Proceedings of PVP2007
2007 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
AN EXAMPLE OF BOLTED JOINTS IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER
FATIGUE CONDITIONS
I. Le May and R. Pascual, Metallurgical Consulting Services, Saskatoon, Canada
ABSTRACT
Flanges in pressure vessels are, in most cases,
submitted to non-concentric loading conditions
producing bending stresses in the bolts that have
to be taken into account for design purposes.
The VDI 2230 Guideline [5] provides an
excellent tool for the design of bolted joints,
especially those in which the bolts are
eccentrically loaded, as is commonly the case in
pressure vessels.
When cyclic loading conditions that can lead to
fatigue failure are prevalent, special attention
should be paid to the fatigue criteria used in the
design.
This paper will analyze the general principles of
the design of bolted joints, giving particular
attention to the use of the VDI 2230 Guideline.
The calculation of the stiffness of the joints using
this guideline will be introduced and a
comparison with the more commonly used
approaches will be made.
Finally an example of the calculations involved
in the design of a bolted flange in a pressure
vessel will be shown and a comparison of the
different design and fatigue criteria made.
INTRODUCTION
Even if considerable progress has been made in
the last decades in the design of bolted flanges in
pressure vessels, it is not infrequent that
problems are reported with this type of
mechanical component, in many cases producing
failure. It is also commonly found that many of
1 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
July 22-26, 2007, San Antonio, Texas
PVP2007-26146
these failures are associated with inadequate
design of the bolted joints. One of the most
important causes leading to failure is the lack of
understanding of non-concentric loading of
bolting joints. Some of these failures have had
catastrophic results which have been reported
elsewhere [1, 2].
The VDI 2230 Guideline [5] provides a
comprehensive method for designing bolted
joints which considers most of the features and
conditions that are usually present in bolted
flanges, providing a good basis for the design of
these components.
This paper shows a comparison of the results that
can be obtained with the VDI 2230 Guideline
and those calculated using the conventional
methods that do not take into account the effects
of eccentric loading.
CALCULATION OF BOLTED JOINTS: THE VDI
2230 GUIDELINE
Most of the proposed methods for the calculation
of stresses in bolted joints consider the different
contributions of the bolt and joint stiffness to the
behaviour of the joint when a load is applied. If
k b and k j are the stiffness of the bolt and the
flanges, respectively, the load Fb on the bolt for
a clamped joint will be [3, 4]:
kb
Fb = FA (1)
kb + k j
where F A is the load applied on the joint. Since
the stiffness of the flanges is much larger than
that of the bolt, it can be seen from Eqn. (1) that
 the force on the bolt is much less than the
applied load, showing the importance of
preloading on the behaviour of the bolted joint.
Figure 1 Diagram of Forces Acting on a Bolted
Joint
Figure 1 is a diagram showing graphically this
behaviour. If the joint is preloaded with a force
FM , the force will initially be in equilibrium
with the contact force F j on the contact area of
the flanges. In Figure 1, the slope of Fb and F j
is given in the F vs. ∆L plot (where ∆L is the
displacement of the flanges or the bolt) by the
respective stiffness k b and kj . The two flanges
will act as one piece as long as the external load
F A is less than the preload FM . As a result, when
the external load F A is applied, the force on the
bolt, ∆Fb will change less than that in the joint
( ∆F j ), the actual value depending on the ratio
