Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Column base: Open section column

AXIAL FORCE AND BENDING MOMENT AROUND THE MINOR AXIS
Summary
The objective of this study is verification of CBFEM IDEA RS software with component method.

Description of verified connection: open section steel column is anchored with anchor bolts to
concrete pad; the column is loaded by bending moment around minor axis and axial force.

Inputs
Compressed column is designed as maximal 3rd class to avoid stability problems.
The study was performed for parameters: size of the column, dimensions of base plate and thickness
of base plate.

Component method
Four components are examined: column flange and web in compression, concrete in compression
including grout, base plate in bending and welds.
All components are designed according to EN 1993-1-8 [1], EN 1992-1-1 [2] and ETAG 001 – Annex C
[3].
Column flange and web in compression
Component “column flange and web in compression” is designed according to EN 1993-1-8 – 6.2.6.7.

Concrete in compression including grout

Component “concrete in compression including grout” is designed according to EN 1993-1-8 – 6.2.6.9
and EN 1992-1-1 – 6.7.

Two iterations of effective area are used to determine the resistance.

Fillet weld
The weld is closed around a cross-section of the column.

The thickness of the weld on the flanges is the same as the thickness of the weld on the web.

Design of the weld is done according to EN 1993-1-8 – 4.5.3.2(6).

Anchor bolts in tension
Component “Anchor bolts in tension” is designed in the software according to EN 1993-1-8 – 6.2.6.12.

• Tension resistance:
𝑘2 ∙ 𝑓𝑢𝑏 ∙ 𝐴𝑠
𝐹𝑡,𝑅𝑑 =
𝛾𝑀2
• Punching shear resistance:
0.6 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝑑𝑚 ∙ 𝑡𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑢
𝐵𝑝,𝑅𝑑 =
𝛾𝑀2

1
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Steel failure
Eurocodes do not refer sufficiently to concrete resistances in tension loading and interaction of shear
and tension loading. Therefore, the ETAG 001 – Annex C – 5.2.2.2 is used in this study for hand
calculations of steel failure mode for consistency. Software uses the standard Eurocode assessment.

Pull-out failure
Pull-out failure of anchor bolts loaded with tension is designed according to ETAG 001 – Annex C –
5.2.2.3. This failure mode is dependent on anchor type. It is presumed that the resistance will be
provided by manufacturer.

Concrete cone failure

Concrete cone failure of anchor bolts loaded with tension is designed according to ETAG 001 – Annex
C – 5.2.2.4.

Splitting failure
Splitting failure of anchor bolts loaded with tension is designed according to ETAG 001 – Annex C –
5.2.2.5 Splitting failure due to installation and 5.2.2.6 Splitting failure due to loading. This failure mode
is relevant for anchorage to thin concrete columns or beams and is dependent on anchor type.

Partial safety factors in ETAG 001

ETAG 001 – Annex C uses different partial safety factors than Eurocodes. The safety factors are
explained below.

• Partial safety factor for steel failure

1,2
Tension loading: 𝛾𝑀𝑠 = ≥ 1,4
𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝑓𝑢𝑘

1.2
𝛾𝑀𝑠 = = 1.5
0.8
Shear loading:
1,0
𝛾𝑀𝑠 = ≥ 1,25 for 𝑓𝑢𝑘 ≤ 800 MPa and 𝑓𝑦𝑘 /𝑓𝑢𝑘 ≤ 0,8
𝑓𝑦𝑘 /𝑓𝑢𝑘

𝛾𝑀𝑠 = 1.5 for 𝑓𝑢𝑘 > 800 MPa or 𝑓𝑦𝑘 /𝑓𝑢𝑘 > 0,8

• Partial safety factor for concrete failure

𝛾𝑀𝑐 = 𝛾𝑐 ∙ 𝛾2 = 1.5 ∙ 1.2 = 1.8

𝛾𝑐 = 1.5
Tension loading:

𝛾2 = 1.0 for systems with high installation safety

𝛾2 = 1.2 for systems with normal installation safety

𝛾2 = 1.4 for systems with low but still acceptable installation safety
Shear loading: 𝛾2 = 1,0

2
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Results by CBFEM Idea RS software

Combination of the advantages of both finite element method and analytical component method.

Shell elements, special spring and contact elements are calibrated using characteristics according to
the component method.

Elasto-plastic stress-strain diagram is used for material of shell elements. Assessment is based on the
maximum strain given according to EN 1993-1-5 [4] by value of 5%.

Bolts are modelled using special spring elements and assessment is carried out according to standard
procedures described in EN 1993-1-8 [1].

The concrete pad is modelled using Winkler subsoil model. The stiffness is uniform with the value:

 
 
k
Ec
  1
4 
Abp  h 
( 1   )    3 
Aref  2  d 

Ec Young’s modulus of elasticity,

ν Poisson’s ratio,
Abp Area under base plate,
Aref Referential area,
d Base plate width,
h Concrete pad height.
The following values for coefficients were used: Aref =10 m2; α1 =1.65; α2 = 0.5; α3 =0.3; α4 =1.0.

3
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Anchorage example – Steel column HEB 240:

An example of component method design is shown on the anchorage of column steel section HEB 240
with base plate anchored by four anchor bolts M20 8.8 (As = 245 mm2) with effective length
hef = 400 mm to concrete pad from concrete grade C20/25. The base plate dimensions are
b1 = 440 mm, d1 = 330 mm, t = 20 mm. The concrete pad width is b´ = 1000 mm, length d´ = 1110 mm
and depth h = 900 mm. Grout thickness is 30 mm. Anchor bolt spacing are db = 340 mm and
bb = 140 mm.

Results of CBFEM Idea RS software were compared with the results of the component method. The
comparison was made by searching ultimate bending moment for the given level of normal force for
each of the interaction diagram points.

Interaction diagram

Figure 1 Interaction diagram points

Point -1: pure tension

• Tension resistance:
𝑘2 ∙ 𝑓𝑢𝑏 ∙ 𝐴 0.9 ∙ 800 ∙ 245
𝐹𝑡,𝑅𝑑 = 0.85 ∙ = 0.85 ∙ = 119.95 kN
𝛾𝑀2 1.25

4
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

• Punching shear resistance:

0.6 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝑑𝑚 ∙ 𝑡𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑢 0.6 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 32.3 ∙ 20 ∙ 360
𝐵𝑝,𝑅𝑑 = = = 350.69 kN
𝛾𝑀2 1.25
• Steel failure (ETAG 001 – Annex C)
𝑓𝑢𝑘 800
𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 𝐴𝑠 ∙ = 245 ∙ = 130.67 kN
𝛾𝑀𝑠 1.5
• Concrete cone failure (ETAG 001 – Annex C)

Anchor bolts are close to each other, group of anchors have one common concrete cone.

𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 … Spacing for ensuring the transmission of the characteristic tensile resistance (single anchor
without spacing and edge effects in case of concrete cone failure).

𝑐𝑐𝑟,𝑁 … Edge distance for ensuring the transmission of the characteristic tensile resistance (single
anchor without spacing and edge effects in case of concrete cone failure). (Figure 2)

𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 = 2 · 𝑐𝑐𝑟,𝑁 = 3 · ℎ𝑒𝑓 = 3 · 400 = 1200 mm

𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥 = max(385; 420) = 420 mm

𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 = max(340; 160) = 340 mm
𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥 420
∙ ℎ𝑒𝑓 = ∙ 400 = 280.0 mm
′ 𝑐𝑐𝑟,𝑁 600
ℎ𝑒𝑓 = max = 280 mm
𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 340
∙ ℎ𝑒𝑓 = ∙ 400 = 113.3 mm
{ 𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 1200 }
′
′
ℎ𝑒𝑓 280
𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 = ∙ 𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 = ∙ 1200 = 840 mm
ℎ𝑒𝑓 400 Figure 2: Edge distances description

′ ′
𝑐𝑐𝑟,𝑁 = 0.5 ∙ 𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 = 0.5 ∙ 840 = 420 mm

The initial value of the characteristic resistance of an anchor placed in cracked concrete:
0 ′ 1.5
𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑐 = 𝑘1 ∙ √𝑓𝑐𝑘,𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 ∙ ℎ𝑒𝑓 = 7.2 ∙ √25 ∙ 2801.5 = 168.67 kN

Actual area of concrete cone of the anchorage at the concrete surface (4 anchors):

𝐴𝑐,𝑁 = (1000) ∙ (1110) = 1 110 000 mm2

Area of concrete of an individual anchor (large spacing and edge distance) at the concrete surface:
2 ′ 2
𝐴0𝑐,𝑁 = 𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁
′
= (3 · ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) = (3 · 280)2 = 705 600 mm2

Disturbance of the distribution of stresses in the concrete due to edges of the concrete member:
𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 385
𝛹𝑠,𝑁 = 0.7 + 0.3 ∙ ′ = 0.7 + 0.3 ∙ = 0.975 ≤ 1
𝑐𝑐𝑟,𝑁 420

Effect of a reinforcement:
ℎ𝑒𝑓
𝛹𝑟𝑒,𝑁 = 0.5 + = 1.734 > 1 → 𝛹𝑟𝑒,𝑁 = 1
200

5
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Group effect when different tension loads are acting on the individual anchors of a group:
1 1
𝛹𝑒𝑐,𝑁 = 𝑒𝑁 = =1≤1
1+2∙ ′ 0
𝑠𝑐𝑟,𝑁 1 + 2 ∙ 740
Characteristic resistance of anchors (group of 4) in case of concrete cone failure:

0
𝐴𝑐,𝑁 1 110 000
𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑐 = 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑐 ∙ 0 ∙ 𝛹𝑠,𝑁 ∙ 𝛹𝑟𝑒,𝑁 ∙ 𝛹𝑒𝑐,𝑁 = 168.67 ∙ 705 600 ∙ 0.975 ∙ 1 ∙ 1 = 258.71 kN
𝐴𝑐,𝑁
𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑐 258.71
𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = = = 143.73 kN
𝛾𝑀2 1.8

𝐹4𝑇,𝑅𝑑 = min{2 · 𝐹𝑡,𝑅𝑑 ; 2 · 𝐵𝑝,𝑅𝑑 ; 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠 ; 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑐 } = min{239.9; 779.32; 261.33; 143.73} = 143.73 kN
𝑟𝑏 = 170 mm
𝑵+
𝑹𝒅,−𝟏 = 𝟏𝟒𝟑. 𝟕𝟑 𝐤𝐍

Point 4: pure compression

Partially loaded areas (EN 1992-1-1 – 6.7)

Figure 3: Partially loaded areas

1st iteration:

𝑏1 = 330 mm
𝑑1 = 440 mm
𝑏𝑟 = min(𝑥1 ; 𝑥2 ) = min(335; 335) = 335 mm
𝑑𝑟 = min(𝑦1 ; 𝑦2 ) = min(380; 680) = 380 mm
𝑏1 + 2 ∙ 𝑏𝑟 = 330 + 2 ∙ 335 = 1000 mm
𝑏2 = min { 3 ∙ 𝑏1 = 3 ∙ 330 = 990 mm } = 990 mm
𝑏1 + ℎ = 330 + 900 = 1230 mm
𝑑1 + 2 ∙ 𝑑𝑟 = 440 + 2 ∙ 335 = 1110 mm
𝑑2 = min { 3 ∙ 𝑑1 = 3 ∙ 440 = 1320 mm } = 1110 mm
𝑑1 + ℎ = 440 + 900 = 1340 mm

6
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

𝑏2 ∙ 𝑑2 990 ∙ 1110
𝑘𝑗 = √ =√ = 2.75
𝑏1 ∙ 𝑑1 330 ∙ 440

𝛽𝑗 ∙ 𝑘𝑗 ∙ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 1 ∙ 2.75 ∙ 20
𝑓𝑗𝑑 = = = 36.68 MPa
𝛾𝑐 1,5
𝑓𝑦 235
𝑐 =𝑡∙√ = 20 ∙ √ = 29.2 mm
3∙𝑓𝑗𝑑 ∙𝛾𝑀0 3∙38.14∙1,0

𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑏 + 2 ∙ 𝑐 = 240 + 2 ∙ 29.2 = 298.4mm

𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑡𝑓 + 2 ∙ 𝑐 = 17 + 2 ∙ 29.2 = 75.4 mm

𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑤 = 𝑡𝑤 + 2 ∙ 𝑐 = 10 + 2 ∙ 29.2 = 68.4 mm

𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 55 095 mm2

2nd iteration:

𝑏1 = 𝑑1 = 298.4 mm
𝑏𝑟 = 𝑏´ − 2 ∙ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 1000 − 2 ∙ 298.4 = 403.2 mm

𝑑𝑟 = 𝑑´ − 2 ∙ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 1110 − 2 ∙ 298.4 = 513.2 mm

𝑏1 + 2 ∙ 𝑏𝑟 = 298.4 + 2 ∙ 350.8 = 1000 mm
𝑏2 = min { 3 ∙ 𝑏1 = 3 ∙ 298.4 = 895.2 mm } = 895.2 mm
𝑏1 + ℎ = 298.4 + 900 = 1198.4 mm
𝑑1 + 2 ∙ 𝑑𝑟 = 298.4 + 2 ∙ 405.8 = 1110 mm
𝑑2 = min { 3 ∙ 𝑑1 = 3 ∙ 298.4 = 895.2 mm } = 895.2 mm
𝑑1 + ℎ = 298.4 + 900 = 1198.4 mm

𝐴𝑐1 𝑏2 ∙ 𝑑2 895.2 ∙ 895.2

𝑘𝑗 = √ =√ =√ =3
𝐴𝑐0 𝑏1 ∙ 𝑑1 298.4 ∙ 298.4

𝛽𝑗 ∙ 𝑘𝑗 ∙ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 1 ∙ 3 ∙ 20
𝑓𝑗𝑑 = = = 40 MPa
𝛾𝑐 1.5

𝑓𝑦 235
𝑐 =𝑡∙√ = 20 ∙ √ = 28.0 mm
3 ∙ 𝑓𝑗𝑑 ∙ 𝛾𝑀0 3 ∙ 40 ∙ 1,0

𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑏 + 2 ∙ 𝑐 = 240 + 2 ∙ 28.0 = 296 mm

𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑓 = 𝑡𝑓 + 2 ∙ 𝑐 = 17 + 2 ∙ 28.0 = 73 mm

𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑤 = 𝑡𝑤 + 2 ∙ 𝑐 = 10 + 2 ∙ 28.0 = 66 mm

𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 53 116 mm2

𝑵−
𝑹𝒅,𝟒 = 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓,4 ∙ 𝑓𝑗𝑑 = 53116 ∙ 40 = 𝟐𝟏𝟐𝟒. 𝟔 𝐤𝐍

7
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

CBFEM model (HEB 240)

Figure 4: Solid model in CBFEM with dimensions

Detailed description of calculation of points 0, 1, 2 and 3 can be found in [5]. Only the results of
analytical solution and CBFEM are presented and compared in this chapter.

8
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Point -1: pure tension

Figure 5: Stress in concrete and forces in anchors for point -1 obtained by CBFEM.

Point 0: bending only

Figure 6: Stress distribution in concrete, effective area (hatched) and forces in anchors for point 0 obtained by CBFEM.

9
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Point 1: neutral axis at the edge

Figure 7: Stress distribution in concrete, effective area (hatched) and forces in anchors for point 1 obtained by CBFEM.

Point 2: neutral axis in the centre

Figure 8: Stress distribution in concrete, effective area (hatched) and forces in anchors for point 2 obtained by CBFEM.

10
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Point 3: neutral axis at the inner edge

Figure 9: Stress distribution in concrete, effective area (hatched) and forces in anchors for point 3 obtained by CBFEM.

Point 4: pure compression

Figure 10: Stress in concrete and forces in anchors for point 4 obtained by CBFEM (deform. scale 25); hatched effective
area used for design.

11
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Interaction diagram comparison

Table 1: Data for interaction diagram obtained by analytical solution and by CBFEM for HEB 240.

HEB Component Method CBFEM

240 Axial force [kN] Bending moment [kNm] Axial force [kN] Bending moment [kNm]

point −1 173,4 0,0 119,0 0,0

point 0 0,0 38,2 0,0 23,0
point 1 -626,9 86,3 -626,9 69,0
point 2 -1062,4 92,8 -1062,4 92,0
point 3 -1498,0 86,3 -1498,0 82,0
point 4 -2413,7 0,0 -2229,0 0,0

100.0
HEB 240
90.0
IdeaCon HEB 240
80.0

Bending moment [kNm]

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000
Axial force [kN]

Figure 11 Interaction diagram obtained by CBFEM compared to interaction diagram calculated according to EN 1992-1-1,
EN 1993-1-8 and ETAG 001 – Annex C.

12
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

Sensitivity study
The study was performed for parameters: size of the column, thickness of the base plate and grade of
concrete. The selected columns were HEB 200, HEB 300 and HEB 400; the base plate thickness was
15 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm; the concrete used for pad was C16/20, C25/30 and C35/45. The concrete
pad height was for all cases 900 mm and width and length was 300 mm larger than the dimensions of
the base plate. The parameters are summarized in tab. 2. Welds were the same around the whole
column section with sufficient throat thickness in order not to be the critical component. One
parameter was changed while the others were held constant at the middle value.
Table 2: Selected parameters for sensitivity study.

column section HEB 200 HEB 300 HEB 400

base plate thickness 15 mm 20 mm 25 mm
concrete grade C16/20 C25/30 C35/45

180.0 HEB 400

IdeaCon HEB 400
160.0 HEB 300
IdeaCon HEB 300
140.0
Bending moment [kNm]

HEB 200
IdeaCon HEB 200
120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 -4000
Axial force [kN]

Figure 12: Column section size variation.

13
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

base plate thickness 25

180.0
IdeaCon base plate th. 25 mm
160.0 base plate thickness 20

140.0 IdeaCon base plate th. 20 mm

Bending moment [kNm]

base plate thickness 15

120.0
IdeaCon base plate th. 15 mm
100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 -4000
Axial force [kN]

Figure 13: Base plate thickness variation.

C35/45
160.0
IdeaCon C35/45
140.0 C25/30
IdeaCon C25/30
120.0
Bending moment [kNm]

C16/20

100.0 IdeaCon C16/20

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 -4000
Axial force [kN]

Figure 14: Concrete grade variation.

14
Brno University of Technology Column base: Open section column

References
[1] ČSN EN 1993-1-8. Eurokód 3: Navrhování ocelových konstrukcí – Část 1-8: Navrhování styčníků.
ed. 2. Praha: ČNI, 2013.
[2] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings.
[3] ETAG 001: Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete –
Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages. Brussels: EOTA, 2010.
[4] ČSN EN 1993-1-5. Eurokód 3: Navrhování ocelových konstrukcí – Část 1-5: Boulení stěn.
Praha: ČNI, 2006.
[5] Wald F. Column Base, ČVUT, Praha 1995, s. 137, ISBN 80-01-01337-5

15