Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.

Santha Kumar

3.2.5.3 Combined shear and tension failure

Bolt Subjected to Combined Shear and Tension  A bolt required to resist both

design shear force (Vsd) and design tensile force (Tnd) at the same time shall satisfy

2 2
§ V · § Te ·
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ d 1.0 (3.13)
© Vsd ¹ © Tnd ¹

Where, V = applied shear; Vsd = design shear capacity; Te = externally applied

tension and Tnd = design tension capacity. This gives a circular interaction curve as

shown in Fig. 3.11.

Bolts in a connection for which slip in the serviceability limit state shall be limited,

which are subjected to a tension force, T, and shear force, V, shall satisfy (Cl.10.4.6)

2 2
§ V · § Te ·
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ d 1.0 (3.14)
© Vsdf ¹ © Tndf ¹

Where, V = applied shear at service load; Vsdf = design shear strength; Te =

externally applied tension at service load; Tndf = design tension strength.

V/Vsdf

1.0

1.0
Te/Tndf

Fig. 3.11 Shear and Tension Interaction Curve

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

3.2.5.3 Combined shear and tension failure

Bolt Subjected to Combined Shear and Tension  A bolt required to resist both

design shear force (Vsd) and design tensile force (Tnd) at the same time shall satisfy

2 2
§ V · § Te ·
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ d 1.0 (3.13)
© Vsd ¹ © Tnd ¹

Where, V = applied shear; Vsd = design shear capacity; Te = externally applied

tension and Tnd = design tension capacity. This gives a circular interaction curve as

shown in Fig. 3.11.

Bolts in a connection for which slip in the serviceability limit state shall be limited,

which are subjected to a tension force, T, and shear force, V, shall satisfy (Cl.10.4.6)

2 2
§ V · § Te ·
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ d 1.0 (3.14)
© Vsdf ¹ © Tndf ¹

Where, V = applied shear at service load; Vsdf = design shear strength; Te =

externally applied tension at service load; Tndf = design tension strength.

V/Vsdf

1.0

1.0
Te/Tndf

Fig. 3.11 Shear and Tension Interaction Curve

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Beam-Column Base Plate Design—
LRFD Method
RICHARD M. DRAKE and SHARON J. ELKIN
INTRODUCTION
It is 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 beam-column base plates have been
designed and/or analyzed by using service loads1 or by
approximating the stress relationship assuming the com-
pression bearing location.2 The authors present another
approach, using factored loads directly in a method consis-
tent with the equations of static equilibrium and the LRFD
Specification.3
The moment-resisting base plate must have design
strengths in excess of the required strengths, flexural (Mu ),
axial ( Pu ), and shear (V u ) for all 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.4
Fig. 1. Base Plate Design Variables
Richard M. Drake is Principal Structural Engineer, Fluor
Daniel, Irvine, CA.
Sharon J. Elkin is Structural Engineer, Fluor Daniel, Irvine,
CA.
where:
B ⳱ base plate width perpendicular to moment direc-
tion, in.
N ⳱ base plate length parallel to moment direction, in.
b f ⳱ column flange width, in.
d ⳱ overall column depth, in.
f ⳱ anchor rod distance from column and base plate
centerline parallel to moment direction, in.
m ⳱ base plate bearing interface cantilever direction
parallel to moment direction, in.
N ⫺ 0.95d
m⳱ (1)
2
n ⳱ base plate bearing interface cantilever perpendic-
ular to moment direction, in.
B ⫺ 0.80b f
n⳱ (2)
2
x ⳱ base plate tension interface cantilever parallel to
moment direction, in.
d tf
x⳱ f ⫺ Ⳮ (3)
2 2
t f ⳱ column flange thickness, in.
The progression of beam-column loadings, in order of in-
creasing moments, is presented in four load cases.
Case A is a load case with axial compression and shear,
without bending moment. This case results in a full length
uniform pressure distribution between the base plate and
the supporting concrete. This case is summarized in the
LRFD Manual4 beginning on page 11-54 and is summa-
rized herein for completeness.
Case B evolves from Case A by the addition of a small
bending moment. The moment changes the full length
uniform pressure distribution to a partial length uniform
pressure distribution, but is not large enough to cause sepa-
ration between the base plate and the supporting concrete.
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 without separation
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 29
between the base plate and the supporting concrete. This
corresponds to the common elastic limit where any addi-
tional moment would initiate separation between the base
plate and the supporting concrete.
Case D evolves from 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 to require anchor rods to prevent uplift of the base
plate from the supporting concrete.
CASE A: NO MOMENT—NO UPLIFT
If there is no bending moment or axial tension at the base
of a beam-column, the anchor rods resist shear loads but
are not required to prevent uplift or separation of the base
plate from the foundation. Case A, a beam-column with
no moment or uplift at the base plate elevation, is shown
in Figure 2.
1. Assume that the resultant compressive bearing stress
is directly under the column flange.
2. Assume a linear strain distribution such that the an-
chor rod strain is dependent on the bearing area
strain.
3. Assume independent strain distribution.
All three methods summarized by AISC5 assume a lin-
ear triangular distribution of the resultant compressive
bearing stress. This implies that the beam-column base
plate has no additional capacity after the extreme fiber
reaches the concrete bearing limit state. The authors pro-
pose 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 moment and no
uplift at the base plate elevation, is shown in Figure 3.
The moment Mu is expressed as Pu located at some ec-
centricity (e) from the beam-column neutral axis.

Fig. 2. No Moment - No Uplift

Fig. 3. Small Moment Without Uplift
Mu ⳱ 0
Mu
Pu ⬎ 0 e⳱ (4)
Pu
CASE B: SMALL MOMENT WITHOUT UPLIFT Pu N
0 ⬍ Mu ⬍
If the magnitude of the bending moment is small relative 6
to the magnitude of the axial load, the column anchor N
rods are not required to restrain uplift or separation of 0⬍e⬍
6
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. N ⫺Y
AISC5 addresses three different variations of the elastic e⳱ (5)
2
method when using an ultimate strength approach for the
where:
design of beam-column base plates subjected to bending
moment. Y ⳱ bearing length, in.

30 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999

 CASE C: MAXIMUM MOMENT WITHOUT shear. Case D, a beam-column with sufficient moment to
UPLIFT cause uplift at the base plate elevation, is shown in Figure
The maximum moment without base plate uplift is as- 5. This is the most common case in design practice, espe-
sumed to occur when the concrete bearing limit state is cially for rigid frames designed to resist lateral earthquake
reached over a bearing area concentric with the applied or wind loadings on the building or structure.
load at its maximum eccentricity. If the eccentricity ex-
N
ceeds , the tendency for uplift of the plate is assumed to
6
occur. This assumes a linear pressure distribution in accor-
dance with elastic theory and no tension capacity between
the base plate and supporting concrete surfaces. Case C, a
beam-column with the maximum moment without uplift
at the base plate elevation, is shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 5. Moment With Uplift

Mu
e⳱ (4)
Pu

Pu N
Fig. 4. Maximum Moment Without Uplift 0⬍ ⬍ Mu
6

Mu N
e⳱ (4) ⬍e (7)
Pu 6
Pu N CONCRETE BEARING LIMIT STATE
0 ⬍ Mu ⳱
6 To satisfy static equilibrium at the concrete bearing limit
N state, the centroid of the concrete bearing reaction ( Pp )
e⳱ must be aligned with the line-of-action of the applied axial
6
load.

冢6 冣
N
Y ⳱ N ⫺ 2e ⳱ N ⫺ 2
LRFD Specification Requirements
2 The LRFD Specification3 defines the concrete bearing
Y⳱ N (6)
3 limit state in Section J9.

CASE D: MOMENT WITH UPLIFT Pu ⱕ ␾ c P p (8)

When the moment at the beam-column base plate exceeds On the full area of a concrete support:
N
, anchor rods are designed to resist uplift as well as
6 P p ⳱ 0.85 fc⬘ A1 (LRFD J9-1)

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 31

On less than the full area of a concrete support: Case B: Small Moment Without Uplift
A1 ⳱ BY
冪A
A2
P p ⳱ 0.85 fc⬘ A1 (LRFD J9-2)
1 Y ⳱ ( N ⫺ 2 e)

冪A
A2
冪A
A2
ⱕ2 Pu ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BY ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BY (2)
1 1
where: Pu ⱕ qY
␾ c ⳱ compression resistance factor = 0.60 P u ⱕ q( N ⫺ 2 e ) (12)
fc⬘ ⳱ specified concrete compressive strength, ksi
A1 ⳱ area of steel concentrically bearing on a concrete Note that equation 12 is not a closed form solution be-
support, in.2 cause;
A2 ⳱ maximum area of the portion of the supporting q is a function of A1 ,
surface that is geometrically similar to and con- A1 is a function of y,
centric with the loaded area, in.2 y is a function of e, and
e is a function of Pu .
Practical Design Procedure—Required Area
However, if e is defined as some fixed distance or as
Select base plate dimensions such that: some percentage of N , the corresponding maximum values
Pu ⱕ ␾ c P p (8) of Pu and Mu can be determined directly.

And noting that: Case C: Maximum Moment Without Uplift

M u ⳱ Pu e (9) As previously stated, Case C is the situation where uplift
N
For convenience, define a new variable, q, the concrete is imminent and e ⳱ .
6
bearing strength per unit width (K/in).
A1 ⳱ BY
冪
A2
q ⳱ ␾ c 0.85 fc⬘B ⱕ ␾ c 0.85 fc⬘B(2) 2
A1 Y⳱ N (6)
3
冪A
A2
q ⳱ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘B ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘B(2)
冪 BY
A2
1 Pu ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BY ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BY (2)

冪A
A2
q ⳱ 0.51 fc⬘B ⱕ 1.02 fc⬘B
冢3 N 冣 ⱍⱍⱍ B 2 N ⱕ 1.02 f ⬘B 冢3 N 冣
(10) 2 A2 2
1 Pu ⱕ 0.51 fc⬘B
冪 冢3 冣
c
For most column base plates bearing directly on a con-
crete foundation, the concrete dimension is much greater
than the base plate dimension, and it is reasonable to Pu ⱕ 0.667qN (13)

冪
A2
ⱖ 2. For most column
冢6 冣
assume that the ratio N
A1 M u ⳱ P u ( e) ⳱ P u
base plates bearing on grout or a concrete pier, the con-
crete (grout) dimension is equal to the base plate dimen-
sion, and it is reasonable to conservatively take the ratio Mu ⱕ 0.111qN 2 (14)

冪
A2
⳱ 1. Case D: Moment with Uplift
A1
Given the following:
Case A: No Moment - No Uplift Pu , Mu , ␾ c , fc⬘, B, f 兵inches & kips其
A1 ⳱ BN
冪A
A2
␾ c P p ⳱ ␾ c 0.85 fc⬘BY ⳱ qY (15)
冪
A2
Pu ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BN ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BN (2) 1
A1 Mu
e⳱ (4)
Pu ⱕ qN (11) Pu

32 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999

Two equations will be needed to solve for the two un- ANCHOR ROD SHEAR AND TENSION LIMIT
knowns, the required tensile strength of the anchor rods, STATES
T u , and bearing length, Y .
To maintain static equilibrium, the summation of verti- LRFD Specification Requirements
cal force must equal zero: The LRFD Specification3 defines the anchor rod (bolts)
shear and tension limit states in Sections J3.6 and J3.7,
⌺Fvertical ⳱ 0 and Tables J3.2 and J3.5.
T u Ⳮ Pu ⫺ ␾ c P p ⳱ 0 V ub ⱕ ␾ Fv Ab (21)
T u ⳱ qY ⫺ Pu (16) T ub ⱕ ␾ Ft Ab (22)
To maintain static equilibrium, the summation of moments For ASTM A307 bolts:
taken about the force T u must equal zero: Ft ⳱ 59 ⫺ 1.9 fv ⱕ 45 (Table J3.5)

冢 2 ⫺ 2 Ⳮ f 冣 ⫺ P (e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0
N Y For ASTM A325 bolts, threads excluded from the shear
␾c P p u plane:
Ft ⳱ 117 ⫺ 1.5 fv ⱕ 90 (Table J3.5)
冢 冣
N Y
qY ⫺ Ⳮ f ⫺ Pu ( e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0 (17) where:
2 2
V ub ⳱ required anchor rod shear strength, kips
qY N qY 2 ␾ ⳱ anchor rod resistance factor ⳱ 0.75
⫺ Ⳮ qY f ⫺ Pu (e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0
2 2 Fv ⳱ nominal shear strength, ksi
Ab ⳱ anchor rod nominal (gross) area, in.2

