Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
HERA’s 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 R4100:2003 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 Hsection
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. MurrayStockwell Model
The MurrayStockwell 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 MurrayStockwell 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 MurrayStockwell 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: MurrayStockwell Model – Assumed
shape of pressure distribution.
2.4. Thornton Model
The Thornton Model is a combination of the
Cantilever, Fling and MurrayStockwell models.
The derived compact formula is suitable for only
Hshaped 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 MurrayStockwell 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 Hsection. 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
Tstub 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 Hsection 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. TStub model
The Tstub 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
= σ (1)
b
σ Concrete bearing stress
c Effective cantilever length
c c
w
t
b
σ
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
=
σ
(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
φ
=
φσ
(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 φ = φσ + + ≤ φ (5)
d Depth of plate section
w
t Web thickness of plate section
s
N φ 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 φ = φσ + + + + ≤ φ
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
φσ
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
φ = φ σ (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 postbuckling
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 nonuniform 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 Hsections are:
ey
λ = 16 Hot Rolled, HR, flange
ey
λ = 45 Hot Rolled, HR, web
ey
λ = 14 Welded, HW, flange
ey
λ = 35 Welded, HW, web
The flange and web slenderness is
y
f w
ef
f
f
b t
2t 250
−
λ = Flange slenderness
(11)
y
f
ew
w
f
d 2t
t 250
−
λ = Web slenderness
(12)
The effective flange width and web depth is
ey
ef f f
ef
b b b
λ  
= ≤

λ
\ .
(13)
( ) ( )
ey
ew f f
ew
d d 2t d 2t
λ  
= − ≤ −

λ
\ .
(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
λ  
= − ≤ −

λ
\ .
(17)
( )
ey
ew w w
ew
d d 2t d 2t
λ  
= − ≤ −

λ
\ .
(18)
Element slenderness is calculated using equations
y
f w
ef
f
f
b 2t
2t 250
−
λ = (19)
y
f
ew
w
f
d 2t
t 250
−
λ = (20)
From NZS3404:1997 the slenderness yield limits
for cold formed hollow sections is
ey
λ = 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)
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

− − −


.

\

+ π =
2 2
2
8 . 0
2
c t
d
t
d
A
w
o
wi
o
rin
(22)
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+ −


.

