See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

Comparison between Eurocodes and North

American and Main International Codes for
Design of Bolted Connect....

Article in Journal of Bridge Engineering · December 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000512

CITATIONS READS

2 770

2 authors:

Emanuele Maiorana Carlo Pellegrino

OMBA Impianti & Engineering SpA University of Padova
23 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS 198 PUBLICATIONS 1,849 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic vulnerability of networks and lifelines View project

Fatigue strength of deteriorated steel joints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlo Pellegrino on 27 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison between Eurocodes and North American
and Main International Codes for Design of Bolted
Connections in Steel Bridges
Emanuele Maiorana1 and Carlo Pellegrino2
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Bolted joints are broadly used for the connections of structural elements in steel bridges. Rules for design of bolted connections are
currently under discussion in Europe for improving Part 1-8 of Eurocode 3, which deals with the sizing and structural design of joints. In this
work, a wide comparison is made between the Eurocode and the codes of Italy, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan. General descrip-
tions of the design criteria for typical connections in bridges related to materials, geometrical limitations, slip, shear, and bearing resistance are
presented. An illustrative example to compare the various code provisions is given to quantitatively show their performance for a practical case.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000512. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Standards and codes; Bolted connections; Steel bridges; Comparative studies; Europe; North America.
Author keywords: Code; Design; Steel; Bolt; Connection; Bridge.

Introduction with a painted coating of zinc-epoxy. Concerning the specimens made

with S355 weathering steel, the value of the slip factor increased with
This paper focuses on design rules for bolted joints in metal bridges the duration of environmental exposure, from 0.502 to 0.560. In
considering European [European Committee for Standardization specimens made with S275 steel and S690 high-strength steel, similar
(CEN 2005a, b, c, 2006, 2008)], American [(AASHTO 2002; AISC values of the slip factor were obtained with equivalent surface
2000) and Research Council for Structural Connections (RCSC treatment. Cruz et al. (2012) concluded that the slip factor is strongly
2009)], Canadian [the Canadian Standards Association (CSA 2010)], influenced by the surface treatment and only weakly influenced by the
Australian [Standards Australia (AS 2012)], and Japanese [Japan steel grade. Therefore, it seems that the classification system of the
Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE 2007)] practices for evaluating some European standard (EN) 1090-2 (CEN 2008) remains valid for slip-
similarities and differences among them. General descriptions of the resistant joints with high-strength steel.
design criteria for typical connections in bridges related to materials,
geometrical limitations, slip, shear, and bearing resistance will be European Code for Design of Bolted Connections in
presented. The work to aims to compare design procedures in codes Steel Bridges
developed in various countries for bolted connections.
Other authors have recently compared building codes for the Eurocode 3 EN 1993-1-8 (CEN 2005b) integrates the general part
United States and Europe (Topkaya and Sahin 2011), focusing their 1-1 (CEN 2005a) dealing with verification procedures and require-
attention on strength limit states related to basic materials only, ments for bolted and welded connections. The different classes of
without considering steel connections. In Xiao and Ishikawa (2005), bolts, with diameters measured in 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, and
McCarthy et al. (2005), and Cruz et al. (2012), experimental and 30 mm, are known as Classes 4.6, 5.6, 6.8, 8.8, and 10.9, re-
finite-element analyses have been developed to improve contem- spectively. For each class, the yield stress fyb and the ultimate stress
porary practice pertaining to bolted joints used with high-strength fub are given. In construction of bridges, the last two classes (Classes
steel or weathering steel plates. Cruz et al. (2012) obtained slip factors 8.8 and 10.9) are typically used. Only bolt assemblies of Classes 8.8
equal to 0.50 for blasted surfaces without any additional surface and 10.9 may be used as preloaded bolts with controlled tightening.
treatment whereas they obtained a characteristic value of 0.40 for The reference standard for the bolts in Europe is EN 14399-1 (CEN
blasted surfaces with a painted coating of zinc-ethyl-silicate. Slip 2005c).
factors equal to or smaller than 0.30 were obtained for blasted surfaces Bolts with controlled tightening are very sensitive to differences
in manufacturing and lubrication. European regulations on bolts
with controlled tightening have the aim to ensure that, with a given
1
Ph.D. Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Archi- torque, the required preload is obtained with a good reliability and
tectural Engineering, Univ. of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy. sufficient safety margins to avoid excessive tightening of the screw
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Architectural and consequent plastic deformation. For this reason, a test method to
Engineering, Univ. of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy (corresponding author).
verify the suitability of the components in controlled tightening is
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 29, 2012; approved
included in the Eurocode.
on May 20, 2013; published online on May 22, 2013. Discussion period
open until May 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for Design Procedure
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineer-
ing, Vol. 18, No. 12, December 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2013/ The design procedures proposed in the Eurocode are consistent with
12-1298–1308/$25.00. the Limit State Method (CEN 2005a, b, c, 2006, 2008).

