Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Finite element analysis of the shear capacity of stainless-steel

screw connections
Jun Zhao, Zhuang Wang, Feng Qian, Yang Peng, Jun Dong *
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Stainless-steel has been widely applied in engineering for its good corrosion resistance and low life-cycle cost.
FEM The use of screws in the thin sheet has the advantages of simple construction and tight connection, so it is widely
Reliability used in open-air maintenance systems. However, the mechanical performance of stainless-steel screw connec­
Stainless-steel
tions is quite different from that of carbon steel due to the material difference, which needs further research. In
Screw connections
Shear capacity
this paper, finite element method was carried out to simulate the shear performance of the stainless-steel screw
connections. The simulated failure modes were consistent with the experimental results, the simulated
load–displacement curves were close to the experimental results, and the difference was within 10%. A variety of
parametric studies utilizing the finite element method (FEM) had been performed on the shear capacity of
stainless-steel screw connections, which included sheet thickness, spacing and connecting length. Results shown
that the connecting length was the main factor affecting the shear capacity of the stainless-steel screw con­
nections. For equal-thickness connection (t1 = t2 = 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 3.0 mm), when the connecting length was
within 6d-60d, the shear capacity increased linearly with the increase of the connecting length. For unequal-
thickness connection (t1 = 1.5 mm, t2 = 2.0 mm/t1 = 2.0 mm, t2 = 3.0 mm/t1 = 2.0 mm, t2 = 5.0 mm),
when the connecting length was within 6d-45d, the shear capacity increased linearly with the increase of the
connecting length. However, when the connecting length was within 45d-60d, the end screw occurred shear
failure first, its shear capacity almost no longer increased. The change of screw spacing and the sheet thickness
had few effect on the shear capacity. Based on reliability research, the resistance factor and design strength were
proposed. For shear failure,γR = 1.273, fvb = 275MPa, and for bearing failure, γR = 1.306, fvb = 315MPa.

1. Introduction At present, research of stainless-steel structure connections are

In the past decades, cold-formed steel has been widely used in roof
slabs for its fast construction, low maintenance and easy extension [1,2].
Bolted connection, welded connection, screwed connection and riveted
connection are the most common used connecting methods in cold-
formed steel structures [3-5]. Compared with other connecting
methods, carbon steel screwed connection is widely used in the
connection of roof maintenance because of its advantages of simple
construction, economic cost and good connection stiffness [6,7]. As
stainless-steel has no obvious yield point and yield platform, the me­
chanical properties of stainless-steel screw connections are different
from that of carbon steel, especially the deformation properties [8].
However, there was less research on the shear capacity of stainless-steel
screw connections, which limited the application of stainless-steel
structures.
mainly focused on the stress performance of bolted connection, and the
study of screw connections was relatively limited. As the finite element
method can simulate the failure details thoroughly and comprehen­
sively, more and more scholars used the finite element method to study
the mechanical performance of screw connections. Fan L et al.[9,10]
simulated the model of the effect of contact nonlinearity and prestress,
and the deformation and stress distribution of the connections were well
consistent with the experimental results. Chen JT [11] studied the per­
formance of self-tapping screw connections of metal skin diaphragm
structures from the perspective of numerical analysis, and emphatically
analyzed the common failure modes of equal-thickness connections. Lu
W et al. [12] established a finite element model to study the shear
behavior of screw connections with unequal-thickness steel sheets at
room temperature and high temperature. The model comprehensively
considered the material, geometry and contact nonlinearity, and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dongjun@njtech.edu.cn (J. Dong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.048
Received 22 February 2022; Received in revised form 21 April 2022; Accepted 12 May 2022
Available online 24 May 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zhao et al. Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

