See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265653219

Strength and Serviceability of Hanger

Connections

Article

CITATIONS READS

2 116

1 author:

William A. Thornton
39 PUBLICATIONS 525 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by William A. Thornton on 29 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Strength and Serviceability of Hanger Connections
W.A. THORNTON

INTRODUCTION For serviceability:

1  4 Byb 
Hanger connections involve bolts in tension due to direct α ′y =   (1)
loads and prying action and bending of tee flanges or angle δ (1 + ρ )  pt 2 Fy 
legs. It is the purpose of this paper to show that the analysis If α y′ ≤ 0, Ty = B y (2)
method of the latest AISC Manuals, both ASD1 and LRFD2
versions, can with minor modification allow for a greatly pt 2 Fy
If 0 < α y′ ≤ 1, Ty = (1 + δα y′ ) (3)
increased design strength and a more reliable prediction of 4b
serviceability loads. (if α y′ > 1, set α y′ = 1)
The strength of hanger connections is due mainly to the
strength of the bolts but is affected by the bending of the For strength:
hanger flanges which induces prying action in the bolts. 1  4 Bub 
α u′ =  2 − 1 (4)
Previous emphasis on this problem has focused on the δ(1 + ρ)  pt Fu 
determination of the actual prying force Q rather than the
overall behavior of the connection itself. This paper If α u′ ≤ 0, Tu = Bu (5)
concentrates on assessing the strength of the connection, both pt 2 Fu
If 0 < α u′ ≤ 1, Tu = (1 + δα u′ ) (6)
ultimate strength and yield (or separation) strength. 4b
(if α u′ > 1, set α u′ = 1)
ANALYSIS OF STRENGTH AND SERVICEABILITY
The method for analysis and design of hanger connections In the above equations, the notation follows Ref. 1 except
currently in use in both the current AISC ASD and LRFD as noted in the notation section of this paper.
manuals is due to Struik and is presented in Kulak, et al.3 In To test these formulations, the test data produced by
Ref. 3 the justification for this method is based on its Douty and McGuire5 for T stubs are used. Figure 1 shows the
capability to predict the prying force Q with reasonable test specimens and Table 1 gives the Douty and McGuire
accuracy. The prediction of Q is important for serviceability geometric and material data. Table 2 gives the results of
because it affects the fatigue life of the connection. The applying the above yield and ultimate strength formulation to
prediction of Q is also important for strength because it the specimens of Fig. 1. Table 2 also gives the actual
reduces the direct load that the bolts can carry. However, for (experimental) yield load, ultimate load, and actual failure
strength, it is most important to know the ultimate load mode. In Table 2, Py = 4Ty and Pu = 4Tu, i.e., Py and Pu are
capacity of the hanger connection and the prediction of Q is the assembly yield and ultimate strengths which can be
secondary to this. Thus, for strength, the ultimate capacity compared directly with the actual (experimental) strengths.
calculated by any proposed method of analysis should be The parameter α′ given by Eq. 1 or Eq. 4, for yield (αy′) or
compared to tests which give the ultimate or breaking ultimate strength (αu′) respectively, gives an indication of the
strength of the connection. For serviceability, the analysis controlling limit state. If α′ < 0, the bolts control. If 0 ≤ α′ ≤
method should reasonably predict yield strength so that with 1, the bolts and T flange are both controlling. If α′ > 1, the T
a factor of safety (or suitable load and resistance factors) flange controls. The “computed failure mode” of Table 2 is
elastic behavior can be reasonably assured. based on these ranges of αu′. Table 3 gives a direct
The following methods are proposed—one for comparison between actual and theoretical results. It can be
serviceability (yield or separation strength) and the second seen from Tables 2 and 3 that the theory gives excellent
for strength (ultimate or breaking strength). These are both agreement with the test results for ultimate strength and
based on Struik's method as presented in Ref. 3, but they are generally very good results for yield strength. Some
formulated for efficient calculation and optimum results as observations on these results can be made. Concerning the
presented by Thornton.4 ultimate strength results, it is pointed out by Kato and
McGuire6 that after the formation of the collapse mechanism
W. A. Thornton is chief engineer, Cives Steel Company, Roswell, in the T flange (i.e., when the plastic bending stress is Fu at
GA. both the bolt line and the stem line) the T stub

FOURTH QUARTER / 1992 145

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 can sustain the load by “hanging action.” On the contrary,
the post yield strength of the high strength bolts is small and
the behavior is less ductile. Thus, in the tests, bolt fracture is
usually the failure mode even if the theory indicates that the
flange or web will fail first. Nevertheless, the significant
deformations of the flange that take place at the Pu load do
cause additional load to be placed in the bolts, and this
additional load (conventionally called “prying action”) does
cause the bolts to fracture before their nominal ultimate
strength, i.e., 4Bu, is achieved when the flange is flexible,
i.e., α′u> 0.
It will be observed from Tables 2 and 3 that the
agreement between experiment and theory for yield is not as
good as that for ultimate strength. This occurs because
yielding is defined, following Kato and McGuire, as the load
at which the bolts first “see” load in addition to the
pretension load. This point is also called the “separation
point.” It is also the load at which a collapse mechanism in
the sense of simple plastic theory forms in the T flange. In
two instances in Table 2, Kato and McGuire reported that the
separation point was not clear (Tests All and A15) and no
yield load is given. In general, because there is no clear
catastrophic failure, the yield load would be much more
dependent on small variations in material properties,
thickness, initial pretension, and the like. Therefore, it is
reasonable to find a bigger variation between theory and
experiment here than in the ultimate strength
Fig. 1. Test specimens for Douty and McGuire tests.
146 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
results. On the whole, it is felt that the agreement between
theory and experiment for the yield results is very good.
It should be noted that in the ultimate strength
formulation proposed above, the idea for using Fu, the
ultimate strength of the T stub material, as the limiting
bending stress in the T stub flange, is due to Kato and
McGuire.6 The excellent agreement shown in Table 3 for
actual/theoretical ultimate strength validates this idea.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES
For connection design, the usual factor of safety for ultimate
strength and fracture is two in allowable stress design
(ASD). In load and resistance factor design, (LRFD) the
same level of safety is achieved with a resistance factor of
.75 and an expected average load factor of 1.5. Table 4
shows the theoretical ultimate strength Put of Table 2 or
Table 3 divided by an effective factor of safety of two, and
compares this to the actual yield strength Pya reported by
Refs. 5 and 6, also as given and Tables 2 and 3. It can be
seen from Table 4 that Put / 2 is generally within ± 20
percent of the actual yield load Pya and is usually much
closer than this. Therefore, designing for Pud = Put / 2 means
that at working loads or factored working loads, the
connection will have distortions of the same order of
magnitude (i.e., 1½ times larger) as elastic distortions, which
are vanishingly small for this configuration. For instance,
consider Example 31 of the AISC 9th Edition Manual.1
Considering the WT9×30 flange as a fixed-fixed beam four
inches long with a central transverse applied load from the
stem, the elastic displacement is 0.0024 in, and the
displacement caused by Py is one and one half times greater
at 0.0036 inch. If the gage is increased from 4 in. to 5½-in.,
the Py displacement is still only 0.0270 in., or less than 132 -
in. Thus, a suitable design method for strength is the ultimate
strength formulation of Eqs. 4, 5, and 6, with an effective
average factor of safety of two.
For serviceability, i.e., connections subject to fatigue or
where deformations must remain strictly elastic, it is
recommended that the yield strength formulation of Eqs. 1, 2,
and 3, be utilized with the same effective factor of safety of
two. Table 3, as noted before, shows that Pya / Pyt is
reasonably close to one, given the difficulties attendant to
identifying yield or separation. There is reasonably certainty
that with a factor of safety of two, Eqs. 1–3 will result in a
connection configuration which will remain essentially
elastic at service loads, because the elastic load Pet = Pyt /
1.5 is greater than the design load Pyd = Py t / 2.
SUMMARY
The recommended serviceability design method is somewhat
more conservative than that now used in both the ASD and
LRFD AISC Manuals in that bolt yield strength rather than
bolt tensile strength is used, but the recommended method for
strength, which is justified by comparison to actual test data,
can result in much more economical connections because
 Table 1.
Douty and McGulre T-Stub Tests—Data (from Rets. 5 and 6)
Bolt Strength T-Stub Strength
T-Stub Base Bolt Dla. Geometric Parameters Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate
Test. tf tw tf tw d a b a′ b′ By Bu Fy Fu
No (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) ρ (kips) (kips) (ksi) (ksi)
A1 0.751 0.438 Rigid Rigid 7 1.50 2.43 1.94 1.59 0.82 37.40 56.0 34.5 60–75
8
A3 1.680 0.945 Rigid Rigid 7 1.50 1.78 1.94 1.34 0.69 37.40 62.0 26.0 60–75
8
A4 2.000 1.000 Rigid Rigid 7 1.50 1.75 1.94 1.31 0.68 37.40 59.0 31.1 60–75
8
A5 0.751 0.438 Rigid Rigid 11 1.50 2.03 2.06 1.47 0.71 58.75 102.0 33.3 60–75
8
A7 1.680 0.945 Rigid Rigid 11 1.50 1.78 2.06 1.22 0.59 58.75 102.0 27.0 60–75
8
A8 2.500 1.000 Rigid Rigid 11 1.50 1.75 2.06 1.19 0.58 58.75 105.7 31.0 60–75
8
A9 0.751 0.438 Rigid Rigid 7 1.75 2.03 2.19 1.59 0.73 37.40 56.0 34.5 60–75
8
A10 1.102 0.625 Rigid Rigid 7 1.66 1.94 2.10 1.50 0.72 37.40 61.0 31.1 60–75
8
A11 1.680 0.945 Rigid Rigid 7 1.75 1.78 2.19 1.34 0.61 37.40 61.7 26.0 60–75
8
A12 2.000 1.000 Rigid Rigid 7 1.75 1.75 2.19 1.31 0.60 37.40 59.7 31.1 60–75
8
A13 0.751 0.438 Rigid Rigid 1 18 1.75 2.03 2.31 1.47 0.64 58.75 101.0 33.3 60–75
A14 1.102 0.625 Rigid Rigid 1 18 1.66 1.94 2.22 1.38 0.62 58.75 97.0 29.5 60–75
A15 1.680 0.945 Rigid Rigid 1 18 1.75 1.78 2.31 1.22 0.53 58.75 100.0 27.0 60–75
A16 2.500 1.000 Rigid Rigid 1 18 1.75 1.75 2.31 1.19 0.51 58.70 106.0 31.0 60–75
B1 0.751 0.438 1.128 0.695 7 1.50 2.03 1.94 1.59 0.82 37.40 64.0 34.5 60–75
8
B3 1.102 0.625 1.128 0.695 7 1.66 1.94 2.10 1.50 0.72 37.40 62.0 31.1 60–75
8
B4 1.102 0.625 2.093 1.310 7 1.66 1.94 2.10 1.50 0.72 37.40 60.0 31.1 60–75
8
B5 1.102 0.625 3.033 1.875 7 1.66 1.94 2.10 1.50 0.72 37.40 60.0 31.1 60–75
8
B6 1.680 0.945 1.128 0.695 7 1.50* 2.40* 1.94* 1.96* 1.01* 37.40 60.0 33.0* 60–75
8
B7 1.680 0.945 2.093 1.310 7 1.50 1.78 1.94 1.34 0.69 37.40 55.5 26.0 60–75
8
B9 1.680 0.945 1.128 0.695 1 18 1.50* 2.40* 2.06* 1.24* 0.89* 58.75 97.0 33.0* 60–75
B10 1.680 0.945 2.093 1.310 1 18 1.50 1.78 2.06 1.22 0.59 58.75 99.0 27.0 60–75
B12 2.500 1.000 1.128 0.695 1 18 1.50* 2.40* 2.06* 1.84 0.89* 58.75 100.0 33.0* 60–75
B13 2.500 1.000 2.093 1.310 1 18 1.50 1.75 2.06 1.14 0.58 58.75 99.4 31.0 60–75
* Indicates data based on non-rigid base.

capacity is increased up to Fu / Fy (61 percent for A36 steel) Superscripts

when αu′ > 1. a = actual (experimental)
NOTATION d = design
t = theoretical
Bu = Bolt tensile strength, ksi
By = Bolt yield strength, ksi Subscripts
Fu = T-flange tensile strength, ksi e = elastic
Fy = T-flange yield strength, ksi u = ultimate
Pu = Test specimen ultimate strength (= 4Tu), kips y = yield or separation
Py = Test specimen yield (separation) strength (= 4Ty),
kips REFERENCES
Tu = External force at which T flange tributary to one bolt 1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
attains ultimate strength state, kips Construction, ASD, 9th. Edition, 1989, AISC, Chicago, Illinois,
Ty = External force at which T-flange tributary to one bolt U.S.A., pp. 4-89 through 4-95.
yields or separates, kips 2. American Institute of Steel Construction,Manual of Steel

FOURTH QUARTER / 1992 147

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Table 2.
Douty and McGulre T-Stub Tests—Theoretical and Actual Results (from Refs. 5 and 6)
Computed Strength (Theoretical) Actual Strength
Bolts and Flange Web (Experimental)
Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate Computed Actual
Test Ty Py Tu Pu Py Pu Py Pu Failure Failure
No. αy (kips) (kips) αu (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) Mode Mode
A1 1.32 23.10 92.5 1.04, .69 40.2-43.5 161–174 128 273–79 88 176 Flange, Bolts Bolt Fracture
A3 –.27 37.40 150.0 –.47, –.48 62.0 248 209 482–602 136 256 Bolts Bolt Fracture
A4 –.48 37.40 150.0 –.53, –.58 59.0 236 264 510–638 140 219 Bolts Nut Stripping
A5 2.70 23.40 93.4 2.57, 1.89 52.6–65.8 168–210 124 223–279 108 224 Flange Flange
A7 –.10 58.75 235.0 –.27, –.39 102.0 408 217 482-602 180 392 Bolts Bolt Fracture
A8 –.58 58.75 235.0 –.60, –.66 105.7 423 263 510–638 240 >404 Bolts Did Not Fail4
A9 1.39 23.10 92.5 1.09, .73 40.2–44.3 161–177 128 223–279 96 177 Flange, Bolts Bolt Fracture
A10 .30 32.90 132.0 .14, –.04 57.1–61.0 228–244 165 319–398 112 240 Bolts, Flange Bolt Fracture
A11 –.28 37.40 150.0 –.43, –.50 67.1 247 209 482–602 —5 256 Bolts Bolt Fracture
A12 –.50 37.40 150.0 –.56, –.60 59.7 239 264 510–638 140 245 Bolts Bolt Fracture
A13 2.82 23.40 93.4 2.65, 1.95 52.6–65.8 168–210 124 223–279 108 228 Flange Web
A14 .97 46.80 187.0 .62, .33 81.4–86.7 325–345 157 319–398 140 2863 Flange, Bolts, Web Web3
A15 –.01 58.75 235.0 –.27, –.42 100.0 400 217 482–602 —5 404 Bolts Bolt Fracture
A16 –.61 58.75 235.0 –.63, –.69 106.0 424 263 510–638 240 >404 Bolts Did Not Fail4
B1 1.32 23.10 92.5 1.29, .89 40.2–47.9 161–192 128 223–279 100 202 Flange, Bolts Bolt Fracture
B3 .51* 29.00* 116.0* .15, –.03 57.6–62.0 231–248 165 319–398 936 230 Bolts, Flange Bolt Fracture
B4 .29 32.90 132.0 .12, –.05 56.5–60.0 226–240 165 319–398 96 228 Bolts, Flange Bolt Fracture
B5 .29 32.90 132.0 .12, –.05 56.5–60.0 226–240 165 319–398 120 230 Bolts, Flange Bolt Fracture
B6 .51* 28.70* 115.0* –.05*, –.16* 60.0 240 2091 482–602 100 254 Bolts Bolt Fracture
B7 0.27 37.40 150.0 –.44, –.59 55.5 222 209 482–602 — 233 Bolts Bolt Fracture
B9 1.35* 39.00* 156.0* .25*, .07* 84.4*–92.5* 338*–370* 2191 482–602 140 348 Bolts, Flange Bolt Fracture
B10 –.10 58.75 235.0 –.29, –.40 99.0 396 217 482–602 220 403 Bolts Bolt Fracture
B12 1.35* 39.00* 156.0* .28*, .09* 86.2*–94.0* 345*–376* 2642 510–638 160 378 Bolts, Flange Bolt Fracture
B13 –.58 58.75 235.0 –.62, –.67 99.4 398 264 510–638 216 >404 Bolts Did Not Fail
1. Based on Fy=26.0 in T stub.
2. Based on Fy=31.0 in T stub.
3. Imperfection in material.
4. Exceeded machine capacity of 404 kips.
5. No abrupt increase bolt tension. Separation point (yield point) is not clear.
6. Estimated from Fig. 7 of Ref. 5.
* Indicates data based on non-rigid base.

Construction, LRFD, 1st Edition, 1986, AISC, Chicago, Illinois,
U.S.A., pp. 5-119 through 5-125.
3. Kulak, Geoffrey L., Fisher, John W., and Struik, John H. A.,
Guide to Design Criteria of Bolted and Riveted Joints, Second
Edition, Wiley-Interscience, 1987, Chapter 15, pp. 277-288.
4. Thornton, W. A., “Prying Action—A General Treatment,”
Engineering Journal, AISC, Second Quarter 1985, Vol. 22, No.
2, pp. 67–75.
5. Douty, R. T. and McGuire, W., “High Strength Bolted Moment
Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 91,
No. ST2, April 1965, pp. 101–128.
6. Kato, B. and McGuire, W., “Analysis of T-Stub Flange to
Column Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Vol. 99, No. ST5, May 1973, pp.865–888.

148 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Table 3.
Comparison of Actual and Theoretical Results
Yield Strength Ultimate Strength
Test Actual Pya Theoretical Pyt Actual/Theoretical Actual Pua Theoretical Put Actual/Theoretical
No. (kips) (kips) Py a / Py t (kips) (kips) Pua / Put
A1 88 92.5 .95 176 168 1.05
A3 136 150.0 .91 256 248 1.03
A4 140 150.0 .93 219 236 .93
A5 108 93.4 1.16 224 189 1.19
A7 180 217.0 .83 392 408 .96
A8 240 235.0 1.02 >404 423
A9 96 92.5 1.04 177 169 1.05
A10 112 132.0 .85 240 236 1.02
A11 — 150.0 256 247 1.04
A12 140 150.0 .93 245 239 1.03
A13 108 93.4 1.16 228 189 1.21
A14 140 157.0 .89 286 335 .80
A15 — 217.0 404 400 1.01
A16 240 235.0 1.02 >404 424
B1 100 92.5 1.08 202 177 1.14
B3 93 116.0 .80 230 240 .96
B4 96 132.0 .73 228 233 .98
B5 120 132.0 .91 230 233 .99
B6 100 115.0 .87 254 240 1.06
B7 — 150.0 233 222 1.05
B9 140 156.0 .90 348 354 .98
B10 220 217.0 1.01 403 396 1.02
B12 160 156.0 1.03 378 361 1.05
B13 216 235.0 .92 >404 398

Table 4.
Comparison of Ultimate Strength Design Values with
Actual Yelled Strength Values
Put
Pud =
2 Py a Py a
Test No. (kips) (kips) Pu d
A1 84.0 88 1.05
A3 124.0 136 1.10
A4 118.0 140 1.19
A5 94.5 108 1.14
A7 204.0 180 .88
A8 212.0 240 1.13
A9 84.5 96 1.14
A10 118.0 112 .95
A11 124.0 — —
A12 120.0 140 1.17
A13 94.5 108 1.14
A14 168.0 140 .83
A15 200.0 — —
A16 212.0 240 1.13
B1 88.5 100 1.13
B3 120.0 93 .78
B4 117.0 96 .82
B5 117.0 120 1.03
B6 120.0 100 .83
B7 111.0 — —
B9 177.0 140 .79
B10 198.0 220 1.11
B12 181.0 160 .88
B13 199.0 216 1.08
FOURTH QUARTER / 1992 149
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Revision of Small Column Base Plate
Design Procedure in AISC 9th Edition Manual
by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

The new design method for small column base plates (small m or n distances) published in the 1989 AISC 9th Ed. Manual is not
applicable to larger loads wherein the plate bearing pressures exceeded the model's assumed compact distribution along the column
shape's profile. This problem became clear when imaginary solutions resulted for plate thickness. In the third quarter 1990 AISC
Engineering Journal article by Ahmed and Kreps, “Inconsistencies in Column Base Plate Design in the New AISC ASD Manual,”
the authors discuss and illustrate this and other related design anomalies.
Additional studies were conducted by AISC in response to these questions and a revised small base plate design method was
developed by W. A. Thornton, Chairman, AISC Committee on Manuals, Textbooks, and Codes. In the first revised printing of the
9th Ed. Manual, January 1991, pages 3-106 through 3-110 were revised to reflect these changes. These new manual pages are
herein reproduced in their entirety to alert current users of the 9th Ed. to the revisions. More background information on the small
base plate modifications is provided in two 1990 AISC Engineering Journal articles by Thornton, as referenced.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 3-106

COLUMN BASE PLATES

Design Procedure

P = Total column load, kips

A1 = B × N = Area of plate, in.2
A2 = Full cross-sectional area of concrete support, in.2
Fb = Allowable bending stress in base plate, ksi
Fp = Allowable bearing pressure on support, ksi
fp = Actual bearing pressure, ksi
fc′ = Compressive strength of concrete, ksi
tp = Thickness of base plate, in.
Figure 1

Steel base plates are generally used under columns for distribution of the column load over a sufficient area of the concrete pier or
foundation.
Unless the m and n dimensions are small, the base plate is designed as a cantilever beam, fixed at the edges of a rectangle
whose sides are 0.80bf and 0.95d. The column load P is assumed to be distributed uniformly over the base plate within the
rectangle. Letting Fb equal 0.75Fy, the required thickness is found from the formulas

fp fp
t p = 2m and t p = 2n
Fy Fy

Dimensions of the base plate are optimized if m = n. This condition is approached when N ≈ A1 + ∆, where ∆ = 0.5 (0.95d –
0.80bf) and B = A1/N.
When the values of m and n are small (the base plate is just large enough in area to accommodate the column profile), a
different model is used. For light loads with this type of base plate, the column load is assumed to be distributed to the concrete
area, as shown by cross-hatching in Fig. 2 where L is the cantilever distance subjected to the maximum bearing pressure, Fp.

Figure 2

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 3-107

For more heavily loaded small plates, a yield-line solution,* assuming a fixed edge along the column web and simple supports
along the flanges, is closely approximated by

fp
t p = 2n′
Fy

where

db f
n′ =
4
d = depth of column section, in.
bf = flange width of column section, in.

A smooth transition between the lightly and heavily loaded condition for small plates can be derived as the coefficient λ, **
where:
2[1 − 1 − q ]
λ= ≤ 10
.
q

4 f p db f
q= < 10
.
(d + b f ) 2 Fp
and
fp
t p = 2(λ n ′)
Fy
When λ is less than 1.0, or, equivalently when q is less than 0.64, the design for lightly loaded plates governs, as shown in Fig.
2. The L distance is already factored into the expression for λ. The upper bound of λ = 1.0 represents the yield-line solution which
is conservative to always use for simplicity. Because the above small plate equation is in the same form as the required thickness
for large plates, the largest distance m, n, or λn′ controls.
The allowable bearing strength Fp of the concrete depends on fc′ and the percent of support area occupied by the base plate.
From AISC ASD Specification Sect. J9,
F p = 0.35 f c′
when the entire area of a concrete support is covered, and
F p = 0.35 f c′ A2 / A1 ≤ 0.7 f c′
when less than the full area is covered. By substituting P / A ≤ Fp, this formula may be rewritten as:
2
 P 
  ≤ A1 A2 ≤ 4 A1
2
 0.35 f c′ 

The first two terms give the general equation:

2
1  P 
A1 ≥  
A2  0.35 f c′ 
The first and third terms give the equation for the minimum base plate area for the upper concrete bearing limit:
P
A1 ≥
0.7 f c′
* Thornton, W. A., “Design of Small Base Plates for Wide Flange Columns,”Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1990,
pp. 108–110.
** Thornton, W. A., “Design of Base Plates for Wide Flange Columns—A Concatenation of Methods,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 27,
No. 4, 4th Quarter 1990.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 3-108

From the second and third terms, it may be noted the condition exists for the lightest base plate when A2 = 4A1. Substituting into the
general equation, the required pedestal area for this condition is:
P
A2 ≥
. f c′
0175
If conditions permit, the pedestal should be made at least this size for optimum concrete bearing stress.
Steps in the design of a base plate are:
2
1  P  P
1. Find A1 =   , A1 = ,or A1 = b f d
A2  0.35 f c′  0.7 f c′
Use larger value.
2. Determine N ≈ A1 + ∆ ≥ d and B = A1 / N ≥ b f
3. Determine uniform and allowable bearing pressure on concrete and check fp ≤ Fp:
fp = P / (B × N)

A2
Fp = 0.35 f c′ ≤ 0.7 f c′
A1

4. Determine m = (N - 0.95d) / 2 and n = (B - 0.80b) / 2.

db f
5. Compute q and λ, or, conservatively set λ = 1.0 and n ′ =
4
6. Determine tp by formula:
c = max(m, n, λn ′)
fp
t p = 2c
Fy

EXAMPLE 12

Given:
AW10×100 column (d = 11.10 in., bf = 10.34 in.) has a reaction of 525 kips, and bears on a 28-in. × 28-in. pier. f c′ = 3 ksi, Fy =
36 ksi.
Solution:
A2 = 28 × 28 = 784 in.2
2 2
1  P  1  525 
1. A1 =   =  
A2  0.35 f c′  784  0.35(3) 
= 319 in.2 governs
P 525
A1 = = = 250 in.2
0.7 f c′ 0.7(3)
A1=bfd=(10.34)(11.1)=114.8 in.2

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 3-109

2. ∆ = 0.5[(0.95 × 11.10) - (0.8 × 10.34)] = 1.14 in.

N= A1 + ∆ = 319 + 114
. = 19.0
B = A1 / N = 319 / 19.0 = 16.8 in. (use 17 in.)
A1 = 19 × 17 = 323 in.2
3.fp = P / (B × N) = 525 / 323 = 1.63 ksi
Fp = 0.35 f c′ A2 / A1 ≤ 0.70 f c′

Fp = 0.35(3) 784 / 323 ≤ 0.7(3)

Fp = 1.64 ≤ 2.1. Use 1.64 ksi
fp < Fp o.k.
4. m = (N – 0.95d) / 2 = [19 – (0.95 × 11.1)] / 2
=4.23 in.
n = (B – 0.80b) / 2 = [17 – (0.8 × 10.34)] /2
= 4.36 in.
4(163
. )(114.8)
5. q =
. + 10.34) 2 (164
(111 . )
=0.993>0.64, ∴λ=1.0
111
. (10.34)
n′ = = 2.68 in.
4
6. c = max(4.23, 4.36, 2.68)
c = 4.36
fp 163
.
t p = 2c = (2)4.36
Fy 36
= 1.86 in. (use 2 in.)
Use: Base plate 17 × 2 × 1 ft-7 in.

EXAMPLE 13

Given:
A W12×106 column (d = 12.89 in. and bf = 12.22 in.) has a reaction of 600 kips. Select the dimensions of the pier (fc′ = 3 ksi) and
design the base plate for the smallest nominal area possible. Fy = 36 ksi.
Solution:
P 600
For maximum Fp, use A2 = = = 1143 in.2
0175
. f c′ 0175
. (3)
Use A2 = 34 × 34 = 1156 in.2
2
1  600 
1. A1 =   = 282 in.
2
1156  0.35(3) 
600
A1 = = 286 in.2 governs
0.7(3)
A1 = bfd = (12.22)(12.89) = 157.5 in.2

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 3-110

2. ∆ = 0.5[(0.95 × 12.89) – (0.8 × 12.22)] = 1.235 in.

N ≈ 286 + 1.235 = 18.1 in. (use 19 in.)
B = 286 / 19 = 15.6 in. (use 16 in.)
A1 = 19 × 16 = 304 in.2
3. fp = 600 / 304 = 1.97 ksi
Fp = 0.35 f c′ A2 / A1 ≤ 0.7 f c′

Fp = 0.35(3) 1156 / 304 ≤ 0.7(3) = 21

. ksi
= 2.1 ∴ Fp= 2.1 ksi
fp < Fp o.k.
4. m = [19 – (0.95 × 12.89)] / 2 = 3.38 in.
n = [16 – (0.8 × 12.22)] / 2 = 3.11 in.
4(197
. )(157.5)
5. q =
(12.22 + 12.89) 2 (2.1)
=0.937>0.64, ∴λ=1.0
157.5
n′ = = 314
. in.
4
6. c = max(3.38, 3.11, 3.14)
= 3.38
fp .
197
t p = 2c = (2)338
. = 158
. in. (use 1¾ in.)
Fy 36
Use: Base plate 16 × 1¾ × 1 ft-7 in.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
View publication stats