Partial Fixity Base
Partial Fixity Base
1. Background
Column bases for seismic‐resisting steel frames are typically designed to be fixed against rotation.
NZS 3404 (NZS3404 1997/2001/2007) Clause 4.8.3.4.1 (b) requires a rigid column base to have an
upper limit on flexural stiffness and Clause 4.8.3.4.1 (a) requires a pinned column base to have a
lower limit on flexural stiffness. The equations to use for the rotational stiffness at the column bases,
kX and kY are:
1 .67EI c
k
Lc for a fixed base connection (1)
0.1EIc
k
L c for a pinned base connection (2)
where:
k = rotational stiffness (kNm/radian if KN and m are the units used for the analysis) in each of the X
and Y directions
E = 205,000 MPa
Ic = second moment of area of the column about the direction under consideration
Lc = column actual length
When establishing the computer model of the structure for analysis, these equations should be
applied as rotational springs between the node representing the column base and the node
representing the foundation. For a fixed base moment resisting frame they very slightly increase the
flexibility of the frame and the first mode period, although the influence on period is minor. They
significantly reduce the bending moment from analysis in the base of the column, with this moment
becoming no greater than the moment at the top of the first level columns. This is in contrast to the
column moment pattern from elastic analysis for a perfectly fixed base, in which the magnitude of
bending moment at the column base of the first storey column is much larger than at the top of this
column.
Field based support for fixed base steel frames having less than full base fixity has come from the
Christchurch earthquake series. This series, especially the 22nd February 2011 event, was sufficiently
powerful to push all multi‐storey steel structures in the Christchurch Central Business District into
the inelastic range (Clifton, Bruneau et al. 2011). However, none of these structures exhibited any
column base yielding, which would have been the case had they had full theoretical base fixity. This
elastic response at the column base, coupled with the columns above the base remaining elastic,
assisted in the buildings effectively self‐centering following the earthquakes. It will therefore raise
the damage threshold of steel frames if the column bases remain elastic during a severe earthquake
while developing significant moment capacity. The aim of this draft design procedure is to propose a
way of achieving this which involves very little change on existing practice. It is therefore appropriate
to put the procedure forward now for consideration and to propose research to validate and amend
as required the procedure.
Based on an understanding of column baseplate behaviour generated for publication of design
guidance in 2000 (Clifton 2000), on the results of research published by the AISC (AISC 2012) the
following draft design procedure is formulated to allow the rotational stiffness of a moment resisting
column base connection to be used in the initial analysis and then the design fine tuned to generate
the design stiffness used in that analysis.
The objective of this design procedure is to produce a column baseplate that will have sufficient
rotational stiffness to remain elastic under the design ultimate limit state earthquake rotation.
Colum baseplate connections of the type proposed herein have been shown by AISC funded
research (AISC 2012) to remain elastic at levels of rotation up to between 1% and 2% drift, to not
undergo significant degradation at 3% drift and to achieve rotation angles corresponding to 9% drift.
Christchurch buildings steel framed buildings exhibited up to around 1.5% drift (Clifton, Nashid et al.
2012) under an earthquake significantly above ultimate limit state design level (DLS), so the
objective of this procedure should be achieved for up to the DLS level of earthquake action.
The draft design procedure at present is for a moment resisting column baseplate connection as
described in DCB No 56 (Clifton 2000) and shown in Figure 1. The draft design procedure for the
connection design and limit on elastic rotation is given in section 2, with the design of the frames
around this connection detail given in section 3.
Figure 1 Moment resisting column baseplate connection with unstiffened baseplate(from (Clifton, Goble et al. 1990)
with shear key enlargement also shown)
For this column connected into the top of a pile cap and supported off a pile, there will be rotational
flexibility at the base of the column member due to the pile and further rotational flexibility due to
the connection itself. The two sets of rotational flexibility will combine at the column base into an
effective stiffness. For a column supported off structural pad which is part of a wider foundation
system, the rotational stiffness of the concrete foundation will be high compared with that of the
connection and is assumed to be fixed.
The design of the column baseplate connection is in accordance with HERA Design and Construction
Bulletin No 56 (Clifton 2000), using the internal actions model shown in Figure 2, with the following
changes:
1. The shear key design is given in section 8.5 of (Clifton 2012)
2. The hold down bolts not pretensioned as recommended in DCB No 56 but instead are installed
as detailed in section 4.
