Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LRFD Method
RICHARD M. DRAKE and SHARON J. ELKIN
INTRODUCTION where:
It is common design practice to design a building or struc-
ture beam-column with a moment-resisting or fixed base. B ⳱ base plate width perpendicular to moment direc-
Therefore the base plate and anchor rods must be capable tion, in.
of transferring shear loads, axial loads, and bending mo- N ⳱ base plate length parallel to moment direction, in.
ments to the supporting foundation. b f ⳱ column flange width, in.
Typically, these beam-column base plates have been d ⳱ overall column depth, in.
designed and/or analyzed by using service loads1 or by f ⳱ anchor rod distance from column and base plate
approximating the stress relationship assuming the com- centerline parallel to moment direction, in.
pression bearing location.2 The authors present another m ⳱ base plate bearing interface cantilever direction
approach, using factored loads directly in a method consis- parallel to moment direction, in.
tent with the equations of static equilibrium and the LRFD N ⫺ 0.95d
Specification.3 m⳱ (1)
2
The moment-resisting base plate must have design
strengths in excess of the required strengths, flexural (Mu ), n ⳱ base plate bearing interface cantilever perpendic-
axial ( Pu ), and shear (V u ) for all load combinations. ular to moment direction, in.
A typical beam-column base plate geometry is shown
in Figure 1, which is consistent with that shown on page B ⫺ 0.80b f
n⳱ (2)
11-61 of the LRFD Manual.4 2
x ⳱ base plate tension interface cantilever parallel to
moment direction, in.
d tf
x⳱ f ⫺ Ⳮ (3)
2 2
t f ⳱ column flange thickness, in.
The progression of beam-column loadings, in order of in-
creasing moments, is presented in four load cases.
Case A is a load case with axial compression and shear,
without bending moment. This case results in a full length
uniform pressure distribution between the base plate and
the supporting concrete. This case is summarized in the
LRFD Manual4 beginning on page 11-54 and is summa-
rized herein for completeness.
Case B evolves from Case A by the addition of a small
Fig. 1. Base Plate Design Variables bending moment. The moment changes the full length
uniform pressure distribution to a partial length uniform
pressure distribution, but is not large enough to cause sepa-
Richard M. Drake is Principal Structural Engineer, Fluor
ration between the base plate and the supporting concrete.
Daniel, Irvine, CA.
Case C evolves from Case B by the addition of a spe-
Sharon J. Elkin is Structural Engineer, Fluor Daniel, Irvine, cific bending moment such that the uniform pressure dis-
CA.
tribution is the smallest possible length without separation
Mu
e⳱ (4)
Pu
Pu N
Fig. 4. Maximum Moment Without Uplift 0⬍ ⬍ Mu
6
Mu N
e⳱ (4) ⬍e (7)
Pu 6
Pu N CONCRETE BEARING LIMIT STATE
0 ⬍ Mu ⳱
6 To satisfy static equilibrium at the concrete bearing limit
N state, the centroid of the concrete bearing reaction ( Pp )
e⳱ must be aligned with the line-of-action of the applied axial
6
load.
冢6 冣
N
Y ⳱ N ⫺ 2e ⳱ N ⫺ 2
LRFD Specification Requirements
2 The LRFD Specification3 defines the concrete bearing
Y⳱ N (6)
3 limit state in Section J9.
冪A
A2
冪A
A2
ⱕ2 Pu ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BY ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BY (2)
1 1
where: Pu ⱕ qY
c ⳱ compression resistance factor = 0.60 P u ⱕ q( N ⫺ 2 e ) (12)
fc⬘ ⳱ specified concrete compressive strength, ksi
A1 ⳱ area of steel concentrically bearing on a concrete Note that equation 12 is not a closed form solution be-
support, in.2 cause;
A2 ⳱ maximum area of the portion of the supporting q is a function of A1 ,
surface that is geometrically similar to and con- A1 is a function of y,
centric with the loaded area, in.2 y is a function of e, and
e is a function of Pu .
Practical Design Procedure—Required Area
However, if e is defined as some fixed distance or as
Select base plate dimensions such that: some percentage of N , the corresponding maximum values
Pu ⱕ c P p (8) of Pu and Mu can be determined directly.
