AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE

(ABN)/ACN (94) 000 973 839

STEEL CONSTRUCTION
JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE
VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPTEMBER 2002

Design of Pinned Column

Base Plates

ISBN 0049-2205
Print Post Approved
pp 255003/01614
 ASI Members -- The best in Steel Detailing and Modeling
New South Wales & ACT Steeltech Steel Detailers P/L
Acooma Design & Drafting 24 Curzon Street Tennyson 4105 07 3848 6464
South Coast Mail Centre 2500 02 4226 5502 South Australia
Ahaust Steel Detailers Pty Ltd Sasteel Drafting Service P/L
111 Best Road Seven Hills 2147 02 9831 6511 33 Maxwell Road Pooraka 5095 08 8349 9622
Centreline Drawing Services Pty Ltd USDSA
6/21 Oaks Avenue Dee Why 2099 02 9981 4432 16 Drury Terrace Clovelly Park 5042 08 8374 4999
Elmasry Steel Design And Detailing Warradale Drafting Service P/L
88 Arthur Street Strathfield 2135 02 9764 6660 1 Boulder Court Woodcroft 5162 08 8322 5533
Enterprise Drafting Company P/L
Suite 2 Level 1 163 King St Newcastle 2300 02 4929 6910 Victoria
Evan Swan Pty Ltd Bayside Drafting (Aust) P/L
7 Rutledge Ave Dapto 2530 02 4261 8763 PO Box 647 Frankston 3199 03 9781 4011
Hunter Drafting Service Pty Ltd Engineering Design Resource
Unit 8 57 Crescent Road Waratah 2298 02 4967 6500 68 Hotham St Traralgon 3844 03 5174 0255
Leading Edge Drafting Services Pty Ltd Fabcad Drafting P/L
85 Bottlebrush Drive Glenning Valley 2261 02 4388 6768 68 Hotham St Traralgon 3844 03 5174 9026
Manwaring Design & Drafting Service Flexsteel Drafting Service
PO Box 22 Binalong 2584 02 6227 4215 3 Monterey Cresc Donvale 3111 03 9842 1737
Monaro Drafting Innovative Drafting Pty Ltd
PO Box 299 Cooma 2630 02 6452 2337 17 Bunyip Court Morwell 3840 03 5133 0362
PM Design Group
Production Line Drafting Pty Ltd
Gore Place Portland 3305 03 5521 7204
104a William St Bathurst 2795 02 6334 3500
Precision Design Pty Ltd
Southtech
Level 1 75--89 High St Cranbourne 3977 03 5995 2333
PO Box 270 Moruya 2537 02 4474 2120
USD Australia
Supadraft
PO Box 129 Wendouree 3355 03 5339 9690
PO Box 716 Brookvale 2100 02 9975 1777
Western Australia
Queensland
Cadstruction Drafting
Amalgamated Drafting Suite 4 First Floor East Victoria Park 6101 08 9472 7457
PO Box 419 Spring Hill 4000 07 3831 0099
Carnegie Associates Pty Ltd
BDS Technical Services Unit 3 46 Hasler Road Osborne Park 6017 08 9244 1311
80 Tribune Street South Brisbane 4101 07 3844 8093
Multiplan
Brice Engineers Pty Ltd Unit 12 4 Queen St Bentley 6102 08 9356 5993
7--8 Brice Court Mt Louisa 4814 07 4774 8322
Perth Drafting Company (WA)
Cad Systems Australia Pty Ltd 48 Kishorn Road Applecross 6153 08 9364 8288
Unit 35 5 Hill Street Coolangatta 4225 07 5536 7004
Steelplan Australia Pty Ltd
Hempsall Steel Detailing Pty Ltd 15/885 Albany Highway East Victoria Park 6101 08 9362 2599
Suite 1\67 Redcliffe Parade Redcliffe 4020 07 3284 3020
Universal Drafting
Online Drafting Services Qld 7/175 Main St Osborne Park 6017 08 9440 4750
Unit 6 Pacific Chambers,
3460 Pacific Highway Springwood 4127 07 3299 2891 Westplan Drafting
Unit 3/11 Robinson Road Rockingham 6168 08 9592 2499
Paul Anderson Drafting Service Pty Ltd
39 Lurnea Crescent Mooloolaba 4557 07 5478 0186 New Zealand
Q E I Pty Ltd 4D Steel Detailing
104 Wellington Road East Brisbane 4169 07 3891 6646 PO Box 13772 New Zealand 64 3 377 5880
Steelcad Drafting Pty Ltd Ormond Stock Associates Ltd
PO Box 1456 Coorparoo DC 4151 07 3844 3955 PO Box 1048 New Zealand 64 6 356 1088
 STEEL CONSTRUCTION - EDITORIAL
Editor: Peter Kneen
STEEL CONSTRUCTION is published biannually by the Australian Steel
Institute (ASI).
The ASI was formed in September 2002 following the merger of the
Australian Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) and the Steel Institute of
Australia (SIA). The ASI is Australia’s premier technical marketing
organisation representing companies and individuals involved in steel
manufacture, distribution, fabrication, design, detailing and construction.
Its mission is to promote the efficient and economical use of steel. Part of
its work is to conduct technical seminars, educational lectures and to
publish and market technical design aids. Its services are available free of
charge to financial corporate members.
For details regarding ASI services, readers may contact the Institute’s
offices, or visit the ASI website www.steel.org.au
Disclaimer: Every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to
ensure the accuracy of the material contained in this publication.
However, to the extent permitted by law, the Authors, Editors and
Publishers of this publication: (a) will not be held liable or responsible in
any way; and (b) expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility for any
loss or damage costs or expenses incurred in connection with this
ASI Contact Details
Email: enquiries@steel.org.au
Website: www.steel.org.au
Head Office - Sydney
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
(PO Box 6366, North Sydney NSW 2059)
Tel: (02) 9929 6666 Facsimile (02) 9955 5406
New South Wales & ACT
State Manager - NSW & ACT
Scott Munter - Mob 0418 970 899
Tel (02) 9929 6307 Fax (02) 9955 5406
1 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
This paper is one of a planned series which deals with the
design and use of rationalized structural connections. It
draws heavily on the excellent work done in the publication
“Design of Structural Connections” by Tim Hogan and Ian
Thomas. Since that time, there has been new research,
some variations to the design models, new steel grades
introduced and some minor changes in section properties.
We have also seen the adoption of sophisticated 3D
modeling software which has the capability to generate
many different connection types. The ASI, through this
project is endeavouring to provide an industry wide
rationalized set of dimensions, models and design
capacities.
Publication by any person, whether that person is the purchaser of this
Publication or not. Without limitation, this includes loss, damage, costs
and expenses incurred if any person wholly or partially relies on any part
of this Publication, and loss, damage, costs and expenses incurred as a
result of the negligence of the Authors, Editors or Publishers.
Warning: This Publication should not be used without the services of a
competent professional person with expert knowledge in the relevant
field, and under no circumstances should this Publication be relied upon
to replace any or all of the knowledge and expertise of such a person.
Contributions of original papers or reports on steel design, research and
allied technical matters are invited from readers for possible publication.
The views expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the ASI.
Submissions should be in electronic format including all diagrams and
equations in two columns, using Times font (size 10.5 points). A clean,
camera ready printout at 600dpi should also be forwarded.
Queensland & N.T.
State Manager - Queensland & NT
John Gardner - Mob 0418 788 870
Tel (07) 3853 5320 Fax (07) 3853 5321
Victoria & Tasmania
State Manager - Victoria & Tasmania
Leigh Wilson - Mob 0417 353 364
Tel (03) 9556 5422 Fax (03) 9556 5423
Western & South Australia
State Manager - Western & South Australia
Rupert Grayston - Mob 0419 922 294
Tel (08) 9480 1166 Fax (08) 9226 2355
 Design of Pinned Column Base Plates

Contents

This paper deals with the design of pinned base plates. The design actions considered are
axial compression, axial tension, shear force and their combinations. The base plate is
assumed to be essentially statically loaded, and additional considerations may be required
in the case of dynamic loads or in fatigue applications.

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Design actions in accordance with AS 4100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. AXIAL COMPRESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN - LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. RECOMMENDED MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. AXIAL TENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN - LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. DESIGN OF ANCHOR BOLTS - LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. RECOMMENDED MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. SHEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY FRICTION
OR BY RECESSING THE BASE PLATE INTO THE CONCRETE -
LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY A SHEAR
KEY-- LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY THE ANCHOR BOLTS -
LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.5. RECOMMENDED MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS DETAILING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10. APPENDIX A - Derivation of Design and Check Expressions
for Steel Base Plates Subject to Axial Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11. APPENDIX B-- Derivation of Design and Check Expressions
for Steel Base Plates Subject to Axial Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
12. APPENDIX C - Determination of Embedment Lengths and Edge Distances . . . . 49
13. APPENDIX D - Design Capacities of Equal Leg Fillet Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
14. APPENDIX E - Design of Bolts under Tension and Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 Design of Pinned Column Base Plates
Gianluca Ranzi
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The University of New South Wales

Peter Kneen
National Manager Technology
Australian Steel Institute

1. INTRODUCTION a shear force, V* (usually acting in the direction

This paper deals with the design of pinned base plates.
The design actions considered are axial compression,
axial tension, shear force and their combinations as
shown in Fig. 1. The base plate is assumed to be
essentially statically loaded, and additional
considerations may be required in the case of dynamic
loads or in fatigue applications.
N *t
N *t
N *c
N *c
V *x V *y
of either principal axis or both).
Clause 9.1.4 of AS 4100 [11], which considers
minimum design actions, does not specifically mention
minimum design actions for column base plates but
does require that:
connections at the ends of tension or compression
members be designed for a minimum force of 0.3
times the member design capacity;
connections to beams in simple construction be
designed for a minimum shear force equal to the
lesser of 0.15 times the member design shear
capacity and 40 kN.
It is considered inappropriate for these provisions to be
applied to column base plates, since the design of
columns is usually governed by a combinations of axial
loads and bending moments at other locations.

Figure 1 Column Design Actions: 2. NOTATION

Axial and Shear Loads along minor
and major axes (Ref. [26])
Firstly the requirements of AS 4100 ”Steel Structures”
[11] in the calculation of the design actions for
connections are outlined. Then for each design action
available design guidelines and/or models are briefly
presented in a chronological manner to provide an
overview on how these have improved/changed over
time. Attention has been given to try to ensure that the
assumptions and/or limitations of each model presented
are always clearly stated. Among these models, the most
representative ones in the opinion of the authors are then
The following notation is used in this work. Other
symbols which are defined within diagrams may not be
listed below. Generally speaking, the symbols will be
defined when first used.
a b = distance from centre of bolt hole to inside face
of flange
a e = minimum concrete edge distance (side cover)
A 1 = bearing area which varies depending upon the
assumed pressure distribution between the base
plate and the grout/concrete
A 1 = bearing area at the i--th iteration in
(i)

recommended for design purposes. It is not intended to Murray--Stockwell Model

suggest that models, other than those recommended,
may not give adequate capacities.
The design of concrete elements is outside the scope of
the present paper. Nevertheless some design
considerations regarding the concrete elements still
need to be addressed, i.e. bolts’ edge distances, bolts’
embedment lengths, concrete strength etc., and
therefore it is necessary to ensure that such design
assumptions/considerations are included in the final
design of the concrete elements/structure.
1.1. Design actions in accordance with AS 4100
Pinned type column base plates may be subject to the
following design actions, as shown in Fig. 1:
an axial force, N*, either tension or compression;
A 2 = supplementary area which is the largest area of
the supporting concrete surface that is
geometrically similar to and concentric to A 1
A H = assumed bearing area (in the case of H--shaped
sections it is a H--shaped area) in Murray--
Stockwell Model
A (i)
H
= assumed bearing A H at the i--th iteration in
Murray--Stockwell Model
A i = base plate area
A psk = projected area over the concrete edge
ignoring the shear key area
A ps = effective projected area of concrete under
uplift

1 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 A ps.1 = effective projected area of isolated anchor
bolt (no overlapping of failure cones)
A ps.2 = effective projected area of 2 anchor bolts
with overlapping of their failure cones
A ps.4 = effective projected area of 4 anchor bolts
with overlapping of their failure cones. In this
case each failure cone overlaps with all other 3
failure cones
A s = tensile stress area in accordance with AS1275
[9]
A sk = area of the shear key
b c = width of the column section (RHS and SHS)
b fc = width of the column section (H--shaped
sections and channels)
b fc1 = width of the column flange ignoring web
thickness
b i = width of base plate
b s = depth of shear key
b t = distance from face of web to anchor bolt location
d c = column depth
d c1 = clear depth between flanges (column depth
ignoring thicknesses of flanges)
d f = nominal anchor bolt diameter
d h = diameter of bolt hole
d i = length of base plate
d 0 = outside diameter of CHS
f′ c = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of
concrete at 28 days
f *p = uniform design pressure at the interface of the
base plate and grout/concrete
f uf = minimum tensile strength of bolt
f uw = nominal tensile strength of weld metal
f yi = yield stress of the base plate used in design
f ys = yield stress of shear key used in design
k r = reduction factor to account for length of welded
lap connection
L d = minimum embedment length of anchor bolt
L h = hook length of anchor bolt
L s = length of shear key
Lw = total length of fillet weld
m p = plastic moment capacity of the base plate per
unit width
m s = nominal section moment capacity of the base
plate per unit width
m sk = nominal section moment capacity per unit
width of shear key
m *c = design moment per unit width due to N *c
m *sk = design moment to be carried by the shear key
per unit width
m t = design moment per unit width due to N *t
*
2 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
n b = number of anchor bolts part of the base plate
connection
N *c = column design axial compression load
N *b = N *t ∕n b = design axial tension load carried by
one bolt
N des.c = design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial compression
N des.t = design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial tension
N p = prying action
*
N *t = design axial tension load of the column
N tf = nominal tensile capacity of a bolt in tension
N *0 = portion of N *c acting over the column footprint
s p = bolt pitch
S i = plastic section modulus per unit width of plate
t c = thickness of column section
t i = base plate thickness
t g = grout thickness
t s = thickness of shear key
t t = design throat thickness of fillet weld
t w = thickness of column web
v des = Ôv w = design capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column per unit length
v h and v *v = components of the loading carried by the
*
weld between column and base plate in one
horizontal direction in the plane of the base plate
and in the vertical direction respectively per unit
length
v w = design action on fillet weld per unit length
*
V des = design shear capacity of the base plate
connection
V s = design shear force to be transferred by means
*
of the shear key
W i and W e = internal and external work
Ô = capacity factor
Ôf (i) = maximum bearing strength of the concrete at
b
the i--th iteration in Murray--Stockwell Model
Ôf b = maximum bearing capacity of the concrete
based on a certain bearing area A 1
ÔN c = design axial capacity of the concrete
foundation
ÔN c.lat = lateral bursting capacity of the concrete
ÔN cc = design pull--out capacity of the concrete
foundation
ÔN s = design axial capacity of the steel base plate
ÔN t = axial tension capacity of the base plate
ÔN tb = design capacity of the anchor bolt group
under tension
ÔN th = tensile capacity of a hooked bar
ÔN w = design axial capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column section
 Ôv w = design capacity of the fillet weld per unit There is a large variety of drilled--in anchors available,
length many of which are proprietary bolts whose installation
ÔV f = design shear capacity of the base plate and design is governed by manufacturers’
transferred by means of friction specifications. References [2], [15], [17], [31] and [33]
contain information on these types of anchors.
ÔV s = design shear capacity of the shear key
This paper deals only with cast--in--place anchors, and
ÔV s.c = concrete bearing capacity of the shear key specifically hooked bars, anchor bolts with a head and
ÔV s.cc = pull--out capacity of the concrete threaded rods with a nut/washer/plate. Grade 4.6 anchor
ÔV s.b = shear capacity of the shear key based on its bolts are recommended to be utilised in base plate
section moment capacity applications.
ÔV s.w = shear capacity of the weld between the
shear key and the base plate
ÔV w = design shear capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column
η = ratio depth and width of column
μ = coefficient of friction

3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS

Typical base plates considered in this paper are formed
by one unstiffened plate only as shown in Fig. 3. For sp
highly loaded columns or larger structures other base
plate solutions or more elaborate anchor bolt systems
might be required. Guidelines for the design and
detailing of more complex base plates can be found in
[4], [13], [14], [16] and [34]. sg
Two types of anchor bolts are usually used, which are
cast--in--place or drilled--in bolts. The former are placed
before the placing of the concrete or while the concrete
is still fresh while the latter are inserted after the Figure 3 Typical unstiffened base plate
concrete has fully hardened. (Ref. [26])
Different types of cast--in--place anchors are shown in in
Fig. 2. These include anchor bolts with a head, threaded 4. AXIAL COMPRESSION
rods with nut, threaded rods with a plate washer, hooked
bars or U--bolts. These are suitable for small to medium 4.1. INTRODUCTION
size structures considering anchor bolts up to 30 mm in The literature review presented covers only models
diameter. regarding the design of the actual steel plate as the
anchor bolts do not contribute to the strength of the
connection under this loading condition. Unless special
confinement reinforcement is provided the maximum
bearing strength of the concrete Ôf b is calculated in
accordance with Clause 12.3 of AS 3600 [10] as
follows:

(a) Hooked Bar (b) Bolt with (c) Threaded


Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c  A2
A1
, Ô2f′ c  (1)

head Rod with Nut where:

Ô = 0.6
(d) Threaded rod Ôf b = maximum bearing capacity of the concrete
with plate washer based on a certain bearing area A 1
f′ c = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of
Fillet concrete at 28 days
welds A 1 = bearing area which varies depending upon the
assumed pressure distribution between the base
plate and the grout/concrete
Square plate (e) U--Bolt A 2 = supplementary area which is the largest area of
the supporting concrete surface that is
Figure 2 Common Forms of Holding Down geometrically similar to and concentric to A 1
Bolts (Ref. [26])

3 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

4.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE This model assumes that, in the case of a H--shaped
REVIEW column, the axial load applied by the column is
concentrated over an area of 0.95d c × 0.80b fc which
The main design models available in literature differ for
corresponds to the shaded area of Fig. 4(a). This causes
their assumptions adopted regarding the pressure
the base plate to bend as a cantilevered plate about the
distribution at the interface between the base plate and
edges of such area as shown in Fig. 4(b). The pressure
the grout/concrete and for the relative sizes of the base
at the underside of the base plate is assumed to be
plate and the connected column. For example, the first
uniformly distributed, as shown in Fig. 4(c), therefore
model presented, here referred to as the Cantilever
leading to a conservative design for large base plates.
Model, is adequate for base plates whose dimensions
(d i × b i ) are much greater than those of the column
(d c × b fc ), while other models, such as Fling and a1
Murray--Stockwell Models, deal with base plates with
similar dimensions to the ones of the connected column.
4.2.1. Cantilever Model
Historically the cantilever model was the first available a1
approach for the design of base plates. It is well suited
for the design of large base plates with the dimensions Dashed lines indicate
yield lines a2 a2
of the base plate (d i × b i) much greater than those of the
column (d c × b fc). It has been present in the AISC(US)
Figure 5 Cantilever Model -- Collapse
Manuals over several editions. Its formulation is
suitable for the base plate design of only H--shaped mechanisms
columns. [5] Each of the two collapse mechanisms considered by this
bi model assumes two yield lines to form at a distance a 1
b fc and a 2 from the edge of the plate respectively as shown
in Fig. 5. Comparing the two collapse mechanisms and
according to the rules of yield line theory the governing
a1 design capacity is based on the longest cantilever length
a m, being the maximum of the two cantilevered lengths
di a 1 and a 2 shown in Fig. 4(a).
dc 0.95d c The design moment m *c and the design capacity of the
plate Ôm s are calculated per unit width in accordance
with AS 4100 [11] as:
a1
N *c a 2m
m *c = (2)
b id i 2
a2 0.8b fc a2
0.9f yi t 2i
(a) Critical sections and assumed loaded area Ôm s = Ôf yiS i = (3)
4
where:
Critical section
am N *c = column design axial compression load
in bending
m *c = design moment per unit width due to N *c
ti m s = plate nominal section moment capacity per unit
N *c width
b id i f yi = yield stress of the base plate used in design
S i = plastic section modulus per unit width of plate
(b) Deflection of the cantilevered plate
a m = max(a 1, a 2)
N *c
a 1 and a 2 = cantilevered plate lengths
t i, d i and b i = thickness, length and width of base
plate
and ensuring that the plastic section modulus of the
cantilevered plate S i is able to transfer the axial
N *c ti compression load N *c to the supporting material
b id i (verified per unit width of plate):

(c) Assumed bearing pressure N *c a 2m 0.9f yi t i

2

m *c = ≤ = Ôm s (4)
b id i 2 4
Figure 4 Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])
yields a maximum design axial force of:

4 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 0.9f yi t 2i b id i bi
N *c ≤ (5)
2 a 2m
bc
or equivalently requires a minimum plate thickness of: a1

ti ≥ am  2N *c
0.9f yi b id i
(6) di dc 0.95d c

Provisions on how to extend this approach for channels a1

and hollow sections columns have been provided in
[21], [26] and [36]. 0.95b fc
a2 a2
The dimensions of the loaded areas and of the
cantilevered lengths a 1 and a 2 for channels and hollow Figure 7 Cantilevered plate lengths -- RHS and
sections are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 and their values SHS (Ref. [26])
are summarised in Table 1 based on the
recommendations in [21], [26] and [36]. The values in bi
Table 1 assume that the column is welded concentrically
to the base plate.
Table 1 Cantilever Model -- Cantilevered plate a1
lengths a1 and a2 (refer to Figs. 4, 6, 7
and 8 for the definition of the notation) di do 0.8d o
SECTION a1 a2
a1
H--shaped d i − 0.95d c b i − 0.80b fc
section [21] 2 2 0.8d o
Channel [26] d i − 0.95d c b i − 0.80b fc a2 a2
2 2 Figure 8 Cantilevered plate lengths -- CHS
SHS and di − dc + ti bi − bc + ti
(Ref. [26])
RHS [36] 2 2
SHS and d i − 0.95d c b i − 0.95b c Parker in [37] notes how other possible yield line
RHS [21] 2 2 patterns could be investigated for hollow sections such
as the ones shown in Fig. 9. Nevertheless in [36] he
CHS [21] d i − 0.80d o b i − 0.80d o recommends to investigate collapse mechanisms
2 2 similar to the ones considered by the Cantilever Model
bi with values of a 1 and a 2 as shown in Table 1. In [36] he
also recommends to specify plate thicknesses not less
b fc
than 0.2 times the maximum cantilever length in order
a1 to limit the deflection of the plate.
Applying this model to base plates with similar
dimensions to the ones of connected column would lead
di dc 0.95d c to inadequate design as the capacity of the base plate
would be overestimated. Utilizing equations (5) and (6)
the capacity of the base plate would increase and the
plate thickness t i would decrease while decreasing the
a1 cantilevered plate length a m. Other design models need
a2 a2 to be adopted in these instances.
0.8b fc bi
bc Dashed lines
Figure 6 Cantilevered plate lengths -- Channels indicate yield
(Ref. [26]) lines
a1

di dc 0.95d c

a1

0.95b c
a2 a2

5 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 bi

a1
Dashed lines
0.8d o do di d1
indicate yield lines
b es
a1
a2 0.8d o a2
θ βb es
Figure 9 Possible yield line pattern (Ref. [37])
β = tan θ
4.2.2. Fling Model
Fling, in [25], presents a design model applicable to base Figure 10 Fling Model -- Yield Line Pattern
plates with similar dimensions to the ones of the (Ref. [25])
connected column and reviews the design philosophy of
the Cantilever Model. Only H--shaped columns are The internal and external work produced under loading
considered in this model. are calculated as follows:
He recommends to apply both a strength and a W i = 1 (2d 1 + 4βb es)Ôm p + 1 4b esÔm p (7)
serviceability criteria to the design of base plates. b es βb es
Regarding the Cantilever Method, which is based on a
strength criteria, he recommends to apply also a W e = 2f *p(d 1 − 2βb es)b es 1 + 4 f *pβb 2es (8)
2 3
serviceability check by limiting the deflection of the
cantilevered plate. He argues that, while increasing the where:
size of the plate, deflections of the cantilevered plate m p = plastic moment capacity of the baseplate per
would increase reducing the ability of the most unit width
deflected parts of the plate to transfer the assumed
uniform loading to the supporting material. Thus the f p = uniform design pressure at the interface of the
*

load would re--distribute to the least deflected portions base plate and grout/concrete which is assumed
of the plate which may overstress the underlying to be equal to the maximum bearing strength of
support. His proposed deflection limit intends to the concrete Ôf b
prevent such overstressing. He also notes that such limit W i and W e = internal and external work
should vary depending upon the deformability of the
supporting material. Fling suggests 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) d 1, β and b es = as defined in Fig. 10
to be a reasonable deflection limit to be imposed for Fling introduces the following parameter λ to simplify
most bearing plates, even if he clearly states that it is the notation:
beyond the scope of his paper to specify deflection
limits applicable to various supporting materials. [25] d1
λ= (9)
b es
Regarding the design model for base plates with similar
dimensions to the ones of the connected column he Equating the internal and external work yields:
recommends to apply the following strength and
serviceability checks. Ôm p(2λ + 4β + 4) = f *pb 2es( λ − 2 β) (10)
β 3
The strength check is based on the yield line theory and
the assumed yield line pattern is shown in Fig. 10. The The value of β which maximises the required moment
procedure is derived for a base plate with width and capacity of the base plate is as follows:
length equal to the column’s width and depth (therefore
b i and d i equal b fc and d c respectively). β= 34 + 4λ1 − 2λ1
2
(11)
The support conditions assumed for the plate are fixed
along the web, simply supported along the flanges and which is obtained by differentiating for β the expression
free on the edge opposite to the web. of the plastic moment derived from equation (10).
The required base plate thickness t i is then calculated as:
[25]

t i ≥ 0.43b fcβ  f *p
0.9f yi (1 − β 2)

= 0.43b fcβ  Ôf b
0.9f yi(1 − β 2)
(12)

6 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

where: bi
b fc = column flange width
Equation (12) includes a safety factor of 1 and the plastic a3
moment capacity is increased by 10% to allow for lack
of full plastic moment at the corners (as recommended AH
in [25]). di dc
This method assumes simultaneous crushing of the
concrete foundation and yielding of the steel base plate
as the pressure at the interface of the base plate and a3
grout/concrete is assumed to be equal to the maximum
bearing strength of the concrete Ôf b. a3
a3
The serviceability check verifies the adequacy of the
maximum deflection of the base plate calculated from b fc
elastic theory and assumes the same support conditions
as adopted in the strength check. The maximum Figure 11 Murray--Stockwell Model -- Assumed
deflection occurs at the middle of the free edge of the shape of pressure distribution.
plate (opposite to the web).
The Murray--Stockwell Model assumes that the
4.2.3. Murray--Stockwell Model pressure acting over the H--shaped bearing area is
In 1975 Stockwell presents a design model for lightly uniform and equal to the maximum bearing capacity of
loaded base plates with base plate dimensions similar to the concrete Ôf b. The values of A H and Ôf b are not
the column’s width and depth. His formulation is known a priori and therefore an iterative procedure can
suitable to only H--shaped columns. He defines a lightly be implemented to evaluate their values. The value of
loaded base plate as one wherein the required base plate Ôf b is not known a priori as it depends upon the value
area is approximately equal to the column flange width of the bearing area A 1 which in this case is equal to A H.
times its depth. [40] The area contained inside the column profile d c × b fc is
The novelty of this model is to assume that the pressure used as a first approximation for the bearing area A H in
distribution under the base plate is not uniform but is the calculation of Ôf b as shown in equation (13).
confined to an area in the immediate vicinity of the
column profile and is approximated by a H--shaped area
characterised by the dimension a 3 as shown in Fig. 11. Ôf (1)
b

= min Ô0.85f c′ AA , Ô2f ′
2
(1)
1
c (13)
This pressure distribution implies that in relatively thin
base plates uplift might occur at the free edge. where:
A few years later Murray carried out a finite element Ôf (1) = maximum bearing strength of the concrete at
study to verify the possibility introduced by Stockwell b
of uplift at the free edge. He established, from both the first iteration
modelling and testing, that thin base plates lift off the A (1)
1
= bearing area at the first iteration equal to
subgrade during loading and therefore the assumption d c × b fc
of uniform stress distribution at the interface is not valid. The H--shaped bearing area A H is then calculated as the
He also concludes that experimental evidence does not area required to spread the applied load with a uniform
support the need for the serviceability check introduced
pressure equal to Ôf (1).
by Fling. [32] b
Murray further expanded Stockwell’s model to obtain N *c
the model which is known today as the A (1) = (14)
H Ôf (1)
Murray--Stockwell Model [41] and refines the b
definition of lightly loaded base plates to be relatively where:
flexible plate approximately the same size as the outside
A (1) = assumed H--shaped bearing area A H at the first
dimensions of the connected column. [32] H
iteration
According to Stockwell there is only a little difference
between the procedures specified in Fling and If Ôf (1)
b
is equal to the maximum possible concrete
Murray--Stockwell Models as he considers both to be bearing strength Ô2f′ c no further iterations are required
valid and logically derived. [41] and the value of the H--shaped bearing area has
converged to A (1) H
calculated with equation (14). In the
case Ôf (1)
b
is less than Ô2f′ c, or equivalently if the ratio
of A 2∕A 1 is smaller than (2∕0.85) 2 = 5.53, the value of
the H--shaped bearing area can be further refined.
Successive values of Ôf (i) b
and A (i)
H
at the i--th iteration
can be calculated as follows:

7 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 Ôf (i)
b

= min Ô0.85f′ c AA 2
(i−1)
1

, Ô2f′ c (15)
The Stockwell--Murray Method is recommended by
DeWolf in Refs [21] and [22] and introduced in the
AISC(US) Manuals in 1986. [7]
N *c [1] notes that there are cases where the value under the
A (i) = (16) square root of equation (18) becomes negative. In such
H Ôf (i)
b cases other design models should be adopted.
where: Ref. [21] extends the application of Murray--Stockwell
Ôf (i) = maximum bearing strength of the concrete at Model to channels and hollow section members as
b shown in Figs. 12, 13 and 14. For these sections the
the i--th iteration
value of the bearing area A (1)
1
(to be utilised in the first
A (i)
1
= bearing area at the i--th iteration equal to A (i−1)
H iteration while calculating Ôf (1) and A (1) ) and the
b H
A (i) = assumed H--shaped bearing A H at the i--th expressions of the cantilevered length a 3 and of the
H
iteration H--shaped area A H are summarised in Table 2. [21][26]
The same iterative procedure, as outlined for H--shaped
The value of A H can be further refined until the sections, can be adopted to refine the value of A H if the
difference between the values obtained from two
calculated Ôf b is less than Ô2f′ c.
subsequent iterations can be considered to be negligible.
The use of the iterative process allows to obtain the
smallest possible value of A H which yields thinner base a3
plate thicknesses. Ignoring to refine the value of A H
would simply lead to a more conservative plate design.
The value of a 3 is then obtained from equation (14)
observing that A H can be expressed as (refer to Fig. 11):
A H = 2b fca 3 + 2a 3(d c − 2a 3) a3
= 2b fca 3 + 2d ca 3 − 4a 23 (17)
a3
where:
a 3 = cantilevered langth
Figure 12 Murray--Stockwell Model:
A H = assumed H--shaped bearing area Assumed pressure distribution --
d c and b fc = depth and width of column Channels (Ref. [26])
and solving for a 3 yields:

a 3 = 1 (d c + b fc) − (d c + b fc) 2 − 4A H (18) a3

4
The plate is now designed in accordance with AS4100
[11] as a cantilevered plate of length a 3 supporting a
uniform pressure equal to the converged value of the a3
maximum bearing strength of the concrete previously
calculated:
a3 a3
a2 N* a
2 0.9 f yi t 2i
m *c = Ôf b 3 = c 3 ≤ = Ôm s
2 AH 2 4 Figure 13 Murray--Stockwell Model:
The maximum axial load is then calculated as: Assumed pressure distribution -- RHS
0.9f yi t 2i A H and SHS (Ref. [26])
N *c ≤ (19)
2a 23 d3 a3
or equivalently the minimum required plate thickness t i
is determined as:

ti ≥ a3  2N *c
0.9f yi A H
(20) do

The value of the cantilevered plate length a 3 should be

measured from the centre--line of the column’s plate
elements as shown in Fig. 11.[21]. Nevertheless in the
formulation presented here, as also carried out in [32]
Figure 14 Murray--Stockwell Model:
and [21], the full flange thickness is included in the Assumed pressure distribution -- CHS
calculation of the cantilevered plate length a 3. This only (Ref. [26])
leads to a slightly more conservative design.

8 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

4.2.4. Thornton’s Model
In [42] and [43] Thornton recommends that a 
Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c dAb , Ô2f′ 
i i
2
c

satisfactory design of a base plate should be carried out

complying with the requirements of the Cantilever,
Fling (ignoring the serviceability check) and
Murray--Stockwell Models.
He derived a compact formulation for the design
procedure which includes all three models. His
formulation is suitable for the design of only H--shaped
columns.
In [42] he also re--derives the collapse load based on the
same yield line pattern assumed by Fling in [25]. It is
interesting to note that while Fling applied the principle
of virtual work Thornton based his results on the
equilibrium equations [35]. Obviously the results are
identical. Note that Fling increased the required plate
plastic moment by 10% to allow for lack of plastic
moment at the corners.
The design expression proposed by Thornton in [43]
and currently recommended in the AISC(US) Manual
[5] is as follows:
ti = am 0.9f2Nb d
*
c
a 5 = b fc + d c
The concatenation of the three design models
(Cantilever, Fling and Murray--Stockwell Models) is
achieved in the calculation of a m.
The Cantilever Model is the governing criteria in the
case a m equals either a 1 or a 2. In the case a m is equal to
λa 4 the Fling Model would be governing if λ equals 1 or
Murray--Stockwell Model would be governing if λ is
less than 1. The use of λ leads to the selection of the
thinner plate obtained by using the Fling Model and
Murray--Stockwell Model in order not to loose the
economy in design of the latter model in the case of
lightly loaded columns. Recalling the description of
Murray--Stockwell Model no refinement in the
calculation of A H is implemented in equation (21). It is
interesting to note how this approach provides a more
mathematical definition of lightly loaded column where
a column is said to be lightly loaded if its λ is less than
1, or equivalently if its X is less than (4∕5) 2 = 0.64.

yi i i
(21) The expression of the plate thickness of Fling Model,
re--derived in [42], is simplified by Thornton in [43] in
order to reduce the complexity of the yield line solution.
where: His simplification introduces an approximation in the
a m = max(a 1, a 2, λa 4) value of a 4 with an error of 0% (unconservative) and
17.7% (conservative) for values of d c∕b fc ranging from

λ = min 1,
2 X
1 + 1 − X
 3/4 to 3. The value of N *0 represents the portion of the
total axial load N *c acting over the column footprint
a 4 = 1 d cb fc (d cb fc) under the assumption of uniform bearing
4 pressure under the base plate. Murray--Stockwell Model
N *0 = portion of N *c acting over the column footprint is concatenated in equation (21) to carry a design axial
load equal to N *0 (not on N *c) over the assumed H--shaped
N*
= c b fcd c bearing area inside the column footprint.
b id i
4b fcd c N *c
X=
(d c + b fc) 2 Ôf bd ib i
d cb fc
= 24 N *0 = 24 N *c
a 5Ôf b a 5Ôf b d ib i
Table 2 Murray--Stockwell Model
(refer to Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for the definition of the notation)

SECTION A (1) a3
1 AH
H--shaped section b fcd c (d c + b fc) − (d c + b fc) 2 − 4A H 2b fca 3 + 2a 3(d c − 2a 3)
[21] 4
Channel [26] b fcd c 
(2b fc + d c) − (2b fc + d c) 2 − 8A H 2b fca 3 + (d c − 2a 3)a 3
4
RHS SHS 
(d c + b c) − (d c + b c) 2 − 4A H d cb c − (d c − 2a 3)(b c − 2a 3)
[21][26] b cd c = 2(d c + b c)a 3 − 4a 23
4
CHS [21][26] d 20 
d o − d 2o − 4A H∕π π(d 2o − d 23)∕4 = π(d oa 3 − a 23 )
π
4 2 where : d 3 = d o − 2a 3
4.2.5. Eurocode 3 Model Requirement of the EC3 is to provide a base plate
adequate to distribute the compression column load
Clause 6.11 and Annex L of Eurocode 3 deal with the
over an assumed bearing area.
design of base plates. [23]
The EC3 Model assumes an H--shaped bearing area as
shown in Fig. 15(a). It requires that the pressure

9 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

assumed to be transferred at the interface base
plate/foundation should not exceed the bearing strength
of the joint f j.EC3 and the width of the bearing area
should not exceed c calculated as follows:
c = ti  f yi
3f j.EC3γ MO
where:
f j.EC3 = bearing strength of the joint
=β jk jf cd
β j = 2/3 provided that the characteristic strength of
the grout is not less than 0.2 times the
characteristic strength of the concrete foundation
and the thickness of the grout is not greater than
0.2 times the smallest width of the steel base plate
k j = concentration factor and may be taken as 1 or
otherwise as aabb 1 1
a 1 and b 1 = dimensions of the effective area as
shown in Fig. 16
a 1 = mina + 2a r, 5a, a + h, 5b 1 ≥ a
b 1 = minb + 2b r, 5b, b + h, 5a 1 ≥ b
f cd = design value of the concrete cylinder
compressive strength = f ck∕γ c
f ck = characteristic concrete cylinder compressive
strength (in accordance with Eurocode 2)
γ c = partial safety factor for concrete material
properties (in accordance with Eurocode 2)
γ MO = 1.1 (boxed value from Table 1 of [23])
In the case of large or short projections the bearing area
should be calculated as shown in Figs. 15(b) and (c).
[23]
[23] requires that the resistance moment m Rd per unit
length of a yield line in the base plate should be taken as:
t 2i f yi
m Rd =
6γ MO
No specific expression for the sizing of the steel base
plate are provided.
N *c
≤c ≤c
c c
c N *c acting over the column footprint under the
c Bearing area
≤c
This area not included
(a) General Case in bearing area
10
c
(22) c c
c
(b) Short Projection (c) Large Projection
Figure 15 Assumed bearing pressure
distributions specified in EC3 [23]
N *c
Baseplate
h Concrete Elevation
foundation
a1
b b1
br
ar a Plan
Figure 16 Column base layout [23]
4.3. RECOMMENDED MODEL
4.3.1. Design considerations
The recommended design model is a modified version
of the one proposed by Thornton in [43] and also
adjusted to suit Australian Codes AS 3600 [10] and AS
4100 [11]. The Thornton Model is currently
recommended by the AISC(US) Manual [5].
(23) Unfortunately the Thornton Model presented in [5],
[42] and [43] is suitable for the design of H--shaped
columns only. His formulation has been here modified
for H--shaped sections and extended for channels and
hollows sections adopting a similar approach as in [43]
which is outlined in Section 10.
The modification to the Thornton Model introduced
here regards the manner in which Murray--Stockwell
Model is implemented. It is in the authors’ opinion that
the calculation of A H and consequently of λ (refer to the
literature review for further details regarding the
notation) should be calculated based on N *c (total axial
compression load) and not N *0 (portion of the total load
assumption of uniform bearing pressure). This intends
to ensure that Murray--Stockwell Model would govern
the design only for base plates of similar dimensions to
the ones of the connected columns and for lightly loaded
columns, which represents the actual base plate layout
for which the model has been developed. The design
would then be based on only one assumed pressure
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
distribution. Calculating A H based on N *0 could lead to
the design situation for lightly loaded columns where
the plate thickness is governed by Murray--Stockwell
Model even for plate dimensions larger than those of the
connected columns as the model would select the
thinner plate between the ones calculated with Fling
Model and with Murray--Stockwell Model.
It is interesting to note how the assumed bearing area
(H--shaped in the case of H--shaped column sections)
could extend also beyond the footprint of the column
section as shown in Fig. 17 in the case of H--shaped
sections and hollow sections. [34] No specific design
N des.c = [ÔN c ; ÔN s ; ÔN w] min ≥ N *c (25)
where:
N des.c = design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial compression
ÔN c = design axial capacity of the concrete
foundation
ÔN s = design axial capacity of the steel base plate
ÔN w = design axial capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column section
N c = design axial compression load
*

guidelines are provided in [34]. A similar pressure

ditribution is considered in the Eurocode 3 Model. [23] 4.3.3. Design Concrete Bearing Strength
Nevertheless in the recommended model the The maximum bearing strength of the concrete Ôf b is
application of Murray--Stockwell Model is always determined in accordance with Clause 12.3 of AS 3600
carried out based on assumed bearing areas inside the [10].
column footprint even for base plates with dimensions
greater than the column’s depth and width as other
bearing distributions need to be validated by testings.

Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c AA , Ô2f′ 
2

1
c (26)

where:
a a a a
a Ô = 0.6
A 1 = b id i
a
The axial capacity of the concrete foundation ÔN c is
then obtained multiplying the maximum concrete
bearing strength Ôf b by the base plate area A i as follows:
Ineffective areas
ÔN c = Ôf bA i
b
It is interesting to note from equation (26) that
b increasing the supplementary area A2 increases the
b b b b concrete confinement which yields larger design
capacities ÔN c. The loss of bearing area due to the
b presence of the anchor bolt holes is normally ignored.
[21]
b
4.3.4. Steel Base Plate Design
Figure 17 Possible assumed bearing areas (Ref.
[34]) The base plate thickness required to resist a certain
design axial compression N *c is calculated as follow:
4.3.2. Design criteria
There are two different design scenarios which are
considered here:
ti = am  2N *c
0.9f yi d i b i
(27)

the column is prepared for full contact in where:

accordance with Clause 14.4.4.2 of AS 4100 [11]
and the axial compression may be assumed to be a m = max(a 1, a 2, λa 4)
transferred by bearing. Design requirements are as
follows: 
λ = min 1, k
X

1+ 1−X

N des.c = [ÔN c ; ÔN s] min ≥ N *c (24)
X = YN *c
the end of the column is not prepared for full a 1, a 2, a 4, k and Y are tabulated in Table 3.
contact and the welds shall have sufficient
strength to carry the axial load. The design When X is greater than 1, λ should be taken as 1.
requirements are as follows:

11 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

Table 3 Values for the design and check specified by the recommended model for axial compression.

Section a1 a2 a4 k Y a5
H--shaped
sections
d i − 0.95d c
2
b i − 0.80b fc
2
d cb fc
4
dd bb
2 i i

c fc
4N *c
Ôf ba 25
b fc + d c

Channels d i − 0.95d c b i − 0.80b fc 2d cb fc 3 d b i i

8N *c 2b fc + d c
2 2 3 2 db c fc
Ôf ba 25

2d23b 1.7 
RHS d i − 0.95d c b i − 0.95b c i i db i i
4N *c bc + dc
2 2 db c fc
Ôf ba 25
SHS d i − 0.95b c b i − 0.95b c bc 3 d ib i 4N *c 2b c
2 2 3 2 bc Ôf ba 25
CHS d i − 0.80d 0 b i − 0.80d o d0 2 d ib i 4N *c −
2 2 2 3 d0 Ôf bπd 20
Thicknesses of base plates with dimensions similar to 0.6 for all GP welds (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
those of the connected column section calculated with f uw = nominal tensile strength of weld metal (Table
equation (27) might be quite thin, especially in the case 9.7.3.10(1) of AS 4100)
of lighlty loaded columns (where Murray--Stockwell
Model applies). It is therefore recommended to specify t t = design throat thickness
plate thicknesses not less than 6mm thick for general k r = 1 (reduction factor to account for length of
purposes and not less than 10mm for industrial welded lap connection)
purposes. Lw = total length of fillet weld
Similarly a procedure to evaluate/check the capacity of Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of the design
an existing plate is carried out as follows: capacity of fillet welds Ôv w.
0.9f yi d ib i t 2i
ÔN s = 2
(28) 5. AXIAL TENSION
2a′ m
5.1. INTRODUCTION
where:
There is not much guidance available in literature for the

λ′ = max1,


1 2 k a4
k 2 t i Y
0.9f2 d b − 1
yi i i



design of unstiffened base plates subject to uplift.
The literature presented here outlines the available
guidelines for the design of base plates and of anchor

a′ m = max a 1, a 2,
a4
λ
 bolts. Two models presented here for the design of base
plates for hollow sections, which are the IWIMM Model
(named here after its authors) and Packer--Birkemoe
a 1, a 2, a 4, k and Y are tabulated in Table 3. Model, were firstly derived for bolted connections
This model is applicable to column sections as outlined between hollow sections. [37] and [36] suggest their
in Table 3 with the exception of H--shaped sections for suitability also for the design of base plates. These
which b fc∕2 is greater than d c as a different yield line models include also guidelines for determining the
pattern from those considered would occur. required number of anchor bolts. Such guidelines are
incorporated in the literature review for the design of the
4.3.5. Weld design at the column base steel base plates as their application is only suitable for
The design of the weld at the base of the column is the particular base plate model they refer to and as they
carried out in accordance with Clause 9.7.3.10 of AS do not account for the interaction between the anchor
4100. [11] The weld is designed as a fillet weld and its bolts and the concrete foundation, which is dealt with in
design capacity ÔN w is calculated as follows: the literature review on anchor bolts.
ÔN w = Ôv wL w = Ô0.6f uwt tk rL w (29) 5.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE
REVIEW
where:
The models presented here differ for their assumptions
Ôv w = design capacity of the fillet weld per unit regarding the failure modes investigated. It is
length interesting to note that the design guidelines currently
Ô = 0.8 for all SP welds except longitudinal fillet available deal with a limited number of base plate
welds on RHS/SHS with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of layouts.
AS 4100) For each model outlined here, the column sections and
0.7 for all longitudinal SP fillet on RHS/SHS the number of bolts considered by the model are
with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of AS 4100) specified after the model name.

12 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

5.2.1. Murray Model experimental results, which consisted of 4 base plate
(H--shaped sections with 2 bolts) specimens with dimensions ranging from 8” x 6” (203.2
x 152.4 mm) to 12” x 8” (304.8 x 203.2 mm) and
In [32] Murray presents a design procedure for base thicknesses varying from 0.364 in. (9.246 mm) to 0.377
plates of lightly loaded H--shaped columns with only in. (9.576 mm).
two anchor bolts subject to uplift. He also notes that to
his knowledge no studies have been published on the This method is included in the design model
design of lightly loaded column base plate subjected to recommended by the current AISC(US) Manual [5].
uplift loading prior to his [32]. His design model is
based on yield line analysis and the yield line pattern s g∕2 b fc∕2
assumed is shown in Fig. 18.
s g∕2 b fc∕2
The expressions of the internal and external work can be
written as follows: b′ b′

b fc

W i = Ôm p 2 2b′ + 1 4 2
b′ b fc
 d c∕2 d c∕2
b′ = 2 (b fc∕2) ≤ d c∕2
4b′ 2 + 2b 2fc
= Ôm p (30)
b′b fc
1 unit
N* sg 2 N *ts g
b fc∕2
We = t = (31)
2 2 b fc 2b fc
b′
b′
where:
Figure 18 Murray Model Assumed Yield Line
N *t = design tension axial load Patterns (Ref. [32])
s g and b′ = as defined in Fig. 18
5.2.2. Tensile Cantilever Model
Equating the external and internal work the expression (Generic Model)
of Ôm p can be written as follows:
Tensile Cantilever Method, as it is referred here,
N sg*
t
b′b fc assumes that the tension in the anchor bolts spreads out
Ôm p = (32) to act over an effective width of plate (b e ) which is
2 b fc 4b′ + 2b 2fc
2
assumed to act as a cantilever in bending ignoring any
The value of b′ which maximises the required plate stiffening action of the column flanges.
plastic capacity is obtained differentiating equation (32)
for b′ and is equal to:
b 1 bt
b′ = fc (33) 1
2
The presence of the flanges requires b′ to remain always bt dh bt
less or equal to d c∕2 and therefore the value of b′ which
maximises the plate plastic capacity varies depending be
upon the column cross--sectional geometry as follows:
b b d Figure 19 Tensile Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])
b′ = fc for fc ≤ c (34)
2 2 2
It can be applied to generic base plate layouts.
dc b d Nevertheless it provides conservative designs as it
b′ = for fc ≥ c (35) ignores the two way action of the base plates.
2 2 2
Reference [47] suggests a 45 degree angle of dispersion
The minimum plate thicknesses required under a certain as shown in Fig. 19. This is based on considerations of
axial load N *t are obtained substituting equations (34) elastic plate theory as described in reference [13].
and (35) into equation (32) as shown below: The design moment and the design moment capacity are

ti ≥  N *t s g 2
0.9f yib fc4
b
2
d
for fc ≤ c
2
(36)
then calculated as:
N*
m *t = n t b t (38)
b

ti ≥  N *t s gd c
0.9f yi(d c + 2b fc)
2 2
b
2
d
for fc ≥ c
2
(37)
Ôm s =
0.9b e t 2i f yi
4
(39)

Murray carried out a finite element study to investigate where:

the adequacy of the proposed model. He also validated m *t = design moment per unit width due to N *t
the reliability of equations (36) and (37) using limited

13 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 n b = number of anchor bolts a2
b t = distance from face of web to anchor bolt location a1
d h = diameter of the bolt hole do
b e = 2b t + d h N *
t N *
t

The axial capacity of the base plate can then be

determined equating the design moment and the section
moment capacity as follows: ti ti

0.9f yib et 2i n b Figure 20 Bolted CHS Flange--plate Connection

N *t ≤ (40) (Ref. [36])
4 bt
or equivalently the minimum base plate thickness t i [27] also recommends to determine the number of
under a certain loading condition is calculated as: required anchor bolts as follows:

 
ti =  4N *t b t
0.9f yi b e n b
(41) nb ≥
N *t
ÔN tf1− 1 + 1
f 3 f lnr 1  (43)
 3 r 2 
5.2.3. IWIMM Model where:
(CHS with varying number of bolts)
Ô = 0.9
The IWIMM Model has been named here after the N tf = nominal tensile capacity of the bolt
initials of the authors of the model. [27] The model was
firstly derived for the design of CHS bolted d
r 1 = 0 + 2a 1
connections. [37] and [36] suggest its use also for the 2
design of base plates of CHS columns. d0
r2 = + a1
The base plate layout considered by this model is shown 2
in Fig. 20. a1 = a2
The plate thickness is calculated based on the design This procedure does not verify the capacity of the
axial tension load N *t as follows: concrete foundation and its interaction with the anchor
bolts needs to be checked.
ti ≥  2N *t
Ôf yi π f 3
(42)
Assumptions adopted by this model are an allowance
for prying action equal to 1/3 of the ultimate capacity of
the anchor bolt (at ultimate state), a continuous base
where: plate, a symmetric arrangement of the bolts around the
column profile and a weld capacity able to develop the
Ô = 0.9
full yield strength of the CHS.
d 0 = outside diameter of a CHS
[28] notes that adopting the above prying coefficient for
t c = thickness of column section the bolted CHS connection in the base plate design is
conservative due to the greater flexibility of the concrete
f 3 = 1 k 3 + k 23 − 4k 1
2k 1 foundation when compared to the steel to steel
connection. [36]

k 1 = ln r 2
r
3 5.2.4. Packer--Birkemoe Model
k3 = k1 + 2 (RHS with varying number of bolts)
d The Packer--Birkemoe Model is here named after the
r2 = 0 + a1 authors of the model. [36] This model deals with base
2
d0 − tc plate for RHS as shown in Fig. 21 and it has been
r3 = validated only for base plates with thickness varying
2
a 1 and a 2 as defined in Fig. 20 between 12mm and 26mm.
[27] recommends to keep the value of a 1 as small as The model includes prying effects in the design
possible, i.e. between 1.5d f and 2d f (where d f is the procedure. The prying action decreases while
nominal diameter of the bolts), while ensuring a increasing a 2 as shown in Fig. 21. The value of a 2 should
minimum of 5 mm clearance between the nut face and be kept less or equal to 1.25 a 1, as no benefit in the base
the weld around the CHS. plate performance would be provided beyond such
value. a 1 is defined as the distance between the bolt line
and the face of the hollow section.
Generally 4--5 bolt diameters are used as spacing of the
bolts s p but shorter spacing are also possible.
Based on the design loads the required number of
anchor bolts should be calculated assuming that the

14 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

prying action absorbs about 20--40% of the anchor bolt The value of α previously calculated in equation (46)
capacity. The coefficient δ is then calculated as follows: does not have to equal the value of α calculated from
equation (48) as the former assumes the bolts to be
d loaded to their full tensile capacity.
δ = 1 − sh (44)
p
It interesting to note how equation (48) provides an
where: estimate of the prying action present in the base plate.
s p = bolt pitch as defined in Fig. 21 a2
a1
The designer should then select a preliminary plate
thickness in the following range: N *t N *t
tc
 KN *b
1+δ
≤ t i ≤ KN *b (45)
a3
a4
where:
4a 310 3
= = = = = =
K= (where f yi is in MPa) sp sp
Ôf yis p
Figure 21 Packer--Birkemoe Model (Ref. [36])
a 3 = a 1 − d f∕2 + t c
N *b = design axial tension load carried by one bolt 5.2.5. Eurocode 3 Model
N* (H--shaped sections with varying
= nt number of bolts)
b
d f = nominal anchor bolt diameter The Eurocode 3 does not provide a specific design
The value of α represents the ratio of the bending procedure for the design of base plates subject to
moment per unit width of plate at the bolt line to the tension. Nevertheless it provides very useful guidelines
bending moment per unit width at the inner hogging for the design of bolted beam--to--column connections
plastic hinge. In the case of a rigid base plate α is equal (Appendix J.3 of [23]) which can be adapted for the
to 0 while for a flexible base plate with plastic hinges design of base plates considering all anchor bolts as
forming at both the bolt line and at the inner face of the bolts on the tension side of the beam--to--column
column (see Fig. 21) α is equal to 1. From equilibrium, connection.
the value α for preliminary base plate layout is The design of the end plate or of the column flange of
calculated as follows: the beam--to--column connection is carried out in terms
of equivalent T--stubs as shown in Fig. 22.
α=  KÔN tf
t 2i
−1  a 2 + d f∕2
δ(a 2 + a 1 + t c)
 (46) e m 0.8a 2
a

e m
α should be taken as 0 if its value calculated with
equation (46) is negative. tf
The capacity of the steel base plate is then calculated as
follows: l
t 2i (1 + δα)n b
ÔN t = (47)
K
where:
ÔN t = axial tension capacity of the base plate e min
ÔN t calculated with equation (47) must be greater than e m 0.8r
N *t . The actual tension in one bolt, including prying
effects, is determined as follows: r
tf
N*
 a
N *b ≈ n t 1 + a 3
b
δα
4 1 + δα
  (48)
e min
where: Figure 22 T--stub connection in EC3 (Ref. [23])

α=  KN *t
t 2i n b
−1 1
δ
 EC3 considers that the capacity of a T--stub may be
governed by the resistence of either the flange, or the
bolts, or the web or the weld between flange and web of

a 4 = min 1.25a 1, a 2 +
df
2
 T--stub. The failure modes considered are three as
shown in Fig. 23. The axial capacity is calculated as
follows:

15 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 F t.Rd = minF t.Rd1, F t.Rd2, F t.Rd3 (49)  BF t.Rd

where: Mode 3
1
4M pl.Rd Mode 2
F t.Rd1 = m 2λ
2M pl.Rd + nΣB t.Rd 1 + 2λ
F t.Rd2 =
m+n
Mode 1
F t.Rd3 = ΣB t.Rd
0.25lt 2f y 1 2
M pl.Rd = γ f 2λ β
MO 1 + 2λ
n = e min ≤ 1.25m
l = equivalent effective length calculated in 4M plRd l t 2ff y∕γ MO
λ = n∕m β= =
equations (50), (51), (52) and (53) m B t.Rd m B t.Rd

ΣB t.Rd = tensile capacity of bolt group

Figure 24 Prying action in T--stub for the three
γ MO = partial safety factor failure modes considered in (Ref.
= 1.10 (boxed value from Table 1 of [23]) [23])
F t.Rd1, F t.Rd2 and F t.Rd3 = tensile capacities of the
The tension zone of the end plate should be considered
T--stub based on failure modes 1, 2 and 3
to act as a series of equivalent T--stubs with a total length
respectively
equal to the total effective length of the bolt pattern in
Ft the tension zone, as shown in Fig. 26.[23] The length to
be utilised in the design of the equivalent T--stub is
calculated as follows:
Mode 1: Complete
for bolts outside the tension flange of the beam
flange yielding
l eff.a = min0.5b p, 0.5w+2m x+0.625e x,
Ft Ft Q 4m x+1.25e x, 2πm x) (50)
Q +Q +Q
2 2 for first row of bolts below the tension flange of
the beam
Ft
l eff.b = min(αm, 2πm) (51)
Mode 2: Bolt failure for other inner bolts
with flange yielding l eff.c = minp, 4m + 1.25e, 2πm (52)
for other end bolts
Q  B ∕2  B ∕2
t t Q l eff.d=min(0.5p+2m+0.625e, 4m+1.25e, 2πm) (53)
where:
Ft
α = as defined in Fig. 27
Mode 3: Bolt failure It is interesting to note that the failure modes considered
for example by equations (52) and (53) are the same as
those considered to evaluate the capacity of an
 B ∕2  B ∕2
t t
unstiffened flange. The yield line patterns of such
failure modes are shown in Fig. 25.
Figure 23 Failure modes of a T--stub flange
(Ref. [23])
It is interesting to note that the amount of prying action
for a certain base plate layout can be obtained as the ratio
F t.Rd∕ΣB t.Rd as shown in Fig. 24.

16 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 p p 5 4.5
2π 65.5 4.75 4.45 α
1.4
e
1.3
m
Centreline of web 1.2
(a) Combined bolt group action
λ 2 1.1
1.0
0.9
Centreline of web
(b) Separate bolt patterns 0.8
0.7
0.6
Centreline of web
0.5
(c) Circles around each bolt
0.4
Figure 25 Yield line patterns for unstiffened
flange (Ref. [23]) 0.3

bp 0.2
w Equivalent T--stub
for extension 0.1

ex 0
l eff.a
mx 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
ex mx λ1
l eff.b m1
λ1 =
p m1 + e m2
l eff.c m2
λ2 =
p m1 + e

e m1
l eff.d
Figure 27 Value of Effective lengths of α to
calculate equivalent T--stub flanges
(Ref. [23])
e m
e m
Portion between flanges 5.3. DESIGN OF ANCHOR BOLTS --
LITERATURE REVIEW
bp b p∕2 l eff.a
Available design guidelines regarding the behaviour of
anchor bolts in tension distinguish between the
behaviour of anchor bolts with an anchor head and of
hooked anchor bolts and therefore these will be
l eff.a discussed here separately. For the purpose of this paper
an anchor head is defined as a nut, flat washer, plate, or
bolt head or other steel component used to transmit
anchor loads from the tensile stress component to the
concrete by bearing. [2]
Transformation of extension to equivalent T--stub 5.3.1. Anchor bolts with anchor head
Figure 26 Effective lengths of equivalent T--stub The first detailed guidance on the design of anchor bolts
flanges representing an end plate is provided by the American Concrete Institute
(Ref. [23]) Committee 349 in 1976 in [3]. These recommendations
are produced for the design of nuclear safety related
structures. Some of the ACI Committee 349 members,
very active in the preparation of [3], publish an article
[17] where the guidelines provided in [3] are modified
to suit concrete structures in general.

17 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

The design criteria at the base of [2] and of [17] is that
anchor bolts should be designed to fail in a ductile
manner, therefore the anchor bolt should reach yielding
prior to the concrete brittle failure. This is achieved by
ensuring that the calculated concrete strength exceeds
the minimum specified tensile strength of the steel.
[2][17]
Typical brittle failure of an isolated anchor bolt is by
pulling out of a concrete cone radiating out at 45 degrees
from the bottom of the anchor as shown in Fig. 28. [2]
and [17] recommend to calculate its nominal concrete
pull--out capacity based on the tensile strength Ô4 f′ c
(where f′ c is in psi) or Ô0.33 f′ c (where f′ c is in MPa)
acting over an effective area which is the projected area
of the concrete failure cone.
In both [3] and [17] it is recommended to use a capacity
reduction factor of 0.65 in the calculation of the concrete
cone capacity, which can be increased to 0.85 in the case
the anchor head is beyond the far face reinforcement.
The value of 0.65 applies to the case of an anchor bolt
in plain concrete. This intends to be a simplification of
a very complex problem. [3][17]
In the current version of ACI349 [2] the capacity
reduction factor is equal to 0.65 unless the embedment
is anchored either beyond the far face reinforcement, or
in a compression zone or in a tension zone where the
concrete tension stress (based on an uncracked section)
at the concrete surface is less than the tensile strength of
the concrete 0.4 f′ c subjected to strength load
combinations calculated in accordance with current
loading codes (i.e. AS1170.0 [8]) in which cases a
capacity reduction factor of 0.85 can be used. [2] An
embedment is defined in [2] as that steel component
embedded in the concrete used to transmit applied loads
to the concrete structure. The ACI Committee 349
recognises that there is not sufficient data to define more
accurate values for the strength reduction factor. [2]
Experimental results have generally verified the results
of this approach. [31]
The value of Ô0.33 f′ c represents an average value of
the concrete stress on the projected area accounting for
the stress distribution which occurs along the failure
cone surface varying from zero at the concrete surface
to a maximum at the bolt end. [31] In calculating the
projected area of the failure cone the area of the anchor
head should be disregarded as the failure cone initiates
at the outside periphery of the anchor head. [2]
Experimental results have shown that the head of a
standard bolt, without a plate or washer, is able to
develop the full tensile strength of the bolt provided, as
specified in [2], that there is a minimum gross bearing
area of at least 2.5 times the tensile stress area of the
anchor bolt and provided there is sufficient side cover,
18
that the thickness of the anchor head is at least 1.0 times
the greatest dimension from the outermost bearing edge
of the anchor head to the face of the tensile stress
component and that the bearing area of the anchor head
is approximately evenly distributed around the
perimeter of the tensile stress component. [2]
The placing of washers or plates above the bolt head to
increase the concrete pull--out capacity should be
avoided as it only spreads the failure cone away from the
bolt--line which may cause overlapping of cones with
adjacent anchors or edge distance problems. [31]
Ld
45 o
Ld
Failure
plane
Projected surface
Figure 28 Concrete failure cone (Ref. [26])
If reinforcement in the foundation is extended into the
area of the failure cone additional strength would be
present in practice since the nominal capacity of the
failure cone is based on the strength of unreinforced
concrete.
The concrete pull--out capacity of a bolt group is
calculated as the average concrete tensile strength
Ô0.33 f′ c times the effective tensile area of the bolt
group. This effective area is calculated as the sum of the
projected areas of each anchor part of the bolt group if
these projected areas do not overlap; when overlapping
occurs overlapped areas should be considered only once
in the calculation of the effective tensile area, thus
leading to a smaller concrete pull--out capacity if
compared to the sum of the concrete pull--out capacities
of each anchor in the bolt group considered in isolation.
[2][17]
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
 Tension Force

s
s

Transverse
Ld splitting
Ld


2 cos −1 2Ls πL 2
Figure 31 Transverse splitting failure mode
L − s4
d
Shaded = πL 2 − d
+s 2
2
(Ref. [2])
Area d
360 0 2 d

(a) Two Intersecting Failure Cones It is interesting to note that in the case of shallow anchor
bolts the angle at the bolt head formed by the failure
− Ld cone tends to increase from 90 degrees to 120 degrees.
Ld An anchor bolt is classified as shallow when its length
s = is less than 5in. (127 mm). Nevertheless for design
2 Ld + Ld purposes caution should be applied is using angles
greater than 90 degrees as cracks might be present at the

2 cos −1 2Ls πL 2 concrete surface. It is recommended not use angles other
L − s4 than 90 degrees. [2][17]
d
d
+s
2
Area = πL 2d − 2
2
d
360 0 The previous considerations assume the concrete
Circle -- Sector + Triangle element to be stress--free and only subjected to the
(b) Failure Cone Near an Edge anchor bolts loading. [2] and [17] consider the case
when there is a state of biaxial compression and tension
(Note: the inverse cosine term listed in the in the plane of the concrete. The former loading
equations is in degrees) condition would be beneficial to the anchor bolt’s
Figure 29 Calculation of the projected area of strength while the latter loading state would lead to a
two intersecting failure cones or one significantly decrease in strength. Nevertheless, it is in
failure cone near an edge (Ref. [30]) the opinion of the ACI 349 Committee that a failure
cone angle of 90 degrees can still be utilised as it is
Simple procedures to calculate the effective tensile
assumed that any cracking would be controlled by the
areas of bolt groups are provided in [30], i.e. the
main reinforcement designed in accordance with
procedure to calculate two intersecting cones is shown
current concrete codes, i.e. AS 3600 [10].
in Fig. 29. [30]
The design procedure proposed by ACI 349 and [17] is
Depending upon the bolt group layout other possible
also recommended by DeWolf in [21].
failure modes could take place such as the one shown in
Fig. 30 where an entire part of the concrete foundation [21] notes that the use of cored holes, such as shown in
would pull--out. In such cases the effective tensile area Fig. 32, should not reduce the anchorage capacity based
should be calculated selecting the smallest projected on the failure cone, provided that the cored hole does not
area due to the possible concrete failure surfaces as extend near the bottom of the bolt. This situation should
shown in Fig. 30. A similar average tensile strength as be avoided if the dimensions shown in Fig. 32 are
in the case of the pull--out cones can be adopted. [2][17] followed. [26]

Tension Force Projection

3d f
Figure 30 Potential Failure Mode but ≥ 75mm
Ld
with limited depth (Ref. [2])
Transverse splitting is another failure mode which can df
occur between anchor heads of an anchor bolt group
when their centre--to--centre spacing is less than the
anchor bolt depth and is shown in Fig. 31. This failure
mode occurs at a load similar to the one required to cause Figure 32 Suggested layout for Cored Holes
a pull--out cone failure in uncracked concrete and to Permit Minor Adjustments in
therefore no additional design checks need to be Position on Site (Ref. [26])
considered. [2][17]

