times the displacement at ultimate load.
Under these conditions the loaddisplacement
response (Fig. 3(a)) provides evidence of
pseudo-ductility[14,15,20].
It can be expected that joint collapse in real
structures will be dynamic in nature. Stresses causing
such failure will be generated by a load situation that
will, for a short period of time at least, remain the
same as it was for the joint state just prior to the
ultimate load situation. In stroke control joint tests,
the load must follow the instantaneous stiffness of the
specimen. Here, when there is progressive damage,
the continuous change in the joints stiffness governs
the load that can be transferred by the joint itself. In
the real situation, an instantaneous change in load
with instantaneous change in stiffness cannot occur,
and so ultimate failure is more likely to occur with
little additional joint displacement (unless the
ultimate load is higher than the initial damage load).
We conclude from this observation that bearing
failure and its progressive damage growth (see
Fig. 3a) does not always guarantee a joints ductility.
Ductility can be realized only if the joint
displacement can be several times greater than at the
initial damage load and the higher ultimate load is
reached only after this higher displacement has .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
4
0
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
0
.
2
1
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
0
.
2
1
.
2
1
.
2
2
.
2
0
.
2
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
(
5
3
N
m
)
0004
5
4
5
4
5
9
0
9
0
9
0
777777777
333333333
R
T
6
0
o
C
8
0
o
C
6
0
o
C
8
0
o
C
R
T
8
0
o
C
R
T
6
0
o
C
06
.
5
1
3
06
.
5
1
3
06
.
5
1
3
N
e
t
-
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
(
t
o
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
T
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
W
a
n
g
)
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
3
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
(
8
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
[
2
7
]
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
:
(
1
0
8
)
30
45
(a) (b)
Concentric tension
Fig. 4 Failure modes in single-bolt joints under concentric
tension and off-axis PFRP plate orientation (from[18]): (a) 308;
(b) 458
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
6
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
b
o
l
t
l
o
a
d
e
d
d
o
u
b
l
e
-
l
a
p
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
-
[
8
]
E
/
D
[
9
]
W
/
D
[
1
0
]
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
[
1
1
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
[
1
2
]
R
e
f
.
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
D
(
m
m
)
(
m
m
)
(
N
m
)
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
T
e
m
-
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
W
a
t
e
r
i
m
-
m
e
r
s
i
o
n
(
w
e
e
k
)
t
i
o
n
s
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
4
0
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
0
.
2
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
(
5
3
N
m
)
0
5
7
R
T
6
0
o
C
8
0
o
C
R
T
6
.
5
6
.
5
6
.
5
1
3
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
(
t
o
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
T
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
W
a
n
g
)
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
2
6
0
o
C
1
3
8
0
o
C
1
3
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
(
8
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
7
3
R
T
6
.
5
N
e
t
-
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
6
0
o
C
6
.
5
d
e
s
i
g
n
8
0
o
C
6
.
5
R
T
1
3
6
0
o
C
1
3
8
0
o
C
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
:
(
2
4
)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
7
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
l
a
p
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
P
F
R
P
f
l
a
t
s
h
e
e
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
b
y
T
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
W
a
n
g
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
-
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
S
/
D
[
1
1
]
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
-
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
[
1
2
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
3
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
4
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
0
.
2
(
t
i
g
h
t
i
s
h
f
i
t
)
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
(
5
3
N
m
)
0
J
o
i
n
t
s
A
,
B
+
C
4
,
6
8
,
8
4
,
8
R
T
a
n
d
a
t
6
0
8
C
J
o
i
n
t
s
A
,
B
+
C
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
3
(
t
o
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
T
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
W
a
n
g
)
8
,
1
0
2
4
N
o
a
g
e
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
m
e
r
s
e
d
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
6
.
5
w
e
e
k
s
a
t
R
T
a
n
d
a
t
6
0
o
C
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
4
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
(
8
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
)
i
n
n
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
P
F
R
P
4
,
6
4
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
5
8
,
8
4
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
6
4
,
8
4
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
7
8
,
1
0
4
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
8
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
,
B
a
n
d
C
(
F
i
g
.
6
)
4
,
6
6
2
F
o
u
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
9
8
,
8
6
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
0
4
,
8
6
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
1
8
,
1
0
6
4
T
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
1
0
k
N
/
m
i
n
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
2
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
3
(
1
4
4
p
e
r
j
o
i
n
t
t
y
p
e
)
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
(
4
3
2
)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
8
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
l
a
p
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
P
F
R
P
f
l
a
t
s
h
e
e
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
b
y
M
o
t
t
r
a
m
a
n
d
L
u
t
z
.
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
-
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
S
/
D
[
1
1
]
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
-
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
-
i
n
g
[
1
2
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
3
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
6
.
4
M
1
0
0
.
2
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
0
J
o
i
n
t
s
B
a
n
d
C
J
o
i
n
t
s
B
a
n
d
C
(
t
o
b
e
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
(
t
i
g
h
t
i
s
h
f
i
t
)
(
5
3
N
m
)
6
2
2
R
T
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
)
O
u
t
e
r
p
l
a
t
e
s
P
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
8
2
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
2
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
(
8
m
m
j
o
i
n
t
s
B
a
n
d
8
2
2
N
o
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
3
t
h
i
c
k
)
i
n
n
e
r
C
a
n
d
6
2
5
1
0
2
4
a
g
e
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
4
p
l
a
t
e
P
E
R
P
s
e
r
i
e
s
v
i
n
y
l
e
s
t
e
r
f
o
r
j
o
i
n
t
s
D
6
4
2
i
m
m
e
r
s
e
d
i
n
8
4
4
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
5
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
81
0
44
24
6
.
5
w
e
e
k
s
a
t
R
T
a
n
d
a
t
6
0
o
C
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
6
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
7
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
8
t
i
o
n
s
B
a
n
d
C
(
F
i
g
.
6
)
T
w
o
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
6
6
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
9
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
3
8
6
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
0
(
7
2
p
e
r
j
o
i
n
t
8
6
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
1
t
y
p
e
s
B
a
n
d
C
)
1
0
6
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
:
(
1
4
4
)
J
o
i
n
t
D
8
4
2
R
T
o
n
l
y
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
5
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
-
1
6
4
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
6
t
i
o
n
s
D
(
F
i
g
.
6
)
8
4
2
O
n
e
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
7
1
6
4
4
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
8
8
6
2
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
9
1
6
6
4
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
0
8
6
2
S
t
r
o
k
e
r
a
t
e
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
1
1
6
6
4
0
.
0
1
m
m
/
s
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
:
(
2
4
)
occurred. This is the joint loaddisplacement response
shown in Fig. 3(b). Increased lateral constraint via an
adequate torque has been found, in one of the series of
tests, to aid this more desirable joint response[13].
When the geometric ratios E/D and W/D are too
low (below the minimum values given in Table 1), or
when the orientation of the material is 4308, the
mode of failure in single-bolt joints is not bearing and
appears distinctly brittle. The reported load
displacement characteristics show a rapid drop in
load after reaching the ultimate load (i.e. there is no
joint ductility)[1315]. With the UD roving
reinforcement perpendicular to the load, failure in 908
joint tests is brittle and net-tension. Based on quoted
08 908 material strengths[1], Erki[15] and Turvey[18]
found that the joint efficiency was more than 1.5 times
higher when the PFRP material was oriented at 908.
This does not mean that the 908 joint is the stronger
configuration. The 08 joint has the higher ultimate
load (1.3 times higher) because its material strength is
twice that of the 908 material.
MULTI-BOLT TESTS
Of the five series of multi-bolt joint tests[2125] listed in
Table 3 only that from Hassan, Mohamedien &
Rizkalla[23] provides more than 16 individual test
results. Their 105 different joint tests, for five joint
configurations, continued the single-bolt work of
Rosner & Rizkalla[14], in which 102 different joints
were tested (there was no replication). Joint details
were in accordance with the guidance given in the
Strongwell design manual[1]. Both series were used to
develop a new design procedure[29,30] for PFRP joints
based on the Hart-Smith design procedure[7]. Hassan
et al. found that when E/D 2, and there was a single
row of two (2 1), or three (3 1) bolts, failure was in
the cleavage mode at the first bolt from the free edges.
A different cleavage mode was found when E/D 2
and the joint configurations had two or three bolts in a
single column (i.e. 1 2 or 1 3). For the joints with
two rows and two columns of bolts (2 2), failure was
net-tension at the first row of bolts, when E/D 2.
The first bolt row in a multi-row joint is that closest to
the tension load in the unnotched plate, and this is
shown in Figs. 1 and 5. This bolt row experiences the
highest stresses due to the higher resultant bolt
force(s) (due to bearing) and the presence of the
tension by-pass load[7], which provides the lower
resultant bolt forces at the second (Fig. 1), and
subsequent bolt rows. For all joints with E/D 42 the
ultimate mode of failure was net-tension. All joints
showed signs of bearing damage after failure; this
would probably not have occurred had the bolts not
been pre-loaded (the torque was 32.5 kN m). The two
multi-bolt cleavage modes observed by Hassan et al.[23]
are shown in Figs. 5(a) and (b). When the test material
orientation is 908 the failure mode is net-tension, and .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
b
l
e
9
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
a
d
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
b
o
l
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
l
a
p
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
P
F
R
P
f
l
a
t
s
h
e
e
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
f
o
r
R
o
u
n
d
R
o
b
i
n
s
u
b
-
s
e
r
i
e
s
[
1
]
P
l
a
t
e
[
2
]
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
[
3
]
B
o
l
t
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
(
m
m
)
[
4
]
H
o
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
[
5
]
W
a
s
h
e
r
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
[
6
]
B
o
l
t
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
[
7
]
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
0
o
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
l
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
)
[
8
]
W
/
D
[
9
]
E
/
D
[
1
0
]
S
/
D
[
1
1
]
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
[
1
2
]
J
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
[
1
3
]
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
N
o
.
o
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
J
o
i
n
t
s
C
(
T
o
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
w
e
l
l
E
X
T
R
E
N
1
5
0
0
s
e
r
i
e
s
P
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
6
.
4
M
1
0
G
r
a
d
e
8
.
8
9
.
8
m
m
0
.
2
(
t
i
g
h
t
i
s
h
f
i
t
)
N
o
n
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
-
t
i
g
h
t
(
5
3
N
m
)
0
68
44
22
R
T
a
n
d
n
o
a
g
e
i
n
g
P
/
D
2
,
g
r
o
u
p
5
P
/
D
4
,
g
r
o
u
p
6
J
o
i
n
t
t
y
p
e
C
(
F
i
g
.
6
)
O
n
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
U
:
1
0
k
N
/
m
i
n
B
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
1
0
(
2
0
L
U
a
n
d
2
0
W
U
)
W
U
:
0
.
0
1
m
m
/
s
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
:
(
4
0
)
when it is 458 the mode can be similar to the single-
bolt situation shown in Fig. 4(b).
A series of 15 tests by Prabhakaran et al.[22] used the
single values of W/D P/D 4.8, E/D 2.4 and
S/D 1, to characterize four multi-bolt
configurations and to compare them with the
single-bolt equivalent. Type D, the 2 2 joint, gave the
cleavage mode shown in Fig. 5(c), which is referred to
by Prabhakaran et al. as block shear. The test results
were used with nominal PFRP strength data[3] to
propose tentatively a load and resistance factor
design (LRFD) approach for the ultimate load. The
procedure is in accordance with guidelines and
specifications published by the American Institute of
Steel Construction[31].
A second series of 12 tests by Prabhakaran &
Robertson[24] had a single column of 24 bolts and
geometric ratios E/D and P/D 44. Some tests were to
characterise the load distribution between the bolts
and others were used to assess the influence of
clearance (tight-fit to 0.813 mm) and torque
(2781 N m) using 15.9-mm-diameter bolts. They
concluded that the load distribution was non-uniform
(it is customary and convenient in steel design to
assume that the load is shared equally by all bolts),
and that this influenced the mode of failure (net-
tension and not bearing). Clearance was found to
relieve loaded holes and lead to a more uniform load
distribution. The gain in strength was not very
significant, possibly due to the large scatter in joint
strengths recorded.
Niklewicz et al.[25] give few details of their series of
tests as their purpose was to provide basic
information to support the development of the
National Physical Laboratorys Component and
Composite Design Analysis (CoDA) software (details
may be found at http://www.npl.co.uk/npl/cmmt/
cog/coda.html).
In all multi-bolt tests with two or more rows of bolts
the failure is at the first row, and if cleavage is
considered to be a form of net-tension then all such
joints may have their failure mode categorised as
net-tension. Under such circumstances the joints
response exhibits less damage tolerance than
joints with a single bolt or a single row of
bolts.
GENERIC FACTORS FROM PREVIOUS TESTS
In completing our review of previous joint tests,
several generic factors can be identified which are
important to the successful design of a joint with
long-term durability and structural integrity. A bolt
tension that could crush the PFRP material owing to
the clamping pressure is to be avoided[6]; this force
will depend on diameters of bolts and/or washers, if
the latter are installed. Stress relaxation over time due
to viscoelastic creep will reduce any pre-load such
that the through-thickness compressive force will
reduce to an extent that cannot be determined. This is
one of the reasons which can be used to justify
EUROCOMP Design Code and Handbook Clause
5.2.2.3(6) which requires that the design strength
should be assumed to be that corresponding to finger-
tight conditions in which there is little or no lateral
restraint[6]. Furthermore, Clause 5.2.2.3(5)P specifies
that any load transferred from one part to another by
frictional forces between the joined parts shall be
neglected for the purpose of design, i.e. all load is
transferred in bearing. This is the situation if the bolt
has little or no pre-load. It is clear that a tight-fitting
bolt and a plain bolt shank in the contact zone will
increase the loads at initial and ultimate failure (see
the single-bolt tests by Rosner & Rizkalla[14] and
Cooper & Turvey[13]).
Single-bolt and multi-bolt joint tests:
SI Project Series
The summary of the 15 series of tests, from 10 test
centres, given in Tables 2 and 3 has shown that they
are very different because different joint variables
were studied. A reason for the differences is the lack
of a single coherent and recognized specification for
the design and installation of PFRP bolted joints.
In planning the test programme for the SI project a
number of technical factors had a major influence on
the decision-making process. It was important that a
large and co-ordinated database be generated that
would enable existing connection design procedures
to be appraised and, where necessary, further
developed. To cope with the enormous range of test
(a) (b) (c)
Concentric tension
First bolt
row
First bolt
row
bolt resultant
force
Fig. 5 Cleavage mode failures in 08 multi-bolt PFRP joints under concentric tension load: (a) and (b) from[23]; (c) from[22]
variables the authors used the experimental design
technique known as the Taguchi method[32] in the
planning of various sub-series of joint tests.
