Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/composites

Analysis of multi-bolt composite joints with a user-defined finite element for

the evaluation of load distribution and secondary bending
V.G. Belardi a , P. Fanelli b , F. Vivio a ,∗
a Department of Enterprise Engineering - University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico, 1, 00133, Rome, Italy
b
Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of Tuscia, Largo dell’Università, 01100, Viterbo, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The present paper aims to demonstrate the capabilities of the Composite Bolted Joint Element (CBJE)
Bolted connections methodology in the framework of single-lap multi-bolt joints analysis. This FE modeling approach exploits
Custom finite element the CBJE, a user-defined finite element. It is founded on the complete elastic characterization of the bolted
Composite thick-plates
region through analytical models. The elastic behavior of a circular portion of the laminates enclosing the
Theoretical model
bolt is determined in the context of thick composite plate mechanics; a set of radial beam elements is made
Ritz method
Experimental validation
structurally equivalent through the custom definition of their stiffness matrix. The interaction between the
bolt and the plates is modeled as a beam on elastic foundation. The stiffness contributions of the bolt and the
specific properties of the joint, such as preload, bolt-hole clearance, contact stiffness, and friction effects are
simulated utilizing an assembly of beam and spring elements. In this way, it is created a FE model from the
theoretical solution of the bolted region featuring high fidelity and computational efficiency, as it requires a
low amount of degrees of freedom. Experimental data are used to validate the FE model with CBJE of the
single-lap three-bolt composite joint. Specimens with varying lay-up, radial clearances, bolts preload and bolt
number are also analyzed to evaluate the bolt load distribution and out-of-plane behavior. The CBJE results
are successfully compared with those of reference solid models.

1. Introduction
Bolted joints represent one of the most utilized connection tech-
niques nowadays. Through the engineering progresses, bolted joints
preserved a key role even for advanced composite structures such
as frames and other load-bearing components typical of automotive,
aeronautical and aerospace industries. This centrality is related to their
structural reliability, load-carrying capacity, ease of dismantling and
detection and existence of many codes and standards covering their
design procedures.
Consequently, because of their crucial importance in the design
of a composite structure, the composite bolted joints are required to
withstand relevant loads and many phenomena are involved in their
proper assessment. As a matter of fact, the design engineer must deal
with different issues: composite plate mechanics, bolt preload, geo-
metrical tolerances determining bolt-hole clearances, and non-linear
phenomena as friction and contact between parts. All of these aspects
make the local stiffness evaluation of the bolted region quite complex
and, subsequently, the structural analysis of the joint can represent a
demanding problem to handle. In this regard, the research on improved
and refined methodologies for the evaluation of composite bolted joints
behavior is a topic of great interest and relevance.
The design of a multi-bolt composite joint is made up of two stages
[1–7]. Firstly, the distribution of the external load among the bolts must
be addressed. Secondly, on the basis of the load transfer analysis of
the joint, the critical bolt holes are determined and a detailed local
strength analysis is conducted to guarantee their structural integrity.
Additionally, the secondary bending is a relevant effect occurring on
single-lap joints that affects their failure resistance [8–13].
Considering the importance of these factors, several methods have
been developed for multi-bolt composite joints analysis, including the
prediction of load distribution and secondary bending. Overall, two
categories can be identified: analytical spring-based methods and finite
element methods.
The analytical approaches make use of one-dimensional springs to
model the laminates and the bolt. The springs replacing the elasticity
of the laminates operate in the load direction, whereas the bolts spring
is calibrated according to the beam theory. This modeling approach
was established by Tate and Rosenfeld [14]. Then, it was extended
by McCarthy et al. [15] that defined a spring method capable of

