Bethelhem Basazinew May 2017 Final Thesis

DSpace Institution
DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

Hydraulic engineering Thesis
2020-03-19
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

STRESS DISTRIBUTION UNDER
COLUMN BASE PLATES
Basazinew, Bethelhem
http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/10698
Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository
BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION

UNDER COLUMN BASE PLATES
By: Bethelhem Basazinew Fentie
Advisor: Dr. Temesgen Wondimu
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
May, 2017
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION UNDER
COLUMN BASE PLATES
Bethelhem Basazinew Fentie
A thesis is submitted to the school of Research and Graduate Studies of

Bahir Dar
Institute of Technology, BDU in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Advisor Name: Dr. Temesgen Wondimu
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

June 15, 20177
Bahir Dar University
Bahir Dar Institute of Technology-
School of Research and Graduate Studies
THESIS APPROVAL SHEET
Student:
________________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date
The following graduate faculty members certify that this student has successfully presented
the necessary written final thesis and oral presentation for partial fulfillment of the thesis
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering.
Approved By:
Advisor:
Dr. Temesgen Wondimu _____________________________________________
Name Signature Date
External Examiner:
Dr. Adil Zekaria _____________________________________________
Name Signature Date
External Examiner:
Dr Abraham Gebre _____________________________________________
Name Signature Date
Chair Holder:
Msc Alemayehu G _____________________________________________
Name Signature Date
Faculty Dean:
Dr. Temesgen Wondimu _____________________________________________
Name Signature Date
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that the thesis comprises my own work. In compliance with
internationally accepted practices, I have acknowledged and refereed all materials used
in this work. I understand that non-adherence to the principles of academic honesty and
integrity, misrepresentation/ fabrication of any idea/data/fact/source will constitute
sufficient ground for disciplinary action by the University and can also evoke penal
action from the sources which have not been properly cited or acknowledged.
Name of the student_______________________________ Signature _____________

Date of submission: ________________
Place: Bahir Dar
This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as a university
advisor.
Advisor Name: __________________________________
Advisor’s Signature: ______________________________
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, praise and thanks goes to my God for the blessing that he has bestowed
upon me in all my endeavors.
I am deeply indebted to Dr. Temesgen Wondimu, my advisor and guide, for the motivation,
instruction and patience throughout the research work. I appreciate his broad range of
expertise and attention to detail, as well as the constant encouragement he has given me over
the thesis time. There is no need to mention that a big part of this thesis is the result of joint
work with him.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for the encouragement during these
difficult years. I am grateful to my brother Dr. Yonatan Gosaye for helping me in every step of
my work. He solves all my problem when I face it. And my immediate elder sister, Askal
Basazinew (Msc). She always encourage me to finish my work successfully. My big sister
Lamesgine Basazinew really helpful in reminding me just to focus on my thesis first. At work
place, I would like to thank my supervisor Tigist Mulu (Msc). She was taking my work as her
own and reduces office work load on me.
ii
Abstract
This study deals with the evaluation of stress distribution under a base plate connection and
examine the validity of the empirical formula provided by the American Institute of Steel
Construction, AISC code. Finite element analysis is used to determine the performance of the
designed base plate. The stress distribution obtained from the numerical analysis is compared
with the assumed formulae in the AISC code. The numerical analysis revealed the failure
mode of the designed connection, which either be through tensile yielding of the anchor bolt
or bending failure of the steel plate. The concrete base is assumed to be rigid, as its influence
on the behavior of the base-plate connection is beyond the scope of the current study.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION ......................................................................................... i
ACKOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. x
NOTATIONS ......................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the study .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective of the study ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 3
2.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Past studies on column base plates ..................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF COLUMN BASE USING AISC CODE ................................ 10
3.1 Base plates with axial load plus a small moment ............................................................. 10
3.2 Base plates with axial load plus large moment ................................................................ 12
3.3 Base plates with axial load only ......................................................................................... 13
3.4 Base plates with axial load and biaxial bending ............................................................... 13
CHAPTER 4: FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION OF BASE PLATE CONNECTION ...... 14
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 FE Model Description………………………………………………...……………...….... 14
4.2.1 Material Properties ………………………………...………………………………….... 15
iv
4.2.2 Contact Interactions………………………………….…………………………………. 15
4.2.3 Boundary Conditions ………………………………….………………………………. 16
4.2.4 Loading and Analysis Steps…………………………...…………………..…………..... 16
4.2.5 Element Type & Meshing ……………………………………………..….…………..... 16
4.3 Validation of FE Discretization ……..……………………………….……...……………. 17
4.4 Comparison of FEA and AISC …………………………………………………………… 20
4.4.1 Axial load with small moment ………………………………………………………….. 20
4.4.2 Axial load with large moment ………………………………………………………….. 21
4.4.3 Pure axial load ………………………………………………………………………..… 23
4.4.4 Axial load with Biaxial bending ………………………………………………………... 24
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY ………..………………………………….…..……………..... 26
5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….... 26
5.2 Case study for the concentrated load case …….…………...……………………………. 26
5.2.1 Effect of base plate thickness………………………………………….………………. 27
5.2.2 Effect of base plate dimension………………………………….…….……………….. 28
5.2.3 Effect of the Distance between the bolts/configuration ………….…...………………… 29
5.3 Case study for the uniaxial bending (small moment case) …….…………....................... 31
5.3.1 Effect of base plate thickness…………………………………….……………………. 31
5.3.2 Effect of base plate dimension……………………………………..………………….. 32
5.3.3 Effect of the Distance between the bolts/configuration ………………….…………… 33
5.4 Case study for the biaxial bending case …….…………………………………………... 34
5.4.1 Effect of base plate thickness………………………………………………………….. 34
5.4.2 Effect of base plate dimension………………………….…………………………..…. 35
5.4.3 Effect of the Distance between the bolts………………………….………………….... 36
v
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY & CONCLUSION …………………………………………….. 38
6.1 Summary & Conclusion ……………..………………………………………………… 38
6.2 Recommendation ………………………………………………………………………... 39
7 REFERENCES………………………………………………….……………………….... 40
Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………...…42
Appendix B ………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 3.1a Base plate layout for small moment
Fig 3.1b Stress distribution for small moment
Fig 3.1(c) Uniaxial bending is along the major axis
Fig 3.2a Base plate layout for large moment
Fig 3.2b Stress distribution for large moment
Fig 3.3a Base plate layout for pure axial load
Fig 3.3b Stress distribution for pure axial load
Fig 3.4a Base plate layout for biaxial load
Fig 3.4b Stress distribution for biaxial load
Fig 3.5 Bearing cone area for the bolts
Fig 4.1 Stress strain diagram for steel material
Fig 4.2 FE mesh of the model
Fig 4.3(a) Elevation view of specimen used for validation
Fig 4.3 (b) Plan view of specimen used for validation
Fig 4.3(c) FE modeling of the experiment
Fig 4.4 Load displacement curves for each eccentricity
Fig 4.5 Assembly & stress contour after analysis
Fig 4.6 (a) ABAQUS stress distribution under base plate along three paths
Fig 4.6 (b) Stress distribution from calculation
vii
Fig 4.10 (a) Stress distribution under base plate due to concentrate load.
Fig 4.11 Biaxial bending model after analysis
Fig 4.12 (a) ABAQUS stress under base plate along the path line
Fig 4.12 (b) Stress distribution under base plate by the formula from corner stresses.
Fig 5.1 Path in which stress distribution is taken
Fig.5.2 Stress distribution under base plate for different plate thickness
Fig.5.3 Load displacement curve for different plate thickness
Fig.5.4 Stress distribution under base plate for different plate size
Fig.5.5 Load displacement curve for different plate size
Fig.5.6 Position of bolts according to each spacing between bolts
Fig.5.7 Stress distribution under base plate for different bolt spacing
Fig.5.8 Load deflection curve for different bolt spacing
Fig.5.11 Stress contour for different plate cross section
Fig 5.17 Load displacement curve for different plate thickness
viii
Fig.5.19 Load deflection curve for different plate size
Fig.5.22 Load displacement curve for different bolt spacing
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of base plate & anchor bolt design sections for assumed P & M values.
Table 3.1: ASTM F1554 Anchor rod available tensile strength in kips.
Table 3.2: Anchor rod materials
Table 4.1: Dimensions of column base components for each load case analysed
Table 4.2: Comparison of Test results with predictions from ABAQUS software.
x
NOTATIONS
t f : Thickness of flange
tw : Thickness of web
f 'c : Characteristic concrete strength
Pu: Ultimate axial load
Mu: Ultimate bending moment
A1: Base plate area
A2: Bed concrete foundation area
e : Eccentricity
ecrit : Critical eccentricity
f p ( max ) : Concrete bearing strength
q( max ) : Bearing pressure
E: Modulus of elasticity
Fy: Yield tensile strength of steel
Fu: Ultimate tensile strength of steel
t p ( reqd ) : Required plate thickness
f yp , d : Yield strength of steel plate
Mx: Bending moment along x axis
My: Bending moment along y axis
xi
 : Stress
AISC: American Institute of steel construction
EBCS: Ethiopian Building Code Standard
ACI: American Concrete Institute
FE: Finite Element
Ix: Moment of inertia about x axis
Iy: Moment of inertia about y axis
xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study

Base plates are one of the most important structural elements that can influence the
overall behavior of the structural system. In addition to the nonlinearity from initial
imperfections, residual stresses, non-uniform distribution of material properties, metal
plastification, the basic components of the base plate – base plate, anchor bolts and concrete
foundation – are made from different material types, transmitting forces through multi-body
contact. An exact evaluation of the response of such connections, accounting for all the
aforementioned factors, can only be achieved through the corresponding analysis of advanced
two or three-dimensional finite element simulations.
Steel base plate connections have been and are still used extensively in engineering
practice, while their design is mainly based on simplified methods and models, incorporating
important assumptions without necessarily reflecting the actual structural response. In current
design practice, the bearing stress distribution in concrete and bolts is assumed to be elastic,
whilst the ultimate strength method adopts the assumptions that the anchor bolts are yielding and
that the consequent nonlinear concrete stress distribution at failure may be replaced by an
equivalent rectangular stress block.
In the present study, the degree of conservatism inherent in current design guides will be
demonstrated and a parametric study will be conducted to investigate the effect of each
connection component size on the system response. A comparative discussion considering
existing results will also be carried out, validating the proposed approach.
1.2. Objective of the study
 General objective
To verify ultimate limit state (ULS) capacity and behavior of steel base-plate designed using
the empirical formulas of the America Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) code.
 Specific Objective
1) To determine the stress distribution under base plates.
2) To analyze the effect of anchor bolt or steel plate size on stress distribution.
1
3) To study the effect of plate thickness, plate size and bolt spacing on stress distribution.
1.3 Scope
This study is limited to only finite element (FE) analysis of the base plate system. Cases
will be simulated using software ABAQUS. These are,
1) Base plates with axial load plus a small moment
2) Base plate with axial load plus large moment
3) Base plate with only axial load; and
4) Base plates with biaxial bending plus axial load.
Finally the stress distribution used in the AISC specification will be verified.
1.4 Methodology
Existing information and materials, on the subject of steel base plate design and structural
performance, is systematically sought from the following sources:
 AISC & ACI building code

