Design of Pinned Column Base Plate (AUS)

(ABN)/ACN (94) 000 973 839
STEEL CONSTRUCTION
JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE
ISBN 0049-2205
Print Post Approved
pp 255003/01614
Design of Pinned Column
Base Plates
AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE
VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPTEMBER 2002
ASI Members -- The best in Steel Detailing and Modeling
New South Wales & ACT
Acooma Design & Drafting
South Coast Mail Centre 2500 02 4226 5502
Ahaust Steel Detailers Pty Ltd
111 Best Road Seven Hills 2147 02 9831 6511
Centreline Drawing Services Pty Ltd
6/21 Oaks Avenue Dee Why 2099 02 9981 4432
Elmasry Steel Design And Detailing
88 Arthur Street Strathfield 2135 02 9764 6660
Enterprise Drafting Company P/L
Suite 2 Level 1 163 King St Newcastle 2300 02 4929 6910
Evan Swan Pty Ltd
7 Rutledge Ave Dapto 2530 02 4261 8763
Hunter Drafting Service Pty Ltd
Unit 8 57 Crescent Road Waratah 2298 02 4967 6500
Leading Edge Drafting Services Pty Ltd
85 Bottlebrush Drive Glenning Valley 2261 02 4388 6768
Manwaring Design & Drafting Service
PO Box 22 Binalong 2584 02 6227 4215
Monaro Drafting
PO Box 299 Cooma 2630 02 6452 2337
Production Line Drafting Pty Ltd
104a William St Bathurst 2795 02 6334 3500
Southtech
PO Box 270 Moruya 2537 02 4474 2120
Supadraft
PO Box 716 Brookvale 2100 02 9975 1777
Queensland
Amalgamated Drafting
PO Box 419 Spring Hill 4000 07 3831 0099
BDS Technical Services
80 Tribune Street South Brisbane 4101 07 3844 8093
Brice Engineers Pty Ltd
7--8 Brice Court Mt Louisa 4814 07 4774 8322
Cad Systems Australia Pty Ltd
Unit 35 5 Hill Street Coolangatta 4225 07 5536 7004
Hempsall Steel Detailing Pty Ltd
Suite 1\67 Redcliffe Parade Redcliffe 4020 07 3284 3020
Online Drafting Services Qld
Unit 6 Pacific Chambers,
3460 Pacific Highway Springwood 4127 07 3299 2891
Paul Anderson Drafting Service Pty Ltd
39 Lurnea Crescent Mooloolaba 4557 07 5478 0186
Q E I Pty Ltd
104 Wellington Road East Brisbane 4169 07 3891 6646
Steelcad Drafting Pty Ltd
PO Box 1456 Coorparoo DC 4151 07 3844 3955
Steeltech Steel Detailers P/L
24 Curzon Street Tennyson 4105 07 3848 6464
South Australia
Sasteel Drafting Service P/L
33 Maxwell Road Pooraka 5095 08 8349 9622
USDSA
16 Drury Terrace Clovelly Park 5042 08 8374 4999
Warradale Drafting Service P/L
1 Boulder Court Woodcroft 5162 08 8322 5533
Victoria
Bayside Drafting (Aust) P/L
PO Box 647 Frankston 3199 03 9781 4011
Engineering Design Resource
68 Hotham St Traralgon 3844 03 5174 0255
Fabcad Drafting P/L
68 Hotham St Traralgon 3844 03 5174 9026
Flexsteel Drafting Service
3 Monterey Cresc Donvale 3111 03 9842 1737
Innovative Drafting Pty Ltd
17 Bunyip Court Morwell 3840 03 5133 0362
PM Design Group
Gore Place Portland 3305 03 5521 7204
Precision Design Pty Ltd
Level 1 75--89 High St Cranbourne 3977 03 5995 2333
USD Australia
PO Box 129 Wendouree 3355 03 5339 9690
Western Australia
Cadstruction Drafting
Suite 4 First Floor East Victoria Park 6101 08 9472 7457
Carnegie Associates Pty Ltd
Unit 3 46 Hasler Road Osborne Park 6017 08 9244 1311
Multiplan
Unit 12 4 Queen St Bentley 6102 08 9356 5993
Perth Drafting Company (WA)
48 Kishorn Road Applecross 6153 08 9364 8288
Steelplan Australia Pty Ltd
15/885 Albany Highway East Victoria Park 6101 08 9362 2599
Universal Drafting
7/175 Main St Osborne Park 6017 08 9440 4750
Westplan Drafting
Unit 3/11 Robinson Road Rockingham 6168 08 9592 2499
New Zealand
4D Steel Detailing
PO Box 13772 New Zealand 64 3 377 5880
Ormond Stock Associates Ltd
PO Box 1048 New Zealand 64 6 356 1088
1 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
STEEL CONSTRUCTION -- EDITORIAL
Editor: Peter Kneen
This paper is one of a planned series which deals with the
design and use of rationalized structural connections. It
draws heavily on the excellent work done in the publication
Design of Structural Connections by Tim Hogan and Ian
Thomas. Since that time, there has been new research,
some variations to the design models, new steel grades
introduced and some minor changes in section properties.
We have also seen the adoption of sophisticated 3D
modeling software which has the capability to generate
many different connection types. The ASI, through this
project is endeavouring to provide an industry wide
rationalized set of dimensions, models and design
capacities.
STEEL CONSTRUCTIONis published biannually by the Australian Steel
Institute (ASI).
The ASI was formed in September 2002 following the merger of the
Australian Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) and the Steel Institute of
Australia (SIA). The ASI is Australias premier technical marketing
organisation representing companies and individuals involved in steel
manufacture, distribution, fabrication, design, detailing and construction.
Its mission is to promote the efficient and economical use of steel. Part of
its work is to conduct technical seminars, educational lectures and to
publish and market technical design aids. Its services are available free of
charge to financial corporate members.
For details regarding ASI services, readers may contact the Institutes
offices, or visit the ASI website www.steel.org.au
Disclaimer: Every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to
ensure the accuracy of the material contained in this publication.
However, to the extent permitted by law, the Authors, Editors and
Publishers of this publication: (a) will not be held liable or responsible in
any way; and (b) expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility for any
loss or damage costs or expenses incurred in connection with this
Publication by any person, whether that person is the purchaser of this
Publication or not. Without limitation, this includes loss, damage, costs
and expenses incurred if any person wholly or partially relies on any part
of this Publication, and loss, damage, costs and expenses incurred as a
result of the negligence of the Authors, Editors or Publishers.
Warning: This Publication should not be used without the services of a
competent professional person with expert knowledge in the relevant
field, and under no circumstances should this Publication be relied upon
to replace any or all of the knowledge and expertise of such a person.
Contributions of original papers or reports on steel design, research and
allied technical matters are invited from readers for possible publication.
The views expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the ASI.
Submissions should be in electronic format including all diagrams and
equations in two columns, using Times font (size 10.5 points). A clean,
camera ready printout at 600dpi should also be forwarded.
ASI Contact Details
Email: enquiries@steel.org.au
Website: www.steel.org.au
Queensland & N.T.
State Manager - Queensland & NT
John Gardner - Mob 0418 788 870
Tel (07) 3853 5320 Fax (07) 3853 5321
Head Office - Sydney
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
(PO Box 6366, North Sydney NSW 2059)
Tel: (02) 9929 6666 Facsimile (02) 9955 5406
Victoria & Tasmania
State Manager - Victoria & Tasmania
Leigh Wilson - Mob 0417 353 364
Tel (03) 9556 5422 Fax (03) 9556 5423
New South Wales & ACT
State Manager - NSW & ACT
Scott Munter - Mob 0418 970 899
Tel (02) 9929 6307 Fax (02) 9955 5406
Western & South Australia
State Manager - Western & South Australia
Rupert Grayston - Mob 0419 922 294
Tel (08) 9480 1166 Fax (08) 9226 2355
Design of Pinned Column Base Plates
Contents
This paper deals with the design of pinned base plates. The design actions considered are
axial compression, axial tension, shear force and their combinations. The base plate is
assumed to be essentially staticallyloaded, andadditional considerations may be required
in the case of dynamic loads or in fatigue applications.
1. INTRODUCTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1. Design actions in accordance with AS 4100 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. NOTATION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. AXIAL COMPRESSION 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. INTRODUCTION 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE REVIEW 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. RECOMMENDED MODEL 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. AXIAL TENSION 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1. INTRODUCTION 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE REVIEW 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3. DESIGN OF ANCHOR BOLTS -- LITERATURE REVIEW 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. SHEAR 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1. INTRODUCTION 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY FRICTION
OR BY RECESSING THE BASE PLATE INTO THE CONCRETE --
LITERATURE REVIEW 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY A SHEAR
KEY-- LITERATURE REVIEW 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY THE ANCHOR BOLTS --
LITERATURE REVIEW 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS DETAILING 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. REFERENCES 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. APPENDIX A -- Derivation of Design and Check Expressions
for Steel Base Plates Subject to Axial Compression 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. APPENDIX B-- Derivation of Design and Check Expressions
for Steel Base Plates Subject to Axial Tension 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. APPENDIX C -- Determination of Embedment Lengths and Edge Distances 49 . . . .
13. APPENDIX D -- Design Capacities of Equal Leg Fillet Welds 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14. APPENDIX E -- Design of Bolts under Tension and Shear 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design of Pinned Column Base Plates
Gianluca Ranzi
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The University of New South Wales
Peter Kneen
National Manager Technology
Australian Steel Institute
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with the design of pinned base plates.
The design actions considered are axial compression,
axial tension, shear force and their combinations as
shown in Fig. 1. The base plate is assumed to be
essentially statically loaded, and additional
considerations may be required in the case of dynamic
loads or in fatigue applications.
N
*
t
N
*
c
V
*
x
N
*
t
N
*
c
V
*
y
Figure 1 Column Design Actions:
Axial and Shear Loads along minor
and major axes (Ref. [26])
Firstly the requirements of AS 4100 Steel Structures
[11] in the calculation of the design actions for
connections are outlined. Then for each design action
available design guidelines and/or models are briefly
presented in a chronological manner to provide an
overview on how these have improved/changed over
time. Attention has been given to try to ensure that the
assumptions and/or limitations of each model presented
are always clearlystated. Amongthese models, the most
representative ones inthe opinionof the authors are then
recommended for design purposes. It is not intended to
suggest that models, other than those recommended,
may not give adequate capacities.
The design of concrete elements is outside the scope of
the present paper. Nevertheless some design
considerations regarding the concrete elements still
need to be addressed, i.e. bolts edge distances, bolts
embedment lengths, concrete strength etc., and
therefore it is necessary to ensure that such design
assumptions/considerations are included in the final
design of the concrete elements/structure.
1.1. Design actions in accordance with AS 4100
Pinned type column base plates may be subject to the
following design actions, as shown in Fig. 1:
an axial force, N
*
, either tension or compression;
a shear force, V
*
(usually acting in the direction
of either principal axis or both).
Clause 9.1.4 of AS 4100 [11], which considers
minimumdesign actions, does not specifically mention
minimum design actions for column base plates but
does require that:
connections at the ends of tension or compression
members be designed for a minimum force of 0.3
times the member design capacity;
connections to beams in simple construction be
designed for a minimum shear force equal to the
lesser of 0.15 times the member design shear
capacity and 40 kN.
It is considered inappropriate for these provisions to be
applied to column base plates, since the design of
columns is usually governed by a combinations of axial
loads and bending moments at other locations.
2. NOTATION
The following notation is used in this work. Other
symbols which are defined within diagrams may not be
listed below. Generally speaking, the symbols will be
defined when first used.
a
b
= distance from centre of bolt hole to inside face
of flange
a
e
= minimum concrete edge distance (side cover)
A
1
= bearing area which varies depending upon the
assumed pressure distribution between the base
plate and the grout/concrete
A
(i)
1
= bearing area at the i--th iteration in
Murray--Stockwell Model
A
2
= supplementary area which is the largest area of
the supporting concrete surface that is
geometrically similar to and concentric to A
1
A
H
=assumed bearing area (in the case of H--shaped
sections it is a H--shaped area) in Murray--
Stockwell Model
A
(i)
H
= assumed bearing A
H
at the i--th iteration in
Murray--Stockwell Model
A
i
= base plate area
A
psk
= projected area over the concrete edge
ignoring the shear key area
A
ps
= effective projected area of concrete under
uplift
A
ps.1
= effective projected area of isolated anchor
bolt (no overlapping of failure cones)
A
ps.2
= effective projected area of 2 anchor bolts
with overlapping of their failure cones
A
ps.4
= effective projected area of 4 anchor bolts
with overlapping of their failure cones. In this
case each failure cone overlaps with all other 3
failure cones
A
s
= tensile stress area in accordance with AS1275
[9]
A
sk
= area of the shear key
b
c
= width of the column section (RHS and SHS)
b
fc
= width of the column section (H--shaped
sections and channels)
b
fc1
= width of the column flange ignoring web
thickness
b
i
= width of base plate
b
s
= depth of shear key
b
t
=distance fromface of webtoanchor bolt location
d
c
= column depth
d
c1
= clear depth between flanges (column depth
ignoring thicknesses of flanges)
d
f
= nominal anchor bolt diameter
d
h
= diameter of bolt hole
d
i
= length of base plate
d
0
= outside diameter of CHS
f
c
= characteristic compressive cylinder strength of
concrete at 28 days
f
*
p
= uniform design pressure at the interface of the
base plate and grout/concrete
f
uf
= minimum tensile strength of bolt
f
uw
= nominal tensile strength of weld metal
f
yi
= yield stress of the base plate used in design
f
ys
= yield stress of shear key used in design
k
r
= reduction factor to account for length of welded
lap connection
L
d
= minimum embedment length of anchor bolt
L
h
= hook length of anchor bolt
L
s
= length of shear key
L
w
= total length of fillet weld
m
p
= plastic moment capacity of the base plate per
unit width
m
s
= nominal section moment capacity of the base
plate per unit width
m
sk
= nominal section moment capacity per unit
width of shear key
m
*
c
= design moment per unit width due to N
*
c
m
*
sk
= design moment to be carried by the shear key
per unit width
m
*
t
*
t
n
b
= number of anchor bolts part of the base plate
connection
N
*
c
= column design axial compression load
N
*
b
= N
*
t
n
b
= design axial tension load carried by
one bolt
N
des.c
=design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial compression
N
des.t
= design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial tension
N
*
p
= prying action
N
*
t
= design axial tension load of the column
N
tf
= nominal tensile capacity of a bolt in tension
N
*
0
= portion of N
*
c
acting over the column footprint
s
p
= bolt pitch
S
i
= plastic section modulus per unit width of plate
t
c
= thickness of column section
t
i
= base plate thickness
t
g
= grout thickness
t
s
= thickness of shear key
t
t
= design throat thickness of fillet weld
t
w
= thickness of column web
v
des
= v
w
=design capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column per unit length
v
*
h
and v
*
v
=components of the loading carried bythe
weld between column and base plate in one
horizontal direction in the plane of the base plate
and in the vertical direction respectively per unit
length
v
*
w
= design action on fillet weld per unit length
V
des
= design shear capacity of the base plate
connection
V
*
s
= design shear force to be transferred by means
of the shear key
W
i
and W
e
= internal and external work
= capacity factor
f
(i)
b
= maximum bearing strength of the concrete at
the i--th iteration in Murray--Stockwell Model
f
b
= maximum bearing capacity of the concrete
based on a certain bearing area A
1
N
c
= design axial capacity of the concrete
foundation
N
c.lat
= lateral bursting capacity of the concrete
N
cc
= design pull--out capacity of the concrete
foundation
N
s
= design axial capacity of the steel base plate
N
t
= axial tension capacity of the base plate
N
tb
= design capacity of the anchor bolt group
under tension
N
th
= tensile capacity of a hooked bar
N
w
= design axial capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column section
v
w
= design capacity of the fillet weld per unit
length
V
f
transferred by means of friction
V
s
= design shear capacity of the shear key
V
s.c
= concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
V
s.cc
= pull--out capacity of the concrete
V
s.b
= shear capacity of the shear key based on its
section moment capacity
V
s.w
= shear capacity of the weld between the
shear key and the base plate
V
w
= design shear capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column
= ratio depth and width of column
= coefficient of friction
3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS
Typical base plates considered in this paper are formed
by one unstiffened plate only as shown in Fig. 3. For
highly loaded columns or larger structures other base
plate solutions or more elaborate anchor bolt systems
might be required. Guidelines for the design and
detailing of more complex base plates can be found in
[4], [13], [14], [16] and [34].
Two types of anchor bolts are usually used, which are
cast--in--place or drilled--in bolts. The former are placed
before the placing of the concrete or while the concrete
is still fresh while the latter are inserted after the
concrete has fully hardened.
Different types of cast--in--place anchors are shown in in
Fig. 2. These include anchor bolts with a head, threaded
rods with nut, threaded rods with a plate washer, hooked
bars or U--bolts. These are suitable for small to medium
size structures considering anchor bolts up to 30 mmin
diameter.
(a) Hooked Bar (b) Bolt with
head
(c) Threaded
Rod with Nut
(d) Threaded rod
with plate washer
(e) U--Bolt
Fillet
welds
Square plate
Figure 2 Common Forms of Holding Down
Bolts (Ref. [26])
There is a large variety of drilled--in anchors available,
many of which are proprietary bolts whose installation
and design is governed by manufacturers
specifications. References [2], [15], [17], [31] and [33]
contain information on these types of anchors.
This paper deals only with cast--in--place anchors, and
specifically hooked bars, anchor bolts with a head and
threaded rods with a nut/washer/plate. Grade 4.6 anchor
bolts are recommended to be utilised in base plate
applications.
s
p
s
g
Figure 3 Typical unstiffened base plate
(Ref. [26])
4. AXIAL COMPRESSION
4.1. INTRODUCTION
The literature review presented covers only models
regarding the design of the actual steel plate as the
anchor bolts do not contribute to the strength of the
connection under this loading condition. Unless special
confinement reinforcement is provided the maximum
bearing strength of the concrete f
b
is calculated in
accordance with Clause 12.3 of AS 3600 [10] as
follows:
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(1)
where:
= 0.6
f
b
= maximum bearing capacity of the concrete
based on a certain bearing area A
1
f
c
= characteristic compressive cylinder strength of
concrete at 28 days
A
1
= bearing area which varies depending upon the
assumed pressure distribution between the base
plate and the grout/concrete
A
2
= supplementary area which is the largest area of
the supporting concrete surface that is
geometrically similar to and concentric to A
1
4.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE
REVIEW
The main design models available in literature differ for
their assumptions adopted regarding the pressure
distribution at the interface between the base plate and
the grout/concrete and for the relative sizes of the base
plate and the connected column. For example, the first
model presented, here referred to as the Cantilever
Model, is adequate for base plates whose dimensions
(d
i
b
i
) are much greater than those of the column
(d
c
b
fc
), while other models, such as Fling and
Murray--Stockwell Models, deal with base plates with
similar dimensions to the ones of the connected column.
4.2.1. Cantilever Model
Historically the cantilever model was the first available
approach for the design of base plates. It is well suited
for the design of large base plates with the dimensions
of the base plate (d
i
b
i
) muchgreater thanthose of the
column (d
c
b
fc
). It has been present in the AISC(US)
Manuals over several editions. Its formulation is
suitable for the base plate design of only H--shaped
columns. [5]
d
c
0.95d
c
d
i
b
i
b
fc
0.8b
fc
a
2
a
2
a
1
a
1
(a) Critical sections and assumed loaded area
N
*
c
b
i
d
i
Critical section
in bending
a
m
t
i
(b) Deflection of the cantilevered plate
N
*
c
b
i
d
i
t
i
N
*
c
(c) Assumed bearing pressure
Figure 4 Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])
This model assumes that, in the case of a H--shaped
column, the axial load applied by the column is
concentrated over an area of 0.95d
c
0.80b
fc
which
corresponds to the shaded area of Fig. 4(a). This causes
the base plate to bend as a cantilevered plate about the
edges of such area as shown in Fig. 4(b). The pressure
at the underside of the base plate is assumed to be
uniformly distributed, as shown in Fig. 4(c), therefore
leading to a conservative design for large base plates.
a
1
a
2
Dashed lines indicate
yield lines
a
1
a
2
Figure 5 Cantilever Model -- Collapse
mechanisms
Each of the two collapse mechanisms considered bythis
model assumes two yield lines to form at a distance a
1
and a
2
from the edge of the plate respectively as shown
in Fig. 5. Comparing the two collapse mechanisms and
according to the rules of yield line theory the governing
design capacity is based on the longest cantilever length
a
m
, being the maximum of the two cantilevered lengths
a
1
and a
2
shown in Fig. 4(a).
The design moment m
*
c
and the design capacity of the
plate m
s
are calculated per unit width in accordance
with AS 4100 [11] as:
m
*
c
=
N
*
c
b
i
d
i
a
2
m
2
(2)
m
s
= f
yi
S
i
=
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4
(3)
where:
N
*
c
= column design axial compression load
m
*
c
*
c
m
s
=plate nominal sectionmoment capacityper unit
width
f
yi
= yield stress of the base plate used in design
S
i
= plastic section modulus per unit width of plate
a
m
= max(a
1
, a
2
)
a
1
and a
2
= cantilevered plate lengths
t
i
, d
i
and b
i
= thickness, length and width of base
plate
and ensuring that the plastic section modulus of the
cantilevered plate S
i
is able to transfer the axial
compression load N
*
c
to the supporting material
(verified per unit width of plate):
m
*
c
=
N
*
c
b
i
d
i
a
2
m
2

0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4
= m
s
(4)
yields a maximum design axial force of:
N
*
c