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vivio@uniroma2.it (F. Vivio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109378
Received 12 April 2021; Received in revised form 28 May 2021; Accepted 29 September 2021
Available online 12 October 2021
1359-8368/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Modeling of the bolted region by means of the CBJE. (b) Equivalence between sub-elements and theoretical reference model. (c) Theoretical derivation of the bolt-element
elastic contributions.
evaluating the load distribution of multi-bolt composite joints with
bolt-hole clearances. Such methods can further encompass preload in
highly torqued joints to account for friction [16] and the out-of-plane
behavior in terms of secondary bending [17]. Also, the spring-based
method was modified by Sharos et al. [2] to introduce a bearing
damage model and by Olmedo et al. [18] to evaluate the bearing
failure on a single ply base. Similarly, the failure prediction of double-
lap multi-bolt composite joints was assessed in Ref. [5], determining
the influence of material properties, torque tightening, clearances and
bearing chord stiffness. Xiang et al. presented in Ref. [19] a solution
of the spring method equations based on the finite element method. A
refinement of the spring method capable of considering the hole tensile
2
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
deformation related to bypass load is outlined in [20]. A spring-based
model is utilized in [21] to evaluate the influence on the bolt-load
distribution of uncertainties related to mechanical properties of the
laminates and bolt clearances. Moreover, on the basis of the spring-
based method, Ref. [22] describes a tri-linear stiffness model that takes
into account friction and clearance effects for load transfer analysis
in multi-bolt joints; equations are solved exploiting a single-parameter
iteration method. Kou et al. [23] followed a similar approach defin-
ing a 4-stage curve whose stiffness terms are analytically determined
from continuum mechanics. A distinct slipping of plates interface and
between bolt head and plates is also defined. Additionally, Ref. [24]
reports a theoretical joint-slippage model, this model predicts different
V.G. Belardi et al.
stages in the load–displacement curve of bolted joints and it was
successfully utilized for the modeling of transmission towers.
The main advantage of the spring-method is the favorable time
consumption to attain the result. This is particularly useful in the
preliminary design phase. Nevertheless, the obtained degree of detail
could be unsatisfactory since important geometrical simplifications
are needed to define these models. Accordingly, analysis methods
funded on the finite element method can provide detailed insights into
multi-bolt composite joints. A detailed review of numerical methods is
reported in [25].
Among the studies concerning the definition of FE models for com-
posite bolted joints, most works, and earlier developed in order of time,
are focused on three-dimensional modeling. The development of a 3D
model is reported in [26,27], discussing issues related to radial clear-
ance and contact modeling, the influence of element order, and mesh
density is also evaluated. The solid modeling approach was used in [28]
to investigate composite plates jointed with countersunk fasteners; it
is demonstrated that the increase of bolt-hole clearance badly affects
both radial stress of laminates and the joint stiffness. Failure criteria for
the strength assessment of composite bolted joints are outlined in [29],
a three-dimensional stress field is considered along with non-linear
shear stress–strain relation. Mandal and Chakrabarti [30] proposed a
homogenization strategy to relieve the computational requirements of
3D models. A three-dimensional model was employed in Ref. [31]
to analyze hybrid composite-aluminum joints, including damage and
plasticity effects. The damage of composite plates is also investigated by
Zhou et al. [12]; an implicit FE model was developed to analyze multi-
bolt joints undergoing complex loading conditions. Ref. [32] discussed
the effect of bearing damage on load distribution. A damage model
concerning the failure of fibers, matrix and delamination is further
presented in [4].
The obstacle in the employment of solid models to achieve fast
and iterative solutions, especially for preliminary design assessment,
is represented by the relevant modeling and computational time re-
quired. In fact, the solid modeling approach can hardly be employed
for optimization tasks. To overcome these limitations, scholars and
researchers developed a branch of finite element modeling of bolted
joints encompassing simplified approaches. Gray and McCarthy [33]
developed a simplified model composed of shell elements for plates and
a beam element for the bolt; the connection is realized with a rigid
contact surface capable of catching a wide range of effects. The model
presented in Ref. [34] makes use of a two-noded user-defined finite
element with a formulation based on the outcomes of the spring-based
model, realized by the same authors, to model the elastic behavior of
the joint. This element is connected to a square region of shell elements
through coupling constraints. The capabilities of this simplified model
were increased to include the failure of the joint in Ref. [35]; a damage
model is embedded in the element definition. Besides, the model was
further improved by Liu et al. [36] with the introduction of holes in the
plates and through the definition of a circular coupling region which
allowed the simulation of secondary bending, the load–displacement
curve taken from experiments is implemented in the user-element. Liu
and Chen [37] proposed a global–local approach. The global model of
the multi-bolt joint is realized by modeling the bolts in a simplified
manner. Once the load distribution is determined, a detailed analysis of
the most loaded joints is performed; it is found that the highly stressed
layers are located close to the shear plane. El Masnaoui et al. [38]
presented a semi-analytical simplified model that takes into account the
contact between flanges and the bolt axial stiffness. The axial behavior
of the composite bolted joint is also investigated in Ref. [39] where
a shell-fastener model is outlined. Then, Omran et al. [40] developed
a connector element for steel–aluminum bolted joints, the connector
features a stiffness matrix obtained analytically. A connector element
active in the axial and tangential directions is described in Ref. [41]
to account for linear and non-linear effects of the bolted joint, this ap-
proach is further extended in Ref. [42] to include the plastic behavior of
3
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
the bolt. Refs. [43,44] describe equivalent approaches to perform non-
linear dynamic analyses of bolted joints taking into account the contact
between joint interfaces. Two simplified modeling approaches for the
dynamic analysis of automotive engines are presented by Giannella
et al. in Ref. [45].
Nonetheless, the transferring of complex and elaborate physical
mechanisms to a simplified model represents the main difficulty in
defining a computationally efficient FE approach. Therefore, an analy-
sis methodology is required to feature two important characteristics:
precision in describing the physical phenomena and low computa-
tional time necessary to reach the solution. Typically, these aspects are
diametrically opposed since the improvement of the accuracy is accom-
panied by a worsening of the elaboration time, and the introduction of
simplifying hypotheses can produce unsuitable outcomes.
In this paper, the design methodology based on the Composite
Bolted Joint Element (CBJE) and presented in [46] is employed for
the structural assessment of multi-connected structures. The CBJE is
a user-defined finite element that integrates both accuracy and com-
putational efficiency as it is made of basic finite elements with a low
number of DOFs. The complete definition of the bolted region elastic
properties is the fundamental concept at the basis of the CBJE modeling
strategy. These properties are deduced from the analytical model of
composite bolted joint and utilized to define the proposed custom finite
element. In particular, the problem of stiffness evaluation of the bolted
region is decomposed into two phases. On the one hand, the complete
analytical solution of a circular portion of plates encompassing the
bolt (considered not-deformable) is derived under the action of the
typical bolt loads. These solutions are obtained by exploiting the First-
order Shear Deformation Plate Theory (FSDT) for composite plates; the
problem is formulated through the energy approach and solved using
the Ritz method [47–51]. These results allowed the characterization
of beam-shaped stiffness matrix elements representative of the bolted
region. Additionally, the elastic behavior of the bolt and the effects
related to preload, bolt-hole clearance, friction forces, bearing contact
between bolt shank and plates, supporting effect between bolt shank
and bolt head, and between bolt head and plates are comprised in
the bolt element. A continuum mechanics model derived from litera-
ture [23] supported the definition of the bolt-element. The bolt element
is composed of beam, linear and non-linear springs elements.
The CBJE was previously employed to model single-lap single-bolt
composite joints [46,52,53]. Here, the capabilities of this methodology
are further investigated to deal with problems regarding multi-bolt
joints. It is found that a simplified model including the CBJE is suitable
to accurately account for bolts load distribution and secondary bending
of the joint. At first, the employment of the CBJE in this context is
experimentally validated against the results of a single-lap three-bolt
composite joint taken from the available literature. Then, the CBJE
effectiveness is tested exploiting different laminate stacking sequences
and varying the bolt-hole clearances and the bolts preload of three-bolt
joint configurations. A high-fidelity solid model is taken as a reference,
and the computational impact of these FE methodologies is compared.
Substantial prediction possibilities of the CBJE are demonstrated con-
cerning the evaluation of the bolt-load distribution and out-of-plane
behavior. Great benefits in terms of computational burden are also
achieved thanks to the CBJE. Finally, single-lap specimens with four
to seven bolts are further numerically tested.
2. Definition of the composite bolted joint element
The present investigation of the multi-bolt composite joints behav-
ior employs the modeling approach outlined in [46], i.e. it is based
on the utilization of the Composite Bolted Joint Element (CBJE). This
FE methodology allows the simulation of a circular portion (or even
rectangular [46,54,55]) of the plates encompassing the holes and the
bolt, Fig. 1(a). The CBJE is the composition of fundamental finite
elements with a different role in modeling the bolted junction. This
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 2. (a) Definition of the stiffness terms of the beam-shaped stiffness matrix elements. (b) Bolt-element and force–displacement relation of the spring element 𝑘𝑐 .

Fig. 3. Single-lap multi-bolt composite joint..

Fig. 4. Single-lap multi-bolt composite joint: (left) model with CBJE; (right) solid model.

custom finite element can be generated within a FE shell model using
a macro to simulate properly the connections between the components.
Some of the preexisting elements are substituted by the CBJE. It is
connected to the surrounding shell elements utilized for the modeling of
the jointed plates. Besides, the CBJE further reproduces other particular
features of a bolted joint, such as friction, preload and radial clearance.
Both the elastic properties of the plates and the typical characteris-
tics of the bolted joint are determined from the analytical standpoint
and assigned to the CBJE. Moreover, within the fundamental finite
elements constituting the CBJE, two groups of beam-shaped stiffness
matrix elements can be distinguished: the sub-elements depicted in
Fig. 1(b) and an assembly of beam and spring elements composing the
bolt-element, shown in Fig. 1(c). Furthermore, as widely described
in [46], the CBJE methodology was compared with the conventional
shell-beam FE modeling, that is one of the most widespread simplified
approaches. The two modeling approaches demonstrated a comparable
computational burden, but the CBJE features a much higher degree of
accuracy.

4
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 5. Diagrams versus the angular coordinate of dimensionless terms of the beam-shaped stiffness matrix elements composing the CBJE featuring 𝑁 = 40, 𝛽 = 0.33 and QI and
0D lay-ups.

2.1. Description of the sub-elements Table 1

Stiffness terms of the beam-shaped stiffness matrix elements.

Regarding the sub-elements, the beam-shaped stiffness matrix ele- In-plane load condition 𝑇
𝛼𝑗 + 𝜋
ments are radially positioned around the common central node 𝑖 that 𝛼
𝑎 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑁𝑟 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑎∫
𝛼𝑖 + 𝜋
2
2
𝑁𝑟𝜃 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝐾𝐹𝑛 𝑢 = 𝑖
𝐾𝐹𝑡 𝑣 = 𝑣(𝑏,𝛼+ 𝜋2 )
they share. The node 𝑖 is placed in correspondence with the bolt axis 𝑢(𝑏,𝛼)

and the external nodes 𝑗 coincide with the ones of the adjacent shell Transversal load condition 𝑃
𝛼 𝛼
elements. Additionally, each sub-element is the transposition of the 𝐾𝑃𝛽 𝑤 =
𝑏 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑄𝑟 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝑖
𝐾𝑃 𝑤 =
𝑎 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑄𝑟 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝑖
𝑤(𝑏,𝛼) 𝑤(𝑏,𝛼)
theoretical reference model stiffness properties. 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼
𝛽 𝑏 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑀𝑟 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑏2 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑄𝑟 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑎 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑀𝑟 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
The theoretical reference model is needed to characterize the stiff- 𝐾𝑀𝑤 = 𝑖
𝑤(𝑏,𝛼)
+ 𝑖
𝑤(𝑏,𝛼)
𝐾𝑀𝑤 = 𝑖
𝑤(𝑏,𝛼)
ness of the plate region bordering the bolt. Thus, it is defined circum- In-plane bending moment load condition 𝑀
scribing a thick annular plate with rectilinear orthotropy encompassing 𝛼
𝑏 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑄𝑟 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝛼
𝑎 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑄𝑟 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝐾𝑃𝛽 𝜙 = 𝑖
𝐾𝑃 𝜙𝑟 = 𝑖