冢2 冣Y 冢 冣
q N T ub ⳱ required anchor rod tensile strength, kips
2
⫺q f Ⳮ Y Ⳮ Pu ( e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0 (18)
2 Ft ⳱ nominal tensile strength, ksi
fv ⳱ anchor rod shear stress, ksi
This is in the form of a classic quadratic equation, with
V ub
unknown Y . fv ⳱ (23)
Ab
aY Ⳮ bY Ⳮ c ⳱ 0
2
(19) For A307 bolts:
Fv ⳱ 24 ksi (Table J3.2)
⫺b ⫾ 冪b2 ⫺ 4ac
Y⳱ For A325 bolts when threads are excluded from the shear
2a
plane:

冪冋 册
2 Fv ⳱ 60 ksi (Table J3.2)
q 冢 f Ⳮ N2 冣 ⫾ ⫺q 冢 f Ⳮ N2 冣 ⫺ 4 冸 2q 冹 [ Pu ( f Ⳮ e)]
Y⳱ Required Strength
2 冸 2q 冹
The shear stress ( fv ) is calculated considering the required
shear strength of the column base.

冣 冪冋 冢 冣册
2
2 P u ( f Ⳮ e)
冢
N N V ub
Y⳱ fⳭ ⫾ ⫺ fⳭ ⫺ (20) fv ⳱ (24)
2 2 q Ⲇv A b
where:
To determine the other unknown, T u , substitute the value
for Y into the equation: Ⲇv ⳱ number of rods sharing shear load, unitless

T u ⳱ qY ⫺ Pu (16) Note that all the base plate anchor rods are considered
effective in sharing the shear load.
As a check, back substitute the value for Y into the
equation: Practical Design Procedure —Rod Sizes

冢 2 ⫺ 2 Ⳮ f 冣 ⫺ P (e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0
N Y Vu
qY u (17) V ub ⳱ ⱕ 0.75Fv Ab (25)
Ⲇv

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 33

 On section parallel to column flanges:
冢 冣
V ub
Ft ⳱ 59 ⫺ 1.9 ⱕ 45 (26)

冢 冣
Ab m2
M pl ⳱ f p (29)
2
Tu
T ub ⳱ ⱕ 0.75Ft Ab (27)
Ⲇt On section parallel to column web:
where:
Ⲇt ⳱ number of rods sharing tension load, unitless M pl ⳱ f p
冢冣 n2
2
(30)

Note that all of the base plate anchor rods are not con- where:
sidered effective in sharing the tension load. For most base
f p ⳱ concrete bearing stress, ksi
plate designs, only half of the anchor rods are required to
resist tension for a given load combination. The bearing pressure may cause bending in the base plate
The embedment, edge distances, and overlapping shear in the area between the flanges, especially for lightly loaded
cones of the anchor rods into the concrete must be checked columns. Yield line theory8,9 is used to analyze this con-
to assure that the design tensile strength also exceeds the sideration.
required tensile strength. This check should be in accor-
冪db f
dance with the appropriate concrete design specification, n⬘ ⳱ (31)
and is beyond the scope of this paper.3,6 4
It should be noted that base plate holes are often oversized ( n⬘)2
with respect to the anchor rods. In this case, some “slippage” M pl ⳱ f p (32)
2
may be necessary before the anchor rod shear limit state
is reached. For large shear loads, the designer may choose Let c ⳱ the larger of m, n, and n⬘:
to investigate alternate shear transfer limit states involving
pretensioned bolts,7 friction and/or shear lugs.
M pl ⳱ f p
冢冣 c2
2
(33)

BASE PLATE FLEXURAL YIELDING LIMIT

where:
STATE
The entire base plate cross-section can reach the specified n⬘ ⳱ yield line theory cantilever distance from column
yield stress (F y ). web or column flange, in.
c ⳱ largest base plate cantilever, in.

