+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank...

Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank...

Date post: 16-Oct-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 1 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
61
Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts Robin Nykänen Mechanical Engineering, master's level 2019 Luleå University of Technology Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics
Transcript
Page 1: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

Simulation of Bolted Joint

with Frictional Contacts

Robin Nykänen

Mechanical Engineering, master's level

2019

Luleå University of Technology

Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics

Page 2: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

ABSTRACT

An easy and reliable way to join two or more components is to use a bolted joint. When

torque is applied on the bolt head, a clamp force is achieved. However about 90% of this

torque will be used just to overcome the friction in the interfaces. To be able to fasten

these in an efficient and precise manner the friction in the bolt threads and underhead

area is important to understand. This is currently investigated at Atlas Copco by using a

friction test rig, FTR, which measures the clamp force, the total torque and the shank

torque.

To evaluate the test rig and also to be able to evaluate different friction models, a

parameterised simulation model of a bolted joint is built. This is a 3D-model of the joint

containing a bolt, a nut and a test specimen. The stiffness and frictional behaviour of the

FTR is used in the model to get a good comparison between these two. Different contact

formulations and settings are tested to achieve a good model. Also, mesh size, step size

and material models are evaluated to see the effect of these.

The results show a good correlation between the FTR data and the simulation model.

For the total torque to clamp force ratio a difference of about 1% is achieved. The average

difference in shank torque and underhead torque is at 3.1% and -1.6% respectively.

The pressure distribution for this model is shown to be unevenly distributed along the

threads. This is minimized by softening the contact, but this instead increases the error

between the FTR data and the simulation model. For the evaluation of friction models

that are based on the contact pressure this needs to be investigated further to find a good

compromise between the contact pressure and the frictional behaviour.

ii

Page 3: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

PREFACE

This is the master thesis for the Master of Science in Engineering degree at Lulea University

of Technology. It is a part of the course E7011T ans is done together with Atlas Copco.

I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar

and my supervisor at LTU, Jan-Olov Aidanpaa, for the guidance throughout this thesis

work. Also a thank you to Andreas Rydin for the help with FEM simulations in ANSYS.

Robin Nykanen

iii

Page 4: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1

1.1 Atlas Copco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.5 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.6 Similar Work By Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2 – Theory 4

2.1 Tightening Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Geometry of the Bolted Joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 Torque and Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.4 Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.4.1 Coulomb Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5 FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5.1 Linear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5.2 Non-linear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5.3 Newton-Raphson Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5.4 Contact Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.5.5 Friction in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5.6 ANSYS Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 3 – Method 14

3.1 BLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.1 Stiffness of the BLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.2 Test Data BLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1.3 Evaluation of Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2 Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.1 Parametrisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2.2 Geometry Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2.3 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2.4 Loads and Constrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.5 General Simulation Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.3 Constant Coefficient of Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Page 5: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.4 Test Data FTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.4.1 Snug Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.5 Varying Coefficient of Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.6 Contact Pressure Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 4 – Results 29

4.1 BLM Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 BLM Tightening Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.3 Constant COF Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3.1 Mesh Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3.2 Step Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.3.3 Symmetrical versus Asymmetrical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.3.4 Linear versus Non-linear Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.3.5 Gauss Integration Points versus Surface Projection . . . . . . . . 37

4.3.6 Comparison With Calculations and Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.4 FTR Tightening Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.5 Varying COF Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.6 Stress in Joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.7 Contact Pressure Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.7.1 Contact Stiffness Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 5 – Discussion 51

5.1 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.1.1 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.1.2 Contact Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.2 Snug Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.3 Tolerances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.4 Conclusion and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Page 6: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

Nomenclature

FTR - Friction Test Rig

FEA - Finite Element Analysis

COF - Coefficient of friction

MTot Total torque [Nm]

MT Shank torque [Nm]

MH Underhead torque [Nm]

F Clamp force [kN]

p Pitch [mm]

µ Coefficient of friction

µt Thread coefficient of friction

µb Underhead coefficient of friction

α Thread profile angle [°]d Nominal thread diameter [mm]

dm Pitch diameter [mm]

db Equivalent diameter of underhead area [mm]

dw Outer diameter of underhead area [mm]

dh Clearance hole diameter [mm]

Kb Stiffness of bolt [kN/mm]

Kb Stiffness of clamped parts [kN/mm]

[K] Stiffness matrix [kN/mm]

F Force vector [kN]

u Displacement vector [mm]

Fn Contact force [kN]

kn Contact stiffness [kN/mm]

xp Contact penetration [mm]

λ Additional term in Augmented Lagrange formulation

A Area [mm2]

P Pressure [MPa]

τy Shear strength [MPa]

vi

Page 7: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Atlas CopcoAtlas Copco was founded in 1873 in Stockholm, Sweden. They are a leading supplier of

compressors, vacuum solutions, generators, pumps, power tools and assembly systems [1].

Tightening Technique

One of the most common ways to assemble components is to use a threaded fastener, a

bolted joint. It is an easy and reliable way to clamp parts together. However, sometimes

these joints need some extra attention to make them serve their purpose in an efficient

manner.

Bolted joints are preloaded by for example using a torque wrench, so that when the

joint is affected by a force it will not lose the clamp force. If the clamp force could be

measured in the joints with high precision then the optimal joint dimensions and materials

could be chosen for every application. However, when tightening the bolted joint there

are a large number of factors that will influence the clamp force. One that will greatly

affect this is friction. Friction will arise in the threads and in the interface between the

clamped part and the bolt head or the nut. It is estimated, depending on the coefficient

of friction (COF), that of the torque that is applied on the bolt 50% is caused by the

underhead friction, 40% is caused by the friction in the threads and only 10% goes into

the preloading of the bolt [2]. The joint components and the torque distribution are

shown in figure 1.1.

1.2 PurposeIt is important to understand the friction in the bolted joints. Small variations in friction

will have a large effect on the clamp force that is achieved in the joint for a certain

tightening torque. The purpose of this master thesis is to create a contact simulation

1

Page 8: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

1.3. Requirements 2

Figure 1.1: Torque distribution in a bolted joint.

model for bolted joints to compare with and evaluate the friction test rig that is constructed

by Atlas Copco and which they are using today for their measurements. Together with

this test rig, this simulation model will make it possible to evaluate different friction

models. The model should be parameterised so different sizes of bolts and nuts can be

used in the simulation model.

1.3 RequirementsThe FE-model, of the bolted joint, should behave similarly to the friction test rig (FTR)

in a tightening procedure. The clamped parts in this model should have the same stiffness

as the test rig that is being evaluated, and the bolt and nut should have dimensions that

can be tested in the test rig. The model should simulate the tightening procedure and be

able to measure the preload, underhead torque and the shank torque.

1.4 DelimitationsThis model does not need to include all components of the actual friction test rig. It

should still achieve a stiffness that leads to the same clamp force for the same tightening

angle. The model does not need to have the hexagonal shape of the bolt and nut head,

but instead a cylindrical shape is used. Further simplifications of the bolt and nut may

be appropriate since the stress distribution in the model is not what will be examined,

and therefore some simplifications of the geometry might be possible.

Page 9: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

1.5. Methodology 3

1.5 MethodologyThe first step in this master thesis is to create a parametric CAD model with parameters

for the important dimensions of the bolt and nut. The assembly of the bolted joint will

then be exported to ANSYS where a FE-model will be constructed. Frictional contacts

will be used for the underhead surface and for the threads. In order to achieve a stiffness

of the joint, a spring element will be used in the model. Mesh and load step convergence

will be done to ensure reliable results. The results will then be compared with the test

data from the BLM and the FTR to evaluate the model, but also to evaluate the test rigs

themselves. Different simulation settings will be evaluated such as contact formulations,

contact detection methods and material models.

1.6 Similar Work By OthersPlenty on models for bolted joints have previously been made for analyzing the mechanical

properties of a threaded joint. However, many of these have been simple models. For

example, models where only the nodes in the center of the bolt were translated to achieve

a pretensioning for understanding the behaviour of ultrasonic wave propagation in a

preloaded bolt [3].

Instead of three dimensional models, some axisymmetric models [4][5] have been made

to avoid complicated and heavy models. The problem with axisymmetric threaded models

is that they ignore the helical effect.

In a more complex model an actual 3D-model was built to achieve a preload by rotating

the bolt [6]. The frictional values used in this case were from experimental data to achieve

accurate results. In order to achieve a model with a high accuracy, but as computationally

cheap as possible, the threads had a dense mesh on the contacting flanks and a less-dense

mesh on the flanks that were not in contact. In this case it resulted in a simulation with

only 1% error compared to the experimental data.

A procedure for generating a 3D-model of a bolted joint was proposed to in an accurate

manner be able to study the helical threads [5]. Also, the load distribution in the threads

was thoroughly investigated.

To evaluate the effect of friction coefficients on the tightening torque a 3D-model has

been constructed [7]. Also in this model the FEA corresponded well with the theoretical

results and it showed that friction has a great influence on the tightening torque.

Page 10: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

CHAPTER 2

Theory

2.1 Tightening ProcedureThe tightening procedure is done to achieve a desired clamp force in the joint. This

procedure has four zones and these are shown in figure 2.1. The first zone is the rundown

phase. This is when the tightening starts but the clamped parts are not yet in contact with

each other and the tightening torque is relatively low. The second zone is the alignment

zone. Here the surfaces are aligned and snugged. This is affected by for example the

roughness and shape of the surfaces. The third zone is when the elastic clamping starts and

the ratio between the tightening torque and the clamp angle is constant. The fourth and

last zone is when the elastic zone is exceeded and plastic deformation of the components

is starting [2].

Figure 2.1: The four zones of the tightening procedure.

4

Page 11: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.2. Geometry of the Bolted Joint 5

2.2 Geometry of the Bolted JointThe bolted joint consists mainly of the bolt, the nut and the clamped parts. The geometry

of these joints can vary much, but a schematic figure is seen in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Bolted joint.

In figure 2.2, the two most interesting areas of the bolted joint, with frictional behaviour

in mind, are shown. These two are the underhead region, which is between the bolt

head and the clamped part, and the threaded region, which is between the bolt and the

nut. The geometry of the bolt and nut are according to ISO standards. The geometry

of the threads according to the ISO [8] is shown in figure 2.3. Here H is the height of

the fundamental triangle, the nominal diameter of the thread is denoted as d, the pitch

diameter is denoted as dm and the pitch is denoted as p.

Page 12: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.3. Torque and Forces 6

Figure 2.3: Thread geometry according to ISO [8].

2.3 Torque and ForcesThe torque needed to tighten the joint depends on two main components; the shank

torque and the underhead torque [9], as shown in equation 2.1,

Mtot = MT +MH . (2.1)

The shank torque is caused by the pitch torque and the friction in the threads, the

thread torque. The underhead torque is caused by the friction between the bolt head and

the clamped part. The forces on the threads are shown in figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Schematic figure of the forces along the helix and on the profile of the thread.

Page 13: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.3. Torque and Forces 7

Here the clamp force is denoted as F . Equation 2.1 can be approximated to equation

2.2, where db is the equivalent diameter of the underhead area [10],

Mtot = F( p

2π+

µtdm2cosα

2

+µbdb

2

). (2.2)

The pitch diameter is given by the nominal diameter and the thread pitch as

dm = d− p3√

3

8, (2.3)

The equivalent diameter of the underhead surface is provided by

db =2

3

d3w − d3hd2w − d2h

, (2.4)

where dw and dh are the outer diameter of the underhead surface and the diameter of

the clearance hole respectively [11].

The load in the threads is distributed in a way where the first engaged threads carry

the majority of the load [12]. This distribution is seen in figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Load distribution in threads [12].

The contact pressure under the head of the bolt can be approximated with

P =F

A=

F

π(d2w − d2h)/4. (2.5)

The preload in the joint is dependant on the tightening angle and the equivalent stiffness

of the joint. When turning the bolt and by that increasing the preload, the bolt will

stretch but at the same time the clamped parts will be compressed [2]. The equivalent

stiffness is given by equation 2.6.

Page 14: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.4. Friction 8

KbKc

Kb +Kc

(2.6)

If the coefficients of friction are assumed to have constant values along the whole

tightening procedure then this should result in a linear relationship between the applied

torque and the achieved preload.

2.4 FrictionIn the contact between the two thread interfaces and between the head of the bolt and the

clamped part there will be friction. Friction is highly non-linear and this causes problems

when trying to simulate the tangential reaction forces between these surfaces. Some of

the parameters that friction is dependant on are contact geometry and topology, surface

properties and surface velocities. Lubrication and contamination will also have a large

effect on the friction. In dry sliding contacts the friction can be modeled by the elastic

and plastic deformation forces on the surface asperities that are in contact [13]. Here

it is assumed that every asperity is plastically or elastically deformed until the area in

contact is enough to carry the load that is distributed to each asperity. The tangential

deformations of these asperities are elastic until the shear strength is exceeded. The

sliding friction is then dependent on the shear strength and the hardness of the material.

2.4.1 Coulomb Friction Model

The main function of friction is that it is preventing relative motion and that it is

independent of velocity and contact area. The frictional force is proportional to the

normal load and is referred to as Coulomb friction, equation 2.7. This model does not

result in any specific friction force at zero velocity.

Ff = µN (2.7)

2.5 FEAIt is important to understand the basics in finite element analysis (FEA) to use it in

a useful and powerful way. In a static FEA the stiffness and deformation of a body is

considered to calculate the reaction forces following equation 2.8,

F = [K]u. (2.8)

This means that the inertia and damping effects are not considered as they are in

a dynamic FEA. For the static analyses you can have either a linear or a non-linear

simulation. The difference between linear and non-linear analyses is the stiffness matrix

Page 15: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.5. FEA 9

K of the model. This can be affected by the shape, the material and the supports of the

model.

2.5.1 Linear Analysis

When the model is deformed the stiffness will change due to some of these factors

mentioned above, but in some cases the change in stiffness might be so small that the

stiffness can be assumed as constant. When a FEA is conducted, where the deformations

are small and stresses are kept in the linear elastic range, a linear static analysis is effective

and accurate. The stiffness matrix in this case is kept constant and the time for an

analysis is short compared to doing a non-linear analysis with the same model. If the

elements are going to be greatly translated or deformed a linear analysis will probably

result in a higher error.

2.5.2 Non-linear Analysis

If the model is subjected to large deformations, contact, or has non-linear material

properties, as for example visko-elastic material or if the behaviour of a material after the

yield point is of interest, then a non-linear analysis is needed. Here the stiffness matrix will

change during the load case. The stiffness matrix will be constantly updated as the solver

is iterating for the solution. Material non-linearity is the behavior of a material based on

many parameters, as for example deformation history, rate of deformation, temperatures

and pressures. Contact non-linearity is present when two or more surfaces get in contact

and therefore changes the geometric boundaries. The stiffness of this contact is of course

unknown before the solution and this is what results in the non-linearity.