Tables 49 list the variables studied and the number
of joints tested in the SI project. All of the 800 previous
joint tests had been conducted at RT and because only
30 joints had been exposed to wet ageing before
testing[19], it was necessary to carry out tests at
elevated temperatures with and without water
immersion over a suitable period of time. To include
in the larger database the 160 single-bolt tests from
Lancaster University (28% of total number presented
in Table 2, see Turvey & Cooper[13] and Turvey[18]), a
number of variables were pre-determined. These
variables were: material (EXTREN
1
500 Series flat
sheet[1] with measured mean thickness of 6.4 mm),
hole diameter (10 mm), bolt type (M10 steel grade 8.8)
giving a 0.2 mm hole clearance for
D 10 mm), and torque (finger-tight (believed
to be 53 N m).
These joint variables are given in Columns 1 to 6
inclusive in Tables 49. Fifty single-bolt joints (Table 5)
did have larger hole diameters of 11 and 12 mm,
giving 1.2 and 2.2 mm clearances, respectively. Holes
were drilled using tungsten carbide tipped drill bits.
Joints were tested in the double lap arrangement with
the central plate of PFRP, and the two outer plates of
8-mm-thick structural grade steel. No washers were
present. Loading was concentric and tensile in nature.
Mottram and Lutz at Warwick University (WU) tested
in stroke control at a rate of 0.01 mm/s, while Turvey
and Wang at Lancaster University (LU) tested under
load control at a rate of 10 kN/min. The tests did not
determine bearing strengths at 4% hole elongation,
because of doubts about the accuracy with which hole
elongation can be measured[28]. The salient test results
obtained were initial and ultimate loads, and the
modes of failure.
Batch size was generally three, except in the Round
Robin exercise (Table 9) where 10 specimens per batch
were used. Only the salient results from about 100
single-bolt tests[26,27] have been reported to date.
Failure of loads (initial and ultimate) and modes of
failure from the other tests will be reported in due
course so that the information is complete and co-
ordinated. It is essential that the elastic constants and
strengths of the bolts and PFRP plates are given and
that for the PFRP material these are determined by
standard test methods. In previous analytical
modelling, researchers[22,29,30] have used the nominal
(RT) mechanical properties taken from the pultruders
design manuals[1, 3]; such property data is not
necessarily characteristic of the PFRP material
in the joints[26,27]. This provides a degree of
uncertainty, which can be avoided easily in the
future.
The summary on current practice, presented earlier,
has shown that PFRP joint designs are likely to have a
bolt pre-load, induced via a specified torque (there is,
however, no consensus on what tension stress the bolt
should experience), and a minimum clearance of
1 mm. To comply with UK steelwork practice[8] and
Clause 5.2.2.3(6) in the Handbook[6], all of the SI
project joints had a finger-tight torque. This low pre-
load takes into account factors such as poor on-site
practice, the effect of long-term creep, cyclic loading,
fatigue and vibration or their combination, and the
likelihood that little load[24] will be transferred by
friction (i.e. bearing can be assumed to transfer all of
the load, irrespective of the tension in the bolts).
Despite a large clearance (1 or 1.6 mm) being specified
in the pultruders design manuals[13], it might not be
necessary, or even acceptable, to adopt this
specification from steelwork practice. Experience and
understanding of structural joints using advanced
fibre-reinforced plastics in the aerospace industry[33]
has led to different fits for bolts with the tight-fit
condition used for the highest load applications in
primary structural joints. This fit condition requires
the smallest clearance, and for M10 bolts it would be
50.065 mm (significantly less than 0.10.3 mm in the
SI project joints). Moreover, since one of the main
objectives of characterizing PFRP joints by testing is to
be able to appraise connection design procedures, the
presence of a small clearance more closely reflects the
assumptions used to develop the design procedures,
such as the Hart Smith[7], and EUROCOMP Design
Code and Handbook simplified and rigorous
methods[6], which can take account of the available
damage tolerance.
A summary of the SI project tests is given now with
due regard to the continual development of design
procedures. Tables 46 give basic details of 264 single-
bolt tests. Of these, details are given of the 132 tests to
establish the influence of elevated temperature.
Columns 710 in Table 4 list the variables in this
First bolt
row
First bolt
row
Concentric tension
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 6 Multi-bolt joint configurations used in SI project tests (Tables 79)
sub-test series. Plate orientations of 08, 458 and 908,
and temperatures of RT, 40, 60 and 80
o
C were chosen.
The maximum specified temperature for all EXTREN
series materials is 65
o
C[1]. Geometries (E/D and W/D
ratios) in columns 8 and 9 were those, which at RT,
had given[13] the distinct failure modes of bearing,
net-tension, shear-out and cleavage (see Fig. 2).
