Beam-Column Base Plate Design— LRFD Method RICHARD M, DRAKE and SHARON J. ELKIN INTRODUCTION: Its common design practice to design a building or struc ture beam-column with a moment-resisting or fixed base. ‘Therefore the base plate and anchor rods must be capable of transferring shear loads, axial loads, and bending mo- ‘ments to the supporting foundation, ‘Typically, these bearn-coluinn base plates have been designed and/or analyzed by using service fonds! or by approximating the stress relationship assuming the com pression bearing location? ‘The authors present another approach, using factored loads directly in a method consis- tent with the equations of static equlibritim and the LRFD. Specification.? The moment-resisting base plate must have design strengths in excess ofthe required strengths, flexural (M,), axial (P,), and shear (¥,) forall load combinations. ‘A typical beam-column base plate geometry is shown in Figure 1, which is consistent with that shown on page 11-61 of the LRFD Manual pa |= 4h [nl | 0.80041 ASSUMED BASE PL. BENDING PLANES Fig. 1 Hase Mate Design Variables Richard M, Drake is Principal Structural Engineer, Fluor Daniel, Irvine, CA. Sharon J. Elkin is Structural Engineer, Fluor Daniel, vine, cA, where: B_ = base plate width perpendicular to moment ditee tion, in N= hase plate length parallel to moment direetion. in, by = column lange width, in, overall column depth, i. anchor rod distance from column and base plate centerline parallel to moment direction, in ‘m= base plate hearing interface eanti parallel to moment direction, i, 095d - 7 a ase plate bearing interface cantilever perpendic- ular to moment direction, in ‘Oh a @ x = base plate tension interface cantilever parallel 10 moment dite diy ve + ¥ TRS, @ ty, = column flange thickness, in, The progression of beam-columm loadings, in order of in- creasing moments, is presented in Four load Case A is a Toad cose with axial compression and shear, without bending moment. This case results ina full length uniform pressure distribution between the base plate and the supporting concrete, ‘This ease is summvarized in the LRED Manual? beginning on page 11-54 and is suman rized herein for completeness, Case B evolves from Case A by the addition of a small bending moment. The moment changes the full length tniform pressure distribution to a partial length uniform pressure distribution, but isnot large enough to cause sepa ration between the base plate and the supporting eonerete. Case C evolves from Case B by the addition of a spe- cific bending moment such that the uniform pressure dis- tribution is the smallest possible length withont separation ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 199929between the base plate and the supporting concrete. This, corresponds to the common clastic limit where any addi- tional moment would initiate separation between the base plate and the supporting concrete. Case D evolves fiom Case C by the addition of suffi- cient bending moment to require anchor rods to prevent separation between the base plate and the supporting con- crete. This is a common situation for fixed base plates in structural office practice, That is, a rigid frame with a fixed base plate will usually attract enough bending mo ‘ment fo require anchor rods to prevent uplift of the base plate from the supporting concrete, CASE A: NO MOMENT—NO UPLIFT. Ifthere is no bending moment or axial tension at the base of a beam-column, the anchor rods resist shear loads but are not requited to prevent uplift or separation of the base plate from the foundation. Case A, a beam-column with no moment ar uplift at the base plate clevation, is shawn 1, Assume that the resultant compres: is directly under the column flange. 2. Assume a linear strain distribution stich that the an. chor rod strain is dependent on the bearing. area strain, 3. Assume independent strain distribution, ve bearing stress All three methods summarized by AISC® assume a lin-/ car triangular distribution of the resultant compressive bearing stress. This implies that the beam-columa base plate has no additional capacity after the extreme fiber reaches the concrete bearing limit state. The authors pro- pase that a uniform distribution of the resultant compres: sive bearing stress is more appropriate when utilizing LRFD, Case B, a beam-column with a small mament and no tthe base plate clevation, is shown in Figure 3 rment M,, is expressed as P,, located at some ec centricity (¢) from the beam-column neutral axis in Figure 2. 