Effect of Uneven Standoff Distances on the Axial Force

Resistance of Anchor Bolt Connections

Ahmed M. Ahmed, Ph.D.1; and Ian E. Hosch, Ph.D.2

Abstract: A stiffness-based approach founded on the moment-distribution method evaluated the effect of uneven standoff distances in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

double-nut anchor-bolt connections on the axial-resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts in response to connection loads. The uneven con-
dition affected the intensity and distribution of resistive forces as determined when analyzed within the framework of the anchor-bolt group.
The relative axial stiffness and proximity of the anchor bolts to the center of rigidity of the group were the major contributors. Comparisons
with finite-element analysis showed close agreement for anchor-bolt configurations with even, uneven, and excessive standoff distances. The
developed approach is comprehensive and applicable for various standoff distances, numbers, spacings, and sizes of anchor bolts. The
approach is valid for fatigue-level (or greater) loads provided anchor-bolt stress does not exceed the elastic limit and the base plate supplies
rigid diaphragm action. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000344. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Whether because of leveling procedures, topographical limitations,
or retrofitting conditions, uneven standoff distances of double-nut
anchor-bolt connections significantly affect the axial resistive
forces provided by the anchor bolts in response to connection loads.
The term anchor bolt in this context is synonymous with the AISC
characterization of anchor rods for base plate and concrete founda-
tion connections (Fisher and Kloiber 2006). The standoff distance is
the length from the bottom of the leveling nut to the foundation.
Typical connections have even standoff distances as shown in Fig.
1(a), but site-specific circumstances create the uneven condition
shown in Fig. 1(b). The photograph in Fig. 2 is an example of the
uneven condition resulting from leveling procedures and topo-
graphical limitations in the field for a connection supporting a canti-
lever sign support structure. The uneven condition influences the
intensity and distribution of axial resistive forces, which is an
outcome that differs from predictions made with common analy-
sis procedures. The present research provides a comprehensive,
stiffness-based approach to calculate the contribution of axial
resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts within the frame-
work of the total force resistance of the connection.
Effect of Standoff Distances on Anchor Bolt Forces
The AASHTO (2013) supports specifications and the majority of
previous research contain recommendations on standoff distances,
but these suggestions are limited to connections with even stand-
off distances. On the basis of studies documented in NCHRP
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at
Mataria, Helwan Univ., 1 Sherif St., Helwan, Greater Cairo, Egypt,
11792. E-mail: amohamed@uab.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham, Hoehn Engineering
Building, 1075 13th St. South, Birmingham, AL 35294 (corresponding
author). E-mail: hoschi38@uab.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 19, 2016; approved
on May 22, 2017; published online on August 8, 2017. Discussion period
open until January 8, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
Report 412 (Kaczinski et al. 1998), anchor bolts with standoff
distances longer than one anchor-bolt diameter (referred to as ex-
cessive) are vulnerable to high flexural stresses generated from
lateral direct shear and torsional loading on the connection.
AASHTO specifies a beam model for the analysis, with boundary
conditions defined as fixity at the anchor bolt and foundation and
free translation and constrained rotation at the bottom of the lev-
eling nut. Studies by Liu (2014) validated the boundary condi-
tions but found that lateral forces generated from torsion also
created significant flexural stresses on anchor bolts with nonex-
cessive standoff distances. In another study, Lin et al. (2011)
evaluated the effect of boundary conditions and standoff distan-
ces on failure modes. The results showed an inverse proportion-
ality with reduction in shear capacity for increasing standoff dis-
tances, which authenticated studies conducted by Scheer et al.
(1987) and Eligehausen et al. (2006) and later validated by
McBride et al. (2014).
The studies focused on analyzing the effect of even standoff dis-
tances on group behavior, and they used stand-alone anchor bolts to
evaluate various standoff distances. In an effort to study group
behavior from uneven standoff distances, Hosch (2015) experimen-
tally evaluated the distribution of normal strain on each anchor bolt
for the connection in Fig. 2. Uni-axial strain gauges attached to
anchor bolts recorded the dynamic strain behavior in response to in
situ fatigue-level natural wind loads. The experimental results
showed definitive evidence of an irregular distribution when com-
pared to analytical calculations on even conditions.
The experimental findings of Hosch (2015) inspired studies by
Ahmed and Hosch (2016) who modeled the mechanics, including
direct shear and torsion, leading to the irregular distribution in
response to lateral loads. Ahmed and Hosch (2016) developed a
stiffness-based approach using concepts consistent with the
moment-distribution method. The approach successfully modeled
the irregular distribution of fatigue-level lateral resistive forces
using various uneven standoff-distance configurations. Anchor
bolts with shorter standoff distances provided more contribution to
lateral force resistance because of an increased lateral stiffness rela-
tive to the other anchor bolts in the group. The approach provided a
link between uneven standoff-distance conditions and the intensity
and distribution of lateral resistive forces provided by anchor bolts
within the framework of an anchor-bolt group.

© ASCE 04017022-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Standoff distances that are (reprinted from Ahmed and Hosch 2016, © ASCE): (a) even standoff distance; (b) uneven standoff distance
Fig. 2. Connection with uneven standoff distances (reprinted from
Ahmed and Hosch 2016, © ASCE)
Anchor Bolt Stiffness and Center of Rigidity
The stiffness of the anchor bolts and the location of the center of ri-
gidity (CR) of the anchor-bolt group are the primary contributors to
the distribution of resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts for
connections with uneven standoff distances. The results from
Ahmed and Hosch (2016) on analysis of lateral resistive forces veri-
fied this claim, and the present analysis of axial resistive forces pro-
vides further corroboration. On the premise that anchor bolts with
shorter standoff distances have stronger axial stiffness, the shorter
anchor bolts were expected to provide a larger contribution to axial
load resistance than the longer anchor bolts in the group. The loca-
tion of the axial CR signifies this behavior. The axial CR (defined as
the axial stiffness centroid) will shift from the area centroid of the
anchor-bolt group (CG) toward the anchor bolts with stronger axial
stiffness. The shift creates smaller moment arms between the
shorter anchor bolts and the CR, which affects the resistance of the
connection to bending moments (i.e., moments transferred from lat-
eral loads on the superstructure).
The lateral resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts create
an additional factor on the axial force demanded of the anchor
bolts. The distribution of lateral forces generates flexural stresses
on the anchor bolts. The lateral resistive forces act on the boun-
daries of the anchor bolts at the base plate and foundation joints.
The boundary forces generate flexure along the longitudinal axis
of the anchor bolt that has direct proportionality to anchor bolt
© ASCE 04017022-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022
length. The complex relationship between the uneven condition,
lateral resistive forces, and anchor bolt length on the flexural stresses
significantly affect the intensity and distribution of axial resistive
forces provided by the anchor bolts. These relationships, in combi-
nation with the load demand from vertical loading and bending
moments, increase the complexity of obtaining accurate axial resis-
tive force estimations.
Axial Force Analysis with the Moment-Distribution
Method
The adaptation of the stiffness-based moment-distribution method
provides a solution to the complexity introduced by uneven standoff
distances on the axial resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts.
The moment-distribution method is a classic structural analysis pro-
cedure used to evaluate the lateral resistance provided by shear
walls in buildings. Assuming rigid body behavior of the floor slabs,
the method uses distribution factors assigned to each shear wall to
determine their contribution to resistance of lateral loads acting on
the building. The loads act through the lateral CR of the building
using the relative lateral stiffness between shear walls.
Ahmed and Hosch (2016) applied the shear-wall methodology
to anchor-bolt connections exposed to lateral direct shear and tor-
sional loads. A similar approach is applicable for vertical axial loads
and bending moments for cases in which the base plate is suffi-
ciently thick to act as a rigid diaphragm and loads are at a fatigue (or
greater) level, provided such that anchor bolt stresses do not exceed
their elastic limit. The base plate—analogous to the floor slab—
assumes rigid diaphragm action, and the anchor bolts—analo-
gous to shear walls—provide the axial stiffness to support the
vertical loads. The standoff distance and the size and spacing of
the anchor bolts within the group influence the contribution of
the anchor bolts to the overall force resistance of the connection.
Adaptation of the analogy further involves developing distribu-
tion factors to allocate the axial force contribution of the anchor
bolts. The axial stiffness of the anchor bolts and their proximity to
the axial CR are the major elements that affect distribution factors.
On one hand, with all things being equal (i.e., equal anchor bolt
spacing and size), connections with even standoff distances have
equivalent axial stiffness. The CR and the CG will coincide, result-
ing in equivalent distribution factors for the anchor bolts in the
group. On the other hand, connections with uneven standoff distan-
ces have anchor bolts with unequal axial stiffness. The CR will shift
from the CG of the anchor-bolt group toward the anchor bolts with
larger stiffness. The behavior causes an unequal allocation of distri-
bution factors, which dictates the intensity and distribution of axial
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts within the framework
of the anchor-bolt group.

