STEEL COMMITTEE OF CAUFORNIA
TECHNICAL INFORMATION & PRODUCT SERVICE
Design of Small Base Plates for Wide Flange Columns*
W. A. THORNTON
The 9th Edition• of the AISC Manual of Steel Construc-
tion uses the Murray-Stockwell 2 method for analysis of
small base plates, i.e., plates that are only slightly larger than
the column depth d and width bf. It combines this method
with the cantilever method of the 8th3 and earlier editions
for large base plates. The Murray-Stockwell method assumes
a bearing pressure of Ft,, the maximum permitted, over an
H-shaped contact area under the column cross-section
between the plate and the concrete. The cantilever method,
on the other hand, assumes a uniform bearing pressure, fp
< Fp, over the entire base plate surface of area BxN
(Fig. 1). Thus, the two methods assume very different bear-
ing pressure distributions and are difficult to combine into
a single method.
A solution to this dilemma is to return to the 8th Edition
assumption of uniform pressure between the base plate and
the concrete. This assumption is conservative with respect
to the base plate thickness determination because the true
pressure distribution will be less near the plate edges and
more under the column cross-section, which cross-section
also provides support for the plate at its top surface. Since
the plate is assumed more heavily loaded distant from its
A. Thornton, PhD, PE, is chief engineer, Cives Steel Com-
pany, Roswefi, GA, and is chairman of AISC Committee on
Manual, Textbooks, and Codes.
Reproduced from AISC Engineering Journal, Volume 27, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1990
NOVEMBER 1990
supports than it will be, a plate thickness determined under
this load will be thicker than it needs to be.
To supplement the cantilever method for large base plates,
which is actually a yield line method, it is consistent again
to use yield line theory applied to the portion of the base
plate contained within the column depth and width. Hap-
pily, exact solutions to this problem are available in the liter-
ature. 4 Consider Fig. 2, which shows a plate supported on
three edges and free on the fourth. The dimensions of the
plate are taken as the column depth d and the half column
width bfi2, rather than the more correct d - 2tf and (bf -
t,.)/2. This is done for simplicity and is conservative. If the
three supported edges are taken as completely fixed, i.e.,
no displacement and no rotation about an axis parallel to each
edge, the required base plate thickness with a factor of safety
of 2 is
tp = o.t,j (1)
where
ft, = uniform pressure between base plate and concrete
= P/BxN, ksi
F.,. -- yield stress of base plate, ksi
G ,, f 3 G - l•--6-G- +I'•
where r/ = d/bf
 b

Or SuppoSed
Edge
/

dI
m

.95O N
Unsuppo•ed
r
Edge

m ,

Fig. I. Column base plate geometry and symbols (from AISC'). Fig,. 2. Small base plate geometry and support conditions.

If the base plate is small with N • d, it may be unconser-

vative to assume complete fixity of the base plate to the col-
The expression for et given in Eq. 2 can be approximated by
umn flanges. If the plate of Fig. 2 is completely fixed to the
column web along the side of length d but simply supported,
et = 4 • (3) i.e., no displacement but rotation unrestrained, along the
sides of length bf/2, the required base plate thickness with
with an error of -2.97 % (unconservative) to +6.00% (con- a factor of safety of 2 is given by Eq. 1, with
servative) in the range of ?7 from • to 3. Then, Eq. I becomes
with Eq. 3
•,2,•: + l,/--7•--lJ (8)
This expression for et can be approximated bY
1 et = '/2,J-• (9)
where • has been replaced by • with an error of 2%.
with an error of -0% (unconservative) and +t7.7% (con-
Combining Eq. 4 with the cantilever method for large base servative) in the range of ,/from g to 3. In the more com-
plates, let mon range of g _< ,/ < 2, the error is only +8.00% (con-
n'= (5) servative). Using Eq. 9 in Eq. 1,

and t, = 2(U•q•j) J (10)

