Design of Pinned Column Baseplates

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

Steeltech Steel Detailers P/L
24 Curzon Street Tennyson 4105
New South Wales & ACT

Acooma Design & Drafting
South Coast Mail Centre 2500
Ahaust Steel Detailers Pty Ltd
111 Best Road Seven Hills 2147
Centreline Drawing Services Pty Ltd
6/21 Oaks Avenue Dee Why 2099
Elmasry Steel Design And Detailing
88 Arthur Street Strathfield 2135
Enterprise Drafting Company P/L
Suite 2 Level 1 163 King St Newcastle 2300
Evan Swan Pty Ltd
7 Rutledge Ave Dapto 2530
Hunter Drafting Service Pty Ltd
Unit 8 57 Crescent Road Waratah 2298
Leading Edge Drafting Services Pty Ltd
85 Bottlebrush Drive Glenning Valley 2261
Manwaring Design & Drafting Service
PO Box 22 Binalong 2584
Monaro Drafting
PO Box 299 Cooma 2630
Production Line Drafting Pty Ltd
104a William St Bathurst 2795
Southtech
PO Box 270 Moruya 2537
Supadraft
PO Box 716 Brookvale 2100
02 4226 5502
02 9764 6660
02 4929 6910
Victoria
02 9981 4432
02 4261 8763
02 4967 6500
02 4388 6768
02 6227 4215
02 6452 2337
02 6334 3500
02 4474 2120
02 9975 1777
Queensland
Amalgamated Drafting
PO Box 419 Spring Hill 4000
BDS Technical Services
80 Tribune Street South Brisbane 4101
Brice Engineers Pty Ltd
7--8 Brice Court Mt Louisa 4814
Cad Systems Australia Pty Ltd
Unit 35 5 Hill Street Coolangatta 4225
Hempsall Steel Detailing Pty Ltd
Suite 1\67 Redcliffe Parade Redcliffe 4020
Online Drafting Services Qld
Unit 6 Pacific Chambers,
3460 Pacific Highway Springwood 4127
Paul Anderson Drafting Service Pty Ltd
39 Lurnea Crescent Mooloolaba 4557
Q E I Pty Ltd
104 Wellington Road East Brisbane 4169
Steelcad Drafting Pty Ltd
PO Box 1456 Coorparoo DC 4151
South Australia
Sasteel Drafting Service P/L
33 Maxwell Road Pooraka 5095
USDSA
16 Drury Terrace Clovelly Park 5042
Warradale Drafting Service P/L
1 Boulder Court Woodcroft 5162
02 9831 6511
07 3831 0099
07 3844 8093
07 4774 8322
07 5536 7004
07 3284 3020
07 3299 2891
07 5478 0186
07 3891 6646
07 3844 3955
07 3848 6464
Bayside Drafting (Aust) P/L

PO Box 647 Frankston 3199
Engineering Design Resource
68 Hotham St Traralgon 3844
Fabcad Drafting P/L
68 Hotham St Traralgon 3844
Flexsteel Drafting Service
3 Monterey Cresc Donvale 3111
Innovative Drafting Pty Ltd
17 Bunyip Court Morwell 3840
PM Design Group
Gore Place Portland 3305
Precision Design Pty Ltd
Level 1 75--89 High St Cranbourne 3977
USD Australia
PO Box 129 Wendouree 3355
08 8349 9622
08 8374 4999
08 8322 5533
03 9781 4011
03 5174 0255
03 5174 9026
03 9842 1737
03 5133 0362
03 5521 7204
03 5995 2333
03 5339 9690
Western Australia
Cadstruction Drafting
Suite 4 First Floor East Victoria Park 6101
Carnegie Associates Pty Ltd
Unit 3 46 Hasler Road Osborne Park 6017
Multiplan
Unit 12 4 Queen St Bentley 6102
Perth Drafting Company (WA)
48 Kishorn Road Applecross 6153
Steelplan Australia Pty Ltd
15/885 Albany Highway East Victoria Park 6101
Universal Drafting
7/175 Main St Osborne Park 6017
Westplan Drafting
Unit 3/11 Robinson Road Rockingham 6168
08 9472 7457
08 9244 1311
08 9356 5993
08 9364 8288
08 9362 2599
08 9440 4750
08 9592 2499
New Zealand
4D Steel Detailing
PO Box 13772 New Zealand
Ormond Stock Associates Ltd
PO Box 1048 New Zealand
64 3 377 5880
64 6 356 1088
STEEL CONSTRUCTION -- EDITORIAL

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.
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 Australias 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 servicesare available free of
charge to financial corporate members.
For details regarding ASI services, readers may contact the Institutes
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
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.
ASI Contact Details

Queensland & N.T.
Email: enquiries@steel.org.au
Website: www.steel.org.au
State Manager - Queensland & NT

John Gardner - Mob 0418 788 870
Tel (07) 3853 5320 Fax (07) 3853 5321
Head Office - Sydney
Victoria & Tasmania
Level 13, 99 Mount Street

North Sydney NSW 2060
(PO Box 6366, North Sydney NSW 2059)
Tel: (02) 9929 6666 Facsimile (02) 9955 5406
State Manager - Victoria & Tasmania

Leigh Wilson - Mob 0417 353 364
Tel (03) 9556 5422 Fax (03) 9556 5423
New South Wales & ACT
Western & South Australia
State Manager - NSW & ACT

Scott Munter - Mob 0418 970 899
Tel (02) 9929 6307 Fax (02) 9955 5406
State Manager - Western & South Australia

Rupert Grayston - Mob 0419 922 294
Tel (08) 9480 1166 Fax (08) 9226 2355
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002
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. Design actions in accordance with AS 4100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. AXIAL COMPRESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. RECOMMENDED MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. AXIAL TENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2. BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3. DESIGN OF ANCHOR BOLTS -- LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. SHEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY FRICTION
OR BY RECESSING THE BASE PLATE INTO THE CONCRETE -LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY A SHEAR
KEY-- LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4. TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY THE ANCHOR BOLTS -LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS DETAILING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. APPENDIX A -- Derivation of Design and Check Expressions
for Steel Base Plates Subject to Axial Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. APPENDIX B-- Derivation of Design and Check Expressions
for Steel Base Plates Subject to Axial Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. APPENDIX C -- Determination of Embedment Lengths and Edge Distances . . . .
13. APPENDIX D -- Design Capacities of Equal Leg Fillet Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14. APPENDIX E -- Design of Bolts under Tension and Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
10
12
12
12
17
21
30
30
30
30
31
34
36
38
38
40
46
49
53
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
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
V *x
Figure 1
N *c
V *y
Column Design Actions:

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
recommended for design purposes. It is not intended to
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 shear force, V* (usually acting in the direction

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.
2. NOTATION
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
= bearing area at the i--th iteration in
A (i)
1
Murray--Stockwell Model
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
= assumed bearing A H at the i--th iteration in
A (i)
H
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
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
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 = v 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
= capacity factor
f (i)
= maximum bearing strength of the concrete at
b
the i--th iteration in Murray--Stockwell Model
f b = maximum bearing capacity of the concrete
based on a certain bearing area A 1
N c = design axial capacity of the concrete
foundation
N c.lat = lateral bursting capacity of the concrete
N cc = design pull--out capacity of the concrete
foundation
N s = design axial capacity of the steel base plate
N t = axial tension capacity of the base plate
N tb = design capacity of the anchor bolt group
under tension
N th = tensile capacity of a hooked bar
N w = design axial capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column section
v w = design capacity of the fillet weld per unit

length
V f = design shear capacity of the base plate
transferred by means of friction
V s = design shear capacity of the shear key
V s.c = concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
V s.cc = pull--out capacity of the concrete
V s.b = shear capacity of the shear key based on its
section moment capacity
V s.w = shear capacity of the weld between the
shear key and the base plate
V w = design shear capacity of the weld connecting
the base plate to the column
= ratio depth and width of column
= coefficient of friction
There is a large variety of drilled--in anchors available,

many of which are proprietary bolts whose installation
and design is governed by manufacturers
specifications. References [2], [15], [17], [31] and [33]
contain information on these types of anchors.
This paper deals only with cast--in--place anchors, and
specifically hooked bars, anchor bolts with a head and
threaded rods with a nut/washer/plate. Grade 4.6 anchor
bolts are recommended to be utilised in base plate
applications.
3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS

Typical base plates considered in this paper are formed
by one unstiffened plate only as shown in Fig. 3. For
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].
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
concrete has fully hardened.
Different types of cast--in--place anchors are shown in in
Fig. 2. These include anchor bolts with a head, threaded
rods with nut, threaded rods with a plate washer, hooked
bars or U--bolts. These are suitable for small to medium
size structures considering anchor bolts up to 30 mm in
diameter.
sp
sg
Figure 3
Typical unstiffened base plate

(Ref. [26])
4. AXIAL COMPRESSION
4.1.
INTRODUCTION
The literature review presented covers only models

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 f b is calculated in
accordance with Clause 12.3 of AS 3600 [10] as
follows:
f b = min 0.85f c
(a) Hooked Bar
(b) Bolt with

head
(c) Threaded
Rod with Nut
(d) Threaded rod

with plate washer
Fillet
welds
Square plate
Figure 2
(e) U--Bolt
Common Forms of Holding Down

Bolts (Ref. [26])
A2
, 2f c
A1
(1)
where:
= 0.6
f b = maximum bearing capacity of the concrete
based on a certain bearing area A 1
f c = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of
concrete at 28 days
A 1 = bearing area which varies depending upon the
assumed pressure distribution between the base
plate and the grout/concrete
A 2 = supplementary area which is the largest area of
the supporting concrete surface that is
geometrically similar to and concentric to A 1
4.2.
BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE

REVIEW
The main design models available in literature differ for

their assumptions adopted regarding the pressure
distribution at the interface between the base plate and
the grout/concrete and for the relative sizes of the base
plate and the connected column. For example, the first
model presented, here referred to as the Cantilever
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
Murray--Stockwell Models, deal with base plates with
similar dimensions to the ones of the connected column.
4.2.1.
This model assumes that, in the case of a H--shaped

column, the axial load applied by the column is
concentrated over an area of 0.95d c 0.80b fc which
corresponds to the shaded area of Fig. 4(a). This causes
the base plate to bend as a cantilevered plate about the
edges of such area as shown in Fig. 4(b). The pressure
at the underside of the base plate is assumed to be
uniformly distributed, as shown in Fig. 4(c), therefore
leading to a conservative design for large base plates.
a1
Cantilever Model
Historically the cantilever model was the first available

approach for the design of base plates. It is well suited
for the design of large base plates with the dimensions
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)
Manuals over several editions. Its formulation is
suitable for the base plate design of only H--shaped
columns. [5]
bi
b fc
a1
dc
0.95d c
di
a1
a1
Dashed lines indicate
yield lines
Figure 5
0.8b fc
Each of the two collapse mechanisms considered by this

model assumes two yield lines to form at a distance a 1
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
design capacity is based on the longest cantilever length
a m, being the maximum of the two cantilevered lengths
a 1 and a 2 shown in Fig. 4(a).
The design moment m *c and the design capacity of the
plate m s are calculated per unit width in accordance
with AS 4100 [11] as:
a2
(a) Critical sections and assumed loaded area

Critical section
in bending
ti
(b) Deflection of the cantilevered plate

N *c
N *c
b id i
ti
(c) Assumed bearing pressure
Figure 4
Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])
N *c a 2m
b id i 2
m s = f yiS i =
(2)
0.9f yi t 2i
4
(3)
where:
N *c = column design axial compression load
am
N *c
b id i
a2
Cantilever Model -- Collapse

mechanisms
m *c =
a2
a2
m *c = design moment per unit width due to N *c

m s = plate nominal section moment capacity per unit
width
f yi = yield stress of the base plate used in design
S i = plastic section modulus per unit width of plate
a m = max(a 1, a 2)
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
compression load N *c to the supporting material
(verified per unit width of plate):
0.9f yi t i
N *c a 2m
= m s
4
b id i 2
2
m *c =
(4)
yields a maximum design axial force of:
N *c
0.9f yi t 2i b id i
2 a 2m
bi
(5)
bc
or equivalently requires a minimum plate thickness of:

ti am
2N *c
0.9f yi b id i
a1
(6)
Provisions on how to extend this approach for channels

and hollow sections columns have been provided in
[21], [26] and [36].
The dimensions of the loaded areas and of the
cantilevered lengths a 1 and a 2 for channels and hollow
sections are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 and their values
are summarised in Table 1 based on the
recommendations in [21], [26] and [36]. The values in
Table 1 assume that the column is welded concentrically
to the base plate.
di
a1
a2
Figure 7
SHS and
RHS [36]
SHS and
RHS [21]
CHS [21]
a1
d i 0.95d c
2
d i 0.95d c
2
di dc + ti
2
d i 0.95d c
2
d i 0.80d o
2
b i 0.80b fc
2
b i 0.80b fc
2
bi bc + ti
2
b i 0.95b c
2
b i 0.80d o
2
a1
dc
0.95d c
a1
a2
a2
0.8b fc
Figure 6
a2
Cantilevered plate lengths -- RHS and

SHS (Ref. [26])
a1
di
do
0.8d o
a2
bi
b fc
di
0.95b fc
bi
Table 1 Cantilever Model -- Cantilevered plate

lengths a1 and a2 (refer to Figs. 4, 6, 7
and 8 for the definition of the notation)
SECTION
H--shaped
section [21]
Channel [26]
0.95d c
dc
Cantilevered plate lengths -- Channels

(Ref. [26])
a1
a2
Figure 8
0.8d o
a2
Cantilevered plate lengths -- CHS

(Ref. [26])
Parker in [37] notes how other possible yield line

patterns could be investigated for hollow sections such
as the ones shown in Fig. 9. Nevertheless in [36] he
recommends to investigate collapse mechanisms
similar to the ones considered by the Cantilever Model
with values of a 1 and a 2 as shown in Table 1. In [36] he
also recommends to specify plate thicknesses not less
than 0.2 times the maximum cantilever length in order
to limit the deflection of the plate.
Applying this model to base plates with similar
dimensions to the ones of connected column would lead
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
cantilevered plate length a m. Other design models need
to be adopted in these instances.
bi
Dashed lines
bc
indicate yield
lines
a1
di dc
0.95d c
a1
0.95b c
a2
a2
bi
a1
do di
0.8d o
d1
a1
a2
Figure 9
4.2.2.
0.8d o
Dashed nes
nd ca e y e d nes
a2
Possible yield line pattern (Ref. [37])
= an
Fling Model
Fling, in [25], presents a design model applicable to base

plates with similar dimensions to the ones of the
connected column and reviews the design philosophy of
the Cantilever Model. Only H--shaped columns are
considered in this model.
He recommends to apply both a strength and a
serviceability criteria to the design of base plates.
Regarding the Cantilever Method, which is based on a
strength criteria, he recommends to apply also a
serviceability check by limiting the deflection of the
cantilevered plate. He argues that, while increasing the
size of the plate, deflections of the cantilevered plate
would increase reducing the ability of the most
deflected parts of the plate to transfer the assumed
uniform loading to the supporting material. Thus the
load would re--distribute to the least deflected portions
of the plate which may overstress the underlying
support. His proposed deflection limit intends to
prevent such overstressing. He also notes that such limit
should vary depending upon the deformability of the
supporting material. Fling suggests 0.01 in. (0.254 mm)
to be a reasonable deflection limit to be imposed for
most bearing plates, even if he clearly states that it is
beyond the scope of his paper to specify deflection
limits applicable to various supporting materials. [25]
Regarding the design model for base plates with similar
dimensions to the ones of the connected column he
recommends to apply the following strength and
serviceability checks.
The strength check is based on the yield line theory and
the assumed yield line pattern is shown in Fig. 10. The
procedure is derived for a base plate with width and
length equal to the columns width and depth (therefore
b i and d i equal b fc and d c respectively).
The support conditions assumed for the plate are fixed
along the web, simply supported along the flanges and
free on the edge opposite to the web.
Figure 10 Fling Model -- Yield Line Pattern

