A 0 CC

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTIONS
BENDING ABOUT WEAK AXIS
by
Daeyong Lee
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Civil and Environmental Engineering)
in The University of Michigan
2001
Doctoral Committee:
Professor Subhash C. Goel, Chairman

Assistant Professor Božidar Stojadinović (UC Berkeley)
Professor James K. Wight
Professor Jwo Pan (MEAM)
ABSTRACT
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTIONS
BENDING ABOUT WEAK AXIS
by
Daeyong Lee
Chair: Subhash C. Goel
Column-base plate connection is one of the most important structural elements in
a steel structure, especially in a Moment Resisting Frame (MRF). The base plate connects
the column to the concrete foundation directly so that lateral forces due to wind or
seismic effects can be transferred through the base plate and anchor bolts to the
foundation. In spite of the importance of the column-base plate connection in steel MRFs,
there have been no unified seismic design provisions for this connection in the U.S.
In order to understand the complex force flow and stress distribution in the
column-base plate connection under large lateral displacements, a few experimental and
theoretical studies have been conducted after the Northridge earthquake in the U.S.
Recently, Drake and Elkin suggested a design procedure. They adopted an equivalent
rectangular bearing stress block, instead of a triangular shape, to apply the AISC LRFD
philosophy. However, their design method has not been verified analytically or
experimentally for either the strong or the weak axis bending case.
For the weak axis bending case, an analytical and experimental study was
undertaken by the author to evaluate the Drake and Elkin's design method (D&E method)
and to develop a more reliable design method. Two fairly typical types of the column-
base plate connection in the U.S. practice (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) were selected.
Using these selected two connection types, the D&E method was evaluated through
numerical and experimental studies. The results showed several limitations of the D&E
method and also pointed to some design considerations needed to develop a more rational
and reliable design method. Finally, based on the proposed new design force profile and
the concept of relative strength ratios among the connection elements, a new design
method was developed. Furthermore, two limit states of the column-base plate
connection were defined to prevent undesirable connection failures and to maximize
cyclic connection ductility.

Daeyong Lee
© 2001
All Rights Reserved
To my parents and family
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank Professor Subhash C. Goel and Professor Božidar
Stojadinović for their invaluable guidance, advice, and encouragement throughout this
research work. The author also wishes to express his appreciation to Professor James K.
Wight and Professor Jwo Pan, members of his doctoral committee, for reviewing the
dissertation and offering valuable suggestions and comments.
This research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
NSF-CMS 9810595. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support.
Thanks are due to Robert Spence and Robert Fisher for their assistance during the
experimental phase of the research.
The author is indebted to his wife, Eunhee Kim, for her understanding and
encouragement during his study at The University of Michigan.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... xiii
NOTATION.................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
1.1 Background ..........................................................................................1

1.2 Literature Review .................................................................................5
1.2.1 Experimental Studies ........................................................5
1.2.2 Theoretical Studies............................................................9
1.3 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................10
1.4 Scope of the Study..............................................................................11
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation.........................................................13
2. SPECIMEN DESIGN AND PRE-TEST ANALYSES ..................................16
2.1 Outline of Drake and Elkin's Design Method ....................................17

2.1.1 Design Procedure for Base Plate Thickness ...................17
2.1.2 Design Procedure for Anchor Bolt Size..........................22
2.2 Design of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages...................24
2.2.1 Specified Compressive Strength of Grout, fc' .................25
2.2.2 Column............................................................................26
2.2.3 Base Plate........................................................................27
2.2.4 Anchor Bolts ...................................................................27
2.2.5 Weld Materials and Details.............................................29
2.2.6 Classification of Specimens............................................31
2.3 Pre-test Analyses ................................................................................33
2.3.1 Finite Element Analysis Models.....................................33
2.3.2 Finite Element Analysis Results .....................................38
2.3.2.1 Total Lateral Force .........................................38
iv
2.3.2.2 Total Tensile Bolt Force.................................39
2.3.2.3 Yielding in the Base Plate ..............................42
2.3.2.4 Bearing Stress Distribution on the
Grout...............................................................43
3. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF DRAKE AND ELKIN'S

METHOD ..........................................................................................................45
3.1 Test Setup and Loading History.........................................................46

3.2 Gauge Location ..................................................................................48
3.3 Coupon Test Results...........................................................................51
3.4 Summary of Test Results ...................................................................52
3.4.1 Specimen 6-1 (SP 6-1) ....................................................53
3.4.2 Specimen 6-2 (SP 6-2) ....................................................55
3.4.3 Specimen 4-1 (SP 4-1) ....................................................57
3.4.4 Specimen 4-2 (SP 4-2) ....................................................59
3.5 Experimental Evaluation of Drake and Elkin's Method.....................62
3.5.1 Total Lateral Force..........................................................62
3.5.2 Total Tensile Bolt Force .................................................63
3.5.3 Effects of Different Number of Anchor Bolts ................65
3.5.4 Stiff Base Plate................................................................69
3.6 Effects of Different Weld Material and Weld Detail .........................73
3.6.1 Effects of Different Weld Material (Between SP
6-1 and SP 6-2) ...............................................................73
3.6.2 Effects of Fillet Weld Reinforcement over the
Groove Welds (Between SP 4-1 and SP 4-2) .................74
4. NUMERICAL PARAMETRIC STUDY ........................................................75
4.1 Classification of FEA Models ............................................................75

4.2 Effects of Anchor Bolt Stiffness ........................................................77
4.2.3 Deformation of the Base Plate ........................................81
4.2.4 Variation of Yield Pattern in the Base Plate ...................84
4.2.5 Variation of Bearing Stress Distribution on the
Grout ...............................................................................87
4.2.6 Location of the Resultant Bearing Force ........................87
4.3 Effects of Base Plate Thickness .........................................................91
4.3.3 Deformation of the Base Plate ........................................95
4.3.4 Variation of Yield Pattern in the Base Plate ...................99
4.3.5 Variation of Bearing Stress Distribution on the
Grout ...............................................................................99
4.3.6 Location of the Resultant Bearing Force ......................104
4.4 Effects of Grout Compressive Strength............................................105
v
5. LIMITATIONS OF DRAKE AND ELKIN'S METHOD...........................107
5.1 Unrealistic Application of Concrete Beam Design

Methodology ....................................................................................107
5.2 Over-sensitive Design Procedure to q (or fc')...................................108
5.3 Inaccurate Location of Two Bending Lines .....................................111
5.4 No Explanation of Anchor Bolt Location Effects ............................111
5.5 No Use of Relative Strength Ratios .................................................112
5.6 Design of Stiff Base Plate ................................................................113
6. NEW DESIGN METHOD .............................................................................114
6.1 Three Geometric Ratios....................................................................114

6.1.1 Ratio of (bf / B) .............................................................115
6.1.2 Ratio of (a / B) ..............................................................116
6.1.3 Ratio of (a' / a) ..............................................................117
6.2 Three Strength Ratios.......................................................................117
6.2.1 Definition of Mp_column...................................................118
6.2.2 Definition of Mp_bolt ......................................................120
6.2.3 Definition of Mp_plate .....................................................121
6.2.4 Ratio of (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) ..........................................121
6.2.5 Ratio of (Mp_plate / Mp_column) .........................................122
6.2.6 Ratio of (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate) .............................................123
6.3 Desired Connection Behavior ..........................................................123
6.3.1 Target Location of Resultant Bearing Force.................124
6.3.2 Two Methodologies ......................................................125
6.3.3 Suggested Value for SR1 (= Mp_bolt / Mp_column) ...........127
6.3.4 Suggested Value for φbp ................................................127
6.4 New Design Force Profile ................................................................129
6.5 Basic Design Formulas.....................................................................131
6.5.1 Design of Base Plate Thickness....................................131
6.5.2 Design of Anchor Bolt Size ..........................................135
6.6 New Design of Base Plate Thickness and Anchor Bolt Size ...........136
7. TWO LIMIT STATES OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE

CONNECTION ...............................................................................................137
7.1 Limit State on the Tension Side (Numerical Approach)..................138

7.1.1 Basic Methodology .......................................................138
7.1.2 Limit State Check on the Tension Side
(Numerical Approach) ..................................................140
7.2 Limit State on the Tension Side (Theoretical Approach).................141
7.2.1 Global and Local Mechanisms......................................141
7.2.2 α and β ..........................................................................143
7.2.3 Minimum Base Plate Thickness ...................................145
7.2.4 Maximum Value of P, Pmax ...........................................146
vi
7.2.5
Limit State Check on the Tension Side
(Theoretical Approach).................................................149
7.2.6 α versus (tp)min...............................................................150
7.3 Limit State on the Compression Side ...............................................150
7.3.1 Effective Bearing Area and Grout Bearing
Strength .........................................................................151
7.3.2 Required Minimum Compressive Strength of the
Grout .............................................................................153
7.3.3 Limit State Check on the Compression Side ................154
7.3.4 Confining Band.............................................................154
7.4 Comparison of Two Design Procedures...........................................155
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................157
8.1 Summary ..........................................................................................157

8.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................160
8.3 Suggestions for Future Study ...........................................................162
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................163
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................184
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1. Mechanical Properties of Two Weld Materials ............................................30
2.2. Classification of Specimens..........................................................................32
2.3. Mechanical Properties of Connection Elements ...........................................36
3.1. Coupon Test Results .....................................................................................52
4.1. Classification of FEA Models.......................................................................76
4.2. Selected Connections for the Study of Anchor Bolt Stiffness Effects..........78
4.3. Selected Connections for the Study of Base Plate Thickness Effects ..........91
4.4. Selected Connections for the Study of Grout Compressive Strength

Effects .........................................................................................................105
6.1. Ry Values for Several Members (From AISC Seismic Provisions 97') ......119
6.2. Comparison of Connection Element Sizes .................................................136
7.1. Minimum Base Plate Thickness with Different Values of α......................150
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.1. Damage at a Column-Base Plate Connection .................................................2
1.2. Brittle Fracture through the Base Plate...........................................................2
1.3. Separation between Nut and Base Plate..........................................................3
1.4. Statistical Analysis Results of the Damage in Steel Structures ......................3
2.1. Plan View and Basic Dimensions of a Column-Base Plate Connection

(6-Bolt Type) ................................................................................................18
2.2. Unknown Design Parameters in a Column-Base Plate Connection .............19
2.3. Effects of fc' on Base Plate Thickness (tp).....................................................25
2.4. Base Plate Planar Dimensions and Anchor Bolt Diameters .........................28
2.5. Anchoring System using Supplemental Anchor Plates (6-Bolt Type) .........29
2.6. Weld Detail of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages .....................31
2.7. FEA Model and its Boundary Conditions (6-Bolt Type) .............................34
2.8. Constitutive Relationships of Steel and Concrete Elements.........................35
2.9. Deformation of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages ....................37
2.10. Total Lateral Force versus Drift Responses..................................................39
2.11. Total Tensile Bolt Force versus Drift Responses .........................................40
2.12. Effects of Different Anchor Bolt Stiffness on Connection Behavior ...........41
2.13. Equivalent Mises Stress Contours on the Base Plate Surfaces (3.85 %
Drift) .............................................................................................................43
2.14. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (3.85 % Drift) ..............................44
3.1. Test Setup......................................................................................................46
ix
3.2. Loading History ............................................................................................47
3.3. Location of Strain Gauges and Displacement Transducers (6-Bolt

Type).............................................................................................................49
3.4. Location of Strain Gauges and Displacement Transducers (4-Bolt

Type).............................................................................................................49
3.5. Planar Location of Strain Gauges on the Anchor Bolts................................50
3.6. Location of Strain Gauges on Anchor Bolts and Gauge Protection (6-
Bolt Type) .....................................................................................................50
3.7. Identification of Column Flanges (6-Bolt Type) ..........................................51
3.8. Moment-Rotation Response (SP 6-1) ...........................................................54
3.9. Initial Cracks in Welds at Column Flange Tips (SP 6-1) .............................54
3.10. Fracture of Column Flange "R1" Tip (SP 6-1) .............................................55
3.13. Fracture of Column Flange "L2" Tip (SP 6-2) .............................................57
3.16. Plastic Hinge Formation at the Bottom of the Column (SP 4-1) ..................59
3.19. Crack Initiation and Sudden Connection Failure (SP 4-2) ...........................61
3.20. Comparison of Total Lateral Forces .............................................................64
3.21. Comparison of Total Tensile Bolt Forces.....................................................66
3.22. Deformed Shape of the Base Plate along the Assumed Bending Line
on the Tension Side (1.71 % Drift)...............................................................67
3.23. Grout Crushing in the 4-Bolt Type Connection (SP 4-1) .............................68
3.24. Strain Variation at the Center of the Assumed Bending Line (SP 6-1) ........70
x
4.1. Total Lateral Forces versus Drifts.................................................................79
4.2. Total Tensile Bolt Forces (3.85 % Drift) ......................................................80
4.3. Deformation of the Base Plate (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift).........................82
4.5. Equivalent Mises Stress Contours on the Base Plate Surface (6-Bolt
Type, 3.85 % Drift).......................................................................................85
Type, 3.85 % Drift).......................................................................................86
4.7. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift).........88
4.8. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (4-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift).........89
4.9. Overall Moment Arm L and Cantilever Lengths x and x' ............................90
4.10. Effects of Anchor Bolt Stiffness on Cantilever Length x' ............................90
4.11. Total Lateral Forces versus Drifts.................................................................93
4.12. Total Tensile Bolt Forces (3.85 % Drift) ......................................................94
4.15. Local Deformation of Outer Anchor Bolt (0.8 tpo, 3.85 % Drift) .................98
4.16.Local Stress Concentration in Outer Anchor Bolt (0.8 tpo, 3.85 % Drift)
......................................................................................................................98
Type, 3.85 % Drift).....................................................................................100
Type, 3.85 % Drift).....................................................................................101
4.19. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift).......102
4.20. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (4-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift).......103
xi
4.21. Effects of Base Plate Thickness on Cantilever Length x' ...........................104
4.22. Variation of Cantilever Length x' on the Compression Side with

Respect to fc' (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift) ..................................................106
5.1. Effects of q Value on the Location of Ru (= q·Y).......................................110
6.1. Two New Variables (a and a') Determining the Locations of Tu and Ru ....115
6.2. Effects of Anchor Bolt Stiffness on the Ru Location (1.0 tpo) ....................126
6.3. Effects of Base Plate Thickness on the Ru Location (1.3 Ko).....................126
6.4. (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) versus (a' / a) ................................................................128
6.5. Comparison of Two Design Force Profiles ................................................130
6.6. Simplified Analysis Model (Simple Beam Model) ....................................132
6.7. Free Body Diagram.....................................................................................133
7.1. Limit Lines for Anchor Bolt Local Yielding ..............................................139
7.2. (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) versus (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate)max ..........................................139
7.3. Global Mechanism ......................................................................................142
7.4. Local Mechanism (For Each Anchor Bolt).................................................142
7.5. Detail around Anchor Bolt..........................................................................144
7.6. Simplified Local Mechanism......................................................................146
7.7. Two Internal Forces in Each Anchor Bolt ..................................................147
7.8. Stress Distribution across Anchor Bolt.......................................................148
7.9. Effective Bearing Area on the Grout ..........................................................152
7.10. Circular Shape Confining Band ..................................................................154
7.11. Comparison of Two Design Procedures .....................................................156
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Column-Base Plate Connection Design (D&E Method) ............................164
B. Column-Base Plate Connection Design (New Method) .............................170
C. Minimum Base Plate Thickness (Numerical Approach). ...........................175
D. Minimum Base Plate Thickness (Theoretical Approach)...........................177
E. Required Minimum Compressive Strength of Grout..................................182
xiii
NOTATION
a distance between anchor bolts and base plate edge on the tension
side
a' distance between resultant bearing force and base plate edge on the
compression side
Ab nominal (gross) area of each anchor bolt
Ab_eff effective area of each anchor bolt
Ab_total total area of anchor bolts on the tension side
Ag_eff effective bearing area on the compression side
A1 area of the base plate concentrically bearing on the concrete (or

grout)
A2 maximum area of the portion of the supporting surface that is

geometrically similar to and concentric with the loaded area
bf column flange width
d overall column depth
db diameter of each anchor bolt including threaded part
db_eff effective diameter of each anchor bolt
dh diameter of oversized bolt hole
d1 distance between P1 and center of anchor bolt on the tension side

(See Figure 7.4)
d2 distance between P2 and center of anchor bolt on the tension side

(See Figure 7.4)
f anchor bolt distance from the centerline of column or base plate
fc' specified compressive strength of concrete (or grout)
xiv
fp concrete bearing stress capacity
Ft nominal tensile strength of anchor bolt
Fv nominal shear strength of anchor bolt
Fy specified minimum yield stress of beam
Fye expected yield stress of beam
Fy_bolt specified minimum yield stress of anchor bolt
Fy_column specified minimum yield stress of column
Fy_plate specified minimum yield stress of base plate
GR1 ratio of (bf / B)
GR2 ratio of (a / B)
GR3 ratio of (a' / a)
h distance between the location of maximum base plate design

moment and the anchor bolts on the tension side
Ib_eff effective moment of inertia of each anchor bolt
Ko designed anchor bolt stiffness using Drake and Elkin's method
L distance between Tu and Ru
Lcolumn length of column
Ls distance between Tu and Ru when a = a' (= B - 2a)
m base plate bearing interface cantilever length perpendicular to

moment direction
Mmax maximum design moment in base plate
Mn nominal flexural strength per unit width
Mp plastic bending moment per unit width
Mpl required base plate flexural strength per unit width
Mp_bolt ultimate moment capacity of anchor bolt in the connection
xv
(Mp_bolt)' ultimate moment capacity of anchor bolt in the connection when
a = a'
Mp_column ultimate strength of column
Mp_plate ultimate strength of base plate
Mu required flexural strength (design moment)
n base plate bearing interface cantilever length parallel to moment

direction
N base plate width
P equivalent reaction force in simplified local mechanism (See

Figure 7.6)
Pmax maximum value of P
Pt_bolt tensile force limit of anchor bolt
P1 equivalent reaction force in anchor bolt (See Figure 7.4)
P2 equivalent reaction force in anchor bolt (See Figure 7.4)
q concrete bearing capacity per unit length
Rn nominal bearing strength
Ru resultant bearing force
Ry ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield

stress of beam
SR1 ratio of (Mp_bolt / Mp_column)
SR2 ratio of (Mp_plate / Mp_column)
SR3 ratio of (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate)
tf column flange thickness
tp required base plate thickness
tpo designed base plate thickness using Drake and Elkin's method
(tp)min minimum base plate thickness
tw column web thickness
xvi
Tu required total tensile strength of anchor bolts
Tub required tensile strength of each anchor bolt
Vu required total shear strength of anchor bolts
Vub required shear strength of each anchor bolt
W nut width across flats
Wu distributed loads on the base plate
x base plate tension interface cantilever length
x' base plate compression interface cantilever length
Y equivalent bearing length
Z plastic section modulus of beam
Zx_plate plastic section modulus of base plate
Zy_column plastic section modulus of column (about weak axis)
α ratio between P1 and P2
β equal to (d1 = d2)
φ resistance factor for anchor bolt
φb resistance factor for flexure
φbp resistance factor for flexure in base plate
φc resistance factor for bearing
#t number of anchor bolts resisting tensile force
#v number of anchor bolts resisting shear force
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Column-base plate connection is one of the most important structural elements in
a steel structure, especially in a Moment Resisting Frame (MRF). The base plate connects
the column to the concrete foundation directly so that lateral forces due to wind or
seismic effects can be transferred through the base plate and anchor bolts to the
foundation. In spite of the importance of the column-base plate connection in steel MRFs,
there are no unified seismic design provisions for this connection in the U.S.
In the U.S., most column-base plate connections resisting large moments have
been designed by using the AISC design guide series No. 1 (DeWolf and Ricker, 1990).
Unfortunately, these connections showed serious weaknesses during recent earthquakes.
Extensive damage to column-base plate connections has been reported since the
Northridge earthquake in 1994 (Northridge Reconnaissance Team, 1996). Many column-
base plate connections failed in several consistent patterns, such as brittle base plate
fracture, excessive bolt elongation, unexpected early bolt failure, concrete crushing, etc.
Typical damage patterns in these connections during the Northridge earthquake are
shown in Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. Furthermore, in Japan, similar damage types in the
column-base plate connections have also been reported since the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
(Kobe) earthquake. Based on the statistical results of the damage in steel structures
compiled after the Kobe earthquake, shown in Figure 1.4, Midorikawa (1997) noted
relatively high incidences of damage in the column-base plate connections designed by
1
2
Figure 1.1. Damage at a Column-Base Plate Connection

(Picture from Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Supplement C-2 to Vol.11, 1996, pp.29.)
Figure 1.2. Brittle Fracture through the Base Plate

3
Figure 1.3. Separation between Nut and Base Plate

(%)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2 Previous Code
0 Unidentified
Column Current Code
Beam
Brace
Column
Base
Figure 1.4. Statistical Analysis Results of the Damage in Steel Structures

(Data from Midorikawa, 1997)
4
the current Japanese code as well as the previous code. The lessons from the above two
reports led to the need for improved understanding of column-base plate connection
behavior under seismic excitations and for development of more reliable design methods.
In order to understand the complex force flow and stress distribution in the
column-base plate connection under large lateral displacements, a few experimental and
theoretical studies have been conducted after the Northridge earthquake in the U.S.
Recently, Drake and Elkin (1999) suggested a design procedure. They adopted an
equivalent rectangular bearing stress block, instead of a triangular shape, to apply the
LRFD method. However, their design method has not been verified analytically or
experimentally for either the strong or the weak axis bending case.
An organized study has been conducted at The University of Michigan to evaluate
the Drake and Elkin's design method (D&E method) and to develop a more reliable
design method. Fahmy (1999) completed the first phase of the study for the case of the
strong axis bending. For the weak axis bending case, an analytical and experimental
study was undertaken by the author. Two fairly typical types of the column-base plate
connection in the U.S. practice (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) were selected. Using
these selected two connection types, the D&E method was evaluated through the
numerical and experimental studies. The results showed several limitations of the D&E
method and also pointed to some design considerations needed to develop a more rational
design method. Finally, based on the proposed new design force profile and the concept
of relative strength ratios among the connection elements, a new design method was
developed. Furthermore, two limit states of the column-base plate connection were
defined to prevent undesirable connection failures and to maximize cyclic connection
ductility.
5
1.2 Literature Review
In order to understand the column-base plate connection behavior under axial
loads and moments (i.e., combined loads) or the moments only, several experimental and
theoretical studies have been conducted in the past. Outlines and major findings of each
study are briefly summarized in the following:
1.2.1 Experimental Studies
DeWolf and Sarisley (1980) tested sixteen specimens to understand the effects of
axial loads and moments on the column-base plate connection behavior. The specimens
consisting of tube section columns were tested under varying eccentricity of the axial
loads. The main variables were eccentricity of the axial loads, anchor bolt size, and base
plate thickness. Three different failure modes were investigated: (1) concrete crushing at
small eccentricity of the axial loads, (2) anchor bolt yielding at large eccentricity of the
axial loads with a thick base plate, and (3) base plate yielding at large eccentricity of the
axial loads with a thin base plate. Based on the test results, three conclusions were drawn:
First, the distance between the anchor bolt on the tension side and the bearing zone is
shortened when the anchor bolt size is large in relation to the base plate dimensions.
Second, the effects of confinement in the concrete foundation should be included in the
design procedures when the concrete area is greater than the base plate area. Lastly,
increasing the base plate thickness beyond what is indicated by the design method can
lead to decreased connection capacity because of large bearing stresses on the
compression side.
Picard and Beaulieu (1985) tested fifteen specimens to study the behavior of
column-base plate connections under various loading conditions and to determine the
6
influence of axial loads in the connection rigidity. Three different column sections (i.e.,
M, W, and HSS) and two different anchor bolt types (i.e., 2-bolt type and 4-bolt type)
were selected for the experimental study. Two different loading conditions were applied:
(1) lateral loads only and (2) axial loads with different eccentricities. The test results
indicated that the axial loads applied on the column significantly increase the rotational
stiffness of the connection, and this rotational restraint in the connection is sufficient to
affect the frame responses. In addition, within several limitations, a theoretical model that
can predict the ultimate capacity of the connection was developed.
Thambiratnam and Paramasivam (1986) conducted experimental studies to
examine the behavior of base plates under the combined loads (i.e., axial loads and
moments). Twelve specimens consisting of tube section columns were tested. The
loading conditions were very similar to the DeWolf and Sarisley's. Two main variables
were considered: eccentricity of the axial loads and base plate thickness. Under small
eccentricity of the axial loads, the primary failure mode was concrete crushing. On the
other hand, base plate yielding was the primary failure mode under large eccentricity of
the axial loads. They reconfirmed that a thick base plate tends to ride up on edge because
of its high stiffness, and this may cause a premature connection failure due to large
bearing stresses on the compression side. They also observed that a thin base plate results
in early base plate yielding and thus, may not behave as predicted.
Sato and Kamagata (1988) performed an experimental study to understand force
flows among the connection elements in column-base plate connections. Under axial
loads and cyclic lateral loads, six specimens composed of four post-tensioned anchor
bolts and a stiff base plate were tested. Three main parameters were considered: base
plate size, column axial loads, and yield ratio of anchor bolt. Based on the test results, a
formula that can estimate the fixity and rotational capacity of the column-base plate
connection was developed. In addition, in order to study the effects of column base
hysteresis characteristics on the superstructure behavior, seismic response analyses were

7
conducted using three different framing systems designed by the Japanese seismic code.
Based on the analysis results, they noted that assuming the fixed condition of column-
base plate connections in the moment frame could result in underestimation of story drifts
and energy dissipation.
Astaneh et al. (1992) tested six column-base plate connection assemblages
consisting of W-shape columns to study their seismic behavior under axial loads and
cyclic lateral displacements. Four anchor bolts bent 90° at the bottom were used to
connect the base plate to the grout and foundation. Main variables were the amount of
axial loads and the thickness of base plate. Through the experimental study, they
observed that yielding in the base plate could be used as a good source of energy
dissipation for ductile connection behavior. They classified the base plate behavior into
one of three categories, i.e., a thin, intermediate, and thick base plate. Based on those
categories, they suggested three simplified base plate behavior models.
Targowski et al. (1993) conducted experimental and numerical studies to
understand the base plate behavior under pure bending conditions. For the experimental
study, a total of twelve connection assemblages consisting of six different column
sections (i.e., square, rectangular, circular, channel, and two different I-sections) and two
different base plate thicknesses (i.e., 6 mm and 10 mm) were prepared. Each connection
assemblage was connected to the concrete foundation using four anchor bolts. In order to
provide the limit loads of the connection, two possible failure mechanisms in the
connection were studied. For the numerical study, only square section columns were
considered. Based on the numerical analysis results, the performance of base plate under
pure bending condition was assessed. In addition, the contact force distribution between
the base plate and the concrete foundation was investigated.
Jaspart and Vandegans (1998) tested twelve column-base plate connections
consisting of I-shaped columns under combined loads (i.e., axial loads and moments).
Two anchor bolt types (i.e., 2-bolt type and 4-bolt type) were used for the test specimens,
8
and three main parameters (i.e., axial load, base plate thickness, and number of anchor
bolts) were considered. Through the experimental study, they observed that the bond
stresses between anchor bolt and concrete foundation vanish quickly at the beginning of
the loading. They also found that the contact zone on the compression side could change
with the increase of axial loads. Using the component method described in Annex J of
Eurocode 3, they developed a mechanical model that can estimate the moment-rotation
responses of a column-base plate connection.
Burda and Itani (1999) tested six one-half scale column-base plate connection
assemblages consisting of various base plate sizes and thicknesses. For the loading
condition, a constant axial load and lateral cyclic displacements were applied. They also
conducted nonlinear finite element analyses using the ADINA program to determine the
bearing stress distribution profile under the base plate. In addition, in order to study the
seismic responses of a selected four-story steel moment building, the DRAIN-3DX
program was used. Based on the numerical and experimental studies, a design procedure
that limits the inelastic behavior of the base plate was proposed.
Fahmy (1999) at The University of Michigan tested three column-base plate
connection assemblages under lateral cyclic displacements. Based on the test results and
nonlinear finite element analyses, he showed that weak column-strong connection

mechanism could maximize the post-yield deformation of the connection. In addition, a
concept of connection strength ratio was introduced to help the designers choose a
desired connection failure mode.
Adany et al. (2000) investigated the cyclic behavior of the column-base plate
connections consisting of the base plates directly connected to a steel base element. Total
six specimens, including one repaired specimen, were tested under cyclic lateral loads.
Three major findings from the experimental study are briefly summarized as: (1) The bolt
pre-tensioning has no outstanding effects on the cyclic behavior of the connection. (2)
The weld cracking affects significantly the cyclic moment resistance and the energy
9
absorption capacity of the connection. (3) The rigidity and the energy dissipation capacity
of the connection decrease whenever there is a significant bolt elongation.
1.2.2 Theoretical Studies
Ermopoulos and Stamatopoulos (1996A) proposed an analytical model which can
calculate the position of neutral axis and angle of rotation in the base plate under the
given axial loads and moments. Based on the level of concrete bearing stresses under the
base plate, column-base plate connections were classified in three types and in turn, three
analytical methods corresponding to each connection type were developed. In these
analytical models, the following main parameters were considered: (1) the size and
thickness of base plate, (2) the size, length, and location of anchor bolt, (3) material
properties of connection elements, (4) the geometry of concrete foundation, and (5) the
amount of axial loads. In order to verify the accuracy of their analysis models, the
analytical estimations were compared with the results of the tests conducted by Astaneh
et al. (1992). In addition, for more accurate frame analyses, they proposed a simple
expression of M-φ curves that provide an approximate degree of fixity in a column-base
plate connection.
Ermopoulos and Stamatopoulos (1996B) expanded their study to the cyclic
loading cases. An analytical model that can estimate the cyclic nonlinear responses of a
column-base plate connection was proposed.
Stojadinovic et al. (1998) studied the effects of semi-rigidity of the column-base
plate connection on the seismic responses of moment resisting frames. Push-over analysis
and time-history analysis were carried out using two different three-story buildings.
Based on the analysis results, two conclusions were drawn. First, the seismic behaviors of
the moment resisting frame consisting of fixed column-bases are representative for the
responses of the frames that have the realistic, semi-rigid, column-bases. Second, with a
10
reduction of column base stiffness and strength, an increase in rotation demand on the
first floor beams was observed through the push-over analyses. This phenomenon was
reconfirmed by the results of the time-history analyses.
Drake and Elkin (1999) recently suggested a design method for column-base plate
connections under combined bending and axial forces. In order to apply the LRFD
method for the design of base plate thickness, they adopted a rectangular bearing stress
block instead of a triangular shape. Depending on the eccentricity (i.e., the ratio between
axial force and bending moment), the connections were classified in four different cases.
For each case, the corresponding design procedure was developed. For the design of
anchor bolt size, however, they simply followed the AISC LRFD Specifications.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
As mentioned earlier in Section 1.1, for the column-base plate connections subject
to cyclic weak axis bending, the D&E method which is assumed to represent the current
design practice in the U.S. has not been verified analytically or experimentally. Thus, the
main effort in this study was concentrated on evaluating the D&E method numerically
and experimentally.
Through numerical pre-test analyses, complex force flow and stress distribution in
the connection were studied, and the D&E method was evaluated by comparing the
design estimations with the numerical analysis results. Through the experimental study,
the seismic nonlinear behavior of three major connection elements (i.e., column, anchor
bolts, and base plate) was investigated, and the D&E method was evaluated by
comparing the design estimations with the test results.
Based on the numerical pre-test analyses and experimental results, several
limitations of the D&E method were investigated and the effects of relative strength
ratios on the seismic behavior of the connection were emphasized. After an extensive
11
numerical parametric study, a more rational and reliable design method was developed
based on the proposed new design force profile and the concept of relative strength ratios
among the connection elements. Additionally, in order to prevent undesirable connection
failures, two limit states of the connection (i.e., one on the tension side and one on the
compression side) were defined.
Ductility is considered as one of the most desirable properties in seismic resistant
structures and their components including connections. The ductility of the column-base
plate connections in this study was also evaluated based on the test results.
Thus, the main objectives of the study were:
• To evaluate the current design practice in the U.S. numerically and experimentally.
• To understand realistic force flow and stress distribution in column-base plate
connections under weak axis bending.
• To investigate the seismic nonlinear behavior of three primary connection elements:
the column, the base plate, and the anchor bolts.
• To investigate the effects of relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior of the
connection.
• To examine the seismic ductility of the connection.
• To develop a more rational and reliable design method.

• To define two limit states of the connection.
1.4 Scope of the Study
The main focus of this study was placed on studying the seismic behavior of
exposed column-base plate connections in the case of the weak axis bending. Quasi-static
cyclic lateral displacements were applied at the tip of the column to cause cyclic bending
during the experimental studies. Under the given loading history, moment resisting
mechanisms and failure modes in the connection were investigated.

12
Using two typical connection types (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type), numerical
and experimental studies were conducted. In order to investigate the effects of anchor
bolt size (stiffness) on the seismic behavior of the connection, different total areas of the
anchor bolts were used. The larger total area of the anchor bolts was used for the 4-bolt
type connection. Thus, in both numerical and experimental studies, the two main
variables were size (stiffness) and number of anchor bolts.
For the numerical pre-test analyses and parametric studies, a Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) tool was used. The ABAQUS program, a highly versatile FEA tool, was
selected for the study of nonlinear behavior of the three major connection elements and
for the modeling of several contact interfaces among the connection elements. In addition
to the above two main variables, one more variable was considered in the numerical
parametric study. The effects of base plate thickness, as well as the effects of size
(stiffness) and number of anchor bolts, on the seismic behavior of the connection were
investigated in depth through the numerical parametric study.
In order to evaluate the D&E method experimentally, a total of four column-base
plate connection assemblages, consisting of the same column and base plate planar sizes,
were fabricated and tested. Two specimens were prepared for the 6-bolt type connection
and the other two specimens were prepared for the 4-bolt type connection. Through the
experimental study, the effects of weld detail on the connection ductility as well as the
seismic nonlinear behavior of three major connection elements were investigated.
Based on the numerical and experimental studies, a new design method for
column-base plate connections under weak axis bending was formulated. This method is
based on the LRFD method, and is dependent on the relative strength ratios among the
connection elements.
13
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation
In Chapter 1, study background is introduced and literature reviews are briefly
summarized. Main objectives and scope of the study are also included in Chapter 1.
In Chapter 2, the D&E method is evaluated numerically through pre-test analyses.
For this purpose, two typical exposed column-base plate connection assemblages with
different total area and number of anchor bolts (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) were
designed by the D&E method. Based on the basic dimensions of the two designed
connections, an FEA model for each bolt type connection was prepared and analyzed.
Through comparisons between the FEA results and the design estimations given by the
D&E method, the current design practice is numerically evaluated and the effects of
relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior of the connection are emphasized.
In Chapter 3, the D&E method is evaluated experimentally. A total of four
column-base plate connection assemblages (i.e., two for the 6-bolt type and two for the 4-
bolt type) were fabricated and tested under the given cyclic loading history. Based on the
test results, the cyclic nonlinear behavior of the connection elements was carefully
investigated and several factors that may significantly affect the moment capacity and
cyclic ductility of the connection were revealed. Through the comparisons between the
test results and the design estimations provided by the D&E method, the current design
practice is experimentally evaluated and several limitations of the D&E method are
explored.
In Chapter 4, an extensive numerical parametric study to investigate the
contribution of relative strength ratios in the seismic behavior of the connection is
presented. Two main parameters (i.e., anchor bolt stiffness and base plate thickness) were
selected for the systematic investigation. For both bolt type connections (i.e., 6-bolt type
and 4-bolt type), the effects of anchor bolt stiffness and base plate thickness on the
14
seismic behavior of the connection were studied and several major observations are
summarized. Additionally, in order to examine the effects of grout strength on the
location of the resultant bearing force, three more FEA models consisting of different
grout compressive strengths were configured and analyzed. This study was conducted for
the 6-bolt type connection only. The FEA results are compared with the design
estimations provided by the D&E method, and the main differences are discussed.
In Chapter 5, a total of six limitations of the D&E method are summarized. The
numerical analysis results and major findings from the experimental study showed
several possible limitations of the D&E method in its basic assumptions and design
calculations. Six major limitations are discussed in this chapter.
In Chapter 6, a more rational and reliable design method is proposed based on the
new design force profile and the concept of relative strength ratios among the connection
elements. In order to help understand this new design method, a total of six ratios (i.e.,
three geometric ratios and three strength ratios) were defined and the desired seismic
behavior of the connection at its ultimate state was described effectively using those
ratios. Furthermore, several fundamental design formulas were derived based on the
proposed new design force profile. Using the proposed new design method, base plate
thickness and anchor bolt size were re-computed for the given column and base plate
planar sizes. The new element sizes are compared with those from the D&E method, and
the differences are discussed.
In Chapter 7, two limit states of the column-base plate connection are defined to
prevent undesirable connection failures and to maximize the cyclic ductility of the
connection. The first limit state of the connection was defined on the tension side based
on the local stresses around the anchor bolts. By checking the first limit state, the
minimum base plate thickness that can prevent local yielding in the anchor bolts is
provided numerically and theoretically. On the other hand, the second limit state of the
connection was defined on the compression side based on the proposed effective bearing
15
area on the grout. This second limit state of the connection provides the required
minimum compressive strength of the grout. Finally, the new design procedure which
includes checking the two limit states of the connection is briefly compared with the
Drake and Elkin's design procedure in the last part of this chapter.
In Chapter 8, several conclusions based on the study results are drawn and some
directions of future study are suggested.

CHAPTER 2
SPECIMEN DESIGN AND PRE-TEST ANALYSES
Numerical pre-test analyses are described in this chapter. For this study, two
exposed column-base plate connections consisting of different total area and number of
anchor bolts (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) are selected. Through the pre-test analyses,
the D&E method which is representing current design practice in the U.S. is evaluated
numerically.
In order to help understand the basic assumptions and design procedure of the
D&E method, the outline of this method is explained first. Based on the D&E method,
base plate thicknesses and anchor bolt sizes for the two selected bolt type connections
(i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) are designed. In order to examine the effects of different
anchor bolt stiffness on the seismic response of the connection, a larger total area of
anchor bolts is used for the 4-bolt type connection.
Using the basic connection dimensions obtained by the D&E method, two FEA
models (i.e., one for the 6-bolt type and the other for the 4-bolt type) are configured
without consideration of weld detail. The ABAQUS program, a highly versatile FEA tool,
is used for the numerical analyses. In order to examine the effects of different stiffness
and location of anchor bolts on the seismic behavior of the connection, analysis results
for both bolt type connections are compared. In addition, these analysis results are
compared with the design estimates given by the D&E method to evaluate this design
method numerically. Through the numerical evaluations, several limitations of the D&E
method are revealed and the effects of relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior of
the connection are emphasized.
16
17
2.1 Outline of Drake and Elkin's Design Method
Two different approaches have been used for design of column-base plate
connections subject to axial loads and bending moments: working stress method and
ultimate strength method. The first design approach is based on the assumed behavior of
the connection at service loads, whereas the second approach is based on the assumed
behavior of the connection at ultimate loads. One of the main differences between these
two approaches is the assumed shape of bearing stress distribution on the compression
side of the connection. A triangular shape is assumed for the bearing stress distribution in
the working stress method. On the other hand, a rectangular block is assumed in the
ultimate strength method.
The D&E method follows the ultimate strength design method. Thus, the D&E
method is implicitly based on two basic assumptions. First, the nonlinear bearing stress
distribution can be simplified by an equivalent rectangular stress block. Second, the
anchor bolts on the tension side yield at the ultimate state of the connection.
In order to help understand the basic assumptions and subsequent design
procedures of the D&E method, outline of their design method is briefly presented in this
section. Highlights of the design procedure for base plate thickness and anchor bolt size
are explained in the following.
2.1.1 Design Procedure for Base Plate Thickness
In order to explain the design procedure for base plate thickness, plan view and
basic dimensions of a typical exposed 6-bolt type connection are presented in Figure 2.1.
18
Assumed f
Bending Line m
0.95d N
x
m
n 0.8b f n
B
Figure 2.1. Plan View and Basic Dimensions of a Column-Base Plate Connection
(6-Bolt Type)
In Figure 2.1, the dotted lines indicate the location of base plate bending on the tension
and compression sides assumed in the D&E method. Dimensions in Figure 2.1 are:
B = base plate length, in.
N = base plate width, in.

bf = column flange width, in.
d = overall column depth, in.
m = base plate bearing interface cantilever length perpendicular to moment

direction, in.
n = base plate bearing interface cantilever length parallel to moment direction, in.
f = anchor bolt distance from the centerline of column or base plate, in.
x = base plate tension interface cantilever length, in.

19
Y = equivalent bearing length, in.
Unknown design parameters in a column-base plate connection are briefly
profiled in Figure 2.2. In Figure 2.2, the concrete bearing capacity per unit length (q) and
the equivalent bearing length (Y) should be obtained first to calculate the required total
tensile strength of anchor bolts (Tu). In the D&E method, the Y value is calculated from
an assumed value of q expressed in terms of the specified compressive strength of
concrete (fc'). It should be noted that, in the D&E design procedure, the location of
resultant bearing force as well as its magnitude can be calculated if Y and q values are
given.
The assumed concrete bearing capacity per unit length (q) is
A2 A2
q = φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ f c '⋅ N ⋅ and ≤2 (2-1)
A1 A1
Assumed Assumed
Bending Line Bending Line
(Tension Side) Mu (Compression Side)
Vu
φVn q (Assumed)
Y
Tu
Figure 2.2. Unknown Design Parameters in a Column-Base Plate Connection
20
where:
φc = resistance factor for bearing, 0.6
fc' = specified compressive strength of concrete (or grout), ksi
A1 = area of the base plate concentrically bearing on the concrete (or grout), in.2
A2 = maximum area of the portion of the supporting surface that is geometrically

similar to and concentric with the loaded area, in.2
A significant point which should be mentioned is that the AISC LRFD Specifications
recommend 0.6 for φc, whereas the ACI 318-99 adopts 0.7 for the strength reduction
factor in case of bearing on concrete.
Two equilibrium equations can be formulated to solve for two unknowns:
equivalent bearing length (Y) and required total tensile strength of anchor bolts (Tu). In
order to maintain static equilibrium, the summation of moments taken at the anchor bolts
on the tension side of the connection must equal zero. Thus,
⎛B Y ⎞
q ⋅Y ⋅ ⎜ − + f ⎟ − M u = 0 (2-2)
⎝2 2 ⎠
From the solutions of the quadratic Equation (2-2), the value of Y can be calculated as,
2
⎛ B⎞ ⎧ ⎛ B ⎞⎫ 2⋅Mu
Y = ⎜ f + ⎟ − ⎨− ⎜ f + ⎟ ⎬ − (2-3)
⎝ 2⎠ ⎩ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎭ q
In addition, the summation of vertical forces must equal zero in order to maintain static
equilibrium, which gives:

21
Tu − q ⋅ Y = 0 (2-4)
From Equation (2-4), the value of Tu can be obtained as:
Tu = q ⋅ Y (2-5)
After the value of Tu is formed from Equation (2-5), the required base plate
flexural strength per unit width (Mpl) can be calculated on both sides of the base plate
from the calculated two force resultants (i.e., Tu and q·Y). The larger value of Mpl, of
course, governs the design of base plate thickness. The expressions of Mpl on the tension
and compression sides are:
On the tension side
Tu ⋅ x
M pl = (2-6)
N
On the compression side
⎛n⎞
M pl = f p ⋅ n ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ if Y ≥ n (2-7a)
⎝ 2⎠
⎛ Y⎞
M pl = f p ⋅ Y ⋅ ⎜ n − ⎟ if Y < n (2-7b)
⎝ 2⎠
In the above two equations, fp is concrete bearing stress capacity and can be expressed as
follows:
22
A2 A2
f p = φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ f c '⋅ and ≤2 (2-8)
A1 A1
Finally, based on the definition of the AISC LRFD Specifications for the yielding
limit state of a steel member, the required minimum thickness of the base plate can be
calculated as follows:
⎧⎪ (t p ) 2 ⎫⎪
M pl ≤ φ b ⋅ M n ⎨= φ b ⋅ M p = φ b ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ ⎬ (2-9)
⎪⎩ 4 ⎪⎭
4 ⋅ M pl
tp ≥ (2-10)
φ b ⋅ Fy _ plate
where:
Mn = nominal flexural strength per unit width, k-in./in.
Mp = plastic bending moment per unit width, k-in./in.
φb = resistance factor for flexure, 0.9

Fy_plate = specified minimum yield stress of base plate, ksi
tp = required base plate thickness, in.
2.1.2 Design Procedure for Anchor Bolt Size
For the design of anchor bolts, the D&E method simply follows the AISC LRFD
Specifications. In the D&E method, the anchor bolt size is designed based on the
following two assumptions. First, all anchor bolts are considered effective in resisting the
23
design shear force (Vu). Second, the anchor bolts only on the tension side are considered
effective in resisting the design tensile force (Tu).

The AISC LRFD Specifications define shear and tensile force limit states of the
anchor bolt as follows:
For shear force
⎛ V ⎞
⎜⎜Vub = u ⎟⎟ ≤ φ ⋅ Fv ⋅ Ab (2-11)
⎝ #v ⎠
For tensile force
⎛ T ⎞
⎜⎜ Tub = u ⎟⎟ ≤ φ ⋅ Ft ⋅ Ab (2-12)
⎝ #t ⎠
where:
Vu = required total shear strength of anchor bolts, kips
Vub = required shear strength of each anchor bolt, kips
Tub = required tensile strength of each anchor bolt, kips

#v = number of anchor bolts resisting shear force, unitless
#t = number of anchor bolts resisting tensile force, unitless
φ = resistance factor for anchor bolt, 0.75

Fv = nominal shear strength of anchor bolt, ksi
Ft = nominal tensile strength of anchor bolt, ksi
Ab = nominal (gross) area of each anchor bolt, in.2

24
From the above two expressions, the required minimum area and diameter of each
anchor bolt can be calculated using:
For shear force
Vub
Ab ≥ (2-13)
0.75 ⋅ Fv
⎛4⎞ Vub
db ≥ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ (2-14)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Fv
For tensile force
Tub
Ab ≥ (2-15)
0.75 ⋅ Ft
⎛4⎞ Tub
db ≥ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ (2-16)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Ft
The larger anchor bolt diameter, of course, governs the final design value of the required
minimum anchor bolt size.
2.2 Design of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages
Based on the D&E method, base plate thickness and anchor bolt size are designed
for the two selected bolt type connections (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type). The
schematic connection geometry and the design procedures are presented in Appendix A.
In this section, several specific design considerations are explained and designed each
25
connection element is described in detail. For the experimental study, two identical
specimens, except for weld detail, are also prepared in this section.
2.2.1 Specified Compressive Strength of Grout, fc'
For the design of base plate thickness and anchor bolt size in a column-base plate
connection, values of Y and Tu shown in Figure 2.2 should be calculated first. As
explained, in order to calculate the Y and Tu values, the D&E method uses the assumed
value of q in terms of the specified compressive strength of grout (fc'). However, due to
its significant effects on the entire design procedure, the value of fc' should be carefully
selected when the D&E method is applied. In order to show the sensitivity of the value of
fc' to base plate thickness (tp), Figure 2.3 is prepared.
If the value of fc' is less than 6 ksi, in Figure 2.3, tension side governs the design
procedure for base plate thickness. On the other hand, compression side governs if the
value of fc' is larger than 6 ksi. It should be noted that although the maximum variation of
2.45
Required Base Plate Thickness, tp (in.)
2.4
Tension Compression
2.35 Side Governs Side Governs
2.3
2.25
2.2
2.15
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Compressive Strength of Grout, fc' (Ksi)
Figure 2.3. Effects of fc' on Base Plate Thickness (tp)

26
base plate thickness is slightly more than 0.25 in., when the compression side governs the
design procedure under the given range of fc' values, this variation is large enough to
change the seismic behavior of the connection.
Based on experimental observations, it has been found that thinner base plates can
be a good source of energy dissipation and do provide for more ductile connection
behavior during earthquake excitation (Astaneh et al., 1992). Thus, in this study, 6 ksi is
selected for the fc' value to maximize the possibility of meeting a flexible base plate.
2.2.2 Column
A W12x96 section of ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel is selected for the 80 in. long
specimen column. The length of the column is decided based on a general assumption for
design of MRFs, i.e., bending moment is zero at mid-height of the column in the frames
which resist lateral loads only. Thus, the total story height is 160 in.
For the calculation of design moment (Mu), in this study, an expected yield stress
58 ksi is used instead of the specified minimum yield stress 50 ksi for a Grade 50 column
member to account for potential overstrength and strain hardening effects. This increase
is based on the Ry factor in 1997 AISC LRFD Seismic Provisions for design of beam-to-
column connections in moment frames. Using the expected yield stress value, design
moment (Mu) and design shear force (Vu) can be calculated as follows:
M u = (58 ksi) ⋅ Z y _ column = (58 ksi) ⋅ (67.5 in.3 ) = 3915 k − in. (2-17)
Mu 3915 k − in.
Vu = = = 48.94 kips (2-18)
Lcolumn 80 in.
27
2.2.3 Base Plate
A 20 in. x 20 in. steel plate is chosen for the base plate planar size in this study.
Based on the D&E method, 2.25 in. thick ASTM A36 steel is selected for the base plate
thickness for both bolt type connections (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type). The designed
base plate thickness (i.e., 2.25 in.) is denoted herein as "tpo" for convenient comparisons
in numerical parametric study in Chapter 4.
2.2.4 Anchor Bolts
ASTM A354 Grade BD rods, which have Fu_bolt = 150 ksi and Fy_bolt = 130 ksi, are
selected for the anchor bolts. The anchor bolt sizes for both bolt type connections (i.e., 6-
bolt type and 4-bolt type) are designed based on the AISC LRFD Specifications. The
entire design procedure is presented in the Appendix A. Mechanical properties of ASTM
A354 Grade BD rods are very similar to ASTM A490 bolts. Thus, nominal strengths of
ASTM A490 bolts are adopted herein for the design of anchor bolts.
As presented in the Appendix A, the designed minimum diameter of each anchor

bolt for the 6-bolt type connection is 1.107 in., whereas it is 1.356 in. for the 4-bolt type
connection. However, as indicated in Figure 2.4, 1.25 in. and 2.0 in. anchor bolt
diameters are selected for the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections, respectively. A 30 %
stiffer (i.e., 1.3 Ko) anchor bolts are selected for the 6-bolt type connection, whereas 120
% stiffer (i.e., 2.2 Ko) anchor bolts are selected for the 4-bolt type connection. In the
above expressions, "Ko" denotes the designed minimum stiffness of anchor bolts. Such
increases are intended to provide strong anchor bolts so as not to yield them at the limit
state of the connection during experimental study. The difference in anchor bolt stiffness
between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections will facilitate the study of relative
28
Ø=1.25" Ø=2.0" 0.8 bf
2" 2"
Assumed 8" Assumed

20" 16" 20"
8"
2" 2"
2" 8" 8" 2" 2" 8" 8" 2"

20" 20"
(a) 6-Bolt Type (b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 2.4. Base Plate Planar Dimensions and Anchor Bolt Diameters
strength ratio effects on the seismic behavior of the connection.
Over-sized bolt holes are designed to make it easy to place the connection
assemblages on their exact location. 1.5 in. (= 1.25 in. + 4/16 in.) diameter bolt holes are
prepared for the 6-bolt type connection, and 2.3125 in. (= 2.0 in. + 5/16 in.) diameter bolt
holes are prepared for the 4-bolt type connection. For the washers, the ASTM F436
circular washers with 3.0 in. nominal outside diameter are used only for the 6-bolt type
connection. Furthermore, the edge distance of each bolt hole, for both bolt type
connections, is fixed at 2.0 in. so that the ratio between bolt edge distance and base plate
length is equal to 0.1.
As shown in Figure 2.5, each anchor rod is fixed to the concrete foundation using
PL 22x4x1/2 ASTM A36 supplemental steel plates. The end of each anchor rod is
threaded so that this can fasten the base plate on the grout effectively. As shown in Figure
2.5, the effective length of each rod is 32 in.

29
32
PL22x4x1/2
FRONT RIGHT
Figure 2.5. Anchoring System using Supplemental Anchor Plates (6-Bolt Type)
All nuts were hand-tightened right before each test was started. Thus, in the
numerical, experimental, and theoretical studies, the prestressing of anchor bolts was
neglected.
2.2.5 Weld Materials and Details
In order to connect the column to the base plate, two weld metals that satisfy the
minimum requirements specified by the SAC Joint Venture (1995) are selected in this
study. They are SuperArc L-50 (ER70S-3 based on the AWS classification) and NR-
311Ni (E70TG-K2 based on the AWS classification). Especially, the SuperArc L-50 is
one of the most common Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) wires, or Metal Inert Gas
(MIG) wires, produced by the Lincoln Electric company. Mechanical properties of these
30
two weld materials are compared in Table 2.1. As shown in Figure 2.6, ER70S-3 is used
for the first pair of specimens (i.e., SP 6-1 and SP 4-1), whereas E70TG-K2 is used for
the second pair of specimens (i.e., SP 6-2 and SP 4-2). Through the experimental study in
Chapter 3, effects of these two different weld metals on the seismic behavior of the
connection will be investigated.
In reference to the weld detail suggested by Fahmy (1999), two types of welds are
applied: Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) groove welds are reinforced by fillet welds
rounding the boundary between column and base plate. This weld detail is schematically
described in Figure 2.6. Each column flange is welded to the base plate using the PJP
groove welds that have a 30° single bevel with 1/8 in. root face. The inside of each
column flange and the column web are reinforced using 1/4 in. fillet welds.
In order to prevent an early weld fracture at column flange tips, the outside of
column flange is reinforced using 3/16 in. fillet welds over the PJP groove welds, except
one specimen (i.e. SP 4-2). The hatched area in Figure 2.6 indicates these fillet weld
reinforcement at the outside of column flanges.
Table 2.1. Mechanical Properties of Two Weld Materials
Weld Materials Yield Strength Tensile Strength Charpy V-Notch
(ksi) (ksi) Toughness at -20°F (ft-lb)
ER70S-3 63.7 76.2 65
(SuperArc L-50)
E70TG-K2 69 86 35
(NR-311Ni)
31
ER70S-3 ER70S-3
(SP 6-1 & 4-1) (SP 6-1 & 4-1)
E70TG-K2 1/4 E70TG-K2
(SP 6-2 & 4-2) 30 (SP 6-2 & 4-2)
ER70S-3 1/8 3/16

(SP 6-1 & 4-1) 1/4
E70TG-K2 1/4
(SP 6-2 & 4-2) WELD DETAIL
Figure 2.6. Weld Detail of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages
2.2.6 Classification of Specimens
A total of four column-base plate connection assemblages were designed for
experimental studies. Two specimens are for the 6-bolt type connection and the other two
specimens are for the 4-bolt type connection. As explained, the main differences between
these specimens are the total area (stiffness) and number of anchor bolts. As presented in
Table 2.2, 1.3 Ko is designed for the 6-bolt type connection, whereas 2.2 Ko is designed
for the 4-bolt type connection. For both bolt type connections, however, the same
thickness of the base plate (i.e., tpo) is used.

32
Table 2.2. Classification of Specimens
SP 6 SP 4
SP 6-1 SP 6-2 SP 4-1 SP 4-2
Number of Anchor Bolts 6 6 4 4
Anchor Bolt Stiffness 1.3 Ko 1.3 Ko 2.2 Ko 2.2 Ko
Base Plate Thickness tpo tpo tpo tpo
Weld Material ER70S-3 E70TG-K2 ER70S-3 E70TG-K2
(SuperArc L-50) (NR-311Ni) (SuperArc L-50) (NR-311Ni)
3/16 in. Fillet Reinforcement
over PJP Groove Welds Yes Yes Yes No
(Outside of Column Flanges)
Effects of the two weld materials on the seismic behavior of the connection will
be investigated through the experimental study of two 6-bolt type connections. For this
study, the SP 6-1 is welded using ER70S-3 and the SP 6-2 is welded using E70TG-K2. In
addition, in order to investigate the effects of 3/16 in. fillet reinforcement over the groove
welds at the outside of column flanges, two different weld details are prepared for the 4-
bolt type specimens. The fillet reinforcement over the groove welds is applied on SP 4-1,
whereas no extra fillet reinforcement is used on SP 4-2.

33
2.3 Pre-test Analyses
Using the basic dimensions of the as-designed 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connection
assemblages, an FEA model for each bolt type connection is made without consideration
of weld detail. The FEA models are described first in this section. Using those two FEA
models, numerical pre-test analyses are conducted. Based on these analysis results, the
D&E method is evaluated numerically and the effects of relative strength ratios on the
seismic behavior of the connection are examined.
2.3.1 Finite Element Analysis Models
In order to investigate the responses of column-base plate connections under large
lateral displacements, two FEA models (i.e., one for the 6-bolt type connection and the
other for the 4-bolt type connection) are prepared and analyzed. The ABAQUS program
version 5.8 is used to study the nonlinear behavior of the connection and to model several
contact interfaces among the connection elements. The C3D8 (8 nodes linear brick
element), one of the most general three-dimensional solid elements in the ABAQUS
program, is chosen for the FEA modeling.
Because the connection geometry is symmetric for both bolt type connections,
only one half of each connection is modeled as shown in Figure 2.7. All concrete and
steel elements of a connection assemblage are included in the FEA model. Each anchor
bolt, which has the effective length equal to 32 in., is also included in the FEA model
with bottom end fixed directly to the concrete foundation.
It is very difficult to model the boundary conditions of the concrete foundation in
column-base plate connections. Even though the boundary conditions of the concrete
foundation in a test setup are much better controlled than the actual boundary conditions
34
in the field, it is still not easy to reflect them precisely in an analytical model. Therefore,
in this study, simplified boundary conditions are assumed in the FEA modeling. Concrete
foundation (74 in. x 74 in. x 35.75 in.) is assumed to be fixed to the ground at the bottom
only, as shown in Figure 2.7. All degrees of freedom at the bottom surface of the
foundation are constrained, whereas all degrees of freedom on the other sides of the
foundation are released. In addition, lateral braces are also included in the FEA model in
order to prevent twisting of the column under lateral large displacements.
Figure 2.7. FEA Model and its Boundary Conditions (6-Bolt Type)
35
STRESS STRESS, fc
fc=fc"[(2εc/εο)−(εc/εο)]
fc"=0.9fc'
Fy 0.15fc"
LINEAR
E
1
Ec
1
STRAIN εo=1.8fc"/Ec 0.0038 STRAIN, εc
(a) Steel (b) Concrete
Figure 2.8. Constitutive Relationships of Steel and Concrete Elements
Constitutive relationships for steel elements are simplified by the elastic-perfectly
plastic bilinear model, as shown in Figure 2.8(a). For concrete elements, shown in Figure
2.8(b), the modified Hognestad stress-strain curve is used to model material nonlinearity.
The curvilinear portion in the modified Hognestad model is reformulated using ten linear
segments for the application of the ABAQUS program.
The principal mechanical properties for each connection element used in the FEA
model are summarized in Table 2.3. As mentioned, 58 ksi is assumed for the expected
yield stress of the column, considering potential overstrength and strain hardening effects.
One of the most difficult tasks in FEA modeling of column-base plate connections
are the contact interfaces among the connection elements. There are three major contact
interfaces: between the nut and the base plate upper surface, between the grout and the
base plate, and between the anchor rod and the concrete foundation. A small-sliding
formulation, one of three contact pair modeling tools in the ABAQUS program, is used in
order to model these contact interfaces. A friction coefficient of 0.5 is assumed for the
interfaces between nuts and base plate upper surface and between grout and base plate.
36
However, friction does not have to be considered for the interface between the anchor rod
and the concrete foundation based on experimental observations by Sato and Kamagata
(1988) and Jaspart and Vandegans (1998).
In order to show how FEA models are structured and how the contact pair
formulation roles in connection behavior, magnified deformations of the two as-designed
connection assemblages are presented in Figure 2.9.
Table 2.3. Mechanical Properties of Connection Elements
Connection Elements Yield Strength Young's Poisson's Ratio
or Compressive Modulus (ksi)
Strength (ksi)
Steel Column 58 29000 0.3
Base Plate 36 29000 0.3
Anchor Bolt 130 29000 0.3
Concrete Grout 6 4400 0.18
Foundation 4 3600 0.18

37
(a) 6-Bolt Type
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 2.9. Deformation of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages

38
2.3.2 Finite Element Analysis Results
Numerical pre-test analyses are conducted using the two FEA models (i.e., 6-bolt
type and 4-bolt type),. Through these pre-test analyses, the effects of different anchor bolt
stiffness and its location on the seismic behavior of the connection are investigated. In
this numerical study, 3.85 % drift is assumed as a drift limit state of the connection. At
this limit state, the following four connection response quantities are studied in depth:
total lateral force, total tensile bolt force, yield pattern in the base plate, and bearing stress
distribution on the grout. In order to evaluate the D&E method numerically, the analysis
results are also compared with the design estimations according to their design method.
These numerical evaluation results reveal several limitations of the D&E method and
emphasize the effects of relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior of the connection.
2.3.2.1 Total Lateral Force
In Figure 2.10, total lateral forces and the corresponding drifts of the two different
bolt type connections are plotted and compared each other. No significant differences in
both strength and stiffness are observed between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections.
The analysis results, at the assumed limit state of the connection (i.e., 3.85 % drift), are
also compared with the design shear force (i.e., Vu = 48.94 kips) given by the D&E
6-Bolt Type
method. As shown 60
in Figure 2.10, the estimated design shear force
4-Bolt shows
Type a good
agreement to FEA results.

50
Based on the analysis results presented in Figure 2.10, three major findings are
Total Lateral Force (Kips)
40
summarized in the following. First, the flattening of two graphs, beyond 3.0 % drift, is a
30
result of assumed bilinear constitutive relationships for steel elements in the connection.
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
D&E
39
Figure 2.10. Total Lateral Force versus Drift Responses
Second, the rotational stiffness of the connection is affected by anchor bolt stiffness. For
instance, a stiffer anchor bolt case (4-bolt type connection) results in stiffer connection
responses. However, this effect is not significant as shown in Figure 2.10. Lastly,
connections designed by the D&E method develop the full moment capacity of the
column for both bolt type connections. In other words, the D&E method results in strong
connections such that a plastic hinge forms at the bottom of the column when the
connection reaches its ultimate state.
2.3.2.2 Total Tensile Bolt Force
Total tensile bolt forces and the corresponding drifts of the two connections are
compared in Figure 2.11. For both bolt type connections, the bolt forces are calculated
using two strain values measured on the outer surface of each anchor bolt in the plane of
6-Bolt Type
4-Bolt Type
350
300
Total Tensile Bolt Force (Kips)
250 D&E
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
Figure 2.11. Total Tensile Bolt Force versus Drift Responses

40
bending. As shown in Figure 2.11, significant differences exist in total tensile bolt forces
between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections. The analysis results at the assumed limit
state of the connection are also compared with the design tensile force (i.e., Tu = 244.8
kips) given by the D&E method.
Two major findings are summarized in the following. First, the flattening of two
graphs beyond 3.0 % drift does not mean that anchor bolts yield. Due to designing much
stronger anchor bolts in this study, anchor bolts are supposed not to yield even though the
connection reaches its limit state. Thus, the flattening of the graph indicates that some
other connection element, instead of the anchor bolts, has reached its own ultimate
capacity. Second, at the assumed limit state of the connection, two graphs show a
significant difference in maximum demand. This difference is mainly due to different
relative strength ratio between anchor bolts and base plate.
In order to explain the main reason of the difference in total tensile bolt forces
between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections, the deformed shape of each bolt type
M6 = M 4
L6 > L4
(T6 = R6) < (T4 = R4)
M6 M4
41
Figure 2.12. Effects of Different Anchor Bolt Stiffness on Connection Behavior
connection is compared in Figure 2.12. Because of stiffer anchor bolts, shown in Figure
2.12(b), the maximum vertical displacement of the base plate in the 4-bolt type
connection is smaller than that of the base plate in the 6-bolt type connection. Due to the
smaller deformation (or rotation) of the base plate in the 4-bolt type connection, the
length of overall moment arm (L4) between the anchor bolt on the tension side and the
L6 L4
T6 R6 T4 R4
location of resultant bearing force on the compression side becomes shorter. This
phenomenon requires the increase of the total tensile bolt force (T4) and the resultant
bearing force (R4) to resist the same amount of the moment (M6 = M4). Similarly, the
differences between the design estimation (i.e., Tu = 244.8 kips) and two FEA results at
the assumed limit state of the connection can be explained.
Based on these FEA results, relative strength ratios among the connection
elements, not considered in the D&E method, can affect significantly the seismic
behavior of the connection and change the failure mechanism of the connection. Hence,
the effects of relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior of the connection should be
considered in a more rational design method.
2.3.2.3 Yielding in the Base Plate
In order to investigate the yield distribution and pattern in the base plate at the
assumed limit state of the connection, the equivalent Mises stress contours for both bolt
42
type connections are presented in Figure 2.13. Due to the constraint of column flanges on
the top surface of the base plate, relatively large yields are observed on the bottom
surface of the base plate for both bolt type connections.
Interestingly, as shown in Figure 2.13, the base plates designed by the D&E
method do not fully yield across the whole width. Instead, only small yielded regions are
observed on the top and bottom surfaces of the base plate for both bolt type connections.
This indicates that the D&E method may be resulting in rather stiff base plates.
In the 6-bolt type connection, yielding in the base plate grew from the assumed bending
lines on both sides of the base plate (i.e., tension and compression sides). A rather large
amount of yield is observed on the compression side at the limit state of the connection.
In the 4-bolt type connection, however, a different yield shape is observed as shown in
Figures 2.13(b) and 2.13(d). The base plate yielding on the tension side shows a circular
shape instead of the straight line assumed in the D&E method. Moreover, relatively large
yields are observed on the tension side. Hence, the differences in yield distribution and
(a) 6-Bolt Type (Top) (b) 4-Bolt Type (Top)
(c) 6-Bolt Type (Bottom) (d) 4-Bolt Type (Bottom)

43
Figure 2.13. Equivalent Mises Stress Contours on the Base Plate Surfaces
(3.85 % Drift)
pattern between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections must be recognized for a more
reliable design method.
2.3.2.4 Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout
In the case of strong axis bending, bearing stresses on the grout tend to
concentrate on the middle of base plate width. Thus, the simplified rectangular stress
block adopted in the D&E method may be applied for design of column-base plate
connections under strong axis bending (Fahmy, 1999). However, due to much more
complex stress distribution along the base plate not only in the transversal direction but
also in the longitudinal direction, the concrete beam design methodology which is
adopted in the D&E method may not be applicable for design of column-base plate
connections under weak axis bending.
In order to investigate bearing stress distribution in the case of weak axis bending,
bearing stress contours for both bolt type connections are presented in Figure 2.14.
Interestingly, two different bolt type connections show remarkably different bearing
stress distribution. In the 4-bolt type connection, more stresses are concentrated at the
corners of the grout. This indicates that the 4-bolt type connection is more critical for
calculating the required compressive strength of the grout.
In the 6-bolt type connection, shown in Figure 2.14(a), the bearing stresses are
concentrated following the base plate edge line. It should be noted that high stress
concentrations on the grout edge can cause an unexpected grout crushing under small
lateral deformations (Thambiratnam and Paramasivam, 1986). Thus, designing more

44
flexible base plates may help to prevent undesirable grout crushing under the base plate
on the compression side.
Figure 2.14. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (3.85 % Drift)

CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF DRAKE AND ELKIN'S METHOD
In Chapter 2, four column-base plate connections (i.e., two specimens for each
bolt type connection) were designed based on the D&E method and numerical pre-test
analyses were conducted. Using these four connections, the experimental study was
executed and the results are presented in this chapter. This study examines connection
behavior under weak axis bending and evaluates the D&E method experimentally. In
order to compare the experimental outputs to FEA results, strain gauges and displacement
transducers are installed on the surface of the base plate and anchor bolts.
Each connection assemblage is tested under a SAC Joint Venture quasi-static
loading history. Only one specimen (i.e., SP 4-1) completed all load cycles without
significant strength degradation. The test results of four specimens are compared each
other to investigate the effects of anchor bolt stiffness, anchor bolt number (or location),
and weld detail on the seismic behavior of the connection. From these comparisons,
several factors that may significantly affect the moment capacity and cyclic ductility of
the connection are discussed. Furthermore, experimental results are compared with the
pre-test FEA results presented in Chapter 2 as well as to the design estimations given by
the D&E method. Through these comparisons, the D&E method is evaluated and several
limitations of the D&E method are explored.
45
46
3.1 Test Setup and Loading History
As shown in Figure 3.1, a test setup is prepared for this experimental study so that
cyclic lateral displacements can be applied at the top of the column. An MTS hydraulic
actuator that can develop reversed cyclic loads up to 100 kips and displacements up to 10
in. (5 in. for each direction) is used for the tests.
A 2 in. thick layer of non-shrink grout is placed between the base plate and the
concrete foundation to plumb each specimen and to make a smooth contact interface. The
base plate is bolted using the anchor bolt system shown in Figure 2.5.
ACTUATOR PLATE (ASTM A36)

120" PL16x20x2
22" 90" 8" COLUMN (ASTM A572 Grade 50)

W12x96
LATERAL BRACE
L5x5x0.5
14"
ACTUATOR
100Kips
REACTION WALL BRACE POST

5x5x0.5
84.25"
BRACE PLATE
PL12x12x1 66"
BASE PLATE (ASTM A36)
PL20x20x2.25 120"
ANCHOR PLATE GROUT
PL12x12x1.5 20x20x2
4.25"
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
74x74x35.75 35.75" 35.75"
95" 74"
Figure 3.1. Test Setup

47
The concrete foundation is fixed to the reaction floor by threaded rods and anchor
plates at the four corners of the foundation so as not to move vertically or horizontally
during the tests. In addition, in order to prevent out-of-plane deformations of the
specimen, the column is braced by a pair of lateral braces as shown in Figure 3.1. These
lateral braces are reinforced additionally by two threaded bars in the transverse direction.
The loading history, shown in Figure 3.2, used in the SAC Joint Venture steel
project (1995) is used for the experimental study. No axial load was applied to the
column. In Figure 3.2, drift is defined as the ratio between column lateral displacement
and its clear length. In order to observe the stiffness degradations of the connection
during the test, two small cycles (at 0.5 % drift level) are inserted between two large
inter-story drift cycles after the 1.0 % drift level.
6
(5%)
(4%)
4
(3%)
(2%)
2 (1.5%)
(0.75%) (1%)
(0.5%)
(0.375%)
Drift (%)
(0.5%)
-2 (0.5%)
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
-4
(0.5%)
-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Cycles (No.)
Figure 3.2. Loading History

48
3.2 Gauge Location
In order to investigate the strain variation and post-yield strain distribution in
major connection elements, strain gauges are installed on the surface of the base plate and
anchor bolts. In particular, the measured strain values on the anchor bolts are used to
calculate the total tensile bolt forces during the test. YFLA-5 strain gauges, manufactured
by the TML Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd., are chosen in this experimental study. The
location of each strain gauge on the base plate is schematically presented in Figure 3.3(a)
for the 6-bolt type connection and in Figure 3.4(a) for the 4-bolt type connection. The
location of strain gauges on the anchor bolts is also shown in Figure 3.5 for both bolt type
connections.
The strain gauges on the anchor bolts are located in the middle of the 2 in. thick
grout layer. In order to protect these gauges from moisture while the grout is being cured,
N-1 (Moisture-proofing Material) manufactured by the TML Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co.,
Ltd. is used to cover the strain gauges. Moreover, as shown in Figure 3.6, additional
protective rubber is placed on the strain gauges to protect them from the unexpected
contact forces during the test.

In order to investigate deformation of the base plate and elongation of each
anchor bolt, displacement transducers are installed. TRS 50 and TRS 100 position
transducers, manufactured by the Novotechnik, are used for the tests. The location of
each displacement transducer is shown in Figure 3.3(b) for the 6-bolt type connection and
in Figure 3.4(b) for the 4-bolt type connection. A total of nine displacement transducers
are installed for the 6-bolt type connection, whereas only eight displacement transducers
are installed for the 4-bolt type connection. In the 6-bolt type connection, one
displacement transducer is used to measure the lateral movement of the base plate, as
shown in Figure 3.3(b).

49
(a) Strain Gauges (b) Displacement Transducers
Figure 3.3. Location of Strain Gauges and Displacement Transducers (6-Bolt Type)
(a) Strain Gauges (b) Displacement Transducers
Figure 3.4. Location of Strain Gauges and Displacement Transducers (4-Bolt Type)
50
Figure 3.5. Planar Location of Strain Gauges on the Anchor Bolts
Figure 3.6. Location of Strain Gauges on Anchor Bolts and Gauge Protection
(6-Bolt Type)
51
3.3 Coupon Test Results
In order to estimate the actual moments transferred from the column to the
connection at its ultimate state, it is necessary to obtain the exact mechanical properties
of the column. For this, tensile coupon tests were conducted and the results are
summarized in this section. A total of four coupons are tested: two from SP 6-1 and two
from SP 4-1. For each specimen, two steel coupons are cut from the column flanges "L1"
and "R1" identified in Figure 3.7.
Based on the ASTM E-8 test specification, the tensile coupon tests are conducted
by the Edison Welding Institute using a UK 18 test machine. The test results are
summarized in Table 3.1. It should be noted that the expected column yield stress (58 ksi)
used in design calculations and numerical pre-test analyses is clearly over-estimated as
compared with the measured yield strength of the column.
L2 R2
L1 R1
Figure 3.7. Identification of Column Flanges (6-Bolt Type)

52
Table 3.1. Coupon Test Results
Coupon Coupon Temperature Yield Ultimate
Identification Width Thickness (˚F) Strength Strength
(in.) (in.) (ksi) (ksi)
SP L1 0.752 0.854 73 49.7 68.5
6-1
R1 0.754 0.841 73 50.6 69.7
SP L1 0.755 0.854 73 51.5 69.5
4-1
R1 0.754 0.862 73 49.2 68.3
3.4 Summary of Test Results
A total of four specimens (i.e., two for the 6-bolt type connection and two for the
4-bolt type connection) were tested under the given cyclic lateral displacements without
axial loads. Only one specimen (i.e., SP 4-1) completed the whole loading history
without significant strength degradations. The test results are summarized in this section.
In order to effectively show the global connection behavior during the test, moment-
rotation response of each specimen is plotted. In addition, initial cracks and the
corresponding drifts are schematically presented. The failure mode of each specimen is
also presented in this section.

53
3.4.1 Specimen 6-1 (SP 6-1)
As shown in Figure 3.8, SP 6-1 did not show a ductile connection behavior
through the whole loading history. The strength of SP 6-1 started to decrease after 2.0 %
drift cycles due to crack propagation in welds connecting the column to the base plate.
During the last two load cycles, SP 6-1 lost about half of its moment capacity.
In the case of weak axis bending, the first yielding in the connection is usually
observed at column flange tips due to high stress concentrations. Based on strain analysis
results, the first yielding in SP 6-1 was observed at the column flange tips in the drift
range between 0.75 % and 1.0 %.
Due to large cyclic strain gradient at column flange tips and boundary effects (Lee,
1997) at the boundary between column and base plate, the initial crack in the connection
is expected in the column flange tip regions. SP 6-1 was not an exception. As shown in
Figure 3.9, the initial crack in SP 6-1 was observed in the welds at the outside of the
column flange "R1" tip during the first load cycle of 1.5 % drift. This initial crack
propagated significantly after 2.0 % drift and completely fractured during the second load
cycle of 3.0 % drift, as shown in Figure 3.10.

Due to such relatively early fracture of the connection, yield distribution and
pattern in the base plate could not be fully investigated. Only small yielded regions were
observed on the surface of base plate near the column flange tips.
54
5000
4000
3000
2000
Moment (Kip-in.)
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Rotation (Radian)
Figure 3.8. Moment-Rotation Response (SP 6-1)
1.5 %
L2 R2
1.5 % L1 R1
1.5 %
Figure 3.9. Initial Cracks in Welds at Column Flange Tips (SP 6-1)
55
Figure 3.10. Fracture of Column Flange "R1" Tip (SP 6-1)
3.4.2 Specimen 6-2 (SP 6-2)
SP 6-2 showed very similar moment-rotation responses to the SP 6-1 up to 2.0 %
drift. As shown in Figure 3.11, no significant strength degradation was observed until this
specimen completed two load cycles at 3.0 % drift. However, SP 6-2 showed sudden
strength degradations right after 3.0 % drift (during the first load cycle of 4.0 % drift) and
lost most of its moment capacity during the second load cycle of 4.0 % drift.
The first yielding in SP 6-2 was also observed at the column flange tips in the
drift range between 0.75 % and 1.0 %. Most of the column flanges near the boundary
area fully yielded during the first load cycle of 3.0 % drift. However, only small yielded
regions were observed on the surface of the base plate even though the specimen
completed two load cycles of 3.0 % drift without strength degradation.

56
5000
4000
3000
Moment (Kip-in.) 2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Rotation (Radian)
1.0% L2 R2 2.0%
1.5 % L1 R1 1.5 %
1.5 %
57
Figure 3.13. Fracture of Column Flange "L2" Tip (SP 6-2)
As shown in Figure 3.12, the initial crack in SP 6-2 was observed in the welds at
the inside of the column flange "L2" tip during the first load cycle of 1.0 % drift. This
crack grew continuously with increasing drift and a deep crack was observed at this
location during the first load cycle of 3.0 % drift, as shown in Figure 3.13. Column flange
"L2" significantly fractured during the first load cycle of 4.0 % drift.
3.4.3 Specimen 4-1 (SP 4-1)
As shown in Figure 3.14, SP 4-1 showed very ductile connection behavior
through the entire loading history. Only SP 4-1 reached the assumed limit state of the
connection (3.85 % drift) without significant strength degradations. The measured
moment capacity of SP 4-1 at the limit state (approximately 4000 kip-in.) was very close
to the design moment (Mu = 3915 kip-in.).

58
5000
4000
3000
2000
Moment (Kip-in.)
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Rotation (Radian)
1.5 %
L2 R2 2.0%
L1 R1
2.0%
59
Figure 3.16. Plastic Hinge Formation at the Bottom of the Column (SP 4-1)
Even though SP 4-1 reached the assumed limit state of the connection, its base
plate did not fully yield across the whole width. Instead, only small yielded regions were
observed on the surface of the base plate. This indicates that the D&E method may be
resulting in rather stiff base plates. In other words, the column-base plate connections
designed by the D&E method may not behave as intended.
As shown in Figure 3.15, the initial crack in SP 4-1 was observed in the welds at
the outside of the column flange "L2" tip during the first load cycle of 1.5 % drift. This
crack did not propagate significantly by the end of the loading history. The plastic hinge
formed at the bottom of the column is presented in Figure 3.16.
3.4.4 Specimen 4-2 (SP 4-2)
SP 4-2 showed a sudden brittle failure at the early stage of the loading history.
The moment capacity of SP 4-2, shown in Figure 3.17, decreased markedly during the
60
first load cycle of 1.5 % drift. SP 4-2 lost most of its moment capacity during the first
load cycle of 2.0 % drift. Due to such early failure, SP 4-2 did not reach the limit state of
the connection.
As shown in Figure 3.18, the initial cracks in SP 4-2 were observed at column
flanges "R1" and "R2" during the first load cycle of 1.0 % drift. These cracks propagated
significantly with the increase of drift. As shown in Figure 3.19, a deep crack was
observed in the welds at the outside of column flange "R1" tip during the first load cycle
of 1.5 % drift. Finally, the column flange "R1" was completely fractured during the first
load cycle of 2.0 % drift.
5000
4000
3000
2000
Moment (Kip-in.)
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Rotation (Radian)

61
1.0%
L2 R2
1.5 % L1 R1 1.0%
Figure 3.19. Crack Initiation and Sudden Connection Failure (SP 4-2)
62
3.5 Experimental Evaluation of Drake and Elkin's Method
The test results of four specimens were briefly summarized in the previous section.
In this section, based on the experimental analysis results, the D&E method is evaluated.
In order to examine global connection response, total lateral forces and total tensile bolt
forces for the four specimens are plotted and compared. The effects of different stiffness
and number (or location) of anchor bolts on the seismic behavior of the connection are
also investigated. In addition, in order to investigate the yield pattern in the base plate,
strain variations on the base plate surface are plotted and the maximum value is compared
with the expected yield strain. The experiment results are also compared with the pre-test
FEA results as well as with the design estimations given by the D&E method. Through
these comparisons, the D&E method is evaluated and several limitations of the D&E
method are identified in this section.
3.5.1 Total Lateral Force
In order to examine global connection behavior, total lateral forces of the four
specimens are compared each other. These results are also compared with the pre-test
FEA results and the design estimations given by the D&E method. Generally, it is not
easy to compare test results directly with numerical analysis results especially in a cyclic
displacement controlled tests. Thus, a total of twelve drift points are selected herein to
compare the test results with the FEA results. Especially, the test results at 3.85 % drift
(i.e., assumed drift limit state of the connection in this study) are considered as a
benchmark for experimental evaluation of the D&E method.
In Figure 3.20(a), total lateral forces and the corresponding drifts for the two 6-
bolt type specimens are compared with FEA results. In both specimens (SP 6-1 and SP 6-
63
2), initial stiffnesses show a good agreement with the FEA results up to 1.5 % drift, after
which the test results show significant strength degradations due to crack propagation in
the welds. Unfortunately, the test results of the 6-bolt type specimens at the assumed limit
state (i.e., 3.85 % drift) can not be compared with the FEA results and the design
estimation (Vu = 48.94 kips) due to early connection failures.
Total lateral forces and the corresponding drifts for the two 4-bolt type specimens
are plotted in Figure 3.20(b). The initial stiffnesses of the two 4-bolt type specimens
show slightly low as compared with those of the two 6-bolt type connections. However,
the differences are very small and ignorable in this study.
As shown in Figure 3.20(b), only the test results for SP 4-2 can be compared with
the FEA results and the design estimation (Vu = 48.94 kips) at the assumed limit state
(3.85 % drift). At this limit state, the measured total lateral force is clearly smaller than
the FEA prediction and the design estimate. The main reason of this difference can be
explained based on the tensile coupon test results shown in Table 3.1. As mentioned, an
over-estimated column yield stress (i.e., 58 ksi) was used for the design calculations and
FEA modeling. Consequently, the over-estimated column yield stress results in the over-
estimated FEA results and the over-estimated design shear force, as shown in Figure
3.20(b).
3.5.2 Total Tensile Bolt Force
Total tensile bolt forces of the four specimens are plotted and compared each
other in Figure 3.21. The test results are also compared with the pre-test FEA results and
the design estimations given by the D&E method. Bolt forces are calculated from two
strain values on the outer surface of each anchor bolt in the plane of bending.
64
FEA Results
SP 6-1
SP 6-2
60
50
D&E
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(a) 6-Bolt Type
FEA Results
SP 4-1
SP 4-2
60
50
D&E
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 3.20. Comparison of Total Lateral Forces

65
In Figure 3.21(a), total tensile bolt forces and the corresponding drifts for the two
6-bolt type specimens are compared with the FEA results. Due to the base plate
movement at the early stage of the loading history, the two graphs slightly shift in the
range between 0.2 % and 0.4 % drift. In both specimens (SP 6-1 and SP 6-2), the
measured total tensile bolt forces are in good agreement with the FEA results up to 1.5 %
drift, as shown in Figure 3.21(a).
In Figure 3.21(b), total tensile bolt forces and the corresponding drifts for the two
4-bolt type specimens are plotted and compared with the FEA results. The test results of
SP 4-1 show a very good agreement with the FEA results through the entire loading
history. However, as compared with the FEA results and the test results, the design
estimation (Tu = 244.8 kips) is significantly smaller at the assumed limit state (i.e., 3.85%
drift). As explained in Chapter 2, the main reason of this difference is originated from the
different anchor bolt stiffness: Variation of relative strength of anchor bolts and base
plate can result in different tensile bolt forces due to the change of the moment arm
between total tensile bolt force (Tu) and resultant bearing force (Ru).
3.5.3 Effects of Different Number of Anchor Bolts
In Chapter 2, it was shown that the different number (or location) of anchor bolts
could significantly affect the base plate yield pattern on the tension side and the bearing
stress distribution on the compression side. In order to investigate experimentally the
effects of different anchor bolt configuration, base plate deformations of SP 6-1 and SP
4-1 in the transverse direction are compared in this section. These deformations are also
compared with the FEA results.

66
FEA Results
SP 6-1
SP 6-2
350
300
250
D&E
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(a) 6-Bolt Type
FEA Results
SP 4-1
SP 4-2
350
300
250
D&E
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 3.21. Comparison of Total Tensile Bolt Forces

67
FEA Results
SP 6-1
0.07
0.06
Vertical Displacement (in.)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
-10 -5 0 5 10
Base Plate Width (in.)
(a) 6-Bolt Type
FEA Results
SP 4-1
0.07
0.06
Vertical Displacement (in.)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
-10 -5 0 5 10
Base Plate Width (in.)
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 3.22. Deformed Shape of the Base Plate along the Assumed Bending Line on
the Tension Side (1.71% Drift)

68
In Figure 3.22, each base plate deformation along the assumed bending line on the
tension side is compared with the FEA results. For each specimen, the test results show a
good agreement with the FEA results. However, as shown in Figure 3.22, the test and
FEA results of SP 6-1 show significantly different base plate deformations as compared
with those of SP 4-1. The deformed base plate of SP 6-1, shown in Figure 3.22(a), is flat
or concave due to the restraint of the inner bolt in the connection, whereas the deformed
base plate of SP 4-1 is convex as shown in Figure 3.22(b).
The convex shape of the base plate in the 4-bolt type connection can increase the
bearing stresses at the corner of the grout due to the decrease of contact area between
base plate and grout. This phenomenon was already observed in pre-test FEA results.
Through the experimental study of SP 4-1, the high bearing stress concentrations at the
corner of the grout were reconfirmed. Due to such high stresses, a corner of the grout was
crushed during the first load cycle of 4.0 % drift as shown in Figure 3.23.
Figure 3.23. Grout Crushing in the 4-Bolt Type Connection (SP 4-1)
69
3.5.4 Stiff Base Plate
One of basic assumptions in the D&E method is that the base plate develops its
full moment capacity at the ultimate state of the connection. However, as shown in pre-
test FEA results, only small yielded regions were observed on the surface of the base
plate for both bolt type connections even though these connections reached the assumed
limit state (3.85 % drift). In this section, these numerical observations are reconfirmed
using the test results.
In order to investigate the yield pattern in the base plate, strain variations on the
base plate surface are plotted and the maximum value is compared with the expected
yield strain of the base plate (1240 microstrain). Due to high local stress concentrations,
significant yielding was observed on the base plate surface near the column flange tips in
SP 6-1, SP 6-2, and SP 4-1. However, these base plates did not fully yield along the
assumed bending lines as intended in the D&E method. In order to show the strain
variations at the center of the assumed bending line on the base plate surface, strain
measurements from SP 6-1, SP 6-2, and SP 4-1 are plotted in Figures 3.24, 3.25, and 3.26,
respectively. Based on experimental analysis results, the D&E method clearly results in
stiff base plates. This indicates that base plates designed by the D&E method may not
behave as intended.
70
1500
Yield Strain
1000
500
Strain (microstrain)
-500
-1000
Yield Strain
-1500
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%)
Figure 3.24. Strain Variation at the Center of the Assumed Bending Line (SP 6-1)
71
1500
Yield Strain
1000
500
-500
-1000
Yield Strain
-1500
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%)
72
1500
Yield Strain
1000
500
-500
-1000
Yield Strain
-1500
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%)
73
3.6 Effects of Different Weld Material and Weld Detail
Based on the experimental observations, the effects of different weld material and
weld detail on the seismic connection ductility are examined in this section. In order to
investigate the effects of different weld material, test results of SP 6-1 and SP 6-2 are
compared. In addition, test results of SP 4-1 and SP 4-2 are compared in order to
investigate the effects of two different weld details on the seismic connection ductility.
3.6.1 Effects of Different Weld Material (Between SP 6-1 and SP 6-2)
Based on the global connection responses and experimental observations of SP 6-
1 and SP 6-2, the effects of different weld material on the seismic connection ductility are
examined. From Table 2.2, the only difference between SP 6-1 and SP 6-2 is the weld
material. SP 6-1 is welded using ER70S-3 (SuperArc L-50) electrode, whereas SP 6-2 is
welded using E70TG-K2 (NR-311Ni) electrode.
As already shown in Figure 3.9, initial crack in SP 6-1 was observed in the welds
at the outside of column flange "R1" tip during the first load cycle of 1.5 % drift. On the
other hand, initial crack in SP 6-2 was observed a little earlier than the SP 6-1 case, as
shown in Figure 3.12. However, up to 3.0 % drift, no significant differences were
observed in crack propagation and seismic behavior of the connection between those two
specimens. Therefore, based on the experimental observations, no significant differences
between ER70S-3 and E70TG-K2 electrodes were found.

74
3.6.2 Effects of Fillet Weld Reinforcement over the Groove Welds (Between SP 4-1
and SP 4-2)
In order to investigate the effects of 3/16 in. fillet weld reinforcement over the
groove welds at the outside of column flanges, as shown in Figure 2.6, crack propagation
and connection behavior of SP 4-1 and SP 4-2 are compared. As explained in Chapter 2,
the major difference between SP 4-1 and SP 4-2 is the existence of 3/16 in. fillet weld
reinforcement. SP 4-1 is reinforced by 3/16 in. fillet welds over the groove welds,
whereas only the suggested minimum welds are used for SP 4-2.
SP 4-1 and SP 4-2 showed very different seismic behavior of the connection. Due
to the lack of weld reinforcement at column flange tips, the initial crack in SP 4-2 was
observed at 1.0 % drift that is clearly earlier than the SP 4-1 case (1.5 % drift). As shown
in Figure 3.14, SP 4-1 showed very ductile connection behavior through the entire
loading history even though the initial crack was observed during the first load cycle of
1.5 % drift. On the other hand, SP 4-2 failed in a quite brittle manner at an early stage of
the loading history, as shown in Figure 3.17. These test results indicate that the fillet weld
reinforcement over the groove welds can help significantly develop the full moment
capacity in the connection. Therefore, for the weld detail of column-base plate
connections under weak axis bending, the fillet weld reinforcement over the groove
welds is recommended.
CHAPTER 4
NUMERICAL PARAMETRIC STUDY
Through the numerical pre-test analyses in Chapter 2 and the experimental study
in Chapter 3, the contribution of relative strength ratios in the seismic behavior of the
connection was discovered. An extensive numerical parametric study was conducted to
investigate more precisely the effects of relative strength ratio on the seismic behavior of
the connection, and the study results are presented in this chapter. Two main parameters
(i.e., anchor bolt stiffness and base plate thickness) are selected for this systematic
investigation of the relative strength ratio effects. For both bolt type connections (i.e., 6-
bolt type and 4-bolt type), the effects of anchor bolt stiffness and base plate thickness on
the seismic behavior of the connection are studied and several major observations are
summarized.
In addition, in order to examine the effects of grout strength on the location of the
resultant bearing force on the compression side, three more FEA models consisting of
different grout compressive strengths are prepared and analyzed. This study is conducted
for the 6-bolt type connection only. The FEA results are compared with the design
estimations given by the D&E method, and the principal differences are discussed in the
last part of this chapter.
4.1 Classification of FEA Models
A total of forty-three FEA models, including two FEA models used for the pre-
test analyses in Chapter 2, are prepared and analyzed for the numerical parametric study
75
76
in this chapter. Twenty FEA models are prepared for each bolt type connection to
investigate the effects of relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior of the connection.
In addition, three more FEA models are prepared only for the 6-bolt type connection to
examine the effects of grout strength on the location of the resultant bearing force on the
compression side.
All of the prepared FEA models are classified in Table 4.1. In this Table, "tpo" and
"Ko" denote, respectively, the designed base plate thickness and anchor bolt stiffness
according to the D&E method. In this parametric study, only stiffness values larger than
or equal to "Ko" are considered because the anchor bolts are intended not to yield even
though the connection reaches its limit state.
Table 4.1. Classification of FEA Models
Anchor Bolt Stiffness
6-Bolt Type 4-Bolt Type
1.0 Ko 1.3 Ko 1.7 Ko 2.2 Ko 1.0 Ko 1.3 Ko 1.7 Ko 2.2 Ko
0.8 tpo
0.9 tpo
Base Plate Thickness
1.0 tpo fc'=6 ksi (SP 4)
(SP 6)
fc'=8 ksi
fc'=10 ksi
fc'=12 ksi
1.1 tpo
1.2 tpo
Remark: For all other blanks, the grout compressive strength (fc') is equal to 6 ksi.
77
For each bolt type connection, a total of four different anchor bolt stiffnesses (1.0
Ko, 1.3 Ko, 1.7 Ko, and 2.2 Ko) and a total of five different base plate thicknesses (0.8 tpo,
0.9 tpo, 1.0 tpo, 1.1 tpo and 1.2 tpo) are selected for the study of relative strength ratio
effects on the seismic behavior of the connection. In addition, a total of four different
grout compressive strengths (i.e., 6, 8, 10, and 12 ksi) are selected to examine the effects
of grout compressive strength on the location of the resultant bearing force on the
compression side.
4.2 Effects of Anchor Bolt Stiffness
In order to investigate the effects of relative strength ratios on the seismic
behavior of the connection, a total of twenty FEA models are prepared and analyzed for
each bolt type connection in this parametric study. However, in this section, only four
FEA models consisting of different anchor bolt stiffnesses are selected for each bolt type
connection to investigate the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the seismic behavior of
the connection. The selected connection assemblages are marked on Table 4.2.
The effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the seismic behavior of the connection are
investigated by various methods. First, total lateral forces and total tensile bolt forces are
compared to examine the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the global responses of the
connection at its limit state. Second, by comparing the deformation and yield pattern of
the base plate, the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the base plate responses are
investigated. Third, the variation of bearing stress contours on the grout is examined to
investigate the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the bearing stress distribution. Lastly,
locations of the resultant bearing force are calculated and these values are compared with
the design estimations given by the D&E method. Through these comparisons, sensitivity
of the resultant bearing force location to anchor bolt stiffness variation is investigated.
78
Table 4.2. Selected Connections for the Study of Anchor Bolt Stiffness Effects
0.8 tpo
0.9 tpo
(SP 6)
fc'=8 ksi
fc'=10 ksi
fc'=12 ksi
1.1 tpo
1.2 tpo
In order to investigate the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on global connection
response, such as initial rotational stiffness and moment capacity, the total lateral forces
of the selected eight connections (i.e., four for the 6-bolt type and four for the 4-bolt type)
are plotted and compared in Figure 4.1. Evidently, no significant differences are observed
in the global connection responses between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections.
79
1.0 Ko
1.3 Ko
1.7 Ko
2.2 Ko
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(a) 6-Bolt Type
1.0 Ko
1.3 Ko
1.7 Ko
2.2 Ko
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 4.1. Total Lateral Forces versus Drifts

80
The FEA results, presented in Figure 4.1, provide two conclusions: First, initial
rotational stiffness of the connection is proportional to the anchor bolt stiffness for both
bolt type connections. However, within the given range of anchor bolt stiffnesses, the
variation is very small and may be neglected. Second, full moment capacity of the
column is developed in all eight models. This indicates that all of the selected base plate
thickness / anchor bolt stiffness combinations in this study are strong enough to develop a
strong connection / weak column mechanism.
For the selected eight connections, total tensile bolt forces are calculated at the
assumed limit state of the connection (3.85 % drift) to investigate the effects of anchor
bolt stiffness on total tensile bolt forces. The analysis results are plotted and compared in
Figure 4.2. As shown in Figure 4.2, no significant differences are observed in the total
6-Bolt Type
4-Bolt Type
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Anchor Bolt Stiffness (Ko)
Figure 4.2. Total Tensile Bolt Forces (3.85 % Drift)

81
tensile bolt forces between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections.
For both bolt type connections, the stiffer anchor bolts result in a higher values of
the total tensile bolt force. This is due to shortening of the overall moment arm between
total tensile bolt force (Tu) and resultant bearing force (Ru) as explained in Chapter 2 and
Chapter 3. The analysis results, presented in Figure 4.2, reconfirm this fact.
4.2.3 Deformation of the Base Plate
In order to examine the seismic base plate responses with respect to different
anchor bolt stiffnesses, base plate deformations of the selected eight connections are
presented and compared in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. For both bolt type connections, due to
relatively large elongation of the anchor bolt, the largest base plate rotation is observed in
the case of 1.0 Ko.
In 6-bolt type connections, shown in Figure 4.3, the deformed shape of the base
plate on the tension side is almost flat in the transverse direction. This is due to the
restraint provided by the inner bolt on the tension side. On the other hand, as shown in
Figure 4.4, a convex shape of the base plate is observed in 4-bolt type connections. As
explained in Chapter 3, the convex shape of the base plate in the 4-bolt type connection
can increase the bearing stresses at the corner of the grout and result in undesirable grout
crushing before the connection reaches its ultimate state.

82
(a) 1.0 Ko
(b) 1.3 Ko
(c) 1.7 Ko
(d) 2.2 Ko
Figure 4.3. Deformation of the Base Plate (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift)
83
(a) 1.0 Ko
(b) 1.3 Ko
(c) 1.7 Ko
(d) 2.2 Ko
84
4.2.4 Variation of Yield Pattern in the Base Plate
In order to investigate the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the variation of base
plate yield pattern, equivalent Mises stress contours on the base plate surface are
compared in Figures 4.5 and 4.6. For both bolt type connections, base plate yield pattern
is highly dependent on the relative strength ratio between the anchor bolts and the base
plate.
For the 6-bolt type connection, shown in Figure 4.5, relatively large yield of the
base plate is observed on the compression side in the case of 1.0 Ko. On the other hand,
relatively large yield of the base plate is observed on the tension side in the case of 2.2 Ko.
The main reason of the variation in major base plate yield area can be explained
effectively using the deformed shape of the base plate in the longitudinal direction. As
presented in Figure 4.3(a), smaller anchor bolt stiffness (1.0 Ko) results in the larger base
plate rotation. Due to very small base plate settlement on the grout, relatively large
curvature forms on the compression side of the base plate. This larger curvature, of
course, results in larger base plate yield area on the compression side. Similarly, larger
anchor bolt stiffness (2.2 Ko) results in larger base plate yield area on the tension side.
The FEA results of the 4-bolt type connection, shown in Figure 4.6, show the
similar variation in base plate yield pattern even though the 4-bolt type connection
develops a different yield shape (circular shape) on the tension side as compared with the
6-bolt type connection. Clearly large base plate yielded area is observed on the tension
side in the case of 2.2 Ko, as shown in Figure 4.6(d).

85
(a) 1.0 Ko
(b) 1.3 Ko
(c) 1.7 Ko
(d) 2.2 Ko
Figure 4.5. Equivalent Mises Stress Contours on the Base Plate Surface (6-Bolt
Type, 3.85 % Drift)

86
(a) 1.0 Ko
(b) 1.3 Ko
(c) 1.7 Ko
(d) 2.2 Ko
Type, 3.85 % Drift)

87
4.2.5 Variation of Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout
In order to investigate the effects of anchor bolt stiffness on bearing stress
distribution, the variation of bearing stress contours on the grout is examined for each
bolt type connection. In Figures 4.7 and 4.8, the bearing stress contours for the eight
connections selected in Table 4.2 are presented and compared. As explained, due to the
convex shape of the base plate, relatively high bearing stresses are observed at the
corners of the grout in 4-bolt type connections.
For both bolt type connections, the contact (bearing) area between the base plate
and the grout in the longitudinal direction changes with different anchor bolt stiffnesses.
In the case of 1.0 Ko, the base plate deforms as a rigid plate so that the bearing area
decreases. Such decrease of bearing area results in an increase of bearing stresses on the
grout near base plate edges, as shown in Figures 4.7(a) and 4.8(a).
4.2.6 Location of the Resultant Bearing Force
The effects of anchor bolt stiffness on the location of resultant bearing force (Ru)
are investigated in this section. For this purpose, locations of Ru for the eight selected
connections are directly calculated from bearing stress distribution presented in the
previous section. Using a new variable, base plate compression interface cantilever length
x' shown in Figure 4.9, the calculated locations of Ru are plotted in Figure 4.10.
As shown in Figure 4.10, the increase of the anchor bolt stiffness results in a
decrease of the cantilever length x' for both bolt type connections. This analysis result
leads to a very important conclusion: undesirable grout crushing on the compression side,
due to high bearing stress concentrations, can be prevented by increasing anchor bolt size
(or stiffness).
88
(a) 1.0 Ko
(b) 1.3 Ko
(c) 1.7 Ko
(d) 2.2 Ko
Figure 4.7. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift)
89
(a) 1.0 Ko
(b) 1.3 Ko
(c) 1.7 Ko
(d) 2.2 Ko
90
Assumed Assumed
(Tension Side) (Compression Side)
Mu
x x'
L
Tu Ru
Figure 4.9. Overall Moment Arm L and Cantilever Lengths x and x'
x (Both Types)
x' (6-Bolt Type)
x' (4-Bolt Type)
4
Moment ArmfromAssumed Bending Line (in.)
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
2.8
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Figure 4.10. Effects of Anchor Bolt Stiffness on Cantilever Length x'

91
4.3 Effects of Base Plate Thickness
The effects of base plate thickness on the seismic behavior of the connection are
investigated in this section. For this purpose, three connection assemblages consisting of
different base plate thicknesses are selected for each bolt type connection. The selected
connection assemblages are marked on Table 4.3. In this parametric study, as shown in
Table 4.3, only 1.3 Ko is considered for anchor bolt stiffness of the selected six
connections.
Table 4.3. Selected Connections for the Study of Base Plate Thickness Effects
0.8 tpo
0.9 tpo
(SP 6)
fc'=8 ksi
fc'=10 ksi
fc'=12 ksi
1.1 tpo
1.2 tpo
92
For each bolt type connection, effects of base plate thickness on the seismic
behavior of the connection are investigated in depth based on the following six analysis
results: total lateral force, total tensile bolt force, base plate deformation, base plate yield
pattern, bearing stress distribution, and resultant bearing force location.
In order to investigate the effects of base plate thickness on global connection
behavior, total lateral forces of the selected six connections (three for the 6-bolt type and
three for the 4-bolt type) are plotted and compared in Figure 4.11. As shown in Figure
4.11, there is no significant difference in global connection responses between the 6-bolt
and 4-bolt type connections.
For both bolt type connections, lower strength and stiffness are observed in the
case of the thin base plate (0.8 tpo). The main reason of this strength and stiffness
reduction is early yielding in the base plate. On the other hand, the base plate designed by
the D&E method (1.0 tpo) and the thick base plate (1.2 tpo) do not show such reductions.
The FEA results, presented in Figure 4.11, provide one important conclusion: thinner
base plates result in strength and stiffness reduction of the connection such that a weak
connection / strong column mechanism can be developed.

93
0.8 tpo
1.0 tpo
1.2 tpo
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(a) 6-Bolt Type
0.8 tpo
1.0 tpo
1.2 tpo
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 4.11. Total Lateral Forces versus Drifts

94
For the selected six connections, total tensile bolt forces are calculated at the
assumed limit state of the connection (3.85 % drift) to investigate the effects of base plate
thickness on them. The analysis results are plotted and compared in Figure 4.12. As
shown in Figure 4.12, no significant differences exist in total tensile bolt forces between
the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections.
For both bolt type connections, a stiffer base plate results in a lower value of the
total tensile bolt force due to lengthening of the overall moment arm between total tensile
bolt force (Tu) and resultant bearing force (Ru). In the case of the thick base plate (1.2 tpo),
due to small base plate deformation, the overall moment arm between Tu and Ru is
lengthened. Therefore, in order to resist the same amount of moment (Mu), total tensile
bolt force Tu decreases with longer moment arm.
6-Bolt Type
4-Bolt Type
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Base Plate Thickness (tpo)
Figure 4.12. Total Tensile Bolt Forces (3.85 % Drift)

95
4.3.3 Deformation of the Base Plate
The effects of base plate thickness on the seismic behavior of the connection are
investigated by comparing the base plate deformations at the assumed limit state of the
connection (3.85 % drift). Base plate deformations of the selected six connections are
presented and compared in Figures 4.13 and 4.14. In the cases of 1.0 Ko and 1.2 Ko, no
significant differences are observed between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections,
except for the deformed shape of the base plate in the transverse direction. However, in
the case of 0.8 Ko, significant out-of-plane base plate deformation is observed in the 4-
bolt type connection due to the location of the anchor bolts, whereas the 6-bolt type
connection shows a quite in-plane base plate deformation.
For both bolt type connections, a significant difference in the base plate
deformations is observed between the 0.8 Ko case and the other two cases (1.0 Ko and 1.2
Ko). In the case of the 0.8 Ko, base plates deform outwardly on the tension side, as shown
in Figures 4.13(a) and 4.14(a). However, in the other two cases (1.0 Ko and 1.2 Ko), the
base plates deform inwardly. A significant point which should be mentioned is that
outward deformation of the base plate can cause unexpected local deformation of the
anchor bolts.
Based on experimental observations, it has been found that thinner base plates
could be a good source of energy dissipation and provide for more ductile connection
behavior during earthquake excitations (Astaneh et al., 1992). However, as shown in
Figures 4.13(a) and 4.14(a), a thin base plate can also cause high local stress
concentrations in the anchor bolts on the tension side. This can be clearly seen from the
deformed shape of the anchor bolts and the stress contours presented in Figures 4.15 and
4.16, respectively. Hence, minimum thickness of the base plate should be limited to
prevent possible anchor bolt failure due to such high stress concentrations.
96
(a) 0.8 tpo
(b) 1.0 tpo
(c) 1.2 tpo
97
(a) 0.8 tpo
(b) 1.0 tpo
(c) 1.2 tpo
98
Figure 4.15. Local Deformation of Outer Anchor Bolt (0.8 tpo, 3.85 % Drift)
Figure 4.16. Local Stress Concentration in Outer Anchor Bolt (0.8 tpo, 3.85 % Drift)
99
4.3.4 Variation of Yield Pattern in the Base Plate
In order to investigate the effects of base plate thickness on the variation of base
plate yield pattern, equivalent Mises stress contours on base plate top surface are
compared in Figures 4.17 and 4.18. For both bolt type connections, base plate yield
patterns are highly dependent on the relative strength ratio between the anchor bolts and
the base plate. As shown in Figures 4.17(a) and 4.18(a), relatively large yield of the base
plate is observed on the tension side in the case of 0.8 Ko. With the increase of base plate
thickness, however, the dominant yield region moves to the compression side.
4.3.5 Variation of Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout
In order to investigate the effects of base plate thickness on the bearing stress
distribution, the variation of bearing stress contours on the grout is examined for each
bolt type connection. In Figures 4.19 and 4.20, bearing stress contours for the selected six
connections are presented and compared.
For both bolt type connections, high stress concentrations are observed under the
column flanges in the case of the thin base plate (0.8 tpo), whereas the thick base plate
case (1.2 tpo) shows high stress concentrations along the grout edge. Such significant
variation of bearing stress distribution is a result of different stiffnesses of the base plate.
In the case of a thin base plate, compressive forces concentrate on the grout under the
column flanges due to flexural base plate deformations. In the case of a thick base plate,
however, the base plate deforms as a rigid plate so that bearing stresses concentrate along
the edge of the grout. The FEA results, presented in Figures 4.19 and 4.20, enable one
important conclusion: designing thick base plates should be avoided because they may
cause undesirable grout crushing under the base plate edge on the compression side.
100
(a) 0.8 tpo
(b) 1.0 tpo
(c) 1.2 tpo
Type, 3.85 % Drift)

101
(a) 0.8 tpo
(b) 1.0 tpo
(c) 1.2 tpo
Type, 3.85 % Drift)

102
(a) 0.8 tpo
(b) 1.0 tpo
(c) 1.2 tpo
103
(a) 0.8 tpo
(b) 1.0 tpo
(c) 1.2 tpo
104
4.3.6 Location of the Resultant Bearing Force
The effects of base plate thickness on the location of the resultant bearing force
(Ru) are investigated in this section. For this purpose, the Ru locations for the selected six
connections are directly calculated from the bearing stress distribution presented in the
previous section. Using a new variable x', shown in Figure 4.9, the calculated locations of
Ru are plotted in Figure 4.21.
As shown in Figure 4.21, for both bolt type connections, the decrease of base
plate thickness results in a decrease of cantilever length x'. This analysis result indicates
that undesirable grout crushing on the compression side, due to high bearing stress
concentrations, can be prevented by decreasing base plate thickness.
x (Both Types)
x' (6-Bolt Type)
x' (4-Bolt Type)
4
Moment Armfrom Assumed Bending Line (in.)
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
2.8
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Figure 4.21. Effects of Base Plate Thickness on Cantilever Length x'

105
4.4 Effects of Grout Compressive Strength
In order to investigate the effects of grout strength on the location of resultant
bearing force (Ru), three additional FEA models consisting of different grout compressive
strengths are prepared and analyzed. A total of four selected connections are marked on
Table 4.4. As indicated in Table 4.4, this parametric study is conducted for the 6-bolt
type connection only.
Table 4.4. Selected Connections for the Study of Grout Compressive Strength
Effects
0.8 tpo
0.9 tpo
(SP 6)
fc'=8 ksi
fc'=10 ksi
fc'=12 ksi
1.1 tpo
1.2 tpo
106
As shown in Figure 2.3, the D&E design procedure appears quite sensitive to the
change of grout compressive strength (fc'). This is because the D&E method is highly
dependent on the assumed grout bearing capacity per unit length (q) and the equivalent
bearing length (Y). However, the FEA results, presented in Figure 4.22, show that the
cantilever length x' does not change significantly with the change of grout compressive
strength (fc').
Drake and Elkin's Method

FEA Results
5
Moment ArmfromAssumed Bending Line, x' (in.)
4.5
3.5
2.5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Compressive Strength of Grout, fc' (Ksi)
Figure 4.22. Variation of Cantilever Length x' on the Compression Side with
Respect to fc' (6-Bolt Type, 3.85 % Drift)

CHAPTER 5
LIMITATIONS OF DRAKE AND ELKIN'S METHOD
The pre-test FEA results in Chapter 2 revealed several possible limitations of the
D&E method in its basic assumptions and subsequent design calculations. These
limitations were confirmed through the experimental study in Chapter 3 and the
numerical parametric study in Chapter 4. A total of six limitations of the D&E method
are discussed in this chapter.
5.1 Unrealistic Application of Concrete Beam Design Methodology
As shown in Figure 2.2, the D&E method adopts an equivalent rectangular stress
block, which is generally used in concrete beam design, to calculate unknown design
parameters in a column-base plate connection. However, concrete beam design
methodology may not directly apply to the column-base plate connection design because
of the following two reasons. First, the base plate and grout is not monolithic so that the
traditional "plane sections remain plane" assumption made in the development of beam
theory does not hold. Second, due to small and unreliable bond stresses between anchor
rod and concrete (and grout), the "the strain in the reinforcement is equal to the strain in
the concrete at the same level" assumption cannot be used. Because of the above two
reasons, linear strain variation across the section cannot be used for calculation of neutral
axis location and bearing stress distribution.
The FEA results, shown in Figure 2.13, also show a clear limitation in the
application of concrete beam design methodology for the design of column-base plate
107
108
connections under weak axis bending. As shown in Figures 2.13(a) and 2.13(b), bearing
stress distributions in the longitudinal direction are not even close to uniform, which is
assumed in the D&E method, for both bolt type connections. Moreover, bearing stress
distributions in the transverse direction show more complex stress patterns in both
connections.
In conclusion, concrete beam design methodology cannot be directly applied for
design of column-base plate connections under weak axis bending. A more realistic
bearing stress block should be used for more reliable connection design. Alternatively,
another design methodology should be developed.
5.2 Over-sensitive Design Procedure to q (or fc')
The concrete bearing capacity per unit length (q), in terms of grout compressive
strength (fc') as presented in Equation 2-1, is the most important design parameter in the
D&E method. With an assumed value of the q, the D&E method calculates the required
total tensile strength of anchor bolts (Tu) and resultant bearing force (Ru=q·Y) using two
equilibrium equations, i.e., moment and vertical force equilibrium equations. Moreover,
base plate thickness is also highly dependent on the q value. This is because the required
base plate flexural strength per unit width (Mpl) on each side is calculated directly from
the two force resultants (i.e., Tu and Ru=q·Y, respectively).
In order to explain more effectively the role of concrete bearing capacity per unit
length q in the D&E method, two different cases (i.e., small q and large q) are compared
in Figure 5.1. As shown in Figure 5.1(b), due to the shortened equivalent bearing length
(Y), the larger q value results in longer L and x'. The lengthened L decreases the amount
of Tu and Ru needed to resist the same design moment (Mu). However, the variation is
very small and can be ignored. On the other hand, longer x' significantly increases base
plate thickness because Mpl on the compression side is very sensitive to the variation of x'.
109
Determining q is not easy because there is a clash between the AISC and ACI
recommendations for the strength reduction factor in case of bearing on concrete φc
which is a part of q as presented in Equation 2-1. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the AISC
LRFD Specifications recommends φc = 0.6, whereas the ACI 318-99 adopts φc = 0.7. The
D&E method is based on the AISC LRFD. Thus, 0.6 is adopted for φc in Equation 2-1.
However, the applicability of φc=0.6 for column-base plate connection design has not
been verified sufficiently. Hence, for more reliable connection design, the ultimate
bearing capacity of concrete (grout) in column-base plate connections should be
determined more accurately.
As explained, the base plate design in the D&E method appears quite sensitive to
the q (or fc') value. This is because q (or fc') values significantly change the location of the
resultant bearing force x'. As shown in Figure 2.3, within the given range of the fc' in this
study, the maximum variation of the base plate thickness is more than 0.25 in. This
variation is large enough to change the seismic behavior of the connection. In contrast,
the numerical parametric study shows a very different result. The FEA results, shown in
Figure 4.22, indicate that the x' does not change significantly with the change of fc'.
Hence, based on the FEA results, it can be concluded that the estimate of x' and the
subsequent design calculations using q (or fc') value in the D&E method may not be
realistic.
110
Assumed Assumed
Mu
q (Small)
x'
L
Tu Ru = qY
(a) Small q
Assumed Assumed
Mu
q (Large)
x'
L
Tu Ru = qY
(b) Large q
Figure 5.1. Effects of q Value on the Location of Ru (= q·Y)

111
5.3 Inaccurate Location of Two Bending Lines
As shown in Figure 2.1, the D&E method assumes a pair of bending lines (one on
the tension side and one on the compression side) for the design of base plate thickness in
both strong axis and weak axis bending. The assumed bending lines seem to be quite
applicable to the strong axis bending case because maximum curvature of the base plate
always occurs under the column flange. However, in the case of weak axis bending, it is
very difficult to estimate the locations of these two bending lines. This is because the
actual locations of the two critical lines can change depending on the geometry and
relative strength ratios among the connection elements. Moreover, each bending line may
not be located symmetrically in the weak axis bending case.
As shown in Figure 2.12, the FEA results also failed to find the representative
bending lines due to a nonuniform distribution of base plate yielding. However, for more
reliable connection design, locations of the maximum base plate curvature (i.e., critical
bending lines) must be provided. Thus, in the proposed new design method, these
locations will be estimated theoretically.
5.4 No Explanation of Anchor Bolt Location Effects
The D&E method does not recognize the differences in seismic behavior of the
connection between the 6-bolt and 4-bolt type connections. Both numerical and
experimental study, however, showed that anchor bolt location may significantly affect
the seismic behavior of the connection. Two major effects of different anchor bolt
locations are summarized in the following.
First, different anchor bolt location results in different base plate deformation on
the tension side. Such deformation causes different stress distribution in the base plate.
112
As shown in Figure 2.12, the 4-bolt type connection develops a circular shaped base plate
yield line on the tension side, whereas the 6-bolt type connection develops a linear shape.
A three-dimensional out-of-plane base plate deformation can develop in the 4-bolt type
connection. This problem can be more serious when the base plate is thin, as shown in
Figure 4.14(a).
Second, different anchor bolt location can affect the bearing stress distribution on
the compression side. As shown in Figure 2.13, due to the convex shape of the base plate,
relatively high bearing stresses are observed at the corners of the grout in the 4-bolt type
connection. The test results also confirmed the possibility of such high bearing stress
concentrations, as shown in Figure 3.23.
Unfortunately, the effects of out-of-plane base plate deformation in the 4-bolt type
connection on the design procedure were not examined in this study. However, the higher
bearing stresses at the corners of the grout in the 4-bolt type connection will be
considered in the proposed new design method.
5.5 No Use of Relative Strength Ratios
For the design of anchor bolts, the D&E method provides only the required
minimum anchor bolt size based on the AISC LRFD Specifications. However, in order to
prevent anchor bolt yielding in the column-base plate connection during earthquake
excitations, designers may want stronger anchor bolts than what the D&E method
provides. Unfortunately, in this case, the D&E method cannot be directly used for the
design of column-base plate connections because this method is developed based on the
assumption that "the anchor bolts on the tension side yield at the ultimate state of the
connection".
The concept of relative strength ratio can be used for design of column-base plate
connections which have stronger anchor bolts (i.e., anchor bolts larger than Ko). As
113
shown in Chapter 4, relative strength ratios among the connection elements can be used
as parameters to estimate connection behavior at its ultimate state. Thus, based on the
study results of the relative strength ratio effects, a more rational and reliable design
method will be developed in the following chapter.
5.6 Design of Stiff Base Plate
As explained in the Section 2.2.1, it is intended in this study to design the
minimum thickness of the base plate within the boundaries of the D&E method. However,
as shown in Figure 2.12, base plates designed by the D&E method did not fully yield
across the whole width for both bolt type connections. Instead, only limited yielded
regions were observed on the surface of the base plate. The experimental results, shown
in Figures 3.24, 3.25, and 3.26, reconfirmed the numerical observations. Hence, the D&E
method may be resulting in rather stiff base plates.
For ductile connection behavior, designing flexible base plates is very important
because of the following two reasons. First, a thick base plate may result in grout
crushing under the base plate edge on the compression side. Second, a thin base plate can
significantly dissipate earthquake input energy. However, in this case, minimum

thickness of the base plate should be limited because thin base plate may cause high local
stress concentrations in the anchor bolts on the tension side, as shown in Figures 4.15 and
4.16.
In conclusion, base plates designed by the D&E method did not fully yield along
the assumed two bending lines at the limit state of the connection. This indicates that
connections designed by the D&E method may not behave as intended. Therefore, for
ductile connection behavior, designing flexible base plates will be one of main goals in
the proposed new design method.

CHAPTER 6
NEW DESIGN METHOD
The limitations of the representative current design practice, as discussed in
Chapter 5, suggested the need for a more rational and reliable design method. Thus, the
primary objective of the study presented in this chapter is to develop a new design force
profile, which describes more realistically the actual force distribution in the connection.
Based on this new design force profile and the concept of relative strength ratios among
the connection elements, a new design method is proposed in this chapter.
In order to develop the new design method, a total of six parameters (i.e., three
geometric ratios and three strength ratios) are defined first and then, a desired connection
behavior at the ultimate state is described using these strength ratios for a given
connection geometry. Moreover, several basic design formulas are derived based on the
new design force profile. Finally, using the proposed new design method, the two
connections chosen for the study (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) are re-designed and the
new connection element sizes are compared with those obtained from the D&E method.
6.1 Three Geometric Ratios
Depending on the relative member sizes among the three major connection
elements (i.e., column, anchor bolts, and base plate), stress distribution and failure mode
in the connection can change. For the design, however, it is important to ensure the
consistent yield pattern and mechanism in the connection. Thus, two geometric ratios are
defined to provide reasonable geometric dimensions of the three major connection
114
115
elements. In addition, one more geometric ratio is defined for the location of the resultant
bearing force on the compression side.
6.1.1 Ratio of (bf / B)
The location of maximum curvature in the base plate can vary depending on the
base plate length for the given size and location of the other two major connection
elements, i.e., column and anchor bolts. For consistent base plate deformations at the
ultimate state of the connection, however, it is necessary to locate the maximum
curvature within some limited bandwidth in the base plate. This can be effectively
controlled by the relative member sizes between the column and the base plate. Thus, in
order to provide a reasonable range of base plate length for a given column size, the first
geometric ratio is defined as GR1 using two dimensional variables (i.e. bf and B) shown
in Figure 6.1.
bf
Mu
a L a'
Tu Ru
B
Figure 6.1. Two New Variables (a and a') Determining the Locations of Tu and Ru
116
bf
GR1 = (6-1)
B
The first geometric ratio (GR1) for the four specimens, used in the experimental study,
was (12.16 / 20) = 0.608. Based on the experimental observations and the numerical
analysis results, a range of 0.55 ~ 0.6 is suggested as the reasonable boundary of the GR1.
6.1.2 Ratio of (a / B)
The location of the anchor bolts in the longitudinal direction can change the
failure mode in the connection. For instance, if the edge distance of the anchor bolts is
too large, these anchor bolts can fracture in an undesirable manner, such as due to prying
action, before the connection reaches its ultimate state. The prying action can also cause
grout crushing on the tension side. Thus, in order to prevent the undesirable bolt failure
and grout crushing in the connection, the second geometric ratio is defined as GR2 in the
following:
a
GR 2 = (6-2)
B
In the above expression, a is the distance of the anchor bolts from the base plate edge on
the tension side, as shown in Figure 6.1. For the experimental study, the specimens with
the second geometric ratio of GR2 = (2 / 20) = 0.1 were tested. Based on the
experimental observations, a value of 0.1 is suggested for the GR2.

117
6.1.3 Ratio of (a' / a)
As shown in Figure 4.9, in order to express the location of the resultant bearing
force (Ru), the cantilever length x' was used in Chapter 4. In the proposed new design
method, however, this cantilever length can no longer be used because the assumed
bending lines do not exist. In order to express the Ru location more effectively, a new
variable (a') is introduced in the new design method as shown in Figure 6.1. a' indicates
the distance between the Ru and the base plate edge on the compression side. Using the a,
introduced in previous section, location of the Ru can be expressed as:
a'
GR3 = (6-3)
a
If GR3 is greater than 1.0, in the D&E method, the tension side governs the design
procedure of the base plate thickness due to larger cantilever length on the tension side.
On the other hand, the compression side governs the design procedure if GR3 is smaller
than 1.0. For the case, when GR3 is equal to 1.0, there is no need to check the design
moments of the base plate on both sides (i.e., tension and compression sides) because of
symmetry.
6.2 Three Strength Ratios
As already shown in the numerical and experimental study, seismic behavior of
the column-base plate connection is significantly affected by the relative strength ratios
among the connection elements. For a given connection geometry, the failure mechanism
and ductility of the connection can be governed by these strength ratios. However, due to
118
lack of understanding in this area, these strength ratios have not been defined in the
literature. Thus, in this section, three strength ratios are clearly defined based on the study
results. For this purpose, strengths of the three major connection elements (i.e., column,
anchor bolts, and base plate) are defined first and then, using these element strengths,
three strength ratios are defined.
6.2.1 Definition of Mp_column
For the required flexural strength Mu of a fully restrained beam-to-column
connection in moment resisting frames, the "AISC Seismic Provisions 97'" recommends
to use the lesser of the maximum moment delivered by the system or the following
expression:
M u = 1.1 ⋅ Fye ⋅ Z = 1.1 ⋅ ( R y ⋅ Fy ) ⋅ Z (6-4)
where:
Fye = expected yield stress of beam, ksi
Fy = specified minimum yield stress of beam, ksi
Ry = ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield stress of
beam
Z = plastic section modulus of beam, in.3
The recommended values of Ry for several member shapes and materials are summarized
in Table 6.1. The requirement of Equation (6-4) in the beam-to-column connection design
is intended to recognize potential overstrength and strain hardening effects in the
connection, so that the strong column / weak beam concept can be realized.
119
Table 6.1. Ry Values for Several Members (From AISC Seismic Provisions 97')
Member Classes Ry
Rolled Shapes ASTM A36 1.5

and Bars ASTM A572 Grade 42 1.3
Other Grades 1.1
Plate Plate 1.1
However, due to different intentions in the design, the strong column / weak beam
concept can not be directly applied for the column-base plate connection design. For the
column-base plate connection, it is desirable to design a flexible base plate instead of the
stiff base plate, because thinner base plates can be a good source of energy dissipation
and show more ductile connection behavior during earthquake loading (Astaneh et al.,
1992). The experimental study results, presented in Chapter 3, also confirmed that thick
base plates may cause the decrease of seismic connection ductility due to early fractures
in the welds.
In order to maximize the ductility of the connection, designing a flexible base
plate is also targeted in the proposed new design method. For this purpose, it is not
necessary to use the factor 1.1 for the column. Thus, based on the steel coupon test results
presented in Table 3.1, a more realistic expression for the strength of the column is
suggested in the following:
M p _ column = R y ⋅ Fy _ column ⋅ Z y _ column (6-5)

120
where:
Fy_column = specified minimum yield stress of column, ksi
Zy_column = plastic section modulus of column (about weak axis), in.3
6.2.2 Definition of Mp_bolt
Coupling with the resultant bearing force (Ru), as shown in Figure 6.1, the total
tensile bolt force (Tu) resists the design moment (Mu) in the connection. Thus, ultimate
moment capacity of the anchor bolts can be defined as:
M p _ bolt = φ ⋅ Pt _ bolt ⋅ L = φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ L (6-6)
where:
φ = resistance factor for anchor bolt, 0.75
Pt_bolt = tensile force limit of anchor bolt, kips
Ft = nominal tensile strength of anchor bolt, ksi
Ab-total = total area of anchor bolts on the tension side, in.2
L = distance between Tu and Ru, in.
It should be noted that the actual distance between the Tu and Ru can change depending
on the relative strength ratios among the connection elements. For the case, if a = a', the
distance between the Tu and Ru can be replaced by Ls expressed in the following:
Ls = B − 2 ⋅ a (6-7)
121
Consequently, the ultimate moment capacity of the anchor bolts, expressed in Equation
(6-6), can be replaced by,
( M p _ bolt )' = φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ Ls = φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ ( B − 2 ⋅ a) (6-8)
6.2.3 Definition of Mp_plate
Referring to Equation (2-9), the ultimate strength of the base plate is defined as:
N ⋅ (t p ) 2
M p _ plate = φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ Z x _ plate = φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ (6-9)
4
where:
φbp = resistance factor for flexure in base plate
Fy_plate = specified minimum yield stress of base plate, ksi
Zx_plate = plastic section modulus of base plate, in.3
In Equation (6-9), instead of φb = 0.9, a new value is suggested for the resistance factor
for flexure in base plate. Using the φbp in the new design method is intended to provide a
more flexible base plate, to help locate the Ru at the target location. The detailed
background for the suggested φbp value will be explained in Section 6.3.4.
6.2.4 Ratio of (Mp_bolt / Mp_column)
Using the defined strengths of the column and anchor bolts, the first strength ratio
is defined as:
122
M p _ bolt
SR1 = (6-10)
M p _ column
At the ultimate state of the connection, the moment capacity developed by the Tu and Ru
should be larger than or equal to the design moment developed by the column. In other
words, the strength ratio of SR1 should be larger than or equal to 1.0. This simply
provides the minimum anchor bolt size for a given column size. In the new design
method, based on experimental observations, a new value is suggested for the SR1. The
background of this decision will be explained in detail in Section 6.3.3.
6.2.5 Ratio of (Mp_plate / Mp_column)
Using the defined strengths of the column and base plate, the second strength ratio
is defined as:
M p _ plate
SR 2 = (6-11)
M p _ column
With the use of extremely strong anchor bolts, the strength ratio of SR2 can significantly
affect the yield pattern in the connection. Thus, in this case, SR2 can be used as an
effective parameter that can control the failure mechanism of the connection. However,
with the use of conventional anchor bolt sizes, the role of SR2 in seismic behavior of the
connection becomes insignificant due to complex interactions among the connection
elements. For this reason, the effects of SR2 on the seismic behavior of the connection are
not investigated in depth in this study. Instead, the effects of SR2 can be examined
indirectly in the study of the other two ratio effects on the seismic connection behavior.
123
6.2.6 Ratio of (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate)
Using the defined strengths of the anchor bolts and base plate, the third strength
ratio is defined as:
M p _ bolt
SR3 = (6-12)
M p _ plate
As mentioned in the Section 6.2.1, in order to maximize the seismic ductility of the
connection, designing a flexible base plate is targeted in the proposed new design method.
For this purpose, effort should be made on decreasing the base plate thickness. However,
for given anchor bolt strength and stiffness, decreasing the base plate thickness can raise
another problem in the connection design. As shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16, too thin a
base plates may cause high local stress concentrations in the anchor bolts on the tension
side. Thus, in order to prevent the undesirable local stress concentrations in the anchor
bolts, the thickness of the base plate should not go below a certain minimum value. SR3
can be used to express the minimum base plate thickness for given anchor bolts.
6.3 Desired Connection Behavior
Using the geometric ratios and strength ratios as defined in the previous sections,
a desired connection behavior at its ultimate state is described in this section. First, in
order to prevent undesirable grout crushing under the base plate edge due to high stress
concentrations, an appropriate location of the resultant bearing force is proposed in terms
of a and a'. Two possible methodologies are introduced to locate the resultant bearing
force at the target location and the efficiencies of these two methodologies are compared
124
each other. Finally, based on the numerical parametric study results and experimental
observations, rational values for SR1 (= Mp_bolt / Mp_column) and φbp in the new design
method are suggested in order to maximize the seismic ductility of the connection.
6.3.1 Target Location of Resultant Bearing Force
Due to unpredictable interactions among the connection elements and complex

bearing stress distribution on the grout, finding the exact location of the resultant bearing
force (Ru) has been one of the most difficult parts in the column-base plate connection
design. In order to estimate the approximated location of the Ru, several assumptions
have been used in most of design methods. The D&E method is not an exception. In
order to calculate the amount and location of the Ru, as shown in Figure 2.2, the D&E
method assumes an equivalent rectangular stress block and concrete bearing capacity per
unit length (q). However, as shown in Figures 2.13 and 4.22, the assumptions used in the
D&E method do not seem to be very realistic.
Even though the exact location of Ru can be calculated, there remains another
potential problem. If the location of Ru is too close to the base plate edge on the
compression side, an undesirable grout crushing may occur under the base plate. In order
to prevent this undesirable grout crushing, Ru should be located away from the edge. For
this reason, a'=a is suggested for the target location of Ru in the proposed new design
method. Using a'=a for the target location of Ru, a simple analytical model for the base
plate design can be formulated.
125
6.3.2 Two Methodologies
As mentioned in the previous section, a'=a is suggested for the target location of
Ru at the ultimate state of the connection. Now, the question shifts to how Ru can be
located on the target location. Fortunately, the numerical parametric study results,
presented in Chapter 4, provide two possible methodologies: The first method is to
increase the anchor bolt size for a given base plate thickness, and the second method is to
decrease the base plate thickness for given anchor bolts.
In order to examine the effectiveness of the two methodologies, the sensitivities
of the anchor bolt stiffness and base plate thickness in the variation of Ru locations are
investigated. For this purpose, the FEA results, presented in Figures 4.10 and 4.21, are re-
plotted in Figures 6.2 and 6.3, respectively, using a new variable (a'/a). As shown in
Figure 6.2, for the given column and base plate, more than 120 % increase of the anchor
bolt stiffness is needed to cause a change of about 0.3 in the (a'/a) values. On the other
hand, as shown in Figure 6.3, only 40 % variation of the base plate thicknesses is
required to make about 0.5 change in the (a'/a) values for the given column and anchor
bolts. Based on these simple comparisons, it can be concluded that the control of the base
plate thickness provides a more effective way to locate the Ru at the target location.
Moreover, decreasing the base plate thickness is clearly more practical and economical
than increasing the anchor bolt size.
The proposed new design method adopts the above two methodologies. In order
to provide appropriate anchor bolt sizes, a value will be suggested for the SR1 (= Mp_bolt /
Mp_column) in Section 6.3.3 based on experimental observations. And then, in Section 6.3.4,
effort will be concentrated on decreasing the base plate thickness, based on the numerical
parametric study results, to maximize seismic ductility of the connection.
126
6-Bolt Type
4-Bolt Type
1.5
Ratio of ( a' / a )
0.5
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Figure 6.2. Effects of Anchor Bolt Stiffness on the Ru Location (1.0 tpo)
6-Bolt Type
4-Bolt Type
1.5
Ratio of ( a' / a )
0.5
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Figure 6.3. Effects of Base Plate Thickness on the Ru Location (1.3 Ko)
127
6.3.3 Suggested Value for SR1 (= Mp_bolt / Mp_column)
An appropriate value for SR1 (= Mp_bolt / Mp_column) is suggested based on

experimental observations. As explained in Section 2.2.4, in order to prevent anchor bolt
yielding during the experimental study, larger anchor bolts than what the D&E method
provides were used for both bolt type connections (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type).
SR1=1.3 is applied for the 6-bolt type connection, whereas SR1=2.2 is applied for the 4-
bolt type connection. As shown in Figure 6.2, strong anchor bolts clearly helped locate
the Ru at the target location. However, if the anchor bolt size is too large, it can raise
another problem such as practicality and constructibility. Thus, based on the experimental
observations, a value of 1.5 for SR1 is suggested.
6.3.4 Suggested Value for φbp
In the previous section, SR1=1.5 was suggested for the design of the anchor bolts
for a given column size. In this section, with SR1=1.5, the base plate thickness that can
locate the Ru at the target location is determined based on numerical parametric study
results. For this reason, the numerical parametric analysis results are re-plotted in Figure
6.4 using two variables, i.e., SR1 and (a'/a). The analysis results, shown in Figures 6.4(a)
and 6.4(b), indicate that Ru can be located at the target location by selecting 0.9 tpo base
plate when SR1=1.5. This means that a more flexible base plate, than what the D&E
method provides, is needed for the desired connection behavior at its ultimate state.
In order to design flexible base plates in the proposed new design method, a
different value for the resistance factor for flexure of base plate is suggested. In the D&E
method, 1.0 tpo base plate was designed using φb=0.9. However, as already shown in the
numerical and experimental study results, the base plate designed by the D&E method
128
0.8 tpo
0.9 tpo
1.0 tpo
1.1 tpo
1.2 tpo
1.5
Ratio of ( a' / a )
0.5
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Mp_bolt / Mp_column
(a) 6-Bolt Type
0.8 tpo
0.9 tpo
1.0 tpo
1.1 tpo
1.2 tpo
1.5
Ratio of ( a' / a )
0.5
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Mp_bolt / Mp_column
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 6.4. (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) versus (a' / a)

129
was rather stiff and resulted in brittle fracture in the welds. Therefore, in order to design a
more flexible base plate, φbp=1.0 in Equation (6-9) is suggested for the new design
method.
6.4 New Design Force Profile
A new design force profile, which represents more realistically the actual force
distribution in the connection, is introduced in this section and this design force profile is
compared with the assumed force profile used in the D&E method. Three main
differences are discussed in the followings:
First, different assumptions are applied for the calculation of the Ru location. In
order to calculate the approximate location of the Ru, the D&E method assumes an
equivalent rectangular stress block and concrete bearing capacity per unit length (q). On
the other hand, in the new design method, the Ru location is simply assumed as a'=a by
adopting a strong anchor bolt (SR1=1.5) / flexible base plate (φbp=1.0) concept. This
a'=a assumption provides a simple analysis model for the base plate design.
Second, a more realistic force distribution on the base plate is suggested for the
new design method. In order to calculate the Tu and Ru, as shown in Figure 6.5(a), the
D&E method simply locates the design moment Mu at the bottom of the column without
consideration of the actual loading patterns on the base plate. In the new design method,
however, a more realistic force distribution is considered for the design of the base plate
thickness, as shown in Figure 6.5(b). In Figure 6.5(b), the distributed force Wu can be
expressed by,
Wu = R y ⋅ Fy _ column ⋅ (2 ⋅ t f ) (6-13)
where tf is column flange thickness.

130
Assumed Assumed
(Tension Side) Mu (Compression Side)
Vu
φVn q (Assumed)
Y
Tu
(a) Drake and Elkin's Design Method
h
Vu
Wu
P.H.
φVn
a a' ≅ a
Ls Expected from
Tu Ru Mp_bolt/Mp_column=1.5
and φbp=1.0
(b) New Design Method
Figure 6.5. Comparison of Two Design Force Profiles

131
Third, for the calculation of the maximum curvature location in the base plate,
different approaches are applied. The D&E method simply assumes two bending lines
(one on the tension side and one on the compression side) for the maximum curvature
locations in the base plate. At these two locations, the required base plate flexural
strengths are calculated for the design of the base plate thickness. On the other hand, in
the new design method, the amount and location of the required base plate flexural
strengths can be calculated theoretically. In Figure 6.5(b), h indicates the location of the
maximum base plate design moment (i.e., plastic hinge location) from the anchor bolts on
the tension side.
6.5 Basic Design Formulas
The desired connection behavior at its ultimate state is described in Section 6.3,
and a more realistic design force profile is suggested for the new design method in
Section 6.4. Based on the suggested value for the SR1 (= Mp_bolt / Mp_column) and the new
design force profile, several formulas for the design of the base plate thickness and
anchor bolt size are derived in this section. Especially, for the design of the base plate
thickness, a simplified analysis model is developed.
6.5.1 Design of Base Plate Thickness
In order to design base plate thicknesses, in the new design method, a simplified
analysis model (simple beam model) is developed based on the new design force profile.
In this analysis model, as shown in Figure 6.6, the elongation of the anchor bolts on the
tension side is not considered by assuming a simple support at "A". This is because small
amount of the support settlement does not affect moment distribution in a simple beam.
132
A Wu B
(L s-b f )/2 b f /2 b f /2 (L s-b f )/2
Ls
Tu Ru
Figure 6.6. Simplified Analysis Model (Simple Beam Model)
Using the simplified analysis model, as shown in Figure 6.6, several formulas for
the design of the base plate thickness are derived. As was shown in Figure 2.1, the D&E
method assumes two bending lines for the maximum curvature locations in the base plate.
However, using the simplified analysis model, the amount as well as the location of the
maximum design moment can be calculated theoretically for the new design method.
In order to calculate the two unknowns, Tu and Ru, in Figure 6.6, two equilibrium
equations are formulated in the following:
Wu ⋅ b f Wu ⋅ b f
∑F y = 0 → − Tu +
2
−
2
+ Ru = 0 (6-14)
Wu ⋅ b f ⎛ Ls b f ⎞ Wu ⋅ b f ⎛ Ls b f ⎞
∑M B = 0 → − Tu ⋅ Ls +
2 ⎜⎝ 2
⎜ + ⎟⎟ −
4 ⎠
⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ = 0 (6-15)
2 ⎝ 2 4 ⎠
Solving the above two equilibrium equations, the Tu and Ru can be obtained as:
133
Wu ⋅ b f
2
Tu = Ru = (6-16)
4 ⋅ Ls
For the design of the base plate thickness, maximum design moment in the base
plate should be provided. Thus, a free body diagram is prepared in Figure 6.7 to calculate
the maximum moment in the beam. By taking the clockwise direction for the positive
moment, the moment variations in the beam can be expressed as:
⎛ Ls − b f ⎞ X
M = Tu ⋅ ⎜⎜ + X ⎟⎟ − Wu ⋅ X ⋅
⎝ 2 ⎠ 2
W T
= − u ⋅ X 2 + Tu ⋅ X + u ⋅ ( Ls − b f ) (6-17)
2 2
Using Equation (6-17), the moments in the beam can be calculated in the range of X =
0.0 ~ bf /2. Now, the location of the maximum design moment, in the range of X = 0.0 ~
bf /2, can be obtained by,
Wu
+M
(Ls-bf )/2 X
Tu
Figure 6.7. Free Body Diagram

134
dM
= −Wu ⋅ X + Tu = 0 (6-18)
dX
2
T bf
X = u = (6-19)
Wu 4 ⋅ Ls
Thus, the final location of the maximum design moment from the point "A" is
( Ls − b f ) b f − 2 ⋅ b f ⋅ Ls + 2 ⋅ Ls
2 2 2
bf
h= + = (6-20)
2 4 ⋅ Ls 4 ⋅ Ls
Furthermore, from Equations (6-17) and (6-19), the maximum design moment in the
beam can be calculated by,
2
W ⎛ b f 2 ⎞ Wu ⋅ b f 2 ⎛ b f 2 ⎞ Wu ⋅ b f 2
M max =− u ⋅⎜ ⎟ + ⋅⎜ ⎟+ ⋅ ( Ls − b f )
2 ⎜ 4 ⋅ Ls ⎟ 4 ⋅ L ⎜ 4 ⋅ L ⎟ 8 ⋅ L
⎝ ⎠ s ⎝ s ⎠ s
Wu ⋅ b f
2
= ⋅ (b f − 4 ⋅ b f ⋅ Ls + 4 ⋅ Ls )
2 2
(6-21)
32 ⋅ Ls
2
Using the maximum design moment, presented in Equation (6-21), the required
minimum thickness of the base plate can be calculated by,
⎛ N ⋅tp ⎞
2
⎜
( M u = M max ) ≤ φ bp ⋅ M p _ plate = φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ ⎟ (6-22)
⎜ 4 ⎟⎠
⎝
4 ⋅ M max
tp ≥ (6-23)
φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ N
135
As explained in Section 6.3.4, 1.0 is used for the φbp to design flexible base plates in the
new design method.
6.5.2 Design of Anchor Bolt Size
The size of the anchor bolts can be simply calculated using the suggested value
for the SR1 (= Mp_bolt / Mp_column) in Section 6.3.3. However, in this case, the Mp_bolt
should be replaced by the (Mp_bolt)' expressed in Equation (6-8) because a'=a is adopted
for the target location of the Ru in the proposed new design method. Thus,
M p _ bolt ( M p _ bolt )' φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ Ls

SR1 = = = = 1.5 (6-24)
M p _ column M p _ column R y ⋅ Fy _ column ⋅ Z y _ column
From Equation (6-24), the required total area of the anchor bolts can be obtained from the
following equation,
1.5 ⋅ R y ⋅ Fy _ column ⋅ Z y _ column

Ab _ total = (6-25)
φ ⋅ Ft ⋅ Ls
Now, the required area and diameter of each anchor bolt can be calculated as follows:
Ab _ total
Ab = (6-26)
#t
4 ⋅ Ab
db = (6-27)
π
where #t is number of anchor bolts resisting tensile force.

136
Due to the choice of strong anchor bolts in the new design method, it is not
necessary to check the tensile strength or the shear strength of the anchor bolts. However,
for the reasonable design procedure, these strengths will be checked based on the AISC
LRFD Specifications.
6.6 New Design of Base Plate Thickness and Anchor Bolt Size
Using the design formulas as presented in Section 6.5, the base plate thickness
and anchor bolt size are re-designed for the given column and base plate planar sizes. The
complete design procedure is summarized in Appendix B.
In Table 6.2, the newly designed element sizes are compared with those obtained
from the D&E method. From the comparisons in Table 6.2, it can be concluded that the
proposed new design method clearly results in stronger anchor bolt and thinner base plate
as compared with those given by the D&E method.
Table 6.2 Comparison of Connection Element Sizes
Connection D&E Method New Design Method

Element 6-Bolt Type 4-Bolt Type 6-Bolt Type 4-Bolt Type
Column W12x96 W12x96 W12x96 W12x96
Base Plate 2.25 2.25 2.0 2.0

Thickness (tp, in.)
Anchor Bolt Size 1.107 1.356 1.375 1.625

(db, in.) (1.25 - SP6) (2.0 - SP4)
CHAPTER 7
TWO LIMIT STATES OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTION
In order to prevent undesirable connection failures and to maximize cyclic
connection ductility, two limit states of the column-base plate connection are defined in
this chapter. The first limit state of the connection is defined on the tension side based on
the local stresses around the anchor bolts. The second limit state of the connection, on the
other hand, is defined on the compression side based on the proposed effective bearing
areas on the grout.
For the desired connection behavior at its ultimate state, designing a flexible base
plate is targeted in the proposed new design method. However, as explained in Chapter 4,
thinner base plates may cause increase of local stress concentrations in the anchor bolts
and, subsequently, may result in undesirable anchor bolt failure. Thus, in order to prevent
local stress concentration in the anchor bolts on the tension side, minimum thickness of
the base plate should be provided. Two different approaches (i.e., numerical and
theoretical approaches) are introduced in this chapter to provide the minimum base plate
thickness in the connection.
The compressive strength of the grout should be strong enough to resist the
bearing stresses transferred from the base plate under large cyclic moments. Thus, the
second limit state of the connection is defined on the compression side to provide the
required minimum compressive strength of the grout. Based on the numerical analysis
results presented in Chapter 4 and the experimental observations, effective bearing areas
are proposed to calculate the nominal bearing strength of the grout. By comparing this
137
138
nominal bearing strength with the resultant bearing force (Ru), the required minimum
compressive strength of the grout is determined.
Finally, the new design procedure which includes checking the two limit states of
the connection is briefly compared with the Drake and Elkin's design procedure in the
last part of this chapter.
7.1 Limit State on the Tension Side (Numerical Approach)
Designing a flexible base plate is targeted in the proposed new design method
because this can be used as a good source of energy dissipation and improve the cyclic
ductility of the connection. However, as shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16, a thin base plate
may cause high local stress concentrations in the anchor bolts on the tension side. Hence,
minimum thickness of the base plate should be limited to prevent anchor bolt failure due
to such high stress concentrations. For this purpose, two equations (one for the 6-bolt
type and one for the 4-bolt type), which can provide the minimum base plate thickness,
are developed in this section based on the numerical parametric analysis results presented
in Chapter 4. Using these two equations, the minimum base plate thicknesses for both
bolt type connections are calculated and then, these thicknesses are compared with the
newly designed base plate thicknesses in Chapter 6.
7.1.1 Basic Methodology
In order to explain how the minimum base plate thickness is determined
numerically for given column and anchor bolt sizes, the numerical parametric analysis
results, presented in Chapter 4, are re-plotted schematically in Figure 7.1 using two
variables, i.e., (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) and (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate). For given (Mp_bolt / Mp_column)
values, the approximate starting points of the anchor bolt local yielding, expressed as
139
Anchor Bolt
Mp_bolt / Mp_plate
Local Yield
Limit Lines
0 .8 t p o
A n c h o r B o lt
L o c a l Y ie ld
S ta rtin g P o in t
1 .2 t p o
1 .0 1 .3 1 .7 2 .2 M p _ b o lt / M p _ c o lu m n
Figure 7.1. Limit Lines for Anchor Bolt Local Yielding
6-Bolt Type
4-Bolt Type
14
12
( Mp_bolt / Mp_plate ) max
10
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Mp_bolt / Mp_column
Figure 7.2. (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) versus (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate)max

140
(Mp_bolt / Mp_plate), can be determined. These points are marked in Figure 7.1. By
connecting these points, limit lines for the anchor bolt local yielding can be provided.
For both bolt type connections, approximate limit lines for the anchor bolt local
yielding are plotted in Figure 7.2. In the practical range of (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) = 1.0 ~ 1.7,
the results plotted in Figure 7.2 provide the following two equations which can limit the
minimum base plate thicknesses for given column and anchor bolt sizes.
⎛ M p _ bolt ⎞ ⎛ M p _ bolt ⎞
⎜ ⎟ max = 5.0 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 0 .9 6-Bolt Type (7-1a)
⎜M ⎟ ⎜M ⎟
⎝ p _ plate ⎠ ⎝ p _ column ⎠
⎜ ⎟ max = 4.1 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 2 .4 4-Bolt Type (7-1b)
⎜M ⎟ ⎜M ⎟
From Equations (7-1a) and (7-1b), the value of (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate)max can be simply
calculated from the (Mp_bolt / Mp_column) = 1.5, which is adopted in the proposed new
design method. With a given anchor bolt size, the value of (Mp_bolt / Mp_plate)max directly
provides the minimum thickness of the base plate.
7.1.2 Limit State Check on the Tension Side (Numerical Approach)
Using Equations (7-1a) and (7-1b), the minimum base plate thicknesses which can
prevent local yielding in the anchor bolts are calculated for both bolt type connections.
These base plate thicknesses are compared with the newly designed base plate
thicknesses in Chapter 6. This procedure is summarized in Appendix C.

141
7.2 Limit State on the Tension Side (Theoretical Approach)
In the previous section, the minimum base plate thicknesses, which can prevent
anchor bolt local yielding on the tension side, were provided based on numerical
parametric analysis results. In this section, the minimum base plate thicknesses are
determined theoretically. For this purpose, a local mechanism, which represents actual
force flow around the anchor bolt on the tension side, is proposed based on numerical and
experimental study results. Using this local mechanism, an equation is formulated to limit
the minimum base plate thicknesses for both bolt type connections. Finally, the calculated
minimum base plate thicknesses are compared with the newly designed base plate
thicknesses from Chapter 6.
7.2.1 Global and Local Mechanisms
As shown in Figure 7.3, the anchor bolts on the tension side are assumed as a
hinge condition in the proposed new design method. This assumption, based on the
global mechanism of the connection, may be satisfactory for the design of the base plate
thickness. However, due to its simplicity, the analysis model (i.e., simple beam model)
cannot properly explain the actual force flow around the anchor bolts on the tension side.
Thus, based on numerical analysis results, the actual force flow around the anchor bolts is
investigated in depth and, finally, a representative local mechanism on the tension side of
the connection is developed, as shown in Figure 7.4. Using this local mechanism, an
equation, which can determine the minimum thickness of the base plate, will be derived
in Section 7.2.3.
142
M p_plate
P.H.
Wu
Tu Ru
Figure 7.3. Global Mechanism
d1 d2
P1 P2 W u / #t
M p_plate / #t
P.H.
h
Figure 7.4. Local Mechanism (For Each Anchor Bolt)

143
In the proposed local mechanism, as shown in Figure 7.4, the portion of only one
anchor bolt is considered. Thus, Wu and Mp_plate are divided by the number of the anchor
bolts on the tension side (i.e., #t). In addition, the actual reaction forces, developed by the
contact between nut and base plate, are simplified as two force components (i.e., P1 and
P2) located at two different distances (i.e., d1 and d2) from the center of the anchor bolt.
These four variables will be replaced by more convenient expressions in Section 7.2.2.
7.2.2 α and β
For more convenient expressions, the two reaction forces (i.e., P1 and P2), shown
in Figure 7.4, are replaced by,
P1 = α ⋅ P (7-2)
P2 = P (7-3)
In Equation (7-2), α is the ratio between P1 and P2. Based on the numerical parametric
analysis results, the value of α shows a variation between 0.65 and 0.70 when strong
anchor bolts (i.e., 1.3 Ko and 1.7 Ko) and flexible base plates (i.e., 0.8 tpo and 0.9 tpo) are
used. For the proposed local mechanism, α = 0.7 is adopted because larger α value
results in a more conservative checking limit for the minimum thickness of the base plate.
The background of this decision will be explained in detail in Section 7.2.6.
Based on numerical analysis results, d1 shows a little large value as compared
with d2 for both bolt type connections (6-bolt type and 4-bolt type). However, the amount
is very small and ignorable. Thus, in the proposed local mechanism, d1 and d2 are
assumed to have the same distance β, i.e.,
144
d1 = d 2 = β (7-4)
A simple expression is proposed for β based on numerical analysis results and
experimental observations, i.e.,
⎛ d +W ⎞
3 ⋅ db + ⎜ h ⎟
β= ⎝ 2 ⎠
(7-5)
8
where:
db = diameter of each anchor bolt including threaded part, in.
dh = diameter of oversized bolt hole, in.
W = nut width across flats, in.
β β
αP P
db
dh
Figure 7.5. Detail around Anchor Bolt

145
In Equation (7-5), the value of β (i.e., the location of P1 or P2 from the center of the
anchor bolt) is highly dependent on the size of the anchor bolt. Now, for a given detail
around the anchor bolt, shown in Figure 7.5, the location of P1 or P2 can be easily
provided from Equation (7-5).
7.2.3 Minimum Base Plate Thickness
Using two new variables, α and β, the proposed local mechanism is simply re-
configured in Figure 7.6. Based on the simplified local mechanism, shown in Figure 7.6,
the moment at the plastic hinge location can be determined as follows:
⎛W ⎞ ⎛⎜ b f ⎞ 1 ⎛ bf 2 ⎞
2
M = α ⋅ P ⋅ (h + β ) + P ⋅ (h − β ) − ⎜⎜ u ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎟⋅ ⋅⎜ ⎟
⎝ #t ⎠ ⎜⎝ 4 ⋅ Ls ⎟ 2 ⎜ 4 ⋅ Ls
⎠ ⎝
⎟
⎠
⎛ Wu ⎞ b f
4
= {α ⋅ (h + β ) + (h − β )}⋅ P − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ (7-6)
⎝ # t ⎠ 32 ⋅ Ls
2
The moment M, expressed in Equation (7-6), should always be smaller than or equal to
the value of (Mp_plate / #t). Thus,
⎧⎪⎛ M p _ plate ⎞ N ⋅ (t p ) 2 ⎫⎪
M ≤ ⎨⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ ⎬ (7-7)
⎪⎩⎝ # t ⎠ 4⋅# t ⎪⎭
Now, the applicable range of the base plate thickness, which can prevent local yielding in
the anchor bolt, can be given by,
4⋅# t ⎡ ⎛W ⎞ bf
4
⎤
(t p ) ≥
2
⋅ ⎢{α ⋅ (h + β ) + (h − β )}⋅ P − ⎜⎜ u ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎥ (7-8)
φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ N ⎢⎣ ⎝ #t ⎠ 32 ⋅ Ls ⎥⎦
2
146
β β
W u / #t
M
αP P
(Ls-bf )/2 bf /4Ls
Figure 7.6. Simplified Local Mechanism
With the maximum value of P (i.e., Pmax) in the above expression, the minimum thickness
of the base plate can be provided in the following:
4⋅# t ⎡ ⎛ Wu ⎞ b f
4
⎤
(t p ) min = ⋅ ⎢{α ⋅ (h + β ) + (h − β )}⋅ Pmax − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎥ (7-9)
φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ N ⎢⎣ ⎝ # t ⎠ 32 ⋅ Ls ⎥⎦
2
7.2.4 Maximum Value of P, Pmax
The maximum value of P (i.e., Pmax) can be determined from the specified yield
stress limit of the anchor bolt. In order to explain this part, the force and moment resisting
mechanisms in the anchor bolt are briefly explained in Figure 7.7. The tensile force and
moment developed by P and αP, as shown in Figure 7.7, are resisted by Teach and Meach in
the anchor bolt. Using the defined two variables, α and β, the two internal forces (i.e.,
Teach and Meach) can be expressed by,

147
β β
αP P
M each
Teach
Figure 7.7. Two Internal Forces in Each Anchor Bolt
Teach = (1 + α ) ⋅ P (7-10)
M each = (1 − α ) ⋅ β ⋅ P (7-11)
Now, in reference to Figure 7.8, the maximum tensile stresses due to the tensile
force (Teach) and the moment (Meach) in the anchor bolt can be written by,
Teach (1 + α ) ⋅ P
σ1 = = (7-12)
Ab _ eff Ab _ eff
⎛ d b _ eff ⎞ ⎛d ⎞
M each ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1 − α ) ⋅ β ⋅ P ⋅ ⎜⎜ b _ eff ⎟⎟
σ2 = ⎝ 2 ⎠= ⎝ 2 ⎠ (7-13)
I b _ eff I b _ eff
148
db
db_eff
Anchor Bolt
σ1 from Tensile Bolt Force T each
σ2 from Moment M each
Figure 7.8. Stress Distribution across Anchor Bolt
where:
π ⋅ db 2
Ab_eff = effective area of each anchor bolt = 0.75 ⋅ , in.2
4
4 ⋅ Ab _ eff
db_eff = effective diameter of each anchor bolt = , in.
π
4
⎛ d b _ eff ⎞
π ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Ib_eff = effective moment of inertia of each anchor bolt = ⎝ 2 ⎠ , in.4
4
In order to prevent anchor bolt yielding at its outer surface, the summation of σ1
and σ2 should be smaller than or equal to the specified yield stress of the anchor bolt, i.e.,
149
⎧ ⎛ d b _ eff ⎞⎫
⎪ (1 − α ) ⋅ β ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ (1 + α ) ⎝ 2 ⎠⎪⋅ P ≤ F
σ1 +σ 2 = ⎨ + ⎬ y _ bolt (7-14)
⎪ Ab _ eff I b _ eff ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
The above expression provides the maximum value of P (i.e., Pmax) as given in the
following:
Fy _ bolt
Pmax = (7-15)
⎧ ⎛ d b _ eff ⎞⎫
⎪ (1 − α ) ⋅ β ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ (1 + α ) ⎝ 2 ⎠⎪
⎨ + ⎬
⎪ Ab _ eff I b _ eff ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
Finally, using the Pmax provided by Equation (7-15), the minimum base plate thickness,
which can prevent local yielding in the anchor bolt, can be determined from Equation (7-
9).
7.2.5 Limit State Check on the Tension Side (Theoretical Approach)
Using Equation (7-9), the minimum base plate thicknesses which can prevent
local yielding in the anchor bolts are calculated for both bolt type connections. These
base plate thicknesses are compared with the newly designed base plate thicknesses in
Chapter 6. This procedure is summarized in Appendix D.
150
7.2.6 α versus (tp)min
As was mentioned in Section 7.2.2, α = 0.7 is adopted for the proposed local
mechanism. This is because larger α value results in a more conservative checking limit
for the minimum thickness of the base plate. This fact can be easily confirmed based on
the simple sensitivity analysis results shown in Table 7.1. The calculated minimum base
plate thickness, as presented in Table 7.1, is proportional to the value of α for both bolt
type connections. Hence, within the given range of α = 0.65 ~ 0.7, the largest value of α
(i.e., 0.7) results in the most conservative checking limit for the minimum thickness of
the base plate.
Table 7.1 Minimum Base Plate Thickness with Different Values of α

α=0.65 α=0.68 α=0.70 α=0.65 α=0.68 α=0.70
(tp)min 1.8037 1.8808 1.9336 1.7060 1.7823 1.8345
7.3 Limit State on the Compression Side
Two different approaches (i.e., numerical and theoretical approaches) were

introduced in the previous two sections to provide the minimum base plate thickness
which can prevent local anchor bolt yielding on the tension side. In this section, another
151
limit state of the connection is defined on the compression side: The grout strength
should be strong enough to resist the bearing stresses transferred from the base plate.
From this limit state, the required minimum compressive strength of the grout (fc') is
determined. For this purpose, effective bearing areas are proposed to provide the nominal
bearing strength of the grout. By comparing this nominal bearing strength with the
resultant bearing force (Ru), the required minimum compressive strength of the grout (fc')
can be determined.
7.3.1 Effective Bearing Area and Grout Bearing Strength
Based on numerical analysis results and experimental observations, effective

bearing areas are proposed to provide the bearing strength of the grout in the connection.
These effective bearing areas are shown in Figure 7.9. For both bolt type connections, 2a
is determined for the length of the effective bearing area. However, as shown in Figure
7.9(b), the smaller width (i.e., 0.7 N) is assigned for the effective bearing area in the 4-
bolt type connection, so as to be on the conservative side. Now, the proposed effective
bearing areas for both bolt type connections can be expressed in the followings:
Ag _ eff = ( 2 ⋅ a ) ⋅ (0.8 ⋅ N ) = 1.6 ⋅ a ⋅ N 6-Bolt Type (7-16a)
Ag _ eff = ( 2 ⋅ a ) ⋅ (0.7 ⋅ N ) = 1.4 ⋅ a ⋅ N 4-Bolt Type (7-16b)
Using the proposed effective bearing areas and the grout bearing stress capacity,
expressed in Equation (2-8), the nominal bearing strength of the grout in the connection
can be given by,
152
0.4N
0.4N
2a
(a) 6-Bolt Type
0.35N
0.35N
2a
(b) 4-Bolt Type
Figure 7.9. Effective Bearing Area on the Grout

153
A2
φ c ⋅ Rn = φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ f c ' ⋅ Ag _ eff (7-17)
A1
For more conservative design of the grout strength, φc = 0.6 is used in Equation (7-17)
instead of φc = 0.7 recommended by the ACI for the strength reduction factor in case of
bearing on concrete.
7.3.2 Required Minimum Compressive Strength of the Grout
By comparing the nominal bearing strength of the grout, expressed in Equation

(7-17), with the resultant bearing force (Ru), the required minimum fc' of the grout can be
determined as follows:
Ru ≤ φ c ⋅ Rn (7-18)
Ru
fc ' ≥ (7-19)
A
φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ 2 ⋅ Ag _ eff
A1
From the above expression, smaller effective bearing area (Ag_eff) clearly results in larger
value of the required minimum fc' of the grout. Thus, for a given connection geometry,
the 4-bolt type connection always requires the larger value of the required minimum fc' of
the grout as compared with the 6-bolt type connection.
154
7.3.3 Limit State Check on the Compression Side
Using Equations (7-16) and (7-19), the required minimum compressive strengths
of the grout are determined for both bolt type connections. This procedure is summarized
in Appendix E.
7.3.4 Confining Band
Using the nominal bearing strength of the grout, as given by Equation (7-17), and the
resultant bearing force (Ru), the required minimum fc' of the grout was determined in
Section 7.3.3. However, due to conservatism in calculating the values of Ag_eff and φc,
impractically high fc' of the grout can be required for its minimum value. For this reason,
increasing the bearing capacity of the grout may be needed in the proposed new design
Figure 7.10 Circular Shape Confining Band

155
method. In this section, a simple idea, which can effectively increase the bearing capacity
of the grout, is introduced without any verification. Using a confining band, which is
used for increasing the bearing capacity in slender bridge piers, the bearing capacity of
the grout can be effectively increased. A proposed circular shape confining band is
presented in Figure 7.10.
7.4 Comparison of Two Design Procedures
A new design method was proposed in Chapter 6, and two limit states of the
connection are introduced in the previous three sections of this chapter. Now, the
complete design procedure, which includes checking the two limit states of the
connection, is briefly compared with the Drake and Elkin's design procedure in Figure
7.11.
156
<Design Force Profile>
Assumed Assumed
(Tension Side) Mu (Compression Side) h
Vu
Vu Wu
P.H.
φVn q (Assumed) φVn
a a' ≅ a
Y Ls Expected from
Tu Tu Ru Mp_bolt/Mp_column=1.5
and φbp=1.0
<Base Plate Thickness Design>

⎧⎪ ( M pl )tension ⎫⎪ Wu ⋅b f 2
2
(M pl )max = the larger of ⎨ ⎬ M max = (bf − 4 ⋅ b f ⋅ Ls + 4 ⋅ Ls 2 )
⎪⎩ ( M pl )comp ⎪⎭ 32 ⋅ L s 2
4⋅( M pl )max 4⋅M

tp ≥ tp ≥ max
φ b ⋅ F y _ plate φ bp ⋅ F y _ plate
Check t p ≥ ( t p )min
<Anchor Bolt Design>

Vu Tu 1 .5 ⋅ R y ⋅ F y _ column ⋅Z y _ column
V ub = , T ub = A b _ total =
#v #t 0 . 75 ⋅ F t ⋅ L s
⎧ V ub ⎫
⎪ ( A b ) shear = ⎪
⎪ 0 . 75 ⋅ Fv ⎪ A b _ total
A b ≥ the larger of ⎨ ⎬ Ab =
⎪( A ) T ub ⎪ #t
=
⎪ b tension ⋅ Ft ⎪
⎩ 0 . 75 ⎭
Check Shear and Tensile Strength
⎧ ( A b ) shear ⎫
A b ≥ the larger of ⎨ ⎬
⎩ ( A b )tension ⎭
<Grout Strength>
A2
R u ≤ φ c ⋅ R n = φ c ⋅ 0 . 85 ⋅ f c ' ⋅ ⋅ Ag _ eff
A1
Ru
fc' ≥
A2
φ c ⋅ 0 . 85 ⋅ ⋅ Ag _ eff
A1
(a) D&E Method (b) New Design Method
Figure 7.11 Comparison of Two Design Procedures

CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Summary
The D&E method, representative current design practice of the column-base plate
connection in the U.S., was evaluated numerically and experimentally for the case of
weak axis bending. The results of the study showed several limitations of the D&E
method and emphasized the effects of the relative strength ratios on the seismic behavior
of the connection. In order to develop a more rational and reliable design method, a new
design force transfer mechanism was proposed based on numerical and experimental
study. Using this proposed new design force profile and the concept of relative strength
ratios, a new design procedure was developed. Furthermore, two limit states of the
column-base plate connection were defined to prevent undesirable connection failures
and to maximize connection ductility under cyclic loading.
For the study, two typical exposed column-base plate connections consisting of
different stiffness and number of anchor bolts (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) were
designed by using the D&E method. Using the basic connection dimensions, two FEA
models (i.e., one for the 6-bolt type connection and one for the 4-bolt type connection)
were configured without consideration of weld detail. Based on numerical pre-test
analysis results, the effects of different stiffness and number of anchor bolts on the
seismic behavior of the connection were investigated in depth. The numerical analysis
results of both bolt type connections were compared with the design estimations of the
D&E method to numerically evaluate their design method.
157
158
For the experimental evaluation of the D&E method, a total of four column-base
plate connection assemblages (i.e., two specimens for each bolt type connection) were
tested under reversed cyclic loading history. Only one specimen (i.e., SP 4-1) completed
all the load cycles without significant strength degradations. In the experimental study,
the effects of anchor bolt stiffness, anchor bolt location, and weld detail on the seismic
behavior of the connection were mainly investigated. The experimental results were
compared with the pre-test FEA results as well as with the design estimates from the
D&E method. Through these comparisons, the D&E method was evaluated and several
limitations of the D&E method were examined.
In order to investigate more precisely the relative strength ratio effects on the
seismic behavior of the connection, an intensive numerical parametric study was
conducted. For this purpose, a total of twenty FEA models, consisting of four different
anchor bolt stiffnesses (i.e., 1.0 Ko, 1.3 Ko, 1.7 Ko, and 2.2 Ko) and five different base
plate thicknesses (i.e., 0.8 tpo, 0.9 tpo, 1.0 tpo, 1.1 tpo and 1.2 tpo), were configured and
analyzed for each bolt type connection. The effects of anchor bolt stiffness and base plate
thickness on the seismic behavior of the connection were examined through the
numerical parametric study and several major observations were made. Additionally, in
order to examine the effects of grout strength variation on the location of the resultant
bearing force on the compression side, three more FEA models consisting of different
grout compressive strengths were prepared and analyzed.
Based on numerical and experimental evaluation results and major findings from
the experimental study, a total of six limitations of the D&E method were identified.
Those were:
• Application of concrete beam design methodology
• Oversensitivity to q (or fc')
• Location of the bending lines
• Anchor bolt location effects

159
• Relative strength ratio effects
• Effect of stiff base plate
The limitations of the representative current design practice indicated the need for
a more rational and reliable design method. For this reason, a new design force profile,
which describes more realistically the actual force distribution in the connection, was
proposed. Based on this new design force profile and the concept of strong anchor bolts
(SR1=1.5) / flexible base plate (φbp=1.0), a new design procedure was developed. Using
this new design procedure, the two connections chosen for the study (i.e., 6-bolt type and
4-bolt type) were re-designed and the new connection element sizes were compared with
those from the D&E method.
For the desired connection behavior at the ultimate state, designing a more
flexible base plate is targeted in the proposed new design method. However, thinner base
plates may cause increase of local stress concentrations in the anchor bolts and,
subsequently, may result in undesirable anchor bolt failure. Thus, in order to prevent
local yielding in the anchor bolts on the tension side, minimum thickness of the base plate
was provided by two different approaches (i.e., numerical and theoretical approaches).
Especially, for the theoretical approach, a representative local mechanism on the tension
side of the connection was introduced. The compressive strength of the grout should be
strong enough to resist the bearing stresses under the base plate. Thus, the second limit
state of the connection was defined on the compression side to provide the required
minimum compressive strength of the grout. Based on numerical analysis results and
experimental observations, effective bearing areas were proposed for each bolt type
connection to calculate the nominal bearing strength of the grout. By comparing this
nominal bearing strength with the resultant bearing force (Ru), the required minimum
compressive strength of the grout was determined.

160
8.2 Conclusions
Based on numerical and experimental studies, the main conclusions are drawn as
follows:
• For both bolt type connections, the base plates designed by the D&E method did not
fully yield along the assumed bending lines at the limit state of the connection. This
indicates that the connections designed by the D&E method may not behave as
expected.
• Due to violation of two basic assumptions and complexity of bearing stress
distribution in the transverse direction, it may not be realistic to directly apply the
concrete beam design methodology for the design of column-base plate connections.
• The design procedure of the D&E method is highly dependent on the assumed
concrete bearing capacity per unit length (q) which has not been fully verified.
• In the D&E method, the expected location of resultant bearing force is quite sensitive
to the variation of the grout compressive strength (fc'). However, the numerical
parametric study results show the opposite.
• Due to location of the anchor bolts, the 4-bolt type connection results in a circular
shaped base plate yield lines on the tension side and high bearing stresses at the
corner of the grout on the compression side.
• Due to relative strength ratios among the connection elements, the location of
resultant bearing force can vary. This can change the amount of the required total
tensile strength of the anchor bolts (Tu) as well as the resultant bearing force (Ru) and
can significantly affect the seismic behavior of the connection.
• The dominant failure mode of the tested connection assemblages was fracture of the
welds connecting the column to the base plate.

161
• In this limited experimental study, no significant differences were observed between
SuperArc L-50 (ER70S-3) and NR-311Ni (E70TG-K2) in terms of the seismic
connection ductility.
• Fillet weld reinforcement over the groove welds on the outside of column flanges can
significantly increase the seismic connection ductility in the case of the weak axis
bending.
• In order to develop a more rational and reliable design method, a new design force
path, which describes more realistically the actual force distribution in the connection,
was proposed.
• Based on the proposed new design force profile and the concept of strong anchor
bolts (SR1=1.5) / flexible base plate (φbp=1.0), a new design procedure was
developed.
• A thin base plate may cause high local stress concentrations in the anchor bolts on the
tension side. Thus, minimum thickness of the base plate should be limited to prevent
undesirable anchor bolt failure before the connection reaches its ultimate state. In this
study, the minimum base plate thickness was provided by two different approaches
(i.e., numerical and experimental approaches).
• The compressive strength of the grout should be strong enough to resist the bearing
stresses under the base plate. Thus, the required minimum compressive strength of the
grout should be determined. In this study, the required minimum compressive
strength of the grout was determined based on the proposed effective bearing areas.
162
8.3 Suggestions for Future Study
• For use in design practice, the proposed new design method must be verified
experimentally.
• The application of newly introduced design methodology, based on the relative
strength ratios, needs to be verified for the case of the strong axis bending.
• For practical reasons, the effects of axial load on the seismic behavior of the
connection should be included in the proposed new design procedure.
• For the design of column-base plate connections in braced frames, shear force
transferring mechanism in the connection should be investigated in depth.

APPENDICES
163
164
APPENDIX A
COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTION DESIGN (D&E METHOD)
Using the D&E method, base plate thicknesses and anchor bolt sizes for both bolt
type connections (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) are designed. The whole design
procedures are summarized in the following:
COLUMN (ASTM A572 Grade 50)

W12x96
ANCHOR BOLT
ASTM A354 Grade BD
BASE PLATE (ASTM A36)

CONCRETE FOUNDATION PL20x20xtp
74x74x35.75 GROUT
20x20x2
Figure A.1. Schematic Connection Geometry
A. Given Values
1. Column
ASTM A572 Grade 50
(
W 12 x96 d = 12.7 in., t w = 0.55 in., b f = 12.16 in., t f = 0.9 in., Z y_column = 67.5 in.3 )
Lcolumn = 80 in.
165
2. Base Plate
ASTM A36
PL 20 in. x 20 in. x t p
3. Grout
f c ' = 6 ksi
20 in. x 20 in. x 2 in.
4. Anchor Bolt
ASTM A354 Grade BD Rod
B. Basic Dimensions and Design Loads
1. Basic Dimensions
B − 0.8 ⋅ b f (20 in.) − 0.8 ⋅ (12.16 in.)
n= = = 5.136 in.
2 2
B (20 in.)
f = − (2 in.) = − (2 in.) = 8 in.
2 2
0.8 ⋅ b f 0.8 ⋅ (12.16 in.)
x= f − = (8 in.) − = 3.136 in.
2 2
2. Design Loads
M u = (58 ksi) * ⋅ Z y _ column = (58 ksi) ⋅ (67.5 in.3 ) = 3915 k − in.
Mu 3915 k − in.
Vu = = = 48.94 kips
Lcolumn 80 in.
* For the design of the column-base plate connection, 58 ksi is assumed for the expected
yield strength of the column considering the potential overstrength and strain hardening
effects in the connection.

166
C. Equivalent Bearing Length, Y and Required Total Tensile Bolt Strength, Tu
1. Equivalent Bearing Length

A2
q = φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ f c '⋅ N ⋅ = 0.6 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ (6 ksi) ⋅ (20 in.) ⋅ 1 = 61.2 k / in.
A1
2
⎛ B⎞ ⎧ ⎛ B ⎞⎫ 2⋅Mu
Y = ⎜ f + ⎟ − ⎨− ⎜ f + ⎟ ⎬ −
⎝ 2⎠ ⎩ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎭ q
2
⎛ 20 in. ⎞ ⎧ ⎛ 20 in. ⎞⎫ 2 ⋅ (3915 k − in.)
= ⎜ 8 in. + ⎟ − ⎨− ⎜ 8 in. + ⎟⎬ −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎩ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎭ (61.2 k / in.)
= 18 in. − 14 in.
= 4 in.
2. Required Total Tensile Bolt Strength

Tu = q ⋅ Y = (61.2 k / in.) ⋅ (4 in.) = 244.8 kips
D. Base Plate Design
1. Required Strength (per Unit Width)

A2
f p = φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ f c '⋅ = 0.6 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ (6 ksi) ⋅ 1 = 3.06 ksi
A1
On the Tension Side

T ⋅ x (244.8 kips) ⋅ (3.136 in.)
M pl = u = = 38.4 k − in. / in.
N (20 in.)
On the Compression Side (Y<n)

⎛ Y⎞ ⎛ 4 in. ⎞
M pl = f p ⋅ Y ⋅ ⎜ n − ⎟ = (3.06 ksi ) ⋅ (4 in.) ⋅ ⎜ 5.136 in. − ⎟ = 38.4 k − in. / in.
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
2. Nominal Strength (per Unit Width)

167
(t p ) 2
M n = M p = Fy _ plate ⋅
4
3. Required Base Plate Thickness
On the Tension Side

4 ⋅ M pl 4 ⋅ (38.4 k − in. / in.)
tp ≥ = = 2.18 in.
φ b ⋅ Fy _ plate 0.9 ⋅ (36 ksi)
On the Compression Side (Y < n)

4 ⋅ M pl 4 ⋅ (38.4 k − in. / in.)
tp ≥ = = 2.18 in.
φ b ⋅ Fy _ plate 0.9 ⋅ (36 ksi)
Use tp = 2.25 in.Æ tpo
E. Anchor Bolt Design
1. Required Strength of Each Anchor Bolt
For Shear Force

V 48.94 kips
Vub = u = = 8.15 kips ( For 6 − Bolt Type)
#v 6
V 48.94 kips
#v 4
For Tensile Force

T 244.8 kips
Tub = u = = 81.6 kips ( For 6 − Bolt Type)
#t 3
T 244.8 kips
#t 2
2. Nominal Strength of Each Anchor Bolt

168
Mechanical properties of the ASTM A354 Grade BD rods are very similar to
ASTM A490 bolts. Thus, nominal strength of the A490 bolt is adopted herein for the
design of the anchor bolt size.
For Shear Force

Fv = 60 ksi
For Tensile Force

⎛V ⎞
Ft = 147 − 1.9 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ub ⎟⎟ ≤ 113 ksi
⎝ Ab ⎠
3. Required Diameter of Each Anchor Bolt
Assume Ft=113 ksi for the calculation of the required minimum bolt sizes.
For Shear Force

⎛4⎞ Vub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (8.15 kips )
db ≥ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ = ⎜ ⎟⋅ = 0.480 in. ( For 6 − Bolt Type)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Fv ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (60 ksi)
⎛4⎞ Vub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (12.24 kips )
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Fv ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (60 ksi)
For Tensile Force

⎛4⎞ Tub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (81.6 kips)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Ft ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi)
⎛4⎞ Tub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (122.4 kips)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Ft ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi)
Required Minimum Anchor Bolt Sizes:
db = 1.107 in. for 6-bolt type and 1.356 in. for 4-bolt type
Determined Anchor Bolt Sizes in This Study:
db = 1.25 in. for 6-bolt type and 2.0 in. for 4-bolt type
4. Assumed Nominal Strength (113 ksi) for Tensile Force

169
For 6-Bolt Type

π ⋅ db 2 π ⋅ (1.107 in.) 2
( Ab ) min = = = 0.9625 in.2
4 4
⎛V ⎞ ⎛ 7.77 kips ⎞
Ft = 147 − 1.9 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ub ⎟⎟ = 147 − 1.9 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟ = 131.7 ksi ≤ 113 ksi
2 ⎟
⎝ b⎠
A ⎝ 0.9625 in. ⎠
∴ Using Ft = 113 ksi to calculate d b was right
For 4-Bolt Type

π ⋅ db 2 π ⋅ (1.356 in.) 2
( Ab ) min = = = 1.4441 in.2
4 4
⎛V ⎞ ⎛ 11.65 kips ⎞
Ft = 147 − 1.9 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ub ⎟⎟ = 147 − 1.9 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟ = 131.7 ksi ≤ 113 ksi
2 ⎟
⎝ b⎠
A ⎝ 1.4441 in. ⎠
∴ Using Ft = 113 ksi to calculate d b was right
170
APPENDIX B
COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTION DESIGN (NEW METHOD)
Using the proposed design method, base plate thicknesses and anchor bolt sizes
for both bolt type connections (i.e., 6-bolt type and 4-bolt type) are determined. The
whole design calculations are summarized in the following:
A. Given Values
1. Column
ASTM A572 Grade 50
(
W 12 x96 d = 12.7 in., t w = 0.55 in., b f = 12.16 in., t f = 0.9 in., Z y_column = 67.5 in.3 )
Lcolumn = 80 in.
2. Base Plate
ASTM A36
3. Anchor Bolts
Ft = 113 ksi
B. Base Plate Planar Dimension and Anchor Bolt Location
1. Base Plate Planar Dimension

171
bf 12.16 in.
GR1 = = = 0.6 (Suggested in Section 6.1.1)
B B
12.16 in.
B= = 20.27 in. ≈ 20 in.
0 .6
Use B x N = 20 in. x 20 in.
2. Anchor Bolt Location

a a
GR 2 = = = 0 .1
B 20 in.
a = ( 20 in.) ⋅ 0.1 = 2 in.
Ls = B − 2 ⋅ a = (20 in.) − (2 ⋅ 2 in.) = 16 in.
C. Design Loads
M u = R y ⋅ Fy _ column ⋅ Z y _ column = 1.1 ⋅ (50 ksi) ⋅ (67.5 in.3 ) = 3712.5 k − in.

Wu = R y ⋅ Fy _ column ⋅ (2 ⋅ t f ) = 1.1 ⋅ (50 ksi ) ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ 0.9 in.) = 99 k / in.
Wu ⋅ b f
2
(99 k / in.) ⋅ (12.16 in.) 2
Tu = = = 228.73 kips
4 ⋅ Ls 4 ⋅ (16 in.)
Mu 3712.5 k − in.
Vu = = = 46.41 kips
Lcolumn 80 in.
D. Base Plate Design
1. Location of Maximum Design Moment

b f − 2 ⋅ b f ⋅ Ls + 2 ⋅ L s
2 2
h=
4 ⋅ Ls
(12.16 in.) 2 − 2 ⋅ (12.16 in.) ⋅ (16 in.) + 2 ⋅ (16 in.) 2
=
4 ⋅ (16 in.)
172
= 4.23 in.
2. Maximum Design Moment for Base Plate Thickness

Wu ⋅ b f
2
M max = ⋅ (b f − 4 ⋅ b f ⋅ Ls + 4 ⋅ Ls )
2 2
32 ⋅ Ls
2
(99 k / in.) ⋅ (12.16 in.) 2

=
32 ⋅ (16 in.) 2
{
⋅ (12.16 in.) 2 − 4 ⋅ (12.16 in.) ⋅ (16 in.) + 4 ⋅ (16 in.) 2 }
= 703.4 k − in.
3. Required Minimum Base Plate Thickness

4 ⋅ M max 4 ⋅ (703.4 k − in.)
tp ≥ = = 1.977 in.
φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅ N 1.0 ⋅ (36 ksi) ⋅ (20 in.)
Use tp = 2.0 in.
E. Anchor Bolt Design
1. Total Anchor Bolt Area

( M p _ bolt )' φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ Ls
SR1 = = = 1 .5
M p _ column Mu
1.5 ⋅ M u 1.5 ⋅ (3712.5 k − in.)
Ab _ total = = = 4.107 in.2
φ ⋅ Ft ⋅ Ls 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi) ⋅ (16 in.)
2. Area of Each Anchor Bolt

Ab _ total 4.107 in.2
Ab = = = 1.369 in.2 ( For 6 − Bolt Type)
#t 3
Ab _ total 4.107 in.2
Ab = = = 2.0535 in.2 ( For 4 − Bolt Type)
#t 2
173
3. Diameter of Each Anchor Bolt

4 ⋅ Ab 4 ⋅ (1.369 in.2 )
db = = = 1.32 in. ( For 6 − Bolt Type)
π π
4 ⋅ Ab 4 ⋅ (2.0535 in.2 )
db = = = 1.62 in. ( For 4 − Bolt Type)
π π
Use db = 1.375 in.for 6-bolt type and 1.625 for 4-bolt type
F. Strength Check for Anchor Bolt
1. Required Strength of Each Anchor Bolt
For Shear Force

V 46.41 kips
#v 6
V 46.41 kips
#v 4
For Tensile Force

T 228.73 kips
#t 3
T 228.73 kips
#t 2
2. Nominal Strength of Each Anchor Bolt
For Shear Force

Fv = 60 ksi
For Tensile Force

⎛V ⎞
Ft = 147 − 1.9 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ub ⎟⎟ ≤ 113 ksi
⎝ Ab ⎠
174
3. Required Diameter of Each Anchor Bolt
For Shear Force

⎛4⎞ Vub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (7.74 kips)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Fv ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (60 ksi)
⎛4⎞ Vub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (11.60 kips )
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Fv ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (60 ksi)
For Tensile Force

⎛4⎞ Tub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (76.25 kips)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Ft ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi)
⎛4⎞ Tub ⎛ 4 ⎞ (114.37 kips)
db ≥ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ = ⎜ ⎟⋅ = 1.311in. ( For 4 − Bolt Type)
⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ Ft ⎝ π ⎠ 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi)
The selected anchor bolt sizes (i.e., db=1.375 in. for the 6-bolt type and db=1.625 in. for
the 4-bolt type) satisfy the above requirements.

175
APPENDIX C
MINIMUM BASE PLATE THICKNESS (NUMERICAL APPROACH)
By comparing the minimum base plate thicknesses, calculated from Equations (7-
1a) and (7-1b), with the newly designed base plate thicknesses in Chapter 6, the limit
state of the connection on the tension side is checked for both bolt type connections.
These procedures are summarized in the following:
A. Given Values
⎛ M p _ bolt ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 1 .5
⎜M ⎟
⎝ p _ column ⎠
Ls = 16in.
1. Designed Base Plate

ASTM A36
PL 20 in. x 20 in. x 2 in.
2. Designed Anchor Bolt

Ft = 113 ksi
Ab _ total = 4.107 in.2
B. Minimum Base Plate Thickness Check

176
For 6-Bolt Type
⎜ ⎟ max = 5.0 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 0.9 = 5.0 ⋅ (1.5) + 0.9 = 8.4
⎜M ⎟ ⎜M ⎟
M p _ bolt = φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ Ls
= 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi) ⋅ (4.107 in.2 ) ⋅ (16 in.)
= 5569 .09 k − in.

N ⋅ (t p ) min
2
5569.09 k − in.
( M p _ plate ) min = = 662.99 k − in. = φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅
8.4 4
4 ⋅ ( M p _ plate ) min 4 ⋅ (662.99 k − in.)
∴ (t p ) min = = = 1.9192 in.
(t p ) min < t p = 2.0 in. (O.K .)
For 4-Bolt Type
⎜ ⎟ max = 4.1 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 2.4 = 4.1 ⋅ (1.5) + 2.4 = 8.55
⎜M ⎟ ⎜M ⎟
M p _ bolt = φ ⋅ ( Ft ⋅ Ab _ total ) ⋅ Ls
= 0.75 ⋅ (113 ksi) ⋅ (4.107 in.2 ) ⋅ (16 in.)
= 5569 .09 k − in.

N ⋅ (t p ) min
2
5569.09 k − in.
( M p _ plate ) min = = 651.36 k − in. = φ bp ⋅ Fy _ plate ⋅
8.55 4
4 ⋅ ( M p _ plate ) min 4 ⋅ (651.36 k − in.)
∴ (t p ) min = = = 1.9023 in.
(t p ) min < t p = 2.0 in. (O.K .)

177
APPENDIX D
MINIMUM BASE PLATE THICKNESS (THEORETICAL APPROACH)
By comparing the minimum base plate thicknesses, calculated from Equation (7-
9), with the newly designed base plate thicknesses in Chapter 6, the limit state of the
connection on the tension side is checked for both bolt type connections. These
procedures are summarized in the following:
A. Given Values
Wu = 99 k / in.
b f = 12.16 in.
h = 4.23 in.
Ls = 16in.
1. Designed Base Plate

ASTM A36
PL 20 in. x 20 in. x 2 in.
2. Designed Anchor Bolt

Fy _ bolt = 130 ksi
d b = 1.375 in. ( For 6 − Bolt Type)
d b = 1.625 in. ( For 4 − Bolt Type)

178
B. α and β
α = 0.7
For 6-Bolt Type
d b = 1.375 in.
5
d h = 1.375 in. + in. = 1.6875 in. (Oversized Bolt Hole)
16
W = 2.1875 in.
⎛ d +W ⎞ ⎛ 1.6875 in. + 2.1875 in. ⎞
3 ⋅ db + ⎜ h ⎟ 3 ⋅ (1.375 in.) + ⎜ ⎟
β= ⎝ 2 ⎠
= ⎝ 2 ⎠ = 0.7578 in.
8 8
For 4-Bolt Type
d b = 1.625 in.
5
d h = 1.625 in. + in. = 1.9375 in. (Oversized Bolt Hole)
16
W = 2.5625 in.
⎛ d +W ⎞ ⎛ 1.9375 in. + 2.5625 in. ⎞
3 ⋅ db + ⎜ h ⎟ 3 ⋅ (1.625 in.) + ⎜ ⎟
β= ⎝ 2 ⎠
= ⎝ 2 ⎠ = 0.8906 in.
8 8
C. Pmax
For 6-Bolt Type

179
π ⋅ db2 π ⋅ (1.375 in.) 2

Ab _ eff = 0.75 ⋅ = 0.75 ⋅ = 1.1137 in.2
4 4
4 ⋅ Ab _ eff 4 ⋅ (1.1137 in.2 )
d b _ eff = = = 1.1908 in.
π π
2
⎛ d b _ eff ⎞ ⎛ 1.1908 in. ⎞
2
π ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ π ⋅⎜ ⎟
I b _ eff = ⎝ 2 ⎠
= ⎝ 2 ⎠ = 0.0987 in.4
4 4
(1 + α ) (1 + 0.7)
σ1 = ⋅P = ⋅ P = 1.5264 P ksi
Ab _ eff 1.1137 in.2
⎛ d b _ eff ⎞
(1 − α ) ⋅ β ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
σ2 = ⎝ 2 ⎠⋅P
I b _ eff
⎛ 1.1908 in. ⎞
(1 − 0.7) ⋅ (0.7578 in.) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
= ⎝ 2 ⎠⋅P
0.0987 in.4
= 1.3714 P ksi
σ 1 + σ 2 ≤ Fy _ bolt
2.8978 P ksi ≤ 130 ksi
P ≤ 44.86 kips
∴ Pmax = 44.86 kips
For 4-Bolt Type
π ⋅ db2 π ⋅ (1.625 in.) 2

Ab _ eff = 0.75 ⋅ = 0.75 ⋅ = 1.5555 in.2
4 4
4 ⋅ Ab _ eff 4 ⋅ (1.5555 in.2 )
d b _ eff = = = 1.4073 in.
π π
2
⎛ d b _ eff ⎞ ⎛ 1. 4073 in. ⎞
2
π ⋅⎜ ⎜ ⎟ π ⋅⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ = 0.1925 in.4
I b _ eff = =
4 4
(1 + α ) (1 + 0.7)
σ1 = ⋅P = ⋅ P = 1.0929 P ksi
Ab _ eff 1.5555 in.2
180
⎛ d b _ eff ⎞
(1 − α ) ⋅ β ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
σ2 = ⎝ 2 ⎠⋅P
I b _ eff
⎛ 1.4073 in. ⎞
(1 − 0.7) ⋅ (0.8906 in.) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
= ⎝ 2 ⎠⋅P
0.1925 in.4
= 0.9766 P ksi
σ 1 + σ 2 ≤ Fy _ bolt
2.0695 P ksi ≤ 130 ksi
P ≤ 62.82 kips
∴ Pmax = 62.82 kips
D. Minimum Base Plate Thickness Check
For 6-Bolt Type
4⋅# t ⎡ ⎛W ⎞ bf
4 ⎤
(t p ) min = ⋅ ⎢{α ⋅ (h + β ) + (h − β )}⋅ Pmax − ⎜⎜ u ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎥
φ bp ⋅ F y _ plate ⋅ N ⎢ ⎝ # t ⎠ 32 ⋅ L s ⎥⎦
2
⎣
4 ⋅ (3) ⎡ ⎛ 99 ⎞ (12.16) ⎤
4
= ⋅ ⎢{0.7 ⋅ (4.23 + 0.7578) + (4.23 − 0.7578)}⋅ (44.86) − ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎥
1.0 ⋅ (36) ⋅ (20) ⎢⎣ ⎝ 3 ⎠ 32 ⋅ (16) 2 ⎥⎦
= 1.9336 in.
(t p ) min < t p = 2.0 in. (O.K .)
For 4-Bolt Type
4⋅# t ⎡ ⎛W ⎞ bf
4 ⎤
(t p ) min = ⋅ ⎢{α ⋅ (h + β ) + (h − β )}⋅ Pmax − ⎜⎜ u ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎥
φ bp ⋅ F y _ plate ⋅ N ⎢ ⎝ # t ⎠ 32 ⋅ L s 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
181
4 ⋅ (2) ⎡ ⎛ 99 ⎞ (12.16) ⎤
4
= ⋅ ⎢{0.7 ⋅ (4.23 + 0.8906) + (4.23 − 0.8906)}⋅ (62.82) − ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎥
1.0 ⋅ (36) ⋅ (20) ⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 32 ⋅ (16) 2 ⎦⎥
= 1.8345 in.
(t p ) min < t p = 2.0 in. (O.K .)

182
APPENDIX E
REQUIRED MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF GROUT
By comparing the nominal bearing strength of the grout with the resultant bearing
force (Ru), required minimum compressive strengths of the grout are determined for both
bolt type connections. This procedure is summarized in the following:
A. Given Values
Ru = Tu = 228.73 kips
1. Designed Base Pate

ASTM A36
PL 20 in. x 20 in. x 2 in.
a = 2 in.
B. Effective Bearing Area on Grout
For 6-Bolt Type
Ag _ eff = (2 ⋅ a) ⋅ (0.8 ⋅ N ) = (2 ⋅ 2 in.) ⋅ (0.8 ⋅ 20 in.) = 64 in.2
For 4-Bolt Type

183
Ag _ eff = (2 ⋅ a) ⋅ (0.7 ⋅ N ) = (2 ⋅ 2 in.) ⋅ (0.7 ⋅ 20 in.) = 56 in.2
C. Required Minimum Compressive Strength of Grout
For 6-Bolt Type
Ru 228.73 kips
fc ' ≥ = = 7.01 ksi
A2 0.6 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ (1) ⋅ (64 in.2 )
φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ ⋅ Ag _ eff
A1
For 4-Bolt Type
Ru 228.73 kips
fc ' ≥ = = 8.01 ksi
A2 0.6 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ (1) ⋅ (56 in.2 )
φ c ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ ⋅ Ag _ eff
A1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
184
185
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adany, S., Calado, L., and Dunai, L. (2000), "Experimental Studies on Cyclic Behavior
Modes of Base-Plate Connections," Proceedings of the Third International
Conference STESSA 2000, Montreal, Canada.
American Concrete Institute (1991), Anchors in Concrete-Design and Behavior, Detroit,

Michigan.
American Concrete Institute (1999), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99), Farmington Hills, Michigan.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (1998), Manual of Steel Construction -

LRFD, 2nd Ed., Chicago, Illinois.
Astaneh, A., Bergsma, G., and Shen J. H. (1992), "Behavior and Design of Base Plates
for Gravity, Wind and Seismic Loads," Proceedings of the National Steel
Construction Conference, AISC, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Ballio, G. and Mazzolani, F. M. (1983), Theory and Design of Steel Structures, 1st Ed.,
Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, pp. 257-264.
Bertero, V. V., Anderson, J. C., and Krawinkler, H. (1994), Performance of Steel

Building Structures During the Northridge Earthquake, Report No. UCB/EERC-
94/09, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
California.
Burda, J. J., and Itani, A. M. (1999), Studies of Seismic Behavior of Steel Base Plates,
Report No. CCEER 99-7, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
Cannon, R. W. (1992), "Flexible Baseplates: Effect of Plate Flexibility and Preload on

Anchor Loading and Capacity," ACI Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp.
315-324.
Cooper, S. E. and Chen, A. C. (1985), Designing Steel Structures: Methods and Cases, 1st
Ed, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 414-416.
Crawley, S. W. and Dillon, R. M. (1993), Steel Buildings: Analysis and Design, 4th Ed,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, pp. 177-178.
DeWolf, J. T. and Sarisley, E. F. (1980), "Column Base Plates with Axial Loads and
Moments," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST11, pp.
2167-2184.
186
DeWolf, J. T., and Ricker, D. T. (1990), Column Base Plates, Steel Design Guide Series
No. 1, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
Drake, R. M., and Elkin, S. J. (1999), "Beam-Column Base Plate Design - LRFD
Method," Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 36, No. 1 (First Quarter), pp. 29-38.
Englekirk, R. (1994), Steel Structures: Controlling Behavior through Design, 1st Ed, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, pp. 677-684.
Ermopoulos, J. and Stamatopoulos, G. (1996A), "Mathematical Modeling of Column

Base Plate Connections," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 36, No.
2, pp. 79-100.
Ermopoulos, J. and Stamatopoulos, G. (1996B), "Analytical Modeling of Column Base

Plates under Cyclic Loading," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 40,
No. 3, pp. 225-238.
Ermopoulos, J. and Michaltsos, G. T. (1998), "Analytical Modeling of Stress Distribution

under Column Base Plates," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46,
No. 1-3, Paper No. 136
Fahmy, M., Stojadinovic, B., Goel, S. C., and Sokol, T. (1998), "Load Path and
Deformation Mechanism of Moment Resisting Steel Column Bases," Proceedings
of the Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Seattle,
Washington.
Fahmy, M. (1999), Seismic Behavior of Moment-resisting Steel Column Bases, Doctoral

Dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Fahmy, M., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovic, B. (2000), "Hysteretic Behavior of Steel
Moment Resisting Column Bases," Proceedings of the Third International
Conference STESSA 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Gaylord, E. H. and Gaylord, C. N. (1957), Design of Steel Structures, 1st Ed, McGraw-
Hill, New York, New York, pp. 304-315.
Hawkins, N. M. (1968), "The Bearing Strength of Concrete Loaded through Rigid

Plates," Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 20, No. 62, pp. 31-40.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (1998), ABAQUS version 5.8 / Standard User's
Manual, Rhode Island.
Igarashi, S., Nakashima, S., Kadoya, H., and Suzuki, M. (1992), "Behavior of Exposed
Type Fixed Column Base Connected to Riser Foundation," Proceedings of the
Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain.
187
Jaspart, J. P. and Vandegans, D. (1998), "Application of Component Method to Column

Bases," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 48, pp. 89-106.
Kallolil, J. J., Chakrabarti, S. K., and Mishra, R. C. (1998), "Experimental Investigation

of Embedded Steel Plates in Reinforced Concrete Structures," Engineering
Structures, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, pp. 105-112.
Kontoleon, M. J., Mistakidis, E. S., Baniotopoulos, C. C., and Panagiotopoulos, P. D.

(1999), "Parametric Analysis of the Structural Response of Steel Base Plate
Connections," Computers and Structures, Vol. 71, pp. 87-103.
Krishnamurthy, N. and Thambiratnam, D. P. (1990), "Finite Element Analysis of Column

Base Plates," Computers and Structures, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 215-223.
Lee, D., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovic, B. (2000), "Seismic Behavior of Column-Base
Plate Connections about Weak Axis Bending," Proceedings of U.S.-Japan
Workshop on Seismic Fracture Issues in Steel Structures, San Francisco,
California.
Lee, D., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovic, B. (2001), "Analytical Evaluation of Seismic
Behavior of Column-Base Plate Connections under Weak Axis Bending in
Moment Resisting Frames," Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Steel & Composite Structures, Pusan, Korea.
Lee, K. (1997), Boundary Effects in Welded Steel Moment Connection, Doctoral

Dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lothers, J. E. (1972), Design in Structural Steel, 3rd Ed, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 237-283.
McCormac, J. C. (1995), Structural Steel Design: LRFD Method, 2nd Ed, Harper Collins
College Publishers, New York, New York, pp. 681-688.
McGuire, W. (1968), Steel Structures, 1st Ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, pp. 987-1004.
Midorikawa, M., Hasegawa, T., Mukai, A., Nishiyama, I., Fukuta, T., and Yamanouchi,
H. (1997), "Damage Investigation of Steel Buildings in Specific Areas Observed
from the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu Earthquake," Proceedings of Japan-U.S. Joint
Workshop on Brittle Fracture of Steel Building Subject to Earthquakes, San
Francisco, California.
Northridge Reconnaissance Team (1996), Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994,

Reconnaissance Report (Supplement C-2 to Volume 11), EERI, Oakland,
California, pp. 25-47.
188
Picard, A. and Beaulieu, D. (1985), "Behavior of a Simple Column Base Connection,"

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 126-136.
Picard, A., Beaulieu, D., and Perusse, B. (1987), "Rotational Restraint of a Simple
Column Base Connection," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 14, pp.
49-57.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (1992), PCI Design Handbook: Precast and

Prestressed Concrete, 4th Ed., Chicago, Illinois.
Ray, S. S. (1998), Structural Steelwork: Analysis and Design, 1st Ed., Blackwell Science,
Inc., Malden, Massachusetts, pp. 443-454.
SAC Joint Venture (1995), Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures, Report No. SAC 95-02
(FEMA-267), Sacramento, California.
SAC Joint Venture (1999), Interim Guidelines Advisory No.2: Supplement to FEMA-267
Interim Guideline, Report No. SAC 99-01 (FEMA-267B), Sacramento, California.
SAC Joint Venture (2000), Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel
Moment-Frame Buildings, Report No. SAC 2000a (FEMA-350), Sacramento,
California.
Salmon, C. G. and Johnson, J. E. (1996), Steel Structures: Design and Behavior, 4th Ed,
Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, New York, pp. 870-876.
Sato, K. and Kamagata, S. (1988), "The Aseismic Behavior of Steel Column-Base,"

Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo,
Japan.
Shelson, W. (1957), "Bearing Capacity of Concrete," Journal of the American Concrete

Institute, ACI, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 405-414.
Stamatopoulos, G. and Ermopoulos, J. (1997), "Interaction Curves for Column Base-

Plate Connections," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 44, No. 1-2,
pp. 69-89.
Stojadinovic, B., Spacone, E., Goel, S. C., and Kwon, M. (1998), "Influence of Semi-
Rigid Column Base Models on the Response of Steel MRF Buildings,"
Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
EERI, Seattle, Washington.
Targowski, R., Lamblin, D., and Guerlement, G. (1993), "Baseplate Column Connection
under Bending: Experimental and Numerical Study," Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 27, pp. 37-54.
189
Thambiratnam, D. P. and Paramasivam, P. (1986), "Base Plates under Axial Loads and
Moments," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 1166-
1181.
Thambiratnam, D. P. (1991), "Strain Distribution in Steel Column Base Plates Subjected

to Eccentric Loads," Proceedings of the International Conference on Steel and
Aluminum Structures, Singapore.
Wald, F., Simek, I., and Seifert, J. (1994), "The Tests of the Column-Base Components,"
Proceedings of the First International Conference STESSA 1994, Timisoara,
Romania.
Wald, F. (1995), Column-Bases, 1st Ed., CVUT, Praha, Czech Republic.
Wald, F., Sokol, Z., and Steenhuis, M. (1995), "Proposal of the Stiffness Design Model
of the Column Bases," Proceedings of the Third International Workshop
Connections in Steel Structures III, Trento, Italy.
Wald, F. and Jaspart, J. (1998), "Stiffness Design of Column Bases," Journal of

Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, No. 1-3, Paper No. 135

A 0 CC

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A 0 CC

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTIONS

BENDING ABOUT WEAK AXIS

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

Professor Subhash C. Goel, Chairman

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE CONNECTIONS

BENDING ABOUT WEAK AXIS

Chair: Subhash C. Goel

Column-base plate connection is one of the most important structural elements in

connection were defined to prevent undesirable connection failures and to maximize

cyclic connection ductility.

dissertation and offering valuable suggestions and comments.

NSF-CMS 9810595. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support.

experimental phase of the research.

encouragement during his study at The University of Michigan.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... xiii

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................1

2. SPECIMEN DESIGN AND PRE-TEST ANALYSES ..................................16

2.1 Outline of Drake and Elkin's Design Method ....................................17

3. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF DRAKE AND ELKIN'S

3.1 Test Setup and Loading History.........................................................46

4. NUMERICAL PARAMETRIC STUDY ........................................................75

4.1 Classification of FEA Models ............................................................75

5.1 Unrealistic Application of Concrete Beam Design

6. NEW DESIGN METHOD .............................................................................114

6.1 Three Geometric Ratios....................................................................114

7. TWO LIMIT STATES OF COLUMN-BASE PLATE

7.1 Limit State on the Tension Side (Numerical Approach)..................138

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................157

8.1 Summary ..........................................................................................157

2.1. Mechanical Properties of Two Weld Materials ............................................30

2.2. Classification of Specimens..........................................................................32

2.3. Mechanical Properties of Connection Elements ...........................................36

3.1. Coupon Test Results .....................................................................................52

4.1. Classification of FEA Models.......................................................................76

4.4. Selected Connections for the Study of Grout Compressive Strength

6.2. Comparison of Connection Element Sizes .................................................136

7.1. Minimum Base Plate Thickness with Different Values of α......................150

1.1. Damage at a Column-Base Plate Connection .................................................2

1.2. Brittle Fracture through the Base Plate...........................................................2

1.3. Separation between Nut and Base Plate..........................................................3

1.4. Statistical Analysis Results of the Damage in Steel Structures ......................3

2.1. Plan View and Basic Dimensions of a Column-Base Plate Connection

2.2. Unknown Design Parameters in a Column-Base Plate Connection .............19

2.3. Effects of fc' on Base Plate Thickness (tp).....................................................25

2.6. Weld Detail of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages .....................31

2.8. Constitutive Relationships of Steel and Concrete Elements.........................35

2.9. Deformation of Column-Base Plate Connection Assemblages ....................37

2.10. Total Lateral Force versus Drift Responses..................................................39

2.11. Total Tensile Bolt Force versus Drift Responses .........................................40

2.12. Effects of Different Anchor Bolt Stiffness on Connection Behavior ...........41

2.14. Bearing Stress Distribution on the Grout (3.85 % Drift) ..............................44

3.1. Test Setup......................................................................................................46

3.3. Location of Strain Gauges and Displacement Transducers (6-Bolt

3.4. Location of Strain Gauges and Displacement Transducers (4-Bolt

3.5. Planar Location of Strain Gauges on the Anchor Bolts................................50

3.7. Identification of Column Flanges (6-Bolt Type) ..........................................51

3.8. Moment-Rotation Response (SP 6-1) ...........................................................54

3.10. Fracture of Column Flange "R1" Tip (SP 6-1) .............................................55

3.11. Moment-Rotation Response (SP 6-2) ...........................................................56

3.13. Fracture of Column Flange "L2" Tip (SP 6-2) .............................................57