Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Analysis of steel bolted connections by means

of a nonsmooth optimization procedure
M.J. Kontoleon, D.N. Kaziolas, M.D. Zygomalas, C.C. Baniotopoulos *

Department of Civil Engineering, Institute for Steel Structures, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Received 2 August 2002; accepted 3 July 2003

Abstract
A nonsmooth optimization procedure is herein proposed for the investigation of the bearing resistance of steel
bolted connections. Taking into account the presence of nonlinear effects such as e.g. plasticity and interface interac-
tion, and describing the resistance in bearing strength by means of a nonmonotone multi-valued reaction-displacement
law obtained by experimental testing, the problem is formulated as a hemivariational inequality one. The latter is
equivalent to a substationarity problem of the potential energy of the connection under investigation. This problem can
be effectively treated numerically by applying an appropriately chosen nonconvex, nonsmooth optimization algorithm
and in particular, the NSOLIB optimization algorithm based on the proximal bundle method has been applied. Two
numerical examples whose results are compared to experimental testing results demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed method.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bolted connections; Hemivariational inequalities; Nonsmooth optimization

1. Introduction in the case of reinforcement of beams or the assemblage

In each engineering structure and particularly in each
steel structure, its various structural components are
connected each other. To this aim, several types of
connections are available: bolted, welded, riveted and
adhesive ones. Among them, the bolted connections ex-
hibit a lot of advantages, as are e.g. the easy assemblage,
reassemblage, repairing and replacement of damaged
structural components, thus making these connections
attractive, in particular for the construction of heavy
structures.
A lot of examples of such joints could be mentioned
(cf. e.g. the column-to-column connection, the beam-to-
column joint, the column-to-base one and this one be-
tween the upper flange of a beam and a plate appearing
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-2310-995753; fax: +30-
2310-995642.
E-mail address: ccb@civil.auth.gr (C.C. Baniotopoulos).
of two beams). These joints distribute in an effective way
the internal forces between the connected members.
Classic methods for the calculation of these joints as-
sume that the contact between the adjacent elements is
complete. This assumption has as a direct consequence
the compression forces to be undertaken by the flanges
and the tension forces by the bolts [1,2]. In the case that
the loading leads to the development of moments, shear
and normal stress, the main reason for the failure of the
joint is the loss of the resistance in bearing strength.
Specifically, the phenomenon of concentration of stres-
ses around the holes of the bolts does appear, thus in-
troducing nonlinear effects leading to bearing strength
failure. In this case, the part of the joint around the hole
usually becomes the weakest part of the structure. For
this reason, a plethora of researchers have applied a lot
of experimental, theoretical and numerical methods to
investigate the behavior of bolted joints (cf. e.g. [3–5]).
An effective way to take into account the previously
mentioned nonlinear effects [6–10] is to simulate the steel

