Column Base Connections for Hollow Steel Sections:

Seismic Performance and Strength Models

A. M. Kanvinde, M.ASCE 1; P. Higgins, M.ASCE 2; R. J. Cooke, S.M.ASCE 3; J. Perez 4; and J. Higgins 5

Abstract: The seismic response of exposed hollow steel section columns to base plate connections is examined through a series of eight
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

experiments. The prototype-scale tests investigate a range of variables including base plate size and thickness, column size, and anchor rod
layout (four rods in two rows, and eight rods in three rows). The specimens were subjected to cyclic flexural loading and instrumented to
provide direct (rather than inferred) measurement of tension forces in the anchor rods. All the specimens showed excellent deformation
capacity, with a stable hysteretic response for base rotations as large as 0.057–0.13 rad. Three specimens failed by fracture of the
weld between the column and the plate, whereas five did not fracture. Evaluation of the test data against the current design approach prevalent
in the United States suggests that (1) the design approach is reasonably conservative but (2) does not address the effect of the third
(i.e., central) row of anchor rods; as a result, it cannot be used to design them. A new design method is presented that explicitly incorporates
the third row of rods. The new approach is evaluated against the test data and it is determined that the new approach reflects the internal
mechanics of the connections in an improved way while providing more accurate estimates of forces in the rods. Recommendations for
the design of the connections are outlined, along with ongoing work that leverages the deformation capacity of these connections for
displacement-based design. The limitations of the study are summarized, especially in terms of challenges to the generalization of its findings.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001136. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Column base plates; Seismic design; Steel connections; Anchor bolt tension; Metal and composite structures.

Introduction one of the most popular approaches to characterizing the strength

In steel structures, column base connections transfer forces from the
steel column to the concrete footing. For low-rise structures, such as
moment resisting frames with less than three to four stories, or can-
tilever column systems used in mezzanines, the base connection
often features a base plate similar to the one schematically illustrated
in Fig. 1. As shown in the figure, these connections include various
components (i.e., column, base plate, anchor rods, and concrete/
grout foundation) that interact under a variety of loading conditions
such as axial tension/compression, flexure, and shear. Informed by
various experimental (DeWolf and Sarisley 1980; Thambiratnam
and Paramasivam 1986; Astaneh et al. 1992; Fahmy et al. 1999;
Burda and Itani 1999) and analytical studies (Salmon et al.
1957; Blodgett 1966; Maitra 1978; Ohi et al. 1981; Ermopoulos
and Stamatopoulos 1996; Drake and Elkin 1999; Wald et al.
1995), the Steel Design Guide One (Fisher and Kloiber 2006), pub-
lished by AISC, provides guidance for the design of these connec-
tions. The method presented in Steel Design Guide One represents
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616 (corresponding author). E-mail:
kanvinde@ucdavis.edu
2 tion capacity (which is important in a seismic context).
Peter S. Higgins and Associates, 30765 Pacific Coast Highway #117,
Malibu, CA 90265.
3
Engineer, Forell Elsesser Engineers, 160 Pine St., San Francisco, CA
94111.
4
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616.
5
Engineer, Peter S. Higgins and Associates, 30765 Pacific Coast High-
way #117, Malibu, CA 90265.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 15, 2014; approved
on June 10, 2014; published online on August 12, 2014. Discussion period
open until January 12, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04014171(13)/$25.00.
of base connections worldwide. Recent work, including experimen-
tal work (Gomez et al. 2010; Kanvinde et al. 2013), examines the
assumptions inherent in the methods provided by Steel Design
Guide One and has determined that, by and large, the design ap-
proaches are reliable and conservative if applied to common con-
nection configurations. However, these studies also point to
limitations of the experimental/analytical data, as well as their adap-
tation to design approaches. Specifically, the following issues are
noteworthy:
1. The vast majority of experiments feature W-section columns
subjected to major axis bending attached to base plates, and
none examine the response of hollow steel section (HSS) or
box column base plate connections. HSSs are commonly used
as corner columns in moment frames or as cantilever column
systems for mezzanines and storage racks. HSS columns re-
quire the deposition of an out-of-position curved weld at
the corner of the section. Moreover, these welds are single-
sided welds deposited with no access to the inside of the col-
umn, with the possibility of incomplete fusion. As the column
is subjected to flexure, these welds interact with the yield line
in the base plate, which also forms at the corners (or edge) of
the section, possibly compromising the strength and deforma-
2. The strength characterization methods presented in prior
research (and most of the previous tests) are applicable to a
connection configuration where four anchor rods are used (like
the one shown in Fig. 1). Often, alternate configurations may
be used with eight anchor rods, like the one shown in Fig. 2, to
provide additional resistance. The internal stress distributions
in these connections are the result of nonlinear and indetermi-
nate interactions between the various components, such as the
plate, rods, and grout (Ermopoulos and Stamatopoulos 1996;
Kanvinde et al. 2013). Consequently, these different config-
urations alter the internal stress and force distributions in

© ASCE 04014171-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Applied force and
the rods and the concrete and affect the pattern of development
moment
of yield lines in the base plate.
Steel 3. With reference to the previous point, the design approaches and
Column strength characterization methods are based on internal stress
Base
and force distributions that have been examined only indirectly
Plate due to the difficulty of measuring internal stresses in a founda-
tion. More specifically, these methods have been validated
through the overall agreement of specimen strength (as ob-
Grout
tained from tests) with strength calculated with a method that
Tensile forces uses these stress distributions, rather than through direct mea-
Bearing
in anchor rods surements of these stresses and forces inside the connection.
stresses in
The preceding Points 2 and 3 are especially relevant if non-
footing
ductile anchors, such as postinstalled anchors, are used. In these
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Concrete Anchor situations, accurate characterization of internal forces (rather than

Foundation Rods overall connection strength) is even more critical to prevent sudden
failure of the connection. Motivated by the aforementioned issues,
this paper presents test results and an analysis of a series of eight
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of typical exposed base plate tests on HSS column to base plate connections. Fig. 3 and Table 1
connection illustrate the test setup and the test matrix (discussed in detail sub-
sequently). In reference to these, the test specimens (in the form of
cantilever columns) were approximately prototype scale, with var-
iations in plate size and thickness and in anchor rod layout. All spec-
imens were subjected to cyclic lateral loading, and the anchor rods
were instrumented with load cells for direct measurement of forces.
The objectives of the test program and subsequent analysis are
to (1) characterize the response, i.e., strength, deformation, and
hysteretic characteristics, of HSS column base connections, (2) ex-
amine the accuracy of existing methods for alternate configurations
and relative to directly measured anchor force data, and (3) refine
design methods and philosophies for the use of these types of con-
nections in structural systems. The paper begins by providing a
brief overview of the design methods and other background regard-
ing the design of column base connections. The testing program is
then described. This is followed by an analysis of the test data,
as well as a refined method for strength characterization, for an
alternate connection configuration, such as that shown in Fig. 2.
Conclusions are then presented along with recommendations for
design, ongoing work (that focuses on the development of a dis-
placement-based design method that leverages the deformation
capacity of these connections), and the limitations of the study.

