COLUMN BASE PLATE DESIGN LAPPING

STRIP METHOD
KEVIN COWIE
CLARK HYLAND
NANDOR MAGO

Kevin Cowie is a Structural
Engineer in the Steel Structures
Analysis Service at the New
Zealand Heavy Engineering
Research Association.





Clark Hyland is a Structural
Engineer and the manager for
the Steel Structures Analysis
Service at the New Zealand
Heavy Engineering Research
Association.





Nandor Mago is an Applied
Research Engineer Finite
Element Analyst at NZ Heavy
Engineering Research
Association (HERA) in 1999.
His primary role is to support
with FEA the wide range of
HERAs Structural Steel and NZ
Welding Centre research
activities. He is a user of Nastran
for Windows and ABAQUS/
Standard/ CAE.





















ABSTRACT

Finite element analyses of column base plates show
that neither the Thornton model, recommended by
American Institute of Steel Construction, nor the
Eurocode 3 Annex L model adequately reflects the
bearing stress distribution. Finite element analysis
shows a concentration in bearing stress occurs
where the flanges of an H section meets the web.
This paper presents an improved design procedure
incorporating this observation. Uniform bearing
stress distributions under the web and flanges are
superimposed to give an increased bearing stress in
the region where the flanges meet the web.






































Kevin Cowie
Clark Hyland
Nandor Mago
1. INTRODUCTION
A review of literature and codes for column pinned
base plates shows there are various different design
procedures and that not one covers the whole
spectrum of column pinned base plates.
Assumption of bearing pressure under the base
plates also varies.

In this paper a brief description of literature
reviewed is presented along with their various
assumptions. The procedure developed by the
authors, called the Lapping Strip method approach,
is then presented including a description of Finite
Element Analysis, (FEA), testing. The Lapping
Strip method for base plate design is used in HERA
Report R4-100:2003 Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide.


2. Literature Review
Ranzi and Kneen made a comprehensive review of
column base plate procedures and a summary is
presented below. (Rabzi, G and Kneen, P., 2002)
2.1. Cantilever Model
The cantilever model was the first available
approach to design of column pinned base plates.
This model is appropriate for design of large base
plates where the dimensions of the base plate are
much larger than that of the column.

This model assumes a uniform bearing pressure on
the underside of the base plate. For an H-section
the loaded area on the base plate is assumed to be
concentrated over an area of 0.95d
c
x 0.80b
fc
. As
shown in Figure 1 and 2. This results in the base
plate bending as a cantilever about the edges of this
area. This approach leads to a conservative design
for large base plates.

Figure 1: Cantilver model assumed loaded area

Figure 2: Cantilver Model collapse mechanism

As the cantilever extension reduces the predicted
capacities becomes increasingly unconservative.

2.2. Fling Model
The Fling model is a modification to the cantilever
model. It is only applicable to H shaped sections.
This model recognized limitations of bare plate
stiffness on load capacity by introducing a
serviceability check.

For base plates where sizes are similar to the
column, Fling recommended a strength check based
on yield line theory with a pattern as shown in
Figure 3. The support conditions assumed for the
plate are fixed along the web, simply supported
along the flanges and free on the edges opposite to
the web.

Figure 3: Fling Model Yield line pattern

2.3. Murray-Stockwell Model
The Murray-Stockwell model is applicable to
lightly loaded base plate for H section columns.
The definition of a lightly loaded base plate is that
of a relatively flexible plate approximately the same
size as the outside dimensions of the connected
column. The Murray-Stockwell model assumes
that the pressure distribution under a base plate is
not uniform but is assumed to be an H shaped area
inside the H section. 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. Refer to Figure 4.

Figure 4: Murray-Stockwell Model Assumed
shape of pressure distribution.

2.4. Thornton Model
The Thornton Model is a combination of the
Cantilever, Fling and Murray-Stockwell models.
The derived compact formula is suitable for only
H-shaped columns. The Cantilever model is used
for extended base plates. Otherwise the Murray-
Stockwell model governs. However the crossover
between the two approaches is not consistent.

2.5. Eurocode 3 Model

Annex L of Eurocode 3, 1993, gives another
procedure for the design of a column base plate.
This model utilizes the concept of rigid areas used
in the Murray-Stockwell model, but extends the
rigid areas outside the section perimeter. For an H-
section the bearing area is assumed to be uniform
over an H shaped bearing that extends inside and
outside the H-section. Refer to Figure 5.
Column
Base Plate
Rigid Area

Figure 5: Eurocode 3 assumed bearing pressure

The development of the procedure is based on the
T-stub approach. The Eurocode method gives a
significant improvement in bearing capacities over
the Thornton Model and uses a uniform approach.
However finite element analysis shows that the
method over predicts the base capacities due to the
overly simplified stress distribution assumed.
Therefore the authors have developed an improved
procedure called the Lapping Strip Method.

3. Lapping Strip Method
3.1. Introduction
The Lapping Strip Method modifies the equivalent
rigid area concept and the T stub model used in
Annex L of Eurocode 3. The Lapping Strip
Method is developed for an H-section by
considering the flange and web separately and then
combining the bearing pressures giving an
increased bearing stress in the vicinity where the
flanges meet the web.

3.2. T-Stub model
The T-stub model is a unit length column with a
uniform axial load over its length. The bearing area
on the underside of the base plate is represented by
an equivalent rigid area over which the stress is
uniform. Refer to the Figure 6. The length of the
equivalent rigid area from the face of the column, c,
can be calculated by equating bearing capacity of
the concrete with the bending capacity of the steel
base plate.



Figure 6: T stub model assumed stress
distribution

The design bending moment of the base plate is
given by the equation:

* 2
b
1
M c
2
= (1)


b
Concrete bearing stress
c Effective cantilever length

c c
w
t
b

i
t
F
The elastic flexural capacity of the steel base plate
is given by equation:

2
i yi
1
M t f
6
= (2)

i
t Base plate thickness

yi
f Base plate yield stress
The elastic rather than the plastic capacity is used to
maintain consistency with the rigid area approach
applied. Equations 1 and 2 are combined to
determine the effective cantilever length, c.

yi
i
b
f
c t
3
=

(3)
Inserting material reduction factors, according to
the New Zealand Steel Structures Standard:
NZS3404:1997 and the New Zealand Concrete
Structures Standard NZS3101:1995 the equation
becomes:

s yi
i
b
f
c t
3

(4)

The maximum axial load that the base plate strip
can take is equal to the equivalent rigid area
multiplied by the concrete bearing capacity. Under
a single vertical plate section the maximum
capacity is
( ) ( )
bp b w s
N t 2c d 2c N = + + (5)
d Depth of plate section

w
t Web thickness of plate section

s
N Axial capacity of vertical plate
Figure 7: Unit plate rigid bearing area
The equivalent rigid area is increased to take
account of welds by measuring the rigid cantilever
length, c, from 80% of the weld leg length.
Therefore the rigid area and the axial connection
capacity of a plate section is increased and given by
equation:
( )( )
bp b w wi wi s
N t 1.6t 2c d 1.6t 2c N = + + + +

wi
t Weld web leg length (6)

3.3. H section
This approach is applied to an H section shown in
Figure 8 by considering the web and flange
separately and then superimposing the stress
distributions on each other, to give an increased
bearing pressure in the vicinity where the flanges
meet the web.


Figure 8: Development of H section rigid bearing
area.

The design bearing pressure in the lapping regions
is set equal to the design concrete bearing capacity.
Therefore the flanges and web bearing stress
outside the lapping zones is half the concrete
bearing capacity.

The effective rigid bearing area under the flanges
and web including allowance for welds is
( )( )
rf f wi f wi
A b 1.6t 2c t 1.6t 2c = + + + +
(7)
( )( )
rw w wi w wi
A d 1.6t 2c t 1.6t 2c = + + + +
(8)
rf
A Effective flange rigid plate area
rw
A Effective web rigid plate area
f
b Flange width
w
d Web depth
f
t Flange thickness
w
t Web thickness
The total effective bearing area is then equal to

r rf rw
A 2A A = + (9)
b

i
t
w
t
c
d
Rigid Area


Figure 9: H section rigid bearing area

The design bearing capacity of the connection is

bp c r b
1
N A
2
= (10)

3.4. Slenderness Limits
Slender elements of columns will not develop the
full section capacity and will alter the stress
distribution in the base plate. Where the slenderness
yield limits of the web and flange are not met, then
the axial load distribution is not uniform at the
design load. Studies of slender elements have
found that slender plates develop post-buckling
capacities by shedding load to locations close to the
edge restraints (AS/NZS 4600:1996). The effective
design width approach used in AS/NZS 4600:1996
approximates the non-uniform distribution of stress
over the entire length of the plate to a reduced
effective length of uniform distributed stress. Refer
to Figure 10. This same approach has been used in
the Lapping Strip Method.


Figure 10: Equivalent stress for a slender element
(AS/NZS 4600:1996)

From NZS3404:1997 the slenderness yield limits
used for H-sections are:

ey
= 16 Hot Rolled, HR, flange

ey
= 45 Hot Rolled, HR, web


ey
= 14 Welded, HW, flange

ey
= 35 Welded, HW, web
The flange and web slenderness is

y
f w
ef
f
f
b t
2t 250

= Flange slenderness
(11)

y
f
ew
w
f
d 2t
t 250

= Web slenderness
(12)
The effective flange width and web depth is

ey
ef f f
ef
b b b
| |
=
|

\ .
(13)
( ) ( )
ey
ew f f
ew
d d 2t d 2t
| |
=
|

\ .
(14)
The effective flange width is developed
symmetrically about the flange mid point. The
effective web depth is split and extends evenly
from the flange/web intersections. Refer to Figure
11.
( )( )
rf ef wi f wi
A b 1.6t 2c t 1.6t 2c = + + + + (15)
( )( )
rw ew f wi w wi
A d 2t 1.6t 2c t 1.6t 2c = + + + + +
(16)

Figure 11: I section rigid bearing area for b
ef
< b
f

and d
ew
< d 2t
f
3.5. Channel Section Columns

The Lapping Strip Method is applied to channel
section columns as shown in Figure 12. The
effective rigid areas of the flanges and web are
assessed in a similar way to the H section procedure
above.

Figure 12: Channel section rigid bearing area

3.6. Rectangular Hollow Section Columns

For rectangular hollow, RHS, and square hollow,
SHS, section columns, two sides are treated as
webs and the other two sides as flanges. The
effective flange and web widths are given by
equations
( )
ey
ef w w
ef
b b 2t b 2t
| |
=
|

\ .
(17)
( )
ey
ew w w
ew
d d 2t d 2t
| |
=
|

\ .
(18)
Element slenderness is calculated using equations

y
f w
ef
f
f
b 2t
2t 250

= (19)


y
f
ew
w
f
d 2t
t 250

= (20)

From NZS3404:1997 the slenderness yield limits
for cold formed hollow sections is

ey
= 40


Figure 13: SHS/RHS section rigid bearing area


3.6. Circular Hollow Section Columns
For circular hollow section, CHS, columns the
effective rigid bearing pressure is based on the
assumption that bearing pressure inside the CHS
increases conservatively up to twice the bearing
pressure outside for small diameter sections.

r rin rout
A 2A A = + (21)

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2 2
2
8 . 0
2
c t
d
t
d
A
w
o
wi
o
rin

(22)

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
2 2
8 . 0
2
8 . 0
2
wi
o
wi
o
rout
t
d
c t
d
A
(23)

Figure 14: CHS section rigid bearing area


4. Finite Element Analysis
4.1. Introduction
The Lapping Strip Method assumptions were
verified by a series of non-linear static finite
element analyses. The models were built and
analyzed in ABAQUS version 6.3-1. Elastic
perfectly plastic material properties were assumed
for the steel columns and base plates. Incompatible
mode solid, C3D8I, and reduced integration,
C3D8R, elements with finer mesh in the vicinity of
the base plate were assigned to the steel and
concrete members. ABAQUS concrete smeared
cracking material model was assigned to the large
plain concrete foundation block. Contact between
the base plate and concrete was modeled. The
properties of this interaction were frictionless in
tangential direction, while the normal behavior of
pressure-overclosure was assumed in the shape of
exponential decay. No investigation was performed
on how the interaction properties influence the
results, but negligible variations in the bearing
stresses are expected.


Two columns with two different sized base plates
were analyzed. The two sizes of base plates for
each column were selected for two situations. The
first where the base plate size extended beyond the
regions of rigid bearing area calculated using the
Lapping Strip Method. The second where the base
plate area was minimum, i.e. extending just beyond
the column depth and breadth. The two columns
analyzed were 1200WB455 and 500WC440. The
FEA models did not include any modeling of
welds.



4.2. Finite Element Analysis Models
No Section Flange
Yield
Web
Yield
Flange
Width
Column
depth
Web
thickness
Flange
thickness
Base
Plate
Yield
Concrete
Strength
Base Plate Dimensions

yf
f
MPa
yw
f
MPa
f
b
mm
d
mm
w
t
mm
f
t
mm
yi
f
MPa
'
c
f
MPa
Breadth
mm
Depth
mm
Thickness
mm
1 1200WB455 280 300 500 1200 16 40 240 30 840 1540 115
3 500WC440 280 280 500 480 40 40 240 30 730 710 75
Table 1: Extended Base Plates
Table 2: Minimum Area Base Plates

4.2. Finite Element Analysis Results

FEA results are presented in Table 3 and 4 and the contact pressure distribution is shown in Figures 15 to 17.
The maximum stress and the average stress in the stress block area based on Lapping Strip Method are
presented. This is compared to the predicted stress for the area in the vicinity of where the web meets the
flanges. The first predicted pressure is calculated using idealised material properties with no material reduction
factors applied. The second predicted pressure uses material properties with reduction factors applied. The
design concrete bearing capacity, accounting for confinement of the concrete, is calculated in accordance with
New Zealand Concrete Structures code NZS 3101:1995. The equation being

' ' 2
b c c c c
1
min
A
0.85f , 0.85f 2
A

=


(24)