Present Research
The present research presents an analytical stiffness-based approach
founded on the moment-distribution method to calculate the axial
resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts having uneven standoff
distances. The research provides a case study to demonstrate the
application and accuracy of the analytical method. The study
applied a fatigue-level load demand on a cantilever sign support
structure with several hypothetical standoff connections that were
similar to the connection in Fig. 2. The load demand consisted of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vertical loads and bending moments acting on the connection that

were transferred from the superstructure, and it included flexural
loads on the anchor bolts generated from lateral resistive forces pro-
duced by direct shear and torsion.
The calculation of the anchor-bolt resistance in response to load
demand was broken down into the major components of the devel-
oped methodology. In summary, the first step involved calculation
of the axial stiffness of the anchor bolts as a function of their stand-
off distances, which was used to determine the location of the axial
CR of the anchor-bolt group. Calculations of the distribution factors
for each anchor bolt were dependent on the anchor-bolt axial stiff-
ness, the location of the CR, and the type of load (i.e., force or
moment). Multiplication of the distribution factors by the load in-
tensity gave the axial force resistance provided by the anchor bolts, Fig. 3. Axial deflection of the anchor bolt
which relayed the effect of axial stiffness and location of the CR on
resistance behavior. Finally, the algebraic summation of the resis-
tive forces in response to the different types of loads that make up and constant load. The axial load divided by the axial displacement
the full-load demand gave the total axial resistive forces provided as shown by Eq. (1b) provides the axial stiffness.
by the anchor bolts.
The results provided the intensity and distribution of axial PL
Da ¼ (1a)
resistive forces for various levels of standoff distances, with EA
some distances having excessive lengths greater than one anchor
bolt diameter. Comparisons of the results made with the even P EA
condition exposed the irregularity generated by the uneven con- Ka ¼ ¼ (1b)
Da L
dition. Normal stresses from the axial resistive forces showed
significant effects from the uneven condition and the behavior of
where Da = axial displacement of the anchor bolt; P = axial load at
the anchor-bolt group to resist the applied loads. Additional com-
the top assembly of the anchor bolt to the base plate; L = standoff
parisons with models using SAP2000 finite-element analysis
distance; E = modulus of elasticity of the anchor bolt; A = cross-
(FEA), Version 18, software substantiated the accuracy of the
sectional area of the anchor bolt; and Ka = axial stiffness of the
developed analytical method to the predictions made by more
complex FEA. anchor bolt.

Axial Center of Rigidity of the Anchor-Bolt Group

Analytical Research Method
Axial Stiffness of Anchor Bolts
The axial stiffness of the anchor bolt with standoff distance, L, rep-
resented the axial load required for a unit displacement along the
longitudinal direction of the anchor bolt as shown in Fig. 3. The
boundary conditions used for the anchor bolts and base plate con-
nection corresponded to AASHTO (2013) supports specifications
and were further supported by the research conducted by Liu (2014)
and Ahmed and Hosch (2016). Assuming rigid diaphragm action of
the base plate, the boundary conditions shown in Fig. 3 represent
restrained rotation and unrestrained translation at the top assembly
of the anchor bolt to the base plate, and it also showed restrained
rotation and translation at the bottom assembly of the anchor bolt to
the foundation. In keeping within linear-elastic behavior of the
anchor bolt, the common expression shown as Eq. (1a) gives the
axial displacement of the anchor bolts with uniform cross section
The CR of the anchor-bolt group was the axial stiffness centroid,
and it represented the point of application of axial loading so that
the base plate undergoes rigid body motion. Uneven standoff dis-
tances caused the CR to shift from the area centroid of the anchor-
bolt group (CG). The connection in Fig. 4 shows the location of the
CR in rectangular coordinates having an x and y eccentricity from
the CG. The resultant moment of rigidity about the x- and y-axes of
the CG equated the distances of the anchor bolts and their axial stiff-
ness with the x- and y-coordinates of the CR and the total axial stiff-
ness. Solving the resultant equation gives Eqs. (2a) and (2b), which
provides the x- and y- coordinates of the CR with respect to the CG,
shown as
P
n
Ka;i xi
X axial ¼ i¼1
(2a)
Pn
Ka;i
i¼1

© ASCE 04017022-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

 Now ¼ N1;1 þ N1;2 þ    þ N1;n ¼ Ka;1 D1
X
n
þ Ka;2 D1 þ    þ Ka;n D1 ¼ D1 Ka;i (3c)
i¼1

N1;i Ka;i D1 Ka;i

Ca1;i ¼ ¼ Pn ¼P
n (3d)
Now
D1 Ka;i Ka;i
i¼1 i¼1

Ka;i
N1;i ¼ Now P
n ¼ Now Ca1;i (3e)
Ka;i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

i¼1

where Now = self-weight of the superstructure; N1,i = axial force

resistance of anchor bolt i resulting from the self-weight of the
superstructure; and Ca1,i = distribution factor of anchor bolt i for
axial force resistance due to the self-weight of the superstructure.