Background
Fig. 2. Hollow steel section column base plate with eight anchor
rods The main objective of this paper is to examine and refine existing
strength characterization methods for HSS column bases and those

1500 X 900 X 460 mm footing

Loading
Actuator

3200 mm

(b)
460 mm
(a)
Three sets of reusable holes
Set 1 – Four holes at corners of 230 mm square (Test 1--4)
Set 2 – Eight holes at corners and sides of 380 mmsquare (Tests 5 and 6)
Load cells Set 3 – Eight holes at corners and sides of 530 mmsquare (Tests 7 and 8) (c)

Reaction floor

Fig. 3. Test setup: (a) schematic elevation; (b) plan view of concrete footing; (c) test in progress (Test 1 shown at approximately 12% drift)

© ASCE 04014171-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Test Matrix and Key Results
Column Base plate
material material
Plate Peak Peak
properties properties
size base drift
Test Fy Fu M column
p ¼ Z · Fy B, N tp Fy Fu Rod rotation Δmax M test
max M test
max = M max =
test

(mm) (MPa) (MPa) layout θmax DG−1 M new

number Column size (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (kN · m) (mm) base (rad) (rad) (kN · m) M

1 HSS 127 × 127 × 9.5 457 538 78.8 305 × 305 19 337 487 4 rods 0.130 0.166 59 1.58 NA
2 0.071 0.111 57 1.52
3 HSS 152 × 152 × 9.5 444 524 114.0 305 × 305 19 4 rods 0.086 0.112 77 2.03
4 0.082 0.110 83 2.19
5 HSS 203 × 203 × 9.5 414 514 197.9 457 × 457 19 8 rods 0.092a 0.111a 115 1.60b 1.50
6 0.110 0.129 145 2.02b 1.89
7 HSS 254 × 254 × 12.7 414 518 408.6 609 × 609 31.75 354 518 8 rods 0.057a 0.070a 239 1.26b 1.05
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 0.058a 0.070a 234 1.24b 1.03

a
Fracture observed at weld.
b
Steel Design Guide One method applied disregarding inner row of rods.

with alternate anchor rod layouts. To provide context for this, this
section presents an overview of these strength characterization
approaches, the assumptions that they are based on, and current
design guidelines. As discussed previously, the response of
base plates is controlled by nonlinear interactions between the
plate, rods, and supporting concrete. Explicitly incorporating
these effects into strength models is cumbersome and unsuitable
for application within a design setting (e.g., Ermopoulos and
Stamatopoulos 1996). As a result, the prevalent approaches to
designing base connections rely on a predetermined form of stress
distribution (or stress block), such as linear (triangular) or constant
(rectangular) distribution on the bearing side of the connection, and
then determine forces in the various components by establishing
equilibrium on the entire connection; these are by far the most (a)
popular types of methods in use today; in fact, they (specifically
those in Steel Design Guide One) are the sole approach used in
the design of base plate connections in the United States.
As per the approach presented in the Steel Design Guide One,
the base connection resists the applied axial compression and
moment through the mechanism illustrated in Fig. 4. If the
moment is low relative to the axial load, then the load combination
may be resisted exclusively through the development of the bearing
stresses (i.e., the plate does not tend to uplift)—the so-called low-
eccentricity condition—Fig. 4(a). On the other hand, if the moment
is large relative to the axial load, then tension must develop in the
rods to prevent uplift—the high-eccentricity condition—Fig. 4(b).
The two conditions are separated by a critical value of load eccen-
tricity ecrit ¼ M=P, which may be calculated using the following
formula given in Steel Design Guide One:
(b)
N P
ecrit ¼ − ð1Þ
2 2 · B · f DG−1
max Fig. 4. Assumed stress distributions for base connection design:
(a) low eccentricity; (b) high-eccentricity condition; third row of rods
The preceding equation assumes the development of a rectan- shown in (b)
DG−1
gular stress block (with a constant magnitude = f max ) on the bear-
ing side, i.e., the compression side of the connection. The symbols
P, B, and N represent respectively the applied axial load, length,
incorporates the effect of confinement on the bearing stresses. For
and width of base plate. The stress magnitude f DG−1 is the lesser
max
the low-eccentricity condition, i.e., e < ecrit , the only possible limit
of the bearing strength of the concrete or the grout (if used). In
DG−1 state is the flexural yielding of the base plate on the bearing side of
general, fmax may be determined using Eq. (2) as follows:
the connection due to the upward bearing stresses. The moment in
sffiffiffiffiffi the base plate may be calculated in two steps, which are outlined in
DG−1 0 A2
f max ¼ 0.85 × f c × ≤ 1.7 × fc0 ð2Þ Steel Design Guide One. Briefly, these are, first, to consider the
A1 overall force and moment equilibrium of the connection to establish
the bearing stress f, which (for e < ecrit ) is bounded by f DG−1
max , and
The symbols in Eq. (2) are defined in the notation list. the stress block length Y DG−1 , and, second, to calculate the plate
The term in the equation corresponding to the ratio of areas A2 =A1 bending moment based on the assumption of a cantilever bending

© ASCE 04014171-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 of the flap that extends outward from the compression flange of the
column, i.e., assuming that the yield failure is parallel to the column
compression flange.
On the other hand, if the anchor rods are engaged (almost
always the case in seismic loading), then the high-eccentricity con-
dition is active, i.e., e ≥ ecrit . In this situation, the forces in the
anchor rods T DG−1 and the bearing length Y DG−1 may be calculated
using Eqs. (3) and (4) in what follows, also presented in Steel
Design Guide One:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 · ½M þ P · ðN2 − gÞ

Y DG−1 ¼ ðN − gÞ − ðN − gÞ2 −
f DG−1
max · B
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
present the test results, analysis and discussion of the results,
and, finally, the implications for design.
Test Setup and Instrumentation
Figs. 3(a and b) (introduced previously) show schematic illustra-
tions of the test setup (in elevation and plan view, respectively),
whereas Fig. 3(c) shows a photograph of a specimen being tested
[with reference to Table 1, i.e., the test matrix, the specimen shown
in Fig. 3(c) corresponds to Test 1]. As shown in the figure, salient
aspects of the test setup are as follows:
ð3Þ
1. All specimens were cantilever columns of length 3,200 mm
with cyclic lateral loading applied at the top. The length

T DG−1 ¼ f DG−1
max · B corresponds to a typical cantilever column system (such as a
 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi mezzanine), in which flexure dominates response. No axial
2 · ½M þ P · ðN2 − gÞ
load was applied;
· ðN − gÞ − ðN − gÞ2 − −P
fDG−1
max · B
2. All welds were toughness-rated complete joint penetration
(CJP) welds deposited from the outside of the column;
ð4Þ 3. The base of the column was attached to a reusable concrete
footing supported by spacer beams, also shown in Fig. 3(a).
The preceding equations are derived by establishing vertical and
The spacer beams allowed access to the underside of the con-
rotational equilibrium on the connection. The symbols used in the
crete footing for the installation of load cells, which were in-
equations are defined in the notation list at the end of this paper. In
stalled at the lower end of all anchor rods between a nut–
the context of this study, it is useful to note two points. First, T DG−1
washer assembly and the underside of the concrete footing.
represents the total tension force in all anchor rods on the tension
In this way, the tension in the rods exerted compression on
side; if only two are present, then the sharing of load between them
the load cells. The top end of the anchor rods featured a similar
may be assumed to be equal, not necessarily the case if alternate rod
nut–washer arrangement, such that the anchor rods could only
layouts (e.g., three in a row) are used. Second, the methods outlined
be engaged in tension during uplift of the plate;
in Steel Design Guide One do not address the effect of an additional
4. Fig. 3(b) shows a plan view of the test setup. As shown in this
set of anchor rods [e.g., as shown in Fig. 2 or by the dashed lines in
view, the footing (designed to be reusable) had 24 holes (lined
Fig. 4(b)]. As a result, the force T DG−1 is an estimate of T outer
with PVC pipe) through the depth to allow for passage of
shown in the figure. Note that the addition of the inner rods intro-
anchor rods. The 24 holes were designed to accommodate
duces an indeterminacy in the system such that the internal forces
the three different base plate footprints and corresponding
may no longer be inferred based only on the force and moment
rod layouts;
equilibrium of the connection. As discussed subsequently, the
5. Major instrumentation included load and deformation at the
present study addresses this issue.
top of the column, i.e., at the actuator location; tension forces
In any case, once T DG−1 and Y DG−1 are determined as per
in all the anchor rods, measured by the load cells described
the foregoing process, the bending moments in the plate may be
previously; various displacement transducers to measure the
determined assuming an upward cantilever bending of the flap
uplift/rocking of the entire foundation; and strain gages on
on the bearing side of the connection or the downward forces in
the top surface of the base plate to monitor local strains.
the anchor rods on the tension side. These may then be used to
The base plates were not entirely flat at the time of specimen
appropriately detail the plate (i.e., thickness) or the rods (size,
installation, presumably because of warping induced by the column
grade, and embedment, based on consideration of several failure
welding process. To ensure contact between the base plate and
modes; e.g., Cimellaro and Reinhorn 2011). Note that (1) this
concrete (and to restore vertical alignment of the column), the nuts
method has not been developed for HSS members or connections
on the anchor rods were tightened, inducing a prestress in each of
with alternate rod layouts; in fact, consideration of additional rows
the anchor rods; this prestress ranged from 4–9 kN (for the thinner
of rods requires fundamental changes to the method to address the
plate, i.e., 19 mm) to roughly 25–30 kN for the thicker
indeterminacy produced by the additional rods; (2) even for con-
(i.e., 31.75 mm) plate. The results of the experiments are inter-
nections similar to those implied in the design methods, i.e., those
preted (in a subsequent section) with appropriate consideration
with two rows of rods, the distribution of forces among these rods is
of this prestress. In heavier columns (for multistory frames), col-
not addressed by the current methods; and (3) the internal stress and
umn alignment and base plate contact are often ensured using shim
force distributions are not based on independent measurements of
stacks or leveling nuts followed by grouting (e.g., Gomez et al.
rod force but rather the overall connection response. The following
2010). However, for low-rise frames, especially featuring postin-
section describes the testing program conducted to respond to these
stalled anchors, this type of leveling/grouting procedure is unfea-
issues.
sible. As a result, the prestressing method used in this study is
similar to construction practice (where the column is first plumbed
Test Setup, Instrumentation, Ancillary Testing, and and the nuts are then differentially turned without disturbing the
Test Matrix plumbing).

A series of eight experiments was conducted on HSS column base

connections. These tests were complemented by material testing of
the base plate, anchor rod, and concrete used in the fabrication of
the test specimens. This section describes the test setup and instru-
mentation, test matrix, and applied loading. Subsequent sections
Ancillary Testing and Material Properties
Table 1 summarizes the material properties of the various materials
in the connection. The 28-day strength of the concrete in the
footing (which was common for all the tests) was measured to

© ASCE 04014171-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 be f c0 ¼ 28.1 MPa based on standard cylinder tests. All rods were
19 mm diameter ASTM F1554 Grade 105 (i.e., Fu ¼ 723 MPa);
by design, they did not yield in any of the experiments. The steel
properties of the column and base plates were obtained from mill
certificates. The columns were nominally A500 Grade B (Fy ¼
317 MPa), whereas the plates were nominally A36 (i.e., Fy ¼
248 MPa). The table shows that the column and plate yield (and
ultimate strengths) are greater (by approximately 35%) as com-
pared to the specified values. The difference between the specified
and expected strengths is common (Liu et al. 2005) and typically
incorporated into capacity design by way of the Ry or Rt factors
(AISC 2010). The columns were sized to remain elastic even as
the connection developed its full capacity. As shown in the table,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the flexural capacity of the column (based on the measured yield
strength) was greater compared to the maximum moment M test max for
all the tests, suggesting that there was no yielding in the column and
that the measured peak moments correspond to the connection
strength. All subsequent analyses (of connection strength/response)
are based on the measured, rather than the specified, material
properties.
Test Matrix and Loading
Table 1 also summarizes the test matrix. The table shows that the
key variables were the plate dimensions (i.e., footprint and thick-
ness) and the anchor rod layouts, i.e., four or eight anchor rods.
Tests 1–4 (with 305 mm square base plates) featured the four-
rod pattern, whereas Test 5–8 (with 457 or 610 mm square base
plates) featured the eight-rod pattern. Thus, three plate sizes
(i.e., footprints) were investigated, along with two plate thick-
nesses, i.e., 19 and 31.75 mm. The anchor rods were placed in
a square pattern with an edge distance of g ¼ 38 mm for all the
experiments. Table 1 shows that all the experiments featured square
HSS columns. The dimensions and layouts of the test specimens
are representative of prototypical configurations commonly used
in current construction practice. For each of the parameter sets,
two replicate tests were conducted.
All the specimens were subjected to the ATC-SAC loading pro-
tocol (Krawinkler et al. 2000) to represent deformation histories
consistent with seismic demands in moment frame buildings.
The deformation history applied to the specimens (at the top) as
per this protocol is expressed in terms of column drift ratio defined
as the lateral displacement of the column at the application of the
lateral load divided by the distance between the load and the top of
the base plate (3,200 mm for all tests). In all except three of the
eight tests (i.e., Tests 5, 7, and 8) failure did not occur during
the loading history. Consequently, a monotonic excursion was
appended to the end of the history, in which the magnitude of
the excursion was controlled by the stroke limit of the actuator
(consistent with a column drift of approximately 13%).
Test Results
Figs. 5(a–h) indicate the moment-rotation response for all the ex-
periments. Figs. 6(a and b) show photographs of two specimens at
the conclusion of testing. The moment-rotation response shown in
Fig. 5 plots the base moment (calculated as M base ¼ V top × Lcolumn )
against the base rotation θbase , which is determined using Eq. (5)
Δtop V top × L2column
θbase ¼ − ð5Þ
Lcolumn 3ðEIÞcolumn
This provides a direct assessment of the deformation response
(and capacity) of the connection, discounting the flexibility of the
© ASCE 04014171-5
J. Struct. Eng.
column. The symbols in the equation are defined in the notation list
at the end of the paper. A qualitative assessment of the experimental
response for the various tests is now presented to facilitate the in-
terpretation of quantitative data, which is discussed subsequently.
All the tests share some features of the qualitative response. These
are first described, and then responses peculiar to specific speci-
mens are presented. For all specimens, the initial elastic response
was observed until a base rotation of approximately 0.0075–
0.01 rad (0.75–1%); this corresponds to a column drift of approx-
imately 1–1.5% [which is consistent with the expected yield drift
in moment frame systems (Krawinkler et al. 2000)]. This was fol-
lowed by yielding of the base plate on the compression side (due to
the upward bearing stress) and then yielding of the base plate on the
tension side due to the tension in the anchor rods. The reversed
cyclic yielding of the base plate produced a fairly stable hysteretic
response, as shown in Figs. 5(a–h). A slight pinching was also ob-
served for the higher amplitude cycles (more than 2–3% drift) as
the base plate (which at this point in the loading had permanent
deformations) engaged and disengaged (i.e., contacted and sepa-
rated from) from the supporting concrete and the anchor rods. Note
that in some tests, this so-called pinching plateau is observed at
nonzero loads due to the differential prestress in the rods. This hys-
teretic response continued in a stable cyclic manner until either the
test was concluded (due to actuator limitations) or fracture of the
weld between the column and the base plate was observed (in Tests
5, 7, and 8).
Fig. 6 photographically shows typical posttest deformations for
two of these tests, i.e., Tests 2 and 5. Tests 1, 3, and 4, which feature
the four-rod layout, show qualitatively similar deformations as Test
2. Tests 6–8 with the eight-rod layout, show a deformation pattern
similar to that of Test 5, with the exception that Test 6 did not
exhibit fracture, whereas Tests 5, 7, and 8 showed weld fracture.
Other than plate yielding (which is clearly visible for the specimens
shown in Fig. 6), no visible distress was observed in any of the
specimens until fracture (or conclusion of the test). In the early
stages, plate yielding was evidenced by flaking of the paint in
the region of the yield lines, whereas in the later stages of loading
(drifts greater than 3–4%) it was observable in the form of perma-
nent deformations in the plate. On the bearing side, slight (and
highly localized) crushing of the concrete was observed under the
corners of the compression side of the base plate. The anchor rods
did not yield in any of the tests.
The main qualitative difference between the response of the tests
was in the mode of deformation of the base plate. In this regard, the
response may be grouped into two categories corresponding to the
two different types of anchor rod layouts. For Tests 1–4, the yield
lines in the base plate on the tension side of the connection were
inclined with respect to the loading direction because only two an-
chor rods were present in the corners. This is indicated schemati-
cally in Fig. 6(a). This is similar to the type of response observed in
other testing programs (e.g., Gomez et al. 2010). Although Steel
Design Guide One does not explicitly address this type of response
(and methods for characterizing associated strengths), it is ad-
dressed in research by Mazzei (2012) and AISC’s Steel Design
Guide Ten (Fisher and West 2003) in the context of the construction
of bracing of low-rise frames. Plate yielding in Tests 5–8 was con-
strained by the presence of additional anchor rods. Consequently,
yield lines formed parallel to the HSS column edges, and the mode
of plate bending was different compared to the tests with the four-
rod layout. This is indicated schematically in Fig. 6(b). Also, as
shown in this figure, the presence of additional rods also constrains
the yielding of the base plate. Presumably, this constrained mode of
deformation led to fracture (in the weld connecting the HSS column
to the base plate) in three of the four tests featuring the eight-rod
J. Struct. Eng.
 90 90
Test 1 Test 2
60 60

(kN. m)
30 30

0 0

-30 -30

-60 -60
(a) (b)
-90 -90
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

90 90
Test 3 Test 4
60 60
(kN. m)

30 30

0 0

-30 -30

-60 -60
(c) (d)
-90 -90
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

180 180
Weld fracture
Test 5 Test 6
120 120
(kN. m)

60 60

0 0

-60 -60

-120 -120
(e) (f)
-180 -180
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

300 300
Test 7 Test 8
200 200

Weld Weld
(kN. m)

100 100
fracture fracture
0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200
(g) (h)
-300 -300
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
(rad) (rad)

Fig. 5. Moment rotation curves for all eight specimens; dashed lines indicate estimated capacities (Table 1)

layout. In these tests, sudden fracture (not preceded by any
observable ductile tearing) propagated through the tension flange
(or edge of the HSS) and nearly all the way through the webs
(i.e., perpendicular edges of the HSS). Fig. 6(b) indicates this frac-
ture for Test 5. Table 1, introduced previously, indicates the defor-
mations corresponding to fracture for Tests 5, 7, and 8.
Table 1 (introduced previously) summarizes key quantitative
data measured from the tests. This includes the maximum moment
sustained by a connection during a test (i.e., M max
test ), the peak base
rotation θmax
base , and the maximum drift sustained by a column,
i.e., Δmax . In addition, the table also shows a comparison of the
maximum base moment observed in the experiment M test max to the
estimates of connection strength. Two such estimates are used in
the table. One of these, denoted by MDG−1, is the estimated moment
based on Steel Design Guide One. This estimated base moment
corresponds to the initiation of flexural yielding on the tension side
of the base plate. For Tests 1–4, this is based on the assumption of
inclined yield lines as defined by Mazzei (2012) and the measured

© ASCE 04014171-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 (a)
Column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Footing Inclined yield
lines in plate
Fig. 6. Posttest photographs indicating deformation modes and damage: (a) Test 2; (b) Test 5
material properties summarized in Table 1. Note that the method
outlined in the Steel Design Guide One also considers the limit state
of plate yielding on the compression side of the connection. How-
ever, as demonstrated by Gomez et al. (2010), this limit state does
not affect the overall connection strength, which requires the mo-
bilization of other yielding modes (such as yielding of the base
plate on the tension side or yielding of the anchor rods). Moreover,
Steel Design Guide One does not address three rows of anchor rods
(such as are present in the eight-rod layout, i.e., Tests 5–8). Thus,
for Tests 5–8, M DG−1 is calculated by disregarding the middle row
of the anchor rods to examine the efficacy of the Steel Design Guide
One in characterizing the connection strength under such condi-
tions. Three observations may be made based on Table 1 and
the moment-rotation curves shown in Fig. 5
1. In all the experiments, an excellent deformation capacity
and stable hysteretic response were observed. As shown in
Table 1, the maximum observed rotations were in the range
of 0.057 rad (Test 7) to 0.13 rad (Test 1). The corresponding
column drifts were in the range of 0.07–0.16 rad (i.e., 16%
drift). This observation is even more noteworthy when viewed
in the context of prequalification standards for beam–column
connections (e.g., FEMA 2000), which require a stable re-
sponse up to drift angles of 0.06, i.e., 6%. On the other hand,
it is not entirely unexpected, given that previous tests on
exposed column bases (Gomez et al. 2010) demonstrated a
similar deformation response.
2. The rotation capacity for specimens with an eight-rod layout
was lower compared with those with a four-rod layout. An in-
spection of Fig. 6(b) suggests the underlying cause: the addi-
tional anchor rods constrain the yielding of the base plate,
thereby promoting the initiation of fracture.
DG−1
3. The ratio M test
max =M (based on measured, rather than spe-
cified, material properties) are in a range of 1.24 (Test 8) to
2.03 (Test 3). This indicates that the method presented in Steel
Design Guide One may be conservative. This observation is
also consistent with previous research (Gomez et al. 2010)
and may be attributed to four factors: (1) the method uses
the yield stress Fy of the base plate and disregards strain hard-
ening, which is evidently mobilized in the base plate given
the extent of inelastic deformation; note that the measured
Fu (Table 1) is in the range of 480–520 MPa, roughly 50%
higher than Fy used for the calculation of M DG−1 ; (2) the yield
lines in the plate are subjected to extremely large strains at
high deformations; these strains may generate so-called true
© ASCE 04014171-7
J. Struct. Eng.
(b)
Weld fracture
Column
Footing Straight yield
line in plate
stresses that are even higher Fu than (since Fu corresponds
to necking and localization of a tension coupon; such necking
is absent during plate bending); (3) as the plate is lifted up,
membrane action is mobilized, further increasing the load car-
rying capacity; finally, (4) referring to the prior discussion, the
rods carried some prestress at the beginning of the test; this
elevates the base moment required for lift-off of the plate
and subsequent yielding of the base plate. For Tests 5–8,
the Steel Design Guide One is inherently conservative (as are
the previously considered factors) because it disregards the
effect of the third (middle) row of anchor rods. However, it
is interesting to note that the degree of conservatism for
DG−1
Tests 1–4 is larger (average M test
max =M ¼ 1.83) compared
DG−1
to that for Tests 5–8 (average M test
max =M ¼ 1.53). This may
be attributed to fracture in three of these (latter) tests, which
diminished the deformation capacity relative to Tests 1–4,
thereby reducing the influence of material hardening and
the associated increase in the base moment. It appears that this
effect offsets the additional strength provided by the third row
of anchor rods.
A large difference between test and predicted moment capacities
has been observed in the context of base connections (Gomez et al.
2010) and in the context of other connections (end plate moment
connections) that have similar plate deformation modes producing
high strain hardening and membrane action (Adegoke and Kemp
2003). In general, when a connection is designed to remain elastic,
this overstrength is not a problem (although it does indicate that
plates may be somewhat oversized). However, it may become a
relevant issue if either the connections are designed as a ductile
(or fuse) element or the anchors are designed to develop plate yield-
ing. In these cases, more accurate methods to characterize plate
strength must be developed. Given that the strength is controlled
by strain hardening and membrane action, this type of strength es-
timate will likely be sensitive to the expected level of deformation.
As discussed previously, all the anchor rods were instrumented
with load cells for direct measurement of tension forces.
Figs. 7(a–c) examine these measured forces (T test outer ) relative to those
estimated as per Steel Design Guide One (T DG−1 ). More specifi-
cally, the figures plot the evolution of the test to predicted ratio
T test DG−1 versus the deformation. Before discussing the trends
outer =T
observed in the figures, it would be useful to note a few points
about the figures themselves. First, the T test outer values reflect the
sum of all the rods in the outer row of anchor rods minus the
prestress recorded at the beginning of the test, thereby providing
J. Struct. Eng.
 2
Test 1 authors (Kanvinde et al. 2013). This also suggests that for
Test 2 the bolt edge distances and plate thicknesses used in this study,
prying forces (induced by the corners of the plate bearing on
the concrete) are not a significant factor.
3. For Test 5–6, the test-predicted ratios approach values lower
1 than 1.0. This is not unexpected since the estimates do not
consider the contribution of the middle row of anchor rods.
However, it is interesting to note that the values are not sig-
nificantly lower than 1.0 but in the range of 0.8–1.0, suggest-
ing that Steel Design Guide One may be used conservatively to
0 size these anchors.
(a) 0 0.05 0.1
In summary, the method presented in Steel Design Guide One
2 provides reasonably accurate estimates of the total force in the outer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test 3
Test 4 row of the anchor rods. It also provides conservative estimates of
the connection strength. However, in the context of the connections
with an eight-rod layout, it has some limitations. First, since it dis-
regards the inner row of rods [Fig. 4(b)], it cannot be used to de-
1 termine forces in them or to design them. Second, the method
calculates the forces in a row of rods, rather than in individual rods.
For a four-rod layout, only two rods are present in each row; the
distribution of the force between these is trivial (i.e., the force dis-
tributes equally). However, as discussed in the next section, the dis-
(b)
0 tribution is more complex for the situation where three rods are
0 0.05 0.1 present in a row. Third, though the method provides reasonable es-
2 timates of overall strength and anchor rod forces (in the outer row)
Test 5
for Tests 5–8 in this study, it cannot be generalized to other plate
Test 6
Test 7
sizes or thicknesses since it disregards the inner row of rods. In fact,
Test 8
if the contribution of the inner row is disregarded in the design
method, it is difficult to justify the use of these rods, which entail
1 additional cost. The next section proposes an approach to character-
izing connection responses in these situations.

Proposed Method for Characterizing Response of

0 (radians)
0 0.05 0.1
(c) (rad)
Fig. 7. Comparison of estimated rod forces (as per Steel Design
Guide One) with measured forces for (a) Tests 1, 2; (b) Tests 3, 4;
(c) Tests 5, 6, 7, 8
a basis for consistent comparison with corresponding estimates
T DG−1 , calculated as per Eq. (4). Second, the values are plotted
against the absolute value of the peak base rotation (i.e., jθbase j)
for each positive and negative cycle of loading. Third, since the load-
ing is reversed-cyclic, the T test
outer values reflect the forces in the rods
that are in tension for a particular cycle; in this way, data from both
positive and negative cycles may be plotted conveniently. Finally,
since the objective of Fig. 7 is to assess the efficacy of the Steel
Design Guide One, only the forces in the outer rows of rods are
shown. With reference to Figs. 7(a–c), three points may be made:
1. For all tests, initially (i.e., for drifts less than 0.25%) the test-
predicted ratios oscillate as the rods begin to engage; note that
while the values oscillate, the magnitude of the forces in the
rods is fairly low (i.e., less than 5–10% of the value at peak
moment). However, as loading progresses (deformation in-
creases), the test-predicted ratios stabilize.
2. For Tests 1–4, the values approach a value of 1.0, indicating
that Steel Design Guide One provides a fairly accurate esti-
mate of the rod forces. For the range of plate thickness inves-
tigated in this study, this is consistent with similar observations
from finite element simulations conducted previously by the
Connections with Eight-Rod Layout
As discussed previously, the response of the base connections is the
result of nonlinear interactions whose explicit characterization is
challenging even for the four-rod layout. Thus, previous ap-
proaches (including Steel Design Guide One) rely on assumed
stress distributions under the plate to facilitate design. The
eight-rod configuration is even more challenging to characterize,
primarily because of the increased degree of static indeterminacy
within the connection. The method presented in this section has the
following features: (1) it does not characterize the nonlinear inter-
actions (discussed previously) in an explicit way but rather seeks to
provide a straightforward method that may be applied in a practical
setting, and (2) it augments the Steel Design Guide One method
with a relatively simple extension, such that it degenerates to
the Steel Design Guide One method if the middle row of anchor
rods is absent.
Referring to Fig. 4 shown previously, the applied force and
moment may be resisted through the development of a bearing
stress block on the compression side and forces in the anchor
rods on the tension side of the connection. For the low-eccentricity
condition, i.e., when there is no plate uplift, the four- and eight-rod
configurations may be assumed to respond in an identical manner,
i.e., the eccentric force is resisted entirely by the development of the
stress block in the concrete. However, when e ≥ ecrit [Eq. (2)], the
anchor rods are engaged. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the following re-
lationships may be established based on equilibrium of the entire
connection:
new × f DG−1
P þ T new
outer þ T inner ¼ B × Y
new
max ð6Þ

© ASCE 04014171-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
    
N N Y new
T new
outer × − g þ B × Y new × f DG−1
max × − ¼ M ð7Þ
2 2 2 Test 6 - Outer
Eq. (6) establishes the vertical force equilibrium, whereas
Eq. (7) establishes the moment equilibrium. The two preceding
equations contain three unknowns (i.e., T new outer , T inner , and Y
new
and thus cannot be solved unless an additional condition is intro-
duced. It is proposed that the tension in the inner rods should be
considered as being directly proportional to the tension in the outer
rods, i.e., T new
inner ¼ k × T outer . This assumption is based on a general
new
kinematic consideration by which the deformations in the two rows
of rods are constrained by the plate. However, it is also recognized
that the plate is flexible and that the plate or rods will likely yield as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
loading progresses, such that this direct proportion may no longer
be valid. However, an explicit consideration of these effects will
necessitate not only further complexity (an obstacle to implemen-
tation) but, perhaps more importantly, the introduction of additional
parameters that cannot be robustly calibrated with the available
data. For the tests in this study, P ¼ 0; substituting this into Eqs. (6)
and (7) and solving simultaneously results in
M
T new
outer ¼
N − 2g ð1 þ kÞ
T new
outer × ð1 þ kÞ
Y new ¼ DG−1
B × f max
Once T new
outer is determined, the force in the inner row of rods may
be determined as T new inner ¼ k × T outer . Note that for this study, direct
new
measurements of T outer and T inner are available. Based on these
new new
measurements, a value of k is determined (through trial and error)
to achieve the best overall agreement with force measurements
from all tests. This optimal value is determined to be k ¼ 0.5.
Figs. 8(a and b) present the evolution of force in the anchor
rods (in Tests 5–8) in a manner similar to Figs. 7(a–c). Unlike
Figs. 7(a–c), Figs. 8(a and b) illustrate the results of the new method
and, thus, also include estimated forces for the inner row of anchor
rods. With reference to Figs. 8(a and b) (and Table 1 introduced
previously) some observations can now be made:
1. For all four tests, the test-predicted ratios of the forces in the
outer rods are either close to 1.0 or slightly lower, indicating
that the method is reasonable (and perhaps slightly conserva-
tive) for estimating the forces in these rods. For all four of
these tests the estimated forces in the outer row of rods is be-
tween 5 and 10% lower than the corresponding estimates from
the current, i.e., Steel Design Guide One, method because the
contribution of the inner row is considered.
2. The test-predicted ratios for the inner rods evolve from a value
of zero and approach (or even slightly exceed) unity as the test
progresses. This is because initially, only the outer row of rods
is engaged (such that no forces are measured in the inner row).
Upon subsequent loading, and deformation of the plate, the
inner rods begin to develop force.
3. The preceding Point 2 suggests that the relationship between
the forces in the inner and outer rows is nonlinear, such that the
inner rods carry little (≈0) load at the beginning of the test, but
as deformations increase, the accuracy of the method (which
assumes a constant ratio between the forces in the inner and
outer rows) increases. It is also interesting to note that the test-
predicted ratios for all the rods are lower for Tests 7 and 8
compared to Tests 5 and 6. Note that Tests 7 and 8 have a
larger and thicker base plate (610 × 610 × 31.75 mm) and a
larger column (HSS 254 × 254 × 12.7) compared to Test 5
and 6. This underscores that the rod forces (and the stress
© ASCE
2
Test 5 - Outer
Test 5 - Inner
Test 6 - Inner
new ) 1
0
(a) 0 0.05 0.1
2
Test 7 - Outer
Test 8 - Outer
Test 7 - Inner
Test 8 - Inner
1
ð8Þ
0
ð9Þ 0 0.05 0.1
(b)
Fig. 8. Comparison of estimated rod forces (as per proposed method)
with measured forces for (a) Tests 5, 6; (b) Tests 7, 8
distributions that produce them) are sensitive to the relative
flexibility of the various interacting components such as the
base plate and supporting concrete.
4. As shown by Fig. 8, the test-predicted ratios for the inner rods
approach unity only as the deformations become fairly large
(i.e., 3–4% drift). Thus, it may be argued that their influence
can be neglected for lower drifts that are more consistent with
design-level deformations. Nonetheless, the use of the refined
method is still desirable for two reasons. First, for the outer
row of rods, the refined method (with k ¼ 0.5) provides less
conservative and more accurate estimates of forces (relative to
the Steel Design Guide One method) even for smaller defor-
mations (compare test-predicted ratios for the outer rods in
Figs. 7 and 8). Second, and perhaps more importantly, the pro-
posed method provides a way to design the inner row, whereas
the Steel Design Guide One method provides no such method.
In this context, too, the validity of k ¼ 0.5 may be questioned,
given that this characterizes rod forces well only at large dis-
placements. It is important to consider the alternatives, which
include the use of a nonlinear evolution relationship for k,
which would be cumbersome to generalize and apply in a
design setting, or the use of k < 0.5, which would be noncon-
servative if deformations greater than 3–4% drift were indeed
encountered. Thus, the use of the refined approach (with
k ¼ 0.5) appears to have little downside while providing a
rational approach to designing the connection, especially
the inner row of rods.
5. As shown by Table 1 (the last column, i.e., M test
max =M
new ), the
test-predicted ratios for the new method are slightly lower
(i.e., less conservative) than those determined as per the Steel
Design Guide One method. The moment M new was calculated
in a manner identical to MDG−1 , with the exception that T newouter
04014171-9 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.
 were used instead of T DG−1 to determine the magnitude of
plate bending.
As shown by Table 1 (and the prior discussion regarding
M test DG−1 ), the average test-predicted ratio for the four-rod
max =M
tests from the Steel Design Guide One method was higher
(i.e., 1.83) than the corresponding test-predicted ratio when applied
to the eight-rod tests (1.53). Thus, the premise of the proposed
method that increases the estimates of base moment capacity
(thereby resulting in a lower average M test max =M
new
¼ 1.37) may
be questioned because it suggests that the new method predicts
a greater strength for the subgroup of tests (Tests 5–8), which
on average have a smaller test-predicted ratio as per the Steel
Design Guide One method. Two points may be made in response
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to this concern. First, the measured M test
max values for both the four-
rod and the eight-rod tests are obtained at base rotations in the range
of 0.058–0.13 (drifts of 0.07–0.166). These are well in excess of
any expected rotations and, thus, are not representative of the
strengths that may be expected in design-level scenarios. Within
this range, the higher test-predicted ratios of the four-rod specimens
are an artifact of their greater deformation capacity relative to the
eight-rod specimens rather than a consequence of the internal
stress/force distribution or the mechanics. Second, the measure-
ments of anchor rod forces indicate that the proposed method pro-
vides a better indication of the internal stress distribution. From a
design standpoint, where the deformation magnitudes observed in
the tests are not expected, it is prudent to use a method that reflects
the internal mechanics of the connection. Consistency with internal
mechanics is even more important for the design of nonductile an-
chors since they are sensitive to force estimates in them, not to the
overall connection strength. Thus, the use of the Steel Design Guide
One method for the eight-rod configuration has two potential prob-
lems. First, it has the potential of mischaracterizing the internal
stresses, especially the force in the inner row of rods. Second, it
is influenced by the observation of higher overall connection
strengths in the four-rod specimens, which in turn are only an ar-
tifact of increased deformation capacity. As an alternative argu-
ment, consider a hypothetical situation where each of the three
rows of rods contains two rods (i.e., a six-rod configuration).
One may imagine that this has a deformation capacity similar to
the four-rod configuration since the plate will deform with less
constraint and with the formation of inclined yield lines. Given
the similar deformation capacity, one may further anticipate that
the additional (inner) row of rods in the six-rod configuration will
result in additional strength over the four-rod configuration. This
hypothetical, but consistent, comparison of the three-row versus
two-row configuration (with two rods in each row) supports the
use of the proposed method, which reflects the internal stress
distribution in an improved way.
The distribution of forces among the three rods in the outer row
also bears scrutiny. This is because when only two rods are present
per row, the distribution of forces among them is trivial (i.e., forces
are shared equally), an assumption that is not self-evident when
three or more rods are present in a row. Fig. 9 plots the ratio of
the load carried by the middle rod to the total anchor rod forces
in all three rods in the outer row, i.e., T middle =T test
outer . The figure
is similar to Figs. 7 and 8 such that the values are plotted against
the absolute value of the peak base rotation (i.e., jθbase j) for each
positive and negative cycle of loading. Moreover, the forces plotted
in Fig. 9 also do not include the prestress in the rods present at the
beginning of the test. With reference to the figure, the following
observations may be made:
1. At the beginning of the test, the T middle =T test
outer ratio is in the
range 0.3–0.45 (suggesting that the load sharing is approxi-
mately equal among the three rods). However, as the
© ASCE 04014171-10
J. Struct. Eng.
Fig. 9. Distribution of tension forces among three outer rods
deformations increase, the middle rod carries a progressively
larger fraction of the load, reaching a peak value of roughly
two-thirds (≈0.65) the total load in the three rods (for Test
5; the ratios are slightly lower for the other three tests). This
is not surprising, given that the upward force is introduced
into the base plate by the tension flange of the HSS located
in the central portion of the plate width (i.e., near the middle
rod rather than the corner rods). This may be alternatively
explained based on plate-bending solutions (Timoshenko
and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959) or by invoking a so-called
tributary-width argument according to which the middle rod
carries a larger share of the load. In any case, it is clear that
designing the rods to carry equal forces is not a satisfactory
approach.
2. At very large rotations (i.e., jθbase j>0.05–0.06 rad), the ratio
again drops to roughly 0.5 (i.e., the middle rod is still carrying
half the total load). This may be attributed to a redistribution of
stresses as yield lines form in the plate or to perhaps small
prying forces in the corner rods (due to the downward bearing
of the plate corners).
The next section summarizes the study and presents conclusions
and their implications for improved design.
Summary, Design Considerations, and Limitations
This paper presents findings from eight tests on exposed column
base connections to examine their seismic response and the efficacy
of current design methods in ensuring safety and economy. With
respect to previous work in the area, the main distinguishing
features of this study were an examination of HSS rather than
W-section columns, an examination of alternate anchor rod layouts
featuring eight rods (i.e., three rows of rods), which is not addressed
by current design methods or previous research, and a direct meas-
urement of anchor rod forces that provide refined insights into the
internal force distribution within the connection for a critical evalu-
ation of current design methods.
All eight test specimens showed excellent deformation capacity,
such that column drift ratios in the range of 7–16% were achieved,
accompanied by a stable hysteretic response and only modest deg-
radation in strength. The primary deformation mode was inelastic
bending of the base plate, with minor concrete crushing at the
extremities of the plate. This deformation mode was exceptionally
ductile, resulting in base rotation capacities (excluding column de-
formations) in a range of 0.057–0.13 rad. In fact, five of the eight
tests were terminated without failure (owing to limitations of test
equipment). Fracture was observed in three of the tests (with the
J. Struct. Eng.
 eight-rod layout). The fracture initiated at the tension flange weld
between the HSS column and the base plate and was sudden with
no prior observation of initiation. Presumably, the more constrained
form of plate yielding in the eight-rod tests promoted fracture in
these tests.
The currently used approach for designing exposed column base
connections (e.g., the one in Steel Design Guide One) was evalu-
ated against the test data. The approach was directly applicable to
Tests 1–4 (which had the four-rod configuration, i.e., with two rows
of anchor rods). For these, it was determined that the current ap-
proach was able to characterize the forces in the anchor rods with
good accuracy (suggesting that it characterizes internal force/stress
distributions in connections in a reasonable manner). Moreover,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with regard to connection strength (i.e., maximum moment capac-
ity), the approach was significantly conservative; this is attributed
to prestress in the rods and hardening in the plate material, which
was mobilized by the high degree of inelastic deformation. This
approach was also applied to Tests 5–8, disregarding the inner
row of anchor rods, to examine its efficacy in these situations.
The relatively similar degrees of conservatism for the two sets
of tests (i.e., with four-rod and eight-rod configurations) also sug-
gests that perhaps the inner row of rods does not provide signifi-
cantly improved strength but may reduce deformation capacity.
However, an eight-rod layout may be required to provide adequate
strength if the connection is also designed for out-of-plane bending.
To address the limitations of Steel Design Guide One in these
(eight-rod) situations, a refinement is proposed to the current ap-
proach that explicitly incorporates the contribution of the inner row
of anchor rods. The refined approach seeks to provide an improved
characterization of connection response while also preserving sim-
plicity such that the approach may be applied in a design setting.
Consideration of this additional set of rods introduces an indeter-
minacy in the derivations, which is resolved by establishing a linear
relationship between the forces in the outer and inner rows of rods.
Based on test data, the ratio of the forces in the inner rods to the
outer rods is calibrated to be 0.5, such that T newinner ¼ 0.5 × T outer .
new
Application of the refined method to Tests 5–8 provides closer
agreement with test data in terms of overall connection strength
and anchor rod forces (in the outer row), i.e., the degree of con-
servatism is reduced with respect to the Steel Design Guide One
method. Excepting some minor issues, the method provides a con-
venient way of calculating design forces. An interesting observa-
tion (from the measured force data) is that the middle rod (in the
outer row of rods) carries a disproportionate fraction (up to two-
thirds) of the total force in the row. This observation is important
since current approaches do not address this and implicitly assume
that each row contains only two anchor rods. Based on the test data
and its assessment with respect to the two methods (Steel Design
Guide One and the proposed refinement), this study has the follow-
ing implications for the design of these types of column base:
1. For base connections with a four-rod layout (and two rows of
rods), the method presented in Steel Design Guide One is rea-
sonable and conservative in characterizing the overall connec-
tion strength (controlled by base plate yielding) and the rod
forces. These observations are based on the incremental forces
introduced into the rods, not considering the prestress intro-
duced into them during installation. It is recommended that
estimated or measured prestress forces, which depend on
the method of installation, be added to those determined by
the Steel Design Guide One approach to designing anchors.
2. For base connections with three rows of anchors, it is recom-
mended that the refined method be used to characterize incre-
mental (i.e., not including prestress) forces in the anchor rods
and the corresponding base moment capacity. If this is not
© ASCE
possible, then the Steel Design Guide One method may be
used conservatively to characterize the forces in the outer
row of rods, and the total force in the inner row may be de-
termined as being half of this value (based on experimental
observations). Once the force in each row is determined, spe-
cial attention must be paid to the outer row if it contains three
rods because experimental data suggest that the load is not
shared equally among them. The central rod carries up to
two-thirds of the total load in the row and should be designed
with that mind.
While the preceding points pertain to the calculation of design
forces within the rod and the plate, perhaps the most important find-
ing of the study is the excellent deformation capacity (and hyster-
etic response) of the base plates. This type of response is not
anomalous but, rather, consistent with observations in previous
studies that have similarly shown excellent deformation response
in exposed-type base connections. As per current design practice
for moment frames (e.g., SEAOC 2012), base connections are de-
signed to be stronger than the attached column to force plastic
yielding into the column rather than the base connection. Thus,
base connections are often designed for amplified seismic loads
that are based on the factor or the maximum expected column base
moment. This necessitates detailing (such as thicker base plates or
deeply embedded anchor rods, or sometimes even embedded col-
umns) that are expensive. The assumption underlying this practice
is that base connections are brittle and must be protected against
force-controlled failure, while promoting yielding and plastic hinge
formation in the adjacent column. The current study (and previous
research on base connections) shows that this may not be the case
and that base connections may be relied upon for inelastic response
if detailed appropriately (notwithstanding issues such as reparabil-
ity). On the other hand, some recent studies indicate that columns
(especially deep columns susceptible to lateral torsional buckling)
may not be as ductile in bending as previously thought. Ongoing
efforts are focused on developing methodologies that effectively
incorporate the deformation and energy dissipation characteristics
of the connections into a design process.
Though this study provides new insights into the response of
base connections and refinements to current approaches, it does
have several limitations that must be considered when interpreting
and generalizing the results. First, none of the tests featured axial
compressive (or tensile) loading. For cantilever column systems,
the axial loads are typically low (less than 10% of the concrete bear-
ing capacity); thus, care must be exercised in applying the findings
of this study to situations where larger axial loads are present. Other
loading scenarios, such as the presence of biaxial bending of the
column, will limit the applicability of the results—computational
research by Kanvinde et al. (2013) suggests that biaxial bending
may compromise the strength of connections—but no experimental
data are available to confirm this finding. Second, an obvious issue
is that anchor rods were not embedded in concrete but rather passed
through the concrete to enable the attachment of load cells and
allows reusability of the concrete block. Third, though the prestress
in the rods was measured and considered in this study, it may not be
representative of prestress in field details; appropriate adjustments
should be made to design forces to account for the best estimates of
prestress. Another consideration in the interpretation of results is
that the evaluation of the design methods is based on limited test
data, and generalization of these approaches should incorporate ap-
propriate measures of reliability, e.g., resistance factors (ϕ-factors)
developed through the analysis of previous standards, specifica-
tions, and similar test data. Fourth, in this study, columns were de-
signed to remain elastic because the focus was on isolating the
connection response, whereas in design, yielding may be expected
04014171-11 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.
 in columns. Nominally, this should not affectthe connection Δmax = maximum column drift;
strength, but interactions between the column yielding and connec- Δtop = displacement at top of column;
tion response cannot be ruled out. Finally, the proposed method θbase = base rotation; and
was “validated” against the test data set used to develop it because θmax
base = maximum base rotation.
no other data set is currently available. This limits the generality of
the method, and future data sets may be used to refine the approach
or to propose new methods.
In conclusion, it is emphasized once again that the response of References
these connections is controlled by highly nonlinear and complex
interactions between the various components. As a result, the Adegoke, I. O., and Kemp, A. R. (2003). “Moment-rotation relation-
development of a design (or strength characterization methods) that ships of thin endplate connections in steel beams.” Advances in Struc-
explicitly satisfies the equilibrium, compatibility (including gap- tures: Proc., Int. Conf. on Advances in Structures (ASSCCA’03), Vol. 1,
Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, Netherlands, 119–124.
ping and contact), and nonlinear constitutive response of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AISC. (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago.