冪A
A2
q ⳱ 0.51 fc⬘B ⱕ 1.02 fc⬘B
冢3 N 冣 ⱍⱍⱍ B 2 N ⱕ 1.02 f ⬘B 冢3 N 冣
(10) 2 A2 2
1 Pu ⱕ 0.51 fc⬘B
冪 冢3 冣
c
For most column base plates bearing directly on a con-
crete foundation, the concrete dimension is much greater
than the base plate dimension, and it is reasonable to Pu ⱕ 0.667qN (13)
冪
A2
ⱖ 2. For most column
冢6 冣
assume that the ratio N
A1 M u ⳱ P u ( e) ⳱ P u
base plates bearing on grout or a concrete pier, the con-
crete (grout) dimension is equal to the base plate dimen-
sion, and it is reasonable to conservatively take the ratio Mu ⱕ 0.111qN 2 (14)
冪
A2
⳱ 1. Case D: Moment with Uplift
A1
Given the following:
Case A: No Moment - No Uplift Pu , Mu , c , fc⬘, B, f 兵inches & kips其
A1 ⳱ BN
冪A
A2
c P p ⳱ c 0.85 fc⬘BY ⳱ qY (15)
冪
A2
Pu ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BN ⱕ (0.60)(0.85) fc⬘BN (2) 1
A1 Mu
e⳱ (4)
Pu ⱕ qN (11) Pu
冢 2 ⫺ 2 Ⳮ f 冣 ⫺ P (e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0
N Y For ASTM A325 bolts, threads excluded from the shear
c P p u plane:
Ft ⳱ 117 ⫺ 1.5 fv ⱕ 90 (Table J3.5)
冢 冣
N Y
qY ⫺ Ⳮ f ⫺ Pu ( e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0 (17) where:
2 2
V ub ⳱ required anchor rod shear strength, kips
qY N qY 2 ⳱ anchor rod resistance factor ⳱ 0.75
⫺ Ⳮ qY f ⫺ Pu (e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0
2 2 Fv ⳱ nominal shear strength, ksi
Ab ⳱ anchor rod nominal (gross) area, in.2
冢2 冣Y 冢 冣
q N T ub ⳱ required anchor rod tensile strength, kips
2
⫺q f Ⳮ Y Ⳮ Pu ( e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0 (18)
2 Ft ⳱ nominal tensile strength, ksi
fv ⳱ anchor rod shear stress, ksi
This is in the form of a classic quadratic equation, with
V ub
unknown Y . fv ⳱ (23)
Ab
aY Ⳮ bY Ⳮ c ⳱ 0
2
(19) For A307 bolts:
Fv ⳱ 24 ksi (Table J3.2)
⫺b ⫾ 冪b2 ⫺ 4ac
Y⳱ For A325 bolts when threads are excluded from the shear
2a
plane:
冪冋 册
2 Fv ⳱ 60 ksi (Table J3.2)
q 冢 f Ⳮ N2 冣 ⫾ ⫺q 冢 f Ⳮ N2 冣 ⫺ 4 冸 2q 冹 [ Pu ( f Ⳮ e)]
Y⳱ Required Strength
2 冸 2q 冹
The shear stress ( fv ) is calculated considering the required
shear strength of the column base.
冣 冪冋 冢 冣册
2
2 P u ( f Ⳮ e)
冢
N N V ub
Y⳱ fⳭ ⫾ ⫺ fⳭ ⫺ (20) fv ⳱ (24)
2 2 q Ⲇv A b
where:
To determine the other unknown, T u , substitute the value
for Y into the equation: Ⲇv ⳱ number of rods sharing shear load, unitless
T u ⳱ qY ⫺ Pu (16) Note that all the base plate anchor rods are considered
effective in sharing the shear load.
As a check, back substitute the value for Y into the
equation: Practical Design Procedure —Rod Sizes
冢 2 ⫺ 2 Ⳮ f 冣 ⫺ P (e Ⳮ f ) ⳱ 0
N Y Vu
qY u (17) V ub ⳱ ⱕ 0.75Fv Ab (25)
Ⲇv
冢 冣
Ab m2
M pl ⳱ f p (29)
2
Tu
T ub ⳱ ⱕ 0.75Ft Ab (27)
Ⲇt On section parallel to column web:
where:
Ⲇt ⳱ number of rods sharing tension load, unitless M pl ⳱ f p
冢冣 n2
2
(30)
Note that all of the base plate anchor rods are not con- where:
sidered effective in sharing the tension load. For most base
f p ⳱ concrete bearing stress, ksi
plate designs, only half of the anchor rods are required to
resist tension for a given load combination. The bearing pressure may cause bending in the base plate
The embedment, edge distances, and overlapping shear in the area between the flanges, especially for lightly loaded
cones of the anchor rods into the concrete must be checked columns. Yield line theory8,9 is used to analyze this con-
to assure that the design tensile strength also exceeds the sideration.
required tensile strength. This check should be in accor-
冪db f
dance with the appropriate concrete design specification, n⬘ ⳱ (31)
and is beyond the scope of this paper.3,6 4
It should be noted that base plate holes are often oversized ( n⬘)2
with respect to the anchor rods. In this case, some “slippage” M pl ⳱ f p (32)
2
may be necessary before the anchor rod shear limit state
is reached. For large shear loads, the designer may choose Let c ⳱ the larger of m, n, and n⬘:
to investigate alternate shear transfer limit states involving
pretensioned bolts,7 friction and/or shear lugs.
M pl ⳱ f p
冢冣 c2
2
(33)
LRFD Specification Requirements Note that for most base plate geometries, the cantilever
dimension ( n) is very small and “corner bending” of the
The LRFD Specification3 defines the flexural yielding limit
base plate is neglected. When the dimension is large to
state in Section F1.
accommodate more anchor rods or more bearing surface,
M pl ⱕ b M n (28) corner bending plate moments should be considered and
used in the base plate thickness calculations.
Mn ⳱ M p (LRFD F1-1)
where: Required Strength—Tension Interface
The tension on the anchor rods will cause bending in the
M pl ⳱ required base plate flexural strength, in-K base plate for the cantilever distance x.
b ⳱ flexural resistance factor = 0.90 For a unit width of base plate:
Mn ⳱ nominal flexural strength, in-K
Mp ⳱ plastic bending moment, in-K Tu x
M pl ⳱ (34)
B
Required Strength—Bearing Interface
Nominal Strength
The bearing pressure between the concrete and the base
For a unit width of base plate:
plate will cause bending in the base plate for the cantilever
distances m and n. The bearing stress, f p (ksi), is calculated t 2p
considering the required axial and flexural strength of the
column base, Pu and Mu respectively.
Mn ⳱ M p ⳱ 冢 冣 4
Fy (35)
冢冣 冢冣
c2 t 2p If Y ⬎ m:
fp ⱕ 0.90 Fy
2 4
冪 BYF
Pu
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (46)
y
冪F
fp
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (36)
y If Y ⬍ m:
ⱍ Pu 冢m ⫺ Y
冣
冪
Practical Design Procedure—Tension Interface Base ⱍ 2
Plate Thickness t p(req) ⱖ 2.11 (47)
BF y
Setting the design strength equal to the nominal strength
and solving for the required plate thickness: DESIGN EXAMPLE 1
M pl ⱕ b M p (28)
冢冣
Tu x t 2p
ⱕ 0.90 Fy
B 4
冪
Tu x
t p(req) ⱖ 2.11 (37)
BF y
冪 BNF
Pu
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (39)
y
冪
1.5 Pu 16.0 in. 12.12 in. 0.605 in.
t p(req) ⱖ 1.49c (43) x⳱ ⫺ Ⳮ ⳱ 2.24 in. (3)
BNF y 2 2 2
冪(19.0)
2(130)(19.08)
Y ⳱ 19.0 ⫾ 2 ⫺ (20)
61.2
⳱ 19.0 ⫾ 16.73 ⳱ 2.27 in.
T u ⳱ 61.2 K/in.(2.27 in.) ⫺ 130 K ⳱ 8.92 K (16)
8.92 K
T ub ⳱ ⳱ 4.46 K (27)
2 Required:
冪
(8.92 K)(2.24 in.) Mu ⳱ 1.2(171 in.-K) Ⳮ 1.6(309 in.-K) ⳱ 700 in.-K
t p(req) ⳱ 2.11 ⳱ 0.35 in. (45)
(20.0 in.)(36 ksi)
2. Dimensions:
14.0 in. ⫺ 0.95(7.995 in.)
ⱍ (130 K) 5.24 in. ⫺
冢 2.27 in.
冣 m⳱ ⳱ 3.20 in. (1)
冪
ⱍ 2 2
t p(req) ⳱ 2.11 (47)
(20.0 in.)(36 ksi) 11.0 in. 7.995 in. 0.435 in.
x⳱ ⫺ Ⳮ ⳱ 1.72 (3)
⳱ 1.82 in. controls 2 2 2
The authors’ solution yields the identical base A1 ⳱ area of steel concentrically bearing on a concrete
plate size and thickness. Required tensile strength support, in.2