1h. Pu Pu . Ny a vty || Tit { [* fin t—— | Pp @cPp oVn y N ig 2. No Blane -No Uti ig 2 Sal! Mame Wid Uti M, <0 Me P,>0 Cee “ CASE B: SMALL MOMENT WITHOUT UPLIFT ona Pe Ifthe magnitude of the bending moment is small relat PG to the magnitude of the axial Toad, the column anchor ” rods are not required to restrain uplift or scparation of Celta the base plate from the foundation. In service, they only resist shear. They are also necessary for the stability of Y¥=N-2e the structure during construction ’ AISC addresses three different variations of the elastic © ) imethod when using an ultimate strength approach for the ge design of beam-column base plates subjected to bending, moment, 30 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 Y = bearing lengCASE : MAXIMUM MOME uPLirr ‘The maximum moment without base plate uplift is as- sumed 0 occur when the concrete beating limit state is reached over a beating area concentric with the applied load at its maximum eccentricity, If the eccentricity ex- witnour See iemssen eens irne nae Riga ee ene scinolam oh te sasiacs eesearaeer ata starve plo clvton lah ee My ens 4 Pu 2) Pu me: tyre = VAN (46) IY < m: Pulm ~ 3) ean | a7 Trtrea) {: BF, (47) DESIGN EXAMPLE 1 ruare — ast A36 wiaxes asiw Ase ANCHOR Ro0s Astu A307 Mu=120 F crour Fre = 6 KS ‘concectE - Fe = 4 ksi Fig. 6 Design Example Required a) Design anchor rods +b) Determine base plate thickness Solution 1. Dimensions: in, — 0.95(12.12 in m= 220in. 09521250) sayin (1y 16.01 12.12 in, 0.605 in, xm 16Gin 2 ND in | 0605 in. 2 aan. $ ; ei = 2.24in. OD ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER/ 1999352. Becentricty: 120 A-K(12 in/ft) 0K 11,08 in, “ 22.0;n, 6 8 2286 erin <1.08in =e Cae OE 3. Conerete bearing ‘Assume the bearing on grout area will govem 4g = (0.51)(6 ksij(20.0 in.) v'I 61.2 Ksin. (10) pa - 160in | 2200 19.0 in, 2 = 2 16.0in, Ste + 11,08 in, Eee as = 19.0 * 16.73 = 2.27 in, Ty = 61.2 Kfin(2.27 in.) ~ 130K = 8.92K (16) 19.0 EX) (20) 4, Anchor rod shear and tension Cheek 4 ~ Jin. da, anchor rods aoox Vay = 4G = 750K (25) BE yAy = 0.75(24 ksi)(0.4418 in?) = 196K >7.50K = Vay ook f= 59 19(6h28,)- 26716 a ra 92K aack an OFA 0.75(26.7 ksi(0.4418 in?) 885> 446K = Tyr ok. Select: 4-3/4 in. Diameter Anchor Rods 5. Base plate flexural yielding: ¥ = 227in, <5.24in, = m, mand" not applicable _ (692 K)224in) _ 4 455, tore) = 2 uf (200i \a6Ksi) "979% 4S) (0K (528m = Irteeg) = 211 (20.0 in. (36 ksi) co) = L82in. controls 36 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 Select: Base P te 2X 20% 1-10 6. Check bearing on concrete below grout layer ‘The grout is 2 in, thick. Assume that the concrete extends at feast 2 in, beyond grout in cach direction, (24 in.)(6.67 in.) = (0.514 ksiy(20.0 in [SE m 1 = (OSI RSI200 10) |S Sy ay = 76.6 Klin. > 61.2 K/in, used in design 0k. (10) DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 PLATE ASTCASE waxs1 ASTM ASS aNcHoR ROS ASTM ASG Fig, 7 Design Esample 2 Required: a) Determine required tensile strength b) Determine base plate thickness ‘Solution: Note that this problem is Example 16 from the AISC Column Base Plate Stce! Design Guide Series® 1, Required strength: (LRED 4.2) Py = 1.221K) + 1.6039K) = 87.6K My = L2(ITL in-K) + 1,609 i ) = 700 ink 2. Dimensions: 14.0 in, ~ 0.95(7.995 in.) = 3.20in, 3 320i, 41) . _ 7.993 in. | 0.438 in. _ io x ; 3 23. Eccentricity: 700 in.-K a76K e = 7.99 in, “ 14.0in, 6 4, Conerete bearing: ve 6 = 233in. <7.99in. = ¢, Case D(7) 7 = (0.513 ksi)(14 in.) V4 = 42.8 Kin. (10) (20) 12.5 + 10.05 = 2.45 in. Ty = 42.8 K/in.(2.45 in.) ~ 87.6K = 17.3K (16) Required Tensile Strength = 17.3 K 5, Base plate flexural yielding: = 2.45 in, 3.20in. = m, nand n! notapplicable Maeksy SIN 4S) (87.6 K)(3.20 in. — BS saoon [AA (14.0 in.