cold-formed steel connections considering both the effects of bolt slip­

page and bearing. Good agreement between the FE models using the
proposed method and the available test results of cold-formed steel
bolted connections were achieved, which indicated the promising
application of the proposed method for simulating cold-formed steel
assembled using bolted connections. Deng ZP [20] studied the out of
plane warping behavior of stainless-steel bolted connections based on
the experiment and finite element methods, which found the sheet
thickness dividing line of warping, and judged whether the load-
carrying capacity was reduced or not, and the reduction range was
generally within the range of 20%-40%. It was found that the larger the
end distance, and the smaller the thickness of the sheet, the more
obvious the warping phenomenon is. Jin XL et al. [21,22] studied the
shear capacity of stainless-steel screw connections by the experiment.
The failure mechanism, load–displacement curves and shear capacity of
different failure modes were obtained, and the related factors of shear
capacity were preliminarily studied. Based on the research of Eurocode
(EN 1993–1-8) [27], the design formula of the shear capacity of
stainless-steel screw connections in Technical Specification for Stainless-
steel Structures (CECS 410: 2015) [28] was verified by limited experi­
ment data, which needed a lot of effective data support and reliability
analysis.
The purpose of this paper was to reveal the failure mechanism of the
screw connections by finite element analysis. The parameters of screw
spacing, sheet thickness, connecting length and other factors affecting
the shear capacity of stainless-steel screw connections were analyzed,
and their effects on the shear capacity of stainless-steel screw connec­
Fig. 1. Overall model and mesh division of screws. tions were studied. Finally, the reliability analysis of the shear capacity
of stainless-steel screws was carried out.
discussed the failure modes and the load-carrying capacity at different
temperatures. Acharya SR et al. [13] reasonably simplified the model of 2. Numerical investigation
screw connections, simulated bearing performance of the connecting
sheet, and considered the contact between sheets, and the contact be­ 2.1. Finite element modeling
tween the sheet and the screw. Results shown that the connection
stiffness, screw tilt and end winding failure were in line with the In this paper, ABAQUS was used to simulate stainless-steel screw
experimental results. Zhao MY[14] conducted finite element analysis of connections. Stainless-steel screws had many turns or different
the cold-formed steel structures at different temperatures, and compared
with the experiment to verify the reliability of the model. However, due
Table 2
to the material properties difference between the stainless-steel and the
Specimens of screwed connections in equal-thickness sheets.
carbon steel, whether the modeling method of the carbon steel could be
Specimen Number/ Thinckness/ Distance/ Sheet Sheet
directly applied to the stainless-steel screw connections remained to be
n t1 (mm) p1 (mm) width/B length/L
verified. Kim TS et al. [15-17] studied the load-carrying capacity of (mm) (mm)
SUS304 thin-walled stainless-steel bolted connections. It was found that
CR3L3D- 3 3 12.0 60 160
when the cover sheet was thin, the end warpage of steel sheet occurred. 3.0
Compared with the connection without warpage, the ultimate strength CR6L3D- 6 80 180
caused by warpage decreased to 4%-25%. According to a series of 3.0
parameter studies, the calculation method of strength reduction of single CR9L3D- 9 80 210
3.0
bolted connection considering warpage was proposed. Guan Q et al.
CR13L3D- 13 100 250
[18] developed a nonlinear explicit dynamic finite element (FE) model 3.0
by validating the modelled load-deformation relationships and failure CR17L3D- 17 100 290
modes with available tests in the literature. Parametric studies were 3.0
carried out to investigate the influence of steel sheet thickness and the CR21L3D- 21 100 340
3.0
screw outer diameter on the force–displacement relationships of the CR25L3D- 25 100 380
steel lap joints. Ye J et al. [19] introduced an accurate, efficient and 3.0
robust numerical method that could fully replicate the behaviour of

Table 1
Material parameters of steel sheets and screws used in FEM.
Member Specimen Nominal yield strength Ultimate tensile strength Strain hardening exponent Elastic modulus Poisson’s ratio
f0.2 /MPa fu /MPa n E0 /MPa ν
Stainless-steel C1.5 288.624 654.759 6.432 193,000 0.3
sheet C2.0 268.245 636.488 6.647
C5.0 303.726 698.187 6.294
Screw M4.0 456.121 810.233 6.836
M6.0 446.154 770.014 6.139
M8.0 472 800 6.895

958
J. Zhao et al. Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

Table 3
Specimens of screwed connections in unequal-thickness sheets.
Specimen Number/n Thinckness/t1(mm) Thinckness/t2(mm) Distance/p1(mm) Sheet width/B (mm) Sheet length/L (mm)

CR3L3D-2.0/5.0 3 2 5 12.0 60 160

CR6L3D-2.0/5.0 6 80 180
CR9L3D-2.0/5.0 9 80 210
CR13L3D-2.0/5.0 13 100 250
CR17L3D-2.0/5.0 17 100 290
CR21L3D-2.0/5.0 21 100 340
CR25L3D-2.0/5.0 25 100 380

Fig. 2. Stress distribution of screws (CR3L3D-3.0).
arrangement of threads. If such threads were established in the model, it
would not only make the mesh division difficult, but also led to the non
convergence of the calculation results. The screw thread was simplified
as a ring, and only one or three threads directly contacted with the steel
sheet were considered [10,29]. The screw was simplified as a cylinder,
and the cross-sectional area of the cylinder was equivalent to the actual
shear area of the screw. As the steel plate and screw were three-
dimensional solid structures, and the nonlinearity was considered in
the model, the linear reduced integral element D3D8R was used to
simulate the connection performance of the connecting plate and the
screw. For the normal action of the contact surface, hard contact was
adopted in the model. It didn’t limit the amount of contact pressure
transmitted between the contact surfaces. For the tangential action be­
tween the contact surfaces, because a certain preload would be gener­
ated when the stainless-steel screw was screwed into the steel plate in
the real test process, the contact part between the steel plates would
inevitably produce friction resistance against the dislocation. The fric­
tion coefficient was conservatively taken as 0.15, which could also
prevent the rigid body displacement in the calculation. The screw sur­
face was defined as the main surface, and the hole wall of the screw hole
was defined as the secondary surface. The contact surface between steel
sheets was relatively large, so the limited slip was selected, as the screw
and steel sheet contact surface was relatively close, so the small slip
formula was selected [3]. In order to improve the operation efficiency,
the steel sheet was divided into three parts for mesh generation,
including the area near the screw hole, the connection section and other
locations. As the area around the screw hole was the focus area, the mesh
needed to be encrypted. Based on the unit size sensitivity analysis, the
screw hole was encrypted with the dimension of 0.5mm×0.5mm, the
connecting section with the dimension of 2.0mm×2.0mm, the screws
adopted the dimension of 0.5mm×0.5mm, as shown in Fig. 1 (a). The
model was based on the boundary conditions and the loading mode in
the experiment, as shown in Fig. 1 (b). Because the model of specimen
was symmetrical, a symmetrical constraint was added, that is, the
displacement in the Y-axis direction of the symmetrical plane was
limited. The X-axis displacement was applied to simulate the tensile
experiment. The Von Mises’s yield criterion and the multi-linear kine­
matic harden strengthening criterion were used to simulate the model.
Considering the model convergence, two analysis steps were adopted. In
the first analysis step, a displacement of 0.01mm was applied to make
the contact established smoothly, and then the real load was applied in
the secondary analysis step for convergence.
In the past few decades, scholars have studied the properties of
stainless-steel materials, and proposed the constitutive relationship
curve [23]. At present, the commonly used models of stainless-steel
materials were Rasmussen’s two-stage model, Gardner’s two-stage
model and Quach’s three-stage model [24,25]. The three expressions
could be used for the stress–strain relationship of stainless-steel mate­
rials. Rasmussen’s two-stage model has less parameters, simple expres­
sions and good accuracy. The model given by CECS 410: 2015 was used
for accurate analysis, as shown in Eq. (1).
⎧
⎪ σ σ
⎪
⎪ + 0.002( )n 0⩽σ⩽f0.2
⎨ E0 f0.2
ε = (1)
⎪
⎪ f0.2 σ − f0.2 σ − f0.2 m
⎪
⎩ 0.002 + + + εu ( ) f0.2 < σ ⩽fu
E0 E0.2 σu − f0.2
Where, f0.2 -Standard value of nominal yield strength, fu -Standard
value of ultimate tensile strength, E0 -Initial elastic modulus,
E0.2 -Tangent modulus corresponding to nominal yield strength, E0.2 =