Turvey & Wang[26,27], reporting the 08 and 908 test
results, found that raising the conditioning
temperature reduced the failure load significantly; it
also reduced the mechanical properties of the
unnotched material. Average joint efficiencies at
60
o
C were found to be 6090% of the RT ultimate
failure load. Just as important to design, the failure
mode at elevated temperature was seen to be a
combination of the mode observed at RT or another
type of mode. There were instances where the mode
changed from net-tension to bearing, showing that the
matrix had softened significantly with temperature.
This finding suggests that the RT geometric ratios in
Table 1 might be inappropriate at elevated
temperature.
Tables 5 and 6 give basic details of the joint tests
with wet ageing. Stress-free notched-plate specimens
were soaked under water with the holes unfilled. This
environmental conditioning was new and its purpose
was to simulate what a joint might experience in the
field over its lifetime. Table 5 provides information on
a sub-series of 108 tests to investigate environmental
conditioning. Note that dry conditioning means that
the material was tested as received, the time and
conditioning since manufacturing being unknown.
Temperatures for wet ageing and load testing were
RT, 60 and 808C. Joints with 08, 458 and 908
orientations were tested dry (0 weeks immersion) or
after wet (tap water) conditioning for 6.5 weeks
(1000 hr) or 13 weeks (2000 hr). Two soaking periods
were chosen to address uncertainties about the period
of water immersion required for the rate of
degradation to stabilize; the results showed that 6.5
weeks was sufficient. Column 4 in Table 5 shows that
hole clearance size was another variable. Based on the
ultimate load results, the Taguchi method[32] ranked
the order of influence of the variables as temperature
(highest), period of water immersion, hole clearance,
and load direction (lowest). In Table 6 basic details of
24 tests (in batches of 2) are given which characterize
the effect of environmental conditioning, but without
the extra variables of hole clearance and plate
orientation.
Tables 79 present the basic details of 640 multi-bolt
joints with the four joint configurations shown in
Fig. 6. Configuration A is a single column of two bolts
(1 2), B is a single row of two bolts (2 1), C has two
rows of two columns of bolts (2 2), and D is a 3 3
joint. The plate orientation was always 0 degrees. Up
to four different environmental conditions were tested
from a combination of two temperatures (RT and
60
o
C), and dry and wet (tap water) ageing for 6.5
weeks (1000 hr). If testing is to satisfy the minimum
E/D ratio given in Table 1 the end distance E would
have to be 43D. In practice, there are situations
where the end distance will have to be smaller, for
example, in bracing strut members connected to
standard I, channel or angle structural shapes.
A minimum E/D 2, in combination with geometric
ratios S/D 2 or 4 and P/D 2 or 4 were therefore
chosen. The other two E/D ratios, in combination
with the same S/D and P/D ratios, were 4 and 6. The
Taguchi method[32] was used to establish this limited
range of joint geometric ratios.
Basic details of 600 tests by Turvey and Wang and
Mottram and Lutz are given in Tables 7 and 8,
respectively. The geometric ratios chosen give 12
groups as defined by values listed in columns 810
and 12 of the tables. The batch size per group was
three. Turvey and Wang tested the 12 groups with
joint configurations A, B and C under the four
environmental conditions. This gave a total of 432
results from Lancaster University (LU). Mottram and
Lutz tested the 12 groups of joint configurations B and
C under RT, with and without wet ageing (6.5
weeks). This gave 144 results from Warwick
University (WU). They also tested 24 joints of
configuration D.
Many of the points made earlier regarding the RT
results, without ageing, from the previous multi-bolt
tests[2125] listed in Table 3 have been confirmed by the
test results from the SI project. The effect of elevated
temperature (to 60
o
C) was similar to that observed in
the single-bolt tests[26,27]. Hot/wet testing conditions
reduced initial and ultimate failure loads and could
also change the failure modes. Sometimes, because of
the more complex nature of failure it was very
difficult to identify any of the distinct modes, given in
Fig. 2 for single-bolt joints. For the four environmental
conditions, Fig. 7 shows the crack patterns at
ultimate failure for joint configuration A, having
E/D S/D 4 and P/D 2. It is seen that bearing
failure occurs at a temperature of 60
o
C and that shear-
out failure between the two bolt holes is occurring
after wet ageing.
Other general observations from the multi-bolt tests
are that:
*
maximum ultimate load is more influenced by the
number of bolts in a row than in a column;
*
joint failure is at the first bolt row when there is
more than one row;
*
there is only a small difference in the ultimate loads
of joints B (2 1) and C (2 2) with two bolt rows
(this suggests that second, and, therefore,
additional rows of bolts will provide little
additional joint strength);
*
for joints B (2 1), C (2 2) and D (3 3) the value
of P/D is more significant than the value of S/D in
determining their ultimate loads;
*
net-tension is the most common mode of failure
when there is more than one row of bolts, so joints
of configurations B, C and D provide little damage
tolerance.
ROUND ROBIN SERIES
On receiving the WU test results (Table 8), the LU
team decided to repeat all of the configuration B and
C joint tests at RT because they were unsure that the
WU test procedure was giving the same strengths as
their own test procedure which was somewhat
different. Fig. 8 shows that, on comparing the mean
failure load of batches of three for the 48 different
groups, the overall mean load of 72 specimens from
LU is 7% higher than those from WU. However, there
are situations where WU testing gives a group mean
load that is more than 20% higher. The group
numbering in Fig. 8 is not that given in Table 8; it is
the order of group for increasing more-positive
difference between the mean ultimate group loads
from LU and WU. An explanation for the significant
differences in Fig. 8 between the two sets of joint data
(for the tests listed in Tables 28) will now be given.
Fig. 9 shows the polished edge surfaces of a sample
of EXTREN
1
500 series (1/4 in) flat sheet material
used in the SI project. On the right is the edge parallel
to the pultrusion direction (08), which shows two
layers of unidirectional (UD) reinforcement rovings
between three layers of continuous filament mat
reinforcement. On the left is the perpendicular edge.
The darker areas are the ends of the UD rovings, with
nonuniform centre-to-centre spacing of 410 mm.
When joints are tested with 08 orientation the load
direction is out of the page with respect to the edge
surface viewed on the left. The nonuniformity
in the UD roving distribution is a joint variable
that had been ignored in previous series
of tests.
Table 9 lists the 40 Round Robin tests used to study
the influence of the non-uniform roving distribution
on ultimate loads. WU prepared 20 nominally
identical specimens for the two joint C configurations
having geometric ratios E/D 4, S/D 2, and
P/D 2 or 4. These forty 08 joints were cut from a
single PFRP flat sheet such that sets of five specimens
could be placed longitudinally end-to-end. Alternate
specimens were tested at WU (specimens 1, 3, 5,..) and
at LU (specimens 2, 4, 6,..) using their own test
procedures. As Tables 10 and 11 show there appears
to be little difference between the mean ultimate loads
of the 10 nominally identical joints tested at WU and
LU; the range of these loads can, however, be high at
7 and 9.6 kN, respectively. On closer inspection of
the load data from the sets of five specimens, which
have the same fibre architecture (e.g. specimens
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), it is found that their mean values lie
in the lower range of 0.64.5 kN. There is, therefore,
evidence from the Round Robin exercise to conclude
that a source of strength variability is the location
of the UD rovings with respect to the centres of the
10-mm-diameter bolt holes (Fig. 9). This is a major
finding from the SI project, because it implies that
caution must be given to the reliability of a mean
failure load when the batch size is just three (as in a
majority of the series of tests given in Tables 28).
RT dry RT - wet (6.5 weeks at RT)
60
o
C dry 60
o
C wet (6.5 weeks at 60
o
C)
Fig. 7 Failure modes in joint configuration A (1 2), having geometric ratios E/D S/D 4 and P/D 2 and with
four environmental conditions
SUMMARY OF SI PROJECT SERIES
The SI project has provided a larger, yet, in scope,
still limited database for single-bolt and multi-bolt
joints with a range of variables that are practical.
The data, combined with previous results[1125]
can be used to appraise and further develop
existing connection design procedures. It will
also be feasible to use the co-ordinated database to
conduct a cross-correlation analysis and to look
for trends that will help to prepare new design
specifications. Based on the main finding of
the Round Robin exercise (Table 9) it is recommended
that the minimum initial and ultimate failure
loads, and not the mean of a small batch (typically
three) be used in analysis, as this will be more
representative of joint strength in practice. The
new test results, which show how strength and
mode of failure change with elevated temperature
and immersion in water, have implications for
joint design if we are to continue using current
design procedures based on a distinct failure
mode[6,7].
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Groups in ascending order (not numerical order)
%

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Joint B mean 6.4 % Joint BW mean 0.2 % Joint C mean 15.4 % Joint CW mean 4.0 %
Fig. 8 Percentage difference in mean joint strengths between tests at LU (Table 7) and WU (Table 8). W denotes that stress-free
specimens were wet-aged over 6.5 weeks
Fig. 9 Polished edge surfaces showing the reinforcement
construction for a sample of EXTREN
1
500 Series 6.35 mm
thick flat sheet
........................................................................
........................................................................
Table 10 Round Robin exercise results for joint configuration C
(2 2), with E/D 4 and P/D S/D 2 (group 5)
Results from 10 specimens
per test centre
LU
1
WU
1
Average ultimate load (kN) 29.4 29.7
Minimum ultimate load (kN) 23.6 26.1
Maximum ultimate load (kN) 33.1 33.1
Range of load (kN) 9.6 7.0
Standard deviation (kN) 3.2 2.2
1
LU Lancaster University, WU Warwick University
........................................................................
........................................................................