 Journals and conference papers
 Relevant design guides and books
 ABAQUS documentations
The study will be conducted as follows
1. Base plates will initially be sized, for an assumed axial load and bending moment,
following design formulas of AISC code.
2. The FE analysis package ABAQUS will then be utilized to model the base plate and
anchor bolts; the concrete base will be assumed to be rigid. Nonlinear analysis will be
conducted using ABAQUS and the numerical results will then be compared with the
ULS design capacity of the member.
3. Numerical results will be manually checked through linear analysis and other analytical
methods.
2
CHAPTER 2: LITRATURE REVIEW
2.1. General
The (Ethiopian Building Code Standard EBCS-3, 1995) states that the nominal bearing
pressure between the base plate and the support may be determined on the basis of pressure. For
concrete foundations the bearing strength may be taken as 0.4fcu, where fcu is characteristic
concrete strength at 28 days. Base plates may be designed either by the empirical method or by
alternative accepted application rules, which lead to a sufficient safety level. Anchor bolts shall
be designed to resist the effect of the design loads. They shall provide resistance to tension due
to uplift forces as well as having adequate bending and shear resistance. Other codes such as
AISC, states about base plates not only is it important to design the column-base-plate
connection for strength requirements, it is also important to recognize these connections effect
on the behavior of the structure. Assumptions are made in structural analysis about the boundary
conditions represented by the connections. If more accurate analyses are desired, it may be
necessary to input the stiffness of the column-base-plate connection in the elastic and plastic
ranges, and for seismic loading, possibly even the cyclic force-deformation relations. The forces
and deformations from the structural analyses used to design the column-base-plate connection
are dependent on the choice of the column-base-plate connection details. Column-base-plate
moment connections can be used to resist wind and seismic loads on the building frame.
Moment at the column base can be resisted by development of a force couple between bearing
on the concrete and tension in some or all of the anchor rods.
2.2. Past studies on simplified nonlinear analysis procedures
Several analytical studies have been conducted on base plate connections, including
both conventional mechanical modelling as well as finite element method (FEM) computer
simulation. This section briefly describes key analytical investigations on column bases
subjected to flexure.
(DeWolf, 1982) carried out experimental investigation from which design methods for
column base plates under axial load and bending moments were proposed. He demonstrated
that ultimate design method where rectangular bearing stresses are assumed was the best
approach since the results closely predicted the experimental results. Experimental results also
revealed that excessively thick end plates actually reduce the base plate load capacity as a result
3
of concrete crush failure. Elastic design methods where the anchor rods were assumed to be
elastic was shown to be very conservative.
(Sophianopoulos et al., 2005) used equilibrium equations in both elastic and plastic
regimes and tackled the whole problem uniformly by considering base plate connections, acted
upon statically by axial load and moments, as semi rigid. Moreover, the stress distribution
function employed herein is of a hyperbolic type depending only on one additional parameter,
so that all the compatibility conditions related to the deformations of both base plate and
concrete foundation are fulfilled. The mathematical formulation of the problem is outlined and
the governing equations are assessed. And finally the study offers equilibrium based theoretical
approach concerning the evaluation of the stress distribution under steel column base plates. A
system of strongly nonlinear equations for the stress distribution function in both elastic and
plastic regimes is fully assessed, which may be treated by powerful modern commercial
mathematical software to produce numerical results.
(Wald et al., 2008) conducted study on the application of the component method to steel
column base plate. The decomposition of the connections into components is described. An
analytical model is incorporated to determine the moment resistance and the rotational stiffness
of column bases under axial forces. The analytical model is verified with test results. The
sensitivity study of the base plate thickness and the anchor bolt length were also examined. The
paper concluded that the procedure using a proportional loading (simultaneous application of
axial force and bending moment to the joint) for the prediction of the bending stiffness is more
suitable for the practical application compare to the prediction based on the non-proportional
loading, where axial force is applied to the base-plate prior to bending moment. Hence the
prediction of the bending stiffness based on the proportional loading is recommended for
practical application.
More extensive mathematical derivation of the ultimate strength of steel column using
upper and lower bound theorems of plasticity were conducted by (Ohi et al., 1981). In similar
manner (Sato, 1987) demonstrated the ultimate strength of rigid column bases. Sato also
proposed analytical model of the rotational stiffness of the rigid base connection. Experimental
results were compared with the analytical model. One of the first inelastic model of the column
base plate were made by (Tamai and Kanazawa, 2001) in which the axial and flexural
behaviour of exposed column bases were investigated.
4
Analytical model for the behaviour of exposed column bases under cyclic loading was
presented in (Ermopoulos & Stamatopoulos, 1996b). (Stamatopoulos & Ermopoulos, 1997)
considered three failure modes, which depended on applied load, to derive moment-axial
interaction curves were derived for the ultimate capacity of column. In this study the rotational
stiffness of the column base was also proposed.
(Fahmy, 2000) studied the seismic behavior of moment resisting steel column bases. In
addition to an extensive literature review, description of experimental results and analytical
(FEM) simulations, the report presents a comprehensive formulation for base connection
design. Multiple failure modes were explored and categorized into two classifications, non-
dissipative and dissipative mechanisms. Non-dissipative mechanisms do not provide stable
energy dissipation and are triggered by brittle failure modes (e.g. premature fracture of the
welds or anchor rods). Base connections categorized as dissipative mechanisms, suitable for
seismic design, are classified into three main groups: (1) a strong-column weak-base
connection in which yielding occurs in one or more components of the base connection, (2) a
weak-column strong-base connection in which plastic hinging occurs only in the column and
(3) a balanced mechanism connection in which yielding of the base connection and column
occurs simultaneous. These three behaviour classifications are characterized by a plastic
moment ratio between the column plastic moment and the sum of the moment capacities of the
base connection components. This connection strength parameter, defined from a plastic
analysis of the column base connection, is derived to help designers choose a desired failure
mode of the base connection.
A significant number of the 236 relevant base connection tests (90 specimens) were
conducted as part of an investigation by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The specimens were
loaded monotonically under flexural or shear with compression to examine the effects of base
plate flexibility and preloading of the anchors on the distribution of anchor loads under varying
loading conditions. (Cook and Klingner, 1992) and (Cannon, 1992) issued publications based
on these 90 tests to investigate ductile, multiple-anchor, steel to concrete connections. Based
on the experimental results, behavioral models for anchorage design were formulated and
design guidelines were developed.
(Zhang et al., 2001) performed 17 tests investigating the seismic response of multiple-
anchor steel base to concrete connections. Observations indicated that anchors in cracked
concrete would most likely behave in a ductile manner under seismic loading. These two test
5
programs focused on the behavior of bolts or studs embedded in concrete in the context of
concrete anchorage design, rather than column base connection design (e.g. grout between the
base plate and concrete was not included, a typically standard detail for column bases).
Test programs in the United States which examined column base connections
representative of current details include (Burda and Itani, 1999), (Lee and Goel, 2001) and
(Astaneh et al., 1992). Burda and Itani investigated six specimens under cyclic moment plus
axial compression. The report by Burda and Itani presents experimental results and analyzes
on the effect of base plate flexibility on the overall seismic response and behavior of steel
moment frames. Both experimental and analytical (FEM) investigations were carried out to
determine the cyclic behavior of column base plate assemblies under large deformations. In
addition, analytical investigations were carried out to study the response of steel frames with
several different base connection configurations. The investigations showed that base
connections with thinner base plates result in greater ductility than connections with thicker
base plates and, from frame analyses, certain structures designed as pinned bases may require
as much as 50% more steel than structures designed with fixed bases.
(David P. Thambiratnam et al., 1986) conducted experiments to study the behavior of

base plates under the action of axial loads and moments by eccentric loading on the column.
The parameters in the study are the thickness of the base plate and the eccentricity of the load.
At the lowest eccentricity, failure was by cracking of the concrete, while at other eccentricities
the primary mode of failure was by the Yielding of the base plate. It was observed that the
compressive bearing stresses developed in the concrete were small at the edges of the plate and
largest under the column. This non-uniformity in the bearing stress distribution is due to the
non-rigidity of the base plate which undergoes plate bending. The ratio of the area of the
concrete to that of the plate and the depth of the concrete foundation were noted to have
influence on the behavior of axially loaded base plates. The eccentricity of the load seems to
have a greater influence on the strains than the thickness of the base plate. The test results show
that flexible base plates when loaded at high eccentricities fail primarily by yielding of the plate.
(Lee and Goel, 2002) tested column base connections subjected to weak-axis bending.
Four specimens were tested under cyclic deformations, including two specimens with a four
anchor rod configuration and two with a six rod configuration. Lee et al. (2002) conducted a
numerical (FEM) parametric study based on the experimental data. The parametric study
revealed that the use of thick base plates should be avoided to prevent grout crushing. In
addition, the study showed that a minimum base plate thickness should be provided to avoid
6
high stresses in the anchor bolts. Furthermore, the study revealed that base plates designed by
the Drake and Elkin Method (i.e. the ultimate/rectangular method featured in the AISC Design
Guide 1 (Fisher & Kloiber, 2006) and explained in Section 2.2.1.1 of AISC) did not behave as
intended. Based on analytical results, the effects of a relative strength ratio among the
connection elements (e.g. column, base plate and anchor rods) on the seismic connection
behavior were investigated. The desired connection behavior at the ultimate state was proposed
with intent to maximize the connection ductility under seismic loading conditions. Suggested
values for the strength ratio between the anchor rods and column are given as well as a revised
value of the resistance factor for the base plate flexural strength.
(Abdul Wahab Kayani, 2008) his objective of the study was to develop a rational
procedure for sizing a base plate on leveling nuts subjected to gravity and eccentric loads. To
accomplish the stated objective, three full-scale models were tested in laboratory under the effect
of concentric axial load, biaxial bending and uniaxial bending. The results obtained from lab
testing were used to rectify a finite element model in the ANSYS software similar to pile caps
on piles. A parametric study was conducted under concentric and eccentric loads with various
base plate thicknesses, column sizes, number of bolts and bolt eccentricities in order to check
the sensitivity of the flexural behavior of the base plate to the design variables. The results from
ANSYS showed that the failure occurs at the face of column for the concentric axial and uniaxial
bending load cases. For biaxial loading, the failure occurs in most cases along a line tangent to
the column corner under load, unless more bolts are located close to column face. The most load
critical case was due to biaxial bending where the failure occurred at a relatively small load,
compared to the other two considered load cases. The location of anchor bolts and the width of
column are the most important factors that influence the flexural stress distribution and intensity
in the base plate. Based on the results of the finite element analysis, equations of influence angles
are proposed to calculate the effective width of the base plate in resisting flexure as a function
of the plate thickness and bolt eccentricity. The results obtained from these equations are
intended to help Structural Engineers size base plates following the load and resistance factored
design approach.
(Seyed Mojtaba Athar et al.) “Whether stress distribution associated with IPB profiles
is same as using IPE profiles or not” is research’s basis. Main goals of the study include: 1)
manner of stress distribution under steel base plates supporting IPE and 2IPE profiles. 2) Effect
of steel base plate thickness on stress distribution under steel base plates. 3) Effect of dimension
of steel base plates on stress distribution in base plates. 4) Effect of cover plates thickness on
7
magnitude and manner of stress distribution in steel base plates. Initially theories proposed by
researchers in relation to stress distribution under steel base plates were studied. Also, ANSYS
Software has been used in their study due to its nonlinear analysis capability. 9 models
containing IPE columns with base plates in various thickness and dimensions and 27 models
containing coadunate 2IPE columns accomplished with cover plates erected on base plates in
various thickness and dimensions were selected, then the models were analyzed by ANSYS
Software.
In all models of this part, concrete foundation is modeled as a spring. These springs are
stuck to Nodes located beneath base plates. With regard to interweaving of base plates, one
spring element is considered for each Node. The other end of element is considered as a
cantilever end. Also loading on profile cross section is done as compressive load. In center of
profile, two mutual Nodes are limited in x and y directions in order to prevent displacement of
profile in x and y directions, so after loading, the profile can move only in a direction
perpendicular to base plate. This loading has been continued to stage which profile is failed.
Failure diagrams have been drawn by line 1 and line2 paths and stress distribution under base
plate and stress variations have been drawn in line3 and line4 paths, respectively. In this part,
thickness of base plates is selected equaled to 1 cm, 1.5cm and 2 cm. Also, corresponded
dimensions for them are 35cm x 35cm, 45cm x 45cm and 55cm x 55cm, respectively.
Combination of these dimensions has resulted to 9 models. In all of these models, IPE18 profile
has been used for columns. The results obtained were if thickness of base plate to be increased,
ratio of effective range of von Mises stress in vicinity of flange to effective range of Mises
stress in proximity of web will be increased. If dimension of base plate to be increased, effective
rang of stress distribution in line3 doesn’t traverse any particular route so that sometimes it has
decreased and sometimes it has increased. But with refer to line4, it can be concluded that
effective range of stress distribution in line4 (i.e., edges of profiles flange) has increased by
increasing dimensions of base plate. Also by increasing dimensions by 10cm, amount of
effective range of stress distribution in proximity of flange has increased by 1cm. When
dimension of 2IPE24 profile and base plates have been remained constant and thickness of
cover plates has been varied in order to study effects of them on effective ranges of stress
distribution in steel base plates in line3 and line4 paths. It shows that as thickness of cover plate
has been increased from 6mm to 14 mm, effective range of stress distribution in line3 path (in
vicinity of web) has remained constant while effective range of stress distribution in line4 path
has decreased. This reduction is regular so that effective range of stress distribution has had
8
1mm reduction respect to previous state per each 4 mm increase in thickness of cover plate.
Amount of stress under profiles is maximum and its value is decreased gradually toward plate
edges.
All literatures mentioned above discuss about column base plate connections through
experimental investigations and using FE simulations. Their investigation also have
incorporated about different parametric variations. This study will assess the stress distributions
under base plates for different load cases and compare it with the American Institution of Steel
Construction (AISC) design guide. The FE simulation will be compared with experimental
results available in literatures & reported by other researchers.
9
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF COLUMN BASE USING AISC CODE
Base plates can be designed as fixed or pinned depending on the applied force. Bases
of columns in a moment frame for instance would require base plates to be designed as fixed
plates in order to provide sufficient moment resistance. There are numerous structural
applications such as flag poles, hand-rails, sign board and other structures which require fixed
base plates. This study will focus on the design and analysis of fixed plates as per the AISC
specification. Designing of the column base plate is required to initialize the sizes of the
components. This sizes will be used in analyzing the finite element (FE) modeling.
In this study four different cases shown in Table 1.1 will be considered.
a) Base plates with axial load plus a small moment
b) Base plate with axial load plus large moment
c) Base plate with only axial load and;
d) Base plate with biaxial bending
The general behavior and distribution of forces for a column base plate connection
with anchor rods will be elastic until either a plastic hinge form in the column, a plastic
mechanism forms in a base plate, the concrete crushes in bearing, the anchor rod yield in
tension, or the concrete pullout strength of the anchor rod group is reached. If the concrete
pullout strength of the anchor rod group is larger than the lowest of other aforementioned
limit states, the behavior generally will be ductile. However, in this study the concrete
foundation is assumed not to fail in bearing.
Four cases mentioned above summarized in Table 1.1. Base plate & anchor bolt size
is determined from the design loads initially. Using the sections obtained from the design,
finite element simulation is executed and failure loads are recorded. Ratio of failure load to
design load shows that the designed section can carry more loads until one member fails.
AISC design guide overdesigned base plate components (see Table 1.1)
3.1) Base plates with axial load plus a small moment
The general design procedure is outlined in AISC design guide and is summarized
below.
1. Determine the axial load and moment.
2. Pick a trial base plate size, N x B.
3. Determine the equivalent eccentricity
10
Mu
e= ………………………………………………. (3.1)
Pu
And the critical eccentricity, ecrit is computed as:
N P
ecrit   u ......................................................... (3.2)
2 2qmax
If e ≤ ecrit , go to next step (design of the base plate with small moment); otherwise, refer to
design of the base plate with large moment.

4. Determine the bearing length, Y.
5. Determine the required minimum base plate thickness, t p ( req )
6. Determine the anchor rod size.

Where, N: is length of base plate
Mu: is an assumed ultimate moment
Pu: is an assumed ultimate axial load
qmax : Bearing pressure
The layout of this case is shown in Fig (3.1a) and stress distribution in Fig (3.1b)
Fig 3.1(a) Base plate layout for small moment Fig 3.1(b) Stress distribution for small moment
Fig 3.1(c) Uniaxial bending is along the major

axis.
11
Cases Design Loads Column Base plate Anchor rod Failure Ratio
Pd Md section(mm) size(mm) L(mm) Dia.(mm) Load(Pf) Pf / Pd
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) **
a 590 50 W310 x 86 570 x 454 x 25 305 20 1905.3 3.23
b 590 196 W310 x 86 570 x 454 x 42 400 32 1063.7 1.80
c 1330 0 W12 x 58 460 x 404 x 25 305 20 2468.1 1.86
d 300 Mx = 168 1000 x 500 1230 x 730 x 40 400 32 754.3 2.51
*
My = 160
* Built up section ** Failure load obtained from FEA
Table 1.1 summary of base plate & anchor bolt design sections for assumed P & M values.
3.2) Base plates with axial load plus large moment

The same design procedure as small moment case will be carried out but in step 3, the
eccentricity, e must be greater than ecrit to be considered as large moment.
4. Determine the equivalent bearing length, Y, and tensile force in the anchor rod, Tu.
5. Determine the required minimum base plate thickness, t p ( req ) , at the bearing and tension
interfaces. Choose the larger value.

6. Determine the anchor rod size.
The layout of this case is shown in Fig (3.2a) and the stress distribution in Fig (3.2b)
Fig 3.2(a) base plate layout for large moment Fig 3.2(b) stress distribution for large moment
12
3.3) Base plates with only pure axial load
The same design procedure will be used for pure axial load case. The layout is shown in Fig
(3.3a) and the stress distribution in Fig (3.3b). Detailed calculation of four cases found in
Appendix A of this paper.
Fig 3.3(a) base plate layout for axial load only Fig 3.3(b) stress distribution for pure axial
load
3.4) Base plates with biaxial bending
The same design procedure will be used for biaxial load case as well. The layout is shown in
Fig (3.4a) and the stress distribution in Fig (3.4b).
Fig 3.4(a) base plate layout for biaxial load Fig 3.3(b) stress distribution for biaxial
load
A detailed calculation with all the steps is provided in Appendix A for all the cases.
13
CHAPTER 4: FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION OF BASE PLATE
CONNECTION
4.1 Introduction
ABAQUS/CAE can be used to create a complete ABAQUS analysis model. The
analysis product (Abaqus/Standard or Abaqus/Explicit) reads the input file generated by
ABAQUS/CAE, performs the analysis, sends information to ABAQUS/CAE to allow user to
monitor the progress of the job, and generates an output database. The Visualization module is
used to read the output database and view the results of analysis. ABAQUS model is composed
of several different components that together describe the physical problem to be analyzed and
the results to be obtained. At a minimum the analysis model consists of the following
information: discretized geometry, element section properties, material data, loads and boundary
conditions, analysis type, and output requests.
The analysis involves an incremental solution technique. The basic approach of an

incremental solution is to consider a body subjected to force and displacement boundary
conditions that are changing. We describe the externally applied forces and displacement
boundary condition as functions of time. Since we are expecting nonlinearity in the body, the
load are applied in steps. However, it must be kept in mind that the time is only pseudo-variable,
only denoting the load level and the material properties are time-independent. The load should
be the same at end of each step irrespective of time itself. Time-dependent material properties
are such as creep & shrinkage problems. In this case load steps must be very carefully chosen.
4.2. FE Model Description
The four cases designed in Chapter 3 will be considered here. The components of the
connection were modeled using of ABAQUS/CAE. The main components of the connection
modeled include base plate, column, bolts and concrete block.
Table 4.1 shows the dimensions and material properties of the different components of the
column base analysed in this study. In general, ASTM A36 material strength was used for all
steel members and the elastic properties of concrete grade C-25 was used for the concrete block.
It should be noted that a rigid plate element was used in case-4 in order to induce large moments
through eccentricity.
14
Column Base plate Concrete block Anchor bolt
Height (m) Section Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)
Case-1 0.5 W310 x 86 570 x 454 x 25 650 x 550 x 400  =20, L=305
Case-2 0.2 W310 x 86 570 x 454 x 25 650 x 550 x 400  =32, L=400
Case-3 0.2 W12 x 58 460 x 404 x 25 650 x 550 x 400  =20, L=305
Case-4 0.2 1000 x 500 1230 x 730 x 40 650 x 550 x 400  =30, L=400
Table 4.1: Dimensions of column base components for each load case analysed
4.2.1 Material properties
For all steel components in the numerical models, the modulus of elasticity, E, and
Poison’s ratio, ν, were assumed to be 210 MPa and 0.3, respectively. Material non-linearity was
incorporated through a bilinear model shown in Fig 4.1. For steel components with ASTM A36
material properties, a yield strength of 240MPa and ultimate stress of 400 MPa was assigned. A
yield strength of 235 and ultimate strength of 360 MPa was assigned to the steel column. The
ultimate plastic strain for all steel components was set as 0.18.
Fig 4.1 Stress-strain diagram for steel material
4.2.2 Contact interactions
The interaction among different components in contact must be defined by creating

surfaces for the regions that will come in contact and assigning them the correct contact
properties, so that the stresses are transferred through the elements.
15
In general, the normal behavior of all components in contact were modeled as “Hard”
contact which transmits all of the forced acting normal to the interaction surface without relative
movement between the connecting components. The tangential force between the concrete
block and the steel plate was modeled using the penalty friction formulation which enables finite
sliding by applying the preset friction coefficient of 0.5. Surface to surface tie constraint, which
restrain against any relative motion along the contact surface, was applied to the following
interactions: concrete hole – anchor bolt, steel column – base plate, and bolt – nut. This is done
to enhance solution convergence.
4.2.3 Boundary condition
The concrete block was assumed to be fixed and boundary constraint was applied at the
bottom face of the concrete block. The boundary conditions for all other components of the
model are defined by the interaction properties described earlier.
A rigid body constraint (RGB) was applied to the top of the steel column to apply
concentrated load eccentrically at the assigned reference point.
4.2.4 Loading and analysis step
Concentrated static loads are applied at the reference point using a geometrically
nonlinear static loading step in ABAQUS/Standard which applies incremental static load using
the concentrated load applied and the step increments specified. The initial, minimum and
maximum increment were set as 0.1, 1e-020 and 1, respectively. Moment was applied to the
model by applying the concentrated load eccentrically.
4.2.5 Element type and meshing
Meshing is one of the most important features of finite element model (FEM) in order
to achieve good accuracy of the stress distribution with a reasonable analysis time. To avoid
unnecessarily increase the degrees of freedom of the various part instances, the structured mesh
had varying densities according the interest of the regions, denser mesh was used around the
portions of the structure where stress concentration was anticipated (see Fig 4.2).
In the present model, an 8 node brick of reduced integration with 3 degrees of freedom
per node (C3D8R) solid and continuum element type was chosen to model all the components
of the joint.
16
Fig 4.2 Typical finite element mesh of the cases considered
4.3 Validation of FE discretization

Numerical models were validated using results obtained from physical testing. The FE
model proposed in this study is validated by simulating experimental cases conducted by David
P.Thambiratnam.
The test set-up and its plan with cross-sectional dimensions are shown in Fig.4.3. The
column and base plate were centered on the concrete block. The variables in the test series were
the eccentricity e. Other components of the base plate were maintained constant.
A square hollow section (SHS) of size 102 x 102 x 13 was used for the column and a 102
x 356 x 13 plate was welded to the side of the plate to ensure rigidity. Fig.4.3 (a) shows
horizontal arm of the same material and cross section was attached to the column to facilitate
eccentric loading. Fillet welds were used for all connections. The plan dimensions of the base
plate were 230mm in length and 178mm in width as shown in Fig.4.3 (b). Base plates of
thickness 22.22mm, 19.05mm and 15.87mm were tested by applying loads at eccentricities of
25.4mm, 76.2mm, 127mm, and 177.8mm. For the validation purpose of the study only thickness
15.87mm with different eccentricity is considered. The length of the anchor bolt was 432mm
with both ends threaded and having a diameter of 19mm.The anchor bolt nuts were hand-
tightened prior to the testing. The dimensions of the concrete blocks were 305mm x 305mm x
279mm. They were cast in wooden molds specially designed to enable the placement of the
anchor bolt in to the concrete during casting. The blocks had an approximate concrete
compressive strength f'c of 48N/mm2. Reinforcement was not used. Tensile tests carried out on
the anchor bolt and base plate specimens indicated the Young's modulus and yield stress of the
Steel to be 200kN/mm2 and 240N/mm2, respectively.
17
(b)
(a)
Fig. 4.3: (a) Elevation of Specimen; (b)

Plan View of Specimen; (c) FE modeling
of the experiment
(c)
The specimens used in the physical experiments were replicated in numerical models
implemented using ABAQUS. Tie constraint was used at surface interaction between SHS
column - base plate, anchor bolt-concrete block and anchor bolt-nut. Friction interaction
properties were applied to base plate-concrete block interaction as well as base plate - anchor
bolt interaction. Rigid plate was added on top of the column in order to induce eccentricity. The
finite element model is shown in Fig 4.3c.
The finite element result for the peak load is shown in Table 4.2.
18
Specimen Base plate Eccentricity, Experimental Mode of ABAQUS Factor of
Number Thickness (mm) (mm ) (3 ) Failure load, Failure (5) Failure safety
(1) (2) Pe (kN) (4) load Ps, Ps/Pe
(kN) (6) (7)
1 25.4 800 Concrete 1000 1.25
2 76.2 620 Base plate 687.52 1.11
3 15.88 127.0 180 Base plate 210 1.17
4 177.8 100 Base plate 135 1.35
Table 4.2. Comparison of test results with predictions from ABAQUS software.
Load displacement curve
1200
1000
800
Load (kN)
600
400 e=25.4mm
e=76.2mm
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Displacement (mm)
Load displacement curve

250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
e=127mm
e=177.8mm
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement (mm)
Fig 4.4 Load displacement curve
19
The load displacement curve is plotted in Fig 4.4 for each case. Comparisons of ABAQUS
result with experimental test results gave a range of 1.11 to 1.35 with mean value of 1.22 for
specimens that failed by yielding of the base plate. These ratio shows that the experiment
failure load and the ABAQUS result correlates. Therefore, from the above results found from
software, by comparing it with experimental result, we can conclude that the finite element
simulations adopted in this study is reliable and can be used to conduct further study on the
behavior of base plate connection.
4.4 Comparison of FEA and AISC
In this chapter, realistic stress distributions under loaded base plate are compared to
stress distributions predicted by AISC code. The stress distribution taken from ABAQUS is at
3 different paths. Path 1 is a line in the middle line of the plate along major axis which web
section of steel column is connected; Path 2 within flange connection 63.5cm offset distance
from middle line; and path 3 taken 1.5cm offset distance from the edge of base plate and it has
zero contact pressure (see Fig.4.6a, 4.8a, 4.10a & 4.12a). The numerical models are as described
earlier and the load cases examined are as outlined in Chapter 3 in which (a) Case-1: Axial load
with small moment, (b) Case-2: Axial load with large moment, (c) Case-3: Pure axial load, and
(d) Case-4: Biaxial bending.
4.4.1 Axial load with Small moment
As illustrated in Fig. 4.5, the small moment applied in this load case (Mu = 50kNm) is
induced by applying the axial load with an eccentricity, e, along the major axis of the column
where:
Mu 50kN  m
e= = = 0.0847m = 84.75mm
Pu 590kN
20
Actual stress distribution for each path
5
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-5
-10
Stress (MPa)
-15
path 1
-20
path 2
-25
path 3
-30
-35
-40
True distance along path (mm)
The stress distribution shown in Fig. 4.6 (a) are obtained by monitoring the stress levels on
path 1 of the base plate the maximum stress from ABAQUS is 37 MPa whereas according to
AISC design guideline the max stress along the length of the plate is 4.31MPa. As the graph
illustrates, the AISC guidelines under estimate the peak compressive stress by a factor of 8.5.
4.4.2 Axial load with large moment
In this loading case significant levels of tensile stresses are expected to develop due to
the large moment induced through a lever arm length of:
Mu 196kN  m
e  = = 0.3322m = 332.2mm
Pu 590kN
As shown in Fig. 4.7, such large amount of eccentricity is outside the cross-section of
the steel column. Therefore a rigid shell element was attached to the top of the steel section.
21

10
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-10
Stress (MPa)
-20
path 1
-30
path 2
-40
path 3
-50
-60
True distance along path (mm)

The stress graph on Fig. 4.8 (a) shows a maximum compressive stress of 55 MPa and
zero tensile stress. The AISC stress prediction in Fig. 4.8 (b), on the other hand, show a
maximum compressive stress if 10.25 MPa and tensile stress of 5.69 MPa. Similar to the
previous load case, the compressive stress is under estimated by a factor of 5.4. The difference
in maximum tensile stress between the numerical model and the AISC prediction can be
attributed to the fact that the base plate under goes large deformation and lifts up transferring
the tensile force to the anchor bolt.
22
4.4.3 Pure axial load
In this load case, a concentric axial load of 1330 kN is applied to the centre of the steel
column. Fig. 4.9 illustrates the resultant base plate deformation and contact pressure contours.
Compared with the stress distribution assumed in the AISC code, it can be seen in Figures 4.10
(a) and (b) that the stress peak at the top and bottom flange positions are under estimated by
approximately 6.8. This is due to the fact that ABAQUS stress distribution is taken along path
1 which is critical line of base plate. And the stress become decreased when it goes from critical
path to the edge of base plate, path 3 has zero stress distribution (see Fig 4.10a).

10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-10
Stress (MPa)
-20
-30
path 1
-40
path 2
-50 path 3
-60
True distance along the path (mm)
Fig 4.10(a) Stress distribution under base plate due to concentrate load.
23
4.4.4 Axial load with biaxial bending
Figures 4.12 (a) and (b) show a correlation between the stress levels observed in the
numerical results and analytical prediction using the AISC code. As shown in Fig 4.11 the plate
is lifted up by transferring the tensile force to anchor bolts. It has no contact pressure with
concrete foundation at path 1 & path 2 (see Fig.4.12a). Along path 3 which is near to anchor
bolt in the loading direction has contact pressure as shown in Fig 4.12a.
Fig 4.11 Biaxial bending model after analysis
Actual stress distribution along each path

5
0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-5
Stress (MPa)
-10
-15 path 1
-20 path 2
-25 path 3
-30
-35
-40
True distance along the path (mm)
Fig 4.12 (a) ABAQUS stress under base plate along the path line
24
Fig 4.12 (b) Stress distribution under base plate by the formula from corner stresses.
Path 3 is a critical line for biaxial bending case and ABAQUS gives maximum stress value
which is 33MPa. But maximum stress value from AISC design guide is 3.56MPa. Therefore,
critical paths as path 3 in this case should be given an attention in designing column base
plates in biaxial bending.
25
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY
5.1 Introduction
As parametric and case studies are often the bases behind recommending design
guidelines for structures; such approach is used in this investigation to develop a practical design
approach for the considered steel base plate type.
The important parameters considered in this study are the thickness of the base plate,
size of the base plate and spacing between the bolts. These parameters are studied under three
types of loadings through the supported column: (1) concentric load, (2) uniaxial bending, and
(3) biaxial bending. The load-displacement curve and stress distribution graph will be plotted
for each variable. Fig 5.1 shows the path where stress distribution is taken and the displacement
is taken at middle point of base plate. Path 1 is used for uniaxial bending and pure axial load
case, and path 3 is used for biaxial bending case to show how the variation of each parameter
affects the stress distribution at where contact pressure appear.
5.2 Case Study for the Concentrated Load Case
The case study was conducted on the numerical model with concentrically applied axial
load. Fig. 5.1 shows the stress distribution underneath the base plate, the figure also indicates
the critical line, along which the stress and deformation results are reported herein.
Path 1 b) path 3
Fig 5.1 Path in which stress distribution is taken
26
5.2.1 Effect of base plate thickness
In this section, the effect of the base plate thickness on the stress distribution under base
plate is considered. As expected, the thickness of base plate affect the stress distribution
significantly. At thickness of 25mm the peak stress value was 50MPa and it reduced to 35MPa
when thickness of base plate increased to 40mm (see Fig 5.2).The obtained results from the
analysis showed that the yield stress is reached much earlier (at lower load levels) in case of
reduced base plate thickness and vice versa for thick base plates. The deflection of the plates,
shown in Fig 5.3 were recorded at midpoint of the base plate. As the results in Fig 5.3 illustrate,
reduction in thickness of base plate result in an increase in deflection.
Actual stress distribution graph

60
50
40
t=25mm
Stress (MPa)
30 t=30mm
t=40mm
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-10
Length of base plate (mm)
Fig.5.2 stress distribution under base plate for different plate thickness
Since t = 25mm & t = 30mm differ by small number their effect on load displacement
also almost insignificant. After increasing the thickness to 40mm the yield point increased
significantly.
27
Load Displacement curve
3000
2500
2000
Load (kN)
t=25mm
1500
t=30mm
1000 t=40mm
500
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (mm)
5.2.2 Effect of base plate dimension /size/
The effect of base plate dimension was investigated by implementing three numerical
models with varying base plate dimensions. The base plate dimensions examined were:
460 x 404 x 25, 560 x 504 x 25, 660 x 604 x 25. Dimensions and material properties of all other
components of the base plate were as outlined in Chapter 4. As shown in Fig. 5.4, increase in
plate size spreads the stress over longer length. This effect reduces the stress concentration
observed in the model with the smallest base plate size. Fig. 5.4 also shows a significant
reduction in stresses for the model with the largest size, which can be attributed to the spread of
stress over bigger area.
The deflection plot in Fig. 5.5, on the other hand, shows that increase in base plate size
has an adverse impact of increasing deflections. This effect could perhaps be due to the fact that
the thickness of the plate remained constant while other dimensions of the base plate were
increased making the base plate more slender.
28
60
50
40
Stress (MPa)
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-10
460x404x25mm 560x504x25mm 660x604x25mm

3000
2500
2000
Load (kN)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement (mm)
460x404x25mm 560x504x25mm 660x604x25mm
5.2.3 Effect of bolt spacing and configuration
Bolt spacing was altered along both the major (x) and minor (y) axis of the steel column.
Fig. 5.6 illustrates the bolt positions examined. Fig. 5.7 shows that the peak stresses are
minimized in Spacing-2 while Spacing-3 results in largest peaks. The deflection plots in Fig.
5.8 on the other hand shows that Spacing-3 results in largest deflection.
29
1) x = 380mm, y = 324mm 2) x = 200mm, y = 324mm 3) x = 380mm, y = 144mm
Actual stress distribution

80
70
60
Stress (MPa)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-10
x=380,y=324mm x=200,y=324mm x=380,y=144mm
4500 x=380,y=324mm x=200,y=324mm x=380,y=144mm

4000
3500
3000
2500
Load (kN)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (mm)
Fig.5.8 Load deflection curve for different bolt spacing
30
5.3 Case Study for the Uniaxial Bending Case
Case study was also carried out under uniaxial bending loading and the stress
distribution results for different parameter will be compared. In such loading there is bending
moment (small moment case) generated about one axis only along with axial load. The moment
applied in the model as axial load with some eccentricity i.e. e = M/P.
The effect of base plate thickness was investigated by incrementally increasing the
thickness of the base plate from 25mm to 30 mm and then to 40mm. The stress distribution and
displacement results are given in Fig 5.9 and 5.10, respectively. The graphs demonstrate the
intuitive result that stress levels and deflections reduce with increasing base plate thickness.

40
35
30
t=25mm
Stress (MPa)
25
20
t=30mm
t=40mm
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-5
2500 Load Displacement curve
2000
Load (kN)
1500
1000 t=25mm
t=30mm
500 t=40mm
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Displacement (mm)
31
The models for the three plate size is shown in Fig 5.11, the stress contour is varied as
the plate size is changed. The stress can spread at large plate size and decreasing the stress
concentration at specific point. The actual stress distribution graph also confirm these as the
plate size increased the peak stress magnitude become decreased. But the deflection will
increase as the plate size is increased. Because of that the cantilever distance or plate without
bolt become increased. This is due to the fact that increasing the base plate dimension/length
without increasing base plate thickness results in a more slender /less stiff/ base plate.
570 x 454 x 25mm 650 x 534 x 25mm 730 x 614 x 25mm
Fig.5.11 Stress contour for different plate cross section

40
35
30
25
Stress (MPa)
20
15
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
-5
570x454x25mm 650x534x25mm 730x614x25mm
32
2500
2000
Load (kN)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement (mm)
460x404x25mm 560x504x25mm 660x604x25mm
5.3.3 Effect of bolt spacing and configuration
The base plate acts rigidly and the deflection occurs in the base plate at very high loads
when the number of bolts was increased. As the number of bolts is increased, the spacing
between the bolts is reduced consequently. for these study only changing configurations of four
bolts influence on stress distribution is described. Since stress distribution is taken along bend
line path, the stress is affected by changing bolt space at two directions. The stress decreased as
the bolt spacing decreased in y direction, and greatly decreased when bolt spacing along x
direction reduced.

40
35
30
Stress (MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-5
x=420,y=304mm x=210,y=304mm x=420,y=152mm
33
2500
2000
Load (kN)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement (mm)
x=380,y=324mm x=200,y=324mm x=380,y=144mm
5.4 Case Study for Biaxial Load Case
Case study was carried out in ABAQUS based on components cross section resulted
from numerical design. Another stiff/rigid component is used to apply biaxial load with
eccentricity at both direction. The stress distribution is varied along the width and length of the
plate.
The load was applied at the top of the column head rigid body through a node to create
the effect of Biaxial loading. Base plate thickness was varied by 10 mm in each case and the
results were plotted. As the graph (Fig 5.16) shows plate thickness 50mm reduces peak
compressive stress from 33MPa to 28MPa, and when the thickness increased to 60mm the stress
is decreased 23MPa. Load displacement graph, Fig 5.17 shows that at small load it reach its
ultimate capacity during less plate thickness. And when plate thickness become increased to
60mm, the plate ultimate capacity increased significantly and becoming more ductile.
34
Actual stress distribution along path 3
40
35
30
t=40mm
Stress (MPa)
25
20 t=50mm
15 t=60mm
10
5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-5
True length of base plate (mm)

1000
900
800
700
t=40mm
Load (kN)
600
t=50mm
500
400 t=60mm
300
200
100
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
Fig 5.17 Load displacement curve for different plate thickness
The plate areas taken for this case are 1230 x 730, 1330 x 830 & 1430 x 930mm. As the
plate area become increased the load gets more area to distribute over. Therefore the stress
decreased as the plate size increases. Graph Fig 5.18 shows at the middle portion of the plate
reads zero stress and it is because the plate is bending up for a given biaxial load. Ultimate load
increases as the plate size increases. At plate size 1230 x 730 ultimate load is 754kN, when it is
increased to 1330 x 830 the ultimate load become 799.4kN and at size 1430 x 930mm the
ultimate load increased to 836kN.
35
40
35
30
Stress (MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1230x730x40mm 1330x830x40mm 1430x930x40mm

900
800
700
600
Load (kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (mm)
1230x730x40mm 1330x830x40mm 1430x930x40mm
Fig.5.19 Load deflection curve for different plate size
5.4.3 Effect of bolt spacing
The stress distribution pattern is varied for different bolt configuration (see Fig 5.20).
The stress is more distributed over the area at the case of bolt spacing reduction along x axis.
The stress distribution along the path is greatly affected by bolt spacing/configuration (see Fig
5.21). Reduction spacing in x direction changes the stress distribution. Middle portion of the
plate was under zero stress and now after bolt spacing minimized in x direction, it have
significant stress. Reducing spacing in x direction decreases yield point.
36

40
35
30
Stress (MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
-200 -5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
x=1077.6,y=577.6mm x=538,y=577.6mm x=1077.6,y=288.8mm

800
700
600
Load (kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
x=1077.6,y=577.6mm x=538,y=577.6mm x=1077.6,y=288.8mm
Fig.5.22 Load displacement curve for different bolt spacing
37
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
6.1 Summary & conclusion
The main objective of this study was to examine how the stress distributions obtained
from numerical analysis compare with those specified in the AISC design codes. Detailed
literature review was carried out on existing research on non-linear analysis of column base
connections. To assess how well the AISC code predicts the stresses under various loading
conditions, four load cases were considered. In the first load case, the base plate was loaded
with axial load and small amount of moment; in the second load case the base plate was loaded
with large moment; the third load case only had a concentric axial load applied; and in the fourth
load case biaxial bending moment was applied. The base plate components were sized for each
load case following the AISC guide lines.
Designing column base plate for four different loading case is summarized in Chapter
3, and the detail calculation is presented in Appendix A. Using this designed sections of base
plate component, ABAQUS analysis is done for large load until one member is failed. AISC
design guide checked whether it is conservative or uneconomic design by taking failure load
from software. The ratio of failure load to design load is listed in Table 1.1 for each loading
case. Except uniaxial bending (small moment), all loading case design is conservative.
Validation of numerical model is critical in conducting the research, Therefore a
numerical model of a physically tested specimen was created using the finite element analysis
software ABAQUS. A good correlation was achieved between the experimental and numerical
results. Once the modeling approach was validated, numerical models of the four load cases
were generated. Numerical analysis results of the base plate stress distribution for each load case
were then compared with the AISC predictions. Result comparisons showed that a good
correlation between the AISC prediction and numerical results was achieved for load case 4 but
for all other load cases, the AISC considerably under estimated the peak compressive stress
observed near the flanges.
The comparison between FEA and AISC showed that the difference between the
realistic stress distribution and the predicted one. The difference is high at critical line path 1
because it is highly stressed area directly below the column section. Other paths have reduced
contact pressure and it is below the predicted stress distribution. Because the stresses become
diminished when the distance far from the effective area. Therefore, AISC design guide did not
account the critical path for the design of column base plate.
38
A parametric analysis was conducted by applying concentric axial load and varying the
plate thickness, size of the base plate and bolt spacing. Results showed that increasing plate
thickness reduces stress levels and deflection, similarly increase of base plate size resulted in
reduction of peak stress levels as the stress were distributed over larger area but the deflections
reduced owing to the fact that the base plates were becoming more slender. It was also observed
that reducing bolt spacing along the minor axis of the column significantly increased base plate
deflection due to the reduced lever arm.
6.2 Recommendation
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) provide a design guide for column base
plates. As discussed in this thesis, the actual stress distribution found from ABAQUS at different
paths on a base plate has been shown. The stress distribution under base plate along a critical
path is very much higher compared with AISC stress distribution determination method,
showing that there is a maximum stress distribution (above assumed from formula) along that
path. Therefore, one should check the design using ABAQUS or other finite element software
to see the exact stresses distribution under base plate. As a future work, it is needed to develop
a formula incorporating this magnified stress distribution.
39
7. REFERENCES
Abdul Wahab Kayani. (2008) “Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of steel base plates on
levelling nuts” B.S. p 1-141.
American Institute of Steel Construction. (2006)
Burda, J.J., and Itani, A.M. (1999), “Studies of Seismic Behavior of Steel Base Plates,” Report
No. CCEER 99-7, Reno (NV): Center of Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, NV.
Cannon, R.W. (1992), “Flexible Base Plates: Effects of Plate Flexibility and Preload on Anchor
Loading and Capacity,” ACI Structural Journal, Volume 89, Issue 3, pp. 315–324.
Cook, R.A., and Klingner, R.E. (1992), “Behavior of Multiple-Anchor Steel-to-Concrete

Connections with Surface Mounted Baseplates,” Anchors in Concrete Design and Behavior,
G.A. Senkiw and H.B. Lacelot III, Editors, ACI Special Publication 130, pp. 61-122.
D.S. Sophianopoulos, P.G.Asteris and G.T. Michalstos. (2005) "Equilibrium based evaluation
of stress distribution under steel column base-plates I: Governing Equations." Electronic
journal of structural Engineering p.43-54
David P.Thambiratnam, M. ASCE and P. Paramasivam. “Base Plates under axial loads and
moments” J. Struct. Eng. (1986) p 1166-1181.
DeWolf, J. T. (1982) "Column base plates." Structural Engineering Practice 1 p 39-51.
Ermopoulos, J., and Stamatopoulos, G. (1996b), “Analytical Modeling of Column Base Plates
under Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 225- 238.
Ethiopian Building Code Standard -EBCS-3.
Ethiopian Building Code Standard EBCS-3+
Fahmy, M. (2000), “Seismic Behavior of Moment-resisting Steel Column Bases,” Ph.D.

Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
František Wald, Zdeněk Sokol, Martin Steenhuis, Jean-Pierre Jaspart. (2008) “Component
method for steel column bases.” Heron p.3-20.
Fisher, J.M., and Kloiber, L.A. (2006), “Steel Design Guide 1 - Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design,” 2nd Ed., AISC 801-06, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
J.T., DeWolf and E.F., Sarisley. (1980) “Column Base Plates with Axial Loads and Moments.”
Journal of the Structural Division ASCE p. 2167-2184.
Lee, D., and Goel, S.C. (2001). “Seismic Behavior of Column-Base Plate Connections Bending
about Weak Axis,” Report No. UMCEE 01-09, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
40
Lee, D., Goel, S.C., and Stojadinovic, B. (2002), “Relative Strength Effects on Seismic
Behavior of Column-Base Plate Connections under Weak Axis Bending,” Proceedings of the
Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ohi, K., Tanaka, H., and Takanashi, K. (1981), “Ultimate Strength of Steel Column Bases,”
Bulletin No. 14, Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Sato, K. (1987), “A Research on the Aseismic Behavior of Steel Column Base for Evaluating
Its Strength Capacity and Fixity,” Report No. 69, Kajima Institute of Construction Technology,
Tokyo, Japan.
Tamai. H., and Kanazawa, Y. (2001), “Elasto-plastic Behavior of Exposed-Type Column Base
Under Variable Axial Force,” Proceedings of the Sixth Pacific Structural Steel Conference,
Beijing, China Vol.1, pp.260-265.
Stamatopoulos, G., and Ermopoulos, J. (1997), “Interaction Curves for Column Base-Plate
Connections,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 44, No. 1-2, pp. 69-89.
Seyed Mojtaba Athar1, Marjan Sadrjamali2, Mojtaba Bahrami Noshahr3, “Studying Stress
Distribution under Steel Base Plates Using IPE Profiles”.
Zhang, Y.G., Klingner, R.E., and Graves, H.L. (2001), “Seismic Response of Multiple-Anchor
Connections to Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Volume 98, Issue 6, pp. 811-822.
41
Appendix A: Base plate design calculations using AISC code
a) Base plates with axial load plus a small moment

Case-1 (Small moment base plate design)
Given information
Column (W310x86) cross sectional property
d = 310mm tf = 6.3mm
b = 254mm tw = 9.10mm
Characteristic concrete strength f'c=20Mpa
Loading (factored axial load and moment)
Pu =590kN
Mu =50kN-m
Solution
Step-1 Determine the axial load and moment
Pu =590kN Mu =50kN-m (assumed from analysis)
Step-2 Trial base plate size N x B
Determine required base plate area
Pu
A1 (reqd )  where,  c = 0.6 (AISC)
c  0.85f c 
590 x103 N
A1 (reqd )  = 57,843.14mm2
0.6 x0.85 x20N / mm 2
A1 =dbf =310 x 254=61,976mm2 where, d = web length, bf = width of flange
Optimizing base plate dimension
0.95d  0.8b f 0.95 x310  0.8 x 254
Δ= = = 45.65mm
2 2
N = A1 + Δ = 57843.14 + 45.65=286.16 ≅ 290mm
A 57843.14
B= = = 199.46 ≅ 200mm
N 290
42
The base plate dimension N x B should be large enough for the installation of four
anchor rods, as required by regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). (3in or 76.2mm is the minimum concrete cover)
N > d + (2) (76.2) = 310+2(76.2) = 462.4 ≈ 465mm

B > b + (2) (76.2) = 254+2(76.2) = 406 ≈ 410mm,
Take N = d+ (2) (130) = 310+2(130) =570mm
B = b+ (2) (100) = 254+2(100) = 454mm ∴NxB =570 x 454mm
Material Selection
Base plates should be designed using ASTM A36 material unless the availability of an
alternative grade is confirmed prior to specification.
Step-3 Determine e and ecrit
Mu 50kN  m
e= = = 0.0847m = 84.75mm
Pu 590kN
A2 A2
f p ( max )  c  0.85 f 'c  Take A2 = A1, i.e =1
A1 A1
Where, c  0.65 strength reduction factor for bearing
f 'c = specified compressive strength of concrete

f p ( max )  maximum concrete bearing stress
f p ( max )  0.65x0.85x20N / mm2 x1 =11.05 N/mm2 =11.05MPa
qmax  f p ( max ) x B = 11.05 N / mm2 x 454mm = 5016.7N/mm
N P 570 590 x103

ecrit   u =  = 226.2mm
2 2qmax 2 2 x5016.7 N / mm
Therefore, e ≤ ecrit , and the design meets the criteria for the case of a base plate with small
moment.
Step-4 Determine bearing length, Y.
Y= N- 2e
= 570mm- 2(84.75mm) = 400.5mm
Verify bearing pressure
Pu 590kN
q= = =1475kN/m < 5016.7kN/m OK!
Y 0.4005m
Step-5 Determine minimum plate thickness
43
At the bearing interface
N  0.95d 570  0.95 x310
m= = =137.75mm
2 2
Pu 590 x103 N
fp  = =3.245N/mm2 =3.245MPa
BY  454 x400.5  mm 2
The minimum thickness may be calculated from the equation

Since Y ≥ m (suppose 16 ≤ t ≤ 40mm, Fy =265N/mm2)
fp 3.25 N / mm 2
t p ( reqd )  1.49m = 1.49 x137.75x =22.73mm = 2.27cm
Fy 265 N / mm 2
Check the thickness using the value of n

B  0.8b 454  0.8 x 254
n= = =125.4mm
2 2
fp 3.25 N / mm 2
t p ( reqd )  1.49n = 1.49 x125.4 x = 20.69mm = 2.07cm
Fy 265 N / mm 2
∴ t p  23mm,
Step-6 Determine the anchor rod size

Since no anchor rod force exist, the anchor rod size can be determined based on the OSHA
requirement and practical consideration. The material type can be F1554 Gr36 for low strength.
Use (4) in number having ɸ20mm
Grade 36 (Fyb = 240 MPa and Fub = 400 MPa ), Rod length = 305mm
Stress distribution under base plate
44
Fig 3.1(b) stress distribution under base plate for small moment
P 6M 590kN 6 x50 x1000kN  mm
fc  + ≤ c fb → + = 2.28N/mm2
BL BL2 454mmx570mm 454 x5702
+2.03N/mm2
= 4.31N/mm2 =4.31MPa < 0.65x0.85 f 'c = 0.553x20 N / mm2 = 11.05N/mm2
P 6M 590kN 6 x50 x1000kN  mm
fc  - 2
= - 2
= 2.28N / mm2  2.03N / mm2
BL BL 454mmx570mm 454 x570
= 0.25N/mm2 = 0.25MPa
From triangle similarity (compression at the edge of flange)
570 130
= , x  0.093, xtot  0.093 + 0.025 = 1.2N/mm2 =1.2MPa
 0.431  0.025 x
0.12 x1302
M= + 1 / 2  4.31  1.2 130  x  2 / 3 x130 
2
=10140 + 17520
=27.66kN-mm
Minimum plate thickness
6M 6 x 27.66kN  mm
tp  = = 25mm > 16mm (tf)
f yp , d 265 N / mm2
∴ The governing plate thickness is t p  25mm
45
To see the effect of anchor bolt yielding (tension failure) on the stress distribution the
second case (i.e large moment base plate design) should be carried out. And also plate bending
failure effects on the stress distribution under base plate will reveal in this second case.
b) Base plates with axial load plus large moment
Case-2 (Large moment base plate design)
 For the base of the crane column W310 x 86.the characteristic concrete strength at 28 days of
the foundation is 20MPa. Design the ASTM A36 base plate to support the following loads.
Fig 3.2(a) base plate section view for large moment

Given (x-section property of a column)
d= 310mm tf =16.3mm
b=254mm tw =9.10mm
Characteristic concrete strength f ' c  20Mpa
Pu =590kN
Mu =196kN-m
Fy =265MPa (suppose 16 ≤ t ≤ 40mm)
Pu = 590kN and Mu =196kN-m (assumed from analysis)
Pu
A1 (reqd ) 
c  0.85f c 
590 x103 N
A1 (reqd )  = 57,843.14mm2 , A1 =dbf =310 x 254=61,976mm2
0.6 x0.85 x20N / mm 2
0.95d  0.8b f 0.95 x310  0.8 x 254
Δ= = = 45.65mm
2 2
46
N = A1 + Δ = 57843.14 + 45.65=286.16 ≅ 290mm
A 57843.14
B= = = 199.46 ≅ 200mm
N 290
 The base plate dimension N x B should be large enough for the installation of four anchor
rods, as required by OSHA. (3in or 76.2mm is the minimum concrete cover)
N > d + (2) (76.2) = 310+2(76.2) = 462.4 ≈ 465mm
B > b + (2) (76.2) = 254+2(76.2) = 406 ≈ 410mm
Take N = d + (2) (130) = 310+2(130) =570mm
B = b + (2) (100) = 254+2(100) = 454mm ∴NxB =570 x 454mm
Material Selection
Mu 196kN  m
e= = =0.3322m =332.2mm
Pu 590kN
A2 A2
f p ( max )  c  0.85 f 'c  Take A2 = A1, i.e. =1
A1 A1
f p ( max )  0.65x0.85 x 20N/mm2 x 1 =11.05 N/mm2 =11.05MPa
qmax  f p ( max ) x B = 11.05 N / mm2 x 454mm = 5016.7N/mm
N P 570 590 x103

ecrit   u =  = 226.2mm
2 2qmax 2 2 x5016.7 N / mm
Therefore, e ≥ ecrit , and the design meets the criteria for the case of a base plate with large
moment.
N  2 Pu  e  f 
2
 N 
 The bearing length Y =  f   ± f    ......(3.4.3) (from AISC)
 2  2 qmax
For certain force, moment and geometry combinations, a real solution of equation 3.4.3 is not
possible. In that case, an increase in plate dimension is required. In particular only if the
following holds.
 N
2
2 Pu  e  f 
f   ≥ ...... (3.4.4) (from AISC)
 2 qmax
If the expression in equation 3.4.4 is not satisfied, a large plate is required.
Check the inequality of equation 3.4.4
47
Assume that the anchor rod edge distance is 75mm. therefore from the geometry
N 570
f  - 75mm = - 75mm = 210mm
2 2
 N
2
 570 
2
2 Pu  e  f  2 x590  332.2  210 
f   =  210   = 245,025mm2 > =
 2  2  qmax 5.0167kN / mm
=127,486.2mm2
∴ Inequality is satisfied, real solution for Y exists and hence no need to increase section
dimension.
Step-4 Determine bearing length Y, and anchor rod tension Tn or Ta.
N  2 Pu  e  f 
2
 N 
Y = f   ± f   
 2  2 qmax
 570 
=  210   ± 245,025  127,486.2 = 495 ± 342.84 = 152.16mm= 15.2cm
 2 
Tn  qmaxY  Pu
=5.0167 x 152 -590= 172.54kN
At bearing interface
N  0.95d 570  0.95 x310
m = =137.75mm
2 2
Pu 590 x103 N
fp  = = 8.55N/mm2 = 8.55MPa
BY  454 x152  mm2

Since Y ≥ m (suppose 16 ≤ t ≤ 40mm, Fy =265N/mm2)
fp 8.55 N / mm 2
t p ( reqd )  1.49m =1.49 x 137.75 x = 36.87mm = 3.7cm
Fy 265 N / mm 2
Check the thickness using the value of n

B  0.8b 454  0.8 x 254
n = = 125.4mm
2 2
fp 8.55 N / mm 2
t p ( reqd )  1.49n =1.49 x 125.4 x = 33.56mm = 3.4cm
Fy 265 N / mm 2
∴ The plate thickness is t p  37m = 3.7cm
Stress Distribution under Base Plate
48
Fig 3.2(b) stress distribution under base plate for large moment
P 6M 590kN 6 x196 x1000kN  mm
fc  + ≤ c fb → + = 2.28N/mm2
BL BL2 454mmx570mm 454 x5702
+7.97N/mm2
=10.25N/mm2 < 0.65 x 0.85f'c =0.553 x 20N/mm2 =11.03N/mm2
P 6M 590kN 6 x196 x1000kN  mm
ft  - 2
= - 2
= 2.28N/mm2 – 7.97N/mm2
BL BL 454mmx570mm 454 x570
= -5.69N/mm2
fc 10.25
X= xL = x 57 = 366.5mm
fc  ft 10.25  5.69