1298 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 The adopted safety factors are given in EN 1993-1-1 (CEN This is a typical situation in connections of a beam with the next
2005a) and EN 1993-2 (CEN 2006), respectively, for general rules beam, each having a different thickness in bridge girders. Plate
for constructing buildings and bridges. The main safety factors are thickness shall be chosen to limit the number of packing plates to
summarized as a maximum of three (CEN 2008) (Fig. 1).
• g M0 5 1:05, strength of gross cross-sections; Furthermore, the length of the threaded portion of a fit bolt in-
• g M2 5 1:25, strength of net sections at the position of bolts; cluded in the bearing length should not exceed one-third of the
• g M2 5 1:25, strength of the bolts; thickness of the plate.
• g M2 5 1:25, strength of the contact plates; According to Eurocode 3 part 1-8 (CEN 2005b), minimum and
• g M3 5 1:25, sliding resistance at the ultimate limit state; and maximum spacing and end and edge distances for bolts are given in
• g M7 5 1:10, preload of high resistance bolts. Table 1. The meaning of symbols is indicated in the following
[further details can be found in Eurocode 3 (CEN 2005b)]:
• e1 5 edge distance for bolts (measured in the direction of the load);
Geometric Limitations
• e2 5 edge distance for bolts (measured perpendicularly to the
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In regard to the coupling of contact surfaces, the maximum differ- load);

ence in height between adjacent surfaces cannot exceed 2 mm for • p1 5 bolt spacing (measured in the direction of the load);
non-preloaded bolts and 1 mm for preloaded bolts. Alternatively, • p2 5 bolt spacing (measured perpendicularly to the load);
plates have to be used to ensure that the difference does not exceed • p1,0 5 bolt spacing for outer rows of staggered holes (measured
the specified limits. in the direction of the load);
Where bolts transmitting load in shear and bearing pass through • p1,i 5 bolt spacing for inner rows of staggered holes (measured
packing plates of total thickness tp greater than one-third of the in the direction of the load); and
nominal diameter d, the shear resistance Fv,Rd of the design should • L 5 diagonal bolt spacing for staggered holes.
be multiplied by a reduction factor bp given by EN 1993-1-8 (CEN The maximum values related to distance of bolts and edge dis-
2005b) tances are included to avoid local instability problems for com-
pressed elements and corrosion in aggressive environments.
bp ¼ 9d # 1 (1) Eurocode 3 part 1-8 (CEN 2005b) provides design equations for
8d þ 3tp block tearing, which consists of shearing failure at the row of bolts

Fig. 1. Typical joint in a bridge girder; arrows indicate the packing plates

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013 / 1299

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 Table 1. Minimum and Maximum Spacing and End and Edge Distances Slip Resistance
for Bolts According to Eurocode In bridges, friction often governs the design of the connection be-
Distance Note tween the main girder beams. Friction is mainly a function of the
preload force, the diameter and class of the bolt, and the coefficient
1:5d0 # e1 # 4t 1 40 mm According to EN 1993-2a (1:2d0 is of friction.
1:5d0 # e2 # 4t 1 40 mm assumed in EN 1993-1-1b with The design strength should be calculated using Eq. (4) (see CEN
reduced bearing resistance) 2005b), according to which Bolt Classes 8.8 and 10.9 have to be
2:5d0 # p1 # minf14t; 200 mmg According to EN 1993-2a (2:2d0 is used
2:5d0 # p1,0 # minf14t; 200 mmg assumed in EN 1993-1-1b with
2:5d0 # p1,i # minf28t; 400 mmg reduced bearing resistance) ks n m Fp,C
2:5d0 # p2 # minf14t; 200 mmg Fs,Rd ¼ (4)
gM3
1:2d0 # p2 # minf14t; 200 mmg Staggered rows
2:4d0 # L
where ks 5 specific hole geometry, with ks 5 1:00 for bolts in normal
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a
CEN (2006). holes; ks 5 0:85 for bolts in either oversized holes or short slotted
b
CEN (2005a). holes with the axis of the slot perpendicular to the direction of load
transfer; ks 5 0:70 for bolts in long slotted holes with the axis of the
slot perpendicular to the direction of load transfer; ks 5 0:76 for bolts
along the shear face of the hole group, accompanied by tensile in short slotted holes with the axis of the slot parallel to the direction
rupture along the line of bolt holes on the tension face of the bolt of load transfer; ks 5 0:63 for bolts in long slotted holes with the
group. axis of the slot parallel to the direction of load transfer; n 5 number
For a symmetric bolt group subject to concentric loading, the of friction surfaces; and m 5 slip factor, which also depends on
block tearing resistance for the design is given by the treatment of the surfaces, as mA 5 0:5 for mechanically or grit-

pffiffiffi blasted surfaces free from rust and pitting, or with aluminum- and
fu Ant 1= 3 fy Anv zinc-based painting; mA 5 0:4 for grit-blasted surfaces coated with
Veff,1,Rd ¼ þ (2)
gM2 gM0 zinc silicate and alkali with layer of 50e80 mm thickness; mC 5 0:3
for surfaces cleaned by brushing or flame and free from rust; and
For a bolt group subject to eccentric loading, the block-shear tearing mD 5 0:2 for untreated surfaces.
resistance for the design is given by The preload force is calculated by means of

pffiffiffi
0:5 fu Ant 1= 3 fy Anv Fp,c ¼ 0. 7 fu,b Ares (5)
Veff,2,Rd ¼ þ (3)
gM2 gM0
If a slip-resistant connection is subjected to an applied tensile force
where Ant 5 net area subject to tension; and Anv 5 net area subject in addition to the shear force, the design’s slip resistance per bolt
to shear. should be properly reduced (see CEN 2005b).