2.5.3 Newton-Raphson Process

For non-linear analysis ANSYS is using the Newton-Raphson process for iteration until

the solution has converged [14]. This method takes small linear steps by evaluating a

tangent stiffness matrix for the model and takes a step with that stiffness. Then the

results are evaluated by calculating the residual, which is as shown in the equations below.

[KTi ]∆ui = F a − F nr

i (2.9)

ui+1 = ui + ∆ui (2.10)

If the residual is within the tolerance specified in the analysis then the solution has

converged for that load step. If not, a new tangent stiffness matrix will be calculated for

the new position and the iteration process starts again, see figure 2.6.

Page 16: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.5. FEA 10

Figure 2.6: Illustration of the Newton Raphson process [14].

2.5.4 Contact Modelling

The main objective of this master thesis is to get a simulation model where friction in the

contacts can be evaluated. Contacts in FE models are often very advanced and demand

a lot of computational effort. Together with frictional forces in a contact it will create

an unsymmetrical stiffness matrix which also increases the complexity. Therefore, it is

important to understand how contacts are calculated in FE-models.

Contact Formulations

The contact formulations in ANSYS are based on a contact body and a target body [15].

The contact will be based on points while the target is based on surfaces, see figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Contact detection with Gauss points [16].

To evaluate the contact forces between the contact and the target there are different

formulations, some of them will be explained here. The simplest one is the penalty

Page 17: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.5. FEA 11

formulation. As all contacts, this uses a stiffness between the contact and the target to

determine how much penetration will occur for a specific contact force, see figure 2.8. A

higher value of the stiffness will result in less penetration but might give convergence

problems, while a lower stiffness will result in better convergence and an averaged results

over an area of the surface. However, if the penetration is too high, a worse representation

of the reality will be given. This stiffness can be modified in ANSYS by a Contact Stiffness

Factor, but for frictional contacts the default value is set to 1.

Figure 2.8: Scematic explenation of the Pure Penalty formulation [15].

The contact force for a penalty formulation is calculated as following,

Fn = knxp. (2.11)

For this formulation only an infinite contact stiffness would result in zero penetration.

A modification of this is the Augmented Lagrange that uses an extra term to make it

more robust and efficient, see equation 2.12. This is the default formulation for contacts

in ANSYS Mechanical.

Fn = knxp + λ (2.12)

Another formulation that is frequently used is the Normal Lagrange formulation. This

avoids penetration by solving for contact pressure. Because penetration is preferably

avoided this will be a very stiff contact, computationally heavier and might lead to

divergence problems.

Detection Methods

The detection method determines which nodes or points on the contact should be used in

the contact formulation [16]. These are then constrained against the penetration of the

target surface. This means that between these points there can actually be penetration

without it being recognized, as shown in figure 2.10. As default in ANSYS, Gauss

integration points are used, as seen in Figure 2.7. However, for cases of corner contact

Page 18: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.5. FEA 12

problems the nodal-normal method, where the nodes of the elements are used, will work

better. Another formulation is the surface projection based contact where the contact

forces are computed with the average penetration of an area, which is based on the target

elements projected on the contact elements, see figure 2.9. The advantages of this method

are generally more accurate contact stresses but it is also less sensitive to high penetrations

at edges of the target body. The disadvantage is mainly a higher computational cost

because of the amount of nodes in each contact constraint.

Figure 2.9: Surface projection based detection method.

In asymmetric contacts one of the bodies needs to be defined as the ”contact part” and

the other as the ”target part”. This puts some demands on the properties of the bodies

because the target part can actually penetrate the contact as long as it does not get in

contact with a detection point on the contact part. To avoid this, it is recommended

that the contact part is the most flexible part, has the finest mesh, or if the surfaces are

curved then the most convex surface should be the contact part.

Figure 2.10: Effect of chosen contact and target sides for an asymmetric contact [17].

Page 19: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

2.5. FEA 13

In ANSYS there is the possibility to use a symmetric contact behaviour which constrains

the contact side from penetrating the target, but also the target side is now constrained

from penetrating the contact. This will therefore result in a model that is more compu-

tationally expensive and the results shown on the contact elements will be an average

between the target and the contact.

2.5.5 Friction in ANSYS

For contact elements CONTA174 the coulomb friction is used in ANSYS. It defines the

point of sliding with an equivalent shear stress, τ , that is dependent on the coefficient

of friction and the contact pressure. When this shear stress is reached, the surfaces will

start sliding relative to each other. As default it uses a constant value of the coefficient of

friction. However, this can be modified in different ways. With the command TBFIELD

together with TB and FRIC, the user is able to get a coefficient that is dependent on

parameters such as temperature, time, normal pressure and sliding distance.

2.5.6 ANSYS Solvers

For static structural simulations in ANSYS there are two available solvers to use. The

default solver is an iterative, also called Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient iterative

equation solver (PCG). The other solver is the direct solver, which is called the Sparse

direct equation solver. For non-linear analyses involving contact problems the direct solver

is usually to prefer. However, this will use more memory compared to the iterative solver.

For the purpose of this thesis the direct solver is therefore recommended. The computer

that was used had a large amount of memory, which does not make this a problem.

Page 20: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

CHAPTER 3

Method

3.1 BLMThe BLM Testing Machine, shown in figure 3.1, is the one that is currently used by Atlas

Copco to investigate the tightening procedure of a threaded joint. In order to evaluate

the results from the contact model the experimental data from the BLM will be used.

The contact model should therefore have the same stiffness as achieved with the BLM.

3.1.1 Stiffness of the BLM

To approximate the stiffness of the BLM a FE model was created in ANSYS. Only the

components that are affected by the clamp force were used for the model, see figure 3.2,

and this was done by following the route of the force. The surfaces of the nut were fixed

and a load of 12.5 kN was applied on the bearing spacer. Because the model was split in

half, a rolling constraint was applied on the split surfaces. The stiffness was calculated by

dividing the force by the maximum nodal displacement.

14

Page 21: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.1. BLM 15

Figure 3.1: BLM test rig

Figure 3.2: BLM model setup

3.1.2 Test Data BLM

The data used for the model was from tightening tests with the BLM friction test rig. For

these tests a nutrunner was used, which was attached to a support. The 2-step tightening

procedure has a rundown phase where the speed of the nutrunner is at 100 RPM until

a total torque of 5 Nm is achieved. After this the speed is lowered to 20 RPM and is

Page 22: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 16

Figure 3.3: The components used in the tests. M10 bolt and nut with test specimen.

tightened with clamp force control until a clamp force of 25 kN is reached. After that

there is a relaxation phase and a loosening stage. The signals from the sensors of the

BLM and external transducers were received by a Dewe-43A DAQ and then processed in

Dewesoft X3 software.

These tests were done with partially threaded zinc-iron coated M10 bolts with 8.8

classification, see figure 3.3. These bolts were also waxed to get a smooth frictional

behaviour during the tightenings. The clamp length in these tests was approximately

58mm. The tests were done with ten bolts and nuts but with five test specimens, where

both sides of the test specimens were used. For each bolt and nut five tightening procedures

were done. After these five tightenings the test specimen was flipped and a new bolt and

nut was used.

3.1.3 Evaluation of Test Results

Matlab was used when evaluating the test results. For the evaluation of test data from

the BLM, the angle of tightening was calculated. This was from the point where a clamp

force of 2 kN was reached, so that the rundown phase could be assumed to be complete,

until a clamp force of 25 kN was achieved. An average of the maximum total torque,

shank torque, underhead torque and tightening angle was then calculated for all the

tests. When comparing with the simulation model, average value plots were made for the

test data. These were conducted by extrapolation some of the data up to the average

tightening angle and then interpolation of the data in MATLAB for calculation of the

average values.

3.2 Simulation ModelThe model is built by three components, which are the bolt, the nut and a test specimen.

This is shown in figure 3.4. The CAD-geometry was created in CREO and parameterised

to allow for easy changes between different sizes of bolts and nuts.

Page 23: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 17

Figure 3.4: Assembly of the parameterised model.

(a) Parametric model of the bolt. (b) Parametric model of

the nut

Figure 3.5: Parameterised geometry of bolt and nut in CREO.

The bolt and nut are simplified by having a circular head shapes instead of the hexagonal

shape, see figure 3.5.

In order to get better convergence possibilities for the simulation model the threads in

the nut were simplified. Consequently, the problem of very thin elements at the contacting

areas where the forces are high is avoided. This will therefore result in a more stable

simulation model and easier convergence.

The threads in the nut compared with the bolt threads have a small offset, both because

of the tolerances in real components but also to help avoid initial penetration in the

FE-model. The sketch used for the helical cut is shown in figure 3.6 where an offset of

Page 24: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 18

0.01mm was used.

Figure 3.6: Sketch used for the helical cut of nut threads in CREO.

3.2.1 Parametrisation

The bolt is parameterised by choosing the bolt head diameter, nominal diameter, pitch,

length of bolt and the free length, see table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Parameters for the bolt.

Name Value [mm] Description

Bolt Head 14.8 Bolt head diameter

Bolt Dia. 10.0 Nominal bolt diameter

Head Length 6.4 Length of bolt head

Bolt Length 80.0 Length of bolt

Unthreaded 52.0 Unthreaded length of bolt

Pitch 1.5 Thread pitch

The nut is parameterised by its head diameter, nominal bolt diameter, pitch, length

of nut and the offset between bolt and nut threads, see table 3.2. The bolt head has a

diameter that corresponds to the actual area of contact, while the outer diameter of the

nut is corresponds to the real nut size so that the stiffness of the bolt will be accurate.

The threads are constructed according to ISO standards [8], [18], [19], [20], [21].

The parameters are shown in figure 3.7.

Page 25: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 19

Table 3.2: Parameters for the nut.

Name Value [mm] Description

Nut Size 16.0 Nut outer diameter

Bolt Dia. 10.0 Nominal bolt diameter

Nut Length 8.4 Length of nut

Pitch 1.5 Thread pitch

Offset 0.01 Offset between threads

Figure 3.7: Parameters for the bolt and nut.

3.2.2 Geometry Preparations

The CREO-geometry was then imported as a STEP format to ANSYS. In order to prepare

the geometry SpaceClaim was used to split the surfaces. This was done to in an easier

way be able to put constrains and loads on the model but also to in a better way get a

controlled mesh.

The top surface of the test specimen got a circular split for the contact surface. Both

the upper and bottom surface were then also spit in eight segments and the side surfaces

were split in half along the long sides, see figure 3.8.

Page 26: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 20

Figure 3.8: Geometry preparation of the test specimen in SpaceClaim.

The bolt was split as seen in figure 3.9 and the nut was split as seen in figure 3.10.

The threads of both the nut and bolt were split to make it possible to measure the load

distribution on the threads for each revolution.

Figure 3.9: Geometry preparation of the bolt in SpaceClaim.

Figure 3.10: Geometry preparation of the nut in SpaceClaim.

Page 27: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 21

(a) Meshed bolt.

(b) Meshed nut. (c) Meshed test specimen.

Figure 3.11: Meshed components for simulation.

3.2.3 Meshing

For meshing in ANSYS quadratic tetrahedron elements were used with an general mesh

sizing of 1.5mm. The underhead and thread contact areas were then refined for mesh

convergence. ANSYS non-linear shape checking setting, which should be more appropriate

for contact simulations, was used for the mesh in this model. The meshed components

are seen in figure 3.11.

Page 28: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 22

3.2.4 Loads and Constrains

The FE model was created in ANSYS Mechanical. The setup with the components, loads

and constrains is shown in figure 3.12. As seen, a fixed constraint is set to a part of the

upper surface of the nut. This will still allow some bending of the top surface closest to

the threads.

The test specimen has roller constrains on all four side surfaces to keep the body from

moving in any other direction than along the axis of the bolt and it will also prevent it

from any rotation. The bottom surface of the test specimen is constrained as rigid to

keep it from bending around the head of the bolt. In order to avoid problems between

multiple constrains along the same edges the side surfaces of the test specimen were split

in half. The roller constraint was set to the upper part of these surfaces and will therefore

not interfere with the rigid constraint of the bottom surface.

The bolt would only need two free degrees of freedom in this model, rotation around

its axis and translation along it. Instead of using a torque input on the bolt, a rotation

is used on the bolt head. The reaction torque is then achieved after solving. The outer

surface of the bolt head was split in two for applying the rotational constraint on the

upper surface. The splitting of this surface will avoid interference between the rotational

constraint and the contact surface of the underhead. The other rotational degrees of

freedom were fixed for the bolt head. The translational degrees of freedom were only

constrained by weak springs. In order to make calculations cheaper the surface for the

rotational constraint was set as a rigid property at the applied surface. It could be argued

that this is also a more realistic approach because while applying torque to the joint with

a socket wrench the socket will keep the outer surface of the bolt head rather free from

the torsional deformation.

The stiffness of the bolted joint is set by adding a spring element between the test

specimen and a fixed point along the axis of the bolt, see figure 3.13. In order to achieve

a stiffness corresponding to the BLM a first stiffness was chosen and then modified until

a clamp force of 25 kN was achieved for the mean tightening angle of the BLM test data.

To hold the bolt in place in the start a weak spring was added to its bottom surface.

This had a stiffness of 1 N/mm and does not make a noticeable difference in the results

because the translation of the bolt is under half a millimeter.

3.2.5 General Simulation Settings

For the contact in the underhead area a frictional type was chosen with the Augmented

Lagrange formulation. Also, a ”Adjust to touch” setting was set for the contact interface

so that all penetration or gap is removed in the start of the simulation. The contact

in the threads was also set as a frictional type with augmented Lagrange formulation,

but because an offset was created between the thread interfaces in CREO the ”Adjust

to touch” setting would not be ideal in this case. Instead, a stabilization damping was

inserted for this contact, which will result in a more stable model before the surfaces get

Page 29: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.2. Simulation Model 23

Figure 3.12: Model setup in ANSYS.

Figure 3.13: Spring element with joint stiffness.

Page 30: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.3. Constant Coefficient of Friction Model 24

in contact. This will keep the threads from penetrating into each other too much in the

first load steps, but this stabilization will consume energy when it is active. Even if only

a low amount of energy is needed for this damping, a ”KEYOPT” function was used to

only have it active during the first load step. This was done by the command which is

shown in figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14: Contact damping command in ANSYS.

This command will use KEYOPT(15), which is for determining the effect of contact

stabilization damping. The ”cid” is for using this command for the contact elements in

the threads while the value of 0 means that it is activated only in the first load step.

For the analysis settings a direct solver was used together with large deflections activated.

”Weak spring” option was also activated to avoid free body motion. The convergence

criterion for the non-linear simulation was as shown in table 3.3

Table 3.3: Convergence criterion for non-linear analysis.

Convergence Tolerance Minimum tolerance

Force [N] 0.5% 0.01

Moment [Nmm] 0.5% 10

Displacement [mm] 0.5% 0

Rotation [°] 0.5% 0

3.3 Constant Coefficient of Friction ModelFor the model with data from the BLM with a 2-step tightening, mesh and step convergence

were done. For this model a constant coefficient of friction was set for the contacts, both in

the threads and between the test specimen and the bolt head. ANSYS uses the Coulomb

friction model as default. The values chosen for this were taken from the BLM test

data, where the coefficient of friction at a clamp force of 25 kN was calculated by solving

equation 2.2 for µb and µt and using the torque mean values of the test data.

The simulation model was evaluated with three different mesh sizes and three different

step sizes. The mesh convergence was done with 113·103, 163·103 and 366·103 nodes. The

mesh with 113e3 nodes had a general mesh sizing for the whole model while the finer

Page 31: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.3. Constant Coefficient of Friction Model 25

meshes had refinements at the contact areas and their surroundings. Step convergence

was then also done, this with 30, 45 and 60 steps.

In addition of the mesh and step convergence also the affect of non-linear material

models, the difference between symmetrical or asymmetrical contacts and the difference

between Gauss integration points or surface projection based contact detection were

compared with this model.

Gauss integration points as detection method is the default setting in ANSYS for static

structural analyses but to use surface projection based detection the command which is

shown in figure 3.15 was inserted.

Figure 3.15: Surface projection based detection command in ANSYS.

In order to evaluate if the high stress that will occur in the model at some elements

will affect the results a non-linear material model was used. This was a bi-linear model

with yield strength of 640 MPa and a tangent modulus of 1333 MPa, which is the slope

of the plastic region as shown in figure 3.16.The percentage of elongation until fracture,

the yield strength and the tensile strength for the bolt, from ISO 898-1 [22], were used to

calculate the tangent modulus. The result and the time of solving a simulation with a

bi-linear material model was then compared with the same model with a linear material.

Figure 3.16: Explanation of the tangent modulus in a bi-linear material model.

Page 32: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.4. Test Data FTR 26

Figure 3.17: Atlas Copco Friction Test Rig

3.4 Test Data FTRThe test data used in the previous sections were from a 1-step tightening procedure in the

BLM that were already available at the start of this master thesis. This data was used

to evaluate the constant coefficient of friction model. Because of the change of speed in

the tightening, where the first part is done with high RPM and the second part is done

with a lower RPM, this seems to give a highly non-linear behaviour of the forces in the

beginning of the tightening.

In order to get data that will correspond better to the simulation model along a larger

part of the tightening, a 1-step tightening was conducted. These tests were done with the

friction test rig (FTR) developed at Atlas Copco, see figure 3.17. Instead of changing the

speed of the tightening it was now kept constant through the whole procedure. A total of

100 tightenings were done with the same bolts, nuts and test specimens as in previous

tests. For these tests, 20 bolts and nuts were used together with one test specimen. Every

bolt and nut was used for five tightenings in a row. After the tenth sample of bolt and

nut the test specimen was flipped, so that the side of the test specimen in contact was

changed. Otherwise the testing equipment was the same as for the BLM tests. However,

the first six tightenings were not used for evaluation and comparison with this simulation

model due to errors in the measurement procedure.

For achieving the right stiffness for this model the first assumption was the stiffness

calculated by the constructors of the FTR which was 1.625·106 N/mm [23]. This was

Page 33: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.5. Varying Coefficient of Friction Model 27

however, in the same manner as for the constant friction model, modified until a clamp

force of 25 kN was achieved for the corresponding mean angle calculated from the test

data.

3.4.1 Snug Point

For this simulation model it was important to find the snug point in an accurate manner.

This point is where the simulation model will assume the starting point of the tightening

and from there an linear force-to-angle ratio will be achieved until the final clamp force

is achieved. The snug point was found by following the tangent of the last part of the

force-angle curve in the BLM data which should correspond to the linear elastic path of

the tightening. The point where this tangent reaches 0kN is chosen as the snug point.

3.5 Varying Coefficient of Friction ModelThe test data from both the BLM and the FTR shows that the coefficient of friction varies

during the tightening. Previously in the simulation model the COF had one constant

value through the whole simulation. In order to better evaluate the FTR, the COF was

set to vary with the rotational angle of the bolt in the simulation according to what was

calculated for the BLM test data. Though, in ANSYS this angle dependency was set as a

time dependency, see figure 3.18. Because the rotational angle of the bolt in ANSYS is a

linear function of time this will make the COF linearly dependant of the time.

This variation of the friction with the angle was conducted by creating a matrix of

commands in MATLAB with values of time and the corresponding COF.

Figure 3.18: A part of the command in ANSYS to achieve friction variations with time.

Page 34: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

3.6. Contact Pressure Distribution 28

3.6 Contact Pressure DistributionIf a friction model as a function of contact pressure is to be used with this model, a

reliable representation of the contact pressure is needed.

By varying the contact stiffness factor for the threads, a softer contact can be achieved.

This will result in more penetration, but also an averaged out pressure distribution. If

the factor is too low, too much penetration will occur and a worse representation of the

reality will be achieved. Simulations were done with an interval from 0.05 to 1.0 of contact

stiffness factors. The pressure distribution along the center of the flank was evaluated

together with the clamp force and the shank torque. The distribution of load in the

threads was also considered.

The contact stiffness of the underhead area was also considered and the stiffness factor

was varied between 0.1-1.0 to evaluate if this would have an effect on the contact pressure,

the clamp force and the underhead torque.

Page 35: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

CHAPTER 4

Results

4.1 BLM StiffnessTo calculate the stiffness a simplified FE-model of the BLM was done. The results of this

model are shown in figure 4.1, where the force applied was 12.5 kN.

The maximum nodal displacement was used to determine the stiffness of the model, see

table 4.1

Table 4.1: Results from FE model for calculating the BLM stiffness.

Force [kN] Deformation [mm] Stiffness [N/mm]

12.5 0.0945 1.32·105

This value of the stiffness was used as an first assumption for the simulation model.

4.2 BLM Tightening TestsThe ,BLM test data for the five tests with five tightening procedures each is shown in

figure 4.2 below.

29

Page 36: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.2. BLM Tightening Tests 30

Figure 4.1: Deformation along the axis of the BLM FE-model.

(a) Total torque for all tightenings. (b) Clamp force for all tightenings.

(c) Shank torque for all tightenings. (d) Underhead torque for all tightenings.

Figure 4.2: Plots of the BLM test data for a 2-step tightening.

Page 37: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 31

The mean values that were calculated for these tests at a clamp force of 25 kN are

shown in table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Mean values from the 2-step BLM test data.

Angle [°] Total Torque [Nm]

90 41.3

Shank Torque [Nm] Underhead Torque [Nm]

23.8 17.5

COF Thread COF Underhead

0.139 0.109

4.3 Constant COF ModelFor the model with a constant coefficient of friction the results in table 4.2 from the 2-step

tightening were used. Mesh and step convergence was conducted with this data but also

the evaluation of contact detection methods and material models.

