RESISTANCE AND STIFFNESS MODEL

OF COLUMN BASES
BY COMPONENT METHOD

Frantiek Wald
Doc., Ing., CSc.
Czech Technical University in Prague, CZ - 166 29 Praha, Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

The column bases are one of last studied structural element in European scale.
Compare to beam to column connection the number of available tests is limited, to about
200 with different complexity of data description. In national rules the elastic prediction
models was replaced by inelastic and the model of concrete foundation in crushing of
concrete under the flexible plate was precised [1]. The traditional elastic models of
column bases gave a save conservative solution with rather thick base plate and complex
anchoring. Several types of structures show high sensitivity on redistribution of internal
forces due to the bending stiffness of column bases.

base plate in bending concrete block column flange and component in shear
and bolts in tension in compression web in compression

Fig. 1 Column base with base plates and its main components

The structural design supported by software is nowadays less structuralised into

overall structural design, structural analysis, code-check and detailing. The engineering
analytical prediction models are precised to be able to describe behaviour in more
complex way. For connection the component method allows very precise description of
full behaviour including semirigidity - stiffness, resistance and rotational capacity. The
support by experiments and FE simulation of behaviour is used for special cases of

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

1
design and for research verification and sensitivity studies but is and will be limited by
high need of imputes into model.
The contribution is based on the latest European developments in column base
modelling prepared under umbrella of COST C1 project [4].
The resistance calculation of a connection is provided in Annex L of
Eurocode 3 [1]. Rules for tension part refer to the concept of the revised Annex J of
Eurocode 3 dealing with beam-to-column joints and beam splices. The component and
assembly calculation procedure for the column bases, which have their own peculiarities,
is described below.
The characterisation of the components in terms of stiffness, resistance and
ductility is a first important step. Fig. 1 presents the list of components to be considered
for column bases with base plates. Four components are identified: base plate in bending
and bolts in tension, concrete block in compression, column plate and web in
compression [2], and component in shear [4]. The assembly of the components follows
this step, which gives the distribution of the internal forces between the components and
the derivation of the design resistance and the rotational properties of the whole column
base.

1 BASE PLATE IN BENDING AND BOLTS IN TENSION

Model

To evaluate the resistance and stiffness properties of the base plate in bending
and bolts in tension, reference is made to the T-stub idealisation, see Fig. 2 [2]. The T-
stub behaviour is characterised in [2] by a design resistance FRd and an initial stiffness
E k where k is stiffness coefficient, see Fig. 3.

web F F
e m Ek
FRd
F
t
?
eff

plate ?
Fig. 2 The T-stub on a rigid foundation Fig. 3 Mechanical properties of the T-
(one bolt-row) Stub

Design resistance

In Eurocode 3 Revised Annex J [2], the design resistance of a T-stub plate of

effective length eff is derived for each of the three identified failure modes:
? ? In Mode 1, a the plastic mechanism develops in the T-stub plate before the strength of
the anchor bolts is exhausted

4 m pl .Rd
FRd .1 ?
eff
. (1)
m

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

2
? ? Mode 2 is a mixed failure involving yield lines in the plate but not a full plastic
mechanism and exhaustion of the anchor bolt strength, see Fig. 4c,

2 m pl .Rd ? n? Bt .Rd
FRd .2 ?
eff
. (2)
m? n

? ? In Mode 3, the failure occurs by fracture of the anchor bolts without prying forces, as
a result of a large plate stiffness, see Fig. 4a,

FRd .3 ? ? Bt .Rd . (3)

In these expressions, mpl.Rd =0,25 t2 fy / ? M0 is the plastic moment of the T-stub plate per
unit length, t the plate thickness, fy yield stress of the plate, ? M0 the partial safety factor
and m and e are geometrical characteristics defined in Fig. 4. ? Bt.Rd is the sum of the
design resistance Bt.Rd of the anchor bolts connecting the T-stub to the foundation. n
designates the place where the prying force Q is assumed to be applied, as shown in Fig.
4 (n = e but its value is limited to 1,25 m). eff is taken as the smallest value of the
effective lengths corresponding to all possible yield-line mechanisms in the specific T-
stub plate being considered; it is given in [2].

n m

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

FRd.1 FRd.2 FRd.3
Bt.Rd B t.Rd
B B Bt.Rd Bt.Rd

Q Q Q Q

Fig. 4 Failure modes of a T-stub

It is recommended to use ductile anchor bolts for column bases in steel structures. The
ductile anchor bolts have to be sufficiently embedded into the concrete so as to ensure
that their failure occurs by excess of tension stress in the net section. Cast-in-place
anchors, undercut anchors, adhesive anchors, grouted anchors and some expansion
anchors can be ductile anchor bolts if they are sufficiently anchored. The required
verification for a single anchor bolt is steel failure, pull out failure, concrete cone failure,
and splitting failure of the concrete. Similar verifications are provided for groups of
anchor [3].
The design strength FRd of the T-stub is derived as the smallest value from
expression (1) to (3)

FRd ? min ( FRd .1 , FRd .2 , FRd .3 ) . (4)

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

3
 Expressions for Mode 1 and Mode 2 failures apply as long as the elongation of
the anchor bolts in tension does not exceed the deformation of the T-stub plate in
bending.
If this is not the case, Modes 1 and 2 do not occur and a so-called Mode 1* has then to
be considered, see Fig. 7 [4], in which a specific yield lines mechanism develops in the T-
stub plate without any contact with the foundation.

F* F
Rd.1
? b =? p n
m n
? ?b
p

B B Q=0 Q=0
Fig. 5 Mode 1* failure Fig. 6 The T-stub deformation
when prying force Q vanishes

2 m pl .Rd
FRd? .1 ?
eff
(5)
m

Table 1 indicates how to select the values of eff for two classical base plate
configurations, in cases where prying forces develop and do not develop.

e w e

ex
a
mx ac m
b bc
e m m
m
bp eb ea
a) b) c)

Fig. 7 Effective length of a T stub eff for base plate with bolts inside plates a), with for
bolts outside the plates b), and

Tab. 1 Effective length of a T stub eff

for base plate with four bolts inside plates, see Fig. 7a)
Prying case No prying case

1 ? 2 ? m ? ?4 m ? 1,25 e ? 1 ? 2 ? m ? ?4 m ? 1,25 e ?
2 ? 2? m 2 ? 4? m

eff . 1 ? min ? 1 ; 2 ? eff . 1 ? min ? 1 ; 2 ?

eff .2 ? 1 eff . 2 ? 1

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

4
 Tab. 2 Effective length of a T stub eff

for base plate with two bolts outside plates, see Fig. 7b)
Prying case No prying case
1 = 4 mx +1,25 ex 1 = 4 mx +1,25 ex

2 = 2 ? mx 2 = 4? mx

3 = 0,5 bp 3 = 0,5 bp

4 = 0,5 w + 2 mx + 0,625 ex 4 = 0,5 w + 2 mx + 0,625 ex

5 = e + 2 mx + 0,625 ex 5 = e + 2 mx + 0,625 ex

6 = ? mx ? 2 e 6 = 2 ? mx ? 4 e

7 = ? mx ? p 7 = 2 ( ? mx ? p )

eff .1 ? min ? 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ? eff .1 ? min ? 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ?

eff . 2 ? min ? 1 ; 3; 4 ; 5 ? eff . 2 ? min ? 1 ; 3; 4 ; 5 ?

Tab. 3 Effective length of a T stub eff

of the base plate of the RHC , see Fig. 7c), the case without prying
eff .1 ? ? m ?a ? a c ?2 ? ?b ? bc ? 2 ? ea eb ?
? b/ 4 ? ? ? ?
eff .3 ?e ?
8 ? b ea ?
eff .2

? min ( eff .1 ; eff .2 ; eff .3 ; )

eff eff .4
eff .4 ? a/4

Boundary for prying effects

The elastic deformed shape of a T-stub in tension depends on the relative deformability
of the plate in bending and the anchor bolts in tension [4]. In Fig. 6, the bolt and plate
deformations compensate such that the contact force Q just vanishes. For a higher bolt
deformability, no contact will develop, while contact forces will appear for a lower bolt
deformability. The situation illustrated in Fig. 6 therefore constitutes a limit case to
which a prying boundary may be associated. These boundary expressed for anchor bolt
free length [4] and n = 1,25 m are

8 ,82 m3 As
Lb .boundary ? . (6)
Leff t 3

The anchor bolt effective free length Lb consist of physical free length Lbf and embedded
free length in case of embedded anchor bolts Lb = Lbf + Lbe, see Fig. 8. The embedded
free length can be for typical structural bolts predicted as Lbe ? 8 d, see [4]. The anchor
bolt area can be taken as net area As for simplicity.

