Influence of Bolted-Joint Slippage On TH PDF
Influence of Bolted-Joint Slippage On TH PDF
Influence of Bolted-Joint Slippage On TH PDF
Frost-Heave
by
Reprinted from
Key words: bolted joints, finite element method, frost-heave, slippage, structural analysis, transmission towers.
reality neither pinned nor rigid joints. The importance of beam-column element. Peterson (1962) concluded that
joint slippage in connection with transmission towers up to one-half of the measured deflections of
was first noticed by structural engineers who observed, transmission towers could be due to bolt slippage, with
during full-scale tests, that the actual lateral deformation the remainder due to elastic deformation. Marjerrison
of a tower is much larger than the deflection derived (1968) concluded that the deformations of holes and
through structural analysis. Tower design engineers bolts of tower joints are responsible for increasing the
believe that bolted joints allow for significant slippage theoretical deflections of a tower by three times. Bolt
at the joints and thereby allow substantial redistribution slippage in towers was first simulated by Williams and
of member forces when towers are subjected to frost- Brightwell (1987). Devlecchio and Soom (1991) studied
heave. It is therefore useful to examine the behavior of the effect of statistical tolerances of location on the
towers under frost-heave by a refined structural analysis amount of available slippage or movement that can
that accounts for joint slippage and other important occur in bolted assemblies.
characteristics. Findings of such a study would be useful Kitipornchai et al. (1994) developed two idealized
to power utilities to improve the current design and slippage models, namely instantaneous and continuous
construction practices for towers subjected to frost- slippage models, to study the effect of bolt slippage on
heave. In addition, tower maintenance practices would the ultimate strength and deformations of transmission
benefit from a better understanding of the tower member towers. They concluded that bolt slippage has no effect
forces and deformations due to frost-heave, as most on tower load-carrying capacity but significantly affects
towers subjected to frost-heave are located in remote the deformation of a tower under working loads. Kroeker
regions with limited access for maintenance. (2000) analyzed a full-scale transmission tower with
Many studies have examined the behavior of bolted joint slippage using the continuous slippage model of
joints under different loading conditions. A simple Kitipornchai et al. (1994). In Ungkurapinan (2000) and
bolted joint consists of two members and a bolt. The Ungkurapinan et al. (2003), an extensive experimental
diameter of the hole in each member is slightly larger study on the stiffness of three types of joints commonly
than the bolt diameter, leaving some clearance between used in transmission towers is reported.
the bolt and members. A bolted joint has three Current commercial structural analysis software
configurations, as shown in Figure 1: minimum requires further improvements to account for joint
clearance, normal clearance, and maximum clearance. slippage when applied to analysis of transmission
Due to the clearance between the hole and the bolt, the towers. Joint-slippage modeling should be based on
two members start to slip over each other after reaching reliable experimental data. The recent study by
the threshold slippage load. The stiffness of the joint Ungkurapinan (2000) provides a sound experimental
before slippage is lower than that of the member, basis for analyzing the behavior of bolted joints in
however, with similar linear behavior. After slippage transmission towers, incorporating joint slippage, as
starts, the joint stiffness reduces dramatically until the well as bending and geometric stiffness of leg members.
joint reaches a bearing stage. The stiffness then starts to The experimental data obtained by Ungkurapinan
increase slightly until it reaches the yielding point. The (2000) are analyzed for two joint types; column-to-
maximum, normal, and minimum clearance arrangements column and beam-to-column, to obtain equivalent joint
reach the same yielding point. parameters such as joint stiffness, yield strength, etc.
Several researchers have presented analytical models The experimentally observed joint behavior is
that consider non-perfect joint behavior. Chen and Lui incorporated into a finite element model. The response
(1987) modified a beam-column joint to include a of selected tower structures under frost-heave induced
flexible connection spring. Al-Bermani and Kitipornchai displacements is examined to understand the influence
(1992) extended this procedure to a three-dimensional of joint slippage on towers subjected to frost-heave.
350
300
250
200
Load [kN]
150
100
50
Normal clearance
Minimum clearance
Maximum clearance
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement [mm]
Figure 3. Typical test results for the three configurations of Type-A joints as reported by Ungkurapinan (2000)
180
160
140
120
100
Load [kN]
80
60
40
20 Normal clearance
Minimum clearance
Maximum clearance
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement [mm]
Figure 4. Typical test results for the three configurations of Type-C joints as reported by Ungkurapinan (2000)
degrees of freedom (DOF) at the nodes ‘i’ and ‘j’. For to bending deformations in the xy and xz planes. The
the node i, the degrees of freedom in the local stiffness matrix in the local coordinates can be found in
coordinates are denoted by uxi, vyi, wzi, θxi , θyi , and θzi a standard structural engineering textbook (Ghali and
whereas the degrees of freedom in the global Neville 1987).
coordinates are denoted by uXi , uYi , uZi , θXi , θYi , θZi. The geometric stiffness matrix in the local
The beam element shown in Figure 5 can be subjected coordinates is given (Przemieniecki 1968) by:
uY j
θY j
Y θX j
Node-j
y, vyi L uX j
x, uxi
θyi θxi
θz j
Node-i uz j
X
θzi
z, wzi
Z
Node-k
xyz
= Fix Fiy Fiz Mix Miy Miz Fjx Fjy Fjz M jx M jy M jz
where Mx, My, and Mz are the bending moments about cos ( β ) =
(V × e ) ⋅ (V × V ) and
1 1 2
V ⋅ (( V × e ) × ( V × V ))
are the forces in the directions of x-axis, y-axis, and z- (5)
axis, respectively. sin ( β ) =
1 1 1 2
Beam element
e e
e e
Nonlinear spring
d d
Beam element
c c c
Type-A joint b b
Tower legs
Diagonal bracing
Type-C joint
Nonlinear spring
d
d c
Truss element
b
a a
I II III IV
300
250
Load [kN]
Joint load
200
Joint stiffness
150
Stiffness [kN/mm]
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement [mm]
Figure 8. Different deformation regions of a bolted joint (I-micro-slipping, II-macro-slipping, III-bearing, IV-plastic zone)
3.3. Joint Stiffness Calculation macro-slip region that corresponds to the lowest level of
The experimentally obtained load-deformation curves stiffness for the joint (stiffness may become singular in
of Ungkurapinan (2000) can be divided into four regions this region). The end of the second region is identified
corresponding to different joint behavior mechanisms, by the maximum clearance of the joint, and the joint
as shown in Figure 8. The first region is the micro-slip response enters a third region representing a bearing
region, in which the two connected elements are state in which the load is transformed by shearing of the
overcoming their mutual asperities. The joint stiffness in bolts. In the third region, the joint stiffness is slightly
this region is much weaker than the stiffness of each increased due to the addition of the bolt shear stiffness
element. After the asperities are shaved off, the two to the global stiffness. Further loading eventually gets
elements start to slip over each other, giving rise to a the joint into plastic deformations when members or
250
Normal clearance
Minimum clearance
Maximum clearance
200
Joint stiffness kN/mm
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement [mm]
bolts start to yield. Investigation of the experimental where Ff is the fracture load of the joint; Fy is the yield
results corresponding to the fourth stage shows that load of the joint; Sf is the fracture stress of the member;
yielding of the joint occurs at a load level much lower and Sy is the yield stress of the member.
than the yield load of the connecting members. The joint Figures 9 and 10 show the joint stiffness of the Type-A
load-carrying capacity is therefore much lower than that and Type-C joints calculated from the experimental results
of the individual members. This important observation of Ungkurupinan (2000) for the three initial clearance
was not considered in the previous slippage models. configurations. It is worth noting that for Type-C joints the
For the two types of joints discussed above, i.e., stiffness is assumed to have a very small positive value if
Type-A and Type-C joints, the stiffness at a given load the differentiation of the load-deformation relation gives
or displacement level is obtained as the tangent to the zero or negative stiffness values. This approximation is
experimental load-deflection curve at that point, i.e., meant to prevent a singular stiffness matrix.
k = df/du, by using the secant numerical differentiation
technique. The finite element program developed in this 3.4. Numerical Solution Scheme
study incorporates all of the experimental load- For non-linear problems, the loads and specified
deflection curves of Ungkurupinan (2000) in a module. displacements are applied incrementally and the deformed
The second stage of continuous slippage is identified by configuration has to be updated at each load increment.
a rapid change in the slope of the curve. The third or the The finite element procedure is summarized below.
onset of yielding stage is, however, not easily identifiable It is assumed that the solution is known at a given
and the following approximation is acceptably used. time t. The aim is to find the solution for time t+∆t.