the bolt, see Fig. 1(a); it is clamped on the outer radius 𝑎 and presents 𝑟 𝜙𝑟 (𝑏,𝛼) 𝜙𝑟 (𝑏,𝛼)
𝛼 𝛼 𝛼
𝑏 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑀𝑟 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑏2 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑄𝑟 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑎 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑀𝑟 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
a rigid core at the inner radius 𝑏. In fact, both the bolt elasticity 𝛽
𝐾𝑀𝜙 = 𝑖
+ 𝑖
𝐾𝑀𝜙𝑟 = 𝑖
𝑟 𝜙𝑟 (𝑏,𝛼) 𝜙𝑟 (𝑏,𝛼) 𝜙𝑟 (𝑏,𝛼)
and the interaction between the bolt shank and the plate hole are 𝛼𝑗 + 𝜋 𝛼𝑗 + 𝜋
2 2
𝑏∫ 𝑀𝑟𝜃 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑎∫ 𝑀𝑟𝜃 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
not considered in the theoretical reference model, being these effects 𝛽
𝐾𝑀𝜙 =
𝛼𝑖 + 𝜋
2
𝐾𝑀𝜙𝜃 =
𝛼𝑖 + 𝜋
2
𝜃 𝜙𝜃 (𝑏,𝛼+ 𝜋2 ) 𝜙𝜃 (𝑏,𝛼+ 𝜋2 )
included in the bolt-element described below. The theoretical reference
Torsional moment load condition 𝑀𝑇
model is investigated in cylindrical coordinates (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧), and the origin 𝛼 𝛼
𝛽 𝑏2 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑁𝑟𝜃 (𝑏,𝜃)𝑑𝜃 𝑎2 ∫𝛼 𝑗 𝑁𝑟𝜃 (𝑎,𝜃)𝑑𝜃
of the coordinate system is located in the center of the annular plate. 𝐾𝑀𝑧𝜙 =
𝑧
𝑖
𝑣(𝑏,𝛼)∕𝑏
𝐾𝑀𝑧𝜙𝑧 = 𝑖
𝑣(𝑏,𝛼)∕𝑏
As stated by FSDT [56], the displacement field is:
𝑢𝑟 (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) = 𝑢(𝑟, 𝜃) + 𝑧 𝜙𝑟 (𝑟, 𝜃)
𝑢𝜃 (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) = 𝑣(𝑟, 𝜃) + 𝑧 𝜙𝜃 (𝑟, 𝜃) (1) The stress resultants as a function of the strains and curvatures are:
𝑢𝑧 (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) = 𝑤(𝑟, 𝜃)
⎧𝑁 ⎫ ⎧ 𝜀0 ⎫ ⎧𝜅 ⎫
being: 𝑢, 𝑣 and 𝑤 are the radial, circumferential and transversal dis- ⎪ 𝑟⎪ [ ] ⎪ 0𝑟 ⎪ [ ]⎪ 𝑟 ⎪
placements of the middle plane (𝑧 = 0); 𝜙𝑟 and 𝜙𝜃 are the rotations ⎨ 𝜃⎬
𝑁 = 𝐴(𝜃) ⎨ 𝜃⎬
𝜀 + 𝐵(𝜃) ⎨ 𝜅𝜃 ⎬
of the normal to the middle plane about the circumferential and radial ⎪𝑁𝑟𝜃 ⎪ ⎪𝛾 0 ⎪ ⎪𝜅𝑟𝜃 ⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ 𝑟𝜃 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
directions. ⎧𝑀 ⎫ ⎧ 𝜀0 ⎫ ⎧𝜅 ⎫
Also, the strain field in terms of strains and curvatures is: ⎪ 𝑟⎪ [ ] ⎪ 0𝑟 ⎪ [ ]⎪ 𝑟 ⎪ (3)
⎨ 𝜃⎬
𝑀 = 𝐵(𝜃) ⎨ 𝜃⎬
𝜀 + 𝐷(𝜃) ⎨ 𝜅𝜃 ⎬
⎧ 𝜕𝑢 ⎫ ⎧ 𝜕𝜙𝑟 ⎫ ⎪𝑀𝑟𝜃 ⎪ ⎪𝛾 0 ⎪ ⎪𝜅𝑟𝜃 ⎪
⎧ 𝜀𝑟 ⎫ ⎪ 𝜕𝑟 ⎪ ⎪ 𝜕𝑟 ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ 𝑟𝜃 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
⎪𝜀 ⎪ ⎪ 𝑢
+ 1𝑟 𝜕𝜃
𝜕𝑣 ⎪ ⎪ 𝜙𝑟 𝜕𝜙 ⎪ { } { 0}
+ 1𝑟 𝜕𝜃𝜃 𝑄𝜃 [ ] 𝛾
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
𝜃 𝑟
1 𝜕𝑤 ⎪ ⎪ 𝑟 ⎪ = 𝐾𝑠 𝐴𝑠 (𝜃) 𝜃𝑧
⎨𝛾𝜃𝑧 ⎬ = ⎨ 𝜙𝜃 + 𝑟 𝜕𝜃 ⎬ + 𝑧⎨ 0 ⎬ (2) 𝑄𝑟 0
𝛾𝑟𝑧
⎪ 𝛾𝑟𝑧 ⎪ ⎪ 𝜙 + 𝜕𝑤 ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 1 𝜕𝑢 𝑟 𝜕𝑣𝜕𝑟 ⎪ ⎪1 𝜙𝜃 ⎪ In the above expressions, the dependence of the stiffness matrices
⎩ 𝛾𝑟𝜃 ⎭ ⎪ + − 𝑣
⎪ ⎪𝑟
𝜕𝜙𝑟
+
𝜕𝜙𝜃
− 𝑟 ⎪
⎩ 𝑟 𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝑟 𝑟⎭ ⎩ 𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝑟 ⎭ on the angular coordinate is a rectilinear orthotropy distinctive feature;

5
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 6. Distribution of bolt-load versus the joint displacement, comparison of CBJE analysis and experimental results from Ref. [16].
𝐾𝑠 = 56 is the shear correction factor. Further details about the
derivation of (3) are described in [50,51]. Furthermore, the theoretical
reference model is analytically solved under the action of the typical
in-plane and out-plane loads occurring on a bolted joint: (𝑖) in-plane
load 𝑇 , (𝑖𝑖) transversal load 𝑃 , (𝑖𝑖𝑖) in-plane bending moment 𝑀 and (𝑖𝑣)
torsional moment 𝑀𝑇 (see Fig. 1(b)). The authors obtained the solution
of the aforementioned load conditions in [47–51] in the framework of
FSDT and exploiting Ritz method.
Subsequently, the theoretical reference model is split in 𝑁 angular
sectors (being 𝑁 the nodes on the shell elements boundary delimiting
the CBJE) and their stiffness characteristics are evaluated employing
the displacement field and stress resultants obtained with the analytical
solution. The stiffness properties of each angular sector are written as
stiffness terms valid between the nodes 𝑖 and 𝑗 and directly transferred
to the unsymmetric stiffness matrix of the beam-shaped elements with
no need of defining their cross-section, Fig. 2(a), establishing the
necessary elastic equivalence. These capabilities are available for the
MATRIX27 defined in ANSYS Mechanical APDL. Then, each beam-
shaped stiffness matrix element placed at the angular coordinate 𝛼 is
representative and elastically equivalent to the 𝑖th angular sector of
the theoretical reference model delimited by the angular coordinates
𝛼𝑖 and 𝛼𝑗 , see Fig. 1(b). In general, the stiffness terms are evaluated
through the ratio between the resultant force or moment acting on the
angular sector inner or outer edge and the corresponding generalized
6
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
displacement. The expressions of the stiffness terms are depicted in
Table 1; their full derivation is discussed in [46].
2.2. The bolt-element
The bolt-element is needed to achieve the comprehensive elastic
characterization of the bolted region. In this regard, the bolt-shank
stiffness is modeled through a beam element featuring the length of
the shank 𝑙𝑏 , the material properties and the cross-section area of the
bolt. The connection between the beam elements and the sub-elements
is realized by virtue of two rigid beams since both the sub-elements and
the shell elements lie on the middle plane of the plates.
Moreover, the bolt-element further aims to take into account: the
friction force, the bolt-hole clearance, the elasticity between the bolt
head and the shank and the elastic support exerted by the plates to
the bolt head. These effects are modeled using two couples of spring
elements, with stiffness 𝑘𝑟 and 𝑘𝑐 , connecting the beam element of the
shank to the two rigid beams, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The other nodes
of the rigid beams are connected to the upper and lower sub-elements.
In this regard, the rotational spring element with stiffness 𝑘𝑟 is utilized
to model the contributions: 𝑘𝑒𝑏𝑛 of elastic restrain existing between the
bolt head and the bolt shank, and 𝑘𝑒𝑏𝑐 the elastic support of the plates
to the bolt head, both derived by Kou et al. [23]. Specifically, the series
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 7. Case 1 — Contour of displacement 𝑢𝑥 [mm] in the load direction evaluated by solid model and CBJE model, (a) and (b) external load 13.56 kN (slipping force value), (c)
and (d) external load 60 kN; quasi-isotropic (left) and zero-dominated (right) stacking sequences.