LRFD Specification Requirements Note that for most base plate geometries, the cantilever
dimension ( n) is very small and “corner bending” of the
The LRFD Specification3 defines the flexural yielding limit
base plate is neglected. When the dimension is large to
state in Section F1.
accommodate more anchor rods or more bearing surface,
M pl ⱕ ␾ b M n (28) corner bending plate moments should be considered and
used in the base plate thickness calculations.
Mn ⳱ M p (LRFD F1-1)
where: Required Strength—Tension Interface
The tension on the anchor rods will cause bending in the
M pl ⳱ required base plate flexural strength, in-K base plate for the cantilever distance x.
␾b ⳱ flexural resistance factor = 0.90 For a unit width of base plate:
Mn ⳱ nominal flexural strength, in-K
Mp ⳱ plastic bending moment, in-K Tu x
M pl ⳱ (34)
B
Required Strength—Bearing Interface
Nominal Strength
The bearing pressure between the concrete and the base
For a unit width of base plate:
plate will cause bending in the base plate for the cantilever
distances m and n. The bearing stress, f p (ksi), is calculated t 2p
considering the required axial and flexural strength of the
column base, Pu and Mu respectively.
Mn ⳱ M p ⳱ 冢 冣 4
Fy (35)

34 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999

Practical Design Procedure—Bearing Interface Case D: Moment with Uplift
Base Plate Thickness Pu
Setting the design strength equal to the nominal strength fp ⳱ (44)
BY
and solving for the required plate thickness (t p ):
For all cases:
M pl ⱕ ␾ b M n (28)
冪 BF
Tu x
t p(req) ⱖ 2.11 (45)
Mn ⳱ M p (LRFD F1-1) y

冢冣 冢冣
c2 t 2p If Y ⬎ m:
fp ⱕ 0.90 Fy
2 4
冪 BYF
Pu
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (46)
y

冪F
fp
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (36)
y If Y ⬍ m:

ⱍ Pu 冢m ⫺ Y
冣
冪
Practical Design Procedure—Tension Interface Base ⱍ 2
Plate Thickness t p(req) ⱖ 2.11 (47)
BF y
Setting the design strength equal to the nominal strength
and solving for the required plate thickness: DESIGN EXAMPLE 1
M pl ⱕ ␾ b M p (28)

冢冣
Tu x t 2p
ⱕ 0.90 Fy
B 4

冪
Tu x
t p(req) ⱖ 2.11 (37)
BF y

Case A: No Moment—No Uplift

Pu
fp ⳱ (38)
BN

冪 BNF
Pu
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (39)
y

Case B: Small Moment Without Uplift

Pu Pu
fp ⳱ ⳱ (40) Fig. 6. Design Example 1
BY B( N ⫺ 2 e)
Required:
冪
Pu
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (41)
B ( N ⫺ 2 e )F y a) Design anchor rods
b) Determine base plate thickness
Case C: Maximum Moment Without Uplift Solution:
Pu Pu 1.5 Pu 1. Dimensions:
fp ⳱ ⳱ ⳱ (42)
BY B 冢 23 N 冣 BN 22.0 in. ⫺ 0.95(12.12 in.)
m⳱ ⳱ 5.24 in. (1)
2

冪
1.5 Pu 16.0 in. 12.12 in. 0.605 in.
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (43) x⳱ ⫺ Ⳮ ⳱ 2.24 in. (3)
BNF y 2 2 2

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 35

 2. Eccentricity: Select: Base Plate 2 ⫻ 20 ⫻ 1’-10
120 ft-K(12 in./ft) 6. Check bearing on concrete below grout layer
e⳱ ⳱ 11.08 in. (4) The grout is 2 in. thick. Assume that the concrete
130K
extends at least 2 in. beyond grout in each direction.
N 22.0 in.
⳱ ⳱ 3.67 in. ⬍ 11.08 in. ⳱ e, Case D(7)

冪 (20 in.)(2.27 in.) (10)

6 6 (24 in.)(6.67 in.)
q ⳱ (0.51)(4 ksi)(20.0 in.)
3. Concrete bearing:
Assume the bearing on grout area will govern. ⳱ 76.6 K/in. ⬎ 61.2 K/in. used in design o.k.
q ⳱ (0.51)(6 ksi)(20.0 in.) 冪1 ⳱ 61.2 K/in. (10)
DESIGN EXAMPLE 2
N 16.0 in. 22.0 in.
fⳭ ⳱ Ⳮ ⳱ 19.0 in.
2 2 2
16.0 in.
f Ⳮe ⳱ Ⳮ 11.08 in. ⳱ 19.08 in.
2

冪(19.0)
2(130)(19.08)
Y ⳱ 19.0 ⫾ 2 ⫺ (20)
61.2
⳱ 19.0 ⫾ 16.73 ⳱ 2.27 in.
T u ⳱ 61.2 K/in.(2.27 in.) ⫺ 130 K ⳱ 8.92 K (16)

4. Anchor rod shear and tension:

Check 4 ⫺ 34 in. dia. anchor rods
30.0 K
V ub ⳱ ⳱ 7.50 K (25)
4

␾ Fv Ab ⳱ 0.75(24 ksi)(0.4418 in.2 )

⳱ 7.96 K ⬎ 7.50 K ⳱ V ub o.k.

冢0.4418 in. 冣 ⳱ 26.7 ksi

7.50 K
Ft ⳱ 59 ⫺ 1.9 2
(26)
Fig. 7. Design Example 2

8.92 K
T ub ⳱ ⳱ 4.46 K (27)
2 Required:

␾ Ft Ab ⳱ 0.75(26.7 ksi)(0.4418 in.2 ) a) Determine required tensile strength

⳱ 8.85 ⬎ 4.46 K ⳱ T ub
Select: 4 - 3/4 in. Diameter Anchor Rods
5. Base plate flexural yielding:
Y ⳱ 2.27 in. ⬍ 5.24 in. ⳱ m, n and n⬘ not applicable
b) Determine base plate thickness
o.k.
Solution:
Note that this problem is Example 16 from the AISC
Column Base Plate Steel Design Guide Series.5
1. Required strength: (LRFD A4-2)
Pu ⳱ 1.2(21K) Ⳮ 1.6(39K) ⳱ 87.6K

冪
(8.92 K)(2.24 in.) Mu ⳱ 1.2(171 in.-K) Ⳮ 1.6(309 in.-K) ⳱ 700 in.-K
t p(req) ⳱ 2.11 ⳱ 0.35 in. (45)
(20.0 in.)(36 ksi)
2. Dimensions:
14.0 in. ⫺ 0.95(7.995 in.)
ⱍ (130 K) 5.24 in. ⫺
冢 2.27 in.
冣 m⳱ ⳱ 3.20 in. (1)
冪
ⱍ 2 2
t p(req) ⳱ 2.11 (47)
(20.0 in.)(36 ksi) 11.0 in. 7.995 in. 0.435 in.
x⳱ ⫺ Ⳮ ⳱ 1.72 (3)
⳱ 1.82 in. controls 2 2 2

36 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999

 3. Eccentricity: for the design of the anchor rods is slightly smaller
700 in.-K because the centroid of the compression reaction is
e⳱ ⳱ 7.99 in. (4) a greater distance from the anchor rods.
87.6 K
N 14.0 in. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
⳱ ⳱ 2.33 in. ⬍ 7.99 in. ⳱ e, Case D (7)
6 6 A methodology has been presented that summarizes the
4. Concrete bearing: design of beam-column base plates and anchor rods using
factored loads directly in a manner consistent with the
q ⳱ (0.51)(3 ksi)(14 in.) 冪4 ⳱ 42.8 K/in. (10) equations of static equilibrium and the LRFD Specifi-
N 11.0 in. 14.0 in. cation.3 Two design examples have been presented. A
fⳭ ⳱ Ⳮ ⳱ 12.5 in. direct comparison was made with a problem solved by
2 2 2
another AISC method.
11.0 in.
f Ⳮe ⳱ Ⳮ 7.99 in. ⳱ 13.49 in. The step-by-step methodology presented will be benefi-
2 cial in a structural design office, allowing the design prac-
titioner to use the same factored loads for the design of the
冪(⫺12.5)
2(87.6)(13.49)
Y ⳱ 12.5 ⫾ 2 ⫺ (20) steel structure, base plate, and anchor rods. In addition the
42.8 uniform “rectangular” pressure distribution will be easier
⳱ 12.5 ⫾ 10.05 ⳱ 2.45 in. to design and program than the linear “triangular” pressure
distribution utilized in allowable stress design and other
T u ⳱ 42.8 K/in.(2.45 in.) ⫺ 87.6 K ⳱ 17.3 K (16) published LRFD formulations.5
Required Tensile Strength ⴔ 17.3 K
REFERENCES
5. Base plate flexural yielding: 1. Blodgett, Omer W., Design Of Welded Structures,
Y ⳱ 2.45 in. ⬍ 3.20 in. ⳱ m, n and n⬘ not applicable 1966.
2. Smith, J. C., Structural Steel Design, LRFD Approach,

冪 (14.0 in.)(36 ksi) ⳱ 0.51 in.