I = max(m,n,n) (6)
where m and n are defined in Fig. 1. Then the required plate Combining Eq. 10 with the cantilever method for large base
thickness is plates, let

n ' = i,• (11)

tr = 2 t J (7)
I = max(m,n,n') (12)

2
 /Z_ The equivalent Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
tp = 2 1 • (13) equation for base plate thickness is:

The formulation for the two models just discussed can be

seen to be exactly the same except for n'. Let the first for-
mulation, for which n' = be referred to as Model 1
and the second, with n' = 'Ax/db/be referred to as Model
2. It will be instructive to see how these two models com-
pare with a method suggested by Ahmed and Krepss and
the method of the AISC 8th Edition Manual. To this end,
consider Table 1. The nine examples of this table show that
both Models 1 and 2 produce plate thicknesses !ess than or
equal to the method of the AISC 8th Edition. The method
of Ahmed and Kreps produces plate thicknesses between
Models 1 and 2 for small base plates of square columns, but
tends to produce plates too thick for nonsquare columns
(T/ > 1), as seen from Examples 7, 8 and 9. In the case of
Examples 8 and 9, it produces plates thicker than the 8th
Edition method.
Considering the results shown in Table 1, and recognizing
that Model 2 is clearly conservative while still producing
plates thinner or at most as thick as the method of the AISC
8th Edition Manual, it is recommended that Model 2, i.e.,
n' = I,•Xf'•f
I = max (m,n,n')
t, = 2l•,.
be used to replace the current AISC 9th Edition Manual base
plate design method for axial load.
I,,[ 2Pu
t, = •l 0.9F, BN (14)
where
P,, = total factored column load
NOTATION
The symbols used in this paper follow the usage of the AISC
Manual, 8th or 9th Edition.
REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
Construction, 9th Edition, 1989, pages 3-106 through
3-110.
2. Murray, T. M., "Design of Lightly Loaded Column Base
Plates;' AISC Engineering J., Volume 20, No. 4, 4th
Quarter, 1983, pp. 143-152.
3. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
Construction. 8th Edition, 1980, pp. 3-99 through 3-102.
4. Park, R. and Gamble, W. L., Reinforced Concrete Slabs,
Wiley, 1980, pp. 329-331.
5. Ahmed, S. and Kreps, R. R., "Inconsistencies in Col-
umn Base Plate Design in the New AISC ASD (July 1989)
Manual, AISC Engineering J., 3rd Quarter, 1990, pp.
106-107.
6. DeWolf, J. T., and Ricker, D. T., Column Base Plates,
AISC Steel Design Guide Series, No, 1, 1990, pp. 13-15.
7. Fling, R. S., "Design of Steel Bearing Plates/' AISC
Engineering J., Volume 7, No. 2, 2nd Quarter, April 1970,
pp. 37-40.

T a b l e 1.
E x a m p l e s To C o m p a r e M e t h o d s (Fy = 36 ksi for all c a s e s )
Data n'/tp(in.lin.)
Col. P d bt N B fp m n Mod. Mod. Ahmed & AISC
Example Source Sect. (kips) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (in.) (in.) I 2 Kreps 8th Ed.
1. AISC Des. Guidea W 1 0 x l 0 0 200 11.10 10.34 11.5 11 1.58 .48 1.36 2.14 2.68 2.33 3.92
.90 1.12 .98 1.64
2. Ahmed ,• Krepsb W12x106 331 12.89 12.22 14 13 1.82 .88 1.61 2.51 3.14 2.71 4.77
1.13 1.41 1.22 2.15
3. -- W12x106 300 12.89 12.22 14 13 1.65 .88 1.61 2.51 3.14 2.71 4.77
1.07 1.34 1.16 2.04
4. -- W12x106 300 12.89 12.22 16 16 1.17 1.88 3.11 2.51 3.14 2.71 4.77
1.12 1.13 1.12 1.72
5. AISC 8th Ed. W10xl00 525 11.10 10.34 19 17 1.63 4.23 4.36 2.14 2.68 2.33 3.92
1.86 1.86 1.86 1.86
6. AISC8thEd. W12x106 600 12.89 12.22 18 16 2.08 2.88 3.11 2.51 3.14 2.71 4.77
1.50 1.51 1.50 2.29
7. Flingc 14x8WF -- 14 8 -- -- .75 -- -- 2.12 2.65 2.94 3.68
.61 .77 .85 1.06
8. -- W24x68 · 450 23.73 8.965 24 9 2.08 -- -- 2.92 3.65 4.98 4.23
1.41 1.76 2.40 2.04
9. -- W36x160 1000 36.01 12.00 38 14 1.88 1.90 2.20 4.16 5.20 7.56 5.63
1.90 2.38 3.46 2.57
a. See Ref. 6
b. See Ref. 5
c. See Ref. 7, Fling gets tp = 0.711 in. for this example
I