366.5 366.5  130
= , c = 6.6N/mm2
10.25 c
6.6 x1302
M= +1/2(10.25-6.6) (130) x (2/3 x 130)
2
=55770 + 20560
=76.33kN-mm
6M 6 x76.33kN  mm
tp  = = 41.6mm = 42mm > 16mm (tf)
f yp , d 265N / mm2
∴ The governing plate thickness is t p  42mm = 4.2cm
49
 Tension force Tn
M  Pa
T= Y = L-x/3-e = 570-366.5/3-75= 373mm
Y
a  L/2-X/3 = 570/2-366.5/3 =163mm
196 x1000kN  mm  590kNx163mm
T= = 267.64kN (for both tension bolts)
373mm
267.64
T1 (bolt ) = = 133.82 kN
2
Step-6 Tension capacity of anchor rods
 The failure of anchor rod embedded in plain concrete can occur either by the failure of
the anchor rod in tension or by the pullout of the anchor rod from the concrete.
The uplift capacity of the anchor rod is the smaller of the tension capacity of the anchor
rod and the concrete pullout capacity. The calculation of the tension capacity of rods in tension.
It is recommended that before changing the grade of bolts it should be checked with an
increased x-section.
From table 3.1 (ASTM F1554 Anchor rod available tensile strength)
Rod dia. =1.25in = 32mm
Rod area Ab = 793.55mm2
Rod tensile strength for grade 36=40kips=178kN
 To obtain the design tensile strength of anchor rod
Rn = 0.563FuAb (LRFD),
Where, Fu=400MPa for Grade 36 (table 3.2)
= 0.563 x 400N/mm2 x 793.55mm2 =178.56kN > 133.82kN
50
Table 3.1 ASTM F1554 Anchor rod available tensile strength in kips.
Table 3.2 Anchor rod materials
 Determine embedment length for the anchor rods

Try 400mm
The design concrete breakout strength is
AN
 Ncbg   316hef 5/3 for 279.4mm ≤ hef ≤635mm
ANo
The rods are placed 304.8mm apart, (see fig 3.5) the plan area of the failure cone is
2(1.5hef) = (3 x 400) = 1200mm2, 3(400) + 304.8 = 1504.8mm
Atotal=1200 x 1504.8=1805760mm2,for single rod ANo  (3hef)2=(3 x 400)2=1440000mm2
AN 1805760
ratio = =1.25
ANo 1440000
 Ncbg  0.7 x 1.25 x 16 20000kN / m (0.4m)5/3 x 1.25 for 279.4mm≤hef ≤635mm
=537.43kN > 267.64kN ...OK! ∴ Use  32mm, L=400mm
51
Fig 3.5 bearing cone
Step-7 Base plate yielding limit at tension interface
 The tension force Tn in the anchor rods will cause bending in the base plate
Tn X
M pl  , X=f-d/2+tf/2, X=210mm-310/2+16.3/2=63.15mm
B
267.64kN * 63.15mm
= = 37.23kN
454mm
 The available flexural strength of the plate per unit width is
t p2
b M n  b Fy (Load Resisting Factor Design (LRFD)),
4
Where, b  0.9 , Fy =265N/mm2, t p  42mm
= 0.9 x 265N/mm2 x (42mm)2 /4 =105.18kN >37.23kN

c) Base plates with only axial load
Stress distribution under base plate due to only compressive axial load is assumed as uniformly
distributed.
 Design the base plate for W12x58 column with factored axial compression load
Pu=1330kN, and concrete compressive strength f'c=20MPa. ASTM A36 steel for the steel plate.
Solution
W12x58 (d=309.9mm, bf=254mm)
Step-1 Calculate the required axial compressive load
Pu=1330kN (assumed from analysis)
Step-2 Calculate the required base plate area
Pu
A1 (reqd ) 
c  0.85f c 
1330 x103 N
A1 (reqd )  2
= 120,361.99mm2
0.65 x0.85 x 20N / mm
Step-3 Optimizing base plate dimension, N x B
52
0.95d  0.8b f 0.95 x309.88  0.8x 254
Δ= = = 45.59mm
2 2
N= A1 + Δ = 120361.99 + 45.59=392.53 ≅ 400mm
A 120361.99
B= = = 300.9 ≅ 301mm
N 400
 The base plate dimension N x B should be large enough for the installation of four
anchor rods, as required by OSHA. (3in or 76.2mm is the minimum concrete cover)
N > d + (2) (75) = 309.88+2(75) = 460mm

B > b + (2) (75) = 254+2(75) = 404mm
∴NxB =460 x 404mm
Material Selection
N  0.95d 460  0.95 x310
m = = 82.75mm
2 2
B  0.8b 404  0.8 x 254
n = = 100.4mm
2 2
db f  4db  
n '  λ , λ=
2 x
,x= 
f   Pu 
1 1 x 
 d b    c Pp 
2
4
 f
Where Pp  c 0.85 f 'c A1 = 0.65 x 0.85 x 20N/mm2 x 460 x 404mm2=2053.53kN
 4 x310 x 254   1330kN  2 0.987

x=    = 0.987, λ = =2≤1, λ=1
  310  254    0.65 x 2053.3 
2
1  1  0.987
 
310 x 254
n '  1 x = 70.15mm, Therefore the critical base plate cantilever dimension, l, is
4
the larger of m, n & λn'.and the required thickness is
2 Pn 2 x1330 x1000 N
tmin  l = (LRFD) =100.4 x
b Fy BN 0.9 x
265 N
x 460 x 404mm2
mm2
=100.4 x 0.245=24.6mm=25mm
53
Step-5 Determine the anchor rod size, and the location of the anchor rods. Anchor rods for
gravity columns are generally not required for the permanent structure and need only to be
sized for OSHA requirements and practical considerations.
Use (4) in number having ɸ20mm
Grade 36 (Fyb=248 MPa and Fub =400MPa)
Rod length = 305mm
Step-6 Stress distribution, Base plate yielding limit
For axially loaded base plates, the required bearing stress under the base plate is assumed
uniformly distributed & can be expressed as
Pn 1330
fp = = =7156.59kN/m2 =7.2N/mm2
BN 460 x 404
f p ( max )  0.85f'c = 0.85 x 20000kN/m2 = 17000KN/m2 > 7156.59KN/m2
l2
Required strength per unit length of the base plate can be determined, M pl  f p
2
10.042
M pl  0.72 x = 36.29kN, the anchor rods will not cause bending in the base plate.
2
Fig 3.3(b) stress distribution under base plate for pure axial load
d) Base plates with biaxial bending
54
 For the base of the crane column in industrial building the characteristic concrete
strength at 28 days of the foundation is 20MPa. Design the ASTM A36 base plate & anchor
bolts to support the following loads.
Given (x-section property of a column)
d= 1000mm tf =20mm
b=500mm tw =18mm
Characteristic concrete strength f'c = 20Mpa
Pu =300KN
Mx =168KN-m My =160KN-m (assumed from analysis)
Fy =265MPa (suppose 16 ≤ t ≤ 40mm)
Fig 3.4(a) base plate layout for biaxial loading

Given from analysis
Pu
A1 (reqd ) 
c  0.85f c 
300 x103 N
A1 (reqd )  = 29,411.75mm2 , A1 =dbf =1000 x 500=500,000mm2
0.6 x0.85 x20N / mm 2
55
0.95d  0.8b f 0.95 x1000  0.8 x500
Δ= = = 275mm
2 2
N = A1 + Δ = 500000 + 275 = 982.11 ≅ 983mm
A 500000
B= = = 508.65 ≅ 510mm
N 983
The base plate dimension N x B should be large enough for the installation of four anchor rods,
as required by OSHA. (3in or 76.2mm is the minimum concrete cover)
N > d + (2) (76.2) = 1000+2(76.2) = 1152.4 ≈ 1230mm
B > b + (2) (76.2) = 500+2(76.2) = 652.4 ≈ 730mm
∴NxB =1230 x 730mm
Material Selection
My 160kN  m Mx 168kN  m
ex = = = 0.533m = 533mm ey = = = 0.560m = 560mm
Pu 300kN Pu 300kN
A2 A2
f p ( max ) = c  0.85 f 'c  take A2=A1, i.e =1
A1 A1
=0.65 x 0.85 x 20N/mm2 x 1 =11.05 N/mm2 =11.05MPa

In x-direction
qmax  f p ( max ) x B = 11.05 N/mm2 x 730mm = 8066.5N/mm
N P 1230 300 x103 N

ecrit =  u = - = 596.4mm
2 2qmax 2 2 x8066.5 N / mm
ey = 560mm ecrit =596.4mm
Therefore, ey ≤ ecrit , and the design meets the criteria for the case of a base plate with small
moment.
In y-direction
qmax  f p ( max ) x N = 11.05 N/mm2 x 1230mm = 13591.5N/mm
B P 730 300 x103 N

ecrit =  u =  = 353.96mm
2 2qmax 2 2 x13591.5 N / mm
56
ex = 533mm ecrit =353.96mm
Therefore, ex ≥ ecrit , and the design meets the criteria for the case of a base plate with large
moment.
N  2 Pu  e  f 
2
 N 
 The bearing length Y =  f   ± f    ......(3.4.3) (from AISC)
 2  2 qmax
For certain force, moment and geometry combinations, a real solution of equation 3.4.3is not
possible. In that case, an increase in plate dimension is required. In particular only if the
following holds.
 N
2
2 Pu  e  f 
f   ≥ ...... (3.4.4) (from AISC)
 2 qmax
If the expression in equation 3.4.4 is not satisfied, a large plate is required.
Check the inequality of equation 3.4.4
Assume that the anchor rod edge distance is 76.2mm.
In x-direction
N 1230
f  – 76.2mm = –76.2mm = 538.8mm
2 2

2
N  1230 
2
2 Pu  e  f  2 x300 x103  560  538.8 
 f   =  538.8 
3 2
 =1331 x 10 mm > = =
 2  2  qmax 8066.5 N / mm
81730.61mm2
In y-direction
B 730
f  – 76.2mm = – 76.2mm = 288.8mm
2 2
 B
2
 730 
2
2 Pu  e  f  2 x300 x103  533  288.8
 f   =  288.8 
2
 = 427454.44mm > =
 2  2  qmax 13591.5 N / mm
=36278.56mm2
∴ Inequality is satisfied, real solution for Y exists and hence no need to increase section
dimension.
Step-4 Determine bearing length Y, and anchor rod tension Tn or Ta .
In x-direction
N  2 Pu  e  f 
2
 N 
Y = f   ± f   
 2  2 qmax
57
 1230 
=  538.8   ± 1331254  81730.61 = 1153.8 ± 1117.82= 35.98mm
 2 
Tn = qmaxY  Pu
=8066.5 x 35.98 -300 x 103 = 9.78kN
In y-direction
N  2 Pu  e  f 
2
 N 
Y = f   ± f   
 2  2 qmax
 730 
=  288.8   ± 427454.44  36278.56 = 653.8 ± 625.44 = 28.36mm
 2 
Tn = qmaxY  Pu
=13591.5N x 28.36 -300 x 103 = 85.5kN
At bearing interface
N  0.95d 1230  0.95 x1000
m = = 140mm
2 2
B  0.8b 730  0.8 x500
n = = 165mm
2 2
In x-direction (stronger axis)
Pu 300 x103 N
fp  = = 11.42N/mm2 =11.42MPa
BY  730 x35.98  mm 2