Group Moments due to Self-Weight of the

Fig. 4. Location of the CR in the anchor-bolt group
P
n the uneven standoff condition because of the unequal distribution of
Ka;i yi
Y
axial ¼ i¼1
Pn (2b)
Ka;i
i¼1
where X axial = x-coordinate of the axial CR; Y axial = y-coordinate of
the axial CR; Ka,i = axial stiffness of anchor bolt i; xi = x-coordinate
of anchor bolt i relative to the CG; yi = y-coordinate of anchor bolt i
relative to the CG; and n = number of anchor bolts.
Axial Force Resistance due to Self-Weight of the
Superstructure
The axial stiffness of the anchor bolts resisted the axial forces on
the connection from the self-weight of the superstructure. Each
anchor bolt provided a portion of the resisting axial force to main-
tain static equilibrium. The distribution factor for this load type
was the portion of axial resistance provided by an individual
anchor bolt with respect to the axial force resistance provided by
the connection as a whole. If the axial load caused the connection
to undergo a displacement, D1, then the displacements of each
anchor bolt were equivalent, as shown by the relationship in Eq.
(3a). The amount of lateral force resistance, N1,i, provided by
anchor bolt I, was equal to the axial stiffness of the anchor bolt,
Ka,i, times the displacement of the connection, D1, as shown by
Eq. (3b). For static equilibrium of the connection, the summation
of resistive forces provided by each anchor bolt must equal the
self-weight as shown in Eq. (3c). The distribution factor, Ca1,i, for
anchor bolt i was, thus, equal to the resistive force of the anchor
bolt divided by the self-weight acting on the connection as shown
in Eq. (3d). Solving for N1,i in Eq. (3d) gives the portion of resis-
tive force provided by anchor bolt i to maintain static equilibrium
as shown by Eq. (3e).
D1;1 ¼ D1;2 ¼    ¼ D1;n ¼ D1 (3a)
Superstructure
The axial force generated from the self-weight of the superstructure
acted at the CR of the connection. The CR shifted from the CG for
anchor bolt stiffness. The shift created a supplemental moment on
the anchor-bolt group during application of the self-weight. The
supplemental group moment created an additional axial force
demand on the anchor bolts required for equilibrium.
The supplemental group moment resulted from an equivalent
force-couple moment system. In reference to Fig. 5, the axial
force due to the self-weight shown in Fig. 5(a) was concentrated
at the CG of the anchor bolts. For uneven standoff distances, the
CR shifted from the CG with X axial and Y axial components [see
Eqs. (2a) and (2b)]. In Fig. 5(b), the self-weight translation to
the CR created bending moments on the anchor-bolt group about
the x- and y-axes. Eq. (4a) gives the sum of moments at the CR
about the x-axis. With the left side of Eq. (4a) equal to zero, Eq.
(4b) gives the supplemental group moment about the x-axis.
Likewise, Eq. (4c) gives the supplemental group moment about
the y-axis.
X
Mx@CR ¼ ðMG Þ2x 6 Now Y axial ¼ 0 (4a)
ðMG Þ2x ¼ 6Now Y axial (4b)
ðMG Þ2y ¼ 6Now X axial (4c)
where (MG)2x = supplemental group moment about the x-axis as the
result of self-weight of the superstructure; and (MG)2y = supplemen-
tal group moment about the y-axis as the result of self-weight of the
superstructure.
The moment on the anchor-bolt group induced by the self-
weight of arms and attachments on the superstructure (if existing)
created an additional bending moment on the connection. Eqs. (4d)
and (4e) provide the general formula of the supplemental group
moment on the basis of self-weight of the structure and moments
generated by arms and attachments about the x- and y-axes.
ðMG Þ2x ¼ 6 Now  Y axial 6 ðMAþatt Þx (4d)

N1;i ¼ Ka;i D1 (3b) ðMG Þ2y ¼ 6 Now  X axial 6 ðMAþatt Þy (4e)

© ASCE 04017022-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Applied self-weight: (a) at the CG; (b) at the CR, creating supplemental moment

Fig. 6. Lateral resistive forces in response to direct shear

where (MAþatt)x = group moment about the x-axis due to arms and
attachments, if applicable; and (MAþatt)y = group moment about the
y-axis due to arms and attachments, if applicable.
Group Moments due to Shear Forces on Anchor Bolts
to direct shear on the connection. In addition, the eccentricity of
the lateral CR from the CG of the anchor-bolt group for the
uneven standoff condition created a supplemental torsion [Eq.
(5f)] about the anchor-bolt group when acted upon by direct
shear loading.

Lateral forces (i.e., shearing) on the anchor bolts produced bend-  1
L3 10L
ing moments about the anchor-bolt group, which in turn, created Klat ¼ þ (5a)
additional axial force demand on anchor bolts. Ahmed and Hosch 12EI 9AG
(2016) revealed the mechanics behind the irregular distribution of
lateral resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts as the result
P
n
of uneven standoff distances. Eqs. (5a)–(5k), followed by a gen- Klat;i xi
eral discussion, provide quick reference to the developed equa- X lat ¼ i¼1 (5b)
tions; however, the reader is referred to Ahmed and Hosch (2016) Pn
Klat;i
for a complete discussion on their derivation. i¼1
In general, the total lateral resistive force was in response to
two primary forces acting on the connection: direct shear and
total torsion. Lateral loads on the superstructure transferred P
n
Klat;i yi
direct shear on the connection, which acted through the lateral
CR of the anchor-bolt group (see Fig. 6). Calculation of the lat- Y lat ¼ i¼1
Pn (5c)
eral CR [Eqs. (5b) and (5c)] was similar to the axial CR shown in Klat;i
i¼1
Eqs. (2a) and (2b) but used the lateral stiffness [Eq. (5a)] of the
anchor bolts in place of the axial stiffness. The lateral stiffness
included bending and shear deformations to account for the rela-
Klat;i
tively small length-to-diameter ratio of the anchor bolts. Eqs. F1x;i ¼ Vx P
n ¼ Vx Clat1;i (5d)
(5d) and (5e) give the lateral resistive forces provided by the Klat;i
anchor bolts, F1,i (a vector with x and y components), in response i¼1

© ASCE 04017022-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

 Klat;i Fty;i ¼ 6 F1y;i 6 F2y;i (5k)
F1y;i ¼ Vy ¼ Vy Clat1;i (5e)
P
n
Klat;i
i¼1 where T = total torsion acting on the connection; Tpure = pure torsion
acting on the connection; F2x,i = x-component of the lateral resistive
force provided by anchor bolt i because of total torsion; F2y,i =
Tsup ¼ 6Vx Y lat 6 Vy X lat (5f ) y-component of the lateral resistive force provided by anchor bolt i
because of total torsion; xCR,i = x-coordinate of anchor bolt i relative
where Klat = lateral stiffness of the anchor bolt i; I = area moment of to the x-coordinate of the lateral CR; yCR,i = y-coordinate of anchor
inertia of anchor bolt i; and G = modulus of rigidity of anchor bolt i; bolt i relative to the y-coordinate of the lateral CR; Ftx,i = x-component
X lat = x-coordinate of the lateral CR; Y lat = y-coordinate of the lat- of the total lateral resistive force of anchor bolt i to direct shear and
eral CR; F1x,i = x-component of the lateral resistive force provided total torsion; and Fty,i = y-component of the total lateral resistive force
by anchor bolt i as the result of direct shear in the x-direction; F1y,i = of anchor bolt i to direct shear and total torsion.
y-component of the lateral resistive force provided by anchor bolt i The lateral resistive forces acted on the top and bottom joints of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

due to direct shear in the y-direction; Vx = direct shear acting on the
connection in the x-direction; Vy = direct shear acting on the connec-
tion in the y-direction; Clat1,i = distribution factor of anchor bolt i for
lateral force resistance due to direct shear loading; and Tsup = sup-
plemental torsion acting on the connection due to CR eccentricity.
Lateral forces acting on the superstructure transferred pure tor-
sion on the connection that is in addition to the supplemental torsion
generated from direct shear for the uneven standoff condition. The
total torsion [Eq. (5g)] on the connection included the algebraic
summation of supplemental torsion and pure torsion, which acted
through the lateral CR of the anchor-bolt group (see Fig. 7). Eqs.
(5h) and (5i) give the lateral resistive forces provided by the anchor
bolts in response to the total torsion. Each of the lateral resistive
forces from direct shear, F1,i, and total torsion shown, F2,i, shown in
Figs. 6 and 7 for anchor bolt i summed together to form the total lat-
eral resistive force, Ft,i, calculated by Eqs. (5j) and (5k).
the anchor bolt and caused flexure on the anchor bolts, as shown in
Fig. 8. The flexural forces produced a group moment on the connec-
tion that added to the axial force demand of the anchor bolts. The
calculation of the group moment first involved the summation of
the lateral resistive force components induced from direct shear,
F1x,i and F1,y,i, and total torsion, F2x,i and F2y,i, on each anchor bolt
i, as shown in Eq. (5j). The boundary conditions specified by the
AASHTO (2013) supports specifications and used to develop the
axial and lateral stiffnesses of the anchor bolts assumed restrained
rotation at the top and bottom joints. This model caused flexure to
maximize at the joint locations and was equal to the force multiplied
by one-half the standoff distance, as shown in Eqs. (6a) and (6b).