19 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002


45 o Blow out
45 o
cone
Failure
surface
Figure 33 Failure Surface of Blow--out Cone
due to Lateral Bursting of the
Concrete (Ref. [31])
Lateral bursting of the concrete can occur when an
anchor bolt is located close to the concrete edge as
shown in Fig. 33, which is caused by a lateral force
present at the bolt head location.
This lateral force may be conservatively assumed to be
one--fourth of the nominal tensile capacity of the anchor
bolt for conventional anchor heads which can be
calculated in accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2 of AS 4100
[11] as follows:
d 2f π
N tf = A sf uf = 0.75A 0f uf = 0.75 f (54)
4 uf
where:
A s = tensile stress area in accordance with AS1275
[9] and conservatively approximated with 0.75
A0
d2 π
A 0 = f = shank area
4
f uf = minimum tensile strength of a bolt
The failure surface has the shape of a cone which
radiates at 45 degrees from the anchor head towards the
concrete edge. The concrete capacity is calculated as the
average concrete tensile strength Ô0.33 f′ c applied
over the projected cone area as follows: [2][3][17]
ÔN c.lat = Ô0.33 f′ c π a 2e (55)
where:
Ô = 0.65 in Ref. [3], 0.85 in Refs. [2] and [17]
ÔN c.lat = lateral bursting capacity of the concrete
a e = side cover
Equating the assumed lateral force (equal to 0.25 N tf) to
the concrete lateral bursting capacity allows to express
the minimum required side cover as a function of both
the concrete and anchor bolt strengths as shown below:
0.25N tf = ÔN c.lat = Ô0.33 f ′c π a 2e (56)
and solving equation (56) for a e yields:
ae = df  f uf
Ô7 f′ c
(57)
where:
20
Ô = 0.65 in Ref. [3],
= 0.85 in Refs. [2] and [17]
Adopting the capacity reduction factor Ô equal to 0.85
the minimum side cover to avoid lateral bursting of the
concrete can be calculated as follows:
ae = df  f uf
6 f′ c
(58)
Equation (58) has also been recommended in [26] and
[47].
Tension Force
Potential Spiral
Failure reinforcement
Zone
Figure 34 Reinforcement Against Lateral
Bursting of Concrete Foundation
(Ref. [2])
Based on the guidelines provided in reference [3],
simplified design guidelines regarding minimum
embedment lengths and minimum edge distances are
presented in reference [39]. These minimum
embedment lengths are calculated with an additional
safety factor of 1.33 when compared to the guidelines
presented in reference [3]. These simplified guidelines
are as follows:
for Grade 250 bars and Grade 4.6 bolts:
L d ≥ 12d f
a e = min(100, 5d f)
for Grade 8.8 bolts:
L d ≥ 17d f
a e = min(100, 7d f)
where:
L d = minimum embedment length
These minimum embedment lengths and edge distances
have also been recommended in references [18], [21]
and [26].
Reinforcement needs to be specified in the case anchor
bolts are located too close to a concrete edge (the edge
distance a e is less than the one required by equation
(58)) or their embedment length is less than the one
required to develop the bolt’s full tensile strength. Such
reinforcement should be designed and located to
intersect potential cracks ensuring full development
length of the reinforcement on both sides of such cracks.
The placement of the reinforcement should be
concentric with the tensile stress field. [2]
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
In the specific case of insufficient embedment length a
possible reinforcement layout to enhance the concrete
pull--out capacity is detailed in Fig. 35 using hairpin
reinforcement. The hairpins need to be placed as
specified in Fig. 35 in order to effectively intercept
potential failure planes. Other reinforcement
configurations can be specified in accordance with AS
3600 while still complying with the specifications
previously outlined for hairpin reinforcement to
consider the reinforcement to be effective. These
specifications are the maximum distance from the
anchor head and the minimum embedment length equal
to 8 reinforcement diameters.
Tension Force
Ld 8x diameter of the
hairpin reinforcement
Development length
from AS3600
Ld Maximum distance from
anchor head for reinforcement
3 to be considered effective
Ld
3
Locate legs of hairpin
reinforcement in this region
Figure 35 Possible Placement of Reinforcement
for Direct Tension (Ref. [2])
In the case of insufficient side cover a e there are no
experimental results to validate a design procedure to
include reinforcement to avoid lateral bursting of the
concrete. The ACI 349 Committee recommends the use
of spiral reinforcement as shown in Fig. 34 while also
suggesting to refer to accepted practices for prestressing
anchorages to resist the lateral bursting force. [2]
[2] and [17] recommend that if proper anchorage of the
reinforcement cannot be accomplished in the available
dimensions, the anchorage configuration should be
changed.
5.3.2. Hooked bars
There are different opinions regarding the ability of
hooked anchor bolts to carry tensile loading. Some
authors do not recommend to use them to resist uplift
loads, while others have provided some design
guidelines.
The major concern regarding the use of hooked bars in
tension is that they tend to fail by straightening and
pulling out of the concrete as shown by research carried
out by the PCI.[24]
[24] and [31] discuss the behaviour of smooth anchor
bolts and recommend to use hooked anchor bolts with
a bearing head as smooth bars are less able to develop
their strength along their length than deformed bars.
[24] recommends to use the following formula to
determine the pull--out capacity of a hooked anchor bolt:
21
ÔN th = 0.7f′ cd f L h (59)
where:
Ô = 0.80 (as recommended in [26])
ÔN th = tensile capacity of a hooked bar
d f = nominal diameter of the hooked bar
L h = length of the hook
DeWolf in [22] recommends to use hooked anchor bolts
only under compressive axial loading, and where no
fixity is needed at the base except during erection. Even
for this case he recommends to design the hook to resist
half the design tensile capacity of the bolt using equation
(59). He also recommends to use anchor bolts with a
more positive anchorage which is formed when bolts or
rods with threads and nut are used. [22] Similar design
considerations are presented in reference [47].
The recommendations of the AISC(US) Manuals have
changed over time. In reference [6] the design of hooked
anchor rods under tension is recommended to be carried
out based on the design procedure presented in [24] as
outlined in equation (59) while in reference [5] the use
of hooked anchor rods is recommended only for axially
loaded members subject to compression only.
5.4. RECOMMENDED MODEL
5.4.1. Introduction
Available design guidelines have been included in the
recommended design models where possible.
Additional design models/provisions are here provided
for those instances, to the knowledge of the authors, not
covered by available design guidelines. Their use has
been clearly stated and their derivations are illustrated
in Section 11.
It is interesting to note that depending upon the
magnitude of the plate flexural deformation and the bolt
elongation which occur in the loaded base plate
connection, a prying action might be present.
The possible collapse mechanisms which can occur are
similar to those which can occur in bolted connections.
These are shown in Fig. 36.
N *t N *t N *b N *t
N *b N *b
N *p N *p
Schematic failure modes
Bending moment diagrams
showing plastic hinges
Figure 36 Possible plate deformations
and anchor bolt elongations
(modified from Ref.[13])
In the case the plate flexural deformation is smaller than
the bolt elongation no prying action would take place as
shown in Fig. 36(a). In the case the plate flexural
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
deformation is of similar or of greater magnitude as the design. Once the steel plate design is complete the
bolt elongation, as shown in Fig. 36(b) and (c), prying capacity of the anchor bolt groups needs to be
actions N *p should be accounted for in the design. re--checked. The value of Ô p to be adopted in the Packer
Possible bending moment diagram occurring in the -- Birkemoe model is specified in equation (95).
plate in all three collapse mechanisms are also shown in In the case the design of the base plate is carried out base
Fig. 36. [13] on IWIMM Model (refer to Section 5.4.7.) the tensile
For design purposes the use of a prying factor of 1.4 is design capacity of the anchor group should be
conservatively recommended as suggested in [37] and calculated as follows:
[36]. n bÔN tf
5.4.2. Design Criteria ÔN tb = (63)
1
1− + 1
The recommended model for axial tension is based on f 3 f lnr 1
3 r2
the following design criteria:
where:
N des.t = [ÔN t ; ÔN w ; Ô Ô pN tb] min ≥ N *t (60)
Ô = 0.9
with the following constraint to ensure a ductile failure Ô p = 1 to be used in equation (60) as prying effects
of the anchorage system (connection of anchor bolt to are already included in equation (63)
concrete): d
r 1 = 0 + 2a 1
ÔN cc > ÔN tb (61) 2
d0
and complying with the anchor bolts’ embedment r2 = + a1
2
lengths and concrete edge distances specified in a 1 = a 2 (condition to apply equation (63))
Sections 5.4.5. and 5.4.6. and
where: f 3 = 1 k 3 + k 23 − 4k 1
2k 1
N des.t = design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial tension 
k 1 = ln r 2
r
3
ÔN t = design tensile axial capacity of the steel base k3 = k1 + 2
plate
d
ÔN w = design axial capacity of the weld connecting r2 = 0 + a1
2
the base plate to the column
d0 − tc
ÔN tb = design capacity of the anchor bolt group r3 =
2
under tension a 1, a 2 and d 0 are defined in Fig. 20
Ô p = 1/1.4 = 0.72 prying reduction factor as 5.4.4. Design of concrete pull--out capacity
recommended in references [36] and [37] unless
noted otherwise in 5.4.3. The pull--out capacity of the concrete ÔN cc varies
depending upon the anchor bolts layout and it can be
ÔN cc = design pull--out capacity of the concrete calculated in accordance with AS 3600 as follows:
foundation
N *t = design axial tension load ÔN cc = Ô0.33 f′ c A ps (64)
5.4.3. Anchor bolt design where:
The tensile design capacity of the anchor bolt group Ô = 0.7 (based on Ô required for Clause 9.2.3 of AS
ÔN tb is calculated in accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2 of 3600)
AS4100 [11] as the sum of the design capacities of each A ps = effective projected area
single bolt ÔN tf. Equation (64) is similar to the expression provided in
ÔN tb = n bÔN tf = n bÔA sf uf (62) Clause 9.2.3 of AS 3600 to calculate the concrete
capacity of a slab against punching shear, which
where: involves a similar failure mechanism as the one of the
Ô = 0.8 pull--out cone. The value of β h to be calculated in Clause
Refer to Section 14. for tabulated values of the tensile 9.2.3 of AS 3600 would be equal to 1 as the shape of the
capacities of anchor bolts. effective loaded area is a circle. AS 3600 recommends
a strength reduction factor under shear of 0.7 (Table 2.3
In the case the base plate is designed based on of AS 3600).
Packer--Birkemoe Model the preliminary number of
bolts required is obtained from equation (62) which is The capacities of a few common bolt layouts as shown
in Fig. 37 are here outlined. [47]
then refined in the section describing the steel plate

22 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 
L1 L2  f uf 

a e = max 100, d f  (65)
 6 f′ c
Tabulated values of equation (65) are presented in
Section 12.
Projected s The following simplified expressions, which have been
area derived in Section 12., can be used in place of equation
(65) leading to slightly more conservative side covers
than those calculated with equation (65).
L1 L2
45 o for Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
(a) Single Cone (b) Two Intersecting Cones a e = 4 d f when f′ c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
≥ 100 when f′ c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
L4 for Grade 8.8 bolts
a e = 6 d f when f′ c = 20 and 25 MPa
= 5 d f when f′ c = 32 MPa
≥ 100 when f′ c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
(c) Four Intersecting The requirement of a minimum side cover of 100 mm is
s Cones based on recommendations of [21], [26] and [39].
5.4.6. Minimum embedment lengths
The recommended minimum embedment length Ld of
L4 an anchor bolt is determined in accordance with the
design guidelines specified in [2] adjusted to suit AS
Figure 37 Common bolt layouts (Ref. [47]) 3600.

The effective projected areas of each anchor bolt layout ae

shown in Fig. 37 is calculated as follows:
A ps.1 = effective projected area of isolated anchor bolt
(no overlapping of failure cones) as shown in Fig.
37(a) Ld
= πL 21
A ps.2 = effective projected area of 2 anchor bolts with
Lh
overlapping of their failure cones as shown in Edge of Concrete
Fig. 37(b); Foundation

= πd 22 × 1 −  360

2 cos −1(s∕2L 2)
+ s L 22 − s 2∕4
2
Figure 38 Hook, embedment lengths and edge
distances for anchor bolts (Ref. [26])
A ps.4 = effective projected area of 4 anchor bolts with The minimum embedment length Ld for an isolated
overlapping of their failure cones. In this case anchor bolt should be calculated as follows: (refer to
each failure cone overlaps with all other 3 failure Fig. 38)
cones as shown in Fig. 37(c). − d 2f + d 2f + 4γ


= πd 24 0.75 −
2 cos −1(s∕2L 4)
360
 where:
Ld =
2
≥ 100 (66)

Ô = 0.7 (based on Ô in Clause 9.2.3 of AS 3600)

+ s L 24 − s 2∕4 + s 2∕4
2 f ufA s
where the inverse cosine term is in degrees.
5.4.5. Concrete cover requirements
The cover requirements for an anchor bolt are
determined in accordance with [2] and [17] in order to
prevent lateral bursting of the concrete which can occur
when a bolt is located close to a concrete edge as shown
in Fig. 33.
The minimum cover to be provided is calculated as
follows: [17][2]
γ=
Ô0.33 f′ c π
Even if it has been observed that for shallow anchors the
angle at the bolt head formed by the concrete failure
cone tends to increase from 90 degrees to 120 degrees
(therefore increasing the concrete pull--out capacity) a
minimum limit of 100mm is here introduced in equation
(66) as cracks might be present at the concrete surface.
Refer to Section 12. for the derivation of equation (66)
and of the simplified expressions shown below which
can be used in place of equation (66).
for Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods

23 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 L d = 9 d f when f′ c = 20, 25 and 32MPa s
for Grade 8.8 bolts
L d = 13 d f when f′ c = 20 MPa d c1
= 12 d f when f′ c = 25 MPa y 2
= 11 d f when f′ c = 32 MPa
y d c1
Hooked anchor bolts, as shown in Fig. 38, need to be
detailed with a minimum embedment length as 2
specified for bolts with an anchor head of same nominal
diameter (specified by equation (66) or by its alternative b fc
simplified expressions) and with a minimum hook
length calculated as follows:[24][26] Figure 39 Yield line pattern -- H--shaped column
A sf uf section with 2 anchor bolts
Lh ≥ (67)
0.7f′ cd f The plate thickness required to resist a design axial force
where: ÔN *t is calculated as follows:
L h = hook length of anchor bolt ÔN t = 0.9f yit 2i α (68)
The anchorage length (embedment length and hook
length) should be such as to prevent bond failure
between the anchor bolt and concrete prior to yielding
ti ≥  N *t
0.9f yiα
(69)
of the bolt. When possible, a more positive anchorage
should be adopted at the end of the hook, for example by
means of a nut. y = min  d c1
2
, b fc1 − d h
2
b fc1  (70)
5.4.7. Design of the Steel Base Plate
The recommended procedure to design or check the where:
steel base plate varies depending upon the column ÔN t = axial tension capacity of the base plate
section and number of bolts considered.
b fc1 = width of the column flange ignoring web
Recommended models are illustrated below for the thickness
following combinations of column section and number = b fc − t w
of bolts:
d c1 = clear depth between flanges (column depth
H--shaped column section -- 2 anchor bolts (*) ignoring thicknesses of flanges)
H--shaped column section -- 4 anchor bolts (*)
t w = thickness of web
Channel -- 1 anchor bolt (*)
Channel -- 2 anchor bolts (*) d h = diameter of bolt hole
Hollow section (RHS, SHS, CHS) -- 2 anchor 2b 2 − 2b fc1d h + 4y 2
bolts (*) α = fc1
4sy
Hollow section (RHS, SHS) -- 4 anchor bolts (*) y and s = as defined in Fig. 39
Hollow section (CHS) -- varying no. of anchor
bolts (IWIMM Model described in the literature In this model the reduction in plate capacity due to the
review) presence of a bolt hole along the yield line perpendicular
to the web has been included.
Hollow section (RHS) -- varying no. of anchor
bolts (Packer--Birkemoe Model described in the Further reductions due to other yield lines intersecting
literature review) bolt holes have not been considered as they are very
unlikely to occur and a more detailed analysis should be
The derivation of the models marked with (*) is
carried out in such situation.
illustrated in Section 11. It is important to note that,
similarly to Murray Model, in the case of open sections The critical yield line pattern is a function of the value
the derived models to determine the capacity of the steel of y calculated from equation (70). To ensure that none
base plate capacity account only for the strength of plate of the oblique yield lines intersects the bolt hole, as
present inside the column footprint. assumed in the model derived, the following condition
needs to be satisfied:
The reduction in plate capacity due to the bolt hole has
been included in the model. The yield line patterns y > l2 (71)
considered for open sections are assumed to develop
inside the internal faces of the column profile. where:
H--SHAPED COLUMN -- 2 anchor bolts
The yield line pattern considered by the recommended
l1 =
dh
2
1 − 4sd 2
h
2

model is shown in Fig. 39 and is similar to the one l 1l 3

considered in Murray Model modified to account for the l2 =
reduction in plate capacity due to the anchor bolt holes. s−  d2
4
h
− l 21

24 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

and the notation is defined in Fig. 40. y c = mina b, y
l3
y d = min a b, b fc1 − d h
2
s
a b = distance from bolt hole to inside face of
s flange
s
Web
diameter of hole = d h
d c1
l1 y 2
l2 y d c1
2
d 2h∕4 − l21 Edge of plate
b fc

Figure 40 Yield line layout near the bolt hole Figure 41 Yield line pattern (a) H sections
s
H--SHAPED COLUMN -- 4 anchor bolts
The yield line patterns considered by the recommended ab
model are shown in Figs. 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. y
In the case of yield line patterns (a), (b) and (c) the y
derived model does not assume that the oblique lines sp
intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and
y
considered in a similar manner as previously outlined in
the case of H--shaped column with 2 anchor bolts (refer y ab
to equation (71) and Fig. 40).
The recommended design procedure is as follows:
b fc
ÔN t = 0.9f yit 2i α (72) Figure 42 Yield line pattern (b) H sections
s
ti ≥  N *t
0.9f yiα
(73)
ab
y
y=
b fc1 − d h
b fc1 (74) sp
2
y
and the value of α is calculated as follows:
ab
sp
α = max(α a, α b) when y <
2
sp b fc
= α b when y < and y > a b
2 Figure 43 Yield line pattern (c) H sections
sp
= max(α c, α d, α e) when y ≥
2 s
where:
2b 2 − 2b fc1d h + 4y 2 ab
α a = fc1 y
2sy
b fc1(b fc1 − d h)(a b + y) + 2(y + a b)a by
αb = sp
2sa by
b 2fc1 − d hb fc1 + 2y 2c + s py c
αc =
2sy c y ab
b fc1s − d hs + 2y 2d + s py d − d hy d
αd = sy d
b fc1s − 2d hs + 4a 2b + 2a bs p − 2a bd h b fc
αe =
2a bs Figure 44 Yield line pattern (d) H sections

25 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 s

ab
ti ≥  N *t
0.9f yiα
(76)

sp
y = min d2 , (2b
c1
fc1 − d h)b fc1  (77)

where:
y ab 2b 2fc1 − b fc1d h + y 2
α=
2sy
b fc y and s = as defined in Fig. 47

Figure 45 Yield line pattern (e) H sections CHANNEL -- 2 anchor bolts

The yield line patterns considered by the recommended
s model are shown in Figs. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.
ab In the case of yield line patterns (a), (b) and (c) the
derived model does not assume that the oblique lines
intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and
considered in a similar manner as previously outlined in
sp the case of H--shaped column with 2 anchor bolts (refer
to equation (71) and Fig. 40).
ab The recommended design procedure is as follows:
ÔN t = 0.9f yit 2i α (78)
b fc

Figure 46 Yield line pattern (f) H sections

ti ≥  N *t
0.9f yiα
(79)
CHANNEL -- 1 anchor bolt
The yield line pattern considered by the recommended y = (2b fc1 − d h)b fc1 (80)
model is shown in Fig. 47 and is similar to the one
considered in the case of H--shaped sections with 2 and the value of α is calculated as follows:
anchor bolts. sp
The derived model does not assume that the oblique α = max(α a, α b) when y <
2
lines intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and sp
considered in a similar manner as previously outlined in = α b when y < and y > a b
2
the case of H--shaped column with 2 anchor bolts (refer sp
to equation (71) and Fig. 40). = max(α c, α d, α e) when y ≥
2
s where:
2b 2 − b fc1d h + y 2
d c1 α a = fc1 sy
y 2 b (2b − d h)(a b + y) + (y + a b)a by
α b = fc1 fc1
2sa by
y d c1
2 4b 2fc1 − 2d hb fc1 + 2y 2c + s py c
αc =
4sy c
b fc 2b fc1s − d hs + 2y 2d + s py d − d hy d
αd =
2sy d
Figure 47 Yield line pattern -- Channel with 1
anchor bolt b fc1s − d hs + 2a 2b + a bs p − a bd h
αe =
2a bs
The plate thickness required to resist a design axial force
ÔN *t is calculated as follows: y c = mina b, y

ÔN t = 0.9f yit 2i α (75)

y d = min a b, 2b fc1 − d h
2

s

26 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 s s

ab ab
y
y
sp sp
y
y ab ab

b fc
b fc
Figure 48 Yield lines (a) Channels, 2 bolts Figure 52 Yield lines (e) Channels, 2 bolts
s HOLLOW SECTION (RHS, SHS, CHS) --
2 anchor bolts
ab
The yield line patterns considered by the recommended
y model are shown in Figs. 53 and 54.
sp In the case of yield line pattern (a) the derived model
does not assume that the oblique lines intersect the bolt
y hole. This should be verified and considered in a similar
ab manner as previously outlined in the case of H--shaped
column with 2 anchor bolts (refer to equation (71) and
Fig. 40).
b fc
The recommended design procedure is as follows:
Figure 49 Yield lines (b) Channels, 2 bolts ÔN t = 0.9f yit 2i α (81)
s

y ab ti ≥  N *t
0.9f yiα
(82)

y = (2s 2 − d h)s 2 (83)

sp
and the value of α is calculated as follows:
l l
y ab α = max(α a, α b) when y ≤ i = α b when y > i
2 2
where:
b fc 2s 2 − d hs 2 + y 2
α a = 2 ys
Figure 50 Yield lines (c) Channels, 2 bolts 1
li
αb =
s 2s 3
s 3 = distance from centerline of bolt hole to yield
ab line location specified by s 4
y s 4 = cantilevered lengths a 1 or a 2 of Cantilever
Model depending upon orientation of the column
section
sp s2
s1
y ab
y
b fc li
y
Figure 51 Yield lines (d) Channels, 2 bolts

27 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 s2 In the case of yield line pattern (a) the derived model
s1 does not assume that the oblique lines intersect the bolt
hole. This should be verified and considered in a similar
manner as previously outlined in the case of H--shaped
y column with 2 anchor bolts (refer to equation (71) and
li Fig. 40).
y The recommended design procedure is as follows:
ÔN t = 0.9f yit 2i α (84)
s2
s1 ti ≥  N *t
0.9f yiα
(85)

y = (2s 2 − d h)s 2 (86)

y
li and the value of α is calculated as follows:
y l − sp
α = max(α a, α b) when y ≤ i
2
li − sp
= α b when y >
2
Figure 53 Yield lines (a) Hollows, 2 bolts where:
s4 4s 2 − 2d hs 2 + 2y 2 + s py
αa = 2
2ys 1
li
s3 αb =
2s 3
li s2
s1

y
s4 sp li
s3
y
li
s2
s1

s4
s3 y

sp li

li y

Figure 55 Yield lines (a) Hollows, 4 bolts

Figure 54 Yield lines (b) Hollows, 2 bolts

HOLLOW SECTION (RHS and SHS) --

4 anchor bolts
The yield line patterns considered by the recommended
model are shown in Figs. 55 and 56.

28 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 s4 HOLLOW SECTION (RHS) --
s3 varying no. of anchor bolts
(Packer--Birkemoe Model)
RHS COLUMNS -- varying no. of bolts
The model recommended here is Packer--Birkemoe
li Model. This model is applicable only to base plates
between 12mm and 26mm.
The design procedure is as follows (refer to the literature
review for further details regarding the model and to
s4 Fig. 21 regarding the notation):
s3 a preliminary number of bolts required is
determined from equation (62)
a bolt spacing s p equal to 4--5 d f should be used
(even if smaller spacing are possible) and that:
li a 2 ≤ 1.25a 1 (89)
Calculate δ:
d
δ = 1 − sh (90)
p
The designer should then select a preliminary
Figure 56 Yield lines (b) Hollows, 4 bolts
plate thickness in the following range:
HOLLOW SECTION (CHS) --
varying no. of anchor bolts 1KN+ δ ≤ t ≤ KN
*
b
i
*
b (91)
(IWIMM Model)
The recommended model for the design of base plates where:
of CHS with a symmetric arrangement of bolts around 4a 310 3
K= (where f yi is in MPa)
the column profile as shown in Fig. 20 is based on Ôf yis p
IWIMM Model previously outlined in the literature
review. a 3 = a 1 − d f∕2 + t c
calculate α:
The recommended design procedure is as follows:

ÔN t =
Ôf yi π f 3t 2i
2
(87)
α= KÔN tf
t 2i
−1  a 2 + d f∕2
δ(a 2 + a 1 + t c)
 (92)

with the constraint of α ≥ 0

ti ≥  2N *t
Ôf yi π f 3
(88) The capacity of the steel base plate is then calculated as
follows:
where: t 2i (1 + δα)n b
ÔN t = (93)
Ô = 0.9 K
And ÔN t calculated with equation (93) must be greater
f 3 = 1 k 3 + k 23 − 4k 1 than N *t .
2k 1
The actual tension in the anchor bolt group,

r
k 1 = ln r 2
3
including prying effects, is determined as follows:
k3 = k1 + 2  a
N *tb ≈ N *t 1 + a 3
4
1 +δαδα (94)
d
r2 = 0 + a1 where:
2
d0 − tc N *tb = design tension in anchor bolt group including
r3 = prying effects
2
a 1, a 2 and d 0 are defined in Fig. 20
[27] recommends to keep the value of a 1 as small as α=  KN *t
t 2i n b
−1 1
δ

possible, i.e. between 1.5d f and 2d f (where d f is the
nominal diameter of the bolts), while ensuring a
minimum of 5 mm clearance between the nut face and

a 4 = min 1.25a 1, a 2 +
df
2

the weld around the CHS. The anchor bolt group capacity calculated with equation
Assumptions adopted by this model are a continuous (62) needs to be greater than the axial loads applied to
base plate and a weld capacity able to develop the full the bolt group calculated with equation (94). This is
yield strength of the CHS.

29 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

achieved adopting a value Ô p to be used in equation (60)
equal to:
 
−1
a
Ôb = 1 + a3 δα
4 1 + δα
≤1 (95)
The evaluation of the capacity of an existing base plate
is carried out following the design procedure previously
outlined. Instead of the preliminary values the actual
number of bolts and plate thickness are utilised.
5.4.8. Design of weld at column base
The design of the weld at the base of the column is
carried out in accordance with Clause 9.7.3.10 of AS
4100. The weld is designed as a fillet weld and its design
capacity ÔN w is calculated as follows:
ÔN w = Ôv wL w = Ô0.6f uw t t k rL w (96)
where:
Ô = 0.8 for all SP welds except longitudinal fillet
welds on RHS/SHS with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of
AS 4100)
0.7 for all longitudinal SP fillet on RHS/SHS
with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
0.6 for all GP welds (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
k r = 1 (reduction factor to account for length of
welded lap connection)
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of Ôv w.
The fillet weld is recommended to be placed all around
the column section profile.
6. SHEAR
6.1. INTRODUCTION
The shear action may be assumed to be transferred from
the column to the concrete base either:
1. by friction between between base plate and
concrete/grout base or by recessing the base
plate into the concrete footing;
2. by a shear key (or shear lug);
3. by the anchor bolts;
4. by a combination of two or more of the above.
Available design information regarding the transfer of
shear by each of these means with and without axial
loading is now outlined. It is interesting to note how
there are still very different opinions regarding the
ability of anchor bolts to transfer shear actions. For
clarity, the literature review regarding the behaviour of
anchor bolts is further divided into the case of anchor
bolts subject to shear only or to shear and axial
compression and the case of anchor bolts subject to
shear and axial tension.
6.2. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY FRICTION
OR BY RECESSING THE BASE PLATE
INTO THE CONCRETE --
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is general agreement regarding the determination
of the shear capacity of a base plate which can be
30
transferred by means of friction when the column is
subject to axial compression loading. The shear
capacity is calculated as follows:
ÔV f = ÔμN *c (97)
where:
Ô = 0.8
μ = coefficient of friction
ÔV f = shear capacity of the base plate transferred by
friction
Coefficients of friction μ available in literature are
shown in Fig. 57 and are specified as follows:
[2][21][22]
0.9 -- concrete or grout against as--rolled steel
when the contact plane is the full base plate
thickness below the concrete surface (i.e.
recessed);
0.7 -- for concrete or grout placed against the
as--rolled steel surface with the contact plane
coincidental with the concrete surface;
0.55 -- for grouted conditions with the contact
plane between the grout and the as--rolled steel
exterior to the concrete surface (normal
condition).
μ = 0.9
μ = 0.55
μ = 0.7
Figure 57 Coefficients of Friction (Ref. [26])
6.3. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY A SHEAR
KEY-- LITERATURE REVIEW
Available design guidelines agree that in the presence of
a shear key, the shear force is transferred through the
shear key acting as a cantilever and bearing against the
concrete surface as shown in Fig. 58 while no bearing is
assumed to occur against the grout. The bearing
capacity of the concrete is calculated in accordance with
AS 3600 [10]. Uniform bearing pressure is assumed to
occur at the interface between the shear key and the
concrete equal to the maximum bearing capacity of the
concrete. The shear key is designed as a cantilever to
carry the assumed bearing pressure. [26]
The required area of the shear key is determined based
on the bearing concrete strength 0.85Ôf′ c as shown in
Fig. 58:
V *s
A sk = (98)
0.85Ô cf′ c
where:
Ô = 0.8
A sk = area of the shear key
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
 V *s = design shear force to be transferred by means to resist the part of the design shear force that cannot be
of the shear key resisted by friction.
The actual length of the shear key L s is then determined For shear keys located near a free concrete edge it
based on the available plate depth in contact with the should be verified that the concrete is able to carry the
concrete, which, referring to Fig. 58, is equal to applied shear action. The possible failure surface is the
(b s − t g). The design moment per unit width of plate one which radiates at 45 degrees from the shear key’s
m *sk carried by the shear key can then be calculated as edges towards the concrete edge. The concrete capacity
follows: should be determined by multiplying the effective
concrete stress area, determined as the projected area of
V *s b s + t g the failure surface on the concrete edge ignoring the
m *sk = (99) shear key area, by the average concrete tensile stress of
Ls 2
where: Ô0.33 f′ c (where f′ c is in MPa) with Ô is equal to 0.85.
[2]
m *sk = design moment to be carried
The weld of the shear key shall be designed to carry both
to the shear key
design shear and moment actions acting on the shear
L s = length of shear key key.
b s = depth of shear key It is interesting to note that the shear key can be welded
t g = grout thickness to the underside of the base plate at any angle even if it
is common to choose directions parallel to one or both
Equating the design moment to the plastic nominal
of the principal axes of the column as these are usually
section moment capacity of the shear key the following
the axes along which the shear needs to be transferred.
is obtained (per unit width of plate):
Reference [26] extends this design procedure for shear
V *s b s + t g 0.9f ys t 2s keys in two orthogonal directions applying the same
m *sk = = = Ôm sk (100)
Ls 2 4 design procedure in both orthogonal directions.
where: 6.4. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY THE
m sk = nominal section moment capacity per unit ANCHOR BOLTS -- LITERATURE
width of shear key REVIEW
f ys = yield stress of shear key used in design 6.4.1. Shear only or Shear and Axial
t s = thickness of shear key Compression
from which the minimum thickness for the shear key t sk An anchor bolt located away from a concrete edge and
can be calculated in accordance with AS4100 as with sufficient embedment length would typically
follows: transfer the shear through bearing at the surface of the
concrete and testing has shown that this transfer mode

ts =  4m *sk
0.9f ys
=  V *s b s + t g
2
L s 0.9f ys
(101)
could cause a concrete wedge to form as shown in Fig.
59. It has been observed that the depth of the concrete
wedge can be approximated to be one quarter of the
or equivalently the shear capacity of a shear key is anchor bolt diameter. In the presence of a base plate the
calculated as: translation of the concrete wedge is prevented by a
clamping force provided by the base plate and anchor
0.9f ys t 2sL s bolts. While the anchor’s behaviour remains in the
ÔV s = (102) elastic range the clamping force applied by the anchor
bs + tg 2
bolt and base plate is proportional to the shear force.
where: Applied Shear
ÔV s = design shear capacity of the shear key
d f∕4 Concrete Wedge
ts
V *c

tg bs df
Shear Key

0.85f′ c
Figure 58 Forces acting on Shear Keys
(Ref. [26])
In the presence of combined shear and axial
compression actions, the shear key is normally assumed
Figure 59 Concrete wedge failure mode under
anchor bolt shear force (Ref. [31])
Locating an anchor bolt near the concrete free edge
could lead to another failure mode to occur as shown in
Fig. 60. The concrete failure surface is determined by
radiating at 45 degrees from the anchor bolt at the

31 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

concrete surface towards the free edge. The concrete
capacity is calculated by multiplying the projected area
of the failure surface at the concrete edge by the concrete
ae ≥ df  f uf
Ô0.94 f′ c
(106)

average tensile strength of Ô0.33 f′ c. where:

Applied Shear Ô = 0.65 in [3] and 0.85 in [17]
Based on the guidelines provided in reference [3],
simplified design guidelines of the minimum edge
distances calculated with equation (106) using Ô equal
to 0.65 are presented in reference [39] which are as
follows:
Failure
Side Surface Front for Grade 250 bars and Grade 4.6 bolts:
a e ≥ 12d f
Figure 60 Concrete failure surface under bolt minimum bolt spacing ≥ 16d f
shear force near a concrete edge (Ref. for Grade 8.8 bolts:
[31])
a e ≥ 17d f
The minimum side cover required to ensure a ductile minimum bolt spacing ≥ 24d f
failure requires the concrete wedge capacity to carry a
These minimum bolt spacings intend to avoid
shear load equal to the nominal shear capacity of the
overlapping of anchors’ concrete failure cones. These
anchor bolt.
have also been recommended in reference [26].
The concrete capacity of the wedge cone can be
For completeness minimum edge distances have been
calculated as follows:
derived in Section 12. based on equation (106) with Ô
πa 2e equal to 0.65 and 0.85. Also simplified expressions have
ÔV u.c = Ô0.33 f′ c (103) been derived as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
2
where: Table 4 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 Grade rods
Ô = 0.65 in [3] and 0.85 in [17] f′ c ae
Ô
ÔV u.c = concrete capacity against wedge cone
failure 0.65 20 13 df
Experimental results have shown that equation (103) 0.65 25 12 df
provides a good estimate of the concrete wedge capacity 0.65 32 11 df
using Ô equal to 0.65. [44][45]
Based on [2], [3] and [17] the nominal shear capacity of 0.85 20 11 df
the anchor bolt is calculated assuming that the shear is 0.85 25 10 df
transferred by friction between the steel and the
concrete with a friction coefficient of 0.7: 0.85 32 10 df

πd 2f Table 5 Grade 8.8 bolts

V u.b = 0.7 f (104)
4 uf
Ô f′ c ae
where:
0.65 20 18 df
V u.b = nominal shear capacity of an anchor bolt
assumed to be transferred by friction between 0.65 25 17 df
anchor and concrete with a friction coefficient of
0.65 32 16 df
0.7
The minimum side cover a e to be adopted for the anchor 0.85 20 16 df
bolt to avoid the concrete wedge failure can be 0.85 25 15 df
determined ensuring that the concrete capacity against
wedge failure ÔV u.c is able to carry the shear capacity 0.85 32 14 df
of the bolt transferred by friction V u.b and equating
equation (103) to equation (104): [2] References [26] and [47] recommend edge distances
based on Ô values equal to 0.85.
πa 2e
ÔV u.c = Ô0.33 f′ c In the case the side cover is less than a e (calculated with
2 equation (106)) caution should be placed in the design
πd 2f and positioning of the reinforcement. The shear
= 0.7 f = V u.b (105) capacity of an anchor bolt located at a distance less than
4 uf
a e∕3 from a concrete edge should be ignored. Adopting
and solving equation (105) for a e: a similar reinforcement layout as suggested in Fig. 35 to
resist direct tensile loading it has been observed by
limited testing that concrete failure would occur when

32 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

anchor bolts are located with a side cover less than
2a e∕3.
A possible reinforcement layout to be utilised in the case
the side cover is in between a e∕3 and 2a e∕3 is shown in
Fig. 61. Allowance for the full development of the
reinforcement should be allowed for in accordance with
AS 3600 regardless of the reinforcement layout adopted
and in the case such allowance is not feasible the shear
capacity of the anchor bolt with edge distance problems
should be disregarded. [2][17]
Experimental studies have shown that possible failure
modes which can occur by transferring shear actions by
means of anchor bolts are concrete failure with and
without wedge cone, concrete failure with pull--out cone
and shear failure of the anchor bolt. [45]
Shear force
* Ref. [31] considers that, in the case of base plates, there
Potential
failure zone
* -- Development
length from AS3600
*
Figure 61 Reinforcement for Shear
Near an Edge of Concrete
Foundation (Ref. [2])
[45] notes that by ensuring sufficient embedment length
of the anchor bolt no concrete pull--out can occur. The
concrete edge cone failure can be prevented if either an
edge distance a e as determined in equation (106) or
adequate reinforcement are provided. From test data,
[45] concludes that among available guidelines the one
of [3], outlined in equation (106), is the most
appropriate.
[45] shows that equation (106) is not applicable to
anchor bolt groups as it can lead to unsafe design
particularly for large edge distances and that the
nominal concrete capacity is related to both edge
distance and bolt spacing. [45] provides no alternative
design guidelines but notes that from experimental
results the nominal capacity of a two bolt group may
only be 60% more than that of a single bolt for the same
edge distance.[45]
No guidance is currently available for calculating the
nominal shear capacity of anchor bolt groups.
It is interesting to note that for the case where a grout pad
exists between the base plate and the concrete, the grout
pad allows bending deformation of the anchor bolt to
occur under an applied shear force. The lateral
33
deformation of the bolt leads to tensile stress in the bolt
but this is generally insufficient to cause pullout. [38]
Some authors do not recommend that shear be resisted
by the anchor bolts.
Ricker in [38] specifically notes that anchor bolts should
not be used to resist shear forces in a column base. In his
opinion bolts have a low bending resistance and that if
a plate eases sideways to bear against a bolt, bending is
induced in the bolt which acts as a cantilever with a lever
arm equal to the grout thickness plus an additional
distance should the concrete foundation crush locally.
Fischer in [24] notes that in his opinion no more than
two anchor bolts for each anchor group would transfer
shear. He explains that under normal loading condition
only one bolt would be carrying shear in bearing as
shown in Fig. 62. The column would then rotate subject
to a shear action till a second anchor would go into
bearing. Due to the oversize holes specified in base
plates it is not possible to ensure that the bolts of the bolt
group would deform sufficiently to allow all bolts to go
into bearing. [24]
is not enough data available to precisely quantify the
shear strength of an individual anchor bolt, much less a
group of anchor bolts.
Figure 62 Transfer of shear by bearing of
anchor bolts
DeWolf in [22] recommends to avoid the use of anchor
bolts to resist shear and suggests that the transfer of
shear through anchor bolts takes place by either shear
friction or bearing.
In the former instance the transfer of shear occurs once
a clamping force is developed to the base plate. [22]
Even if the anchor bolts are not tightened properly the
clamping force can still develop as a consequence of a
wedge concrete failure which would tend to lift the base
plate up and therefore tensioning the anchor bolts. [31]
No specific guidelines are available to evaluate the
contribution of the clamping force to the shear
resistance of the bolt and in practice this clamping force
may not necessary be available.
The other transfer mode of anchor bolts described by
DeWolf is by bearing between the anchor and the bolt
hole, but he regards this very unlikely to occur in
practice in more than one or two anchors as the bolt
holes of base plates are usually oversized holes. [22] He
also notes that a more reliable method of shear transfer
through the anchor bolts can be achieved by welding the
nuts to the base plate or by providing special washers
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
with normal size holes (bolt dia + 2 mm) which fit over
the oversize holes and are welded to the base plate. [21]
Projected area
of wedge cone
Anchor bolt
Top of
concrete ae
block
ae
α = 45 o
Anchor bolt
Overlapped
area ae
ae
α 45 o
Anchor bolts
Figure 63 Concrete edge failure cones
(Ref. [45])
Ref. [34] notes that it is common and successful
industrial practice to use anchor bolts of pinned--base
portals to resist the shear forces while recommending
the following design guidelines:
if shear force is less than 20% of the axial load,
then no special provisions are required;
for higher levels of shear force, it suggests that
great attention be paid to ensuring good grouting
under the base plate and around the anchor bolts
using a mix of minimum shrinkage;
excessive clearance between the anchor bolts and
the holes in the base plate should be avoided;
to avoid possible horizontal deformation of the
column the shear actions should be transferred
either by recessing the base plate into concrete, or
by means of a shear key or by tying the steel
columns to share the load among adjacent
columns.
6.4.2. Shear and Axial Tension
The ability of anchor bolts to transfer shear actions was
considered in the previous paragraph. Here only
available models to describe the interaction of shear and
tension are considered.
[39] notes that most references suggest the use of a
parabolic interaction equation, similar to the one
adopted for conventional bolts as also specified in AS
34
4100 [11], for the design of the anchor bolts. Shipp and
Haninger suggest in [39] that the total area of anchor
bolt required should be the sum of that required to resist
tension and that required to resist shear. They argue that
the shear force causes a bearing failure near the concrete
surface and translates the shear load on the anchor bolt
into an effective tension load by friction, so that the bolt
must have enough tension capacity to resist both effects.
[30] notes that for an anchor bolt subject to both shear
force and axial tension, design difficulties exist because
the interaction of shear and tension is not understood
and generally a straight line interaction relationship is
assumed, which requires the total steel bolt area be
obtained by adding the area required for shear force and
the area required for tension. [30] notes that this
approach is conservative but is warranted since test data
concerning combined shear and tension are lacking for
most anchors.
Reference [20] suggests an elliptical interaction
relationship between tension and shear for the design of
anchor bolts while considering the linear interaction
relationship to be conservative.
References [2] and [17] recommend, in the case of
anchor bolts subject to combined shear and tension, to
adopt the design recommendations regarding minimum
embedment length and edge distances provided in the
case of anchor bolts subject to tension and shear
separately.
6.5. RECOMMENDED MODEL
6.5.1. Introduction
The recommended design model allows shear action to
be transferred by friction between the base plate and the
concrete/grout base, by recessing the base plate into the
concrete footing, by a shear key or by a combination of
the above.
It is in the authors’ opinion that due to the uncertainty
regarding the ability of anchor bolts to transfer shear it
is left up to designer to decide whether or not to design
the anchor bolts to carry shear actions.
6.5.2. Design criteria
The recommended model for the design of base plate
subject to shear or combined shear and axial actions is
base on the following design criteria:
V des = ÔV f + ÔV s, ÔV w min ≥ V * (107)
N des.c ≥ N *c
N des.t ≥ N *t
v des = Ôv w ≥ v *w
where:
V des = design shear capacity of the base plate
connection
ÔV f = design shear capacity of the base plate
transferred by means of friction
ÔV s = design shear capacity of the shear key
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
 ÔV w = design shear capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column
N des.t = design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial tension as determined in Section
5.4.
N des.c = design capacity of the base plate connection
subject to axial compression as determined in
Section 4.3.
N *t = design axial tension load
N *c = design axial compression load
v des = Ôv w = design capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column per unit length of
weld
v *w = design load per unit length acting on the weld
connecting the base plate to the column. Its
direction depends upon the combined shear and
axial loading
The additional check on the weld capacity is required as
the critical action acting on the weld (between column
and base plate) is caused by a combination of shear and
axial loading.
6.5.3. Design of shear transfer by friction
and by recessing the base plate in the
concrete
The design shear capacity of the base plate transferred
by means of friction and by recessing the base plate into
the concrete footing is calculated as follows:
ÔV f = ÔμN *c (108)
where:
Ô = 0.8
μ = coefficient of friction
= 0.9 -- concrete or grout against as--rolled steel
when the contact plane is the full base plate
thickness below the concrete surface (i.e.
recessed)
= 0.7 -- for concrete or grout placed against the
as--rolled steel surface with the contact plane
coincidental with the concrete surface
= 0.55 -- for grouted conditions with the contact
plane between the grout and the as--rolled steel
exterior to the concrete surface (normal
condition)
6.5.4. Design of the column weld
The design action applied to the weld between the
column and the base plate is calculated as follows:
v *w = v *h + v *v
2 2
(109)
where:
v *h and v *v = components of the loading carried by the
weld between column and base plate in one
horizontal direction in the plane of the base plate
and in the vertical direction respectively per unit
length
v *h = V
*
Lw
35
N *c
v *v = if the column end is not prepared for full
Lw
contact
=0 if the column end is prepared for full
contact (under axial compression only)
The fillet weld capacity between the column and the
base plate Ôv w is designed in accordance with Clause
9.7.3.10 of AS 4100 [11] as follows:
Ôv w = Ô0.6f uwt tk r (110)
where:
Ô = 0.8 for all SP welds except longitudinal fillet
welds on RHS/SHS with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of
AS 4100)
0.7 for all longitudinal SP fillet on RHS/SHS
with t < 3 mm (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
0.6 for all GP welds (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of the fillet
weld capacity Ôv w.
6.5.5. Design of shear transfer by a shear key
The shear capacity of a shear key can be calculated once
the bearing and pull--out capacity of the concrete, the
shear capacity of the shear key due to its nominal section
moment capacity and the weld capacity between the
shear key and the base plate are determined as shown
below.
ÔV s = ÔV s.c; ÔV s.cc; ÔV s.b; ÔV s.w min ≥ V * (111)
where:
ÔV s = design shear capacity of the shear key
ÔV s.c = concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
ÔV s.cc = pull--out capacity of the concrete
ÔV s.b = shear capacity of the shear key based on its
section moment capacity
ÔV s.w = shear capacity of the weld between the
shear key and the base plate
The concrete bearing capacity of the shear key ÔV s.c is
calculated as follows:
ÔV s.c = Ô0.85f c′L s(b s − t g) (112)
where:
Ô = 0.6
L s and b s = length and depth of the shear key as
shown in Fig. 64
tg
bs
Shear Key
ts
Ls
Figure 64 Shear Key Details (Ref. [26])
In the case the shear key is located near a concrete edge
the capacity of the concrete could be reduced by the
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
formation of a failure surface radiating at 45 degrees sp
from the shear key’s edges towards the concrete edge.
The concrete capacity calculated over the projected area
of such failure surface ignoring the shear key area is
sg
determined as follows:

ÔV s.cc = Ô0.33 f c′ A psk ≤ ÔV s.c (113)

where:
Ô = 0.7 (based on as Ô required for Clause 9.2.3 of Figure 66 4--bolt base plate to UB/UC column
AS3600) (Ref. [26])
A psk = projected area over the concrete edge
ignoring the shear key area
sp
The shear capacity of the shear key based on its nominal
section moment capacity ÔV s.b is calculated as follows:
0.9f ys t 2sL s
ÔV s.b = (114)
bs + tg 2
The capacity of the fillet weld connecting the shear key
to the base plate ÔV s.w calculated in the direction Figure 67 2--bolt base plate to channel column
perpendicular to the shear key is determined as follows (Ref. [26])
(assuming the shear key is welded all around):
Ôv w2L s
ÔV s.w = (115)
 bs+ts
1+ t
s
2

where:
Ôv w = design capacity of the fillet weld per unit
Legend:
length (as calculated in equation (110) or as
tabulated in Section 13.) Anchor Bolt Location
Hole to allow grout
7. BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS egress
DETAILING
Figure 68 2--bolt base plate to hollow columns
Typical base plate layouts considered in this paper are (Ref. [26])
shown in Figs. 65, 66, 67 and 68.
Typical anchor bolts used in base plate applications are Preferred anchor bolt gauge (sg) and pitch (sp) are given
cast--in anchors of category 4.6/S and of diameter either in Reference [12].
M16, M20, M24 or M30. Masonry anchors of diameter The ”weld all round” philosophy sometimes adopted in
M16, M20, M24 may also be used. the weld design of base plates can lead to over--welding
and can become very expensive. The details shown in
Figs. 65, 66, 67 and 68 can, if designed for light
loadings, tend to the other extreme and some fabricators
Component may prefer to increase the amount of welding above that
to suit shown on the design drawings in order to prevent
damage during handling and shipping. There is usually
Grout pad a compromise possible between these two extremes.
Another design consideration is the likelihood of a
Typical nominally pinned base being subjected to some bending
moment in a real situation. [26]
Prior to erecting the column/base plate assembly, the
sg Typical level of the base plate area should be surveyed and shims
placed to indicate the correct level of the underside of
the base plate as shown in Fig. 69. For heavier column
Figure 65 2--bolt base plate to UB /UC column / base plate assemblies, levelling--nut arrangements may
be used in order to allow accurate levelling of the base
(Ref. [26])
plate as outlined in [7] and [38]. Hole sizes in base plates

36 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

may be up to 6mm larger than the anchor bolt diameter
in accordance with Clause 14.3.5.2 of AS 4100 [11].

Level of U/S
Baseplate
Tack weld 10mm
Concrete surface
Shims reinforcing bars to
form cage -- no
Figure 69 Use of shims for levelling purposes tacks on HS bolts.
(Ref. [26])
Holes require a special plate washer of 4 mm minimum
thickness under the nut if the bolt hole is more than 3 mm
larger than the anchor bolt diameter.
Figure 70 Locating Holding Down Bolts
Base plates should be provided with at least one grout with a Cage (Ref. [26])
inspection hole through which the grout will rise
indicating a satisfactory grouting operation.
Anchor bolts are usually galvanized, even for an interior 1 2 3
application, in order to avoid corrosion during the Specified dimension (+/-- 6 in every 30m
construction period where the steel columns may stand but not greater than +/-- 25 overall)
for some time in the open air.
The size and location of any permanent steel shims Max deviation +/-- 6
under the base plate should be shown on the drawings.
Temporary packers which are used for erection
purposes until the underside of the base plate is grouted
or concreted should be left to the erector to detail.
The minimum space between the underside of the base
plate and the concrete foundation should be: C/L Anchor bolts
25 mm for grouting; Max deviation +/-- 6
50 mm for mortar bedding; Max deviation +/-- 6
75 mm for concrete bedding.
C/L Anchor bolts
Tolerances on anchor bolt positions and level of base
plate should conform to the provisions of Clause 5.12 of +/-- 3
AS 4100.[11]
[24] notes that possible design and detailing problems C/L Grid
for base plates include: +/-- 3
Detail of off--centre
inadequate development of the anchor bolts for
location of anchor bolts C/L Grid
tension and of concrete reinforcing steel;
improper selection of anchor bolt material;
inadequate base plate thickness; 4
poor placement of anchor bolts; Unless otherwise Main
specified, dimensions column
shear and fatigue loading on anchor bolts.
C/L grid
Based on a survey carried out in the UK [29] notes that are in millimetres
poor fit of base plates onto holding down bolts is among
one of the four most commonly reported problems of Max deviation +/-- 6 if
lack of fit on site. column offset from main
column line.
To ensure that the bolt centres match the nominated
centres and the hole centres drilled in the base plate, the
bolts are often caged into a group as shown in Fig. 70.
Also useful is the provision of cored holes usually
formed by using polystyrene which allow the Figure 71 Tolerances in Anchor Bolt Location
adjustment of anchor bolt positions once the concrete is after AS 4100 (Ref. [26])
cast in order to exactly match the hole centres in the base [19] and [38] present a discussion of a number of
plate as already shown in Fig. 32. practical aspects of the use of anchor bolts and should
Anchor bolt centres must comply with the tolerances set be referred to if problems arise on site. [19] deals with
out in Clause 15.3.1 of AS 4100 as shown in see Fig. 71. general aspects regarding design, installation,
anchorage, corrosion of anchor bolts, bedding and
grouting as well as the responsibilities of all parties in

37 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

the construction process but no firm recommendations
are made on design however.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper started from the very significant work carried
out by Tim Hogan and Ian Thomas who collated the
majority of the research results on steel connections
from around the world in Ref [26]. Valuable input and
support for this current work has come from OneSteel
-- in particular Anthony Ng, Gary Yum and Nick van der
Kreek. The ASI State Managers -- Leigh Wilson, Rupert
Grayston, John Gardner and Scott Munter have all
contributed industry insights. Several overseas
researchers, notably Jeffery Packer and John DeWolf,
have contributed significantly in this area and their work
and comments are acknowledged.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Ahmed, S. and Kreps, R.R., “Inconsistencies in
Column base Plate design in the New AISC
ASD Manual”, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 27, No. 3,
1990, pp 106 -- 107.
[2] American Concrete Institute, ”Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Structures”, ACI 349 -- 90, Manual of Concrete
Practice (1994).
[3] American Concrete Institute, ”Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Structures”, ACI 349 -- 1976, Manual of
Concrete Practice.
[4] American Institute of Steel Construction,
“Detailing for Steel Construction”, Second
Edition, 2002.
[5] American Institute of Steel Construction,
“Manual of Steel Construction -- Load and
Resistance Factor Design”, Third Edition,
2001.
[6] American Institute of Steel Construction,
“Manual of Steel Construction -- Volume II
Connections”, Ninth Ed./First Edition, 1992.
[7] American Institute of Steel Construction,
“Manual of Steel Construction -- Load and
Resistance Factor Design”, First Edition, 1986.
[8] AS/NZ 1170.0:2002 -- “Structural design
actions -- Part 0: General principles”, 2002
[9] AS 1275 -- ”Metric Screw Threads for
Fasteners”, 1985.
[10] AS 3600 -- ”Concrete Structures”, 2001.
[11] AS 4100 -- ”Steel Structures ”, 1998.
[12] Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
”Standardized Structural Connections”, Third
Edition, 1985.
[13] Ballio, G. and Mazzolani, F.M., “Theory and
Design of Steel Structures”, Chapman and
Hall, 1983.
38
[14] Bangash, M.Y.H., “Structural detailing in
Steel”, Thomas Telford, 2000
[15] Bickford, J.H. and Nassar, S., Handbook of
Bolts and Bolted joints”, Marcel Dekker, 1998
[16] Blodgett, O., Design of Welded Structures”,
The James F Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation,
Fifth Printing, 1972, Section 3.3.
[17] Cannon, R.W., Godfrey, D.A. and Moreadith,
F.L., ”Guide to the Design of Anchor Bolts and
Other Steel Embedments”, Concrete
International, July 1981, pp 28 -- 41.
[18] Chen, W.F., “Handbook of Structural
Engineering”, CRC Press, 1997
[19] Concrete Society/British Constructional
Steelwork Association/Constructional Steel
Research and Development Organisation,
”Holding Down Systems for Steel Stanchions”,
1980.
[20] Cook, R. and Klingner, R., “Behaviour of
Ductile Multiple--Anchor Steel--to Concrete
Connections with Surface--Mounted
Baseplates”, from “Anchors in Concrete --
Design and Behavior” edited by Senkiw, G.A.
and Lancelot III, H.B., American Concrete
Institute, 1991
[21] DeWolf, J.T, ”Column Base Plates”, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Design Guide
Series No. 1, 1990. (Publication also contains
Refs. [38] and [42])
[22] DeWolf, J.T, ”Column Anchorage Design”,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
National Eng Conf., New Orleans,
Proceedings, Paper 15, April/May 1987.
[23] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures DD
ENV 1993--1--1 Part 1.1 General rules and
rules for buildings, 1992
[24] Fischer, J.M., “Structural details in Industrial
buildings”, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 18, No. 3,
1981, pp 83--89.
[25] Fling, R.S., ”Design of Steel Bearing Plates”,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 7 No. 2, April 1970,
pp 37 -- 40.
[26] Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R., “Design of
structural connections”, Fourth Edition,
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
1994.
[27] Igarashi, S., Wakiyama, K., Inove, R.,
Matsumoto, T. and Murase, Y., “Limit Design
of high strength Bolted Tube Flange joint --
Parts 1 -- 2”, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering Transactions of AIJ,
Department of Architecture reports, Osaka
University, Japan, 1985.
[28] Jaspart, J.P. and Vandegans, D., “Application of
the component method to column bases”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
 Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong, [43] Thornton W.A., ”Design of Base Plates for
Vol.1, 1996, pp 139--144. Wide Flange Columns -- A Concatenation
[29] Mann, A.P. and Morris, L.J., “Lack of fit in Method”, Engineering Journal, American
steel structures”, CIRIA Report 87, 1981 Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 27, No. 4,
1990, pp 173--174.
[30] Marsh M.L. and Burdette, E.G., ”Multiple Bolt
Anchorages: Method for Determining the [44] Ueda, T, Kitipornchai, S. and Ling, K.,
Effective Projected Area of Overlapping Stress ”Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
Cones”, Engineering Journal, American Under Shear”, Journal of Structural
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1, Engineering, 1990
1985, pp 29 -- 32. [45] Ueda, T, Kitipornchai, S. and Ling, K., ”An
[31] Marsh, M.L. and Burdette, E.G., ”Anchorage Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
of Steel Building Components to Concrete”, Under Shear”, University of Queensland, Dept
Engineering Journal, American Institute of of Civil Eng., Research Report No. CE93, Oct.
Steel Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1, 1985, pp 33 1988.
-- 39. [46] Wood, R.H. and Jones, L.L., “Yield--line
[32] Murray, TM., Design of Lightly Loaded Steel analysis of slabs”, Thames and hudson, Chatto
Column Base Plates”, Engineering Journal, & Windus, London, 1967.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. [47] Woolcock, S.T, Kitipornchai, S. and Bradford,
20 No. 4, 1983, pp 143 -- 152. M.A., ”Limit State Design of Portal Frame
[33] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Buildings”, Second Edition, Australian
“Post--Installed Anchors -- A Literature Institute of Steel Construction, 1993.
Review”, NISTIR 6096, 1998.
[34] Owens, G.W. and Cheal, B.D., ”Structural
Steelwork Connections”, Butterworths,
London, 1989.
[35] Park, R. and Gamble, W.L., “Reinforced
Concrete Slabs”, Wiley, 1980.
[36] Parker, J.A. and Henderson, J.E., “Hollow
structural section connections and trusses -- A
design guide”, Second Edition, Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction, 1997.
[37] Parker, J.A., “Design with structural steel
hollow sections -- Australian Institute of Steel
Construction Seminar”, Australian Institute of
Steel Construction, March 1996.
[38] Ricker, D.T, ”Some Practical Aspects of
Column Base Selection”, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol.
26 No. 3, 1989, pp 81 -- 89.
[39] Shipp, J.G. and Haninger, E.R., ”Design of
Headed Anchor Bolts”, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol.
20 No. 2, 1983, pp 58 -- 69.
[40] Stockwell, F.W., ”Preliminary Base Plate
Selection”, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 12 No. 3,
1975, pp 92 -- 93.
[41] Stockwell, F.W., ”Base Plate Design”,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
National Eng Conf, Proceedings, Paper 49,
April/May 1987.
[42] Thornton W.A., ”Design of Small base Plates
for Wide Flange Columns”, Engineering
Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1990, pp
108--110.

39 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

10. APPENDIX A -- Derivation of Design
and Check Expressions for Steel Base
Plates Subject to Axial Compression
The design model for base plates subject to axial
Dashed lines
compression recommended in this paper is a modified d1
indicate yield lines
version of Thornton Model presented in [43] which is b es
suitable for H--shaped columns only. Its derivation has
also been extended here for channels and hollow
sections. θ
The recommended model concatenates the Cantilever,
Fling and Murray--Stockwell Models as follows:
Figure 72 Yield line pattern for H--shaped
ti ≥ am  2N *c
0.9f yi d i b i
sections
The base plate is considered to be simply supported
along the flanges, fixed along the web and free along the
a m = max(a 1, a 2, λa 4) edge opposite to the web. Solutions from yield line
theory are available for this kind of support conditions
For clarity the model which describes the design of base carrying a uniformly distributed load f *p and based on
plates subject to uniform pressure using yield line
the results presented in [35]:
theory is referred to throughout this section as Yield
Line Model. In the case of H--shaped sections Fling
Model and the Yield Line Model coincide. The assumed
yield line patterns are based on the external dimensions
24Ôm p 1 +  4+48η 2−2
4η 2

of the column profile. f *p = (116)
Values of a 1 and a 2 are available in [21], [26] and [36]
for H--shaped columns, channels and hollow sections
b 2fc  3−
4+48η 2−2
4η 2

while values of λ and a 4 are available in [5] and [43] for
where:
only H--shaped sections.
In the recommended model presented here the values of η = d c∕b fc
λ and a 4 have been re--derived and modified for In this case the uniform load f *p is calculated as follows:
H--shaped sections and have been derived for channels
and hollow sections. N *c
f *p =
d ib i
The derivation of such values is outlined below based on
a procedure similar to the one utilised by Thornton in The required design plastic moment Ôm p to support a
[43]. The values of λ and a 4 allow the inclusion in the uniform pressure of f *p is obtained by re--arranging
recommended model of the results obtained with equation (116) as follows:
Murray--Stockwell Model and with the Yield Line
Model respectively. It is important to note that, similarly b 2fc 6η 2 − 1 + 12η 2 + 1
to Thornton Model, the recommended model always Ôm p = f *p
24 2η 2 + 1 + 12η 2 − 1
adopts the thinnest plate determined using
Murray--Stockwell Model and the Yield Line Model.
In the following derivation the values of a 4 are firstly = 1 f *pb 2fcα 2 (117)
8
determined to include the Yield Line Model and then the
value of λ to include Murray--Stockwell Model is where:
determined.
6η 2 − 1 + 12η 2 + 1
A.1 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES α2 = 1
3 2η 2 + 1 + 12η 2 − 1
-- H--SHAPED SECTIONS
A.1.1 DETERMINATION OF a 4 The value of α 2 introduced in equation (117) is
(Yield Line Model -- Fling Model) approximated by the following expression with an error
of --0% (unconservative) and +17.7% (conservative) for
The base plate is designed assuming a yield line pattern values of η (which is equal to d c∕b fc ) between 3/4 and
as shown in Fig. 72. The present derivation is suitable 3:
for H--shaped sections for which b fc∕2 is less than d c as
a different yield line pattern would otherwise occur. α = 1 η (118)
2
The required plate thickness to support f *p can be
determined by equating the nominal section moment
capacity of the plate Ôm s (per unit width) to the required
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows:

40 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 0.9f yit 2i Substituting equations (122) and (123) into equation
Ôm s = ≥ 1 f *pb 2fcα 2 = Ôm p (119) (124) and solving for a 3 the following expression for a 3
4 8
is obtained:
and re--arranging equation (119) in terms of the required
plate thickness yields: Ôf ba 5 − (Ôf ba 5) 2 − 4Ôf bN *c
a3 =


4Ôf b
2f *p
t i = 1 d cb fc
4 0.9f yi a5
= 1 − 1 − X (125)
= a4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(120) where:
4

4N *c
where: X=
Ôf ba 25
a 4 = 1 d cb fc Substituting the value of a 3 calculated in equation (125)
4
into equation (122) yields, after simplifying, the
A.1.2 DETERMINATION OF λ following expression for the H--shaped bearing area
(Murray--Stockwell Model) A H:
The thickness of the base plate calculated according to a 25X
Murray--Stockwell Model is determined as follows: AH = (126)
4

ti = a3  2N *c
0.9f yiA H
(121)
The required plate thickness can now be calculated
substituting the values of A H and a 3 calculated from
equations (125) and (126) into equation (121).
It is interesting to note how, in the formulation presented
in [5], [42] and [43], the load adopted in equation (121)
would have been equal to N *0 instead of N *c, where N *0
ti =
a5
4
1 − 1 − X  8N *c
0.9f yi a 25X
is the portion of full column load N *c acting over the
column footprint under the assumption of uniform
bearing pressure, while in the derivation presented the
full column load N *c is assumed to be applied on the
= λa 4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(127)

H--shaped area A H.
where:
Referring to Fig. 11 the H--shaped bearing area A H can
be expressed as follows:
A H = 2a 3a 5 − 4a 23 (122)
λ=2  d ib i X
d cb fc 1 + 1 − X

where: A.2 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

a 5 = b fc + d c -- CHANNELS
In this derivation, similarly to Thornton Model, the A.2.1 DETERMINATION OF a 4
iterative procedure for the calculation of A H and Ôf b (Yield Line Model)
described in the literature review is not implemented
and is terminated at the first iteration. The value of the The yield line pattern assumed in the case of channels is
maximum bearing strength of the concrete Ôf b is similar to the one assumed in the case of H--shaped
calculated as follows: column sections as shown in Fig. 73 and it is suitable for
channels with b fc less than d c , as a different yield line

Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c AA , Ô2f′ 
2

1
c (123)
pattern would otherwise occur.

where:
Ô = 0.6
Dashed lines
A 1 = bearing area equal to the base plate area A i
indicate yield lines
The H--shaped area A H is defined as the area able to
support the applied axial compression load N *c at a
uniform pressure of Ôf b.
N *c
AH = (124)
Ôf b
Figure 73 Yield line pattern for Channels

41 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

The base plate is considered to be simply supported 2d cb fc
along the flanges and the web and free at the edge a4 =
opposite to the web. Available solutions as proposed in 3
[35] for a uniformly distributed load f *p are utilised. A.2.2 DETERMINATION OF λ
(Murray--Stockwell Model)
8Ôm p4+9η 2−2
The thickness of the base plate calculated according to
η2 Murray--Stockwell Model is determined as follows:
fp =
*
(128)
b 2fc  3−4
3
4+9η 2−2
η2
 ti = a3  2N *c
0.9f yiA H
(133)

where:
Referring to Fig. 12 the assumed bearing area AH can be
η = d c∕b fc expressed as follows:
Similarly to the case of H--shaped column sections the
A H = a 3a 5 − 2a 23 (134)
uniform load f *p is calculated as follows:
N *c where:
f *p = a 5 = 2b fc + d c
d ib i
The value of the maximum bearing strength of the
The required design plastic moment Ôm p to support a concrete Ôf b is calculated as follows:
uniform pressure of f *p is obtained by re--arranging
equation (128) as follows:
9η − 4 4 + 9η + 8
2 2

Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c AA , Ô2f′ 
2

1
c (135)
Ôm p = f *pb 2fc
244 + 9η 2 − 2 where:
Ô = 0.6
= f *pb 2fcα 2 (129) A 1 = bearing area equal to the base plate area A i
The assumed area A H is defined as the area able to
where:
support the applied axial compression load N *c at a
9η 2 − 4 4 + 9η 2 + 8 uniform pressure of Ôf b.
α2 =
24 4 + 9η 2 − 48 N *c
AH = (136)
Ôf b
The value of α introduced in equation (129) can be
2

approximated by the following expression with an error Substituting equations (134) and (135) into equation
of --0% (unconservative) and +6.7% (conservative) for (136) and solving for a 3 the following expression for a 3
values of η (which is equal to d c∕b fc ) between 1.25 and is obtained:
4 (which include the channel sections available in
Australia): Ôf ba 5 − (Ôf ba 5) 2 − 8Ôf bN *c
a3 =
4Ôf b
α = 1 η (130)
3
a5
The required plate thickness to support f *p can be
=
4
1 − 1 − X (137)
determined by equating the nominal section moment where:
capacity of the plate Ôm s (per unit width) to the required
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows: 8N *c
X=
Ôf ba 25
0.9f yit 2i
Ôm s = ≥ f *pb 2fcα 2 = Ôm p (131)
4 Substituting the value of a 3 calculated in equation (137)
and re--arranging equation (131) in terms of the required into equation (134) yields, after simplifying, the
plate thickness yields: following expression for the assumed bearing area A H:
a 25X
ti =
2d cb fc
3
 2f *p
0.9f yi
AH =
8
(138)

The required plate thickness can now be calculated

= a4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(132) substituting the values of A H and a 3 calculated from
equations (137) and (138) into (133).

where: ti =
a5
4
1 − 1 − X  16N *c
0.9f yi a 25X

42 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 = λa 4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(139) Ôm s =
0.9f yit 2i
4
≥ f *pb 2cα 2 = Ôm p (142)

and re--arranging equation (142) in terms of the required

where: plate thickness yields:

λ=3
2
 d ib i X
d cb fc 1 + 1 − X ti = 2d23b 0.9f
c c2f *
p
yi

A.3 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

-- RECTANGULAR HOLLOW SECTION
= a4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(143)

A similar procedure to the ones adopted in the case of

H--shaped sections and channels is adopted for where:
rectangular hollow sections.
A.3.1 DETERMINATION OF a 4
a4 = 2d23b c c

(Yield Line Model)

A.3.2 DETERMINATION OF λ
The yield line pattern considered in the case of (Murray--Stockwell Model)
rectangular hollow sections is shown in Fig. 74 and the
required design plastic moment Ôm p under a uniform Referring to Fig. 13 the assumed bearing area AH can be
pressure f *p can be expressed as follows (based on [35]): expressed as follows:
2 A H = 2a 3a 5 − 4a 23 (144)
1 + 3η 2 − 1
Ôm p = f *pb 2c = f *pb 2cα 2 (140) where:
24η 2
a5 = bc + dc
where:
The value of the maximum bearing strength of the
2
1 + 3η 2 − 1 concrete Ôf b is calculated as follows:
α2 =

N*
f *p = c
24η 2

Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c AA , Ô2f′ 
2

1
c (145)
d ib i
η = d c∕b c where:
Ô = 0.6
dc
A 1 = bearing area equal to the base plate area A i
The assumed area A H is defined as the area able to
support the applied axial compression load N *c at a
bc uniform pressure of Ôf b.
N *c
AH = (146)
Ôf b
Figure 74 Yield line pattern for Rectangular Substituting equations (144) and (145) into equation
Hollow Sections (146) and solving for a 3 the following expression for a 3
is obtained:
The plate is assumed to be simply supported along all
the edges. 2Ôf ba 5 − 4(Ôf ba 5) 2 − 16Ôf bN *c
The value of α 2 introduced in equation (140) can be a3 =
8Ôf b
approximated by the following expression with an error
of --0% (unconservative) and +11.1% (conservative) for a5
values of η (which is equal to d c∕b c) between 3/4 and =
4
1 − 1 − X (147)
4:
where:
α=  η
23
(141)
X=
4N *c
Ôf ba 25
The required plate thickness to support f *p can be
Substituting the value of a 3 calculated in equation (147)
determined by equating the nominal section moment into equation (144) yields, after simplifying, the
capacity of the plate Ôm s (per unit width) to the required following expression for the assumed bearing area A H:
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows:

43 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 a 25X 0.9f yit 2i f *pb 2c
AH = (148) Ôm s = ≥ = Ôm p (151)
4 4 21.4
The required plate thickness can now be calculated and re--arranging equation (151) in terms of the required
utilising the values of A H and a 3 calculated from plate thickness yields:
equations (147) and (148) as previously carried out for
H--shaped sections and channels.
ti = 10.7
1 b
0.9f2fc
*
p

ti =
a5
4
1 − 1 − X  8N *c
0.9f yi a 25X
= a4  2N *c
yi

(152)
0.9f yid ib i

= λa 4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(149) where:

where:
a4 = 10.7
1 b
c ≈ 1 bc
3

λ= dd bb 238 1 + 1X− X

i i
c c


A.4.2 DETERMINATION OF λ
(Murray--Stockwell Model)
Referring to Fig. 13 the assumed bearing area AH can be
≈ 1.7  d ib i X
d cb c 1 + 1 − X

expressed as follows:
A H = 2a 3a 5 − 4a 23 (153)
A.4 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES where:
-- SQUARE HOLLOW SECTION a 5 = 2b c
A similar procedure to the one previously adopted is The value of the maximum bearing strength of the
carried out for square hollow sections. concrete Ôf b is calculated as follows:
A.4.1 DETERMINATION OF a 4 (Yield Line Model)
The yield line pattern considered in the case of
rectangular hollow sections is shown in Fig. 75 and the

Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c AA , Ô2f′ 
2

1
c (154)
required design plastic moment Ôm p under a uniform
pressure f *p can be expressed as follows (based on [35] where:
and [46]): Ô = 0.6
f *pb 2c A 1 = bearing area equal to the base plate area A i
Ôm p = (150) The assumed area A H is defined as the area able to
21.4
support the applied axial compression load N *c at a
where: uniform pressure of Ôf b.
N *c
f *p = N *c
d ib i AH = (155)
Ôf b
bc
In a similar manner as previously carried out the value
of a 3 can be determined as follows:
bc 
a3 = 1 − 1 − X (156)
2
bc where:
4N *c
X=
Ôf ba 25

and the value of the assumed bearing area A H can be

Figure 75 Yield line pattern for Square Hollow expressed as follows:
Sections a 25X
AH = = b 2cX (157)
The plate is assumed to be simply supported along all 4
the edges.
The required plate thickness can now be calculated.
The required plate thickness to support f *p can be
determined by equating the nominal section moment
capacity of the plate Ôm s (per unit width) to the required
ti =
bc 
2
1 − 1 − X  2N *c
0.9f yi b 2cX
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows:

44 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 = λa 4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(158)
A.5.2 DETERMINATION OF λ
(Murray--Stockwell Model)
Referring to figure 14 the assumed bearing area A H can
where: be expressed as follows:
d ib i X A H = π [d 20 − (d 0 − 2a 3) 2]= π(a 3d 0 − a 23) (162)
λ=3 4
2 b c 1 + 1 − X
The value of the maximum bearing strength of the
concrete Ôf b is calculated as follows:
A.5 DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES
-- CIRCULAR HOLLOW SECTION
A similar procedure to the one previously adopted is 
Ôf b = min Ô0.85f′ c AA , Ô2f′ 
2

1
c (163)
carried out for circular hollow sections.
A.5.1 DETERMINATION OF a 4 where:
(Yield line theory) Ô = 0.6
The yield line pattern considered in the case of circular A 1 = bearing area equal to the base plate area A i
hollow sections is shown in Fig. 76 and the required The assumed area A H is defined as the area able to
design plastic moment Ôm p under a uniform pressure f *p support the applied axial compression load N *c at a
can be expressed as follows (based on [35]): uniform pressure of Ôf b.
f *pd 20 N *c
Ôm p = (159) AH = (164)
24 Ôf b
where: In a similar manner as previously carried out the value
Nc * of a 3 can be determined as follows:
f *p =
d ib i d0
a3 =
2
1 − 1 − X (165)

where:
4N *c
do X=
d 20πÔf b

and the value of the assumed bearing area A H can be

expressed as follows:
d 20X
AH = π (166)
Figure 76 Yield line pattern for Circular 4
Hollow Sections The required plate thickness can now be calculated.
The plate is assumed to be simply supported along all
the edges. ti =
d0
2
1 − 1 − X  8N *c
0.9f yi πd 20X
The required plate thickness to support f *p can be
determined by equating the nominal section moment
capacity of the plate Ôm s (per unit width) to the required
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows:
= λa 4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(167)

0.9f yit 2i f *pd 20

Ôm s = ≥ = Ôm p (160) where:
4 24
d ib i
and re--arranging equation (160) in terms of the required
plate thickness yields:
λ= 12π d0
X

1+ 1−X

ti =
d0
2 3
 2f *p
0.9f yi
= a4  2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(161) ≈2
d ib i
d0
X
1 + 1 − X
where: A.6 DERIVATION FOR CHECK PURPOSES
d0 -- ALL SECTIONS
a4 =
2 3 The base plate capacity for a given base plate according
to each Model considered is first determined and then a
unique expression which concatenates them is derived.

45 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

The following notation is used in the derivation: 11. APPENDIX B-- Derivation of Design and
ÔN c.1 = design capacity based on a 1 of the Cantilever Check Expressions for Steel Base
Model Plates Subject to Axial Tension
ÔN c.2 = design capacity based on a 2 of the Cantilever The derivation of the expressions for the design and
Model check of base plate subject to axial tensile loading has
ÔN c.3 = design capacity based on the Yield Line been here carried out for common base plate layouts
Model when no design guidelines were found in literature.
ÔN c.4 = design capacity based on Murray -- Yield line theory, based on conservative yield line
Stockwell Model patterns (in the authors’ opinion), has been utilised in
the derivation.
0.9f yid ib it 2i The plate moment capacity per unit length of yield line
ÔN c.1 = (168)
2a 21 has been calculated here based on the plastic section
modulus of the plate as also carried out in Australian and
0.9f yid ib it 2i American guidelines [5], [21] and [26]. It is interesting
ÔN c.2 = (169) to note that [23] recommends to use the elastic section
2a 22
modulus.
0.9f yid ib it 2i The reduction of plate capacity due to the anchor bolt
ÔN c.3 = (170) holes has been accounted for. Ignoring the effects of bolt
2a 24 holes is a substantial simplification as also noted in [37].
The calculation of the design capacity ÔN c.4 based on Murray Model, which considers the design of base
Murray--Stockwell model requires the following plates for lightly loaded H--shaped columns with two
derivation: anchor bolts, has been here re--derived and modified to
include the plate reduction capacity due to bolt holes.

t i = λa 4  2ÔN c.4
0.9f yid ib i
Here the yield lines are conservatively assumed to
remain inside the internal faces of the column profile,
while in Murray Model they extend to the centerline of
the web and to the outside faces of the flanges.
=
ÔN c.4 Y
1 + 1 − ÔN c.4Y
ka 4 0.9f2 d b
yi i i
(171) The derivations of the capacity or required thickness for
the yield line patterns considered have been carried out
for various combinations of column sections and
where: number of anchor bolts as listed in Section 5.4.7. The
X derivation for the case of a H--shaped column with
λ=k anchor bolts, as shown in Fig. 77, is outlined below. All
1 + 1 − X other cases are considered in a similar manner and the
relevant expressions of their derivation are summarised
X = ÔN c.4Y in Table 6. Similar considerations outlined for the
validity of the Yield Line Model for the case of a
and re--arranging equation (171) yields:
H--shaped column section with 2 bolts can be applied to
0.9f yib id i the other base plate configurations considered.
ÔN c.4 = t 2i λ′ (172)
2a 24 B.1 H--SHAPED COLUMN WITH 2
ANCHOR BOLTS
where:
In the case of H--shaped column sections with two

λ′ = 12
k
 2ka 4
t Y
i
0.9f2 b d − 1
yi i i
anchor bolts the yield line pattern assumed is shown in
Fig. 77. It is the same as the one considered in Murray
Model. The base plate dimensions are conservatively
assumed to be equal to the outside column dimensions
The design capacity of the base plate is then calculated unless noted otherwise.
as follows:
ÔN c = min(ÔN c.1, ÔN c.2, ÔN c.5) (173)
where:
ÔN c.5 = max(ÔN c.3, ÔN c.4)
and ÔN c.1, ÔN c.2, ÔN c.3 and ÔN c.4 area calculated as
shown in equations (168), (169), (170) and (172).

46 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 s where:
y = as calculated from equation (179)
tw d c1 or equivalently the minimum plate thickness required
y 2 for a certain design tension load N *t :

y d c1
2
ti ≥  4syN *t
0.9f yi2b 2fc1 − 2b fc1d h + 4y 2
(181)

b fc In this model the reduction in plate capacity due to the

presence of a bolt hole along the yield line perpendicular
Figure 77 Yield line pattern: H--shaped column to the web has been included.
with 2 bolts
Further reductions due to other yield lines intersecting
Considering the symmetry about the column web the bolt holes have not been considered as they are very
derivation of the internal work and external work is unlikely to occur and a more detailed analysis should be
carried out only considering half the plate area: carried out in such situation.
The critical yield line pattern is a function of the value
b

W i = Ôm p 1y 4 fc1 − 2d h + 2 2y
2 b fc1
  of y calculated from equation (179). To ensure that none
of the oblique yield lines intersects the bolt hole, as
assumed in the model derived, the following simplified
= Ôm p 2b fc1 − 2d h
y +
4y
b fc1
 (174)
condition needs to be satisfied:
y > l2 (182)
W e = 2N * s (175)
b
b fc1 where:
where:
b fc1 = b fc − t w
l1 =
dh
2
1 − 4sd 2
h
2

y and s are defined in Fig.77 l 1l 3

l2 =
Equating the internal and external work the expression
of the design axial tension load per bolt N *b is obtained s−  d2
4
h
− l 21
as follows:
and the notation is defined in Fig. 78.
b
N *b = fc1
2s

2b fc1 − 2d h
y +
4y
b fc1
Ôm p  (176) l3

The value of y which minimises N *b (or equivalently that

maximises the required Ôm p) is determined
differentiating equation (176) for y. s

dN *b 2b − 2d h Web
diameter of hole = d h
= − fc1 2 + 4 =0 (177)
dy y b fc1
l1
Solving equation (177) for y yields:
l2
y=  b fc1 − d h
2
b fc1 (178)

The presence of the flanges requires the value of y to be

d2h∕4 − l 21 Edge of plate
always less or equal to d c∕2 and therefore y is
re--defined as follows:
Figure 78 Yield line layout near the bolt hole

y = min  d c1
2
, b fc1 − d h
2
b fc1  (179)
Substituting a nil value for the diameter of the bolt hole
d h in equations (179) and (181) would lead to the
determination of plate thicknesses t i similar to those
The design axial tension capacity of the base plate ÔN t obtained with Murray Model.
is then obtained re--arranging equation (176) as follows:
0.9f yit 2i
ÔN t = 2b 2fc1 − 2b fc1d h + 4y 2 (180)
4sy

47 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

Table 6 Summary of Internal and External Work for the Various Base Plate Configurations
(refer to figures of Section 5.4.7. to view the yield line patterns considered)

Section / Wi We y Restraints
No. Bolts
H--shaped
section
2--bolts
Ôm p 2b fc1 − 2d h
y +
4y
b fc1
 2N *b s
b fc1 min  d c1
2
, b fc1 --d h
2
b fc1 
H--shaped
section 2Ôm p 2b fc1 − 2d h
y +
4y
b fc1
 4N *b s
b fc1 b fc1 − d h
2
b fc1 
y ≤ a b,
sp
2

4--bolts (a)
H--shaped
section Ôm p 2b a --2d + 2b
fc1
b
h fc1 --2d h
y +
4y+4a b
b fc1
 4N *b s
b fc1 b fc1 − d h
2
b fc1 y≤
sp
2
4--bolts (b)
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (c)
Ôm p 2b fc1 − 2d h
y +
4y + 2s p
b fc1
 4N *b s
b fc1 
min a b, b fc1 --d h
2
b fc1 
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (d)
Ôm p  2b fc1 − 2d h 4y + 2s p − 2d h
y + s  2N *b
min a b, b fc1 --d h
2
s 
H--shaped
section Ôm p  b fc1 − 2d h 4a b + 2s p − 2d h
ab + s  2N *b

4--bolts (e)
Channel N *b s
2--bolts Ôm p 4b fc1 − 2d h
y +
2y
b fc1
 b fc1 min  d c1
2
, (2b fc1 --d h)b fc1 
Channel 2N *b s (2bfc1 − d h)b fc1  sp

4Ôm  
2b fc1 − 2d h 2y b fc1 y ≤ a b,
4--bolts (a) p y + 2
b fc1
Channel 2N *b s sp
4--bolts (b) Ôm p  4b fc1 --2d h 4b fc1 --2d h 2y+2a b
ab + y +
b fc1
 b fc1 (2bfc1 − d h)b fc1 y≤
2

Channel 2N *b s
4--bolts (c) Ôm p 4b fc1 − 2d h
y +
2y + s p
b fc1
 b fc1 mina b, (2b fc1 --d h)b fc1

Channel
4--bolts (d) 
Ôm p 
4b fc1 − 2d h 4y + 2s p − 2d h
y + s
2N *b

min a b, 2b fc1 − d h
2
s
Ôm  
Channel 2b − 2d 4a + 2s − 2d p 2N *b
fc1 h b h
4--bolts (e) p a + s
b
s
Ôm  +s 
Hollow 4s − 2d 2y (2s2 − dh)s2 2y ≤ l i
2 h N *b s 1
2--bolts (a) uy 2 2

Hollow l s
Ôm p s i N *b s 3
2--bolts (b) 4 4
s
Hollow
4--bolts (a) Ôm u 4s −y 2d + 2y +s s 
2 h
2
p 2N *b s 1
2
(2s2 − dh)s2 2y + s p ≤ l i

Hollow s
l 2N *b s 3
4--bolts (b) Ôm p s i 4
2

48 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

12. APPENDIX C -- Determination of The tensile capacity of the anchor bolt is determined in
Embedment Lengths and Edge accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2. of AS 4100 as follows:
Distances N tf = A sf uf (184)
The recommended guidelines regarding the minimum
embedment lengths and concrete edge distances are where:
here derived in a similar manner as carried out in A s = tensile stress area in accordance with AS 1275
references [39] and [47]. The guidelines derived in [39] [9]
are also recommended in [21] and [26]. Differences The minimum embedment length is calculated equating
between the derivations carried out here and those equations (183) and (184) as follows:
presented in references [39] and [47] are noted.
C.1 MINIMUM EMBEDMENT LENGTH Ô0.33 f′ c πL 2d + d fL d = A sf uf (185)
OF ANCHOR BOLTS
and solving for L d:
The recommended model requires the anchorage
system (anchor to concrete connection) to fail in a − d f + d 2f + 4γ
ductile manner. This is achieved by ensuring that the Ld = ≥ 100 (186)
concrete capacity is greater than the tensile capacity of 2
the anchor bolt. [2] where:
Minimum embedment lengths are here derived, f ufA s
similarly to [39], for isolated anchor bolts. Anchor bolts γ=
in bolt groups might require longer embedment lengths Ô0.33 f′ c π
due to overlapping of the concrete failure envelopes. The minimum embedment lengths derived and
The calculation of the concrete capacity is based on the recommended in [39] have been calculated adding an
procedure described in the recommended model. The additional safety factor of 1.33. The recommended
concrete cone projected area is calculated ignoring the embedment lengths recommended here do not include
area of the bolt calculated using the nominal bolt the additional safety factor of 1.33 (similarly to
diameter d f. In [39] the projected area is calculated reference [47]). For completeness the embedment
ignoring the area of a circle equivalent to the projected lengths have been here calculated with and without the
area of a heavy hexagonal head. Comparing the ratios safety factor of 1.33.
L d∕d f (where L d is the minimum embedment length The calculation of the minimum embedment lengths for
required and d f is the nominal bolt diameter) regarding anchors with different bolts tensile strengths and for
the same types of bolts, the results obtained here appear different concrete strengths is carried out in Tables 7
to be of the order of 1% more conservative than the ones and 8 in order to explicitly show how this additional
obtained in [39]. The further simplification of simply safety factor of 1.33 introduced in references [39] is
considering the cone as starting at the embedded end of incorporated in the results.
the anchor bolt has been adopted in reference [47]. The tabulated results are smaller than those presented in
The concrete capacity is calculated as follows: reference [47] due to the different procedure utilised to
determine the projected area even if here a Ô equal to 0.7
ÔN cc = Ô0.33 f′ c A ps (183) has been adopted.
Including the additional factor of safety Ô sf = 1.33
where: recommended in reference [39] equation (186) can be
Ô = 0.7 (based Ô required for Clause 9.2.3 of AS re--written as :
3600) instead of 0.65 as adopted in references
[39] and [47] − d 2f + d 2f + 4γ
L d = Ô sf ≥ 100 (187)
2
   =
2 2
d d
A ps = π L d + f −π f where:
2 2
Ô sf = 1.33
= π(L d + d fL d)
2
f ufA s
γ=
Ô0.33 f′ c π

49 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

Table 7 Minimum embedment lengths for Grade Table 9 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 grade rods
4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods where Ô sf is a safety factor introduced in
(fuf = 400 MPa) reference [39]

Bolt df As f’c Ld Min 1.33 1.33

Ô sf f′ c (MPa) Ld
Type mm mm2 MPa mm ratio Ld Ld/df
Ld/df mm 1 20 9 df
M12 12 84.3 20 100.0 8.4 127.8 10.7 1 25 9 df
M16 16 157 20 131.3 8.2 174.7 10.9 1 32 9 df
M20 20 225 20 164.1 8.2 218.2 10.9 1.33 20 12 df
M24 24 324 20 196.9 8.2 261.9 10.9 1.33 25 11 df
M30 30 519 20 248.4 8.3 330.3 11.0 1.33 32 10 df
M36 36 759 20 299.8 8.3 398.8 11.1
M12 12 84.3 25 100.0 8.4 120.5 10.0
Table 10 Grade 8.8 bolts where Ô sf is a safety
factor introduced in reference [39]
M16 16 157 25 123.8 7.7 164.7 10.3
M20 20 225 25 154.6 7.7 205.7 10.3 Ô sf f′ c (MPa) Ld
M24 24 324 25 185.6 7.7 246.9 10.3
1 20 13 df
M30 30 519 25 234.1 7.8 311.4 10.4
1 25 12 df
M36 36 759 25 282.6 7.9 375.9 10.4
1 32 11 df
M12 12 84.3 32 100.0 8.4 112.8 9.4
1.33 20 17 df
M16 16 157 32 115.9 7.2 154.2 9.6
1.33 25 16 df
M20 20 225 32 144.8 7.2 192.6 9.6
M24 24 324 32 173.8 7.2 231.2 9.6 1.33 32 15 df
M30 30 519 32 219.3 7.3 291.6 9.7
C.2 MINIMUM CONCRETE EDGE
M36 36 759 32 264.7 7.4 352.1 9.8 DISTANCES --
Anchor bolt subject to tension
Table 8 Minimum embedment lengths
for Grade 8.8 bolts (fuf = 830 MPa except [2] provides a design procedure to determine the
fuf = 800 MPa for M12 bolts ) minimum concrete edge distances to avoid lateral
bursting of the concrete as discussed in the literature
Bolt df As f’c Ld Min 1.33 1.33 review of anchor bolts subject to tension. This has been
Type mm mm2 MPa mm ratio Ld Ld/df included in the recommended model. The minimum
Ld/df mm
edge distance is calculated as follows:
M12
M16
12
16
84.3
157
20
20
138.3
192.5
11.5
12.0
183.9
256.1
15.3
16.0 ae = df  f uf
6 f′ c
(188)
M20 20 225 20 240.5 12.0 319.9 16.0
M24 24 324 20 288.7 12.0 384.0 16.0 The required minimum edge distances a e calculated
with equation (188) are tabulated in Tables 11 and 12 for
M30 30 519 20 364.1 12.1 484.2 16.1
different combinations of anchor bolts and concrete
M36 36 759 20 439.5 12.2 584.5 16.2 strengths.
M12 12 84.3 25 130.5 10.9 173.5 14.5
M16 16 157 25 181.7 11.4 241.6 15.1
M20 20 225 25 226.9 11.3 301.8 15.1
M24 24 324 25 272.4 11.4 362.3 15.1
M30 30 519 25 343.5 11.5 456.9 15.2
M36 36 759 25 414.7 11.5 551.5 15.3
M12 12 84.3 32 122.3 10.2 162.7 13.6
M16 16 157 32 170.3 10.6 226.6 14.2
M20 20 225 32 212.8 10.6 283.0 14.2
M24 24 324 32 255.4 10.6 339.7 14.2
M30 30 519 32 322.1 10.7 428.4 14.3
M36 36 759 32 388.8 10.8 517.1 14.4

Observing the results of Tables 7 and 8 the embedment

lengths requirements can be simplified as shown below.

50 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

Table 11 Minimum concrete edge distances for a e = 6 d f when f′ c = 20 and 25 MPa
anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade = 5 d f when f′ c = 32 MPa
250 rods (fuf = 400 MPa) The recommended model requires the minimum edge
subject to tension distance a e to be always at least equal to 100mm as
Bolt df (mm) f’c ae a e / df recommended in [21], [26] and [39]. Minimum edge
type (MPa) (mm) distance recommended in reference [47] is 50mm.
M12 12 20 46.3 3.9 C.3 MINIMUM CONCRETE EDGE
M16 16 20 61.8 3.9 DISTANCES --
M20 20 20 77.2 3.9 Anchor bolt subject to shear
M24 24 20 92.7 3.9 Guidelines on minimum edge distances to be adopted in
M30 30 20 115.8 3.9 the case of bolts in shear are provided in [2], [3], [17],
M36 36 20 139.0 3.9 [26], [39] and [47].
M12 12 25 43.8 3.7 These are all based on the design procedure presented in
M16 16 25 58.4 3.7 [2], [3] and [17] which requires the minimum edge
M20 20 25 73.0 3.7 distance to be calculated as (refer equation (106)):
M24
M30
M36
24
30
36
25
25
25
87.6
109.5
131.5
3.7
3.7
3.7
ae ≥ df  f uf
Ô0.94 f′ c
(189)

M12 12 32 41.2 3.4 where:

M16 16 32 54.9 3.4 Ô = 0.65 according to references [3] and [39]
M20 20 32 68.7 3.4 = 0.85 according to references [17], [26] and [47]
M24 24 32 82.4 3.4 For completeness edge distances calculated with both
M30 30 32 103.0 3.4 values of Ô have been considered and tabulated here. It
M36 36 32 123.6 3.4 is up to designer to decide whether or not to design the
anchor bolts to carry shear and to select a value of Ô.
Table 12 Minimum concrete edge distances
These values of a e are tabulated in tables 13, 14, 15 and
for anchor bolts Grade 8.8 bolts
16 for different combinations of anchor bolts and
(fuf = 830 MPa except fuf = 800 MPa for
concrete strengths and for different values of Ô.
M12 bolts ) subject to tension
Table 13 Minimum concrete edge distances
Bolt df (mm) f’c ae a e / df for anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and
type (MPa) (mm) Grade 250 rods (fuf = 400 MPa)
M12 12 20 65.5 5.5 subject to shear with Ô = 0.65
M16 16 20 89.0 5.6
M20 20 20 111.2 5.6 Bolt df (mm) f’c ae a e / df
M24 24 20 133.5 5.6 type (MPa) (mm)
M30 30 20 166.9 5.6 M12 12 20 145.2 12.1
M36 36 20 200.2 5.6 M16 16 20 193.6 12.1
M12 12 25 62.0 5.2 M20 20 20 242.0 12.1
M16 16 25 84.2 5.3 M24 24 20 290.4 12.1
M20 20 25 105.2 5.3 M30 30 20 363.0 12.1
M24 24 25 126.2 5.3 M36 36 20 435.6 12.1
M30 30 25 157.8 5.3 M12 12 25 137.3 11.4
M36 36 25 189.4 5.3 M16 16 25 183.1 11.4
M12 12 32 58.3 4.9
M20 20 25 228.9 11.4
M16 16 32 79.1 4.9
M24 24 25 274.6 11.4
M20 20 32 98.9 4.9
M30 30 25 343.3 11.4
M24 24 32 118.7 4.9
M36 36 25 411.9 11.4
M30 30 32 148.4 4.9
M12 12 32 129.1 10.8
M36 36 32 178.0 4.9
M16 16 32 172.1 10.8
The values of minimum edge distances required
M20 20 32 215.2 10.8
expressed in terms of d f can be summarised as follows:
M24 24 32 258.2 10.8
for Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
M30 30 32 322.7 10.8
a e = 4 d f when f′ c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
M36 36 32 387.3 10.8
for Grade 8.8 bolts

51 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

Table 14 Minimum concrete edge distances Table 16 Minimum concrete edge distances
for anchor bolts Grade 8.8 bolts for anchor bolts Grade 8.8 bolts
(fuf = 830 MPa except fuf = 800 MPa for (fuf = 830 MPa except fuf = 800 MPa for
M12 bolts) subject to shear with Ô = 0.65 M12 bolts) subject to shear with Ô = 0.85

Bolt df (mm) f’c ae a e / df Bolt df (mm) f’c ae a e / df

type (MPa) (mm) type (MPa) (mm)
M12 12 20 205.3 17.1 M12 12 20 179.6 15.0
M16 16 20 278.9 17.4 M16 16 20 243.9 15.2
M20 20 20 348.6 17.4 M20 20 20 304.8 15.2
M24 24 20 418.3 17.4 M24 24 20 365.8 15.2
M30 30 20 522.9 17.4 M30 30 20 457.2 15.2
M36 36 20 627.4 17.4 M36 36 20 548.7 15.2
M12 12 25 194.2 16.2 M12 12 25 169.8 14.2
M16 16 25 263.7 16.5 M16 16 25 230.6 14.4
M20 20 25 329.7 16.5 M20 20 25 288.3 14.4
M24 24 25 395.6 16.5 M24 24 25 345.9 14.4
M30 30 25 494.5 16.5 M30 30 25 432.4 14.4
M36 36 25 593.4 16.5 M36 36 25 518.9 14.4
M12 12 32 182.6 15.2 M12 12 32 159.6 13.3
M16 16 32 247.9 15.5 M16 16 32 216.8 13.6
M20 20 32 309.9 15.5 M20 20 32 271.0 13.6
M24 24 32 371.9 15.5 M24 24 32 325.2 13.6
M30 30 32 464.9 15.5 M30 30 32 406.5 13.6
M36 36 32 557.9 15.5 M36 36 32 487.8 13.6

Table 15 Minimum concrete edge distances Re--arranging equation (189) the ratios a e∕d f for
for anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and different combinations of concrete and bolt strengths for
Grade 250 rods (fuf = 400 MPa) different values of Ô are obtained as shown below.
subject to shear with Ô = 0.85 Table 17 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 Grade rods

Bolt df (mm) f’c ae a e / df Ô f′ c (MPa) ae

type (MPa) (mm) 0.65 20 13 df
M12 12 20 127.0 10.6
0.65 25 12 df
M16 16 20 169.3 10.6
0.65 32 11 df
M20 20 20 211.6 10.6
0.85 20 11 df
M24 24 20 253.9 10.6
0.85 25 10 df
M30 30 20 317.4 10.6
0.85 32 10 df
M36 36 20 380.9 10.6
M12 12 25 120.1 10.0 Table 18 Grade 8.8 bolts
M16 16 25 160.1 10.0
Ô f′ c (MPa) ae
M20 20 25 200.1 10.0
M24 24 25 240.2 10.0 0.65 20 18 df
M30 30 25 300.2 10.0 0.65 25 17 df
M36 36 25 360.2 10.0 0.65 32 16 df
M12 12 32 112.9 9.4 0.85 20 16 df
M16 16 32 150.5 9.4 0.85 25 15 df
M20 20 32 188.1 9.4 0.85 32 14 df
M24 24 32 225.8 9.4
M30 30 32 282.2 9.4
M36 36 32 338.7 9.4

52 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

13. APPENDIX D -- Design Capacities of 14. APPENDIX E -- Design of Bolts under
Equal Leg Fillet Welds Tension and Shear
Table 19 Category SP, Ô =0.8, kr=1.0 Table 23 Design Capacities Commercial Bolts
4.6/S Bolting Cat. fuf=400MPa, Ô =0.8
Weld size (mm) Design Capacity per unit length
of fillet weld except for RHS/ Bolt Axial Shear (single shear)
SHS with thickness less than 3 Si
Size Tension
T i
mm (kN/mm) Threads Threads
ÔNtf
tw tt E41XX/W40X E48XX/W50X included in excluded from
(kN)
shear plane N shear plane X
2 1.41 0.278 0.326 ÔVfn (kN) ÔVfx (kN)
3 2.12 0.417 0.489
M12 27.0 15.1 22.4
4 2.83 0.557 0.652
M16 50.1 28.6 39.9
5 3.54 0.696 0.815
6 4.24 0.835 0.978 M20 78.3 44.7 62.3
8 5.66 1.11 1.30 M24 113 64.3 89.8
10 7.07 1.39 1.63 M30 179 103 140
12 8.49 1.67 1.96 M36 261 151 202
fuw=410 MPa fuw=480 MPa
4.6N/S 4.6X/S
Table 20 Category SP, Ô =0.7, kr=1.0
Table 24 Design Capacities High Strength
Weld size (mm) Design Capacity per unit length of Structural Bolts
longitudinal fillet weld in RHS/ 8.8/S, 8.8/TB, 8.8/TF Bolting Categorys,
SHS with t < 3mm (kN/mm) Ô =0.8
tw tt E41XX/W40X E48XX/W50X
2 1.41 0.244 0.285 Bolt Min. Axial Shear (single shear)
Si
Size Tensile
T il Tension
T i
3 2.12 0.365 0.428 Threads Threads
Strength ÔNtf
included excluded
4 2.83 0.487 0.570 of Bolt (kN)
in shear from
5 3.54 0.609 0.713 fuf
plane N shear
fuw=410 MPa fuw=480 MPa (MPa)
ÔVfn (kN) plane X
ÔVfx (kN)
Table 21 Category GP, Ô =0.6, kr=1.0
M12 800 53.9 30.3 44.9
Weld size (mm) Design Capacity per unit length M16 830 104 59.3 82.8
of fillet weld (kN/mm)
M20 830 163 92.7 129
tw tt E41XX/W40X E48XX/W50X
2 1.41 0.209 0.244 M24 830 234 133 186
3 2.12 0.313 0.367 M30 830 372 214 291
4 2.83 0.417 0.489 8.8N/S 8.8X/S
5 3.54 0.522 0.611
6 4.24 0.626 0.733
8 5.66 0.835 0.978
10 7.07 1.04 1.22
12 8.49 1.25 1.47
fuw=410 MPa fuw=480 MPa

Table 22 Minimum Fillet Weld Sizes

Thickness of thickest Minimum size of a fillet

part t (mm) weld tw (mm)
t≤7 3
7 < t ≤ 10 4
10 < t ≤ 15 5
15 < t 6

53 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 This page left blank for your notes

54 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

 ASI Members -- The best in Steel Fabrication

New South Wales and ACT National Engineering Pty Ltd Central Engineering Pty Ltd
Almar Industries Pty Ltd PO Box 437 Young 2594 02 6382 1499 19 Traders Way Currumbin 4223 07 5534 3155
9 Cheney Place Mitchell ACT 2911 02 6241 3391 Piper & Harvey Steel Fabrications D A Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
Baxter Engineering Pty Ltd PO Box 821 Wagga Wagga 2650 02 6922 7527 7 Hilldon Court Nerang 4211 07 5596 2222
PO Box 643 Fyshwick ACT 2609 02 6280 5688 Ripa Steel Fabrication Pty Ltd Darra Welding Works Pty Ltd
Ace High Engineering Pty Ltd 4 Warren Place Silverdale 2752 02 4774 0011 PO Box 47 Richlands 4077 07 3375 5841
67 Melbourne Rd Riverstone 2765 02 9627 2500 Riton Engineering Pty Ltd Factory Fabricators Pty Ltd
Algon Steel P/L 101 Gavenlock Road, 63 Factory Road Oxley 4075 07 3379 8811
9 Arunga Drive Beresfield 2322 02 4966 8224 Tuggerah 2259 02 4353 1688
Fritz Steel (Qld) Pty Ltd
Align Constructions & Engineering Pty Ltd Romac Engineering PO Box 12 Richlands 4077 07 3375 6366
PO Box 747 Moss Vale 2577 02 4869 1594 PO Box 670 Armidale 2350 02 6772 3407
J K Morrow Sales
Allmen Engineering Saunders International Pty Ltd PO Box 59 Earlville 4870 07 4035 1599
35--37 Anne St St Marys 2760 02 9673 0051 PO Box 281 Condell Park 2200 02 9792 2444
M C Engineering
Antax Steel Constructions P/L Steeline Fabrications PO Box 381 Burpengary 4505 07 3888 2144
93 Bellambi Lane Bellambi 2518 02 4285 2644 PO Box 296 Woy Woy 2256 02 4341 9571
Milfab
B & G Welding Pty Ltd Tenze Engineering PO Box 3056 Clontarf 4019 07 3203 3311
12 Bessemer St Blacktown 2148 02 9621 3189 PO Box 426 Greenacre 2190 02 9758 2677
Morton Steel Pty Ltd
Beltor Engineering Pty Ltd Tri--Fab Engineering Pty Ltd 47 Barku Court Hemmant 4174 07 3396 5322
PO Box 4187 Edgeworth 2285 02 4953 2444 Lot 1 Ti--Tree Street,
Noosa Engineering & Crane Hire
Wilberforce 2756 02 4575 1056
Bosmac Pty Ltd PO Box 356 Tewantin 4565 07 5449 7477
64--68 Station Street Parkes 2870 02 6862 3699 UEA Industrial Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 6163 Queanbeyan 2620 02 6299 3238 Oz--Cover Pty Ltd
Boweld Constructions Pty Ltd 35 Centenary Place,
PO Box 52 Bomaderry 2541 02 4421 6781 Universal Steel Construction Logan Village 4207 07 5546 8922
52--54 Newton Road,
Charles Heath Industries Pacific Coast Engineering Pty Ltd
Wetherill Park 2164 02 9756 2555
18 Britton Street Smithfield 2164 02 9609 6000 PO Box 7284 Garbutt 4814 07 4774 8477
Combell P/L Walpett Engineering Pty Ltd
52 Hincksman Street, Podevin Engineering Co P/L
PO Box 5038 Prestons 2170 02 9607 3822 PO Box 171 Archerfield 4108 07 3277 1388
Queanbeyan 2620 02 6297 1277
Coolamon Steelworks Queensbury Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 102 Coolamon 2701 02 6927 3296 Weldcraft Engineering ACT Pty Ltd
79 Thuralilly Street, 3 Queensbury Avenue,
Cooma Steel Co. Pty Ltd Queanbeyan 2620 02 6297 1453 Currumbin Waters 4223 07 5534 7455
PO Box 124 Cooma 2630 02 6452 1934 Rimco Building Systems Pty Ltd
Z Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd
Cosme--Australia Stainless Steel Fab Pty Ltd PO Box 7274 Lismore Heights 2480 02 6625 1717 20 Demand Avenue Arundel 4214 07 5594 7322
19 Lasscock Road Griffith 2680 02 6964 1155 Spaceframe Buildings Pty Ltd
Davebilt Industries Northern Territory 360 Lytton Road Morningside 4170 07 3370 6500
116 Showground Rd N Gosford 2250 02 4325 7381 M&J Welding And Engineering Stewart & Sons Steel
GPO Box 2638 Darwin 0801 08 8932 2641 11 Production St Bundaberg 4670 07 4152 6311
Designed Building Systems
144 Sackville Street Fairfield 2165 02 9727 0566 Trans Aust Constructions P/L Sun Engineering Pty Ltd
Edcon Steel Pty Ltd PO Box 39472 Winnellie 0821 08 8984 4511 113 Cobalt St Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2988
52 Orchard Rd Brookvale 2100 02 9905 6622 Queensland Taringa Steel P/L
Flame--Cut Pty Ltd AG Rigging & Steel Pty Ltd 17 Jijaws St Sumner Park 4074 07 3279 4233
PO Box 6367 Wetherill Park 2164 02 9609 3677 PO Box 9154 Wilsonton, Thomas Steel Fabrication
Gale Bros Engineering Pty Ltd Toowoomba 4350 07 4633 0244 PO Box 147 Aitkenvale,
PO Box 6013 South Penrith 2750 02 4732 1133 Alltype Welding Townsville 4814 07 4775 1266
Jeskah Steel Products PO Box 1418 Beenleigh 4207 07 3807 1820 W D T Engineers Pty Ltd
23 Arizona Rd Charmhaven 2263 02 4392 7022 Apex Fabrication & Construction PO Box 115 Acacia Ridge 4110 07 3345 4000
Kermac Welding & Engineering 164--168 Cobalt Street, Walz Construction Company Pty Ltd
Cemetery Street Goulburn 2580 02 4821 3877 Carole Park 4300 07 3271 4467 PO Box 1713 Gladstone 4680 07 4972 4799
Leewood Welding Austin Engineering P/L
PO Box 1767 Orange 2800 02 6362 8797 173 Cobalt Street, South Australia
Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2622 Advanced Steel Fabrications
Lifese Engineering Pty Ltd 61--63 Kapara Rd Gillman 5013 08 8447 7100
5 Junction Street Auburn 2144 02 9748 0444 Beenleigh Steel Fabrications P/L
41 Magnesium Drive, Ahrens Engineering Pty Ltd
Mario & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd
Crestmead 4132 07 3803 6033 PO Box 2 Sheaoak Log 5371 08 8524 9045
189--193 Newton Road,
Wetherill Park 2164 02 9756 3400 Belconnen Steel Pty Ltd Bowhill Engineering
11 Malton Street The Gap 4061 07 3300 2444 Lot 100, Weber Road Bowhill 5238 08 8570 4208
Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 477 Wyong 2259 02 4351 1877 Brisbane Steel Fabrication Magill Welding Service Pty Ltd
Morson Engineering Pty Ltd PO Box 7087 Hemmant 4174 07 3893 4233 33 Maxwell Road Pooraka 5095 08 8349 4933
PO Box 244 Wyong 2259 02 4352 2188 Cairns Steel Fabricators P/L Manuele Engineers Pty Ltd
National Engineering Pty Ltd PO Box 207b Bungalow 4870 07 4035 1506 PO Box 209 Melrose Park 5039 08 8374 1680
72--74 Bayldon Road, Casa Engineering (Qld) Pty Ltd RC & Ml Johnson Pty Ltd
Queanbeyan 2620 02 6299 1844 PO Box Ge 80 Garbutt East 4814 07 4774 4666 671 Magill Road Magill 5072 08 8333 0188
 ASI Members -- The best in Steel Fabrication

Tasmania GVP Fabrications Pty Ltd Devaugh Pty Ltd

Dowling Constructions Pty Ltd 25--35 Japaddy Street, 12 Hale St Bunbury 6230 08 9721 3433
46 Formby Road Devonport 7310 03 6423 1099 Mordialloc 3195 03 9587 2172 Fremantle Steel Fabrication Co
Monks Harper Fabrications P/L PO Box 3005 Jandakot 6964 08 9417 9111
Haywards Steel Fabrication & Construction
25 Tatterson Road, Highline Building Constructions
PO Box 47 Kings Meadows 7249 03 6391 8508
Dandenong South 3164 03 9794 0888 9 Felspar Street Welshpool 6106 08 9451 5366
Victoria Preston Structural Steel
H’var Steel Services Pty Ltd
140--146 Barry Road,
Alfasi Steel Constructions 56 Cooper Rd Jandakot 6164 08 9414 9422
Campbellfield 3061 03 9357 0011
12--16 Fowler Road, Italsteel W.A.
Dandenong 3175 03 9794 9207 Riband Steel (Wangaratta) Pty Ltd
PO Box 206 Bentley 6102 08 9356 1566
69--81 Garden Road Clayton 3168 03 9547 9144
AMS Fabrications Pty Ltd JV Engineering (WA) Pty Ltd
18 Healey Road Dandenong 3175 03 9706 5988 Rosebud Engineering
13 Henry Wilson Drive, 159 Mcdowell Street Kewdale 6105 08 9353 3377
Bahcon Steel Pty Ltd Rosebud 3939 03 5986 6666 Leblanc Comm\ Aust P/L
PO Box 950 Morwell 3840 03 5134 2877 PO Box 40 Belmont 6984 08 9277 8866
Stanley Welding
Downer PTR 23 Attenborough Street, Pacific Industrial Company
195 Wellington Rd Clayton 3168 03 9560 9944 Dandenong 3175 03 9555 5611 PO Box 263 Kwinana 6966 08 9410 2566
F & B Skrobar Engineering Pty Ltd Stilcon Holdings Pty Ltd Park Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 1578 Moorabbin 3189 03 9555 4556 PO Box 263 Altona North 3025 03 9314 1611 PO Box 130 Bentley 6102 08 9458 1437
Fairbairn Steel Pty Ltd Vale Engineering Co Pty Ltd Scenna Constructions
PO Box 2057 Seaford 3198 03 9786 2866 170 Gaffney Street Coburg 3058 03 9350 5655 43 Spencer Street Jandakot 6164 08 9417 4447
G F C Industries Pty Ltd Western Australia United KG
42 Glenbarry Road, C Bellotti & Co PO Box 219 Kwinana 6167 08 9499 0499
Campbellfield 3061 03 9357 9900 PO Box 1284 Bibra Lake 6965 08 9434 1442 Uniweld Structural Co Pty Ltd
Geelong Fabrications Pty Ltd Cays Engineering 61A Coast Road Beechboro 6063 08 9377 6666
5/19 Madden Avenue, Lot 21 Thornborough Road, Wenco Pty Ltd
North Shore Geelong 3214 03 5275 7255 Mandurah 6210 08 9581 6611 1 Ladner Street Oconnor 6163 08 9337 7600

ASI Manufacturing Members -- The best quality steel

BHP Steel OneSteel Pty Ltd G A M Steel Pty Ltd

BHP Tower, 600 Bourke Street, Level 23, 1 York Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Lynch Road, Brooklyn VIC 3025
Melbourne VIC 3000 (GPO Box 536) 02 9239 6666 (PO Box 159, Altona North 3025) 03 9314 0855
(GPO Box 86A, Melbourne 3001) 03 9609 3756 Midala Steel Pty Ltd
Palmer Tube Mills (Aust) Pty Ltd
Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd 46 Ingram Road, Acacia Ridge QLD 4110 49 Pilbara Street, Welshpool WA 6106
Resolution Drive, Unanderra NSW 2526 (PO Box 246, Sunnybank 4109) 07 3246 2600 (PO Box 228, Welshpool 6986) 08 9458 7911
(PO Box 1246, Unanderra 2526) 02 4272 0444 Southern Steel Group
Smorgon Steel Group Ltd
Commonwealth Steel Company Limited Ground Floor, 650 Lorimer Street, 319 Horsley Road, Milperra NSW 2214
Maud Street, Waratah NSW 2298 Port Melbourne VIC 3207 03 9673 0400 (PO Box 342, Panania 2213) 02 9792 2099
(PO Box 14) 02 4967 0457 Smorgon Steel Distribution
Graham Group Stramit Industries 88 Ricketts Road, Mount Waverley VIC 3149
117--151 Rookwood Road, Yagoona NSW 2199 6--8 Thomas Street, Chatswood NSW 2067 (PO Box 537) 03 9239 1844
(PO Box 57) 02 9709 3777 (PO Box 295, Chatswood 2057) 02 9928 3600
Metalcorp Steel
Industrial Galvanizers Corporation Pty Ltd J Blackwood & Son Steels and Metals Pty Ltd 103 Ingram Road,
20--22 Amax Avenue, Girraween NSW 2145 165--169 Newton Road, Wetherill Park NSW 2164 Acacia Ridge QLD 4110 07 3345 9488
(PO Box 576, Toongabbie 2146) 02 9636 8244 (PO Box 6427) 02 9203 1100
OneSteel Distribution
Martin Bright Steels Coil Steels Group Pty Ltd Cnr Blackwall Point & Parkview Roads,
Cliffords Road, Somerton VIC 3062 16 Harbord Street, Granville NSW 2142 Five Dock NSW 2046
(PO Box 39 MDC) 03 9305 4144 (PO Box 166) 02 9682 1266 (PO Box 55) 02 9713 0350
AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060

Telephone (02) 9929 6666

Website: www.steel.org.au