This is a repository copy of Analytical Approach of Anchor Rod Stiffness and Steel

Base-Plate Calculation under Tension.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/91582/

Version: Accepted Version

Article:
Tsavdaridis, KD, Shaheen, M, Baniotopoulos, C et al. (1 more author) (2016) Analytical
Approach of Anchor Rod Stiffness and Steel Base-Plate Calculation under Tension.
Structures, 5. pp. 207-218. ISSN 2352-0124

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.11.001

© 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Reuse
Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright
exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy
solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The
publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White
Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder,
users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website.

Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
 ANALYTICAL APPROACH OF ANCHOR ROD STIFFNESS AND STEEL
BASE-PLATE CALCULATION UNDER TENSION
Konstantinos Daniel Tsavdaridis1*, Mohamed A. Shaheen2, Charalampos
Baniotopoulos3 and Emad Salem4
1
Institute for Resilient Infrastructure, School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds,
UK, k.tsavdaridis@leeds.ac.uk
2, 4
Department of Civil Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
3
School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK
*
Corresponding Author

ABSTRACT
The analysis of column base plate connections under biaxial moment or when large
numbers of anchor rods are utilised is complicated. Such complex connections are
regularly found in engineering practice, in spite of proposed, up-to-date finite element
modelling techniques and analytical formulations being unsuitable. The lack of suitability
arises from their development for non-practical column base plate idealised
configurations. In the present paper the results of a finite element study of single-headed
anchors under tension are discussed, leading to the derivation of a simple equation that
describes the stiffness of the headed anchor rod embedded in concrete. Furthermore, this
paper suggests a simple and suitable approach to analyse base plate connections
independent of loading scenarios, the number of anchor rods and their arrangement,
taking into account the actual rigidity of the connection. In this study, a three-
dimensional, nonlinear finite element model is developed through the use of the general-
purpose finite element software package ABAQUS. The respective numerical results
were verified against experimental ones.
Key words: base plate; monotonic tension load; anchor rod; holding down bolt;
parametric study; rod stiffness
1. Introduction

It is well known that the design of base plates is of paramount importance. They are one
of the most critical components in steel structures as they control the initial stiffness of
the frame depending upon the type and properties of the assemblage. Inevitably, a few
components of a column base plate in tension are particularly influential in regards to the
stiffness of the connection [1]. Anchor rods are used to transfer the tensile load and/or
shear load to the concrete foundation. Anchor rods are divided into two main categories
according to the method of construction, namely, cast-in-place anchors and post-installed
anchors. Post-installed anchors are placed after the concrete sets. Hence, they are not
recommended for base plates; their design is governed by the manufacturer's
specifications [6]. According to ACI [2], cast-in-place anchorage systems are the headed
rods, the hooked rods (J- or L- rod) and the headed studs, as they are depicted in Fig. 1.
Among the different types of cast-in-place anchors, the most commonly used in
engineering practice is the headed rod/stud. Other types are not very effective in
transferring tension forces, particularly in the case of high-strength rods [5]. The paper is
limited to study the cast-in-place anchor rod with an anchor plate at the end of the
embedment depth (i.e. headed anchor rod).

Fig. 1: Types of cast-in-place anchor rods [2]

The mechanism by which the load is transferred from the headed anchor rod to the
concrete foundation involves two stages: (i) the bond between the anchor rod and the
concrete, and (ii) the bearing on the head of the anchor rod. These two mechanisms do
not take place simultaneously. Thus, they can be considered independently [3-4]. The
failure mode of the headed anchor is controlled by various factors including the concrete
strength, steel strength, embedment depth, and edge distance. In the case of the headed
anchor rod subject to tension forces, five different failure modes typically were observed
in past experimental tests [4][12-15], as demonstrated in Fig. 2. Steel failure occurs
through yielding and rapture of the anchor rod. In such a failure mode, the maximum rod
capacity is reached. Pullout failure is characterised by the pulling out of the anchor rod
from the concrete. This may be followed by the formation of a shallow concrete cone as
the head of the anchor approaches the concrete surface. This mode of failure mostly
arises when small anchor head diameters are used, in conjunction with expected high-
stress concentrations [10][11]. Concrete breakout failure is very common in engineering
practice with anchors experiencing such failure prior to the yielding of the steel. The
primary factors affecting this type of failure are the concrete tensile strength, the anchor
head diameter, and the embedment depth. Concrete blowout may also control the design,
particularly when long anchors are positioned near the free edge of the concrete block.
When the concrete block dimensions are small in relation to the anchors’ size, or the free
edge distance is small, splitting of the concrete occurs.

Fig. 2: Failure modes for anchors

The so-called component method is the current state-of-the-art analytical technique to

model the steel-concrete composite (SCC) behaviour; decomposes the SCC model into a
set of individual basic components. The mechanical properties (e.g. resistance, stiffness
and deformation capacity) of each component are then studied individually before being
combined to define the mechanical properties of the overall SCC model. The use of the
component method in modelling of column bases connections gives an accurate
prediction of their behaviour [17]. In this paper, the component method is employed for
the study of the base plate connection behaviour considering an anchor rod subjected to
tension force
There is a plethora of research in the literature discussing the performance of column
base plate connections. Numerous papers propose different analytic, mathematical
equations to anticipate the structural behaviour and resistance capacity of column base
plate connections [18-22]. The previously suggested equations are applicable for standard
connections with two or four anchor rods. Analysis of column base plate connections
under biaxial moments or when large numbers of anchor rods are utilised is complicated.
Such complex connections are regularly found in engineering practice, despite their lack
of suitability. Proposed, up-to-date finite element (FE) modelling techniques, and
proposed analytical formulations are unsuitable due to their development for ideal (and
often non-practical) column base plate configurations (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Standard column bases

Practising engineers use commercial structural software, with suitable reliability and
speed to setup a simplified model whilst running numerous load scenarios (e.g.
SAP2000, Staad-Pro, Robot, etc.). Employing such software is impractical within FE
modelling of column base plate and various other connections. The impracticability arises
from the softwares’ ability to detail surface interactions between steek components and
most importantly steel and concrete components. Modelling of base plate connections
often requires advanced FE software such as ABAQUS and ANSYS. The software must
feature nonlinear complex FE models capable of mimicking all interactions and revealing
any possible mechanism. This capability comes at the expense of time requirements and
computers capacities. The current research project investigates a headed anchor rod FE
model in tension, utilising comprehensive computational analyses on validated FE
models (using ABAQUS v.6.10). This leads to the derivation of a simple equation that
describes the stiffness of the headed anchor rod embedded in concrete. The thereafter
equation could be used in structural software by practicing engineers. Consequently, it
enables engineers to analyse base plate connections whilst entering the actual rigidity,
rather than assuming fully pinned or fully fixed behaviour. Moreover, this method is not
limited to a specific configuration of base plate connections as it can be applied to
connections independently of the number of anchor rods and their arrangement.
2. Overview of the experimental work

Extensive experimental works carried out by Petersen et al. [24] studied the behaviour of
cast-in-place anchors under monotonic shear, cyclic shear, monotonic tension, cyclic
tension, and cyclic combined tension-shear loading. These tests, carried out under
monotonic tension, are now used to validate the FE model developed for the purpose of
the current study. Each examined block includes four anchors cast in plain concrete. One
experimental test, conducted by Petersen et al., was selected to validate the FE model
(specimen: 1292010). The edge distance and embedment depth were selected to capture
the steel failure. Each anchor was loaded and examined separately. Significant interaction
between the cone failures of the first and second anchors tested on the same side of the
block, as revealed by Petersen et al. [24].
According to ASTM F1554, 19mm diameter Grade 55 anchor rods were used in the full-
scale test with a yield stress, fy, equal to 434MPa and an ultimate stress, fu, equal to
524MPa. The width and the length of the plain concrete block are notated in Fig. 4.
Moreover, two tie-down rods were used during the experimental test to fix the concrete
block to the ground floor.
 Fig. 4: Geometry of the experimental test

3. Validation of the FE Model

During the experimental tests, each anchor was tested separately. Therefore, only a
quarter of the experimental specimen was modelled and analysed. A three-dimensional
(3D) FE model with material nonlinearity was created using solid elements.
The geometric characteristics of the FE model (S1) are illustrated in Fig. 5. The depth of
the experimental concrete block was equal to 432mm; however the depth used in the
simulation was reduced to 279mm to limit the computational effort and the corresponding
analysis time. A preliminary analysis was performed to ensure that this assumption could
be adopted, and reliable results were obtained. The 19mm diameter of the anchor rod was
modelled as 17mm to approximate the effect of the threaded section.
The concrete block, the rod and the washer were modelled with 8-node linear brick
reduced integration elements (C3D8R). It is worth mentioning that the concrete section
away from the anchor assembly was meshed using coarse brick elements while the region
that expected to yield is refined with finer elements to obtain accurate results.