\

+ + π =
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 nonlinear static finite
element analyses. The models were built and
analyzed in ABAQUS version 6.31. 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
pressureoverclosure 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
(
φσ = φ φ (
(
¸ ¸
(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
σ Concrete bearing stress capacity
φ Reduction factor
c
φ Concrete capacity reduction
factor
s
φ 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 φ Base Plate Design Axial Capacity
s
N φ 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
λ Flange slenderness ratio
ew
λ Web slenderness ratio
ey
λ Plate element slenderness ratio
yield limit
REFERENCES
1. AS/NZS 4600:1996. Coldformed 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
199311 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.
2. This model assumes a uniform bearing pressure on the underside of the base plate. As shown in Figure 1 and 2. This approach leads to a conservative design for large base plates. Figure 2: Cantilver Model – collapse mechanism As the cantilever extension reduces the predicted capacities becomes increasingly unconservative.95dc x 0. Assumption of bearing pressure under the base plates also varies. The procedure developed by the authors.1. G and Kneen. 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. simply supported along the flanges and free on the edges opposite to the web.1. P.3. Figure 3: Fling Model – Yield line pattern 2. 2002) 2. Cantilever Model The cantilever model was the first available approach to design of column pinned base plates. Fling recommended a strength check based on yield line theory with a pattern as shown in Figure 3. Refer to Figure 4. MurrayStockwell Model The MurrayStockwell model is applicable to “lightly’ loaded base plate for H section columns. Fling Model The Fling model is a modification to the cantilever model. Figure 1: Cantilver model assumed loaded area . For an Hsection the loaded area on the base plate is assumed to be concentrated over an area of 0. called the Lapping Strip method approach. The support conditions assumed for the plate are fixed along the web. It is only applicable to H shaped sections. Literature Review Ranzi and Kneen made a comprehensive review of column base plate procedures and a summary is presented below. This model recognized limitations of bare plate stiffness on load capacity by introducing a serviceability check. The MurrayStockwell model assumes that the pressure acting over the H shaped bearing area is uniform and equal to the maximum bearing capacity of the concrete. (FEA). 2.. 2. For base plates where sizes are similar to the column. 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. The Lapping Strip method for base plate design is used in HERA Report R4100:2003 Structural Steelwork Connections Guide. testing.80bfc. In this paper a brief description of literature reviewed is presented along with their various assumptions. This results in the base plate bending as a cantilever about the edges of this area. 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. (Rabzi. The MurrayStockwell 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. is then presented including a description of Finite Element Analysis.
However the crossover between the two approaches is not consistent. This model utilizes the concept of rigid areas used in the MurrayStockwell model. Introduction The Lapping Strip Method modifies the equivalent rigid area concept and the “T” stub model used in Annex L of Eurocode 3. F c c Rigid Area tw ti σb Figure 6: “T” stub model assumed stress distribution The design bending moment of the base plate is given by the equation: 1 M* = σb c 2 (1) 2 Column Base Plate Figure 5: Eurocode 3 assumed bearing pressure The development of the procedure is based on the Tstub approach. 2. Refer to the Figure 6. The bearing area on the underside of the base plate is represented by an equivalent rigid area over which the stress is uniform. Eurocode 3 Model Annex L of Eurocode 3. c. 2. Figure 4: MurrayStockwell Model – Assumed shape of pressure distribution. but extends the rigid areas outside the section perimeter.1. Thornton Model The Thornton Model is a combination of the Cantilever. The Eurocode method gives a σb c Concrete bearing stress Effective cantilever length . Lapping Strip Method 3. 3.5. 3. 1993. Refer to Figure 5. For an Hsection the bearing area is assumed to be uniform over an H shaped bearing that extends inside and outside the Hsection. The derived compact formula is suitable for only Hshaped columns. Therefore the authors have developed an improved procedure called the Lapping Strip Method. However finite element analysis shows that the method over predicts the base capacities due to the overly simplified stress distribution assumed. can be calculated by equating bearing capacity of the concrete with the bending capacity of the steel base plate.significant improvement in bearing capacities over the Thornton Model and uses a uniform approach.4. TStub model The Tstub model is a unit length column with a uniform axial load over its length. Otherwise the MurrayStockwell model governs. The length of the equivalent rigid area from the face of the column. gives another procedure for the design of a column base plate. The Cantilever model is used for extended base plates. Fling and MurrayStockwell models.2. The Lapping Strip Method is developed for an Hsection 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.