959
J. Zhao et al.
Fig. 3. Failure mode of the equal-thickness connecting sheet.
Fig. 4. Failure mode of the unequal-thickness connecting sheet.
E0 /(1 + 0.002nE0 /f0.2 ), εu -Tensile ultimate strain corresponding to fu , m-
Calculation coefficient, m = 1 + 3.5f0.2 /fu , n-Strain hardening exponent.
In the reference [21], uniaxial tensile tests were carried out on
06cr19ni10 austenitic stainless-steel connecting sheets with different
thicknesses and A2-70 stainless-steel screws with different diameters,
and the corresponding material property data were obtained. The
measured average values were shown in Table 1. This material property
parameter was used to simulate the experimental results.
A total of 14 groups of 42 specimens were established by FEM. When
the connecting sheets were equal in thickness, there were 7 groups of
specimens, each group of 3 total 21 specimens, and the specimen
specifications were shown in Table 2. The unequal-thickness specimens
were also 21 specimens, and the specimen specifications were shown in
Table 3. The specimen number, for example, CR3L3D-3.0 indicated that
the stainless-steel screw connections had 3 screws, 3L represented 3
screws in the longitudinal arrangement, 3D represented the distance
between screws in the direction of stress was 3d, 3.0 represented the
thickness of sheets.
960
Structures 41 (2022) 957–968
2.2. Shear failure analysis
Based on the established finite element model, failure modes and
phenomena were analyzed. The Von Mises’s stress distribution of the
finite element model of CR3L3D-3.0 specimen was shown in Fig. 2,
which was screw shear failure. It could be seen from Fig. 2 (c) that the
screw was not inclined and the pure shear deformation of each screw
remained consistent, indicating that the shear distribution of the
connection was more uniform when the number of screws was small.
The screw was not inclined and the pure shear deformation of each
screw remained consistent, indicating that the shear distribution of the
connection was relatively uniform when the number of screws was
small.
The Von Mises’s stress distribution of the failure mode of the equal-
thickness connecting sheets was shown in Fig. 3. Taking the number of
screws n = 15 as an example, the screws showed obvious shear failure
characteristics, and the shear deformation of the end and the middle
screws were basically the same, indicating that the deformation
J. Zhao et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental results and FEM results.
performance of the stainless-steel was good, and the internal stress
redistribution made the stress of each screw uniform, which was basi­
cally consistent with the experimental results.
For unequal-thickness specimens, the failure modes were similar to
the equal-thickness connections, all showing the shear failure of the
screw rod. When the connecting length reached 45d, take the number of
screws n = 16 as an example, the stressed end sheet hole was greatly
deformed, and the fixed end shape variable along the other side was
gradually reduced, and the shear shape of the screw was the same as the
screw hole, as shown in Fig. 4. The reason may be that when the con­
necting length was long, the deformation of the thin steel sheet was
greater than of the thick sheet, which was not conducive to the coor­
dination stress of the screws and the connecting sheet.
2.3. Validation of FE analysis results
In this section, the shear capacity was compared with the experi­
ments. The comparisons between load–displacement curves and exper­
imental curves were shown in Fig. 5, and results shown that results of
numerical simulation were close to experimental results. The curve was
smooth and short, and the curve dropped sharply after reaching the
shear capacity, showing the brittle damage characteristics. According to
961
Structures 41 (2022) 957–968
the comparison between the shear capacity of Table 4, the difference
was within 5% and the test average difference was about 2%, which
showed that the finite element result could well simulate the stress
performance of stainless-steel screw connections. In conclusion, the
finite element model built here could effectively simulate the different
failure modes of stainless-steel screw shear connection, which could be
used for the parameter analysis below.
3. Parametric study and group-effect coefficient
3.1. Parametric study
This section mainly analyzed the factors affecting the shear capacity
of the stainless-steel screw connections on the basis of experimental
research, including the screw spacing, connecting sheet thickness and
connecting length. Austenitic 06Cr19Ni10 stainless-steel sheet and the
austenitic A2-70 stainless-steel screw was adopted, and the screw
nominal diameter was 4.0 mm.
3.1.1. Influence of space on shear capacity
In order to study the influence of screw spacing on the shear capacity
(adopted type M4.0 screw, the number of screws n = 3), the spacing was
J. Zhao et al. Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

Table 4
Comparison between experimental results and FEM results.
Specimen Shear area Experimental FEM Difference
As/mm2 results/kN results/kN (%)