T ¼ Tsup 6 Tpure (5g)

Klat;i yCR;i
F2x;i ¼ T P
n   (5h)
Klat;i x2CR;i þ y2CR;i
i¼1

Klat;i xCR;i
F2y;i ¼ T P
n   (5i)
Klat;i x2CR;i þ y2CR;i
i¼1

Ftx;i ¼ 6 F1x;i 6 F2x;i (5j) Fig. 8. Bending moments due to total lateral resistive forces

Fig. 7. Lateral resistive forces in response to total torsion

© ASCE 04017022-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

 Finally, the group moment acting on the anchor-bolt group equated x-axis due to lateral loads in the y-direction on the superstructure;
to the summation of bending moments acting on the individual and (MG)3y = group moment about the y-axis due to lateral loads in
anchor bolts, as shown by Eqs. (6c) and (6d) for their respective the x-direction on the superstructure.
vector components. The derivation of the axial resistive forces in response to the total
group moment came from the moment distribution method with
Fty;1 L1 Fty;2 L2 Fty;n Ln rigid diaphragm action of the base plate. The calculation used the
Mx1 ¼ ; Mx2 ¼    Mxn ¼ (6a)
2 2 2 premise of the equality of joint rotation, axial stiffness variation of
the anchor bolts based on their standoff distance, and proximity to
Ftx;1 L1 Ftx;2 L2 Ftx;n Ln the axial CR. As shown in Fig. 10, the base plate acting as a rigid di-
My1 ¼ ; My2 ¼    Myn ¼ (6b) aphragm rotated with an angle u axial about an axis passing through
2 2 2
the CR in response to the total group moment. Likewise, each base-
plate/anchor-bolt joint followed an equivalent rotation described by
X
n
Li
ðMG Þ1x ¼ Eq. (8a). For example, Eq. (8a) represents the rotation angle of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fty;i
i¼1
2 base plate about the x-axis passing through the CR in response to
X
n
Li
ðMG Þ1y ¼ Ftx;i
i¼1
2 displacement of the individual anchor bolts as a function u axial. The
where (MG)1x = group moment about the x-axis due to total lat-
eral resistive forces in the y-direction; (MG)1y = group moment
about the y-axis due to total lateral resistive forces in the x-direction;
Ftx,i = total lateral resistive force on anchor bolt i in the x-direction;
and Fty,i = total lateral resistive force on anchor bolt i in the
y-direction.
Axial Force Resistance due to Group Moments
The anchor bolts provided large axial resistive forces in response to
the group moments acting on the connection. As shown in Eq. (7a)
and (7b), the total group moment applied on the anchor- bolt group
was the summation of group moments generated from the total lat-
eral resistive forces, (MG)1, supplemental moments for the case of
uneven standoff distances and arms and attachments, (MG)2, and
lateral forces acting on the superstructure, (MG)3. The total group
moment acted at the axial CR of the anchor-bolt group, as shown
in Fig. 9. Fig. 9(a) shows the axial resistive forces, N2,i (for anchor
bolt i), in response to the total group moment about the x-axis,
and Fig. 9(b) shows N3,i in response to the total group moment
about the y-axis.
ðMG Þtx ¼ 6 ðMG Þ1x 6 ðMG Þ2x 6 ðMG Þ3x
ðMG Þty ¼ 6 ðMG Þ1y 6 ðMG Þ2y 6 ðMG Þ3y
where (MG)tx = total group moment about the x-axis; (MG)ty = total
group moment about the y-axis; (MG)3x = group moment about the
(6c)
the total group moment about the x-axis, (MG)tx. The rotation caused
axial translation of each joint, which generated an axial displace-
ment, Da, of the individual anchor bolts. Eq. (8b) defines the axial
(6d)
equation estimated the axial displacement using small angle
approximation and the distance, dy,i, of anchor bolt i to the axial CR
along the y-axis, as shown in Fig. 11(a). Substitution of Eq. (8b) for
u axial in Eq. (8a) forms Eq. (8c), which represents the rotation
equality of each joint as a function of the axial displacement of the
associated anchor bolt.
The axial stiffness of the anchor bolts governed the displace-
ment. Because translation was the same for each joint with respect
to the rotation about the CR, equilibrium required larger resistive
forces for anchor bolts with larger axial stiffness and vice versa.
With axial displacement equal to the axial resistive force divided by
the axial stiffness of the anchor bolt, Eq. (8d) is a rewritten form of
Eq. (8c), but now a function of axial stiffness and resistive forces.
Resolving the axial resistive forces in terms of N2,1 (for anchor Bolt
1) gives the general expression in Eq. (8e) for N2,n. By taking the
sum of bending moments about the CR [see Fig. 11(a)], Eq. (8f)
defines the total group moment about the x-axis, (MG)tx, as a func-
tion of the axial resistive force acting on each anchor bolt in the
group. Substituting Eq. (8e) into Eq. (8f ) in terms of N2,1 gives an
expanded expression for (MG)tx as represented by Eq. (8g) and sim-
plified in Eq. (8h).
Eq. (8h) associated the axial resistive force provided by anchor
Bolt 1 in response to (MG)tx, in regard to its axial stiffness and prox-
(7a) imity to the CR, and most important, within the framework of the
anchor-bolt group. Rewriting Eq. (8h) for the axial resistive force
provided by anchor Bolt 1 as a function of (MG)tx resulted in the first
(7b) equality shown in Eq. (8i). The solution to the axial resistive forces
provided by anchor Bolt 2 uses the same system of equations as
shown by the second equality in Eq. (8i). Finally, Eq. (8j) provides
a general expression for the axial resistive forces, N2,i, provided by

Fig. 9. Axial resistive forces due to total group moment: (a) moment about the x-axis; (b) moment about the y-axis

© ASCE 04017022-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Rigid diaphragm action of base plate in response to total group moment

Fig. 11. Distances to the CR for total group moment: (a) about the x-axis; (b) about the y-axis

anchor bolt i in response to the total group moment about the x-axis, N2;1 Ka;1 dy;1 N2;1 Ka;2 dy;2
ðMG Þtx ¼ dy;1 þ dy;2 þ   
(MG)tx. The same process was used in reference to Fig. 11(b) for the Ka;1 dy;1 Ka;1 dy;1
axial resistive forces, N3,i, provided by anchor bolt i in response to
the total group moment about the y-axis, (MG)ty. Similar in form to N2;1 Ka;n dy;n
þ dy;n (8g)
Eq. (8j), Eq. (8k) provides a general expression for the calculation Ka;1 dy;1
of N3,i.

u axial;1 ¼ u axial;2 ¼    ¼ u axial;n (8a)

N2;1 h i
ðMG Þtx ¼ 2
Ka;1 dy;1 þ Ka;2 dy;2
2
þ    þ Ka;n dy;n
2
Ka;1 dy;1
Da;i
tan ðu axial Þ  u axial ¼ (8b)
dy;i N2;1 X n
¼ 2
Ka;i dy;i (8h)
Ka;1 dy;1 i¼1
Da;1 Da;2 Da;n
¼ ¼¼ (8c)
dy;1 dy;2 dy;n
Ka;1 dy;1 Ka;2 dy;2
N2;1 ¼ ðMG Þtx P
n ; N2;2 ¼ ðMG Þtx P
n
2
Ka;i dy;i 2
Ka;i dy;i
N2;1 N2;2 N2;n
¼ ¼¼ (8d) i¼1 i¼1
Ka;1 dy;1 Ka;2 dy;2 Ka;n dy;n
Ka;n dy;n
¼) N2;n ¼ ðMG Þtx P
n (8i)
N2;1 Ka;2 dy;2 N2;1 Ka;n dy;n 2
Ka;i dy;i
N2;2 ¼ ¼) N2;n ¼ (8e) i¼1
Ka;1 dy;1 Ka;1 dy;1

Ka;i dy;i
X
n N2;i ¼ ðMG Þtx P
n (8j)
ðMG Þtx ¼ N2;i dy;i ¼ N2;1 dy;1 þ N2;2 dy;2 þ    þ N2;n (8f ) Ka;i dy;i2
i¼1 i¼1

© ASCE 04017022-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

 Ka;i dx;i
N3;i ¼ ðMG Þty (8k)
P
n
2
Ka;i dx;i
i¼1

where N2i = axial resistive force provided by anchor i because of the

total group moment about the x-axis; N3i = axial resistive force pro-
vided by anchor i because of total group moments about the y-axis;
dx,i = distance of anchor bolt i from the axial CR along the x-axis;
and dy,i = distance of anchor bolt i from the axial CR along the
y-axis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Total Axial Force Resistance

Eq. (9) gave the total axial resistive force, Nt,i, provided by anchor
bolt i. The following equation represents the algebraic summation
of the axial resistive force in response to the self-weight of the
superstructure, NI,i [Eq. (3e)], the total group moment about the
x-axis, N2,i [Eq. (8j)], and the total group moment about the y-axis,
N3,i [Eq. (8k)]:

Nt;i ¼ 6 N1;i 6 N2;i 6 N3;i (9)

where Nt,i = total axial resistive force provided by anchor bolt i.

Fig. 12. Anchor-bolt and base-plate layout for the FEA study

Numerical Research Method

Standoff Anchor-Bolt Connection Specimens

A numerical study using the SAP2000 FEA software evaluated the
effect of varying levels of standoff-distance conditions on the axial
resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts. The FEA models rep-
resented the double-nut standoff anchor-bolt connection shown in
Fig. 2. It consisted of eight 38.1-mm-diameter ASTM F1554 Grade
55 (ASTM 2015a) anchor bolts connected to a 38.1-mm-thick
ASTM A572 Grade 50 (ASTM 2015b) annular base plate. The
schematic in Fig. 12 shows the anchor bolt and base plate layout
used for the study.
The study simulated three standoff-distance conditions. The
Fig. 13. Standoff distance condition for a = 4° (reprinted from Ahmed
process of tilting the foundation surface at a levels of 0, 2, and 4°
and Hosch 2016, © ASCE)
from a leveled base plate generated the standoff distance condi-
tions. The a level of 0° represented a condition of even standoff
distances (i.e., all anchor bolts within the group have equal stand-
off distances less than one anchor-bolt diameter). The remaining Boundary Conditions and Loading Definitions
two levels represented conditions of uneven standoff distances, The FEA models simulated an isolated double-nut anchor-bolt con-
with some distances being excessive—defined as greater than nection without the supported superstructure. The representation in
one anchor-bolt diameter in Article C5.17.4.3 of AASHTO Fig. 14 shows the modeling scheme for a typical anchor-bolt con-
(2013)—but less than four times the anchor-bolt diameter to nection. The models used shell elements for the base plate and
avoid buckling as specified by AASHTO and AISC Steel Design beam elements for the anchor bolts. The boundary conditions of the
Guide 1 (AASHTO 2013; Fisher and Kloiber 2006). The tilted beam elements at the base plate and foundation joints complied
surface angles, a, represented rotation about the y-axis in a man- with the beam model described by AASHTO (2013) and used for
ner similar to the procedure conducted by Ahmed and Hosch the axial stiffness of the anchor bolts in the analytical study.
(2016) for lateral loading analysis. The minimum standoff dis- Constraints placed at the anchor-bolt/base-plate joint had all rota-
tance used for the study was equal to 28.6 mm (3/4 of the anchor tional degrees of freedom restrained and all translational degrees of
bolt diameter) for all surface angles. The representation in Fig. freedom unrestrained. Fixation placed at the anchor-bolt/foundation
13 shows an example for an a level of 4° with the minimum joint had all rotational and translational degrees of freedom
standoff distance assigned to anchor Bolts 2 and 3. The surface restrained. The length, L, of the anchor bolts shown in Fig. 14(b)
angle governed the distances of the remaining anchor bolts from corresponded to the standoff distances listed in Table 1 and were
the 28.6-mm benchmark. Table 1 lists the standoff distances of defined as the distance from the bottom-leveling nut to the concrete
the anchor bolts (see Fig. 12 for anchor bolt identification) for foundation shown in Fig. 14(a). The modeling scheme neglected
each surface angle used in the study. nuts, washers, and anchor bolt threads because the scope of the

© ASCE 04017022-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

 study focused on the global behavior of the connection and forces
acting on individual anchor bolts. Development of the models and
loading scheme permitted base plate deformation when transferring
forces to the anchor-bolt/base-plate joints, represented by N in Fig.
14 for axial forces, and F for lateral forces.
The applied loads were static and representative of the self-
weight of the superstructure, and direct shear, pure torsion, and
bending moments from forces transferred to the connection from
lateral loading on the superstructure. The connection loads were
fatigue-level natural wind defined by AASHTO (2013) and applied
to the superstructure of a cantilever sign support structure. Cantilever
support structures generally have standoff anchor-bolt connec-
tions, and in combination with the self-weight of the structure, lat-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
rim contained 48 nodes; therefore, the loads applied to each node
were equal to the load intensities in Fig. 15 divided by 48.
Results and Analysis
Comparisons between Analytical and Numerical Results
The study compared the results obtained from the SAP2000 FEA
analysis and the analytical approach for the three standoff-distance
conditions formed by the surface angle, a, and listed in Table 1.
The evaluation focused on the axial resistance forces provided by
the anchor bolts in response to the load intensities shown in Fig. 15.

eral loads on the cantilever frame create forces and moments on the Table 2 presents the total axial resistive forces along with the per-
connection in all translational and rotational degrees of freedom. cent differences in values between the two methods. Positive forces
Fig. 15 provides the load intensities used for the study. Application represent anchor bolts in tension, and negative forces represent
of the loads were along the inner rim of the base plate as shown compression. A maximum percent difference of 0.33% resulted
Fig. 16, which represents a cropped snapshot of a typical FEA between all anchor-bolt and surface-angle comparisons. The results
model of the isolated anchor-bolt connection. The curvature of the showed minimal deformation of the base plate and exhibited rigid
diaphragm behavior, even though the FEA models permitted base-
Table 1. Anchor Bolt Standoff Distance Conditions Used for FEA Study plate deformation. However, percent differences would increase for
larger base-plate deformation resulting from reduced base-plate
Anchor bolt standoff distance (mm) thicknesses or increases in load intensity to a level that generates
Surface angle
[a (degrees)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 plastic behavior of the anchor bolts. Nonetheless, the analytical
approach using the moment-distribution method for axial loading is
0 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6
a worthy user-friendly alternative to FEA analysis for the given
2 35.8 28.6 28.6 35.8 46.0a 53.2a 53.2a 46.0a
base-plate thickness and the fatigue-level load intensities.
4 43.0a 28.6 28.6 43.0a 63.4a 77.8a 77.8a 63.4a
The presented results originated from the dissertation studies con-
a
Excessive standoff distance. ducted by Ahmed (2016). The referenced dissertation also provides a

