Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the T-Stub Elements with Four Bolts in a Row Until Bolt Fracture

  • Đorđe JovanovićEmail author
  • Nenad Mitrović
  • Zlatko Marković
  • Dragiša Vilotić
  • Boris Kosić
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 90)


For the past several decades, a codified design of steel connections in civil-engineering has been based on the component approach. For a very common end-plate connection, a tension component, named T-stub, usually dictates the connections’ behavior. This T-stub element is greatly investigated in the configuration with two bolts in a row, but the configuration with four bolts in a row is usually neglected, both in the studies and codes. This paper presents an experimental investigation of T-stub elements and important aspects of their numerical modeling. Special attention is dedicated to the material testing and modeling, since all of the tests were performed until bolt fracture. Uniaxial tests of steel specimens were performed using extensometers, strain gauges, and Aramis system, while the bolt material is additionally tested by microscopic examination and hardness testing. In order to obtain satisfactory calibration of numerical models developed in Abaqus, knowing material parameters including damage initiation and propagation is crucial. Several iterative numerical-experimental procedures for obtaining the true stress-strain curves are outlined and compared, along with the well-known Bridgman method. The advantages of using Aramis system in calibrating numerical model, for both material and assembly are demonstrated. In the end, comparisons of numerical and experimental behavior curves are presented and satisfactory results are obtained.


T-stub element Experimental investigation True stress-strain curve Abaqus Aramis system Digital Image Correlation method 



The research of the first author was supported by the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant No. 36043.


  1. 1.
    Zoetemeijer, P.: A design method for the tension side of statically loaded, bolted beam-to-column connections. Heron Delft Univ. 20(1), 1–59 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Douty, R.T., McGuire, W.: High strength bolted connections with applications to plastic design. University of Missouri, Columbia (1965)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jaspart, J.P.: Etude de la semi-rigidite des noeuds poutre-colonne et son influence sur la resistance et la stabilite des ossatures en acier. Université de Liège, Belgium (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1–8: Design of joints. CEN, Brussels (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dranger, T.S.: Yield line analysis of bolted hanging connections. Eng. J. 14(3), 92–97 (1977)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mann, A.P., Morris, L.J.: Limit design of extended end-plate connections. J. Struct. Div. 105(3), 511–526 (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arasaratnam, P., Sivakumaran, K.S., Tait, M.J.: True stress-true strain models for structural steel elements. ISRN Civ. Eng. 2011, 1–11 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bridgman, P.: The stress distribution at the neck of a tension specimen. Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 32, 553–574 (1944)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Considère, M.: Annales des Ponts et Chaussées 9, 574–775 (1885)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dong, S., Xian, A., Lian, Z., Mohamed, H.S., Ren, H.: Necking phenomenon based on the Aramis system. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 233(11), 3904–3916 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, C.: Study on Metal Fracture. Metallurgical, Industry Press of China, Beijing (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xie, F., Zhang, T., Chen, J.E., Liu, T.-G.: Updating of the stress triaxiality by finite element analysis. J. Vib. Shock 32, 8–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, L., Li, Z.H.: Numerical analysis of the stress-strain curve and fracture initiation for ductile material. Eng. Fract. Mech. 49(2), 235–241 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ling, Y.: Uniaxial true stress-strain after necking. AMP J. Technol. 5, 37–48 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, Y., Xu, S., Ren, S., Wang, H.: An experimental-numerical combined method to determine the true constitutive relation of tensile specimens after necking. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 1–12 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pavlović, M., Marković, Z., Veljković, M., Buđevac, D.: Bolted shear connectors vs. headed studs behaviour in push-out tests. J. Constr. Steel Res. 88, 134–149 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheider, I., Brocks, W., Cornec, A.: Procedure for the determination of true stress–strain curves from tensile tests with rectangular cross section specimens. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 126(1), 70–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehlers, S., Varsta, P.: Strain and stress relation for non-linear finite element simulations. Thin Walled Struct. 47(11), 1203–1217 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoffmann, H., Vogl, C.: Determination of true stress-strain-curves and normal anisotropy in tensile tests with optical strain measurement. CIRP Ann. 52(1), 217–220 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Milosevic, M., Milosevic, N., Sedmak, S., Tatic, U., Mitrovic, N., Hloch, S., Jovicic, R.: Digital image correlation in analysis of stiffness in local zones of welded joints. Tech. Gaz. 23(1), 19–24 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milosevic, M., Mitrovic, N., Jovicic, R., Sedmak, A., Maneski, T., Petrovic, A., Aburuga, T.: Measurement of local tensile properties of welded joint using Digital Image Correlation method. Chemicke Listy 106, 485–488 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maresca, G., Milella, P.P., Pino, G.: A critical review of triaxiality based failure criteria. XIII Convegno Nazionale IGF, vol. 13, Cassino, Italy (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alexandrov, S., Vilotic, D., Konjovic, Z., Vilotic, M.: An improved experimental method for determining the workability diagram. Exp. Mech. 53(4), 699–711 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vilotic, D., Chikanova, N., Alexandrov, S.: Disk upsetting between spherical dies and its application to the determination of forming limit curves. J. Strain Anal. 34(1), 17–22 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rice, J.R., Tracey, D.M.: On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 17(3), 201–217 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiran, R., Khandelwal, K.: A triaxiality and Lode parameter dependent ductile fracture criterion. Eng. Fract. Mech. 128, 121–138 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    EN ISO 6892-1:2016: Metallic materials—Tensile testing, Part 1: Method of test at room temperature. CEN, Brussels (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harničárová, M., Zajac, J., Stoić, A.: Comparison of different material cutting technologies in terms of their impact on the cutting quality of structural steel. Tech. Gaz. 17(3), 371–376 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ISO 898-1: Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy steel. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., Peterson, P.E.: Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem. Concr. Res. 6, 773–782 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pisarek, Z., Kozłowski, A.: End-plate steel joint with four bolts in the row. In: Gizejowski, M., Kozlowski, A., Sleczka, L., Ziólko, J. (eds.) Progress in Steel, Composite and Aluminium Structures, vol. 1, pp. 257–266. Taylor & Francis Group, London (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Massimo, L., Gianvittorio, R., Aldina, S., da Silva Luis, S.: Experimental analysis and mechanical modeling of T-stubs with four bolts per row. J. Constr. Steel Res. 101, 158–174 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Đorđe Jovanović
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nenad Mitrović
    • 2
  • Zlatko Marković
    • 3
  • Dragiša Vilotić
    • 1
  • Boris Kosić
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technical SciencesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations