An Investigation of the Bearing Strength of Bolted Connections

In Aluminum and Titanium Alloys

A Thesis

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

Nicholas E. Tinl

December 10, 2011

 An Investigation of the Bearing Strength of Bolted Connections

in Aluminum and Titanium Alloys

Nicholas E. Tinl

Thesis

Approved: Accepted:

Advisor Dean of the College

Dr. Craig C. Menzemer Dr. George K. Haritos

Co-Advisor Dean of the Graduate School

Dr. Anil Patnaik Dr. George R. Newkome

Co-Advisor
Dr. Tirumalai S. Srivatsan

Department Chair Date

Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda

ii
 ABSTRACT

Bolted connections are one of the most common methods by which loads

are transmitted between metal structural elements. Because of this, being able

to predict the behavior of such connections is a primary concern in structural

design. Though much research exists on the behavior of an individual bolt

connecting two structural steel elements, research is limited when it comes to

other metallic alloys seeing increased applications in modern structures. Two

such metals are aluminum and titanium alloys. In this research paper, the limited

research on the influence of edge distance on the strength of a single bolt in

aluminum is expanded upon. Additionally, the bearing capacity of a single bolt in

Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy is investigated and unique features of its behavior noted.

The effect of material ductility on the ability of both alloys to withstand bolt

bearing loads is highlighted, and recommendations for design suggested.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Professor Craig Menzemer for

providing me with the opportunity to be his graduate assistant, as well as for his

patience in being my principal educator in the field of structural engineering.

Additionally I would like to thank Professor Anil Patnaik and Professor

Tirumalai Srivatsan for their substantial guidance in performing research and

preparing this thesis; Manigandan Kannan and Chinmay Godbole for their aid in

taking fractography photos and patiently explaining the features contained within;

Dave McVaney for all of his help in the lab; and my senior research partner

Therese Hurtuk who consistently provided me with important and helpful

references, data, and figures, often before I even realized they were necessary.

Finally I would like to thank the Civil Engineering Department, especially

the structural faculty, who were instrumental in my education; my mother for

aiding me in formatting this document; and my family and friends for their

continuous support.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 4

Aluminum; Its Production and Uses ............................................... 4

Titanium Alloy; Production and Uses ........................................... 10

The Mechanics of Bolted Connections in Structural Design ......... 11

III. TEST SETUP/EXPERIMENTAL ............................................................. 21

Aluminum Test Setup ................................................................... 21

Aluminum Tensile Tests ............................................................... 24

Titanium Alloy Test Setup ............................................................ 25

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 29

Aluminum Tensile Tests ............................................................... 29

5052-H32 Aluminum Results ....................................................... 31

6061-T6 Aluminum Results .......................................................... 37

Discussion of Aluminum Results .................................................. 42

Titanium Alloy Results and Discussion ........................................ 46

v
 Results for 0.250” Thick Plates .................................................... 51

V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 58

Aluminum Alloy Conclusions ........................................................ 58

Titanium Alloy Conclusions .......................................................... 59

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 61

APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 62

APPENDIX A. EXPERIMENTAL DATA ................................................. 63

APPENDIX B. ALUMINUM TENSILE TESTS ........................................ 69

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Quantities of test samples by material and bolt-hole pattern .................22

2. Nominal element percentages in Ti-6Al-4V alloy ..................................25

3. 5052-H32 tensile sample data and averages ........................................30

4. 6061-T6 tensile sample data and averages ...........................................31

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Individual Bolt Bearing Stresses (a) Elastic. (b) Elastic-plastic. (c) Nominal.
(From Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints) ................ 14

2.2 Failure Modes (a) Tear-out through edge of material(b) Excessive bolt-
hole deformation (c) Angled tear-out through edge of material (From
Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints) ........................... 15

3.1 Dimensions of Aluminum Test Samples .................................................. 22

3.2 Test setup: (a) Typical 1/8th inch thick Ti-6Al-4V sample. (b) Samples
tested as outer plies.(c) Sample tested as inner ply ................................ 27

4.1 Typical Stress-Strain Diagram for 6061-T6 Alloy ..................................... 30

4.2 5052 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Elongation .......................................... 32

4.3 Tear-out of 5052-H32 sample showing (a) Bulging apparent around back
of hole (b) Tear-out through edge of plate (c) Population of microscopic
voids and dimples on shear fracture surface (d) Shear-elongated dimples
indicative of locally ductile failure ............................................................. 34

4.4 5052-H32 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation .................... 36

4.5 6061-T6 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Elongation .................................... 37

4.6 Typical fracture of a 6061-T6 sample showing: (a) Bulging around back of
hole.(b) Combination of shear and tensile failures in a tear-out. (c)
Random distribution of fine voids, shallow dimples, and microscopic
cracks on the shear surface. (d) Macroscopic and microscopic cracks
mingled with voids and dimples indicative of rapid tensile overload. ....... 39

4.7 6061-T6 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation....................... 42

4.8 Comprehensive Stress vs. Relative Elongation for Aluminum Alloys ....... 43

4.9 Comprehensive Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation for Aluminum

Samples ................................................................................................... 44

viii
4.10 Load vs. Bolt Hole Elongation for 1/8th in.Ti-6Al-4V Samples .................. 47

4.11 Dishing behavior of 1/8th samples apparent on: (a) Samples tested as
outer plies. (b) Samples tested as inner ply. ............................................ 49

4.12 (a & b): Magnification of fracture surface of 1/8th in. thick sample tested
with a pin bearing connection .................................................................. 50

4.13 Magnification of Ti-6Al-4V fracture surface, dimples indicative of local

shear failure. ............................................................................................ 51

4.14 Bolt hole elongation vs. load of ¼ in.Ti-6Al-4V plates .............................. 52

4.15 Fracture surfaces of ¼ in. Ti-6Al-4V sample: a) Macroscopic view of

failure. (b) Magnification of transition region. (c) Magnification of
macroscopic crack ................................................................................... 53

4.16 Comprehensive Bearing Ratio vs. Bolt Hole Elongation of Ti-6Al-4V

Samples ................................................................................................... 54

ix
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One of the primary considerations in any structural design is the material

or materials which compose the structure. Factors such as material strength,

weight, corrosion resistance, stiffness, ductility, machinability, and appearance all

are necessary to consider in developing a successful structure. Until relatively

recently, structural steel has been the material of choice for design situations

requiring high strength with a minimum cross section and material weight. While

structural steel is still the most common metal alloy used in structural design,

material science has developed a multitude of new materials and alloys suitable

for use where structural steel was once the only feasible option. One of the most

versatile of these modern structural materials is aluminum. With over three

hundred commonly recognized alloys of this metal, an alloy can be found which

exhibits qualities suitable for a wide variety of different design circumstances

(Rooy, 1990). This versatility in properties between its various alloys has led to

its adoption into a wide range of structural applications.

A fundamental consideration determining the load bearing capacity of any

structural member is the strength of the connections through which the load is

transmitted. The importance of connection strength cannot be overstated, as

connections are normally the critical factor leading to the failure of the member

as a whole. Transference of load from one member to another is commonly

accomplished through the use of mechanical connectors such as bolts. By their

nature, these connections function in a manner which involves the transfer of a

large load over a relatively small area. Stress concentrations occur within the

portion of the connected material in contact with the bolt, as well as within the

bolt itself. This condition creates the possibility of the initiation of a variety of

failure mechanisms. When considering the failure of an individual bolt and

associated connected material (as opposed to the bolt group as a whole) three

mechanisms exist through which failure can occur. These are:

1. Progressive bearing failure of the connected material at the bolt-

material interface,

2. Shear tear-out of the bolt through the edge of the connected material,

3. Shear failure of the bolt or pin.

These modes of failure have been the subject of much study when the

material in question is structural steel, however limited research exists on the

behavior of these mechanisms in many other materials now seeing increased

use in structural applications. In the case of titanium alloy, research is lacking on

how a single bolted connection behaves in a progressive bearing type failure.

For aluminum alloys, a scarcity of research exists pertaining to the influence the

distance of the connection from the material edge exerts on the strength. It is

this study’s objective to further the understanding of how titanium alloy behaves

in connections prior to and during progressive bearing type failures as well as

2
how aluminum alloys behave in connections where the edge distance is the

critical factor in determining the strength of the connection. From the

experimental data, practical limits to the design of bolted connections in titanium

and aluminum alloys will be suggested, with the goal of improving the

performance of the materials in structural engineering.

3
 CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND

Aluminum; Its Production and Uses

Aluminum is the second most abundant metallic element found on earth

(Rooy, 1990). Never found in its pure form, it must be refined from bauxite ores

which generally are composed of roughly 40-60% hydrated alumina (Srivatsan &

Vasudevan, 2007). This is accomplished through two sequential processes. The

first process necessary to refine the bauxite is the Bayer process, where crushed

bauxite is reacted with a caustic soda solution. From this aluminum oxide is

extracted (Srivatsan & Vasudevan, 2007). In a second process, known as the

Hall-Heroult process, aluminum oxide is dissolved in a molten cryolite bath. The

resulting electrolyte solution is typically composed of 80-90% cryolite, 2-8%

aluminum oxide, with the remainder made up of additives such as calcium

fluoride to control temperature, density, resistivity, and the solubility of aluminum

oxide. An electrical current is then passed through this molten bath causing

aluminum to collect at the cathode. The pure aluminum is then removed via a

siphon or vacuum and poured into crucibles (Srivatsan & Vasudevan, 2007)

(Rooy, 1990). This is a highly energy intensive process requiring large amounts

4
of electricity. For this reason most primary aluminum refining is located in

regions where the price of electricity is relatively low.

Perhaps the most notable quality of aluminum and its alloys is its light

weight relative to its strength. Weighing only 0.098 lbs/in3, it is just over one third

the density of steel. Though most aluminum alloys do not demonstrate a

strength equivalent to structural steel, the lower density generally results in a

higher specific strength. This quality makes the material especially desirable

within the aerospace, and more recently the automotive industries, where weight

of the final product is a principal concern. The ease with which aluminum and its

alloys can be extruded also makes it very desirable in certain design situations.

Because of this property, the dimensions of parts and cross-sections can be

specified precisely by designers for unique instances where standard sizes are

not ideal. Many aluminum alloys also display a notable resistance to corrosion.

In addition to the obvious structural advantages, this property, along with

aluminum’s ability to be polished to a high reflectivity (such as Alclad), have led

to it becoming a favored material for decorative and architectural purposes.