Fig. 14. Simulation: (a) double-nut standoff anchor-bolt connection; (b) FEA model

Fig. 15. Fatigue-load intensities transferred from the superstructure to the connection

© ASCE 04017022-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. SAP2000 FEA load application along the inner rim of the base plate

Table 2. Numerical and Analytical Total Axial Resistive Force toward the shorter anchor bolts with higher axial stiffness for the
Comparisons uneven conditions (i.e., to the left in the anchor bolt plans shown in
Fig. 17). Thus, the distance between the anchor bolts and the CR
Total axial resistive forces by analysis analytical (kN)/
numerical (kN)/percent difference (%) changed in the x-direction but remained the same in the y-direction.
Anchor The proximity of the anchor bolts to the axial CR in combination
bolt Level a = 0° Level a = 2° Level a = 4° with the relative axial stiffness of the anchor bolts were the primary
1 45.78/45.73/0.11 44.48/44.44/0.09 42.02/41.95/0.18 attributors to the distribution of axial resistive forces. In response to
2 43.93/43.86/0.17 53.86/53.78/0.15 61.59/61.47/0.19 the self-weight shown in Fig. 17(a), the distribution shifted from the
3 15.11/15.08/0.23 14.04/14.01/0.21 12.22/12.19/0.23 even condition toward the anchor bolts with shorter standoff distan-
4 −23.80/−23.75/0.17 −32.30/−32.25/0.17 −37.20/−37.14/0.17 ces associated with the uneven conditions. The axial stiffness of the
5 −50.00/−49.95/0.10 −48.30/−48.22/0.17 −46.45/−46.39/0.13 anchor bolt was inversely proportional to its standoff distance. For
6 −48.16/−48.09/0.15 −40.78/−40.75/0.07 −37.25/−37.19/0.16 the even condition (a = 0˚), each anchor bolt had equivalent stand-
7 −19.34/−19.31/0.18 −19.37/−19.35/0.12 −19.11/−19.08/0.15 off distances and subsequent equivalent axial stiffness. In correlation
8 19.57/19.53/0.21 11.47/11.43/0.33 7.28/7.30/0.14 with axial stiffness, the CR coincided with the CG because of the
equivalency. As a result, the distribution factors, C1 [see Eq. (3e)]
were also equivalent, which created the uniform distribution for this
comparison between the results of the analytical method with in situ level. For the uneven conditions (a levels of 2 and 4°), the shorter
experimentally collected strain data on the anchor bolts shown in Fig. anchor bolts had larger axial stiffness, which in turn had larger distri-
2 having uneven standoff distances. The analysis involved reduction bution factors, C1 [see Eq. (3e)] for the load type. Anchor Bolts 2
of experimental dynamic data in response to fatigue-level natural and 3 provide an example of this claim. Because of their higher axial
wind loading. The results of the comparisons with each anchor bolt stiffness, they resisted higher loads per unit displacement relative to
showed close agreement with percent differences less than 10%,
the other anchor bolts in the group. Anchor Bolts 6 and 7 exhibited
which provided further validation of the developed approach.
the opposite behavior. In an important finding, the summation of the
axial resistive forces provided by each anchor bolt in the group was
Distribution of Axial Resistive Forces equal to the applied self-weight for each surface-angle condition
The primary effect of uneven standoff distances was on the distribu- regardless of the distribution. Because of the left shift of the CR
tion of axial resistive forces within the anchor-bolt group. The plots along only the x-axis and toward the shorter anchor bolts with higher
in Fig. 17 present the distributions with respect to surface angles, a. axial stiffness, the distribution exhibited bilateral symmetry about
The figure shows only the analytical results because they agree the x-axis of the anchor-bolt plan.
closely with the FEA. The plots show the distributions in radar for- In response to the total group moments shown in Figs. 17(b and c),
mat with respect to the anchor-bolt plan of eight in the group. The the distance between the anchor bolts and the CR had a more influ-
total axial resistive forces in Fig. 17(d) [from Eq. (9)] resulted from ential role. For instance, the distance in the y-direction affected the
the summation of resistive forces in response to the self-weight of distribution of axial resistive forces, N2, in response to moments
the superstructure [Fig. 17(a) from Eq. (3e)], total group moment about the x-axis expressed by Eq. (8j) and shown in Fig. 17(b).
about the x-axis [Fig. 17(b) from Eq. (8j)], and total group moment This distance did not change for all surface angles from the even to
about the y-axis [Fig. 17(c) from Eq. 8(k)]. For all load types, uneven conditions. Yet, the axial stiffness of the anchor bolts did
uneven condition for surface angles, a of 2 and 4°, showed an irreg- change: The stiffness increased for the anchor bolts that became
ular distribution as compared to the even condition with a of 0°. shorter and decreased for the anchor bolts that became longer.
The tilt of the foundation using the surface angles, a, to create Therefore, the distributions for the uneven conditions skewed to-
the uneven standoff distances in this study was paramount to the CR ward the shorter anchor bolts (e.g., 2 and 3) because of their higher
location. The surface angles were only about the y-axis (see Fig. axial stiffness. However, the distance between the anchor bolts and
13). Therefore, the standoff distances had bilateral symmetry about the CR in the x-direction influenced the axial resistive forces in
the x-axis in the anchor bolt plan but increased in the x-direction response to moments about the y-axis expressed by Eq. (8k) and
from the 28.6-mm benchmark assigned to anchor Bolts 2 and 3. shown in Fig. 17(c). The distribution of axial resistive forces showed
This caused the CR to shift from the CG in the x-direction only and a more pronounced irregularity with this load type because the

© ASCE 04017022-11 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 17. Distributions of axial resistive forces: (a) from self-weight; (b) from total group moment about the x-axis; (c) from total group moment about
the y-axis; (d) total
distances between the anchor bolts and the CR did change along
with changes in axial stiffness. The collusion of CR proximity and
axial stiffness affected their resistance; the resistance increased as
the CR increased and vice versa, but it was negated by decreases and
increases in axial stiffness. The resistance of anchor Bolts 4 and 5
show this effect. Because of the nature of the load, some anchor bolts
provided tensile resistive forces (T) while others provided compres-
sion (C). Therefore, the summation of axial resistive forces provided
by each anchor bolt in response to group moments on the connection
equaled zero for all surface-angle conditions.
Although Fig. 17(a) shows a clear change in axial force distribu-
tion for the self-weight, it had an understandably small effect on the
total axial resistive forces shown in Fig. 17(d); whereas the axial
resistive forces generated from the group moments shown in Figs.
17(b and c) had a significant effect. The figures provide the sense of
the axial resistive forces provided by the anchor bolts in the form of
tension (T) and compression (C). The algebraic summation gener-
ated from compressive forces due to the self-weight and the tension
and compression forces generated from the unsymmetrical bending
of the group moments created the total axial resistive force distribu-
tion and intensities shown in Fig. 17(d).
Discussion
Factors of Axial Resistive Force Intensity
The total axial resistive force, Nt, provided by the anchor bolts was
a combination of resistive forces in response to the self-weight of
© ASCE 04017022-12
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022
the superstructure, N1, and group moments on the connection, N2
and N3. The moments on the group were a combination of moments
generated from the supplemental moment (due to application of
self-weight for uneven conditions), lateral resistive forces on the
anchor bolts, and lateral forces acting on the superstructure.
Therefore, the total axial resistive force provided by the anchor
bolts was in response to a combination of four loading occurrences:
(1) self-weight, N1; (2) supplemental moment, Nsup; (3) lateral resis-
tive forces, Nlat; and (4) lateral forces on the superstructure, Nsuper.
Each of the four load cases contributed to the overall intensity of the
axial resistive forces provided by the individual anchor bolts.
The axial stiffness of the anchor bolt and the proximity of the
anchor bolt to the axial CR governed the intensity of the four load
cases. The combination bar chart in Fig. 18 shows an example of
the contribution of the four load cases to the overall intensity for
anchor Bolt 6. Anchor Bolts 6 and 7 had the largest increase in
standoff distance with increasing surface angles: Ranging from a
minimum of 28.6 mm for a a level of 0° (even condition) to a maxi-
mum of an excessive distance equal to 77.8 mm for an a level of 4°
(uneven condition). The anchor bolt provided compressive axial
resistive forces for each level and loading type. As seen in Fig. 18,
the increase in standoff distance reduced the axial stiffness, which
in turn reduced its contributing axial resistive force for each of
the four load cases, except for the supplemental moment. As the
shift of the CR from the CG of the anchor-bolt group increased—
a result of increasing surface angles—larger supplemental group
moments occurred to establish equilibrium of the connection in
response to the self-weight. However, the axial resistive forces in
response to the supplemental group moment, Nsup, and the self-
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 18. Intensities of axial resistive force for anchor Bolt 6
weight, N1, and group moments from lateral resistive forces, Nlat,
(which were minimal) failed in comparison to the axial resistive
forces in response to group moments generated from lateral
forces on the superstructure, Nsuper.
The axial resistive forces, in response to lateral forces on the
superstructure Nsuper, reduced for anchor Bolt 6 with increasing sur-
face angles as the standoff distance increased and the axial stiffness
decreased. The proximity of the CR to the anchor bolt signifies this
behavior (see the moment arm plot assigned to the right vertical axis
in Fig. 18). The axial resistive forces decreased along with decreas-
ing stiffness, and the CR moved further away from the anchor bolt.
Although an increase in axial resistive forces in response to group
moments occurred for larger distances between the anchor bolts and
the CR, the decrease in axial stiffness negated this behavior as seen
with anchor Bolt 6. The intensities for anchor Bolt 6 in Fig. 17(d)
further exemplify this behavior, whereas anchor Bolt 2 revealed op-
posite behavior. Although the total axial resistive forces of anchor
Bolt 2 increased as the CR shifted toward the anchor bolt, the large
increases in axial stiffness assigned more contribution of connection
resistance to the anchor bolt.
Effect of Standoff Distances on Normal Stress
The distribution of normal stresses varied significantly from the dis-
tribution of axial resistive forces. In addition, the variation of
uneven standoff distances from the even condition had a profound
effect on the intensity of normal stresses acting on individual anchor
bolts. The total normal stresses, s N, on individual anchor bolts rep-
resented the algebraic summation of axial stresses, s axial, generated
from the total axial resistive forces [Nt from Eq. (9)] and flexural
stresses, s flex, generated from the total lateral resistive forces [Ftx
and Fty from Eqs. (5j) and (5k)] that acted at the boundaries of the
anchor bolts. The calculation excluded the effective area of the
anchor bolt for example purposes. The radar plots in Fig. 19 show
the distribution of maximum normal stresses on individual anchor
bolts with respect to the variation in standoff-distance conditions.
The plots show the absolute stress values obtained from flexure due
to lateral forces [Fig. 19(b)] and from axial forces due to the self-
weight and group moments [Fig. 19(c)]. Fig. 19(d) provides the
maximum absolute normal stress from algebraic summation of flex-
ure and axial stresses.
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022
The normal stress due to flexure for uneven conditions created
the largest contribution to the total normal stress on anchor bolts. As
shown in Eqs. (6a) and (6b), the resultant bending moment on an
individual anchor bolt is directly proportional to the standoff dis-
tance and the lateral resistive force. The distributions of lateral
resistive force resultants (i.e., magnitude of the x and y components)
shown in Fig. 19(a) for uneven conditions had a pronounced skew-
ness toward the anchor bolts with shorter standoff distances (anchor
Bolts 2 and 3) because of a higher relative lateral stiffness. Despite
the skewness, the flexural stress distributions showed greater
increase in intensity with increase in surface angle. In addition, flex-
ure stresses due to lateral resistive forces (resulting from shear
and torsion on the connection) for the even condition were signifi-
cant even though the standoff distance was nonexcessive—less
than one anchor-bolt diameter. The research by Liu (2014) also
supported this claim. The collusion of lateral resistive forces and
standoff distance was the primary contributor to the intensity var-
iation, with the standoff distance being more influential. In Fig.
19(a), anchor Bolts 5 and 8 showed modest lateral force resist-
ance relative to anchor Bolts 2 and 3, but they had equal to or
greater flexural stresses, as shown in Fig. 19(b). The standoff dis-
tances for anchor Bolts 5 and 8 were longer than for Bolts 2 and 3,
which in turn generated large bending moments for the modest
lateral force.
The axial stress distribution shown in Fig. 19(c) followed the
same outline as the total axial resistive forces in Fig. 17(d). The
effect from group moments, particularly from lateral loads on
the superstructure as seen in Fig. 18, dominated the axial resistive
force and governed the outline of the distribution. A significant
irregularity in axial stress distribution resulted from the uneven
conditions created by changes in axial stiffness of anchor bolts and
the eccentricity of the CR. The results indicate that the anchor bolts
in the group with shorter standoff distances generally contributed
larger lateral and axial resistive forces than the anchor bolts with
longer standoff distances, but longer standoff distances had a
greater effect on flexural stress, which in turn dominated the total
normal stress on the anchor bolt.
Comprehensiveness of the Analytical Approach
The developed analytical method is a stiffness-based approach
founded on the moment-distribution method. The approach accom-
modates multiple variations in connection configurations including
number, size, spacing, and standoff-distance conditions of the
anchor bolts. The approach accounts for flexure of the anchor bolts
under lateral shear and torsion regardless of the standoff distance
but was significantly influential for longer and excessive standoff
distances. Most important, the approach is applicable for fatigue-
level (or greater) loading as long as anchor bolt stresses do not
exceed their elastic limit and the base plate has adequate thickness
to exhibit rigid body behavior. In agreement with the work con-
ducted by Cook and Bobo (2001) for analysis of base-plate thick-
ness and required area of anchor bolts, plastic analysis through
application of greater ultimate loading involves significant base-
plate deformation that counteracts the rigid body assumption. Their
results concluded that service loading should govern the design of
base-plate thickness: For designs based on ultimate capacity, addi-
tional serviceability evaluations should be applied to account for
the deformation.
The approach converges to the design approach by AASHTO
(2013) when applied to connections with even standoff distances
(a level = 0°). Ahmed and Hosch (2016) reported a similar effect
for lateral resistive forces. The AASHTO specification does not
account for uneven standoff distances but does account for
04017022-13 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 19. Distributions: (a) total lateral resistive force resultant; (b) maximum flexural stress; (c) axial stress; (d) total maximum normal stress