(Ref [25])
The n erna and ex erna work produced under oad ng
are ca cu a ed as fo ows
W = 1 (2d 1 + 4b es)m p + 1 4b esm p (7)
b es
b es
W e = 2f *p(d 1 2b es)b es 1 + 4 f *pb 2es
2 3
(8)
where
m p = p as c momen capac y of he basep a e per
un w d h
*
f p = un form des gn pressure a he n erface of he
base p a e and grou concre e wh ch s assumed
o be equa o he max mum bear ng s reng h of
he concre e f b
W and W e = n erna and ex erna work
d 1 and b es = as def ned n F g 10
F ng n roduces he fo ow ng parame er o s mp fy
he no a on
=
d1
b es
(9)
Equa ng he n erna and ex erna work y e ds

m p(2 + 4 + 4) = f *pb 2es( 2 )
3
(10)
The va ue of wh ch max m ses he requ red momen

capac y of he base p a e s as fo ows
=
34 + 41 21
2
(11)
wh ch s ob a ned by d fferen a ng for he express on

of he p as c momen der ved from equa on (10)
The requ red base p a e h ckness s hen ca cu a ed as
[25]
0 43b c
= 0 43b c
f *p
0 9f y (1 2)
f b
0 9f y (1 2)
(12)
where:
b fc = column flange width
Equation (12) includes a safety factor of 1 and the plastic
moment capacity is increased by 10% to allow for lack
of full plastic moment at the corners (as recommended
in [25]).
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
grout/concrete is assumed to be equal to the maximum
bearing strength of the concrete f b.
The serviceability check verifies the adequacy of the
maximum deflection of the base plate calculated from
elastic theory and assumes the same support conditions
as adopted in the strength check. The maximum
deflection occurs at the middle of the free edge of the
plate (opposite to the web).
4.2.3.
In 1975 Stockwell presents a design model for lightly

loaded base plates with base plate dimensions similar to
the columns width and depth. His formulation is
suitable to only H--shaped columns. He defines a lightly
loaded base plate as one wherein the required base plate
area is approximately equal to the column flange width
times its depth. [40]
The novelty of this model is to assume that the pressure
distribution under the base plate is not uniform but is
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.
This pressure distribution implies that in relatively thin
base plates uplift might occur at the free edge.
A few years later Murray carried out a finite element
study to verify the possibility introduced by Stockwell
of uplift at the free edge. He established, from both
modelling and testing, that thin base plates lift off the
subgrade during loading and therefore the assumption
of uniform stress distribution at the interface is not valid.
He also concludes that experimental evidence does not
support the need for the serviceability check introduced
by Fling. [32]
Murray further expanded Stockwells model to obtain
the model which is known today as the
Murray--Stockwell Model [41] and refines the
definition of lightly loaded base plates to be relatively
flexible plate approximately the same size as the outside
dimensions of the connected column. [32]
According to Stockwell there is only a little difference
between the procedures specified in Fling and
Murray--Stockwell Models as he considers both to be
valid and logically derived. [41]
b
a3
AH
d
a3
a3
a3
b
Figure 11 Murray--Stockwell Model -- Assumed

shape of pressure distribution
The Murray--S ockwe Mode assumes ha he
pressure ac ng over he H--shaped bear ng area s
un form and equa o he max mum bear ng capac y of
he concre e f b The va ues of A H and f b are no
known a pr or and herefore an era ve procedure can
be mp emen ed o eva ua e he r va ues The va ue of
f b s no known a pr or as depends upon he va ue
of he bear ng area A 1 wh ch n h s case s equa o A H
The area con a ned ns de he co umn prof e d b s
used as a f rs approx ma on for he bear ng area A H n
he ca cu a on of f b as shown n equa on (13)
f b1 = m n 0 85f
AA
2
1
1
2f
(13)
where
f b1 = max mum bear ng s reng h of he concre e a
he f rs era on
1
A 1 = bear ng area a he f rs era on equa o
d b
The H--shaped bear ng area A H s hen ca cu a ed as he
area requ red o spread he app ed oad w h a un form
pressure equa o f b1
A H1 =
N *c
f 1
(14)
where
A H1 = assumed H--shaped bear ng area A H a he f rs
era on
1
If f b s equa o he max mum poss b e concre e
bear ng s reng h 2f no fur her era ons are requ red
and he va ue of he H--shaped bear ng area has
converged o A H1 ca cu a ed w h equa on (14) In he
case f b1 s ess han 2f or equ va en y f he ra o
of A 2A 1 s sma er han (20 85) 2 = 5 53 he va ue of
he H--shaped bear ng area can be fur her ref ned
Success ve va ues of f b and A H a he -- h era on
can be ca cu a ed as fo ows
f (i)
= min 0.85f c
b
=
A (i)
H
AA
2
(i1)
1
, 2f c
N *c
f (i)
(15)
(16)
where:
f (i)
= maximum bearing strength of the concrete at
b
the i--th iteration
A (i)
= bearing area at the i--th iteration equal to A (i1)
1
H
A (i)
= assumed H--shaped bearing A H at the i--th
H
iteration
The value of A H can be further refined until the
difference between the values obtained from two
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
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):
The Stockwell--Murray Method is recommended by

DeWolf in Refs [21] and [22] and introduced in the
AISC(US) Manuals in 1986. [7]
[1] notes that there are cases where the value under the
square root of equation (18) becomes negative. In such
cases other design models should be adopted.
Ref. [21] extends the application of Murray--Stockwell
Model to channels and hollow section members as
shown in Figs. 12, 13 and 14. For these sections the
value of the bearing area A (1)
(to be utilised in the first
1
iteration while calculating f (1)
and A (1)
) and the
H
b
expressions of the cantilevered length a 3 and of the
H--shaped area A H are summarised in Table 2. [21][26]
The same iterative procedure, as outlined for H--shaped
sections, can be adopted to refine the value of A H if the
calculated f b is less than 2f c.
a3
a3
A H = 2b fca 3 + 2a 3(d c 2a 3)
= 2b fca 3 + 2d ca 3 4a 23
(17)
where:
a 3 = cantilevered langth
A H = assumed H--shaped bearing area
d c and b fc = depth and width of column
and solving for a 3 yields:
a 3 = 1 (d c + b fc) (d c + b fc) 2 4A H
4
Figure 12 Murray--Stockwell Model:

Assumed pressure distribution -Channels (Ref. [26])
a3
(18)
The plate is now designed in accordance with AS4100

[11] as a cantilevered plate of length a3 supporting a
uniform pressure equal to the converged value of the
maximum bearing strength of the concrete previously
calculated:
2
0.9 f yi t 2i
a2
N* a
= m s
m *c = f b 3 = c 3
2
AH 2
4
The maximum axial load is then calculated as:
0.9f yi t 2i A H
N *c
2a 23
a3
(19)
a3
a3
a3

Assumed pressure distribution -- RHS
and SHS (Ref [26])
d3
a3
or equivalently the minimum required plate thickness t i

is determined as:
ti a3
2N *c
0.9f yi A H
(20)
The value of the cantilevered plate length a 3 should be

measured from the centre--line of the columns plate
elements as shown in Fig. 11.[21]. Nevertheless in the
formulation presented here, as also carried out in [32]
and [21], the full flange thickness is included in the
calculation of the cantilevered plate length a 3. This only
leads to a slightly more conservative design.
do

Assumed pressure distribution -- CHS
(Ref [26])
4.2.4.
Thorntons Model
In [42] and [43] Thornton recommends that a

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
where:
a m = max(a 1, a 2, a 4)
= min 1,
(21)
yi i i
2 X
1 + 1 X
f b = min 0.85f c
dAb , 2f
2
i i
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
a 4 the Fling Model would be governing if equals 1 or
Murray--Stockwell Model would be governing if is
less than 1. The use of 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 is less than
1, or equivalently if its X is less than (45) 2 = 0.64.
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.
His simplification introduces an approximation in the
value of a 4 with an error of 0% (unconservative) and
17.7% (conservative) for values of d cb fc ranging from
3/4 to 3. The value of N *0 represents the portion of the
total axial load N *c acting over the column footprint
(d cb fc) under the assumption of uniform bearing
pressure under the base plate. Murray--Stockwell Model
is concatenated in equation (21) to carry a design axial
load equal to N *0 (not on N *c) over the assumed H--shaped
bearing area inside the column footprint.
a 4 = 1 d cb fc
4
*
N 0 = portion of N *c acting over the column footprint
N*
= c b fcd c
b id i
4b fcd c
N *c
X=
(d c + b fc) 2 f bd ib i
d cb fc
= 24 N *0 = 24 N *c
d ib i
a 5f b
a 5f b
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)
1
H--shaped section
[21]
b fcd c
Channel [26]
b fcd c
RHS SHS
[21][26]
CHS [21][26]
b cd c
4.2.5.
d 20
4
a3
(d c + b fc) (d c + b fc) 2 4A H
4
(2b fc + d c) (2b fc + d c) 2 8A H
4
(d c + b c) (d c + b c) 2 4A H
4
d o d 2o 4A H
2
Eurocode 3 Model
Clause 6.11 and Annex L of Eurocode 3 deal with the

design of base plates. [23]
AH
2b fca 3 + 2a 3(d c 2a 3)
2b fca 3 + (d c 2a 3)a 3
d cb c (d c 2a 3)(b c 2a 3)
= 2(d c + b c)a 3 4a 23
(d 2o d 23)4
= (d oa 3 a 23 )
where : d 3 = d o 2a 3
Requirement of the EC3 is to provide a base plate

adequate to distribute the compression column load
over an assumed bearing area.
The EC3 Model assumes an H--shaped bearing area as
shown in Fig. 15(a). It requires that the pressure
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.EC3 MO
(22)
(b) Shor Pro ec on
where:
f j.EC3 = bearing strength of the joint
(c) Large Pro ec on
Figure 15 Assumed bearing pressure

distributions specified in EC3 [23]
= jk jf cd
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
N*
Basep a e
Concre e
founda on
aabb
1 1
E eva on
a1
a 1 and b 1 = dimensions of the effective area as

shown in Fig. 16
a 1 = mina + 2a r, 5a, a + h, 5b 1 a
f cd = design value of the concrete cylinder
compressive strength = f ck c
f ck = characteristic concrete cylinder compressive
strength (in accordance with Eurocode 2)
c = partial safety factor for concrete material
properties (in accordance with Eurocode 2)
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 =
6 MO
(23)
No specific expression for the sizing of the steel base

plate are provided.
N *c
c
c
c
c
Bear ng area
c
(a) Genera Case
10
b1
b 1 = minb + 2b r, 5b, b + h, 5a 1 b
Th s area no nc uded
n bear ng area
b
a
P an
Figure 16 Column base layout [23]

43
431
RECOMMENDED MODEL
Design considerations
The recommended des gn mode s a mod f ed vers on

of he one proposed by Thorn on n [43] and a so
ad us ed o su Aus ra an Codes AS 3600 [10] and AS
4100 [11] The Thorn on Mode
s curren y
recommended by he AISC(US) Manua [5]
Unfor una e y he Thorn on Mode presen ed n [5]
[42] and [43] s su ab e for he des gn of H--shaped
co umns on y H s formu a on has been here mod f ed
for H--shaped sec ons and ex ended for channe s and
ho ows sec ons adop ng a s m ar approach as n [43]
wh ch s ou ned n Sec on 10
The mod f ca on o he Thorn on Mode n roduced
here regards he manner n wh ch Murray--S ockwe
Mode s mp emen ed I s n he au hors op n on ha
he ca cu a on of A H and consequen y of (refer o he
era ure rev ew for fur her de a s regard ng he
no a on) shou d be ca cu a ed based on N * ( o a ax a
compress on oad) and no N *0 (por on of he o a oad
N * ac ng over he co umn foo pr n under he
assump on of un form bear ng pressure) Th s n ends
o ensure ha Murray--S ockwe Mode wou d govern
he des gn on y for base p a es of s m ar d mens ons o
he ones of he connec ed co umns and for gh y oaded
co umns wh ch represen s he ac ua base p a e ayou
for wh ch he mode has been deve oped The des gn
wou d hen be based on on y one assumed pressure
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
guidelines are provided in [34]. A similar pressure
ditribution is considered in the Eurocode 3 Model. [23]
Nevertheless in the recommended model the
application of Murray--Stockwell Model is always
carried out based on assumed bearing areas inside the
column footprint even for base plates with dimensions
greater than the columns depth and width as other
bearing distributions need to be validated by testings.
a
a
Figure 17 Possible assumed bearing areas (Ref

[34])
Design criteria
There are wo d fferen des gn scenar os wh ch are

cons dered here
he co umn s prepared for fu con ac n
accordance w h C ause 14 4 4 2 of AS 4100 [11]
and he ax a compress on may be assumed o be
ransferred by bear ng Des gn requ remen s are as
fo ows
he end of he co umn s no prepared for fu
con ac and he we ds sha have suff c en
s reng h o carry he ax a oad The des gn
requ remen s are as fo ows
11
433
Design Concrete Bearing Strength
The max mum bear ng s reng h of he concre e f b s

de erm ned n accordance w h C ause 12 3 of AS 3600
[10]
f b = m n 0 85f
AA
2
1
2f
(26)
I s n eres ng o no e from equa on (26) ha

ncreas ng he supp emen ary area A2 ncreases he
concre e conf nemen wh ch y e ds arger des gn
capac es N c The oss of bear ng area due o he
presence of he anchor bo ho es s norma y gnored
[21]
N des c = [N c N s] m n N *c
where
N des c = des gn capac y of he base p a e connec on
sub ec o ax a compress on
N c = des gn ax a capac y of he concre e
founda on
N s = des gn ax a capac y of he s ee base p a e
N w = des gn ax a capac y of he we d connec ng
he base p a e o he co umn sec on
*
N c = des gn ax a compress on oad
N c = f bA
b
b
432
(25)
where
=06
A1 = b d
The ax a capac y of he concre e founda on N s
hen ob a ned mu p y ng he max mum concre e
bear ng s reng h f b by he base p a e area A as fo ows
Ineffec ve areas
b
b
N des c = [N c N s N w] m n N *c
(24)
434
Steel Base Plate Design
The base p a e h ckness requ red o res s a cer a n

des gn ax a compress on N * s ca cu a ed as fo ow
= am
2N *c
0 9f y d b
where
a m = max(a 1 a 2 a 4)
=mn 1 k
1+ 1X
(27)
X = YN *c
a 1 a 2 a 4 k and Y are abu a ed n Tab e 3
When X s grea er han 1 shou d be aken as 1
Table 3 Values for the design and check specified by the recommended model for axial compression.
Section
a1
a2
b i 0.80b fc
2
a4
H--shaped
sections
d i 0.95d c
2
Channels
d i 0.95d c b i 0.80b fc
2
2
2d cb fc
3
RHS
d i 0.95d c b i 0.95b c
2
2
2d23b
SHS
d i 0.95b c b i 0.95b c
2
2
bc
3
CHS
d i 0.80d 0 b i 0.80d o
2
2
d0
2 3
d cb fc
4
N s =
0.9f yi d ib i t 2i
2a m
(28)
2 k a4
= max 1, 12
k t i Y
a m = max a 1, a 2,
a4
0.9f2 d b 1
yi i i
a 1, a 2, a 4, k and Y are tabulated in Table 3.

This model is applicable to column sections as outlined
in Table 3 with the exception of H--shaped sections for
which b fc2 is greater than d c as a different yield line
pattern from those considered would occur.
4.3.5.
Weld design at the 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. [11] The weld is designed as a fillet weld and its
design capacity N w is calculated as follows:
N w = v wL w = 0.6f uwt tk rL w
(29)
where:
length
= 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)
12
4N *c
f ba 25
b fc + d c
8N *c
f ba 25
2b fc + d c
4N *c
f ba 25
bc + dc
3 d ib i
2 bc
2 d ib i
d0
4N *c
f ba 25
2b c
4N *c
f bd 20
i i
c fc
i i
c fc
i i
c fc
0.6 for all GP welds (Table 3.4 of AS 4100)

f uw = nominal tensile strength of weld metal (Table
9.7.3.10(1) of AS 4100)
t t = design throat thickness
k r = 1 (reduction factor to account for length of
welded lap connection)
Lw = total length of fillet weld
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of the design
capacity of fillet welds v w.
5. AXIAL TENSION
5.1.
where:
a5
dd bb
3 d b
2 db
db
1.7
db
2
i i
Thicknesses of base plates with dimensions similar to

those of the connected column section calculated with
equation (27) might be quite thin, especially in the case
of lighlty loaded columns (where Murray--Stockwell
Model applies). It is therefore recommended to specify
plate thicknesses not less than 6mm thick for general
purposes and not less than 10mm for industrial
purposes.
Similarly a procedure to evaluate/check the capacity of
an existing plate is carried out as follows:
INTRODUCTION
There is not much guidance available in literature for the

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
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
Model, were firstly derived for bolted connections
between hollow sections. [37] and [36] suggest their
suitability also for the design of base plates. These
models include also guidelines for determining the
required number of anchor bolts. Such guidelines are
incorporated in the literature review for the design of the
steel base plates as their application is only suitable for
the particular base plate model they refer to and as they
do not account for the interaction between the anchor
bolts and the concrete foundation, which is dealt with in
the literature review on anchor bolts.
5.2.
BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE

REVIEW
The models presented here differ for their assumptions

regarding the failure modes investigated. It is
interesting to note that the design guidelines currently
available deal with a limited number of base plate
layouts.
For each model outlined here, the column sections and
the number of bolts considered by the model are
specified after the model name.
5.2.1.
Murray Model
(H--shaped sections with 2 bolts)
In [32] Murray presents a design procedure for base

plates of lightly loaded H--shaped columns with only
two anchor bolts subject to uplift. He also notes that to
his knowledge no studies have been published on the
design of lightly loaded column base plate subjected to
uplift loading prior to his [32]. His design model is
based on yield line analysis and the yield line pattern
assumed is shown in Fig. 18.
The expressions of the internal and external work can be
written as follows:
W i = m p 2 2b + 1 4 2
b fc
b b fc
= m p
4b 2 + 2b 2fc
bb fc
bb fc
N sg
m p =
2
2 b fc 4b + 2b 2fc
*
t
b
Figure 18 Murray Model Assumed Yield Line
Patterns (Ref. [32])
(32)
(35)
The minimum plate thicknesses required under a certain

axial load N *t are obtained substituting equations (34)
and (35) into equation (32) as shown below:
b fc2
(31)
The presence of the flanges requires b to remain always

less or equal to d c2 and therefore the value of b which
maximises the plate plastic capacity varies depending
upon the column cross--sectional geometry as follows:
b
b
d
(34)
b = fc for fc c
2
2
2
b
dc
d
for fc c
2
2
2
d c2
b = 2 (b fc2) d c2
1 unit
The value of b which maximises the required plate

plastic capacity is obtained differentiating equation (32)
for b and is equal to:
b
(33)
b = fc
2
5.2.2.
Tensile Cantilever Model

(Generic Model)
Tensile Cantilever Method, as it is referred here,

assumes that the tension in the anchor bolts spreads out
to act over an effective width of plate (b e ) which is
assumed to act as a cantilever in bending ignoring any
stiffening action of the column flanges.
bt
1
dh
bt
bt
be
Figure 19 Tensile Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])

It can be applied to generic base plate layouts.
Nevertheless it provides conservative designs as it
ignores the two way action of the base plates.
Reference [47] suggests a 45 degree angle of dispersion
as shown in Fig. 19. This is based on considerations of
elastic plate theory as described in reference [13].
The design moment and the design moment capacity are
then calculated as:
N *t s g 2
b
d
for fc c
0.9f yib fc4

2
2
(36)
N*
m *t = n t b t
b
(38)
N *t s gd c
b
d
for fc c
2
2
2
0.9f yi(d c + 2b fc)
2
(37)
0.9b e t 2i f yi
m s =
4
(39)
Murray carried out a finite element study to investigate

the adequacy of the proposed model. He also validated
the reliability of equations (36) and (37) using limited
13
b b
(30)
Equating the external and internal work the expression

of m p can be written as follows:
ti
b fc2
d c2
where:
N *t = design tension axial load
s g and b = as defined in Fig. 18
ti
b fc2
s g2
s g2
N *ts g
N* sg 2
=
We = t
2 2 b fc
2b fc
b =
experimental results, which consisted of 4 base plate

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
thicknesses varying from 0.364 in. (9.246 mm) to 0.377
in. (9.576 mm).
This method is included in the design model
recommended by the current AISC(US) Manual [5].
where:
m *t = design moment per unit width due to N *t
n b = number of anchor bolts

b t = distance from face of web to anchor bolt location
d h = diameter of the bolt hole
b e = 2b t + d h
The axial capacity of the base plate can then be
determined equating the design moment and the section
moment capacity as follows:
do
N
*
t
ti
a2
a1
*
t
ti
(40)
Figure 20 Bolted CHS Flange--plate Connection

(Ref. [36])
or equivalently the minimum base plate thickness t i

under a certain loading condition is calculated as:
[27] also recommends to determine the number of

required anchor bolts as follows:
N *t
ti =
5.2.3.
0.9f yib et 2i n b
4
bt
4N *t b t
0.9f yi b e n b
(41)
IWIMM Model
(CHS with varying number of bolts)
The IWIMM Model has been named here after the

initials of the authors of the model. [27] The model was
firstly derived for the design of CHS bolted
connections. [37] and [36] suggest its use also for the
design of base plates of CHS columns.
The base plate layout considered by this model is shown
in Fig. 20.
The plate thickness is calculated based on the design
axial tension load N *t as follows:
ti
2N *t
f yi f 3
(42)
where:
= 0.9
d 0 = outside diameter of a CHS
t c = thickness of column section
f 3 = 1 k 3 + k 23 4k 1
2k 1
r
k 1 = ln r 2
3
k3 = k1 + 2
d
r2 = 0 + a1
2
d0 tc
r3 =
2
a 1 and a 2 as defined in Fig. 20
[27] recommends to keep the value of a 1 as small as
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
the weld around the CHS.
nb
N *t
1
1 1 +
f 3 f lnr 1
N tf
3
r2
(43)
where:
= 0.9
N tf = nominal tensile capacity of the bolt
d
r 1 = 0 + 2a 1
2
d0
r2 = + a1
2
a1 = a2
This procedure does not verify the capacity of the
concrete foundation and its interaction with the anchor
bolts needs to be checked.
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
plate, a symmetric arrangement of the bolts around the
column profile and a weld capacity able to develop the
full yield strength of the CHS.
[28] notes that adopting the above prying coefficient for
the bolted CHS connection in the base plate design is
conservative due to the greater flexibility of the concrete
foundation when compared to the steel to steel
connection. [36]
5.2.4.
Packer--Birkemoe Model
(RHS with varying number of bolts)
The Packer--Birkemoe Model is here named after the

authors of the model. [36] This model deals with base
plate for RHS as shown in Fig. 21 and it has been
validated only for base plates with thickness varying
between 12mm and 26mm.
The model includes prying effects in the design
procedure. The prying action decreases while
increasing a 2 as shown in Fig. 21. The value of a 2 should
be kept less or equal to 1.25 a 1, as no benefit in the base
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
prying action absorbs about 20--40% of the anchor bolt

capacity. The coefficient is then calculated as follows:
d
= 1 sh
(44)
where:
s p = bolt pitch as defined in Fig. 21
The designer should then select a preliminary plate
thickness in the following range:
KN *b
t i KN *b
1+
(45)
where:
K=
N *b = design axial tension load carried by one bolt

N*
= nt
b
d f = nominal anchor bolt diameter
The value of represents the ratio of the bending
moment per unit width of plate at the bolt line to the
bending moment per unit width at the inner hogging
plastic hinge. In the case of a rigid base plate is equal
to 0 while for a flexible base plate with plastic hinges
forming at both the bolt line and at the inner face of the
column (see Fig. 21) is equal to 1. From equilibrium,
the value for preliminary base plate layout is
calculated as follows:
KN tf
1
t 2i
a 2 + d f2
(a 2 + a 1 + t c)
tc
a3
a4
= = = = =
sp
sp
(46)
5.2.5.
Eurocode 3 Model
(H--shaped sections with varying
number of bolts)
The Eurocode 3 does not provide a specific design

procedure for the design of base plates subject to
tension. Nevertheless it provides very useful guidelines
for the design of bolted beam--to--column connections
(Appendix J.3 of [23]) which can be adapted for the
design of base plates considering all anchor bolts as
bolts on the tension side of the beam--to--column
connection.
The design of the end plate or of the column flange of
the beam--to--column connection is carried out in terms
of equivalent T--stubs as shown in Fig. 22.
e m 0.8a 2
a
e m
should be taken as 0 if its value calculated with

equation (46) is negative.
The capacity of the steel base plate is then calculated as
follows:
N t =
t 2i (1 + )n b
K
a
N*
N *b n t 1 + a 3
4 1 +
b
where:
=
15
(48)
e min
e m
0.8r
r
tf
e min
Figure 22 T--stub connection in EC3 (Ref. [23])
KN *t
1 1
t 2i n b
a 4 = min 1.25a 1, a 2 +
tf
(47)
where:
N t calculated with equation (47) must be greater than
N *t . The actual tension in one bolt, including prying
effects, is determined as follows:
N *t
Figure 21 Packer--Birkemoe Model (Ref. [36])
a 3 = a 1 d f2 + t c
N *t
4a 310 3
(where f yi is in MPa)
f yis p
The value of previously calculated in equation (46)

does not have to equal the value of calculated from
equation (48) as the former assumes the bolts to be
loaded to their full tensile capacity.
It interesting to note how equation (48) provides an
estimate of the prying action present in the base plate.
a2
a1
df
2
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
T--stub. The failure modes considered are three as
shown in Fig. 23. The axial capacity is calculated as
follows:
F t.Rd = minF t.Rd1, F t.Rd2, F t.Rd3
(49)
where:
4M pl.Rd
m
2M pl.Rd + nB t.Rd
F t.Rd2 =
m+n
F t.Rd3 = B t.Rd
0.25lt 2f y
M pl.Rd = f
MO
Mode 2
Mode 1
Ft
Mode 1: Complete
flange yielding
Ft
+Q
2
Mode 2: Bolt failure

with flange yielding
B 2 B 2
t
4M plRd
m
t.Rd
l t 2ff y MO
m
t.Rd
Figure 24 Prying action in T--stub for the three

failure modes considered in (Ref.
[23])
The tension zone of the end plate should be considered
to act as a series of equivalent T--stubs with a total length
equal to the total effective length of the bolt pattern in
the tension zone, as shown in Fig. 26.[23] The length to
be utilised in the design of the equivalent T--stub is
for bolts outside the tension flange of the beam
for other inner bolts

l eff.c = minp, 4m + 1.25e, 2m
(52)
for other end bolts

Q
l eff.d=min(0.5p+2m+0.625e, 4m+1.25e, 2m) (53)
Ft
Mode 3: Bolt failure
B 2 B 2
t
= nm
2
1 + 2
l eff.a = min0.5b p, 0.5w+2m x+0.625e x,

(50)
4m x+1.25e x, 2m x)
for first row of bolts below the tension flange of
the beam
l eff.b = min(m, 2m)
(51)
Ft
Mode 3
2
1 + 2
n = e min 1.25m
l = equivalent effective length calculated in
equations (50), (51), (52) and (53)
B t.Rd = tensile capacity of bolt group
MO = partial safety factor
= 1.10 (boxed value from Table 1 of [23])
F t.Rd1, F t.Rd2 and F t.Rd3 = tensile capacities of the
T--stub based on failure modes 1, 2 and 3
respectively
Ft
+Q
2
t.Rd
F t.Rd1 =
BF
where:
= as defined in Fig. 27
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
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.RdB t.Rd as shown in Fig. 24.
16
2 65.5
1.4
e
m
Centreline of web
(a) Combined bolt group action
4.5
4.75 4.45
1.3
1.2
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
Figure 25 Yield line patterns for unstiffened

flange (Ref. [23])
bp
w
Equivalent T--stub
for extension
ex
mx
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
l eff.a
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
ex mx
p
p
bp
1 =
l eff.c
m2
2 =
m1 + e
Portion between flanges

l eff.a
l eff.a
Transformation of extension to equivalent T--stub
Figure 26 Effective lengths of equivalent T--stub

flanges representing an end plate
(Ref. [23])
17
m2
e m
b p2
m1
m1 + e
l eff.b
l eff.d
e m
0.9
m1
Figure 27 Value of Effective lengths of to

calculate equivalent T--stub flanges
(Ref. [23])
5.3.
DESIGN OF ANCHOR BOLTS -LITERATURE REVIEW
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
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]
5.3.1.
Anchor bolts with anchor head
The first detailed guidance on the design of anchor bolts

is provided by the American Concrete Institute
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.
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 4 f c
(where f c is in psi) or 0.33 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 0.33 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
0.33 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]
s
s
Ld
Shaded = L 2
d
Area
Ld
2Ls L
2 cos 1
360 0
2
d
+s
2
L s4
2
d
(a) Two Intersecting Failure Cones
Ld
Ld
s
2
Ld
2Ls L
2 cos 1
Area = L 2d
360 0
2
d
+ Ld
+s
2
L s4
2
d
Circle -- Sector + Triangle

(b) Failure Cone Near an Edge
(Note: the inverse cosine term listed in the

equations is in degrees)
Figure 29 Calculation of the projected area of
two intersecting failure cones or one
failure cone near an edge (Ref. [30])
Simple procedures to calculate the effective tensile
areas of bolt groups are provided in [30], i.e. the
procedure to calculate two intersecting cones is shown
in Fig. 29. [30]
Depending upon the bolt group layout other possible
failure modes could take place such as the one shown in
Fig. 30 where an entire part of the concrete foundation
would pull--out. In such cases the effective tensile area
should be calculated selecting the smallest projected
area due to the possible concrete failure surfaces as
shown in Fig. 30. A similar average tensile strength as
in the case of the pull--out cones can be adopted. [2][17]
An anchor bolt is classified as shallow when its length

is less than 5in. (127 mm). Nevertheless for design
purposes caution should be applied is using angles
greater than 90 degrees as cracks might be present at the
concrete surface. It is recommended not use angles other
than 90 degrees. [2][17]
The previous considerations assume the concrete
element to be stress--free and only subjected to the
anchor bolts loading. [2] and [17] consider the case
when there is a state of biaxial compression and tension
in the plane of the concrete. The former loading
condition would be beneficial to the anchor bolts
strength while the latter loading state would lead to a
significantly decrease in strength. Nevertheless, it is in
the opinion of the ACI 349 Committee that a failure
cone angle of 90 degrees can still be utilised as it is
assumed that any cracking would be controlled by the
main reinforcement designed in accordance with
current concrete codes, i.e. AS 3600 [10].
The design procedure proposed by ACI 349 and [17] is
also recommended by DeWolf in [21].
[21] notes that the use of cored holes, such as shown in
Fig. 32, should not reduce the anchorage capacity based
on the failure cone, provided that the cored hole does not
extend near the bottom of the bolt. This situation should
be avoided if the dimensions shown in Fig. 32 are
followed. [26]
Projection
Tension Force
3d f
but 75mm
Figure 30 Potential Failure Mode

with limited depth (Ref. [2])
Transverse splitting is another failure mode which can
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
a pull--out cone failure in uncracked concrete and
therefore no additional design checks need to be
considered. [2][17]
Ld
df
Figure 32 Suggested layout for Cored Holes

to Permit Minor Adjustments in
Position on Site (Ref. [26])
Tension Force
45 o
Transverse
splitting
Figure 31 Transverse splitting failure mode

(Ref. [2])
It is interesting to note that in the case of shallow anchor
bolts the angle at the bolt head formed by the failure
cone tends to increase from 90 degrees to 120 degrees.
19
Fa ure
surface
B ow ou
cone
45 o
Figure 33 Failure Surface of Blow--out Cone

due to Lateral Bursting of the
Concrete (Ref [31])
La era burs ng of he concre e can occur when an
anchor bo s oca ed c ose o he concre e 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:
N tf = A sf uf = 0.75A 0f uf = 0.75
d 2f
f
4 uf
(54)
where:
A s = tensile stress area in accordance with AS1275
[9] and conservatively approximated with 0.75
A0
d2
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 0.33 f c applied
over the projected cone area as follows: [2][3][17]
N c.lat = 0.33 f c a 2e
(55)
where:
= 0.65 in Ref. [3], 0.85 in Refs. [2] and [17]
N 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 = N c.lat = 0.33 f c a 2e
(56)
and solving equation (56) for a e yields:

ae = df
f uf
7 f c
(57)
where:
= 0.65 in Ref. [3],
= 0.85 in Refs. [2] and [17]
Adopting the capacity reduction factor 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].
20
Tension Force
Potential
Failure
Zone
Spiral
reinforcement
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 bolts 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]
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
8x diameter of the
hairpin reinforcement
Ld
Development length
from AS3600
Ld
3
Maximum distance from

anchor head for reinforcement
to be considered effective
Ld
3
5.4.
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.
N th = 0.7f cd f L h
where:
= 0.80 (as recommended in [26])
N th = tensile capacity of a hooked bar
d f = nominal diameter of the hooked bar
L h = length of the hook
5.4.1.
(59)
RECOMMENDED MODEL
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 *b
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
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.
N *t
N *p
N *b
N *t
N *b
N *t
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
deformation is of similar or of greater magnitude as the
bolt elongation, as shown in Fig. 36(b) and (c), prying
actions N *p should be accounted for in the design.
Possible bending moment diagram occurring in the
plate in all three collapse mechanisms are also shown in
Fig. 36. [13]
For design purposes the use of a prying factor of 1.4 is

conservatively recommended as suggested in [37] and
[36].
5.4.2.
Design Criteria
(60)
with the following constraint to ensure a ductile failure

of the anchorage system (connection of anchor bolt to
concrete):
N cc > N tb
(61)
and complying with the anchor bolts embedment

lengths and concrete edge distances specified in
Sections 5.4.5. and 5.4.6. and
where:
subject to axial tension
N t = design tensile axial capacity of the steel base
plate
N w = design axial capacity of the weld connecting
N tb = design capacity of the anchor bolt group
under tension
p = 1/1.4 = 0.72 prying reduction factor as
recommended in references [36] and [37] unless
noted otherwise in 5.4.3.
N cc = design pull--out capacity of the concrete
foundation
N *t = design axial tension load
5.4.3.
Anchor bolt design
The tensile design capacity of the anchor bolt group

