Log In

Come Join Us!

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

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

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


AISC 360-05 H3.3 'constrained local yielding'

AISC 360-05 H3.3 'constrained local yielding'

AISC 360-05 H3.3 'constrained local yielding'

Putting together an analysis of an existing bent plate connecting element, ~200in^2 total.  FEA is showing an area of ~3in^2 exceeding material yield strength, peaking at about 160%. (A36 steel hitting nearly 60ksi)

Does anyone know how to quantify the allowance in the code, as written at the end of section H3.3: "Some constrained local yielding is permitted adjacent to areas that remain elastic"  There is nothing in the commentary.

RE: AISC 360-05 H3.3 'constrained local yielding'

Something is not right in your analysis I think.  Are you modeling the material as elastic?  At 60 ksi the steel should rupture. A36 Fu = 58 ksi

Check your model and see what the material properties are.  I would recommend elastic-plastic stress-strain

RE: AISC 360-05 H3.3 'constrained local yielding'

There is nothing wrong with my analysis, I am aware that I am near material rupture.

My question was on the interpretation/quantification of the statement in the code.

RE: AISC 360-05 H3.3 'constrained local yielding'

I would say for a start that any overstress coming from accepted details from standard calculations should constitute a frame of reference of such overstress allowance (otherwise the standard calculations should be removed from the code, for many of them give overstress locally).

I think also logic can be of help. If you have a nut head and washer falling entirely on an entirely plastified area at limit states, just over Fy (how less over Fu) I wouldn't go with it, except that some explicit code procedure assures me the design is correct. The reason for this is that to do so would mean to rely on overstrength (and concomitant high deformation) to stand the limit forces, and one wouldn't want to do so except maybe for some earthquake, impact or blast scenario where some standing plastification after application of the loads may be surmised acceptable.

Red Flag This Post

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

Red Flag Submitted

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

Reply To This Thread

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

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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

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

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close