Structural Design Shear Resistance

Eurocode 3 part 1-8 (CEN 2005b) classifies bolted connections in The shear force at the ultimate limit state Fv,Ed , resulting from the
two categories: shear and tension connections. Each of them is analysis of the connection, should be less than the ultimate shear
divided into subcategories. resistance Fv,Rd
The categories defined for shear connections are the following:
• Category A: Bearing type. In this category, no preloading and av fu,b A
Fv,Ed # Fv,Rd ¼ (6)
special provisions for contact surfaces are required. The ultimate gM2
shear load of the design should not exceed the design shear
resistance nor the design bearing resistance. where, if the shear plane passes through the threaded portion,
• Category B: Slip-resistant at the serviceability limit state. In this av 5 0:6 for Classes 4.6, 5.6, and 8.8 and av 5 0:5 for Classes 4.8,
category, preloaded bolts should be used. Slip should not occur at 5.8, 6.8, and 10.9; and if the shear plane passes through the non-
the serviceability limit state. The design’s serviceability shear threaded part of the bolt, av 5 0:6.
load should not exceed the design’s slip resistance. The design’s For combined action of shear and tension on the bolt, Eq. (7) has
ultimate shear load should not exceed the shear resistance nor the to be satisfied
bearing resistance of the design.
• Category C: Slip-resistant at ultimate limit state. In this category, Fv,Ed Ft,Ed
þ # 1:0 (7)
preloaded bolts in accordance should be used. Slip should not Fv,Rd 1:4 Ft,Rd
occur at the ultimate limit state. The design’s ultimate shear load
should not exceed the slip resistance nor the bearing resistance of
the design. In addition, for a connection in tension, the design’s Bearing Resistance
plastic resistance of the net cross-section at bolt holes should be The design’s bearing resistance is calculated by the following
checked at the ultimate limit state. relationship:
The categories defined for tension connections are the following:
k1 ab fu dt
• Category D: non-preloaded. This category should not be used Fb,Rd ¼ (8)
where the connections are frequently subjected to variations of g M2
tensile loading.
• Category E: preloaded. In this category, preloaded bolts with where ab assumes the smallest value among the quantities ad , fu,b =fu ,
controlled tightening should be used. and 1.

1300 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 Values ad and k1 depend on the geometry of the connection Bolts of Group A or B can be generally used according to the
(diameter of the holes, distance between bolts, and distance between provisions listed in Table 2.
bolts and edges). For noncircular holes, the resistance is reduced by
means of a factor equal to 0.8; for slotted holes perpendicular to the Structural Design
force, the resistance is reduced by means of a factor equal to 0.6.
Slip Resistance
The design strength must be calculated using the following relation
United States Code (see AASHTO 2002):

fRs ¼ fFs Ab Nb Ns (9)

Materials
Diameters and characteristics of bolts in American code (see where fFs 5 fTb m 5 design friction resistance per unit area of the
AASHTO 2002) are different from those in the Eurocode. The bolt depending on the type of hole, in which f 5 1:00 for standard
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

standard (AISC 2010) in the United States for the design of steel holes; f 5 0:85 for oversized holes; f 5 0:70 for slotted holes
allows the types of structural steel included in the following ASTM perpendicularly to the force direction; and f 5 0:60 for slotted holes
(2012) specifications (AISC 2000): in the direction of the force. The value m assumes the following
• ASTM A36/A36M; values: mA 5 0:33; mB 5 0:50; mC 5 0:40; Ab 5 nominal area of the
• A709/A709M; bolt; Nb 5 number of bolts; Ns 5 number of surfaces in contact; and
• A529/A529M; Tb 5 preload force.
• A913/A913M;
• 572/A572M; Shear Resistance
• A992/A992M; The design resistance fRn in [kN] for high-strength bolts subjected
• A1043/A1043M; and to applied axial tension or shear is given by (see AASHTO 2002)
• A588/A588M.
fRn ¼ fFn Ab (10)
The most commonly used structural steels are
• A36 ( fy 5 248 N=mm2 , fu 5 400 N=mm2 ), and
• A572 Gr50 or A992 ( fy 5 345 N=mm2 , fu 5 448 N=mm2 ). where fFn 5 design strength per unit of bolt area as given by norm
Screws, nuts, and washers are described in the 2010 AISC (AASHTO 2002) for appropriate kind of load; Rn 5 nominal shear
standard (AISC 2010) having specific characteristics according to resistance of the bolt; and Ab 5 nominal area of the bolt.
ASTM (2012) specifications. The diameters are 15.88, 19.05, 22.23, For combined action of shear and tension on the bolt, Eq. (11)
28.58, 31.75, 34.93, and 38.10 mm (the smallest diameters ap- has to be satisfied
proximately correspond to the European 16, 20, 22, 27, and 30 mm).  2  2
ASTM Classes A325M ( fy 5 634 N=mm2 and fu 5 830 N=mm2 ) Tu
þ
Vu
#1 (11)
and ASTM A490M ( fy 5 940 N=mm2 and fu 5 1040 N=mm2 ) for ðfRn Þt ðfRn Þv
bolts are similar to European Classes 8.8 and 10.9, respectively.
Under American code, manufacturer’s certification shall be where Tu 5 tension on the bolt; Vu 5 shear acting on the bolt; ðfRn Þt
sufficient proof of compliance with the code standard. 5 design tension strength; and ðfRn Þv 5 design tension strength.
The use of high-strength bolts according to 360-10 (AISC 2010)
is described in the document Specification for structural joins using Bearing Resistance
high-strength bolts, which contains the requirements of the RCSC The design resistance for bearing failure fR is a function of edge
(2009). High-strength bolts are classified in this document according distance and geometry of the holes (see AASHTO 2002).
to the strength of the material as For standard holes, if the distance L from the edge, in the direction
• Group A: ASTM A325, A325M, F1852, A354 Grade BC, and of force, is not less than 1:5d and the distance between the centers of
A449; and the bolts of not less than 3d, then
• Group B: ASTM A490, A490M, F2280, and A354 Grade BD.
fR ¼ 1:6 dt Fu (12)