Table 11 Round Robin exercise results for joint configuration C
(2 2), with E/D P/D 4, and S/D 2 (group 6)
Results from 10 specimens
per test centre
LU
1
WU
1
Average ultimate load (kN) 41.6 41.2
Minimum ultimate load (kN) 38.5 39.9
Maximum ultimate load (kN) 44.4 43.3
Range of load (kN) 6.0 3.4
Standard deviation (kN) 1.9 1.1
1
LU Lancaster University, WU Warwick University
Concluding remarks
Much progress has been made in obtaining physical
test data to characterise plate-to-plate bolted joints for
PFRP structural shapes and systems. About 1700 data
points (900 single-bolt and 800 multi-bolt) for
strengths and modes of failure are available from 16
series of tests, in which the loading is predominantly
concentric tension. These series cover a wide range of
PFRP joint variables with varying degrees of
completeness. From the review of current practice it is
clear that one reason for the large number and range
of joint variables is the lack of a single coherent and
recognised specification for the design and
installation of PFRP bolted joints. Following recent
work by the authors, 1100 out of a total of 1700 data
points are from a co-ordinated series of tests with a
restricted range of joint variables. This series was
planned to provide results that can be used to
appraise, and further develop, connection design
procedures, including the damage tolerant
approaches of
Hart-Smith[7] and the EUROCOMP Design Code
and Handbook[6].
It is clear from this review that we still have
insufficient information to prepare general design
specifications for all potential plate-to-plate bolted
joint configurations and environmental (working)
conditions. The limited guidance in the pultruders
design manuals is only for ultimate design strength
under normal room temperature conditions. Results
from the test series discussed confirm parts of the
recommended design and installation practice, and
point to where there is a lack of knowledge and
understanding. For example, there is a perception that
bearing failure can be designed for, and this is not the
case in multi-row joints, as net-tension (or cleavage) is
the generally mode of failure. There is a total absence
of any design specification for serviceability.
Understanding initial failure damage is essential, as
its presence will reduce a joints long-term resistance
due to creep, fatigue, stress corrosion, etc. A better
understanding is required of the influence of material
orientation and nonuniformity, bolt torque, hole
clearance, bolt configuration, friction, eccentric
loading, damage tolerance, and environmental
degradation on a joints limit state behaviour. Higher-
quality control in testing is desirable, and this could
be achieved by the development of a standard test
method for PFRP plate-to-plate bolted joints. Results
from joint tests need to be used to evaluate the
validity and limitations of the requirements in the
EUROCOMP Design Code and Handbook for both
the serviceability and ultimate limit states criteria.
It is observed that the structural integrity of PFRP
bolted joints designed to the current specifications
and connection design procedures is unknown. Such
a situation is not tenable in the long-term. By
harnessing the results of co-ordinated physical testing
and numerical analysis, and combining these with a
reappraisal of what is already known we can improve
on todays rudimentary design specifications. It
should be a goal of all interested parties to develop
recognized design procedures (in Codes of Practice)
leading to greater acceptance of primary load-bearing
PFRP structures with bolted joints.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support from
EPSRC for the SI project, Structural Integrity of Bolted
Joints for Pultruded GRP Profiles (grant GR11797/01
with Dr Mottram and grant GR113466/01 with Dr
Turvey). Thanks go to Mr P. Wang (Lancaster
University) and Mr C. Lutz (Warwick University) for
their substantial contribution to the deliverables of the
SI project.
References and recommended reading
*special interest
[1] Anon. EXTREN Design Manual. Bristol VA: Strongwell. 1989.
[2] Anon. Fiberline Design Manual for Structural Profiles in Composite Materials.
Kolding, Denmark. Fiberline Composites A/S: 1995.
[3] Anon. The New and Improved Pultex Pultrusion Design Manual of Pultex
Standard and Custom Fiber Reinforced Polymer Structural Profiles. Alum, Bank PA:
Creative Pultrusions Inc. 1999.
* [4] Turvey GJ. Bolted connections in PFRP structures. Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials 2000: 2(2): 146156.
* [5] Mottram JT & Turvey GJ. (Eds), State-of-the-art Review on Design,
Testing, Analysis and Application of Polymeric Composite Connections. Brussels,
Luxembourg, European Commission. 1998: 99.
* [6] Clarke JL (ed.) Structural Design of Polymer Composites}EUROCOMP
Design Code and Handbook. London. E & FN Spon. 1996.
* [7] Hart-Smith LJ. Mechanically fastened joints for advanced compo-
sites}phenomenological considerations and simple analyses. Proceedings of
the 4th Conference on Fibrous Composites in Structural Design, New York, 1980:
543574.
[8] Anon. European Recommendations for Bolted Connections in Structural
Steelwork. Publication 38, ECCS CECM EKS, Brussels. March 1985.
[9] Anon. Structural Plastics Design Manual. Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice 63. American Society of Civil Engineers, NewYork. 1984.
[10] Gibbs & Cox Inc. Marine Design Manual for Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics.
New York: McGraw-Hill: 1960.
[11] Doyle JR. Behavior of bolt and adhesive connections in fiber reinforced
members. MSc Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown WV USA. 1991.
[12] Abd-El-Naby SFM & Hollaway L. The experimental behaviour of
bolted joints in pultruded glass/polyester material. Part 1: Single-bolt joints.
Composites 1993: 24(7): 531538.
* [13] Cooper C & Turvey GJ. Effects of joint geometry and bolt torque on
the structural performance of single bolt tension joints in pultruded GRP sheet
material. Composite Structures 1995: 32(14): 217226.
* [14] Rosner CN & Rizkalla SH. Bolted connections for fiber-reinforced
composite structural members: Experimental program. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering ASCE 1995: 7(4): 223231.
[15] Erki MA. Bolted glass-fibre-reinforced plastic joints. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering 1995: 22: 736744.
[16] Ramakrishna S, Hamada H & Nishiwaki M. Bolted joints of pultruded
sandwich composite laminates. Composite Structures 1995: 32(14): 227235.
[17] Yuan RL, Liu CJ & Daley T. Study of mechanical connection for GFRP
laminated structures. Proceedings of ACMBS-2 (2nd International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures), The Canadian Society for
Civil Engineers Montreal, 1996: 951958.
* [18] Turvey GJ. Single-bolt tension joint tests on pultruded GRP
plate}effects of tension direction relative to pultrusion direction. Composite
Structures 1998: 42(4): 341351.
* [19] Steffen RE. Behavior and design of fiber-reinforced polymeric compo-
site equal-leg angle struts. PhD thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology. 1998. Chap 5.
[20] Yuan RL & Liu CJ. Experimental characterization of FRP mechanical
connections. Proceedings of ACMBS-3 (3rd International Conference on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures). The Canadian Society for Civil
Engineers Montreal, 2000: 103110.
[21] Abd-El-Naby SFM & Hollaway L. The experimental behaviour of
bolted joints in pultruded glass/polyester material. Part 2: two-bolt joints. Composites
1993: 24(7): 539546.
* [22] Prabhakaran R, Razzaq Z & Devara S. Load and resistance factor
design (LRFD) approach for bolted joints in pultruded composites. Composites}Part
B: Engineering, 1996: 27(34): 351360.
* [23] Hassan NK, Mohamedien MA & Rizkalla SH. Multibolted joints
for GFRP structural members. Journal of Composites for Construction ASCE 1997: 1(1):
36.
[24] Prabhakaran R & Robertson J. An experimental investigation of load-
sharing in a multi-bolt pultruded composite joint. Proceedings of ICCI98 (2nd
International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure) University of Arizona, 1998: II
355368.
[25] Niklewicz J, Ferris DH, Nunn GJ & Sims GD. The Use of Pin Bearing
Data for the Preliminary Design of Pinned Joints. Measurement Note CMMT (MN) 052,
National Physical Laboratory Teddington UK March 2000: 15.
[26] Turvey GJ & Wang P. Single-bolt tension joints in pultruded GRP
material}Effect of temperature on failure loads, and strengths and joint efficiency.
Proceedings of the Conference on Strain Measurement in the 21st Century, British Society
for Strain Measurement, 2001: 2023.
* [27] Turvey GJ & Wang P. Effect of temperature on the structural integrity
of bolted joints in pultrusions. Proceedings of CCC2001 (1st International Conference on
Composites in Construction), A.A. Balkema Publishers, (Swets and Zeitlinger) Lisse,
2001: 171176.
[28] Vangrimde B. Assemblages boulonne materiaux composites verre-
polyester. PhD Thesis: E
cole Polytechnique de Montreal Canada. 2000.

* [29] Rosner CN & Rizkalla SH. Bolted connections for fiber-reinforced
composite structural members: Analytical model and design recommendations.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 1995: 7(4): 232238.
* [30] Hassan NK, Mohamedien MA & Rizkalla SH. Rational model for
multibolted connections for GFRP members. Journal of Composites for Construction
ASCE 1997: 1(2): 7178.
[31] American Institute of Steel Construction. Load and Resistance
Factor Design specification. Chicago AISC. 1994: vol. 1.
[32] Taguchi G. Systems of Experimental Design. New York: UNIPUB/
Kraus International Publications and American Supplier Institute, 1987: vols. 1, 2.
[33] Hart-Smith JL. Joining, mechanical fastening. In: Lee SM (ed).
International Encyclopaedia of Composites VCH, New York 1990: vol. 2. 438460.
J T Mottram
School of Engineering
University of Warwick
Coventry, CV4 7AL. UK
E-mail: jtm@eng.warwick.ac.uk

Physical Test Data For The Appraisal of The Design Procedures For Bolted - MTTRAM & TURVEY PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Physical Test Data For The Appraisal of The Design Procedures For Bolted - MTTRAM & TURVEY PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Physical test data for the appraisal

of design procedures for bolted

cole Polytechnique de Montreal Canada. 2000.

Potrebbero piacerti anche