×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!
  • Students Click Here

*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.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

(OP)
Hi all.

I am looking for some guidelines (or re-assurance) on how the bearing allowables are calculated in case of low edge distance\margin (e/D < 2).
  1. is it common practice to extrapolate using the bearing values given for e/D = 1.5 and 2.0 for values of e/D < 1.5? MMPDS suggests testing, but how is this commonly handled?
  2. in cases where only one of the e/D=1.5 and 2.0 is provided, is it safe to assume Fbru=0 for e\D=0.5 and use this point to interpolate?
  3. finally, if both e/D=1.5 and 2.0 are given but describe a behaviour which, if extrapolated would predict Fbru=0 for e/D < 0.5 do we neglect the e/D=2.0 value and interpolate between 1.5 and 0.5?
Thanks a lot!

RE: Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

You cannot extrapolate the e/d 1.5 and 2.0 values. Period.

For a protruding head fastener you can do #2. For flush head you should assume Fbru=0 when edge of c’sink touches edge of part.

RE: Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

Best go back to the drawing board.

Start with a review of shear tear out. Read Bruhn Article D1.10.

Typically, for edge distances ratios below 2 you have a combined shear-out / bearing failure mode.

Also, remember the basic airworthiness requirements.

Sec. 23.601

General.

The suitability of each questionable design detail and part having an important bearing on safety in operations, must be established by tests.

Sec. 23.613

Material strength properties and design values.

(a) Material strength properties must be based on enough tests of material meeting specifications to establish design values on a statistical basis.
[(b) Design values must be chosen to minimize the probability of structural failure due to material variability. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, compliance with this paragraph must be shown by selecting design values that ensure material strength with the following probability:
(1) Where applied loads are eventually distributed through a single member within an assembly, the failure of which would result in loss of structural integrity of the component; 99 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
(2) For redundant structure, in which the failure of individual elements would result in applied loads being safely distributed to other load carrying members; 90 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
(c) The effects of temperature on allowable stresses used for design in an essential component or structure must be considered where thermal effects are significant under normal operating conditions.
(d) The design of the structure must minimize the probability of catastrophic fatigue failure, particularly at points of stress concentration.
(e) Design values greater than the guaranteed minimums required by this section may be used where only guaranteed minimum values are normally allowed if a "premium selection" of the material is made in which a specimen of each individual item is tested before use to determine that the actual strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those used in design.


Most OEM design manuals have specific instructions for analysis of reduced edge distance. If you are resourceful, you can find these.

RE: Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

CAUTION. This 'analysis' can be made very complex by actual fastener installation practices, as follows.

Solid pins clearance fit

Solid pins transition [net] fit

Solid pins light interference fit

Solid pins high interference fit

Solid driven aluminum rivets

Solid driven steel/CRES rivets

Each of these fastener installations create practical issues in stiffness and/or hole wall strain and or hole-wall 'bulge'... that can blow-out Your numbers.

Edge margin of 1.5D is sorta a lower boundary for reliability... and NO VOER SIZING for practical reasons cited.

1.7D was the design guide for the ancient aircraft I work on

2.0D provides [generally] good bearing-tear-out for fastener Dia.

2.0D+0.030" is a 'good design limit for new aircraft... allow modest over-size without falling below 2.0D... assuming accurate hole positioning relative to free-edge.

2.0D + 0.060" is a 'good design limit for new aircraft... allow modest over-size without falling below 2.0D... allows for inaccurate [sloppy] holes positioning relative to free-edge.

Just Saying...

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

RE: Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

(OP)
Hi all and thank you for your insightful comments.

It is clear that a design with e/D < 1.5 is far from optimal. Nevertheless, there are such instances due to e.g., oversized fasteners being installed during a repair on a joint which was already marginal. What I get from this discussion is that such cases always have to be substantiated by tests to establish the bearing margins of the joints with the reason being that the behavior of the bearing allowables is not at all linear to e/D (or at least not linear outside the 1.5-2.0 e/D region). Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing plots of Fbru vs e/D for any material; I find that quite surprising to be honest. If anyone has come across any, I would be grateful if he can share it. Just curious to see how the curve looks like..

Regarding shear\tear-out the situation is much more straightforward and that is why I did not bring it up in the first place.

Thanks again.

RE: Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

BTW... if I recall the MIL-HDBK-5/MMPDS bearing allowables derivations... to further 'fog' this question...

Fbru, Fbry [1.5D, 2.0D EM] values were determined using a 'solid steel pin', in a very close-tolerance fit hole with guide-plates stabilizing the test article plate... and without benefit of any 'clamp-up' [no crushing friction forces] as would be generated by typical bucked or squeezed solid rivet, or high strength threaded fasteners, installs.

NOTE.
I have witnessed the high positive effect of a large diameter [3/16, 1/4-D] stop-drill-hole at a crack-tip with a tightly installed solid rivet or protruding tension Hi-Lok pin/collar in the [transition/interference-fit] stop-drill hole... etc. There is real benefit in the added circumferential/radial pre-stresses... and the added crushing/clamping-friction forces around the hole [thru the cracked-sheet] in retarding crack initiation/growth on the opposite side of the [deburred] stop-drill-hole.

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

RE: Guidelines for bearing edge distance KDF calculation

Having dealt with the occasional E/D < 2,
Have you entertained the possibility of 'pulling' the fastener hole
- provide a jig so that a larger diam hole is not lined up with the original centre but offset a distance to still allow a better margin.
- may require some talented employees & possibly some machining efforts to build the drill block.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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!


Resources

eBook - Efficient and Effective Production Support with 3D Printed Jigs and Fixtures
Jigs and fixtures offer manufacturers a reliable process for delivering accurate, high-quality outcomes, whether for a specific part or feature, or for consistency across multiples of parts. Although the methodologies and materials for producing jigs and fixtures have evolved beyond the conventional metal tooling of years past, their position as a manufacturing staple remains constant due to the benefits they offer. Download Now
Overcoming Cutting Tool Challenges in Aerospace Machining
Aerospace manufacturing has always been on the cutting edge, from materials to production techniques. However, these two aspects of aerospace machining can conflict, as manufacturers strive to maintain machining efficiency with new materials by using new methods and cutting tools. Download Now

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