between the bolt and the joint stiffness as shown
in Figure 1 and Eqn. 1.
These methods are only valid for axially
concentric loading of the bolted joints and differ
mainly in the way of calculating the stiffness of
the bolt and the joint. The stiffness ki of an
element of length li is given by Eqn. (2):
1 l
= i
k i Ai E
where Ai is the cross-section of the element and
E its Young’s modulus.
The stiffness, kb, of a bolt can be calculated with
Eqn. (3), taking into account the different
contributions from each of its parts:
1 1 1 1 1
= + + +
k b k shank k thread k head k nut
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Several methods have been developed for the
calculation of joint stiffness [3, 4]. They all have
in common the adoption of a certain area of
influence, in the surrounding area of the joint, of
the stress introduced by the force applied to the
bolt. Adopting a truncated 30° cone with the
smaller base on the bolt head, the joint stiffness,
kj, can be expressed as:
0.5774πEd
kj =
(1.155t + D − d )( D + d ) (4)
ln
(1.155t + D + d )( D − d )
where d is the diameter of the bolt, t the flange
thickness, and D = 1.5d.
The VDI 2230 Guideline [5] provides a more
accurate calculation which includes the cases in
which the bolted joints are loaded in a non-
concentric way, something which is frequently
the case for bolted flanges.
In this model, both the bolts and the clamped
parts are considered as tension and compression
springs with resiliences δb and δj, respectively. A
preload force, FM, is assumed to produce a
clamping load, Fk, at the interface. When an axial
load, FA, is applied to the joint, forces are
induced both on the clamped region, FjA, and on
the bolt, FbA. The values of these forces depend
on the elastic properties of the clamped parts and
the bolts.
For a concentrically loaded bolted joint, the VDI
Guideline provides a relationship similar to that
in Eqn. (1):
δj
FbA = n FA (5)
δ j +δb
where n is a load introduction factor which
describes the effect of the working load on the
displacement of the bolt head.
When the more general case of non-concentric
(2) loading by an applied force FA is considered, the
stress on the bolt, FbA, is given by Eqn. (6) which
takes into account the bending moments
introduced in the bolt due to the fact that the
loads are not applied along its central axis:
⎡ ⎛ 1 s ⎞ l E πad s3 ⎤ Φ ∗en FA
σ bA = ⎢1 + ⎜⎜ ∗
− sym ⎟⎟ k b ⎥ (6)
⎣⎢ ⎝ Φ en a ⎠ lers E j 8 I Bers ⎦⎥ As
(3)
where:
2 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
 σbA: is the stress in the bending tension fiber preloading behaviour, the maximum stress on the
of the bolt thread, caused by FSA and a bolt can be calculated according to Eqn. (3).
bending moment MB during eccentric
load application. EXAMPLE OF BOLTED JOINT CALCULATION
Φ*en : load factor for eccentric clamping and
eccentric load introduction. An example of the calculations in a simple
ssym: distance of the bolt axis from the axis of pressure vessel submitted to cyclical loading will
the deformation solid. be given here comparing the results for the
a: distance of the line of action of the axial conventional method with the results from
load FA from the axis of the deformation application of the VDI 2230 Guideline.
solid.
lk: clamping length. Figure 2 is a drawing of a pressure vessel
lers: substitutional bending length for a bolt showing an end flange secured by 8 ¾” bolts. It
(a continuous cylindrical shank over the is cyclically pressurized internally between 300
entire length: with d3 having the same psi (2.07 MPa) and 3000 psi (20.7 MPa).
value of βs as any bolt).
d3: minor diameter of the bolt thread.
Eb Ej: Young’s moduli of the bolt and
clamped parts materials.
IBers: substitutional moment of gyration of the
deformation solid.
ds: diameter at stress cross section As.
As: stress cross section of the bolt thread
according to DIN 13-28.