CR3L3D- 8.78 12.95 13.02 0.54

3.0–1
CR3L3D- 12.80 1.71
3.0–2
CR3L3D- 12.51 4.07
3.0–3
Average 12.75 2.11
CR6L3D- 20.10 25.32 25.86 2.13
3.0–1
CR6L3D- 25.82 0.15
3.0–2
CR6L3D- 25.96 0.39
3.0–3
Average 25.70 0.62
CR3L3D-2.0/ 8.78 12.41 12.63 1.77
5.0–1
CR3L3D-2.0/ 12.60 0.24
5.0–2 Fig. 7. Curve of number of screws on shear capacity (equal-thickness con­
CR3L3D-2.0/ 12.53 0.80
necting sheets, t1 = t2 = 3 mm).
5.0–3
Average 12.51 0.96
CR6L3D-2.0/ 20.10 26.19 26.83 2.44
5.0–1 Table 5
CR6L3D-2.0/ 26.52 1.17 Influence of number of screws on shear capacity.
5.0–2
CR6L3D-2.0/ 25.81 3.95 Specimen Number/ Thickness/ Connecting Results Reduction
5.0–3 n mm length/d of coefficient/
Average 26.17 2.52 FEM/ β
kN

FEA4.0–3.0/ 1 t1 = t2 = 3 0 4.72 1.000

3.0
FEA3L3D- 3 6 14.10 1.000
3.0/3.0
FEA6L3D- 6 15 28.86 1.023
3.0/3.0
FEA9L3D- 9 24 42.01 1.001
3.0/3.0
FEA13L3D- 13 36 60.94 0.998
3.0/3.0
FEA15L3D- 15 42 70.10 0.994
3.0/3.0
FEA16L3D- 16 45 74.12 0.986
3.0/3.0
FEA17L3D- 17 48 77.25 0.967
3.0/3.0
FEA21L3D- 21 60 93.96 0.952
3.0/3.0

3.1.2. Influence of connecting length on shear capacity

Fig. 6. Influence of screw space on shear capacity.
2d, 3d, 4d and 6d for parameter analysis, the thickness of stainless-steel
sheet was 3 mm, the width was 60 mm, the length was 160 mm, and the
end distance was 12 mm, and the comparison of shear capacity was
shown in Fig. 6.
It could be seen from Fig. 6, the finite element analysis results were
consistent with the experimental results. When the screw distance was
within a certain range, the change of the screw spacing had little impact
on the shear capacity. Chinese technical specification for stainless steel
structures (CECS 410:2015) stipulated that the screw spacing of
stainless-steel screw connections should not be less than 3 times the
diameter. In the design and analysis, we could choose the space size to
meet the requirements of the relevant structure according to the actual
situation.
For equal-thickness connecting sheets, the stress of each screw was
uniform, and the reduction of shear capacity could be ignored. For
unequal-thickness connecting sheets, when the connecting length
reached a certain value, the utilization ratio of the shear capacity of each
screw in stainless-steel screw connections was different, which led to the
decrease of the overall shear capacity. Therefore, the reduction coeffi­
cient β was introduced in this section, as shown in Eq. (2).
β=
Shear capacity of n screws
(2)
n × Shear capacity of single screw
In order to study the influence of the connecting length on the shear
capacity of the stainless-steel connections, the connecting length of 6d-
60d (the number of screws n = 3–21) was taken into consideration for
parameter analysis. The sheet thickness was 3 mm, screws for end dis­
tance and spacing were 12 mm, and the results were shown in Fig. 7 and
Table 5. Stress distribution of equal-thickness connecting sheets (n =
6,15) was shown in Fig. 8.
It could be seen from Fig. 7 that when other parameters were un­
changed, the shear capacity increased with the increase of the con­
necting length, and basically showed a linear growth trend. It could be

962
J. Zhao et al.
Fig. 8. Stress distribution of equal-thickness connecting sheets.
Fig. 9. Curve of number of screws on shear capacity (unequal-thickness con­
necting sheets, t1 = t2 = 3 mm).
seen from Table 5 that the reduction coefficient β of the connecting
length changed little in the range of 6d-60d, basically about 1.0. The
main reason was that in the equal-thickness connecting sheets, the stress
of each screw tended to be uniform gradually.
For the unequal-thickness connecting sheets (thin sheet was 2 mm,
thick sheet was 5 mm, screw end distance and spacing were 12 mm), the
calculation result was shown in Fig. 9. It could be seen from Fig. 9 that
when the connecting length was less than 45d, the shear capacity
increased with the connecting length and basically showed a linear
growth trend in the experiment. When the connecting length was in the
range of 6d-45d, the reduction coefficient β could be ignored, but when
the connecting length was in the range of 45d-60d, the stress of the screw
was even, the reduction coefficient decreased significantly. Stress dis­
tribution of unequal-thickness connecting sheets (n = 6,15) was shown
in Fig. 10.
3.1.3. Influence of thickness of sheets on shear capacity
In order to study the influence of the thickness of the connecting
963
Structures 41 (2022) 957–968
sheet on the shear capacity of the stainless-steel screw connections, the
equal-thickness connecting sheets and the unequal-thickness connecting
sheets were considered. Let the width of the connecting sheet was 60
mm, the connecting length was 160 mm, the end distance and spacing
were 12 mm, the finite element calculation results were shown in
Table 6 and Fig. 11.
The main failure modes of stainless-steel screw connections were
screw shear failure. It could be seen from Fig. 11, for equal-thickness
connecting sheets, the shear capacity increased with the thickness of
connecting sheets, but the growth trend was not obvious. For unequal-
thickness connecting sheets, the change of connecting sheet thickness
had little impact on the shear capacity, which was mainly due to the
shear capacity of screw shear failure was only related to its own shear
strength.
3.2. Group-effect coefficient
The experiment and finite element results were compared with the
reduction coefficients of stainless-steel screw connections recommended
by EN 1993–1-8 and CECS 410: 2015, as shown in Fig. 12.
① The results of the experiment and the finite element simulation
were close to the CECS 410: 2015, and the developing trend was
consistent, which showed that the formula proposed in CECS 410:
2015 was applicable. However, for equal-thickness connecting
sheets, the reduction coefficients obtained from the experiment and
the finite element simulation were all around “1′′ , there was no need
to make a reduction in practical application.
② The results of experiment and finite element simulation were
higher than that of EN 1993-1-8, which indicated that the recom­
mended formula of EN 1993-1-8 was safe.
③ When the connecting length was greater than 45d, the reduction
coefficient of stainless-steel screw connections decreases greatly.
Therefore, considering the safety and economy, the connecting
length should be reduced as much as possible or a more compact
screw arrangement should be adopted.
J. Zhao et al. Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

Fig. 10. Stress distribution of unequal-thickness connecting sheets.

Table 6
The influence of connecting sheet thickness on the shear capacity.
Specimen Thin Thick Diameter Shear Failure mode
sheet sheet d/mm capacity/
t1/mm t2/mm kN

FEA6L3D- 1.5 1.5 4 25.67 Diagonal-tension

1.5/1.5 failure/Shear
failure
FEA6L3D- 2.0 2.0 27.80 Shear failure
2.0/2.0
FEA6L3D- 3.0 3.0 28.86 Shear failure
3.0/3.0
FEA6L3D- 1.5 2.0 27.57 Diagonal-tension
1.5/2.0 failure/Shear
failure
FEA6L3D- 1.5 3.0 27.58 Diagonal-tension
1.5/3.0 failure/Shear
failure
FEA6L3D- 2.0 3.0 28.33 Shear failure
2.0/3.0
FEA6L3D- 2.0 5.0 28.33 Shear failure
2.0/5.0
Fig. 11. Influence of different thickness on the shear capacity.

4. Reliability analysis screw shear connections were obtained through statistical analysis,
and resistance coefficient and corresponding strength design values
4.1. Selection of target reliability were calculated, which could provide reference for the revision of
technical specifications for stainless-steel structures. The Unified Stan­
In this section, the First Order Second Moment method (FOSM) was dard for Reliability Design of Building Structure (GB 50068–2001) [26]
used to calculate the reliability index β of the structure, and the design specified the reliability indicators of the limit state of the shear capacity
point method was used for the reliability analysis, the general formulae of the structural members, as shown in Table 7.
for solving reliability index by checking point method was shown in Eq. Considering the shear failure of stainless-steel screw connections was
(3). The design test calculation point Xi* was unknown and was usually brittle failure, the target reliability was taken as 3.7 to determine the
obtained by the iterative method. resistance factor. Considering the good ductility of stainless-steel screws,
∑n ∂g ⃒⃒ the paper intended to take the target reliability of 3.2 to determine the
*
μZ i=1 ∂Xi ⃒ * (μXi − Xi ) resistance factor. In addition, compared with carbon steel, stainless-steel
β= =[ P
(3)
σZ ∑n ( ∂g ⃒⃒
]
)2 1/2 had considerable good plastic deformation ability and strain hardening
i=1 ∂Xi *
P
⃒ σ Xi ability. Its elongation after fracture was not less than 40%, compared
with carbon steel only 20%–30%, it showed that stainless-steel safety
where, P* was the design verification points; μZ was the mean value of reserve and ductility was better than that of carbon steel, so the above
the performance functionZ; σZ was the standard deviation of the per­ reliable index was safe and feasible [30]. The main factors affecting the
formance functionZ. resistance indeterminateness of structural components included mate­
The statistical parameters of random variables in stainless-steel rial indeterminateness, geometric indeterminateness and calculation

964
J. Zhao et al. Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

Table 9
Selection of load combinations.
Combination Permanent load control Variable load control Remarks

1 1.35G + 1.4 × 1.2G +

0.7Q(Residential) 1.4Q(Residential)
2 1.35G + 1.4 × 1.2G + 1.4Q(Office)
0.7Q(Office)
3 1.35G + 1.4 × 0.6W 1.2G + 1.4W
4 1.35G + 1.4 × 0.6W + 1.2G + 1.4 × 0.6W + ρ2 =
1.4 × 0.7Q(Residential) 1.4Q(Residential) 0.25
5 1.35G + 1.4 × 0.6W + 1.2G + 1.4 × 0.6W + ρ2 = 0.5
1.4 × 0.7Q(Residential) 1.4Q(Reidential)
6 1.35G + 1.4 × 0.6W + 1.2G + 1.4W + 1.4 × ρ2 = 1.0
1.4 × 0.7Q(Residential) 0.7Q(Residential)
7 1.35G + 1.4 × 0.6W + 1.2G + 1.4W + 1.4 × ρ2 = 2.0
1.4 × 0.7Q(Residential) 0.7Q(Residential)
8 1.35G + 1.4 × 0.6W + 1.2G + 1.4W + 1.4 × ρ2 = 4.0
1.4 × 0.7Q(Residential) 0.7Q(Residential)