of these quantities is 𝑘𝑟 : of the shank towards the bolt-hole, 𝛥𝑅 = 𝑅ℎ − 𝑅𝑏 = 2𝑐 is half of the

( )−1 clearance 𝑐, being the difference of the hole and the shank radii.
1 1
𝑘𝑟 = + (4) Thus, the force–displacement relationship of the non-linear trans-
𝑘𝑒𝑏𝑛 𝑘𝑒𝑏𝑐
lational spring consists of a null displacement until the force value
considering that: reaches 𝐹𝑠 , see Fig. 2(b). The force value remains constant until the
8𝐸𝑏 𝜓 displacement is equal to 2𝑐 and the bolt shank contacts the plate holes;
𝑘𝑒𝑏𝑛 = [ ] (5) the following slope of the curve is 𝑘𝑐 . Therefore, the bolt preload is
1 3(3𝑅4𝑛 −8𝑅𝑏 𝑅3𝑛 +6𝑅2𝑏 𝑅2𝑛 −𝑅4𝑏 )
𝐻𝑛 (1 − 𝑒−2𝜓 )𝜋 + indirectly considered in the bolt-element in terms of effects producing
𝑅4𝑏 (3𝑅4𝑛 +𝑅4𝑏 −4𝑅𝑏 𝑅3𝑛 )2
the friction force between laminates and the subsequent differences on
32𝐸𝑧
𝑘𝑒𝑏𝑐 = ( )2 [ ] (6) bolt-loads, by means of the non-linear spring element 𝑘𝑐 . A preload
𝑅2𝑛 −𝑅2ℎ force is not applied to the beam element modeling the bolt shank
9𝜋 (𝑅2𝑛 − 𝑅2ℎ )𝐼0 + 16 (4𝑅𝑛 tan(𝛼)𝐼1 + tan2 (𝛼)𝐼2 )
𝑅3𝑛 −𝑅3ℎ because of the CBJE method does not include contact elements between
with: 𝐸𝑏 the Young’s Modulus of the bolt, 𝐸𝑧 the homogenized modulus the plates, thus the application of a preload force would not be balanced
in the thickness direction of the plate, 𝛼 varies between 30◦ and 45◦ and by the reaction contact force between plates.
it is needed to describe the stress along the thickness, 𝐻𝑛 and 𝑅𝑛 the
height and the radius of the bolt head (see Fig. 1(b)): 3. Results and discussion
𝑙𝑏
𝑧0,1,2
𝐼0,1,2 = 𝑑𝑧 (7) The effectiveness of the CBJE in applications featuring single-lap
∫0 (𝑅2𝑛 − 𝑅2ℎ + 𝑅𝑛 tan(𝛼)𝑧 + 1
tan2 (𝛼)𝑧2 )2
3 multi-bolt composite joints is demonstrated in this Section.
Analogously, a non-linear translational spring takes into account Firstly, the experimental tests realized on single-lap three-bolt com-
the friction force between plates, the radial clearance and the bearing posite joints, and presented in Ref. [16], are utilized as validation
deformation of the holes; these phenomena are all related. In fact, the reference for the results of the FE model with the CBJE, Section 3.1.
jointed plates do not slip relatively until the applied load equals the The geometry of the tested specimens is shown in Fig. 3. The jointed
static friction force load 𝐹𝑠 = 𝜇𝐹𝑝𝑟𝑒 , with 𝐹𝑝𝑟𝑒 the pretension force composite plates feature a thickness 𝑡 = 5.2 mm and quasi-isotropic
of the bolt and 𝜇 the friction coefficient between the plates interface. stacking sequence outlined in Table 3. The elastic properties of the
After that, the plates move reciprocally and, when the radial clearance layers, with 𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑦 = 0.13 mm, are reported in Table 4 along with the
is closed, the pressure exerted by the bolt shank produces a bearing homogenized elastic properties of the laminates necessary to evaluate
deformation of the bolt-hole. As described in [46], the contact between the contact stiffness 𝑘𝑐 ; in addition, the friction coefficient between
the bolt shank and the plate hole can be studied as a Timoshenko beam composite plates is 𝜇 = 0.36. The titanium bolts joining the laminates
resting on an elastic foundation, Fig. 1(b). This analytical model brings are characterized by diameter 𝑑𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑡 = 8 mm, and the material properties
to the definition of the foundation stiffness 𝑘𝑐 [23], i.e. the contact are: Young’s Modulus 𝐸 = 110 MPa and Poisson’s Ratio 𝜈 = 0.29.
stiffness between the bolt and the plates: Specifically, the experimental campaign reported in Ref. [16] is
1 √ 2𝑤 + 3𝛥𝑅 performed on four specimen configurations with finger-tightened bolts
𝑘𝑐 = 𝜋 2𝑤𝐸 ∗ 3
(8) that differ in the radial clearance values between the plate hole and the
8
(𝛥𝑅 + 𝑤) 2 bolt shank, see Table 5.
( )−1 The single-lap three-bolt composite joints depicted in Fig. 3 undergo
√
where: 𝐸 ∗ = 2𝐸1 + 2𝐸1 is the equivalent modulus, 𝐸𝑐 = 𝐸𝑥 + 𝐸𝑦 a traction force 𝐹 along the 𝑥-direction on the right edge of the upper
𝑏 𝑐
is the plate equivalent in-plane Young’s Modulus, 𝐸𝑥 and 𝐸𝑦 the plates laminate (Plate 1), that is simply supported in order to reproduce
homogenized longitudinal and transverse moduli, 𝑤 the displacement the grip condition determined by the testing machine, as described in

7
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 8. Case 1–4 QI and 0D lay-ups − Diagrams of load–displacement curves of the single-lap three-bolt joint determined by solid model and CBJE model.