Φ *en is given by:

δ ∗j ∗
Φ ∗en = n (7)
δ b + δ ∗j
where
2
ssym lk
δ ∗j = δ j + (8)
E j I Bers

and
Figure 2 Cross-section of the Pressure Vessel
a.ssymlk
δ ∗j ∗ = δ j + (9)
E j I Bers
Details of the bolted joint and the relevant
dimensions are shown in Figure 3.
IBers is the moment of gyration of the deformation
solid. For an eccentrically loaded and
The pressure vessel is made of ASTM A105
concentrically clamped joint, ssym = 0.
steel having an internal diameter of 6.985”
(177.41 mm) and external diameter of 7.625”
The VDI method also takes into account the
(193.7 mm). The flange has an 11.05” (280.67
possibility of preload changes as a result of
mm) outside diameter and is sealed with an O-
embedding or thermal expansion which will not
ring. The bolts have a length, ls, of 2.9” (73.66
be considered here. The design methodology
mm) and the length of the thread, b, is 1.65”
consists of first calculating the minimum preload
(41.91 mm). The minor diameter, d3, is 0.68”
to prevent separation at the joint under the
(17.27 mm) and the stress cross section, As, has a
applied loads. The bolt size is selected based on
value of 0.37 in2 (238.7 mm2).
a criterion for the maximum acceptable stress on
the bolt due to preloading and under the specific
loading conditions present in the joint. Once the
proper bolt size is obtained, considering the

3 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 k b = 4.7.106 lbf/in (0.82.106 N/mm)
k j = 3.38.107 lbf/in (5.86.106 N/mm)

Using Eqn. (1) the stress on the bolts

corresponding to the maximum and minimum
applied forces, Fbmax and Fbmin can be calculated
and the alternating stress amplitude is:

Fb max − Fb min
σ ab = = 2.13 ksi (14.69 MPa)
2 As

The same calculation will be conducted applying

the VDI 2230 Guideline. Applying Eqns (5) to
(9) the different resiliences are found to have the
following values:

δ b = 0.175.10-6 in/lbf
(1.34.10-6 mm/N)
Figure 3 Section of One of the Bolted Joints β b = 6.71.10-6 lbf -1.in-1
(6.10-8 N-1.mm-1)
δ j = 0.217.10-7 in/lbf
The following quantities are necessary for the (0.124.10-6 mm/N)
calculations: δ = 0.224.10-7 in/lbf
∗
j

lk = Clamp length = 2” (50.8 mm) (0.128.10-6 mm/N)

DST = Bolt circle diameter = 9.75” (247.65) δ = 0.870.10-7 in/lbf
∗∗
j

DZi = Flange inside diameter = 6.985” (177.42 (0.497.10-6 mm/N)

mm)
Da = Flange outside diameter = 11.05” (280.67 The load introduction factor, n, has a value of 0.4
mm) and Φ ∗en is given by Eqn. (10):
e = Distance from bolt circle to side at risk of
δ P**
opening = 1.41” (35.81 mm) Φ *en = n = 0.0628 (10)
cT = Width of the interface = 2” (50.8 mm) δ +δS
*
P

The calculation will be done using two different
methods. The first is the method described by
Eqns (1) to (4) which does not consider the effect
of eccentric loading or clamping on the bolted
joint. The second uses the procedures
recommended in the VDI 2230 Guideline which
takes into account the effect of eccentricity in
loading and clamping.
Given the maximum and minimum pressures
applied and the dimensions of the different
components of the pressure vessel, the maximum
and minimum forces on each bolt are found to
be, FAmax = 14.3 kip (63.8 kN) and FAmin = 1.43
kip (6.38 kN).
Using the conventional method, the bolt and
joint stiffness can be calculated using Eqns (2) to
(4), obtaining the following values:
Applying Eqn. (6), the maximum and minimum
stresses on the bolts can be calculated yielding
an alternating stress amplitude of:
σ SA max − σ SA min
σ ab = = 4.80 ksi (33.09 MPa)
2
It can be seen that the VDI 2230 method predicts
a value of σ ab much higher than that obtained by
the conventional method. The main difference is
that the VDI method takes into account the
eccentricity in the application of the load while
the conventional method assumes an axial load
being applied on the bolts. This can represent a
large difference when comparing these stresses
with the fatigue limit established for the bolt
material.

4 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 A comparison between different fatigue criteria
will be made. It is considered that an appropriate
safety factor for bolted joints can be taken as 2,
so that any joint with a calculated safety factor
below this value is deemed to be unsafe. Three
of the latest proposed criteria will be analyzed.
The ASME Subgroup on Fatigue Strength has
recently released recommendations [6] for
fatigue limits, σFL, to be used in steel
components. These recommendations are based
in a large body of experimental data for a variety
of steels. For the steel under consideration, if this
criterion is applied a value of σFL = 19 ksi (131
MPa) should be used (assuming a fatigue life of
5.106 cycles). According to Shigley et al. [8] for
the bolts used in the present case a stress
concentration factor of 3.8 should be applied.
The effective alternating stress amplitude when
applying this concentration factor is 8.09 ksi
(55.82 MPa) for the conventional method and
18.24 ksi (125.7 MPa) for the VDI method.
Comparing this with the fatigue limit gives a
safety factor of 1.04 for the VDI method and
2.34 for the simplified method. The simplified
method will indicate a safe design while the VDI
method will indicate an unsafe one.
The Eurocode criterion [7] specifies lower loads
than the ones discussed previously, giving a
fatigue limit of 26.5 MPa. This reduces the
safety factor to a value of 0.8 for the VDI
approach and 1.80 for the conventional
calculation. Therefore, the stress calculated with
the VDI method will be higher than the fatigue
limit while the one calculated with the
conventional method will be higher, but would
be considered marginally unsafe. Finally, the
VDI 2230 Guideline [5] recommends the
following criterion for the evaluation of the
fatigue limit:
σFL (MPa) = 0.85[(150/d(mm)) +45]
where d is the nominal diameter of the bolt, in
this case 0.75” (19.05 mm) yielding a value of
σFL = 6.5 ksi (44.9 MPa). For the VDI and
simplified methods the safety factors obtained
are of 1.35 and 3.05, respectively.
DISCUSSION
From the example shown above it can be
concluded that, depending on the design criteria
used to calculate the bolted joints, this design
can be considered either safe or unsafe when the
5 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
results for alternating applied stresses are
compared with currently used criteria for the
fatigue limit.
The conventional method of bolted joint
calculation, which consider that the bolts are
axially loaded, predicts much lower alternating
stresses on the bolts that those methods, such as
the VDI 2230 used here, in which the effect of
eccentric loading and clamping are taken into
account.
Clearly, the results obtained with the two
methods will depend strongly on the specific
geometry of each joint, but, from the results
shown above, it can be concluded that, for the
most common geometries of bolted joints used in
pressure vessel flanges, the conventional method
is not appropriate and can lead to an unsafe
design of the joints.
The VDI 2230 Guideline can be used to calculate
most geometries usually found in bolted joints.
In some cases, the different parameters in Eqn. 6
can be easily calculated while in more complex
situations finite element or other methods have
to be applied.
REFERENCES
(1) Bagnall, C. and Le May, I., “Structural
integrity of bolted connections”,
Technology, Law and Insurance, Vol. 5, pp.
169-173, 2000.
(2) Le May, I. and McEvily A.J., “Fatigue
evaluation in failure analysis”, Fatigue
2002, pp. 2995-3006, EMAS, 2002.
(3) Wileman, J., Choudhury, M. and Green, I.,
“Computation of member stiffness in bolted
connections”, Trans. ASME, J. Mechanical
Design, Vol. 113, pp. 331-342, 1991.
(4) Shigley, J.J., Mischke, C.R. and Budynas,
R.G, “Mechanical Engineering Design”,Mc
Graw Hill Book Co., New York, 2004.
(5) “Systematic Calculation of High Duty
Bolted Joints”. VDI 2230, Verein
Deutscher Ingenieure, Düsseldorf, 2003.
(6) “Recommendations. ASME Subgroup of
Fatigue Strength”, O’Donnell, W.J. Private
communication, February 2005.
(7) “Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures",
ENV 1993-1-1.
(8) Shigley. J.E. and Mischke, C.R., “Standard
Handbook of Machine Design”, McGraw
Hill Book Co., New York (1966).