4.3.1 Mesh Convergence

The total torque to clamp force ratio for the three different mesh sizes is shown in the

graph below. The coarse mesh with 113·103 nodes, a middle mesh with 163·103 nodes

and the finest meshing was with 366·103 nodes. The graphs are starting from the point

when the pre-tightening of 2 kN is complete and the final tightening starts. For all of

these simulations the final tightening load step was divided into 60 sub steps.

Page 38: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 32

Figure 4.3: Total torque to clamp force ratio comparison for mesh convergence.

Because these simulations were very close to each other when comparing the shank and

underhead torque, difference plots were made for these to in a more accurate manner be

able to compare them. The simulation with 311·103 nodes was used as a reference, see

figure 4.4.

(a) Shank torque, difference plot. (b) Underhead torque, difference plot.

Figure 4.4: Mesh convergence comparison, difference plots with finest mesh as reference.

A slight convergence is noticed when comparing the simulations with each other. The

times for solving and the results at the end of the simulations are shown in table 4.3,

Page 39: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 33

where the total torque to clamp force ratio is denoted as TF-ratio.

Table 4.3: Time and results for simulations with 113·103, 163·103 and 366·103 nodes.

NodesTime

[min]

Clamp Force

[kN]

TF-Ratio

[Nm/kN]

113·103 68 24.9 1.66

163·103 103 25.0 1.67

366·103 381 25.1 1.67

NodesTotal Torque

[Nm]

Shank Torque

[Nm]

Underhead Torque

[Nm]

113·103 41.5 24.4 17.1

163·103 41.8 24.6 17.2

366·103 41.9 24.6 17.3

4.3.2 Step Convergence

The total torque to clamp force ratio for the three different substep sizes is shown in the

graph below. For all these simulations the middle mesh size of 163·103 nodes was used.

Figure 4.5: Total torque to clamp force ratio comparison for step convergence.

As for the mesh convergence, these simulations were also very similar to each other

Page 40: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 34

when comparing the shank and underhead torque. Difference plots were therefore made

for these to be able to compare them. As reference the simulation with 60 substeps was

used.

(a) Shank torque, difference plot. (b) underhead torque, difference plot.

Figure 4.6: Step convergence comparison, difference plots with 60 substeps as reference.

In this case, a clear case of convergence was not achieved and the difference in the

underhead torque is only due to the tolerance in the simulations. However, with the 60

substep simulation a more stable result was obtained. The times for solving and the

results at the end of the simulations are shown in table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Time and results for simulations with 30, 45 and 60 substeps.

SubstepsTime

[min]

Clamp Force

[kN]

TF-Ratio

[Nm/kN]

30 86 25.0 1.67

45 97 25.0 1.66

60 103 25.0 1.67

SubstepsTotal Torque

[Nm]

Shank Torque

[Nm]

Underhead Torque

[Nm]

30 41.7 24.5 17.2

45 41.6 24.4 17.2

60 41.8 24.6 17.2

Page 41: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 35

4.3.3 Symmetrical versus Asymmetrical

The total torque to clamp force ratio and penetration for a symmetrical and an asymmet-

rical contact are shown in the graphs below. These simulations were done with a model

with 163·103 nodes and 60 substeps.

(a) Total torque to clamp force ratio. (b) Maximum penetration of thread contact.

Figure 4.7: Mesh convergence comparison.

There was no obvious difference in the results between these two simulations except for

a slight time difference. The times for solving and the results at the end of the simulations

are shown in table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Time and results for simulations with symmetrical and asymmetrical contacts.

ContactTime

[min]

Clamp Force

[kN]

TF-Ratio

[Nm/kN]

Symmetrical 119 25.0 1.67

Asymmetrical 103 25.0 1.67

ContactTotal Torque

[Nm]

Shank Torque

[Nm]

Underhead Torque

[Nm]

Symmetrical 41.7 24.5 17.2

Asymmetrical 41.8 24.6 17.2

Page 42: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 36

4.3.4 Linear versus Non-linear Material

To compare if the material non-linearities would have any effect on the results, a bi-linear

material model was used. The relative difference between the shank and underhead torque

is shown in the graphs below.

(a) Shank torque, difference plot. (b) Underhead torque, difference plot.

Figure 4.8: Difference plots between linear and nonlinear material models.

As expected, the results of both simulations are following each other at lower clamp

forces, but as the forces grow higher the difference between them is rapidly increasing.

The times for solving and the results at the end of the simulations are shown in table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Time and results for simulations with a linear and non-linear material model.

MaterialTime

[min]

Clamp Force

[kN]

TF-Ratio

[Nm/kN]

Linear 103 25.0 1.67

Non-linear 562 24.9 1.67

MaterialTotal Torque

[Nm]

Shank Torque

[Nm]

Underhead Torque

[Nm]

Linear 41.8 24.6 17.2

Non-linear 41.7 24.5 17.2

Page 43: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 37

4.3.5 Gauss Integration Points versus Surface Projection

When using the Gauss integration points as the detection method, high contact pressure

peaks are found at the first thread revolution of the nut and bolt, see figure 4.9. For the

projection based detection method the contact pressures are more evenly distributed.

(a) Contact pressure distribution with Gauss integration points.

(b) Contact pressure with surface projection.

Figure 4.9: Contact pressure distribution comparison.

This is also noticeable by observing the load distribution of the threads. The average

values of the load distribution ratios for the first three thread revolutions are compared

in table 4.7 with the theoretical values.

Page 44: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 38

Table 4.7: Load distribution ratio in threads.

Method 1st 2nd 3rd

Theoretical 34% 23% 16%

Gauss 37.2% 23.9% 15.1%

Surface Projection 36.4% 23.8% 15.4%

There is a slight change in the distribution of load on the first engaged thread. The

times for solving and the results at the end of the simulations are shown in table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Time and results for simulations with different detection methods.

DetectionTime

[min]

Clamp Force

[kN]

TF-Ratio

[Nm/kN]

Gauss 83 25.0 1.67

Surface Projection 103 25.0 1.67

DetectionTotal Torque

[Nm]

Shank Torque

[Nm]

Underhead Torque

[Nm]

Gauss 41.9 24.6 17.2

Surface Projection 41.8 24.6 17.2

Page 45: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 39

4.3.6 Comparison With Calculations and Test Data

For the comparison with the BLM data and theoretical calculations, the middle mesh size

of 163·103 elements was set together with 60 sub steps. This model used a asymmetric

contact formulation with surface projection based detection method together with a linear

material model. The results are shown in figure 4.10.

(a) Clamp force comparison. (b) Total torque to clamp force ratio compari-

son.

(c) Shank torque comparison. (d) Underhead torque comparison.

Figure 4.10: Comparison between the simulation model, BLM test data and theoretical

calculations.

Here the end values of the simulation are of most importance and they are corresponding

well to both the theoretical calculations and the BLM test data. The results from the

simulation model, BLM test data and theoretical calculations at 25 kN are shown in table

4.9.

Page 46: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.3. Constant COF Model 40

Table 4.9: Comparison between the simulation model, BLM test data and theoretical

calculations.