t −∆t
1. Update the geometry; X = X + t ∆u
t
70
Normal clearance
Minimum clearance
Maximum clearance
60
50
Joint stiffness kN/mm
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement [mm]
Fy Fy
Fx
Type-A joints
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Lateral to vertical load ratio
Figure 12. Effect of the Joint Slippage on the Load Carrying Capacity for various test load cases
Type-A joints is considered, the load-carrying capacity Figure 13 shows the tip deflections of the structure in
is less than one-half the capacity of a structure with the vertical and horizontal directions for various
ideal joints. Similar results occur when all joints have vertical load magnitudes and lateral-to-vertical load
slippage. It is therefore important to note that slippage ratios. As expected, a structure with ideal joints shows
the highest stiffness and therefore the lowest
of tower leg joints can significantly affect the load-
deflections. The presence of joint slippage generally
carrying capacity of a tower. For the other load cases,
makes a structure more flexible. Slippage of the Type-
Figure 12 also shows that a reduction in the ratio of the C joints has more influence on the lateral deflections
lateral-to-vertical loads decreases the effect of the compared with the Type-A joints. This is probably
slippage of Type-C joints. In a similar way, increasing because Type-C joints connect the diagonal and
this ratio would significantly decrease the load horizontal bracing members, which have more
carrying-capacity of the structure. influence on the overall lateral stiffness than the tower
40 12
Lateral = 1 Lateral 1
=
20 6
Joint type- Joint type-
15
4
Both joints No slippage
10
2
5
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vertical loads [kN] Vertical load [kN]
40 12
Lateral 1 Lateral 1
Tower tip deflection in X-Direction [mm]
20 No slippage 6
Joint type-
15
Joint type-C 4
10 No slippage
2
5
Joint type-A
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vertical load [kN] Vertical load [kN]
40 12
Lateral 1 Lateral 1
Tower tip deflection in X-Direction [mm]
Both joints = =
35 Vertical 2 Vertical 2
10
No slippage
30 Both joints
Joint type- 8
25 Joint type-
20 Joint type- 6
15
4
10 Joint type-
2
5
No slippage
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vertical load [kN] Vertical load [kN]
Figure 13. Tower tip deflections in x and y directions for different joint considerations
Rigid Structure Structure with Type-A joint Structure with Type-C joint
Yield Load [kN] 425.0 200.0 75.0
legs do. Similarly, slippage of Type-A joints has more section of the tower to L152 × L152 × 13mm in the
influence on the vertical flexibility of the structure and bottom section of the tower. The tower is modeled using
hence results in higher vertical deflections compared to 500 elements and 217 nodes (Kroeker 2000; Yue 1994).
a structure with rigid joints. The weight of the neglected secondary members is
assumed to be 20% of the weight of the reduced tower
structure (Kroeker 2000; Yue 1994). The tower-leg and
4.2. 3-D Full Scale Tower horizontal bracing members are modeled as 3-D beam
A full-scale transmission tower is shown in Figure 14. elements. The tower legs elements have a common third
The tower has 708 angle members with 16 different node located at the tower center line. The third nodes of
angle sizes from L51 × L51 × 4.8mm in the upper the horizontal bracing elements are defined by the
24-kN
A
23-kN
11404 mm
135-kN 135-kN
1963 mm
115-kN 115-kN
9814 mm
38040 mm
Y Y
Z (transverse) X (longitudinal)
intersection of the tower center line and the maximum bracings. The effects of joint slip on tower response are
moment of inertia plane of each element. The cross- investigated for several loading cases. These loading
bracing members are modeled as 3-D truss elements. cases investigate, first, the response of the structure
The loading case shown in Figure 14 is one of the under its self-weight and wire loads with no frost heave,
extreme load cases considered by Kroeker (2000). then combine different frost-heave patterns with the
Table 2 shows that the deflections of Node A (Figure 14) self-weight of the tower structure and wire loads.
of the tower, without considering the joint slippage, The first case is for the tower under its self-weight
agree closely with the results obtained by Kroeker and the working loads shown in Figure 14. The axial
(2000) under the tower self-weight and external loading loads of the column and beam elements at a particular
shown in Figure 14. The minor differences in the height from the tower base are normalized with respect
deflections are probably due to the consideration of to their yield loads, and the maximum absolute axial
geometric stiffness in the present analysis. load of this group is identified. These normalized
Figure 15 shows the finite element model of the full- maximum axial loads at various heights are then plotted
scale transmission tower with the locations of the Type- against the normalized height from the tower base
A joints. Note that Type-C joints are used at all cross separately for column and beam elements.
Locations of
Type-A joints
Leg (1)
Y
Z
Leg (2) X
Leg (4)
Leg (3)
Figure 15. Finite element model of full-scale tower with locations of type-A joints
Figure 16 shows the normalized axial loads of leg their failure loads. Similar behaviour is also noted for
members in the presence and absence of joint slippage. the bracing members near the tower base. The
Consideration of joint slippage in the analysis results corresponding results for a tower with joint slippage
in slightly higher axial loads in the tower legs, as are shown in Figures 20 and 21. Consideration of joint
shown in Figure 16. The results for the diagonal and slippage in the analysis yields force profiles that are
horizontal bracing elements are shown in Figure 17. As quite similar in shape and magnitude to the case when
expected, the maximum axial loads in the diagonal and there is no frost-heave induced displacement.
horizontal bracing members are generally smaller than Including joint slippage in the analysis, however,
that in column members, and a majority of these results in member axial force increasing by only 27%
elements have axial loads less than 30% of the yield maximum at the tower base level, with negligible
load. changes in the axial forces in the top half of the tower.
Figures 18 and 19 show the normalized axial loads These results confirm that in a real tower, joint
of the tower leg elements due to a frost-heave induced slippage contributes to a substantial redistribution of
displacement of Leg #2 by 100 mm, without joint forces when subjected to frost-heave induced
slippage. Ignoring joint slippage in the analysis results displacements. As a result, the maximum axial forces
in significant increases in the member axial loads, and in tower leg members are substantially lower than
some members near the tower base show loads above those corresponding to a tower with ideal joints.
70
With joint slippage
Without joint slippage
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 16. Normalized axial load of tower legs under self-weight and applied loading with and without joint slippage
70
With joint slippage
Without joint slippage
Absolute axial loads / yield load %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 17. Normalized axial load of diagonal and horizontal bracing members under self-weight and applied loading with and without joint
slippage
140
Before frost heave
After frost heave
Absolute axial loads / yield load %
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 18. Normalized axial load of tower legs due to a frost-heave induced displacement of 100 mm (without joint slippage)
140
Before frost heave
After frost heave
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 19. Normalized axial load of diagonal and horizontal bracing members due to a frost-heave induced displacement of 100 mm
(without joint slippage)
140
Before frost heave
After frost heave
Absolute axial loads / yield load %
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 20. Normalized axial load of tower legs due to a frost-heave induced displacement of 100 mm (with joint slippage)
140
Before frost heave
After frost heave
Absolute axial loads / yield load %
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 21. Comparison of normalized axial load of horizontal bracings due to a frost-heave induced displacement of 100 mm (with
joint slippage)
120
Before frost heave
After 100 mm frost heave
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 22. Normalized axial load of tower legs due to different frost heave displacements (with joint slippage)
120
Before frost heave
After 100 mm frost heave
Absolute axial loads / yield load %
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 60 100
Tower height percentage %
Figure 23. Normalized axial load of horizontal bracings due to different frost heave displacements (with joint slippage)
In the last loading case, a frost-heave displacement of slippage has a very positive effect on towers subjected
300 mm is experienced by Leg #2. This loading case can to frost-heave.
be considered to represent an extreme frost-heave
condition observed in northern Manitoba. Although 5. CONCLUSIONS
towers subjected to such large frost-heave In the current work, a finite element model, based on
displacements are found to show no failure in the field, experimentally observed slippage behaviour of bolted
the forces obtained from conventional structural joints of transmission towers, is developed to examine
analysis without joint slippage show leg member failure the behaviour of towers subjected to various loading,
when frost-heave displacements exceed 200 mm. including frost-heave induced displacements. The
Figures 22 and 23 show that the tower leg member numerical study shows that slippage of tower leg and
forces are lower than the yield loads when joint slippage bracing member joints has a significant effect on the
is included in the analysis, except in the case of leg load-carrying capacity of a transmission tower
members at the tower base. This finding shows that depending on the ratio of the lateral load to the
actual tower member forces due to frost-heave are much vertical load. It is found that the effect of slippage of
lower than those predicted by an analysis based on the tower leg joints is more significant than that due to
rigid joint assumption. It is therefore clear that joint bracing member joints. It is also found that slippage of
tower leg joints contributes substantially to vertical Chen, W. and Lui, E. (1987). “Effects of joint flexibility on the
deflections of a tower, whereas slippage of tower behavior of steel frames”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 26,
bracing joints contributes to the lateral deflections. No. 5, pp. 719–732.
