Recent F.

E Calculations
Summary
Hadi Kanso,
Rui,
Shah
 Preface
After our Recent Audit Review held on 21st Feb, 2020, Hadi, Rui and I have done following calculations:

A. Hadi performed F.E Calculations considering Pretension, Gravity and Magnetic Pull for the CE – H portion
including both tie bars (M24 System) & the bolts (M30, M27 and M24) in the conical portion. Then he
extracted forces and moments from this simulation and applied the VDI Code. I am attaching that report. As
per the VDI code if we consider both the tie bars and the bolts in the conical portion, our structure is
considered as Safe with sufficient factors of safety. When he comes back, we can ask him to replace the M27
and M24 bolts by M30 bolts and perform 02 separate analysis one with the tie bars only and the other with
the M30 bolts in the conical portion only. And then we can again use the VDI code to assess our structure.
B. Rui Performed few F.E Calculations and provided results for both cases i.e. with the Tie bars only and without
the tie bars (considering M30 bolts in the conical portion) under the combined action of pretension, gravity
and magnetic pull. He was able to show that if we only take the Tie Bars (M24 System), the structure can
withstand all the mentioned loadings. He then showed that in the other case where we do not imply the tie
bars at all and consider only the M30 bolts in the conical portion, the anticipated stresses become very high. I
am also attaching his results. Then he came up with a very good idea (at least from the mechanics view point)
by showing that if we install the bolts in the conical portion with some degree of inclination ( let’s say that
their axis become parallel to the axis of the inclined tie bars), the anticipated stresses get reduced
significantly. He also calculated these results with use of Shoulder Bolts Dia. 32, and it works as well.
C. I have been doing some hits & trials with the bolts in the conical area of the CE – H. To me, lot depends on
how you treat the end points of the beam element that represents the bolt. I have treated them as fixed with
the absorber hole, and the result is the same i.e. the High Values of the Stresses.
 Preface
- Continued from the previous slide.
When I considered both ends with some degrees of rotation ( for example both ends as spherical or near to
spherical), what I noticed was the dramatic reduction in the induced stresses. So this means if we could
somehow come up with a design that can see this particular bolt with spherical degrees of freedom at its ends,
the high stress problem is gone. In order to realize this goal, I started looking for options that could help us in this
sense, some of these options were , use of Shoulder bolts, Stay bolt concept, Spherical Washers, Spherical
Bearings, Swivel nuts, Swivel pads etc. Each has its own limitation. Then I came to know about a Flexible bolt,
with soft fiber core inside, while rolled steel threads attached to it on the outside. Unfortunately this bolt is not
yet available in the market and is perhaps in the university research labs.
In my view point, up to now, I would prefer the following actions:

1. Hadi should perform 02 studies A) With only M30 bolts in the conical portion (no tie bars) and then check it
with VDI. B) With Tie bars only. Let’s see if we are able to see the stress peaks or not with the VDI ?
2. We should discuss the practical implementation of the bolts in the inclined portion with a degree of
inclination?
3. Use of shoulder bolts in the conical portion (?), Use of Stay bolt concept ? Both of them in the conical portion
of the CE – H.
 RESULTS – (HADI KANSO)
Both Tie Bars & Bolts in the conical portion together (VDI Code – 2230)
(Reduced Pre-tension + Gravity + Magnetic Pull)

Table – Minimum Factor of Safety (Bolts)

M36 M30 M27 M24
1.57 1.15 1.96 2.14

Table – Minimum Factor of Safety (Tie Bars)

M24 Tie Bar – 1.56

Reference:
Annex 1: HGCAL Bolt study according to VDI2230 by Hadi Kanso –
Dated ( 21 -02 -2020 )
RESULTS – (Rui V. D. Oliveira)
Tie Bars (1.5 tons Pretension) only
(No Bolt in the conical portion except the ones for tie bar mounts)
(Reduced Pre-tension + Gravity + Magnetic Pull) Tie Bar Factor of Safety: 20/14 = 1.42
 RESULTS – (Rui V. D. Oliveira)
Only Bolts in the conical portion (No Tie Bar)
(Half Pre-tension + Gravity + Magnetic Pull)
All Conical area bolts are M30
Although BUMAX S.S Bolts have Yields above 900 MPa,
we would like to have values around 550MPa or could be
further relaxed to 600Mpa giving us a Factor of Safety
at least 900/600 = 1.5. As Stefano told we still need to
Re-evaluate all these figures with code load multiplication
factors.
Bolt head modelled with Shell, while shank & rest
are modelled with beam element. All beam tips were
considered as fixed to holes or heads, while bolt head
was attached with frictional contact.
 RESULTS – (Rui V. D. Oliveira)
Only Shoulder Bolts @ 12 O Clock & all others as Hex Socket Bolt in the conical
portion (No Tie Bar)
All Conical area bolts are Hex socket
(Half Pre-tension + Gravity + Magnetic Pull)
M30 & the ones at 12 O clock in conical
Although BUMAX S.S Bolts have Yields above 900 MPa, Portion are Shoulder Dia. 32mm
we would like to have values around 550MPa or could be Bolts.
further relaxed to 600Mpa giving us a Factor of Safety
at least 900/600 = 1.5. As Stefano told we still need to
Re-evaluate all these figures with code load multiplication
factors.
Bolt head modelled with Shell, while shank & rest
are modelled with beam element. All beam tips were
considered as fixed to holes or heads, while bolt head
was attached with frictional contact.

All Bolts including Shoulder bolts experience far lesser

Stresses.
RESULTS – (Rui V. D. Oliveira)
No Tie Bars – M30 Hex Socket Bolts with degree of inclination
(Half Pre-tension + Gravity + Magnetic Pull) All Conical area bolts are Hex socket
M30 installed at some degree of
Inclination.

12 o’clock

6 o’clock
 RESULTS – (M. Z. Shah)
• Explanation: I used my old model (pine-apple without flower), old Spacers (Sasha’s spacers), no inner bolting
(only bonded contact), and back disk with notch. I just wanted to quickly check the impact of changes in bolt
configuration in the conical area. Only Gravity Load was considered.

o ns
t
5
is o
n 9.
n
ten n
is o
e
Pr ete
N o
, pr
3 0, 30
ts
M
lt sM
o l o
b b
re
a rea
l a la
ica i ca
n n
co co

Beam Ends – Fixed . Spherical; Beam Ends – Fixed . Spherical;

 RESULTS – (M. Z. Shah)
ere
w h
ng
ri

n
sio
n de

en
w o ?
e alue

et
r

Pr
a a ss v

No
e
l ar tre

,
a hs

30
ic
on t h i g

M
c

lts
he tha

bo
t
n is
si

ea
lt

ar
B o
l

al
Al

nic
co
I would like to draw a conclusion here, the peak values of
Stresses in the conical area bolts are because the bolts see a
Fixed – fixed condition at both ends. I am now working on a Beam Ends –Spherical . Hinge;
Concept that could give us Spherical degrees of freedom so that Conical area only
Bolts act only in tension and hence no bending.
Spherical Degrees for Bolts
This is highly preliminary, but it stems its origin from
Stay-Bolt concept in Heat Exchangers.
Thread

Cir-clip

Threaded Spherical entity

for bolt threaded portion.
Spherical Degrees for Bolts
This is highly preliminary, but it stems its origin from
Stay-Bolt concept in Heat Exchangers.

Click on video
To see it.
Recommendations
• Let’s discuss the Use of Shoulder Bolts – It works
• Hex Bolts with Degrees of Inclination (Rui’s idea) – It works too
• Spherical DOF (Degrees of Freedom) arrangements – to be checked.