3. When calculating the endplate capacity to DCB No 56 and for moment end plate (MEP)
connection design, bolt mode 3 must not govern (SCNZ 2007, Clifton, Mago et al. 2009) ,
however the bolt size should be the minimum required to ensure that the capacity of bolt mode
3, which is the sum of the bolt design tension capacities, is just greater than that of bolt modes 1
and 2, which are the same for the baseplate design, as described in HERA DCB No 56.. This is
important to maximise the elastic extension from the bolts on the tension side, which is the
principal source of elastic rotational flexibility. Because the prying effects on these bolts are
minimal in baseplate design, where the baseplate is bearing against the relatively much softer
concrete compared with in bolted moment endplates which involve steel on steel, the bolt size
will typically be at least one bolt size lower than that given by (SCNZ 2007) for MEP connection
design. (For example, M36 bolts for an MEP connection will typically reduce to M30 for the
column baseplate).
Figure 2 Distribution of Forces for Equilibrium Based on Compression Stress Block Centred Under Column Compression
Flange
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show an unstiffened baseplate. However, in order to avoid the baseplate
thicknesses becoming too large, the baseplate can be stiffened as shown in Figure 3. Design of this is
in conjunction with SCNZ Steel Connect (SCNZ 2007) as modified by HERA DCB No 56.
Figure 3 Stiffened Baseplate Connection
1. The rotational stiffness of the pile can be calculated from the design guidance on earthquake
design of piles (Pender 2012). They show typical pile head stiffnesses of around 450 kNm/mrad for
piles supporting multi‐storey columns, meaning that the typical rotation from pile head rotational
stiffness at yield moment in the column will be around 3 to 5 mrad. This is typically 3 to 5 times
stiffer than the rotational stiffness of the column to pile connection via a column baseplate.
2. The rotational stiffness of the connection with hold down bolts at the point of yielding of the
system is determined as follows:
2a. On the compression side, there is elastic squashing of a cylinder of concrete under the
compression face of the column. The peak concrete strain is taken as 0.002 which corresponds to
the upper limit of elastic behaviour for unconfined concrete (Park and Paulay 1975). For
determination of elastic stiffness, this is taken as applying over a local cylinder depth of concrete of
1000mm, giving a downwards movement of 2mm at the compression face of the column. This local
cylinder depth has been assessed from experimental testing and needs detailed investigation.
2b. On the tension side there is elastic stretch in the hold down bolts, which incorporates some
elastic squashing of the concrete over the hold down bolts bearing plates under bolt uplift, and out
of plane elastic flexibility of the end plate.
The hold down bolt elastic stretch is the most significant, which include elastic deformation within
the concrete resisting the uplifting force transferred down the bolts and into the concrete via the
embedded bearing plate. The displacement at yield of the hold down bolts, is given by:
yf = fyf Lf/Ef (3)
where:
fyf = yield stress of the AISI 4140 bar = 700 MPa for AISI 4140 bar
Lf = length of effective embedment (from underside of nut to top of bearing plate in the concrete,
assuming that length of bar embedded in the concrete is treated with a de‐bonding agent prior to
concrete placement) and
Ef = 190 GPa for AISI 4140 bar.
Note that some of this bolt elastic stretch could be achieved through the use of Belleville Springs
under the nut instead of a longer embedment length. This option is covered in section 5.
2c. Out of plane elastic flexibility of the endplate. This is determined from equations (4):
,
and , (4)
,
where:
Ny, bolt row 1 = the design force in bolt row 1 from the endplate design procedure
m1 = distance from bolt row 1 to effective point of cantilever fixity under column, determined from
the endplate design procedure
tep = thickness of endplate
Leff = equivalent tee stub length for bolt row 1 from the end plate design procedure
2d. Elastic rotation of the connection at the point of yield development in the hold down tension
bars, con, is given by equation (5)
con = (2 + yf + ep )/(dc‐tfc) (5)
where:
dc = depth of column
tfc = thickness of column flange
This gives the rotation in radians which should be multiplied by 103 to give the answer in
milliradians.
See the hand written example that will be included with these notes.
2. Design the frame in the normal way including capacity design of the columns to get the final
column size. The design procedure is given in (Clifton 2012) The column size for the first level of
columns is typically based on the capacity design derived design actions at the top of the bottom
floor.
3. Determine the rotational demand on the column base for the design level ULS actions for
the frame when it develops µact times the design elastic deflected shape. This can be obtained as the
sum of:
(a) the column base rotation under the elastic analysis (which is output from the analysis for the load
case E (which includes Etranslational+Etorsion+EPdelta)) , plus
(b) the rotation due to rigid body column rotation from the (µact ‐1)top/H, where top is the elastic
displacement at the top of the building (at height H) from the analysis for load case E.
4. Multiply the design moment at the base of the column from the analysis for the load case E
(if all the columns in the MRSF are the same size you could use the average moment) by the ratio of
(total rotational demand)/(rotational demand from elastic analysis) to obtain the design moment
associated with that level of rotation for the connection at the column base.
5. Design the column base connections for the internal columns in the following way:
5.1 The design actions for connection design are: the design section moment capacity of the
column reduced by the minimum axial load on the column, Mrx or Mry, the axial load from NG+psicQ,
0.5 times the capacity design derived shear in the column. Guidance on this is in section 8.5 of
(Clifton 2012)
5.2 Check that the design moment from step 4 is not more than Mrx or Mry for the column to
ensure that the column remains elastic when this joint moment is developed.
5.2 The design of the column base connection is to HERA DCB No 56 with modifications as
described in section 2 above and in section 4 below. From this, the endplate details and area of the
hold down bolts is determined
5.3 The rotational stiffness of the connection is tuned to match the 1.0EIx/L used in the initial
analysis. The rotational stiffness is computed using the procedure in section 2. If the connection is
onto a rigid pad footing, then assume the pad itself is rigid. If onto a pile cap then add in the
rotational flexibility of the pile cap when doing this tuning, using the effective stiffness of the two
systems (1/(sum of the reciprocal of each stiffness)).
The tuning is done by adjusting the embedment length of the hold down bolts until the starting
point stiffness of 1.0EIx/L is obtained. (Indicative calculations show that the length of the HD bolts
would need to vary from 1.0m to 3.0 m to generate the 1.0EIx/L stiffness used in the original
analysis, or lesser lengths could be used in conjunction with Belleville Springs as presented in section
5.
See the design example for application of these provisions.
Figure 4 Rotational Stiffness of Column Baseplate (from (AISC 2012))
The AISC tests were conducted on column base connections with levelling bolts and the use of non‐
shrink grout under the baseplate, as shown in Figure 5. This is the preferred method of column base
installation as the levelling nuts under the baseplate can be accurately positioned for column
verticality which is very much harder to do with shims.
Figure 5 Column Base Detail Tested
Because the AISC tests showed this system to have high initial rotational stiffness (Figure 4 shows
the rotational stiffness at the initial loading is fractionally greater than in the rest of the elastic range
rather than lower) this detail is recommended instead of the shims and post tensioned HD bolts in
DCB No 56. Thus the method of construction of this baseplate detail is as follows:
1. Install the HD bolts which are greased their full length of embedment into the concrete to allow
slip down to the end bearing plate at the base of the bolts. A template should be used for
precise positioning in plan
2. Install the levelling nuts and survey to get the top of nuts at the same height for column
verticality
3. Position the column and tweak the levelling nut settings as required to achieve column
verticality within the construction tolerances required
4. Place the HD nuts, washer and Belleville Springs as required. If Belleville Springs are being used
these go between the baseplate and the hardened washer so the sequence of items is
baseplate/Belleville Springs/hardened washer/HD nut.
5. Snug tight the HD nuts and put some device to stop the HD nut working loose in service when
Belleville Springs are not used. With Belleville springs the slight elastic squashing of the Belleville
Springs during snug tightening will provide spring loading to avoid loosening in service. Without
Belleville Springs a second nut could be installed as a lock nut or a locktite compound used. The
snug tightening will induce a low level of installed bolt tension of some 50 to 75 kN but this will
only be in the HD bolt between the levelling nut and the HD nut.
6. Use a non‐shrink grout between the baseplate and the concrete. It is vital that this be non‐
shrink.
This method of construction also allows the full elastic stretch of the HD bolts to be used in
developing the rotational capacity of the column base in earthquake.
Note this change has been introduced in Revision 1 of this paper with the calculations for rotational
flexibility amended accordingly.
