Introduction

The design of structural steel connections requires evaluation of many limit states, consideration of many behavioral effects, and adherence to many requirements. The AISC Specification, AISC Manual, and other references describe methods of design used in US practice. Currently, the most widely used methods rely predominantly on calculations that can be performed by hand. However, advances in computer hardware and software enable a different type of design that relies on nonlinear structural analysis. 

The use of nonlinear analysis in design can be advantageous for complex or unique connections, where the assumptions of traditional calculations are unproven. Yet, the same limit states, design considerations, and design requirements apply. Good connection design comes from engineers who know these design criteria and how their tools capture them. 

This document is intended to be a detailed, but not exhaustive, listing of limit states, design considerations, and design requirements relevant to structural steel design and a description of how they are considered in traditional calculations and in IDEA StatiCa using the component-based finite element method. 

This document is constantly being updated as verification and investigation exercises are still in process. 

The content in this article references the 2022 AISC Specification and the 16^th Edition AISC Manual. 

Limit States

Weld Rupture

The AISC Specification includes provisions for groove welds, fillet welds, and plug and slot welds. Of these, complete joint penetration (CJP) groove welds and fillet welds are the only types that can currently be defined in IDEA StatiCa.

CJP groove welds and butt welds in IDEA StatiCa, are modeled by directly connecting the components using multi-point constraints. The multi-point constraints introduce no flexibility. Also, the strength of these welds is not checked since the strength of the CJP groove welds is controlled by the base metal.

Fillet welds are also modeled using multi-point constraints and an equivalent weld shell element that approximates the elastoplastic behavior of the weld. The forces in these shell elements are extracted and used as required strengths for comparison to available strengths computed according to the AISC Specification.

The available strength of welds is defined in AISC Specification Section J2.4. For fillet welds, the nominal strength is the product of the nominal stress of the weld metal, F_nw, the effective area of the weld, A_we, and a directional strength increase factor, k_ds. AISC Specification Table J2.5 sets F_nw = 0.6F_EXX and references AISC Specification Section J2.2a for the definition of A_we. For each weld segment, A_we is taken as the throat thickness times the length of the weld segment. The reductions to the effective length for long welds in AISC Specification Section J2.2b are not applied; however, the effects of long welds are captured explicitly as described in the entry on Deformation Compatibility in Long Connections.

The directional strength increase factor is defined in AISC Specification Section J2.4. When strain compatibility of the various weld elements is considered (as is the case in IDEA StatiCa because the stiffness of the welds and connecting elements are explicitly modeled), k_ds is a function of the angle between the line of action of the required force and the weld longitudinal axis. IDEA StatiCa determines the line of action from the internal forces in the equivalent weld shell element and computes k_ds and the nominal strength for each weld segment.

To illustrate the effect of the directional strength increase, consider the welded specimens tested experimentally by Miazga and Kennedy (1989). The specimens had loading angles of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 degrees as shown in the figure below where the units are millimeters. The plates were fabricated with CAN3-G40.21-M8 grade 300W steel. The exterior plates had a measured yield strength of 52.8 ksi. The interior plates had a measured yield strength of 50.2 ksi. E48014 electrodes with a nominal strength of F_EXX = 70 ksi were used.

The maximum permitted applied loads were determined for each specimen in IDEA StatiCa using models with measured plate material properties, nominal filler metal properties, and including resistance factors. The maximum permitted applied loads were normalized by the total length of weld in the connection and are shown in the figure below. Also shown are the design strength according to the AISC Specification (including the directional strength increase factor and resistance factor) and the experimental strength.

The angle of loading measured from the weld longitudinal axis for each specimen, as output by IDEA StatiCa in the weld results, is listed in the table below.

The IDEA StatiCa and AISC Specification strengths are both much less than the experimental strengths. There are several reasons the experimental strengths are higher: they do not include resistance factors, the actual filler metal strength is likely more than the nominal strength, and the actual failure area of the weld is likely greater than assumed in design calculations.

The strengths from IDEA StatiCa are slightly less than those according to the AISC Specification, but both show an increase with loading angle. Furthermore, the geometric angle of the specimen differs from the angle of loading measured from the weld longitudinal axis as output by IDEA StatiCa. These differences occur because welds are divided into short segments when modeled in IDEA StatiCa. Unlike traditional calculations where the demands along the length of the weld are assumed to be uniform, the weld segments experience different demands based on the stiffness of the weld and connecting elements. The angle output by IDEA StatiCa is for the weld segment that has the greatest utilization ratio. Often this is a segment at the end of a weld. For these specimens, the aggregate effect of the non-uniform demands is a slight reduction in strength.

A special case applies for fillet welds to the ends of rectangular HSS loaded in tension where k_ds = 1.0. In IDEA StatiCa, the directional strength increase factor is not used for fillet welds to the ends of rectangular HSS, regardless of loading.

AISC Specification Section J2.4 also defines the strength of the base metal. For fillet welds, AISC Specification Table J2.5 references AISC Specification Section J4 for base metal checks. Base metal strength checks are described in greater detail in the entry on Weld Base Metal Strength.

Weld Base Metal Strength

In welded connections, the strength of the connecting elements adjacent to the weld is called base metal strength. In many cases, potential limit states can be identified, and the available strength of the base metal can be computed using the provisions of AISC Specification Section J4. The evaluation of these limit states in IDEA StatiCa is described in entries on the individual limit states, including Tensile Yielding, Tensile Rupture, Shear Yielding and Rupture, and Block Shear Rupture.

However, in some connections, potential limit states adjacent to the weld are hard to identify, and the available strength of the base metal cannot be directly computed by hand. For these cases, the AISC Manual provides Equations 9-6 and 9-7 for the minimum base metal thickness that matches the weld with some assumptions. This equation is not evaluated in IDEA StatiCa since potential base metal limit states need not be identified a prior, and strength is assessed with the 5% plastic strain limit. However, engineers may still use the limit to size welds and connecting elements.

IDEA StatiCa provides an option to check base metal capacity at the fusion face. This check can be enabled in the “Code setup” window. This check is not commonly performed in US practice and is generally not necessary when the filler metal is appropriately matched to the base metal. The commentary on AISC Specification Section J2.4 states that tests have demonstrated that the stress on the fusion area is not critical in determining the shear strength of fillet welds.

Bolt Shear and Tensile Rupture

The available strength of bolts subject to tension or shear is defined in AISC Specification Section J3.7. The available strength of bolts subject to combined tension and shear is defined in AISC Specification Section J3.8. IDEA StatiCa uses these provisions directly to compute available strengths, compared to required strengths determined from nonlinear analysis. As specified, the required tensile strength determined from nonlinear analysis includes tension resulting from prying action.

A footnote in AISC Specification Table J3.2 requires that the nominal shear stress, F_nv, of A307 bolts be reduced when the grip of a bolt is greater than five times its diameter. This reduction is not implemented in IDEA StatiCa. Therefore, the nominal shear stress of long A307 bolts needs to be manually adjusted in the materials tab.

Bearing and Tearout at Bolt Holes

The strength of bolts in shear can be limited by bearing or tearout at the bolt holes. It is sometimes common practice to evaluate bearing and tearout separate from bolt shear rupture. However, bolt groups can fail with some bolts rupturing and others tearing out. A user note in AISC Specification Section J3.7 states “The effective strength of an individual fastener may be taken as the lesser of the fastener shear strength per Section J3.7 or the bearing or tearout strength at the bolt hole per Section J3.11. The strength of the bolt group is taken as the sum of the effective strengths of the individual fasteners.”

IDEA StatiCa evaluates the strength of each bolt individually, with required strengths determined from the nonlinear analysis and available strengths calculated using the provisions of the AISC Specification. This evaluation complies with the user note in AISC Specification Section J3.7. However, IDEA StatiCa does not simply sum up the effective strengths of the individual fasteners. The approach taken by IDEA StatiCa can result in a conservative underestimation of strength.

Consider the three-bolt connection shown below. The connection is short and the stiffness of the three bolts is equal because the load-deformation response for bolts in IDEA StatiCa does not depend on edge distance, therefore the applied load is shared approximately equally among the bolts. The strength of the bolt with the 1 in. edge distance is controlled by tearout. IDEA StatiCa indicates failure when the first bolt reaches 100% utilization. Since the bolt with 1 in. edge distance has the lowest available strength (ϕr_n = ϕ1.2dtF_u = 17.4 kips), it reaches 100% utilization first. The other bolts are stronger (ϕr_n = 35.8 kips, AISC Manual Table 7-1) but they do not reach 100% utilization, resulting in a connection strength of 52.5 kips. By traditional calculations, each bolt is assumed to reach its effective strength, resulting in a connection strength of 89.0 kips, 70% greater than the strength from IDEA StatiCa.

Three-bolt bolted connection

Three-bolt bolted connection with 57.5 kips of applied load

Two sets of equations are provided in AISC Specification Section J3.11a, one when deformation at the bolt hole at service load is a design consideration and one when deformation at the bolt hole at service load is not a design consideration. The choice of whether deformation at the bolt hole at service load is a design consideration can be made in the “Code setup” window.

Different equations are also provided in AISC Specification Section J3.11a for long-slotted holes when the slot is perpendicular to the direction of force. Slotted holes can be defined in IDEA StatiCa using the plate editor. The bearing and tearout equations in the AISC Specification for long-slotted holes are used for all slotted holes in IDEA StatiCa, regardless of slot length.

AISC Specification Section J3.11b requires the use of the bearing provisions of Section J7 for bolts or rods that pass completely through an unstiffened box member or hollow structural section (HSS). This provision is not implemented in IDEA StatiCa and bearing is evaluated in such connections as though they are regular bolted connections with all plies making firm contact. A warning is provided in the report if the bolt grip length is larger than the sum of the thicknesses of connected plates. 