3
Inconsistencies in Column Base Plate Design
in the New AISC ASD Manual*
SALAHUDDIN AHMED and ROBERT R. KREPS

The new AISC steel design manual (ninth edition)' sug- Referring to page 3-108 of the Manual, the following proce-
gests a new procedure for computing the thicknesses of col- dure is followed to compute base plate size:
umn base plates to rectify problems associated with the some- For a given P, f! and A2, minimum area of base plate is
what conservative design approach adapted in its earlier computed and reasonable values of B and N are selected.
version. However, a close scrutiny of the suggested method Based on the column dimensions and selected B and N, quan-
reveals that the new approach is sometimes overly conser- tities m and n are computed and the larger of the two con-
vative and even inconsistent. trols. In the next step, the value of L (Fig. 2) is computed
Referring to Fig. 1 (pg. 3-106 of the AISC Manual), from the following expression, Fv = P/(2 + d + b -
2L)/L, which is quadratic in L. Solving for L,
P = Total column load, kips
Aj = B x N = Area of plate, in.2
A, = Full cross-sectional area of concrete support, in.' L = [(d + b) _+ x/((d + /i)2 _ 4P/Fp)]/4
Fh = Allowable bending stress in base plate, ksi
v = Allowable bearing stress in support, ksi
The Manual is silent as to which of the two solutions should
fp = actual bearing pressure, ksi
be used in further computation. However, a careful study
f,' = Compressive strength of concrete, ksi
of the equation reveals that the smaller of the two L values
tp = Thickness of plate, in.
should be used. The required base plate thickness is then
computed based on the larger of m and n calculated and the
$alahuddin Ahmed, Ph.D., is structural engineer, Leonhardt
Kreps LeFevre, Toledo, Ohio. value of L, as described in the Manual.
The quantity L is computed based on an area with a pres-
Robert R. Kreps, P.E., is principal, Leonhardt Kreps LeFevre,
Toledo, Ohio. sure of Ft, and not fy. Thus it is not clear why fi, is used in
the expression t = Lx/(3fv/Fh) (pg. 3-107 of the Manual).

2L
b

rD
I

dl i i i l
,

, I / l , - . , ×z [

ri
4,
.8Ob. '•'

e L --,T-
r I

Figure I Figure 2

· - Reproduced from AISC Engineering Journal, Volume 27, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1990