The analysis of a 3-D full-scale tower shows that Delvecchio, J.N. and Soom, A. (1991). “Tolerances and available
joint slippage has a minor influence on tower member relative motion in bolted connections”, Advances in Design
forces due to tower self-weight and cable loads. Automation, ASME, Vol. 2, pp. 177–183.
However, the study of the response of a tower under Ghali, A. and Neville, A.M. (1978). Structural Analysis – A Unified
different frost-heave induced displacements shows that Classical and Matrix Approach, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
upward displacement of a single leg induces large axial Gilchrist, R.T. and Chong, K.P. (1979). “Thin light-gage bolted
forces in tower members if joint slippage is neglected. connections without washers”, Journal of the Structural Division,
Frost-heave induced displacement of two adjacent tower ASCE, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 175–183.
legs, however, causes minor changes in the tower Kitipornchai, S., Al-Bermani, F.G.A. and Peyrot, A.H. (1994).
member axial forces. The numerical results show that “Effect of bolt slippage on ultimate behavior of lattice
ignoring joint slippage in the analysis results in tower structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120,
leg axial forces that are almost twice as high as these No. 8, pp. 2281–2287.
corresponding to the case accounts for joint slippage Kroeker, D. (2000). Structural Analysis of Lattice Towers with Joint
under frost-heave. In the case of bracing elements, Slippage, MSc. Thesis, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
the axial forces corresponding to the rigid joint Canada.
assumption could be as high as six times the forces Marjerrision, M. (1968). “Electric transmission tower design”,
corresponding to the slippage case. These findings Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No.1, pp. 1–23.
provide a satisfactory explanation of the field Pai, N.G. and Hess, D.P. (2002). “Three-dimensional finite element
observations of towers subjected to frost-heave induced analysis of threaded fastener loosening due to dynamic shear
displacements in northern Manitoba. The results also load”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 383–402.
confirm the importance of incorporating bolted-joint Petersen, W. (1962). “Design of EHV steel tower transmission
slippage in the analysis and design of towers. lines”, Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp.
39–65.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Przemieniecki, J.S. (1968). Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis,
The work presented in this paper was supported by a McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
collaborative research grant from the Natural Sciences and Ungkurapinan, N., Chandrakeerthi, R., Rajapakse, R.K.N.D. and
Engineering Research Council of Canada and Manitoba Yue, B. (2003). “Joint slip in electrical transmission towers”,
Hydro. The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with Engineering Structures, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 779–788.
Mr. Ben Yue, P.Eng. of Manitoba Hydro. Ungkurapinan, N. (2000). A Study of Joint Slip in Galvanized Bolted
Angle Connections, MSc. Thesis, University of Manitoba,
REFERENCES Winnipeg, Canada.
Al-Bermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S. and Chan, S.L. (1992). Williams, D.C.J. and Brightwell, I.W. (1987). “Stochastic method of
“Formex formulation of transmission tower structures”, assessing the effect of joint deformation on bolted lattice towers”,
International Journal of Space Structures, Vol. 7, No. 1, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Probabilistic
pp. 1–10. Methods Applied to Electric Power Systems, pp. 365–373.
Bahaari, M.R. and Sherbourne, A.N. (1996). “3D simulation of Winter, G. (1956). “Tests on bolted connections in light gage
bolted connections to unstiffened columns-II. extended endplate steel”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. 2,
connections”, Journal of Construction Steel Reserach, Vol. 40, pp. 1–25.
No. 3, pp. 189–223. Yue, B. (1994). Tower Design and Analysis Program User Manual,
Calado, L., Mele, E. and De Luca, A. (1999). “Experimental Manitoba HydroTransmission and Civil Design Department,
investigation on the cyclic behavior of welded beam-to-column Winnipeg, Canada.
connections”, Proceedings of the 2nd EuropeanConference on Zienkewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.L. (1989). The Finite Element
Steel Structures, PRAHA, Czech Republic, Paper No. 215. Method, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, London, UK.