ComparisonClamp Force

[kN]

TF-Ratio

[Nm/kN]

Simulation Model 25.0 1.67

BLM Test Data 25 1.65

Theoretical 25 1.66

ComparisonShank Torque

[Nm]

Underhead Torque

[Nm]

Simulation Model 24.6 17.2

BLM Test Data 23.8 17.5

Theoretical 24.0 17.6

Page 47: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.4. FTR Tightening Tests 41

4.4 FTR Tightening TestsThe 1-step FTR test data for the eighteen tests with five tightening procedures each is

shown in figure 4.11 below.

(a) Total torque as function of tightening angle.(b) Clamp force as function of tightening angle.

(c) Shank torque as function of tightening angle.(d) Underhead torque as function of tightening

angle.

Figure 4.11: Plots of the FTR test data for a 1-step tightening.

The snug point was approximated by the tangent at the end of the force-to-angle curve,

see figure 4.12

Page 48: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.4. FTR Tightening Tests 42

Figure 4.12: Snug point approximation of FTR tests.

The mean values that were calculated for these tests at a clamp force of 25 kN are

shown in table 4.10. The angle is from the snug point until the 25 kN of clamp force is

reached.

Table 4.10: Mean values from the 1-step FTR test data.

Angle [°] Total Torque [Nm]

79.5 38.6

Shank Torque [Nm] Underhead Torque [Nm]

21.1 17.5

How the friction for the tests with the FTR varies with the angle of tightening for the

threads and for the underhead area is shown in figure 4.13.

Page 49: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.5. Varying COF Model 43

Figure 4.13: Mean coefficient of friction in threads and the underhead along the tightening

procedure.

4.5 Varying COF ModelThe stiffness used in this simulation model to achieve a clamp force of approximately 25

kN with 79.5° of rotation was 1.265·105 N/mm. This could be compared with the stiffness

calculated by the constructors of the FTR, which was more than ten times higher at a

value of 1.625·106 N/mm. For the friction variations the FTR data was used with 100

substeps. The torque-plots in figure 4.14 show the comparison between the simulation

model and the BLM data.

Page 50: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.5. Varying COF Model 44

(a) Clamp Force comparison. (b) Total torque to clamp force ratio compari-

son.

(c) Shank torque comparison. (d) Underhead torque comparison.

Figure 4.14: Comparison between the simulation model, FTR test data and theoretical

calculations.

The simulation model is corresponding well with the FTR data, except for the clamp

force, which in the model is growing linearly while in the tests there are some non-

linearities in the start of the tightening. Figure 4.15 shows the percentual error between

the simulation model and the BLM test data for the shank and underhead torque.

Page 51: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.5. Varying COF Model 45

(a) Shank torque, error plot. (b) Underhead torque, error plot.

Figure 4.15: Percentual error plots between simulation model and FTR test data.

As observed, the percentual error at low clamp forces is very high but as the force is

rising the error converges to a stable level. The results from the simulation model are

compared with the FTR test data at 5, 15 and 25 kN in table 4.9.

Table 4.11: Comparison between simulation model and FTR test data.

Force [kN]Underhead Torque

[Nm]

Shank Torque

[Nm]

5 (Model/FTR) 3.93/3.81 4.66/4.63

15 (Model/FTR) 11.06/10.88 12.98/13.38

25 (Model/FTR) 17.50/17.20 21.09/21.77

Force [kN]TF-Ratio

[kN/Nm]Error TF-Ratio

5 (Model/FTR) 1.69/1.72 -1.75%

15 (Model/FTR) 1.62/1.60 0.92%

25 (Model/FTR) 1.56/1.54 1.01%

If the whole tightening procedure is taken into account then the average error between

these is 1.0% for the shank torque and -2.6% for the underhead torque. The average total

torque error is then -0.7%. However, from 15 kN until 25 kN of clamp force the average

error is 3.1%, -1.6% and 1.0% respectively.

Page 52: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.6. Stress in Joint 46

4.6 Stress in JointThe average stress in the shank of the bolt should be approximately 318 MPa for a M10

bolt at a clamp force of 25 kN. The Von-Mises equivalent stress plot for the simulation

model confirms this, as shown in figure 4.16.

Figure 4.16: Von-Mises equivalent stress plot of joint.

The Von-Mises equivalent stress in more detail for the underhead and thread area is

shown in figure 4.17

(a) Stress plot of underhead area. (b) Stress plot of thread area.

Figure 4.17: Von-Mises equivalent stress plot of underhead and thread area.

Page 53: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.7. Contact Pressure Distribution 47

4.7 Contact Pressure DistributionThe contact area for the underhead area can be assumed to be affected be a uniform force

distribution [24]. This should give a pressure of about 420 MPa for a M10, according

to equation 2.5. Where the contact surface has an outer diameter 14 mm and an inner

diameter 11 mm. The pressure distribution behaviour from the FEM simulations is shown

in figure 4.18. The pressure in the model corresponds well to the theoretical values.

Figure 4.18: Contact pressure at the underhead area.

This pressure distribution is seen in figure 4.19, where the pressure is plotted from the

inner edge of the contact in the underhead area until the outer edge of contact.

Page 54: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.7. Contact Pressure Distribution 48

Figure 4.19: Underhead contact pressure with distance from the center of the bolt.

For the contact pressure in the thread area, as seen in figure 4.20, an uneven distribution

is achieved in the simulation models.

Figure 4.20: Contact pressure in the threads.

The contact pressure in the threads is unevenly distributed as shown in figure 4.21,

where the pressure along the center of the flank is plotted with the distance along the

Page 55: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.7. Contact Pressure Distribution 49

thread. The pressure is oscillating in some areas with 100-200 MPa.

Figure 4.21: Contact pressure along the center of the flank.

4.7.1 Contact Stiffness Factor

The contact stiffness factor for the thread contact was varied between 1 and 0.05. The

contact pressure along the center of the flank for factors 1, 0.1 and 0.05 is shown in figure

4.22

Figure 4.22: Contact pressure along the center of the flank for different stiffness factors.

Page 56: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

4.7. Contact Pressure Distribution 50

However, the lower values of contact stiffness will lead to more penetration in the

contacts and it will also affect the shank torque, see figure 4.23.

(a) Total torque to clamp force ratio comparison.(b) Comparison of penetration in the threads.

Figure 4.23: Effects of lowering the contact stiffness factor.

This could be observed by computing the difference between the simulation models

and the FTR test data at a specific load. The load used for this comparison was 23 kN

because this is the force that the softest contact reached when using the same tightening

angle and the same joint stiffness. The results are seen in table 4.12

Table 4.12: Error between simulation and test data when varying the contact stiffness.

Contact Stiffness Factor Error of shank torque at 23 kN

1 2.88%

0.1 3.69%

0.05 5.64%

Page 57: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

If not comparing the results of the clamp force, but focusing on the shank torque, the

underhead torque and the total torque to force ratio, this model is corresponding very

good to the test data with an average error of only 1% on the total torque from 15

kN until 25 kN. This is better than in many other models that were found during the

background research. The shank torque has an error of 3.1% in this force interval. It is

the more complicated contact area and will need further evaluation.

5.1 ModelRegarding the mesh convergence, a finer mesh could have been tested, but the increase

of the computational effort that was needed for a higher amount of degrees of freedom,

was rapidly increasing. The medium mesh size was chosen in all the later simulations.

This was because the frictional behaviour was not changing much at all when comparing

between the coarse and the fine mesh. For the step convergence, the difference in the

results achieved were mostly due to the convergence tolerances in the simulation. A high

amount of substeps was chosen for the later simulations, partly because the time for the

simulations were not greatly affected by the amount of sub steps while the results got a

bit more steady, but also because the friction variations would then be more accurate.