Table 2 Table 4
Parameters for the evaluation of the stiffness values Elastic properties of fiber-reinforced layers [26].
𝑘𝑟 and 𝑘𝑐 . 𝐸11 [GPa] 𝐸22 [GPa] 𝐸33 [GPa]
𝑙𝑏 [mm] 10.4 140 10 10
𝑅𝑏 [mm] 4 𝐺12 [GPa] 𝐺13 [GPa] 𝐺23 [GPa]
𝑅ℎ [mm] 𝑅𝑏 + 𝑐
𝐻𝑛 [mm] 6 5.2 5.2 3.9
𝑅𝑛 [mm] 6 𝜈12 [−] 𝜈13 [−] 𝜈23 [−]
𝛼 [◦ ] 45
0.3 0.3 0.5
𝜓 [−] 5

Table 5
Table 3
Radial clearances of the single-lap three-bolt composite joints.
Definition of lay-ups and homogenized properties [26].
Case 𝑐1 [μm] 𝑐2 [μm] 𝑐3 [μm]
Quasi-isotropic (QI) Zero-dominated (0D)
1 10 10 10
Lay-up [45∕0∕ − 45∕90]5𝑠 [(45∕02 ∕ − 45∕90)3 ∕45∕02 ∕ − 45∕0]𝑠
2 10 160 10
𝐸𝑥 [GPa] 54.25 77.23
3 160 160 10
𝐸𝑦 [GPa] 54.25 40.57
4 240 10 10
𝐸𝑧 [GPa] 12.59 12.47

featuring 6 DOFs, and 3 integration points per layer in the thickness

Ref. [16]. Besides, the left edge of the lower laminate (Plate 2) is fully
constrained.
Furthermore, the 2D simplified FE models equipped with the CBJE
and employed for the comparison with the experimental results are
shown in Fig. 4. The layered shell elements have 4 nodes, each node
direction. The parameters needed to compute the stiffnesses 𝑘𝑟 and 𝑘𝑐
are reported in Table 2. The mesh characteristics of the CBJE were
chosen on the basis of the sensibility and mesh convergence analyses
results discussed in Ref. [46]. In particular, the CBJE is made up of
𝑁 = 40 beam-shaped stiffness matrix elements featuring shape factor

8
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 9. Case 1–4 QI and 0D lay-ups − Diagrams of 𝑢𝑥 displacement of the single-lap three-bolt joint determined by solid model and CBJE model evaluated along the center-line
path at the end of the traction test.

Table 6 with the QI lay-up ones. Then, the outcomes of the FE analyses with the
Preload stress 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 of the single-lap three-bolt composite joints.
simplified CBJE method are compared with analogous ones obtained
1 2 3
Case 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 [MPa] 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 [MPa] 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 [MPa] with refined 3D models, see Fig. 4, used as reference. The 3D solid
A 0 250 250 model is made up of 8-noded solid layered elements with 3 DOFs per
B 250 250 0 node, it features 10 elements along the thickness direction. Being the
C 0 0 250
D 250 0 0
elements layered, each one is associated with 4 layers composing the
stacking sequence of the laminate plate; each layer features 3 integra-
tion points along the thickness direction. Moreover, the solid model
presents contact elements at all mutual components interface and the
𝛽 = 𝑎𝑏 = 0.33, i.e. inner radius 𝑏 = 4 mm and outer radius 𝑎 = 12 mm preload force is applied to the bolt shank with pretension elements. The
(i.e. the diameter of the CBJE region is 𝑑𝐶𝐵𝐽 𝐸 = 2𝑎), these values fall mesh density is determined through a convergence analysis.
within the best accuracy range of the CBJE. Moreover, the sensibility of the multi-bolt CBJE model to the
Besides, the single-lap three-bolt composite joint specimens are fur- preload of the bolts is investigated in Section 3.3. Four configurations
ther employed for numerical tests in Section 3.2 to assess the accuracy of single-lap three-bolt composite joint with QI lay-up were defined in
of the methodology with different stacking sequences. The configura- Table 6; the radial clearance values are 𝑐 = 10 μm for all the holes.
tions presented in Table 5 are tested with a preload 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 250 MPa for The joint configurations reported in Table 6 are further employed
the titanium bolts and with both the lay-ups listed in Table 3, i.e. the to analyze the secondary bending prediction of the CBJE. These re-
quasi-isotropic (QI) and the zero-dominated (0D). In this regard, Fig. 5 sults are presented in Section 3.4 in terms of transversal displacement
shows the diagrams of the stiffness terms outlined in Table 1, as a evaluation.
function of the angular coordinate 𝜃, characterizing the beam-shaped Lastly, Section 3.5 describes the results of numerical tensile tests
stiffness matrix elements, the functions are normalized with respect to performed on single-lap multi-bolt composite joints with 0D lay-up
their mean value. As a general remark, the stiffness terms of the 0D presenting four, five, six and seven bolts. The joints were loaded with
lay-up present a more noticeable circumferential variation if compared a traction force 𝐹 = 𝑛𝑏 20 kN, in which 𝑛𝑏 is the number of bolts.