Table 10
Fig. 12. Group-effect coefficient compared with different specifications. Statistical parameters of load uncertainties.
Load species Main Coefficient of Distribution type
value variation
Table 7
Permanent load /G 1.06 0.070 Normal
Reliability index β of building structural components. distribution
Failure mode Security classification Live Loads of office buildings/ 0.524 0.288 Extreme-Value
Qoffice Type I
I II III Floor live loads of residential 0.644 0.230 Extreme-Value
Ductile failure 3.7 3.2 2.7 buildings/Qresidential Type I
Brittle failure 4.2 3.7 3.2 Wind load/W 0.908 0.193 Extreme-Value
Type I

Table 8 examples of stainless-steel engineering were relatively limited, the

Statistical results of resistance uncertainty of stainless steel screw shear above assumption was adopted. The uncertain statistical parameters of
connection. load were derived from the Load Code for the Design Building Structural
Failure Random variable Mean Coefficient of
(GB 50009–2012), as shown in Table 10.
mode value/μ variation/δ For load combinations, the influence of different dead-to-live load
ratio ρ was considered. Considering the load combinations of live load Q
Shear Material indeterminateness/ 1.05 0.05
failure KM and wind load W at the same time, the influence of different ratio of two
Geometric indeterminateness/ 0.96 0.013 variable loads ρv on the structural reliability were considered, as shown
KA in Eq. (4) and Eq. (5).
Calculation mode 1.20 0.10
indeterminateness/Kp Standard value of maximum variable load
ρ= (4)
Resistance indeterminateness/ 1.210 0.113 Standard value of permanent load
R
Bearing Material indeterminateness/ 1.10 0.08 Standard value of wind load
failure KM ρv = (5)
Geometric indeterminateness/ 0.92 0.04
Standard value of live load
KA In actual engineering, the value of ρ generally changed at 0.25–4.0,
Calculation mode 1.020 0.073
and a few extreme cases would exceed this range, so for each load
indeterminateness/Kp
Resistance indeterminateness/ 1.032 0.115 combination, dead-to-live load ratios were safely considered [31]. For
R load combinations with two variable loads, five cases of variable load
ratios were considered, ρ1 =0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, ρ2 =0.25, 0.50, 1.0,
2.0, 4.0. Compared to the office live load, the residential live load was
mode indeterminateness. The statistical results of resistance indetermi­ more unfavorable, so the combination of the office live load and wind
nateness of stainless-steel screwed shear connections used in this paper load participation was not considered.
were shown in Table 8. According to reference [28], it would be divided into 3 (G + W) and
the remaining 7 combinations to determine the resistance factor of
stainless-steel screw connections. According to the Unified Standard for
4.2. Calculation of resistance factor Reliability Design of Building Structure (GB 50068–2001), the resistance
factor was determined by the maximum value and the strength design
When calculating the resistance factor, considering all possible load value. Table 11 and Table 12 showed the optimal resistance factors γ R
combinations was impractical [28]. According to the Building Structural obtained from the eight load combinations of shear failure and bearing
Load Code (GB 50009–2012), the common calculated load combinations failure.
as shown in Table 9 were selected. Through the above analysis, the resistance factor of combination 3
The reliability study of carbon steel components generally assumed (G + W) and the other 7 combinations were proposed respectively, and
an approximate linear proportional relationship between load and load the reliability indexes of the proposed values were verified to meet the
effect, which simplified the problem. Considering that the research on target reliability values. Therefore, the above resistance factor could be
stainless-steel structures in China had just started and the application

965
J. Zhao et al. Structures 41 (2022) 957–968

Table 11
The optical resistance coefficient of shear failure.
Combination Failure mode Optical resistance factor γR Mean value of γR γRmax γRmin

ρ = 0.25 ρ = 0.50 ρ = 1.00 ρ = 2.00 ρ = 4.00

C1 Shear failure β = 3.7 1.0253 1.0021 0.9889 1.0019 1.0196 1.0076 1.0253 0.9889
C2 1.0259 0.9688 0.9455 0.9489 0.9591 0.9696 1.0259 0.9455
C3 1.1042 1.1052 1.1474 1.2093 1.2633 1.1659 1.2633 1.1042
C4 1.0333 1.0142 1.0012 1.0119 1.0266 1.0174 1.0333 1.0012
C5 1.0426 1.0300 1.0197 1.0300 1.0434 1.0331 1.0434 1.0197
C6 1.0657 1.0462 1.0480 1.0622 1.0755 1.0595 1.0755 1.0462
C7 1.0809 1.0652 1.0786 1.1070 1.1321 1.0928 1.1321 1.0652
C8 1.0915 1.0826 1.1079 1.1499 1.1864 1.1237 1.1864 1.0826

Table 12
The optical resistance coefficient of bearing failure.
Combination Failure mode Optical resistance factor γR Mean value of γR γRmax γRmin

ρ = 0.25 ρ = 0.50 ρ = 1.00 ρ = 2.00 ρ = 4.00

C1 Bearing failure β = 3.2 1.1342 1.0983 1.0599 1.0507 1.0526 1.0791 1.1342 1.0507
C2 1.1342 1.0593 1.0083 0.9875 0.9804 1.0340 1.1342 0.9804
C3 1.2210 1.2080 1.2281 1.2709 1.3111 1.2478 1.3111 1.2080
C4 1.1437 1.1143 1.0800 1.0722 1.0742 1.0969 1.1437 1.0722
C5 1.1543 1.1336 1.1057 1.1009 1.1040 1.1197 1.1543 1.1009
C6 1.1791 1.1488 1.1364 1.1392 1.1452 1.1498 1.1791 1.1364
C7 1.1960 1.1684 1.1635 1.1771 1.1923 1.1795 1.1960 1.1635
C8 1.2075 1.1856 1.1907 1.2159 1.2408 1.2081 1.2408 1.1856

Note: C3-Combination 3; OC-Other combinations.

used to determine the design parameters of stainless-steel screw con­

Table 13 nections under two failure modes. The resistance factor of the other 7
Resistance factor for stainless-steel screws shear connections. combinations were less than those of combination 3 (G + W). In order to
Failure Standard γRmax Design Suggested γR facilitate the engineering application and follow the principle of safety,
mode value of value of the resistance factor determined by combination 3 (G + W) were
strength/MPa strength/ selected to determine the strength design values of the two failure
MPa
modes, as shown in Eq. (6) and Eq. (7). The recommended resistance
C3 OC C3 OC C3 OC factor and the design value of strength in two failure modes were shown
Shear 350 1.2633 1.1864 275 295 1.273 1.186 in Table 13. And the design values of bearing strength were listed here
mode for comparison.
Bearing 412 1.3111 1.2408 315 330 1.306 1.247
mode Shear failure : γR = 1.273, fvb = fvs /γR = 275MPa (6)

Diagonal − tension failure/Shear failure : γR = 1.306 (7)

Table 14 The strength design value obtained in this paper with the existing
Comparison of design value of the screw shear strength. results were compared in Table 14 and Table 15. For the design value of
Calculation EN CECS Experiment FEM screw shear strength, the recommended value in this paper was higher
1993–1-8 410:2015 than that in CECS 410: 2015 and the reference [21], and lower than that
fvs = αfub / fvb = 0.35fub fvs = 0.37fub fvb = in EN 1993–1-8. For the design value of bearing strength, the recom­
1.25 0.5fub /1.273 mended value in this paper was higher than that in the reference [21],
Design value of the
which was lower than that in EN 1993–1-8. Because tensile strength was
280 245 255 275
shear strength/ adopted as the standard value of bearing strength fu in CECS 410: 2015,
MPa the design value of bearing strength was much higher than the other
three specifications. Through the comparative analysis, the strength
design index proposed in this paper was reasonable.
Table 15
Comparison of the design value of the screw bearing strength. 4.3. Reliability checking
Calculation EN 1993–1- CECS Experiment FEM
8 410:2015 According to the resistance factor suggested in Table 13, the reli­
fcs = fu,red / fcb = 0.8fu fcs = fu,red / fcb = ability indexes of two failure modes under various load combinations
1.25 1.35 fu,red /1.306 were calculated by using the first-order second moment method and
Design value of the 330 410 300 315 Matlab to verify whether they meet the requirements of GB
shear strength/ 50068–2001. The calculation results were shown in Fig. 13. It should be
MPa pointed out that the corresponding resistance factor was used in calcu­
lating the reliability index of combination 3.
As shown in Fig. 13, for the shear failure, except for a few data, the
calculated reliability index of each load combination was greater than
the target reliability index of 3.7. For the diagonal-tension failure mode,