(17.3 K)(1.72 in.) 2nd Edition, 1996.
t p(req) ⳱ 2.11 (45) 3. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),
“Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings”, December 1, 1993.
ⱍ (87.6 K) 3.20 in. ⫺
冢 2.45 in.
冣
冪
ⱍ 2 4. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Man-
t p(req) ⳱ 2.11 (47)
(14.0 in.)(36 ksi) ual Of Steel Construction, Load & Resistance Factor
Design, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, 1994.
⳱ 1.24 in. controls 5. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Col-
Select: Base Plate 1 1/4 ⫻ 14 ⫻ 1⬘-2 umn Base Plates, Steel Design Guide Series, 1990.
6. Shipp, J.G., and Haninger, E.R., “Design Of Headed
6. Comparison: Anchor Bolts,” Engineering Journal, Vol 20, No. 2,
AISC5 solution for this problem: (2nd Qtr.), pp 58-69, AISC, 1983.
Required Anchor Rod Tensile Strength ⳱ 21.2 K 7. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Design
Of Anchor Bolts In Petrochemical Facilities, pp 4-3 to
Select: Base Plate 1 1/4 ⫻ 14 ⫻ 1⬘-2 4-8, 1997.
Length of triangular compression block ⳱ 5.1 in. 8. Thornton, W. A., “Design of Small Base plates for
Wide-Flange Columns,” Engineering Journal, Vol 27,
Author’s solution for this problem:
No. 3, (3rd Qtr.), pp 108-110, AISC, 1990a.
Required Anchor Rod Tensile Strength ⳱ 17.3 K 9. Thornton, W. A., “Design of Small Base plates for
Select: Base Plate 1 1/4 ⫻ 14 ⫻ 1⬘-2 Wide-Flange Columns - A Concatenation of Methods,”
Engineering Journal, Vol 27, No. 4, (4th Qtr.), pp 108-
Length of rectangular compression block ⳱ 110, AISC, 1990b.
2.45 in.
Remarks: NOMENCLATURE

The authors’ solution yields the identical base A1 ⳱ area of steel concentrically bearing on a concrete
plate size and thickness. Required tensile strength support, in.2

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999 37

 A2 ⳱ maximum area of the portion of the supporting
surface that is geometrically similar to and con-
centric with the loaded area, in.2
Ab ⳱ anchor rod nominal (gross) area, in.2
B ⳱ base plate width perpendicular to moment direc-
tion, in.
Ft ⳱ nominal tensile strength, ksi
Fv ⳱ nominal shear strength, ksi
F y ⳱ specified minimum yield stress, ksi
M n ⳱ nominal flexural strength, in.-K
M p ⳱ plastic bending moment, in.-K
M pl ⳱ required base plate flexural strength, in.-K
Mu ⳱ required flexural strength, in.-K
N ⳱ base plate length parallel to moment direction,
in.
P p ⳱ nominal bearing load on concrete, kips
Pu ⳱ required axial strength, kips
T u ⳱ required tensile strength, kips
T ub ⳱ required anchor rod tensile strength, kips
V u ⳱ required shear strength, kips
V ub ⳱ required anchor rod shear strength, kips
Y ⳱ bearing length, in.
b f ⳱ column flange width, in.
c ⳱ largest base plate cantilever, in.
38 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 1999
d ⳱ column overall depth, in.
e ⳱ axial eccentricity, in.
f ⳱ anchor rod distance from column and base plate
centerline parallel to moment direction, in.
fc⬘ ⳱ specified concrete compressive strength, ksi
fp ⳱ concrete bearing stress, ksi
fv ⳱ anchor rod shear stress, ksi
m ⳱ base plate bearing interface cantilever parallel
to moment direction, in.
n ⳱ base plate bearing interface cantilever perpen-
dicular to moment direction, in.
n⬘ ⳱ yield line theory cantilever distance from column
web or column flange, in.
q ⳱ concrete (or grout) bearing strength per unit
width, kips/in.
tf ⳱ column flange thickness, in.
tp ⳱ base plate thickness, in.
x ⳱ base plate tension interface cantilever parallel to
moment direction, in.
␾ ⳱ anchor rod resistance factor = 0.75
␾ b ⳱ flexural resistance factor = 0.90
␾ c ⳱ compression resistance factor = 0.60
Ⲇt ⳱ number of rods sharing tension load, unitless
Ⲇv ⳱ number of rods sharing shear load, unitless