9
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 10. Case 1–4 QI lay-up − Distribution of bolt-load versus the joint displacement of specimens with, comparison of solid model and CBJE model.
3.1. Comparison with experimental results
Here, the reliability of the CBJE modeling strategy is demon-
strated through the comparison with the experimental outcomes from
Ref. [16]. The traction tests were performed on the configurations
of single-lap three-bolt composite joints with radial clearance values
outlined in Table 5, the bolts are finger-tightened and the stacking
sequence of the plates is quasi-isotropic (Table 3). The execution of the
experimental tests is described in detail in Ref. [57]; instrumented bolts
with strain gauges were used to measure the bolt-loads distribution and
precision jigs were utilized to drill the composite plates and for the bolts
positioning during the joints assembly.
The comparison between experimental results and numerical ones
of FE models comprising the CBJE is reported in Fig. 6. The diagrams
show the load shared by each bolt as a function of the overall joint
displacement 𝑢𝑥 along the external force 𝐹 direction. As regards Case
1, all the bolts feature the same radial clearance and their load sharing
begins simultaneously. Bolt 1 and Bolt 3 carry the higher contribution
of external force, and their amount is comparable; meanwhile, the mid-
dle bolt, Bolt 2, is loaded to a lower extent. Conversely, the analysis of
Case 2 shows a similar behavior of Bolt 1 and Bolt 3, whereas the load
take-up of Bolt 2 is delayed as an effect of the bigger radial clearance.
In Case 3, Bolt 3 is characterized by a smaller radial clearance than the
other bolts; it is the first bolt to start withstanding a portion of the load
and, as a consequence, turns to be the most loaded. Differently, the load
10
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
acting on Bolt 1 and Bolt 2 is sensibly lower, and their loading process
begins following the closing of the radial clearance. In addition, the Bolt
3 load–displacement curve predicted by CBJE features a higher slope in
the initial part of the diagram; later, when the total joint displacement
reaches approximately 0.1 mm, the numerical and experimental curves
of Bolt 3 outline a comparable trend of load increment. As reported
in Ref. [16], this difference may be related to the usage of corrected
machine stroke readings to measure the overall joint displacement
during the experiment. Concerning Case 4, Bolt 1 features the largest
bolt-hole clearance of the presented case studies, and in the considered
range of joint displacement, it does not contribute to carrying the load.
On the other hand, the external force is shared by Bolt 2 and Bolt 3,
which show an analogous load–displacement curve.
Moreover, this comparative analysis demonstrated that the accor-
dance of the experimental and the CBJE numerical curves is highly
remarkable. The FE analysis with CBJE can capture both the beginning
of the load sharing of a bolt, which can be delayed as an effect of the
radial clearance and their load–displacement curve. As a result, it is
demonstrated that the stiffness estimation of the bolted joint region is
highly accurate and the CBJE modeling methodology can be considered
experimentally validated even for multi-bolt composite joints.
3.2. Single-lap three-bolt specimens with different stacking sequences
The numerical case study below discussed regards the analysis of the
single-lap three-bolt composite joint shown in Fig. 3 with the following
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 11. Case 1–4 0D lay-up − Distribution of bolt-load versus the joint displacement of specimens with, comparison of solid model and CBJE model.
characteristics: it is made up with both the quasi-isotropic (QI) and
the zero-dominated (0D) stacking sequences presented in Table 3, the
titanium bolts are torque-tightened with a preload 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 250 MPa
and the four combinations of radial clearances reported in Table 5 are
investigated. The joint is loaded with an external traction force 𝐹 = 60
kN and the force value which overcomes the static friction force, setting
the plates relative movement, is 𝐹𝑠 = 13.56 kN.
All the single-lap joints arrangements were modeled with both the
CBJE simplified modeling technique and through the solid modeling,
see Fig. 4, whose results were considered as reference. An important
point to be noted is the noticeable difference of computational requisite
necessary to perform the analysis of these FE models. In fact, as shown
in Table 7, the amount of nodes and elements composing the FE models
drastically drops passing from the solid model to the one with CBJE,
and it should also be considered that only half of the solid model was
realized because of its symmetry. Accordingly, the number of degrees
of freedom to be examined undergo a relevant reduction along with the
CPU computational time that is 98% decreased.
For this reason, the main benefit in the usage of the CBJE modeling
approach is the capability of achieving these relevant computational
savings without affecting the reliability of the analysis. As a matter of
fact, Fig. 7 outlines the contour of displacement 𝑢𝑥 along the external
force direction evaluated by means of both the FE models. The contours
are shown for both the stacking sequences and two force values: the
11
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
Table 7
Computational burden of the single-lap three-bolt composite joint modeled with the
solid elements and the CBJE technique.
3D FE Model CBJE FE Model 𝛥[%]
Nodes 117,447 2,837 −97.58
Elements 120,568 2,876 −97.61
one producing the initiation of plates slipping and the final one. Specif-
ically, the contour maps of the simplified model should be compared
with the displacements at the middle surface of the 3D model, and the
degree of accordance is particularly relevant.
Besides, the diagrams reporting the force applied to the joint as a
function of its overall displacement are depicted in Fig. 8 for both QI
and 0D lay-ups. A knee characterizes these curves in correspondence
of the external force value 𝐹𝑠 , this value separates the curve into two
parts. During the first stage the plates are sticking together since the
static friction force is effective and no relative displacement of the
laminates is registered. The second stage of the curve presents a lower
slope and initiates with the external force reaching the threshold value
of friction force 𝐹𝑠 , i.e. the static friction force is overcome, and the
plates start moving relatively. As a consequence of the relative slip,
the bolt-hole clearances are progressively recovered, and the bolts start
sharing a percentage of the joint load. The knee of the curve is more
evident for Case 3 and Case 4 as an effect of the greater slipping of the
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 12. Case A–D — Diagrams of load–displacement curves of the single-lap three-bolt joint determined by solid model and CBJE model.
plates; in fact, these joint configurations reach a bigger maximum value
of displacement 𝑢𝑥 . In addition, as a comparison between lay-ups, the
specimens with 0D lay-up demonstrated a higher stiffness and a smaller
displacement at the end of the traction test.
As a further investigation, the displacement 𝑢𝑥 of the plates com-
posing the three-bolt single-lap joints is evaluated along the center-line
(CL) path shown in Fig. 3. Data are taken at the end of the traction
test and the comparison of CBJE and solid models results is reported
in Fig. 9. It is worth noting that the displacement of CBJE model is
in strong agreement with the one of the solid model, for both lay-ups,
along all the multi-bolt joint length. In addition, the comparison cannot
be considered within the CBJE region where a portion of the plates is
replaced by the beam-shaped stiffness matrix elements.
Furthermore, Figs. 10 and 11 depict the amount of load carried by
each bolt in function of the joint displacement together with the evolu-
tion of the friction force; the diagrams are relative to the four specimen
configurations with both lay-ups. Differently from the analogous curves
in Fig. 6, regarding the experimental results in which the bolts were
finger-tightened, it can be seen that in the first phase of the traction
test the external load is balanced by the increment of the friction force.
This effect is ascribable to the preload assigned to the bolts. Then, when
the friction force reached the plateau and the sticking of the interface
between plates is lost, the bolts share a portion of the external load.
Subsequently, the bolt-loads progression depends on the clearance
values of each configuration. The configuration Case 1 features three
12
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
equal clearances; thus, the load sharing of the bolts begins at the same
time and the middle one takes a lower portion of the load than the
others, that is almost the same. Then, Case 2 shows a delay in load
take-up of Bolt 2 that features a clearance greater than Bolt 1 and
Bolt 3. Regarding Case 3, Bolt 3 withstands the highest external load
contribution since its clearance is smaller than the other two. The
increment in the load shared by the other bolts starts later and is higher
for Bolt 1. Turning to Case 4, Bolt 1 reveals a sensibly delayed load
take-up, whereas Bolt 2 and Bolt 3 share the load just after the friction
force approached the plateau.
Hence, the four configurations of specimen exhibit different load
distributions between the bolts because of the radial clearance differ-
ences. This evidences the relevance of this parameter in the design of a
composite bolted joint; it can be employed as a design strategy to delay
and reduce both the bolt load and the bearing load.
These results further evidence the capability of friction forces acting
at the plate interface, and determined by the preload, of reducing the
entity of bolt-loads. Considering as an example Case 1, during the
experimental test where the bolts are finger-tightened, the load taken
by Bolt 1 is 5.3 kN at 0.35 mm of joint displacement; conversely, when
the preload is applied the load on Bolt 1 is reduced to 2.3 kN at the
same displacement value. Again, this parameter can be properly applied
by the designer to adjust the bolt-loads.
Overall, the degree of accordance of CBJE results with the solid ones
is substantially considerable, regardless of the stacking sequence and
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 13. Case A–D — Distribution of bolt-load versus the joint displacement of specimens with, comparison of solid model and CBJE model.
the radial clearances. Thus, the CBJE methodology can profitably be
utilized to model preload and clearance effects of multi-bolt joints.
3.3. Sensibility to bolts preload
The influence of bolts preload on the structural behavior of the
multi-bolt joint is assessed in this Section. To this end, the traction
test of the four configurations of single-lap three-bolt composite joint
presented in Table 6 is performed. Different combinations of bolts
preload characterize these specimens; in particular, each bolt can be
finger-tightened or torque-tightened with 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 250 MPa. In addition,
the plates are realized with QI lay-up, all the bolt-hole clearances are
𝑐 = 10 μm and the external force is 𝐹 = 60 kN.
The load–displacement curves of the four joints are shown in
Fig. 12. The differences of preload barely affect the maximum joint
displacement, whereas the knee in the curves of Case A and Case B,
which have two preloaded bolts, is located at a higher force value with
respect to Case C and Case D. Additionally, the curves measured with
the CBJE model are in strong agreement with those obtained with the
solid model.
Furthermore, the diagrams with the distributions of bolt-loads are
depicted in Fig. 13. It should be noted that the friction force of Case A
and Case B is higher than the other ones as two bolts are preloaded, and
the corresponding value of slipping force is 𝐹𝑠 = 9.04 kN. Conversely,
Case C and Case D feature two finger-tightened bolts and, consequently,
13
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
the value of 𝐹𝑠 is halved. As regards Case A and Case B, the finger-
tightened bolt, Bolt 1 and Bolt 3 respectively, reacts to external load
together with the friction force since the beginning of the traction test.
The load sharing of the other bolts is postponed after overcoming
friction force; in both cases the middle bolt (Bolt 2) carries a lower
amount of load. The situation of Case C and Case D is reversed being
only one bolt characterized by a delayed load take-up. Besides, it is
interesting to note that the preloaded bolt regains the load contribution
with respect to the middle bolt, although it takes a percentage of load
since the beginning of the test.
These case studies prove that the CBJE is capable of simultaneously
model bolts with different preload characteristics.
3.4. Evaluation of out-of-plane displacement
The specimens configurations with diverse bolts preload (Table 6)
are further employed for an assessment of the CBJE capabilities of
measuring the secondary bending of a multi-bolt single-lap composite
joint. These joints are particularly useful to the scope because the
unequal preloads are responsible for different bending of the upper
(Plate 1) and lower (Plate 2) plates.
In this regard, Figs. 14 and 15 outlines the transversal displacement
of Plate 1 and Plate 2 obtained with solid and CBJE FE models and
evaluated along center-line (CL) and outer-line (OL) paths (see Fig. 3)
passing through their symmetry plane and lateral edge, respectively.
V.G. Belardi et al.
Fig. 14. Case A–D — Diagrams of transversal displacement of the single-lap three-bolt joint determined by solid model and CBJE model evaluated along the center-line path.
The degree of accordance is particularly consistent along all the length
of the joints and for both paths.
Moreover, Fig. 16 reports a comparison of transversal displacement
𝑢𝑧 in terms of contour map between solid model and CBJE model for
Case A at the final stage of the traction test. The magnitude of the
maximum out-of-plane displacement undergone by Plate 2 is bigger
than the one of Plate 1. This behavior can be explained considering
that the free edge of Plate 2 is close to the finger-tightened Bolt 1;
meanwhile, the free edge of Plate 1 is adjacent to the preloaded Bolt
3. In addition, the outcomes of the two modeling approaches are in
considerable agreement.
3.5. Single-lap joints with four to seven bolts
Finally, the FE modeling methodology based on CBJE is employed
to analyze single-lap joints with 0D lay-up and four to seven bolts;
all bolts feature preload with 𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 250 MPa and feature bolt-hole
clearance 𝑐 = 10 μm. Thus, solid and CBJE FE models of the joints
were realized and tested with a traction force proportional to the bolt
number 𝑛𝑏 , 𝐹 = 𝑛𝑏 20 kN. Results are presented in Fig. 17 reporting:
the load–displacement curves, the contour maps of displacement in the
load direction, and the histograms of bolt ratio taken by each bolt.
The matching between the load–displacement curves evaluated
through both the FE models is remarkable for all the bolts configura-
tions. Clearly, the knee of the curve moves upward with the growth of
14
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
the number of bolts. Besides, the displacement contours at the end of
the test exhibit a notable similarity. Thus, the CBJE can reliably catch
the overall stiffness of single-lap joints with a high number of bolts.
Then, the histograms of bolt-loads ratio show that if all the bolts
of the joint feature the same diameter, clearance, and preload, the
external bolts carry the majority of the applied load, meanwhile the
central ones are loaded with a lesser percentage. For example, the five-
bolt joint presents the outermost bolts, Bolt 1 and Bolt 5, loaded with
more than 25% of the total and the others to a minor extent: Bolt 2
and Bolt 4 share about 17% and the middle one, Bolt 3, takes less than
the 15%. Therefore, during the design phase some strategies should
be applied to evenly distribute the load and avoid local peaks. This
analysis shows that CBJE is capable of reproducing the bolt-loads ratio
with great accuracy; the differences with solid model results are very
limited.
4. Conclusions
The present paper addressed the Composite Bolted Joint Element
capabilities in the analysis of multi-bolt composite joints. In particular,
it is demonstrated that a simplified FE model featuring shell elements
to simulate the plates and the CBJE for the bolted region can reliably
bring to the determination of the bolt-loads distribution and secondary
bending of the joint. These results can profitably be utilized for the
design of the joint.
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 15. Case A–D — Diagrams of transversal displacement of the single-lap three-bolt joint determined by solid model and CBJE model evaluated along the outer-line path.