}(36 ksi) @ 1.24 in. controls Select: Base Plate 1M x 14 x 1'-2 6. Comparison: AISCS solution for this problem: Required Anchor Rod Tensile Strength = 21.2 K Select: Base Plate 1 x M4 x 1'-2 Length of triangular compression block = 5.1 in, ‘Author's solution for this problem: Required Anchor Rod Tensile Strength = 17.3 K Select: Base Plate 1% X14 1'-2 Length of rectangular compression block = 2.45 in Remarks: ‘The authors’ solution yields the identical base plate size and thickness. Required tensile strength for the design ofthe anchor rods is slightly smaller because the centroid of the compression re a greater distance from the anchor rods SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. A methodology has been presented that summarizes the design of beam-column base plates and anchor rads using factored loads directly in a manner consistent with the equations of static equilibrium and the LRED Specifi- cation.’ Two design examples have heen presented. A direct comparison was made with a problem solved by another AISC method, The step-by-step incthodology presented will be heneti cial ina structural design office, allowing the design prac= litioner to use the same factored loads for the design of the steel structure, base plate, ane! anchor rods. In addition the uniform “rectangulae” pressure distribution will be easier todesign and program than the linear “triangular” pressure distribution utilized in allowable stress design and other published LRFD formulations.> REFERENCES I. Blodgett, Omer W., Design Of Welded Structures, 1966. 2. Smith, J.C., Seructural Steel Design, LRED Approach, 2nd Edition, 1996, 3. American Institute of Steel Construction (ASC), “Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Stee! Buildings”, December 1, 1993 4. American Institute of Stee! Construction (AISC),Man- ual Of Steel Construction, Load & Resistance Factor Design, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, 1994 5. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Col Steel Design Guide Series, 1990. Qnd Qtr), pp'58-69, AISC, 1983, 7. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), De OfAnchor Bolts In Petrochemical Facilities, pp 4-3 to 4.8, 1997, 8. Thomton, W. A., “Design of Small Base plates for Wide-Flange Columns,” Engineering Journal, NoL21, No. 3. 3rd Qte). pp 108-110, AISC, 1990. 9. Thorton, W. A., “Design of Small Base plates for Wide-Flange Columons- A Coneatenation of Methods,” Engineering Journal, Vol27.No. 4.(4th Qi.) WOR 110, AISC, 1990%, NOMENCLATURE Ay_ = arcaofsteel concentrically bearing onaconcrete support in? ENGINEERING JOURNAL /FIRSTQUARTER/ 19993738 y= maximum area of the portion of the supporting surface that is geometrically similar to and con- centric withthe loaded area, in? nchor rod nominal (gross) area, in? B= baseplate width perpendicular to moment ditec- tion, in nominal tensile strength, ksi iominal shear strength, ksi pecified minimum yield stress, ksi ‘nominal flexural strength in-K lastie bending moment, in-K. required base plate flexural strength, in.-K. required flexural strength, in -K. base plate length parallel to moment direction, in nominal bearing load on concrete, kips Pj = required axial strength, kips Ty, ~ required tensile strength, kips Tys = required anchor rod tensile strength, kips ¥,, = required shear strength, kips Van = required anchor rod shear strength, kips Y= bearing length, in by = column flange width, in, ¢ = langest base plate cantilever, ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER/ 1999 = colurnn overall depth, in ~ axial eccentricity, in anchor rod distance from column and base plate cconterline parallel to moment direction. in = specified concrete compressive strength, ksi = concrete bearing stress ksi = anchor rod shear stress, ksi base plate bearing interface cantilever parallel to moment dircetion. in. = base plate bearing interface dicular to moment direction, in idlinetheory cantilever distance fromeatumn ‘web or column flange. = conerete (or grout) be width, kipsfin column flange thickness. in thase plate thickness. in base plate tension interface cantilever parallel to ‘moment diteetion, in snchor rod resistance factor = 0.75 = flexural resistance factor = 0.90 ompressian resistance factor = 0.60) amber of rods sharing tension load, unitless inber of rods sharing shear load, unitless tilever perpen- 1g strength per unit