L bf L
b
L be

Fig. 8 The anchor bolt effective free length

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

5
Stiffness

The stiffness coefficient for the T-stub plate in bending and for the anchor bolts in
tension can be written [2] as:

0 ,85 Leff t 3 As
kp ? 3 and kb ? 1,6 , (7a and 7b)
m Lb

where Lb is the anchor bolt length described hereunder. These two expressions relate to
situations where prying forces develop at the extremities of the T-stub plate as a result of
a limited bolt-axial deformation in comparison with the bending deformation of the plate.
In no prying cases, it is shown in [4] that

0 ,425 Leff t 3 As
kp ? 3 and k b ? 2 ,0 . (8a and 8b)
m Lb

2 CONCRETE BLOCK IN COMPRESSION

Resistance

The resistance of the grout and the concrete block in compression is limited by the
crushing of the grout or concrete under the flexible base plate [7]. In engineering
models, the flexible base plate is transferred to an equivalent rigid plate round the column
cross section, see Fig. 9. The calculation of the bearing resistance Fc.Rd under the base
plate is based on the evaluation of the concentration factor kj, see Annex L [1], and the
concrete bearing resistance fj,

a1 b1
kj = ; (9a)
a b

? k j f ck
fj = ; (9b)
?c

fy
c= t ; (10)
3 fj ? M0

Fc.Rd ? Aeff f j (11)

In these formulas is fck the characteristic value of the concrete compressive cylinder
strength, ? c the partial safety factor for concrete and ? M0 the partial safety factor for
steel. The effective area Aeff round the part of the column cross section, which is in
compression is described in Fig. 9.

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

6
 pure normal force c
?a? 2ar ? effective area
??5 a ?? c round the column
a1 ? min ? ? , a1 ? a, c cc Aeff
?a? h ?
t ??5b1 ??
heq c c c
h
?b? 2br? normal force and effective area
??5b ?? round the
maximal bending
b1 ? min ? ? , b1 ? ,b moment compressed part
? b? h ? of the column
a1 neutral axis
??5 a1 ?? A eff
a ar

pure bending effective area

moment round the
Aeff compressed part
b of the column
neutral axis beff
br aeff

Fig. 9 The local deformation of the concrete block, the effective area under the flexible
plate

The grout quality and thickness is introduced by the joint coefficient ? [1]. For
? j = 2/3, it is expected that the grout characteristic strength fc.g is not less than 0,2 times
the characteristic strength of the concrete foundation fc ( fc.g ? 0,2 ) and the thickness of
the grout is tg ? 0,2 min (a ; b), see [1]. In cases of a different grout quality or higher
thickness of the grout tg ? 0,2 min (a ; b), it is necessary to check the grout separately.
In this case the three-dimensional conditions of grout can be treated similar to concrete
block.

Stiffness

In the stiffness model for this component takes the deformations in the connection area
are into account (not the deformations in the supporting structure or subsoil) [4]. The
deformations in the concrete block depend on the flexibility of the base plate, the size of
the concrete block and the stiffness of the concrete and the grout. The depth of the
concrete block to be taken into account (the equivalent height) can be taken as the base
plate width.
Due to the flexibility of the base plate, the bearing stresses under the base plate are
unevenly distributed. In the model, an effective area is defined where an even
distribution of bearing stresses is assumed; also for the initial elastic stage.
The simplified procedure to calculate the stiffness of the component concrete in
compression and base plate in bending can be summarised in Eurocode 3 Annex J form
as
F Ec aeq.el L Ec aeq .el L
kc ? ? ? , (12)
? E 1,5 * 0 ,85 E 1,275 E

where aeq.el the equivalent width of the T-stub, (ac.el = tw + 2,5 t), L the length of the T-
stub, t the base plate thickness, tw the web thickness of the T-stub, the column web or
plate thickness.

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

7
 Active part
of equivalent plate

Equivalent rigid plate

MRd
Centre of compressed part

NSd
Neutral axis

Ft.Rd Fc.Rd

zt zc
z

Fig. 10 The force equilibrium of the column base

3 COMPONENT ASSEMBLY

The equilibrium of internal forces is possible to establish in elastic or in plastic

stage. The force equilibrium can be calculated based on Fig. 10. The forces represent the
resistances of component in tension, Ft.l.Rd and in compression, Fc.l.Rd, Fc.r.Rd. For
eccentricity e = MSd / NSd ? -zc.r the following formula can be derived

M Sd N Sd z c. r
? ? Ft .l (13)
z z
and
M Sd N Sd z t .l
? ? Fc.r . (14)
z z

Since e = MSd / NSd = MRd / NRd, (13) and (14), see Fig. 11a), my be rewritten as

? Ft .l z ?
? z ?
? c.r ? 1 ?
? ?
? min ? e
? Fc.r z ?
M Rd . (15)
? ?
? z t .l ? 1 ?
?? e ??

For eccentricity e = MSd / NSd > -zc.r, see Figure 11b, there is no tension force in
anchor bolt but both parts of connection are under compression. In this case, the
equation can be rewritten as

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

8
 ? ? Fc .l z ?
? z ?
? c .r ? 1 ?
?? e ??
M Rd ? min ? ?. (16)
? ? Fc .r z ?
? ?
? z c .l ? 1 ?
?? e ??

MSd MSd

NSd NSd

Ft.l.Rd Fc.r.Rd Fc.l.Rd Fc.r.Rd

z t.l z c.r z c.l z c.r

z z

a) b)

Fig. 11 The force equilibrium of base plate, with the effective area under the flanges
only and with limited plate outstand a) two rows of anchor bolts in tension; b) no net
tension on base

Bending stiffness

The elastic deformation can be expressed, see Fig. 12

M Sd N Sd z c.r
?
M Sd ? N Sd z c.r
? t .l ? z z ? , (17)
E k t .l E z k t .l

M Sd N Sd z t .l
?
M Sd ? N Sd z t .l
? c.r ? z z ? , (18)
E k c.r E z k c.r

and the column base rotation is

? ?? 1 ? M Sd ? N Sd z c.r M Sd ? N Sd z t .l ?
? ? t .l c.r
? ?? ? ?? . (19)
z E z2 ? k t .l k c.r ?

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

9
 MSd MSd

a) b)
NSd NSd
? ?

? ? c.r
t.l ? c.l ? c.r
z t.l z c.r z c.l z c.r
z z

Fig. 12 The mechanical model of the base plate

The eccentricity e0, at which the rotation is zero, can be evaluated from Eq. (19) as

1 ? N Sd e0 ? N Sd z c.r N Sd e0 ? N Sd z t .l ?
? ? ?? ? ?? ? 0 , (20)
E z2 ? k t .l k c.r ?

with the eccentricity under zero rotation as

z c.r k c.r ? z t .l k t .l
e0 ? . (21)
k c.r ? k t .l

The bending stiffness of a base plate under a constant axial force depends on bending
moment due to the change of eccentricity of the axial force

M Sd
S j.ini ? . (22)
?

The base plate stiffness can be derived based on above formula

M Sd E z2 e E z2
S j ;ini ? ? . (23)
M Sd ? N Sd e0 1 e ? e0 1
? k ? k
The non-linear part of the curve can be modelled using shape factor , which depends on
the moment as well as on the axial force in the connection.

2, 7
? M ?
? ? ?? 1,5 Sd ?? ? 1, (24)
? M Rd ?

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

10
 Force, kN Moment, kNm

200 80
E kb
100 Experiment
Anchor bolt
0 60 W7-4.20-prop
0,5
200 M
N
100 E kp Prediction
40 HE 160 B
Base plate
0
0,5 t = 20
20 h = 500
200 E kc
100
0,5 Concrete
0 0
Deformation, ? , mm Rotation, mrad
0 10

Fig. 13 Comparison of prediction model to W7-4.20-prop Sokol a Wald, 1998[5],

component modelling, final moment rotational curve

The above-described model was compared to set of experiments. The results of

analytical simulation is shown for one example including working diagrams of
experiments, see Fig. 13.

4 PRE-DESIGN OF COLUMN BASE STIFFNESS

For pre-design of bending stiffness of beam to column connection [8] ware

developed a simplified methods based on summary of experiments and prediction
models. The method was extended also for the column bases with base plate [4]. The
estimation of stiffness can be written in form of

E z 2t
S j .ini .app ? , (25)
20

where E is modulus of elasticity of steel an t is the base plate thickness. The lever arm of
internal forces z, is taken according to Fig. 14, as a distance between anchor bolts and
centre of compressed plate.

MSd MSd

z z
Fig. 14 Lever arm of internal forces z for column base stiffness pre-design

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

11
5 COLUMN BASE CLASSIFICATION

According to the structural system, rigid stiffness boundaries for the classification
of column bases may be derived [9]. The derivation of the boundaries is based on a
sensitivity study of the structural system to the variation rotational properties of the
column bases [10]. The bases are assumed to be rigid as long as they actual behaviour in
rotation is not influenced more than 5% in the resistance of the frame at ultimate limit
state and by no more than 10% lateral in the displacements under service loads [11].
The boundaries are shown in Figure 15 for non-sway and sway frames (for the
column stiffness ratio ? pin ? 1,36 ) respectively. They are as follows:

Non-sway frames

Rigid column bases:

if ? pin ? 0,5 Sj.ini ? 0 , (26.a)
if 0,5 < ? pin < 3,93 Sj.ini ? 7 (2 ? pin - 1)E Ic / Lc , (26.b)
if ? pin ? 3,93 Sj.ini ? 48 E Ic / Lc . (26.c)
Semi-rigid column bases:
if ? pin ? 0,5 all joints rigid , (27.a)
if 0,5 < ? pin < 3,93 Sj.ini < 7 (2 ? pin - 1)E Ic / Lc , (27.b)
if ? pin ? 3,93 Sj.ini < 48 E Ic / Lc . (27.c)

Sway frames

Rigid column bases: S j .ini ? 30 E I c / Lc (28.a)

Semi-rigid column bases: S j .ini ? 30 E I c / Lc (29.b)

Relative moment, Mj.Rd / Mpl.Rd

1,0 Rigid
column-base
0,8 connections
S j.ini.c.n = 30 E I c / L c
0,6
0,4 S j.ini.c.s = 12 E I c / L c (for ? pin <1,36)
Semi-rigid column-base connections
0,2
Relative rotation
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 ? ? ? E Ic / Lc

Figure 15 Proposed classification system according to the initial stiffness

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

12
6 WORKED EXAMPLE

Calculate moment resistance and bending stiffness of column base at Figure 16.
Column HE 200 B is loaded by normal force FSd ? 500 kN . Concrete block C 16 / 20 of
size 1 600 * 1 600 * 1 000 mm is design for particular soil conditions. Base plate of
thickness 30 mm, steel S 235 , ? c ? 1,5 , ? M 0 ? 1,15 , ? Mb ? 1,25 .

a 1 = 1600
MSd
FSd
a = 420 ar = 590
HE 200 B
M 24
t = 30 e a = 50 br = 590
30
e b = 90
p = 240 b = 420 b1 = 1600
h = 1000
e c = 60 rb = 160

Fig. 16 Designed column base

a) Resistance of component base plate in bending and anchor bolts in tension.

Anchor bolt lever arm is for fillet weld a wf ? 6 mm .
m ? 60 ? 0 ,8 * awf * 2 ? 60 ? 0 ,8 * 6 * 2 ? 53 ,2 mm .
The T - stub length for no prying mode is:
? 4m ? 1,25ea ? 4 * 53,2 ? 1,25 * 50 ? 275,3 ?
? ?
? 4? m ? 4 ? * 53 ,2 ? 668 ,6 ?
? 0 ,5 b ? 0 ,5 * 420 ? 210 ?
? ?
eff .1 ? min? 2m ? 0 ,625eb ? 0 ,5 p ? 2 * 53,2 ? 0 ,625 * 90 ? 0 ,5 * 240 ? 282 ,7 ? ?
? 2m ? 0 ,625e ? e ? 2 * 53,2 ? 0 ,625 * 90 ? 50 ? 212 ,7 ?
? b a
?
? 2? m ? 4eb ? 2? * 53,2 ? 4 * 90 ? 694 ,2 ?
? ?
? 2? m ? 2 p ? 2? * 53,2 ? 2 * 240 ? 814 ,2 ?
eff .1 ? 210 mm

The effective length of anchor bolt Lb can be taken as

Lb ? 8? d ? t g ? t ? t n 2 ? 8 ? 24 ? 30 ? 30 ? 19 2 ? 261,5 mm .
The check of prying of anchor bolts. Limit thickness of base plate t p , with no
prying is
As 353
t p ? 2 ,07 m 3 ? 2 ,07 * 53,2 3 ? 20 ,5 mm .
Lb Leff .1 261,5 ? 210
The no -prying occurs, because t ? t p . The resistance of T - stub with two
2 Leff .1 t 2 f y 2 * 210 ? 30 2 ? 235
.1 ? ? ? 336 ,5 ? 10 3 N .
*
anchor bolts is FRd
4 m ? M0 4 ? 60 ? 1,10

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

13
 The resistance is limited by tension resistance of two anchor bolts M 24 (the area
of threaded part of bolt As ? 353 mm )
0 ,9 f ub As 0 ,9 * 360 * 353
FRd .3 ? 2 Bt .Rd ? 2 ? 2 ? 183,0 ? 10 3 N .
? Mb 1,25

b) To evaluate the compressed part resistance is calculated the connection

concentration factor as
? a ? 2 a r ? 420 ? 2 ? 590 ? 1600 ?
? 5 a ? 5 ? 420 ? 2100 ?
? ?
a1 ? b1 ? min ? ? ? 1420 mm ,
? a ? h ? 420 ? 1000 ? 1420 ?
?? 5 b1 ? 5 ? 1420 ? 7100 ??
and a1 ? b1 ? 1420 ? a ? b ? 420 mm .
The above condition is fulfilled and
a1 b1 1420 ? 1420
kj = = = 3,38 .
a b 420 ? 420
The grout is not influencing the concrete bearing resistance because
0 ,2 min ?a; b ? ? 0 ,2 * min ?420;420 ? ? 84 mm ? 30 mm ? t .
The concrete bearing resistance can be calculated as
2 k j f ck 2 3 ,38 ? 16
fj = = =24 ,0 MPa .
3 ?c 3 1,50
From the force equilibrium in the vertical direction FSd ? Aeff f j ? Ft .Rd ,
can be calculated the area of concrete in compression Aeff under the full
resistance of tension part
FSd ? FRd .3 500 ? 10 3 ? 183,0 ? 10 3
Aeff ? ? ? 28 458 mm 2 .
fj 24 ,0

c) The flexible base plate is transferred into a rigid plate of equivalent area. The
width of the strip c around the column cross section, see Figure, is calculated
fy 235
from c= t ? 30 ? ? 51,7 mm
3 f j ?M 0 3 ? 24 ,0 ? 1,10

c bc=200 c
c tw=9 c

c
t f=15 rt
c
hc=200
b eff r
tf =15 c
c

Fig. 17 The effective area under the base plate

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

14
d) The active effective width can be calculated from known area in compression
Aeff 28 458
beff ? ? ? 93,8 mm ? t f ? 2 c ? 15 ? 2 ? 51,7 ? 118 ,4 mm .
bc ? 2 c 200 ? 2 ? 51,7
The lever arm of concrete to the column axes of symmetry can be calculated as
h beff 200 93,8
rc ? c ? c ? ? ? 51,7 ? ? 104 ,8 mm .
2 2 2 2
Moment resistance of column base is M Rd ? FRd .3 rb ? Aeff f j rc
? 183,0 ? 10 3 ? 160 ? 28 458 ? 24 ,0 ? 104 ,8 ? 100 ,9 ? 10 6 Nmm ? 100 ,9 kNm .
Under acting normal force N Sd ? 500 kN is the moment resistance in bending
M Rd ? 100 ,9 kNm .

e) The end of column needs to be checked. The design resistance in poor

compression is
A f y 7 808 ? 235
N pl.Rd ? ? ? 1 668? 10 3 N
?M 0 1,10
and column bending resistance
M pl .Rd ? W pl f y / ? M 0 ? 642 ,5 ? 10 3 ? 235 / 1,10 ? 137,3 ? 10 6 Nmm .
The interaction of normal force reduce moment
N Sd 500
1? 1?
N pl.Rd 1 668
M Ny.Rd ? M pl.Rd ? 137 ,3 ? 108 ,7 kNm
A? 2btf 7808 ? 2 ? 200 ? 15
1 ? 0 ,5 1 ? 0 ,5
A 7808
.
The column base is designed on acting force only (not for column resistance).

f) To evaluate the bending stiffness the particular component stiffness is calculated

A 353
k b ? 2 ,0 s ? 2 ,0 ? 2 ,700 mm ,
Lb 261,5
0 ,425 Leff t 3 0 ,425 * 210? 30 3
kp ? ? ? 16 ,004 mm .
m3 53 ,2 3

t f =15

t b c =200
aeq

Fig. 18 The T stub in compression

The concrete block stiffness can be evaluated based on T-stub in compression,

see Figure
aeq ? t f ? 2 ,5 t ? 15 ? 2 ,5 * 30 ? 90 mm ,

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

15
 Ec 27 500
kc ? aeq bc ? 90 * 200 ? 13 ,780 mm .
1,275 Es 1,275 * 210 000

g) The lever arm of component in tension zt and in compression z c to the column

base neutral axes is
h 200 h t f 200 15
rt ? c ? ec ? ? 60 ? 160 mm , z c ? c ? ? ? ? 92 ,5 mm .
2 2 2 2 2 2
The stiffness of tension part, bolts and T stub, can be calculated as
1 1
kt ? ? ? 2 ,310 mm .
1 1 1 1
? ?
kb k p 2 ,700 16 ,004

h) For the calculation of the initial stiffness of column base is evaluated the lever
arm r ? rt ? rc ? 160 ? 92 ,5 ? 252 ,5 mm
k r ? kt rt 13 ,780 * 92 ,5 ? 2 ,310 * 160
and a ? c c ? ? 56 ,2 mm .
kc ? kt 13,780 ? 2 ,310
The bending stiffness is calculated for particular constant eccentricity
M Rd 100 ,9 * 10 6
e? ? ? 201,8 mm
FSd 500 * 10 3
e Es r 2 201,8 210 000 ? 252 ,5 2
as S j .ini ? ? * ?
e? a 1 201,8 ? 56 ,2 ? 1 ?
??
1
1? ? ? ?
i ki ? 2 ,310 13,780 ?
? 20 ,718 ? 10 9 Nmm rad ? 20 718 kNm rad .

Notes:
1) The classification of the column base according to its bending stiffness is
evaluated in comparison to column bending stiffness. For column length
Lc ? 4 ,0 m and its cross-section HE 200 B is relative bending stiffness
Lc 4 000
S j .ini ? S j .ini ? 2 ,0470 ? 10 10 ? 6 ,85
Es I c 210 000 ? 56 ,96 ? 10 6
The designed column base is sway for braced as well as non-sway frames because
S j .ini ? 6 ,93 ? 12 ? S j .ini .EC 3.n ,
S j .ini ? 6 ,93 ? 30 ? S j .ini .EC 3.s .
2) The influence of tolerances, see Eurocode 3 Annex L, and size of welds is not
covered in above calculation.
3) The column base resistance is compared to the column resistance for different
base plate thickness at Fig. 19. For plate P 30 are shown the major points of the
diagram, e.g. the pure compression, the highest bending resistance (in case of
coincidence of the neutral axis and the axis of symmetry of cross-section), the
pure bending and the pure tension.

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

16
4) A conservative simplification may be applied by placing the concrete reaction on
the axes of the compressed flange for resistance calculation, see Fig. 20.

Normal force, kN NSd

MSd

HE 200 B
t M 24
t=
30
40
M pl.Rd h = 1 000
30 Npl.Rd
1 596
25
1 600
20 340 630
1 000
15
Column resistance
630

0 340
100 131,3 Moment, kNm
1 600

Fig. 19 The column base resistance is compared to the column resistance for different
base plate thickness, the failure modes

Normal force, kN
Lever arm is changing by activation of one bolt row
Lever arm is changing by activation of both bolt rows
Simplified prediction
Base plate thickness, t mm M pl.Rd
40
Simplified prediction
Npl.Rd
30
25
Full model
20
15
Column resistance
Full model
0
Moment, kNm

Fig. 20 The column base resistance calculated by the simplified prediction, the contact
force under the compressed flange only, is compared to the application
of the of the full contact area

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

17
CONCLUSIONS

o The component method describes the column base with end plates in terms of design
resistance, bending stiffness and rotation capacity with good accuracy.

o The prediction of the main components, the base plate in bending and the anchor bolt
in tension, and the concrete block in compression, is developed for practical
application, based on tests, FE simulation and analytical sensitivity studies.

o The assembly of the components is influenced by the interaction of bending moment

and normal force. The resistance prediction can be based on the effective contact
area [1], but for the calculation of the bending stiffness requires its simplification [6].

Acknowledgement

Within the framework of the activities of the COST C1 European Project and the
Technical Committee 10 of ECCS, an ad-hoc working group was established to prepare
a background document for European standardisation, and a European Manual for
Column Bases. Members are: D. Brown, SCI London; A. M. Gresnigt, TU Delft; J. P.
Jaspart, University of Liege; Z. Sokol, CTU in Prague, J. W. B. Stark, TU Delft;
M. Steenhuis, TU Eindhoven; F. Wald, CTU in Prague (the convenor of the group),
K. Weynand, RTWH Aachen.

References

[1] ENV 1993-1-1, Part 1.1: Design of Steel Structures, Eurocode 3, European Prenorm,
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 1992.
[2] ENV 1993-1-1:A2, Part 1.1: Design of Steel Structures - Annex J, Eurocode 3,
European Prenorm, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 1998.
[3] Design of Fastenings in Concrete, Design guide, CEB, Thomas Telford Services Ltd,
London, p. 83, 1997, ISBN 0 7277 2558 0.
[4] Column Bases in Steel Building Frames, COST C1, ed. K. Weynand, Brussels, 1999.
[5] Sokol Z., Wald F.: Experiments with T-stubs in Tension and Compression, Research
Report, VUT, Praha, 1997.
[6] Steenhuis, C. M.: Assembly Procedure for Base Plates, TNO Building and Construction
Research Report 98-R-0477, Delft, March, 1998.
[7] Wald F.: Patky Sloup - Column Bases, VUT, Praha, 1995, p. 137, ISBN 80-01-
01337-5.
[8] Steenhuis M., (1994): Pre - design of Semi Rigid Joint in Steel Frame, in Proceeding of
the Second State of the Art Workshop COST C1, Praha, pp. 131 - 140.
[9] Wald F., Seifert J.: The Column-Bases Stiffness Classification, in Nordic Steel
Colloquium, Odense 1991, pp. 309 - 316.
[10] Wald F., Sokol Z.: Column Base Stiffness Classification, in Stability and Ductility
of Steel Structures 1997, Nagoya 1997, pp. 675 - 682.
[11] Wald F., Jaspart J. P.: Stiffness Design of Column Bases, in 2nd World Steel
Conference, San Sebastian 1998, No.: 135, Journal of Constructional Steel Research
Vol. 46, Nos. 1 - 3, 1998, ISSN 0143-974X.

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

18
Abstract:
The present paper is aimed at giving an overview of the recent progress made on
investigation of column bases with end plates in the framework of the COST C1
European Action - Control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural
connections. The application of the component method to column bases with base plates
is introduced, then the particular components are described including their influence on
connection behaviour and assembly procedures are described for these specific
connections with a high interaction of the normal force and the bending moment. The
classification of base plate based on its rigidity is presented. The procedure is described
at a worked example in a separate Annex.

Warsztat III- 2000, Wald

19