'
c
f 28 day concrete cylinder strength

1
A Base plate foot print area

2
A Design effective concrete bearing area


Model No. Axial load
kN
Maximum Stress
MPa
2 9366 42.0
4 10200 65.0
Table 3: Minimum Sized Area Base Plates


Finite Element Analysis Lapping Strip Method Prediction Model No. Axial load
kN
Max Stress
MPa
Ave Stress in Stress
Block
MPa
Ideal material
MPa
Material Reduction
Factors Applied
MPa
1 14913 26.9 21.5 38.0 30.9
3 14112 46.4 40.9 60.0 50.4
Table 4: Predicted Stress verus FEA Stress in Lapping Areas

No Section Flange
Yield
Web
Yield
Flange
Width
Column
depth
Web
thickness
Flange
thickness
Base
Plate
Yield
Concrete
Strength
Base Plate Dimensions

yf
f
MPa
yw
f
MPa
f
b
mm
d
mm
w
t
mm
f
t
mm
yi
f
MPa
'
c
f
MPa
Breadth
mm
Depth
mm
Thickness
mm
2 1200WB455 280 300 500 1200 16 40 240 30 720 1220 115
4 500WC440 280 280 500 480 40 40 240 60 520 520 90

Figure 15: No 1 1200WB455 bearing stress
distribution


Figure 16: No 4 500WC440 base plate bearing
stress distribution


Figure 17: No 3 500WC440 minimum sized base
plate bearing stress distribution

4.3. Discussion of Finite Element Analysis
The finite element analysis shows that for extended
base plates the maximum bearing pressures occurs
on the underside of the base plate in the vicinity of
where the flanges meets the web. The Lapping
Strip Method shows a similar but simplified
pressure distribution. The Lapping Strip Method
conservatively over predicts the stresses when
compared to finite element analysis.

The current allowance for confining effects in
concrete bearing capacity in foundations is limited
to a factor of 2 in equation 24. If improvements in
prediction of confined bearing capacity of the
concrete could be made then greater base plate
bearing capacity could be accommodated in the
Lapping Strip Method.

The minimum area base plate FEA shows stress
concentration on the concrete immediate below the
edge of the base plate on the concrete. Some local
crushing of the concrete and redistribution of
bearing pressure will be necessary. Further
investigations of this effect in minimum area base
plate are required. Currently the Lapping Strip
Method is therefore limited to base plates sized to
extend beyond the rigid base plate area. For lightly
loaded columns, the thickness required is small and
thus the rigid area extensions from the faces of
columns are also small.


5. CONCLUSION
Literature review shows that there are a number of
different models for column pinned base plates.
Each model has different assumptions for bearing
pressure area under the base plate. Finite element
analysis shows that that the bearing pressure
increases in the vicinity of where the flanges meets
the web. The Lapping Strip Method presented in
this paper reflects the distribution of bearing stress
more accurately. Further investigated on minimum
sized base plates and what values to use for
concrete bearing capacity is required.


6. NOTATION

b
Concrete bearing stress capacity
Reduction factor
c
Concrete capacity reduction
factor
s
Steel capacity reduction factor
r
A Total effective rigid bearing area
rf
A Effective flange rigid plate area
rw
A Effective web rigid plate area
c Effective cantilever length
f
b Flange width
d Section depth
w
d Web depth
yi
f Base plate yield stress
M* Applied Moment
M Moment Capacity
bp
N Base Plate Design Axial Capacity
s
N Axial design capacity of column
f
t Flange thickness
i
t Base plate thickness
w
t Web thickness
wi
t Weld web leg length
ef
Flange slenderness ratio
ew
Web slenderness ratio
ey
Plate element slenderness ratio
yield limit


REFERENCES
1. AS/NZS 4600:1996. Cold-formed steel
structures. Standards New Zealand/ Standards
Australia
2. ABAQUS/Standard. Finite Element Analysis
Program. 2001. HKS Inc, Pawtucket RI, USA.
3. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures DD Env
1993-1-1 Part 1.1 General rules and rules for
buildings, 1992
4. Hyland, C., HERA Report R4:100:1999
Structural Steework Connections Guide, 1999,
HERA, Manukau, New Zealand
5. Hyland, C., Cowie, K., Clifton,. C., HERA
Report R4:2003 Structural Steework
Connections Guide, 2003, HERA, Manukau,
New Zealand
6. Joints in Steel Construction Moment
Connections. 1997, The Steel Construction
Institute, England
7. NZS 3101:1995. Concrete Structures
Standard. Wellington: Standards New
Zealand.
8. NZS 3404:1997. Steel Structures Standard.
Wellington: Standards New Zealand.
9. Ranzi, G and Kneen, P Design of Pinned
Column Base Plates. Steel Construction, Vol
36 No 2 September 2002, Australian Steel
Institute, Australia.