Since Y < m (suppose 16 ≤ t ≤ 40mm, Fy =240N/mm2)
 y
f pY  m  
 2 11.42 x35.98 165  17.99 
t p ( reqd )  2.11 = 2.11 x =33.5mm = 35mm
Fy 240 N / mm2
Check the thickness in y-direction

Pu 300 x103 N
fp  = =14.49N/mm2 =14.49MPa
BY  730 x28.36  mm 2
 y
f pY  m  
 2 14.49 x28.36 165  14.18 
t p ( reqd )  2.11 =2.11 x =32.19mm = 33mm
Fy 240 N / mm2
∴ The plate thickness is t p  35mm
Stress Distribution under Base Plate

58
Fig 3.4(b) corner stresses
Corner stresses
P M x By M y Bx
σ=
BL 2I x 2I y
P M x By M y Bx P M x By M y Bx Bx B y 3 1153x6533
1 = + + ,3 = + - Ix = = =
BL 2I x 2I y BL 2I x 2I y 12 12
26753931148mm4
P M x By M y Bx P M x By M y Bx B y Bx 3
653x11533
2 = - + ,4 = - - , Iy = = =
BL 2 I x 2I y BL 2 I x 2I y 12 12
83410333398mm4
300 x103 N 168 x653x106 Nmm2 160 x1153x106 Nmm2

1153mmx653mm 2 x 26753931148mm4 2 x83410333398mm4
= 0.398N/mm2 2.05N/mm2 1.11N/mm2
 1 =3.55N/mm2  2 = -0.542N/mm2
 3 = 1.338N/mm2  4 = -2.762N/mm2
fc 3.55
X= L= x 1230 = 1067.60mm
fc  ft 3.55  0.54

1067.6 1067.6  114.3
= , c = 3.17N/mm2
3.55 c
3.17 x114.32
M= +1/2(3.55-3.17) (114.3) x (2/3 x 114.3)
2
=6533.83 + 1654.83
=8188.67N-mm
6M 6 x8188.67 Nmm
tp  = =14.30mm < 18mm (tf), tp =18mm
f yp , d 240 N / mm2
∴ The governing plate thickness is t p  35mm
 Tension force Tn
59
M  Pa
T= Y = L-x/3-e = 1230-1067.6/3-76.2= 797.9mm
Y
a  L/2-X/3 = 1230/2-1067.6/3 =259.13mm
8188.67 Nmm  300 x1000 Nx259.13mm
T= = -97.42kN
797.9mm
Step-6 Tension capacity of anchor rods
 The failure of anchor rod embedded in concrete can occur either by the failure of the
anchor rod in tension or by the pullout of the anchor rod from the concrete.
The uplift capacity of the anchor rod is the smaller of the tension capacity of the anchor rod
and the concrete pullout capacity. The calculation of the tension capacity of rods in tension. It
is recommended that before changing the grade of bolts it should be checked with an increased
x-section.
From table 3.1 (ASTM F1554 Anchor rod available tensile strength)
Rod dia. =1.25in = 32mm
Rod area Ab = 793.55mm2
Rod tensile strength for grade 36=40kips=178kN
 To obtain the design tensile strength of anchor rod
Rn = 0.563FuAb (LRFD),
Where, Fu=400MPa for Grade 36 (table 3.3.2)
=0.563 x 400N/mm2 x 793.55mm2 =178.56kN > 97.42kN
 Determine embedment length for the anchor rods
Try 400mm
The design concrete breakout strength is
AN
 Ncbg   316hef 5/3 for 279.4mm≤hef ≤635mm
ANo
The rods are placed 576.2mm apart, (see Fig 3.6) the plan area of the failure cone is 2(1.5hef)
= (3 x 400) = 1200mm2, 3(400) + 576.2=1776.2mm
Atotal  1200 x 1776.2=2131440mm2,for single rod ANo = (3hef)2=(3 x 400)2=1440000mm2
AN 2131440
ratio = 1.48
ANo 1440000
 Ncbg  0.7 x 1.25 x 16 20000kN / m (0.4m)5/3 x 1.48 for 279.4mm≤hef ≤635mm
=636.31kN > 97.42kN ...OK! ∴ Use  30mm, L=400mm
60
Fig 3.6 bearing cone
Step-7 Base plate yielding limit at tension interface
 The tension force Tn in the anchor rods will cause bending in the base plate
Tn X
M pl  , X=f-d/2+tf/2, X=1067.6mm-1000/2+20/2=577.6mm
B
97.42kNx577.6mm
= = 77.08kN
730mm
 The available flexural strength of the plate per unit width is
t p2
b M n  b Fy (LRFD), where b =0.9, Fy =240N/mm2, t p  35mm
4
= 0.9 x 240N/mm2 x (35mm)2 /4 =66.15kN < 77.08kN
Plate thickness should be increased, Take t p  40mm
= 0.9 x 240 x (40)2/4 =86.4kN > 77.08kN Therefore, t p  40mm
61
Appendix B: An input file of FE analysis for one loading case
FE input file is displayed for pure axial loading case to show all inputs used in
ABAQUS analyzing each case. (The node, geometry & mesh element type lines have been
removed to reduce page number).
*Heading
** Job name: case3m Model name: Model-1
** Generated by: Abaqus/CAE 6.13-1
*Preprint, echo=NO, model=NO, history=NO, contact=NO
**
** PARTS
**
*Part, name=BOLT
*Element, type=C3D8R
*Nset, nset=Set-2, generate
1, 969, 1
*Elset, elset=Set-2, generate
1, 768, 1
** Section: bolt
*Solid Section, elset=Set-2, material=A36
*End Part
**
*Part, name="concrete pad"
*Elset, elset="_plate-top-wz col_S1", internal, instance="steel plate-1"
468, 1016, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188
*Surface, type=ELEMENT, name="plate-top-wz col"
"_plate-top-wz col_S2", S2
"_plate-top-wz col_S1", S1
** Constraint: Rigid body-Top
*Rigid Body, ref node=_PickedSet59, tie nset=t_Set-5
** Constraint: bolt-nut
*Tie, name=bolt-nut, adjust=yes, type=SURFACE TO SURFACE
bolt-nut-nut, bolt-nut-bolt
** Constraint: concrete-bolt
62
*Tie, name=concrete-bolt, adjust=yes, type=SURFACE TO SURFACE
concrete-bolt-bolt, concpad-bolt-concrete
** Constraint: steel col-base plate
*Tie, name="steel col-base plate", adjust=yes, type=SURFACE TO SURFACE
I-bottom, "plate-top-wz col"
*End Assembly
**
** MATERIALS
**
*Material, name=A36
*Density
7.85e-06,
*Elastic
210000., 0.3
*Plastic
265., 0.
400., 0.18
*Material, name="C20 concrete"
*Density
2.4489e-06,
*Elastic
29000., 0.25
*Material, name="steel col"
*Density
7.85e-06,
*Elastic
210000., 0.3
*Plastic
235., 0.
360., 0.1156
**
** INTERACTION PROPERTIES
**
*Surface Interaction, name=plate-bolt
63
1.,
*Friction, slip tolerance=0.005
0.4,
*Surface Behavior, pressure-overclosure=HARD
*Surface Interaction, name=plate-concrete
1.,
*Friction, slip tolerance=0.005
0.57,
*Surface Behavior, pressure-overclosure=HARD
**
** INTERACTIONS
**
** Interaction: plate wz concrete
*Contact Pair, interaction=plate-concrete, type=SURFACE TO SURFACE, adjust=0.0
"concrete top", plate-bottom
** Interaction: plate wz nut
*Contact Pair, interaction=plate-bolt, type=SURFACE TO SURFACE, adjust=0.0
baseplate-nut-baseplate, baseplate-nut-nut
** Interaction: plate-bolt
*Contact Pair, interaction=plate-bolt, type=SURFACE TO SURFACE, adjust=0.0
bolt-baseplate-baseplate, bolt-baseplate-bolt
**
** STEP: Step-1
**
*Step, name=Step-1, nlgeom=NO
*Static
0.1, 1., 1e-20, 1.
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
**
** Name: Fixed Type: Symmetry/Antisymmetry/Encastre
*Boundary
Set-4, ENCASTRE
** LOADS
64
** Name: Axial Type: Concentrated force
*Cload
t_Set-1, 3, -1.33e+06
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
*Restart, write, frequency=0
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
*Output, field
*Node Output
CF, RF, U
*Element Output, directions=YES
LE, MISES, PE, PEEQ, PEMAG, PRESSONLY, S
*Contact Output
CDISP, CSTRESS
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
**
*Output, history
*Contact Output
CSTRESS,
*End Step
65

Bethelhem Basazinew May 2017 Final Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bethelhem Basazinew May 2017 Final Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DSpace Institution

DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION

By: Bethelhem Basazinew Fentie

Advisor: Dr. Temesgen Wondimu

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Bethelhem Basazinew Fentie

A thesis is submitted to the school of Research and Graduate Studies of

Advisor Name: Dr. Temesgen Wondimu

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Bahir Dar Institute of Technology-

School of Research and Graduate Studies

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

THESIS APPROVAL SHEET

Name of the student_______________________________ Signature _____________

Advisor Name: __________________________________

Advisor’s Signature: ______________________________

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION ......................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the study .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objective of the study ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 3

2.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Past studies on column base plates ..................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF COLUMN BASE USING AISC CODE ................................ 10

3.3 Base plates with axial load only ......................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 4: FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION OF BASE PLATE CONNECTION ...... 14

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 FE Model Description………………………………………………...……………...….... 14

4.2.1 Material Properties ………………………………...………………………………….... 15

4.2.3 Boundary Conditions ………………………………….………………………………. 16

4.2.4 Loading and Analysis Steps…………………………...…………………..…………..... 16

4.2.5 Element Type & Meshing ……………………………………………..….…………..... 16

4.3 Validation of FE Discretization ……..……………………………….……...……………. 17

4.4 Comparison of FEA and AISC …………………………………………………………… 20

4.4.1 Axial load with small moment ………………………………………………………….. 20

4.4.2 Axial load with large moment ………………………………………………………….. 21

4.4.3 Pure axial load ………………………………………………………………………..… 23

4.4.4 Axial load with Biaxial bending ………………………………………………………... 24

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY ………..………………………………….…..……………..... 26

5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….... 26

5.2 Case study for the concentrated load case …….…………...……………………………. 26

5.2.1 Effect of base plate thickness………………………………………….………………. 27

5.2.2 Effect of base plate dimension………………………………….…….……………….. 28

5.2.3 Effect of the Distance between the bolts/configuration ………….…...………………… 29

5.3.1 Effect of base plate thickness…………………………………….……………………. 31

5.3.2 Effect of base plate dimension……………………………………..………………….. 32

5.3.3 Effect of the Distance between the bolts/configuration ………………….…………… 33

5.4 Case study for the biaxial bending case …….…………………………………………... 34

5.4.1 Effect of base plate thickness………………………………………………………….. 34

5.4.2 Effect of base plate dimension………………………….…………………………..…. 35

5.4.3 Effect of the Distance between the bolts………………………….………………….... 36

Name of the student___________________ Signature _