384
Tensile Fillet Stresses in Loaded Projections
By R. B. Heywood, Ph.D., B.Sc. (Eng.), A.M.P.Mech.E.*
The loaded projection is an essential feature of practically every machine and structurethe screw
thread, gear tooth, and simple cantilever are examples. The strength frequently depends on the
fillets connecting the projection to its base, and hence the maximum tensile fillet stress may be a
critical factor. Existing fillet stress formulae give accurate results over only a narrow range of projection shapes. In this paper an empirical formula is advanced which agrees well with experiment
over a wide range of projection shapes, and which provides a powerful method of determining the
strongest shape of projection for any given purpose, the procedure being demonstrated for the
derivation of a series of screw thread forms having greatest strength.
B A S I S OF E X P E R I M E N T A L W O R K
To enable a rational analysis of the problem to be made, certain
assumptions and simplifications are necessary. Projections not
conforming to the general pattern must be considered separately
as special cases.
The simplified projection is assumed to be flat on its upper
and lower faces or flanks, and with crests and fillets of constant
and equal curvature (Fig. 19). The projection is defined by the
/? is
chosen to depend on the other dimensions, and it thus
becomes redundant. By making the pitch P the reference dimension, the relative shape of the projection is defined by the three
ratios, DIP, RIP, and a, where
D = overall depth of projection,
P = pitch,
R = radius of fillet (or crest),
and o! = platform angle, i.e. inclination of the loaded flank to a
line drawn perpendicular to the row of projections,
the loaded flank being termed the platform.
The basic design which it is desired to simulate in the experimental work is a row of the simplified projections in a s e i i infinite sheet. The object of the experimental work is to derive
a suitable formula for calculating the maximum tensile fillet
stress in any loaded projection.
P H 0T 0  E L A S T I C EX 1 E R I M E N T S
To measure the fillet stresses by experimental means, the
photoelastic method was employed, since it is particularly
suitable for measurement of stress concentrations, and, with
good technique, errors should not exceed A 3 per cent. Furthermore, light and simplyconstructed loading rigs possess adequate
strength for testing the transparent models, and hence both time
and cost factors are reduced to the minimum. Plane models
made in a glyptal resin (BT 61 893) were tested by the usual
roomtemperature technique, as described in a previous paper
(Heywood 1947)f.. A row of identical projections was milled
by a form cutter in a sheet measuring 11 inches by 6.2 inches
by 0.25 inch, and the accuracy of profile of the cutters was
guaranteed to within &0.001 inch by the manufacturer. For all
projections, the pitch was kept constant at 1500 inches.
Loading of one or two projections was carried out by means
of the setup shown in Fig. 20, Plate 1, each component of this
apparatus being staticallybalanced by adjustable counterweights.
The entire apparatus was suspended from a 4 mm. steel ball,
I
and was free to swing about this point. Loading the projeaions
was accomplished by dead weights, and here again steel balls,
3 mm. in diameter, were used to transmit the load on to hardened
steel pads, which rested on the projection platforms. A more
even distribution of the load on the platform was obtained by
inserting a thin piece of cardboard between the steel pad and
Fig. 19. Simpliiied Projection
the Bakelite projection (Durelli 1941). This setup had the merit
that any distortion of the supporting frame, caused by the aplinear dimensions D, P, and R, and the angles r* and p ; as only plication of loads, had little influence on the orientation of the
four quantities are required to define the projection, the angle model itself. Weights up to 200 lb. were applied to each proThe MS. of this paper was originally received ar the Institution on jection.
In the first series of tests, load was applied to the centre of
17th October 1947, and in its revised form, as accepted by the Council
the platform, in a direction normal to the platform. Results are
for publicarion, on 13th Seprember 1948. For the Minutes of Proceedings of the meeting in London on 14th January 1949, at which shown in Table 5, whilst the projection shapes can be ascertained
this paper was presented, see Proc. I.Mech.E., 1949, vol. 160, p. 124. from Table 6. Typical fringe photographs are shown in Figs.
* Formerly Research Engineer, Mcssrs. RollsRoyce, Ltd., Derby ; 2125, Plates 1 and 2, where the concentration of mess in the
now Senior ScientificOficer, National Physical Laboratory, TeddingAn alphabetical list of references is given in the Appendk, p. 391.
ton.
c +
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES IN LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
Fig. 20. Loading Rig
Fig. 21. Fringes for Design 6a
Fig. 22. Fringes for Design 6a
One projection loaded.
Two projections loaded.
[I.Mech.E., 19481
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
Plate 1
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N L O A D E D P R O J E C T I O N S
Plate 2
Fig. 23. Fringes for Design 4a
Two projections loaded.
Fig. 25. Fringes for Design 6b
Two projections loaded.
Fig. 24. Fringes for Design 3a
Two projections loaded.
Fig. 26. Fringes for Bending of a Cantilever
[I.Mech.E., 19481
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
385
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
FILLET
STRESSES I N PROJECTIONS
fillet stresses for the two conditions of loading is only 4.4 per
TABLE
5. MAXIMUM
In all cases, stresses are for 1lb. applied normally to centre of platform,
pitch = 1.500 inches, and thickness = 1 inch.
Design
Two projections loaded
One projection loaded
Tension,
Compression,
Tension,
Compression,
4.35
3.49
4.11
5.77
4.67
5.42
5.45
3.15
3.81
3.49
1.89
6.25
2.54
2.27
3.80
3.26
4.33
3.47
3.94
5.82
4.74
5.63
5.30
3.10
4.03
3.72
2.24
6.19
3.45
3.00
4.13
3.62
lb. per sq. in. Ib. per sq. in. Ib. per sq. in. lb. per sq. in.
lU
lb
2a
3u
4a
5a
6a
6b
fillets is clearly indicated by the local increase in the fringe order.
In the case of the loading of two adjacent projections, the
stresses in the common fillet were measured, thus approximating
to the ideal condition of a load applied to all projections in a
semiinfinite sheet.
cent in the most diverging case. On the other hand, such a conclusion is not warranted for the compressive fillet stresses, as
these may be markedly affected by the loading of the adjacent
projection.
T o obtain a wider range of projection shapes and loading
conditions than those given in the special tests of Table 5, the
TABLE
6 . DIMENSIONS
AND LOADING
POSITIONS
OF PROJECTIONS
Desigr
Loading (see
Figs. 27 and 29)
Projection dimensions (see Fig. 19)
~
la
Ib
2a
2b
2c
2d
3a
3c
3d
4a
5a
5c
5d
5e
6a
6b
7a
7b
7c
7d
8a
8b
9a
9b
10a
10b
lln
llb
12a
12b
12c
12d
13a
13b
13c
13d
13e
13f
13g
13h
13j
13k
P,
nches
R,
b,
MY
8,
YY
inches leg. min. ieg. min. inches cleg. min.
1.500

0.300
,Y
YY
YY
Y,
,J
YY
YY
JY
J,
Y,
JY
YJ
YY
JJ
50
6

YJ
JJ
0400
YY
0.100
,,
Y,
YY
YY
39
0.700
g.950
3.280
2.410
1.128
2400
1.474
0.640
0.205
0.064
1.?56
0.r28
l.SO8
0.?54
j.ib
,J
2.018
0.?09
2.g14
1.54
1.25
1.116
1.150
1200
1.300
1.400
1.600
1.800
O.SO7
0.270
0,125
0.058
0.075
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.300
0400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
2.000
2.200
2,400
2.600
29
37
,,
51
51
50 0.429
0.505
6 0.265
0.469
0
9)
JY
Yl
14
6
YJ
t13 6
O.f?61
0
1.016
YY
0.309
,
0.465
YY
0.497
YY
0.248
0.497 tl;
6
14 18
0.775
0
0.552
YY
Pure >ending
,J
,a
JJ
YY
YY
0$68
0
0.468
JJ
1.061
JY
0561
YY
1.123
YY
0.498
JY
0.995
JY
0.370
YY
Pure )ending
YY
YJ
1,
Yl
Y>
I Y
JY
1)
JJ
YY
JJ
YY
YY
JJ
YJ
YY
Y,
YY
JJ
a,
JJ
YY
,Y
YJ
YY
YY
Designs la7d tested by the author, 8a1 Ib by Dolan and Broghamer
(1942), 12a12d by Weibel(1934), vd 13a13k by Frocht (1936).
Note: Dimensions given for designs 12a13K are for a cantilever
1 inch wide.
Fig. 27. Range of Projection Shapes and Loading Positions
The effect of loading the adjacent projection is made clear
from Table 5, and the corresponding change in the fringe
pattern for a particular projection is shown in Figs. 21 and 22,
Plate 1. One might anticipate that the compressive fillet stress
produced by the loaded projection above would reduce the
maximum tensile stress, but any such reduction is small, and
indeed is negligible, since the maximum difference in the tensile
author has carried out further photoelastic experiments, a
typical example being shown in Fig. 26, Plate 2. Also, the photoelastic results of Dolan and Broghamer (1942), Weibel(1934),and
Frocht (1936)give valuable information, and have been correlated
to the dimensional system used in the paper. The dimensions
of all projections, together with the posidon and direction of
applied loads, are given in Table 6, and Fig. 27 shows the wide
range covered. The maximum tensile stress, as determined by
the photoelastic experiment, is given in column 2 of Table 7.
Tables 6 and 7 thus provide the necessary information or the
derivation of a suitable formula.