Wrought aluminum alloy compositions are designated into eight separate

groups by the Aluminum Association based on their principal alloying component.

The designations are as follows (Srivatsan & Vasudevan, 2007) (Cayless, 1990):

• 1XXX: Composed of≥ 99.00% aluminum .

• 2XXX: Alloys in which the primary alloying element is copper.

• 3XXX: Alloys in which the primary alloying element is manganese.

• 4XXX: Alloys in which the primary alloying element is silicon.

5
 • 5XXX: Alloys in which the primary alloying element is magnesium.

• 6XXX: Alloys in which magnesium and silicon exist in sufficient

quantities to form magnesium siclide (Mg2Si).

• 7XXX: Alloys in which the primary alloying element is zinc.

• 8XXX: Alloys composed of other elements

• 9XXX: Currently unused

For the 1XXX series, the designation 10XX indicates unalloyed

compositions that have natural impurity limits. The last two numbers in this

sequence indicate the minimum aluminum percentage and are equivalent to the

last two digits to the right of the decimal point expressed to the nearest 0.01%.

Since all compositions in this are greater than 99% aluminum, these two

numbers are all that is necessary to specify this percentage. If the second

number in this series differs from zero, it indicates the content of one or more

individual impurities was specifically controlled. (Cayless, 1990)

For the remaining groups of alloys the second digit in the series indicates a

modification of the original alloy composition and is assigned consecutively. The

last two digits in these designations have no significance besides differentiating

between different alloys contained within the group. (Cayless, 1990)

Properties within aluminum and its alloys are developed primarily by two

different means; work hardening and heat treatment. The type and sequence of

mechanical or thermal processes carried out on a specific alloy are separated

from the alloy number by a hyphen. Temper designations consist of a capital

letter, after which subdivisions within the temper class are indicated by one or
6
more numbers. (Cayless, 1990) The majority of aluminum used for structural

purposes fall within the following temper designations: (Cayless, 1990)

• Annealed Alloys, O: This designation refers to wrought aluminum

products that have been annealed resulting in the lowest strength

temper for the alloy.

• Strain-Hardened Alloys, H: This designation indicates an alloy that has

been strengthened by strain-hardening (also referred to as “Work-

Hardened”). Alloys in this class may also have been subjected to a

supplemental heat treatment resulting in a lower strength. Several

common designations within this group are:

o Strain-Hardened Only, H1: Indicates products that have been

strain hardened without any additional heat treatment. The digit

which follows the one indicates the degree to which the material

was strain hardened

o Strain-Hardened and Partially Annealed, H2: Indicates products

are strain hardened and then have their final strength reduced

through partial annealing. The digit following the 2 indicates the

degree of strain hardening which remains following the

annealing process.

o Strain-Hardened and Stabilized, H3: Indicates products that

have been strain hardened and then had their mechanical

properties stabilized through a low temperature thermal

treatment, usually improving ductility. This only applies to alloys

7
 which would gradually age-soften at room temperature without

such treatment.

• Heat-Treatable Alloys, T: This designation indicates alloys that are

strengthened via heat treatment and whose mechanical properties

become stable after a period of time. The designations within this

group are as follows (Cayless, 1990) (Srivatsan & Vasudevan, 2007):

o Cooled from a Hot Shaping Process and Naturally Aged, T1:

Indicates a product that is not cold worked after being shaped

by an elevated temperature process. Mechanical properties are

stabilized by aging at room temperature.

o Cooled from a Hot Shaping Process, Cold Worked, and

Naturally Aged, T2: Indicates a product that is cold worked in

order to improve strength after cooling from an elevated

temperature shaping process. Mechanical properties are

stabilized by aging at room temperature.

o Solution Heat Treated, Cold Worked, and Naturally Aged, T3:

Indicates a product that are solution heat treated and then cold

worked so as to improve strength. The products mechanical

properties are stabilized by aging at room temperature.

o Solution Heat Treated and Naturally Aged, T4: Indicates

products that are not cold worked after being solution heat

treated. Mechanical properties are stabilized by aging at room

temperature.

8
o Cooled from a Hot Shaping Process and Artificially Aged, T5:

Indicates a product that is not cold worked after being shaped

by an elevated temperature process. Mechanical properties are

improved by precipitation heat treatment.

o Solution Heat Treated and Artificially Aged, T6: Indicates

products that are not cold worked after solution heat treatment.

Mechanical properties are improved by precipitation heat

treatment.

o Solution Heat Treated and Overaged or Stabilized, T7:

Indicates a wrought product that has been heat treated beyond

maximum strength so as to provide some special characteristic.

o Solution Heat Treated, Cold Worked, and Artificially Aged, T8:

Indicates products that have been cold worked for the purpose

of improving strength after solution heat treatment. Mechanical

properties have been improved through precipitation heat

treatment.

o Solution Heat Treated, Artificially Aged, and Cold Worked, T9:

Indicates products which are cold worked for the purpose of

improving strength after being precipitation heat treated.

o Cooled from a Hot Shaping Process, Cold Worked, and

Artificially Aged, T10: Indicates products that have been cooled

from an elevated temperature shaping process, cold worked in

9
 order to improve strength. Mechanical properties are then

improved by precipitation heat treatment.

Titanium Alloy; Production and Uses

Titanium was first discovered in 1791 by William Gregor. However, it

would not be until 1932 before Wilhelm Justin Kroll was able to refine it into its

pure state in any sort of significant quantity. He developed the process to

commercially extract titanium by reducing TiCl4 using magnesium. To this day,

this remains the most popular method by which to isolate titanium. (Leyens &

Peters, 2003)

Despite its exotic nature as a structural material, titanium is actually the

ninth most abundant element within the earth’s crust. The difficulty comes in that

it is never found in its pure state, and often in very low concentrations. The

complex and cost intensive nature of the production of pure titanium is the

primary reason why titanium and its alloys remains so expensive when compared

to other metals. (Leyens & Peters, 2003)

Despite the high cost of the metal, it is still favored for a variety of

applications due primarily to its high specific strength. Titanium is classified as a

nonferrous light metal, having a density of 4.51 g/cm3 compared to iron’s density

of 7.874 g/cm3. This reduction in density however comes at no sacrifice to

strength, as titanium’s alloys generally exhibit strengths equivalent or greater

than all but the hardest of steel and nickel alloys. This property makes it a

favorite material within the aerospace industry, as well in high temperature

10
applications where carbon fiber reinforced plastics (the only known structural

material exhibiting a greater specific strength) would fail. (Leyens & Peters, 2003)

Ti-6Al-4V is currently the most widely produced alloy of titanium.

Developed in the early part of the 1950s at the Illinois Institute of Technology, it is

among the first alloys of titanium to be made. An α+β alloy favored for its high

strength and balance of other desirable qualities, Ti-6Al-4V is perhaps the best

understood alloy of titanium due to its relatively early development and extensive

use within the aerospace industry. (Leyens & Peters, 2003) The hexagonal

crystal lattice of the α-phase leads to a slight anisotropy within the material.

(Leyens & Peters, 2003) When loaded parallel to the basal plane of the crystal

structure Ti-6Al-4V exhibits a yield strength of 130 kips/in2, an ultimate strength

of 142 kips/in2, and a modulus of elasticity of 16700 kips/in2. These values are

slightly lower when compared to the values when loaded at a right angle to the

basal plane of 144 kips/in2, 159 kips/in2, and 19800 kips/in2 respectively.

The Mechanics of Bolted Connections in Structural Design

Though both titanium and aluminum alloys have experienced a rise in

popularity in performance critical structural applications, experimental data

concerning material performance at bolted connections is sometimes lacking.

Connections are the critical point of failure for most structural elements, so

understanding their behavior is imperative to any structural design. Despite

being the most widely used of the titanium alloys, Ti-6Al-4V suffers from a lack of

research data on the behavior of mechanical connections, specifically the

bearing behavior of a single bolt upon the edge of a bolt hole. This type of

11
behavior was extensively researched in steel by Fisher and Struik and additional

research exists for the bearing behavior of a single bolt in various aluminum

alloys, performed by Menzemer et. al (Menzemer C. C., Ortiz-Morgado, Iascone,

& Srivatsan, 2002). Prior to this research, the design of bolted connections in

aluminum was based on the assumption that the material behaved similar to

steel. This is currently the process used in the design of titanium structural

connections; using the engineer’s judgment to draw conclusions based upon the

behavior of comparable metals.

With the research performed by Menzemer et. al., the nature of bolt

bearing stresses in aluminum is better understood, however there still exists a

scarcity of research relevant to the effect the edge distance plays in a tear-out

type failure. By reviewing the research already performed the behavior of a

single bolt and performing similar experiments on the bearing behavior of

titanium alloy and the tear-out behavior of two separate aluminum alloys, the

understanding of the behavior of an individual bolt as researched by Menzemer

et. al will be applied to titanium, as well as advanced for aluminum; resulting in a

more comprehensive understanding of the failure modes associated with bolt

bearing in both materials.

Research on the behavior of a single bolt in a loaded connection was most

extensively performed by Fisher and Struik. In their book, Guide to Design

Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints four separate stages of joint behavior for a

typical shear splice connection under loading are identified if the bolt group is

loaded in plane through the fastener group centroid. The first stage is identified

12
by an elastic elongation with a lack of slip between the two connected plates

despite an increasing load. This is due to the static friction introduced by tension

in properly tightened bolts. The second stage of loading is characterized by a

sudden slip as the load exceeds the frictional force provided by the bolts. After

slip occurs, the joint is now in bearing. In the third stage of loading elastic

elongation continues as the contact stresses developed through bearing continue

to rise, but remain below the yield stress of the connected materials and the

fastener. Once these nominal contact stresses reach the yield stress the fourth

stage of loading is entered. This fourth and final stage is characterized by

initiation of plastic elongations within the connected materials and the fastener.

This plastic behavior progressively increases until the failure of the connection

occurs, ending the fourth stage (Kulak, Fisher, & Struik, 1987).

Once slip occurs and the connection enters a bearing situation stresses

are developed within the connected materials as well as the bolt. These stresses

start as localized stresses at the point of contact [as illustrated in Figure 2.1 (a)].

As the load through the connection increases, yielding of the material at this point

causes a larger area of the connected material to come into contact with the bolt

and embedment of the bolt into the material begins to occur. This results in a

larger bearing area through which load can be transferred, as well as a more

uniform stress field across the contacted material as it reaches its ultimate

strength and begins to deform freely. This is illustrated in Figure 2.1 (b).

Because the exact stress distribution across the bolt face is complex and difficult

to determine exactly, a uniform “nominal bearing stress” is assumed to act across

13
 CHAPTER III

TEST SETUP/EXPERIMENTAL

Aluminum Test Setup

The materials used for this study consisted of twenty six (26) 6061-T6 and

twenty two (22) 5052-H32 aluminum alloy plates. The 6061-T6 plates had

dimensions of 12 in. x 4 in. x 0.25 in. whereas the 5052-H32 plates were 12 in. x

4 in. x 0.125 in. in size. Both of these alloys were provided by Conservatek

Industries of Conroe, Texas and Kawneer of Norcross, Georgia. Two separate

hole patterns were drilled in each of the alloys. The first pattern consisted of two

0.8125 in. holes located along the longitudinal centerline of the plate 1.125 in.

from each end. This pattern corresponded to a Le/d ratio of 1.5. The second

pattern was similar to the first in that it also consisted of two 0.8125 in. holes

located along the longitudinal centerline of the plate; however the distance from

each edge was reduced to 0.9375 in. This corresponded to a Le/d ratio of 1.25.

After the bolt holes were drilled the surfaces were deburred to reduce any

imperfections on the bearing surface. Dimensions for both plates can be seen in

Figure 3.1. Table 1 shows the quantity of samples for each alloy and bolt

pattern.

21
 Figure 3.1 Dimensions of aluminum test samples.

Table 1. Quantities of test samples by material and bolt-hole pattern.

Alloy Type: 6061-T6 5052-H32

Quantity

Fabricated in 14 12

1.5D Pattern:

Quantity

Fabricated in 12 10

1.25D Pattern:

Prior to the initiation of any test, bolt diameter, plate thickness, and clear

edge distance were measured and recorded at each hole. In order to obtain the

most accurate measure of bolt diameter, measurements were taken from both

22
the front and back of the hole and the two values averaged. Likewise,

measurements for plate thickness were taken at three points along the plate and

the values averaged.

The test fixture to which the samples were attached was composed of two

16 in. x 4 in. x 1 in. steel plates with a 0.8125 in. hole drilled at the end of each

plate along the longitudinal centerline and 2.50 in. from the edge. To this fixture

plates to be tested were attached in pairs as outer plies to form a symmetric butt

joint. 3/4 in. A490 bolts were used to connect the plates to the fixture with

washers on either side of the connection so as to be able to obtain a snug

connection. Before final tightening of the bolts the specimens were checked so

as to ensure that no load was being transmitted through them. Bolts were then

hand tightened to a snug-fit condition as no bolt pretension was desired for the

purpose of these experiments.

The universal testing machine on which the tests were performed was an

Instron 1000HDX. This model features digital controls which ensure precise

control over the rate at which loads are applied as well as the ultimate value of a

load for a specific test. For these tests a constant loading rate was determined

by taking the expected failure load and dividing the value by 5 minutes. This

provided a loading rate in terms of kips/minute which could be entered into the

Instron software as the desired loading rate and the value maintained throughout

the duration of the test. The loads applied to test specimens were varied so as to

correspond to σb = σy as the lowest stress value, up to sample failure. Upon the

23
start of each test, values of load and extension were sampled every tenth of a

second and a load versus extension graph automatically generated.

After completion of each test samples were removed and the diameter of

the bolt holes measured from both the front and back of the sample parallel to

the direction in which the load was applied. These two values were then

averaged in order to obtain the diameter of the elongated hole. In cases where a

complete bolt tear-out occurred, a diameter was unable to be taken. In these

instances the failure was noted where the diameter would normally have been

recorded.

Aluminum Tensile Tests

In order to obtain material properties specific to the samples being tested,

a series of 8 tensile test samples were cut and tested from blank plates. The

dimensions of the 5052-H32 samples were 0.50 in. x 0.125 in. at the neck of the

specimen and 0.75 in. x 0.125 in. at each of the grips. The transition between

these two widths was achieved using a smooth fillet on each side so as to

minimize any stress concentrations. The dimensions of the 6061-T6 samples

were 0.50 in. x 0.25 in. at the neck and 0.75 in. x 0.25 in. at the grips. Again, the

transition between these two widths was achieved using a smooth fillet on either

side. The length of the test section (the minimum cross-section in either

specimen) for every specimen was 2 inches.

Tensile tests were also performed on the Instron 1000 HDX. The

extensometer was attached to each sample using a gauge length of 2.000

inches. Great care was taken to ensure that both the load and extensometer
24
were balanced prior to the start of each test. Loading rates of 0.500 kips/min.

and 1.000 kip/min. were used for the 5052-H32 and 6061-T6 samples

respectively. Each sample was tested to failure and values for load, strain, and

extension sampled every tenth of a second over the course of the test. From this

data a graph was automatically generated as the test progressed so as to better

monitor its progress. Raw data from each test was then transferred to Microsoft

Excel where it was refined and stress versus strain curves generated. From this

data the average material properties of the samples could be generated.

Titanium Alloy Test Setup

The materials selected for this study were twelve (12) 12 in.x4 in.x0.125

in. and twelve (12) 12 in.x4 in.x0.250 in. Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy plates. ATI

Wah Chang of Salem, Oregon provided the 0.125 in. thickness material as pre-

cut 12 in.x4 in.x0.125 in. samples cut from flat sheet stock. The 0.250 in.

thickness material was purchased from TIMET as a 36 in.x42 in. plate and then

cut into 12 in.x 4in. plates by water-jet at M&J Machine shop in Akron, Ohio.

Because the material provided was a commercial alloy, its specific chemical

composition was proprietary and thus unavailable. Based on published literature

an assumption can be made that the nominal composition reflects the following

table (Patnaik, Srivatsan, Poondla, & Bathini, 2009):

Table 2. Nominal element percentages in Ti-6Al-4V alloy.

Material Ti Al N V C Fe O
Ti-6Al-4V 90.0 6.0 0.05 4.0 0.1 0.4 0.20

25
 In order to prepare the 0.125 in. thick samples for testing two 0.8125 in.

bolt hole were drilled along the center of the sample located 4 bolt diameters

(corresponding to 3 in.) on-center from either end of the plate so as to force a

progressive bearing failure. These holes were then deburred so as to remove

any imperfections from the bearing surface. The 0.250 in. thick material had bolt

holes located in identical locations, except the cutting of these bolt holes was

done via water-jet. Prior to testing each bolt hole was measured using a digital

micrometer from both the front and the back side of the samples, these two

values averaged for each hole. A picture of a standard sample can be seen in

Figure 3.2(a).

Two separate plate fixtures were used to test the plates. The first fixture

was composed of a pair simple 16 in.x4 in. x 1 in. steel plates with a 0.8125 in.

hole drilled 2.5 in. from the edge of the plate. Two test samples were joined to

each of the interior steel plates using either a 0.75 in. case hardened steel pin or

a 0.75 in. A490 bolt to form a symmetric butt joint on either side [Figure 3.2(b)].

In the tests where an A490 bolt was used to secure the lap plates to the test

fixture, washers were used on both sides of the bolt to ensure solid contact with

the material. Bolts were tightened by hand without the use of a wrench or other

mechanical assistance. This prevented any initial clamping force from being

provided by bolt pretension. Only the 0.125 in. thick samples could be tested in

this specific fixture. Due to the increased strength of the 0.250 in. material, the

samples exceeded the strength of the bolts in this test configuration.

26
 The second fixture employed to test titanium samples individually was

composed of three 9.5 in.x4 in.x1 in. steel plates welded together per fixture in a

symmetric butt joint with a 4 in. overlap. A 0.8125 in. hole was drilled through

each of the lap plates 2.50 in. from the edge of the plate. A sample was then

connected between two of these fixtures using a case hardened steel pin in the

case of the 1/8 in. thick plate, or an A490 bolt for the ¼ in. thick plate, forming a

second symmetric butt joint at either end of the specimen [Figure 3.2(c)]. Both

the 0.125 in. and 0.250 in. thick samples were tested in this test fixture.

(a) (b) (c)

th
Figure 3.2 Test setup: (a) Typical 1/8 inch thick Ti-6Al-4V sample. (b) Samples tested as outer
plies. (c) Sample tested as inner ply.

The universal testing machine on which the tests were performed was an

Instron 1000HDX. The samples were loaded at a constant rate over a range of

stress values from σb = σy to specimen failure. The rate of loading for each

specimen was determined by taking the target value and dividing it by 5 minutes.

This gave a loading rate in kips/minute which could be programmed into the

Instron software and maintained throughout the test. Prior to commencing the

test the connection was checked to ensure that there was no load being
27
transmitted through the connection. With that established the load on the

machine was balanced to zero so as to prevent the weight of the fixture from

being incorporated into the load data.

Data for load and extension of the test fixture was automatically sampled

by the software and a graph generated so as to monitor the progress of the test.

In the event of the failure of the bolt hole the test was automatically stopped.

Great care was taken to collect any pieces of the material that may have

separated on failure for examination of the fracture surface under an electron

microscope.

After testing, the bolt holes of the sample were once again measured

using a micrometer from both the front and back and the lengths averaged. The

original bolt hole diameter was then subtracted from the value after testing to

obtain the elongation of the bolt hole. This value was compared with the load

transferred through the connection. These loads were obtained by dividing the

total load by two for tests that utilized the initial test fixture which tested two

plates simultaneously or by simply using the maximum load in the case of the

second fixture.

28
Where:

Pu = The maximum tensile load before failure.

A = The cross-sectional area of the test specimen.

Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 1

50000
45000
40000
35000
30000 Location of σy
Stress (psi)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (in./in.)

Figure 4.1 Typical stress-strain diagram for 6061-T6 alloy.

By performing these calculations on each tensile sample and averaging

the results for each alloy type the following results were obtained:

Table 3. 5052-H32 tensile sample data and averages.

Loading Load at Elastic

Samples: Width: Thickness: Area: σu σy
Rate: Failure Modulus
5052 2 2 2 2
(Inches) (Inches) in. kips/min kips kips/in. kips/in. kips/in.
Aluminum:
Sample 1 0.5015 0.121 0.060682 0.5 2.062 33.9807 10225.55 26.578
Sample 2 0.5005 0.121 0.060561 0.5 2.103 34.7256 10230.92 26.961
Sample 3 0.501 0.121 0.060621 0.5 2.045 33.73418 10364.49 26.16
Sample 4 0.5015 0.1205 0.060431 0.5 2.076 34.35337 9851.122 26.882
Sample 5 0.501 0.121 0.060621 0.5 2.063 34.03111 10222.12 26.47
Sample 6 0.5015 0.1205 0.060431 0.5 2.090 34.58504 10145.41 26.882
Sample 7 0.5025 0.1205 0.060551 0.5 2.105 34.76394 9918.386 27.243
Sample 8 0.501 0.121 0.060621 0.5 2.076 34.24556 10938.45 26.89
Avg: 34.30244 10237.060 26.75825

30
 Table 4. 6061-T6 tensile sample data and averages.

Loading Load at Elastic

Samples: Width: Thickness: Area: σu σy
Rate: Failure Modulus
6061 2 2 2 2
(Inches) (Inches) in. kips/min kips kips/in. kips/in. kips/in.
Aluminum:
Sample 1 0.501 0.2375 0.118988 0.75 5.215 43.82813 9286.079 38.151
Sample 2 0.5025 0.2380 0.119595 1 5.12 42.81115 9344.333 37.292
Sample 3 0.502 0.238 0.119476 1 5.218 43.67404 9103.659 37.8
Sample 4 0.503 0.239 0.120217 1 5.200 43.25511 8896.861 38.218
Sample 5 0.502 0.24 0.12048 1 5.191 43.08599 7565.249 37.707
Sample 6 0.5025 0.239 0.120098 1 5.195 43.25652 9037.852 37.816
Sample 7 0.5015 0.238 0.119357 1 5.186 43.44948 9479.287 38.219
Sample 8 0.5025 0.2395 0.120349 1 5.133 42.65105 9475.847 37.337
Avg: 43.25144 9023.646 37.8175

Knowing that the quoted values for a yield and ultimate stress for a

specific alloy reflect a guaranteed minimum value it is expected that tested

averages for these values would exceed those quoted by a small amount. This

is apparent in all of the stress values except for the yield stress of the 5052-H32

alloy. The average value obtained through testing, 26.76 ksi, is over a kip lower

than the quoted value of 28 ksi. This inconsistency is of minor concern as yield

stress does not directly factor into the calculations relevant to this experiment.

5052-H32 Aluminum Results

When bolt hole elongation relative to the bearing ratio for each bolt is

graphed for the 5052-H32 alloy two distinct regions become apparent for the

1.5D and 1.25D bolt hole locations. It can be noted that these regions are similar

in shape with the region of the 1.5D samples being stretched and terminating at

larger values for both the bearing ratio and bolt hole elongation relative to the

1.25D region. This pattern can be observed below in Figure 4.2:

31
 5052-H32 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Elongation
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Bearing Ratio (σb /σu)

0.8 5052 1.5D

5052 1.25D
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Bolt Hole Elongation (Inches)

Figure 4.2 5052-H32 aluminum bearing ratio vs. elongation.

Previous tests on progressive bearing failure of 5052-H32 aluminum

indicated very small plastic deformations occur in the material for loads

corresponding to bearing ratios of up to 2.0 (Menzemer C. C., Ortiz-Morgado,

Iascone, & Srivatsan, 2002). In the data above, it is readily apparent that plastic

deformations begin to occur at a bearing ratio of roughly 1.0 and failure of the

connection occurs at approximately 1.40 for samples with edge distances of

1.25D. Samples with a 1.50D edge distance began to demonstrate plastic

elongation at a slightly higher bearing ratio of 1.10 and connection failure after a

bearing ratio of 1.65. This indicates that bolt hole elongation no longer results

primarily from the contact stresses between the bolt and the connected material,

32
as the bearing ratio of 2.0 that is associated with such a failure was never

approached; but rather is predominantly due to shear yielding along the two

paths as illustrated in Figure 2.2 (c).

This is further supported by examining the deformations and failure modes

observed during the testing of the 5052-H32 samples. Both the 1.25D and 1.50D

samples demonstrated bulging in the plate edge directly behind the bolt hole as

the two paths yielded when loaded to near-failure [Figure 4.3(a)]. This was

especially apparent in the 1.25D samples as the smaller edge distance resulted

in a greater proportion of the deformation being due to shear yielding. Failure of

the connections was in the form of a classic shear tear-out, as shown in Figure

4.3(b). This failure is characterized by progressive, symmetrical failure along the

two shear paths extending from both edges of the bolt hole to the edge of the

plate in a direction parallel to that of the applied load. This resulted in a load-

extension curve that demonstrated a smooth reduction in load as failure occurred

during testing.

Microscopic examination of the fracture surfaces also indicates failure was

primarily a result of shear tear-out. Figure 4.3(c) shows the healthy population of

microscopic voids and dimples located on the shear fracture surface. Closer

inspection of this surface (Figure 4.3(d) allows for the observation of the shallow,

shear-elongated dimples and voids which vary in size and indicate a locally

ductile failure.

33
 (a) (b)

Figure 4.3 Tear-out of 5052-H32 sample showing (a) Bulging apparent around back of hole.
(b) Tear-out through edge of plate. (c) Population of microscopic voids and dimples on shear
fracture surface. (d) Shear-elongated dimples indicative of locally ductile failure.

The assumption that deformation of near edge bolts in bearing is primarily

a factor of shear can be justified by examining Equation 6. Recall that for

aluminum, the critical bearing ratio constituting failure by progressive bearing

34
was found to be 2.0. This corresponded to a Le of 2.17D. Any value of Le less

than 2.17 would theoretically result in a failure by shear tear-out. At this

transition point, deformation due to bearing stresses are still significant, but as

the edge distance continues to be reduced so does the strength of the

connection. At shorter edge distances, such as 1.5D and 1.25D, progressively

more significant shear yielding occurs before any significant deformation by

progressive bearing is experienced.

When examining the nominal resistance of a 5052-H32 sample with an

edge distance of 1.5D in line with the recommendation of the current Aluminum

Design Manual (Equation 8), a value of 9.64 kips is obtained for the nominal

resistance of the symmetric butt joint tested. This value corresponds to a bearing

ratio of 1.50 and is 1.24 kips (or 11.4%) less than the failure load observed

during testing, and when plotted on Figure 4.2 corresponds to an elongation of

0.075 inches.

Though the Aluminum Design Manual recommends a minimum edge

distance of 1.5, when applying Equation 8 to the 1.25D 5052-H32 alloy samples

a nominal resistance of 8.04 kips is obtained. This value corresponds to a

bearing ratio of 1.25 and is only marginally smaller than the load at failure for this

sample observed during testing.

It should be noted that both nominal loads calculated by the Aluminum

Design Manual fall on the portion of their respective edge distance curve where

significant increases in deformation occur for relatively small increases in load.

In the tests performed by Menzemer et. al., this point where excessive

35
deformations began to occur corresponded to a relative bolt hole deformation of

25% (Menzemer C. C., Ortiz-Morgado, Iascone, & Srivatsan, 2002). Examining

the data obtained from near-edge bolts it is clear that this point differs

significantly, as nearly all tear-outs in the 5052-H32 aluminum occurred before

deformations reached this value. In viewing the data graphed in terms of bearing

ratio and relative bolt-hole deformation displayed below (Figure 4.4), it is

apparent that the point of significantly increased deformations per unit increase in

load occurs at a bearing ratio of ratio of 1.20 for a hole location of 1.5D. This

corresponds to a relative bolt hole elongation of roughly 5%. For the 1.25D

samples the bearing ratio at which increased elongations began to occur is

further reduced to 1.10, corresponding to a relative bolt hole elongation of about

4%.

5052-H32 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Relative

Elongation
1.8
1.6
1.4
Bearing Ratio (σb /σu)

1.2
1
0.8 5052 1.5D
0.6 5052 1.25D

0.4
0.2
0
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00%
Relative Bolt Hole Elongation

Figure 4.4 5052-H32 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation.

36
6061-T6 Aluminum Results

When bolt hole elongation is graphed against bearing ratio for 6061-T6

aluminum alloy, two distinct regions of behavior are once again apparent

depending on the location of the bolt hole relative to the edge of the plate. Again,

the two regions fall in two arcs, with the 1.5D region extending to a significantly

higher bearing ratio when compared to the 1.25D region. The 1.5D region also

demonstrates slightly higher bolt hole elongation prior to ultimate failure, though

this difference is not as pronounced as that observed for the 5052-H32 alloy.

Plastic elongations were apparent in both the 1.25D and 1.5D configurations

shortly after reaching a bearing ratio of 1.0. These patterns can be observed

below in Figure 4.5:

6061-T6 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Elongation

1.8

1.6

1.4
Bearing Ratio (σb /σu)

1.2

0.8 6061 1.5D

6061 1.25D
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Bolt Hole Elongation (Inches)

Figure 4.5 6061-T6 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Elongation.

37
 Another notable difference observed in the testing of these samples is the

mode by which ultimate failure occurred. Whereas the 5052-H32 alloy failed via

a classic tear-out, the 6061-T6 alloy failed through a combination of a shear

tearing parallel to the direction of the load and a tensile splitting perpendicular to

the direction of loading to the side of the material [as shown in Figure 4.6(b)].

This mode of failure can still be classified as a tear-out type failure, but the

manner in which the failure progresses differs significantly due to the smaller

ductility. Inspection of deformed bolt holes just prior to failure shows significant

shear yielding of the area directly behind the bolt [Figure 4.6(a)]. When

examining the load vs. extension graph generated during testing it is apparent

that load reduction during failure progressed in a jagged step pattern associated

with progressive tensile splitting.

Microscopic examination of the failure surfaces shows a random

distribution of fine voids, shallow dimples, and microscopic cracks along the

shear surface [Figure 4.6(c)]. This microscopic failure surface typically indicates

a progressive shear failure. When examining the microscopic surface of the

tensile ligament both macroscopic and microscopic cracks are mingled with voids

and dimples of various sizes [Figure 4.6(d)]. This fracture surface is indicative of

a rapid tensile overload of the material, not a gradual increase in stress. From

this it can be concluded that failure was first initiated along the shear ligament

resulting in a subsequent rapid increase in stress along the tensile ligament.

From these observations it can be concluded that failure of the 6061-T6

bolt holes generally occurred in the following manner. Failure first initiates via

38
shear failure along one of the shear tear-out paths parallel to the load direction.

Once this occurs, instead of the opposite shear path also failing in a symmetrical

manner, load is shifted to the point located at the side of the bolt hole opposite

the initial shear failure and tangential to the direction of loading. Because the

6061-T6 alloy is a less ductile material than the 5052-H32, stress concentrations

in the plastic range are unable to redistribute themselves as freely. This shift in

load coupled with the reduced ability of 6061-T6 to redistribute stress

concentrations (and thus tolerate cracks) results in a tensile overload at this point

and the formation of a plastic hinge at the edge of the plate.

(a) (b)

Figure 4.6 Typical fracture of a 6061-T6 sample showing: (a) Bulging around back of hole.
(b) Combination of shear and tensile failures in a tear-out. (c) Random distribution of fine voids,
shallow dimples, and microscopic cracks on the shear surface. (d) Macroscopic and microscopic
cracks mingled with voids and dimples indicative of rapid tensile overload.
39
 Prior to failure via tear-out of the 6061-T6 alloy, deformation of the bolt

hole is again a result of the easily observable shear yielding apparent behind the

bolt as opposed to the progressive bearing deformation observed in aluminum by

Menzemer et. al. (Menzemer C. C., Ortiz-Morgado, Iascone, & Srivatsan, 2002).

No data on the progressive bearing behavior of 6061-T6 or a similar tempered

aluminum alloy was available by which to make a direct comparison of the data

obtained from these tests; but if it is assumed that 6061-T6 exhibits similar

bearing characteristics to the alloys tested by Menzemer et. al., it can once again

be reasoned that progressive bearing deformation played a minor role in the total

plastic deformation relative to shear deformation as samples failed at bearing

ratios of roughly 1.62 for the 1.5D configuration and 1.27 for the 1.25D

configuration. Both of these values are significantly lower than the 2.0 bearing

ratio at which progressive bearing was deemed to contribute to excessive

deformation of the bolt hole.

When the nominal resistance of the 1.5D edge distance samples

configured in the symmetric butt joint of the test fixture is examined using the

recommendation of the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual (Equation 8) a resistance

of 24.33 kips is obtained, corresponding to a bearing ratio of 1.50. Observed

failures for this test setup occurred at values of 25.30 kips, 24.98 kips, and 23.16

kips. Of the two tests where the load was successfully resisted, extra resistance

beyond that of the nominal resistance was observed to be less than 1 kip. The

sample which failed prematurely did so at value 1.168 kips lower than the

predicted value.

40
 Though the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual recommends a minimum edge

distance of 1.5D, when applying the same analysis to the 1.25D edge distance

samples, a nominal resistance of 20.273 kips is predicted corresponding to a

bearing ratio of 1.25. This exceeds the observed failure loads for this test

configuration of 17.13 and 19.74 kips by 3.14 and 0.533 kips respectively.

As with the 5052-H32 aluminum alloy, values predicted by the 2010 ADM for the

6061-T6 alloy fall on the portion of the bearing ratio versus relative hole

elongation graph where progressively larger elongations per unit load begin to

occur, or in some cases, beyond observed failures. Examination of Figure 4.7

shows that these significantly increased elongations per unit load begin to occur

at a bearing ratio of roughly 1.3 for 1.5D edge distances and at 1.1 for 1.25D

edge distances. When the bearing ratio of 1.50 corresponding to a predicted

nominal resistance of 24.33kips is located on this graph, the relative elongation

of a bolt hole located 1.5D from the edge is just over 6%. Since the predicted

nominal resistance for a hole located at 1.25D from the edge exceeds the loads

at which a tear-out failure occurs, a corresponding relative elongation cannot be

calculated.

41
 6061-T6 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Relative
Elongation
1.8

1.6

1.4
Bearing Ratio (σb /σu)

1.2

0.8 6061 1.5D

6061 1.25D
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00%
Relative Elongation

Figure 4.7 6061-T6 Aluminum Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation.

Discussion of Aluminum Results

Ideally when designing bolted connections it is desired to limit bolt hole

deformations to a point where the excessive elongations prior to failure are not

experienced. For bolt holes where edge distances are not critical to failure, this

“excessive elongation” by which failure is defined was previously found to be

25% (D/4) by Menzemer et. al. (Menzemer C. C., Ortiz-Morgado, Iascone, &

Srivatsan, 2002). However, this criterion of 25% of the bolt diameter is no longer

valid in situations where edge distance is the critical factor determining failure.

Elongations of bolt holes are much less in these circumstances and the

connection often fails prior to reaching a relative elongation of 25%. This is

42
especially true when dealing with some alloys of aluminum, which experience a

pronounced decrease in their ability to tolerate deformations in near-edge

situations due to reduced ductility. This is readily apparent when the results for

nominal bearing stress versus relative elongation are graphed together for 5052-

H32 and 6061-T6 (Figure 4.8).

Comprehensive Stress vs. Relative Elongation

For Aluminum Samples
80.00

70.00

60.00
Nominal Bearing Stress (ksi)

6061-T6, 1.5D
50.00
6061-T6, 1.25D
40.00
5052-H32, 1.5D
30.00
5052-H32,
20.00 1.25D

10.00

0.00
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00%
Relative Elongation

Figure 4.8 Comprehensive Stress vs. Relative Elongation for Aluminum Alloys.

When examining this graph it is clear that though able to withstand

increased stresses, substantially less bolt hole elongation was tolerated by the

6061-T6 due to its less ductile nature. The maximum relative elongation for both

edge distances of the 6061-T6 aluminum was limited to roughly 12%.

Comparing this to the 5052-H32 aluminum which demonstrated relative

elongations of up to 18% and 29% for 1.25D and 1.5D edge distances
43
respectively, it is clear that the relative ductility of the aluminum is critical to its

behavior in near-edge situations. This is demonstrated even further when the

relative bolt hole elongation is graphed versus the bearing ratio as in Figure 4.9.

In this figure not only is the increased ability of the 5052-H32 to deform apparent

relative to the 6061-T6, but for both bolt hole configurations of 1.25D and 1.5D a

marginally larger bearing ratio is able to be tolerated by the material prior to

ultimate failure. This increase in bearing ratio is directly related to the 5052-H32

aluminum’s increased ability to deform plastically without experiencing fracture,

thus distributing stresses over a greater area of the material when compared to

the 6061-T6 aluminum.

Comprehensive Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation

For Aluminum Samples
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Bearing Ratio (σb /σu)

1 6061 1.5D

0.8 6061 1.25D

5052 1.5D
0.6
5052 1.25D
0.4

0.2

0
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
Relative Elongation

Figure 4.9 Comprehensive Bearing Ratio vs. Relative Elongation for Aluminum Samples.
44
 It is also apparent through examination of Figure 4.9 that relatively small

plastic deformations occur in all alloys and bolt hole configurations tested up to a

relative bolt hole elongation of 4%. For the 1.5D samples of both alloys this

corresponds to a bearing ratio of roughly 1.2 and for the 1.25D samples a

bearing ratio of roughly 1.1. To obtain the bearing ratio corresponding to the

specifications predicted nominal resistance it is necessary to set the equation for

the nominal load (Equation 7) to a modified version of Equation 3 as shown

below:

Substituting 1.5d for Le (in the case of the 1.5d samples) and rearranging, t and d

cancel and the following relationship is obtained:

In fact, when using the specifications recommendation to calculate the

nominal resistance of a near-edge bolt hole, the corresponding bearing ratio will

always be equivalent to the coefficient necessary to express the edge distance in

terms of bolt diameter. For example, in the case of this experiment the bearing

ratios of 1.5 and 1.25 correspond to the specification’s nominal resistance of bolt

holes located 1.5D and 1.25D on center from the edge of the material. When the

bearing ratio of 1.50 is located on Figure 4.9 it is apparent that it corresponds to

relative hole elongations of roughly 7.5% for the 6061-T6 alloy and 15% for the

5052-H32 alloy. Both these values exceed the relative elongation of 4% where a

noticeable increase in elongations occurs per unit increase of load. This is

45
undesirable from a design perspective as it is conservative to limit the loading of

a bolt to a point prior to experiencing these increased plastic elongations.

If the bearing ratio of 1.25 is also located on Figure 4.9 it is clear

deformations are even more critical and that this bearing ratio often corresponds

to complete failure of the connection. With this in mind a more conservative

method of calculating the nominal resistance of a near-edge bolt may be

appropriate. Instead of using Le, the distance from the center of the bolt hole to

the edge of material in this calculation; a more conservative use of the clear

distance, Lc , would reduce the equivalent bearing ratio of such near-edge bolts.

Using this criterion to specify the nominal resistance of the bolt corresponds to

bearing ratios of 0.96 for 1.5D bolts and 0.71 for 1.25D bolts. As edge distances

increase so do the permissible bearing ratios.

Titanium Alloy Results and Discussion

By graphing the elongation of the bolt hole versus the load transmitted

through each connection for the 0.125 in. thick material, several patterns become

apparent in the behavior of the connection. First it can be noted that the

relationship between elongation and load is linear beyond the load of 12.81 kips

that would correspond to a nominal stress equal to the yield stress of the Ti-6Al-

4V plate. This is illustrated by the straight line visible in Figure 4.10.

46
 Load vs. Bolt Hole Elongation for 1/8th in. Ti-6Al-4V
Samples
30

25

20
Load Applied (kips)

Non-Failed Holes With

15 A490 Bolt
Failed Holes With A490
Bolt
10 Non-Failed With Pin

FailedWith Pin
5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Elongation (inches)

th
Figure 4.10 Load vs. Bolt Hole Elongation for 1/8 in.Ti-6Al-4V Samples.

Beyond this point, two separate regions of plastic elongation within the

0.125 in. samples can be differentiated based on the type of connection. For a

simple bearing connection consisting of a pin with no confinement, progressively

larger elongations per a unit increase in load begin to occur at loads of

approximately 17.5 kips per bolt hole. This value corresponds to roughly 1.33

times the ultimate stress of the material. This effect is due to the plastic

deformation of the material at the initial contact point being confined by the

material behind it, leading to the observable increase in the bearing strength of

the bolt hole beyond the value that would correspond to a uniform distribution of

the ultimate stress across the contact area as pictured in Figure 2.1(c). Beyond

47
this point the behavior quickly becomes plastic in nature and failures begin to

occur for loads ranging from 17.65 kips (corresponding to a bearing ratio of 1.34)

to 21.83 kips (corresponding to a bearing ratio of 1.66). Most commonly these

failures were reminiscent of plate buckling behind the pin as pictured in Figure

4.11(b); however in some instances traditional bearing failures were observed

with minimum distortion to the plate material beyond the bolt hole.

A similar pattern is noticeable in the connections consisting of A490 bolts

and washers. The notable difference observed in these connections is a

significantly higher bearing strength. Whereas rapid growth in elongation relative

to load began to occur almost immediately after the plot began to deviate from a

straight line in the bearing samples, a more gradual increase in elongation

relative to load was observed for bolted samples. Though no longer linear,

failures did not begin to occur until 1.83 times the ultimate stress of the material

was reached (as observed in Figure 4.10). Despite the bolts only being hand

tight without the use of a wrench, the additional confinement of the material by

the washers made a profound difference. In addition to the material in contact

with the bolt being confined from behind, expansion in the direction transverse to

the line of the compressive load was also restrained by the washers. This

created a stress state in the material directly behind the bolt similar to triaxial

compression, which in turn increased the material’s ability to withstand loading

prior to failure. In addition to this it can be assumed that the expansion of the

material transverse to the axis of loading led to an increase in contact pressure

between the two plates. Evidence of this was demonstrated by the fact that

48
significant effort with a wrench was necessary to remove the bolts from the

fixture after testing, despite the bolts only having been hand tight initially. This

increase in pressure allowed for a portion of the total load to be transmitted via

frictional resistance between the plates. When failure of this connection did

occur it was typically bearing in nature, a crescent of material separated from the

plate via shear failure directly behind the bolt. Because of the thinness of the lap

plates relative to the interior plate, some “Catenary Action” as described by

Kulak, Fisher, and Struik was evidence by a slight bowing out of the lap plates

upon failure [Figure 4.11(a)]. (Kulak, Fisher, & Struik, 1987)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.11 Dishing behavior of 1/8th samples apparent on: (a) Samples tested as outer plies.
(b) Samples tested as inner ply.

Pictures of the fracture surfaces taken by an electron microscope further

demonstrate the difference in typical failure modes between samples tested in an

unconfined bearing condition versus those tested with bolted connections (Figure

4.12 and Figure 4.13). When examining the fracture pattern of samples tested
49
using the pin connection it becomes apparent the sample failure occurred

through a combination of shear and tension mechanisms on a microscopic level.

In Figure 4.12(b) fine microscopic cracks are visible as a result of bending

caused by the buckling of the plate behind the bolt hole.

(a) (b)

Figure 4.12 (a & b): Magnification of fracture surface of 1/8th in. thick sample tested with a pin
bearing connection.

When viewing the photographs of the fracture surfaces of samples tested

using A490 bolts and washers a different pattern is easily recognized (Figure

4.13). Here we see a population of elongated near-equiaxed dimples which

indicate the presence of local shear at the fracture surface. This corresponds

with the initial analysis of a traditional bearing type failure displaying local shear

along the fracture surface.

50
Figure 4.13 Magnification of Ti-6Al-4V fracture surface, dimples indicative of local shear failure.

Results for 0.250” Thick Plates

After completing testing of the 0.125 in. thick samples, it was deemed

beneficial to test thicker 0.250 in. plates as well in an attempt to eliminate the

dishing behavior observed around the bolt holes of the 0.125 in. samples.

Because of the increase in the plate thickness, the double-ply fixture was no

longer able to withstand loads sufficient to fail these samples. Because of this,

all 0.250 in. thick samples were tested in the second test fixture having no

washers to confine the edges of the bolt holes.

When graphing the results for the 0.250 in. plates it is again apparent that

semi-elastic behavior of the connection is exhibited beyond loads that would

correspond to the yield stress of the titanium alloy. For this test configuration, a

bearing stress equal to the yield stress of the Ti-6 alloy would equate to a total

load of just under 30 kips. When examining the load versus elongation data

displayed in Figure 4.14 it is observed that the linear elongation of the bolt hole

51
persists until loads of roughly 37 kips. This value corresponds to a bearing ratio

of roughly 1.25 times the ultimate tensile stress of the material.

Bolt Hole Elongation vs. Load of 1/4 in. Ti-6Al-4V Plates

60

50
Load Transmitted Through Bolt (kips)

40

30 Non-Failed Holes
Failed Holes
20

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Bolt Hole Elongation (Inches)

Figure 4.14 Bolt hole elongation vs. load of ¼ in.Ti-6Al-4V plates.

The relative increase in plate thickness eliminated the tendency of the Ti-6

alloy to fail through the mechanism of dishing or local plate buckling around the

back of the bolt hole. Cursory inspection of the failure surface indicated that the

failure was bearing in nature [Figure 4.15(a)], with a crescent of material from

behind the bolt separating via a local shear plane. This was remarkably similar

to the failure mechanism observed in 1/8th in. thick bolted samples evaluated as

outer plies in first test fixture. However, unlike the bolted 1/8th in. thick samples a

notable increase in the bearing ratio was not observed. Samples failed

52
consistently at loads slightly over 46 kips, which correspond to a bearing ratio of

1.55. This value falls directly within the range of observed failures of the 1/8th in.

material when the edges of the bolt holes were unconfined.

When examining a typical fracture surface of the ¼ in. thick samples using

a microscope many features are observed to confirm the initial observation that

the bearing failure was initiated through a local shear failure of the material

behind the bolt. Figure 4.15(b) shows the transition region between crack growth

and overload where elongated, shear-type dimples are easily visible. Figure

4.15(c) shows a macroscopic crack within the transition region, the differences

between smooth crack growth and rough overload are readily apparent.

(a)

Figure 4.15 Fracture surfaces of ¼ in. Ti-6Al-4V sample: a) Macroscopic view of failure.
(b) Magnification of transition region. (c) Magnification of macroscopic crack.

53
 In order to be able to make generalizations about this behavior to bolted

connections of varying sizes it is beneficial to express both the load and

elongation of the bolt hole in relative terms. This is accomplished by expressing

load in terms of σudt, which corresponds to the multiplication factor of the

ultimate strength of the material multiplied by the bearing surface; and elongation

as df/do, or percent elongation, where df is the bolt hole diameter after testing and

do is the original bolt hole diameter. When plotted using these terms as the axes

the data exhibits the same patterns observed earlier (Figure 4.16).

Comprehensive Bearing Ratio vs. Bolt Hole Elongation

of Ti-6Al-4V Samples
2.50

2.00 Non-Failed Holes With

A490 Bolt
Failed Holes With
A490 Bolt
1.50 Non-Failed With Pin
σdt

FailedWith Pin
1.00
Non-Failed Holes, 1/4"
Plate
Failed Holes, 1/4"
0.50 Plate

0.00
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%
Relatiive Bolt Hole Elongation (%)

Figure 4.16 Comprehensive Bearing Ratio vs. Bolt Hole Elongation of Ti-6Al-4V Samples.

Examination of this data indicates that failure of the connection can be

closely correlated with the relative bolt hole elongation. It should be noted that

54
beyond relative elongations of roughly 8% there exists no data points for holes

that have not experienced some manner of fracture for either pin bearing or

bolted connections. Even before this point progressively larger relative

elongations begin to occur with an increase in load.

It is also interesting to note that the increase in plate thickness to ¼ in. did

not lead to a significant difference in bearing behavior prior to failure of samples

with unconfined edge conditions. Relative elongation of the bolt hole

approaching failure loads was essentially identical between the two plate

thicknesses. Only when failure initiated is it apparent that significantly larger

relative elongations were experienced by the 1/8 in. thick samples due to their

tendency to experience local buckling/dishing around the back of the bolt hole.

Tests were not able to be conducted on the ¼ in. thick material with the

equipment available due to the strength of the samples in that specific test

configuration likely exceeding the strength of the fixture. When examining the

behavior of the ¼ in. thick samples and comparing it to the behavior of the

samples with a thickness of 1/8 in., it is apparent that with the aid in confinement

a similar increase in the bearing ratio of such connections would be probable.

When designing for service loads it is important that elongations of the bolt

holes be controlled so as to minimize deformations that may occur under

expected loading conditions. Therefore it would not be prudent to design a

connection such as this based on a tolerable limit of deformation of 8% as this is

significantly within the region of plastic behavior. It is also possible that events

generating loads which exceed those of expected service could occur; such

55
loads would push such a connection designed with the expectation of an 8%

elongation under service loads into a progressive bearing type failure.

Based on this it is recommended that when designing bolt bearing

connections in Ti-6Al-4V for instances where elongation under service loads is a

concern, relative elongation of the bolt hole be limited to 4% for connections

where confinement is provided around the edge of the bolt hole through the use

of a bolt and washer. This value corresponds to a load of approximately 1.60

times the ultimate stress multiplied by the contact surface (obtained by

multiplying the bolt diameter by the plate thickness). When compared to the

value given in the AISC Steel Design Manual of 2.4 it is apparent that this is 33%

smaller than the value given for designing a similar connection in steel. The

reduction in this value is related to the reduced ductility of Ti-6Al-4V when

compared to structural steels. Reduced ductility translates into fracture of the

material occurring at significantly lower plastic strains due to the materials

relative inability to redistribute plastic stresses.

If bolt hole elongation under service loads is not a concern, one might be

tempted to increase the permissible elongation in order increase the nominal

design strength of a connection. Whereas relative elongations of 8% and bolt

bearing coefficients of 2.02 were observed over the course of this study, this is at

the extreme end of the plastic deformation of the bolted joint. Because of the

relatively low elongation of the material as compared to steel, progressive bolt

bearing failure occurs suddenly in this vicinity of the plot. In order to reduce the

risk of sudden failure a relative elongation of 6% might be suggested for

56
connection where service load elongation is not a concern and adequate edge

confinement is provided. This corresponds to a load of roughly 1.7 times the

ultimate stress multiplied by the contact surface. It should be noted that

increasing the tolerable deformation of the bolt hole for this case yields only a

slightly higher bolt bearing coefficient. For general design purposes, this is likely

of very little benefit. Therefore, for simplicity, the bolt bearing coefficient of 1.60

could be used for all bolted connections, regardless of whether or not elongation

of the bolt hole under a service load is of concern.

For connections where edge confinement is not available and the situation

more closely resembles that of the pin bearing experiments, a lower bolt bearing

coefficient should be employed. Examining the behavior of these connections in

the experiments run, limiting relative bolt hole elongation to 2% would be suitable

to avoid deformations approaching those of failure. Based on the data collected,

this value corresponds to a bolt bearing coefficient of 1.25. Using this value for

the design of pin-type connections ensures a design that is conservative with

regards to limiting the possibility of sudden failure.

57
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the experimental data obtained through performing this study,

the following conclusions about the performance of aluminum alloys in near-edge

configurations and the bolt bearing performance of Ti-6Al-4V alloy can be drawn.

Aluminum Alloy Conclusions

The behavior of near-edge bolts in aluminum alloys are significantly

influenced by the relative ductility of the alloy in question. This was evident by

examining the nature of the deformations of the work hardened and stabilized

5052-H32 alloy and the artificially aged 6061-T6 alloy. The 5052-H32, exhibiting

significantly more ductility, was able to achieve loads corresponding to larger

bearing ratios than the less ductile 6061-T6.

The 2010 Aluminum Design Specification’s recommendation for

calculating the nominal bearing resistance of near-edge bolts is not conservative

in that it allows for loads which correspond to significant plastic deformations.

For certain alloys such as the 6061-T6 alloy tested, the specification’s

recommendation may overestimate even critical failure loads, as during

experimentation a sample was observed to fail prior to reaching the nominal

resistance predicted. This is likely due to the less ductile nature of the 6061-T6

leading to a reduced tolerance of deformation in near-edge conditions. For such

58
less-ductile alloys, the current specification recommendation seems especially

non-conservative in its ability to adequately predict tear-out failures.

If instead of using the effective distance in calculating bearing capacity of

near-edge bolt holes, the clear distance from the edge of the bolt hole to the

edge of the material is used, a significantly more conservative value for the

nominal resistance of such a bolt is obtained. This increases the safety of such

connections, especially in less-ductile alloys of aluminum which demonstrate an

increased susceptibility to sudden tear-out type failures.

Titanium Alloy Conclusions

Use of a bolt and washer as connecting elements for titanium alloy, even

when only hand tightened, leads to a significant increase in the ability of the

connection to transmit load. This is due to the washer providing resistance to the

expansion of the material transverse to the direction of loading. This resistance

also creates more frictional force between the two plates being connected, which

transmits a portion of the load. Lack of confinement around the bolt hole can

lead to a plate buckling or dishing type failure behind the bolt hole as was

observed in several specimens. This is of special concern when the thickness of

the material is relatively small compared to bolt diameter.

Ti-6Al-4V alloy exhibits significantly lower ability to tolerate bolt hole

deformation prior to progressive bearing failure when compared to structural

steels and aluminum alloys. Failures generally occur before any significant

deformation of the bolt hole is apparent and are sudden in nature. This is due to

the significantly reduced ductility of the material when compared to structural

59
steel and aluminum alloys. These experiments clearly demonstrate the

importance of the influence material ductility has on the bearing behavior of a

single bolt, and thus bolted connections in general. Reduced ductility results in a

reduced bearing ratio and subsequently, failures of a more sudden nature without

readily apparent deformation.

Limiting the bearing stress on Ti-6Al-4V to 1.60 times the ultimate tensile

stress of the material corresponds to an acceptable level of relative bolt hole

elongation for connections with adequate confinement around the bolt hole

edges. This level is on the order of 4%, or roughly half the maximum relative

elongation observed prior to progressive bearing failure. For pin-type

connections where edge confinement is not provided, bearing stress should be

limited to 1.25 times the ultimate tensile stress of the material. This corresponds

to a relative elongation of roughly 2%.

Although this data provides an understanding of the mechanisms and

manner in which Ti-6Al-4V alloy fails via progressive bolt bearing, a lack of

research still exists as to how the material behaves when edge distance of the

bolt hole is the critical factor leading to a tear-out. Additional research on this

subject will be necessary in order to develop a more complete understanding of

the bearing behavior and failure of a single bolt hole in Ti-6Al-4V alloy.

60
 REFERENCES

Cayless, R. (1990). Alloy and Temper Designation Systems for Aluminum and Aluminum
Alloys. In Metals Handbook Volume 2 (pp. 15-28). United States: ASM
International.

Kim, H. J., & Yura, J. A. (1996). The Effect of End Distance on the Bearing Strength of
Bolted Connections. Austin: University of Texas.

Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., & Struik, J. H. (1987). Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and
Riveted Joints, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lewis, B. E., & Zwerneman, F. J. (1996). Edge Distance, Spacing, and Bearing in Bolted
Connections. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University.

Leyens, C., & Peters, M. (2003). Titanium and Titanium Alloys. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

Menzemer, C. C., Ortiz-Morgado, R., Iascone, R., & Srivatsan, T. S. (2002). An

Investigation of the Bearing Strength of Three Aluminum Alloys. Material Science
and Engineering , 203-212.

Patnaik, A., Srivatsan, T. S., Poondla, N., & Bathini, U. (2009). A Study Aimed at
Evaluating, Understanding and Rationalizing the Strength, Endurance and
Performance of Structures Made From Titanium and Titanium Alloy. Akron: The
University of Akron.

Rooy, E. L. (1990). Introduction to Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys. In Metals Handbook

Volume 2 (pp. 3-14). United States: ASM International.

Sharp, M. L. (1993). Behavior & Design of Aluminum Structures. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Srivatsan, T. S., & Vasudevan, S. (2007). The Science, Technology, and Applications of
Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys. In W. Soboyejo, & T. S. Srivatsan, Advanced
Structural Materials: Properties, Design Optimization, and Applications (pp. 225-
274). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

61
APPENDICES

62
 APPENDIX A

EXPERIMENTAL DATA

6061-T6 Aluminum 1.5D

Bolt Diameter 0.75 in.

Distance from
Ultimate
Edge of Bolt Hole Diameter Hole Diameter
Strength of 43.25143544 ksi Elongation Elongation/D, %
Hole to Before Loading After Loading
Material
Edge of Sample

Test Plate Load Stress

α Value Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B
Samples Thickness Applied Applied

B-1 0.2375 15.04 42.00 0.97 0.814 0.8135 0.8125 0.8125 0.834 0.8345 0.0215 0.022 2.87% 2.93%

B-2 0.24 15.04 42.00 0.97 0.813 0.8215 0.813 0.8125 0.836 0.839 0.023 0.0265 3.07% 3.53%

B-4 0.2405 24.98 69.10 1.60 0.8125 0.8215 0.816 0.818 * 0.87 0.184 0.052 24.53% 6.93%

B-11 0.2415 24.98 69.10 1.60 0.81 0.804 0.8185 0.818 0.869 * 0.0505 0.182 6.73% 24.27%

B-3 0.2375 22.44 63.00 1.46 0.8215 0.819 0.815 0.816 0.856 0.862 0.041 0.046 5.47% 6.13%

B-7 0.2375 22.44 63.00 1.46 0.814 0.8235 0.8165 0.8155 0.8605 0.8565 0.044 0.041 5.87% 5.47%

B-5 0.2405 25.30 70.14 1.62 0.8035 0.8125 0.8175 0.8155 * 0.8855 0.1825 0.07 24.33% 9.33%

B-9 0.2405 25.30 70.14 1.62 0.818 0.818 0.816 0.819 0.905 * 0.089 0.181 11.87% 24.13%

B-10 0.2413 23.16 63.99 1.48 0.813 0.8115 0.815 0.818 0.8693 * 0.0543 0.182 7.24% 24.27%

B-12 0.2413 23.16 63.99 1.48 0.7965 0.7895 0.8215 0.821 0.8933 * 0.0718 0.179 9.57% 23.87%

B-13 0.239 15.47 43.15 1.00 0.7305 0.7295 0.8155 0.8165 0.828 0.8295 0.0125 0.013 1.67% 1.73%

B-16 0.239 15.47 43.15 1.00 0.731 0.73 0.8155 0.8155 0.8285 0.8255 0.013 0.01 1.73% 1.33%

B-13 Test 2 0.239 20.08 56.00 1.29 0.721 0.7205 0.8155 0.8165 0.8425 0.845 0.027 0.0285 3.60% 3.80%

B-16 Test 2 0.239 20.08 56.00 1.29 0.72 0.7195 0.8155 0.8155 0.84325 0.84125 0.02775 0.02575 3.70% 3.43%

B-14 0.2395 17.01 47.39 1.10 0.73 0.731 0.816 0.81675 0.8355 0.836 0.0195 0.01925 2.60% 2.57%

B-15 0.239 17.01 47.39 1.10 0.7275 0.7215 0.8175 0.817 0.8325 0.8325 0.015 0.0155 2.00% 2.07%

*Failed

63
 5052-H32 Aluminum 1.5D
Bolt Diameter 0.75 in.
Ultimate Distance from
Hole Diameter Hole Diameter
Strength of 34.3024393 ksi Edge of Bolt Hole to Elongation Elongation/ D, %
Before Loading After Loading
Material Edge of Sample

Test Plate Load Stress

α value Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B
Samples Thickness Applied Applied

D-1 0.125 6.188 33.00 0.96 0.824 0.836 0.845 0.8235 0.854 0.8355 0.009 0.012 1.20% 1.60%

D-7 0.125 6.188 33.00 0.96 0.844 0.833 0.813 0.8125 0.836 0.839 0.023 0.0265 3.07% 3.53%

D-2 0.125 10.875 58.00 1.69 0.8445 0.8425 0.8405 0.8195 1.057 * 0.2165 0.1805 28.87% 24.07%

D-8 0.125 10.875 58.00 1.69 0.8545 0.862 0.8365 0.833 1.0045 * 0.168 0.167 22.40% 22.27%

D-3 0.125 9.299 49.59 1.45 0.8645 0.843 0.8215 0.832 0.874 0.8805 0.0525 0.0485 7.00% 6.47%

D-5 0.125 9.299 49.59 1.45 0.861 0.8605 0.834 0.83 0.896 0.8895 0.062 0.0595 8.27% 7.93%

D-6 0.121 10.497 57.83 1.69 0.857 0.8685 0.838 0.826 1.0185 1.01 0.1805 0.184 24.07% 24.53%

D-11 0.121 10.497 57.83 1.69 0.846 0.844 0.85 0.852 0.992 1.0365 0.142 0.1845 18.93% 24.60%

D-13 0.1215 9.441 51.91 1.51 0.732 0.729 0.816 0.817 0.923 0.92075 0.107 0.10375 14.27% 13.83%

D-15 0.121 9.441 51.91 1.51 0.7255 0.73 0.8185 0.818 0.9215 0.91575 0.103 0.09775 13.73% 13.03%

D-12 0.1205 7.3985 40.93 1.19 0.7305 0.73 0.817 0.8175 0.845 0.847 0.028 0.0295 3.73% 3.93%

D-14 0.1205 7.3985 40.93 1.19 0.729 0.728 0.81725 0.8175 0.8455 0.84575 0.02825 0.02825 3.77% 3.77%

*Failed

64
 6061-T6 Aluminum 1.25D

Bolt Diameter 0.75 in.

Ultimate Distance from

Hole Diameter Hole Diameter
Strength of 43.25143544 ksi Edge of Bolt Hole Elongation Elongation/ D, %
Before Loading After Loading
Material to Edge of Sample

Load
Test Plate Stress
Applied α Value Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B
Samples Thickness Applied
(kips)
A-2 0.24 19.74 55.11 1.27 0.601 0.594 0.8165 0.813 1 0.893 0.1835 0.08 24.47% 10.67%

A-5 0.2375 19.736 55.11 1.27 0.6045 0.5995 0.816 0.8125 1 0.859 0.184 0.0465 24.53% 6.20%

A-1 0.239 18.982 53.06 1.23 0.607 0.5975 0.816 0.8165 0.854 0.856 0.038 0.0395 5.07% 5.27%

A-8 0.238 18.982 53.06 1.23 0.609 0.604 0.8165 0.816 0.854 0.854 0.0375 0.038 5.00% 5.07%

A-4 0.2395 18.093 50.47 1.17 0.612 0.602 0.815 0.815 0.8435 0.842 0.0285 0.027 3.80% 3.60%

A-9 0.2385 18.093 50.47 1.17 0.607 0.603 0.8155 0.8165 0.8435 0.844 0.028 0.0275 3.73% 3.67%

A-3 0.2385 16.61 46.28 1.07 0.6055 0.6045 0.816 0.815 0.8355 0.8375 0.0195 0.0225 2.60% 3.00%

A-10 0.24 16.61 46.28 1.07 0.606 0.6055 0.8165 0.8155 0.837 0.8375 0.0205 0.022 2.73% 2.93%

A-7 0.239 15.05 42.02 0.97 0.6035 0.6 0.8165 0.817 0.834 0.8355 0.0175 0.0185 2.33% 2.47%

A-12 0.2385 15.05 42.02 0.97 0.5925 0.6005 0.8145 0.814 0.826 0.826 0.0115 0.012 1.53% 1.60%

A-6 0.2395 17.133 47.74 1.10 0.5935 0.58 0.8135 0.8145 0.84 1 0.0265 0.1855 3.53% 24.73%

A-13 0.239 17.133 47.74 1.10 0.585 0.584 0.815 0.8145 1 0.841 0.185 0.0265 24.67% 3.53%

65
 5052-H32 Aluminum 1.25D

Bolt Diameter 0.75 in.

Ultimate Distance from

Hole Diameter Hole Diameter
Strength of 34.3024393 ksi Edge of Bolt Hole Elongation Elongation/D, %
Before Loading After Loading
Material to Edge of Sample

Load
Test Plate Stress
Applied α Value Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B
Samples Thickness Applied
(kips)

C-8 0.121 8.12 44.92 1.31 0.5945 0.5935 0.815 0.815 0.924 1 0.109 0.185 14.53% 24.67%

C-5 0.12 8.119 44.92 1.31 0.592 0.5865 0.819 0.818 0.957 1 0.138 0.182 18.40% 24.27%

C-4 0.124 8.275 44.40 1.29 0.604 0.594 0.816 0.8155 0.893 0.912 0.077 0.0965 10.27% 12.87%

C-12 0.1245 8.275 44.40 1.29 0.6035 0.6125 0.8185 0.816 0.9115 0.9065 0.093 0.0905 12.40% 12.07%

C-1 0.1205 7.501 41.50 1.21 0.601 0.6095 0.823 0.8165 0.8875 0.8855 0.0645 0.069 8.60% 9.20%

C-7 0.1205 7.501 41.50 1.21 0.59 0.5895 0.8155 0.8165 0.8665 0.873 0.051 0.0565 6.80% 7.53%

C-9 0.125 7.091 37.97 1.11 0.613 0.612 0.815 0.8165 0.8575 0.858 0.0425 0.0415 5.67% 5.53%

C-13 0.124 7.091 37.97 1.11 0.588 0.5975 0.8145 0.8145 0.842 0.8395 0.0275 0.025 3.67% 3.33%

C-10 0.126 6.138 33.00 0.96 0.6025 0.603 0.817 0.819 0.8345 0.847 0.0175 0.028 2.33% 3.73%

C-14 0.122 6.138 33.00 0.96 0.594 0.587 0.8155 0.8165 0.835 0.8365 0.0195 0.02 2.60% 2.67%

66
 ¼ in. Ti-6Al-4V Alloy

Bolt Diameter 0.75 in.

Ultimate
Hole Diameter Hole Diameter
Strength of 142 ksi Elongation Elongation/D, %
Before Loading After Loading
Material

Test Plate Load Stress

α Value Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A HoleB
Samples Thickness Applied Applied
B-5 0.276 37.119 179.3188406 1.262808736 0.8065 0.808 0.813 0.82 0.0065 0.012 0.0087 0.016

B-7 0.2815 43.886 207.8673771 1.463854769 0.809 0.8065 0.827 0.825 0.018 0.018 0.024 0.024

B-2 0.281 47.706 226.3629893 1.594105559 0.8055 0.8055 0.8265 0.896 0.021 0.0905 0.028 0.1207

B-9 0.282 46.578 220.2269504 1.550894017 0.808 0.8105 0.829 0.883 0.021 0.0725 0.028 0.0967

B-4 0.2795 45.586 217.46452 1.531440282 0.805 0.8055 0.829 0.828 0.024 0.0225 0.032 0.03

B-3 Test 1 0.2795 29.836 142.3303518 1.002326421 0.8065 0.805 0.816 0.811 0.0095 0.006 0.0127 0.008

B-3 Test 2 0.2795 46.251 220.6368515 1.553780645 0.816 0.811 0.9055 0.829 0.0895 0.0175 0.1193 0.0233

B-8 0.2765 32.445 156.4556962 1.101800677 0.81025 0.8115 0.817 0.819 0.0067 0.0075 0.009 0.01

B-6 0.2797 38.756 184.7503277 1.301058646 0.8015 0.8013 0.827 0.824 0.0255 0.023 0.034 0.0307

B-10 0.281 40.454 191.9525504 1.351778524 0.8145 0.8155 0.8305 0.833 0.016 0.0178 0.0213 0.0237

B-12 0.2795 41.737 199.1031604 1.402134932 0.8105 0.8118 0.8325 0.826 0.022 0.0143 0.0293 0.019

B-11 0.28 44.798 213.3238095 1.502280349 0.811 0.8115 0.831 0.836 0.02 0.0245 0.0267 0.0327

67
 1/8 in.Ti-6Al-4V Alloy

0.75 in.

Hole Diameter Hole Diameter

140ksi Elongation Elongation/D, %
Before Loading After Loading
Plate Total Load Stress
α Value Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B Hole A Hole B
Thickness Applied Applied
0.125 26.25 140 1 0.8145 0.81375 0.82225 0.821 0.00775 0.00725 1.03% 0.97%

0.125 26.25 140 1 0.81275 0.81275 0.82375 0.82225 0.011 0.0095 1.47% 1.27%

0.125 48 256 1.828571429 0.81275 0.8125 0.86175 0.91175 0.049 0.09925 6.53% 13.23%

0.125 48 256 1.828571429 0.81375 0.81325 0.906 0.86875 0.09225 0.0555 12.30% 7.40%

0.125 35.3 188.2666667 1.344761905 0.81325 0.8135 0.8345 1.00375 0.02125 0.19025 2.83% 25.37%

0.125 35.3 188.2666667 1.344761905 0.8135 0.81375 1.0265 0.8295 0.213 0.01575 28.40% 2.10%

0.125 53 282.6666667 2.019047619 0.82375 0.82225 0.8895 1.03475 0.06575 0.2125 8.77% 28.33%

0.125 53 282.6666667 2.019047619 0.82225 0.821 0.97575 0.95325 0.1535 0.13225 20.47% 17.63%

0.125 26.25 140 1 0.814 0.81475 0.82475 0.82575 0.01075 0.011 1.43% 1.47%

0.125 26.25 140 1 0.81375 0.81325 0.82125 0.821 0.0075 0.00775 1.00% 1.03%

0.125 52.5 280 2 0.82475 0.82575 0.97025 1.008 0.1455 0.18225 19.40% 24.30%

0.125 52.5 280 2 0.82125 0.821 0.98225 0.99175 0.161 0.17075 21.47% 22.77%

0.125 21.83 232.8533333 1.663238095 0.81325 0.81425 0.85875 0.928 0.0455 0.11375 6.07% 15.17%

0.125 18.29 195.0933333 1.39352381 0.81275 0.8125 1.0875 0.87925 0.27475 0.06675 36.63% 8.90%

0.125 20.26 216.1066667 1.543619048 0.81325 0.8135 1.28625 0.839 0.473 0.0255 63.07% 3.40%

0.125 13.142 140.1813333 1.001295238 0.8125 0.81275 0.82225 0.822 0.00975 0.00925 1.30% 1.23%

68
 APPENDIX B

ALUMINUM TENSILE TESTS

5052-H32 Aluminum Alloy

Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 1

40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

69
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 2
40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 3

40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

70
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 4
40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 5

40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

71
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 6
40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 7

40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

72
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 5052-H32 Sample 8
40000

35000

30000

25000
Stress (psi)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

Stress vs. Strain of 5052-H32 Aluminum

40000

35000

30000 Sample1

25000 Sample 2
Stress (ksi)

Sample 3
20000
Sample 4
15000 Sample 5

10000 Sample 6
Sample 7
5000
Sample 8
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)

73
 6061-T6 Aluminum Alloy

50000 Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 1

45000

40000

35000

30000
Stress (psi)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 2

45000
40000
35000
30000
Stress (psi)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain (in./in.)

74
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 3
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Stress (psi)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 4

50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Stress (psi)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Strain (in./in.)

75
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 5
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Stress (psi)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 6

50000

45000

40000

35000

30000
Stress (psi)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (in./in.)

76
 Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 7
50000

45000

40000

35000

30000
Stress (psi)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (in./in.)

Stress/Strain Diagram of 6061-T6 Sample 8

45000

40000

35000

30000
Stress (psi)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (in./in.)

77
 Stress vs. Strain of 6061-T6 Aluminum
50000
45000
40000
Sample 1
35000
Sample 2
30000
Stress (ksi)

Sample 3
25000
Sample 4
20000
Sample 5
15000
Sample 6
10000
Sample 7
5000 Sample 8
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain (in./in.)

78