Figure 6 shows a stack of 3 Belleville Springs in parallel under M24 bolts in a test of the Sliding Hinge
Joint (Clifton 2005/2007). The squash load capacity of these springs was matched to between 90%
and 100% of the installed bolt tension and the squash load deformation of this stack to go from
unloaded to fully loaded was just under 3mm. They are therefore well suited to use under the HD
nuts to give the desired elastic bolt extension, when the embedment length required from section 3
cannot be met. They come in sizes to match bolt diameters and between 3 and 6 washers in parallel
per stack will be required to develop the yield capacity of an AISI 4140 HD bolt. As an indication, use
of one parallel stack of Belleville Springs will reduce the embedment length requirement by approx.
1 metre.
Figure 6 Close‐up of Bottom Flange of Sliding Hinge Joint Test With Belleville Springs (from .(Clifton 2005/2007).)
Guidance on their installation is given in section 5.8.15 of (Clifton 2005/2007) in relation to
placement of hardened washers and in (SMC 2012) for assembly of the washers themselves. In this
application they will be used as follows:
1. The stack of Belleville Springs will have a compression capacity as close as practicable to the
yield load of the bolt (ideally between 90% and 100% of this). This will require between 3 and 6
springs in parallel.
2. The deformation required to fully squash the spring stack is additive to the elastic extension of
the bolts from equation 3, meaning that the embedment length can be reduced accordingly.
3. The design process from sections 2 and 3 is run with the Belleville Spring extension included to
allow reduced embedment length of the HD bolts. If necessary multiple stacks of (Springs in
parallel) can be used in series to give multiples of the deformation capacity for one stack; it is
unlikely that more than 2 multiples would be required.
This option will be particularly attractive in retrofit applications where a long embedment length is
difficult to achieve. It will require trials in practice to determine how closely one can get to the
optimum answer.
References
AISC (2012). Column Base Connections. Column Base Connections. AISC. Chicago,
USA, AISC.
ASTM (2002). Standard Specification for Steel, Strip, High‐Carbon, Cold‐Rolled.
Pennsylvania, USA, ASTM.
Clifton, G. (2005/2007). Semi‐Rigid Joints for Moment Resisting Steel Frames,
Including Revisions 1 and 2. Manukau City, NZ HERA.
Clifton, G. C. (2000). "Design Concepts for Moment‐Resisting Column Baseplate
Connections in a Seismic‐Resisting System." HERA Steel Design and Construction
Bulletin: 11‐20, 28‐31‐11‐20, 28‐31.
Clifton, G. C. (2012). Seismic Resisting System Design Lecture Notes. CIVIL 714
Multi‐storey building design: steel lecture notes. Auckland, New Zealand, The
University of Auckland.
Clifton, G. C., M. Bruneau, G. A. MacRae, R. Leon and A. Fussell (2011). "Steel
structures from the Christchurch Earthquake series of 2010 and 2011." Bulletin
of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44(4): 297‐318.
Clifton, G. C., R. Goble and P. Harris (1990). Manual of Standard Connection
Details for Structural Steelwork Second Edition. Manukau City, New Zealand
HERA.
Clifton, G. C., N. Mago and R. Z. El Sarraf (2009). Eccentric Cleats in Compression
and Columns in Moment‐Resisting Connections, New Zealand Heavy Engineering
Research Association: 1‐70.
Clifton, G. C., H. Nashid, G. Ferguson, M. A. Hodgson, C. K. Seal, M. Bruneau, G. A.
MacRae and S. Gardiner (2012). Performance of eccentrically braced framed
buildings in the Christchurch earthquake series of 2010/2011. 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, IAEE/Sociedade
Portugesa de Engenharia Seismica.
NZS3404 (1997/2001/2007). Steel structures standard, incorporating
Amendments 1 and 2, Wellington [N.Z.] : Standards New Zealand.
Park, R. and T. Paulay (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures. USA, John Wiley
and Sons.
Pender, M. J. (2012). Limit State Design of Foundations: Chapter 11 Elastic
Models for Pile Stiffness. Auckland, New Zealand, The University of Auckland.
SCNZ (2007). Steel Connect: Structural Steelwork Connections Guide , SCNZ
Report 14, Replacing HERA Report R4‐100. Manukau City, NZ, Steel Construction
New Zealand.
SMC (2012). Belleville Springs Product Manual. Ohio, USA, Solon Manufacturing
Company.