0.9f
yi
t
2
i
b
i
d
i
2 a
2
m
(5)
or equivalently requires a minimum plate thickness of:
t
i
a
m
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
b
i
d
i
(6)
Provisions on howto extend this approach for channels
and hollow sections columns have been provided in
[21], [26] and [36].
The dimensions of the loaded areas and of the
cantilevered lengths a
1
and a
2
for channels and hollow
sections are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 and their values
are summarised in Table 1 based on the
recommendations in [21], [26] and [36]. The values in
Table 1assume that the columnis weldedconcentrically
to the base plate.
Table 1 Cantilever Model -- Cantilevered plate
lengths a
1
and a
2
(refer to Figs. 4, 6, 7
and 8 for the definition of the notation)
SECTION
a
1
a
2
H--shaped
section [21]
d
i
0.95d
c
2
b
i
0.80b
fc
2
Channel [26] d
i
0.95d
c
2
b
i
0.80b
fc
2
SHS and
RHS [36]
d
i
d
c
+ t
i
2
b
i
b
c
+ t
i
2
SHS and
RHS [21]
d
i
0.95d
c
2
b
i
0.95b
c
2
CHS [21] d
i
0.80d
o
2
b
i
0.80d
o
2
a
2
0.8b
fc
a
2
a
1
a
1
0.95d
c
b
i
b
fc
d
c
d
i
Figure 6 Cantilevered plate lengths -- Channels
(Ref. [26])
0.95d
c
a
1
a
1
a
2 a
2
0.95b
fc
d
c
d
i
b
i
b
c
Figure 7 Cantilevered plate lengths -- RHS and
SHS (Ref. [26])
a
2
0.8d
o
0.8d
o
a
1
a
1
a
2
d
o
d
i
b
i
Figure 8 Cantilevered plate lengths -- CHS
(Ref. [26])
Parker in [37] notes how other possible yield line
patterns could be investigated for hollow sections such
as the ones shown in Fig. 9. Nevertheless in [36] he
recommends to investigate collapse mechanisms
similar to the ones considered by the Cantilever Model
with values of a
1
and a
2
as shown in Table 1. In [36] he
also recommends to specify plate thicknesses not less
than 0.2 times the maximum cantilever length in order
to limit the deflection of the plate.
Applying this model to base plates with similar
dimensions to the ones of connected column would lead
to inadequate design as the capacity of the base plate
would be overestimated. Utilizing equations (5) and (6)
the capacity of the base plate would increase and the
plate thickness t
i
would decrease while decreasing the
cantilevered plate length a
m
. Other design models need
to be adopted in these instances.
a
2
0.95d
c
a
1
a
1
a
2
0.95b
c
d
c
d
i
b
i
b
c
Dashed lines
indicate yield
lines
b
i
d
i
d
o
0.8d
o
0.8d
o
a
1
a
1
a
2
a
2
Figure 9 Possible yield line pattern (Ref. [37])
4.2.2. Fling Model
Fling, in[25], presents a designmodel applicable tobase
plates with similar dimensions to the ones of the
connectedcolumnandreviews the designphilosophyof
the Cantilever Model. Only H--shaped columns are
considered in this model.
He recommends to apply both a strength and a
serviceability criteria to the design of base plates.
Regarding the Cantilever Method, which is based on a
strength criteria, he recommends to apply also a
serviceability check by limiting the deflection of the
cantilevered plate. He argues that, while increasing the
size of the plate, deflections of the cantilevered plate
would increase reducing the ability of the most
deflected parts of the plate to transfer the assumed
uniform loading to the supporting material. Thus the
load would re--distribute to the least deflected portions
of the plate which may overstress the underlying
support. His proposed deflection limit intends to
prevent such overstressing. He also notes that such limit
should vary depending upon the deformability of the
supporting material. Fling suggests 0.01 in. (0.254 mm)
to be a reasonable deflection limit to be imposed for
most bearing plates, even if he clearly states that it is
beyond the scope of his paper to specify deflection
limits applicable to various supporting materials. [25]
Regarding the design model for base plates with similar
dimensions to the ones of the connected column he
recommends to apply the following strength and
serviceability checks.
The strength check is based on the yield line theory and
the assumed yield line pattern is shown in Fig. 10. The
procedure is derived for a base plate with width and
length equal to the columns width and depth (therefore
b
i
and d
i
equal b
fc
and d
c
respectively).
The support conditions assumed for the plate are fixed
along the web, simply supported along the flanges and
free on the edge opposite to the web.
Dashed lines
indicate yield lines
b
es
= tan
d
1
b
es
Figure 10 Fling Model -- Yield Line Pattern
(Ref. [25])
The internal and external work produced under loading
are calculated as follows:
W
i
=
1
b
es
(2d
1
+ 4b
es
)m
p
+
1
b
es
4b
es
m
p
(7)
W
e
= 2f
*
p
(d
1
2b
es
)b
es
1
2
+
4
3
f
*
p
b
2
es
(8)
where:
m
p
= plastic moment capacity of the baseplate per
unit width
f
*
p
= uniform design pressure at the interface of the
base plate and grout/concrete which is assumed
to be equal to the maximum bearing strength of
the concrete f
b
W
i
and W
e
= internal and external work
d
1
, and b
es
= as defined in Fig. 10
Fling introduces the following parameter to simplify
the notation:
=
d
1
b
es
(9)
Equating the internal and external work yields:
m
p
(2 + 4 +
4
) = f
*
p
b
2
es
(
2
3
) (10)
The value of which maximises the required moment
capacity of the base plate is as follows:
=
3
4
+
1
4
2

1
2
(11)
which is obtained bydifferentiating for the expression
of the plastic moment derived from equation (10).
The requiredbase plate thickness t
i
is thencalculatedas:
[25]
t
i
0.43b
fc
f
*
p
0.9f
yi
(1
2
)
= 0.43b
fc
f
b
0.9f
yi
(1
2
)
(12)
where:
b
fc
= column flange width
Equation(12) includes a safetyfactor of 1andthe plastic
moment capacity is increased by 10% to allow for lack
of full plastic moment at the corners (as recommended
in [25]).
This method assumes simultaneous crushing of the
concrete foundation and yielding of the steel base plate
as the pressure at the interface of the base plate and
grout/concrete is assumed to be equal to the maximum
bearing strength of the concrete f
b
.
The serviceability check verifies the adequacy of the
maximum deflection of the base plate calculated from
elastic theory and assumes the same support conditions
as adopted in the strength check. The maximum
deflection occurs at the middle of the free edge of the
plate (opposite to the web).
4.2.3. Murray--Stockwell Model
In 1975 Stockwell presents a design model for lightly
loaded base plates with base plate dimensions similar to
the columns width and depth. His formulation is
suitable to only H--shaped columns. He defines a lightly
loaded base plate as one wherein the required base plate
area is approximately equal to the column flange width
times its depth. [40]
The novelty of this model is to assume that the pressure
distribution under the base plate is not uniform but is
confined to an area in the immediate vicinity of the
column profile and is approximated by a H--shaped area
characterised by the dimension a
3
as shown in Fig. 11.
This pressure distribution implies that in relatively thin
base plates uplift might occur at the free edge.
A few years later Murray carried out a finite element
study to verify the possibility introduced by Stockwell
of uplift at the free edge. He established, from both
modelling and testing, that thin base plates lift off the
subgrade during loading and therefore the assumption
of uniformstress distributionat the interface is not valid.
He also concludes that experimental evidence does not
support the need for the serviceability check introduced
by Fling. [32]
Murray further expanded Stockwells model to obtain
the model which is known today as the
Murray--Stockwell Model [41] and refines the
definition of lightly loaded base plates to be relatively
flexible plate approximately the same size as the outside
dimensions of the connected column. [32]
According to Stockwell there is only a little difference
between the procedures specified in Fling and
Murray--Stockwell Models as he considers both to be
valid and logically derived. [41]
a
3
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
fc
a
3
a
3
a
3
A
H
Figure 11 Murray--Stockwell Model -- Assumed
shape of pressure distribution.
The Murray--Stockwell Model assumes that the
pressure acting over the H--shaped bearing area is
uniform and equal to the maximum bearing capacity of
the concrete f
b
. The values of A
H
and f
b
are not
known a priori and therefore an iterative procedure can
be implemented to evaluate their values. The value of
f
b
is not known a priori as it depends upon the value
of the bearing area A
1
which in this case is equal to A
H
.
The area contained inside the column profile d
c
b
fc
is
used as a first approximation for the bearing area A
H
in
the calculation of f
b
as shown in equation (13).
f
(1)
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
(1)
1
, 2f
c
(13)
where:
f
(1)
b
the first iteration
A
(1)
1
= bearing area at the first iteration equal to
d
c
b
fc
The H--shaped bearing area A
H
is then calculated as the
area required to spread the applied load with a uniform
pressure equal to f
(1)
b
.
A
(1)
H
=
N
*
c
f
(1)
b
(14)
where:
A
(1)
H
=assumedH--shapedbearingarea A
H
at the first
iteration
If f
(1)
b
is equal to the maximum possible concrete
bearing strength 2f
c
no further iterations are required
and the value of the H--shaped bearing area has
converged to A
(1)
H
calculated with equation (14). In the
case f
(1)
b
is less than 2f
c
, or equivalently if the ratio
of A
2
A
1
is smaller than (20.85)
2
= 5.53, the value of
the H--shaped bearing area can be further refined.
Successive values of f
(i)
b
and A
(i)
H
at the i--th iteration
can be calculated as follows:
f
(i)
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
(i1)
1
, 2f
c
(15)
A
(i)
H
=
N
*
c
f
(i)
b
(16)
where:
f
(i)
b
the i--th iteration
A
(i)
1
= bearing area at the i--th iteration equal to A
(i1)
H
A
(i)
H
= assumed H--shaped bearing A
H
at the i--th
iteration
The value of A
H
can be further refined until the
difference between the values obtained from two
subsequent iterations canbe consideredtobenegligible.
The use of the iterative process allows to obtain the
smallest possible value of A
H
which yields thinner base
plate thicknesses. Ignoring to refine the value of A
H
would simply lead to a more conservative plate design.
The value of a
3
is then obtained from equation (14)
observing that A
H
can be expressed as (refer to Fig. 11):
A
H
= 2b
fc
a
3
+2a
3
(d
c
2a
3
)
= 2b
fc
a
3
+2d
c
a
3
4a
2
3
(17)
where:
a
3
= cantilevered langth
A
H
= assumed H--shaped bearing area
d
c
and b
fc
= depth and width of column
and solving for a
3
yields:
a
3
=
1
4
(d
c
+ b
fc
) (d
c
+ b
fc
)
2
4A
H

(18)
The plate is now designed in accordance with AS4100
[11] as a cantilevered plate of length a
3
supporting a
uniform pressure equal to the converged value of the
maximum bearing strength of the concrete previously
calculated:
m
*
c
= f
b
a
2
3
2
=
N
*
c
A
H
a
2
3
2

0.9 f
yi
t
2
i
4
= m
s
The maximum axial load is then calculated as:
N
*
c

0.9f
yi
t
2
i
A
H
2a
2
3
(19)
or equivalently the minimumrequired plate thickness t
i
is determined as:
t
i
a
3
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
A
H
(20)
The value of the cantilevered plate length a
3
should be
measured from the centre--line of the columns plate
elements as shown in Fig. 11.[21]. Nevertheless in the
formulation presented here, as also carried out in [32]
and [21], the full flange thickness is included in the
calculation of the cantilevered plate length a
3
. This only
leads to a slightly more conservative design.
The Stockwell--Murray Method is recommended by
DeWolf in Refs [21] and [22] and introduced in the
AISC(US) Manuals in 1986. [7]
[1] notes that there are cases where the value under the
square root of equation (18) becomes negative. In such
cases other design models should be adopted.
Ref. [21] extends the application of Murray--Stockwell
Model to channels and hollow section members as
shown in Figs. 12, 13 and 14. For these sections the
value of the bearing area A
(1)
1
(to be utilised in the first
iteration while calculating f
(1)
b
and A
(1)
H
) and the
expressions of the cantilevered length a
3
and of the
H--shaped area A
H
are summarised in Table 2. [21][26]
The same iterative procedure, as outlined for H--shaped
sections, can be adopted to refine the value of A
H
if the
calculated f
b
is less than 2f
c
.
a
3
a
3
a
3
Figure 12 Murray--Stockwell Model:
Assumed pressure distribution --
Channels (Ref. [26])
a
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
Assumed pressure distribution -- RHS
and SHS (Ref. [26])
a
3
d
3
d
o
Assumed pressure distribution -- CHS
(Ref. [26])
4.2.4. Thorntons Model
In [42] and [43] Thornton recommends that a
satisfactory design of a base plate should be carried out
complying with the requirements of the Cantilever,
Fling (ignoring the serviceability check) and
Murray--Stockwell Models.
He derived a compact formulation for the design
procedure which includes all three models. His
formulation is suitable for the design of only H--shaped
columns.
In [42] he also re--derives the collapse load based on the
same yield line pattern assumed by Fling in [25]. It is
interesting to note that while Fling applied the principle
of virtual work Thornton based his results on the
equilibrium equations [35]. Obviously the results are
identical. Note that Fling increased the required plate
plastic moment by 10% to allow for lack of plastic
moment at the corners.
The design expression proposed by Thornton in [43]
and currently recommended in the AISC(US) Manual
[5] is as follows:
t
i
= a
m
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
b
i
d
i
(21)
where:
a
m
= max(a
1
, a
2
, a
4
)
= min1,
2 X
1 + 1 X

a
4
=
1
4
d
c
b
fc
N
*
0
= portion of N
*
c
=
N
*
c
b
i
d
i
b
fc
d
c
X =
4b
fc
d
c
(d
c
+ b
fc
)
2
N
*
c
f
b
d
i
b
i
=
4
a
2
5
f
b
N
*
0
=
4
a
2
5
f
b
N
*
c
d
c
b
fc
d
i
b
i
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
d
i
b
i
, 2f
c
a
5
= b
fc
+ d
c
The concatenation of the three design models
(Cantilever, Fling and Murray--Stockwell Models) is
achieved in the calculation of a
m
.
The Cantilever Model is the governing criteria in the
case a
m
equals either a
1
or a
2
. In the case a
m
is equal to
a
4
the Fling Model would be governing if equals 1 or
Murray--Stockwell Model would be governing if is
less than 1. The use of leads to the selection of the
thinner plate obtained by using the Fling Model and
Murray--Stockwell Model in order not to loose the
economy in design of the latter model in the case of
lightly loaded columns. Recalling the description of
Murray--Stockwell Model no refinement in the
calculation of A
H
is implemented in equation (21). It is
interesting to note how this approach provides a more
mathematical definition of lightly loaded column where
a column is said to be lightly loaded if its is less than
1, or equivalently if its X is less than (45)
2
= 0.64.
The expression of the plate thickness of Fling Model,
re--derived in [42], is simplified by Thornton in [43] in
order to reduce the complexity of the yield line solution.
His simplification introduces an approximation in the
value of a
4
with an error of 0% (unconservative) and
17.7% (conservative) for values of d
c
b
fc
ranging from
3/4 to 3. The value of N
*
0
represents the portion of the
total axial load N
*
c
(d
c
b
fc
) under the assumption of uniform bearing
pressure under the base plate. Murray--Stockwell Model
is concatenated in equation (21) to carry a design axial
load equal to N
*
0
(not on N
*
c
) over the assumed H--shaped
bearing area inside the column footprint.
Table 2 Murray--Stockwell Model
(refer to Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for the definition of the notation)
SECTION
A
(1)
1
a
3
A
H
H--shaped section
[21]
b
fc
d
c
(d
c
+b
fc
) (d
c
+ b
fc
)
2
4A
H
4
2b
fc
a
3
+ 2a
3
(d
c
2a
3
)
Channel [26]
b
fc
d
c
(2b
fc
+d
c
) (2b
fc
+ d
c
)
2
8A
H
4
2b
fc
a
3
+ (d
c
2a
3
)a
3
RHS SHS
[21][26]
b
c
d
c
(d
c
+b
c
) (d
c
+ b
c
)
2
4A
H
4
d
c
b
c
(d
c
2a
3
)(b
c
2a
3
)
= 2(d
c
+ b
c
)a
3
4a
2
3
CHS [21][26]
d
2
0
4
d
o
d
2
o
4A
H
2
(d
2
o
d
2
3
)4 = (d
o
a
3
a
2
3
)
where : d
3
= d
o
2a
3
4.2.5. Eurocode 3 Model
Clause 6.11 and Annex L of Eurocode 3 deal with the
design of base plates. [23]
Requirement of the EC3 is to provide a base plate
adequate to distribute the compression column load
over an assumed bearing area.
The EC3 Model assumes an H--shaped bearing area as
shown in Fig. 15(a). It requires that the pressure
assumed to be transferred at the interface base
plate/foundation should not exceed the bearing strength
of the joint f
j.EC3
and the width of the bearing area
should not exceed c calculated as follows:
c = t
i
f
yi
3f
j.EC3
MO
(22)
where:
f
j.EC3
= bearing strength of the joint
=
j
k
j
f
cd
j
= 2/3 provided that the characteristic strength of
the grout is not less than 0.2 times the
characteristic strengthof the concrete foundation
and the thickness of the grout is not greater than
0.2times the smallest widthof the steel base plate
k
j
= concentration factor and may be taken as 1 or
otherwise as
a
1
b
1
ab
a
1
and b
1
= dimensions of the effective area as
shown in Fig. 16
a
1
= min
a + 2a
r
, 5a, a + h, 5b
1
a
b
1
= min
b + 2b
r
, 5b, b + h, 5a
1
b
f
cd
= design value of the concrete cylinder
compressive strength = f
ck
c
f
ck
= characteristic concrete cylinder compressive
strength (in accordance with Eurocode 2)
c
= partial safety factor for concrete material
properties (in accordance with Eurocode 2)
MO
= 1.1 (boxed value from Table 1 of [23])
In the case of large or short projections the bearing area
should be calculated as shown in Figs. 15(b) and (c).
[23]
[23] requires that the resistance moment m
Rd
per unit
length of a yield line in the base plate should be taken as:
m
Rd
=
t
2
i
f
yi
6
MO
(23)
No specific expression for the sizing of the steel base
plate are provided.
N
*
c
c
c
c
c
This area not included
in bearing area
Bearing area
(a) General Case
c c
c
(b) Short Projection (c) Large Projection
c c
c
c
Figure 15 Assumed bearing pressure
distributions specified in EC3 [23]
h
Concrete
foundation
Baseplate
Elevation
Plan
N
*
c
b
1
a
1
b
b
r
a
r
a
Figure 16 Column base layout [23]
4.3. RECOMMENDED MODEL
4.3.1. Design considerations
The recommended design model is a modified version
of the one proposed by Thornton in [43] and also
adjusted to suit Australian Codes AS 3600 [10] and AS
4100 [11]. The Thornton Model is currently
recommended by the AISC(US) Manual [5].
Unfortunately the Thornton Model presented in [5],
[42] and [43] is suitable for the design of H--shaped
columns only. His formulation has been here modified
for H--shaped sections and extended for channels and
hollows sections adopting a similar approach as in [43]
which is outlined in Section 10.
The modification to the Thornton Model introduced
here regards the manner in which Murray--Stockwell
Model is implemented. It is in the authors opinion that
the calculation of A
H
and consequently of (refer to the
literature review for further details regarding the
notation) should be calculated based on N
*
c
(total axial
compression load) and not N
*
0
(portion of the total load
N
*
c
acting over the column footprint under the
assumption of uniform bearing pressure). This intends
to ensure that Murray--Stockwell Model would govern
the design only for base plates of similar dimensions to
the ones of the connectedcolumns andfor lightlyloaded
columns, which represents the actual base plate layout
for which the model has been developed. The design
would then be based on only one assumed pressure
distribution. Calculating A
H
based on N
*
0
could lead to
the design situation for lightly loaded columns where
the plate thickness is governed by Murray--Stockwell
Model even for plate dimensions larger than those of the
connected columns as the model would select the
thinner plate between the ones calculated with Fling
Model and with Murray--Stockwell Model.
It is interesting to note how the assumed bearing area
(H--shaped in the case of H--shaped column sections)
could extend also beyond the footprint of the column
section as shown in Fig. 17 in the case of H--shaped
sections and hollow sections. [34] No specific design
guidelines are provided in [34]. A similar pressure
ditribution is considered in the Eurocode 3 Model. [23]
Nevertheless in the recommended model the
application of Murray--Stockwell Model is always
carried out based on assumed bearing areas inside the
column footprint even for base plates with dimensions
greater than the columns depth and width as other
bearing distributions need to be validated by testings.
a
a a a
a
a
b
b
b
b
b b b b
Ineffective areas
Figure 17 Possible assumed bearing areas (Ref.
[34])
4.3.2. Design criteria
There are two different design scenarios which are
considered here:
the column is prepared for full contact in
accordance with Clause 14.4.4.2 of AS 4100 [11]
and the axial compression may be assumed to be
transferred by bearing. Design requirements are as
follows:
N
des.c
= [N
c
; N
s
]
min
N
*
c
(24)
the end of the column is not prepared for full
contact and the welds shall have sufficient
strength to carry the axial load. The design
requirements are as follows:
N
des.c
= [N
c
; N
s
; N
w
]
min
N
*
c
(25)
where:
N
des.c
subject to axial compression
N
c
= design axial capacity of the concrete
foundation
N
s
= design axial capacity of the steel base plate
N
w
the base plate to the column section
N
*
c
= design axial compression load
4.3.3. Design Concrete Bearing Strength
The maximum bearing strength of the concrete f
b
is
determined in accordance with Clause 12.3 of AS 3600
[10].
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(26)
where:
= 0.6
A
1
= b
i
d
i
The axial capacity of the concrete foundation N
c
is
then obtained multiplying the maximum concrete
bearingstrength f
b
bythe base plate area A
i
as follows:
N
c
= f
b
A
i
It is interesting to note from equation (26) that
increasing the supplementary area A
2
increases the
concrete confinement which yields larger design
capacities N
c
. The loss of bearing area due to the
presence of the anchor bolt holes is normally ignored.
[21]
4.3.4. Steel Base Plate Design
The base plate thickness required to resist a certain
design axial compression N
*
c
is calculated as follow:
t
i
= a
m
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(27)
where:
a
m
= max(a
1
, a
2
, a
4
)
= min1, k
X
1 + 1 X