Fig. 16. Case A — Contour of 𝑢𝑧 [mm] displacement evaluated by solid model (left) and CBJE model (right) (deformation scale factor = 5).

The CBJE is a finite element architecture characterized by structural
equivalence with the theoretical model of the bolted region. After the
analytical solution of the theoretical model, stiffness terms governing
the elastic behavior between the center and the outer edge of the bolted
region are defined and assigned to custom beam elements. A bolt-
element is then built to account for the bolt stiffness (shank and head
supporting effects), the bearing contact, clearance, and friction.
The obtained results are in significant agreement with both ex-
perimental data and solid model outcomes; therefore, the CBJE can
faithfully support the engineer during the first phase of design and for
optimization purposes. It is found that the CBJE is strongly efficient
from the numerical standpoint in comparison with the widespread
solid models. In addition, it is capable of reliably reproducing both
the overall stiffness of single-lap multi-bolt specimens, the unbalanced
distribution of bolts load, and the different order of their load take-up.
Also the out-of-plane deformation can be predicted in a very accurate
manner.
Moreover, it was pointed out the considerable and combined in-
fluence on the global behavior of the joint related to the bolt-hole
clearances and the bolts preload. In fact, these parameters determine

15
V.G. Belardi et al. Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378

Fig. 17. Multi-bolt composite joints − Diagrams of load–displacement curves (left), histogram of bolt-loads ratio (center), contour maps of displacement in the load direction 𝑢𝑥
[mm].

the sequence of load increments in the bolts and the possible delay.
Considering the low computational time required for FE analyses with
CBJE, this technique could be employed to set up an optimization
workflow searching for a bolts configuration with evenly distributed
bolt-loads, avoiding high peaks on the composite plates.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
V.G. Belardi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Valida-
tion, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing, Visualization. P. Fanelli: Conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Writing – review & editing,

16
V.G. Belardi et al.
Supervision. F. Vivio: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Re-
sources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administra-
tion.
References
[1] Egan B, McCarthy M, Frizzell R, Gray P, McCarthy C. Modelling bearing failure
in countersunk composite joints under quasi-static loading using 3D explicit finite
element analysis. Compos Struct 2014;108:963–77.
[2] Sharos PA, Egan B, McCarthy CT. An analytical model for strength predic-
tion in multi-bolt composite joints at various loading rates. Compos Struct
2014;116:300–10.
[3] Zhao L, Shan M, Liu F, Zhang J. A probabilistic model for strength analysis of
composite double-lap single-bolt joints. Compos Struct 2017;161:419–27.
[4] Mandal B, Chakrabarti A. Numerical failure assessment of multi-bolt FRP
composite joints with varying sizes and preloads of bolts. Compos Struct
2018;187:169–78.
[5] Liu F, Fang Z, Zhao L, Zhang J, Hu N. A failure-envelope-based method for
the probabilistic failure prediction of composite multi-bolt double-lap joints.
Composites B 2019;172.
[6] Zhou S, Yang, Tian K, Wang D, Sun Y, Guo L, Zhang J. Progressive failure
modelling of double-lap of composite bolted joints based on Puck’s criterion.
Eng Fract Mech 2019;206:233–49.
[7] Peng X, Li X, Liu G, Zhao J. Prediction of net-tension failure of multi-bolt
composite joints: A fast approach for laminates with arbitrary layup. Eur J Mech
A Solids 2021;87:104213.
[8] Ekh J, Schön J, Melin LG. Secondary bending in multi fastener, composite-to-
aluminium single shear lap joints. Composites B 2005;36:195–208.
[9] Ekh J, Schön J. Effect of secondary bending on strength prediction of composite,
single shear lap joints. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:953–65.
[10] Olmedo A, Santiuste C, E. B. An analytical model for the secondary bending
prediction in single-lap composite bolted-joints. Compos Struct 2014;111:354–61.
[11] Gray P, O’Higgins R, McCarthy C. Effect of thickness and laminate taper on the
stiffness, strength and secondary bending of single-lap, single-bolt countersunk
composite joints. Compos Struct 2014;107:315–24.
[12] Zhou Y, Yazdani Nezhad H, Hou C, Wan X, McCarthy C, McCarthy M. A
three dimensional implicit finite element damage model and its application to
single-lap multi-bolt composite joints with variable clearance. Compos Struct
2015;131:1060–72.
[13] Mehrabian M, Boukhili R. Quantifying of secondary bending effect in multi-
bolt single-lap carbon-epoxy composite joints via 3D-DIC. Compos Sci Technol
2020;200:108453.
[14] Tate MB, Rosenfeld SJ. Preliminary investigation of the loads carried by
individual bolts in bolted joints. NACA TN 1051 1946.
[15] McCarthy MA, McCarthy CT, Padhi GS. A simple method for determining the
effects of bolt-hole clearance on load distribution in single-column multi-bolt
composite joints. Compos Struct 2006;73:78–87.
[16] McCarthy CT, Gray PJ. An analytical model for the prediction of load distribution
in highly torqued multi-bolt composite joints. Compos Struct 2011;93:287–98.
[17] Gray PJ, McCarthy CT. An analytical model for the prediction of through-
thickness stiffness in tension-loaded composite bolted joints. Compos Struct
2012;94:2450–9.
[18] Olmedo A, Santiuste C, E. B. An analytical model for predicting the stiffness and
strengthof pinned-joint composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2014;90:67–73.
[19] Xiang J, Zhao S, Li D, Wu Y. An improved spring method for calculating the
load distribution in multi-bolt composite joints. Composites B 2017;117:1–8.
[20] Zhao L, Fang Z, Liu F, Shan M, Zhang J. A modified stiffness method considering
effects of hole tensile deformation on bolt load distribution in multi-bolt
composite joints. Composites B 2019;171:264–71.
[21] Li HS, Gu RJ, Zhao X. Global sensitivity analysis of load distribution and
displacement in multi-bolt composite joints. Composites B 2017;116:200–10.
[22] Liu F, Zhang J, Zhao L, Xin A, Zhou L. An analytical joint stiffness model for load
transfer analysis in highly torqued multi-bolt composite joints with clearances.
Compos Struct 2015;131:625–36.
[23] Kou J, Xu F, Xie W, Zhang X, Feng W. A theoretical 4-stage shear model for
single-lap torqued bolted-joint with clearances. Compos Struct 2018;186:1–16.
[24] Gan YD, Deng HZ, Li C. Simplified joint-slippage model of bolted joint in lattice
transmission tower. Structures 2021;32:1192–206.
[25] Zhang H, Zhang L, Liu Z, Qi S, Zhu Y, Zhu P. Numerical analysis
of hybrid (bonded/bolted) FRP composite joints: A review. Compos Struct
2021;262:113606.
[26] McCarthy MA, McCarthy CT, Lawlor VP, Stanley WF. Three-dimensional finite
element analysis of single-bolt, single-lap composite bolted joints: part I —-
model development and validation. Compos Struct 2005;71(2):140–58.
[27] McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of single-
bolt, single-lap composite bolted joints: Part II —- effects of bolt-hole clearance.
Compos Struct 2005;71(2):159–75.
[28] Egan B, McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA, Frizzell RM. Stress analysis of single-
bolt, single-lap, countersunk composite joints with variable bolt-hole clearance.
Compos Struct 2012;94:1038–51.
17
Composites Part B 227 (2021) 109378
[29] Olmedo A, Santiuste C. On the prediction of bolted single-lap composite joints.
Compos Struct 2012;94:2110–7.
[30] Mandal B, Chakrabarti A. A simple homogenization scheme for 3D finite element
analysis of composite bolted joints. Compos Struct 2015;120:1–9.
[31] Kapidžić Z, Nilsson L, Ansell H. Finite element modeling of mechanically
fastened composite-aluminum joints in aircraft structures. Compos Struct
2014;109:198–210.
[32] Cheng X, Wang S, Zhang J, Huang W, Cheng Y, Zhang J. Effect of damage
on failure mode of multi-bolt composite joints using failure envelope method.
Compos Struct 2017;160:8–15.
[33] Gray PJ, McCarthy CT. A global bolted joint model for finite element
analysis of load distributions in multi-bolt composite joints. Composites B
2010;41(4):317–25.
[34] Gray PJ, McCarthy CT. A highly efficient user-defined finite element for load
distribution analysis of large-scale bolted composite structures. Compos Sci
Technol 2011;71:1517–27.
[35] Sharos P, McCarthy C. Novel finite element for near real-time design decisions
in multi-fastener composite bolted joints under various loading rates. Compos
Struct 2020;240:112005.
[36] Liu F, Yao W, Zhao L, Wu H, Zhang X, Zhang J. An improved 2D finite element
model for bolt load distribution analysis of composite multi-bolt single-lap joints.
Compos Struct 2020;253:112770.
[37] Liu L, Chen K. Global-local finite element stress analysis of thick laminate
multi-bolt joints in large-scale structures. Finite Elem Anal Des 2013;75:31–7.
[38] El Masnaoui W, DaidiÉ A, Lachaud F, Paleczny C. Semi-analytical model
development for preliminary study of 3D woven Composite/Metallic flange
bolted assemblies. Compos Struct 2021;255:112906.
[39] Fu M, Fang G, Wu Z, Zhou Z, Liang J. An improved shell-fastener model
for modelling c/SiC composite bolted joints with rough surface characteristics.
Compos Struct 2020;251:112516.
[40] Omran O, Nguyen VD, Jaffal H, Coorevits P. Development of a connector element
for multi-material bolted-joint under tensile loading. Mech Adv Mater Struct
2019;26:1796–807.
[41] Verwaerde R, Guidault P-A, Boucard P-A. A nonlinear finite element connector
for the simulation of bolted assemblies. Comput Mech 2020;65:1531–48.
[42] Verwaerde R, Guidault P, Boucard P. A non-linear finite element connector model
with friction and plasticity for the simulation of bolted assemblies. Finite Elem
Anal Design 2021;195:103586.
[43] Jamia N, Jalali H, Taghipour J, Friswell MI, Haddad Khodaparast H. An
equivalent model of a nonlinear bolted flange joint. Mech Syst Signal Process
2021;153:107507.
[44] Li C, Miao X, Qiao R, Tang Q. Modeling method of bolted joints with micro-
slip features and its application in flanged cylindrical shell. Thin-Walled Struct
2021;164:107854.
[45] Giannella V, Sepe R, Citarella R, Armentani E. FEM Modelling approaches of
bolt connections for the dynamic analyses of an automotive engine. Appl Sci
2021;11:4343.
[46] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. Theoretical definition of a new custom finite
element for structural modeling of composite bolted joints. Compos Struct
2021;258:113199.
[47] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. Structural analysis of transversally loaded quasi-
isotropic rectilinear orthotropic composite circular plates with Galerkin method.
Proc Struct Integrity 2018;8:368–78.
[48] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. Elastic analysis of rectilinear orthotropic composite
circular plates subject to transversal and in-plane load conditions using ritz
method. Compos Struct 2018;199:63–75.
[49] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. Ritz method analysis of rectilinear orthotropic
composite circular plates undergoing in-plane bending and torsional moments.
Mech Adv Mater Struct 2021;28:963–79.
[50] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. First-order shear deformation analysis of
rectilinear orthotropic composite circular plates undergoing transversal loads.
Composites B 2018;174:107015.
[51] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. On the radial bending of shear-deformable
composite circular plates with rectilinear orthotropy. Eur J Mech A Solids
2021;86:104157.
[52] Belardi VG, Fanelli P, Vivio F. A novel composite bolted joint element:
application to a single-bolted joint. Proc Struct Integrity 2018;12:281–95.
[53] Belardi V, Fanelli P, Vivio F. FE Analysis of single-bolt composite bolted joint by
means of a simplified modeling technique. Proc Struct Integrity 2019;24:888–97.
[54] Vivio F. A new theoretical approach for structural modelling of riveted and spot
welded multi-spot structures. Int J Solids Struct 2009;46:4006–24.
[55] Di Cicco F, Fanelli P, Vivio F. Fatigue reliability evaluation of riveted lap joints
using a new rivet element and DFR. Int J Fatigue 2017;101:430–8.
[56] Wang CM, Reddy JN, Lee KH. Shear deformable beams and plates: relationships
with classical solutions. Elsevier; 2000.
[57] McCarthy MA, Lawlor VP, Stanley WF. An experimental study of bolt-hole
clearance effects in single-lap, multibolt composite joints. J Compos Mater
2005;39:799–825.