Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Discussion- Steel Column Base Plate Design.pdf

Discussion- Steel Column Base Plate Design.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Otto Alfredo Cobeña Zuñiga on May 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Discussion
steel Column Base Plate Design
Paper presented by BALBIR S. SANDHU(4th quarter, 1973 issue)Discussion by
Gerard Dixon & William H. Mooseker
MR. SANDHU
is correct in his statement that the designof steel column base plates is a simple, but time consuming, process. In fact, for a large steel framed buildingwith many columns of different sizes and loadings, thebase plate design is indeed a chore.Mr. Sandhu is to be commended on his efforts tospeed up this base plate design process. However, theallowable bearing stresses, F^,, which he correctly quotesfrom the AISG Specification, Sect.
1.5.5,
do not reflect thechanges in allowable bearing pressures as specified in the1971 A.G.I. Code for the Ultimate Strength Design ofConcrete. Since these values have been liberalized, therequired base plate area and thickness will be substantially smaller than heretofore with significant savings insteel weight. The liberalized bearing values in the 1971A.C.I. Code, using the ultimate strength method, essentially renders the base plate design tables and thespecified concrete bearing stresses in the AISC Manualobsolete.The 1971 A.C.I. Code, Section 10.14—Bearing,allows ultimate bearing stresses up to 0.85 0
f'^
exceptwhen the supporting surface is wider on all sides than theloaded area, in which case the permissible ultimate bearing stresses on the loaded area may be multiplied by
2/A1
but not more than 2.0.
(j)
= capacity reduction factor, A.C.I. Section 9.2.1.4= 0.70
f'c
specified compressive strength of concrete
A2
= total supporting area (in.^)
Ai
= loaded area (in.2)Thus, 0.85 0/', = 0.595/',.
Gerard Dixon and William H. Mooseker are Structural Engineerswith N. G. Jacob son &
Associates^
Inc.^
Seattle^
Washington.
The allowable ultimate bearing stress for variousgrades of concrete are therefore as listed in Table 1, andthe multiplication factors for intermediate values ofbearing area ratios can be graphed or listed as in Table 2.With ultimate load factors of 1.4 dead load + 1.7live load, as specified in the 1971 A.C.I. Code, the average ultimate factor for normal load ranges is 1.55 =t,while the ultimate bearing stress is 2.38 to 3.17 as greatas the values of 0.25 /', and 0.375
f\
listed in the AISCManual. The net result is much smaller and thinner baseplates.A computer program, BASE, authored by ComputerAnalysis Services (C.A.S.)* and at present carried byInformation Sciences, Inc. on their time sharing service,takes these ultimate bearing pressures into account and,in the documentation for the program use, lists Tables1 and 2 as design aids for the selection of the allowablebearing pressure for use in the program input.
Table 1
f'c,
psi30003500400045005000Allowable UltimateBearing Stress, psi17852082238026772975
Table 2
AI/A2
1.01.251.51.752.02.252.52.753.03.253.53.754.0MultiplicationFactor1.01.121.221.321.411.51.581.661.731.801.871.942.0
'• Computer
Analysis
Services
{C.A.S.) is a division of N. G.
Jacobson
&
Associates,
Inc.,
Seattle,
Washington.
48ENGINEERING J 0 U R N A L/A
IVl E R
I
C
AN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 
The
two
examples
in Mr.
Sandhu's paper were
re
designed using this program
and
ultimate bearing withthe assumption made that
25
percent
of the
load listedwas live load. The resulting plates were:Example
1:
15.5''
x 16.0" x
0.64";
fj,u
=
1.427 <
1.785 allowableExample
2: 15.7" x 16.6" x
0.75";
fpu
=
2.263
<
3.570 allowableThe reason
for
less than allowable pressures is that
the
program outputs
a
minimum size plate
at
least
1 in.
greater than the column width, and
2
in. greater than
the
column depth. The resulting plates are smaller
by
37
and
56 percent, respectively, than those sized
by the
nomograph.Note that
in
Example
1 a
base plate width
of
14
in. is
chosen using
the
nomograph. However,
a
W14X87
has
a flange width
of
14)-^ in., which is greater than
the
chosen base plate.
In
this case
a
minimum width
of
about
153^
to
163^
in.
would
be
required (3^-
to 1-in.
plateextension).
In
addition,
if
the aspect ratio
of
the plate
in
Example
2
were changed from
17 x 21 in. to 18 x 20 in.,
the required plate thickness using
the
working stressbearing pressures
is 1 in.
rather than
1.23 in. as
shown
in
the example. This would tend
to
indicate that
the 4-in.
difl^erential
of
B
and
L
is too
generous,
and may
lead
to
oversized plates.
In
fact,
the
optimum diff'erence
be
tween
B
and
L
may be expressed as the formula:
(L-
B) =
0.95d
- OM
See Table
3 for
(L B)
tabulated
for a
range
of
column
Table
3.
Optimum Plate Parameters
I
j 1
I *—ir^i—T
I
H
JcL
b
\c\
'
b
8.0010.0010.0012.0010.0012.0014.0015.5016.0016.5016.7518.00
d
8.0010.0012.0012.0014.0014.0014.0014.7516.0018.5019.0022.00
Diff.
=
(L-B)
1.2001.5003.4001.800
5.300
3.7002.1001.6132.4004.3754.6506.500
Kl
=
(E-C)
0.6000.7500.7000.9000.6500.8501.0501.1811.2001.1871.2001.250For larger plates
the
difference
in
plate sizes
is
muchmore marked,
i.e.,
with
a
W14X342
(50
ksi),
a
load
of
2040 kips, concrete
at
f'^
=
4000,
and
base plate
Fy
=
36,000 psi,
and
with bearing
on
3^^ area
or
less,
the
baseplate size from nomograph
is
calculated
to be 35 in. x
4%
in.
X
39 in.
Using
the
same data,
the
computer program (assuming
25
percent live load
and 75
percentdead load) calculates
a 23.4 in. x 3.11 in. x 27.1 in.
plate
at an
ultimate bearing pressure
of
4.76 kips/sq
in.
This represents
a 68
percent savings
in
steel weight fromthe plate sized
by
the nomograph.Obviously, engineers without access
to
computer programs
can
also
use
this ultimate strength design methodto advantage, although they would,
of
necessity, have
to
go back
to the old
tried-and-true slide rule unless theycan,
as Mr.
Sandhu
did for the
working stress designmethod, construct
for
themselves
a
nomograph
or
someother time saving aids.Discussion
by
Paul Gordon
THE
AUTHOR
is to be commended for his desire to de
velop
a
time
and
labor saving design
aid.
However,in developing design aids, extreme caution must
be
taken not
to
encourage impropriety
of
engineering judgement.To avert
the
misuse
of the
subject document
and
its contained alignment chart,
the
writer recommendsthat
the
chart
not be
used indiscriminately
for
determining column base plate thicknesses when
the
lengthand width
of the
proposed base plate
are
nearly equalto
the
depth
and
width, respectively,
of the
column section
to be
supported. When
the
projection
of the
baseplate beyond
the
limits
of the
column section becomesnegligible,
the
portion
of the
plate contained withinthe boundary
of the
column flanges
and web
becomesthe portion
of the
plate that will determine
the
platethickness.
To
determine
the
necessary thickness
of a
plate with negligible projection beyond
the
limits
of the
column section,
the
writer recommends analyzing
the
plate
as one
that
is
uniformly loaded
and is
"fixed"along
the
beam web, ''simply supported"
by the
columnflanges, and "free"
at the
edge between
the
columnflanges and paralleling but remote from the web.Obviously,
if the
method
on pg. 3-95 of the
AISC
Manual
Of
Steel Construction
(7th
Edition)
is to be
usedwhen
the
length
and
width
of the
column base plateare equal
to
the depth
and
width, respectively,
of
the column section, values
of
m
and
n
will
be
equal
to
nearlyzero and, consequently, base plate thicknesses approaching zero would
be
erroneously indicated.
Paul Gordon
is a
Consulting Structural Engineer,
Chicago, Illinois,
49
SECOND QUARTER/1974
 
To avert this undesirable dangerous determinationfrom being made, the writer suggests checking all baseplate thicknesses, for plates having meager projectionbeyond the column section limits, using a method ofanalysis as suggested in the preceding.A check of the author's Example 1 has been preparedby the writer. Following are the writer's findings:
1.
The 143/^-in. wide W14X87 will overhang the14-in. wide base plate by
3^-in.
on each side of the plate.The writer doubts the desirability of this conditionbeing used to depict a typical condition. Generally itis best to have the column base plate larger in lengthand width than the depth and width of the concentricallysupported column section.
2.
The base plate thickness required to satisfy conditions of plate projections
m
and
n
beyond the columnsection are:
^w.
tn =
Jw^
^J:
3(0.95)(2.35)227
4
(0.95)(1.35)2
27
0.76= 0.44 in.These thicknesses are less than the 1-in. thick plate recommended by the author.
3.
Considering the base plate as having insufficientprojection beyond the column limits to be governedby the procedure shown on pg. 3-95 of the AISC
Manualof Steel Construction {7th Edition)
and considering the baseplate as a uniformly loaded plate with the two shortedges ''supported" by the column flanges, one longedge ''fixed" at the column web and the other longedge free, the writer has computed that a plate thicknessof about 1.82 in. would be required:0.5^/0.95^ = 0.53Values of /3:0.5^/0.95^ = 0
B =
0.5
>3
0.428X2
0.319
73
0.227
1.00.119
,-^t
nl
=
V^
F^(0.5B)2(/3) _ 6(0.95)(49)(0.319)
27
= 1.82 in.The basis for this solution can be found in ''Theory ofPlates and Shells" by S. Timoshenko & S. Woinowsky-Krieger, 2nd edition, 1959, pages 208 and 210.Although not specifically recommended by theauthor, other conditions of minimal plate projectionbeyond the column section, as appearing in the author'salignment chart, would result in deficiently sized platethicknesses.Hopefully the writer's discussion will prompt furtherwork by the author which will result in refinement ofhis design aid and possible extension of the present AISCrecommended procedure to include column base plateshaving plan dimensions approximately equal to thesection dimensions of the concentrically supported column.Discussion by
BALBIR S. SANDHU
THE
AUTHOR
wishes to express thanks to Messrs. GerardDixon, William H. Mooseker and Paul Gordon for theircomments and constructive suggestions.Mr. Gordon's comments in regard to engineeringjudgment in the development and use of design aidsare highly appropriate. However, the method suggestedby Mr. Gordon for designing the base plate thicknesswhen the length and width of plate are nearly equalto the depth and width, respectively, of the column section would be applicable if the contact pressure underthe bearing plate is truly uniform. Theoretically, thepressure will be uniform only if the base plates are infinitely rigid. In actual column bases, the base platesare flexible and bend, with the result that contact pressure is higher under the column web and flanges thanunder the rest of the bearing area. The plate bendingproblem is similar to the problem of beam on elasticfoundation. The analysis can become very cumbersomeif the column bases are to be designed using the rigorousanalysis. The simplified method of the AISC Manualis expeditious and conservative. In cases when the platedimensions are slightly larger than column dimensions,a minimum base plate thickness of %-in. or 1-in. maybe used. The time consuming calculations required inrigorous analysis and the resulting minor savings inthe weight of steel do not seem to justify such an analysis. The author agrees that the base plate width selectedin Example 1 should have been 15 in. instead of 14 in.The author acknowledges the constructive discussion by Messrs. Dixon and Mooseker on the steel columnbase plate design. Their computerized base plate designusing the ultimate concrete bearing stress values of 1971ACI Building Code is undoubtedly an economical design approach. The author has, however, some commentson the higher bearing stress values of 1971 ACI Codecompared with 1963 Code. The conservative bearingstress values of 1963 ACI Code were applicable to transfer of stress by bearing at the base of reinforced concretecolumns to concrete footings, as explained in Section2306 of ACI 318-63. These conservative bearing stresses
Balbir S. Sandhu is
Structural
Engineer,
Burns & McDonnell En
gineering
Company,
Kansas City, Missouri.
50
ENGINEERINGJ0URNAL/AMERI 0AN INSTITUTE
OF
STEEL CONSTRUCTION

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->