When evaluating tearout, IDEA StatiCa determines the clear distance, in the direction of the force, between the edge of the hole and the edge of the adjacent hole or edge of the material, l_c, using the direction of force for each bolt from the nonlinear analysis. This feature is particularly helpful for eccentrically loaded bolt groups where the direction of force varies from bolt to bolt. The tearout limit state was investigated for bracket plate connections in this article and for single plate shear connections in this article.

Bearing (Local Compressive Yielding)

AISC Specification Section J7 defines the available strength for the limit state of bearing (local compressive yielding). These provisions apply to specific cases of contact between steel components but are not implemented in IDEA StatiCa.

For finished surfaces and ends of fitted bearing stiffeners, while the contact bearing pressure is not checked against the limit prescribed in the AISC Specification, stresses in contacts can be plotted and yielding of the steel components often provides a more controlling limit since the allowable bearing pressure exceeds the yield strength.

IDEA StatiCa evaluates the bearing strength of bolts or rods that pass completely through an unstiffened box or HSS member as though they are regular bolted connections with all plies making firm contact and not using the provisions of AISC Specification Section J7. A warning is provided in the report if the bolt grip length is larger than the sum of the thicknesses of connected plates. See also Bearing and Tearout at Bolt Holes.

Expansion rollers and rockers cannot be modeled in IDEA StatiCa. Pins were introduced to IDEA StatiCa in version 24.0 and are currently only available for design by Eurocode.

Slip

Connections are required to be designed as slip-critical when they are subject to fatigue load with reversal of loading direction, when they use oversized holes, when slip at the faying surfaces would be detrimental to the performance of the structure, and for other reasons. Available strength for the limit state of slip is defined in AISC Specification Section J3.9 with additional provisions in Section J3.10 for combined tension and shear in slip-critical connections. IDEA StatiCa uses these provisions directly to compute available strengths which are compared to required strengths determined from nonlinear analysis.

The slip coefficient, μ, is defined in the code setup. The factor for fillers, h_f, is determined automatically.

Differences between IDEA StatiCa and hand calculations can occur because of the reduction factor for tension, k_sc, defined in AISC Specification Section J3.10. IDEA StatiCa uses the tension in the bolt from the nonlinear analysis to calculate k_sc, even if the tension in the bolt was not caused by applied tension that reduces the net clamping force. For example, in an extended end-plate moment connection with a slip-critical connection between the end plate and the column flange (such as shown below), moment in the beam causes tension in the bolts in IDEA StatiCa. Physically, any loss of clamping force near the bolts on the tension side of the beam due to moment will be offset by an increase in clamping force near the bolts on the compression side of the beam. In hand calculations, the factor k_sc would not be used for this connection (unless the beam has a net tension force). But since IDEA StatiCa evaluates bolts individually, k_sc is conservatively applied to the bolts on the tension side of the beam reducing the overall slip strength of the connection. Incidental tension in a predominantly shear-loaded connection and tension from prying action are also conservatively included when calculating k_sc in IDEA StatiCa. 

AISC Specification Section J3.9 requires that slip-critical connections be designed for the limit states of bearing-type connections in addition to slip. IDEA StatiCa does not check bolt rupture, bearing, or tearout for bolts designated to transfer force through friction. Additionally, slip-critical connections are modeled differently than bearing-type connections in IDEA StatiCa. In slip-critical connections, the forces are transferred from one plate to another over a larger area more representative of force transfer through friction. The larger spread of transfer forces can lead to increased strength of connecting elements for limit states such as block shear rupture. For most connections, slip strength is less than the strength for the limit states of bearing-type connections. However, engineers should be aware of these limitations and address them in design. It is recommended that slip-critical connections be analyzed twice in IDEA StatiCa: once as a slip-critical connection (i.e., with shear force transfer type set to “Friction”) and again as a bearing type connection (i.e., with shear force transfer type set to “Bearing – tension/shear interaction”) to ensure all limit states are evaluated appropriately.

Tensile Yielding

Tensile yielding is among the most fundamental limit states in structural steel design. The nominal strength for tensile yield is defined in AISC Specification (2022) Section D2 for tension members and Section J4.1 for connecting elements as the specified minimum yield stress, F_y, times the gross area, A_g. Despite the simplicity of this equation, it is not used to assess strength in IDEA StatiCa. Members and connecting elements are modeled in IDEA StatiCa with shell elements that are assigned a nonlinear stress-strain relationship consisting of a linear elastic region and a linear plastic region. Shell elements can experience stress along multiple axes and the stress-strain relationships account for this. If subject to uniaxial stress, the stiffness in the elastic range is the modulus of elasticity, E, the stiffness in the plastic range is one-thousandth of the modulus of elasticity, E/1000, and the transition between elastic and plastic occurs at a stress of F_y times a resistance factor of 0.9 for LRFD or divided by a safety factor of 1.67 for ASD.

Instead of limiting the required strength to be no more than the available strength (e.g., R_u ≤ ϕR_n), IDEA StatiCa limits plastic strain to 5%. While this is a fundamentally different assessment, resulting strengths for tensile yield of the gross section of a member or component from the two approaches will never differ by a large amount. Minor differences can arise for two reasons: 1) the small increase in stress after yielding in IDEA StatiCa and 2) small differences in cross-sectional area.

A small post-yield stiffness (one-thousandth of the elastic stiffness) is used in IDEA StatiCa to avoid the computational difficulties that would arise with zero post-yield stiffness. At the 5% plastic strain limit, this results in approximately 0.05×E/1000 = 0.05×(29,000 ksi)/1000 = 1.45 ksi stress above the yielding stress. For ASTM A992 steel with a F_y of 50 ksi and using LRFD, tensile yield initiates in IDEA StatiCa at 0.9×50 ksi = 45 ksi. The extra 1.45 ksi of stress accumulated post-yield can lead to an approximately 3% increase in strength.

Structural steel members are modeled with shell elements in IDEA StatiCa resulting in some simplifications of the physical geometry. The shell elements only represent rectangular components thus fillets are neglected. Additionally, since shell elements are connected at nodes located at the center of thickness, there is some overlap at joints of cross-sectional elements. The figure below shows the simplifications for a wide flange shape. The simplifications cause small differences in cross-sectional area which can affect tensile yield strength. For a W14x159, the cross-sectional area listed in AISC Manual Table 1-1 is 46.7 in.². The cross-sectional area when modeled as in IDEA StatiCa is 2b_ft_f+(d-t_f)t_w = 2(15.6 in.)(1.19 in) + (15.0 in. – 1.19 in.)(0.745 in.) = 47.4 in.², where the cross-sectional dimensions were also determined from AISC Manual Table 1-1. This is a 1.5% difference.

The overall effect of these minor differences can be observed in a simple IDEA StatiCa model of a splice connection between two W14x159 (ASTM A992) steel shapes. The splice is butt welded (e.g., CJP) and loaded in tension. Per the AISC Specification (2022), the design strength of the wide flange tension member is 0.9×(50 ksi)×(46.7 in.²) = 2,100 kips. The maximum load that can be applied to the connection in IDEA StatiCa (version 22.1) is 2,180 kips, 4% greater than the design strength as calculated per the AISC Specification. The distribution of plastic strain in the connection shows that the full cross-section has yielded.

Tensile Rupture

Provisions for the limit state of tensile rupture are in AISC Specification Chapter D. These provisions are referenced in AISC Specification Section J4.1 for connecting elements. The nominal strength for tensile rupture is calculated as the tensile strength of the material, F_u, times the effective net area, A_e. The effective net area accounts for material removed, including bolt holes, and the effect of shear lag through the shear lag factor, U, defined in AISC Specification Table D3.1. A resistance factor of ϕ = 0.75 is applied to the nominal strength to determine the design strength.

The limit state of tensile rupture is not directly evaluated in IDEA StatiCa. It is captured by limiting the amount of plastic strain any component can experience. The default plastic strain limit in IDEA StatiCa is 5%. Neither F_u nor the resistance factor of ϕ = 0.75 are used in IDEA StatiCa. IDEA StatiCa uses a bilinear stress-strain relationship in which yield occurs at the yield stress of the steel, F_y, times a reduction factor equal to 0.9 by default (the user can adjust this factor). After yield, the stiffness of steel is only one thousandth of the modulus of elasticity. This post yield stiffness is included for numerical stability and does not provide any significant strain hardening. Additionally, IDEA StatiCa does not use the shear lag factors of AISC Specification Table D3.1. Instead, shear lag is modeled explicitly.

Also, the stresses that develop in connection regions are rarely purely uniaxial. IDEA StatiCa uses the von Mises yield criterion to identify when yielding occurs under these complex stress states which can lead to an apparent increase in strength. To illustrate this effect, consider the simple splice connection shown in the figure below. The strength of the central plate near the bolts controls the strength of this connection. Based on hand calculation procedures, one may expect that the strength that IDEA StatiCa will determine would be the stress at which yielding occurs times the net area (shown by a red dotted line in the figure). For this connection, the net area is (1/2 in.)×(8 in. – 2d_h) = 2.875 in.², where the diameter of the hole, d_h, equals 1-1/8 in. (note that IDEA StatiCa does not include the 1/16 in. for damage described in AISC Specification Section B4.3b, see the entry on Net Area Determination for additional information - ADD ANCHOR). For LRFD, the stress at which yielding occurs in IDEA StatiCa is 0.9F_y and there is minimal strain hardening (see the entry on Tensile Yielding for additional information). For the A36 material used in this example, yielding will occur at 0.9(36 ksi) = 32.4 ksi. Therefore, one may expect that the strength of this connection in IDEA StatiCa would be (2.875 in.²)×(32.4 ksi) = 93.1 kips. However, because the stress is not purely uniaxial at the net section, the other components of stress effectively increase the yield stress normal to the net area, and 5% plastic strain is not achieved until an applied load of 111.7 kips.