6t wi + 2c ) ≤ φNs t wi 3.6t wi + 2c )( t w + 1. The design bearing pressure in the lapping regions is set equal to the design concrete bearing capacity. to give an increased bearing pressure in the vicinity where the flanges meet the web. The effective rigid bearing area under the flanges and web including allowance for welds is A rf = ( bf + 1.The elastic flexural capacity of the steel base plate is given by equation: 1 M = t i2 fyi (2) 6 ti Base plate thickness fyi Base plate yield stress The elastic rather than the plastic capacity is used to maintain consistency with the rigid area approach applied.3. according to the New Zealand Steel Structures Standard: NZS3404:1997 and the New Zealand Concrete Structures Standard NZS3101:1995 the equation becomes: φs fyi (4) c = ti 3φσb The maximum axial load that the base plate strip can take is equal to the equivalent rigid area multiplied by the concrete bearing capacity. 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: φNbp = φσb ( t w + 1. Therefore the flanges and web bearing stress outside the lapping zones is half the concrete bearing capacity.6t wi + 2c ) Rigid Area tw c ti φσb Figure 7: Unit plate rigid bearing area (7) A rw = ( dw + 1.6t wi + 2c ) (8) A rf Effective flange rigid plate area A rw Effective web rigid plate area bf Flange width dw Web depth tf Flange thickness tw Web thickness The total effective bearing area is then equal to A r = 2A rf + A rw (9) . φNs d Figure 8: Development of H section rigid bearing area. c. Equations 1 and 2 are combined to determine the effective cantilever length.6t wi + 2c )( t f + 1.6t wi + 2c )( d + 1. c. Under a single vertical plate section the maximum capacity is φNbp = φσb ( t w + 2c )( d + 2c ) ≤ φNs (5) d tw Depth of plate section Web thickness of plate section Axial capacity of vertical plate The equivalent rigid area is increased to take account of welds by measuring the rigid cantilever length. H section Weld web leg length (6) 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. fyi (3) c = ti 3σb Inserting material reduction factors.
HR. Studies of slender elements have found that slender plates develop postbuckling capacities by shedding load to locations close to the edge restraints (AS/NZS 4600:1996). web Figure 9: H section rigid bearing area The design bearing capacity of the connection is 1 φNbp = φc A r σb (10) 2 3.4. A rf = ( bef + 1. This same approach has been used in the Lapping Strip Method. The effective rigid areas of the flanges and web are assessed in a similar way to the H section procedure above. then the axial load distribution is not uniform at the design load.λ ey = 14 λ ey = 35 Welded. Refer to Figure 11. flange λ ey = 45 Hot Rolled.6t wi + 2c )( t f + 1. Slenderness Limits Slender elements of columns will not develop the full section capacity and will alter the stress distribution in the base plate.6t wi + 2c )( t w + 1. Refer to Figure 10. web Figure 12: Channel section rigid bearing area .6t wi + 2c ) (15) A rw = ( dew + 2t f + 1. Figure 10: Equivalent stress for a slender element (AS/NZS 4600:1996) From NZS3404:1997 the slenderness yield limits used for Hsections are: λ ey = 16 Hot Rolled. HW. HW. flange Welded. The flange and web slenderness is fy b −t λ ef = f w Flange slenderness 2t f 250 (11) fy d − 2t f λ ew = Web slenderness tw 250 (12) The effective flange width and web depth is λ ey (13) b ef = b f ≤ bf λ ef λ ey dew = ( d − 2t f ) ≤ ( d − 2t f ) (14) λ ew The effective flange width is developed symmetrically about the flange mid point. The ‘effective design width’ approach used in AS/NZS 4600:1996 approximates the nonuniform distribution of stress over the entire length of the plate to a reduced effective length of uniform distributed stress. Channel Section Columns The Lapping Strip Method is applied to channel section columns as shown in Figure 12.5. Where the slenderness yield limits of the web and flange are not met.6t wi + 2c ) (16) Figure 11: I section rigid bearing area for bef < bf and dew < d – 2tf 3. The effective web depth is split and extends evenly from the flange/web intersections. HR.
RHS. i. A r = 2A rin + A rout (21) Two columns with two different sized base plates were analyzed.31. No investigation was performed on how the interaction properties influence the results. The models were built and analyzed in ABAQUS version 6. extending just beyond the column depth and breadth. ABAQUS concrete smeared cracking material model was assigned to the large plain concrete foundation block. SHS. Figure 13: SHS/RHS section rigid bearing area 3. and square hollow. C3D8I. The properties of this interaction were frictionless in tangential direction. Elastic perfectly plastic material properties were assumed for the steel columns and base plates. section columns. The two columns analyzed were 1200WB455 and 500WC440. Rectangular Hollow Section Columns For rectangular hollow. Introduction The Lapping Strip Method assumptions were verified by a series of nonlinear static finite element analyses.3.e. two sides are treated as webs and the other two sides as flanges. Finite Element Analysis 4. The second where the base plate area was minimum. Incompatible mode solid. elements with finer mesh in the vicinity of the base plate were assigned to the steel and concrete members. The first where the base plate size extended beyond the regions of rigid bearing area calculated using the Lapping Strip Method.6. 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.1. The effective flange and web widths are given by equations λ ey b ef = ( b − 2t w ) (17) ≤ b − 2t w λ ef λ ey dew = ( d − 2t w ) ≤ d − 2t w (18) λ ew Element slenderness is calculated using equations fy b − 2t w λ ef = f (19) 2t f 250 Arout 2 2 d do o = π + 0. while the normal behavior of pressureoverclosure was assumed in the shape of exponential decay. Contact between the base plate and concrete was modeled. The FEA models did not include any modeling of welds. and reduced integration. d Arin = π o + 0.6. but negligible variations in the bearing stresses are expected.8t wi 2 2 2 d − o − tw − c 2 (22) . Circular Hollow Section Columns For circular hollow section. CHS. The two sizes of base plates for each column were selected for two situations. C3D8R.8t wi 2 (23) λ ew = d − 2t f tw fy 250 (20) Figure 14: CHS section rigid bearing area From NZS3404:1997 the slenderness yield limits for cold formed hollow sections is λ ey = 40 4.8t wi + c − 2 + 0.
9 Lapping Strip Method Prediction Ideal material MPa 38.4 Ave Stress in Stress Block MPa 21.9 50. is calculated in accordance with New Zealand Concrete Structures code NZS 3101:1995.85fc' (24) A1 min fc' 28 day concrete cylinder strength A1 Base plate foot print area A 2 Design effective concrete bearing area Axial load Maximum Stress kN MPa 2 9366 42. 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 fyf 1 3 No 1200WB455 500WC440 Section MPa 280 280 Flange Yield fyw MPa 300 280 Web Yield bf mm 500 500 Flange Width d mm 1200 480 Column depth tw mm 16 40 Web thickness tf mm 40 40 Flange thickness fyi MPa 240 240 Base Plate Yield fc' MPa 30 30 Concrete Strength Breadth mm 840 730 Depth mm 1540 710 Thickness mm 115 75 Table 1: Extended Base Plates Base Plate Dimensions fyf 2 4 1200WB455 500WC440 MPa 280 280 fyw MPa 300 280 bf mm 500 500 d mm 1200 480 tw mm 16 40 tf mm 40 40 fyi MPa 240 240 fc' MPa 30 60 Breadth mm 720 520 Depth mm 1220 520 Thickness mm 115 90 Table 2: Minimum Area Base Plates 4. The design concrete bearing capacity.2.0 Material Reduction Factors Applied MPa 30.5 40. Model No.0 Table 3: Minimum Sized Area Base Plates Model No. φc 0.4. Axial load kN Finite Element Analysis Max Stress MPa 26.85fc' 2 φσb = φc 0.4 1 3 14913 14112 Table 4: Predicted Stress verus FEA Stress in Lapping Areas .2. The first predicted pressure is calculated using idealised material properties with no material reduction factors applied.0 60. The second predicted pressure uses material properties with reduction factors applied.0 4 10200 65. The maximum stress and the average stress in the stress block area based on Lapping Strip Method are presented. The equation being A2 . 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. accounting for confinement of the concrete. This is compared to the predicted stress for the area in the vicinity of where the web meets the flanges.9 46.
The Lapping Strip Method presented in this paper reflects the distribution of bearing stress more accurately. the thickness required is small and thus the rigid area extensions from the faces of columns are also small.Figure 15: No 1 1200WB455 bearing stress distribution The minimum area base plate FEA shows stress concentration on the concrete immediate below the edge of the base plate on the concrete. Figure 16: No 4 500WC440 base plate bearing stress distribution 6. Further investigated on minimum sized base plates and what values to use for concrete bearing capacity is required.3. Each model has different assumptions for bearing pressure area under the base plate. Currently the Lapping Strip Method is therefore limited to base plates sized to extend beyond the rigid base plate area. The Lapping Strip Method conservatively over predicts the stresses when compared to finite element analysis. For lightly loaded columns. Further investigations of this effect in minimum area base plate are required. CONCLUSION Literature review shows that there are a number of different models for column pinned base plates. 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. Some local crushing of the concrete and redistribution of bearing pressure will be necessary. The current allowance for confining effects in concrete bearing capacity in foundations is limited to a factor of 2 in equation 24. 5. The Lapping Strip Method shows a similar but simplified pressure distribution. Finite element analysis shows that that the bearing pressure increases in the vicinity of where the flanges meets the web. 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. Concrete bearing stress capacity Reduction factor Concrete capacity reduction factor Steel capacity reduction factor Total effective rigid bearing area Effective flange rigid plate area Effective web rigid plate area Effective cantilever length Flange width Section depth Web depth Base plate yield stress Applied Moment Moment Capacity Base Plate Design Axial Capacity Axial design capacity of column Flange thickness Base plate thickness Web thickness Weld web leg length Flange slenderness ratio Web slenderness ratio A rf A rw c bf d dw fyi M* M φNbp φNs tf ti tw t wi λ ef λ ew . NOTATION σb φ φc φs Ar Figure 17: No 3 500WC440 minimum sized base plate bearing stress distribution 4.
. Manukau.λ ey Plate element slenderness ratio yield limit REFERENCES 1. HERA Report R4:100:1999 Structural Steework Connections Guide. 3. 2001. HKS Inc.. 5. HERA. 1997. Steel Structures Standard. Cowie. 2. C. The Steel Construction Institute. 8. Vol 36 No 2 September 2002. AS/NZS 4600:1996. 2003. 7. Ranzi. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures DD Env 199311 Part 1. HERA Report R4:2003 Structural Steework Connections Guide. . Wellington: Standards New Zealand.. P Design of Pinned Column Base Plates. Finite Element Analysis Program. Concrete Structures Standard. NZS 3404:1997. Steel Construction. New Zealand Joints in Steel Construction Moment Connections. Clifton. HERA. K. C. G and Kneen. C. Manukau.. Australia. Standards New Zealand/ Standards Australia ABAQUS/Standard. 1999. Australian Steel Institute. 1992 Hyland. Coldformed steel structures. USA.1 General rules and rules for buildings. Pawtucket RI. 6.. 4. 9. New Zealand Hyland. England NZS 3101:1995. Wellington: Standards New Zealand.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.