N tb is calculated in accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2 of
AS4100 [11] as the sum of the design capacities of each
single bolt N tf.
N tb = n bN tf = n bA sf uf
(62)
where:
= 0.8
Refer to Section 14. for tabulated values of the tensile
capacities of anchor bolts.
In the case the base plate is designed based on
Packer--Birkemoe Model the preliminary number of
bolts required is obtained from equation (62) which is
then refined in the section describing the steel plate
design. Once the steel plate design is complete the
capacity of the anchor bolt groups needs to be
re--checked. The value of p to be adopted in the Packer
-- Birkemoe model is specified in equation (95).
In the case the design of the base plate is carried out base
on IWIMM Model (refer to Section 5.4.7.) the tensile
design capacity of the anchor group should be
22
n bN tf
1
1 1 +
f 3 f lnr 1
3
r
(63)
The recommended model for axial tension is based on

the following design criteria:
N des.t = [N t ; N w ; pN tb] min N *t
N tb =
where:
= 0.9
p = 1 to be used in equation (60) as prying effects
are already included in equation (63)
d
r 1 = 0 + 2a 1
2
d0
r2 = + a1
2
a 1 = a 2 (condition to apply equation (63))
f 3 = 1 k 3 + k 23 4k 1
2k 1
r
k 1 = ln r 2
3
k3 = k1 + 2
d
r2 = 0 + a1
2
d0 tc
r3 =
2
a 1, a 2 and d 0 are defined in Fig. 20
5.4.4.
Design of concrete pull--out capacity
The pull--out capacity of the concrete N cc varies

depending upon the anchor bolts layout and it can be
calculated in accordance with AS 3600 as follows:
N cc = 0.33 f c A ps
(64)
where:
= 0.7 (based on required for Clause 9.2.3 of AS
3600)
A ps = effective projected area
Equation (64) is similar to the expression provided in
Clause 9.2.3 of AS 3600 to calculate the concrete
capacity of a slab against punching shear, which
involves a similar failure mechanism as the one of the
pull--out cone. The value of h to be calculated in Clause
9.2.3 of AS 3600 would be equal to 1 as the shape of the
effective loaded area is a circle. AS 3600 recommends
a strength reduction factor under shear of 0.7 (Table 2.3
of AS 3600).
The capacities of a few common bolt layouts as shown
in Fig. 37 are here outlined. [47]
L1
L2
a e = max 100, d f
Projected
area
L1
45 o
L2
(a) Single Cone
(b) Two Intersecting Cones
L4
(c) Four Intersecting

Cones
Figure 37 Common bolt layouts (Ref. [47])

The effective projected areas of each anchor bolt layout
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)
= L 21
A ps.2 = effective projected area of 2 anchor bolts with
overlapping of their failure cones as shown in
Fig. 37(b);
= d 22 1
2 cos 1(s2L 2)
+ s L 22 s 24
2
360
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 as shown in Fig. 37(c).
= d 24 0.75
2 cos (s2L 4)
360
1
+ s L 24 s 24 + s 24
2
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]
23
6 f c
f uf
(65)
Tabulated values of equation (65) are presented in

Section 12.
The following simplified expressions, which have been
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).
for Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
a e = 4 d f when f c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
100 when f c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
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
The requirement of a minimum side cover of 100 mm is
based on recommendations of [21], [26] and [39].
5.4.6.
L4
Minimum embedment lengths
The recommended minimum embedment length Ld of

an anchor bolt is determined in accordance with the
design guidelines specified in [2] adjusted to suit AS
3600.
a
Ld
Lh
Edge of Concre e
Founda on
Figure 38 Hook embedment lengths and edge

distances for anchor bolts (Ref [26])
The m n mum embedmen eng h Ld for an so a ed
anchor bo shou d be ca cu a ed as fo ows (refer o
F g 38)
Ld =
d 2 + d 2 + 4
100
(66)
2
where
= 0 7 (based on n C ause 9 2 3 of AS 3600)
fu As
=
0 33 f c
Even f has been observed ha for sha ow anchors he
ang e a he bo head formed by he concre e fa ure
cone ends o ncrease from 90 degrees o 120 degrees
( herefore ncreas ng he concre e pu --ou capac y) a
m n mum m of 100mm s here n roduced n equa on
(66) as cracks m gh be presen a he concre e surface
Refer o Sec on 12 for he der va on of equa on (66)
and of he s mp f ed express ons shown be ow wh ch
can be used n p ace of equa on (66)
for Grade 4 6 bo s and Grade 250 rods
L d = 9 d f when f c = 20, 25 and 32MPa

for Grade 8.8 bolts
L d = 13 d f when f c = 20 MPa
Hooked anchor bolts, as shown in Fig. 38, need to be
detailed with a minimum embedment length as
specified for bolts with an anchor head of same nominal
diameter (specified by equation (66) or by its alternative
simplified expressions) and with a minimum hook
length calculated as follows:[24][26]
A sf uf
(67)
Lh
0.7f cd f
where:
L h = hook length of anchor bolt
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
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.
5.4.7.
y
y
H--SHAPED COLUMN -- 2 anchor bolts

The yield line pattern considered by the recommended
model is shown in Fig. 39 and is similar to the one
considered in Murray Model modified to account for the
reduction in plate capacity due to the anchor bolt holes.
d c1
2
d c1
2
b fc
Figure 39 Yield line pattern -- H--shaped column

section with 2 anchor bolts
The plate thickness required to resist a design axial force
N *t is calculated as follows:
(68)
N t = 0.9f yit 2i
ti
N *t
0.9f yi
d c1
,
2
y = min
Design of the Steel Base Plate
The recommended procedure to design or check the

steel base plate varies depending upon the column
section and number of bolts considered.
Recommended models are illustrated below for the
following combinations of column section and number
of bolts:
H--shaped column section -- 2 anchor bolts (*)
H--shaped column section -- 4 anchor bolts (*)
Channel -- 1 anchor bolt (*)
Channel -- 2 anchor bolts (*)
Hollow section (RHS, SHS, CHS) -- 2 anchor
bolts (*)
Hollow section (RHS, SHS) -- 4 anchor bolts (*)
Hollow section (CHS) -- varying no. of anchor
bolts (IWIMM Model described in the literature
review)
Hollow section (RHS) -- varying no. of anchor
bolts (Packer--Birkemoe Model described in the
literature review)
The derivation of the models marked with (*) is
illustrated in Section 11. It is important to note that,
similarly to Murray Model, in the case of open sections
the derived models to determine the capacity of the steel
base plate capacity account only for the strength of plate
present inside the column footprint.
The reduction in plate capacity due to the bolt hole has
been included in the model. The yield line patterns
considered for open sections are assumed to develop
inside the internal faces of the column profile.
24
(69)
fc1 d h
b fc1
(70)
where:
b fc1 = width of the column flange ignoring web
thickness
= b fc t w
d c1 = clear depth between flanges (column depth
ignoring thicknesses of flanges)
t w = thickness of web
d h = diameter of bolt hole
2b 2fc1 2b fc1d h + 4y 2
=
4sy
y and s = as defined in Fig. 39
In this model the reduction in plate capacity due to the
presence of a bolt hole along the yield line perpendicular
to the web has been included.
Further reductions due to other yield lines intersecting
bolt holes have not been considered as they are very
unlikely to occur and a more detailed analysis should be
carried out in such situation.
The critical yield line pattern is a function of the value
of y calculated from equation (70). To ensure that none
of the oblique yield lines intersects the bolt hole, as
assumed in the model derived, the following condition
needs to be satisfied:
(71)
y > l2
where:
l1 =
dh
2
1 4sd
h
2
l 1l 3
l2 =
s
d2
h
4
l 21
and the notation is defined in Fig. 40.

l3
y c = mina b, y
y d = min a b,
fc1
a b = distance from bolt hole to inside face of

flange
s
s
Web
diameter of hole = d h
l2
d 2h4 l21
Edge of plate
The yield line patterns considered by the recommended

model are shown in Figs. 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.
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
the case of H--shaped column with 2 anchor bolts (refer
to equation (71) and Fig. 40).
The recommended design procedure is as follows:
(72)
fc1 d h
y
sp
y
y
ab
b fc
Figure 42 Yield line pattern (b) H sections
(73)
ab
y
b fc1
(74)
and the value of is calculated as follows:

sp
= max( a, b) when y <
2
sp
= b when y < and y > a b
2
sp
= max( c, d, e) when y
2
where:
2b 2 2b fc1d h + 4y 2
a = fc1
2sy
b fc1(b fc1 d h)(a b + y) + 2(y + a b)a by
b =
2sa by
b 2fc1 d hb fc1 + 2y 2c + s py c
c =
2sy c
b fc1s d hs + 2y 2d + s py d d hy d
d =
sy d
b fc1s 2d hs + 4a 2b + 2a bs p 2a bd h
e =
2a bs
25
ab
N *t
0.9f yi
b
y=
Figure 41 Yield line pattern (a) H sections

s
H--SHAPED COLUMN -- 4 anchor bolts
N t = 0.9f yit i
d c1
2
b fc
Figure 40 Yield line layout near the bolt hole
d c1
2
l1
ti
dh
s
2
sp
y
ab
b fc
Figure 43 Yield line pattern (c) H sections

s
y
ab
sp
ab
b fc
Figure 44 Yield line pattern (d) H sections
s
y
ti
ab
(76)
d2 , (2b
c1
fc1 d h)b fc1
2b 2fc1 b fc1d h + y 2
2sy
y and s = as defined in Fig. 47
=
CHANNEL -- 2 anchor bolts
Figure 45 Yield line pattern (e) H sections

model are shown in Figs. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.
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
s
ab
sp
ab
(78)
N t = 0.9f yit 2i
b fc
Figure 46 Yield line pattern (f) H sections
The yield line pattern considered by the recommended

model is shown in Fig. 47 and is similar to the one
considered in the case of H--shaped sections with 2
anchor bolts.
The derived model does not assume that the oblique
lines intersect the bolt hole. This should be verified and
s
y
y
d c1
2
d c1
2
N *t
0.9f yi
(79)
y = (2b fc1 d h)b fc1
(80)
ti
CHANNEL -- 1 anchor bolt

sp
= max( a, b) when y <
2
sp
= b when y < and y > a b
2
sp
= max( c, d, e) when y
2
where:
2b 2 b fc1d h + y 2
a = fc1
sy
b (2b d h)(a b + y) + (y + a b)a by
b = fc1 fc1
2sa by
4b 2fc1 2d hb fc1 + 2y 2c + s py c
4sy c
2b fc1s d hs + 2y 2d + s py d d hy d
d =
2sy d
c =
b fc
Figure 47 Yield line pattern -- Channel with 1

anchor bolt
The plate thickness required to resist a design axial force
N *t is calculated as follows:
N t = 0.9f yit 2i
(77)
where:
ab
b fc
26
N *t
0.9f yi
y = min
sp
y
(75)
e =
b fc1s d hs + 2a 2b + a bs p a bd h
2a bs
y c = mina b, y
y d = min a b,
2b
fc1 d h
s
y
ab
ab
sp
sp
ab
ab
y
y
y
b fc
b fc
Figure 48 Yield lines (a) Channels, 2 bolts

s
HOLLOW SECTION (RHS, SHS, CHS) -2 anchor bolts
ab
y
sp
y
ab
b fc
Figure 49 Yield lines (b) Channels, 2 bolts

s
y
ab
sp
ab
b fc
Figure 50 Yield lines (c) Channels, 2 bolts

s
y
ab
sp
y
Figure 52 Yield lines (e) Channels, 2 bolts

model are shown in Figs. 53 and 54.
In the case of yield line pattern (a) 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 the case of H--shaped
column with 2 anchor bolts (refer to equation (71) and
Fig. 40).
(81)
N t = 0.9f yit 2i
ti
N *t
0.9f yi
(82)
y = (2s 2 d h)s 2
(83)

l
l
= max( a, b) when y i = b when y > i
2
2
where:
2s 2 d hs 2 + y 2
a = 2 ys
1
li
b =
2s 3
s 3 = distance from centerline of bolt hole to yield
line location specified by s 4
s 4 = cantilevered lengths a 1 or a 2 of Cantilever
Model depending upon orientation of the column
section
s2
s1
ab
y
b fc
Figure 51 Yield lines (d) Channels, 2 bolts
27
li
s1
s2
li
In the case of yield line pattern (a) 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 the case of H--shaped
column with 2 anchor bolts (refer to equation (71) and
Fig. 40).
(84)
N t = 0.9f yit 2i
s2
ti
s1
y
N *t
0.9f yi
(85)
y = (2s 2 d h)s 2
(86)

l sp
= max( a, b) when y i
2
li sp
= b when y >
2
where:
4s 2 2d hs 2 + 2y 2 + s py
a = 2
2ys 1
li
b =
2s 3
s2
s1
li
Figure 53 Yield lines (a) Hollows, 2 bolts

s4
s3
li
y
s4
sp
s3
li
y
li
s2
s1
s3
s4
y
li
sp
li
Figure 55 Yield lines (a) Hollows, 4 bolts

Figure 54 Yield lines (b) Hollows, 2 bolts
HOLLOW SECTION (RHS and SHS) -4 anchor bolts
model are shown in Figs. 55 and 56.
28
s4
HOLLOW SECTION (RHS) -varying no. of anchor bolts

(Packer--Birkemoe Model)
s3
li
s4
s3
li
RHS COLUMNS -- varying no. of bolts

The model recommended here is Packer--Birkemoe
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
Fig. 21 regarding the notation):
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:
a 2 1.25a 1
(89)
Calculate :
d
= 1 sh
(90)
The designer should then select a preliminary

plate thickness in the following range:
Figure 56 Yield lines (b) Hollows, 4 bolts
1KN+ t KN
HOLLOW SECTION (CHS) -varying no. of anchor bolts

(IWIMM Model)
The recommended model for the design of base plates

of CHS with a symmetric arrangement of bolts around
the column profile as shown in Fig. 20 is based on
IWIMM Model previously outlined in the literature
review.
f yi f 3t 2i
N t =
2
ti
2N *t
f yi f 3
(87)
(88)
where:
= 0.9
f 3 = 1 k 3 + k 23 4k 1
2k 1
r
k 1 = ln r 2
3
k3 = k1 + 2
d
r2 = 0 + a1
2
d tc
r3 = 0
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
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
the weld around the CHS.
Assumptions adopted by this model are a continuous
base plate and a weld capacity able to develop the full
yield strength of the CHS.
29
(91)
where:
K=
4a 310 3
f yis p
(where f yi is in MPa)
a 3 = a 1 d f2 + t c
calculate :
=
KN tf
1
t 2i
a 2 + d f2
(a 2 + a 1 + t c)
(92)
with the constraint of 0

The capacity of the steel base plate is then calculated as
follows:
t 2i (1 + )n b
(93)
K
And N t calculated with equation (93) must be greater
than N *t .
The actual tension in the anchor bolt group,
including prying effects, is determined as follows:
N t =
a
N *tb N *t 1 + a 3
4
1 +
(94)
where:
N *tb = design tension in anchor bolt group including
prying effects
=
KN *t
1 1
t 2i n b
a 4 = min 1.25a 1, a 2 +
df
2
The anchor bolt group capacity calculated with equation

(62) needs to be greater than the axial loads applied to
the bolt group calculated with equation (94). This is
achieved adopting a value p to be used in equation (60)

equal to:
b = 1 + a3
4 1 +
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 N w is calculated as follows:
N w = v wL w = 0.6f uw t t k rL w
(96)
where:
AS 4100)
k r = 1 (reduction factor to account for length of
welded lap connection)
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of v w.
The fillet weld is recommended to be placed all around
the column section profile.
where:
= 0.8
V f = shear capacity of the base plate transferred by
friction
Coefficients of friction 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).
= 0.9
6. SHEAR
6.1.
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
= 0.7
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.
(97)
V f = N *c
(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.
transferred by means of friction when the column is

subject to axial compression loading. The shear
capacity is calculated as follows:
= 0.55
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 0.85f c as shown in
Fig. 58:
A sk =
V *s
0.85 cf c
(98)
where:
= 0.8
A sk = area of the shear key
V *s = design shear force to be transferred by means

of the shear key
The actual length of the shear key L s is then determined
based on the available plate depth in contact with the
concrete, which, referring to Fig. 58, is equal to
(b s t g). The design moment per unit width of plate
m *sk carried by the shear key can then be calculated as
follows:
m *sk =
V *s b s + t g
Ls
2
(99)
where:
m *sk = design moment to be carried
to the shear key
L s = length of shear key
b s = depth of shear key
t g = grout thickness
Equating the design moment to the plastic nominal
section moment capacity of the shear key the following
is obtained (per unit width of plate):
m *sk =
0.9f ys t 2s
V *s b s + t g
=
= m sk
Ls 2
4
(100)
where:
m sk = nominal section moment capacity per unit
width of shear key
f ys = yield stress of shear key used in design
t s = thickness of shear key
from which the minimum thickness for the shear key t sk
can be calculated in accordance with AS4100 as
follows:
ts =
4m *sk
=
0.9f ys
V *s b s + t g
2
L s 0.9f ys
(101)
or equivalently the shear capacity of a shear key is

calculated as:
V s =
0.9f ys t 2sL s
bs + tg 2
(102)
where:
to resist the part of the design shear force that cannot be

resisted by friction.
For shear keys located near a free concrete edge it
should be verified that the concrete is able to carry the
applied shear action. The possible failure surface is the
one which radiates at 45 degrees from the shear keys
edges towards the concrete edge. The concrete capacity
should be determined by multiplying the effective
concrete stress area, determined as the projected area of
the failure surface on the concrete edge ignoring the
shear key area, by the average concrete tensile stress of
0.33 f c (where f c is in MPa) with is equal to 0.85.
[2]
The weld of the shear key shall be designed to carry both
design shear and moment actions acting on the shear
key.
It is interesting to note that the shear key can be welded
to the underside of the base plate at any angle even if it
is common to choose directions parallel to one or both
of the principal axes of the column as these are usually
the axes along which the shear needs to be transferred.
Reference [26] extends this design procedure for shear
keys in two orthogonal directions applying the same
design procedure in both orthogonal directions.
6.4.
TRANSFER OF SHEAR BY THE

ANCHOR BOLTS -- LITERATURE
REVIEW
6.4.1.
Shear only or Shear and Axial

Compression
An anchor bolt located away from a concrete edge and

with sufficient embedment length would typically
transfer the shear through bearing at the surface of the
concrete and testing has shown that this transfer mode
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
anchor bolt diameter. In the presence of a base plate the
translation of the concrete wedge is prevented by a
clamping force provided by the base plate and anchor
bolts. While the anchors behaviour remains in the
elastic range the clamping force applied by the anchor
bolt and base plate is proportional to the shear force.
Applied Shear
Concrete Wedge
d f4
ts
V *c
tg
Shear Key
bs
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
31
df
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
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
average tensile strength of 0.33 f c.
Applied Shear
Failure
Surface
Side
Front
Figure 60 Concrete failure surface under bolt

shear force near a concrete edge (Ref.
[31])
The minimum side cover required to ensure a ductile
failure requires the concrete wedge capacity to carry a
shear load equal to the nominal shear capacity of the
anchor bolt.
The concrete capacity of the wedge cone can be
V u.c = 0.33 f c
a 2e
2
(103)
where:
= 0.65 in [3] and 0.85 in [17]
V u.c = concrete capacity against wedge cone
failure
Experimental results have shown that equation (103)
provides a good estimate of the concrete wedge capacity
using equal to 0.65. [44][45]
Based on [2], [3] and [17] the nominal shear capacity of
the anchor bolt is calculated assuming that the shear is
transferred by friction between the steel and the
concrete with a friction coefficient of 0.7:
V u.b = 0.7
d 2f
f
4 uf
(104)
where:
V u.b = nominal shear capacity of an anchor bolt
assumed to be transferred by friction between
anchor and concrete with a friction coefficient of
0.7
The minimum side cover a e to be adopted for the anchor
bolt to avoid the concrete wedge failure can be
determined ensuring that the concrete capacity against
wedge failure V u.c is able to carry the shear capacity
of the bolt transferred by friction V u.b and equating
equation (103) to equation (104): [2]
a 2e
V u.c = 0.33 f c
2
= 0.7
d 2f
f = V u.b
4 uf
and solving equation (105) for a e:
32
(105)
ae df
f uf
(106)
0.94 f c
where:
= 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 equal
to 0.65 are presented in reference [39] which are as
follows:
for Grade 250 bars and Grade 4.6 bolts:
a e 12d f
minimum bolt spacing 16d f
for Grade 8.8 bolts:
a e 17d f
minimum bolt spacing 24d f
These minimum bolt spacings intend to avoid
overlapping of anchors concrete failure cones. These
have also been recommended in reference [26].
For completeness minimum edge distances have been
derived in Section 12. based on equation (106) with
equal to 0.65 and 0.85. Also simplified expressions have
been derived as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 Grade rods
0.65
f c
ae
20
13 df
0.65
25
12 df
0.65
32
11 df
0.85
20
11 df
0.85
25
10 df
0.85
32
10 df
Table 5 Grade 8.8 bolts
0.65
f c
ae
20
18 df
0.65
25
17 df
0.65
32
16 df
0.85
20
16 df
0.85
25
15 df
0.85
32
14 df
References [26] and [47] recommend edge distances

based on values equal to 0.85.
In the case the side cover is less than a e (calculated with
equation (106)) caution should be placed in the design
and positioning of the reinforcement. The shear
capacity of an anchor bolt located at a distance less than
a e3 from a concrete edge should be ignored. Adopting
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
anchor bolts are located with a side cover less than

2a e3.
A possible reinforcement layout to be utilised in the case
the side cover is in between a e3 and 2a e3 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
*
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]
Ref. [31] considers that, in the case of base plates, there
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
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
concre e
b ock
= 45 o
Anchor bo
Over apped
area
45 o
Anchor bo s
Figure 63 Concrete edge failure cones

(Ref [45])
Ref [34] no es ha
s common and successfu
ndus r a prac ce o use anchor bo s of p nned--base
por a s o res s he shear forces wh e recommend ng
he fo ow ng des gn gu de nes
f shear force s ess han 20% of he ax a oad
hen no spec a prov s ons are requ red
for h gher eve s of shear force sugges s ha
grea a en on be pa d o ensur ng good grou ng
under he base p a e and around he anchor bo s
us ng a m x of m n mum shr nkage
excess ve c earance be ween he anchor bo s and
he ho es n he base p a e shou d be avo ded
o avo d poss b e hor zon a deforma on of he
co umn he shear ac ons shou d be ransferred
e her by recess ng he base p a e n o concre e or
by means of a shear key or by y ng he s ee
co umns o share he oad among ad acen
co umns
6 4 2 Shear and Axial Tension
The ab y of anchor bo s o ransfer shear ac ons was
cons dered n he prev ous paragraph Here on y
ava ab e mode s o descr be he n erac on of shear and
ens on are cons dered
[39] no es ha mos references sugges he use of a
parabo c n erac on equa on s m ar o he one
adop ed for conven ona bo s as a so spec f ed n AS
34
4100 [11] for he des gn of he anchor bo s Sh pp and

Han nger sugges n [39] ha he o a area of anchor
bo requ red shou d be he sum of ha requ red o res s
ens on and ha requ red o res s shear They argue ha
he shear force causes a bear ng fa ure near he concre e
surface and rans a es he shear oad on he anchor bo
n o an effec ve ens on oad by fr c on so ha he bo
mus have enough ens on capac y o res s bo h effec s
[30] no es ha for an anchor bo sub ec o bo h shear
force and ax a ens on des gn d ff cu es ex s because
he n erac on of shear and ens on s no unders ood
and genera y a s ra gh ne n erac on re a onsh p s
assumed wh ch requ res he o a s ee bo area be
ob a ned by add ng he area requ red for shear force and
he area requ red for ens on [30] no es ha h s
approach s conserva ve bu s warran ed s nce es da a
concern ng comb ned shear and ens on are ack ng for
mos anchors
Reference [20] sugges s an e p ca n erac on
re a onsh p be ween ens on and shear for he des gn of
anchor bo s wh e cons der ng he near n erac on
re a onsh p o be conserva ve
References [2] and [17] recommend n he case of
anchor bo s sub ec o comb ned shear and ens on o
adop he des gn recommenda ons regard ng m n mum
embedmen eng h and edge d s ances prov ded n he
case of anchor bo s sub ec o ens on and shear
separa e y
65
651
RECOMMENDED MODEL
Introduction
The recommended des gn mode a ows shear ac on o

be ransferred by fr c on be ween he base p a e and he
concre e grou base by recess ng he base p a e n o he
concre e foo ng by a shear key or by a comb na on of
he above
I s n he au hors op n on ha due o he uncer a n y
regard ng he ab y of anchor bo s o ransfer shear
s ef up o des gner o dec de whe her or no o des gn
he anchor bo s o carry shear ac ons
652
Design criteria
The recommended mode for he des gn of base p a e

sub ec o shear or comb ned shear and ax a ac ons s
base on he fo ow ng des gn cr er a
V des = V + V s V w
mn
V*
(107)
N des c N *c
N des N *
v des = v w v *w
where
V des = des gn shear capac y
connec on
V = des gn shear capac y
ransferred by means of fr c
V s = des gn shear capac y of
of he base p a e
of he base p a e
on
he shear key
V w = design shear capacity of the weld connecting

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 = v 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:
(108)
V f = N *c
where:
= 0.8
= 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
(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
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 v w is designed in accordance with Clause
9.7.3.10 of AS 4100 [11] as follows:
v w = 0.6f uwt tk r
(110)
v *v =
where:
AS 4100)
Refer to Section 13. for tabulated values of the fillet
weld capacity v 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.
V s = V s.c; V s.cc; V s.b; V s.w min V * (111)
where:
V s.c = concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
V s.cc = pull--out capacity of the concrete
V s.b = shear capacity of the shear key based on its
section moment capacity
V s.w = shear capacity of the weld between the
shear key and the base plate
The concrete bearing capacity of the shear key V s.c is
V s.c = 0.85f cL s(b s t g)
(112)
where:
= 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
sp
formation of a failure surface radiating at 45 degrees

from the shear keys edges towards the concrete edge.
The concrete capacity calculated over the projected area
of such failure surface ignoring the shear key area is
determined as follows:
V s.cc = 0.33 f c A psk V s.c
(113)
where:
= 0.7 (based on as required for Clause 9.2.3 of
AS3600)
A psk = projected area over the concrete edge
ignoring the shear key area
The shear capacity of the shear key based on its nominal
section moment capacity V s.b is calculated as follows:
V s.b =
0.9f ys t 2sL s
bs + tg 2
v w2L s
bs+ts
1+ t
s
7. BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS

DETAILING
Typical base plate layouts considered in this paper are
shown in Figs. 65, 66, 67 and 68.
Typical anchor bolts used in base plate applications are
cast--in anchors of category 4.6/S and of diameter either
M16, M20, M24 or M30. Masonry anchors of diameter
M16, M20, M24 may also be used.
Component
to suit
Grout pad
Typical
Typical
Figure 65 2--bolt base plate to UB /UC column

(Ref. [26])
36
sp
Figure 67 2--bolt base plate to channel column

(Ref. [26])
(115)
where:
length (as calculated in equation (110) or as
tabulated in Section 13.)
sg
Figure 66 4--bolt base plate to UB/UC column

(Ref. [26])
(114)
The capacity of the fillet weld connecting the shear key

to the base plate V s.w calculated in the direction
perpendicular to the shear key is determined as follows
(assuming the shear key is welded all around):
V s.w =
sg
Legend
Anchor Bo Loca on
Ho e o a ow grou
egress
Figure 68 2--bolt base plate to hollow columns

(Ref [26])
Preferred anchor bo gauge (sg) and p ch (sp) are g ven
n Reference [12]
The we d a round ph osophy some mes adop ed n
he we d des gn of base p a es can ead o over--we d ng
and can become very expens ve The de a s shown n
F gs 65 66 67 and 68 can f des gned for gh
oad ngs end o he o her ex reme and some fabr ca ors
may prefer o ncrease he amoun of we d ng above ha
shown on he des gn draw ngs n order o preven
damage dur ng hand ng and sh pp ng There s usua y
a comprom se poss b e be ween hese wo ex remes
Ano her des gn cons dera on s he ke hood of a
nom na y p nned base be ng sub ec ed o some bend ng
momen n a rea s ua on [26]
Pr or o erec ng he co umn base p a e assemb y he
eve of he base p a e area shou d be surveyed and sh ms
p aced o nd ca e he correc eve of he unders de of
he base p a e as shown n F g 69 For heav er co umn
base p a e assemb es eve ng--nu arrangemen s may
be used n order o a ow accura e eve ng of he base
p a e as ou ned n [7] and [38] Ho e s zes n base p a es
may be up to 6mm larger than the anchor bolt diameter

in accordance with Clause 14.3.5.2 of AS 4100 [11].
Shims
Level of U/S
Baseplate
Concrete surface
Tack weld 10mm

reinforcing bars to
form cage -- no
tacks on HS bolts.
Figure 69 Use of shims for levelling purposes

(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.
Base plates should be provided with at least one grout
inspection hole through which the grout will rise
indicating a satisfactory grouting operation.
Anchor bolts are usually galvanized, even for an interior
application, in order to avoid corrosion during the
construction period where the steel columns may stand
for some time in the open air.
The size and location of any permanent steel shims
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:
25 mm for grouting;
50 mm for mortar bedding;
75 mm for concrete bedding.
Tolerances on anchor bolt positions and level of base
plate should conform to the provisions of Clause 5.12 of
AS 4100.[11]
[24] notes that possible design and detailing problems
for base plates include:
inadequate development of the anchor bolts for
tension and of concrete reinforcing steel;
improper selection of anchor bolt material;
inadequate base plate thickness;
poor placement of anchor bolts;
shear and fatigue loading on anchor bolts.
Based on a survey carried out in the UK [29] notes that
poor fit of base plates onto holding down bolts is among
one of the four most commonly reported problems of
lack of fit on site.
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
adjustment of anchor bolt positions once the concrete is
cast in order to exactly match the hole centres in the base
plate as already shown in Fig. 32.
Anchor bolt centres must comply with the tolerances set
out in Clause 15.3.1 of AS 4100 as shown in see Fig. 71.
37
Figure 70 Locating Holding Down Bolts

with a Cage (Ref. [26])
1
Specified dimension (+/-- 6 in every 30m

but not greater than +/-- 25 overall)
Max deviation +/-- 6
C/L Anchor bolts

C/L Anchor bolts
+/-- 3
C/L Grid
Detail of off--centre
location of anchor bolts
Unless
otherwise
specified, dimensions
are in millimetres
+/-- 3
C/L Grid
Main
column
C/L grid
Max deviation +/-- 6 if

column offset from main
column line.
Figure 71 Tolerances in Anchor Bolt Location

after AS 4100 (Ref. [26])
[19] and [38] present a discussion of a number of
practical aspects of the use of anchor bolts and should
be referred to if problems arise on site. [19] deals with
general aspects regarding design, installation,
anchorage, corrosion of anchor bolts, bedding and
grouting as well as the responsibilities of all parties in
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.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
9. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
38
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.
American Concrete Institute, Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Structures, ACI 349 -- 90, Manual of Concrete
Practice (1994).
American Concrete Institute, Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Structures, ACI 349 -- 1976, Manual of
Concrete Practice.
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Detailing for Steel Construction, Second
Edition, 2002.
Manual of Steel Construction -- Load and
Resistance Factor Design, Third Edition,
2001.
Manual of Steel Construction -- Volume II
Connections, Ninth Ed./First Edition, 1992.
Manual of Steel Construction -- Load and
Resistance Factor Design, First Edition, 1986.
AS/NZ 1170.0:2002 -- Structural design
actions -- Part 0: General principles, 2002
AS 1275 -- Metric Screw Threads for
Fasteners, 1985.
AS 3600 -- Concrete Structures, 2001.
AS 4100 -- Steel Structures , 1998.
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
Standardized Structural Connections, Third
Edition, 1985.
Ballio, G. and Mazzolani, F.M., Theory and
Design of Steel Structures, Chapman and
Hall, 1983.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Bangash, M.Y.H., Structural detailing in

Steel, Thomas Telford, 2000
Bickford, J.H. and Nassar, S., Handbook of
Bolts and Bolted joints, Marcel Dekker, 1998
Blodgett, O., Design of Welded Structures,
The James F Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation,
Fifth Printing, 1972, Section 3.3.
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.
Chen, W.F., Handbook of Structural
Engineering, CRC Press, 1997
Concrete Society/British Constructional
Steelwork Association/Constructional Steel
Research and Development Organisation,
Holding Down Systems for Steel Stanchions,
1980.
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
DeWolf, J.T, Column Base Plates, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Design Guide
Series No. 1, 1990. (Publication also contains
Refs. [38] and [42])
DeWolf, J.T, Column Anchorage Design,
National Eng Conf., New Orleans,
Proceedings, Paper 15, April/May 1987.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures DD
ENV 1993--1--1 Part 1.1 General rules and
rules for buildings, 1992
Fischer, J.M., Structural details in Industrial
buildings, Engineering Journal, American
1981, pp 83--89.
Fling, R.S., Design of Steel Bearing Plates,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 7 No. 2, April 1970,
pp 37 -- 40.
Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R., Design of
structural connections, Fourth Edition,
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
1994.
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.
Jaspart, J.P. and Vandegans, D., Application of
the component method to column bases,
Proceedings of the International Conference on
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
39
Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong,

Vol.1, 1996, pp 139--144.
Mann, A.P. and Morris, L.J., Lack of fit in
steel structures, CIRIA Report 87, 1981
Marsh M.L. and Burdette, E.G., Multiple Bolt
Anchorages: Method for Determining the
Effective Projected Area of Overlapping Stress
Cones, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1,
1985, pp 29 -- 32.
Marsh, M.L. and Burdette, E.G., Anchorage
of Steel Building Components to Concrete,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1, 1985, pp 33
-- 39.
Murray, TM., Design of Lightly Loaded Steel
Column Base Plates, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol.
20 No. 4, 1983, pp 143 -- 152.
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Post--Installed Anchors -- A Literature
Review, NISTIR 6096, 1998.
Owens, G.W. and Cheal, B.D., Structural
Steelwork Connections, Butterworths,
London, 1989.
Park, R. and Gamble, W.L., Reinforced
Concrete Slabs, Wiley, 1980.
Parker, J.A. and Henderson, J.E., Hollow
structural section connections and trusses -- A
design guide, Second Edition, Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction, 1997.
Parker, J.A., Design with structural steel
hollow sections -- Australian Institute of Steel
Construction Seminar, Australian Institute of
Steel Construction, March 1996.
Ricker, D.T, Some Practical Aspects of
Column Base Selection, Engineering Journal,
26 No. 3, 1989, pp 81 -- 89.
Shipp, J.G. and Haninger, E.R., Design of
Headed Anchor Bolts, Engineering Journal,
20 No. 2, 1983, pp 58 -- 69.
Stockwell, F.W., Preliminary Base Plate
Selection, Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 12 No. 3,
1975, pp 92 -- 93.
Stockwell, F.W., Base Plate Design,
National Eng Conf, Proceedings, Paper 49,
April/May 1987.
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.
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
Thornton W.A., Design of Base Plates for

Wide Flange Columns -- A Concatenation
Method, Engineering Journal, American
1990, pp 173--174.
Ueda, T, Kitipornchai, S. and Ling, K.,
Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
Under Shear, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 1990
Ueda, T, Kitipornchai, S. and Ling, K., An
Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
Under Shear, University of Queensland, Dept
of Civil Eng., Research Report No. CE93, Oct.
1988.
Wood, R.H. and Jones, L.L., Yield--line
analysis of slabs, Thames and hudson, Chatto
& Windus, London, 1967.
Woolcock, S.T, Kitipornchai, S. and Bradford,
M.A., Limit State Design of Portal Frame
Buildings, Second Edition, Australian
Institute of Steel Construction, 1993.
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
compression recommended in this paper is a modified
version of Thornton Model presented in [43] which is
suitable for H--shaped columns only. Its derivation has
also been extended here for channels and hollow
sections.
The recommended model concatenates the Cantilever,
Fling and Murray--Stockwell Models as follows:
ti am
2N *c
0.9f yi d i b i
a m = max(a 1, a 2, a 4)
For clarity the model which describes the design of base
plates subject to uniform pressure using yield line
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
of the column profile.
Values of a 1 and a 2 are available in [21], [26] and [36]
for H--shaped columns, channels and hollow sections
while values of and a 4 are available in [5] and [43] for
only H--shaped sections.
In the recommended model presented here the values of
and a 4 have been re--derived and modified for
H--shaped sections and have been derived for channels
and hollow sections.
The derivation of such values is outlined below based on
a procedure similar to the one utilised by Thornton in
[43]. The values of and a 4 allow the inclusion in the
recommended model of the results obtained with
Murray--Stockwell Model and with the Yield Line
Model respectively. It is important to note that, similarly
to Thornton Model, the recommended model always
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
determined to include the Yield Line Model and then the
value of to include Murray--Stockwell Model is
determined.
A.1
DERIVATION FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

-- H--SHAPED SECTIONS
A.1.1
DETERMINATION OF a 4
(Yield Line Model -- Fling Model)
The base plate is designed assuming a yield line pattern

as shown in Fig. 72. The present derivation is suitable
for H--shaped sections for which b fc2 is less than d c as
a different yield line pattern would otherwise occur.
d1
Dashed nes
nd ca e y e d nes
Figure 72 Yield line pattern for H--shaped

sections
The base p a e s cons dered o be s mp y suppor ed
a ong he f anges f xed a ong he web and free a ong he
edge oppos e o he web So u ons from y e d ne
heory are ava ab e for h s k nd of suppor cond ons
carry ng a un form y d s r bu ed oad f *p and based on
he resu s presen ed n [35]
24m p 1 +
f *p =
b 2c
4+48 22
4 2
4+48 22
3
4 2
(116)
where
= d cb c
In h s case he un form oad f *p s ca cu a ed as fo ows
f *p =
N *c
db
The requ red des gn p as c momen m p o suppor a

un form pressure of f *p s ob a ned by re--arrang ng
equa on (116) as fo ows
m p = f *p
b 2c 6 2 1 + 12 2 + 1
24 2 2 + 1 + 12 2 1
= 1 f *pb 2c 2
8
(117)
where
6 2 1 + 12 2 + 1
2 = 1
3 2 2 + 1 + 12 2 1
The va ue of 2 n roduced n equa on (117) s
approx ma ed by he fo ow ng express on w h an error
of --0% (unconserva ve) and +17 7% (conserva ve) for
va ues of (wh ch s equa o d cb c ) be ween 3 4 and
3
= 1
2
(118)
The requ red p a e h ckness o suppor f *p can be

de erm ned by equa ng he nom na sec on momen
capac y of he p a e m s (per un w d h) o he requ red
des gn p as c capac y (per un w d h) as fo ows
40
m s =
0.9f yit 2i
1 f *pb 2fc 2 = m p
8
4
(119)
and re--arranging equation (119) in terms of the required

plate thickness yields:
t i = 1 d cb fc
4
= a4
Substituting equations (122) and (123) into equation

(124) and solving for a 3 the following expression for a 3
is obtained:
a3 =
2f *p
0.9f yi
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(120)
A.1.2
X=
DETERMINATION OF
(Murray--Stockwell Model)
ti = a3
2N *c
0.9f yiA H
(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
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
H--shaped area A H.
Referring to Fig. 11 the H--shaped bearing area A H can
be expressed as follows:
A H = 2a 3a 5 4a 23
AA , 2f
2
1
(123)
where:
= 0.6
A 1 = bearing area equal to the base plate area A i
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 f b.
AH =
N *c
f b
4N *c
f ba 25
AH =
a 25X
4
(126)
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).
ti =
a5
1 1 X
4
= a 4
=2
8N *c
0.9f yi a 25X
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(127)
where:
(122)
where:
a 5 = b fc + d c
In this derivation, similarly to Thornton Model, the
iterative procedure for the calculation of A H and f b
described in the literature review is not implemented
and is terminated at the first iteration. The value of the
maximum bearing strength of the concrete f b is
f b = min 0.85f c
(125)
Substituting the value of a 3 calculated in equation (125)

into equation (122) yields, after simplifying, the
following expression for the H--shaped bearing area
A H:
The thickness of the base plate calculated according to

Murray--Stockwell Model is determined as follows:
41
a5
1 1 X
4
where:
where:
a 4 = 1 d cb fc
4
f ba 5 (f ba 5) 2 4f bN *c
4f b
X
d ib i
d cb fc 1 + 1 X
A.2

-- CHANNELS
A.2.1
(Yield Line Model)
The yield line pattern assumed in the case of channels is

similar to the one assumed in the case of H--shaped
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
pattern would otherwise occur.
Dashed nes
nd ca e y e d nes
(124)
Figure 73 Yield line pattern for Channels
The base plate is considered to be simply supported

along the flanges and the web and free at the edge
opposite to the web. Available solutions as proposed in
[35] for a uniformly distributed load f *p are utilised.
8m p4+9 22
fp =
*
b 2fc
4+9 22
34
3
2
(128)
N *c
d ib i
The required design plastic moment m p to support a

uniform pressure of f *p is obtained by re--arranging
equation (128) as follows:
m p = f *pb 2fc
DETERMINATION OF
The thickness of the base plate calculated according to

Murray--Stockwell Model is determined as follows:
244 + 9 2 2
(129)
where:
9 2 4 4 + 9 2 + 8
f b = min 0.85f c
a3 =
(130)
0.9f yit 2i
f *pb 2fc 2 = m p
4
(131)

ti =
2d cb fc
= a4
where:
42
2f *p
0.9f yi
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
2
1
(135)
N *c
f b
(136)
f ba 5 (f ba 5) 2 8f bN *c
4f b
a5
1 1 X
4
(137)
where:
X=
8N *c
f ba 25

following expression for the assumed bearing area A H:
AH =
(132)
AA , 2f

is obtained:
m s =
(134)
where:
= 0.6
The assumed area A H is defined as the area able to
The required plate thickness to support f p can be

determined by equating the nominal section moment
capacity of the plate m s (per unit width) to the required
design plastic capacity (per unit width) as follows:
(133)
where:
a 5 = 2b fc + d c
The value of the maximum bearing strength of the
concrete f b is calculated as follows:
AH =
= 1
3
2N *c
0.9f yiA H
A H = a 3a 5 2a 23
24 4 + 9 2 48
The value of introduced in equation (129) can be

approximated by the following expression with an error
of --0% (unconservative) and +6.7% (conservative) for
values of (which is equal to d cb fc ) between 1.25 and
4 (which include the channel sections available in
Australia):
Referring to Fig. 12 the assumed bearing area A H can be

expressed as follows:
9 2 4 4 + 9 2 + 8
= f *pb 2fc 2
2 =
A.2.2
2d cb fc
ti = a3
where:
= d cb fc
Similarly to the case of H--shaped column sections the
uniform load f *p is calculated as follows:
f *p =
a4 =
a 25X
8
(138)

substituting the values of A H and a 3 calculated from
equations (137) and (138) into (133).
ti =
a5
1 1 X
4
16N *c
0.9f yi a 25X
= a 4
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(139)
A.3
X
d ib i
d cb fc 1 + 1 X
ti =

-- RECTANGULAR HOLLOW SECTION
A similar procedure to the ones adopted in the case of

H--shaped sections and channels is adopted for
rectangular hollow sections.
A.3.1
(Yield Line Model)
The yield line pattern considered in the case of

rectangular hollow sections is shown in Fig. 74 and the
required design plastic moment m p under a uniform
pressure f *p can be expressed as follows (based on [35]):
m p = f *pb 2c
1 + 32 1
24 2
1 + 3 2 1
A.3.2
2f
2d23b 0.9f
c c
= a4
a4 =
2d23b
= f *pb 2c 2
(140)
(143)
c c
DETERMINATION OF
(144)
where:
a5 = bc + dc
AA , 2f
2
1
(145)
where:
= 0.6
dc
bc
AH =
Figure 74 Yield line pattern for Rectangular

Hollow Sections
The plate is assumed to be simply supported along all
the edges.
The value of 2 introduced in equation (140) can be
approximated by the following expression with an error
of --0% (unconservative) and +11.1% (conservative) for
values of (which is equal to d cb c) between 3/4 and
4:
(141)
The required plate thickness to support f *p can be

43
yi
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
f b = min 0.85f c
= d cb c
A H = 2a 3a 5 4a 23
N*
f *p = c
d ib i

24 2
23
(142)
where:
where:
2 =
0.9f yit 2i
f *pb 2c 2 = m p
4

where:
=3
2
m s =
N *c
f b
(146)

is obtained:
a3 =
=
2f ba 5 4(f ba 5) 2 16f bN *c
8f b
a5
1 1 X
4
(147)
where:
X=
4N *c
f ba 25

following expression for the assumed bearing area A H:
AH =
a 25X
4
(148)

utilising the values of A H and a 3 calculated from
equations (147) and (148) as previously carried out for
H--shaped sections and channels.
ti =
a5
1 1 X
4
= a 4
m s =
ti =
8N *c
0.9f yi a 25X
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(149)
dd bb 238 1 + 1X X
1.7
A.4
i i
c c
A.4.2
X
d ib i
d cb c 1 + 1 X
A similar procedure to the one previously adopted is

carried out for square hollow sections.
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
required design plastic moment m p under a uniform
pressure f *p can be expressed as follows (based on [35]
and [46]):
f *pb 2c
21.4
(150)
where:
N *c
d ib i
= a4
a4 =
1 b
10.7
yi
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(152)
1 bc
3
DETERMINATION OF
(153)
where:
a 5 = 2b c
f b = min 0.85f c
AA , 2f
2
1
(154)
where:
= 0.6
AH =
bc
N *c
f b
(155)
In a similar manner as previously carried out the value

of a 3 can be determined as follows:
bc
Figure 75 Yield line pattern for Square Hollow

Sections
the edges.
44
A H = 2a 3a 5 4a 23

-- SQUARE HOLLOW SECTION
f *p =

m p =
1 b
10.7
0.9f2f
where:
where:
=
(151)

0.9f yit 2i
f *pb 2c
= m p
4
21.4
a3 =
bc
1 1 X
2
X=
4N *c
f ba 25
(156)
where:
and the value of the assumed bearing area A H can be

AH =
a 25X
= b 2cX
4
(157)
The required plate thickness can now be calculated.

ti =
bc
1 1 X
2
2N *c
0.9f yi b 2cX
= a 4
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(158)
A H = [d 20 (d 0 2a 3) 2]= (a 3d 0 a 23)
4
d ib i
X
=3
2 b c 1 + 1 X
-- CIRCULAR HOLLOW SECTION
(Yield line theory)
The yield line pattern considered in the case of circular

hollow sections is shown in Fig. 76 and the required
design plastic moment m p under a uniform pressure f *p
can be expressed as follows (based on [35]):
m p =
f *pd 20
24
f b = min 0.85f c
f *p =
AA , 2f
2
1
(163)
where:
= 0.6
AH =
(159)
where:
(162)

A similar procedure to the one previously adopted is

carried out for circular hollow sections.
A.5.1
DETERMINATION OF
Referring to figure 14 the assumed bearing area A H can

be expressed as follows:
where:
A.5
A.5.2
N *c
f b
(164)
In a similar manner as previously carried out the value

of a 3 can be determined as follows:
Nc
d ib i
*
a3 =
d0
1 1 X
2
X=
4N *c
d 20f b
(165)
where:
do
and the value of the assumed bearing area A H can be

AH =
Figure 76 Yield line pattern for Circular

Hollow Sections
0.9f yit 2i
f *pd 20
= m p
4
24
(160)
ti =
d0
2 3
2f *p
= a4
0.9f yi
where:
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
d0
2 3
8N *c
0.9f yi d 20X
2N *c
0.9f yid ib i
(167)
where:
=
(161)
2
A.6
a4 =
45
d0
1 1 X
2
= a 4

ti =
(166)
The required plate thickness can now be calculated.

the edges.
m s =
d 20X
4
12
d ib i
d0
d ib i
d0
1+ 1X
X
1 + 1 X
DERIVATION FOR CHECK PURPOSES

-- ALL SECTIONS
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.
The following notation is used in the derivation:

N c.1 = design capacity based on a 1 of the Cantilever
Model
N c.2 = design capacity based on a 2 of the Cantilever
Model
N c.3 = design capacity based on the Yield Line
Model
N c.4 = design capacity based on Murray -Stockwell Model
N c.1 =
0.9f yid ib it 2i
2a 21
(168)
N c.2 =
0.9f yid ib it 2i
2a 22
(169)
N c.3 =
0.9f yid ib it 2i
2a 24
(170)
The calculation of the design capacity N c.4 based on

Murray--Stockwell model requires the following
derivation:
t i = a 4
2N c.4
0.9f yid ib i
N c.4 Y
1 + 1 N c.4Y
ka 4
0.9f2 d b
yi i i
(171)
where:
=k
X
1 + 1 X
X = N c.4Y
and re--arranging equation (171) yields:
N c.4 =
0.9f yib id i
t 2i
2a 24
(172)
where:
= 12
k
2ka 4
t Y
i
0.9f2 b d 1
yi i i
The design capacity of the base plate is then calculated

as follows:
N c = min(N c.1, N c.2, N c.5)
11. APPENDIX B-- Derivation of Design and

Check Expressions for Steel Base
Plates Subject to Axial Tension
The derivation of the expressions for the design and
check of base plate subject to axial tensile loading has
been here carried out for common base plate layouts
when no design guidelines were found in literature.
Yield line theory, based on conservative yield line
patterns (in the authors opinion), has been utilised in
the derivation.
The plate moment capacity per unit length of yield line
has been calculated here based on the plastic section
modulus of the plate as also carried out in Australian and
American guidelines [5], [21] and [26]. It is interesting
to note that [23] recommends to use the elastic section
modulus.
The reduction of plate capacity due to the anchor bolt
holes has been accounted for. Ignoring the effects of bolt
holes is a substantial simplification as also noted in [37].
Murray Model, which considers the design of base
plates for lightly loaded H--shaped columns with two
anchor bolts, has been here re--derived and modified to
include the plate reduction capacity due to bolt holes.
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.
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
number of anchor bolts as listed in Section 5.4.7. The
derivation for the case of a H--shaped column with
anchor bolts, as shown in Fig. 77, is outlined below. All
other cases are considered in a similar manner and the
relevant expressions of their derivation are summarised
in Table 6. Similar considerations outlined for the
validity of the Yield Line Model for the case of a
H--shaped column section with 2 bolts can be applied to
the other base plate configurations considered.
B.1
H--SHAPED COLUMN WITH 2

ANCHOR BOLTS
In the case of H--shaped column sections with two

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
unless noted otherwise.
(173)
where:
N c.5 = max(N c.3, N c.4)
and N c.1, N c.2, N c.3 and N c.4 area calculated as
shown in equations (168), (169), (170) and (172).
46
s
tw
where:
y = as calculated from equation (179)
or equivalently the minimum plate thickness required
for a certain design tension load N *t :
d c1
2
y
y
d c1
2
ti
b fc
Figure 77 Yield line pattern: H--shaped column

with 2 bolts
Considering the symmetry about the column web the
derivation of the internal work and external work is
carried out only considering half the plate area:
b
W i = m p 1y 4 fc1 2d h + 2 2y
2
b fc1
= m p
W e = 2N
*
b
2b
fc1 2d h
4y
b fc1
(174)
(175)
b fc1
where:
b fc1 = b fc t w
y and s are defined in Fig.77
Equating the internal and external work the expression
of the design axial tension load per bolt N *b is obtained
as follows:
b
2b fc1 2d h
4y
m p
+
N b = fc1
y
2s
b fc1
*
(176)
0.9f yi2b 2fc1 2b fc1d h + 4y 2
(177)
(182)
y > l2
where:
l1 =
dh
2
1 4sd
h
2
l 1l 3
l2 =
s
d2
h
4
l 21
and the notation is defined in Fig. 78.

l3
s
Web
diameter of hole = d h
l1
Solving equation (177) for y yields:

y=
l2
b fc1 d h
b fc1
2
(178)
The presence of the flanges requires the value of y to be

always less or equal to d c2 and therefore y is
re--defined as follows:
y = min
d c1
,
2
fc1 d h
b fc1
(179)
The design axial tension capacity of the base plate N t

is then obtained re--arranging equation (176) as follows:
N t = 2b 2fc1 2b fc1d h + 4y 2
47
(181)
In this model the reduction in plate capacity due to the

presence of a bolt hole along the yield line perpendicular
to the web has been included.
Further reductions due to other yield lines intersecting
bolt holes have not been considered as they are very
unlikely to occur and a more detailed analysis should be
carried out in such situation.
The critical yield line pattern is a function of the value
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
condition needs to be satisfied:
The value of y which minimises N *b (or equivalently that

maximises the required m p) is determined
differentiating equation (176) for y.
dN *b
2b 2d h
= fc1 2
+ 4 =0
dy
y
b fc1
4syN *t
0.9f yit 2i
4sy
d2h4 l21
Edge of plate
Figure 78 Yield line layout near the bolt hole

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
obtained with Murray Model.
(180)
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 /
No. Bolts
H--shaped
section
2--bolts
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (a)
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (b)
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (c)
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (d)
H--shaped
section
4--bolts (e)
Channel
2--bolts
Wi
m p
2m p
m p
Channel
4--bolts (c)
Channel
4--bolts (d)
Channel
4--bolts (e)
Hollow
2--bolts (a)
Hollow
2--bolts (b)
Hollow
4--bolts (a)
Hollow
4--bolts (b)
48
fc1 2d h
2b
fc1
b
m p
fc1 2d h
fc1 --2d h
fc1 2d h
4y
b fc1
2b
2b a --2d + 2b
2N *b s
b fc1
4N *b s
b fc1
4y
b fc1
4y+4a b
b fc1
4y + 2s p
b fc1
2N *b
4b
fc1 2d h
2b
4m
p
fc1 2d h
4b a --2d + 4b
fc1
b
m p
4b
2b
m
2y + s p
b fc1
4a + 2s 2d
2d
+
a
s
4s 2d
2y
+s
m
y
4b fc1 2d h 4y + 2s p 2d h
+
m p
y
s
p
fc1
fc1 --d h
2N *b s
b fc1
fc1 --d h
2b
sp
2
min a b, (2b fc1 --d h)b fc1
b fc1
d c1
, (2b fc1 --d h)b fc1
2
min a b,
sp
2
b fc1
y a b,
(2b fc1 dh)bfc1
2N *b
y a b,
b fc1
fc1 d h
b fc1
fc1 d h
sp
2
sp
2
2N *b
l
m p s i
4s y 2d + 2y +s s
2
s
N *b s 1
2
(2s2 d h)s2
2y l i
s
N *b s 3
4
m u
min
(2bfc1 dh)bfc1
2N *b s
b fc1
fc1 --d h
min a b,
2N *b s
b fc1
fc1 d h
2y+2a b
b fc1
min a b,
N *b s
b fc1
2y
+
b fc1
fc1 --2d h
fc1 2d h
2y
b fc1
Restraints
d c1
,
2
4N *b s
b fc1
2N *b
m p
min
4N *b s
b fc1
b 2d h 4a b + 2s p 2d h
+
m p fc1 a
s
b
m p
2b fc1 2d h 4y + 2s p 2d h
+
m p
y
s
Channel
4--bolts (a)
Channel
4--bolts (b)
2b
We
l
m p s i
2
s
2N *b s 1
2
(2s2 d h)s2
2y + s p l i
s
2N *b s 3
4
12. APPENDIX C -- Determination of

Embedment Lengths and Edge
Distances
The tensile capacity of the anchor bolt is determined in

accordance with Clause 9.3.2.2. of AS 4100 as follows:
The recommended guidelines regarding the minimum

embedment lengths and concrete edge distances are
here derived in a similar manner as carried out in
references [39] and [47]. The guidelines derived in [39]
are also recommended in [21] and [26]. Differences
between the derivations carried out here and those
presented in references [39] and [47] are noted.
C.1
MINIMUM EMBEDMENT LENGTH

OF ANCHOR BOLTS
The recommended model requires the anchorage

system (anchor to concrete connection) to fail in a
ductile manner. This is achieved by ensuring that the
concrete capacity is greater than the tensile capacity of
the anchor bolt. [2]
Minimum embedment lengths are here derived,
similarly to [39], for isolated anchor bolts. Anchor bolts
in bolt groups might require longer embedment lengths
due to overlapping of the concrete failure envelopes.
The calculation of the concrete capacity is based on the
procedure described in the recommended model. The
concrete cone projected area is calculated ignoring the
area of the bolt calculated using the nominal bolt
diameter d f. In [39] the projected area is calculated
ignoring the area of a circle equivalent to the projected
area of a heavy hexagonal head. Comparing the ratios
L dd f (where L d is the minimum embedment length
required and d f is the nominal bolt diameter) regarding
the same types of bolts, the results obtained here appear
to be of the order of 1% more conservative than the ones
obtained in [39]. The further simplification of simply
considering the cone as starting at the embedded end of
the anchor bolt has been adopted in reference [47].
The concrete capacity is calculated as follows:
N cc = 0.33 f c A ps
(183)
where:
= 0.7 (based required for Clause 9.2.3 of AS
3600) instead of 0.65 as adopted in references
[39] and [47]
d
A ps = L d + f
2
= (L d + d fL d)
2
49
d
f
2
N tf = A sf uf
(184)
where:
A s = tensile stress area in accordance with AS 1275
[9]
The minimum embedment length is calculated equating
equations (183) and (184) as follows:
0.33 f c L 2d + d fL d = A sf uf
(185)
and solving for L d:

Ld =
d f + d 2f + 4
2
100
(186)
where:
=
f ufA s
0.33 f c
The minimum embedment lengths derived and
recommended in [39] have been calculated adding an
additional safety factor of 1.33. The recommended
embedment lengths recommended here do not include
the additional safety factor of 1.33 (similarly to
reference [47]). For completeness the embedment
lengths have been here calculated with and without the
safety factor of 1.33.
The calculation of the minimum embedment lengths for
anchors with different bolts tensile strengths and for
different concrete strengths is carried out in Tables 7
and 8 in order to explicitly show how this additional
safety factor of 1.33 introduced in references [39] is
incorporated in the results.
The tabulated results are smaller than those presented in
reference [47] due to the different procedure utilised to
determine the projected area even if here a equal to 0.7
has been adopted.
Including the additional factor of safety sf = 1.33
recommended in reference [39] equation (186) can be
re--written as :
L d = sf
where:
d 2f + d 2f + 4
2
100
(187)
sf = 1.33
f ufA s
=
0.33 f c
Table 7 Minimum embedment lengths for Grade

4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
(fuf = 400 MPa)
Bolt
Type
df
mm
As
mm2
fc
MPa
Ld
mm
Min
ratio
Ld/df
1.33
Ld
1.33
Ld/df
12
84.3
20
100.0
8.4
127.8
10.7
M16
16
157
20
131.3
8.2
174.7
10.9
M20
20
225
20
164.1
8.2
218.2
10.9
M24
24
324
20
196.9
8.2
261.9
10.9
M30
30
519
20
248.4
8.3
330.3
11.0
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
M16
16
157
25
123.8
7.7
164.7
10.3
M20
20
225
25
154.6
7.7
205.7
10.3
M24
24
324
25
185.6
7.7
246.9
10.3
M30
30
519
25
234.1
7.8
311.4
10.4
M36
36
759
25
282.6
7.9
375.9
10.4
M12
12
84.3
32
100.0
8.4
112.8
9.4
M16
16
157
32
115.9
7.2
154.2
9.6
M20
20
225
32
144.8
7.2
192.6
9.6
M24
24
324
32
173.8
7.2
231.2
9.6
M30
30
519
32
219.3
7.3
291.6
9.7
M36
36
759
32
264.7
7.4
352.1
9.8
Table 8 Minimum embedment lengths

for Grade 8.8 bolts (fuf = 830 MPa except
fuf = 800 MPa for M12 bolts )
As
fc
mm2 MPa
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
84.3
157
225
324
519
759
84.3
157
225
324
519
759
84.3
157
225
324
519
759
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
Ld
mm
138.3
192.5
240.5
288.7
364.1
439.5
130.5
181.7
226.9
272.4
343.5
414.7
122.3
170.3
212.8
255.4
322.1
388.8
Min
ratio
Ld/df
11.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.1
12.2
10.9
11.4
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.5
10.2
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.7
10.8
1.33
Ld
1.33
Ld/df
mm
183.9
256.1
319.9
384.0
484.2
584.5
173.5
241.6
301.8
362.3
456.9
551.5
162.7
226.6
283.0
339.7
428.4
517.1
15.3
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.1
16.2
14.5
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.2
15.3
13.6
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.3
14.4
f c (MPa)
20
25
32
20
25
32
sf
1
1
1
1.33
1.33
1.33
mm
M12
Bolt df
Type mm
Table 9 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 grade rods

where sf is a safety factor introduced in
reference [39]
Ld
9 df
9 df
9 df
12 df
11 df
10 df
Table 10 Grade 8.8 bolts where sf is a safety

factor introduced in reference [39]
C.2
sf
f c (MPa)
Ld
1
1
1
1.33
1.33
1.33
20
25
32
20
25
32
13 df
12 df
11 df
17 df
16 df
15 df
MINIMUM CONCRETE EDGE

DISTANCES -Anchor bolt subject to tension
[2] provides a design procedure to determine the

minimum concrete edge distances to avoid lateral
bursting of the concrete as discussed in the literature
review of anchor bolts subject to tension. This has been
included in the recommended model. The minimum
edge distance is calculated as follows:
ae = df
f uf
6 f c
(188)
The required minimum edge distances a e calculated

with equation (188) are tabulated in Tables 11 and 12 for
different combinations of anchor bolts and concrete
strengths.
Observing the results of Tables 7 and 8 the embedment

lengths requirements can be simplified as shown below.
50
Table 11 Minimum concrete edge distances for

anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade
250 rods (fuf = 400 MPa)
subject to tension
Bolt
df (mm)
fc
ae
ae / df
type
(MPa)
(mm)
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
46.3
61.8
77.2
92.7
115.8
139.0
43.8
58.4
73.0
87.6
109.5
131.5
41.2
54.9
68.7
82.4
103.0
123.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
Table 12 Minimum concrete edge distances

for anchor bolts Grade 8.8 bolts
(fuf = 830 MPa except fuf = 800 MPa for
M12 bolts ) subject to tension
Bolt
df (mm)
fc
ae
ae / df
type
(MPa)
(mm)
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
65.5
89.0
111.2
133.5
166.9
200.2
62.0
84.2
105.2
126.2
157.8
189.4
58.3
79.1
98.9
118.7
148.4
178.0
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
The values of minimum edge distances required

expressed in terms of d f can be summarised as follows:
for Grade 4.6 bolts and Grade 250 rods
a e = 4 d f when f c = 20, 25 and 32 MPa
for Grade 8.8 bolts
51
a e = 6 d f when f c = 20 and 25 MPa

The recommended model requires the minimum edge
distance a e to be always at least equal to 100mm as
recommended in [21], [26] and [39]. Minimum edge
distance recommended in reference [47] is 50mm.
C.3
MINIMUM CONCRETE EDGE

DISTANCES -Anchor bolt subject to shear
Guidelines on minimum edge distances to be adopted in

the case of bolts in shear are provided in [2], [3], [17],
[26], [39] and [47].
These are all based on the design procedure presented in
[2], [3] and [17] which requires the minimum edge
distance to be calculated as (refer equation (106)):
ae df
f uf
(189)
0.94 f c
where:
= 0.65 according to references [3] and [39]
= 0.85 according to references [17], [26] and [47]
For completeness edge distances calculated with both
values of have been considered and tabulated here. It
is up to designer to decide whether or not to design the
anchor bolts to carry shear and to select a value of .
These values of a e are tabulated in tables 13, 14, 15 and
16 for different combinations of anchor bolts and
concrete strengths and for different values of .
for anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and
Grade 250 rods (fuf = 400 MPa)
subject to shear with = 0.65
Bolt
type
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
df (mm)
fc
(MPa)
ae
(mm)
ae / df
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
145.2
193.6
242.0
290.4
363.0
435.6
137.3
183.1
228.9
274.6
343.3
411.9
129.1
172.1
215.2
258.2
322.7
387.3
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8

M12 bolts) subject to shear with = 0.65
Bolt
type
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
df (mm)
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
fc
(MPa)
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
ae
(mm)
205.3
278.9
348.6
418.3
522.9
627.4
194.2
263.7
329.7
395.6
494.5
593.4
182.6
247.9
309.9
371.9
464.9
557.9
ae / df
17.1
17.4
17.4
17.4
17.4
17.4
16.2
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
15.2
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5

for anchor bolts Grade 4.6 bolts and
Grade 250 rods (fuf = 400 MPa)
subject to shear with = 0.85
Bolt
type
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
52
df (mm)
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
12
16
20
24
30
36
fc
(MPa)
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32
32
ae
(mm)
127.0
169.3
211.6
253.9
317.4
380.9
120.1
160.1
200.1
240.2
300.2
360.2
112.9
150.5
188.1
225.8
282.2
338.7
ae / df
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4

M12 bolts) subject to shear with = 0.85
df (mm) fc
(MPa)
12
20
16
20
20
20
24
20
30
20
36
20
12
25
16
25
20
25
24
25
30
25
36
25
12
32
16
32
20
32
24
32
30
32
36
32
Bolt
type
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
M12
M16
M20
M24
M30
M36
ae
(mm)
179.6
243.9
304.8
365.8
457.2
548.7
169.8
230.6
288.3
345.9
432.4
518.9
159.6
216.8
271.0
325.2
406.5
487.8
ae / df
15.0
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.2
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
13.3
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
Re--arranging equation (189) the ratios a ed f for

different combinations of concrete and bolt strengths for
different values of are obtained as shown below.
Table 17 Grade 4.6 bolts and 250 Grade rods
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.85
0.85
0.85
f c (MPa)
ae
20
25
32
20
25
32
13 df
12 df
11 df
11 df
10 df
10 df
Table 18 Grade 8.8 bolts
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.85
0.85
0.85
f c (MPa)
20
25
32
20
25
32
ae
18 df
17 df
16 df
16 df
15 df
14 df
13. APPENDIX D -- Design Capacities of

Equal Leg Fillet Welds
14. APPENDIX E -- Design of Bolts under

Tension and Shear
Table 19 Category SP, =0.8, kr=1.0
Table 23 Design Capacities Commercial Bolts

4.6/S Bolting Cat. fuf=400MPa, =0.8
Weld size (mm)
tw
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
Design Capacity per unit length

of fillet weld except for RHS/
SHS with thickness less than 3
mm (kN/mm)
E41XX/W40X E48XX/W50X
0.278
0.326
0.417
0.489
0.557
0.652
0.696
0.815
0.835
0.978
1.11
1.30
1.39
1.63
1.67
1.96
fuw=410 MPa fuw=480 MPa
tt
1.41
2.12
2.83
3.54
4.24
5.66
7.07
8.49
Table 20 Category SP, =0.7, kr=1.0

Weld size (mm)
tw
2
3
4
5
tt
1.41
2.12
2.83
3.54
Design Capacity per unit length of

longitudinal fillet weld in RHS/
SHS with t < 3mm (kN/mm)
E41XX/W40X
0.244
0.365
0.487
0.609
fuw=410 MPa
E48XX/W50X
0.285
0.428
0.570
0.713
fuw=480 MPa
Table 21 Category GP, =0.6, kr=1.0

Weld size (mm)
tw
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
tt
1.41
2.12
2.83
3.54
4.24
5.66
7.07
8.49
Design Capacity per unit length

of fillet weld (kN/mm)
E41XX/W40X E48XX/W50X
0.209
0.244
0.313
0.367
0.417
0.489
0.522
0.611
0.626
0.733
0.835
0.978
1.04
1.22
1.25
1.47
fuw=410 MPa fuw=480 MPa
Bolt
Si
Size
Axial
Tension
T
i
Ntf
(kN)
M12
Shear (single shear)

Threads
included in
shear plane N
Vfn (kN)
Threads
excluded from
shear plane X
Vfx (kN)
27.0
15.1
22.4
M16
50.1
28.6
39.9
M20
78.3
44.7
62.3
M24
113
64.3
89.8
M30
179
103
140
M36
261
151
202
4.6N/S
4.6X/S
Table 24 Design Capacities High Strength

Structural Bolts
8.8/S, 8.8/TB, 8.8/TF Bolting Categorys,
=0.8
Bolt
Si
Size
Min.
Tensile
T
il
Strength
of Bolt
fuf
(MPa)
Axial
Tension
T
i
Ntf
(kN)
M12
800
M16
Shear (single shear)

Threads
included
in shear
plane N
Vfn (kN)
Threads
excluded
from
shear
plane X
Vfx (kN)
53.9
30.3
44.9
830
104
59.3
82.8
M20
830
163
92.7
129
M24
830
234
133
186
M30
830
372
214
291
8.8N/S
8.8X/S
Table 22 Minimum Fillet Weld Sizes

Thickness of thickest
part t (mm)
t7
7 < t 10
53
Minimum size of a fillet

weld tw (mm)
3
4
10 < t 15
15 < t
This page left blank for your notes
54
ASI Members -- The best in Steel Fabrication

New South Wales and ACT
Almar Industries Pty Ltd
9 Cheney Place Mitchell ACT 2911 02 6241 3391
Baxter Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 643 Fyshwick ACT 2609 02 6280 5688
Ace High Engineering Pty Ltd
67 Melbourne Rd Riverstone 2765 02 9627 2500
Algon Steel P/L
9 Arunga Drive Beresfield 2322
02 4966 8224
Align Constructions & Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 747 Moss Vale 2577
02 4869 1594
Allmen Engineering
35--37 Anne St St Marys 2760
02 9673 0051
Antax Steel Constructions P/L
93 Bellambi Lane Bellambi 2518 02 4285 2644
B & G Welding Pty Ltd
12 Bessemer St Blacktown 2148 02 9621 3189
Beltor Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 4187 Edgeworth 2285
02 4953 2444
Bosmac Pty Ltd
64--68 Station Street Parkes 2870 02 6862 3699
Boweld Constructions Pty Ltd
PO Box 52 Bomaderry 2541
02 4421 6781
Charles Heath Industries
18 Britton Street Smithfield 2164 02 9609 6000
Combell P/L
PO Box 5038 Prestons 2170
02 9607 3822
Coolamon Steelworks
PO Box 102 Coolamon 2701
02 6927 3296
Cooma Steel Co. Pty Ltd
PO Box 124 Cooma 2630
02 6452 1934
Cosme--Australia Stainless Steel Fab Pty Ltd
19 Lasscock Road Griffith 2680
02 6964 1155
Davebilt Industries
116 Showground Rd N Gosford 2250 02 4325 7381
Designed Building Systems
144 Sackville Street Fairfield 2165 02 9727 0566
Edcon Steel Pty Ltd
52 Orchard Rd Brookvale 2100
02 9905 6622
Flame--Cut Pty Ltd
PO Box 6367 Wetherill Park 2164 02 9609 3677
Gale Bros Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 6013 South Penrith 2750 02 4732 1133
Jeskah Steel Products
23 Arizona Rd Charmhaven 2263 02 4392 7022
Kermac Welding & Engineering
Cemetery Street Goulburn 2580
Leewood Welding
PO Box 1767 Orange 2800
Lifese Engineering Pty Ltd
5 Junction Street Auburn 2144
Mario & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd
189--193 Newton Road,
Wetherill Park 2164
Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 477 Wyong 2259
Morson Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 244 Wyong 2259
National Engineering Pty Ltd
72--74 Bayldon Road,
Queanbeyan 2620
National Engineering Pty Ltd

PO Box 437 Young 2594
02 6382 1499
Piper & Harvey Steel Fabrications

PO Box 821 Wagga Wagga 2650 02 6922 7527
D A Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd

7 Hilldon Court Nerang 4211
07 5596 2222
Ripa Steel Fabrication Pty Ltd

4 Warren Place Silverdale 2752
Darra Welding Works Pty Ltd

PO Box 47 Richlands 4077
07 3375 5841
Factory Fabricators Pty Ltd

63 Factory Road Oxley 4075
07 3379 8811
Fritz Steel (Qld) Pty Ltd

PO Box 12 Richlands 4077
07 3375 6366
J K Morrow Sales
PO Box 59 Earlville 4870
07 4035 1599
M C Engineering
PO Box 381 Burpengary 4505
07 3888 2144
Milfab
PO Box 3056 Clontarf 4019
07 3203 3311
Morton Steel Pty Ltd

47 Barku Court Hemmant 4174
07 3396 5322
Noosa Engineering & Crane Hire

PO Box 356 Tewantin 4565
07 5449 7477
02 6299 3238
Oz--Cover Pty Ltd

35 Centenary Place,
Logan Village 4207
07 5546 8922
02 9756 2555
Pacific Coast Engineering Pty Ltd

PO Box 7284 Garbutt 4814
07 4774 8477
Podevin Engineering Co P/L

PO Box 171 Archerfield 4108
07 3277 1388
Queensbury Steel Pty Ltd

3 Queensbury Avenue,
Currumbin Waters 4223
07 5534 7455
02 4774 0011
Riton Engineering Pty Ltd

101 Gavenlock Road,
Tuggerah 2259
02 4353 1688
Romac Engineering
PO Box 670 Armidale 2350
02 6772 3407
Saunders International Pty Ltd

PO Box 281 Condell Park 2200
02 9792 2444
Steeline Fabrications
PO Box 296 Woy Woy 2256
02 4341 9571
Tenze Engineering
PO Box 426 Greenacre 2190
02 9758 2677
Tri--Fab Engineering Pty Ltd

Lot 1 Ti--Tree Street,
Wilberforce 2756
UEA Industrial Engineers Pty Ltd
PO Box 6163 Queanbeyan 2620
Universal Steel Construction
52--54 Newton Road,
Wetherill Park 2164
Walpett Engineering Pty Ltd
52 Hincksman Street,
Queanbeyan 2620
02 4575 1056
02 6297 1277
Weldcraft Engineering ACT Pty Ltd

79 Thuralilly Street,
Queanbeyan 2620
02 6297 1453
Z Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd
PO Box 7274 Lismore Heights 2480 02 6625 1717
Northern Territory
Trans Aust Constructions P/L
PO Box 39472 Winnellie 0821
Stewart & Sons Steel

11 Production St Bundaberg 4670 07 4152 6311
08 8984 4511
Sun Engineering Pty Ltd

113 Cobalt St Carole Park 4300
07 3271 2988
Taringa Steel P/L

17 Jijaws St Sumner Park 4074
07 3279 4233
Thomas Steel Fabrication

PO Box 147 Aitkenvale,
Townsville 4814
07 4775 1266
W D T Engineers Pty Ltd

PO Box 115 Acacia Ridge 4110
07 3345 4000
Queensland
AG Rigging & Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 9154 Wilsonton,
Toowoomba 4350
07 4633 0244
Alltype Welding
PO Box 1418 Beenleigh 4207
07 3807 1820
Austin Engineering P/L

173 Cobalt Street,
Carole Park 4300
07 3271 2622
Beenleigh Steel Fabrications P/L

41 Magnesium Drive,
Crestmead 4132
02 9756 3400
02 4351 1877
02 9748 0444
02 4352 2188
02 6299 1844
Spaceframe Buildings Pty Ltd

360 Lytton Road Morningside 4170 07 3370 6500
08 8932 2641
07 3271 4467
02 6362 8797
Rimco Building Systems Pty Ltd

20 Demand Avenue Arundel 4214 07 5594 7322
M&J Welding And Engineering

GPO Box 2638 Darwin 0801
Apex Fabrication & Construction

164--168 Cobalt Street,
Carole Park 4300
02 4821 3877
Central Engineering Pty Ltd

19 Traders Way Currumbin 4223 07 5534 3155
Walz Construction Company Pty Ltd

PO Box 1713 Gladstone 4680
07 4972 4799
South Australia
Advanced Steel Fabrications
61--63 Kapara Rd Gillman 5013
08 8447 7100
07 3803 6033
Ahrens Engineering Pty Ltd

PO Box 2 Sheaoak Log 5371
08 8524 9045
Belconnen Steel Pty Ltd

11 Malton Street The Gap 4061
07 3300 2444
Bowhill Engineering
Lot 100, Weber Road Bowhill 5238 08 8570 4208
Brisbane Steel Fabrication

PO Box 7087 Hemmant 4174
07 3893 4233
Magill Welding Service Pty Ltd

33 Maxwell Road Pooraka 5095
08 8349 4933
07 4035 1506
Manuele Engineers Pty Ltd

PO Box 209 Melrose Park 5039
08 8374 1680
RC & Ml Johnson Pty Ltd

671 Magill Road Magill 5072
08 8333 0188
Cairns Steel Fabricators P/L

PO Box 207b Bungalow 4870
Casa Engineering (Qld) Pty Ltd

PO Box Ge 80 Garbutt East 4814 07 4774 4666
ASI Members -- The best in Steel Fabrication

Tasmania
Dowling Constructions Pty Ltd
46 Formby Road Devonport 7310 03 6423 1099
Haywards Steel Fabrication & Construction
PO Box 47 Kings Meadows 7249 03 6391 8508
Victoria
Alfasi Steel Constructions
12--16 Fowler Road,
Dandenong 3175
03 9794 9207
AMS Fabrications Pty Ltd

18 Healey Road Dandenong 3175 03 9706 5988
Bahcon Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 950 Morwell 3840
03 5134 2877
Downer PTR
195 Wellington Rd Clayton 3168
03 9560 9944
F & B Skrobar Engineering Pty Ltd

PO Box 1578 Moorabbin 3189
03 9555 4556
Fairbairn Steel Pty Ltd
PO Box 2057 Seaford 3198
03 9786 2866
GVP Fabrications Pty Ltd

25--35 Japaddy Street,
Mordialloc 3195
Monks Harper Fabrications P/L
25 Tatterson Road,
Dandenong South 3164
Preston Structural Steel
140--146 Barry Road,
Campbellfield 3061
Riband Steel (Wangaratta) Pty Ltd
69--81 Garden Road Clayton 3168
Rosebud Engineering
13 Henry Wilson Drive,
Rosebud 3939
Stanley Welding
23 Attenborough Street,
Dandenong 3175
Stilcon Holdings Pty Ltd
PO Box 263 Altona North 3025
Vale Engineering Co Pty Ltd
170 Gaffney Street Coburg 3058
03 9587 2172
03 9794 0888
03 9357 0011
03 9547 9144
03 9357 9900
Geelong Fabrications Pty Ltd

5/19 Madden Avenue,
North Shore Geelong 3214
03 5275 7255
C Bellotti & Co
PO Box 1284 Bibra Lake 6965
Cays Engineering
Lot 21 Thornborough Road,
Mandurah 6210
08 9721 3433
Fremantle Steel Fabrication Co

PO Box 3005 Jandakot 6964
08 9417 9111
Highline Building Constructions

9 Felspar Street Welshpool 6106
08 9451 5366
Hvar Steel Services Pty Ltd

56 Cooper Rd Jandakot 6164
08 9414 9422
Italsteel W.A.
PO Box 206 Bentley 6102
08 9356 1566
JV Engineering (WA) Pty Ltd

159 Mcdowell Street Kewdale 6105 08 9353 3377
Leblanc Comm\ Aust P/L
PO Box 40 Belmont 6984
08 9277 8866
03 9555 5611
Pacific Industrial Company

PO Box 263 Kwinana 6966
08 9410 2566
03 9314 1611
Park Engineers Pty Ltd

PO Box 130 Bentley 6102
08 9458 1437
03 9350 5655
Scenna Constructions
43 Spencer Street Jandakot 6164 08 9417 4447
03 5986 6666
United KG
PO Box 219 Kwinana 6167
Western Australia
G F C Industries Pty Ltd

42 Glenbarry Road,
Campbellfield 3061
Devaugh Pty Ltd

12 Hale St Bunbury 6230
08 9434 1442
08 9581 6611
08 9499 0499
Uniweld Structural Co Pty Ltd

61A Coast Road Beechboro 6063 08 9377 6666
Wenco Pty Ltd
1 Ladner Street Oconnor 6163
08 9337 7600
ASI Manufacturing Members -- The best quality steel

BHP Steel
BHP Tower, 600 Bourke Street,
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 86A, Melbourne 3001) 03 9609 3756
Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd
Resolution Drive, Unanderra NSW 2526
(PO Box 1246, Unanderra 2526) 02 4272 0444
Commonwealth Steel Company Limited
Maud Street, Waratah NSW 2298
(PO Box 14)
02 4967 0457
Graham Group
117--151 Rookwood Road, Yagoona NSW 2199
(PO Box 57)
02 9709 3777
Industrial Galvanizers Corporation Pty Ltd
20--22 Amax Avenue, Girraween NSW 2145
(PO Box 576, Toongabbie 2146)
02 9636 8244
Martin Bright Steels
Cliffords Road, Somerton VIC 3062
(PO Box 39 MDC)
03 9305 4144
OneSteel Pty Ltd

Level 23, 1 York Street, Sydney NSW 2000
(GPO Box 536)
02 9239 6666
Palmer Tube Mills (Aust) Pty Ltd
46 Ingram Road, Acacia Ridge QLD 4110
(PO Box 246, Sunnybank 4109)
07 3246 2600
Smorgon Steel Group Ltd
Ground Floor, 650 Lorimer Street,
Port Melbourne VIC 3207
03 9673 0400
Stramit Industries
6--8 Thomas Street, Chatswood NSW 2067
(PO Box 295, Chatswood 2057)
02 9928 3600
J Blackwood & Son Steels and Metals Pty Ltd
165--169 Newton Road, Wetherill Park NSW 2164
(PO Box 6427)
02 9203 1100
Coil Steels Group Pty Ltd
16 Harbord Street, Granville NSW 2142
(PO Box 166)
02 9682 1266
G A M Steel Pty Ltd

Lynch Road, Brooklyn VIC 3025
(PO Box 159, Altona North 3025) 03 9314 0855
Midala Steel Pty Ltd
49 Pilbara Street, Welshpool WA 6106
(PO Box 228, Welshpool 6986)
08 9458 7911
Southern Steel Group
319 Horsley Road, Milperra NSW 2214
(PO Box 342, Panania 2213)
02 9792 2099
Smorgon Steel Distribution
88 Ricketts Road, Mount Waverley VIC 3149
(PO Box 537)
03 9239 1844
Metalcorp Steel
103 Ingram Road,
Acacia Ridge QLD 4110
07 3345 9488
OneSteel Distribution
Cnr Blackwall Point & Parkview Roads,
Five Dock NSW 2046
(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

Design of Pinned Column Baseplates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Pinned Column Baseplates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Pinned Column Baseplates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What steel companies are listed?

What steel companies are listed?

AUSTRALIAN STEEL INSTITUTE

(ABN)/ACN (94) 000 973 839

Design of Pinned Column

ASI Members -- The best in Steel Detailing and Modeling

New South Wales & ACT

Bayside Drafting (Aust) P/L

STEEL CONSTRUCTION -- EDITORIAL

Editor: Peter Kneen

Publication by any person, whether that person is the purchaser of this

ASI Contact Details

State Manager - Queensland & NT

Head Office - Sydney

Victoria & Tasmania

Level 13, 99 Mount Street

State Manager - Victoria & Tasmania

New South Wales & ACT

Western & South Australia

State Manager - NSW & ACT

State Manager - Western & South Australia

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

Design of Pinned Column Base Plates

Design of Pinned Column Base Plates

Column Design Actions:

Firstly the requirements of AS 4100 Steel Structures

Design actions in accordance with AS 4100

Pinned type column base plates may be subject to the

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

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

A ps.1 = effective projected area of isolated anchor

n b = number of anchor bolts part of the base plate

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

v w = design capacity of the fillet weld per unit

There is a large variety of drilled--in anchors available,

3. BASE PLATE COMPONENTS

Typical unstiffened base plate

The literature review presented covers only models

(b) Bolt with

(d) Threaded rod

Common Forms of Holding Down

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

BASE PLATE DESIGN -- LITERATURE

The main design models available in literature differ for

This model assumes that, in the case of a H--shaped

Historically the cantilever model was the first available

Each of the two collapse mechanisms considered by this

(a) Critical sections and assumed loaded area

(b) Deflection of the cantilevered plate

Cantilever Model (Ref. [26])

Cantilever Model -- Collapse

m *c = design moment per unit width due to N *c

yields a maximum design axial force of:

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 36 NUMBER 2 SEPT 2002

or equivalently requires a minimum plate thickness of:

Provisions on how to extend this approach for channels

m c = design moment per unit width due to N c