0045-7949/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00311-0
2456 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465
connections by means of the finite element method in
combination to the principles of nonsmooth mechanics
[11–13]. Nonlinear effects result from the well-known
nonlinear material properties of steel and the fact that in
the area around the bolts, unilateral contact conditions
develop active contact and separation areas between the
contact fronts. As is well-known, contact and separation
effects can be effectively described by means of the uni-
lateral contact law of Signorini–Fichera [14]. From a
mathematical point of view, these phenomena introduce
a boundary value problem that leads to variational in-
equality problems or equivalently to quadratic optimi-
zation problems [11]. The bearing strength of a bolt can
be described by a nonmonotone multi-valued reaction-
displacement law as a result of the concentration of the
stresses around the hole (Fig. 1). The vertical branch of
the diagram corresponds to the abrupt loss of its bear-
ing strength. Thus, the formulation of the problem is
expressed by means of a variational–hemivariational
inequality [12,15,16]. The theory of hemivariational in-
equalities leads to a substationarity problem of the po-
tential or complementary energy of the structure; the
latter expresses the principle of minimum potential
energy of the structure at the state of equilibrium. The
solutions of this problem corresponds to the so-called
substationarity points that represent equilibrium posi-
tions of the connection and can be derived from the
inclusion oP, where P is the potential or complementary
energy, u is the displacement vector and o denotes the
generalized gradient [17,18]. We notice that substation-
arity points include local minima, local maxima and
saddle points. In the present paper, the behavior of
Fig. 1. Bearing strength law for the bolt.
bolted connections is investigated by taking into account
the effect of the loss of bearing strength and the presence
of nonlinear effects such as plasticity and interface in-
teraction by using three-dimensional models with pre-
defined active, nonactive and sliding regions. It is
obvious that the proposed model describes the behavior
of the joint in a very detailed way and the treated nu-
merical applications give reliable results, thus leading to
new improved principles in the design of safe steel
structures. The mathematical formulation of the prob-
lem leads to a variational–hemivariational inequality.
The nonmonotone law that is considered to hold for the
bearing strength of the bolts is the result of a non-
smooth–nonconvex energy potential (energy superpo-
tential) [19]. Thus, the above mentioned substationarity
problem can be solved with an appropriately chosen
nonsmooth–nonconvex optimization procedure capable
to handle superpotentials, converging iteratively to a
substationarity solution. This is the reason why for the
numerical treatment of the problem at hand, the NSO-
LIB program based on the proximal bundle method
has been applied [20]. The proximal bundle method
proceeds to a polyhedral approximation of the objective
(optimization) function with the cutting-plane method
[21–23]. Additionally, it uses a weighting parameter to
consider a quadratic stabilization term in the polyhedral
approximation of the objective function, succeeding to
collect second order information in order to obtain the
curvature of the function. As a matter of fact, the bundle
contains information about the subgradients of previous
iterations and is used for the calculation of a search
direction. Line search is performed upon the search di-
rection in order, either to converge to a new optimal
point or to update the bundle of subgradients. The ef-
fectiveness of the proposed method is illustrated by
numerical examples and laboratory testing presented in
the final paragraphs of the paper.
2. Mathematical formulation of the discrete problem
The steel connection under investigation consists of
two flanges interconnected by one bolt in a global or-
thogonal Cartesian coordinate system Ox1 x2 x3 of R3 .
Having as scope to extend this modeling into n bolts we
assume that the behavior of the flanges is elastic–plastic,
of the bolt linear elastic and the bearing strength of the
bolts exhibits a nonmonotone reaction-displacement
law.
We denote by Pl , Pu the load vectors applied on the
nodes of the free boundary CU of each flange and Csu ,
Csbu , Csl , Csbl the opposite fronts of the interfaces be-
tween the upper flange and the bolt and between the
lower flange and the bolt respectively (Fig. 2). The un-
known forces developed on Csu , and Csbu or on Csbl , Csl ,
 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465 2457

Fig. 2. On the FEM modeling of the discretized bolt model.

form the vectors P and
P respectively. Thus for the X ¼ {u field of kinematically admissible displace-
upper, lower flange and the bolt of the joint, we have ments for the bolted connection}
respectively the following total load vectors: The constitutive equations:


 !
eb ¼ e0b þ F0b þ sb ð5Þ
Pl Pu
Pl
Pl ¼ Pu ¼ Pb ¼ ð1Þ

P
P P
em ¼ e0m þ eEm þ ePm ð6Þ
Let us now assume that the parts of the joint that are in
sticking or in slipping contact are respectively a priori eEm ¼ F0m sm ð7Þ
known. The bolt bearing strength is described by means
of a relation between the forces developed on the in- ePm ¼ Nm km ð8Þ
terfaces of the bolt with the flanges and the relative
displacement of the opposite interfaces of the lower and Fm ¼ NmT sm
Hm km
Rm ð9Þ
upper flange with the bolt, written in the form:

km P 0; Fm 6 0; FmT km ¼ 0 ð10Þ

Pj 2
o/j ð½uj Þ ð2Þ
where m ¼ u, l denotes the upper and lower flange of the
where uj : R3 ! R is a locally Lipschitz function. Within connection. In the above relations for each flange we
an elastic–plastic analysis framework, the following re- denote by:
lations hold:
The equilibrium equations: F0m natural flexibility matrix
G l sl ¼ P l em total strain vector
sm stress vector
Gu su ¼ Pu ð3Þ
eEm elastic strain
Gb sb ¼ Pb ePm plastic strain
km plastic multipliers vector
where G is the equilibrium matrix and s the stress vector Fm yield functions
for each component of the connection (lower, upper Hm workhardening matrix
flange and bolt). Nm matrix of gradients of yield functions with re-
The compatibility relations: spect to the stresses
el ðuÞ ¼ GTl ul Rm vector of positive constants

eu ðuÞ ¼ GTu uu ð4Þ while for the bolt the following definitions are used:
eb ðuÞ ¼ GTb ub
F0b natural flexibility matrix
where e is the strain vectors, u is the displacement vector eb strain vector
for each component and u 2 X , where X is defined as: sb stress vector
2458 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465

From Eqs. (3) we obtain the formula: Instead Eq. (18), the following relation can be written:

ðGm sm ÞT um ¼ PTm um sTl el ðu
uÞ þ sTu eu ðu
uÞ þ sTb eb ðu
uÞ

T
ð11Þ
ðGb sb Þ ub ¼ PTb ub Xk T

Pj ð½uj 
½uj Þ
Combining Eqs. (4) and (11), the following equation is j¼1
T  T
obtained: ¼ Pl ð

ul

ul Þ uu


þ Pu ð
uu Þ 8u 2 X ;
   
sTl el ðu Þ þ sTu eu ðu Þ þ sTb eb ðu Þ u ¼ ful ; uu ; ub g ð19Þ
¼ PTl ul þ PTu uu þ PTb ub 8ul ; uu ; ub 2X ð12Þ
Relations (10), (17) and (18) give rise to the following
Then, taking into account relations (10), the following problem:
variational inequality is obtained: Find ul ; uu ; ub ; 2 X such as to satisfy the following
hemivariational inequality:

FTl ðkl
kl Þ
FTu ðku
ku Þ P 0 8kl ; kl ; ku ; ku P 0
ð13Þ sTl el ðu
uÞ þ sTu eu ðu
uÞ þ sTb eb ðu
uÞ
Xk
The right hand side of Eq. (12) can be written in the þ /oj ð½uj ; ½uj 
½uj Þ
FTl ðkl
kl Þ
FTu ðku
ku Þ
form: j¼1
T  T
PTl ul þ PTu uu þ PTb ub P Pl ð

ul

ul Þ uu


þ Pu ð
uu Þ 8u 2 X ;
   
T T T T u ¼ ful ; uu ; ub g ð20Þ
¼ Pl
ul þ Pu
uu þ P ð
uu

ubu Þ
P ð
ul

ubl Þ
T T T T
¼ Pl u
l þ Pu
uu þ Pl ½ul  þ Pu ½uu  The above relation is a hemivariational inequality due to
T T T the appearance of the term:
¼ Pl u
l þ Pu uu þ P ½u  ð14Þ
/oj ð½uj ; ½uj 
½uj Þ
where
! ! !

ul
uu
ubl Combining relations (5)–(9) and (20), a hemivariational
ul ¼
ul ; uu ¼
uu ; ub ¼
ubu ð15Þ inequality is formulated and the following problem
reads:
and Find ul ; uu ; ub ; 2 X such that:


½ul  ¼
ul
u
bl ; ½ul  uTl Kl ðul
ul Þ þ uTu Ku ðuu
uu Þ þ uTb Kb ðub
ub Þ
½u  ¼
½uu  ¼
uu

ubu ½uu 
uTl Gl K0l Nl ðkl
kl Þ
uTu Gu K0u Nu ðku
ku Þ
are the relative displacements of the lower and upper þ kTl Hl ðkl
kl Þ þ kTu Hu ðku
ku Þ
flange respectively. þ kTl NTl F
1  T T
1 
0l Nl ðkl
kl Þ þ ku Nu F0u Nu ðku
ku Þ
The following equation holds:  
þ eT0l F
1 T
1
0l Nl ðkl
kl Þ þ e0u F0u Nu ðku
ku Þ
T X
k
T
P ð½uj Þ ¼ P j ð½uj Þ ð16Þ
eT0l F
1 T  T
1 T 
0l Gl ðul
ul Þ
e0u F0u Gu ðuu
uu Þ
T  T 
j¼1
eT0b F
1 T 
0b Gb ðub
ub Þ þ Rl ðkl
kl Þ þ Ru ðku
ku Þ

where j ¼ 1, k is the number of couple of nodes of the X k

þ /oj ð½uj ; ½uj 
½uj Þ
opposite interfaces of the lower and upper parts of the j¼1
bolts with the flanges, whereas the following relation T T
(being an equivalent expression of inclusion (2)) holds ul


P Pl ð
ul Þ þ Pu ð
uu


uu Þ
by definition: 8u 2 X ; 8kl ; kl ; ku ; ku P 0

ð21Þ
T
/oj ð½uj ; ½uj Þ P P j ½uj  8½uj  2 R3 ð17Þ We mention that:

From relations (12), (14) and (16) we obtain the fol- K ¼ GF
1
0 G
T
ð22Þ
lowing equality:
is the stiffness matrix of each component of the con-
X
k T nection.
sTl el ðu Þ þ sTu eu ðuÞ þ sTb eb ðu Þ
Pj ð½uj Þ
j¼1
The hemivariational inequality (21) expresses the
T T principle of virtual work in inequality form. The po-
¼ Pl
ul þ Pu
uu 8u 2 X ; u ¼ ful ; uu ; ub g
 
ð18Þ tential energy of the structure has the form:
 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465 2459

1 1 1 lapping parts. For the first part of the boundary, an area

Pðu; kÞ ¼ uTl Kl ul þ uTu Ku uu þ uTb Kb ub
2 2 2 of complete contact between the adjacent nodes of the
1 bolt and the flanges is simulated. For the second part we

uTl Gl K0l Nl kl
uTu Gu K0u Nu ku þ kTl Hl kl
2 simulate slip conditions and finally, for the third part we
1 T 1 T T
1 1 T T
1 assume that free boundary conditions hold. Friction
þ ku Hu ku þ kl Nl F0l Nl kl þ ku Nu F0u Nu ku
2 2 2 only slightly affects the model and therefore, is not taken
þ eT0l F
1
0l N l kl þ eT
1
F
0u 0u N u ku
e T
1 T
0l F0l Gl ul
into consideration.
Under the assumption of small strains in order to

eT0u F
1 T T
1 T T
0u Gu uu
e0b F0b Gb ub þ Rl kl þ Ru ku
T
apply the mathematical formulation of the previous
X k
T T section for the discretized problem, the overall behavior
þ /oj ð½uj Þ
Pl
ul
Pu
uu 8kl ; ku P 0
j¼1
of the bolt connection with a reaction-displacement law
is described. The reactions along the degrees of freedom
ð23Þ
of the elements may be written as:
The corresponding substationarity problem to the DRi ¼ KiT dui ð24Þ
hemivariational inequality (21) reads:
Find u 2 X such that the potential energy of the where KiT is the tangential stiffness matrix in the form:
structure Pðu; kÞ is substationarity in v ¼ u where v 2 X .
KiT ¼ KiL þ KiNL ð25Þ

3. Finite element modeling consisting of the linear and nonlinear matrices KiL and
KiNL :
A finite element analysis is now applied for the Z
modeling of a bolted connection between two flanges. KiL ¼ BTL CBL dX ð26Þ
Due to the uniform external loading applied at the edges X

of the flanges causing bolt failure and the symmetrical

geometry of the bolt connection, the single-bolted area Z
of Fig. 3 is first studied. The area consists of an upper KiNL ¼ BTNL CBNL dX ð27Þ
X
and lower flange and a bolt. A finite element model for
the single-bolted area and in order to describe the non-
where BTL , BTNL are the strain–displacement matrices and
linear behavior of the components, an elastic–plastic
C, Cep are the elastic and elastoplastic matrix.
analysis is applied. A compulsion is applied at the edges
Therefore, the total reaction at the end of increment i
CU of the flanges through a sequence of displacements
for the nodes of the body X will be given from the fol-
simulating the action of shear forces that lead to bolt
lowing relation:
failure. The contact area between the bolt and the
flanges introduces an inequality constraint problem Z
along the boundary that is divided into three nonover- Ri ¼ dui DRi dX ð28Þ
X

Applying this method for a material law with work-

hardening, we obtain an overall reaction-displacement
diagram as shown in Fig. 4. The slope of the curve for
the first elastic increments remains constant E1 . Once the
model enters to the plastic domain, the tangential matrix
is updated producing the different slopes E2 ; E3 ; . . . ; En .

4. Multi-bolt connection relations and optimization pro-

cedure

The multi-bolted connection of Fig. 5 is now con-

Fig. 3. The discretized model in the neighborhood of a bolt.
sidered. Assuming that all the bolts have the same di-
ameter and the same strength (the most common case in
practice), the equivalent stiffness matrix for the whole
connection will be calculated. The initial matrix K0b of
the multi-bolted connection has the form:
2460 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465
2 3
kb;11 kb;12 ... kb;1n
6 kb;21 kb;22 ... kb;2n 7
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. 7 ð31Þ
4 . . . . 5
kb;n1 kb;n2 ... kb;nn

The relation between the stiffness terms Kb;ij and the

correlation factors is given by the relation:
Kb;ij ¼ kb;ij Kb;ii ð32Þ

where kb;ii ¼ 1:0 for i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n. The nondiagonal

Fig. 4. The nonlinear reaction–displacement diagram for the
single bolt model.
correlation factors kb;ij , i 6¼ j are calculated applying
unit relative displacements along the X1 direction at the
top and bottom surface of a bolt and restraining the
remaining relative displacements of the considered and
the other bolts. The reactions Rb;i developed in each bolt
i ¼ 1; . . . ; n, determine the correlation factors from the
relation:

kb;ij ¼ Rb;ij =Rii ð33Þ

Applying on the boundary nodes of CU external forces

along the X direction, the reactions that are developed at
the nodes of the bolts constitute the load vector P:

P T ¼ ½ Rb;1 Rb;2 ... Rb;n  ð34Þ

Thus, the substationarity problem (23) is transformed

into the equivalent substationarity problem of finding
u 2 X such that the potential energy of the structure
Pðu; kÞ is substationarity in v ¼ u, where v 2 X where:

1 Xk
Pðu; kÞ ¼ uT Kb u
P T u þ /oj ð½uj Þ ð35Þ
2 j¼1

Fig. 5. The steel bolted connection. We have already denoted by P the potential energy that
the structure absorbs. Therefore, an iterative optimiza-
2 0 0 0
3 tion procedure is proposed by assuming that a non-
Kb;11 Kb;12 ... Kb;1n
6 K0 0 0 7 monotone law holds for the bolt bearing strength. The
6 b;21 Kb;22 ... Kb;2n 7
K0b ¼ 6 method converges to a solution (a displacement field)
6 .. .. .. .. 7 7 ð29Þ
4 . . . . 5 that expresses a possible position of equilibrium of the
0 0 0 connection. In order to apply the method, we must
Kb;n1 Kb;n2 ... Kb;nn
calculate the initial equivalent stiffness matrix K0b , the
load vector P, the potential energy function and provide
where n is the number of bolts. The diagonal terms that the data that describe the curve CðuÞ of the overall be-
express the equivalent stiffness of a single bolt model are havior of the single-bolt model. The following steps
already known from the previously calculated reaction- describe the previously mentioned algorithm:
displacement law. Indeed, for the elastic slope denoted
by E1 the following relation is obtained: 1. Set the initial displacement field u0 equal to zero.
2. Call the nonconvex, nonsmooth optimization routine
0
Kb;ii ¼ E1; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n ð30Þ and compute a displacement field ui that renders the
potential energy substationary. If the optimization
procedure does not converge, then the algorithm
The nondiagonal terms can be calculated from the in- ends.
teraction of each bolt with the others. Therefore, we 3. Update the new stiffness matrix Kib of the structure
assume a matrix of correlation factors ki;j where for the displacement field obtained in the previous
i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n, having the following form: step using the slope information of curve CðuÞ.
 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465
4. Calculate the norms Ni
1 , Ni of the matrices Ki
1 , Ki .
If the absolute difference between the two norms Ni –
Ni
1 is smaller than a given tolerance e, then the algo-
rithm ends. If not, set i ¼ i þ 1 and return to step 2.
5. Numerical applications and laboratory tests
The method proposed in the previous section is in the
present part used for the analysis of two bolted con-
nections. In particular, the joint between the upper
flange of a beam and a plate (Fig. 6) is considered. The
nonmonotone behavior of the bearing strength of the
bolts and the respective superpotentials for the two
connections are depicted in Fig. 7. The bearing resis-
tance is calculated based on the geometry of each con-
nection by applying the respective formulas of Eurocode
3. As a matter of fact, in order to accurately compute the
bearing strength of the bolted connection at hand, the
previously formulated hemivariational inequality (21)
Fig. 6. Steel beam upper flange-plate connection.
Fig. 7. On the numerical applications (a) two bolts connection and (b) four bolts connection.
2461
expressing the principle of virtual work in inequality
form of the connection at hand is first formulated; the
later is equivalent to the substationarity problem (23)
expressing the principle of minimum potential energy for
the connection. To this end, applying a finite element
analysis for the modeling of the bolted connection tak-
ing into account all the details affecting its structural
response (i.e. particular boundary conditions, nonlinear
behavior of the connection components, assumption of
small strains etc.), the substationarity problem (23) is
transformed to the equivalent problem (35). The solu-
tion of the later is only possible by means of an iterative
optimization scheme described in details in the previous
section. Is it obvious that the detailed study of the
structural response of the steel bolted connections is
achieved by the effective coupling of a nonsmooth op-
timization procedure with the finite element method. It
is worthy to mention here that by means of the proposed
method the nonmonotone behavior of certain compo-
nents of the connection (cf. the bearing strength of a
single bolt) is accurately taken into account and the re-
spective numerical results fit better to the respective
experimental curves.
The first connection (Fig. 8a) consists of two bolts
M20-6.8 fyb ¼ 480 N/mm2 , fub ¼ 600 N/mm2 . The
thickness of each flange is 10 mm. The steel is considered
to have yield stress 275 N/mm2 and ultimate stress 430
N/mm2 . The second connection (Fig. 8b) consists of four
bolts M20-5.6 fyb ¼ 300 N/mm2 , fub ¼ 500 N/mm2 . The
thickness of each flange is 12 mm. The steel has a yield
stress 235 N/mm2 and an ultimate stress 360 N/mm2 .
The connections are simulated by means of three-
dimensional finite element models, using six-node solid
prismatic elements with 3 degrees of freedom at each
2462 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465

Fig. 8. Plan of the investigated connections (a) two bolts connection and (b) four bolts connection.

node. The elastoplastic stress–strain law of each con-
nection is depicted in Fig. 9. The elasticity modulus of
the components of the connections is E ¼ 210 000 N/
mm2 and the Poisson ratio is 0.3. The external loading is
applied along the direction of the X1 -axis at the free edge
of the flange on the plain X2 , X3 . The overall reaction-
displacement diagrams (Fig. 10) for the two connections
are obtained by the single bolted model through an el-
astoplastic analysis of 12 increments for a total com-
pulsion of 2 mm at each fixed edge of the flanges.
Applying the optimization program NSOLIB, the re-
sistance in bearing strength for each bolt of the two
connections is calculated. In Figs. 11 and 12 the dia-
grams of external loading and relative displacements of
the opposite interfaces of the lower and upper flange
with the bolt for the two connections are presented. For
the two-bolt connection we can observe that for the
external loading of 55.000 kN/m2 the resistance in bre-
aring strength is exceeded. For the loads onwards the
connection is in failure condition. For the four-bolt
connection we notice that the resistance in bearing
strength has overcome its ultimate value for the loading
of 154.000 kN/m2 only for bolts 1 and 2 (Fig. 12a). The
other two bolts (3 and 4) fail for the external loading of
176.000 kN/m2 (Fig. 12b).
In order to check the effectiveness of the proposed
method, a series of relevant experimental tests has been
performed at the laboratory. In particular, the behavior
of the steel bolted connection of Fig. 13 has been in-
vestigated [24]. This specimen consists of bolts M12-8.8,
fyb ¼ 640 N/mm2 , fub ¼ 800 N/mm2 . The thickness of
the flange is 10 mm and the steel has yield stress 235 N/
mm2 and ultimate stress 360 N/mm2 . The experiments
were performed by means of a simply supported steel
HEB100-beam of 1 m length, subjected to a concen-
trated force at the middle of its span. The bolted con-
nection tested is shown in the upper part of Fig. 14,
where its deformed shape is also depicted in the
lower part of Fig. 14. The experimental results obtained
conform well to the ones obtained by means of the

500
Two-Bolt Connection 350 Four-Bolt Connection
400 300
Stress (N/mm2)

Stress (N/mm2)

250
300
200
200 150
100
100
50
0 0
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.6% 0.8% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
(a) Strain (b) Strain
Fig. 9. Connection stress–strain laws.
 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465 2463

250 250

Two-Bolt Connection 350 Four-Bolt Connection

Reaction Force (kN)

200
Reaction Force (kN)

300

150 250
200
100 150

100
50
50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 10. Reaction–displacement diagrams of the connections.

200000 200000
180000 180000

160000 160000
140000 140000

120000 120000

100000 100000

80000 80000

60000 60000

40000 40000

20000 20000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

Fig. 11. External loading–displacement diagrams for the connection.

200000 200000
180000 180000
160000 160000
140000 140000

120000 120000

100000 100000

80000 80000
60000 60000
40000 40000

20000 20000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

(a)

200000 200000
180000 180000

160000 160000

140000 140000
120000 120000

100000 100000
80000 80000

60000 60000
40000 40000
20000 20000
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

(b)

Fig. 12. External loading–relative displacement diagrams for the connection with respect to the upper and lower plate respectively.
2464 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465

the laboratory specimens, being a typical reason of dis-

agreement between numerical and laboratory evaluation
of the initial stiffness of such steel bolted connections.

6. Conclusions

In the present study, a nonsmooth optimization

Fig. 13. Plan of the laboratory testing specimen.
method coupled by the FEM is proposed for the cal-
culation of the bearing strength of steel bolted connec-
tions. Taking into account that in structural steelwork
practice all the bolts of a connection have usually the
same diameter and strength, the stiffness of a single-bolt
model is used in order to assemble the equivalent stiff-
ness matrix for the whole connection. The nonlinear
behavior of the bolt connection leads to a nonconvex,
nonsmooth optimization problem that is solved by
means of an iterative numerical procedure based on the
NSOLIB proximal bundle method. It has also to be
underlined that the effectiveness of the proposed method
has been demonstrated by numerical examples and
laboratory testing.
As a conclusive remark it is worthy to be mentioned
here that the main feature of the proposed method is the
fact that structural analysis problems involving non-
monotone effects (as is e.g. the study of the bearing
strength of steel bolted connections) can be effectively
treated by means of an iterative optimization procedure
based on the classic FEM schemes coupled to the prin-
ciples of nonsmooth mechanics.

Acknowledgements

Fig. 14. The tested connection specimen. The work reported here has been supported by the
European Union Research and Training Network
(RTN) ‘‘Smart Systems. New Materials, Adaptive Sys-
previously presented numerical method (Fig. 15). We
tems and their Nonlinearities. Modelling, Control and
have however, here to comment on the discrepancy be-
Numerical Simulation’’, with contract no. HPRN-CT-
tween the numerical and the experimental results at the
2002-00284.
initial stage (left part of the diagram) that is due to the
imperfections and clearances at the holes and bolts in
References
50
[1] CECM, European Recommendation for Steel Structures,
40 ECCS, Brussels; 1978.
[2] AISC, Manual of Steel Structures, 8th ed. Chicago: AISC;
30 1981.
kNm

[3] Gebbeken N, Wanzek T. Versuche und numerische

20
Berechnungen f€ ur geschraubte Kopfplattenanschl€ usse.
10 Bauingenieur 1998;73:512–9.
[4] Ballio G, Mazzolani FM. Theory and design of steel
0 structures. Bristol: J.W. Arrowsmith; 1977.
0 20 40 60 80 [5] Bogdan H, Kuzmanovic O, Willems N. Steel design for
mm structural engineers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1977.
[6] Baniotopoulos CC, Abdalla KM. Steel column-to-column
Fig. 15. Laboratory testing (continuous line) and numerical connections under-combined load: a quadratic program-
(dots) result. ming approach. Comput Struct 1993;46:13–20.
 M.J. Kontoleon et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 2455–2465
[7] Baniotopoulos CC, Wald F, editors. The paramount role
of joints into the reliable response of structures. From the
classic pinned and rigid joint to the notion of semi-rigidity.
Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2000.
[8] Baniotopoulos CC. On the numerical assessment of the
separation zones in semirigid column base plate connec-
tions. Struct Eng Mech 1994;2:1–15.
[9] Baniotopoulos CC. On the separation process in bolted
steel splice plates. J Construct Steel Res 1995;32:15–35.
[10] Baniotopoulos CC, editor. Nonsmooth/nonconvex me-
chanics with applications in engineering. Thessaloniki:
Ziti; 2002.
[11] Panagiotopoulos PD. Inequality problems in mechanics
and applications. Convex and nonconvex energy functions.
Basel, Boston: Birkh€auser Verlag; 1985.
[12] Moreau JJ, Panagiotopoulos PD, Strang G, editors. Topics
in nonsmooth mechanics. Basel, Boston: Birkh€auser Ver-
lag; 1988.
[13] Ivanyi M, Baniotopoulos CC. Semi-rigid connections in
structural steelwork. CISM Lecture Notes 419, Wien, New
York: Springer; 2000.
[14] Fichera G. Boundary value problems in elasticity with
unilateral constraints. In: Fluegge S, editor. Encyclopaedia
of physics, vol. VIa/2. Berlin: Springer; 1972. p. 391–
424.
[15] Panagiotopoulos PD. Hemivariational inequalities. Appli-
cations in mechanics and engineering. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag; 1993.
2465
[16] Naniewicz Z, Panagiotopoulos PD. Mathematical theory
of hemivariational inequalities and applications. New
York: Marcel Dekker; 1995.
[17] Rockafellar RT. La theorie des sous-gradients et ses
applications a’ l’ optimization. Fonctions convexes et
non-convexes. Montreal: Les Preses de l’ Univerite de
Montreal; 1979.
[18] Clarke FH. Optimization and nonsmooth analysis. New
York: John Wiley; 1983.
[19] Panagiotopoulos PD. Une generalization non-convex de la
notion du surpotentiel et ses applications. CR Acad Sci
Paris 296II 1983:1105–8.
[20] M€akel€a MM. Issues of implementing a Fortran subroutine
package NSOLIB for nonsmooth optimization, University
of Jyv€askyl€a; 1998.
[21] Kelley JE. The cutting plane method for solving convex
programs. SIAM J 1960;8:703–12.
[22] Kiewel KC. Proximity control in bundle methods for
convex nondifferentiable optimization. Math Program
1990;46:105–22.
[23] Schramm H, Zowe J. A version of the bundle idea for
minimizing nonsmooth functions: conceptual idea, conver-
gence analysis, numerical results. SIAM J Optim 1992;
2:121–52.
[24] Zygomalas MD. Four-plate HEB-100 beam splice bolted
connection: tests and comments. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth National Conference on Steel Structures, vol. 2.
2002; p. 508–16.