Fig. 5: Geometry of FE models

The bond between the anchor rod and the concrete may fail at an early stage of the load
application. It is therefore assumed that from the initiation of loading [3][16], the tensile
force resisted by the anchor plate and the bond can be neglected [23]. As a consequence
of this phenomenon and suggestions of previous experimental studies, the anchor rod-
concrete bond was ignored during the analysis. This accounts for the mechanism
following the initial failure of the bond, evaluating the force resisted by the bearing
between the steel and the concrete. Surface-to-surface contact interaction was assigned
between the steel and the concrete components, and a finite sliding formulation selected.
The tangential behaviour of the contact interaction was defined as a frictionless
formulation.
3.1. Material models
A nonlinear material obeying the Von Mises yield criterion and the isotropic hardening
was employed to model the steel components (i.e. anchor and anchor washer). The
material properties used are as follows: (i) Young’s Modulus, E=218GPa, and (ii) ASTM
F1554 Grade 55 anchors with yield stress, fy=434MPa, and ultimate stress, fu=524MPa.
The concrete was modelled by applying the damage plasticity approach. Nominal
concrete material properties are required to model both the elastic and plastic behaviour
in compression and tension, including strain softening and tension stiffening. Therefore,
intensive material testing was required (as previously undertaken) to define the
parameters required for insertion in the FE software [25]. Within the relevant literature
there are a plethora of suggestions discussing the development of concrete behaviour
under compression based on experimental tests [26-29]. The constitutive law for concrete
under compression was calculated using an experimentally verified numerical method
described by EC2 [30]. This approach was utilised to derive the stress and corresponding
strain up to the concrete’s nominal ultimate strain, using only the maximum compressive
strength. The tension softening curve was developed using Equation 1, as proposed by
Hilleborg [31]. The fracture energy of the concrete was taken as equal to 130N/m, and
the tensile strength was calculated according to EC2 [30]:

ft
 (w)  f t(1  0.5 w) 3 (1)
Gf

where:
 is the tensile stress, (MPa)
w is the crack opening, (mm)
ft is the tensile strength, (MPa) and
G f is the fracture energy of the concrete, (N/mm)

3.2. Boundary and loading conditions

Displacements and rotations of the concrete pedestal were locked at its base. The
specimens were monotonically loaded in tension with the displacement control method
up to the post-elastic behaviour. Constant displacement was applied at a concentrated
reference point tied to the top surface of the anchor rod (Fig. 6). However, in the current
work the behaviour of the connection within the elastic range is investigated. The load
applied during the model validation extended to the failure state, ensuring that the model
and the material properties were defined in ABAQUS at a satisfactory level.
 Fig. 6: The application of loading on model

4. Comparison of Experimental against Numerical Results

Fig. 7 compares the tensile force-displacement response of the experimental and the FE
models. It is apparent that the FE model correlates successfully with the experimental test
during both elastic and plastic stages. The maximum tensile force captured by the FE
modelling is equal to the experimental tests (124kN).

140
120
Tensile force (kN)

100
80
60
40
FE model
20
Experimental test
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 7: Comparison of FE model and experimental test results

5. Parametric Studies

An extensive FE study was carried out to investigate the factors that principally affect the
strength and the behaviour of anchor rods subject to pure tensile forces. The concrete
strength, the embedment depth and the anchor rod diameter are defined as the major
factors influencing the behaviour of the anchor rod. The primary variables examined in
this project were three. Namely, the embedment depth, the anchor rod diameter, and the
anchor plate diameter. It is worth noting that no concrete failure is anticipated. According
to the design of such base plates the concrete edge distance provided is suitably
significant to prevent concrete failure. Moreover, the presence of reinforcement within
the specimens enhances concrete’s performance. A series of FE models were developed
to investigate the effect of the three aforementioned variables on the capacity of the
connection. The diameter and thickness of the anchor plate were kept constant in all
models. This enables a study of the connection’s strength with respect to changes in
embedment depth or rod diameter. Similarly, the embedment depth was then kept
constant to study the effect of the diameter of the anchor plate.

All parametric studies were carried out under pure tensile force in terms of displacement.
(The top surface of the anchor was subject to displacement parallel to the axis of the
anchor rod.) The applied displacement was increased incrementally during the analysis
until the failure of the connection. The element types and the material properties of the
anchor rod were the same as those used in the validated model. The cylinder compressive
strength of the concrete used in the parametric study was 25MPa.

Fig. 8: Geometry of parametric model

Each specimen was represented by a three field identifier as demonstrated in Fig. 9. For
example D20-L400-W70; is the connection with anchor diameter of 20mm, anchor length
of 400mm and diameter of anchor washer plate of 70mm.