4
Example SUGGESTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Let Let us assume that the pressure under the base plate is uni-
form and is equal to P/Al. Let us also assume that the plate
P = 331 kips is essentially fixed at the web and flanges of the column.
Column W12x106 (d = 12.89, b = 12.22)
Thus what we have here is a plate with one long and two
f,'. = 3 ksi short edges fixed and the fourth edge free with a uniform
F,. = '36 ksi
load. One can go back to various moment coefficients avail-
Pier: 34 in. x 34 in.
able in the literature to compute maximum moment in the
1. A• = (1/(34 x 34))(331/(.35 x 3))" = 86 plate. Considering the width to length ratios of usual col-
A• = 331/(.7 x 3) -- 158 Controls umn sections, the authors suggest a moment coefficient of
2. A = .5[.95 x 12.89 - .8 x 12.22] = 1.235 0.022 so that the maximum moment in the plate is 0.022 ×
N = • + 1.235 = 13.8, use 14 in. fp × d2 kip-in./in., where d is the depth of the column.
B = 158/14 = 11.3, use 13 in.
A• = 14 x 13 = 182 in.-' Sr•qa. = 0.022 x fp x d2/Fh
3. fv = 331/182 = 1.82 ksi t = V(6S,e4a.) = V(O. 132fpd2/Fb) (1)
4. m = [14 - 0.95 x 12.89]/2 = 0.88 in.
n = [13 - 0.80 x 12.22]/2 = 1.61 in. Controls Therefore, to compute the base plate thickness,
a) Compute m and n as discussed in the Manual and select
Fv = .35 x 3 x (34 x 34/182) = 2.65 ksi > 2.1 ksi,
a thickness based on the larger of the two.
use 2.1 ksi
b) Use the larger of the two thicknesses obtained in step
L =
(a) and by Eq. 1.
= (25.11 - x/-•.036)/4 = 6.23 in.
Applying this method to the example above,
tv = 1.61 x x/(1.82/(.25x36)) = 0.72 in.
a) Compute thickness to be 0.72 in. for the larger of m
tt, = 6.23 x x/(3xl.82/27) = 2.80 in. Controls
and n.
It may be noted that the thickness of 2.80 in. is greater b) Use Eq. I for t = 4(0.132 × 1.82 × 12.892127)
than what would be obtained according to the eighth edition = 1.22 in. Controls
AISC Manual.
Now if one repeated the same calculations with a load of
332 kips, L would become imaginary and as per the manual REFERENCES
would be ignored. As a result the required thickness would 1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Manual
be 0.72 in., less than that required for a lighter load. of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design, ninth edi-
Therefore the authors feel that the new way of computing tion, Chicago, IL, July 1989.
L is basically inconsistent and likely to result in too thick 2. Winter, Urquhart, O'Rourke, Niison, Design of Concrete
a base plate when L controls and too thin a base plate when Structures, seventh edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
L is imaginary and thus ignored. New York.

This publication expresses the opinion of the author, and care has been taken to insure
that all data and information furnished are as accurate as possible. The author and
publisher cannot assume or accept any responsibility or liability for errors in the data
or information and 'in the use of such information.

The information contained herein is not intended to represent official attitudes, recom-
mendations or policies of the Structural Steel Educational Council. The Council is not
responsible for any statements made or opinions expressed by contributors to this
publication.

5
 THE STEEL COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA
Northern California Southern California
43 Quail Court, No. 206 9420 Telstar Ave. No. 207
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 El Monte, CA 91731
(415) 932-0909 (818) 444-4519

SPONSORS

Ace & Stewart Detailing, Inc.

Allied Steel Co., Inc.
Artimex Iron Co., Inc.
Bannister Steel, Inc.
Baresel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
C. A. Buchen Corporation
Butler Manufacturing Co.
Central Industrial Engineering Co., Inc.
Cochran-Izant & Co., Inc.
Dovell Engineering, Inc.
The Herriek Corporation
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg., Inc.
Inland Steel Company
Junior Steel Co.
Kaiser Steel Corporation
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
Martin Iron Works, Inc.
Nelson Stud Welding Co.
Palm Iron & Bridge Works
Pascoe Steel Corporation
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
Riverside Steel Construction
H. H. Robert,son Co.
Schrader Iron Works, Inc.
Stockton Steel
Stott Erection, Inc.
Verco Manufacturing, Inc.

The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in
determining the most economical solution for your products. Our assistance can
range from budget prices, estimated tonnage, cost comparisons, fabrication details,
and delivery schedules.

Funding for this publication provided by the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust.