Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums

Member Login

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

CMcF (Mechanical) (OP)
21 Aug 13 8:16
Can any one point me to a standard or a study that says bending can be ignored if a pin's diameter is at least 90% of the hole diameter?

Thanks in advance.
rb1957 (Aerospace)
21 Aug 13 9:08
how does pin bending relate to tear-out ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

CMcF (Mechanical) (OP)
21 Aug 13 9:30
Sorry, I should have made it clear. I am only considering the plate. A radial load on the pin will try to tear it out of the plate. If the pin is close fitting the plate would have to fail in shear. If the pin is very loose in the hole, then elongation would take place. The round sides of the hole would "bend" straight.
fegenbush (Mechanical)
21 Aug 13 9:58
Check chapter J.3.10 of the AISC Steel Construction Manual (14th Edition).
CMcF (Mechanical) (OP)
21 Aug 13 10:14
Thanks Fegenbush, I was thinking more of a padeye or a link plate.
PeterSl (Mechanical)
21 Aug 13 10:54
Try DNV 2.7-1 there's a bit on pad eyes in it
Tmoose (Mechanical)
21 Aug 13 12:32
"If the pin is very loose in the hole, then elongation would take place."

I know standard calculations proceed along those lines, but the most ideal doweled joint I can think of existed in aircooled VW and Porsche 4 cylinder engines from yesteryear, and it is far from immune to hole elongation when asked to endure unintended dynamic loads. VW used 4 hardened 8 mm dowels in the joint between the (much better then mild steel) flywheel and crankshaft. Porsche used 8 dowels. I think the diameter the the dowels were installed on varied.
On Porsche 912 it is about 1.5 inch/38 mm "bolt circle". The dowels were an interference fit in the crank, and essentially line-to-line in the flywheel. The entire flywheel/crank assembly was clamped by a central large "bolt" (m 28×1.5 ?) torqued to 350 lb-ft or more.
A Porsche 912 engine is rated around 120 lb-ft of torque. There is likely almost 4X greater peak torque, and ~100% torque reversal at the crank flange in operation.

A quick calculation suggests the nominal mean loading on each dowel in that very carefully fitted joint would be ~ 240 lbs, which over the dowel's 0.247" "shear" area would result in less than 1000 psi loading. During each cycle there will be about 4000 psi peak loading. The carefully located and fitted diameters should result in the best attainable load sharing amongst the dowels, and the deeply embedded dowels with very small chamfers on the holes should create about the best commercially attainable purely shear loading.

The attached picture shows the typical damage that will result not many miles down the road when the gland nut is inadequately torqued after clutch service. A brand new dowel is inserted in the now wallowed out hole. By hand the dowel can lean and wobble, and several thousandths of an inch gap is visible between the dowel and hole entrance. This one was caught fairly early. I do not know the condition of the dowels.

I'm sure the failing process is complicated, probably starting with micromotion between flywheel and crank, then micro wiggling of the dowels creating clearance leading to impact loading. With thousands of engine revolutions per mile and 2 power strokes per rev it would only take several hundred miles to accumulate a million cycles, although not necessarily many at full load.
rb1957 (Aerospace)
21 Aug 13 12:41
i'd've thought that the fit in the hole controlled the load distribution across the thickness.

a tight fitting (intererence fit) dowel clearly works well at distributing the load over the thickness, and there's a benefit of the interference fit.

a loose fitting pin will tend to cock in the hole ... peaking the loading at the contact points, bending the head, ... loose fitting pins are not good for carrying in-plane shear. If you need loose fitting pins (for assembly/disassembly), i'd suggecting torquing them some to try to prevent the head bending (and the pin cocking).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Helpful Member!  JStephen (Mechanical)
22 Aug 13 22:06
The design guide ASME BTH includes design methods for pins in holes, applying particularly to shackle pins in structural steel lifting lugs. I assume that material is sourced from elsewhere. I don't remember if they address the strength of the pin itself.
CMcF (Mechanical) (OP)
23 Aug 13 6:23
Thanks that looks like a good place for me to look.
kingnero (Mechanical)
23 Aug 13 6:45
Eurocode 3 - 1 - 8 has a (small) section on this,
see attachment
CMcF (Mechanical) (OP)
29 Aug 13 11:04
Thanks Kingnero.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close