Taken individually, the differences between traditional calculations and IDEA StatiCa result in lower strengths in IDEA StatiCa (only using F_y and not F_u), higher strengths in IDEA StatiCa (using a material strength reduction factor of 0.9 instead of ϕ = 0.75), and different strengths depending on the specific connection (explicitly modeling shear lag instead of using the shear lag factor, U). Taken together, the differences usually, but not always, result in equal or lower strength from IDEA StatiCa than from traditional calculations.

The limit state of tensile rupture was investigated in this study through comparison to hundreds of experimental results. The results show that IDEA StatiCa is generally conservative, especially at the nominal strength level, but there are some cases where the available strength from IDEA StatiCa is greater than that calculated according to the AISC Specification. Using measured material and geometric properties without resistance factors applied, the strength from IDEA StatiCa was less than or equal to the experimentally observed strength for all but 12 specimens out of 529 (9 of which were fabricated with high-strength steel, F_y = 122.8 ksi) and less than or equal to the expected tensile rupture strength computed using design equations for all but 30 specimens out of 529. Using nominal material and geometric properties with resistance factors applied, the strength from IDEA StatiCa was found to be greater than the strength computed according to the AISC Specification for some connections without physical counterparts, especially plate tension members with relatively short welds, and rectangular HSS tension members. Given that the experimental data for these cases is limited, work is ongoing to determine if the differences are the result of unconservatism in IDEA StatiCa or conservatism in the AISC Specification equations.

Compressive Yielding and Buckling

The available strength of affected elements of members and connecting elements in compression is defined in AISC Specification Section J4.4. When the slenderness ratio, L_c/r, is less than or equal to 25 compressive yielding applies and the nominal strength is computed as the product of the specified minimum yield stress and the gross area (i.e., P_n = F_yA_g). Like for Tensile Yielding, the limit state of compressive yielding is evaluated in IDEA StatiCa with the 5% plastic strain limit.

When the slenderness ratio, L_c/r, is greater than 25, the provisions of AISC Specification Chapter E apply. Limit states in AISC Specification Chapter E include flexural buckling, torsional buckling, and flexural-torsional buckling. The nonlinear analysis performed in IDEA StatiCa is nonlinear because it includes effects such as yielding and contact. The analysis typically does not consider geometric nonlinearities such as P-Δ effects (geometric nonlinearities are considered when HSS are used as bearing members).

Engineers must also perform a linear buckling analysis to detect buckling. A linear buckling analysis can determine the elastic buckling load, expressed as a ratio of the applied load. While providing useful information that can guide design, the linear buckling analysis does not consider potential yielding that can reduce stiffness and the buckling load (i.e., inelastic buckling), nor does it consider the effects of initial geometric imperfections. Because of these limitations, to use IDEA StatiCa, the connection needs to be stocky enough that neither elastic buckling nor inelastic buckling will occur. The elastic buckling load ratio provides a convenient measure of stockiness (or slenderness).

Consider the slenderness ratio limit in AISC Specification Section J4.4 of L_c/r ≤ 25 to assume compressive yielding. A slenderness ratio of L_c/r = 25 corresponds to an elastic critical stress F_e = π²E/(L_c/r)² = π²(29,000 ksi)/(25)² = 458 ksi. For A36 steel, this corresponds to 14 times the factored yield stress for LRFD and 21 times the factored yield stress for ASD. For grade 50 steel, the elastic critical stress corresponds to 10 times the factored yield stress for LRFD and 15 times the factored yield stress for ASD. Accordingly, the elastic buckling load ratio should be kept greater than these ratios to avoid cases where inelastic buckling could control.

The appropriate limit on the elastic buckling load ratio varies based on the connection configuration. For plate buckling, the limit is much lower. Based on the limiting width-to-thickness limits in AISC Specification Table B4.1a, the elastic critical buckling load ratio should be kept to no less than 3 for LRFD and 4.5 for ASD . An evaluation of bracket plates identified elastic critical buckling load ratio limits of 4 for LRFD and 6 for ASD. The use of a critical buckling load ratio limit of 3 has been evaluated for bearing stiffeners (report coming soon), coped beams, and beam-over-column connections.

Elements of connections that are slender enough for inelastic buckling to occur still have strength, potentially enough strength for a given application. However, without the capability to accurately quantify inelastic buckling strength in IDEA StatiCa these cases must be avoided.

Shear Yielding and Rupture

The available strength of affected elements of members and connecting elements in shear is defined in AISC Specification Section J4.2. This section describes two limit states: shear yielding and shear rupture. For both limit states, IDEA StatiCa does not compute the available strength per the AISC Specification, but rather relies on the 5% plastic strain limit to evaluate if the connection is sufficiently strong.

In tension, the stress-strain relationship used in IDEA StatiCa is linear up to yield, with a stiffness equal to the modulus of elasticity, then linear thereafter, with a stiffness equal to one-thousandth of the modulus of elasticity. Yield in tension occurs at the specified minimum yield stress of the steel, F_y, times 0.9 for LRFD or divided by 1.67 for ASD. IDEA StatiCa uses the von Mises yield criterion to determine when yielding begins under multi-axial states of stress. According to the von Mises yield criterion, material subject to pure shear will yield when the shear stress equals the yield stress divided by the square root of 3. The inverse of the square root of 3 is approximately equal to 0.577 which is approximately equal to the 0.6 factor applied to the shear strength equations in the AISC Specification. This difference, or similar differences when the element is not strictly in pure shear, can lead to differences between IDEA StatiCa and traditional calculations. The small amount of strain hardening can also lead to differences as described in the entry on Tensile Yielding.

Differences can also arise because in AISC Specification Section J4.2, the resistance factor for shear yielding is defined as 1.00 and the safety factor for shear yielding is defined as 1.50. IDEA StatiCa does not utilize these factors and instead reduces the yield point by a factor of 0.9 for LRFD or by dividing by 1.67 for ASD based on the typical resistance factor and safety factor for yielding.

Other differences exist for the limit state of shear rupture. As described for the limit state of Tensile Rupture, IDEA StatiCa does not utilize the tensile strength of the steel, F_u, nor the resistance factor or safety factor for shear rupture. Again, the yield point in tension is taken as 0.9F_y for LRFD and F_y/1.67 for ASD. The result of these differences depends on the ratio of the material strengths. Also in bolted connections, the net area subjected to shear typically passes through the centerlines of the bolts. The distribution of plastic strains at the limit point in IDEA StatiCa can be different, as was seen for single plate shear connections in this article.

As an example of the combined result of the differences between the AISC Specification equations and IDEA StatiCa, consider the two beam splice connections shown in the figures below. For both, two W27×94 beams made of A992 steel are connected by splice plates on either side of the web. The splice plates are 3/8 in. thick and made of A36 steel.

The welded connection is controlled by shear yielding of the splice plates. The design strength for the plates is ϕR_n = ϕ0.6F_yA_gv = (1.0)0.6(36 ksi)(2 × 3/8 in. × 16 in.) = 259 kips. In IDEA StatiCa, the splice plates reach a plastic strain of 5% when subject to a shear load of 236 kips. The difference in strengths is mostly due to the use of ϕ = 1.0 in the AISC Specification equations and a reduction of 0.9 on the yield stress in IDEA StatiCa.

The bolted connection is controlled by shear rupture of the splice plates. The design strength for the plates is ϕR_n = 210 kips. In IDEA StatiCa, the splice plates reach a plastic strain of 5% when subject to a shear load of 213 kips, nearly the same as the design strength according to the AISC Specification, indicating that the differences counteract each other and result in a safe design.

Yielding Under Combined Actions

Members and connecting elements are often subject to multiple actions simultaneously, including axial force, bending moment, shear, and torsion. AISC Specification Section J4 does not provide specific requirements for connecting elements subject to combined actions. However, AISC Manual Part 9 describes several approaches for assessing connecting elements subject to combined actions. One approach is to superimpose stresses calculated based on elastic beam theory and use a first yield criterion. Another approach is to use interaction equations that approximate the limit of plastic strength. One such equation that applies to rectangular members under in-plane loading is AISC Manual Equation 9-1.

\[ \frac{M_r}{M_c} + \left ( \frac{P_r}{P_c} \right )^2 + \left ( \frac{V_r}{V_c} \right )^4 \le 1.0 \]

where M_r, P_r, and V_r are the required flexural, axial, and shear strengths, respectively; and M_c, P_c, and V_c are the available flexural, axial, and shear strengths, respectively.

Dowswell (2015) presented a more general equation for rectangular members under in-plane and out-of-plate loading.

\[ \left ( \frac{P_r}{P_c} \right )^2 + \left ( \frac{T_r}{T_c} \right )^2 + \left ( \frac{V_r}{V_c} \right )^4  + \left ( \left ( \frac{M_{rx}}{M_{cx}} \right )^{1.7} + \left ( \frac{M_{ry}}{M_{cy}} \right )^{1.7} \right )^{0.59} \le 1.0 \]

where T_r, M_rx, and M_ry are the required torsional, major-axis flexural, and minor-axis flexural strengths, respectively; and T_c, M_cx, and M_cy are available torsional, major-axis flexural, and minor-axis flexural strengths, respectively.

In IDEA StatiCa, connecting elements are modeled with shell finite elements that are assigned a multi-axial plasticity material model that uses the von Mises yield criterion (use of the von Mises yield criterion is also described in AISC Manual Part 9). As load is applied in the model, the individual shell elements experience general states of stress which are evaluated using the criterion to determine if yielding has occurred. If yielding occurs, the stiffness of the material is reduced to 1/1000 of the initial stiffness and the analysis continues.

To illustrate the differences between strengths computed using interaction equations and IDEA StatiCa, consider the connection shown below. The middle “test” plate has a thickness of 1 in., height of 6 in., a length of 10 in., and is made of A36 steel. Both the connecting plates and hollow section members were selected to be strong and stiff. Analyses were performed subjecting the test plate to biaxial loading, consisting of axial tension and bending moment about the major- and minor-axes to determine maximum permitted applied loads (i.e., the loads which cause 5% plastic strain in the test plate). For these analyses, the geometric nonlinear (GMNA) option was turned off in the code setup. Also, the maximal size of elements was changed to 0.25 in. and the minimal size of elements was changed to 0.10 in. to create a finer mesh and capture the stress distribution more accurately.

Results of the IDEA StatiCa analyses are shown in the figure below. Interaction diagrams based on the Dowswell (2015) equation are also shown in the figure. Available strengths used for the calculated interaction diagrams are P_c = ϕP_n = 194.4 kips, M_cx = ϕM_nx = 24.3 kip-ft, and M_cy = ϕM_ny = 4.05 kip-ft. Differences are seen between the IDEA StatiCa results and those from the interaction equation, including when only one action is applied. The causes of the differences under a single action are described in the entries on flexural yielding and tensile yielding. The differences between IDEA StatiCa and the approximate equation for combined actions are greater, but the IDEA StatiCa results show clear interaction effects.

Block Shear Rupture

Block shear rupture is a combined tension and shear failure in which a block of material is torn away from a member or connecting element. The available strength for the limit state of block shear rupture is defined in AISC Specification Section J4.3. As with the limit state of tensile rupture, the limit state of block shear rupture is not directly evaluated in IDEA StatiCa. It is captured by limiting the amount of plastic strain any component can experience to a maximum of 5% (the user can change this limit). Key differences between the traditional calculations and IDEA StatiCa result from the stress-strain relationship used in IDEA StatiCa. Only minimal post-yield hardening is included (i.e., stresses do not reach F_u), and the yield stress is reduced by 0.9 for LRFD (i.e., not ϕ = 0.75 as specified for block shear rupture).

A comparison between traditional calculations and IDEA StatiCa for the limit state of block shear rupture in bolted connections is presented in this article. The results of comparison show that strength from IDEA StatiCa can be greater than that according to the AISC Specification for some cases, especially if the ratio of tensile strength to yield strength (F_u/F_y) is relatively low. However, researchers have identified that the provisions of the AISC Specification can be conservative in comparison to experimental results. The block shear rupture strength from IDEA StatiCa was found to be accurate or conservative in comparison to the Canadian standard (CSA S16) and an alternative design equation proposed by researchers.

Strength for the limit state of block shear rupture in IDEA StatiCa can vary based on the shear force transfer type of the bolts. In IDEA StatiCa, forces are transferred from one plate to another over a larger area for slip-critical connections than for bearing-type connections. The larger spread of transfer forces, while physically representative of load transfer by friction, can lead to different block shear rupture failure paths and increased strength. For most connections, slip strength is less than block shear rupture strength. However, since slip-critical connections are required to be designed for the limit states of bearing-type connections in addition to slip (AISC Specification Section J3.9), it is recommended that slip-critical connections be analyzed twice in IDEA StatiCa: once as a slip-critical connection (i.e., with shear force transfer type set to “Friction”) and again as a bearing type connection (i.e., with shear force transfer type set to “Bearing – tension/shear interaction”). 

To illustrate this effect, consider the connection shown below between a W14x99 (A992) tension member and two plates. The connection is made with (4) 1 in. diameter A490 bolts in standard holes and Class B surfaces. The design strength of this connection for the limit state of slip is \(\phi R_n = 289\textrm{ kips}\), however, block shear rupture controls the strength of the connection with a design strength of \(\phi R_n = 148 \textrm{ kips}\). When modeled in IDEA StatiCa and the shear force transfer type of the bolts is set to “Friction”, applied loads of up to 263 kips can be applied before the utilization of the bolts reaches 100%. The difference between this strength and the 289-kip design strength for the limit state of slip is because tension in the bolts develops in the model and is conservatively treated as an applied tension in IDEA StatiCa. At 263 kips of applied tension and using “Friction” bolts, the plastic strain in the web is 3.5%, below the 5% limit. When the shear force transfer type for the bolts is set to “Bearing – tension/shear interaction” the maximum applied load decreases to 183 kips with plastic strain in the web controlling. The difference between this strength and the 148-kip design strength for the limit state of block shear rupture is predominantly conservatism in the AISC Specification equation for block shear rupture as described in this article. According to the Canadian standard (CSA S16), the design strength of this connection for the limit state of block shear rupture is 181 kips, approximately equal to the strength from IDEA StatiCa. The figure below shows the plastic strain in the web at the maximum applied load for each shear force transfer type. The distributions of plastic strain are clearly different and demonstrate the larger spread of transfer forces for “Friction” bolts in IDEA StatiCa. Additional discussion can be found in the entry on Slip.

Flexural Yielding

The nominal strength for flexural yielding is defined in AISC Specification (2022) Chapter F for flexural members and Section J4.5 for connecting elements. The nominal strength for the limit state of flexural yielding is generally taken as the specified minimum yield stress, F_y, times the plastic section modulus, Z. In IDEA StatiCa, instead of limiting the required strength to be no more than the available strength (e.g., M_u ≤ ϕM_n), members and connecting elements are modeled with shell elements that are assigned a nonlinear stress-strain relationship consisting of a linear elastic region and a linear plastic region, and the plastic strain is limited to 5%.

Modeling members and connecting elements as shell elements results in some simplifications of the physical geometry. For example, shell elements only represent rectangular components thus, fillets are neglected. Additionally, since shell elements are connected at nodes located at the center of thickness there is some overlap at joints of cross-sectional elements. The figure below shows the simplifications for a wide flange shape.

Wide flange shape as modeled in IDEA StatiCa

For a W24x176, the plastic section modulus about the major axis (x axis) listed in the AISC Steel Construction Manual (2023) Table 1-1 is 511 in.³. The plastic section modulus about the major axis of the cross-section formed by the shell elements (with cross-sectional dimensions determined from AISC Manual Table 1-1) is calculated as follows:

\[\frac{t_w(d-t_f)^2}{4}+2b_f t_f \left ( \frac{d-t_f}{2} \right ) = \frac{0.75 \textrm{ in.}(25.2 \textrm{ in.}-1.34\textrm{ in.})^2}{4}+2(12.9\textrm{ in.}) (1.34\textrm{ in.}) \left ( \frac{25.2\textrm{ in.}-1.34\textrm{ in.}}{2} \right ) = 519.2 \textrm{ in.}^3\]

This is 1.6% greater than the plastic section modulus listed in the AISC Manual table.

The stress distribution at the plastic strain limit in IDEA StatiCa will also be different than the idealized stress distribution used to compute M_p. Unlike the idealized stress distribution, the stresses will be lower than F_y near the neutral axis since the plastic strain limit will be reached at a finite curvature. Also, the stresses will be greater than F_y at the extreme fibers of the cross section because a small amount of post-yield hardening is assumed in the stress-strain relationship in IDEA StatiCa.

The overall effect of these minor differences can be observed in a simple splice connection between two W24x176 (ASTM A992) steel shapes. The splice is butt welded (e.g., CJP) and loaded in major axis bending. The design strength of the wide flange according to the AISC Specification (2022) with resistance factor, ϕ = 0.9, is 0.9 × 50 ksi × 511 in.³ = 1916.3 kip-ft. The maximum moment that can be applied to the connection in IDEA StatiCa (version 23.0) is 2000.7 kip-ft., 4.4% greater than the design strength as calculated per the AISC Specification. The plastic strain distribution at the limit is shown in the figure below. As expected, the top and bottom flanges have yielded, but web at the neutral axis remains elastic.

Plastic strain distribution for a W24x176 flexural member at the 5% plastic strain limit

The relationship between applied moment and maximum plastic strain is shown in the figure below. The design flexural strength calculated using the plastic section modulus from the AISC Manual is shown as ϕM_p (Manual). The design flexural strength calculated using the plastic section modulus calculated as shown above based on the representation of the section in IDEA StatiCa is shown as ϕM_p (IDEA).

Applied moment vs plastic strain for a W24x176 flexural member

For a wide flange beam, most of the flexural resistance is captured by the in-plane behavior of the shell elements. The out-of-plane behavior of the shell elements can be evaluated through an investigation of plate bending.

For a plate (ASTM A36, F_y = 36 ksi) of width, b = 10 in. and thickness, t = 0.5 in., the plastic section modulus for out-of-plane bending is calculated as Z = bt²/4 = 0.625 in.³, and the design strength, ϕM_p, with resistance factor, ϕ = 0.9 is calculated as 0.9 x 36 ksi x 0.625 in.³ = 20.25 kip-in. The geometric simplifications described above for a wide flange section don’t apply to a simple rectangular plate but differences in the stress distribution remain. The maximum moment that can be applied to the plate in IDEA StatiCa (version 23.0) is 19.66 kip-in., 2.9% less than the design strength as calculated per the AISC Specification. The plastic strain distribution for the plate loaded in minor axis bending and a plot of applied moment vs plastic strain are presented in the figures below.

Plastic strain distribution for plate out-of-plane bending at the 5% plastic strain limit

Applied moment vs plastic strain for a plate loaded in minor axis bending

Flexural Rupture

Flexural rupture is among the limit states identified for affected elements of members and connecting elements in flexure in AISC Specification Section J4.5. Flexural rupture can occur when a moment is applied to a cross-section with material removed, such as bolt holes. AISC Specification Chapter J does not define the available strength for the limit state of flexural rupture. AISC Specification Section F13.1 addresses flexural rupture for members with bolt holes in the tension flange, and guidance is provided for flexural rupture of affected and connecting elements in Part 9 of the AISC Manual. Specifically, AISC Manual Equation 9-8 defines the nominal strength for flexural rupture as the product of the specified minimum tensile strength and the net plastic section modulus of the affected or connecting element. The AISC Manual further defines the resistance factor as \(\phi=0.75\) and safety factor as \(\Omega = 2.00\) for flexural rupture.

As with the limit state of tensile rupture, IDEA StatiCa does not evaluate strength equations for flexural rupture. Instead, the limit state of flexural rupture is evaluated using the plastic strain limit. Thus, like for tensile rupture, differences arise because the stress strain relationship used in IDEA StatiCa has minimal strain hardening past yield whereas the design equation uses the tensile strength of the material and because IDEA StatiCa reduces the stress at yielding by a factor of 0.9 (for LRFD) whereas a resistance factor of 0.75 is used for flexural rupture. Additional differences, specific to flexural rupture, result from the use of a plastic section modulus in the design equation, which assumes a uniform stress in either tension or compression. In IDEA StatiCa, stresses are an analysis result and not necessarily uniform.

To examine the net effect of these differences, consider the splice plates tested by Mohr and Murray (2008). They tested 14 specimens altogether; the six tests of the first series with three different bolt patterns are investigated here. The plates were installed between two W27x84 beams. The whole assembly was loaded in four-point bending, subjecting the plate to pure flexure. The dimensions of the largest plates, those with 7 bolts in each vertical row, are shown below. Tests were also performed with 5 and 3 bolts in each vertical row with similar dimensions. The measured yield strength of the plates was F_y = 49.5 ksi, the measured tensile strength of the plates was F_u = 72.1 ksi, and the measured thickness of the plates was t = 0.370 in.

The design strength, \(\phi M_n\), of the plates was computed according to the AISC Specification for the limit state of flexural yielding and the AISC Manual for the limit state of flexural rupture. Measured material and geometric properties were used in these calculations and resistance factors were applied. IDEA StatiCa models of the three connections were also built using measured material and geometric properties of the plates. Resistance factors remained as their default values. Properties of the beams and bolts were increased from nominal values to ensure the failure mode matched that of the experiment. The maximum permitted applied moment from IDEA StatiCa, M_IDEA, was determined iteratively. The results of these calculations are shown in the figure below along with the experimental strength, M_exp. The experimental strength was taken as the average of the reported strengths for the two specimens of each bolt pattern. The moments in the figure are for each plate noting that there were two plates for each specimen, one on each side of the beams.

In the physical experiments, all the specimens failed by flexural rupture. Flexural rupture also controls the moment strength of the plates since \(\phi M_{n,rupture} < \phi M_{n,yield}\). IDEA StatiCa, however, does not clearly distinguish between these two limit states; both are evaluated using the 5% plastic strain limit. The plastic strain in the plates at the maximum permitted applied load is shown for the cases with 7 and 3 bolts in each vertical row below.

The maximum permitted applied moment from IDEA StatiCa, M_IDEA, is approximately 5% greater than \(\phi M_{n,rupture}\) for these cases, a slightly unconservative result in comparison to the AISC Manual equation. However, M_IDEA is approximately 20% lower than M_exp for these cases. While it is expected that M_IDEA is less than M_exp since no reduction factor was applied to the experimental results, the difference indicates that there is a safety margin.

Concrete Crushing

At column bases bearing stresses are developed on concrete footings and foundations. AISC Specification (2022) Section J8 provides an equation for the strength of the concrete for the limit state of concrete crushing that is identical to the equivalent provisions in ACI 318 (ACI 2019). The strength depends on the area of steel bearing on a concrete support, the geometry of the concrete support, and the specified compressive strength of concrete.

IDEA StatiCa uses these provisions to evaluate concrete crushing. However, some differences between IDEA StatiCa and traditional hand calculations in the evaluation of concrete crushing arise because of differences in the underlying analysis approach. In hand calculations it is common to assume that the bearing stress is unform over the contact area. In IDEA StatiCa, the stiffness of the concrete footing, the stiffness of the column base, and contact are explicitly modeled resulting in a more physically realistic, non-unform distribution of bearing stress. The bearing area in IDEA StatiCa is computed as the area of steel that is in contact with the concrete and with a bearing stress greater than a cut-off value (the stress cut-off is defined as a ratio to the peak bearing stress with the ratio selectable in the code setup). This can result in a relatively complex shape for the bearing area as shown in the figure below. Nonetheless, the total bearing force, bearing area, and geometrically similar area in the concrete support are computed for use in the code equation.

Three-dimensional view (left) and plan view (right) of stress in concrete at the steel-concrete interface of a concentrically loaded base plate connection. The boundary of the bearing area (A₁ in AISC Specification Section J8) is shown as a solid black line in the plan view. Note the irregular shape that follows the stress contours and the anchor rod holes. The concrete supporting surface (A₂ in AISC Specification Section J8) is shown as the hatched region of the plan view and is similarly irregular.

Additional information can be found in these articles:

• https://www.ideastatica.com/support-center/general-theoretical-background#Structural_model_of_a_concrete_block
• https://www.ideastatica.com/support-center/check-of-components-according-to-aisc
• https://www.ideastatica.com/support-center/check-of-concrete-blocks-according-to-aisc
• https://www.ideastatica.com/support-center/base-plate-connections-aisc

Flange Local Bending

Flange local bending is among the limit states that apply to concentrated forces applied normal to the flange of wide-flange sections and similar built-up shapes. It applies only to tensile concentrated forces. The nominal strength for the limit state of flange local bending is defined in AISC Specification (2022) Section J10.1.

As described in the commentary on Section J10.1, the limit state of flange local bending was originally intended to prevent weld fracture which could occur prematurely because of uneven demands due to flange deformation. However, more recent tests have shown that weld fracture does not occur when flange local bending strength is exceeded, but rather that the flange local bending strength represents a lower bound at which flange deformation could lead to premature flange local buckling or be detrimental to other aspects of member performance. The commentary further notes that while flange deformations can also occur under compressive forces, the AISC Specification does not require flange local bending be checked for compressive forces because it is customary to perform the check for tensile forces only.

As shown in the figure above, both the uneven stress distribution and flange deformations are explicitly modeled in IDEA StatiCa. Each weld segment is checked independently for strength. Cases like shown in the figure above were examined in the calibration and subsequent validation and verification of the weld model in IDEA StatiCa. However, for shapes other than HSS, local flange deformations are not checked against a limit, their effect on member performance is not evaluated, and their magnitude cannot be directly obtained from the model. As a result, the limit state of flange local bending is not evaluated in IDEA StatiCa. Where the flange local bending controls traditional calculations, significantly higher strengths can be obtained from IDEA StatiCa. Where flange deformations are a concern, it is recommended to evaluate the limit state outside of IDEA StatiCa.

Note that flexural yielding of flanges in bolted connections is considered a separate limit state. In traditional calculations, the available strength is typically determined using yield line theory as described by Dowswell (2011) for general connections or Eatherton and Murray (2023) for end-plate moment connections. IDEA StatiCa captures this limit state through explicit modeling of the flange as shown in the figure below.

Web Local Yielding

Web local yielding is among the limit states that apply to concentrated forces applied normal to the flange of wide-flange sections and similar built-up shapes. The nominal strength equations for web local yielding in AISC Specification Section J10.2 are based on yield of the web over a length equal to the length of bearing plus an assumed spread of the force through the flange. While yielding of the web is modeled explicitly in IDEA StatiCa, several features of the design equations are not. The equations assume a stress gradient of 2.5:1 through the flange and the fillet of rolled shapes. In IDEA StatiCa, the flange is modeled with shell elements and the fillet is neglected, thus the spread of forces depends largely on the constraints between the flange and web. There are two separate equations in AISC Specification Section J10.2 for web local yielding depending on the distance of the force away from the member ends. In IDEA StatiCa, reduction in strength due to proximity to the member end is captured by directly modeling the member. A resistance factor of ϕ = 1.00 and safety factor of Ω = 1.50 apply to the limit state of web local yielding. IDEA StatiCa does not utilize these factors and instead reduces the yield point by a factor of 0.9 for LRFD or by dividing by 1.67 for ASD based on the typical resistance factor and safety factor for yielding.

The overall effect of these differences has been investigated for beam-over-column connections in this article and generic concentrated forces in this report.

Web Compression Buckling

Web compression buckling is among the limit states that apply to concentrated forces applied normal to the flange of wide-flange sections and similar built-up shapes. It applies when a pair of forces compress the web from both flanges at the same location along the length of the member. AISC Specification Section J10.5 provides an equation for the nominal strength for web compression buckling. The equation is based on the elastic buckling strength of a simply supported plate subjected to equal and opposite concentrated forces.

In IDEA StatiCa, design for web compression buckling can be accomplished by ensuring the elastic critical buckling load is sufficiently large (see discussion in the entry on Compressive Yielding and Buckling). Through comparisons to geometric and material nonlinear analysis with imperfections included (GMNIA) an elastic critical buckling load ratio of 3 was determined to be an appropriate lower limit.

Web Panel-Zone Shear Yielding

The available strength for the limit state of panel-zone shear yielding of wide-flange and similar built-up shapes is defined in AISC Specification Section J10.6. Four different equations are provided in this section for the nominal strength. One pair of equations is provided for when the effect of inelastic panel-zone deformation on frame stability is not accounted for in the analysis and another pair for when it is. The first pair of equations limits panel-zone behavior to the elastic range. The second pair of equations provides greater strength; however, plastic deformation of the panel-zone is necessary to achieve greater strength. The additional deformations can significantly increase overall frame deformations and second-order effects. If the potential for inelastic panel-zone deformation is not accounted for in the calculation of member and connection required strengths, then AISC Specification Section J10.6 requires panel-zone behavior to be limited to the elastic range.

In IDEA StatiCa, panel-zone shear yielding is modeled explicitly with nonlinear shell elements and is limited by a plastic strain limit. The limit state of panel-zone shear yielding was explored for extended end plate moment connections in this article and for bolted flange plate moment connections in this article. Using the default plastic strain limit of 5%, the strength from IDEA StatiCa exceeds that from the AISC Specification for when the effect of inelastic panel-zone deformation on frame stability is not accounted for in the analysis. However, reducing the plastic strain limit to a small value (e.g., 0.1%) in IDEA StatiCa enforces essentially elastic behavior and results in strengths that are accurate in comparison to the AISC Specification equations for when the effect of inelastic panel-zone deformation on frame stability is not accounted for in the analysis.

Engineers should know if the effect of inelastic panel-zone deformation on frame stability was accounted for in the analysis to determine required strengths (i.e., not the IDEA StatiCa analysis). And, if it was not, they should limit panel-zone behavior to be essentially elastic.

Connections to HSS Members

AISC Specification (2022) Chapter K includes additional requirements, beyond those of Chapter J, that apply to connections to HSS members and box sections that behave like HSS members. Chapter K is organized by connection type and the requirements are often accompanied by limits of applicability. However, Chapter K does not prohibit the use of connections of other configurations or those outside the limits of applicability.

The limit states described in the tables of Chapter K are evaluated in IDEA StatiCa by explicit modeling and the 5% plastic strain limit. The effects of parameters defined in Section K1, including the effective width for connections to rectangular HSS to account for uneven stress distributions, the chord-stress interaction parameter, and end distance are also modeled explicitly. To increase accuracy, geometric nonlinearity is included in the model by default when a hollow cross-section is used as a bearing member.

The commentary on Chapter K states “When inelastic finite element analysis is used, peak strains in the thick shell (T × T × T) elements should not exceed 0.02/T at the nominal capacity, where T is the thickness in inches.” Neglecting the difference between strain and plastic strain, the limiting value of this recommendation is greater than the 5% used by IDEA StatiCa when the thickness is less than 0.4 in. While the strain limit in the commentary recommendation is more restrictive than the default limit in IDEA StatiCa for thicker tubes, the 5% plastic strain limit is more widely recognized as an acceptable limit for strength design including by the Steel Tube Institute.

Chapter K is based on strength limit states only. As a result, large deformations can occur in connections that meet the requirements of Chapter K. Nonetheless, local out-of-plane deformation of HSS members is checked in IDEA StatiCa against a limit of 3% of the smallest transverse dimension of the cross-section (i.e., diameter or width) based on the requirements of other standards.

As the provisions of Chapter K are based largely on international research and the work of international committees, verifications to other standards are generally informative to US practice. Several verification studies for connections to HSS members are available on the IDEA StatiCa website, including for connections between rectangular hollow sections, circular hollow sections, plate and rectangular hollow sections, and plate and circular hollow sections.

Design Considerations and Requirements

Base de Diseño

El diseño por resistencia según la Especificación AISC se realiza con las disposiciones para el diseño por factor de carga y resistencia (LRFD) o con las disposiciones para el diseño por resistencia admisible (ASD). Aunque estos dos enfoques tienen diferentes resistencias requeridas y diferentes resistencias disponibles, las resistencias nominales son las mismas y los diseños finales deberían ser similares, si no idénticos.

Las resistencias requeridas son mayores para LRFD que para ASD debido a los mayores factores de carga en las combinaciones de carga LRFD. También pueden surgir diferencias en las resistencias requeridas cuando estas se calculan mediante análisis no lineal y el nivel de no linealidad depende del nivel de carga. Para compensar esto en el diseño por estabilidad, la Especificación AISC requiere que todos los efectos dependientes de la carga se calculen a un nivel de carga correspondiente a las combinaciones de carga LRFD o 1.6 veces las combinaciones de carga ASD. IDEA StatiCa sigue un enfoque diferente. En IDEA StatiCa, el límite elástico para los elementos de lámina se toma como 0.9F_y para LRFD y F_y/1.67 para ASD, donde 0.9 y 1.67 corresponden al factor de resistencia y al factor de seguridad típicos para los estados límite de plastificación. En la mayoría de los casos, esto resulta en cargas aplicadas máximas permitidas que son 1.5 veces mayores para LRFD que para ASD, de acuerdo con las disposiciones de la Especificación AISC. Sin embargo, el módulo de elasticidad no se reduce en IDEA StatiCa ni para LRFD ni para ASD. Por lo tanto, la relación entre rigidez y resistencia difiere entre enfoques, lo que genera algunas consecuencias en el diseño. Para el pandeo, la relación límite de carga de pandeo elástico difiere entre LRFD y ASD. Además, cuando la rigidez de una unión afecta a su resistencia, p. ej., en uniones soldadas largas, la relación de carga aplicada máxima permitida entre LRFD y ASD puede desviarse de 1.5. La mayoría de los estudios de validación que comparan IDEA StatiCa con la Especificación AISC se realizaron para LRFD.

IDEA StatiCa implementa las disposiciones para ASD definidas en la Especificación AISC 2022. Las disposiciones de la Especificación AISC 2022 para ASD difieren de las de normas históricas como la Especificación AISC de 1989, incluida en el Manual AISC de la 9^ª edición (comúnmente conocido como el "libro verde"). Las disposiciones históricas para ASD se centraban en el comportamiento elástico y presentaban más diferencias con LRFD. Las disposiciones actuales para ASD son más coherentes con LRFD, incluidos los cálculos comunes de resistencia nominal.

Materiales de Acero Estructural

La Sección A3.1 de la Especificación AISC incluye requisitos para los materiales de acero estructural. En esta sección, la Tabla A3.1 enumera materiales específicos que tienen un historial de rendimiento satisfactorio y se considera que funcionan según lo previsto en las disposiciones de la Especificación AISC. Los materiales enumerados incluyen los de perfiles laminados con límite elástico de hasta 80 ksi y chapas con límite elástico de hasta 100 ksi. Se permiten materiales distintos a los enumerados en la Tabla A3.1 cuando el ingeniero de registro determina que su uso es aceptable. Muchos factores pueden afectar la idoneidad de los materiales, incluidos el uso previsto, las propiedades de resistencia en direcciones transversales, la ductilidad y la soldabilidad.

Dada la amplia verificación de IDEA StatiCa con respecto a las disposiciones de la Especificación AISC, los materiales enumerados en la Tabla A3.1 también pueden considerarse que funcionan según lo previsto en el software. El uso de materiales no enumerados en la Tabla A3.1 no está prohibido, pero queda sujeto al criterio del ingeniero de registro. El comentario sobre la Sección A3.1 de la Especificación AISC incluye una discusión sobre los factores que afectan la idoneidad de los materiales y orientación para evaluar dicha idoneidad.

Fuerza de palanca

En las uniones atornilladas, el contacto entre los elementos de unión puede aumentar las fuerzas de tracción más allá de las debidas únicamente a las cargas aplicadas. Este fenómeno se conoce como fuerza de palanca y solo ocurre en uniones con fuerzas de tracción en los tornillos. El contacto que incrementa las fuerzas en los tornillos se produce debido a la deformación del elemento de unión. Por lo tanto, la fuerza de palanca es una consideración de diseño tanto para los tornillos como para los elementos de unión.

La rigidez y resistencia relativas de los tornillos y los elementos de unión controlan el comportamiento. Si los elementos de unión son rígidos en relación con los tornillos, entonces los elementos de unión se deformarán sin doblarse hacia atrás y hacer contacto, y no se producirá fuerza de palanca. En este caso, la resistencia de los tornillos controlará el diseño. Si los elementos de unión son débiles en relación con los tornillos, entonces los elementos de unión cederán e impartirán fuerzas de palanca sobre los tornillos, pero también limitando la fuerza en los tornillos. En este caso, la resistencia de los elementos de unión controlará el diseño. En un punto intermedio, la resistencia de los tornillos y los elementos de unión controlan simultáneamente el diseño.

La guía para considerar la fuerza de palanca en el diseño se proporciona en la Parte 9 del Manual AISC. Las ecuaciones presentadas en el Manual AISC fueron desarrolladas para los casos comunes de una sección en T y angulares espalda con espalda, y validadas con datos experimentales. IDEA StatiCa modela explícitamente la rigidez y resistencia de los tornillos y los elementos de unión, incluyendo el contacto, por lo que la fuerza de palanca es capturada de forma natural por el análisis independientemente de la configuración específica. Se ha realizado una comparación entre las ecuaciones del Manual AISC y los resultados de IDEA StatiCa para uniones de perfil en T. También se ha realizado una comparación similar con el enfoque de diseño para la fuerza de palanca recomendado en la Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints (Kulak et al. 1987). La fuerza de palanca aparece en otros ejemplos de verificación, incluyendo uniones de arriostramiento y uniones de momento con placa de testa extendida.

Compatibilidad de Deformaciones en Uniones Largas

En uniones largas cargadas en los extremos, la diferencia de alargamiento entre los elementos conectados es mayor en los extremos de la unión. Como resultado, la tensión en los tornillos y soldaduras en uniones largas cargadas en los extremos no es uniforme. Dado que es habitual en los cálculos tradicionales asumir una tensión uniforme, la Especificación AISC incluye reducciones a la longitud de las soldaduras largas cargadas en los extremos y a la tensión cortante nominal de los tornillos. La Sección J2.2b de la Especificación AISC define la longitud efectiva de las soldaduras en ángulo cargadas en los extremos, incluyendo reducciones cuando la longitud de la soldadura supera 100 veces el tamaño de la soldadura. Los valores de tensión cortante nominal en la Tabla J3.2 de la Especificación AISC incluyen una reducción del 10% para tener en cuenta los efectos de longitud, y se requiere una reducción adicional para uniones cargadas en los extremos con una longitud del patrón de elementos de fijación superior a 38 in.

IDEA StatiCa no implementa estas reducciones directamente. En cambio, el comportamiento subyacente que motiva estas reducciones se modela explícitamente. IDEA StatiCa modela la rigidez de los tornillos, soldaduras y elementos de conexión, por lo que la distribución no uniforme de tensiones en tornillos y soldaduras surge de forma natural. Al evaluar individualmente la resistencia de los tornillos y los segmentos de soldadura, la resistencia de la unión resultante es comparable a la obtenida mediante cálculos tradicionales. En este artículo se presenta una comparación detallada entre IDEA StatiCa y los resultados obtenidos mediante cálculos tradicionales para uniones largas cargadas en los extremos.

Compatibilidad de Deformaciones en Grupos de Pernos y Soldaduras con Carga Excéntrica

Los pernos y soldaduras en grupos con carga excéntrica están sujetos a cortante directo más cortante adicional por el momento inducido. La tensión resultante en los pernos o soldaduras varía tanto en magnitud como en dirección de perno a perno y de segmento de soldadura a segmento de soldadura. Tal como se describe en las Partes 7 y 8 del Manual AISC, los ingenieros pueden utilizar el método del centro instantáneo de rotación o el método elástico para analizar grupos de pernos o soldaduras con carga excéntrica. Los cálculos mediante el método del centro instantáneo de rotación se realizan normalmente utilizando valores tabulados proporcionados en el Manual AISC.

En IDEA StatiCa, la resistencia requerida de los pernos y segmentos de soldadura se determina a partir de los resultados del análisis no lineal. Cada perno y segmento de soldadura se modela individualmente y se impone el equilibrio. Las resistencias disponibles se determinan de acuerdo con la Especificación AISC.

El método del centro instantáneo de rotación también se basa en un análisis no lineal, pero existen diferencias clave entre los análisis no lineales del método del centro instantáneo de rotación e IDEA StatiCa. En el método del centro instantáneo de rotación, se asume que los elementos de unión son rígidos, lo cual no es el caso en IDEA StatiCa. La respuesta fuerza-deformación de los pernos y soldaduras también difiere entre los dos métodos. La respuesta fuerza-deformación utilizada en IDEA StatiCa para pernos y soldaduras es bilineal y se describe en los fundamentos teóricos.

Las diferencias generalmente resultan en resistencias similares o inferiores en IDEA StatiCa, como se muestra en este artículo sobre uniones de placa de ménsula. También se realizan comparaciones entre los cálculos tradicionales e IDEA StatiCa para grupos de pernos con carga excéntrica en este artículo sobre uniones de cortante de placa simple.

Bolts in Combination with Welds

Accurate strength prediction is more difficult when bolts and welds share load on a common faying surface. The lower ductility of welds in comparison to bolts can lead to brittle fracture before the full strength of the bolt is realized. AISC Specification Section J1.8 allows bolts and welds to be considered as sharing load only in certain circumstances.

According to Section J1.8, bolts can be considered as sharing load with welds only in the design of shear connections on a common faying surface where strain compatibility between the bolts and welds is considered. The section also describes a case with pretensioned high-strength bolts and longitudinal fillet welds where the nominal strength is permitted to be determined as the nominal slip strength plus the nominal weld strength. The bolts and welds must each support a specified proportion of the load and a resistance factor of ϕ = 0.75 or safety factor of Ω = 2.00 applies to the combined joint.

Strength checks for bolts and welds are independent in IDEA StatiCa with no special handling of when bolts and welds share load. Given the explicit modeling of the stiffness of bolts, welds, members, and connecting elements, strain compatibility is always considered in IDEA StatiCa. When bolts and welds share load, the required strength of each is based on their relative stiffness and the available strength is computed as usual. This is true even for tension connections; therefore, it is recommended to not model bolts and welds as sharing load for tension connections and instead only rely on one or the other.

To illustrate the differences between the method provided in AISC Specification Section J1.8 and IDEA StatiCa, consider the connection between plates subjected to tension shown below.

According to the AISC Specification, when the connection is designed as slip-critical, the design strength of the bolts alone is ϕR_n = 133 kips (R_n = 133 kips). The design strength of the welds alone is ϕR_n = 290 kips (R_n = 386 kips). When combining bolts and welds, the total connection strength is ϕR_n = 0.75 (133 + 386) = 389 kips since all requirements in Section J1.8 to allow the summation of bolt and weld strengths are met.

In IDEA StatiCa, the maximum permitted applied tension is 126 kips when the bolts alone are modeled and 277 kips when the welds alone are modeled. The difference between the bolt strength in IDEA StatiCa and the 133-kips design strength is because tension in the bolts develops in the model and is conservatively treated as an applied tension in IDEA StatiCa (see entry on Slip). The difference between the weld strength in IDEA StatiCa and the 277-kips design strength is because of non-uniform demands along the length of the weld in IDEA StatiCa. When both bolts and welds are modeled, the maximum permitted applied tension is 394 kips, with both the bolts and welds showing 100% utilization. This value is closely comparable to the AISC Specification strength of 389 kips.

If the bolts are assumed to be bearing type, the design strength for the bolts according to the AISC Specification is ϕR_n = 245 kips. While the AISC Specification permits bolts to be considered as sharing load with welds in shear connections, it does not provide a method to assess the strength when the bolts do not meet the requirements of a slip-critical connection. Therefore, it would be common to assess the strength of this connection as that of the welds alone or ϕR_n = 290 kips.

In IDEA StatiCa, when the bolts are modeled as bearing bolts and the welds are not modeled, the maximum permitted applied tension matches the AISC Specification design strength of 245 kips. When the bolts are modeled as bearing bolts and the welds are modeled, the maximum permitted applied tension is 311 kips with weld strength being the controlling limit. This strength is only 12% more than the strength of the welds alone according to IDEA StatiCa. The minor increase in strength with the addition of bearing bolts is because the bolts are less stiff than the welds and thus do not attract much load before the welds reach 100% utilization.  

Efecto del Tamaño del Agujero

La Sección J3.3 de la Especificación AISC (2022) describe el uso de agujeros estándar, sobredimensionados, ranurados cortos y ranurados largos para pernos en uniones de acero estructural. Los agujeros estándar son los predeterminados en IDEA StatiCa. Los agujeros sobredimensionados se pueden obtener editando el diámetro del agujero en el conjunto de pernos. Los agujeros ranurados se pueden definir para placas en el editor de placas.

El tamaño del agujero afecta a varios aspectos del comportamiento, y algunos requisitos de diseño se basan en el tamaño del agujero.

• El material eliminado para los agujeros de los pernos afecta al área neta. Este efecto se aborda explícitamente en IDEA StatiCa mediante la definición del modelo de elementos de lámina para elementos y elementos de conexión. Sin embargo, las 1/16 in. adicionales por daño requeridas por la Sección B4.3b de la Especificación AISC no se implementan automáticamente (véase Determinación del Área Neta)
• El tamaño del agujero afecta a la distancia libre utilizada para determinar la resistencia al desgarro. Este efecto se aborda explícitamente en IDEA StatiCa calculando la distancia libre en función de la geometría del material conectado y la dirección de la fuerza en el perno individual.
• Los agujeros sobredimensionados no están permitidos en uniones de tipo aplastamiento. IDEA StatiCa no verifica este requisito y permitirá el uso de la transferencia de fuerza cortante por aplastamiento con agujeros sobredimensionados.
• El factor de resistencia para el estado límite de deslizamiento depende del tipo de agujero. IDEA StatiCa no ajusta automáticamente el factor de resistencia según el tipo de agujero. El factor de resistencia se puede establecer manualmente en la Configuración de código.

El tamaño del agujero puede afectar a la respuesta carga-deformación del perno. El modelo carga-deformación del perno utilizado en IDEA StatiCa no depende del tamaño del agujero, pero se asume que la transferencia de cortante es nula en la dirección longitudinal de los agujeros ranurados.

Déficit de Laminación

La variación en la longitud del elemento puede dar lugar a diferencias significativas en las dimensiones utilizadas en el diseño de la unión. En varios cálculos de los Ejemplos de Diseño AISC, se resta una tolerancia de 1/4 de pulgada a una longitud para tener en cuenta el posible déficit de laminación. IDEA StatiCa no tiene en cuenta automáticamente el posible déficit de laminación, pero este puede considerarse definiendo manualmente la unión con el déficit supuesto.

Contacto y Fricción

El acero no puede físicamente atravesar el acero, sin embargo, este es el comportamiento predeterminado en los análisis de elementos finitos. Las superficies de contacto deben definirse para evitar que el material se superponga cuando se deforma. El contacto superficie a superficie se define automáticamente con las operaciones de grupo de tornillos. El contacto superficie a superficie puede definirse con la operación "Grupo de tornillos/contacto". El contacto borde a borde o borde a superficie puede definirse con la operación "Soldadura general o contacto".

No todas las superficies de contacto potenciales se definen automáticamente por IDEA StatiCa. Por lo tanto, es importante que el usuario tenga un buen entendimiento del comportamiento previsto de la unión y examine la forma deformada para confirmar que la unión está modelada y se comporta según lo previsto.

El apoyo por contacto puede ser un medio eficiente de transferencia de fuerzas en una unión si la unión ha sido detallada y las superficies están cuidadosamente preparadas de modo que exista apoyo (Muir 2015). Dado que se requiere un detallado especial para garantizar que el apoyo por contacto sea efectivo, el contacto borde a borde y borde a superficie no se define automáticamente en IDEA StatiCa, pero puede definirse manualmente mediante la operación "Soldadura general o contacto". Las empalmes de columnas atornillados son un ejemplo donde la definición del contacto borde a borde entre los elementos reducirá las demandas en los tornillos, resultando en una unión más eficiente. El uso del apoyo por contacto también puede ser eficiente en combinación con soldaduras entre columnas y placas base. Las soldaduras, por defecto, no se definen con contacto y, por lo tanto, también se verifican para fuerzas de compresión. Combinar operaciones de soldadura y contacto puede permitir el uso de soldaduras más pequeñas. Las soldaduras son rígidas y atraerán carga incluso cuando se combinan con contacto, pero las demandas de fuerzas de compresión rara vez superarán la capacidad, incluso si se reduce el tamaño de la soldadura.