Geometric Limitations For slotted holes aligned perpendicularly to the direction of the force
The distinction between cut edge and oxygen-cut edge is introduced
fR ¼ 1:4 dt Fu (13)
in AISC (2000), whereas in Europe only the second type is con-
sidered (see CEN 2008).
For a long row of slotted holes, it is necessary to install contin- Table 2. Nominal Resistance of the Bolt or Threaded Parts
uous bars completely covering the slotted holes. Group Characteristics Traction (N=mm2 ) Shear (N=mm2 )
The distance between the centers of the holes must not be less
than 3d0 , where d0 is the diameter of the bolt. The distance from the Bolts A307 310 188
center of a hole perpendicularly to the edge of the connecting plate A Bolts A325 with threaded 620 372
must not be less than 1:4d. part in the shear plane
The maximum distance between the hole and the edge is the Bolts A325With threaded 620 457
smallest between 12tmin (tmin is the minimum thickness of the part out of the shear plane
connecting plates) and 150 mm, and the maximum distance between B Bolts B490 with threaded 780 457
the bolts is the smallest between 24tmin and 305 mm. part in the shear plane
All high-strength bolts that must be preloaded shall be tightened Bolts B490 with threaded 780 597
with a specific preload force 5 0:7 3 the tensile strength of the bolt. part out of the shear plane

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013 / 1301

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 If L is less than 1:5d, then Table 3. Coefficient ks 2c1
Contact surface c1
fR ¼ 0:68 Lt Fu # 2:0 dt Fu (14)
A325 and A490 and F958 and
where Fu 5 minimum tensile strength in the joint; and f 5 0:75 for Class Description ks A325M A490M F1852
joints with standard holes, regardless of the direction of the load, or A Surfaces treated by sanding 0.33 0.82 0.78 0.72
for slotted holes in the direction of the force. or grit and painted with
If the deformation of the hole under service load is explicitly products of this class
considered in the project, then B Surfaces cleaned with 0.50 0.90 0.85 0.78
sandblasting and painted
Rn ¼ 1:2 lc t Fu # 2:4 dt Fu (15) with products of this class
C Hot galvanized surfaces 0.40 0.90 0.85 0.78
If the deformation of the hole under service load is not explicitly and cleaned with brushing
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

considered in the project, then

Rn ¼ 1:5 lc t Fu # 3:0 dt Fu (16)

Shear Resistance
For slotted holes aligned perpendicularly to the direction of the The overall shear strength of the joint is calculated as follows:
force, then
Vs ¼ 0:6 fb nm Ab Fu (20)
Rn ¼ 1:0 lc t Fu # 2:0 dt Fu (17)
where n 5 number of bolts; m 5 number of shear planes; fb 5 safety
coefficient equal to 0.80; and Ab 5 nominal area.
where Rn 5 nominal resistance; Fu 5 tensile resistance; d 5 nominal In the case where the threaded part of the screw intersects the
bolt diameter; lc 5 distance between the edge of the hole and the shear planes, the shear resistance of the bolts must be assumed as
adjacent hole or the edge in the direction of the force; and t 5 thickness 0:70 Vs .
of the connected plates. Shear resistance should be compared with bearing resistance,
For combined tension and shear in bearing-type connections, assuming the minimum of two values as overall resistance of the
bolts shall be proportioned so that the shear stress does not exceed connection.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi For combined action of shear and tension on the bolt, Eq. (21) has
Fvc # Fv2 2 ð0:6 ft Þ2 (18) to be satisfied
 2  2
Vs T
where Fv 5 shear strength of the fastener; fF 5 measurement given þ s #1 (21)
by the norm from AASHTO (2002); and ft 5 tensile stress from the Vr Tr
applied load.
where Tu 5 tension on the bolt; Vu 5 shear acting on the bolt; ðfRn Þt
5 design tension strength; and ðfRn Þv 5 design tension strength.
Canadian Code
Bearing Resistance
Geometric Limitations The bearing resistance is

