![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 25, 8:35 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote: As to the statement that I clearly don't understand the factors involved, you clearly do not understand what I said, the nature of preloaded bolts, or even the S-n curves themselves. Improved fatigue life due to preloading has nothing to do with friction. Friction may improve fatigue life in the real world by spreading load over a larger area, but the benefit of preloading on fatigue life is due primarily to an effect that exists even if no friction is present at all. Could you please elaborate on the theory of that effect? E.g. is this a result of the superposition of stresses? ....and... If we now begin to subject both bolts to the same cyclic loading of 1500 lbs, where the applied load is increased from 0 up to 1500 and then reduced to zero again, the bolt with the 2000 lb preload will see a cyclic load of only about 150 lbs, whereas the un-preloaded bolt will see a cyclic load of 1500 lbs, and will obviously fail much sooner. Here you temporarily lost me because you have not told us HOW the bolt is loaded. If the load consists of additional tension, then plainly the bolt will see cyclical stress over the range of 3500 lb to 2000. That is clearly the type of loading Matt was discussing. If I make the unremarkable assumption that y ou are familiar with addition then clearly you are NOT assuming that the load is applied in the form of additional tension. When a joint is pre-loaded, two important things happen. The bolt stretches. AND The plates or whatever are being fastened are compressed. When you add load that induces additional axial tensile stress in the bolt, you have to consider that the compression in the plates is being relaxed at the same time. So the stress increase is not a 1:1 correlation to the additional applied load. The slope will actually be something less than 1:1 until the point where all the compression has been removed, after which it will be 1:1. As you can imagine, the actual slope to the left of the knee is a function of the modulus of elasticity of the bolts, the MoE of the plates, and the effective area being compressed (where thickness comes into play). However, the clamping force will still cause the shear to be distributed over the surface area being clamped and not just through the bolts. The superposition of stresses is not the total story. That is a completely separate effect and loading situation than what Bud is talking about. My understanding has always been that what Bud is talking about is only effective for additional tensile loading of the fastener. But I agree with you, the clamping can be very important for shear of the bolt, even if we ignore that effect in practice. As for S-n curves, there are more than one type. The one relating to what I am talking about are the ones that show S vs N for different stress ratios. The stress ratio is the fraction equivalent of the maximum to minimum load. For example, something that is loaded in tension to 25000 psi, followed by being loaded in compression to 25000 psi back and forth, will have a ratio of -1.0 ( +25000 tension/ -25000 compression). Something loaded to 25000 psi tension that is reduced to 10000 psi tension and back and forth will have a stress ratio of .4 (10000 tension/ 25000 tension). The S-n curves show that the amount of cyclic load that structure loaded with a ratio of -1 will fail far sooner than one with a ratio of .4, even though the maximum stress level is the same. You can look in Mil-Hnbk-5 or elsewhere for S-n curves to verify that. The peak-to-peak stress difference in the first case, (ratio -1) is 5,000psi, for the second case (.4) it is 1500 psi. So it is no surprise that the first case fails earlier! Now suppose two cases in which the magnitudes of the stress cycles are equal: Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. In the first case the bolt is pre-loaded to 2500 psi then subjected to an alternating load of an additional +/- 1500 psi, (e.g. from 4000 to 1000 both in tension) while a second, otherwise identical but not prestressed bolt is cycled from 1500 psi in tension to 1500 psi in compression. Both bolts see the same peak-to-peak stress difference. The ration in the first case (preloaded bolt) is 4, in the second case it is -1. Which bolt fails first? Actually case 1 R=0.25, but otherwise your example illustrates my point pretty well. Cheers, Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reaming needed on aft wing attach point. | Boelkowj | Home Built | 0 | November 7th 03 01:30 AM |