J1D
Structural
- Feb 22, 2004
- 259
It’s about 3 years ago, in a steel column base plate design in accordance with AISC design guideline (AISC Steel Design Guide Series 1, COLUMN BASE PLATES), I encountered a dilemma with the calculation results. This remains a wonder to be since then. Thanks for the forum.
From the guide, the force and bending moment equilibrium equations at the plate-to-base interface are (page 21):
T+P=fp*A*B
P*A’+M=0.5*fp*A*B*(N’-A/3)
The dilemma is that negative (compression) values of T (anchor force) were obtained when loads (P, M) have large eccentricities.
Let’s take Example 16 (page 23) as the example, but change Mu to be 480kip.in. Then
Pu=88kips, Mu=480k.in --> e=5.45in >N/6 = 2.33in (limit of full compression)
Therefore, part of the base plate will be separated from the base and the anchor bolts must be in tension.
However, the outcome is: A=4.04 --> T = -0.16kips (compression)
This can be proved more easily by a Spreadsheet or MathCAD. Keep changing Mu, you’ll find there is a theoretically tragic zone. The results fall apart and are contradictory.
Did anyone experience this? Welcome your comments!
J1D
PS, I further examined the two equations, and believe the root is that the compressive stress fc was fixed to be a constant fp. Ironically, for the given P and M, using a smaller stress (less than fp), you’ll get a higher tensile anchor force T.
From the guide, the force and bending moment equilibrium equations at the plate-to-base interface are (page 21):
T+P=fp*A*B
P*A’+M=0.5*fp*A*B*(N’-A/3)
The dilemma is that negative (compression) values of T (anchor force) were obtained when loads (P, M) have large eccentricities.
Let’s take Example 16 (page 23) as the example, but change Mu to be 480kip.in. Then
Pu=88kips, Mu=480k.in --> e=5.45in >N/6 = 2.33in (limit of full compression)
Therefore, part of the base plate will be separated from the base and the anchor bolts must be in tension.
However, the outcome is: A=4.04 --> T = -0.16kips (compression)
This can be proved more easily by a Spreadsheet or MathCAD. Keep changing Mu, you’ll find there is a theoretically tragic zone. The results fall apart and are contradictory.
Did anyone experience this? Welcome your comments!
J1D
PS, I further examined the two equations, and believe the root is that the compressive stress fc was fixed to be a constant fp. Ironically, for the given P and M, using a smaller stress (less than fp), you’ll get a higher tensile anchor force T.