Fig. 9: Specimen Classification

5.1. Influence of the embedment depth

Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 respectively depict the rod tension force-displacement behaviour of
various connections with different embedment depth. It can be observed that embedment
depth influenced the stiffness and the elongation of the connection greatly, whilst having
a profound effect on the failure mode. It can also be noted that the initial stiffness
obtained for the base plate connections was very similar for all models, regardless of the
embedment depth. Nevertheless, the final elongation increased significantly with the
increase in embedment depth. It was also recorded that the embedment depth did not
affect the ultimate tensile strength of the connection. Conversely, in order to avoid the
concrete pullout and the cone failure, a minimum embedment depth for concrete cover
was required. The ultimate strength was not affected when the depth used was greater
than the minimum cover. For embedment depths greater than 10dr, the maximum
capacity of the connection was achieved, and the connection failed due to anchor rapture
(i.e. no concrete failure occurred).
140 90

120 80
70
Tensile force (kN)

Tensile force (kN)

100
60
80 50
60 40

40 30
D20-L200-W70 20
20 D20-L400-W70 D16-L160-W56
D20-L800-W70 10 D16-L320-W56
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Fig. 10: Force-displacement curve (due to steel failure)

If the concrete above the anchor plate is insufficient to resist the applied load, the crack
would extend to the free edge (Fig. 12). The concrete cover is rendered unable to resist
further loading. Fig. 11 presents the force-displacement behaviour of FE models failed
due to concrete pullout and cone failure. Concrete failure only took place for an
embedment depth of 5dr. The anchor rod model with a diameter of 20mm reached an
ultimate stress at failure loads of approximately 280MPa, 35% lower than its yield
strength. An abrupt failure took place for the specimen with embedment depth of 5dr; no
yielding was observed before the descending curve (Fig. 11). This type of failure raises
significant risk issues in engineering practice as it gives no warning prior to the collapse.
It is therefore advisable to select an embedment depth greater than 10dr.

70
60
50
Tensile force (kN)

40
30
20 D20-L100-W70
D16-L80-W56
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 11: Force-displacement curve (due to concrete failure)
A typical crack pattern is revealed in Fig. 12. It is apparent that the embedment depth of
5dr caused the breakout and pullout failure of the concrete. The angle of the concrete
cone failure acquired from the analysis was 35°. This is in line with the value suggested
by ACI [2] and CEN/TS [32].

Fig. 12: Concrete cone behaviour using the tensile damage parameter in ABAQUS (D20-L100-
W70)

The concrete bearing stress along the depth of the concrete block and in the vicinity of
the anchor rod is depicted in Fig. 13. Concrete stress was recorded at the onset of the
connections’ yielding point. (100kN for the anchor rod with diameter of 20mm, and at
70kN for the anchor rod with diameter of 16mm. The elastic limit was not exceeded and
the tensile force changed slightly beyond the proportional elastic limit. As it was realised,
the maximum bearing stress was reached at the surface of the anchor plate. The stress
reduced gradually and completely vanished along the partial depth (i.e. effective depth)
of the concrete block. Interestingly, the modelled effective concrete depth was
approximately the same when anchors with the same diameter were considered. When
equal embedment depths were considered, the effective concrete depth with anchor
diameter of 16mm was shallower than those with anchor diameter of 20mm. Thus it is
apparent that the depth of the compressive concrete zone correlates with the diameter of
the anchor rod at approximately 10dr.
 Stress (MPa) Stress (N/mm2)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 0
25 50
50 100

Depth (mm)
150
Depth (mm)

75
100 200
D20-L400-W40
125 D20-L200-W70 250 D20-L400-W70
D20-L400-W200
150 300
175 350
200 400
a) b)

Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
0 0
100 40
200 80
Depth (mm)
Depth (mm)

300 120
400 160
500 200 D16-L320-W56
D20-L800-W70
D16-L320-W160
600 240
700 280
800 320
c) d)

Fig. 13: Concrete bearing stress (measured along the depth near the anchor rod)

5.2. Influence of anchor plate diameter

Three anchor plate diameters (2dr, 3.5dr and 10dr) were examined to investigate the effect
of the bearing area at the base plate connection. The thickness of the anchor plate was
maintained for all specimens, being suitably thick to eliminate the effect of plate bending
under applied load. It was observed that the plate diameter did not affect the behaviour of
the connection when the anchor rod failure controlled the connection strength. The use of
small diameter anchor plates resulted in high-stress concentration in the vicinity of the
anchor plate (as shown in Fig. 13b and Fig. 13d). The stresses acquired from the FE
models with a diameter of 20mm and anchor plate rod of 40mm; 70mm and 200mm were
77MPa, 34MPa and 25MPa, respectively. This led, in the case of small anchor plate
diameters, to concrete crushing near the plate. It is important to notice that the concrete
bearing stress observed in the models with small anchor plate diameters exceeded the
ultimate concrete strength. For example, the maximum concrete stress observed in model
D20-L400-W40 was 129MPa, approximately five times greater than the concrete strength
(25MPa). It is therefore realised that when confined concrete is considered, high
compressive stresses develop under tri-axial stress conditions. Abram [33] observed a
concrete bearing stress of 89.64MPa by the concentric pullout specimen featuring an
anchor plate at the end of the anchor rod. The cylindrical compressive strength of
concrete used in these tests was only 12.8MPa. Hence, the observed concrete bearing
stress was seven times higher than the concrete compressive stress.