La fricción en las superficies de contacto acero-acero se desprecia de forma conservadora en IDEA StatiCa, excepto para los tornillos designados para transferir fuerzas cortantes mediante fricción (es decir, tornillos de deslizamiento crítico). Considerar la fricción únicamente cuando los tornillos pretensados proporcionan la fuerza de apriete es también habitual en los cálculos tradicionales. Sin embargo, pueden producirse algunas diferencias en los resultados entre IDEA StatiCa y los cálculos tradicionales debido a la fricción. Por ejemplo, la Sección J3.10 de la Especificación AISC define un factor de reducción que se aplica a la resistencia al deslizamiento cuando una unión de deslizamiento crítico está sujeta a tracción y cortante combinados. El factor de reducción se basa en la carga de tracción aplicada a la unión. IDEA StatiCa no tiene forma de cuantificar qué parte de la carga de tracción en un tornillo se debe a la carga aplicada frente a otras fuentes como la fuerza de palanca. Si la fuerza de palanca induce tracción en un tornillo de deslizamiento crítico, entonces la resistencia al deslizamiento se reducirá en IDEA StatiCa. La resistencia al deslizamiento según los cálculos tradicionales no se reduciría. Una investigación detallada de esta diferencia se describe para las uniones en T en este artículo.

Determinación del Área Neta

La Sección B4.3b de la Especificación AISC (2022) requiere que el ancho del agujero de un perno se tome como 1/16 pulg. mayor que la dimensión nominal del agujero al calcular el área neta en tracción o cortante. La implementación de este requisito reduce el área neta para tener en cuenta el posible daño alrededor del agujero de un perno durante las operaciones de taladrado o punzonado. Este requisito afecta a estados límite como la rotura por tracción de la sección neta y la rotura por cortante en bloque, pero no afecta al estado límite de desgarro en los agujeros de los pernos.

En IDEA StatiCa, los conjuntos de pernos predeterminados tienen un diámetro de agujero igual a la dimensión nominal del agujero. Por lo tanto, aunque la 1/16 pulg. puede añadirse manualmente al diámetro del agujero del perno editando el conjunto de pernos, este requisito no se aborda automáticamente en IDEA StatiCa. Si se aumenta el diámetro del agujero del conjunto de pernos, el diámetro aumentado se aplicará a todos los aspectos del análisis, incluida la evaluación del desgarro. En la entrada sobre el Efecto del Tamaño del Agujero se puede encontrar información adicional sobre cómo el tamaño del agujero afecta a los resultados en IDEA StatiCa.

La Sección B4.3b de la Especificación AISC (2022) también incluye disposiciones para la determinación del área neta cuando una cadena de agujeros de pernos se extiende a través de una pieza en cualquier línea diagonal o en zigzag. Para estos casos, el ancho neto de la pieza se obtiene deduciendo del ancho bruto la suma de los diámetros (incluida la 1/16 pulg. por daño) de todos los agujeros de la cadena, y añadiendo, para cada espacio de retícula en la cadena, la cantidad s²/4g, donde

g = separación transversal centro a centro (retícula) entre las líneas de retícula de los elementos de fijación

s = separación longitudinal centro a centro (paso) de dos agujeros de pernos consecutivos cualesquiera

El ancho neto resultante es diferente de la longitud de la superficie de fallo (es decir, la línea roja discontinua en la figura siguiente) y tiene en cuenta la combinación de tracción y cortante a lo largo del plano inclinado. Dado que IDEA StatiCa no calcula explícitamente el área neta, las disposiciones sobre el ancho neto no están implementadas en el software. Sin embargo, la posibilidad de fallo a lo largo de una línea diagonal o en zigzag de pernos, incluida la interacción de tracción y cortante a lo largo del plano inclinado, se captura explícitamente mediante el modelado de los elementos conectados.

El efecto del escalonamiento de las líneas de pernos puede observarse en una unión de empalme simple. Una placa de ensayo se atornilla entre dos placas de reacción y se carga a tracción. El espesor de la placa de ensayo es de 1/2 pulg. y el espesor de cada placa de reacción es de 3/8 pulg. Todas las placas tienen 6 pulg. de ancho y cumplen con ASTM A572 Gr 50 (F_y = 50 ksi, F_u = 65 ksi). La unión tiene (6) pernos A325 de 7/8 pulg. de diámetro en dos líneas escalonadas. La separación entre pernos en una línea es de 3 pulg., la retícula, g, es de 3 pulg., y la distancia al borde es de 1,5 pulg. La cantidad de escalonamiento entre las dos líneas de pernos se mide por la dimensión s.

En la figura siguiente se muestra una vista tridimensional de la unión con s = 1,5 pulg.

Se realizaron análisis para uniones con la dimensión s variando desde cero (es decir, sin escalonamiento) hasta 3 pulg. en incrementos de 0,5 pulg. La resistencia según la Especificación AISC se calculó utilizando las disposiciones de la Sección B4.3b. El estado límite de rotura por tracción a lo largo de la línea en zigzag mostrada como línea roja discontinua en la figura anterior fue determinante para todos los casos. La resistencia según IDEA StatiCa se determinó de forma iterativa mediante análisis tensión-deformación ajustando la carga aplicada introducida a un valor que el programa considera seguro, pero que si se incrementa en una pequeña cantidad (0,1 kip) el programa consideraría inseguro. El límite de deformación plástica del 5% fue determinante para todos los casos. Los resultados de los análisis se muestran en la figura siguiente.

Los resultados de la Especificación AISC muestran una clara tendencia de aumento de la resistencia con la dimensión s. Los resultados de IDEA StatiCa muestran menor sensibilidad a la dimensión s y la resistencia es mayor que la obtenida con la Especificación AISC para todos los casos excepto el de s = 3 pulg. Sin embargo, el patrón de fallo en zigzag esperado queda capturado por el modelo, como se demuestra en la figura siguiente, que muestra la deformación plástica en la placa de ensayo bajo la carga aplicada máxima permitida.

Requisitos de Tamaño de Soldadura en Ángulo

La Sección J2.2b de la Especificación AISC (2022) incluye limitaciones para las soldaduras en ángulo.

Los apartados (a)-(c) de la Sección J2.2b especifican limitaciones geométricas sobre el tamaño y la longitud mínima de las soldaduras en ángulo. Estas limitaciones se verifican durante el cálculo si la opción "Detailing" está marcada en la "Configuración de código". Las limitaciones específicas verificadas se describen en este artículo. Una soldadura no superará la verificación normativa debido a un error de detallado si no se satisface alguna de las limitaciones. Las dimensiones cercanas o en el límite pueden no evaluarse como se espera debido a la precisión numérica o al redondeo.

El apartado (d) de la Sección J2.2b especifica la longitud efectiva de las soldaduras en ángulo, incluyendo reducciones para soldaduras en ángulo de extremo cargado de gran longitud. IDEA StatiCa no calcula la longitud efectiva para las soldaduras en ángulo y, por tanto, no utiliza las indicaciones de esta disposición, pero el efecto de la distribución no uniforme de tensiones sobre la resistencia de las soldaduras en ángulo de extremo cargado se captura mediante el modelado explícito de la rigidez de la soldadura y del material conectado. Véase este artículo para una investigación detallada de esta disposición.

Los apartados (e)-(i) de la Sección J2.2b especifican limitaciones que no son verificadas por IDEA StatiCa y que, si procede, deben ser evaluadas por el ingeniero de forma independiente.

Espesor de pared de diseño para HSS

La Especificación AISC (2022) Sección B4.2 requiere que el espesor de las paredes se tome como el espesor de pared de diseño, t, en los cálculos de resistencia para secciones estructurales huecas (HSS). El espesor de pared de diseño es igual al espesor nominal, t_nom, para secciones en cajón y HSS producidos según ASTM A1065/A1065M o ASTM A1085/A1085M. El espesor de pared de diseño es igual a 0,93 veces el espesor de pared nominal (es decir, t = 0,93t_nom) para otras normas aprobadas para su uso por la Especificación, incluida ASTM A500/A500M. ASTM A500 Gr. C es la especificación de material preferida en los Estados Unidos para HSS rectangulares y circulares (Tavarez 2022).

IDEA StatiCa no ajusta automáticamente el espesor de pared de las secciones transversales HSS en función del material. Por lo tanto, el usuario debe conocer este requisito y asegurarse de que se asigne el espesor adecuado.

Al definir la sección transversal en IDEA StatiCa, las secciones transversales predefinidas en la categoría denominada "HSS (AISC 15.0 - A1085, A1065)" tienen un espesor de pared igual al espesor de pared nominal, y las de la categoría denominada "HSS (AISC 15.0 - A500, A501, A618, A847)" tienen un espesor de pared igual a 0,93 veces el espesor de pared nominal.

References

AISC (2022), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

AISC (2023), Steel Construction Manual, 16^th Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

Dowswell, B. (2011). “A Yield Line Component Method for Bolted Flange Connections.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 48(2nd Quarter), 93–116.

Dowswell, B. (2015). “Plastic Strength of Connection Elements.” AISC Engineering Journal, 52(1st Quarter), 47–66.

Eatherton, M. R., and Murray, T. M. (2023). End-Plate Moment Connections. Design Guide 39, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.

Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A. (1987). Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Miazga, G. S., and D. L. Kennedy. (1989), “Behaviour of fillet welds as a function of the angle of loading,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 16 (4): 583–599.

Muir, L. (2015), “Bear It and Grin” Modern Steel Construction, AISC. (December).

Mohr, B. A., and Murray, T. M. (2008). “Bending Strength of Steel Bracket and Splice Plates.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 45(2), 97–106.

Tavarez, J. (2022), “Are You Properly Specifying Materials?” Modern Steel Construction, AISC. (June), 16-22.