0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Effect of Bolt Tightness on the Behavior of Composite Joints

[+] Author and Article Information
Sayed A. Nassar, Vinayshankar L. Virupaksha, Saravanan Ganeshmurthy

Fastening and Joining Research Institute, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 129(1), 43-51 (Mar 06, 2006) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2389000 History: Received December 31, 2004; Revised March 06, 2006

This study provides an experimental and analytical investigation of the behavior of a double bolted single lap shear composite joint. Various scenarios of bolt tightness are considered for composite-to-composite and composite-to-aluminum bolted joints. Progressive damage analysis is provided for the composite coupons in two regions; namely, the surface under bolt heads and near the contact with the shank of the bolt; the damage analysis is performed using an optical microscope. Four tightening configurations are used in the testing of each double bolted joint. These configurations permit each of the two bolts to be either tight or loose. The analytical part of the study utilizes a 3-D finite element model that simulates the bolt tightness and the multilayered composite coupons. The experimental and finite element results are correlated.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Geometry of single lap, double-bolted joint

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Composite-to-composite bolted joint between the MTS machine jaws

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic representation of the inspected damage regions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Load-displacement curve for aluminum-to-composite joints

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Enlarged load-displacement curve for aluminum-to-composite joint

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Load-displacement curves showing the ultimate failure loads

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Bearing surface delamination for TT-LB configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Bearing surface delamination for LT-TB configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Bearing surface delamination for LT-LB configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Bearing surface delamination for TT-TB configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Strength of aluminum-to-composite vs composite-to-composite for TT-TB joints

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Strength of aluminum-to-composite vs composite-to-composite for LT-LB joints

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Load-displacement data for LT-LB configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Load-displacement data for TT-TB configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Initiation of bearing failure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Bearing failure at 70% of ultimate failure load

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Bearing failure before the ultimate failure load

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Progressive surface delamination for the LT-LB joint configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Progressive surface delamination for the TT-TB joint configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Typical FEA model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Cross Section showing contact surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Load-displacement curve with varying coefficient of friction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Comparison of FEA and experimental results

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In