6. Modelling the Stiffness of the Anchor Rod

Within the design process of column bases, the analytical representation of the structural
response of the anchor rod with an anchor plate is of paramount importance. The
analytical approach is based on the elastic stress distribution laws. As observed in the
parametric study, most of the connection’s capacity was achieved within the elastic
range. This is in line with the majority of structural design procedures, which do not
exceed the elastic limit of the material.

The measured stiffness of the connection, as obtained from load-displacement curves, is

considerably less than the stiffness calculated by conventional elastic theory EA L  . This
is attributed to the stiffness calculated by the theoretical approach not taking into account
the displacement and the stiffness of the concrete. The proposed process considers the
stiffness degradation due to concrete and leads to an equation that defines the stiffness of
the anchor rod embedded in concrete.

An anchor rod with diameter, dr, and length, Lr, subject to tensile force, P, is considered.
The total displacement, t, of the rod, is equal to the sum of rod displacement, r, and
concrete displacement, c, as described in Equation 2.

t   r   c (2)

The resulting force in the rod and the concrete are similar and equal to the applied force.

Pt  Pr  Pc (3)

The anchor rod and the concrete can be represented by spring elements with stiffness, Kr
and Kc, respectively. Since the total displacement is equal to the sum of the rod and the
concrete displacement, the two springs are in series as demonstrated in Fig. 14, and the
total stiffness Kt can be derived as following:
 Fig. 14: Mass-spring model of the anchor rod under pure tensile force

Pt P P
 r  c (4)
Kt K r Kc

As stated in Equation 2, both concrete and anchor rod forces are the same and equal to
the applied force, hence:

1 1 1
  (5)
Kt K r Kc

Rearranging the equation gives:

Kr  Kc
Kt  (6)
Kr  Kc

and from the basic equations of mechanics of material:

  P  L  L
E      K (7)
    A  A

and then:

Es  Ar
Kr  (8)
Lr

and:

Ec  Ac
Kc  (9)
Lc

where:
Ec and Es are Young’s Modulus for concrete and steel, respectively, and Lc and Ac are the
stressed lengths and stressed area of the concrete, respectively, as depicted in Fig. 15.
 Fig. 15: Effective concrete

Substituting Equation 8 and 9 into 6 gives:

E s Ar  Ec Ac
Kt  (10)
E s Ar Lc  Ec Ac Lr

Dividing Equation 10 by Ec gives:

Es Ar  Ac
Kt  (11)
nAr Lc  Ac Lr

Es
where: n 
Ec

It was observed from the parametric analysis that the maximum stress is found near the
anchor rod, while the stress distribution over the anchor plate was linear, as illustrated in
Fig. 16. The diameter of the effective concrete area was approximately 3.5dr. In addition,
it was concluded that the depth of the effective concrete was approximately ten times the
diameter of the anchor rod, hence:

Es Ar
Kt  (12)
0.8nd r  Lr
 Fig. 16: Stress distribution in concrete in the vicinity of the anchor rod

Table 1 compares the stiffness obtained from the FE analyses and the stiffness calculated
by Equation 12. It is proved that the proposed equation predicts the stiffness of the anchor
rod embedded in concrete accurately.

Table 1: Comparison of stiffness

Concrete Stiffness (N/mm)
Test Notation dr (mm) Ec fcm
KAbaqus KEq.12 .
(GPa) (MPa)
D20-L100-W70 20 29 25 309800 305628 1.02
29 25 201000 0.97
D20-L200-W70 20 208868
32 40 205510 0.99
29 25 115000 0.9
D20-L400-W70 20 127890
32 40 115750 0.91
D20-L800-W70 20 29 25 59500 72035 0.83
D16-L80-W56 16 29 25 248700 244503 1.02
D16-L160-W56 16 29 25 183300 167095 1.1
D16-L320-W56 16 29 25 96650 102312 0.95
D20-L400-W100 20 29 25 114470 127890 0.9
D20-L400-W200 20 29 25 113600 127890 0.89
29 25 96900 0.95
D16-L320-W160 16 102312
32 40 97560 0.96
D20-L400-W40 20 29 25 110000 127890 0.87

7. Verification and Applications of Derivative Equation

The stiffness, as estimated by Equation 12, can be used as an input to the available
structural analysis software (such as SAP2000) using a spring coefficient to simplify the
modelling of the base plate connections. To verify the SAP2000 model and illustrate the
use of the derived equation, three different configurations of base plate connections were
modelled. ABAQUS and SAP2000 software was used, and the results were compared.
The tension developed in the anchor rods, the angle of rotation of the base plate, and the
resulting stress in the base plate were the main characteristics compared.

The first model F1 (Fig. 17) was selected from the experimental campaign carried out
and presented by Gomez et al. [34] (test #M1 in phase II). This particular type of base
plate connection has undergone extensive studies [16][18-21][35]. It was thus identified
and used to validate the proposed equation and the FE model. It was examined under
uniaxial moment whilst the compressive force was not applied.

Fig. 17: Geometry of model F1

A more intricate arrangement of anchor rods and loading, was considered in models F2
and F3. Both models were examined under biaxial moment and compressive force. These
types of connections were not previously considered by researchers as it was deemed
complicated to apply the component method to such configurations. Fig. 18 and Fig. 19
illustrate the dimensions of model F1 and F2, respectively.

Fig. 18: Geometry of model F2

 Fig. 19: Geometry of model F3

7.1. SAP2000 modelling

SAP2000 v.15 was used in this study as it is widely used in engineering practice. The aim
of employing the three-dimensional models and analysis conducted by SAP2000 is to
enable structural design engineers to visualise the forces/stresses developed in the anchor
rods and the base plates in complex column base connection configurations. The FE
models are examined under shear force, axial force and bending moments to represent the
majority of loading scenarios occurring in real situations.

Fig. 20: Extrude view of SAP2000 model

Shell elements were used to simulate the structural components of the connections. The
columns and the base plates are modelled using those elements as shown in Fig. 20. The
column height used in the analysis was measured from the centreline of the base plate to
the top of the column. Each component of the column base connections was defined with
appropriate shell thickness. For example, in model F2 and F3, the shell thickness of the
column flange and web are defined equal to the flange and web thickness of HEB220 (i.e.
16mm and 9.5mm).

Three types of boundary conditions were applied to the SAP2000 models. Tension
springs were utilised to represent the anchor rods. Their stiffness was calculated using
Equation 12 before being assigned to the software at the location of the anchor rods in the
Z direction. Shear force was assumed to be carried by the anchor rods. The directions of
the shear actions (i.e., in X and Y directions) were fully restrained at the location of the
anchor rods. The concrete was simulated by compression springs, as it does not carry any
tension forces. The spring stiffness assigned to SAP2000 was calculated based on
ABAQUS analysis output. The ABAQUS bearing stress for concrete was divided by the
vertical deflection at that point. Numerous points were examined along the concrete
stiffness calculation, with the value of concrete stiffness ranging between 120N/mm/mm2
and 170N/mm/mm2. SAP2000 model was examined using both stiffness magnitudes
while it was observed that their effect was negligible. The average stiffness magnitude of
145N/mm/mm2 was thus considered in this study. Fig. 21 represents the springs assigned
to the anchor rods and the base plate. Only compression springs were considered when
defining the area of the spring at the bottom face of the shell elements of the base plate.

Fig. 21: Spring locations

7.2. Comparison of anchor rod force

Fig. 22 shows the comparison of anchor tension force between SAP2000 and ABAQUS
software for all models. It is apparent that the anchor force obtained from SAP2000
models was remarkably similar to the force captured from the ABAQUS analysis.
Furthermore, for model F1 the tension force developed in anchor rods during the analysis
and the experimental tests carried out by Gomez [34] was approximately identical.
Similarly, in more complicated configurations and loadings the proposed equation in line
with SAP2000 still yields remarkable results as the difference between the forces in the
critical anchor does not exceed 2%.

Fig. 22: Comparison of tension in anchor rods

7.3. Comparison of rotation of base plate
Table 2 provides a comparison of the base plate rotation for both major and minor
directions. The angle of rotation was calculated by dividing the lateral drift at the top of
the column by the height of the column in each direction separately. It is apparent that the
SAP2000 model yields slightly lower values than the one obtained using ABAQUS,
(ranging between 7% and 3%).

Table 2: Comparison of base plate rotation

Base plate rotation in major Base plate rotation in minor
Model direction ( × 10 ) direction ( × 10 )
Exp. Test [34] ABAQUS SAP2000 ABAQUS SAP2000
F1 14.56 14.53 13.6 N.A N.A
F2 N.A 2.63 2.53 3.82 3.62
F3 N.A 2.38 2.32 4.1 3.93

7.4. Comparison of base plate stress

Fig. 23 to Fig. 25 demonstrate the comparison of the stresses in the base plates obtained
by ABAQUS and SAP2000 software, respectively. It is undoubtedly observed that the
stress pattern is very similar for both models with SAP2000 models producing higher
stress magnitudes at the points of force concentration. In the vicinity of such stressed
areas, SAP2000 presents higher numbers than ABAQUS by 20% to 40%. However, it is
worth noting that similar stress magnitudes were observed in the non-highly stressed
zones.

