2056323

Bolt Modeling in ANSYS Mechanical
Assessment of the Bolt Pretension Tool
1 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Summary
• Introduction
• Overview of the VDI 2230 standard
• Bolt modeling techniques in ANSYS Mechanical
• Case 1 – Example B1 from VDI 2230 - concentric clamping and loading
• Case 2 – Example B5 from VDI 2230 – eccentric clamping and loading
• Conclusion

• Introduction
• Conclusion

How accurate are the Bolt Modeling Techniques in
ANSYS Mechanical?
“An overview of methods for modeling bolts”:
comparison of bolt modeling techniques in ANSYS Mechanical
 How accurate are these methods?

 Comparison with standardized values
Flange displacement (mm ) on path sector

0.00E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100
-2.00E-04
-4.00E-04
-6.00E-04
-8.00E-04
-1.00E-03
-1.20E-03
-1.40E-03
-1.60E-03
?
-1.80E-03
-2.00E-03

Two examples will be assessed in this document
 Comparisons of FEA results to hand calculations of VDI 2230
 Comparison of different FE approaches
 Case 1: model B1 from VDI 2230  Case 2: model B5 from VDI 2230
Bolted joint between piston and rod in hydraulic cylinder. Bolted joint between cap and pressurized cylinder.
Example of concentric clamping and loading Example of eccentric clamping and loading

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Overview of the VDI 2230 standard
VDI 2230 guideline:

- recognized standard to calculate stressed bolted joints
- provides theoretical relationships between forces, moments and deformations.
Applies to bolts: made of steel; with 60 ° threads; in high-duty and high-strength (strength grades ranging
from 8.8 to 12.9); with dimensions from M4 to M39; with limited contact zones; at ambient temperature.
Hypotheses:
- no extreme sollicitation (shocks, rust)
- hand calculations assume cross-sections remain plane (based on beam theory)

VDI 2230
VDI 2230 especially suited to assess assemblies containing one bolt

VDI 2230 uses a series of hand calculations to assess the bolted assembly (R0 to R13):
Preliminary calculations:
Nominal diameter d Loading:
R0 Limiting size G
R8 Working stress σred,B

R1 Tightening factor αA
Minimum R9 Fatigue loading σa, σab

R2 clamping force FKerf
R10 Contact pressure Pmax
Clamping:
R3 Load factor Ф Minimal threaded
R11 engagement length meff,min
Evolution of
R4 clamping force FZ
Safety factor to sliding SG
R12 and shear τmax
Minimum clamping
R5 force FMmin during assembly
R13 Tightening torque MA
Maximum clamping
R6 force FMmax during assembly
R7 Resistance of the screw

VDI 2230: main aspects behind the hand calculations
Forces and axial deformations in bolted joint described by means of a spring model.
Bolt + clamped parts = tension / compression springs ( elastic compliances δS and δP )

 Pretension step:  Loading:
Preload FM => clamp load FK at • Axial working load FA:
bolt/plate interface. - introduced via clamped parts
- acts on bolt
• Additional bolt load FSA:

- working load on bolt in addition to preload
• Remaining proportion FPA:

- relieves clamped parts

 Screw = assembly of cylinders  Compression zone
Global screw compliance

= - Cylindrical or conical (depends on geometric and
Sum of cylinders’ compliances loading conditions)
- To assess plate’s compliance

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Bolt Modeling in ANSYS Mechanical
Bolt pretension can be easily defined in Mechanical thanks to the Bolt Pretension Tool
(1) Insert Bolt Pretension load
(2) Select bolt’s geometry

– Solid body > select body (use local Coordinate System to orient load)
– Line body > select line body or edge
(3) Define the loading procedure (3 steps)

– Step 1: Load bolt
– Step 2: Lock bolt
– Step 3: Apply external loads
Further information on the Customer Portal in solutions #2045496, #2041721 and #2041682.

Bolt Modeling in Mechanical
• Bolt Pretension feature: disconnects nodes midway through the shank and then reconnects them with
specialized PRETS179 element.
• PRETS179 elements: define a mathematical offset between the newly-separated nodes to generate user-
defined preload.
PRETS179 element

Bolt Toolkit ACT Extension
ACT extension useful for bolt modeling, developed by EDR Medeso
Extension and documentation available on the Ansys App Store.
 Pre and Post processing tools to create groups of rivets and bolts
 Simplified and advanced bolts with thread contact section.
 Bolt results can be evaluated according to the Eurocode 3 and VDI 2230.
Bolt Group Pretension:

Similar to Mechanical’s Bolt Pretension.
Can be used to define pretension to many bolts in one object.
Simplified Bolt Group :

Similar to Mechanical bolt pretension on beam connections.
Additional mass can be added to account for real mass of bolt.
Head and thread connection can be customized.
Advanced Bolt Group :

Bolts constructed with SOLID185 elements with contacts defined for the head and thread.
Geometry based on tabulated values.
Pretension and embedding calculations based on VDI 2230.

How can the bolt be modeled?
Solid body – Coarse Mesh Solid body – Fine Mesh 2D axisymmetric body
Beam connection Advanced bolt

Line body
(since V18.0) (ACT extension)

How can a 3D bolt be connected to the clamped part?
Bolt head to flange contact Bolt thread to nut contact
Linear contact: Nonlinear contact:

(no status change) (status can change)
• Bonded • Frictional
• Rough
Linear contact: Nonlinear contact: Bolt thread option can be used

(no status change) (status can change) to produce an accurate bolt thread stress profile without including
• Bonded • Frictionless thread details in geometry
• No separation • Frictional
• Rough

How can a 1D bolt be connected to the clamped part?
Bolt head to flange connection Bolt thread to nut connection
Recommended setting: keep and use imprint of head’s Recommended setting: take into account nut by using its
face on flange to define: inner face to scope contact or define beam connector
- Line body case: bonded MPC contact
- Beam connector case: end of connector
What users tend to define: use flange hole’s inner edge on both ends to define contact or beam connector

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Case 1 – Example B1 from VDI 2230
Geometry and loads Materials Model for bolt
Solid body, fine mesh
Supports Contacts
Frictional
α = 0.15
Frictional
α = 0.15
Bonded
Pret = 64.8 kN
P = 5.5 MPa
Mesh : 6 elements
for head to flange
contact zone

Case 1 - Pretension step - results on bolt
Hand calculation from VDI 2230 FEA result on 3D solid model
Applied Preload:
Values extracted from VDI: - F = 64800 N
- Bolt compliance
δS = 2.95E-06 mm.N-1
- Preload
Results from FEA:
F = 64800 N
- Bolt elongation (Axial deformation*)
uS = 0.19417 mm
Bolt’s elongation: (* it is assumed that for the pretension step, the displacement of the
uS = KS-1 ∙ F = δS ∙ F = 0.1912 mm pretension node can be used to assess the bolt’s elongation)
Bolt’s stiffness and compliance:

- stiffness - compliance
KS = F ∙ uS -1 = 3.337E+05 N.mm-1 δS = KS-1 = 2.9966E-06 mm.N-1

Bolt stiffness (N.mm-1) Bolt elongation (mm)
From VDI 2230 3.390E5 0.1912

From FEA 3.337E5 0.1942
Relative difference to VDI 1.56% 1.57%
Pretension step
70
Preload
60
50
40
Force (kN)
VDI
30
FEA
20
FEA 0.1942
10
VDI 0.1912
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Adjustment (mm)

Case 1 - Pretension step - results on clamped part
Hand calculation from VDI 2230 FEA result on a 3D solid model
Applied Preload:
- F = 64800 N
Results from FEA:
Values extracted from VDI:
- Estimation of part compression:
- Compliance of the part
axial deformation of the part: uP = 2.20E-2 mm
δP = 3.63E-07 mm.N-1
- Preload
F = 64800 N relative deformation
between two nodes
Part’s compression:
uP = KP-1 ∙ F = δP ∙ F = 2.35E-2 mm
Part’s stiffness and compliance :

- stiffness: KP = F ∙ uP -1 = 2.945E+06 N.mm-1
- compliance: δP = KP-1 = 3.395E-07 mm.N-1
Part stiffness (N.mm-1) Part compression (mm)

From VDI 2230 2.755E6 0.0235 (* VDI 2230 provides uniaxial results whereas
FEA results are in 3D, so comparison of stiffness
From FEA 2.945E6 0.0220 is not so accurate)
Relative difference to VDI 6.90% (*) 6.38% (*)

Case 1 - Pretension step – stiffness results
70
Preload
60
50
40
Force (kN)
VDI _Bolt elongation

FEA _ Bolt elongation
30 VDI _ Part compression
FEA _ Part compression
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Adjustment (mm)
Bolt elongation Part compression

Case 1 - Further comparisons
Maximum working load FSMax
FSMax (N)
From VDI 2230 64999
From FEA 66414
Relative difference to VDI 2.18%
This difference will have influence on fatigue simulations
Maximum working tensile stress in the bolt σZMax as calculated in VDI
FSMax
σZMax (*) = (MPa)
𝐴𝑆 FSMax
(*) Stress assessed as σ= , with AS stress cross-section
From VDI 2230 771 𝐴𝑆
From FEA 787

Nominal cross- section Stress cross- section

Working tensile stress in the bolt σZMax through FEA
σZMax (MPa)
Hand calculation (*) 587

From FEA 589
Relative difference 0.3%
(*) FSMax
Stress assessed as σ= , with AN nominal cross-section
𝐴𝑁
Nominal cross- section
Stress cross- section
Security factor to yield point SF
R Relative difference to VDI R Relative difference

SF = P0,2 (*) SF = P0,2 (*)
σZMax_VDI σZMax_𝑭𝑬𝑨
From VDI 2230 1.17 N.A. 1.53 N.A.

From FEA 1.14 2.5% 1.53 0%
R
(*) Security factor SF =σ P0,2 and bolt class of 10.9 (RP0,2 = 0.9 ∙ 1000 = 900 MPa)
ZM𝒂𝒙

Contact pressure under screw head PM during pretension step
PM (MPa) (*)
F
For FEA results PM = C , with:
(*)
From VDI 2230 720 𝐴𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛
- FC resulting force under head
From FEA 720 - Apmin contact area under head
Relative difference to VDI 0%
Pressure profile distribution can only be

obtained through FEA
F
C

Case 1 – Solid Model – conclusion
 Good correlation between the results from VDI 2230 and from FEA.
 FEA results give more information:

stress distribution in the bolt, contact pressure distribution, …
There are many other modeling options available in Ansys, how sensitive are they?

Case 1 – Other modeling possibilities
User has to make a decision on:
Mesh density:
Analysis type:
fine <-> coarse?
3D or 2D axisymmetric?
Contacts:
Head to flange connection?
Model used for bolt: Bolt thread to nut connection?
solid, beam, other technique?

Tested models for mesh and analysis type sensitivity
Analysis type 3D 2D - axisymmetric 3D
Screw Solid Solid Solid
Thread contact Bonded Bonded Bonded
Head contact Frictional Frictional Frictional
Bolt mesh Fine Fine Coarse

Tested models for bolt
Analysis type 3D 3D 3D 3D
Screw Solid Beam Beam connector ACT Advanced Bolt
Thread
Bonded Bonded Rigid connection Bonded
contact
Head contact Frictional Bonded Rigid connection Frictional
SOLID185 elements
Bolt mesh Fine Fine 2 beam elements
created internally

Tested possibilities for connection
Analysis
3D 3D 3D 3D 3D
type
Screw Solid Solid Solid Beam Beam
Frictional Bonded Bonded

Thread
Bonded with bolt thread Bonded scoped on nut scoped on nut
contact
option face edge
Bonded
Head Bonded
Frictional Frictional Bonded scoped on
contact scoped on edge
imprint face
Bolt
Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine
mesh

Case 1 – Accuracy on force and displacement
Frictional
Solid Screw as thread Screw as
Screw as a Bonded
Model Coarse Screw as a Advanced contact beam with
2D Axi beam head
(FEA bolt mesh beam Bolt (ACT with edge
connector contact
reference) Extension) thread contact
Units option
Bolt working load FS2 after

pretension (step n°2) N 64 797 64 795 64 805 64 800 64 800 65 754 64 845 64 797 64 800
Bolt elongation u after
pretension
(step n°2) mm 0.1942 0.1812 0.2047 0.25992 0.17232 0.1944 0.1848 0.1930 0.66
Max working load FSMax 65 689
(step n°3) N 66 413 66 404 66 316 66 835 66 922 67 713 66 355 66 430
Additional force FSA

(FSA = F SMax– F S2)
N 1 616 1 609 1 511 2 035 2 122 1 959 1 510 1 633 889
What we learned:
- Bolt mesh should not be too coarse
- Beam models are enough to get correct behavior of the structure but should not be used for bolt dimensioning
- Additional force is not easy to evaluate as it is quite low
- No influence of contact type in this model. Connection for beam bolts must be defined on faces.

Case 1 – Accuracy on stress and contact pressures
Frictional
Screw as
Solid Screw as thread Bonded
Screw as a beam with
Model Coarse bolt Screw as a Advanced contact head
2D Axi beam edge
(FEA mesh beam Bolt (ACT with contact
connector contact
reference) Extension) thread
option
Units
Maximum axial stress in
bolt σZMax - (*)
(step n°3) MPa 590 587 595 591 620 (**) 590 590 581
Security factor to yield
point SF -
(step n°3) 1.52 1.53 1.51 1.53 1.45 1.52 1.52 1.54
Estimated contact pressure

under screw head SP - - - -
(step n°3) MPa 738 746 736 737 738
What we learned:
- In this model, all methods lead to similar results on stress and contact pressure
- Beam models do not provide all result data
Comments on results:
- (*) Stress on beam connector can be obtained with an User Defined Result (#2052774)
- (**) Stress in Advanced Bolt not displayed by default but can be obtained by post-processing .rst file on appropriate
material ID

Case 1 – Computing efficiency
Frictional
Screw as
Screw as thread Bonded
Solid Model Screw as a beam with
Coarse Screw as a Advanced contact head
(FEA 2D Axi beam edge
bolt mesh beam Bolt (ACT with contact
reference) connector contact
Extension) thread
option
Units
Number of nodes 1 586 427 31 029 1 207 608 1 234 292 1 351 799 1 430 794 1 580 949 1 586 427 1 444 177
Elapsed time s 935 11 371 673 763 723 687 974 753
Number of iterations 12 9 7 6 6 11 7 13 5
Time per iteration s 77.91 1.22 53 112.17 127.17 65.72 98.14 74.92 150.6
What we learned:
- 2D Axisymmetric: good method to reduce computing time (when applicable)
- Advanced Bolt is a good method to reduce computing time

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Case 2 – Example B5 from VDI 2230
Geometry and loads Materials Model for bolt
Pret Solid body,

fine mesh
Supports Contacts
Frictional
P α = 0.15
Frictional
α = 0.15
Bonded
Bonded
Pret = 190 kN Mesh : 3 elements for

P = 20 MPa head to flange contact
zone

Hand calculation from VDI 2230 FEA result on 3D solid model
Applied Preload:
- F = 190E+03 N
Values extracted from VDI: Results from FEA:

- Bolt compliance - Bolt elongation
δS = 1.157E-06 mm.N-1 (Axial deformation*)
- Preload uS = 2.175 E-01 mm
F = 190E+03N
(* it is assumed that for the pretension step, the displacement of the pretension node can
Bolt’s elongation: be used to assess the bolt’s elongation)
uS = KS-1 ∙ F = δS ∙ F = 2.198 E-01 mm
Bolt’s stiffness and compliance:

- Stiffness - Compliance
KS = F ∙ uS -1 = 8.734 E+05 N.mm-1 δS = KS-1 = 1.145E-06 mm.N-1

Bolt stiffness (N.mm-1) Bolt elongation (mm)
From VDI 2230 8.643E+05 2.198 E-01

From FEA 8.734 E+05 2.175 E-01
Relative difference to VDI 1.05% 1.05%
Pretension step
200 Preload
180
160
140
120
Force (kN)
100
VDI
80 FEA
60
40
VDI 0.2198
20
FEA 0.2175
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Adjustment (mm)

Case 2 - Pretension step - results on clamped part
Hand calculation from VDI 2230 FEA result on a 3D solid model
Values extracted from VDI: Applied Preload:

- Compliance of the part - F = 190E+03N
δp = 1.84E-07 mm.N-1
- Preload
F = 190E+03N
Results from FEA:
- Estimation of part
compression :
Part’s compression: uP = 3.409E-02 mm
uP = KP-1 ∙ F = δP ∙ F = 3.496E-02 mm
Part’s stiffness and compliance:

- stiffness: KP = F ∙ uP-1 = 5.572E06 N.mm-1
- compliance: δP = KP-1 = 1.79E-07 mm.N-1
Part stiffness (N.mm-1) Part compression (mm)

(* VDI 2230 provides uniaxial results whereas
From VDI 2230 5.432E06 3.496E-02 FEA results are in 3D so it seems normal that
stiffness comparison shows differences)
From FEA 5.572E06 3.409E-02
Relative difference to VDI 2.58 % 2.49 %
Case 2 - Pretension step – stiffness results
Pretension step
200
Preload 180
160
140
120
Force (kN)
VDI _Bolt elongation

100
FEA _ Bolt elongation
VDI _ Part compression
80
FEA _ Part compression
60
40
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Adjustment (mm)
Bolt elongation Part compression

Case 2 – Further comparisons
Maximum working load FSMax
FSMax (N)
From VDI 2230 1.9076E5

From FEA 1.9228E05
Maximum working tensile stress in the bolt σZMax (*) as calculated in VDI
σZMax (MPa)
(*) FSMax
From VDI 2230 778.6 Stress assessed as σ= , with AS stress cross-section
𝐴𝑆
From FEA 784.8

Working tensile stress in the bolt σZMax through FEA
F
σZMax (MPa) (*)Stress assessed as σ= SMax,
𝐴𝑁
From hand 610.16 with AN nominal cross-section
calculation(*)
From FEA 626.42
Nominal cross- section
Relative difference 2.66%
Stress cross- section
Comments on σZ plot: FEA shows stress profile through bolt’s section, whereas VDI 2230 calculations are based on
beam theory with constant stress in section.
Security factor to yield point SF
R Relative difference to VDI R Relative difference

SF = P0,2 (*) SF = P0,2 (*)
σZMax_VDI σZMax_𝑭𝑬𝑨
From VDI 2230 1.16 N.A. 1.47 N.A.
From FEA 1.15 0.86% 1.44 2.60%

(*) R
Security factor SF =σ P0,2 and bolt class of 10.9 (RP0,2 = 0.9 ∙ 1000 = 900 MPa)
ZM𝒂𝒙

Contact pressure under screw head PM during pretension step
PM (MPa)
F
For FEA results PM = C , with:
(*)
From VDI 2230 692.2 𝐴𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛
- FC resulting force under the head
From FEA 692.1 - Apmin contact area under head
Pressure profile distribution can only

be obtained through FEA
F
C

Case 2 – Solid Model – conclusion
Similarly to Case 1:
 Good correlation between the results from VDI 2230 and from FEA
 FEA provides more precise results for pressure and stress profiles
How accurate are the other modeling possibilites?

Tested models for the mesh
Analysis type 3D 3D
Screw Solid Solid
Thread contact Bonded Bonded
Head contact Frictional Frictional
Bolt mesh Fine Coarse

Tested models for the bolt
Analysis type 3D 3D 3D 3D
Screw Solid Beam Beam connector ACT Advanced Bolt
Thread
Bonded Bonded Rigid connection Bonded
contact
Head contact Frictional Bonded Rigid connection Frictional
SOLID185 elements
Bolt mesh Fine Fine 2 beam elements
created internally

Tested possibilities for connection
Analysis
3D 3D 3D 3D 3D
type
Screw Solid Solid Solid Beam Beam
Frictional Bonded Bonded

Thread
Bonded with bolt thread Bonded scoped on nut scoped on nut
contact
option face edge
Bonded
Head Bonded
Frictional Frictional Bonded scoped on
contact scoped on edge
imprint face
Bolt
Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine
mesh

Case 2 – Accuracy on force and displacement
Frictional Screw as
Screw as
Solid Model Screw as a thread Bonded beam with
Coarse bolt Screw as a Advanced
(FEA beam contact head edge
mesh beam Bolt (ACT
reference) connector with thread contact contact
Extension)
option
Units
Bolt working load FS2 after

pretension (step n°2) N 189 990 189 970 189 990 189 990 194 220 190 350 190 020 189 980
Screw elongation u
(step n°2) mm 0.21739 0.2191 0.26167 0.19878 0.24403 0.24403 0.21617 0.77
Max working load FSMax
(step n°3)
N 192 270 192 260 192 160 191 840 197 230 192 760 192 280 190 740
Additional force FSA

(FSA = F step n°3 – F step n°2)
N 2 280 2 290 2 170 1 850 3 010 2 410 2 260 760
What we learned:
- Bolt mesh should not be too coarse
- Beam connector models are enough to get correct behavior of the structure but should not be used for bolt
dimensioning
- Additional force is not easy to evaluate as it is quite low
- No influence of contact type in this model. Connection for beam bolts must be defined on faces.

Case 2 – Accuracy on stress and contact pressures
Frictional Screw as
Screw as Bonded
Solid Screw as a thread beam with
Coarse bolt Screw as a Advanced head
Model (FEA beam contact edge
mesh beam Bolt (ACT contact
reference) connector with thread contact
Extension)
option
Units
Maximum axial stress in bolt
σZMax
(step n°3) MPa 630.3 637.3 614.0 - (*) ~ 640(**) 634.1 631.2 607.8
Security factor to yield point
SF
(step n°3) 1.43 1.41 1.46 - 1.39 1.41 1.42 1.48
Estimated contact pressure

- - -
under screw head SP -
(step n°3) MPa 700 700 702 700
What we learned:
- In this model, all methods lead to similar results on stress and contact pressure
- Beam models do not provide all result data
Comments on results:
- (*) Stress on beam connector can be obtained with an User Defined Result (#2052774)
- (**) Stress in Advanced Bolt not displayed by default but can be obtained by post-processing .rst file on appropriate
material ID

Case 2 – Computing efficiency
Frictional
Screw as
Screw as thread Bonded
Solid Model Screw as a beam with
Coarse bolt Screw as a Advanced contact head
(FEA beam edge
mesh beam Bolt (ACT with contact
reference) connector contact
Extension) thread
option
Units
Number of nodes 227 225 93 763 57 013 56 992 83 272 227 507 227 507 83 011
Elapsed time s 213 67 92 94 72 313 261 105
Number of iterations 7 7 13 15 10 8 7 12
Time per iteration s 30.04 9.57 7.07 6.26 7.2 39.13 37.28 8.75
What we learned:
- Advanced Bolt is a good method to reduce computing time

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Conclusion
• For the bolt, results obtained through FEA are in good accordance with the reference values given
by VDI 2230
• FEA enables to get more information on the structure compared to hand calculations
• Before setting up the model, FEA engineer must decide on the precision needed. Simplifying a
model too much, or using a coarse mesh, can introduce errors.

Guideline on choosing analysis type and mesh
Decide on analysis type Decide on mesh density
A fine mesh is always
preferable
Is the geometry
axisymmetric? On bolted On bolt itself:
structure: - Fine mesh
YES - Fine mesh required if
NO required precise results on
to get accurate bolt are needed
Are the loads results - Hexa elements
axisymmetric ? - Using 3 to 5 recommended
elements under the for better
screw head imprint application of
NO PRETS179
is a minimum for
YES accurate results elements
- Using 3 to 5
elements under
the screw head is
Build a 3D analysis Build a 2D axisymmetric analysis a minimum for
accurate results

Guideline on choosing a model for the bolt
What is the aim of the analysis:
- Predimensioning or obtaining precise results ?
- Are results on bolt important?
Predimensioning Precise FEA

Results on bolt not so important Dimensioning of bolt
A beam model can be enough (*). A solid model should be used.

Is the beam modeled in the geometry? Is the bolt modeled in the geometry?
YES NO YES NO
Define Create a beam Define Advanced

pretension on connector and define pretension on bolt in ACT
line body pretension on it solid body extension is a
good
alternative
(*) – Imprint of the screw head must be defined
on the clamped part to define bolt / clamp
connection.
– The preferred workflow would be to model
the bolt with a solid geometry anyhow, and in
SpaceClaim change between using beam body /
solid body depending on desired accuracy.

Guideline on choosing contact types 1/3
 Previous tests show that contact type has little influence on results on bolts. On the overall structure,
local differences can appear:
Results difference between two models

total deformation and equivalent stress
« Model with frictional head contact » – « Model with bonded head contact »

 There are some cases where taking friction and/or contact opening into account will be important!
Head and thread contact type will also have a big impact on the stress in the bolted parts, especially if it
is a thinner part (casted aluminum) or if there are thermal loads.
 With a nonlinear contact, evolution of contact zone can be assessed:
• Bonded contact: status remains • Frictional contact: status evolves throughout the analysis
constant throughout the analysis

- Is clamped part thin?
- Are there thermal loads?
- Do I need to take into account possible contact opening?
YES to at least one question NO to all
Linear approach seems acceptable.

Using nonlinear contact is advised.
Use bonded contact
- For thread to nut contact only -
Do I need precise stress profile in threaded area?
NO YES
Do not use contact Use bolt thread option.

geometry correction A finer mesh is required.

In short:
Numerical considerations Physical considerations
 Analysis type:
 If geometry and loads are axisymmetric, a 2D
axisymmetric model will save a lot of time with no
loss of precision on the results
 Otherwise go for a 3D analysis
 Contacts:
 Linear contacts are the most
 Mesh density: simple to use
 The finer the mesh, the more precise are the  If evolution of contact zone
results must be taken into account,
 The finer the mesh, the higher the computing time use a nonlinear contact
↘ find the best trade-off -> assess mesh  To account for sliding due to
convergence thermal loads and/or un-
symmetric loads, use a
frictional nonlinear contact
 Model used for bolt:
 Solid models offer the best precision and gives the
most information
 Beam models can be used if some inaccuracy is
acceptable
 Advanced bolt functionality of the Bolt Toolkit
extension is a good method to reduce computing
time without losing accuracy

Bien plus que des documents.

2056323

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description :

Description :

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2056323

Transféré par

Description :

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Titres liés

Bolt Modeling in ANSYS Mechanical

Assessment of the Bolt Pretension Tool

1 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

2 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

3 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

 How accurate are these methods?

Flange displacement (mm ) on path sector

4 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

5 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

6 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

VDI 2230 guideline:

7 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

8 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

R8 Working stress σred,B

Minimum R9 Fatigue loading σa, σab

R7 Resistance of the screw

9 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Bolt + clamped parts = tension / compression springs ( elastic compliances δS and δP )

10 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

• Additional bolt load FSA:

• Remaining proportion FPA:

11 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

 Screw = assembly of cylinders  Compression zone

Global screw compliance

12 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

13 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

(1) Insert Bolt Pretension load

(2) Select bolt’s geometry

(3) Define the loading procedure (3 steps)

14 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

15 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Bolt Group Pretension:

Simplified Bolt Group :

Advanced Bolt Group :

16 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Beam connection Advanced bolt

17 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Linear contact: Nonlinear contact:

Linear contact: Nonlinear contact: Bolt thread option can be used

18 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

19 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

20 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Solid body, fine mesh

21 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Bolt’s stiffness and compliance:

22 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

From VDI 2230 3.390E5 0.1912

23 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Part’s stiffness and compliance :

Part stiffness (N.mm-1) Part compression (mm)

Relative difference to VDI 6.90% (*) 6.38% (*)

VDI _Bolt elongation

Bolt elongation Part compression

Maximum working tensile stress in the bolt σZMax as calculated in VDI

From FEA 787

Nominal cross- section Stress cross- section

26 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Hand calculation (*) 587

Nominal cross- section

Stress cross- section

Security factor to yield point SF

R Relative difference to VDI R Relative difference

From VDI 2230 1.17 N.A. 1.53 N.A.

27 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Pressure profile distribution can only be

28 © 2018 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Confidential

Relative difference to VDI 6.90% () 6.38% ()