The minimum distance between the bolts required by Canadian Br ¼ 3 fbr tdn Fu (22)
standard S16-09 (CSA 2010) is 2:7d and the minimum edge distance
is the diameter of the bolt. The maximum distance to avoid problems where fbr 5 0:67; d 5 diameter of the bolt; t 5 thickness of the
of instability is the minimum between 12 times of the thickness of the element; n 5 number of the bolts; and Fu 5 ultimate resistance of the
plate and 150 mm, as specified by AASHTO (2002). The nominal plate.
diameter of the hole must be greater than 2 mm plus the diameter of
the bolt.
Australian Code
Structural Design
Slip Resistance Geometric Limitations
The slip resistance is given by The Standards Australia (AS) specification AS 4100 (AS 2012)
refers to AS 1250 (AS 1981) and considers as structural steels those
Vs ¼ 0:53 c1 ks nm Ab Fu (19) steels meeting the requirements specified in the U.S. ASTM (2012;
AASHTO 2002) code standards. As for the bolts, nuts, and washers,
where c1 5 correction coefficient taking into account the initial they shall comply with AS 1110 (AS 1984), AS 1111 (AS 1980a),
stresses (see Table 3); ks 5 slip coefficient depending on the type of and AS 1112 (AS 1980b).
surface (see Table 3); n 5 number of bolts; m 5 number of contact
planes; Ab 5 effective area of the bolt; and Fu 5 tensile resistance of
Structural Design
the plate.
If long slotted holes are used, the preceding value must be mul- Slip Resistance
tiplied by 0.75. The acting shear force has to be less than the resisting force

1302 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

  
Vsf ¼ m Vsfp # f Vsf (23) 3:2 df tp fup
Vb ¼ min (29)
ae tp fup
with
where f 5 0:9; df 5 diameter of the bolt; fup 5 tensile strength of the
Vsf ¼ mnei Nti kn (24) plate; tp 5 thickness of the plate; and ae 5 minimum distance from
the edge of the hole to the edge of the plate.
where f 5 safety coefficient equal to 0.70; m 5 slip coefficient
(see Table 4); nei 5 number of slip surfaces; Nti 5 preload force
depending on the ultimate strength of the bolt; and kn 5 given Japanese Code
number dependent upon the shape of the hole, in which kn 5 1:00 for
standard holes; kn 5 0:85 for slotted and oversized holes; and
kn 5 0:70 for long slotted holes. Materials
Structural steels used for metal constructions in the JSCE code steels
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shear Resistance are regulated by G3136 (JSCE 2007) according to the requirements
It is required that of the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC 2012, 2013).
They are SN400 with fy 5 235 N=mm2 and SN490 with
Vfp # f Vf (25) fy 5 325 N=mm2 .
The screws, nuts, and washers used in bolted connections shall
comply with the provisions of JIS B1181 (JISC 2004). Classes and
where characteristics of normal bolts are
• 4.6 ( fy 5 240 N=mm2 ; fu 5 400 N=mm2 );
Vf ¼ 0:62 fuf kr ðnn Ac þ nx Ao Þ (26) • 8.8 ( fy 5 660 N=mm2 ; fu 5 830 N=mm2 ); and
• 10.9 ( fy 5 940 N=mm2 ; fu 5 1040 N=mm2 ).
and where Vfp 5 acting shear force; Vf 5 resisting shear force; fuf The high-strength bolted joints are divided into three categories
5 ultimate strength of the bolt; kr 5 correction factor (see Table 5); according to their load transfer mechanism: friction, shear, and
nn 5 number of shear planes in the threaded part; Ac 5 resisting area traction.
of the bolt; nx 5 number of shear planes out of the threaded part; The literature from the JSCE (2007) refers to the requirements of
Ao 5 nominal area of the bolt; and f 5 0:8. JIS B1186 (JISC 2013), regarding high-strength bolts of types F8T
For combined action of shear and tension on the bolt, Eq. (27) (M16-M20-M22-M24 with fy 5 640 N=mm2 ), F10T, and S10T (M16-
has to be satisfied M20-M22-M24 with fy 5 900 N=mm2 ).
" #2 " #2 Super high–strength bolts of the F15T class have a different shape
Vfp Ntfp compared to ordinary bolts, with a resistance equal to 1.5 times that
þ #1 (27) of conventional high-strength bolts F10T and excellent resistance
f Vf f Ntf
to brittle fracture. Because of their specific microstructural char-
acteristics, a specific method for the evaluation of their mechanical
where f 5 0:9; Vf 5 design tension strength; and Ntf 5 design properties is needed.
tension strength.
Geometric Limitations
Bearing Resistance
The following relationship shall be satisfied: The size of the holes for bolts is determined according to load-
transfer mechanism, type of connection, and workability.
Vbp # f Vb (28) In traction and friction connections, the diameter d of the hole is
obtained by adding 2.5 mm to the nominal diameter of the bolt d0

Table 4. Slip Coefficient m d ¼ d0 þ 2:5 mm

Surface type Surface treatment m
In shear connections, the diameter of the hole is obtained by adding
Uncoated As-rolled 0.35 1.5 mm to the nominal diameter of the bolt
Hot-rolled and cleaned 0.48
Sandblasted 0.53 d ¼ d0 þ 1:5 mm
Painted Zinc and chromium oxide 0.11
Inorganic zinc silicate 0.50 The minimum distance between the bolts must comply with the
Galvanized Zinc 0.18 limits given by the Honsh u-Shikoku Bridge Authority (HSBA
Sandblasted with lightly abrasive products 0.3–0.4 1995). This minimum distance is typically 3d0 whereas the maxi-
mum distance must not exceed the minimum between 24t and
300 mm. The maximum and minimum distances from the edges are
Table 5. Coefficient kr provided by the JSCE (2007) and the Japan Road Association (JRA)
(JRA 2002).
lj ðmmÞ kr
lj # 300 1.00
300 # lj # 1300 1:0752lj =4000 Structural Design
lj # 1300 0.75 The standard from the JSCE (2007) divides bolted connections into
Note: lj 5 length of the joint. three basic categories: friction, shear, and tensile connections.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013 / 1303

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 In the case of frictional behavior, the following equation shall Discussion
be met:
Regarding the geometric arrangement of the bolts, geometric limi-
P tations are mainly introduced for solving practical problems (posi-
ga gb gi s # 1:0 (30)
Pu tioning and application of torque). Furthermore, the upper limits
ensure that the bolts are not too far apart, allowing for any possible
where ga 5 numerical value dependent upon the structural analysis; instability of the plates. Instead, the lower limits are mainly intro-
gb 5 numerical value dependent upon the structural elements; duced to avoid stress concentrations.
gi 5 numerical value dependent upon the structural importance; Comparing the geometrical requirements provided by the various
Ps 5 force acting in the single row of bolts; Pu 5 slip resistance in the codes, Eurocode 3 (CEN 2005a, b, c, 2006, 2008) provides maxi-
ith row (Pu 5 nm Pa =gm ); n 5 number of bolts; Pa 5 mN 5 char- mum and minimum distances typically smaller than the other codes,
acteristic value of the resistance to friction of the bolt per unit of regarding both distance from the edges and distance between bolts.
surface; N 5 a fy Abe ; m 5 slip factor depending on the type of Furthermore, according to Eurocode 3 (CEN 2005a, b, c, 2006,
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

surface (varying from 0.25 to 0.55); N 5 design axial force to which 2008), maximum values for spacing, edge, and end distances are
the bolt is subjected; fy 5 yield stress of the bolt; Abe 5 effective unlimited, except for compression members to avoid local buckling
cross-sectional area of the bolt; gm 5 safety factor for the material; and to prevent corrosion in exposed members and exposed tension
and a 5 0:75 for F8T bolts and 0.85 for F10T bolts. members to prevent corrosion, whereas the practice in the United
For frictional behavior, design of joints has to satisfy the fol- States distinguishes between steel subjected to corrosion and weath-
lowing relations: ering steel only for limitations on the maximum values of spacing.
Japanese code distinguishes normally cut edges and oxygen-cut edges
Ps only for the minimum distances from the edges.
ga gb gi # 1:0 (31) For example, considering a typical plate thickness t 5 10 mm
Pu
and bolts with diameter d 5 24 mm, maximum and minimum dis-
tances in the various standards are given in Figs. 2 and 3.
where Ps 5 force applied to the bolts in the ith row; Pu 5 nm Pa =gm Regarding the slip resistance, Eurocode, American, and Australian
5 frictional resistance of the bolts in the ith row; ni 5 number of standards adopt various coefficients depending on the type of hole [ks
bolts in the ith row; and Pa 5 m asy Abe 5 characteristic value of in Eurocode 3 (CEN 2005a, b, c, 2006, 2008), f in AISC 360-10
friction strength for unit area. (AISC 2010), and kn in AS 4100 (AS 2012)] whereas the Japanese
For combined action of shear and tension on the bolt, Eq. (32) code does not introduce such a coefficient. However, the coefficients
has to be satisfied that depend upon the type of hole, and the slip factors to be used, are all
" different among the various codes that break them down this way.

2
2 #
2 Pi Vs As a general observation, Eurocode expressions include safety
ðga gb gi Þ þ # 1:0 (32) factors g allowing the user to obtain design values starting from
Pu Vu
characteristic values, whereas the American approach, to which the
Canadian and Australian approaches are similar, does not always
where Vs 5 acting shear force and Vu 5 resistance to friction. adopt safety coefficients that are immediately detectable.
For design against bearing failure, Eq. (31) has to be satisfied, in In all the standards, shear strength is typically considered as given
which Pu 5 nmPa =gm and Pa 5 minimum value between shear by the product of the nominal resistance of each bolt and the resisting
resistance Psa 5 t a As and bearing resistance Pba 5 sb Ab , and where area of the bolt, but each standard proposes different coefficients.
t a 5 characteristic value of shear strength of the bolt per unit area; The Japanese procedure uses a resistance t u already including
sb 5 characteristic value of bearing strength of the bolt per unit area; reduction coefficients according to the type of the bolt, whereas
As 5 cross-sectional area of the bolt; and Ab 5 effective area of the Eurocode and American procedures adopt specific coefficients in
bolt. function of the bolt. American code proposes a coefficient f 5 0:75
In principle, the connections subjected to tensile forces are not and Eurocode adopts the coefficients an 5 0:5 and 0:6 depending on
allowed in presence of fatigue (typically in bridges). the type of bolt and the position of threaded part with respect to shear

Fig. 2. Comparison of minimum and maximum distances between hole and plate edge (mm)