The reason for the deviation of the results between SAP2000 and ABAQUS models is
due to the following issues:

 The boundary conditions of the base plate in SAP2000 models are applied at
nodes while in ABAQUS there was a contact surface (e.g. base-grout). This might
cause a force concentration at nodes where boundary conditions were applied
which then produces high-stress concentrations.

 It is considered that the mesh elements used in SAP2000 might result in high-
stress concentrations. The washer supports the base plate in the vertical direction,
thus, the tension is developed in the anchor rods. The surface of the washer
provides some stress distribution on the base plate. In contrast, no washer was
modelled in SAP2000, and the tension developed in the anchor rod was
concentrated at one point. Conversely, in ABAQUS the steel column transfers its
load onto the contact surface of the base plate and the column while in SAP2000
it distributes the load on a line.

Fig. 23: Comparison of base plate stress (F1)

Fig. 24: Comparison of base plate stress (F2)

Fig. 25: Comparison of base plate stress (F3)

8. Conclusion

From the review of previous studies, it appears that primarily standard configurations of
column base plate connections with two or four anchor rods were considered.
Alterntively, connections with higher numbers of anchor rods or complicated scenarios of
applied force are rather scanty. This paper proposed to analyse and design column base
connections regardless of complicated arrangements of anchor rods and the magnitude of
the applied forces. The proposed solution was preceded by a parametric study to
investigate the factors affecting the behaviour and strength of a headed anchor rod in
tension using a three-dimensional model in ABAQUS v6.10. The following conclusions
have been drawn.

 The embedment depth has a profound effect on the final elongation of the anchor
rod and affects the failure mode. Moreover, it was observed that the initial
stiffness and the strength of the connection were independent of the embedment
depth when the anchor rod rapture controls the connection strength.

 The diameter of the anchor plate does not affect the behaviour and strength of the
connection. Nevertheless, a high-stress concentration in the vicinity of the anchor
plate is expected when the small diameter plate is used.

 The proposed mathematical equation proves that headed anchor bolts can be
represented by mass-spring models taking into account the stiffness of the rod and
the concrete. The stiffness obtained by the proposed analytical formula with
corresponding FE results is satisfactory.

 The stiffness calculated by the proposed equation can be used as an input to the
available structural software (such as SAP2000) using a spring coefficient to
simplify the modelling of the base plate connections. The simplified model gives
remarkable results for tension developed in the anchor rods and angle of rotation
of the base plate. However, as a resutl of certain factors (eg. stress concentration
and boundary condition in SAP2000 models), base plate stress is higher than
expected in the vicinity of stress concentrations, while similar stress magnitudes
were observed in the low stress zones.