As the graphs for the difference between the linear and non-linear material models show,

the error, or the difference between the simulations, with linear and bi-linear material

models is starting to grow in the end of the simulation. This is probably because of the

stresses in the model that are growing and eventually reach the yield point. Up to this

point however, these two models should be identical. So if clamp forces higher than 25 kN

are to be evaluated for this bolt and nut, then a non-linear model might be a good choice.

51

Page 58: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

5.2. Snug Point 52

5.1.1 Stiffness

The stiffness used for the joint in the simulation model was achieved by varying the

stiffness until the average tightening angle from the test rig data that was used in the

model achieved a clamp force of about 25 kN. This assumes that the stiffness of the

modeled bolt corresponds to the stiffness of the real M10 bolt. If the modeled bolt has a

higher stiffness, this would lead to a lower approximation of the test rig stiffness that is

used in the simulations. If different bolts were modeled and simulated then this could be

evaluated to see if the stiffness of the test rig has been chosen correctly.

5.1.2 Contact Pressure

Because of uneven contact pressure distribution between the threads of the bolt and nut,

different measures were made to find what causes this problem and what could solve it.

A local mesh for the first engaged thread of the bolt and nut was refined to a very fine

mesh with eight elements along the flanks to see if the mesh sizing causes the problem.

Another test was with a hexahedron mesh to see if it would solve the problem. Also a

change to use the nut as contact and the bolt as target was tried. The problem behind

this uneven distribution of pressure might be caused by the discretization of the rather

complicated flank surface.

To solve this problem however, or at least to make it less of a problem, the contact

stiffness in the threads was lowered. The contact stiffness of the thread contact is however,

of big significance in the model. A higher stiffness factor as used for the constant COF

and varying COF models will result in lower errors compared to the BLM and FTR data

when comparing the frictional behaviour. A lower stiffness will instead give a higher

penetration and therefore a more evenly distributed contact pressure.

5.2 Snug PointFor the BLM data the snug point was not correctly evaluated but the start point was

just chosen at 2kN. For the FTR test data however, the snug point was more accurately

chosen. The tolerances of the gauges were initially considered in this step to see if it

would have a large influence of this non-linearity in the tightening curve, and if it would

affect in where the snug point is to be located. However, the band of the tolerances for

the gauges are small enough for this so it should not be a problem.

5.3 TolerancesThe tolerances in the measurements is an important factor to have in mind. Gauges

meant for 100 kN of clamp force and 100 Nm of torque are used in the friction test rigs

but they are used at much lower ranges than this. The force was at a maximum of 25 kN

Page 59: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

53

while the shank torque was not exceeding 30 Nm. At these lower ranges the gauges are

showing larger errors because of the non-linearity.

5.4 Conclusion and Future WorkThe model is simplified compared to the actual test conditions, so some differences in

the results should actually be expected. However, the results for the model, when a stiff

contact is used, results in a good correlation with the tests that are done on both the FTR

and the BLM. The parameterised model together with following the work flow in this

thesis work gives an easy way of creating a model of different dimensions, or if another

software is to be used for the FEA.

In order to achieve a good model, that will be used with for example a friction model

dependant on the contact pressure, a compromise might be needed between the frictional

behaviour and the contact pressure distribution. It should also be investigated to see if a

simplification of the thread surface could be done numerically and by that therefore the

contact stiffness could remain high.

Page 60: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

REFERENCES

[1] “Atlas copco in brief.” https://www.atlascopcogroup.com/en/about-us/

atlas-copco-in-brief. Accessed: 2019-01-22.

[2] R. S. Shoeberg, Engineering Fundamentals of Threaded Fasteners Design and Analysis.

2010.

[3] A. Parlstrand, Ultrasonic measurement and analysis of screw elongation. KTH Royal

Institute Of Technology School Of Engineering Sciences, 2018.

[4] E. Dragoni, “Effect of thread pitch and frictional coefficient on the stress concen-

tration in metric nut-bolt connections,” Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic

Engineering, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 1994.

[5] G. Yang, J. Hong, L. Zhu, B. Li, M. Xiong, and F. Wang, “Three-dimensional finite

element analysis of the mechanical properties of helical thread connection,” Chinese

Journal of Mechanical Engineering (English Edition), vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 564–572,

2013.

[6] M. Oliver, Modeling threaded bolted joints in ANSYS Workbench. ANSYS Advantage,

2012.

[7] Q. M. Yu and H. L. Zhou, “Finite element study on pre-tightening process of threaded

connection and failure analysis for pressure vessel,” in Procedia Engineering, vol. 130,

pp. 1385–1396, 2015.

[8] ISO-gangor for allman anvandning – Basprofil, 2003. SS-ISO 68-1.

[9] J. Mortensen, Friction Analysis of Bolts. Aalborg Universitet, 2013.

[10] N. Motosh, “Development of design charts for bolts preloaded up to the plastic

range,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the

ASME, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 849–851, 1976.

54

Page 61: Simulation of Bolted Joint with Frictional Contacts1324267/FULLTEXT01.pdf · I would like to thank my supervisors at Atlas Copco, Erik Persson and Mayank Kumar and my supervisor at

55

[11] S. Izumi, T. Yokoyama, A. Iwasaki, and S. Sakai, “Three-dimensional finite element

analysis of tightening and loosening mechanism of threaded fastener,” Engineering

Failure Analysis, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 604–615, 2005.

[12] Q. Zou, T. S. Sun, S. Nassar, G. C. Barber, H. El-Khiamy, and D. Zhu, “Contact

mechanics approach to determine effective radius in bolted joints,” Journal of

Tribology, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 30–36, 2005.

[13] H. Olsson, K. Astrom, C. C. de Wit, M. Gafvert, and P. Lischinsky, “Friction models

and friction compensation,” European Journal of Control, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 176 – 195,

1998.

[14] “Ansys newton raphson process.” https://www.sharcnet.ca/Software/Ansys/16.

2.3/en-us/help/ans_thry/thy_tool10.html. Accessed: 2019-02-13.

[15] “Contact formulation theory.” https://www.sharcnet.ca/Software/Ansys/16.2.

3/en-us/help/wb_sim/ds_contact_theory.html#ds_form_pure_aug. Accessed:

2019-02-12.

[16] “Ansys contact.” http://mechanika2.fs.cvut.cz/old/pme/examples/ansys55/

html/guide_55/g-str/GSTR9.htm. Accessed: 2019-02-12.

[17] “Ansys introduction to contact.” http://inside.mines.edu/~apetrell/ENME442/

Labs/1301_ENME442_lab6_lecture.pdf. Accessed: 2019-02-12.

[18] Metriska ISO-gangor for allman anvandning – Basmatt, 2003. SS-ISO 724.

[19] Fastelement – Frigaende hal for skruvar – Metriska lSO-gangor, 2003. SS-ISO 273.

[20] Fastelement – Delgangade sexkantsskruvar – Produktklasserna A och B, 2011. SS-ISO

4014.

[21] Fastelement – Sexkantsmuttrar (utforande 1) – Produktklasserna A och B, 2013.

SS-ISO 4032.

[22] Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy steel, 2009. SS-ISO

898-1.

[23] R. Afsharian and A. Theodoropoulos, Modular Friction Test Rig For Measuring

Torque And Tension In Threaded Fasteners. KTH, 2018.

[24] Screw Thread Design. Fastenal, 2009.


Recommended