1304 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 surface. Australian standards also take into account the position of It is assumed steel S355 ( fyk 5 355 N=mm2 and fuk 5 490 N=mm2 )
the threaded part with respect to shear surfaces and use significantly for the plates and a thickness t 5 40 mm. The bolts are M24 Class
different coefficients, one of which, kr , is a function of the length of 10.9 [according to EN 14399-1 (CEN 2005c)], A490M [according
the joint. Eurocode also takes into account the effect of the length to ASTM (2012)], or F10T [according to Japanese Industrial
of the connection by means of a specific coefficient similar to the Standard 1186 (JISC 2013)]. Figs. 4–7 show the results in terms of
Australian one. slip, shear, bearing, and combined shear and tension resistances,
Regarding the combination of shear and tensile forces, Japanese respectively.
and American codes provide similar elliptical expressions whereas In the following, some issues related to the comparisons among
Eurocode provides a linear relationship with explicit safety coef- the codes considered in this work are described regarding slip, shear,
ficient gM2 5 1:25. and bearing resistance and combined shear and tension strength.
Japanese, Canadian, and Eurocode standards deal with bearing Regarding the proposed numerical example, Fig. 4 shows that
failure in a similar way from a conceptual point of view. They Eurocode is more conservative in predicting a slip-resisting force of
consider the ultimate stress of the plate multiplied by the thickness of ∼10% less than that predicted by AISC (2000, 2010) and CSA
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the plate and the diameter of the bolt. The American standard has the (2010). For the same slip coefficient, this difference mainly derives
peculiarity of taking into account that the deformation of the hole is from the adopted values of the safety factor related to bolt ultimate
considered in the project. Eurocode takes into account the influence resistance and the coefficient, taking into account the various kinds of
of the distance between holes and between the hole and the edges on holes (standard, oversized, slotted) because all the basic formulations
bearing strength. The Australian procedure considers bearing re- are derived from the Coulomb friction law. Furthermore, Eurocode
sistance to correspond to the final hole of the connection, close to the and Australian code distinguish the basic safety factor from the co-
edge of the plate. Eurocode 3 considers the value of 2.5 as maximum efficient depending on the hole size and shape whereas US code give
bearing factor k1 . AISC 360-10 (AISC 2010) proposes 2.4 or 3.0 as a unique f-coefficient depending on the characteristics of the hole.
maximum limit for that factor. The safety factor can be eventually reduced if the level of knowledge
These procedures are better compared by means of the following of bolt failure mechanisms increases and the quality control process
numerical example: during bolt production is improved.

Fig. 3. Comparison of minimum and maximum distance between the holes (mm)

Fig. 4. Slip-resistance comparison (kN)

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013 / 1305

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Shear-resistance comparison (kN)

Fig. 6. Bearing-resistance comparison (kN)

