If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?

” about something
related to structural steel design or construction,
Modern Steel’s monthly Steel Interchange is for you!
steel
Send your questions or comments to solutions@aisc.org. interchange

Force Distribution and Transfer in Encased The pressure distributions under the base plate described in
Composite Member – Part 1 Design Guide 1 (available at www.aisc.org/dg) are assump-
Assume an encased composite column that sits on a base tions. The engineer must decide whether or not any par-
plate and that the load is delivered to the top of the col- ticular approach is appropriate for a given situation. The
umn through a cap plate. Design Guide indicates that many approaches are possible
Section I2.1d of the Specification for Structural Steel and makes the following two statements:
Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360) states: “Load transfer require- “While this approach offers a simple means of design-
ments for encased composite members shall be deter- ing the base plate… the designer may choose to use other
mined in accordance with Section I6.” Section I6.2c methods of designing the plate for flexure, such as yield-line
applies. The Commentary states: “Where loads are applied analysis, or a triangular pressure distribution assumption, as
concurrently to the two materials, the longitudinal shear discussed in Appendix B.” (Section 3.3.2)
force to be transferred to achieve cross-sectional equilib- “…both triangular and uniform distributions represent
rium can be taken as either the difference in magnitudes simplifying approximations... The use of a triangular pres-
between the portion of external force applied directly to sure distribution, as shown in Figure B.1, will often require
the concrete and that required by Equation I6-1 or the slightly thicker base plates and slightly smaller anchor rods
portion of external force applied directly to the steel sec- than the uniform pressure approach, since the centroid of the
tion and that required by Equations I6-2a and b.” pressure distribution is closer to the cantilevered edge of the
Some distribution of force among the elements plate.” (Section B.1)
(structural steel, reinforcing steel and concrete) must be The location of the critical section is not an assumption.
assumed. If the distribution is based on relative strength, The magnitude of the critical moment and its location is a
it seems a distribution for which Section I6 requires no function of the assumed pressure distributions both above and
force to be transferred among the steel and concrete ele- below the base plate. Figure 1 shows the moment (red dashed
ments is possible. However, there must be some transfer line) superimposed on the base plate based on the model in
of force among the elements in order for the encased the Design Guide. In order to determine the magnitude and
column to act as a unit. To make the point, assume a con- location of the critical moment, a free-body diagram of the
dition involving only steel: three plates (two flanges and a base must be drawn that is consistent with the distribution of
web) sandwiched between cap and base plates. The loads force in the member. In most cases the critical moment will
can be distributed based on relative areas. Applying cri- likely occur at the face of the steel element, but Chapter I per-
teria similar to Section I6 would indicate the three plates mits a wide range of configurations, so every case encountered
do not need to be interconnected. However, Section E6 must be considered separately.
would require interconnection of the elements to ensure
they act as a unit, as opposed to three independent plates.
Am I missing some requirement to interconnect the ele-
ments in encased composite columns?

Yes. Section I6.4a of the Specification (available at www.aisc.org/

specifications) provides prescriptive detailing requirements.
These minimum requirements along with the confinement
steel are considered adequate by the Committee to develop
the composite capacity similar to what is done in Section E6
relative to built-up compression members.
Larry S. Muir, PE, with assistance from William P. Jacobs, V, SE, PE

Force Distribution and Transfer in Encased

Composite Member – Part 2
AISC Design Guide 1: Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design
generally assumes a uniform pressure distribution under
the base plate and a critical bending section in the base
Figure 1
plate at the face of the column. Are these assumptions
still valid when designing a base plate attached to an Larry S. Muir, PE
encased composite column?
 Modern STEEL CONSTRUCTION 9
 steel interchange

Collision Between Structures No. The intent is unchanged. Though there is no explicit
Section L4 of the 2010 Specification states: “Drift under prohibition against considering tension field action at
strength load combinations shall not cause collision with end panels, the 2016 Specification only addresses tension
adjacent structures or exceed the limiting values of such field action for “Interior Web Panels with a/h ≤ 3.” Note
drifts that may be specified by the applicable building that the a/h ≤ 3 limit is a similar restatement of the
code.” This statement has been removed from the 2016 statement (b) in Section G3.1 of the 2010 Specification,
Specification. I have two structures in close proximity to “Consideration of tension field action is not permitted…
each other, such that they may collide under some load- when a/h exceeds 3.0…” a/h ratios greater than 3 are also
ing conditions. Should these two structures be treated as still not permitted.
a single structure or is it okay to treat the structures as The Commentary of the 2016 Specification also provides
two separate structures? Is the decision impacted by the some insight and states: “The method in Section G2.1
choice of Specification, 2010 versus 2016? accounts for the web shear post-bucking strength in mem-
bers with unstiffened webs, members with transverse stiff-
You may be able to arrive at an acceptable design regard- eners spaced wider than 3h and end panels of members with
less of whether you treat the portions as a single structure or transverse stiffeners spaced closer than 3h.” The method in
two independent structures. You will have to decide the best Section G2.1 does not consider tension field action. The
approach for the project based on your own engineering judg- Commentary to Section G2.2 emphasizes the point further
ment. You could look at each option to see which one would and states: “The key requirement in the development of
be more economical. tension field action in the web of plate girders is the abil-
Collision between structures, though no longer explic- ity of the stiffeners to provide sufficient flexural rigidity to
itly prohibited, is not a good idea. Section L3 of the 2016 stabilize the web along their length. In the case of end pan-
Specification states: “Drift shall be limited so as not to impair els there is a panel only on one side. The anchorage of the
the serviceability of the structure.” The Commentary states: tension field is limited in many situations at these locations
“Drift limits are imposed on buildings to minimize damage and is thus neglected.”
to cladding and to nonstructural walls and partitions… It Larry S. Muir, PE
is important to recognize that drift control limits by them-
selves, in wind-sensitive buildings, do not provide comfort
of the occupants under wind load.” Though these state-
ments are not directed toward collision between structures,
cladding and other nonstructural elements are likely to be
damaged when structures are allowed to collide, and such
collisions are likely to make the occupants uncomfortable. In
other words, the collision would impair the serviceability of
the structure. The choice of Specification, 2010 versus 2016, The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and answers is available online.
Find questions and answers related to just about any topic by using our full-text search
has no impact on the design considerations related to poten- capability. Visit Steel Interchange online at www.modernsteel.com.
tial collisions between structures.
Section 12.12.3 of ASCE-7 directly addresses such con- Larry Muir is director of technical assistance and Carlo Lini is senior staff engineer, both
ditions relative to seismic design. I am not aware of similar with AISC. William Jacobs, V, is a consultant to AISC.
requirements specifically related to wind.
Carlo Lini, PE Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and practical professional ideas and
information on all phases of steel building and bridge construction. Opinions and

Tension Field Action in End Panels suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.
The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not necessarily represent an official
Section G3.1 of the 2010 AISC Specification states: “Con- position of the American Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed. It is
sideration of tension field action is not permitted… for recognized that the design of structures is within the scope and expertise of a competent
licensed structural engineer, architect or other licensed professional for the application of
end panels in all members with transverse stiffeners.” The principles to a particular structure.
2016 Specification does not include an explicit prohibition If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you solve, please
against consideration of tension field action in end panels. forward it to us. At the same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions that you
have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via AISC’s Steel Solutions Center:
Is consideration of tension field action permitted for end
panels under the 2016 Specification? 866.ASK.AISC • solutions@aisc.org

10 SEPTEMBER 2017