References

[1] Akiyama, H. (1985) “Seismic Design of Steel Column for Architecture.” in Japanese,
Gibodoskupan, Tokyo 1985.
[2] ACI Committee 318. (2008) “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02),” Farmington Hills, MI.
[3] Delhomme, F., Debicki, G. and Z. Chaib. (2010) “Experimental behaviour of anchor
bolts under pullout and relaxation tests” Construction and Building Materials Vol. 24, No
3, pp. 266–274.
[4] Hasselwander, G.B., Jirsa, J.O., Breen, J.E. and Lo, K. (1977) “strength and
behaviour of anchor bolts embedded near edges of concrete piers.” Final Report Texas
Univ., Austin. Center for Highway Research.
[5] Gomez, I.R., Kanvinde, A.M., Smith, C., and Deierlein, G.G. (2009) “Shear Transfer
in Exposed Column Base Plates,” Technical Report submitted to the American Institute
of Steel Construction, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
[6] DeWolf, J.T. and Ricker, D.T. (2003) “Column Base Plates,” 3rd Ed., Steel Design
Guide Series No. 1, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
[7] Fisher, J.M. and Kloiber, L.A. (2006) “Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design,” 2nd Ed.,
Steel Design Guide Series No. 1, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,Chicago,
IL.
[8] ACI 349-79. (1976) Code requirements for nuclear safety related concrete structures.
Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1976.
[9] Eurocode 3. (2005) Design of steel structure – Part 1–8: design of joints. Brussels:
European Standards, CEN, 2005.
[10] Ashour, A.F. and Alqedra, M.A. (2004) “Concrete breakout strength of single
anchors in tension using neural networks,” Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005)
87–97.
[11] Eligehausen, R., Fuchs, W. and Sippelt T.M. (2004) “Anchorage to concrete,”
Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp 392–403.
[12] ACI Committee 355. (1997) “State-of-the-art report on anchorage to concrete,”
Detroit, USA: American Concrete Institute; 1991. Reapproved 1997.
[13] Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB), (1994) Task Group VI/5. “Fastenings to
concrete and masonry structures,” London, UK: Thomas Telford Services Ltd; 1994.
p.p.249.
[14] Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R. and Breen, J.E. (1995) “Concrete capacity design (CCD)
approach for fastening to concrete,” ACI Struct J 1995;92(1):73–94.
[15] Cook, R.A., Collins, D.M., Klingner, R.E. and Polyzois D. (1992) “Load-deflection
behavior of cast-in-place and retrofit concrete anchors,” ACI Struct J 1992;89(6):639–49.
[16] Jaspart, J.P. and Vandegans, D. (1998) “Application of Component Method to
Column Bases,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 48, pp. 89-106.
[17] Wald, F., Sokil, Z. and Jaspart, J.P. (2008) "Base plate in bending and anchor bolts
in tension." Heron 53.1/2.
[18] Kontoleon, M.J., Mistakidis, E.S., Baniotopoulos, C.C. and Panagiotopoulos, P.D.
(1999) "Parametric analysis of the structural response of steel base plate connections."
Computers & Structures 71, no. 1: 87-103.
[19] Baniotopoulos, C.C., Sokol, Z. and Wald, F. (1999) "Column base connections."
COST CI Report of WG6-Numerical simulation. Brussels-Luxemburg: European
Commission, pp. 32-47.
[20] Ermopoulos, J.C. and Stamatopoulos, G.N. (1996) "Mathematical modelling of
column base plate connections." Journal of Constructional Steel Research 36, no. 2, pp.
79-100.
[21] Stamatopoulos, G.N. and Ermopoulos, J.C. (2011) "Experimental and analytical
investigation of steel column bases." Journal of constructional steel research 67, no. 9,
pp. 1341-1357.
[22] Melchers, R.E. (1992) "Column-base response under applied moment." Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 23, no. 1, pp. 127-143.
[23] Stark, J., and Hordijk, D.A. (2001) "Where structural steel and concrete meet."
Connections between steel and concrete, University of Stuttgart, ed. Eligehausen R.,
Stuttgart, pp. 1-11.
[24] Petersen, D., Lin Z. and Zhao J. (2013), “Behavior and Design of Cast-in-Place
Anchors under Simulated Seismic Loading,” Technical Report Submitted to National
Science Foundation for the NEESR Project Funded under Grant No. CMMI-990712342.
[25] Wahalathantri, B.L., Thambiratnam, D.P., Chan, T.H.T., and Fawzia, S. (2011) “A
Material model for flexural crack simulation in reinforced concrete elements using
abaqus” eddBE2011 Proceedings pp. 260-264.
[26] Tsavdaridis, K.D., D’Mello, C. and Huo, B.Y. (2013) “Experimental and
computational study of the vertical shear behaviour of partially encased perforated steel
beams”. Engineering Structures, 56, pp. 805–822.
[27] Tsavdaridis, K.D., D'Mello, C. and Huo, B.Y. (2009) “Shear Capacity of Perforated
Concrete-Steel Ultra Shallow Floor Beams (USFB)”. Paper presented at the 6th National
Concrete Conference, TEE, ETEK, 21-–23 Oct. 2009, Paphos, Cyprus.
[28] Hsu, L.S. and Hsu, C.T.T. (1994) Complete stress-strain behaviour of high-strength
concrete under compression. Magazine of Concrete Research, 46(169), pp. 301-312.
[29] Samani, A.K., Attard, M.M. (2012) “A stress–strain model for uniaxial and confined
concrete under compression”. Engineering Structures, 41, pp. 335–349.
[30] British Standards Institution. (2004) Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part
1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. British Standards Institution, 2004.
[31] Hilleborg, A. (1989) “Stability problems in fracture mechanics testing”, Fracture of
concrete and rock edited by Shah, S. P., Swartz, S. E. and Barr, B., Elsevier Applied
Science, pp. 369-378.
[32] CEN/TS 1992-4-2: Design of fastenings for use in concrete - Part 4-2: Headed
Fasteners. 2009. Brussels.
[33] Abrams, D.A. (1913) “Test of Bond between Concrete and Steel,” University of
Illinois Bulletin, No.71.
[34] Gomez, I., Kanvinde, A.M. and Deierlein, G.G. (2010) "Exposed column base
connections subjected to axial compression and flexure." Report Submitted to the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.
[35] Ermopoulos, J.C. and Stamatopoulos, G.N. (1996) "Analytical modelling of column-
base plates under cyclic loading." Journal of constructional steel research 40, no. 3, pp.
225-238.