various components is intractable. Consequently, the methods Astaneh, A., Bergsma, G., and Shen, J. H. (1992). “Behavior and design of
presented in this study (as well as previous methods) are based on base plates for gravity, wind and seismic loads.” Proc., National Steel
simplifying assumptions such as a predetermined stress distribu- Construction Conf., AISC, Chicago.
tion. This implies that caution should be applied in extrapolating Blodgett, O. W. (1966). Design of welded structures, James F. Lincoln Arc
the results of this study to any situation that is significantly dissimi- Welding Foundation, Cleveland, 3.3-1–3.3-32.
lar (in terms of geometry, plate size or thickness, loading, or other Burda, J. J., and Itani, A. M. (1999). Studies of seismic behavior of steel
parameters) from those examined in this study. base plates, Rep. CCEER 99-7, Center of Civil Engineers Earthquake
Research, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Nevada, Reno, NV.
Acknowledgments Cimellaro, G. P., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2011). “Multidimensional
performance limit state for hazard fragility functions.” J. Eng. Mech.,
The authors gratefully acknowledge Wildeck for donating the 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000201, 47–60.
DeWolf, J. T., and Sarisley, E. F. (1980). “Column base plates with axial
column specimens and providing funding. The assistance of Bill
loads and moments.” J. Struct. Div., 106(11), 2167–2184.
Sluis, Daret Kehlet, Jeffrey Louie, Eliot Wu, and Kimberly Drake, R. M., and Elkin, S. J. (1999). “Beam-column base plate design—
Stillmaker during the testing is also greatly appreciated. The LRFD method.” Eng. J. AISC, 36(1), 29–38.
opinions in this article are those of the authors and do not represent Ermopoulos, J., and Stamatopoulos, G. (1996). “Mathematical modeling
those of the sponsors. of column base plate connections.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 36(2),
79–100.
Fahmy, M., Stojadinovic, B., and Goel, S. C. (1999). “Analytical and
Notation experimental studies on the seismic response of steel column bases.”
Proc., 8th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian
The following symbols are used in this paper: Association for Earthquake Engineering.
A1 = bearing area of plate; FEMA. (2000). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations
A2 = plan area of foundation; for new buildings and other structures, Building Seismic Safety
B = width of base plate; Council, Washington, DC.
e = load eccentricity; Fisher, J. M., and Kloiber, L. A. (2006). “Steel design guide 1—Base plate
and anchor rod design.” 2nd Ed., AISC 801-06, AISC, Chicago.
ecrit = critical eccentricity;
Fisher, J. M., and West, M. A. (2003). Design guide no. 10, erection brac-
f = maximum bearing stress; ing of low-rise structured steel buildings, 2nd Printing, Steel Design
Fu = ultimate strength of steel; Guide Series, AISC, Chicago.
fc0 = crushing strength of concrete; Gomez, I., Kanvinde, A., and Deierlein, G. (2010). “Exposed column base
DG−1
fmax = maximum bearing stress per Steel Design Guide One; connections subjected to axial compression and flexure.” Final Rep.,
Fy = yield strength of steel; American Institute of Steel Construction.
g = rod edge distance; Kanvinde, A. M., Jordan, S. J., and Cooke, R. J. (2013). “Exposed column
Lcolumn = length of column; baseplate connections in moment frames—Simulations and behavioral
M base = bending moment at base of column; insights.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 84, 82–93.
M DG−1 = moment capacity as per Steel Design Guide One; Krawinkler, H., Gupta, A., Medina, R., and Luco, N. (2000). Loading
histories for seismic performance testing of SMRF components
M new = new method;
and assemblies, Rep. SAC/BD-00/10, SAC Joint Venture, Richmond,
M test
max = test capacity; CA.
N = length of base plate; Liu, J., Sabelli, R., Brockenbrough, R. L., and Fraser, T. P. (2005). “Ex-
P = axial compression in column; pected yield and tensile strength ratios for determination of expected
T DG−1 = tension force in outer row of rods per Steel Design member capacity in the 2005 AISC seismic provisions.” Eng. J. AISC,
Guide One; 44(1), 15–25.
T outer = tension forces in outer rows of anchor rods (generic); Maitra, N. (1978). “Graphical aid for design of base plate subjected to
T inner = tension forces in inner rows of anchor rods (generic); moment.” Eng. J. AISC, 15(2), 50–53.
T test Mazzei, D. (2012). “Designing column base plates for uplift.” Structure
outer = measured incremental forces in outer rows;
T test magazine, National Council of Structural Engineering Associations,
inner = measured incremental forces in inner rows; 27–28.
T new
outer = estimated forces in outer rows as per new method; Ohi, K., Tanaka, H., and Takanashi, K. (1981). “Ultimate strength of steel
T new
inner = estimated forces in inner rows as per new method; column bases.” Bulletin No. 14, Earthquake Resistant Structure
T middle = measured force in middle rod in the outer row of rods; Research Center, Tokyo, Japan.
tp = thickness of base plate; Salmon, C. G., Shaker, L., and Johnston, B. G. (1957). “Moment-
Y DG−1 = bearing width per Steel Design Guide One; rotation characteristics of column anchorages.” Trans. ASCE, 122(1),
Y new = bearing width per new method; 132–154.

© ASCE 04014171-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Structural Engineers Association of California. (2012). IBC structural seismic
design manual vol. 4: Examples for steel-framed buildings, San Francisco.
Thambiratnam, D. P., and Paramasivam, P. (1986). “Base plates under axial
loads and moments.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)
112:5(1166), 1166–1181.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of plates
and shells, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wald, F., Sokol, Z., and Steenhuis, M. (1995). “Proposal of the stiffness
design model of the column bases.” Proc., 3rd Int. Workshop on
Connections in Steel Structures, Elsevier Science.

© ASCE 04014171-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.