Fig. 7. Combined shear- and tension-resistance comparison

1306 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 This result can be further traduced in adopting fewer bolts in steel Upon comparing the requirements provided by the various codes,
bridges where slip resistance governs the ultimate failure of the the following differences and similarities were noted:
connection and AISC (2000, 2010) or CSA (2010) are used. JSCE • Regarding general safety factors, European expressions include
(2007) gives intermediate results among AISC (2000, 2010), CSA safety factors g allowing design values to be obtained starting from
(2010), and Eurocode (CEN 2005a, b, c, 2006, 2008), whereas AS characteristic values. The American approach, to which the Ca-
4100 (AS 2012) seems even more conservative than Eurocode. nadian and the Australian are similar, does not clearly highlight the
The comparison related to shear resistance shows fewer differ- transition between characteristic and design values; instead, it
ences than the previous case but Eurocode still seems to give more simplifies, as much as possible, their expressions for practitioners
conservative results than the others (see Fig. 5). Instead, AISC code using f-coefficients to ensure reasonable safety margins.
is that giving the highest values of the shear strength. The formu- • Regarding both the distance from the edges and the distance
lations are very similar and the differences are again resulting from between bolts, Eurocode 3 provides maximum and minimum
the various factors adopted, e.g., Eurocode proposed both a reduc- distances that are typically smaller than the other codes.
tion factor related to the class of the bolt and a basic safety coefficient • Regarding slip resistance, Eurocode, American, and Australian
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(equal for all the classes) whereas U.S. code proposes only one standards adopt various coefficients depending on the type of
f-coefficient. hole, whereas the Japanese code does not introduce such a co-
For bearing resistance (see Fig. 6), the possibility of considering efficient; however, for the coefficients that did depend on the type
thread deformation can show significantly higher resistance in AISC of hole, the slip factors were calculated differently for each of the
(2000, 2010) predictions than the others. Furthermore, there are various codes.
significant differences in the reduction coefficients taking into ac- • Regarding the combination of shear and tensile forces, the American,
count the geometry of the connection (diameter and shape of the Canadian, Australian, and Japanese codes provide similar elliptical
holes, distance between bolts, distance between bolts and edges, expressions, whereas Eurocode provides a linear relationship.
etc.). The various formulations of these coefficients significantly • Regarding bearing resistance, the American standard has the
influence the final bearing strength and illuminate the discrepancies peculiarity of taking into account the deformation of the hole for
found between the predictions of the bearing resistance provided by the given project.
the various codes. A numerical example to compare the various code provisions is
The comparison for connections in which there is an acting com- presented to quantitatively show their performance for a practical
bination of shear and tension (see Fig. 7) shows that the Eurocode case. Eurocode seemed to be the most conservative for the typical
seems, once again, the most conservative. While in the previous cases case studied in terms of shear, bearing, and combined shear and
the value of predicted strength is given for comparing the perform- tension resistance.
ances of the codes, in this last case the comparison is developed in
terms of combination of ratios between acting and resisting shear and Acknowledgments
tensile forces in the bolts (as proposed by all the codes). Consequently,
the final result should be , 1. The comparison shown in Fig. 7 is The authors acknowledge Chiara Magnani for her contribution de-
consistent with those of Figs. 4–6 showing even more percentage veloped during her [Link]. thesis.
differences between the results provided by the codes. Eurocode is the
most conservative when a combination of shear and tension acts
References
because, for the same material strength, the sum of the ratios between
acting and resisting shear and tensile forces is closer to 1 for Eurocode
AASHTO. (2002). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 17th Ed.,
than for the other codes. On the other hand, U.S. code shows the result
Washington, DC.
farthest from 1 in terms of combination of ratios between acting and AISC. (2000). Specification for structural joints using ASTM A325 or
resisting shear and tensile forces. As stated previously in this paper, A490 bolts, Chicago.
this result is also influenced by the different way of combining the AISC. (2010). “Specification for structural steel buildings.” 360-10, Chicago.
ratios between shear and tensile forces (linear for the Eurocode and ASTM. (2012). “Standard specification for high-strength steel bolts, classes
elliptical for the others). 10.9 and 10.9.3, for structural steel joints (metric).” 490M-12, West
Hence, as general comment, the graphs of Figs. 4–7 showed that Conshohocken, PA.
Eurocode on steel constructions and connections seem to be typi- Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2010). “Design of steel struc-
cally the most conservative. This could be explained by observing tures.” S16-09:2010, 7th Ed., Rexdale, ON, Canada.
that contemporary Eurocode is actually a synthesis of design and Cruz, A., Simões, R., and Alves, R. (2012). “Slip factor in slip resistant joints
with high strength steel.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 70, 280–288.
construction practices from various European countries possessing
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2005a). “Design of steel
different design and building traditions and experiences. Probably structures, part 1-1.” Eurocode 3, Brussels, Belgium.
the homogenization process among the various design rules of European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2005b). “Design of steel
European countries led to more detailed and conservative for- structures, part 1-8.” Eurocode 3, Brussels, Belgium.
mulations than in those countries in which more consolidated design European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2005c). “High-strength
formulations are adopted. structural bolting assemblies for preloading, part 1.” Eurocode 3,
Brussels, Belgium.
Conclusions European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2006). “Design of steel
structures, part 2.” Eurocode 3, Brussels, Belgium.
This paper focuses on design rules for bolted joints in metal bridges European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2008). “Execution of
steel structures and aluminium structures, part 2. Eurocode 3, Brussels,
considering European, American, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese
Belgium.
practices. General descriptions of the design criteria for typical con- Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority (HSBA). (1995). Design standard for
nections in bridges related to materials, geometrical limitations, slip, superstructure, Kobe, Japan.
shear, and bearing resistance are presented. The work was conducted Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC). (2004). “Hexagon nuts
to compare design procedures in codes developed in various countries and hexagon thin nuts.” JIS B 1181:2004, Japanese Standards Asso-
as pertains to bolted connections. ciation, Tokyo.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013 / 1307

J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.

 Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC). (2012). “Rolled steels for Standards Australia (AS). (1980a). “ISO metric hexagon commercial bolts
building structure.” JIS G3136:2012, Japanese Standards Association, and screws.” 1111-1980, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tokyo. Standards Australia (AS). (1980b). “ISO metric hexagon nuts, including thin
Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC). (2013). “Sets of high nuts, slotted nuts and castle nuts.” 1112-1980, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
strength hexagon bolt, hexagon nut and plain washers for friction Standards Australia (AS). (1981). “The use of steel in structures.” 1250-
grip joints.” JIS B 1186:2013, Japanese Standards Association, 1981, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tokyo. Standards Australia (AS). (1983). “High strength steel bolts with associated
Japan Road Association (JRA). (2002). Seismic design specifications for nuts and washers for structural engineering (incorporating Amdt 1).” 1252-
highway bridges, Tokyo. 1983, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). (2007). “Standard specifications Standards Australia (AS). (1984). “ISO metric hexagon precision bolts and
for steel and composite structures.” I General Provision, II Structural screws.” 1110-1984, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Planning, III Design, Tokyo. Standards Australia (AS). (2012). “Steel structures.” 4100-2012, Sydney,
McCarthy, M. A., McCarthy, C. T., Lawlor, V. P., and Stanley, W. F. (2005). NSW, Australia.
“Three-dimensional finite element analysis of single-bolt, single-lap Topkaya, C., and Sahin, S. (2011). A comparative study of AISC 360 and
Downloaded from [Link] by Universita Studi Di Padova on 12/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

composite bolted joints: Part I: Model development and validation.” EC3 strength limit states. Int. J. Steel Struct., 11(1), 13–27.
Compos. Struct., 71(2), 140–158. Xiao, Y., and Ishikawa, T. (2005). “Bearing strength and failure behavior of
Research Council for Structural Connections (RCSC). (2009). Specification bolted composite joints (part I: Experimental investigation).” Compos.
for structural joints using high-strength bolts, Chicago. Sci. Technol., 65(7), 1022–1031.

1308 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2013

View publication stats J. Bridge Eng. 2013.18:1298-1308.