966
J. Zhao et al.
Fig. 13. Reliability index β varied with ρ1 under different load combinations.
the calculated reliability index of each load combination was greater
than the target reliability index of 3.2, which met the provisions of GB
50068–2001. Therefore, it could be shown that the resistance factor and
the strength design value suggested in Table 13 were safe and reliable.
It could be seen from Fig. 13 that the variation of reliability index β
with constant dead-to-live load ratio ρ under each combination of two
failure modes was given respectively. It could be concluded that: (1) No
matter which failure mode, the influence of ρ on reliability index under
different load combinations was basically similar. (2) Compared with
other load combinations, the reliability index of combination 3 (G + W)
was the most sensitive to the change of constant dead-to-live load ratioρ.
(3) Among all kinds of load combinations, the value of reliability index β
obtained by combination 2(G +Qoffice ) was the largest.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the shear capacity of stainless-steel screw connections
was investigated by numerical simulation. The failure mode of stainless-
steel screw shear connection was accurately simulated, and the differ­
ence between the shear capacity of FEM and the experimental results
was less than 10%. The main conclusions were as follows:
1) The connecting length was the main factor affecting the shear ca­
pacity of the stainless-steel screw connections. For unequal-thickness
connections, when the connecting length within 6d-45d, the shear
capacity of the stainless-steel screw connections increased linearly
with the increase of the connecting length, and the group-effect co­
efficient could be ignored. However, when the connecting length
within 45d-60d, and the influence of group-effect coefficient was
great. The main reason is that the stress of stainless-steel screws were
uneven, the end screw occurred shear failure first, its shear capacity
almost no longer increased. For equal-thickness connections, when
the connecting length was within 6d-60d, the shear capacity
increased linearly with the increase of the connecting length.
2) The change of screw spacing and the sheet thickness had few effect
on the shear capacity. The shear capacity increased with the increase
of spacing in the range of 2d-6d, but the growth trend was not
obvious. For equal-thickness connections, the shear capacity
increased with the increase of sheet thickness, but the growth trend
was not obvious. For unequal-thickness connections, the change
thickness of the connecting sheet had few effect on the shear ca­
pacity, which was mainly due to the fact that the shear capacity of
screw shear failure was only related to its own shear strength.
967
Structures 41 (2022) 957–968
3) The recommended values of resistance factor and corresponding
design strength proposed was reliable. For shear failure, the resis­
tance factor could beγ R = 1.273, the recommended design strength
could befvb = 275MPa. For diagonal-tension failure or bearing fail­
ure, the resistance factor could beγR = 1.306, the recommended
design strength could befvb = 315MPa. The analysis results can
provide reference for the technical specification of stainless-steel
structure.
6. Data availability statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear
in the published article.
Declaration of Competing Interest
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or
animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent was ob­
tained from all individual participants included in the study. All persons
who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the
manuscript, including those who provided editing and writing assis­
tance but who are not authors, are named in the Acknowledgments
section of the manuscript and have given their written permission to be
named. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript,
and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. The corre­
sponding author would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that
the work described was original research that has not been published
previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in
whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript
that is enclosed.
Acknowledgements
Funding provided by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 51408307) was used to carry out this project. The corresponding
author wishes to thank the Natural Science Foundation of China for
financially supporting the present study.
References
[1] Cai Y, Young B. Structural behavior of cold-formed stainless-steel bolted
connections. Thin-Walled Struct 2014;83:147–56.
[2] Cai Y, Young B. Bearing resistance design of stainless-steel bolted connections at
ambient and elevated temperatures. Steel Compos Struct Int J 2018;29(2):273–86.
J. Zhao et al.
[3] Zhao J, Peng Y, Su W, Dong J. Finite element analysis of the shear capacity of
stainless-steel blind-rivet connections. J Constr Steel Res 2021;179(8):106558.
[4] Ye J, Quan G, Kyvelou P, Teh LH, Gardner L. A practical numerical model for thin-
walled steel connections and built-up members. Struct 2022;38:753–64.
[5] Clements D, Teh LH. Active shear planes of bolted connections failing in block
shear. J Struct Eng-ASCE 2013;139(3):320–7.
[6] Zeynalian M, Shelley A, Ronagh HR, Hatami S. Experimental investigation into the
capacity of cold-formed screwed steel strap bracing connections. Adv Steel Constr
2018;14:562–88.
[7] Pekoz T. Design of cold-formed steel screw connections. 1990.
[8] Kim TS, Lim JS. Ultimate strength of single shear two-bolted connections with
austenitic stainless-steel. Int J Steel Struct 2013;13(1):117–28.
[9] Fan L, Rondal J, Cescotto S. Finite element model of single lap screw connections in
steel sheeting under static shear. Thin-Walled Struct 1997;27(2):165–85.
[10] Fan LX, Rondal J, Cescotto S. Numerical simulation of lap screw connections. Thin-
Walled Struct 1997;29(1-4):235–41.
[11] Chen JT. Analysis of shear properties of metal skin connections. Southeast
University 2006. (In Chinese).
[12] Lu W, Makelainen P, Outinen J. Finite element modeling of single lap shear screw
connection in steel sheeting in fire. Open Constr Build Technol J 2008;2(1):
257–61.
[13] Acharya SR, Sivakumaran KS. Finite element models for thin-walled steel member
connections. ISRN Civ Eng 2012;10:2012.
[14] Zhao MY. Experimental study on high temperature mechanical performance of
cold forded steel structure connect. Southeast University 2016. (In Chinese).
[15] Kim TS, Kuwamura H, Kim SH. Finite element modeling of bolted connections in
thin-walled stainless-steel sheets under static shear. Thin-Walled Struct 2007;45
(4):407–21.
[16] Kim TS, Kuwamura H, Kim SH. A parametric study on ultimate strength of single
shear bolted connections with curling. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(1):38–53.
968
Structures 41 (2022) 957–968
[17] Kim TS, Kuwamura H, Kim SH. Numerical investigation on strength design and
curling effect of mechanically fastened joints in cold-formed austenitic stainless-
steel. Mater Des 2011;32(7):3942–56.
[18] Quan G, Ye J, Li WC. Computational modelling of cold-formed steel lap joints with
screw fasteners. Struct 2021;33:230–45.
[19] Ye J, Quan G, Yun X, Guo X, Chen J. An improved and robust finite element model
for simulation of thin-walled steel bolted connections. Eng Struct 2022; 250:
113368.
[20] Deng ZP. Study on Shear Resistance of stainless-steel Bolted nodes. Jilin
Construction University 2016. (In Chinese).
[21] Jin XL. Experimental investigations on the behavior of stainless-steel screwed and
blind riveted connections. Nanjing Tech University 2013. (In Chinese).
[22] Dong J, Peng Y, Jin XL. Experimental research and design recommendations for
connecting stainless-steel screws. Ind Constr 2015;45(12):51–7. In Chinese.
[23] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stress-strain curves by three parameter.
Technical Note 1943;902.
[24] Hill HN. Determination of stress-strain relations from “offset” yield strength values.
Technical Note 1944;6(1):93–7.
[25] Rasmussen K. Full-range stress-strain curves for stainless-steel alloys. J Constr Steel
Res 2003;59(1):47–61.
[26] GB50068-2018. Uniform standard for reliability design of building structures.
China Construction Industry Press 2001. (In Chinese).
[27] CEN/EN Eurocode 3, Part 1-8: Design of joints. European Committee for
Standardization, German Version 2005.
[28] CECS 410: 2015. Technical specification for stainless steel structure, China
Planning Press 2015. (In Chinese).
[29] Fan L, Ronda IJ, Cescotto S. Finite element model of single lap screw connections in
steel sheeting under static shear. Thin-Walled Struct 1997;27(2):165–85.
[30] Peng Y, Chu J, Dong J. Compressive behavior and constitutive model of austenitic
stainless steel S30403 in high strain range. Materials 2018;11(6):1023.
[31] Dai GX, Deng YS, Xiong G. Analysis of structural design load combination value
change and its influence. J Civ Eng 2003;36(4):54–8. In Chinese.