X = YN
*
c
a
1
, a
2
, a
4
, k and Y are tabulated in Table 3.
When X is greater than 1, should be taken as 1.
Table 3 Values for the design and check specified by the recommended model for axial compression.
Section
a
1 a
2
a
4
k
Y a
5
H--shaped
sections
d
i
0.95d
c
2
b
i
0.80b
fc
2
d
c
b
fc
4
2
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
fc
4N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
b
fc
+ d
c
Channels d
i
0.95d
c
2
b
i
0.80b
fc
2
2d
c
b
fc
3
3
2
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
fc
8N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
2b
fc
+ d
c
RHS d
i
0.95d
c
2
b
i
0.95b
c
2
2d
i
b
i
23
1.7
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
fc
4N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
b
c
+ d
c
SHS d
i
0.95b
c
2
b
i
0.95b
c
2
b
c
3
3
2
d
i
b
i
b
c
4N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
2b
c
CHS d
i
0.80d
0
2
b
i
0.80d
o
2
d
0
2 3
2 d
i
b
i
d
0
4N
*
c
f
b
d
2
0
Thicknesses of base plates with dimensions similar to

those of the connected column section calculated with
equation (27) might be quite thin, especially in the case
of lighlty loaded columns (where Murray--Stockwell
Model applies). It is therefore recommended to specify
plate thicknesses not less than 6mm thick for general
purposes and not less than 10mm for industrial
purposes.
Similarly a procedure to evaluate/check the capacity of
an existing plate is carried out as follows:
N
s
=
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
t
2
i
2a
m
2
(28)
where:
= max
1,
1
k
2
2 k a
4
t
i
Y
2
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
1
a
m
= maxa
1
, a
2
,
a
4
a
1
, a
2
, a
4
, k and Y are tabulated in Table 3.
This model is applicable to column sections as outlined
in Table 3 with the exception of H--shaped sections for
which b
fc
2 is greater than d
c
as a different yield line
pattern from those considered would occur.
4.3.5. Weld design at the column base
The design of the weld at the base of the column is
carried out in accordance with Clause 9.7.3.10 of AS
4100. [11] The weld is designed as a fillet weld and its
design capacity N
w
is calculated as follows:
N
w
= v
w
L
w
= 0.6f
uw
t
t
k
r
L
w
(29)
where:
v
w
length
= 0.8 for all SP welds except longitudinal fillet
welds on RHS/SHS with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of
AS 4100)
0.7 for all longitudinal SP fillet on RHS/SHS
with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
0.6 for all GP welds (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
f
uw
= nominal tensile strength of weld metal (Table
9.7.3.10(1) of AS 4100)
t
t
= design throat thickness
k
r
= 1 (reduction factor to account for length of
welded lap connection)
L
w
= total length of fillet weld
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of the design
capacity of fillet welds v
w
.
5. AXIAL TENSION
5.1. INTRODUCTION
There is not muchguidance available inliterature for the
design of unstiffened base plates subject to uplift.
The literature presented here outlines the available
guidelines for the design of base plates and of anchor
bolts. Two models presented here for the design of base
plates for hollowsections, whichare the IWIMMModel
(named here after its authors) and Packer--Birkemoe
Model, were firstly derived for bolted connections
between hollow sections. [37] and [36] suggest their
suitability also for the design of base plates. These
models include also guidelines for determining the
required number of anchor bolts. Such guidelines are
incorporatedinthe literature reviewfor the design of the
steel base plates as their application is only suitable for
the particular base plate model they refer to and as they
do not account for the interaction between the anchor
bolts and the concrete foundation, which is dealt with in
the literature review on anchor bolts.
5.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE
REVIEW
The models presented here differ for their assumptions
regarding the failure modes investigated. It is
interesting to note that the design guidelines currently
available deal with a limited number of base plate
layouts.
For each model outlined here, the column sections and
the number of bolts considered by the model are
specified after the model name.
5.2.1. Murray Model
(H--shaped sections with 2 bolts)
In [32] Murray presents a design procedure for base
plates of lightly loaded H--shaped columns with only
two anchor bolts subject to uplift. He also notes that to
his knowledge no studies have been published on the
design of lightly loaded column base plate subjected to
uplift loading prior to his [32]. His design model is
based on yield line analysis and the yield line pattern
assumed is shown in Fig. 18.
The expressions of the internal and external work can be
written as follows:
W
i
= m
p
2
b
fc
2b +
1
b
4
2
b
fc
= m
p
4b
2
+ 2b
2
fc
bb
fc
(30)
W
e
=
N
*
t
2
s
g
2
2
b
fc
=
N
*
t
s
g
2b
fc
(31)
where:
N
*
t
= design tension axial load
s
g
and b = as defined in Fig. 18
Equating the external and internal work the expression
of m
p
can be written as follows:
m
p
=
N
*
t
2
s
g
b
fc
bb
fc
4b
2
+2b
2
fc
(32)
The value of b which maximises the required plate
plastic capacityis obtaineddifferentiatingequation(32)
for b and is equal to:
b =
b
fc
2
(33)
The presence of the flanges requires b toremainalways
less or equal to d
c
2 and therefore the value of b which
maximises the plate plastic capacity varies depending
upon the column cross--sectional geometry as follows:
b =
b
fc
2
for
b
fc
2

d
c
2
(34)
b =
d
c
2
for
b
fc
2

d
c
2
(35)
The minimumplate thicknesses requiredunder a certain
axial load N
*
t
are obtained substituting equations (34)
and (35) into equation (32) as shown below:
t
i

N
*
t
s
g
2
0.9f
yi
b
fc
4
for
b
fc
2

d
c
2
(36)
t
i

N
*
t
s
g
d
c
0.9f
yi
(d
2
c
+ 2b
2
fc
)
for
b
fc
2

d
c
2
(37)
Murray carried out a finite element study to investigate
the adequacy of the proposed model. He also validated
the reliability of equations (36) and (37) using limited
experimental results, which consisted of 4 base plate
specimens with dimensions ranging from8 x 6 (203.2
x 152.4 mm) to 12 x 8 (304.8 x 203.2 mm) and
thicknesses varying from0.364 in. (9.246 mm) to 0.377
in. (9.576 mm).
This method is included in the design model
recommended by the current AISC(US) Manual [5].
b
fc
2
b
fc
2
d
c
2 d
c
2
b b
b = 2
(b
fc
2) d
c
2
b
fc
2
b
b
s
g
2
s
g
2
1 unit
Figure 18 Murray Model Assumed Yield Line
Patterns (Ref. [32])
5.2.2. Tensile Cantilever Model
(Generic Model)
Tensile Cantilever Method, as it is referred here,
assumes that the tension in the anchor bolts spreads out
to act over an effective width of plate (b
e
) which is
assumed to act as a cantilever in bending ignoring any
stiffening action of the column flanges.
d
h
1
1
b
t b
t
b
t
b
e
Figure 19 Tensile Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])
It can be applied to generic base plate layouts.
Nevertheless it provides conservative designs as it
ignores the two way action of the base plates.
Reference [47] suggests a 45 degree angle of dispersion
as shown in Fig. 19. This is based on considerations of
elastic plate theory as described in reference [13].
The design moment and the designmoment capacityare
then calculated as:
m
*
t
=
N
*
t
n
b
b
t
(38)
m
s
=
0.9b
e
t
2
i
f
yi
4
(39)
where:
m
*
t
*
t
n
b
= number of anchor bolts
b
t
=distance fromface of webtoanchor bolt location
d
h
= diameter of the bolt hole
b
e
= 2b
t
+ d
h
The axial capacity of the base plate can then be
determined equating the design moment and the section
moment capacity as follows:
N
*
t

0.9f
yi
b
e
t
2
i
4
n
b
b
t
(40)
or equivalently the minimum base plate thickness t
i
under a certain loading condition is calculated as:
t
i
=
4N
*
t
b
t
0.9f
yi
b
e
n
b
(41)
5.2.3. IWIMM Model
(CHS with varying number of bolts)
The IWIMM Model has been named here after the
initials of the authors of the model. [27] The model was
firstly derived for the design of CHS bolted
connections. [37] and [36] suggest its use also for the
design of base plates of CHS columns.
The base plate layout considered by this model is shown
in Fig. 20.
The plate thickness is calculated based on the design
axial tension load N
*
t
as follows:
t
i

2N
*
t
f
yi
f
3
(42)
where:
= 0.9
d
0
= outside diameter of a CHS
t
c
= thickness of column section
f
3
=
1
2k
1
k
3
+ k
2
3
4k
1

k
1
= ln
r
2
r
3
k
3
= k
1
+ 2
r
2
=
d
0
2
+ a
1
r
3
=
d
0
t
c
2
a
1
and a
2
as defined in Fig. 20
[27] recommends to keep the value of a
1
as small as
possible, i.e. between 1.5d
f
and 2d
f
(where d
f
is the
nominal diameter of the bolts), while ensuring a
minimum of 5 mm clearance between the nut face and
the weld around the CHS.
N
*
t
a
1
d
o
t
i
t
i
a
2
N
*
t
Figure 20 Bolted CHS Flange--plate Connection
(Ref. [36])
[27] also recommends to determine the number of
required anchor bolts as follows:
n
b

N
*
t
N
tf
1
1
f
3
+
1
f
3
ln
r
1
r
2
(43)
where:
= 0.9
N
tf
= nominal tensile capacity of the bolt
r
1
=
d
0
2
+ 2a
1
r
2
=
d
0
2
+ a
1
a
1
= a
2
This procedure does not verify the capacity of the
concrete foundation and its interaction with the anchor
bolts needs to be checked.
Assumptions adopted by this model are an allowance
for prying action equal to 1/3 of the ultimate capacity of
the anchor bolt (at ultimate state), a continuous base
plate, a symmetric arrangement of the bolts around the
column profile and a weld capacity able to develop the
full yield strength of the CHS.
[28] notes that adopting the above prying coefficient for
the bolted CHS connection in the base plate design is
conservative due tothe greater flexibilityof the concrete
foundation when compared to the steel to steel
connection. [36]
5.2.4. Packer--Birkemoe Model
(RHS with varying number of bolts)
The Packer--Birkemoe Model is here named after the
authors of the model. [36] This model deals with base
plate for RHS as shown in Fig. 21 and it has been
validated only for base plates with thickness varying
between 12mm and 26mm.
The model includes prying effects in the design
procedure. The prying action decreases while
increasing a
2
as showninFig. 21. The value of a
2
should
be kept less or equal to 1.25 a
1
, as no benefit in the base
plate performance would be provided beyond such
value. a
1
is defined as the distance between the bolt line
and the face of the hollow section.
Generally 4--5 bolt diameters are used as spacing of the
bolts s
p
but shorter spacing are also possible.
Based on the design loads the required number of
anchor bolts should be calculated assuming that the
prying action absorbs about 20--40% of the anchor bolt
capacity. The coefficient is then calculated as follows:
= 1
d
h
s
p
(44)
where:
s
p
= bolt pitch as defined in Fig. 21
The designer should then select a preliminary plate
thickness in the following range:
KN
*
b
1 +
t
i
KN
*
b
(45)
where:
K =
4a
3
10
3
f
yi
s
p
(where f
yi
is in MPa)
a
3
= a
1
d
f
2 + t
c
N
*
b
= design axial tension load carried by one bolt
=
N
*
t
n
b
d
f
= nominal anchor bolt diameter
The value of represents the ratio of the bending
moment per unit width of plate at the bolt line to the
bending moment per unit width at the inner hogging
plastic hinge. In the case of a rigid base plate is equal
to 0 while for a flexible base plate with plastic hinges
forming at both the bolt line and at the inner face of the
column (see Fig. 21) is equal to 1. From equilibrium,
the value for preliminary base plate layout is
calculated as follows:
=
KN
tf
t
2
i
1
a
2
+ d
f
2
(a
2
+a
1
+ t
c
)
(46)
should be taken as 0 if its value calculated with
equation (46) is negative.
The capacity of the steel base plate is then calculated as
follows:
N
t
=
t
2
i
(1 +)n
b
K
(47)
where:
N
t
N
t
calculated with equation (47) must be greater than
N
*
t
. The actual tension in one bolt, including prying
effects, is determined as follows:
N
*
b

N
*
t
n
b
1 +
a
3
a
4

1 +
(48)
where:
=
KN
*
t
t
2
i
n
b
1
1
a
4
= min1.25a
1
, a
2
+
d
f
2
The value of previously calculated in equation (46)

does not have to equal the value of calculated from
equation (48) as the former assumes the bolts to be
loaded to their full tensile capacity.
It interesting to note how equation (48) provides an
estimate of the prying action present in the base plate.
a
1
a
3
= = = =
t
c
N
*
t
= =
N
*
t
s
p
a
2
a
4
s
p
Figure 21 Packer--Birkemoe Model (Ref. [36])
5.2.5. Eurocode 3 Model
(H--shaped sections with varying
number of bolts)
The Eurocode 3 does not provide a specific design
procedure for the design of base plates subject to
tension. Nevertheless it provides very useful guidelines
for the design of bolted beam--to--column connections
(Appendix J.3 of [23]) which can be adapted for the
design of base plates considering all anchor bolts as
bolts on the tension side of the beam--to--column
connection.
The design of the end plate or of the column flange of
the beam--to--column connection is carried out in terms
of equivalent T--stubs as shown in Fig. 22.
e
m e
m
0.8a 2
a
e
min
t
f
t
f
0.8r
e m
e
min
r
l
Figure 22 T--stub connection in EC3 (Ref. [23])
EC3 considers that the capacity of a T--stub may be
governed by the resistence of either the flange, or the
bolts, or the web or the weld between flange and web of
T--stub. The failure modes considered are three as
shown in Fig. 23. The axial capacity is calculated as
follows:
F
t.Rd
= min
F
t.Rd1
, F
t.Rd2
, F
t.Rd3
(49)
where:
F
t.Rd1
=
4M
pl.Rd
m
F
t.Rd2
=
2M
pl.Rd
+ nB
t.Rd
m + n
F
t.Rd3
= B
t.Rd
M
pl.Rd
=
0.25lt
2
f
f
y
MO
n = e
min
1.25m
l = equivalent effective length calculated in
equations (50), (51), (52) and (53)
B
t.Rd
= tensile capacity of bolt group
MO
= partial safety factor
= 1.10 (boxed value from Table 1 of [23])
F
t.Rd1
, F
t.Rd2
and F
t.Rd3
= tensile capacities of the
T--stub based on failure modes 1, 2 and 3
respectively
Mode 1: Complete
flange yielding
Mode 2: Bolt failure
with flange yielding
Mode 3: Bolt failure
F
t
F
t
F
t
Q
Q
Q Q
F
t
2
+ Q
F
t
2
+ Q
B
t
2 B
t
2
B
t
2 B
t
2
Figure 23 Failure modes of a T--stub flange
(Ref. [23])
It is interesting to note that the amount of prying action
for a certainbase plate layout canbe obtainedas the ratio
F
t.Rd
B
t.Rd
as shown in Fig. 24.
2
1 + 2
2
1 + 2
1 2
Mode 3
Mode 2
Mode 1
1
F
B
t.Rd
= nm
=
4M
plRd
mB
t.Rd
=
l t
2
f
f
y
MO
mB
t.Rd
Figure 24 Prying action in T--stub for the three

failure modes considered in (Ref.
[23])
The tension zone of the end plate should be considered
toact as a series of equivalent T--stubs witha total length
equal to the total effective length of the bolt pattern in
the tension zone, as shown in Fig. 26.[23] The length to
be utilised in the design of the equivalent T--stub is
for bolts outside the tension flange of the beam
l
eff.a
= min
0.5b
p
, 0.5w+2m
x
+0.625e
x
,
4m
x
+1.25e
x
, 2m
x
) (50)
for first row of bolts below the tension flange of
the beam
l
eff.b
= min(m, 2m) (51)
for other inner bolts
l
eff.c
= min
p, 4m +1.25e, 2m
(52)
for other end bolts
l
eff.d
=min(0.5p+2m+0.625e, 4m+1.25e, 2m) (53)
where:
= as defined in Fig. 27
It is interesting to note that the failure modes considered
for example by equations (52) and (53) are the same as
those considered to evaluate the capacity of an
unstiffened flange. The yield line patterns of such
failure modes are shown in Fig. 25.
e
m
p p
Centreline of web
Centreline of web
Centreline of web
(a) Combined bolt group action
(b) Separate bolt patterns
(c) Circles around each bolt
Figure 25 Yield line patterns for unstiffened
flange (Ref. [23])
Transformation of extension to equivalent T--stub
Equivalent T--stub
for extension
Portion between flanges
b
p
w
e
x
m
x
p
p
e m
m e
e
x
m
x
l
eff.a
l
eff.b
l
eff.c
l
eff.d
b
p
b
p
2
l
eff.a
l
eff.a
Figure 26 Effective lengths of equivalent T--stub
flanges representing an end plate
(Ref. [23])
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
2
6
5.5
5
4.75
4.5
4.45
1
=
m
1
m
1
+ e
2
=
m
2
m
1
+ e
e m
1
m
2
1
Figure 27 Value of Effective lengths of to
calculate equivalent T--stub flanges
(Ref. [23])
5.3. DESIGN OF ANCHOR BOLTS --
LITERATURE REVIEW
Available design guidelines regarding the behaviour of
anchor bolts in tension distinguish between the
behaviour of anchor bolts with an anchor head and of
hooked anchor bolts and therefore these will be
discussed here separately. For the purpose of this paper
an anchor head is defined as a nut, flat washer, plate, or
bolt head or other steel component used to transmit
anchor loads from the tensile stress component to the
concrete by bearing. [2]
5.3.1. Anchor bolts with anchor head
The first detailed guidance on the design of anchor bolts
is provided by the American Concrete Institute
Committee 349 in 1976 in [3]. These recommendations
are produced for the design of nuclear safety related
structures. Some of the ACI Committee 349 members,
very active in the preparation of [3], publish an article
[17] where the guidelines provided in [3] are modified
to suit concrete structures in general.
The design criteria at the base of [2] and of [17] is that
anchor bolts should be designed to fail in a ductile
manner, therefore the anchor bolt should reach yielding
prior to the concrete brittle failure. This is achieved by
ensuring that the calculated concrete strength exceeds
the minimum specified tensile strength of the steel.
[2][17]
Typical brittle failure of an isolated anchor bolt is by
pullingout of a concrete cone radiating out at 45degrees
from the bottom of the anchor as shown in Fig. 28. [2]
and [17] recommend to calculate its nominal concrete
pull--out capacity based on the tensile strength 4 f
c
(where f
c
is in psi) or 0.33 f
c
(where f
c
is in MPa)
acting over an effective area which is the projected area
of the concrete failure cone.
In both [3] and [17] it is recommended to use a capacity
reductionfactor of 0.65inthe calculationof the concrete
cone capacity, which can be increased to 0.85 in the case
the anchor head is beyond the far face reinforcement.
The value of 0.65 applies to the case of an anchor bolt
in plain concrete. This intends to be a simplification of
a very complex problem. [3][17]
In the current version of ACI349 [2] the capacity
reduction factor is equal to 0.65 unless the embedment
is anchored either beyond the far face reinforcement, or
in a compression zone or in a tension zone where the
concrete tension stress (based on an uncracked section)
at the concrete surface is less than the tensile strength of
the concrete 0.4 f
c
subjected to strength load

combinations calculated in accordance with current
loading codes (i.e. AS1170.0 [8]) in which cases a
capacity reduction factor of 0.85 can be used. [2] An
embedment is defined in [2] as that steel component
embedded in the concrete used to transmit applied loads
to the concrete structure. The ACI Committee 349
recognises that there is not sufficient data to define more
accurate values for the strength reduction factor. [2]
Experimental results have generally verified the results
of this approach. [31]
The value of 0.33 f
c
represents an average value of

the concrete stress on the projected area accounting for
the stress distribution which occurs along the failure
cone surface varying from zero at the concrete surface
to a maximum at the bolt end. [31] In calculating the
projected area of the failure cone the area of the anchor
head should be disregarded as the failure cone initiates
at the outside periphery of the anchor head. [2]
Experimental results have shown that the head of a
standard bolt, without a plate or washer, is able to
develop the full tensile strength of the bolt provided, as
specified in [2], that there is a minimum gross bearing
area of at least 2.5 times the tensile stress area of the
anchor bolt and provided there is sufficient side cover,
that the thickness of the anchor head is at least 1.0 times
the greatest dimension fromthe outermost bearing edge
of the anchor head to the face of the tensile stress
component and that the bearing area of the anchor head
is approximately evenly distributed around the
perimeter of the tensile stress component. [2]
The placing of washers or plates above the bolt head to
increase the concrete pull--out capacity should be
avoidedas it onlyspreads the failure cone awayfromthe
bolt--line which may cause overlapping of cones with
adjacent anchors or edge distance problems. [31]
L
d
L
d
45
o
Failure
plane
Projected surface
Figure 28 Concrete failure cone (Ref. [26])
If reinforcement in the foundation is extended into the
area of the failure cone additional strength would be
present in practice since the nominal capacity of the
failure cone is based on the strength of unreinforced
concrete.
The concrete pull--out capacity of a bolt group is
calculated as the average concrete tensile strength
0.33 f
c
times the effective tensile area of the bolt

group. This effective area is calculated as the sumof the
projected areas of each anchor part of the bolt group if
these projected areas do not overlap; when overlapping
occurs overlappedareas shouldbe considered onlyonce
in the calculation of the effective tensile area, thus
leading to a smaller concrete pull--out capacity if
compared to the sumof the concrete pull--out capacities
of each anchor in the bolt group considered in isolation.
[2][17]
= L
2
d

2cos
1
s
2L
d
L
2
d
360
0
+
s
2
L
2
d

s
2
4
Shaded
Area
(a) Two Intersecting Failure Cones
L
d
L
d
s
s
= L
2
d

2cos
1
s
2L
d
L
2
d
360
0
+
s
2
L
2
d

s
2
4
Area
Circle -- Sector + Triangle
(b) Failure Cone Near an Edge
s
2
L
d
L
d
L
d
+ L
d
=
(Note: the inverse cosine term listed in the
equations is in degrees)
Figure 29 Calculation of the projected area of
two intersecting failure cones or one
failure cone near an edge (Ref. [30])
Simple procedures to calculate the effective tensile
areas of bolt groups are provided in [30], i.e. the
procedure to calculate two intersecting cones is shown
in Fig. 29. [30]
Depending upon the bolt group layout other possible
failure modes could take place such as the one shown in
Fig. 30 where an entire part of the concrete foundation
would pull--out. In such cases the effective tensile area
should be calculated selecting the smallest projected
area due to the possible concrete failure surfaces as
shown in Fig. 30. A similar average tensile strength as
in the case of the pull--out cones can be adopted. [2][17]
Tension Force
Figure 30 Potential Failure Mode
with limited depth (Ref. [2])
Transverse splitting is another failure mode which can
occur between anchor heads of an anchor bolt group
when their centre--to--centre spacing is less than the
anchor bolt depth and is shown in Fig. 31. This failure
mode occurs at a loadsimilar tothe one requiredtocause
a pull--out cone failure in uncracked concrete and
therefore no additional design checks need to be
considered. [2][17]
Tension Force
Transverse
splitting
Figure 31 Transverse splitting failure mode
(Ref. [2])
It is interesting to note that in the case of shallowanchor
bolts the angle at the bolt head formed by the failure
cone tends to increase from 90 degrees to 120 degrees.
An anchor bolt is classified as shallow when its length
is less than 5in. (127 mm). Nevertheless for design
purposes caution should be applied is using angles
greater than 90 degrees as cracks might be present at the
concrete surface. It is recommendednot use angles other
than 90 degrees. [2][17]
The previous considerations assume the concrete
element to be stress--free and only subjected to the
anchor bolts loading. [2] and [17] consider the case
when there is a state of biaxial compression and tension
in the plane of the concrete. The former loading
condition would be beneficial to the anchor bolts
strength while the latter loading state would lead to a
significantly decrease in strength. Nevertheless, it is in
the opinion of the ACI 349 Committee that a failure
cone angle of 90 degrees can still be utilised as it is
assumed that any cracking would be controlled by the
main reinforcement designed in accordance with
current concrete codes, i.e. AS 3600 [10].
The design procedure proposed by ACI 349 and [17] is
also recommended by DeWolf in [21].
[21] notes that the use of cored holes, such as shown in
Fig. 32, should not reduce the anchorage capacity based
onthe failure cone, providedthat the coredhole does not
extend near the bottomof the bolt. This situation should
be avoided if the dimensions shown in Fig. 32 are
followed. [26]
but 75mm
d
f
3d
f
L
d
Projection
Figure 32 Suggested layout for Cored Holes
to Permit Minor Adjustments in
Position on Site (Ref. [26])
45
o
Blow out
cone
Failure
surface
45
o
Figure 33 Failure Surface of Blow--out Cone
due to Lateral Bursting of the
Concrete (Ref. [31])
Lateral bursting of the concrete can occur when an
anchor bolt is located close to the concrete edge as
shown in Fig. 33, which is caused by a lateral force
present at the bolt head location.
This lateral force may be conservatively assumed to be
one--fourth of the nominal tensile capacity of the anchor
bolt for conventional anchor heads which can be
calculatedinaccordance withClause 9.3.2.2of AS4100
[11] as follows:
N
tf
= A
s
f
uf
= 0.75A
0
f
uf
= 0.75
d
2
f

4
f
uf
(54)
where:
A
s
= tensile stress area in accordance with AS1275
[9] and conservatively approximated with 0.75
A
0
A
0
=
d
2
f

4
= shank area
f
uf
= minimum tensile strength of a bolt
The failure surface has the shape of a cone which
radiates at 45 degrees fromthe anchor head towards the
concrete edge. The concrete capacityis calculatedas the
average concrete tensile strength 0.33 f
c
applied
over the projected cone area as follows: [2][3][17]
N
c.lat
= 0.33 f
c
a
2
e
(55)
where:
= 0.65 in Ref. [3], 0.85 in Refs. [2] and [17]
N
c.lat
= lateral bursting capacity of the concrete
a
e
= side cover
Equating the assumed lateral force (equal to 0.25 N
tf
) to
the concrete lateral bursting capacity allows to express
the minimum required side cover as a function of both
the concrete and anchor bolt strengths as shown below:
0.25N
tf
= N
c.lat
= 0.33 f
a
2
e
(56)
and solving equation (56) for a
e
yields:
a
e
= d
f
f
uf
7 f
c
(57)
where:
= 0.65 in Ref. [3],
= 0.85 in Refs. [2] and [17]
Adopting the capacity reduction factor equal to 0.85
the minimum side cover to avoid lateral bursting of the
concrete can be calculated as follows:
a
e
= d
f
f
uf
6 f
c
(58)
Equation (58) has also been recommended in [26] and
[47].
Tension Force
Spiral
reinforcement
Potential
Failure
Zone
Figure 34 Reinforcement Against Lateral
Bursting of Concrete Foundation
(Ref. [2])
Based on the guidelines provided in reference [3],
simplified design guidelines regarding minimum
embedment lengths and minimum edge distances are
presented in reference [39]. These minimum
embedment lengths are calculated with an additional
safety factor of 1.33 when compared to the guidelines
presented in reference [3]. These simplified guidelines
are as follows:
for Grade 250 bars and Grade 4.6 bolts:
L
d
12d
f
a
e
= min(100, 5d
f
)
for Grade 8.8 bolts:
L
d
17d
f
a
e
= min(100, 7d
f
)
where:
L
d
= minimum embedment length
These minimumembedment lengths and edge distances
have also been recommended in references [18], [21]
and [26].
Reinforcement needs to be specified in the case anchor
bolts are located too close to a concrete edge (the edge
distance a
e
is less than the one required by equation
(58)) or their embedment length is less than the one
required to develop the bolts full tensile strength. Such
reinforcement should be designed and located to
intersect potential cracks ensuring full development
length of the reinforcement onboth sides of suchcracks.
The placement of the reinforcement should be
concentric with the tensile stress field. [2]
In the specific case of insufficient embedment length a
possible reinforcement layout to enhance the concrete
pull--out capacity is detailed in Fig. 35 using hairpin
reinforcement. The hairpins need to be placed as
specified in Fig. 35 in order to effectively intercept
potential failure planes. Other reinforcement
configurations can be specified in accordance with AS
3600 while still complying with the specifications
previously outlined for hairpin reinforcement to
consider the reinforcement to be effective. These
specifications are the maximum distance from the
anchor head and the minimumembedment length equal
to 8 reinforcement diameters.
Tension Force
L
d
L
d
3
L
d
3
8x diameter of the
hairpin reinforcement
Development length
from AS3600
Maximum distance from
anchor head for reinforcement
to be considered effective
Locate legs of hairpin
reinforcement in this region
Figure 35 Possible Placement of Reinforcement
for Direct Tension (Ref. [2])
In the case of insufficient side cover a
e
there are no
experimental results to validate a design procedure to
include reinforcement to avoid lateral bursting of the
concrete. The ACI 349 Committee recommends the use
of spiral reinforcement as shown in Fig. 34 while also
suggesting to refer to acceptedpractices for prestressing
anchorages to resist the lateral bursting force. [2]
[2] and [17] recommend that if proper anchorage of the
reinforcement cannot be accomplished in the available
dimensions, the anchorage configuration should be
changed.
5.3.2. Hooked bars
There are different opinions regarding the ability of
hooked anchor bolts to carry tensile loading. Some
authors do not recommend to use them to resist uplift
loads, while others have provided some design
guidelines.
The major concern regarding the use of hooked bars in
tension is that they tend to fail by straightening and
pulling out of the concrete as shown by research carried
out by the PCI.[24]
[24] and [31] discuss the behaviour of smooth anchor
bolts and recommend to use hooked anchor bolts with
a bearing head as smooth bars are less able to develop
their strength along their length than deformed bars.
[24] recommends to use the following formula to
determine the pull--out capacityof a hookedanchor bolt:
N
th
= 0.7f
c
d
f
L
h
(59)
where:
= 0.80 (as recommended in [26])
N
th
= tensile capacity of a hooked bar
d
f
= nominal diameter of the hooked bar
L
h
= length of the hook
DeWolf in [22] recommends to use hooked anchor bolts
only under compressive axial loading, and where no
fixity is needed at the base except during erection. Even
for this case he recommends to design the hook to resist
half the designtensile capacityof thebolt usingequation
(59). He also recommends to use anchor bolts with a
more positive anchorage which is formed when bolts or
rods with threads and nut are used. [22] Similar design
considerations are presented in reference [47].
The recommendations of the AISC(US) Manuals have
changedover time. Inreference [6] the designof hooked
anchor rods under tension is recommended to be carried
out based on the design procedure presented in [24] as
outlined in equation (59) while in reference [5] the use
of hooked anchor rods is recommended only for axially
loaded members subject to compression only.
5.4.1. Introduction
Available design guidelines have been included in the
recommended design models where possible.
Additional design models/provisions are here provided
for those instances, to the knowledge of the authors, not
covered by available design guidelines. Their use has
been clearly stated and their derivations are illustrated
in Section 11.
It is interesting to note that depending upon the
magnitude of the plate flexural deformation and the bolt
elongation which occur in the loaded base plate
connection, a prying action might be present.
The possible collapse mechanisms which can occur are
similar to those which can occur in bolted connections.
These are shown in Fig. 36.
N
*
t
N
*
b
N
*
t N
*
t
N
*
b
N
*
b
N
*
p
N
*
p
Schematic failure modes
Bending moment diagrams
showing plastic hinges
Figure 36 Possible plate deformations
and anchor bolt elongations
(modified from Ref.[13])
In the case the plate flexural deformation is smaller than
the bolt elongation no prying action would take place as
shown in Fig. 36(a). In the case the plate flexural
deformation is of similar or of greater magnitude as the
bolt elongation, as shown in Fig. 36(b) and (c), prying
actions N
*
p
should be accounted for in the design.
Possible bending moment diagram occurring in the
plate in all three collapse mechanisms are also shown in
Fig. 36. [13]
For design purposes the use of a prying factor of 1.4 is
conservatively recommended as suggested in [37] and
[36].
5.4.2. Design Criteria
The recommended model for axial tension is based on
the following design criteria:
N
des.t
= [N
t
; N
w
;
p
N
tb
]
min
N
*
t
(60)
with the following constraint to ensure a ductile failure
of the anchorage system (connection of anchor bolt to
concrete):
N
cc
> N
tb
(61)
and complying with the anchor bolts embedment
lengths and concrete edge distances specified in
Sections 5.4.5. and 5.4.6. and
where:
N
des.t
subject to axial tension
N
t
= design tensile axial capacity of the steel base
plate
N
w
N
tb
= design capacity of the anchor bolt group
under tension
p
= 1/1.4 = 0.72 prying reduction factor as
recommended in references [36] and [37] unless
noted otherwise in 5.4.3.
N
cc
= design pull--out capacity of the concrete
foundation
N
*
t
= design axial tension load
5.4.3. Anchor bolt design
The tensile design capacity of the anchor bolt group
N
tb
is calculated in accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2 of
AS4100 [11] as the sumof the design capacities of each
single bolt N
tf
.
N
tb
= n
b
N
tf
= n
b
A
s
f
uf
(62)
where:
= 0.8
Refer to Section 14. for tabulated values of the tensile
capacities of anchor bolts.
In the case the base plate is designed based on
Packer--Birkemoe Model the preliminary number of
bolts required is obtained from equation (62) which is
then refined in the section describing the steel plate
design. Once the steel plate design is complete the
capacity of the anchor bolt groups needs to be
re--checked. The value of
p
to be adopted in the Packer
-- Birkemoe model is specified in equation (95).
In the case the design of the base plate is carried out base
on IWIMM Model (refer to Section 5.4.7.) the tensile
design capacity of the anchor group should be
N
tb
=
n
b
N
tf
1
1
f
3
+
1
f
3
ln
r
1
r
2
(63)
where:
= 0.9
p
= 1 to be used in equation (60) as prying effects
are already included in equation (63)
r
1
=
d
0
2
+ 2a
1
r
2
=
d
0
2
+ a
1
a
1
= a
2
(condition to apply equation (63))
f
3
=
1
2k
1
k
3
+ k
2
3
4k
1

k
1
= ln
r
2
r
3
k
3
= k
1
+ 2
r
2
=
d
0
2
+ a
1
r
3
=
d
0
t
c
2
a
1
, a
2
and d
0
are defined in Fig. 20
5.4.4. Design of concrete pull--out capacity
The pull--out capacity of the concrete N
cc
varies
depending upon the anchor bolts layout and it can be
calculated in accordance with AS 3600 as follows:
N
cc
= 0.33 f
c
A
ps
(64)
where:
= 0.7 (based on required for Clause 9.2.3 of AS
3600)
A
ps
= effective projected area
Equation (64) is similar to the expression provided in
Clause 9.2.3 of AS 3600 to calculate the concrete
capacity of a slab against punching shear, which
involves a similar failure mechanism as the one of the
pull--out cone. The value of
h
tobe calculatedinClause
9.2.3 of AS 3600 would be equal to 1 as the shape of the
effective loaded area is a circle. AS 3600 recommends
a strength reduction factor under shear of 0.7 (Table 2.3
of AS 3600).
The capacities of a few common bolt layouts as shown
in Fig. 37 are here outlined. [47]
L
1
L
1
45
o
Projected
area
L
2
L
2
s
Single Cone Two Intersecting Cones
(a)
(b)
L
4
s
L
4
Four Intersecting
Cones
(c)
Figure 37 Common bolt layouts (Ref. [47])
The effective projected areas of each anchor bolt layout
shown in Fig. 37 is calculated as follows:
A
ps.1
= effective projected area of isolated anchor bolt
(nooverlappingof failure cones) as showninFig.
37(a)
= L
2
1
A
ps.2
= effective projected area of 2 anchor bolts with
overlapping of their failure cones as shown in
Fig. 37(b);
= d
2
2
1
2 cos
1
(s2L
2
)
360
+
s
2
L
2
2
s
2
4
A
ps.4
= effective projected area of 4 anchor bolts with
overlapping of their failure cones. In this case
each failure cone overlaps with all other 3 failure
cones as shown in Fig. 37(c).
= d
2
4
0.75
2 cos
1
(s2L
4
)
360

+
s
2
L
2
4
s
2
4
+ s
2
4
where the inverse cosine term is in degrees.
5.4.5. Concrete cover requirements
The cover requirements for an anchor bolt are
determined in accordance with [2] and [17] in order to
prevent lateral bursting of the concrete which can occur
when a bolt is located close to a concrete edge as shown
in Fig. 33.
The minimum cover to be provided is calculated as
follows: [17][2]
a
e
= max
100, d
f
f
uf
6 f
c
(65)
Tabulated values of equation (65) are presented in
Section 12.
The following simplified expressions, which have been
derived in Section 12., can be used in place of equation
(65) leading to slightly more conservative side covers
than those calculated with equation (65).
for Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
a
e
= 4 d
f
when f
c
= 20, 25 and 32 MPa
100 when f
c
= 20, 25 and 32 MPa
for Grade 8.8 bolts
a
e
= 6 d
f
when f
c
= 20 and 25 MPa
= 5 d
f
when f
c
= 32 MPa
100 when f
c
= 20, 25 and 32 MPa
The requirement of a minimumside cover of 100 mmis
based on recommendations of [21], [26] and [39].
5.4.6. Minimum embedment lengths
The recommended minimum embedment length L
d
of
an anchor bolt is determined in accordance with the
design guidelines specified in [2] adjusted to suit AS
3600.
Edge of Concrete
Foundation
a
e
L
d
L
h
Figure 38 Hook, embedment lengths and edge
distances for anchor bolts (Ref. [26])
The minimum embedment length L
d
for an isolated
anchor bolt should be calculated as follows: (refer to
Fig. 38)
L
d
=
d
2
f
+ d
2
f
+ 4
2
100 (66)
where:
= 0.7 (based on in Clause 9.2.3 of AS 3600)
=
f
uf
A
s
0.33 f
c

Even if it has been observed that for shallowanchors the
angle at the bolt head formed by the concrete failure
cone tends to increase from 90 degrees to 120 degrees
(therefore increasing the concrete pull--out capacity) a
minimumlimit of 100mmis here introduced inequation
(66) as cracks might be present at the concrete surface.
Refer to Section 12. for the derivation of equation (66)
and of the simplified expressions shown below which
can be used in place of equation (66).
L
d
= 9 d
f
when f
c
= 20, 25 and 32MPa
for Grade 8.8 bolts
L
d
= 13 d
f
when f
c
= 20 MPa
= 12 d
f
when f
c
= 25 MPa
= 11 d
f
when f
c
= 32 MPa
Hooked anchor bolts, as shown in Fig. 38, need to be
detailed with a minimum embedment length as
specified for bolts with an anchor head of same nominal
diameter (specified by equation (66) or by its alternative
simplified expressions) and with a minimum hook
length calculated as follows:[24][26]
L
h

A
s
f
uf
0.7f
c
d
f
(67)
where:
L
h
= hook length of anchor bolt
The anchorage length (embedment length and hook
length) should be such as to prevent bond failure
between the anchor bolt and concrete prior to yielding
of the bolt. When possible, a more positive anchorage
should be adopted at the end of the hook, for example by
means of a nut.
5.4.7. Design of the Steel Base Plate
The recommended procedure to design or check the
steel base plate varies depending upon the column
section and number of bolts considered.
Recommended models are illustrated below for the
following combinations of column section and number
of bolts:
H--shaped column section -- 2 anchor bolts (*)
H--shaped column section -- 4 anchor bolts (*)
Channel -- 1 anchor bolt (*)
Channel -- 2 anchor bolts (*)
Hollow section (RHS, SHS, CHS) -- 2 anchor
bolts (*)
Hollow section (RHS, SHS) -- 4 anchor bolts (*)
Hollow section (CHS) -- varying no. of anchor
bolts (IWIMM Model described in the literature
review)
Hollow section (RHS) -- varying no. of anchor
bolts (Packer--Birkemoe Model described in the
literature review)
The derivation of the models marked with (*) is
illustrated in Section 11. It is important to note that,
similarly to Murray Model, in the case of open sections
the derived models to determine the capacity of the steel
base plate capacity account only for the strength of plate
present inside the column footprint.
The reduction in plate capacity due to the bolt hole has
been included in the model. The yield line patterns
considered for open sections are assumed to develop
inside the internal faces of the column profile.
H--SHAPED COLUMN -- 2 anchor bolts
The yield line pattern considered by the recommended
model is shown in Fig. 39 and is similar to the one
consideredinMurrayModel modifiedtoaccount for the
reduction in plate capacity due to the anchor bolt holes.
s
y
y
b
fc
d
c1
2
d
c1
2
Figure 39 Yield line pattern -- H--shaped column
section with 2 anchor bolts
The plate thickness requiredtoresist a designaxial force
N
*
t
N
t
= 0.9f
yi
t
2
i
(68)
t
i

N
*
t
0.9f
yi
(69)
y = min
d
c1
2
,
b
fc1
d
h
2
b
fc1
(70)
where:
N
t
b
fc1
= width of the column flange ignoring web
thickness
= b
fc
t
w
d
c1
= clear depth between flanges (column depth
ignoring thicknesses of flanges)
t
w
= thickness of web
d
h
= diameter of bolt hole
=
2b
2
fc1
2b
fc1
d
h
+ 4y
2
4sy
y and s = as defined in Fig. 39
In this model the reduction in plate capacity due to the
presence of a bolt hole alongthe yieldline perpendicular
to the web has been included.
Further reductions due to other yield lines intersecting
bolt holes have not been considered as they are very
unlikely to occur and a more detailed analysis should be
carried out in such situation.
The critical yield line pattern is a function of the value
of y calculated from equation (70). To ensure that none
of the oblique yield lines intersects the bolt hole, as
assumed in the model derived, the following condition
needs to be satisfied:
y > l
2
(71)
where:
l
1
=
d
h
2
1
d
2
h
4s
2
l
2
=
l
1
l
3
s
d
2
h
4
l
2
1

and the notation is defined in Fig. 40.
d
2
h
4 l
2
1
l
1
l
2
s
diameter of hole = d
h
Web
Edge of plate
l
3
Figure 40 Yield line layout near the bolt hole
H--SHAPED COLUMN -- 4 anchor bolts
The yield line patterns considered by the recommended
model are shown in Figs. 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.
In the case of yield line patterns (a), (b) and (c) the
derived model does not assume that the oblique lines
intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and
considered in a similar manner as previously outlined in
the case of H--shaped column with 2 anchor bolts (refer
to equation (71) and Fig. 40).
The recommended design procedure is as follows:
N
t
= 0.9f
yi
t
2
i
(72)
t
i

N
*
t
0.9f
yi
(73)
y =
b
fc1
d
h
2
b
fc1
(74)
and the value of is calculated as follows:
= max(
a
,
b
) when y <
s
p
2
=
b
when y <
s
p
2
and y > a
b
= max(
c
,
d
,
e
) when y
s
p
2
where:
a
=
2b
2
fc1
2b
fc1
d
h
+ 4y
2
2sy
b
=
b
fc1
(b
fc1
d
h
)(a
b
+ y) + 2(y + a
b
)a
b
y
2sa
b
y
c
=
b
2
fc1
d
h
b
fc1
+ 2y
2
c
+ s
p
y
c
2sy
c
d
=
b
fc1
s d
h
s + 2y
2
d
+ s
p
y
d
d
h
y
d
sy
d
e
=
b
fc1
s 2d
h
s + 4a
2
b
+ 2a
b
s
p
2a
b
d
h
2a
b
s
y
c
= min
a
b
, y
y
d
= mina
b
,
b
fc1
d
h
2
s

a
b
= distance from bolt hole to inside face of
flange
s
y
y
b
fc
d
c1
2
d
c1
2
Figure 41 Yield line pattern (a) H sections
y
y
s
y
y
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y
y a
b
Figure 42 Yield line pattern (b) H sections
a
b
y
s
y
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y
Figure 43 Yield line pattern (c) H sections
y
s
y
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y a
b
Figure 44 Yield line pattern (d) H sections
y
s
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y
a
b
Figure 45 Yield line pattern (e) H sections
s
b
fc
a
b
s
p
a
b
Figure 46 Yield line pattern (f) H sections
CHANNEL -- 1 anchor bolt
The yield line pattern considered by the recommended
model is shown in Fig. 47 and is similar to the one
considered in the case of H--shaped sections with 2
anchor bolts.
The derived model does not assume that the oblique
lines intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and
s
y
y
b
fc
d
c1
2
d
c1
2
Figure 47 Yield line pattern -- Channel with 1
anchor bolt
The plate thickness requiredtoresist a designaxial force
N
*
t
N
t
= 0.9f
yi
t
2
i
(75)
t
i

N
*
t
0.9f
yi
(76)
y = min
d
c1
2
, (2b
fc1
d
h
)b
fc1
(77)
where:
=
2b
2
fc1
b
fc1
d
h
+y
2
2sy
y and s = as defined in Fig. 47
CHANNEL -- 2 anchor bolts
model are shown in Figs. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.
In the case of yield line patterns (a), (b) and (c) the
derived model does not assume that the oblique lines
intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and
N
t
= 0.9f
yi
t
2
i
(78)
t
i

N
*
t
0.9f
yi
(79)
y = (2b
fc1
d
h
)b
fc1
(80)
= max(
a
,
b
) when y <
s
p
2
=
b
when y <
s
p
2
and y > a
b
= max(
c
,
d
,
e
) when y
s
p
2
where:
a
=
2b
2
fc1
b
fc1
d
h
+ y
2
sy
b
=
b
fc1
(2b
fc1
d
h
)(a
b
+y) + (y + a
b
)a
b
y
2sa
b
y
c
=
4b
2
fc1
2d
h
b
fc1
+ 2y
2
c
+s
p
y
c
4sy
c
d
=
2b
fc1
s d
h
s + 2y
2
d
+ s
p
y
d
d
h
y
d
2sy
d
e
=
b
fc1
s d
h
s + 2a
2
b
+ a
b
s
p
a
b
d
h
2a
b
s
y
c
= min
a
b
, y
y
d
= mina
b
,
2b
fc1
d
h
2
s

y
y
s
y
y
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y
y a
b
Figure 48 Yield lines (a) Channels, 2 bolts
y
s
y
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y
a
b
Figure 49 Yield lines (b) Channels, 2 bolts
y
s
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y a
b
Figure 50 Yield lines (c) Channels, 2 bolts
y
s
b
fc
a
b
s
p
y
a
b
Figure 51 Yield lines (d) Channels, 2 bolts
s
b
fc
a
b
s
p
a
b
Figure 52 Yield lines (e) Channels, 2 bolts
HOLLOW SECTION (RHS, SHS, CHS) --
2 anchor bolts
model are shown in Figs. 53 and 54.
In the case of yield line pattern (a) the derived model
does not assume that the oblique lines intersect the bolt
hole. This should be verified and considered in a similar
manner as previously outlined in the case of H--shaped
column with 2 anchor bolts (refer to equation (71) and
Fig. 40).
N
t
= 0.9f
yi
t
2
i
(81)
t
i

N
*
t
0.9f
yi
(82)
y = (2s
2
d
h
)s
2
(83)
= max(
a
,
b
) when y
l
i
2
=
b
when y >
l
i
2
where:
a
=
2s
2
2
d
h
s
2
+ y
2
ys
1
b
=
l
i
2s
3
s
3
=distance fromcenterline of bolt hole to yield
line location specified by s
4
s
4
= cantilevered lengths a
1
or a
2
of Cantilever
Model dependinguponorientationof the column
section
s
1
y
y
s
2
l
i
y
y
l
i
s
2
s
1
y
s
1
y
s
2
l
i
Figure 53 Yield lines (a) Hollows, 2 bolts
s
4
s
3
l
i
s
4
s
3
l
i
s
3
l
i
s
4
Figure 54 Yield lines (b) Hollows, 2 bolts
HOLLOW SECTION (RHS and SHS) --
4 anchor bolts
model are shown in Figs. 55 and 56.
In the case of yield line pattern (a) the derived model
does not assume that the oblique lines intersect the bolt
hole. This should be verified and considered in a similar
manner as previously outlined in the case of H--shaped
column with 2 anchor bolts (refer to equation (71) and
Fig. 40).
N
t
= 0.9f
yi
t
2
i
(84)
t
i

N
*
t
0.9f
yi
(85)
y = (2s
2
d
h
)s
2
(86)
= max(
a
,
b
) when y
l
i
s
p
2
=
b
when y >
l
i
s
p
2
where:
a
=
4s
2
2
2d
h
s
2
+ 2y
2
+s
p
y
2ys
1
b
=
l
i
2s
3
y
y
s
p l
i
s
2
s
1
s
1
s
2
l
i
y
y
s
p
Figure 55 Yield lines (a) Hollows, 4 bolts
l
i
s
4
s
3
s
3
l
i
s
4
Figure 56 Yield lines (b) Hollows, 4 bolts
HOLLOW SECTION (CHS) --
varying no. of anchor bolts
(IWIMM Model)
The recommended model for the design of base plates
of CHS with a symmetric arrangement of bolts around
the column profile as shown in Fig. 20 is based on
IWIMM Model previously outlined in the literature
review.
N
t
=
f
yi
f
3
t
2
i
2
(87)
t
i

2N
*
t
f
yi
f
3
(88)
where:
= 0.9
f
3
=
1
2k
1
k
3
+ k
2
3
4k
1

k
1
= ln
r
2
r
3
k
3
= k
1
+ 2
r
2
=
d
0
2
+ a
1
r
3
=
d
0
t
c
2
a
1
, a
2
and d
0
are defined in Fig. 20
[27] recommends to keep the value of a
1
as small as
possible, i.e. between 1.5d
f
and 2d
f
(where d
f
is the
nominal diameter of the bolts), while ensuring a
minimum of 5 mm clearance between the nut face and
the weld around the CHS.
Assumptions adopted by this model are a continuous
base plate and a weld capacity able to develop the full
yield strength of the CHS.
HOLLOW SECTION (RHS) --
varying no. of anchor bolts
(Packer--Birkemoe Model)
RHS COLUMNS -- varying no. of bolts
The model recommended here is Packer--Birkemoe
Model. This model is applicable only to base plates
between 12mm and 26mm.
The designprocedure is as follows (refer tothe literature
review for further details regarding the model and to
Fig. 21 regarding the notation):
a preliminary number of bolts required is
determined from equation (62)
a bolt spacing s
p
equal to 4--5 d
f
should be used
(even if smaller spacing are possible) and that:
a
2
1.25a
1
(89)
Calculate :
= 1
d
h
s
p
(90)
The designer should then select a preliminary
plate thickness in the following range:
KN
*
b
1 +
t
i
KN
*
b
(91)
where:
K =
4a
3
10
3
f
yi
s
p
(where f
yi
is in MPa)
a
3
= a
1
d
f
2 + t
c
calculate :
=
KN
tf
t
2
i
1
a
2
+ d
f
2
(a
2
+a
1
+ t
c
)
(92)
with the constraint of 0
The capacity of the steel base plate is then calculated as
follows:
N
t
=
t
2
i
(1 +)n
b
K
(93)
And N
t
calculated with equation (93) must be greater
than N
*
t
.
The actual tension in the anchor bolt group,
including prying effects, is determined as follows:
N
*
tb
N
*
t
1 +
a
3
a
4

1 +
(94)
where:
N
*
tb
= design tension in anchor bolt group including
prying effects
=
KN
*
t
t
2
i
n
b
1
1
a
4
= min1.25a
1
, a
2
+
d
f
2
The anchor bolt groupcapacitycalculatedwithequation

(62) needs to be greater than the axial loads applied to
the bolt group calculated with equation (94). This is
achievedadoptinga value
p
tobe usedinequation(60)
equal to:
b
=1 +
a
3
a
4

1 +
1
1 (95)
The evaluation of the capacity of an existing base plate
is carried out following the design procedure previously
outlined. Instead of the preliminary values the actual
number of bolts and plate thickness are utilised.
5.4.8. Design of weld at column base
The design of the weld at the base of the column is
carried out in accordance with Clause 9.7.3.10 of AS
4100. The weld is designed as a fillet weld and its design
capacity N
w
N
w
= v
w
L
w
= 0.6f
uw
t
t
k
r
L
w
(96)
where:
AS 4100)
k
r
= 1 (reduction factor to account for length of
welded lap connection)
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of v
w
.
The fillet weld is recommended to be placed all around
the column section profile.
6. SHEAR
6.1. INTRODUCTION
The shear action may be assumed to be transferred from
the column to the concrete base either:
1. by friction between between base plate and
concrete/grout base or by recessing the base
plate into the concrete footing;
2. by a shear key (or shear lug);
3. by the anchor bolts;
4. by a combination of two or more of the above.
Available design information regarding the transfer of
shear by each of these means with and without axial
loading is now outlined. It is interesting to note how
there are still very different opinions regarding the
ability of anchor bolts to transfer shear actions. For
clarity, the literature review regarding the behaviour of
anchor bolts is further divided into the case of anchor
bolts subject to shear only or to shear and axial
compression and the case of anchor bolts subject to
shear and axial tension.
6.2. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY FRICTION
OR BY RECESSING THE BASE PLATE
INTO THE CONCRETE --
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is general agreement regarding the determination
of the shear capacity of a base plate which can be
transferred by means of friction when the column is
subject to axial compression loading. The shear
capacity is calculated as follows:
V
f
= N
*
c
(97)
where:
= 0.8
V
f
= shear capacity of the base plate transferred by
friction
Coefficients of friction available in literature are
shown in Fig. 57 and are specified as follows:
[2][21][22]
0.9 -- concrete or grout against as--rolled steel
when the contact plane is the full base plate
thickness below the concrete surface (i.e.
recessed);
0.7 -- for concrete or grout placed against the
as--rolled steel surface with the contact plane
coincidental with the concrete surface;
0.55 -- for grouted conditions with the contact
plane between the grout and the as--rolled steel
exterior to the concrete surface (normal
condition).
= 0.9
= 0.7 = 0.55
Figure 57 Coefficients of Friction (Ref. [26])
6.3. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY A SHEAR
KEY-- LITERATURE REVIEW
Available design guidelines agree that in the presence of
a shear key, the shear force is transferred through the
shear key acting as a cantilever and bearing against the
concrete surface as shown in Fig. 58 while no bearing is
assumed to occur against the grout. The bearing
capacity of the concrete is calculatedin accordance with
AS 3600 [10]. Uniform bearing pressure is assumed to
occur at the interface between the shear key and the
concrete equal to the maximum bearing capacity of the
concrete. The shear key is designed as a cantilever to
carry the assumed bearing pressure. [26]
The required area of the shear key is determined based
on the bearing concrete strength 0.85f
c
as shown in
Fig. 58:
A
sk
=
V
*
s
0.85
c
f
c
(98)
where:
= 0.8
A
sk
= area of the shear key
V
*
s
= design shear force to be transferred by means
of the shear key
The actual length of the shear key L
s
is then determined
based on the available plate depth in contact with the
concrete, which, referring to Fig. 58, is equal to
(b
s
t
g
). The design moment per unit width of plate
m
*
sk
carried by the shear key can then be calculated as
follows:
m
*
sk
=
V
*
s
L
s
b
s
+t
g
2
(99)
where:
m
*
sk
= design moment to be carried
to the shear key
L
s
= length of shear key
b
s
= depth of shear key
t
g
= grout thickness
Equating the design moment to the plastic nominal
section moment capacity of the shear key the following
is obtained (per unit width of plate):
m
*
sk
=
V
*
s
L
s
b
s
+ t
g
2
=
0.9f
ys
t
2
s
4
= m
sk
(100)
where:
m
sk
= nominal section moment capacity per unit
width of shear key
f
ys
= yield stress of shear key used in design
t
s
= thickness of shear key
fromwhich the minimumthickness for the shear key t
sk
can be calculated in accordance with AS4100 as
follows:
t
s
=
4m
*
sk
0.9f
ys
=
V
*
s
L
s
2
b
s
+ t
g
0.9f
ys
(101)
or equivalently the shear capacity of a shear key is
calculated as:
V
s
=
0.9f
ys
b
s
+ t
g
t
2
s
L
s
2
(102)
where:
V
s
t
s
Shear Key
b
s
t
g
0.85f
c
V
*
c
Figure 58 Forces acting on Shear Keys
(Ref. [26])
In the presence of combined shear and axial
compression actions, the shear key is normally assumed
to resist the part of the design shear force that cannot be
resisted by friction.
For shear keys located near a free concrete edge it
should be verified that the concrete is able to carry the
applied shear action. The possible failure surface is the
one which radiates at 45 degrees from the shear keys
edges towards the concrete edge. The concrete capacity
should be determined by multiplying the effective
concrete stress area, determined as the projected area of
the failure surface on the concrete edge ignoring the
shear key area, by the average concrete tensile stress of
0.33 f
c
(where f
c
is in MPa) with is equal to 0.85.
[2]
The weld of the shear key shall be designedto carryboth
design shear and moment actions acting on the shear
key.
It is interesting to note that the shear key can be welded
to the underside of the base plate at any angle even if it
is common to choose directions parallel to one or both
of the principal axes of the column as these are usually
the axes along which the shear needs to be transferred.
Reference [26] extends this design procedure for shear
keys in two orthogonal directions applying the same
design procedure in both orthogonal directions.
6.4. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY THE
ANCHOR BOLTS -- LITERATURE
REVIEW
6.4.1. Shear only or Shear and Axial
Compression
An anchor bolt located away from a concrete edge and
with sufficient embedment length would typically
transfer the shear through bearing at the surface of the
concrete and testing has shown that this transfer mode
could cause a concrete wedge to form as shown in Fig.
59. It has been observed that the depth of the concrete
wedge can be approximated to be one quarter of the
anchor bolt diameter. In the presence of a base plate the
translation of the concrete wedge is prevented by a
clamping force provided by the base plate and anchor
bolts. While the anchors behaviour remains in the
elastic range the clamping force applied by the anchor
bolt and base plate is proportional to the shear force.
d
f
4
d
f
Applied Shear
Concrete Wedge
Figure 59 Concrete wedge failure mode under
anchor bolt shear force (Ref. [31])
Locating an anchor bolt near the concrete free edge
could lead to another failure mode to occur as shown in
Fig. 60. The concrete failure surface is determined by
radiating at 45 degrees from the anchor bolt at the
concrete surface towards the free edge. The concrete
capacity is calculated by multiplying the projected area
of the failure surface at the concrete edge bythe concrete
average tensile strength of 0.33 f
c
.
Applied Shear
Side
Failure
Surface
Front
Figure 60 Concrete failure surface under bolt
shear force near a concrete edge (Ref.
[31])
The minimum side cover required to ensure a ductile
failure requires the concrete wedge capacity to carry a
shear load equal to the nominal shear capacity of the
anchor bolt.
The concrete capacity of the wedge cone can be
V
u.c
= 0.33 f
c
a
2
e
2
(103)
where:
= 0.65 in [3] and 0.85 in [17]
V
u.c
= concrete capacity against wedge cone
failure
Experimental results have shown that equation (103)
provides a goodestimate of the concrete wedge capacity
using equal to 0.65. [44][45]
Based on [2], [3] and [17] the nominal shear capacity of
the anchor bolt is calculated assuming that the shear is
transferred by friction between the steel and the
concrete with a friction coefficient of 0.7:
V
u.b
= 0.7
d
2
f
4
f
uf
(104)
where:
V
u.b
= nominal shear capacity of an anchor bolt
assumed to be transferred by friction between
anchor and concrete with a friction coefficient of
0.7
The minimumside cover a
e
to be adopted for the anchor
bolt to avoid the concrete wedge failure can be
determined ensuring that the concrete capacity against
wedge failure V
u.c
is able to carry the shear capacity
of the bolt transferred by friction V
u.b
and equating
equation (103) to equation (104): [2]
V
u.c
= 0.33 f
c
a
2
e
2
= 0.7
d
2
f
4
f
uf
= V
u.b
(105)
and solving equation (105) for a
e
:
a
e
d
f
f
uf
0.94 f
c
(106)
where:
= 0.65 in [3] and 0.85 in [17]
Based on the guidelines provided in reference [3],
simplified design guidelines of the minimum edge
distances calculated with equation (106) using equal
to 0.65 are presented in reference [39] which are as
follows:
for Grade 250 bars and Grade 4.6 bolts:
a
e
12d
f
minimum bolt spacing 16d
f
for Grade 8.8 bolts:
a
e
17d
f
minimum bolt spacing 24d
f
These minimum bolt spacings intend to avoid
overlapping of anchors concrete failure cones. These
have also been recommended in reference [26].
For completeness minimum edge distances have been
derived in Section 12. based on equation (106) with
equal to0.65and0.85. Alsosimplifiedexpressions have
been derived as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 Grade rods
f
c
a
e
0.65 20 13 d
f
0.65 25 12 d
f
0.65 32 11 d
f
0.85 20 11 d
f
0.85 25 10 d
f
0.85 32 10 d
f
Table 5 Grade 8.8 bolts
f
c
a
e
0.65 20 18 d
f
0.65 25 17 d
f
0.65 32 16 d
f
0.85 20 16 d
f
0.85 25 15 d
f
0.85 32 14 d
f
References [26] and [47] recommend edge distances
based on values equal to 0.85.
In the case the side cover is less than a
e
(calculated with
equation (106)) caution should be placed in the design
and positioning of the reinforcement. The shear
capacity of an anchor bolt located at a distance less than
a
e
3 froma concrete edge should be ignored. Adopting
a similar reinforcement layout as suggested in Fig. 35 to
resist direct tensile loading it has been observed by
limited testing that concrete failure would occur when
anchor bolts are located with a side cover less than
2a
e
3.
Apossible reinforcement layout tobe utilisedinthe case
the side cover is in between a
e
3 and 2a
e
3is shown in
Fig. 61. Allowance for the full development of the
reinforcement should be allowed for in accordance with
AS3600 regardless of the reinforcement layout adopted
and in the case such allowance is not feasible the shear
capacity of the anchor bolt with edge distance problems
should be disregarded. [2][17]
Experimental studies have shown that possible failure
modes which can occur by transferring shear actions by
means of anchor bolts are concrete failure with and
without wedge cone, concrete failure withpull--out cone
and shear failure of the anchor bolt. [45]
Shear force
Potential
failure zone
* -- Development
length from AS3600
*
*
Figure 61 Reinforcement for Shear
Near an Edge of Concrete
Foundation (Ref. [2])
[45] notes that by ensuring sufficient embedment length
of the anchor bolt no concrete pull--out can occur. The
concrete edge cone failure can be prevented if either an
edge distance a
e
as determined in equation (106) or
adequate reinforcement are provided. From test data,
[45] concludes that among available guidelines the one
of [3], outlined in equation (106), is the most
appropriate.
[45] shows that equation (106) is not applicable to
anchor bolt groups as it can lead to unsafe design
particularly for large edge distances and that the
nominal concrete capacity is related to both edge
distance and bolt spacing. [45] provides no alternative
design guidelines but notes that from experimental
results the nominal capacity of a two bolt group may
only be 60%more than that of a single bolt for the same
edge distance.[45]
No guidance is currently available for calculating the
nominal shear capacity of anchor bolt groups.
It is interestingtonote that for the case where a grout pad
exists between the base plate and the concrete, the grout
pad allows bending deformation of the anchor bolt to
occur under an applied shear force. The lateral
deformation of the bolt leads to tensile stress in the bolt
but this is generally insufficient to cause pullout. [38]
Some authors do not recommend that shear be resisted
by the anchor bolts.
Ricker in[38] specificallynotes that anchor bolts should
not be used to resist shear forces in a column base. In his
opinion bolts have a low bending resistance and that if
a plate eases sideways to bear against a bolt, bending is
inducedinthe bolt whichacts as a cantilever witha lever
arm equal to the grout thickness plus an additional
distance should the concrete foundation crush locally.
Fischer in [24] notes that in his opinion no more than
two anchor bolts for each anchor group would transfer
shear. He explains that under normal loading condition
only one bolt would be carrying shear in bearing as
shown in Fig. 62. The column would then rotate subject
to a shear action till a second anchor would go into
bearing. Due to the oversize holes specified in base
plates it is not possible to ensure that the bolts of the bolt
group would deformsufficiently to allowall bolts to go
into bearing. [24]
Ref. [31] considers that, in the case of base plates, there
is not enough data available to precisely quantify the
shear strength of an individual anchor bolt, much less a
group of anchor bolts.
Figure 62 Transfer of shear by bearing of
anchor bolts
DeWolf in [22] recommends to avoid the use of anchor
bolts to resist shear and suggests that the transfer of
shear through anchor bolts takes place by either shear
friction or bearing.
In the former instance the transfer of shear occurs once
a clamping force is developed to the base plate. [22]
Even if the anchor bolts are not tightened properly the
clamping force can still develop as a consequence of a
wedge concrete failure which would tend to lift the base
plate up and therefore tensioning the anchor bolts. [31]
No specific guidelines are available to evaluate the
contribution of the clamping force to the shear
resistance of the bolt and in practice this clamping force
may not necessary be available.
The other transfer mode of anchor bolts described by
DeWolf is by bearing between the anchor and the bolt
hole, but he regards this very unlikely to occur in
practice in more than one or two anchors as the bolt
holes of base plates are usually oversized holes. [22] He
also notes that a more reliable method of shear transfer
through the anchor bolts can be achieved by welding the
nuts to the base plate or by providing special washers
with normal size holes (bolt dia + 2 mm) which fit over
the oversize holes and are welded to the base plate. [21]
Anchor bolt
Projected area
of wedge cone
Anchor bolt
a
e
a
e
= 45
o
Top of
concrete
block
Overlapped
area
Anchor bolts
a
e
a
e
45
o
Figure 63 Concrete edge failure cones

(Ref. [45])
Ref. [34] notes that it is common and successful
industrial practice to use anchor bolts of pinned--base
portals to resist the shear forces while recommending
the following design guidelines:
if shear force is less than 20% of the axial load,
then no special provisions are required;
for higher levels of shear force, it suggests that
great attention be paid to ensuring good grouting
under the base plate and around the anchor bolts
using a mix of minimum shrinkage;
excessive clearance between the anchor bolts and
the holes in the base plate should be avoided;
to avoid possible horizontal deformation of the
column the shear actions should be transferred
either by recessing the base plate into concrete, or
by means of a shear key or by tying the steel
columns to share the load among adjacent
columns.
6.4.2. Shear and Axial Tension
The ability of anchor bolts to transfer shear actions was
considered in the previous paragraph. Here only
available models to describe the interaction of shear and
tension are considered.
[39] notes that most references suggest the use of a
parabolic interaction equation, similar to the one
adopted for conventional bolts as also specified in AS
4100 [11], for the design of the anchor bolts. Shipp and
Haninger suggest in [39] that the total area of anchor
bolt required should be the sumof that required to resist
tension and that required to resist shear. They argue that
the shear force causes a bearing failure near the concrete
surface and translates the shear load on the anchor bolt
into an effective tension load by friction, so that the bolt
must have enough tensioncapacity toresist botheffects.
[30] notes that for an anchor bolt subject to both shear
force and axial tension, design difficulties exist because
the interaction of shear and tension is not understood
and generally a straight line interaction relationship is
assumed, which requires the total steel bolt area be
obtained by adding the area required for shear force and
the area required for tension. [30] notes that this
approach is conservative but is warranted since test data
concerning combined shear and tension are lacking for
most anchors.
Reference [20] suggests an elliptical interaction
relationship between tension and shear for the design of
anchor bolts while considering the linear interaction
relationship to be conservative.
References [2] and [17] recommend, in the case of
anchor bolts subject to combined shear and tension, to
adopt the design recommendations regarding minimum
embedment length and edge distances provided in the
case of anchor bolts subject to tension and shear
separately.
6.5.1. Introduction
The recommended design model allows shear action to
be transferred by friction between the base plate and the
concrete/grout base, by recessing the base plate into the
concrete footing, by a shear key or by a combination of
the above.
It is in the authors opinion that due to the uncertainty
regarding the ability of anchor bolts to transfer shear it
is left up to designer to decide whether or not to design
the anchor bolts to carry shear actions.
6.5.2. Design criteria
The recommended model for the design of base plate
subject to shear or combined shear and axial actions is
base on the following design criteria:
V
des
=

V
f
+V
s
, V
w
min
V
*
(107)
N
des.c
N
*
c
N
des.t
N
*
t
v
des
= v
w
v
*
w
where:
V
des
connection
V
f
transferred by means of friction
V
s
V
w
= design shear capacity of the weld connecting
N
des.t
subject to axial tension as determined in Section
5.4.
N
des.c
subject to axial compression as determined in
Section 4.3.
N
*
t
= design axial tension load
N
*
c
= design axial compression load
v
des
= v
w
=design capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column per unit length of
weld
v
*
w
= design load per unit length acting on the weld
connecting the base plate to the column. Its
direction depends upon the combined shear and
axial loading
The additional check on the weld capacity is required as
the critical action acting on the weld (between column
and base plate) is caused by a combination of shear and
axial loading.
6.5.3. Design of shear transfer by friction
and by recessing the base plate in the
concrete
The design shear capacity of the base plate transferred
by means of friction and by recessing the base plate into
the concrete footing is calculated as follows:
V
f
= N
*
c
(108)
where:
= 0.8
= 0.9 -- concrete or grout against as--rolled steel
when the contact plane is the full base plate
thickness below the concrete surface (i.e.
recessed)
= 0.7 -- for concrete or grout placed against the
as--rolled steel surface with the contact plane
coincidental with the concrete surface
= 0.55 -- for grouted conditions with the contact
plane between the grout and the as--rolled steel
exterior to the concrete surface (normal
condition)
6.5.4. Design of the column weld
The design action applied to the weld between the
column and the base plate is calculated as follows:
v
*
w
= v
*
h
2
+ v
*
v
2
(109)
where:
v
*
h
and v
*
v
=components of the loading carried bythe
weld between column and base plate in one
horizontal direction in the plane of the base plate
and in the vertical direction respectively per unit
length
v
*
h
=
V
*
L
w
v
*
v
=
N
*
c
L
w
if the column end is not prepared for full
contact
= 0 if the column end is prepared for full
contact (under axial compression only)
The fillet weld capacity between the column and the
base plate v
w
is designed in accordance with Clause
9.7.3.10 of AS 4100 [11] as follows:
v
w
= 0.6f
uw
t
t
k
r
(110)
where:
AS 4100)
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of the fillet
weld capacity v
w
.
6.5.5. Design of shear transfer by a shear key
The shear capacity of a shear key can be calculated once
the bearing and pull--out capacity of the concrete, the
shear capacityof the shear keydue toits nominal section
moment capacity and the weld capacity between the
shear key and the base plate are determined as shown
below.
V
s
=

V
s.c
; V
s.cc
; V
s.b
; V
s.w
min
V
*
(111)
where:
V
s
V
s.c
= concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
V
s.cc
= pull--out capacity of the concrete
V
s.b
= shear capacity of the shear key based on its
section moment capacity
V
s.w
= shear capacity of the weld between the
shear key and the base plate
The concrete bearing capacity of the shear key V
s.c
is
V
s.c
= 0.85f
c
L
s
(b
s
t
g
) (112)
where:
= 0.6
L
s
and b
s
= length and depth of the shear key as
shown in Fig. 64
t
g
t
s
Shear Key
b
s
L
s
Figure 64 Shear Key Details (Ref. [26])
In the case the shear key is located near a concrete edge
the capacity of the concrete could be reduced by the
formation of a failure surface radiating at 45 degrees
from the shear keys edges towards the concrete edge.
The concrete capacitycalculatedover the projectedarea
of such failure surface ignoring the shear key area is
determined as follows:
V
s.cc
= 0.33 f
c
A
psk
V
s.c
(113)
where:
= 0.7 (based on as required for Clause 9.2.3 of
AS3600)
A
psk
= projected area over the concrete edge
ignoring the shear key area
The shear capacity of the shear key based on its nominal
section moment capacity V
s.b
V
s.b
=
0.9f
ys
b
s
+t
g
t
2
s
L
s
2
(114)
The capacity of the fillet weld connecting the shear key
to the base plate V
s.w
calculated in the direction
perpendicular to the shear key is determined as follows
(assuming the shear key is welded all around):
V
s.w
=
v
w
2L
s
1 +
b
s
+t
s
2
t
s
(115)
where:
v
w
length (as calculated in equation (110) or as
tabulated in Section 13.)
7. BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS
DETAILING
Typical base plate layouts considered in this paper are
shown in Figs. 65, 66, 67 and 68.
Typical anchor bolts used in base plate applications are
cast--in anchors of category 4.6/S and of diameter either
M16, M20, M24 or M30. Masonry anchors of diameter
M16, M20, M24 may also be used.
Component
to suit
Grout pad
s
g
Typical
Typical
Figure 65 2--bolt base plate to UB /UC column
(Ref. [26])
s
p
s
g
Figure 66 4--bolt base plate to UB/UC column
(Ref. [26])
s
p
Figure 67 2--bolt base plate to channel column
(Ref. [26])
Anchor Bolt Location
Hole to allow grout
egress
Legend:
Figure 68 2--bolt base plate to hollow columns
(Ref. [26])
Preferred anchor bolt gauge (s
g
) and pitch (s
p
) are given
in Reference [12].
The weld all round philosophy sometimes adopted in
the weld design of base plates can lead to over--welding
and can become very expensive. The details shown in
Figs. 65, 66, 67 and 68 can, if designed for light
loadings, tend to the other extreme and some fabricators
may prefer to increase the amount of welding above that
shown on the design drawings in order to prevent
damage during handling and shipping. There is usually
a compromise possible between these two extremes.
Another design consideration is the likelihood of a
nominally pinned base being subjected to some bending
moment in a real situation. [26]
Prior to erecting the column/base plate assembly, the
level of the base plate area shouldbe surveyedandshims
placed to indicate the correct level of the underside of
the base plate as shown in Fig. 69. For heavier column
/ baseplateassemblies, levelling--nut arrangements may
be used in order to allow accurate levelling of the base
plate as outlinedin [7] and [38]. Hole sizes in base plates
may be up to 6mm larger than the anchor bolt diameter
in accordance with Clause 14.3.5.2 of AS 4100 [11].
Level of U/S
Baseplate
Concrete surface
Shims
Figure 69 Use of shims for levelling purposes
(Ref. [26])
Holes require a special plate washer of 4 mmminimum
thickness under the nut if the bolt hole is more than3mm
larger than the anchor bolt diameter.
Base plates should be provided with at least one grout
inspection hole through which the grout will rise
indicating a satisfactory grouting operation.
Anchor bolts are usuallygalvanized, evenfor aninterior
application, in order to avoid corrosion during the
construction period where the steel columns may stand
for some time in the open air.
The size and location of any permanent steel shims
under the base plate should be shown on the drawings.
Temporary packers which are used for erection
purposes until the underside of the base plate is grouted
or concreted should be left to the erector to detail.
The minimum space between the underside of the base
plate and the concrete foundation should be:
25 mm for grouting;
50 mm for mortar bedding;
75 mm for concrete bedding.
Tolerances on anchor bolt positions and level of base
plate should conformto the provisions of Clause 5.12 of
AS 4100.[11]
[24] notes that possible design and detailing problems
for base plates include:
inadequate development of the anchor bolts for
tension and of concrete reinforcing steel;
improper selection of anchor bolt material;
inadequate base plate thickness;
poor placement of anchor bolts;
shear and fatigue loading on anchor bolts.
Based on a survey carried out in the UK [29] notes that
poor fit of base plates onto holding down bolts is among
one of the four most commonly reported problems of
lack of fit on site.
To ensure that the bolt centres match the nominated
centres and the hole centres drilled in the base plate, the
bolts are often caged into a group as shown in Fig. 70.
Also useful is the provision of cored holes usually
formed by using polystyrene which allow the
adjustment of anchor bolt positions once the concrete is
cast in order to exactly match the hole centres in the base
plate as already shown in Fig. 32.
Anchor bolt centres must comply with the tolerances set
out in Clause 15.3.1 of AS4100 as shown in see Fig. 71.
Tack weld 10mm
reinforcing bars to
form cage -- no
tacks on HS bolts.
Figure 70 Locating Holding Down Bolts
with a Cage (Ref. [26])
1 2 3
Specified dimension (+/-- 6 in every 30m
but not greater than +/-- 25 overall)
Max deviation +/-- 6
Detail of off--centre
location of anchor bolts
C/L Anchor bolts
+/-- 3
+/-- 3
C/L Grid
C/L Grid
C/L Anchor bolts
Unless otherwise
specified, dimensions
are in millimetres
4
Max deviation +/-- 6 if
column offset from main
column line.
Main
column
C/L grid
Figure 71 Tolerances in Anchor Bolt Location
after AS 4100 (Ref. [26])
[19] and [38] present a discussion of a number of
practical aspects of the use of anchor bolts and should
be referred to if problems arise on site. [19] deals with
general aspects regarding design, installation,
anchorage, corrosion of anchor bolts, bedding and
grouting as well as the responsibilities of all parties in
the construction process but no firm recommendations
are made on design however.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper startedfromthe verysignificant workcarried
out by Tim Hogan and Ian Thomas who collated the
majority of the research results on steel connections
from around the world in Ref [26]. Valuable input and
support for this current work has come from OneSteel
-- in particular Anthony Ng, Gary Yumand Nick van der
Kreek. The ASI State Managers -- Leigh Wilson, Rupert
Grayston, John Gardner and Scott Munter have all
contributed industry insights. Several overseas
researchers, notably Jeffery Packer and John DeWolf,
have contributedsignificantlyinthis area andtheir work
and comments are acknowledged.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Ahmed, S. and Kreps, R.R., Inconsistencies in
Column base Plate design in the New AISC
ASD Manual, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 27, No. 3,
1990, pp 106 -- 107.
[2] American Concrete Institute, Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Structures, ACI 349 -- 90, Manual of Concrete
Practice (1994).
[3] American Concrete Institute, Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Structures, ACI 349 -- 1976, Manual of
Concrete Practice.
[4] American Institute of Steel Construction,
Detailing for Steel Construction, Second
Edition, 2002.
Manual of Steel Construction -- Load and
Resistance Factor Design, Third Edition,
2001.
Manual of Steel Construction -- Volume II
Connections, Ninth Ed./First Edition, 1992.
Manual of Steel Construction -- Load and
Resistance Factor Design, First Edition, 1986.
[8] AS/NZ 1170.0:2002 -- Structural design
actions -- Part 0: General principles, 2002
[9] AS 1275 -- Metric Screw Threads for
Fasteners, 1985.
[10] AS 3600 -- Concrete Structures, 2001.
[11] AS 4100 -- Steel Structures , 1998.
[12] Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
Standardized Structural Connections, Third
Edition, 1985.
[13] Ballio, G. and Mazzolani, F.M., Theory and
Design of Steel Structures, Chapman and
Hall, 1983.
[14] Bangash, M.Y.H., Structural detailing in
Steel, Thomas Telford, 2000
[15] Bickford, J.H. and Nassar, S., Handbook of
Bolts and Bolted joints, Marcel Dekker, 1998
[16] Blodgett, O., Design of Welded Structures,
The James F Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation,
Fifth Printing, 1972, Section 3.3.
[17] Cannon, R.W., Godfrey, D.A. and Moreadith,
F.L., Guide to the Design of Anchor Bolts and
Other Steel Embedments, Concrete
International, July 1981, pp 28 -- 41.
[18] Chen, W.F., Handbook of Structural
Engineering, CRC Press, 1997
[19] Concrete Society/British Constructional
Steelwork Association/Constructional Steel
Research and Development Organisation,
Holding Down Systems for Steel Stanchions,
1980.
[20] Cook, R. and Klingner, R., Behaviour of
Ductile Multiple--Anchor Steel--to Concrete
Connections with Surface--Mounted
Baseplates, from Anchors in Concrete --
Design and Behavior edited by Senkiw, G.A.
and Lancelot III, H.B., American Concrete
Institute, 1991
[21] DeWolf, J.T, Column Base Plates, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Design Guide
Series No. 1, 1990. (Publication also contains
Refs. [38] and [42])
[22] DeWolf, J.T, Column Anchorage Design,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
National Eng Conf., New Orleans,
Proceedings, Paper 15, April/May 1987.
[23] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures DD
ENV 1993--1--1 Part 1.1 General rules and
rules for buildings, 1992
[24] Fischer, J.M., Structural details in Industrial
buildings, Engineering Journal, American
1981, pp 83--89.
[25] Fling, R.S., Design of Steel Bearing Plates,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 7 No. 2, April 1970,
pp 37 -- 40.
[26] Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R., Design of
structural connections, Fourth Edition,
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
1994.
[27] Igarashi, S., Wakiyama, K., Inove, R.,
Matsumoto, T. and Murase, Y., Limit Design
of high strength Bolted Tube Flange joint --
Parts 1 -- 2, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering Transactions of AIJ,
Department of Architecture reports, Osaka
University, Japan, 1985.
[28] Jaspart, J.P. and Vandegans, D., Application of
the component method to column bases,
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong,
Vol.1, 1996, pp 139--144.
[29] Mann, A.P. and Morris, L.J., Lack of fit in
steel structures, CIRIA Report 87, 1981
[30] Marsh M.L. and Burdette, E.G., Multiple Bolt
Anchorages: Method for Determining the
Effective Projected Area of Overlapping Stress
Cones, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1,
1985, pp 29 -- 32.
[31] Marsh, M.L. and Burdette, E.G., Anchorage
of Steel Building Components to Concrete,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1, 1985, pp 33
-- 39.
[32] Murray, TM., Design of Lightly Loaded Steel
Column Base Plates, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol.
20 No. 4, 1983, pp 143 -- 152.
[33] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Post--Installed Anchors -- A Literature
Review, NISTIR 6096, 1998.
[34] Owens, G.W. and Cheal, B.D., Structural
Steelwork Connections, Butterworths,
London, 1989.
[35] Park, R. and Gamble, W.L., Reinforced
Concrete Slabs, Wiley, 1980.
[36] Parker, J.A. and Henderson, J.E., Hollow
structural section connections and trusses -- A
design guide, Second Edition, Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction, 1997.
[37] Parker, J.A., Design with structural steel
hollow sections -- Australian Institute of Steel
Construction Seminar, Australian Institute of
Steel Construction, March 1996.
[38] Ricker, D.T, Some Practical Aspects of
Column Base Selection, Engineering Journal,
26 No. 3, 1989, pp 81 -- 89.
[39] Shipp, J.G. and Haninger, E.R., Design of
Headed Anchor Bolts, Engineering Journal,
20 No. 2, 1983, pp 58 -- 69.
[40] Stockwell, F.W., Preliminary Base Plate
Selection, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 12 No. 3,
1975, pp 92 -- 93.
[41] Stockwell, F.W., Base Plate Design,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
National Eng Conf, Proceedings, Paper 49,
April/May 1987.
[42] Thornton W.A., Design of Small base Plates
for Wide Flange Columns, Engineering
Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1990, pp
108--110.
[43] Thornton W.A., Design of Base Plates for
Wide Flange Columns -- A Concatenation
Method, Engineering Journal, American
1990, pp 173--174.
[44] Ueda, T, Kitipornchai, S. and Ling, K.,
Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
Under Shear, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 1990
[45] Ueda, T, Kitipornchai, S. and Ling, K., An
Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
Under Shear, University of Queensland, Dept
of Civil Eng., Research Report No. CE93, Oct.
1988.
[46] Wood, R.H. and Jones, L.L., Yield--line
analysis of slabs, Thames and hudson, Chatto
& Windus, London, 1967.
[47] Woolcock, S.T, Kitipornchai, S. and Bradford,
M.A., Limit State Design of Portal Frame
Buildings, Second Edition, Australian
Institute of Steel Construction, 1993.
10. APPENDIX A -- Derivation of Design
and Check Expressions for Steel Base
Plates Subject to Axial Compression
The design model for base plates subject to axial
compression recommended in this paper is a modified
version of Thornton Model presented in [43] which is
suitable for H--shaped columns only. Its derivation has
also been extended here for channels and hollow
sections.
The recommended model concatenates the Cantilever,
Fling and Murray--Stockwell Models as follows:
t
i
a
m
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
a
m
= max(a
1
, a
2
, a
4
)
For clarity the model which describes the design of base
plates subject to uniform pressure using yield line
theory is referred to throughout this section as Yield
Line Model. In the case of H--shaped sections Fling
Model and the Yield Line Model coincide. The assumed
yield line patterns are based on the external dimensions
of the column profile.
Values of a
1
and a
2
are available in [21], [26] and [36]
for H--shaped columns, channels and hollow sections
while values of and a
4
are available in [5] and [43] for
only H--shaped sections.
In the recommended model presented here the values of
and a
4
have been re--derived and modified for
H--shaped sections and have been derived for channels
and hollow sections.
The derivationof suchvalues is outlinedbelowbasedon
a procedure similar to the one utilised by Thornton in
[43]. The values of and a
4
allow the inclusion in the
recommended model of the results obtained with
Murray--Stockwell Model and with the Yield Line
Model respectively. It is important tonote that, similarly
to Thornton Model, the recommended model always
adopts the thinnest plate determined using
Murray--Stockwell Model and the Yield Line Model.
In the following derivation the values of a
4
are firstly
determinedtoinclude the YieldLine Model andthenthe
value of to include Murray--Stockwell Model is
determined.
A.1 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES
-- H--SHAPED SECTIONS
A.1.1 DETERMINATION OF a
4
(Yield Line Model -- Fling Model)
The base plate is designed assuming a yield line pattern
as shown in Fig. 72. The present derivation is suitable
for H--shaped sections for which b
fc
2 is less than d
c
as
a different yield line pattern would otherwise occur.
Dashed lines
d
1
b
es
Figure 72 Yield line pattern for H--shaped
sections
The base plate is considered to be simply supported
along the flanges, fixed along the web and free along the
edge opposite to the web. Solutions from yield line
theory are available for this kind of support conditions
carrying a uniformly distributed load f
*
p
and based on
the results presented in [35]:
f
*
p
=
24m
p
1 +
4+48
2
2
4
2

b
2
fc
3
4+48
2
2
4
2

(116)
where:
= d
c
b
fc
In this case the uniformload f
*
p
f
*
p
=
N
*
c
d
i
b
i
The required design plastic moment m
p
to support a
uniform pressure of f
*
p
is obtained by re--arranging
equation (116) as follows:
m
p
= f
*
p
b
2
fc
24
6
2
1 + 12
2
+1
2
2
+ 1 + 12
2
1
=
1
8
f
*
p
b
2
fc
2
(117)
where:
2
=
1
3
6
2
1 + 12
2
+ 1
2
2
+ 1 + 12
2
1
The value of
2
introduced in equation (117) is
approximated by the following expression with an error
of --0%(unconservative) and+17.7%(conservative) for
values of (which is equal to d
c
b
fc
) between 3/4 and
3:
=
1
2

(118)
The required plate thickness to support f
*
p
can be
determined by equating the nominal section moment
capacity of the plate m
s
(per unit width) to the required
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows:
m
s
=
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4

1
8
f
*
p
b
2
fc
2
= m
p
(119)
and re--arranging equation (119) in terms of the required
plate thickness yields:
t
i
=
1
4
d
c
b
fc
2f
*
p
0.9f
yi
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(120)
where:
a
4
=
1
4
d
c
b
fc
A.1.2 DETERMINATION OF
(Murray--Stockwell Model)
The thickness of the base plate calculated according to
Murray--Stockwell Model is determined as follows:
t
i
= a
3
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
A
H
(121)
It is interestingtonote how, inthe formulationpresented
in [5], [42] and [43], the load adopted in equation (121)
would have been equal to N
*
0
instead of N
*
c
, where N
*
0
is the portion of full column load N
*
c
acting over the
column footprint under the assumption of uniform
bearing pressure, while in the derivation presented the
full column load N
*
c
is assumed to be applied on the
H--shaped area A
H
.
Referring to Fig. 11 the H--shaped bearing area A
H
can
be expressed as follows:
A
H
= 2a
3
a
5
4a
2
3
(122)
where:
a
5
= b
fc
+d
c
In this derivation, similarly to Thornton Model, the
iterative procedure for the calculation of A
H
and f
b
described in the literature review is not implemented
and is terminated at the first iteration. The value of the
maximum bearing strength of the concrete f
b
is
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(123)
where:
= 0.6
A
1
= bearing area equal to the base plate area A
i
The H--shaped area A
H
is defined as the area able to
support the applied axial compression load N
*
c
at a
b
.
A
H
=
N
*
c
f
b
(124)
Substituting equations (122) and (123) into equation
(124) and solving for a
3
the following expression for a
3
is obtained:
a
3
=
f
b
a
5
(f
b
a
5
)
2
4f
b
N
*
c
4f
b
=
a
5
4

1 1 X

(125)
where:
X =
4N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
Substituting the value of a
3
calculated in equation (125)
into equation (122) yields, after simplifying, the
following expression for the H--shaped bearing area
A
H
:
A
H
=
a
2
5
X
4
(126)
The required plate thickness can now be calculated
substituting the values of A
H
and a
3
calculated from
equations (125) and (126) into equation (121).
t
i
=
a
5
4

1 1 X

8N
*
c
0.9f
yi
a
2
5
X
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(127)
where:
= 2
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
fc
1 + 1 X

-- CHANNELS
4
(Yield Line Model)
The yield line pattern assumed in the case of channels is
similar to the one assumed in the case of H--shaped
column sections as shown in Fig. 73 and it is suitable for
channels with b
fc
less than d
c
, as a different yield line
pattern would otherwise occur.
Dashed lines
Figure 73 Yield line pattern for Channels
The base plate is considered to be simply supported
along the flanges and the web and free at the edge
opposite to the web. Available solutions as proposed in
[35] for a uniformly distributed load f
*
p
are utilised.
f
*
p
=
8m
p
4+9
2
2
2
b
2
fc
3
4
3
4+9
2
2
2

(128)
where:
= d
c
b
fc
Similarly to the case of H--shaped column sections the
uniform load f
*
p
f
*
p
=
N
*
c
d
i
b
i
The required design plastic moment m
p
to support a
*
p
is obtained by re--arranging
equation (128) as follows:
m
p
= f
*
p
b
2
fc
9
2
4 4 + 9
2
+ 8
24
4 + 9
2
2
= f
*
p
b
2
fc
2
(129)
where:
2
=
9
2
4 4 + 9
2
+ 8
24 4 + 9
2
48
The value of
2
introduced in equation (129) can be
of --0% (unconservative) and +6.7% (conservative) for
c
b
fc
) between 1.25 and
4 (which include the channel sections available in
Australia):
=
1
3

(130)
*
p
can be
s
m
s
=
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4
f
*
p
b
2
fc
2
= m
p
(131)
t
i
=
2d
c
b
fc
3
2f
*
p
0.9f
yi
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(132)
where:
a
4
=
2d
c
b
fc
3
The thickness of the base plate calculated according to
Murray--Stockwell Model is determined as follows:
t
i
= a
3
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
A
H
(133)
Referring to Fig. 12 the assumed bearing area A
H
can be
expressed as follows:
A
H
= a
3
a
5
2a
2
3
(134)
where:
a
5
= 2b
fc
+ d
c
The value of the maximum bearing strength of the
concrete f
b
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(135)
where:
= 0.6
A
1
i
The assumed area A
H
*
c
at a
b
.
A
H
=
N
*
c
f
b
(136)
3
3
is obtained:
a
3
=
f
b
a
5
(f
b
a
5
)
2
8f
b
N
*
c
4f
b
=
a
5
4

1 1 X

(137)
where:
X =
8N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
3
following expression for the assumed bearing area A
H
:
A
H
=
a
2
5
X
8
(138)
substituting the values of A
H
and a
3
calculated from
equations (137) and (138) into (133).
t
i
=
a
5
4

1 1 X

16N
*
c
0.9f
yi
a
2
5
X

= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(139)
where:
=
3
2
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
fc
1 + 1 X

-- RECTANGULAR HOLLOW SECTION
A similar procedure to the ones adopted in the case of
H--shaped sections and channels is adopted for
rectangular hollow sections.
4
(Yield Line Model)
The yield line pattern considered in the case of
rectangular hollow sections is shown in Fig. 74 and the
required design plastic moment m
p
under a uniform
pressure f
*
p
can be expressed as follows (based on [35]):
m
p
= f
*
p
b
2
c

1 + 3
2
1
2
24
2
= f
*
p
b
2
c
2
(140)
where:
2
=
1 + 3
2
1
2
24
2
f
*
p
=
N
*
c
d
i
b
i
= d
c
b
c
b
c
d
c
Figure 74 Yield line pattern for Rectangular
Hollow Sections
The plate is assumed to be simply supported along all
the edges.
The value of
2
introduced in equation (140) can be
of --0%(unconservative) and +11.1%(conservative) for
c
b
c
) between 3/4 and
4:
=

23
(141)
*
p
can be
s
m
s
=
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4
f
*
p
b
2
c
2
= m
p
(142)
t
i
=
2d
c
b
c
23
2f
*
p
0.9f
yi
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(143)
where:
a
4
=
2d
c
b
c
23
H
can be
A
H
= 2a
3
a
5
4a
2
3
(144)
where:
a
5
= b
c
+ d
c
concrete f
b
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(145)
where:
= 0.6
A
1
i
The assumed area A
H
*
c
at a
b
.
A
H
=
N
*
c
f
b
(146)
3
3
is obtained:
a
3
=
2f
b
a
5
4(f
b
a
5
)
2
16f
b
N
*
c
8f
b
=
a
5
4

1 1 X

(147)
where:
X =
4N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
3
following expression for the assumed bearing area A
H
:
A
H
=
a
2
5
X
4
(148)
utilising the values of A
H
and a
3
calculated from
equations (147) and (148) as previously carried out for
H--shaped sections and channels.
t
i
=
a
5
4

1 1 X

8N
*
c
0.9f
yi
a
2
5
X
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(149)
where:
=
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
c
23
8
1 + 1 X
1.7
d
i
b
i
d
c
b
c
1 + 1 X

-- SQUARE HOLLOW SECTION
A similar procedure to the one previously adopted is
carried out for square hollow sections.
A.4.1 DETERMINATIONOF a
4
(YieldLine Model)
The yield line pattern considered in the case of
rectangular hollow sections is shown in Fig. 75 and the
required design plastic moment m
p
under a uniform
pressure f
*
p
can be expressed as follows (based on [35]
and [46]):
m
p
=
f
*
p
b
2
c
21.4
(150)
where:
f
*
p
=
N
*
c
d
i
b
i
b
c
b
c
Figure 75 Yield line pattern for Square Hollow
Sections
the edges.
*
p
can be
s
m
s
=
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4

f
*
p
b
2
c
21.4
= m
p
(151)
t
i
=
1
10.7
b
c
2f
*
p
0.9f
yi
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(152)
where:
a
4
=
1
10.7
b
c

1
3
b
c
H
can be
A
H
= 2a
3
a
5
4a
2
3
(153)
where:
a
5
= 2b
c
concrete f
b
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(154)
where:
= 0.6
A
1
i
The assumed area A
H
*
c
at a
b
.
A
H
=
N
*
c
f
b
(155)
In a similar manner as previously carried out the value
of a
3
can be determined as follows:
a
3
=
b
c
2

1 1 X

(156)
where:
X =
4N
*
c
f
b
a
2
5
and the value of the assumed bearing area A
H
can be
A
H
=
a
2
5
X
4
= b
2
c
X (157)
The required plate thickness can now be calculated.
t
i
=
b
c
2

1 1 X

2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
b
2
c
X

= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(158)
where:
=
3
2
d
i
b
i
b
c
X
1 + 1 X

-- CIRCULAR HOLLOW SECTION
A similar procedure to the one previously adopted is
carried out for circular hollow sections.
4
(Yield line theory)
The yield line pattern considered in the case of circular
hollow sections is shown in Fig. 76 and the required
design plastic moment m
p
under a uniformpressure f
*
p
can be expressed as follows (based on [35]):
m
p
=
f
*
p
d
2
0
24
(159)
where:
f
*
p
=
N
*
c
d
i
b
i
d
o
Figure 76 Yield line pattern for Circular
Hollow Sections
the edges.
*
p
can be
s
m
s
=
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4

f
*
p
d
2
0
24
= m
p
(160)
t
i
=
d
0
2 3
2f
*
p
0.9f
yi
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(161)
where:
a
4
=
d
0
2 3
Referring to figure 14 the assumed bearing area A
H
can
be expressed as follows:
A
H
=

4
[d
2
0
(d
0
2a
3
)
2
]= (a
3
d
0
a
2
3
) (162)
concrete f
b
f
b
= min0.85f
c
A
2
A
1
, 2f
c
(163)
where:
= 0.6
A
1
i
The assumed area A
H
*
c
at a
b
.
A
H
=
N
*
c
f
b
(164)
In a similar manner as previously carried out the value
of a
3
can be determined as follows:
a
3
=
d
0
2

1 1 X

(165)
where:
X =
4N
*
c
d
2
0
f
b
and the value of the assumed bearing area A
H
can be
A
H
=
d
2
0
X
4
(166)
The required plate thickness can now be calculated.
t
i
=
d
0
2

1 1 X

8N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
2
0
X
= a
4
2N
*
c
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(167)
where:
=
12
d
i
b
i
d
0
X
1 + 1 X
2
d
i
b
i
d
0
X
1 + 1 X
A.6 DERIVATION FOR CHECK PURPOSES

-- ALL SECTIONS
The base plate capacity for a given base plate according
to each Model considered is first determined and then a
unique expression which concatenates them is derived.
The following notation is used in the derivation:
N
c.1
=designcapacitybasedon a
1
of the Cantilever
Model
N
c.2
=designcapacitybasedon a
2
of the Cantilever
Model
N
c.3
= design capacity based on the Yield Line
Model
N
c.4
= design capacity based on Murray --
Stockwell Model
N
c.1
=
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
t
2
i
2a
2
1
(168)
N
c.2
=
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
t
2
i
2a
2
2
(169)
N
c.3
=
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
t
2
i
2a
2
4
(170)
The calculation of the design capacity N
c.4
based on
Murray--Stockwell model requires the following
derivation:
t
i
= a
4
2N
c.4
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
=
N
c.4
Y
1 + 1 N
c.4
Y
ka
4
2
0.9f
yi
d
i
b
i
(171)
where:
= k
X
1 + 1 X
X = N
c.4
Y
and re--arranging equation (171) yields:
N
c.4
=
0.9f
yi
b
i
d
i
2a
2
4
t
2
i
(172)
where:
=
1
k
2
2ka
4
t
i
Y
2
0.9f
yi
b
i
d
i
1
The design capacity of the base plate is then calculated
as follows:
N
c
= min(N
c.1
, N
c.2
, N
c.5
) (173)
where:
N
c.5
= max(N
c.3
, N
c.4
)
and N
c.1
, N
c.2
, N
c.3
and N
c.4
area calculated as
shown in equations (168), (169), (170) and (172).
11. APPENDIX B-- Derivation of Design and
Check Expressions for Steel Base
Plates Subject to Axial Tension
The derivation of the expressions for the design and
check of base plate subject to axial tensile loading has
been here carried out for common base plate layouts
when no design guidelines were found in literature.
Yield line theory, based on conservative yield line
patterns (in the authors opinion), has been utilised in
the derivation.
The plate moment capacity per unit length of yield line
has been calculated here based on the plastic section
modulus of the plate as alsocarriedout inAustralianand
American guidelines [5], [21] and [26]. It is interesting
to note that [23] recommends to use the elastic section
modulus.
The reduction of plate capacity due to the anchor bolt
holes has beenaccountedfor. Ignoringthe effects of bolt
holes is a substantial simplificationas alsonoted in[37].
Murray Model, which considers the design of base
plates for lightly loaded H--shaped columns with two
anchor bolts, has been here re--derived and modified to
include the plate reduction capacity due to bolt holes.
Here the yield lines are conservatively assumed to
remain inside the internal faces of the column profile,
while in Murray Model they extend to the centerline of
the web and to the outside faces of the flanges.
The derivations of the capacity or required thickness for
the yield line patterns considered have been carried out
for various combinations of column sections and
number of anchor bolts as listed in Section 5.4.7. The
derivation for the case of a H--shaped column with
anchor bolts, as shown in Fig. 77, is outlined below. All
other cases are considered in a similar manner and the
relevant expressions of their derivation are summarised
in Table 6. Similar considerations outlined for the
validity of the Yield Line Model for the case of a
H--shaped column section with 2 bolts can be applied to
the other base plate configurations considered.
B.1 H--SHAPED COLUMN WITH 2
ANCHOR BOLTS
In the case of H--shaped column sections with two
anchor bolts the yield line pattern assumed is shown in
Fig. 77. It is the same as the one considered in Murray
Model. The base plate dimensions are conservatively
assumed to be equal to the outside column dimensions
unless noted otherwise.
s
y
y
b
fc
d
c1
2
d
c1
2
t
w
Figure 77 Yield line pattern: H--shaped column
with 2 bolts
Considering the symmetry about the column web the
derivation of the internal work and external work is
carried out only considering half the plate area:
W
i
= m
p
1
y
4
b
fc1
2
2d
h
+
2
b
fc1
2y
= m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y
b
fc1
(174)
W
e
= 2N
*
b
s
b
fc1
(175)
where:
b
fc1
= b
fc
t
w
y and s are defined in Fig.77
Equating the internal and external work the expression
of the design axial tension load per bolt N
*
b
is obtained
as follows:
N
*
b
=
b
fc1
2s
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y
b
fc1
m
p
(176)
The value of ywhichminimises N
*
b
(or equivalentlythat
maximises the required m
p
) is determined
differentiating equation (176) for y.
dN
*
b
dy
=
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
2
+
4
b
fc1
= 0 (177)
Solving equation (177) for y yields:
y =
b
fc1
d
h
2
b
fc1
(178)
The presence of the flanges requires the value of y to be
always less or equal to d
c
2 and therefore y is
re--defined as follows:
y = min
d
c1
2
,
b
fc1
d
h
2
b
fc1
(179)
The design axial tension capacity of the base plate N
t
is then obtained re--arranging equation (176) as follows:
N
t
=

2b
2
fc1
2b
fc1
d
h
+ 4y
2
0.9f
yi
t
2
i
4sy
(180)
where:
y = as calculated from equation (179)
or equivalently the minimum plate thickness required
for a certain design tension load N
*
t
:
t
i

4syN
*
t
0.9f
yi
2b
2
fc1
2b
fc1
d
h
+ 4y
2
(181)
In this model the reduction in plate capacity due to the
presence of a bolt hole alongthe yieldline perpendicular
to the web has been included.
Further reductions due to other yield lines intersecting
bolt holes have not been considered as they are very
unlikely to occur and a more detailed analysis should be
carried out in such situation.
The critical yield line pattern is a function of the value
of y calculated fromequation (179). To ensure that none
of the oblique yield lines intersects the bolt hole, as
assumed in the model derived, the following simplified
condition needs to be satisfied:
y > l
2
(182)
where:
l
1
=
d
h
2
1
d
2
h
4s
2
l
2
=
l
1
l
3
s
d
2
h
4
l
2
1
and the notation is defined in Fig. 78.

d
2
h
4 l
2
1
l
1
l
2
s
diameter of hole = d
h
Web
Edge of plate
l
3
Figure 78 Yield line layout near the bolt hole
Substituting a nil value for the diameter of the bolt hole
d
h
in equations (179) and (181) would lead to the
determination of plate thicknesses t
i
similar to those
obtained with Murray Model.
Table 6 Summary of Internal and External Work for the Various Base Plate Configurations
(refer to figures of Section 5.4.7. to view the yield line patterns considered)
Section /
No. Bolts
Wi We y Restraints
H--shaped
section
2--bolts
m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y
b
fc1
2N
*
b
s
b
fc1 min
d
c1
2
,
b
fc1
--d
h
2
b
fc1

H--shaped
section
4--bolts (a)
2m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y
b
fc1
4N
*
b
s
b
fc1
b
fc1
d
h
2
b
fc1
y a
b
,
s
p
2
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (b)
m
p
2b
fc1
--2d
h
a
b
+
2b
fc1
--2d
h
y
+
4y+4a
b
b
fc1

4N
*
b
s
b
fc1
b
fc1
d
h
2
b
fc1
y
s
p
2
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (c)
m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y + 2s
p
b
fc1

4N
*
b
s
b
fc1 mina
b
,
b
fc1
--d
h
2
b
fc1

H--shaped
section
4--bolts (d)
m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y + 2s
p
2d
h
s

2N
*
b
mina
b
,
b
fc1
--d
h
2
s

H--shaped
section
4--bolts (e)
m
p
b
fc1
2d
h
a
b
+
4a
b
+ 2s
p
2d
h
s

2N
*
b
Channel
2--bolts m
p
4b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
2y
b
fc1
N
*
b
s
b
fc1 min
d
c1
2
, (2b
fc1
--d
h
)b
fc1

Channel
4--bolts (a) 4m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
2y
b
fc1
2N
*
b
s
b
fc1
(2b
fc1
d
h
)b
fc1
y a
b
,
s
p
2
Channel
4--bolts (b) m
p
4b
fc1
--2d
h
a
b
+
4b
fc1
--2d
h
y
+
2y+2a
b
b
fc1

2N
*
b
s
b
fc1
(2b
fc1
d
h
)b
fc1
y
s
p
2
Channel
4--bolts (c) m
p
4b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
2y + s
p
b
fc1

2N
*
b
s
b
fc1 min
a
b
, (2b
fc1
--d
h
)b
fc1

Channel
4--bolts (d)
m
p
4b
fc1
2d
h
y
+
4y + 2s
p
2d
h
s

2N
*
b
mina
b
,
2b
fc1
d
h
2
s

Channel
4--bolts (e) m
p
2b
fc1
2d
h
a
b
+
4a
b
+ 2s
p
2d
h
s

2N
*
b
Hollow
2--bolts (a)
m
u
4s
2
2d
h
y
+
2y
s
2
N
*
b
s
1
s
2
(2s
2
d
h
)s
2
2y l
i
Hollow
2--bolts (b)
m
p
l
i
s
4
N
*
b
s
3
s
4
Hollow
4--bolts (a)
m
u
4s
2
2d
h
y
+
2y + s
p
s
2

2N
*
b
s
1
s
2
(2s
2
d
h
)s
2
2y +s
p
l
i
Hollow
4--bolts (b) m
p
l
i
s
2
2N
*
b
s
3
s
4
12. APPENDIX C -- Determination of
Embedment Lengths and Edge
Distances
The recommended guidelines regarding the minimum
embedment lengths and concrete edge distances are
here derived in a similar manner as carried out in
references [39] and [47]. The guidelines derived in [39]
are also recommended in [21] and [26]. Differences
between the derivations carried out here and those
presented in references [39] and [47] are noted.
C.1 MINIMUM EMBEDMENT LENGTH
OF ANCHOR BOLTS
The recommended model requires the anchorage
system (anchor to concrete connection) to fail in a
ductile manner. This is achieved by ensuring that the
concrete capacity is greater than the tensile capacity of
the anchor bolt. [2]
Minimum embedment lengths are here derived,
similarly to [39], for isolated anchor bolts. Anchor bolts
in bolt groups might require longer embedment lengths
due to overlapping of the concrete failure envelopes.
The calculation of the concrete capacity is based on the
procedure described in the recommended model. The
concrete cone projected area is calculated ignoring the
area of the bolt calculated using the nominal bolt
diameter d
f
. In [39] the projected area is calculated
ignoring the area of a circle equivalent to the projected
area of a heavy hexagonal head. Comparing the ratios
L
d
d
f
(where L
d
is the minimum embedment length
required and d
f
is the nominal bolt diameter) regarding
the same types of bolts, the results obtained here appear
to be of the order of 1%more conservative than the ones
obtained in [39]. The further simplification of simply
considering the cone as starting at the embedded end of
the anchor bolt has been adopted in reference [47].
The concrete capacity is calculated as follows:
N
cc
= 0.33 f
c
A
ps
(183)
where:
= 0.7 (based required for Clause 9.2.3 of AS
3600) instead of 0.65 as adopted in references
[39] and [47]
A
ps
= L
d
+
d
f
2
d
f
2
2
=
= (L
2
d
+ d
f
L
d
)
The tensile capacity of the anchor bolt is determined in
accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2. of AS 4100 as follows:
N
tf
= A
s
f
uf
(184)
where:
A
s
= tensile stress area in accordance with AS 1275
[9]
The minimumembedment length is calculated equating
equations (183) and (184) as follows:
0.33 f
c
L
2
d
+ d
f
L
d
= A
s
f
uf
(185)
and solving for L
d
:
L
d
=
d
f
+ d
2
f
+ 4
2
100 (186)
where:
=
f
uf
A
s
0.33 f
c

The minimum embedment lengths derived and
recommended in [39] have been calculated adding an
additional safety factor of 1.33. The recommended
embedment lengths recommended here do not include
the additional safety factor of 1.33 (similarly to
reference [47]). For completeness the embedment
lengths have been here calculated with and without the
safety factor of 1.33.
The calculation of the minimumembedment lengths for
anchors with different bolts tensile strengths and for
different concrete strengths is carried out in Tables 7
and 8 in order to explicitly show how this additional
safety factor of 1.33 introduced in references [39] is
incorporated in the results.
The tabulated results are smaller than those presented in
reference [47] due to the different procedure utilised to
determine the projectedarea evenif here a equal to0.7
has been adopted.
Including the additional factor of safety
sf
= 1.33
recommended in reference [39] equation (186) can be
re--written as :
L
d
=
sf
d
2
f
+ d
2
f
+ 4
2
100 (187)
where:
sf
= 1.33
=
f
uf
A
s
0.33 f
c

Table 7 Minimumembedment lengths for Grade
4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
(f
uf
= 400 MPa)
Bolt
Type
d
f
mm
A
s
mm
2
f
c
MPa
L
d
mm
Min
ratio
L
d
/d
f
1.33
L
d
mm
1.33
L
d
/d
f
M12 12 84.3 20 100.0 8.4 127.8 10.7
M16 16 157 20 131.3 8.2 174.7 10.9
M20 20 225 20 164.1 8.2 218.2 10.9
M24 24 324 20 196.9 8.2 261.9 10.9
M30 30 519 20 248.4 8.3 330.3 11.0
M36 36 759 20 299.8 8.3 398.8 11.1
M12 12 84.3 25 100.0 8.4 120.5 10.0
M16 16 157 25 123.8 7.7 164.7 10.3
M20 20 225 25 154.6 7.7 205.7 10.3
M24 24 324 25 185.6 7.7 246.9 10.3
M30 30 519 25 234.1 7.8 311.4 10.4
M36 36 759 25 282.6 7.9 375.9 10.4
M12 12 84.3 32 100.0 8.4 112.8 9.4
M16 16 157 32 115.9 7.2 154.2 9.6
M20 20 225 32 144.8 7.2 192.6 9.6
M24 24 324 32 173.8 7.2 231.2 9.6
M30 30 519 32 219.3 7.3 291.6 9.7
M36 36 759 32 264.7 7.4 352.1 9.8
Table 8 Minimum embedment lengths
for Grade 8.8 bolts (f
uf
= 830 MPa except
f
uf
= 800 MPa for M12 bolts )
Bolt
Type
d
f
mm
A
s
mm
2
f
c
MPa
L
d
mm
Min
ratio
L
d
/d
f
1.33
L
d
mm
1.33
L
d
/d
f
M12 12 84.3 20 138.3 11.5 183.9 15.3
M16 16 157 20 192.5 12.0 256.1 16.0
M20 20 225 20 240.5 12.0 319.9 16.0
M24 24 324 20 288.7 12.0 384.0 16.0
M30 30 519 20 364.1 12.1 484.2 16.1
M36 36 759 20 439.5 12.2 584.5 16.2
M12 12 84.3 25 130.5 10.9 173.5 14.5
M16 16 157 25 181.7 11.4 241.6 15.1
M20 20 225 25 226.9 11.3 301.8 15.1
M24 24 324 25 272.4 11.4 362.3 15.1
M30 30 519 25 343.5 11.5 456.9 15.2
M36 36 759 25 414.7 11.5 551.5 15.3
M12 12 84.3 32 122.3 10.2 162.7 13.6
M16 16 157 32 170.3 10.6 226.6 14.2
M20 20 225 32 212.8 10.6 283.0 14.2
M24 24 324 32 255.4 10.6 339.7 14.2
M30 30 519 32 322.1 10.7 428.4 14.3
M36 36 759 32 388.8 10.8 517.1 14.4
Observing the results of Tables 7 and 8 the embedment
lengths requirements canbe simplifiedas shownbelow.
Table 9 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 grade rods
where
sf
is a safety factor introduced in
reference [39]
sf
f
c
(MPa)
L
d
1 20 9 d
f
1 25 9 d
f
1 32 9 d
f
1.33 20 12 d
f
1.33 25 11 d
f
1.33 32 10 d
f
Table 10 Grade 8.8 bolts where
sf
is a safety
factor introduced in reference [39]
sf
f
c
(MPa) L
d
1 20 13 d
f
1 25 12 d
f
1 32 11 d
f
1.33 20 17 d
f
1.33 25 16 d
f
1.33 32 15 d
f
C.2 MINIMUM CONCRETE EDGE
DISTANCES --
Anchor bolt subject to tension
[2] provides a design procedure to determine the
minimum concrete edge distances to avoid lateral
bursting of the concrete as discussed in the literature
reviewof anchor bolts subject to tension. This has been
included in the recommended model. The minimum
edge distance is calculated as follows:
a
e
= d
f
f
uf
6 f
c
(188)
The required minimum edge distances a
e
calculated
with equation (188) are tabulated in Tables 11 and 12 for
different combinations of anchor bolts and concrete
strengths.
Table 11 Minimum concrete edge distances for
anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade
250 rods (f
uf
= 400 MPa)
subject to tension
Bolt
type
d
f
(mm) f
c
(MPa)
a
e
(mm)
a
e
/ d
f
M12 12 20 46.3 3.9
M16 16 20 61.8 3.9
M20 20 20 77.2 3.9
M24 24 20 92.7 3.9
M30 30 20 115.8 3.9
M36 36 20 139.0 3.9
M12 12 25 43.8 3.7
M16 16 25 58.4 3.7
M20 20 25 73.0 3.7
M24 24 25 87.6 3.7
M30 30 25 109.5 3.7
M36 36 25 131.5 3.7
M12 12 32 41.2 3.4
M16 16 32 54.9 3.4
M20 20 32 68.7 3.4
M24 24 32 82.4 3.4
M30 30 32 103.0 3.4
M36 36 32 123.6 3.4
Table 12 Minimum concrete edge distances
for anchor bolts Grade 8.8 bolts
(f
uf
= 830 MPa except f
uf
= 800 MPa for
M12 bolts ) subject to tension
Bolt
type
d
f
(mm) f
c
(MPa)
a
e
(mm)
a
e
/ d
f
M12 12 20 65.5 5.5
M16 16 20 89.0 5.6
M20 20 20 111.2 5.6
M24 24 20 133.5 5.6
M30 30 20 166.9 5.6
M36 36 20 200.2 5.6
M12 12 25 62.0 5.2
M16 16 25 84.2 5.3
M20 20 25 105.2 5.3
M24 24 25 126.2 5.3
M30 30 25 157.8 5.3
M36 36 25 189.4 5.3
M12 12 32 58.3 4.9
M16 16 32 79.1 4.9
M20 20 32 98.9 4.9
M24 24 32 118.7 4.9
M30 30 32 148.4 4.9
M36 36 32 178.0 4.9
The values of minimum edge distances required
expressed in terms of d
f
can be summarised as follows:
a
e
= 4 d
f
when f
c
= 20, 25 and 32 MPa
for Grade 8.8 bolts
a
e
= 6 d
f
when f
c
= 20 and 25 MPa
= 5 d
f
when f
c
= 32 MPa
The recommended model requires the minimum edge
distance a
e
to be always at least equal to 100mm as
recommended in [21], [26] and [39]. Minimum edge
distance recommended in reference [47] is 50mm.
C.3 MINIMUM CONCRETE EDGE
DISTANCES --
Anchor bolt subject to shear
Guidelines on minimumedge distances to be adopted in
the case of bolts in shear are provided in [2], [3], [17],
[26], [39] and [47].
These are all based on the design procedure presented in
[2], [3] and [17] which requires the minimum edge
distance to be calculated as (refer equation (106)):
a
e
d
f
f
uf
0.94 f
c
(189)
where:
= 0.65 according to references [3] and [39]
=0.85 according to references [17], [26] and [47]
For completeness edge distances calculated with both
values of have been considered and tabulated here. It
is up to designer to decide whether or not to design the
anchor bolts to carry shear and to select a value of .
These values of a
e
are tabulated in tables 13, 14, 15 and
16 for different combinations of anchor bolts and
concrete strengths and for different values of .
for anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and
Grade 250 rods (f
uf
= 400 MPa)
subject to shear with = 0.65
Bolt
type
d
f
(mm) f
c
(MPa)
a
e
(mm)
a
e
/ d
f
M12 12 20 145.2 12.1
M16 16 20 193.6 12.1
M20 20 20 242.0 12.1
M24 24 20 290.4 12.1
M30 30 20 363.0 12.1
M36 36 20 435.6 12.1
M12 12 25 137.3 11.4
M16 16 25 183.1 11.4
M20 20 25 228.9 11.4
M24 24 25 274.6 11.4
M30 30 25 343.3 11.4
M36 36 25 411.9 11.4
M12 12 32 129.1 10.8
M16 16 32 172.1 10.8
M20 20 32 215.2 10.8
M24 24 32 258.2 10.8
M30 30 32 322.7 10.8
M36 36 32 387.3 10.8
(f
uf
= 830 MPa except f
uf
= 800 MPa for
M12 bolts) subject to shear with = 0.65
Bolt
type
d
f
(mm) f
c
(MPa)
a
e
(mm)
a
e
/ d
f
M12 12 20 205.3 17.1
M16 16 20 278.9 17.4
M20 20 20 348.6 17.4
M24 24 20 418.3 17.4
M30 30 20 522.9 17.4
M36 36 20 627.4 17.4
M12 12 25 194.2 16.2
M16 16 25 263.7 16.5
M20 20 25 329.7 16.5
M24 24 25 395.6 16.5
M30 30 25 494.5 16.5
M36 36 25 593.4 16.5
M12 12 32 182.6 15.2
M16 16 32 247.9 15.5
M20 20 32 309.9 15.5
M24 24 32 371.9 15.5
M30 30 32 464.9 15.5
M36 36 32 557.9 15.5
for anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and
Grade 250 rods (f
uf
= 400 MPa)
subject to shear with = 0.85
Bolt
type
d
f
(mm) f
c
(MPa)
a
e
(mm)
a
e
/ d
f
M12 12 20 127.0 10.6
M16 16 20 169.3 10.6
M20 20 20 211.6 10.6
M24 24 20 253.9 10.6
M30 30 20 317.4 10.6
M36 36 20 380.9 10.6
M12 12 25 120.1 10.0
M16 16 25 160.1 10.0
M20 20 25 200.1 10.0
M24 24 25 240.2 10.0
M30 30 25 300.2 10.0
M36 36 25 360.2 10.0
M12 12 32 112.9 9.4
M16 16 32 150.5 9.4
M20 20 32 188.1 9.4
M24 24 32 225.8 9.4
M30 30 32 282.2 9.4
M36 36 32 338.7 9.4
(f
uf
= 830 MPa except f
uf
= 800 MPa for
M12 bolts) subject to shear with = 0.85
Bolt
type
d
f
(mm) f
c
(MPa)
a
e
(mm)
a
e
/ d
f
M12 12 20 179.6 15.0
M16 16 20 243.9 15.2
M20 20 20 304.8 15.2
M24 24 20 365.8 15.2
M30 30 20 457.2 15.2
M36 36 20 548.7 15.2
M12 12 25 169.8 14.2
M16 16 25 230.6 14.4
M20 20 25 288.3 14.4
M24 24 25 345.9 14.4
M30 30 25 432.4 14.4
M36 36 25 518.9 14.4
M12 12 32 159.6 13.3
M16 16 32 216.8 13.6
M20 20 32 271.0 13.6
M24 24 32 325.2 13.6
M30 30 32 406.5 13.6
M36 36 32 487.8 13.6
Re--arranging equation (189) the ratios a
e
d
f
for
different combinations of concrete andbolt strengths for
different values of are obtained as shown below.
Table 17 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 Grade rods
f
c
(MPa)
a
e
0.65 20 13 d
f
0.65 25 12 d
f
0.65 32 11 d
f
0.85 20 11 d
f
0.85 25 10 d
f
0.85 32 10 d
f
Table 18 Grade 8.8 bolts
f
c
(MPa)
a
e
0.65 20 18 d
f
0.65 25 17 d
f
0.65 32 16 d
f
0.85 20 16 d
f
0.85 25 15 d
f
0.85 32 14 d
f
13. APPENDIX D -- Design Capacities of
Equal Leg Fillet Welds
Table 19 Category SP, =0.8, k
r
=1.0
Weld size (mm) Design Capacity per unit length
of fillet weld except for RHS/
SHS with thickness less than 3
mm (kN/mm)
t
w
t
t
E41XX/W40X E48XX/W50X
2 1.41 0.278 0.326
3 2.12 0.417 0.489
4 2.83 0.557 0.652
5 3.54 0.696 0.815
6 4.24 0.835 0.978
8 5.66 1.11 1.30
10 7.07 1.39 1.63
12 8.49 1.67 1.96
f
uw
=410 MPa f
uw
=480 MPa
Table 20 Category SP, =0.7, k
r
=1.0
Weld size (mm) Design Capacity per unit length of
longitudinal fillet weld in RHS/
SHS with t < 3mm (kN/mm)
t
w
t
t
2 1.41 0.244 0.285
3 2.12 0.365 0.428
4 2.83 0.487 0.570
5 3.54 0.609 0.713
f
uw
=410 MPa f
uw
=480 MPa
Table 21 Category GP, =0.6, k
r
=1.0
Weld size (mm) Design Capacity per unit length
of fillet weld (kN/mm)
t
w
t
t
2 1.41 0.209 0.244
3 2.12 0.313 0.367
4 2.83 0.417 0.489
5 3.54 0.522 0.611
6 4.24 0.626 0.733
8 5.66 0.835 0.978
10 7.07 1.04 1.22
12 8.49 1.25 1.47
f
uw
=410 MPa f
uw
=480 MPa
Table 22 Minimum Fillet Weld Sizes
Thickness of thickest
part t (mm)
Minimum size of a fillet
weld t
w
(mm)
t 7
3
7 < t 10 4
10 < t 15 5
15 < t 6
14. APPENDIX E -- Design of Bolts under
Tension and Shear
Table 23 Design Capacities Commercial Bolts
4.6/S Bolting Cat. f
uf
=400MPa, =0.8
Bolt
Si
Axial
T i
Shear (single shear)
Size Tension
N
tf
(kN)
Threads
included in
shear plane N
V
fn
(kN)
Threads
excluded from
shear plane X
V
fx
(kN)
M12 27.0 15.1 22.4
M16 50.1 28.6 39.9
M20 78.3 44.7 62.3
M24 113 64.3 89.8
M30 179 103 140
M36 261 151 202
4.6N/S 4.6X/S
Table 24 Design Capacities High Strength
Structural Bolts
8.8/S, 8.8/TB, 8.8/TF Bolting Categorys,
=0.8
Bolt
Si
Min.
T il
Axial
T i
Shear (single shear)
Size Tensile
Strength
of Bolt
f
uf
(MPa)
Tension
N
tf
(kN)
Threads
included
in shear
plane N
V
fn
(kN)
Threads
excluded
from
shear
plane X
V
fx
(kN)
M12 800 53.9 30.3 44.9
M16 830 104 59.3 82.8
M20 830 163 92.7 129
M24 830 234 133 186
M30 830 372 214 291
8.8N/S 8.8X/S
This page left blank for your notes
ASI Members -- The best in Steel Fabrication
New South Wales and ACT
Almar Industries Pty Ltd
9 Cheney Place Mitchell ACT 2911 02 6241 3391
Baxter Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 643 Fyshwick ACT 2609 02 6280 5688
Ace High Engineering Pty Ltd
67 Melbourne Rd Riverstone 2765 02 9627 2500
Algon Steel P/L
9 Arunga Drive Beresfield 2322 02 4966 8224
Align Constructions & Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 747 Moss Vale 2577 02 4869 1594
Allmen Engineering
35--37 Anne St St Marys 2760 02 9673 0051
Antax Steel Constructions P/L
93 Bellambi Lane Bellambi 2518 02 4285 2644
B & G Welding Pty Ltd
12 Bessemer St Blacktown 2148 02 9621 3189
Beltor Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 4187 Edgeworth 2285 02 4953 2444
Bosmac Pty Ltd
64--68 Station Street Parkes 2870 02 6862 3699
Boweld Constructions Pty Ltd
PO Box 52 Bomaderry 2541 02 4421 6781
Charles Heath Industries
18 Britton Street Smithfield 2164 02 9609 6000
Combell P/L
PO Box 5038 Prestons 2170 02 9607 3822
Coolamon Steelworks
PO Box 102 Coolamon 2701 02 6927 3296
Cooma Steel Co. Pty Ltd
PO Box 124 Cooma 2630 02 6452 1934
Cosme--Australia Stainless Steel Fab Pty Ltd
19 Lasscock Road Griffith 2680 02 6964 1155
Davebilt Industries
116 Showground Rd NGosford 2250 02 4325 7381
Designed Building Systems
144 Sackville Street Fairfield 2165 02 9727 0566
Edcon Steel Pty Ltd
52 Orchard Rd Brookvale 2100 02 9905 6622
Flame--Cut Pty Ltd
PO Box 6367 Wetherill Park 2164 02 9609 3677
Gale Bros Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 6013 South Penrith 2750 02 4732 1133
Jeskah Steel Products
23 Arizona Rd Charmhaven 2263 02 4392 7022
Kermac Welding & Engineering
Cemetery Street Goulburn 2580 02 4821 3877
Leewood Welding
PO Box 1767 Orange 2800 02 6362 8797
Lifese Engineering Pty Ltd
5 Junction Street Auburn 2144 02 9748 0444
Mario & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd
189--193 Newton Road,
Wetherill Park 2164 02 9756 3400
Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 477 Wyong 2259 02 4351 1877
Morson Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 244 Wyong 2259 02 4352 2188
National Engineering Pty Ltd
72--74 Bayldon Road,
Queanbeyan 2620 02 6299 1844
National Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 437 Young 2594 02 6382 1499
Piper & Harvey Steel Fabrications
PO Box 821 Wagga Wagga 2650 02 6922 7527
Ripa Steel Fabrication Pty Ltd
4 Warren Place Silverdale 2752 02 4774 0011
Riton Engineering Pty Ltd
101 Gavenlock Road,
Tuggerah 2259 02 4353 1688
Romac Engineering
PO Box 670 Armidale 2350 02 6772 3407
Saunders International Pty Ltd
PO Box 281 Condell Park 2200 02 9792 2444
Steeline Fabrications
PO Box 296 Woy Woy 2256 02 4341 9571
Tenze Engineering
PO Box 426 Greenacre 2190 02 9758 2677
Tri--Fab Engineering Pty Ltd
Lot 1 Ti--Tree Street,
Wilberforce 2756 02 4575 1056
UEA Industrial Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 6163 Queanbeyan 2620 02 6299 3238
Universal Steel Construction
52--54 Newton Road,
Wetherill Park 2164 02 9756 2555
Walpett Engineering Pty Ltd
52 Hincksman Street,
Queanbeyan 2620 02 6297 1277
Weldcraft Engineering ACT Pty Ltd
79 Thuralilly Street,
Queanbeyan 2620 02 6297 1453
Z Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd
PO Box 7274 Lismore Heights 2480 02 6625 1717
Northern Territory
M&J Welding And Engineering
GPO Box 2638 Darwin 0801 08 8932 2641
Trans Aust Constructions P/L
PO Box 39472 Winnellie 0821 08 8984 4511
Queensland
AG Rigging & Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 9154 Wilsonton,
Toowoomba 4350 07 4633 0244
Alltype Welding
PO Box 1418 Beenleigh 4207 07 3807 1820
Apex Fabrication & Construction
164--168 Cobalt Street,
Carole Park 4300 07 3271 4467
Austin Engineering P/L
173 Cobalt Street,
Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2622
Beenleigh Steel Fabrications P/L
41 Magnesium Drive,
Crestmead 4132 07 3803 6033
Belconnen Steel Pty Ltd
11 Malton Street The Gap 4061 07 3300 2444
Brisbane Steel Fabrication
PO Box 7087 Hemmant 4174 07 3893 4233
Cairns Steel Fabricators P/L
PO Box 207b Bungalow 4870 07 4035 1506
Casa Engineering (Qld) Pty Ltd
PO Box Ge 80 Garbutt East 4814 07 4774 4666
Central Engineering Pty Ltd
19 Traders Way Currumbin 4223 07 5534 3155
D A Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
7 Hilldon Court Nerang 4211 07 5596 2222
Darra Welding Works Pty Ltd
PO Box 47 Richlands 4077 07 3375 5841
Factory Fabricators Pty Ltd
63 Factory Road Oxley 4075 07 3379 8811
Fritz Steel (Qld) Pty Ltd
PO Box 12 Richlands 4077 07 3375 6366
J K Morrow Sales
PO Box 59 Earlville 4870 07 4035 1599
M C Engineering
PO Box 381 Burpengary 4505 07 3888 2144
Milfab
PO Box 3056 Clontarf 4019 07 3203 3311
Morton Steel Pty Ltd
47 Barku Court Hemmant 4174 07 3396 5322
Noosa Engineering & Crane Hire
PO Box 356 Tewantin 4565 07 5449 7477
Oz--Cover Pty Ltd
35 Centenary Place,
Logan Village 4207 07 5546 8922
Pacific Coast Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 7284 Garbutt 4814 07 4774 8477
Podevin Engineering Co P/L
PO Box 171 Archerfield 4108 07 3277 1388
Queensbury Steel Pty Ltd
3 Queensbury Avenue,
Currumbin Waters 4223 07 5534 7455
Rimco Building Systems Pty Ltd
20 Demand Avenue Arundel 4214 07 5594 7322
Spaceframe Buildings Pty Ltd
360 Lytton Road Morningside 4170 07 3370 6500
Stewart & Sons Steel
11 Production St Bundaberg 4670 07 4152 6311
Sun Engineering Pty Ltd
113 Cobalt St Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2988
Taringa Steel P/L
17 Jijaws St Sumner Park 4074 07 3279 4233
Thomas Steel Fabrication
PO Box 147 Aitkenvale,
Townsville 4814 07 4775 1266
W D T Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 115 Acacia Ridge 4110 07 3345 4000
Walz Construction Company Pty Ltd
PO Box 1713 Gladstone 4680 07 4972 4799
South Australia
Advanced Steel Fabrications
61--63 Kapara Rd Gillman 5013 08 8447 7100
Ahrens Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 2 Sheaoak Log 5371 08 8524 9045
Bowhill Engineering
Lot 100, Weber Road Bowhill 5238 08 8570 4208
Magill Welding Service Pty Ltd
33 Maxwell Road Pooraka 5095 08 8349 4933
Manuele Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 209 Melrose Park 5039 08 8374 1680
RC & Ml Johnson Pty Ltd
671 Magill Road Magill 5072 08 8333 0188
ASI Members -- The best in Steel Fabrication
Tasmania
Dowling Constructions Pty Ltd
46 Formby Road Devonport 7310 03 6423 1099
Haywards Steel Fabrication & Construction
PO Box 47 Kings Meadows 7249 03 6391 8508
Victoria
Alfasi Steel Constructions
12--16 Fowler Road,
Dandenong 3175 03 9794 9207
AMS Fabrications Pty Ltd
18 Healey Road Dandenong 3175 03 9706 5988
Bahcon Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 950 Morwell 3840 03 5134 2877
Downer PTR
195 Wellington Rd Clayton 3168 03 9560 9944
F & B Skrobar Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 1578 Moorabbin 3189 03 9555 4556
Fairbairn Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 2057 Seaford 3198 03 9786 2866
G F C Industries Pty Ltd
42 Glenbarry Road,
Campbellfield 3061 03 9357 9900
Geelong Fabrications Pty Ltd
5/19 Madden Avenue,
North Shore Geelong 3214 03 5275 7255
GVP Fabrications Pty Ltd
25--35 Japaddy Street,
Mordialloc 3195 03 9587 2172
Monks Harper Fabrications P/L
25 Tatterson Road,
Dandenong South 3164 03 9794 0888
Preston Structural Steel
140--146 Barry Road,
Campbellfield 3061 03 9357 0011
Riband Steel (Wangaratta) Pty Ltd
69--81 Garden Road Clayton 3168 03 9547 9144
Rosebud Engineering
13 Henry Wilson Drive,
Rosebud 3939 03 5986 6666
Stanley Welding
23 Attenborough Street,
Dandenong 3175 03 9555 5611
Stilcon Holdings Pty Ltd
PO Box 263 Altona North 3025 03 9314 1611
Vale Engineering Co Pty Ltd
170 Gaffney Street Coburg 3058 03 9350 5655
Western Australia
C Bellotti & Co
PO Box 1284 Bibra Lake 6965 08 9434 1442
Cays Engineering
Lot 21 Thornborough Road,
Mandurah 6210 08 9581 6611
Devaugh Pty Ltd
12 Hale St Bunbury 6230 08 9721 3433
Fremantle Steel Fabrication Co
PO Box 3005 Jandakot 6964 08 9417 9111
Highline Building Constructions
9 Felspar Street Welshpool 6106 08 9451 5366
Hvar Steel Services Pty Ltd
56 Cooper Rd Jandakot 6164 08 9414 9422
Italsteel W.A.
PO Box 206 Bentley 6102 08 9356 1566
JV Engineering (WA) Pty Ltd
159 Mcdowell Street Kewdale 6105 08 9353 3377
Leblanc Comm\ Aust P/L
PO Box 40 Belmont 6984 08 9277 8866
Pacific Industrial Company
PO Box 263 Kwinana 6966 08 9410 2566
Park Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 130 Bentley 6102 08 9458 1437
Scenna Constructions
43 Spencer Street Jandakot 6164 08 9417 4447
United KG
PO Box 219 Kwinana 6167 08 9499 0499
Uniweld Structural Co Pty Ltd
61A Coast Road Beechboro 6063 08 9377 6666
Wenco Pty Ltd
1 Ladner Street Oconnor 6163 08 9337 7600
ASI Manufacturing Members -- The best quality steel
BHP Steel
BHP Tower, 600 Bourke Street,
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 86A, Melbourne 3001) 03 9609 3756
Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd
Resolution Drive, Unanderra NSW 2526
(PO Box 1246, Unanderra 2526) 02 4272 0444
Commonwealth Steel Company Limited
Maud Street, Waratah NSW 2298
(PO Box 14) 02 4967 0457
Graham Group
117--151 Rookwood Road, Yagoona NSW 2199
(PO Box 57) 02 9709 3777
Industrial Galvanizers Corporation Pty Ltd
20--22 Amax Avenue, Girraween NSW 2145
(PO Box 576, Toongabbie 2146) 02 9636 8244
Martin Bright Steels
Cliffords Road, Somerton VIC 3062
(PO Box 39 MDC) 03 9305 4144
OneSteel Pty Ltd
Level 23, 1 York Street, Sydney NSW 2000
(GPO Box 536) 02 9239 6666
Palmer Tube Mills (Aust) Pty Ltd
46 Ingram Road, Acacia Ridge QLD 4110
(PO Box 246, Sunnybank 4109) 07 3246 2600
Smorgon Steel Group Ltd
Ground Floor, 650 Lorimer Street,
Port Melbourne VIC 3207 03 9673 0400
Stramit Industries
6--8 Thomas Street, Chatswood NSW 2067
(PO Box 295, Chatswood 2057) 02 9928 3600
J Blackwood & Son Steels and Metals Pty Ltd
165--169 Newton Road, Wetherill Park NSW 2164
(PO Box 6427) 02 9203 1100
Coil Steels Group Pty Ltd
16 Harbord Street, Granville NSW 2142
(PO Box 166) 02 9682 1266
G A M Steel Pty Ltd
Lynch Road, Brooklyn VIC 3025
(PO Box 159, Altona North 3025) 03 9314 0855
Midala Steel Pty Ltd
49 Pilbara Street, Welshpool WA 6106
(PO Box 228, Welshpool 6986) 08 9458 7911
Southern Steel Group
319 Horsley Road, Milperra NSW 2214
(PO Box 342, Panania 2213) 02 9792 2099
Smorgon Steel Distribution
88 Ricketts Road, Mount Waverley VIC 3149
(PO Box 537) 03 9239 1844
Metalcorp Steel
103 Ingram Road,
Acacia Ridge QLD 4110 07 3345 9488
OneSteel Distribution
Cnr Blackwall Point & Parkview Roads,
Five Dock NSW 2046
(PO Box 55) 02 9713 0350
AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
Telephone (02) 9929 6666
Website: www.steel.org.au

Design of Pinned Column Base Plate (AUS)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Pinned Column Base Plate (AUS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(ABN)/ACN (94) 000 973 839

Thicknesses of base plates with dimensions similar to

The value of previously calculated in equation (46)

Figure 24 Prying action in T--stub for the three

subjected to strength load

represents an average value of

times the effective tensile area of the bolt

25 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

The anchor bolt groupcapacitycalculatedwithequation

Figure 63 Concrete edge failure cones

A.2 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

43 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

A.3 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

A.4 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

45 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

A.5 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

A.6 DERIVATION FOR CHECK PURPOSES

and the notation is defined in Fig. 78.

You might also like