excessive standoff distances, with set recommendations to
account for flexural stresses when the even standoff distance is
greater than one anchor-bolt diameter. The distribution models
of axial resistive forces provided by the individual anchor bolts
for an a level of 0°, shown in Fig. 17, are equivalent to calcula-
tions using the AASHTO approach under the assumptions of
equal spacing and size of the anchor bolts and of even standoff
distances less than one anchor-bolt diameter. For instance, Eq.
(3e) for the calculation of axial resistive forces due to the self-
weight of the superstructure converges to the form shown by Eq.
(10) for connections with even standoff distances. All anchor
bolts in the group have equivalent axial stiffness because the
anchor bolts have even standoff distances and constant cross-
sectional area. The distribution factor, C1, reduces to the inverse
of the number of anchor bolts in the group, n, thereby equally
distributing the axial resistive force to each anchor bolt. Because
the axial stiffness is uniform, the CR and CG of the anchor-bolt
groups coincide and no supplemental moments exist.
1 existing connections in the field. However, the method is applicable
N1;i ¼ Now (10)
n
The analytical approach accounts for flexural stress regardless of
the standoff distance. AASHTO ignores this property for anchor
bolts less than one anchor-bolt diameter. The total normal stress
summation [see Fig. 19(d)] using AASHTO would only include the
axial stresses seen in Fig. 19(c). However, the axial stress calcula-
tion for the even condition (a level = 0˚) using the analytical
approach included axial resistive forces in response to group
moments generated from lateral resistive forces (the supplemental
moment equal to zero for this level). This contribution was minimal,
as seen in Fig. 18. Thus, the results would approximately converge
to the results obtained from AASHTO.
Implications for Practice
The developed analytical approach is applicable for connections
with uneven standoff distances and fatigue-level (or greater) stress
analysis, provided the stress does not exceed the elastic limit of the
anchor bolt material. AASHTO (2013) does not account for uneven
standoff distances, and application of the approach on connections
with uneven conditions may underestimate anchor bolt stress. As
shown in Fig. 19, uneven-standoff conditions significantly affected
the intensity of normal stresses due to unequal anchor bolt stiffness,
the resulting eccentricity of the CR from the CG of the anchor-bolt
group, and flexure of the anchor bolts. The approach is also applica-
ble for analysis of connections having unequal anchor-bolt spacing
and/or anchor-bolt sizes, which may be made during retrofit of
for design of structures where uneven standoff distances are
unavoidable because of topographical limitations, and it is applica-
ble for inspection purposes on connections resulting from leveling
procedures.
The analytical approach follows conventional mechanics asso-
ciated with the stiffness-based moment-distribution method. This
makes the approach a worthy user-friendly alternative to FEA for
connections with uneven standoff distances, and it is easily pro-
grammable by following the systematic algorithm provided in
Table 3.

© ASCE 04017022-14 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022

 Table 3. Systematic Algorithm of the Analytical Approach It is important to acknowledge other participants of the project,
including Fouad H. Fouad, Ph.D., P.E., Chair and Professor of the
Step Description Equations
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at
1 Anchor bolt stiffness (axial/lateral) Eq. (1b)/Eq. (5a) the University of Alabama at Birmingham (Primary Investigator of
2 Center of rigidity (axial/lateral) Eqs. (2a) and (2b)/ Project 930-683) as well as the hard work and dedication of the
Eqs. (5b) and (5c) ALDOT Maintenance Bureau.
3 Axial resistive forces due to the self-weight Eq. (3e)
4 Supplemental group moments due to the Eqs. (4b) and (4c)
self-weight References
5 Lateral resistive forces due to direct shear Eqs. (5d) and (5e)
6 Supplemental torsion due to direct shear Eq. (5f) AASHTO. (2013). Standard specifications for structural supports for high-
7 Total torsion Eq. (5g) way signs, luminaires and traffic signals, 6th Ed., Washington, DC.
Ahmed, A. (2016). “Evaluation of the anchor bolt clearance descrepancy
8 Lateral resistive forces due to total torsion Eqs. (5h) and (5i)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Glasgow University Library on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

apply for any anchor bolt connections.” Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of

9 Total lateral resistive forces Eqs. (5j) and (5k)
10 Group moments due to the total lateral Eqs. (6c) and (6d)
resistive forces
11 Total group moments Eqs. (7a) and (7b)
12 Axial resistive forces due to the total group Eqs. (8j) and (8k)
moments
13 Total axial resistive forces Eq. (9)
Conclusions
A stiffness-based approach founded on the moment-distribution
method evaluated the effect of uneven standoff distances on axial
force resistance provided by anchor bolts in response to connection
loads. Comparisons with FEA showed close agreement for configura-
tions with even, uneven, and excessive standoff distances, indicating a
worthy, user-friendly alternative. The uneven standoff-distance condi-
tion had a significant effect on the distribution of axial resistive forces
that make up the anchor-bolt group. The relative axial stiffness of the
anchor bolts and proximity of anchor bolts to the CR were the major
contributors to resistive forces. Anchor bolts with shorter standoff dis-
tances contributed more axial resistance to connection loads; however,
anchor bolts with longer standoff distances contained greater levels of
flexural stress, which increased the normal stress of the anchor bolts.
The intensity of normal stress on each anchor bolt within the group
was larger for the uneven conditions than the even condition, and it
increased with standoff distance disparities between anchor bolts.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this document culminated from research
sponsored by the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT)
Project 930-683, titled “Design of Overhead Sign Structures for
Fatigue Loads,” and the National Center for Transportation Systems
Productivity and Management (NCTSPM) and ALDOT cosponsored
project, titled “Evaluation of Anchor Bolt Clearance Discrepancies.”
Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Ahmed, A., and Hosch, I. (2016). “Lateral load analysis of stand-off anchor
bolt connections using the load-distribution method.” Pract. Period.
Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000286, 04016005.
ASTM. (2015a). “Standard specification for anchor bolts, steel, 36, 55, and
105-ksi yield strength.” F1554-15, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015b). “Standard specification for high-strength low-alloy
columbium-vanadium structural steel.” A572/A572M-15, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Cook, R. A., and Bobo, B. J., (2001). “Design guidelines for annular base
plates.” FDOT Rep. BC354-04, Florida Dept. of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL.
Eligehausen, R., Mallee, R., and Silva, J. F. (2006). Anchorage in concrete
construction, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Fisher, J. M., and Kloiber, L. A. (2006). AISC steel design guide 1: Base
plate and anchor rod design. 2nd Ed., American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago.
Hosch, I. E. (2015). “Experimental validation of the AASHTO natural wind
fatigue design specifications for cantilevered sign support structure
anchor bolts.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)SC
.1943-5576.0000214, 04014020.
Kaczinski, M. R., Dexter, R. J., and Van Dien, J. P. (1998). “Fatigue-resistant
design of cantilevered signal, sign and light supports.” NCHRP Rep. 412,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Lin, Z., Petersen, D., Zhao, J., and Tian, Y. (2011). “Simulation and design
of exposed anchor bolts in shear.” Int. J. Theor. Appl. Multiscale Mech.,
2(2), 111–129.
Liu, C. (2014). “Evaluation of anchor bolts with excessive standoff in can-
tilever sign and signal structures.” Prac. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000169, 04014002.
McBride, K. E., Cook, R. A., Prevatt, D. O., and Potter, W. (2014). “Anchor
bolt steel strength in annular stand-off base plate connections.” Transp.
Res. Rec., 2406(1), 23–31.
SAP2000. [Computer Software]. Computers & Structures, Inc., Walnut
Creek, CA.
Scheer, J., Peil, U., and Nölle, P., (1987). “Schrauben mit planmäßiger
Biegebeanspruchung (Screws under planned bending).” Rep. No.
6079, Institut für Stahlbau, Technischen Universität Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, Germany.

© ASCE 04017022-15 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017022