C A L C U L A T I O N O F T H E F I L L E T STRESS B Y THE L E W I S
FORMULA
The wellknown Lewis (1893) formula for gear teeth arrives
at the fillet stress from a consideration of the bending moment
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
386
TABLE
7. COMPARISON
OF STRESS
VALUES
FOR PROJECTIONSa tooth generally similar to that of Fig. 28. T o give the Lewis
formula its due credit, it was intended for gear teeth having
SHOWN I N TABLE
6
A thickness of 1 inch and a load of 1 lb., or 1 1b.in. for pure bending,
were assumed.
Photoelastic
stress,
lb. per
sq. in.
Calculated
stress,
lb. per
sq. in.
Error in
alculated
stress,
per cent
la
lb
2a
2b
2c
2d
3a
3c
~
3d
4a
5a
5c
5d
4.33
3.47
3.94
2.14
1.37
2.71
5.82
6b
7a
7b
7c
7d
8a
8b
3.10
1.63
1.76
2.05
2.66
15.2
9.1
4.49
3.54
4.20
1.96
1.34
2.49
5.80
8.28
3.71
4.86
5.80
4.36
7.34
3.99
5.83
3.33
1.71
1.80
2.03
2.68
13.65
8.34
11.35
7.08
9.62
5.45
6.96
3.88
7.56
8.40
10.0
13.0
11.9
10.8
9.62
8.97
8.23
7.83
7.56
7.37
7.23
7.12
+4
+2
+7
8
2
8
0
+3
2
+2
+3
2
+9
2
10
+7
+5
+2
1
+1
10
8
11
 10
5
+2
11
3
Design
8.00
~
7.8
4.9
7.56
8.76
10.1
lla
llb
12a
12b
12c
13c
13d
13e
i3f
13g
13h
13j
13k
~~
3.78
4.74
5.63
4.46
6.73
9.66
9.03
8.28
7.74
7.38
7.14
6.90
6.72
Nominal stresses,
lb. per sq. in.
New
Lewis
formula ormula
3
1
13
1
+1
4
1
1
$1
+2
+3
+5
+6
3.26
2.53
3.10
1.36
0.93
1.73
4.20
6.00
2.69
3.21
3.13
2.35
3.96
2.15
4.30
2.38
1.50
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.8
0.3
1.2
3.4
5.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.1
1.9
0.7
1.8
2.1
1.5
Iodified
Lewis
ormula
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
1.1
3.3
5.7
1.2
1.o
0.8
0.3
1.7
0.0
1.6
1.9
1.5
Y>
3,
>)
Y,
3,
JY
6.28
3.95
6.71
4.18
6.69
3.79
5.43
3.03
6.00
6?0
2.9
6.4
3.4
6.4
2.8
5.1
1.8
6.0
f?O
2.9
6.4
3.4
6.4
2.8
5.1
1.8
6.0
3,
JJ
JY
J,
YJ
Y,
JJ
JJ
,,
3,
2,
,,
JY
,,
JJ
a3
Y)
>
3,
YY
9,
3,
3,
9,
Y,
JJ
Jl
>,
YJ
JJ
3,
Y,
YJ
YY
YY
YJ
a)
,,
small pressure angles, i.e. of nearly rectangular shape, for which
the formula was, in fact, fairly accurate.
Another criticism of these formulae is that the stress concentration factor does not remain constant for a given projection,
but varies according to the position of the applied load. Dolan and
Broghamer have shown that the closer the appiied load is to
the fillet, the greater is the stress concentration factor. To arrive
Fig. 28. Demonstrating Breakdown of Lewis Formula
at the correct answer by calculation, it is necessary to use a
cumbersome stress concentration factor which itself depends on
several dimensions of the projection, so correcting for the shortcomings in the calculated nominal stress. Thus Dolan and
Broghamer have produced a complicated factor which appears
to satisfy the conditions for only a comparatively narrow range
of shapes. Such a procedure bypasses the main issue : the fact
that the basic formulae are unsound.
TABLE
8. APPLICATION
OF THE LEWIS
AND MODIFIEDLEWIS
FORMULAE
TO hhAsUREMENT OF FILLET
STRESS OF PROJECTION SHOWN IN FIG.28
>Y
Photoelastic results of designs la7d by the author, 8ullb by
Dolan and Broghamer, 12a12d by Weibel, and 13a13k by Frocht.
applied to the tooth. A further development was to allow for
the component of the load producing compression, which,
rather curiously, was assumed to be acting along the centreline
of the tooth and not at the point of application of the load. This
latter method is recommended by Merritt (1941 and 1943), and
is widely used in industry for the design of gear teeth.
From the results of a photoelastic test, it is easy to show
that both the Lewis and modified Lewis formulae break down
in a limiting case. I n Fig. 28, the load P represents the more
usual case, whilst the load Q represents the unsatisfactory
limiting case. For either load, the photoelastic tests reveal the
presence of a tensile stress in the fillet A. Table 8 summarizes
the position, and shows that both formulae give completely misleading stress values when the tooth is loaded by Q, Lewis's
original formula being closer to the true stress. An example of
this limiting case is shown by design 5c, Table 7, where the
photoelastic stress is 4.46 lb. per sq. in., the Lewis stress is
only 0.1 lb. per sq. in., and the modified Lewis stress has a
negative value. Thus both methods of calculation are unsatisfactory, not only for projections but also for gear teeth,
especially with modern gears where there is a tendency to use
high pressure angles, frequently up to 30 deg., and so produce
Lewis formula
(bending only)
Photoelastic
stress
Modified Lewis formula
(bending plus compression)
P sin a
1.5Pc cos a 2e
Stress due to
load P
Stress due to
load Q
Tensile 1.5Qc' cos a
e2
1.5Qc' cos a  Q sin a
2e
 Q sin u
2e
 
NEW FORMULA
An analysis of the photoelastic results reveals the fact that
in general the nominal stress, as determined by the photoelastic
stress divided by an appropriate stress concentration factor, is
considerably greater than the nominal stress as determined by
calculation from the simple bending moment formula. T o obtain
agreement it is necessary to add to the nominal bending moment
term M, a term L which depends on the proximity of the load
to the fillet, so giving the maximum calculated fillet stress
= K(M+L), where K is the stress concentration factor; or, by
using the actual dimensions that were found to be most suitable,
where II" = load applied to projection, t = thickness of projection, and the dimensions a, b, e, and R, and the angle y are
as shown in Fig. 29, and are discussed below.
The formula embraces certain extreme conditions, such as a
long cantilever subjected to a uniform bending moment (when
the proximity term L vanishes), a stubshaped projection loaded
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N L O A D E D P R O J E C T I O N S
as shown in Fig. 29, and a projection with a relatively large fillet
radius having a stress concentration factor approaching unity.
In effect, these conditions imply that the empirical formula must
have a sound theoretical basis for its conception. The formula
gives considerably greater accuracy than can be obtained by
using the Lewis or modified Lewis formula, as will be shown,
and it is therefore suggested that the new formula be used for
design purposes.
Fig. 29 shows that the weakest semisection is defined by the
line AD of length e, this being the perpendicular from A on to
the centre line of the projection. It will be noted that the point A
is found from the point of intersection of the fillet contour with
a line AF drawn at 30 deg. from the centre of the fillet radius.
This procedure is simpler than that of the conventional parabola,
and produces more consistent results. Strictly, for ratios of b/e
above 3, the angle of 30 deg. mentioned above as determining
the position of A (or B) should be scmewhat smaller, and, in fact,
there should be a progressive diminution in the angle as b/e is
increased above 3 to the limiting case of b / e = co (pure bending),
when the angle should be zero. This convention has been applied
to all cases.
387
ratio elR, as demonstrated by the graph shown in Fig. 30. By
replotting on logarithmic scales, the stress concentration factor
was found to be K = 1+0.26(e/R)0*7, and this curve, with
limits of accuracy of f10 per cent, is superimposed on the graph
of Fig. 30. In nearly all cases the fillet stresses may be calculated
to within 10 per cent of the photoelastic value, whilst the average
error for all tests is 44 per cent. The agreement is satisfactory,
especially when it is considered that the photoelastic results
Fig. 30. Stress Concentration Factors for all Projections
x Dolan and Broghamer.
+ Weibel.
rn Frocht.
o Heywood.
themselves may be a few per cent in error. Table 7 gives the
results, the calculated stress being derived from the proposed
formula, and for the purpose of comparing the new formula
with the Lewis and modified Lewis formulae, the nominal
stresses are also given. It is seen that in certain instances, the
stresses calculated from the Lewis and modified Lewis formulae
are very low, bearing little relationship to the photoelastic
stresses. Having now presented the new empirical formula for
4'
Fig. 29. Dimensions Used for Calculating Fillet Stress
The arm of the bending moment does not appear to be related
to this weakest section, but is determined by the perpendicular
distance from the midpoint C of AB on to the line of action of
the load. This perpendicular distance a gives the arm of the
bending moment.
Although the proximity term is undoubtedly essential in the
formula, a theoretical explanation for its presence has not yet
been established. At least two explanations seem feasible : that
the stress is due to local straining actions caused by the effects
of the concentrated load, or that it is a correction term to allow
for the shortcomings of the simple bending moment formula
when applied to a tapered beam.
If the applied load is not perpendicular to the platform, the
bending moment factor is automatically corrected, since the arm
a adjusts itself accordingly. The proximity factor does not correct
for this effect, and it is necessary to multiply the factor d0.36/be
b y (1 4 sin y), the product producing results consistent with
those found photoelastically. Further experimental work on
nonperpendicular loads might indicate that some modification
to the factor (1 +i
sin 7 ) is desirable. However, its importance is
not usually great, since in practice the angle y cannot be large
because its presence depends on friction at the platform.
The bending moment term plus the proximity term give the
nominal fillet stress. By multiplying the nominal fillet stress by
the notch stress concentration factor, the maximum fillet stress
is obtained. The stress concentration factor depends only on the
Fig. 31. Equivalent Flatsided Projection Constructed
from Gear Tooth
the simple flatsided projection, certain other cases departing
from the simple shape at first assumed, may be considered.
Crest and Fillet Radii. In all cases examined heretofore, the
crests and fillets have had equal curvature. An examination of
the fringe photographs of projections shows that there is very
little stress near the crest, and therefore its exact shape has little
influence on the fillet stresses.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
38s
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
Gear Teeth. Because of the curved flanks of gear teeth, the
tensile fillet stresses cannot be directly calculated from the projection formula. However, by transforming the gear tooth PO an
equivalent flatsided projection, a close estimation of the maximum fillet stress can be made by using the conventions suggested
in Fig. 31. The point P on the flank is midway between the
crest and the root, and from P a line is drawn to touch the
fillet. It may be necessary to transform the fillet to an equivalent
one of constant curvature. The line D C produces the flat side
of the projection; hence the weakest section AB may be determined, and also the position and direction of the load with
respect to DC, as shown in Fig. 31. In this manner, the maximum
tensile fillet stress in gears can be calculated. Since there is no
appreciable difference in shape between a gear tooth and its
equivalent flatsided projection, particularly with the modern
highpressure angle teeth where the flanks are nearly flat, the
accuracy obtainable should be approximately the same as that
already found for the flatsided projection. The varying curvatures of both the flanks and the fillets make an accurate calculation of stress an exceedingly difficult problem, so that an exact
solution is impossible by mere substitution into a simple formula.
is the total thrust in pounds applied to the thread over an axial
length Z of the threaded member. Hence the mean flank pressure
is T/(area x cos cr)T/(2?rrt  cos x ) lb. per sq. in., where r is
P
the effective distance of the flank from the centre of the threaded
member, t is assumed to equal the depth of the flat portion of
the flank*, and P is the pitch of the threads. For comparing
thread forms, it is assumed that both 1 and r are constant, and
Compressive FiZZet Stress. No attempt was made to evolve a
parallel formula to give the compressive fillet stresses, since in
practice these are of lesser importance.
Fatigue Effect. The projection formula can be applied to the
determination of strength values under fatigue conditions by
taking account of the stress concentration factor, size of fillet,
and a characteristic constant of the material; the influence of
such factors on the fatigue strength has been ascertained from
an analysis of a number of fatigue results (Heywood 1947). The
fact that the size of fillet was a factor determining the fatigue
strength is interesting, and has been demonstrated by Peterson
(1933). With two geometrically similar notched specimens having
the same maximum stress in the notch, the fatigue strength of
the smaller specimen having the smaller notch was greater than
that of the larger specimen. It followed that for equal fatigue
strengths, the maximum stress in the notch of the small specimen
would be greater than that of the large specimen, the difference
depending on the size of fillet and the material used.
SCREW THREAD FORMS
The projection formula can be used as a powerful method of
solving certain problems, such as the determination of the best
shape of screw thread for maximum strength. The assumption
is involved that the Projection formula can be applied to this
threedimensional problem ;however, as relative values for the
determination of the best thread form are required, it need only
be assumed here that the conversion factor from the two to
the threedimensional case, if present, has the same value for all
thread forms.
Failure of threaded members is of three types :(I) Seizure of the mating threads, caused by excessive
contact pressure.
(2) Failure of the fillet, so that either the threads are sheared
off, or a transverse fracture of the male member occurs,
usually by fatigue failure.
(3) Failure of the female member due to excessive circumferential hoop stresses.
With the first type of failure, the permissible contact pressure
is determined by external factors such as the accuracy of
machining, surface finish, and the material of the threaded
members, all of which fall outside the scope of the paper. These
external factors can be dismissed from consideration, since they
only affect the permissible contact pressure.
As screw threads are symmetrical for practical reasons, only
two quantities are required to define the thread form, and the
fillet stress therefore depends on two independent variables.
From the preceding paragraph, it is apparent that considerable
simplification will be possible if one of the independent variables
is chosen as the relative contact area Z, as defined below, so
determining the relative contact pressure.
For threaded members designed to resist axial thrust, the
normal load applied to the flankis T/cos LY (see Fig. 32), where T
Fig. 32. Relative Contact Area on Screw Thread
U
Flank angle = a. Relative contact area = 2 = P'
thus the relative contact area is ( t cos u)/P = Z, say, this quantity
being inversely proportional to the relative flank pressure.
For a constant Z ratio, the thread form can be varied by altering the platform angle, using the appropriate fdlet radius for
each case, as demonstrated in Fig. 33. The three shapes of
thread shown will all be subjected to the same contact pressure,
but obviously the fillet stresses will vary. By assuming that the
mating thread produces a normal load acting at the centre of
Fig. 33. Series of Thread Forms Having Constant U / P = 2
Ratio
the flank+, the maximum fillet stress may be calculated from the
projection formula for this series of thread forms, and hence
the optimum flank angle can be derived. Results are shown
In a practical thread with clearance, contact will not occur at the
fillets.
t By theoretical analysis of the deformations taking place, Sopwith
has shown that this assumption is true for the case where the female
and male threads possess equal circumferential base areas (see companion paper).
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
TENSILE F I L L E T S T R E S S E S I N L O A D E D P R O J E C T I O N S
graphically in Fig. 34 for a number of different Z ratios raging
from 0.2 to 07.
In the Whitworth thread form, Z = 0.4925, or, say, 0.5, the
flank angle is 273 deg., and the relative fillet radius RIP = 0.1373,
have been recalculated on the basis of a coefficient of friction of
02 at the mating flanks, and stress values for given Z ratios are
shown in Fig. 35. Curiously enougR, the friction effect does not
alter the optimum flank angle for a given Z ratio, but generally
increases the value of all stresses, with the exception of rhose
thread forms having flank angles of low value, where the effect
of friction is obviously small. With friction, the Z ratio is not
I
0
10
20
40
FLANK ANGLEDEGREES
30
I
50
60
so giving a fillet stress of 5.0 lb. per sq. in. for the conditions
shown in Fig. 34. For Z = 0.5, the graph shows that the thread
form can be improved by increasing the flank angle to 35 deg.,
this reducing the maximum fillet stress by 8 per cent.
14
Fig. 36. Optimum Strength Series of Thread Forms
For general tension.
For thread load.
__
70
Fig. 34. Fillet Stress due to Load on Thread
Pitch = 1 inch. Load = 1 lb. per inch of thread.
0.3
i
Z , RATIO
0.2
0.1
389
strictly representative of the contact pressure between mating
threads j however, a modified form of 2 might prove misleading,
since there is 2 probability of vzriation in p from point to point,
and the frictional forces themselves will contribute to failure.
From Figs. 34 and 35, the optimum results for given 2 ratios
have been determined, and are plotted in Fig. 36 (unbroken
curves). The points of minimum stress apparently fall on a
12
2
,O
n.
m
is
7
v)
%
,
66
5

_I
u.
:4
w7
5
+
0.05
0 10
0.15
RELATIVE FILLET RADIUS, R/P
0.20
0.25
Fig. 37. Fillet Stress due to Thread Load
Pitch = 1 inch. Load = 1 lb. per inch of thread.
Fig. 35. Fillet Stress due to Thread Load with Friction of
p = 0.2 on Flanks
Pitch = 1 inch. Load = 1 lb. per inch of thread.
It can be argued that the load transmitted by mating flanks
is not applied normally to the surfaces, but, because of friction,
tends to be more in line with the direction of thrust. Results
straight line. The optimum flank angle increases as the Z ratio
is reduced, i.e. the short stubshaped threads should have a
large included angle.
T o show the influence of the fillet radius on the stresses, the
results corresponding to those of Fig. 34 are replotted in Fig. 37
for various Z ratios. This graph indicates to what extent the
best thread form may be biased to obtain a larger fillet, this
being desirable from the machining point of view.
Fillet Stress due to Genera2 Tension. Another important factor
limiting the strength is the mean tensile stress acting in the male
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
390
member, causing concentrations of stress in the thread fillets.
Using Neuber's stress concentration factors for this case, the
strongest shape of thread to withstand the mean stresses can be
determined.
It is not proposed to discuss the derivation of the stress concentration factor, as this would entail a needless repetition of
Neuber's work (1937), a translation of which is available. The
relative dimensions of the fillet radius, depth of thread, flank
Hence, although in general the relative intensity of the thread
load as compared with the tensile load in a bolt is not known,
the change in stress for a given change in the Z ratio is directly
found from the curves. For example, the stress for a Z ratio of
0.2 would be from 36 to 42 per cent lower than that for a Z ratio
of 0.4.
When both the thread load and the tensile load are acting in
the bolt, it is assumed that the fillet stress is determined by the
simple addition of the stresses produced by each separate load.
Actually, this result is too great, for the two concentrations of
stress do not occur at precisely the same region of the fillet,
tending to become more separated from one another with small
flank angles. For combined loading, the optimum flank angle
will therefore be slightly lower than is indicated by the curves.
Nevertheless, the ultimate influence of this effect on the best
thread form is of no great consequence, for in practice nearly all
combinations of the two loading systems may be encountered,
so that the two extreme cases of the separately applied loads
have to be satisfied, when fillet stresses attain their greatest
values for the reason already given. By deriving the optimum
series of thread forms for the conditions of the separately applied
loads, the most critical conditions are therefore being satisfied.
7,
Z , RATIO
\I
rr
0
c
Fig. 40. Stresses for Flank Angles Limited to 30 and 45 Deg.
 General tension.
Thread load.
WHITWORTH
Bursting of Nut. The tendency of the nut to burst depends
on dimensions outside those of the thread itself. Assuming that
the mating thread applies a normal load, the intensity of the
circumferential hoop stresses depends directly on the tangent of
the flank angle, and therefore high inclinations of the flank must
be avoided. For this reason, it may be advisable to limit the
maximum flank angle to, say, 30 or 45 deg., and results derived
from Figs. 34 and 38 are reproduced in Fig. 40. The advantage
of using small Z ratios once more becomes apparent. Hoop
stresses are not markedly increased by reason of notch effects,
since the threads are almost parallel to these stresses.
z 3
Q
Dz
4
t
Z
82m
SA
L
SA
0.0
0.05
04o
0:15
RELATIVE FILLET RADIUS, R / P
0.'20
0.is
Fig. 39. Fillet Stress due to General Tension in Threaded
Member
the best possible shape of thread, although it will be recalled
that a larger angle was best when considering the thread loads.
In Fig. 36, the best flank angle is plotted against the Z ratio
for borh the effect of thread loading and of general tension; the
optimum flank angle must lie somewhere in the region between
the two curves. For low Z ratios, the curves approach one
another, and thus the best shape is uniquely determined.
The corresponding minimum stresses are also shown in Fig.
36. The scale for the two effects has been adjusted to demonstrate
the important fact that both curves are approximately similar.
General Conclusions on Thread Forms. The key to the solution of the best form of screw thread for maximum strength lies
in the relative contact area between mating threads. For given
relative contact areas, the strongest form has been determined,
Greatest strength is obtained by using a low relative contact
area, so producing a stubshaped thread. The ultimate problem
of determining the best general purpose form of thread is reduced
to the relatively simple one involving the single variable, the
relative contact area, the minimum permissible value of which
can be ascertained by carefully conducted practical tests.
The Whitworth thread form lies remarkably close to the
optimum series. However, it is suggested that the general improvements in machining technique now make it desirable to
reduce the relative contact area, so that a new thread form having
greater strength can be employed.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N L O A D E D P R O J E C T I O N S
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The photoelastic work was undertaken in the Research
Laboratory of Messrs. RollsRoyce, Ltd., Derby, in connexion
with an associated problem, the determination of stress in fir
tree blade roots for gas turbines, which formed the subject of
a thesis submitted to London University for the Ph.D. degree.
The author is indebted to Messrs. RollsRoyce, Ltd., and to the
Ministry of Aircraft Production for generously permitting the
work to be published.
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
DOLAN,T. J., and BROGHAMER,
E. L. 1942 University of
Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No.
335.
391
DURELLI,A. J. 1941 Proc. 13th SemiAnnual Eastern Photoelasticity Conference.
FROCHT,
M. M. 1936 Trans. A.S.M.E., V O ~ .58, p. 485.
HEYWOOD,
R. B. 1947 Aircraft Engineering, vol. 19, p. 81.
1948 Proc. I.Mech.E., vol. 158, p. 235.
LEWIS,
W. 1893 Proc. Eng. Club, Philadelphia, vol. 10, p. 16.
&RRITT,
H. E. 1941 Proc. Inst. Automobile Eng., V O ~ .35, p.
104.
1942 Gears (Pitman and Sons, Ltd., London).
NEUBER,H. 1937 Theory of Notch Stresses (Translated
by Navy Department, Washington, D.C.).
PETERSON,
R. E. 1933 Trans. A.S.M.E., vol. 55, Applied
Mechanics Section, p. 157.
WEIBEL,E. E. 1934 Trans. A.S.M.E., vol. 56, Applied
Mechanics Section, p. 637.
Discussion
Dr. S. LIVINGSTON
SMITH,M.1.Mech.E. (Member of Council),
said that Dr. Sopwiths paper was based on the work of the Gun
Design Committee of the Ministry of Supply during the 193945
war. That Committee had to consider the design and strength
of gun breech screws and, since it was necessary to work very
close to the yield point of the material, precise information was
most important. The original design parameter was merely the
shear strength at the base of the thread, but through the work
of Dr. Sopwith and others the design was placed on a really
rational basis.
The strength of large bolted connexionsup to 10 inches in
diameterwas very important in marine engineering, since they
had been known to fail in fatigue with very disastrous results.
The British Shipbuilding Research Association was therefore
engaged on a research into the fatigue strength of large bolts,
such as those commonly used in the running gear of marine
engines.
One of the most common positions at which fatigue failure
occurred was at the first loaded thread of the bolt under the
nut. Any steps which could be taken, therefore, to reduce the
concentration of stress at this position, should have the effect
of increasing the fatigue resistance of the bolt. Bolts also failed,
of course, owing to other causes such as inadequate tighteningup and nonaxiality.
Although Dr. Sopwiths theoretical analysis necessarily involved certain assumptions, so that it could not be used to
calculate the precise distribution of load in a practical case,
nevertheless it should be of definite use to the designer. The
question arose recently of whether reduction in the wall thickness of the nut would improve load distribution in running gear
bolts subject to fatigue failure, but it was clear from Dr. Sopwiths
analysis on p. 379 that thinning of the nut would be detrimental.
Dr. Heywood drew attention to the limitations of the existing
fillet stress formulae, and, from the results of a careful series
of photoelastic experiments, he had produced an empirical
formula which covered a much wider range of shapes and
should therefore be of considerable use to the designer. Although
Dr. Heywood had dealt in some detail with the application of
this formula to screw thread forms, he had made it clear that
it had a much wider field of application.
The Whitworth thread stood up very well to the authors
analysis; our forefathers, with far fewer data at their disposal
than were available today, apparently had possessed that
valuable quality called engineering instinct.
Mr. A. F. C. BROWN,
B.Sc. (Eng.), A.M.I.Mech.E., said that
he had hoped to be able to show the results of a frozen stress
photoelastic test on the tension nut and internally tapered
bolt illustrated in Fig. 14c. So far, a preliminary trial had shown
that the load distribution along the engaged length was more
uniform than in the case of an ordinary bolt and nut.
Figs. 41 and 42, Plate 3, referred to some photoelastic tests,
made at the National Physical Laboratory, on a plane model of
Whitworth thread form. The model had only been intended to
give a qualitative indication of the effect of varying the position of
contact on the thread and of the inclination of the loading axis,
resulting from variations in the coefficient of friction between
the threads.
The effect of these factors on the maximum tensile stress in
the fillets at the thread roots, measured from the fringes, was
given in Table 9.
TABLE
9. MAXIMUM FILLET
STRESSES
I N WHITWORTH
THREAD
MODEL
Stresses were for 100 Ib. loads applied in direction of arrows
(Figs. 41 and 42).
Pitch of thread = 0.9 inch, and thickness of model = 0.265 inch.
Position of
loading
Middepth
Middepth
Near root .
Near tip .
.
~
m*
Direction of loading
Tensile stress,
lb. per sq. in.
1
1
1.41
0.59
Perpendicular to flank
Parallel to axis
Perpendicular to flank
Perpendicular to flank
1,950
2,800
1,900
2,700
* This referred to the dimension shown in Fig. 5.
The published version of Dr. Sopwiths paper did not include
an expression for the stresses in the flanks of the threads, but
comparison with the fuller version indicated good agreement
with the result in Table 9 for the case of loading at middepth
parallel to the axis.
Those results also conformed, within 5 per cent, with Dr.
Heywoods formula for the fillet stress, except for the case of
loading near the root, the photoelastic tests indicating 20 per
cent more stress in this case. This exception was an extreme
case, but one which might occur as a result of angle errors.
With reference to the effect of the proximity of the loading
point to the fillet, a photoelastic model of a Whitworth thread
had been supported so that the effect of bending of the thread
was eliminated. AS shown in Fig. 43, load was applied at various
points along the flank BC, and the resulting stress was observed
at B. The relationship between stress and loading position was
of the form shown in Fig. 44, the stress varying approximately
as the reciprocal of the distance of the loading point from the
position of maximum stress. This case was compared with that
of an obtuse notch in a plate, shown in Fig. 45, where a load
applied at B, perpendicular to BC, would give a simple radial
distribution in the plate, with zero stress along BC and an inverse
distribution along BA.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
392
D I S C U S S I O N O N LOADS AND STRESSES I N SCREW THREADS AND P R O J E C T I O N S
If the results from the model shown in Fig. 43 were compared
with the case of loading near the root in Table 9, it was found
that about 500 lb. per sq. in., or over onequarter of the total
stress of 1,900 lb. per sq. in., could be accounted for by
proximity of the loading point to the fillet.
would have seemed more realistic if the model had been fixed
to the shorter arm of the Lframe, so that the paths would have
been similar to those in the natural bolt. Some local effect might
be expected from a difference in attachment which was so great
that St. Venants principle could not apply.
Fig. 46, Plate 3, showed a plane model representing a threaded
joint symmetrically and axially loaded, both members being
made from Catalin 800, inch in thickness. It showed both the
inside and outside members, and that the thread loading was
highest at the inner end of the bolt and lowest at the outer end.
This was contrary to theoretical expectation; but since it was
a plane model there could be no hoop stress to prevent spreading
of the outer member under the outward thrust on the threads,
so that the side portions tended to bend outwards as cantilevers,
allowing increasing radial recession from root to tip, and the
lower threads lost most of their load. That was the governing
factor in determining the load distribution.
The principal stress trajectories in this model were determined
by the isoclinics, the major stress trajectories being of the
expected form. If the fringe pattern was compared with those
of Figs. 41, and 42, it would appear that the pressures were
well distributed in a radial direction, nor concentrated near the
middle of the flank. He was unable to explain how that could
happen. The relative intensity of thread loading was shown
at once by the number of fringes spreading out from each
thread. Fig. 46, however, was useless for the determination of
fillet stresses, owing partly to the time edge stress and partly
to the obscuring of the true edge by the shadow at the line of
contact. This shadow effect at boundaries, as had been shown
by Mylonas, was dce to imperfect light collimation combined
with a rather thick model.
The same model was also tried with the sides restrained from
spreading by means of a brass strip, this being put round the
two halves of the model near the free end of the nut and
gradually tightened until the loads on the threads of the bolt
were almost perfectly equalized, as in Fig. 47, Plate 3. This
suggested, therefore, that by allowing controlled radial recession
of the nut, peak thread loadings might be relieved. An obvious
example of unequal thread loading was that of a standard nut
in compression. Probably more fatigue failures occurred at the
bolt fillet adjacent to the contact surface of the nut attached
to a tension bolt than anywhere eise.
Two possibIe methods of reducing this concentration by
allowing a limited amount of radial recession were: (1) by
making a number of shallow radial sawcuts in the base of the
nutthis might, however, lead to fatigue failure in the nut as
a result of bending stressesr
(2) by providing an insert, at
the base of the nut, consisting of a more flexible material.
Dr. Sopwith had given the theory of a complete nut of a more
flexible material than the bolt, and it had been shown to give
materially improved fatigue results, but this was a somewhat
different matter.
The model in Fig. 47 was more strictly comparable with a
serrated joint, in which two separate outer members were
fastened tightly together by bolts having sufficient clearance to
avoid transmitting any end load. When the outer plates were
relatively stiff and untapered, a high load concentration might
result at the first serration from the end of the plate; a slight
amount of bending, however, would relieve this concentration.
It would seem that the use of steel outer plates on an aluminium
alloy inner member was inadvisable; in fact, the exact reverse
was to be recommended.
He emphasized Dr. Sopwiths statement with reference to
Fig. 16 that, since the material was stressed elastically, the
stress concentration factor at the root would be constant, and
hence the root stresses would be proportional to the loads in
the threads. That meant that if the nominal stress in the bolt
were u, the stress Concentration factor K , and the load concentration factor H, the peak fillet stress would be G X K X H . I t was
here that the two papers converged in practical significance;
taken together, they would guide the designer in deciding how
best to reduce the peak stress to a minimum and avoid accidents
associated with fatigue failure.
I
A
+
Fig. 43. Photoelastic Model of Whitworth Thread Form
to Eliminate Bending of Thread
DISTANCE FROM FILLET AT WHICH LOAD IS APPLIED
Fig. 44. Relationship between Loading Position and
Maximum Stress at Fillet
A
Fig. 45. Load Applied at Apex of Notch, Giving Simple
Radial Stress Distribution
Mr. W. A. k. FISHER,
B.A. (Farnborough), said that the
knowledge previously available of the stresses and strains in
threaded connexions had been far from satisfactory, despite the
fact that these formed the basic and universal unit in all branches
of engineering. Although Goodier had had some success by
means of his external measurements, the full elucidation both
of thread load distribution and of fillet stresses inside the joint
under elastic conditions was limited to two methods only:
mathematical analysis and the use of photoelastic models.
Dr. Heywoods empirical formula, which embraced a wide
variation in shape and which agreed closely with the experimental
results of different workers, would be far more convincing than
previous formulae when applied to the relatively narrow range
of variation in standard threads.
With reference to the loading rig shown in Fig. 20, Plate 1,
he asked whether Dr. Heywood made any tests to satisfy himself that the method of reacting the thread loads had no appreciable effect on the fillet stresses. With the model fixed as
shown in Fig. 20, the maximum stress trajectories would curve
off to the right, whereas in 2. natural bolt they would be expected
to curve upwards and tend to assume an axial direction. It
Mr. F. H. ROLT, O.B.E., B.Sc., M.I.Mech.E., said that the
Screw Threads Committee of the British Standards Institution
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
D I S C U S S I O N O N LOADS AND STRESSES I N SCREW THREADS AND P R O J E C T I O N S
were faced at almost every one of their meetings with the
question of allocating tolerances to various parts of the thread,
and more often than not this was a matter of guesswork. More
and more data, such as those provided by the authors, were
needed to enable them to make sound decisions, and thus ensure
that the B.S. specifications for all types of screw threads should
be thoroughly uptodate and realistic.
Thc discussions during the last few years with America and
Canada on the unification of screw threads had had the very
desirable effect of stimulating interest, in this country at least,
in research on screw threads, and Dr. Sopwith in particular had
been very active in providing data which had helped them
considerably in their discussions with the Americans. Dr.
Sopwith had made other tests, including fatigue tests and the
comparison of screw threads of different angles, and he was
very anxious that the results of those tests should be presented
to the Institution as soon as possible.
Dr. Sopwith said that he had neglected any effects of errors
in pitch and flank angles of threads. He himself felt that so far
as flank angles were concerned, if the two flanks came together
as shown in Fig. 48a, the load might be concentrated halfway
393
Canadians agreement was reached on an international system
of symbols for screw threads. That might sound trivial, but it
was essential for readers in other countries to know that a or j3,
but not both, represented the thread angle.
Mr. B. TAYLOR,
B.Sc. (Eng.), A.M.I.Mech.E., said that Dr.
Sopwiths paper should be of considerable value to the designer
in industry, particularly with regard to modifications in design
to improve the load distribution in screwed connexions. Although
the analysis enabled loading to be calculated, provided that
elastic conditions obtained, in the case of heavily loaded bolts
slight yielding of the threads led to improved redistribution of
the load. This question was dealt with in the paper, but, in view
of the fact that the extent of yielding could not bc determined,
it would appear that in practical applications the distribution
of load could not be evaluated with any accuracy. On the other
hand, the theory outlined in Dr. Sopwiths paper gave the worst
conditions, and the possible redistribution of load by yielding
of the threads would provide a margin of safety.
He emphasized the point made by Mr. Rolt with regard to
the accuracy of pitch and thread form, which could not be
guaranteed within any close limits under normal machine shop
NUT
NUT
conditions. Dr. Sopwith pointed out in the Appendix that errors
in pitch and angle of thread must be neglected in this analysis,
and it had been proved that very small differences in pitch
between the two threads could make a great difference in the
load distribution; he believed that a difference of less than
0.001 inch per inch had been mentioned.
Pitch errors of from 0.002 to 0.012inch per inch had occurred
recently, the error of 0.002 inch per inch being obtained with
a
b
quite a new machine. Even errors of 0.012 inch per inch could
Fig. 48. Effect of Flank Angle on Thread Contact
pass undetected when using the normal type of ring gauge.
That wasdue to the fact that differences in the flank angle and
( a ) Flank angles of bolt and nut equal.
nominal thread diameter allowed the gauge to be screwed on
(b) Flank angles of bolt and nut unequal.
whilst the pitch error was quite considerable. It would be seen,
down the thread, but if the flank angles were as shown in Fig. 48b therefore, that a totally unexpected distribution of load along
and the bolt had a finer angle than the nut, there must be the thread might easily arise in practice.
In the section of the paper dealing with the effects of various
considerable distortion of the two threads before that condition of contact developed. In short, he felt that the errors in factors on the load distribution, an increase of pitch was recomangle in ordinary bolts and nuts must play a considerable part mended to effect an improvement. Normal practice in the case
of dynamically loaded bolts was to use the finest practicable
in the distribution of load along the length of the nut.
With regard to pitch, Dr. Sopwiths diagrams had shown pitch, since, in addition to the increase in core area for a given
that, whereas the distribution followed a certain curve with a size of bolt, there was less chance of the nut slackeningoff in
bolt and nut of the same initial pitch, if there was a slight taper service. He would like the authors to comment on that point.
The degree of lubrication had been mentioned in connexion
on the threadwhich was virtually the same as a slight difference
in pitchthere was a different distribution. The taper might with the load concentration factor. He believed that one of
be only about 0.001 inch per inch, which corresponded to a Dr. Sopwiths diagrams showed that a variation in the coefficient
pitch error of, say, 0.0005 inch per inch. If a pitch error of only of friction of 0.143 did not have a great effect in the load dis00005 inch per inch made all that difference, he thought that it tribution but, whenever problems involving screw threads were
must play a very great part in this particular investigation. It considered the question of the coefficient of friction always
had been stated many years ago that the pitch of the bolt should arose. It was of particular importance when trying to estimate
be made a little shorter than that of the nut, so that when the the initial load induced in a bolt when the nut was tightened.
The degree of lubrication and surface finish were usually so
bolt stretched the two tended to even out.
Also, when a nut was tightened on a bolt there was always a variable, however, that without prohibitive manufacturing costs
certain amount of diametral play, and the nut never stayed little could be done to control the value of the coefficient of
centrally on the bolt but pulled itself over to one side, so that fi iction within reasonable limits.
It appeared that one of the simplest ways of reducing the
the maximum depth of engagement was obtained on one side
and the minimum on the other. Dr. Sopwith had carried out magnitude of stress concentrations was to adopt modifications
strength tests with nuts which had been deliberately pushed on to the nut. Slight differences in pitch of the bolt and nut, or
one side, and he wondered if the author could recall the results tapering of the thread in the nut, were hardly practicable in the
heavy engineering industry, and particularly in the marine
thus obtained.
On p. 390, under the heading General Conclusions on engineering industry, since the limits of accuracy left a good
Thread Forms, Dr. Heywood said that For given relative deal to be desircd. It seemed, therefore, that the use of a material
contact areas, the strongest form has been determined, that the having a lower modulus of elasticity for the nut would offer
Greatest strength is obtained by using a low relative contact greater possibilities for improvement.
The reduction of the point of stress concentration at the first
area, so producing a stubshaped thread, and that The
Whitworth thread form lies remarkably close to the optimum loaded thread was of great importance when considering bolts
series. He asked whether Dr. Heywood meant, as Dr. Sopwith subjected to fatigue loading. He thought that an approximation
had said, that the contact tended to become concentrated at the to the proposed tension nut in Fig. 14 would be an improvement
middle, so that only this middle area of contact was required and on the normal design in that respect.
Dr. Heywood said that his method of securing the testpiece
the remainder of the thread was unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the two authors had used different symbols, (Fig. 20) simulated a row of projections in a semiinfinite sheet.
and great care was therefore necessary when using their formulae. He wondered whether the fringe pattern would be altered if
For example, in Fig. 1 Dr. Sopwith called the flank angle p, but the specimen was secured at the top edge, so that the loading
in Fig. 32 Dr. Heywood called it a. He would remind both conditions would approximate more closely to those in a screwed
authors that in the discussions with the Americans and connexion. The stress was a maximum at the outer fibres in
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
D I S C U S S I O N O N LOADS A N D STRESSES I N SCREW THREADS A N D PROJECTIONS
It had not been possible so far to carry out a great many tests,
any tension member, and this would presumably increase the
load concentration at the roots of the threads compared with the but Mr. C. H. Wan, who was doing this work at Cambridge, had
mean stress calculated over the crosssectional area of the core. come to certain general conclusions. His results seemed to
Dr. Heywood stated that the total fillet stress in a loaded indicate first of all that, owing to the obliquity of the load at slow
member was determined by the addition of the stresses produced speeds, the stresses at the tension fillets were greater than those
by thread. and tensile loads, but that gave too high a result. He on the compression side. The stresses changed with increase of
asked whether the author could give any guide as to the propor speed. Fig. 50 showed the fringe order per pound of load,
tion of the total stress concentration factor which probably
I2
occurred in a tightened bolt subjected to tensile load.
394
Mr. H. L. Cox, M.A., A.M.I.Mech.E., said that the problem
of transferring load from one member to another was so universal
throughout engineering practice that it was surprising that it
had not attracted more attention in the past. Some of the earliest
work had been done by Stromeyer as late as 1918.
All transference problems had two aspects. In the case of the
ordinary sleeve, of which the threaded connexion was one
example, there was the problem of how the loading was
distributed along the lengthin aircraft engineering this was
called a diffusion problemand there was the detailed problem
of how the local loading was actually distributed.
Dr. Sopwith covered the average distribution adequately in
his paper, but in such a short space that the careless reader might
m i s s it altogether. Dr. Sopwith commented that the distribution
along the length varied as cosh x0, from which it immediately
followed (equation (10)) that the distribution was 0 coth 0,
where 8 varied directly as the length L . It would be seen that 0
must vary inversely as D. There was a function of constant
proportionality which was the denominator of equation (ll),
and that took time to work out, but the rest followed easily.
That was perfectly general, and applied to all these load transference problems.
The same elementary reasoning could be used to deal with
other cases, such as the one with the same type of connexion
under a bending moment. In aircraft engineering the one was
called antisymmetrical and the other symmetrical.
There had been plenty of discussion of the detail of load
transference, but there was very little analysis available for the
problem of average transfer. Photoelasticity, relaxation, or
similar method was the best way to estimate the local stress
under a loaded projection, but the load distribution between
several threads was more amenable to theoretical analysis.
One point mentioned in the discussion was the possibility of
improving the general distribution by altering the pitch. It was
stated that the figure required was about one part in one
thousand, but that was far too small to machine deliberately
although it could be done unintentionally. One possible method
of doing it was to put the bolt under tension, machine the
thread, and then release the tension, or alternatively to put the
nut under compression, machine the thread, and then release
the compression. That seemed to him to be worth trying if it
was desired to get the maximum from a given bolt.
Mr. E. K. FRANKI.
(Cambridge) said that Dr. Heywood had
indicated how his general empirical formula for loaded projections could be applied to determine the tensile fillet stresses
in gear teeth, but the method was, of course, limited to static
loading conditions, whereas the great majority of gear problems
dealt with gear wheels in motion, and very often moving at
considerable speeds.
The Engineering Laboratory at Cambridge had recently completed the design and construction of a special photoelastic
bench to deal with the investigation of the stresses in gear wheels
under running conditions. The main practical difiiculty in that
work was to get enough light on to a photographic plate in a
very short time. A satisfactory mercury vapour lamp had now
been designed, which produced enough light in about 5 microseconds to give a fringe photograph with a reasonable exposure
on ordinary film.
Fig. 4 9 4 Plate 4, showed a photograph taken at the comparatively low speed of 150 r.p.m. The 40tooth wheels had a
pressure angle of 20 deg., and were made from &inch thick
Columbia resin 39.
01
0
300
600
900
SPEEDR.P.M.
1,200
1,500
Fig. 50. Variation of Stresses at the Compression
C Stresses at compression fillet.
T Stresses at tension fillet.
and the horizontal axis showed variation of speed. The curve
indicated clearly that the fringe order at the compression fillet
increased with speed, but increased considerably more slowly
than that at the tension fillet. At a speed of 1,000 r.p.m. the two
stresses were equal for that particular set of gears, and beyond
that the stress at the tensile fillet outstripped the stress at the
compression fillet.
It had also been found that, as might be expected, Merent
pairs of teeth at corresponding phases of contact were subjected
to different stresses, probably due to unavoidable errors in
machining. The gears had been cut, with certain precautions,
on an ordinary gear cutter, so that the inaccuracies in the teeth
would be those found under ordinary workshop conditions.
The work was still in progress, and it was hoped that in due
course some interesting and useful information would be obtained
not only on the speed effect, which was probably due to a combination of centrifugal stresses and various vibration effects at
higher speeds, but also on the effects of small machining inaccuracies. The latter effects might give some indication of the
importance of small tolerances and errors in the manufacture
of gear wheels.
Fig. 49b, Plate 4, was taken at 400 r.p.m. with a rather smaller
load, and Fig. 49c, Plate 4, at 1,000 r.p.m. at a different load. In
the last case it could be seen that the stresses at the tensile and
compression fillets were just about equal on the lower and upper
wheels.
Mr. J. E. SEARS,
C.B.E., M.I.Mech.E., said that Dr. Sopwith
apparently based his formula on the assumption of a quite
localized pressure area, whereas Dr. Heywood based his on a
distributed pressure contact area. He would like the authors
to discuss the extent to which those two points of view were
reconciled.
[The authors replies to the discussion and communications will be found on pp. 396398.1
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
D I S C U S S I O N O N T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
P!ate 3
Load perpendicular t o flank.
Load parallel to axis.
Fig. 41. Effect of Change of Load Direction on Stress Distribution in Whitworth Thread Model
Loading near tip.
Loading near root.
Fig. 42. Effect of Change of Loading Position on Stress Distribution in Whitworth Thread Model
Fig. 46. Plane Model of Axially Loaded Threaded Joint
[I.Mech.E., 19481
Fig. 47. Plane Model of Axially Loaded
Threaded Joint with Sides of Nut
Restrained from Spreading
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
Plate 4
DISCUSSION O N T E N S I L E F I L L E T STRESSES I N LOADED P R O J E C T I O N S
( a ) At 150 r.p.m.
Fig. 52. Fringe Pattern for Marking Die
Dotted line represents the neutral axis.
(b) Under a lighter load at 400 r.p.m.
Under a small load at 1,000 r.p.m.
Fig. 49. Photoelastic Stress Patterns of Spur Wheels
(c)
Fig. 54. Boundary Tensile Stresses Produced by the Proximity Effect
[I.Mech.E., 19481
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
395
Lornrnunications
Mr. H. FESSLER,
B.Sc., G.I.Mech.E., wrote that Dr. Keywood
had pointed out the dangers of the indiscriminate application
of the Lewis formula, but his proposed new formula appeared
to be questionable in some respects.
In Fig. 29, the values of e, b, and a depended upon the position
of points A and B, yet the only reason given for the choice of
30 deg. to fix point A was that the angle produces more consistent results. As Dr. Heywood stated further that the angle
was in effect some unexplored function of b/e, he would like to
see graphs showing the effect of other angles on the results.
The choice of the dimension e indicated that the bisector of
the flank angle was to be considered the neutral axis of the pro1 . 5 ~W
did not represent the nominal
jectionotherwise xe2
t
bending moment M . If that was so, the obvious choice for point
C would be the intersection of AB and the bisector, i.e. the point
of intersection of the neutral axis with the equivalent base of
the projection. No reason was given for the authors choice of C,
althoy& the value of a depended upon the position of C, and
no reason was given for the useof sin y in the factor (144 sin y),
although cos y would give the normal component of W.
If Dr. Heywoods formula was rewritten as measured fillet
stress
more than 0.001 inch. A model of the die and cylindrical rolled
stock had been made from transparent plastic, Catalin 800 glass
clear, 0.19 inch thick; the fringes obtained on the loaded die
were shown in Fig.52, Plate 4. In order to compare the stresses
on the flank of the die, obtained from the fringe pattern, with the
and if all empirically fixed values were denoted by x, then
The difficulty of finding a value for K would be seen, and the
one graph (Fig. 30) did not seem to justify the precise value
K = 1+0*26(e/R)O*7.
He was surprised that the author based his calculations of the
effects of concentrated loads on experiments done with distributed loads, as shown by the fringe photographs.
Since the designer would only use such a cumbersome formula
when a fairly accurate result was required, he thought that more
information should first be given about its derivation.
Dr. J. WARD,B.Sc. (Eng.), M.I.Mech.E., wrote that he agreed
that the Lewis formula was only the simple BernoulliEuler
formula for the case of a cantilever with line loading at the place
on the flank where the load was applied, and that the second
term in the modified Lewis formula was only the horizontal
component of the load divided by the area of the crosssection
at the root. Those simple formulae were not applicable to the
case where the load acted along the flank and when the modulus
of section rapidly increased. It was apparent from the fringe
patterns shown in Figs. 2125, Plates 1 and 2, that compressive
stresses were set up in the vicinity of the load; those compressive
stresses would influence the root stresses in a short tapering
cantilever.
Dr. Heywood had criticized DoIan and Broghamer for their
cumbersome stressconcentrationfactor formula but his own
new empirical formula for the fillet stress was hardly simple,
even though it did apply to a wide range of projection shapes.
He himself had recently carried out a photoelastic test on a
tapered projection in which the load R was applied at the tip, as
shown in Fig. 51. That had a practical application in the rollmarking of cylindrical work with flat dies*. The angle 2cr was
usually made 80 deg. for brass, 90 deg. for mild steel, 110 deg.
for steel of Rockwell hardness C40, and 120 deg. for tempered
steel of Rockwell hardness C55. With a new die there was no
radius at the tip 0 since the edge was formed at the intersection
of two planes generated by the revolution of the conical cutter.
At the roots D and E the radius on a wellfinished die was never
* See Fig. 36 of Marking Merhods and War Production, Proc.
I.Mech.E., 1944, vol. 151, No. 3.
Fig. 51. Forces Acting on Tip of Die
theoretical stresses a theory of stress distribution in a tapered
cantilever, without making use of the stress function 4 (see
Appendix I1 of Dr. Sopwiths paper), was obtained as follows :Referring to Fig. 51, let :P = horizontal pushing force.
P1= pressure applied to the die.
R = resultant of P and P1.
4 = the angle R makes with the line of action of P I .
2a = the wedge angle of the die.
pr = radial stress along OA for bending due to P.
pr = radial stress along OA for compression due to P I .
b = thickness normal to paper.
h = width at root of die.
0 = the angle the radial line OA makes with the line of
action of P.
According to Mesnagert (1901) p,, the tensile stress at A due to
bending was given by
k P cos 0
2
Pr = b . OA in which k = 2a sin 2cr
~
and when B> 90 deg. p , became a radial compressive stress.
The radial compressive stress pr at A due to the action of the
force P I at the tip of the die was given by
wl cos (90e)
2
$7
=
b . OA
inwhichk = 2a+ sin 2a
, (90e)
p, =  2 ~cos
or
(2a+ sin 2m)b . OA
and p, was compressive for values of 19from (90 0) to (90+ 0).
t MESNAGER1901 h a l e s des Ponts et Chaussdes.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S O N LOADS AND STRESSES I N SCREW THREADS AND P R O J E C T I O N S
The combined stress p at A along O A due to P and P I was then drastically truncated bolts. He agreed that it was difficult to
secure the correct conditions in twodimensional photoelastic
given by
models of screw threads.
2P1 sin 0
2P cos 0
(22)
The fatigue tests in connexion with the unification of screw
= ( 2 r  sin 2a)b . O A  ( 2 r + sin 2 a ) b . OA
threads with America and Canada would, he hoped, be published
in which P = R sin and P I = R cos 6.
shortly. Mr. Rolts point as to the effect of angle error on the
In the model die b = 0.19 inch, a = 45 deg., $ = 30 deg., and point of contact was correct. The fatigue tests referred to inalong the compression flank 0 = 135 deg.
cluded tests on 55 deg. bolts in 60 deg. nuts and vice versa;
After substitution of those values in equation (22), the com provided fairly soft (3545 tons per sq. in.) nuts were used these
pressive stress along the flank became 9.03R/distance from tip combinations were not inferior in strength to correct pairs.
of the die. In the experiment the load, R, producing the fringe
He emphasized the need for extreme accuracy of production
pattern shown in Fig. 52 was 62 lb. and the material fringe value and measurement if reliable results were to be obtained from
for the Catalin was 42.5 lb. per inch per fringe. In Fig. 53, curve experimental work on screw threads. Tests on the effect of
diametral play on the static strength of screw threads together
with others on the effects of tolerance and truncation, were
reported in a paper by Smith and Low, shortly to be published.
It was unfortunate that two papers presented together used
different notations : however, the international standard symbols
for screw threads had been drawn up without reference to
strength aspects. For example, the avoidance of the use of
E, G, K,N;f,p , q ; P, Q, T, W; and M (allof which were used
in that standard for dimensions) would lead to the use of very
unfamiliar symbols for elastic constants, stresses, moments, and
loads.
He agreed that unexpected load distributions might occur in
practice. Mr. Taylor had commented that increase of pitch
would also reduce the core area.and increase the chance of the
nut slackening off. Decrease of core area was accompanied by
an increase of root radius and, under repeated load, that might
well outweigh the decrease in core area. He knew of at least one
case in which that had occurred.
The strength in fatigue at the first loaded thread was affected
both by the tensile stress in the core (proportional to the stress
concentration factor) and the bending stress in the thread (proportional to the thread loading w oat that point and hence to the
load concentration factor ff).
The solution for all problems of load transference was of the
same form, and the difficulty in any particular case was to assess
the stiffness of the two componentsin the present case the
value of O1. The production of small pitch differences by
#
Fig. 53. Compressive Stresses plotted along the Flank of the Die machining the thread under load was an ingenious idea and
might be practicable for the nut.
Curve Atheoretical stresses from equation (22).
True point (or to be more exact, line) contact between threads
Curve Bactual stresses from fringe pattern.
would lead to infinite stresses, which would be limited by plastic
Curve Ctheoretical stresses from modified Lewis formula.
deformation to the order of the Brine11 hardness of the material.
A showed the theoretical values for the compressive stress, Dr. Heywoods method of loading was the nearest practicable
obtained from equation (22), curve B showed the stress obtained approach to point loading: the departure from point contact
from the fringes, and curve C showed the theoretical stress was probably insufficient to affect the stresses in the root or fillet.
Dr. Ward quoted formulae for the stresses in a tapered cantivalues obtained by using the modified Lewis formula. Equation
(22) applied only to the case of a tapered cantilever of infinite lever which could easily be derived from cases (2) and (3) in
length, and hence the theoretical values of the compressive Appendix I1 of the paper : Coker and Filon (1931)*had obtained
stress, from curve A , for points on the flank near the root of the similar results confirming the accuracy of this solution.
There was a correction of some importance to be made to the
die, could not be relied upon. Theoretical values from the Lewis
formula when compared with the actual stresses obtained from analysis of load distributions. The contribution of the Poissons
the fringe pattern showed that the Lewis formula underestimated ratio effect of the axial stresses was not proportional to w, but
the root stresses. The position of the neutral axis was obtained to the load in the component at the point. The 0 term in equaby putting p equal to zero in equation ( 2 2 ) : the neutral axis
20
A A /:zudsP
made an angle of 24 deg. to the flank of the die which was under
tion
(
5
)
became
t
a
n
P
(
x
+
;
I
;
)
instead of
the tensile stress. That position of the neutral axis was marked
. . nD
by a dotted line on the fringe pattern in Fig. 52, and corre20
w. As a result a dzulds term appeared in the
sponded to the position of the zero fringe.
The photoelastic method appeared to be the best method differential equation (7), and equations (8), (9), and (10)
for finding the stresses in loaded projections, and it might also became :be used for finding the stresses set up in the teeth of metal
20
cutting saws, teeth of milling cutters and gear hobs.
 = 82e(1x)Aa2(~osh
xOzA sinh x02)/sinh 02 . (8a)
396
z
zum
Dr. D. G. SOPWITH
wrote in reply that much of the work
described in the paper had been done in connexion with the
design of screwed breech mechanisms. The assumption of zero
pitch and angle error was unrealistic, but the analysis indicated
the improvements in load distribution which could be sought.
Radial sawcuts in the nut threads should improve the distribution of loadits effect could be estimated by altering the
value of h2but the danger of thread failure in bending would
be considerable; he had had such failures in fatigue in normal
nuts when loaded at the crest of the thread, i.e. when used with
P, = Pe(lx)% sinh xO2/sinh 0 2 . . . . . . (90)
H = O2(~0th0,A)
. . . .. . . . . . ( 1 0 ~ )
wheretoz = 2L1//U+ VZ/UD, h = V/.\/ U+ V2, V = iu tan ,8
tan Pp
a (D32D2)(D2Do2)
and U = +2h Cot p+p
D 02(032D02)
* See Appendix XII, p. 383.
t For CJ = 0, 82 = 61, and h = 0 and equations (84, (9a), and
(10a) are identical with (8), (9), and (10)as would be expected.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S ON L O A D S A N D STRESSES I N SCREW T H R E A D S A N D P R O J E C T I O N S
397
All the examples in the paper had been reworked using this
correction; in all cases the load concentration factor H was
reduced. The reduction was almost constant, varying only from
15 to 20 per cent, so that the conclusions reached in the paper
were unaffected. The correction produced poorer agreement
with Goodiers results (compare Figs. 15 and 15a) and better
agreement with Hetenyis (compare Figs. 16 and 16a).
These corrected forms were less convenient than the original
ones. For practical cases, with O2 not less than 2 and not
greater than 0.2, the corrected forms could be closely approximated by using the original forms, substituting e 2 ( l  h ) for 61.
With this correction to el, all the formulae of the text could be
used, the errors introduced being not greater than about 2 per
cent and usually much less (except at the free face of the nut,
when the loading is low and unimportant).
2
5
0*I25
0.50
I h O
DISTANCE FROM FREE FACE OF NUTINCHES
1:15
Fig. 15a. Corrected Distribution of Load Along Thread
0 Goodiers experimental results.
    (3alculated distribution ( p = 0.1).
Calculated distribution ( p = 0.3).
Equation (14) became :e%(lk)(cosh x02X sinh &)
+K(cosh (1 x ) 0 2 + h sinh (1 x)02)
The substitution of q for k in equation (14a) gave the new
form of equation (16); the optimum value of 4 now became
sinh M 2 + h sinh O?
leading to :(I cosh 82cosh h62
w
w , 0, sinh 8,
o  lh2
w,
w,
2 cosh 02cosh he2
(19a)
34I
IP.
0 :so
I :oo
DISTANCE FROM FREEFACE OF NUTINCH
Fig. 16a. Corrected Distribution of Load Along Thread
Hetenyis experimental results.
 Calculated distribution ( p = 0.1).
    Effect of change of loading at ends.
Dr. R. B. HEYWOOD
wrote in reply that Mr. Browns corroboration of the projection formula by photoelastic tests had
provided an independent verification of the formula. The small
difference between experiment and theory was undoubtedly due
to differences in the loading conditions. With Mr. Brodns
models, the reaction of the thread loads produced general tension
across the core section, and increased the fillet stress; that would
naturally form a greater percentage when the projection stresses
were low, as when the thread load was applied close to the
fillet.
The magnitude of the fillet stress would be influenced by the
point of the model at which the load reaction was taken. In one
experiment, the model was supported in the manner suggested
in the discussion, which caused a 10 per cent change in the maximum fillet stress compared with the result obtained by supporting the model with the standard Lshaped bracket. If the point
of load reaction was above the loaded projection, general tension
tended to be produced along the row of projections, causing an
increase in the tensile fillet stress, which was dependent on the
points of attachment, width of model, number of projections
loaded, etc. Conversely, if the reaction were applied below the
loaded projection, some reduction in the tensile fillet stress
would be expected. Hence for the results to be entirely divorced
from the misleading effects of the point of attachment the
model should be supported along a line parallel to and at some
distance from the row of projections. With bolts, the tensile core
stresses could be separately assessed and the combined effect of
projection load and axial load could then be estimated.
Mr. Brown had demonstrated the existence of tensile fillet
stresses caused by the proximity of the load to the fillet stresses
for a case in which the load reactions were different from those
obtaining in loaded projections. His explanation did not wholly
account for proximity stresses, for, contrary to accepted theory,
boundary stresses could be produced by the simple action of a
load on a flat surface. Load transference problems required
elucidation of such anomalies that existed between theory and
experiment. In Fig. 54, Plate 4, the presence of tensile stresses
along the model boundary on the left of the loading pads was
clearly shown; a sheet of cardboard had been placed between
the loading pads and the model to reduce transverse shear
stresses, and produce a more uniform load distribution. The
abutments on the righthand side caused a further increase in
the boundary tensile stress, the increase depending on the
proximity of the abutment to the loading pad, and the relative
size of fillet. The material between the two loading pads was
compressed by the direct action of the loads, whilst the freedom
from appreciable strain of other regions caused a differential
straining action, which produced the tensile stresses on the
boundary. The abutments exaggerated the difference in the
strains of the regions in question, and increased the boundary
stress.
Photoelastic experiments on line contact loads invariably
did not agree with theory. By theoretical analysis, the various
fringe orders should be tangential to the boundary at the point
of contact with the load, but inevitably some of the fringes
trespassed by cutting the boundary at some distance from the
point of contact. The projections shown in Figs. 41 and 42
demonstrated that feature. The explanation was partly that the
effect of local straining actions was greater than was shown by
theory, and partly that the theoretical load conditions were
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S O N LOADS AND STRESSES I N SCREW THREADS AND P R O J E C T I O N S
difficult to attain in practice. That latter point had been demon zero, since the loading was usually approximately perpendicular
strated by Frocht in his experiments on a uniformly to the flank. That simplified the projection formula to :distributed load.
[l?
The load reaction was transmitted through the bolt shank for
Fillet stress = K
any thread load distribution and the core stresses in the bolt
e 0.7
built up from a minimum near the free end of the nut to a
K = 1+0.26(\~) .
maximum near the contacting face. A uniform load distribution where
along the thread helix, suggested by some speakers as desirable,
would still produce a maximum fillet stress in the bolt near the
contacting face. An inverse load distribution, with the greatest
load applied to the thread near the free end of the nut was the
onIy way to produce a uniform stress along the thread helix.
The pitch error of 0.012 inch per inch, measured by Mr.
Taylor, was several times greater than the difference in pitch
required to produce a uniform load distribution. In practice the
overriding effect of pitch errors would occasionally cause bolts
to be loaded excessively near the free end of the nut. The
fatigue failure of the bolt almost invariably occurred near the
contacting face of the nut, and that led to the conclusion that
excessive load near the free end of the nut was harmless, whereas
excessive load near the contacting face probably reduced the
strength of the bolt. A consideration of the axial core stresses
showed that that result was not altogether unexpected. T o
obtain the desired inverse load distribution for threaded members machined with pitch errors, the required difference in
pitch between the nut and bolt was the sum of the elastic strains
caused by the applied loads plus the maximum difference in
the pitch errors of the male and female members. From Mr.
Taylors figures, it appeared that a difference in pitch of 0.010
inch per inch was required, which was more readily attainable
in practice than the difference of 0.001 inch per inch which
theory suggested.
Modification to the shape of the nut presented a promising
line of improvement. I n one case an improved fatigue perFig. 55. Maximum Fillet Stress in Bolt due to Load on
formance had been Qbtahed by using an external taper on a
Thread
tension nut, somewhat similar to the first type shown in Fig. 10.
Thread
load
distribution
taken into account.
In his opinion, an improvement of the order of 100 per cent was
Coefficient of friction between mating threads = 0.2.
possible by that means.
Poissons ratio = 0.28.
Ham and Ryan (1932)f had investigated the effect of the
several variables on the coefficient of friction.
The maximum fillet stress due to thread load alone could be
derived from the product of the quantities a, H, and K,so that
the combined effect of the load concentration factor H and the
stress concentration factor of the thread K could be ascertained.
The results that ensued for any shape of symmetrical thread
were shown in Fig. 55. The values of H were determined from
Dr. Sopwiths formulae assuming the same nominal depth of
thread as in the +inch Whitworth bolt. The values of K were
determined from the projection formula. Fig. 55 embraced
both the effect of load concentration and of stress concentration
in the threads, and gave a better indication than the curves in
the paper of the best shape of thread form. The conclusions
were unaffected by the influence of the thread load distribution.
No opposition to the conclusions reached on the best shape
of thread form had been forthcoming in the discussion. In
order to appreciate these conclusions at a glance a comparison
of two of the improved thread forms was shown in Fig. 56,
where the fillet stresses given were based on the graph of Fig.
398
+
J3[27
55$.
The projection formula was admittedly not as simple as the
designer would wish : three factors were essential to the formula
a stress concentration factor, a bending moment factor, and
a proximity factor, and any simplification by the omission of one
of those factors led to serious errors in the result. For that
reason, the BernoulliEuler formula applied to loaded projections gave inaccurate results, as only the bending factor was
considered, and an advanced mathematical analysis seldom took
account of the stress concentration factor. His formula was
intended as a compromise which could be applied to design
problems. One simplification was to assume the term t sin y was
* FROCHT,
M. M. 1948 Photoelasticity, vol. 2, pp. 6769
(Chapman and Hall,London).
t HAM,C . W., and RYAN,D. G. 1932 University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 247, Experimental
Investigation of Friction of Screw Threads.
$ Patent Specification No. 617536.
Fig. 56. Comparison of Thread Forms
( a ) Whitworth, 205 Relative fillet stress due to direct action of
load on thread = 3.15.
(b) z = 0.3. Relative met stress = 1.3.
(c) z = 0.2. Relative fillet stress = 0.7.
The variables used in the formula were largely determined
by the several limiting conditions that had to be satisfied;
they could be further qualified. in an empirical formula
by comparison with the experimental data over the whole range
of projections.
The precise value of K was found by considering the limiting
condition of a long projection subjected to a uniform bending
moment. The proximity factor then vanished, the nominal
bending stress was known precisely, and hence an acmrate
expression for K could be derived.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at DTU Library  Tech. inf. Center of Denmark on August 3, 2016