Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations

2016-03-01

Simple Models for Estimating the Rotational

Stiffness of Steel Column-to-Footing Connections
Joshua Edwin Tryon

W
Brigham Young University - Provo

IE
EV
PR

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Tryon, Joshua Edwin, "Simple Models for Estimating the Rotational Stiffness of Steel Column-to-Footing Connections" (2016). All
Theses and Dissertations. 5822.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5822

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
PR
EV
IE
W
Simple Models for Estimating the Rotational Stiffness of

Steel Column-to-Footing Connections

Joshua Edwin Tryon

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

W
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
IE Master of Science
EV

Paul W. Richards, Chair

Fernando S. Fonseca
Kyle M. Rollins
PR

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Brigham Young University
March 2016

Copyright © 2016 Joshua Edwin Tryon

All Rights Reserved
 ProQuest Number: 28105317

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
EV
ProQuest 28105317

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All Rights Reserved.

PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ABSTRACT

Simple Models for Estimating the Rotational Stiffness of

Steel Column-to-Footing Connections

Joshua Edwin Tryon

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, BYU
Master of Science

Despite the crucial role they play in transferring loads from the superstructure to the foun-
dation, steel column-to-footing connections have received little attention in research. Though shal-
low embedded connections are typically characterized as pinned, studies have shown that they
exhibit significant rotational stiffness. The objective of this thesis is to quantify the rotational
stiffness of such connections. A method named the continuum model is developed by which the
rotational stiffness of embedded connections may be calculated. Outputs from this model are com-
pared with experimental data on steel connections embedded in concrete. The continuum model is

W
shown to be capable of reasonably predicting the rotational stiffness of such connections. Results
from the model were consistent with those of previous experimental studies that showed that em-
bedment lengths greater than twice the column depth fail to significantly increase stiffness. Plots
IE
of rotational stiffness vs. embedment length developed from the continuum model are provided
such that rotational stiffness may be calculated for any wide flange shape at any embedment length.
Simplified equations provide a simpler way for engineers to estimate the same information.
EV
PR

Keywords: steel column-to-footing connections, stiffness, embedment, beam on elastic foundation,

modeling, foundations, modulus of subgrade reaction
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis is the product of the support, collaboration, and encouragement of many indi-
viduals. First, I would like to acknowledge the constant guidance and tutelage of Dr. Paul Richards.
He has been patient with me through the ups and downs of this research, and his insight and coun-
seling have been indispensable. I am very grateful to him, especially for identifying a research
topic that matched my skill set so perfectly. In addition, I would like to thank my wife, Ginger,
for her unfailing support and patience throughout the ordeal of this research and for her example
of hard work and dedication. She has walked this same path before me, and her encouragement
has been indispensable. I would also like to recognize the support of Trevor Jones, Joseph Eix-

W
enberger, and John Niedfeldt. Their friendship, collaboration, and expertise have catalyzed this
research and improved its presentation in this thesis. Finally, these acknowledgments would be
IE
incomplete without recognition of Tom Schlafly, director of research at the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC), whose funding made this entire project possible.
EV
PR
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Overview of Steel Column-to-Footing Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Scope of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

W
2.1 Studies on Steel-Column-to-Footing Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Exposed Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IE 5
2.1.2 Embedded Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.3 Shallow Embedded Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
EV
2.2 Studies on Similar Connection Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 Corbel Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2 Pile-to-Cap Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
PR

2.2.3 Composite Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.2.4 Concrete Filled Steel Tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.1 Continuum Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.1.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.1.2 Beams of Infinite Length (Hetenyi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1.3 Beams of Finite Length (Hetenyi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1.4 Application to Steel Column-to-Footing Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1.5 Accounting for Flange Duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1.6 Calculating Base Plate Rotational Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.1.7 Method of Superposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

iv
 3.2 Comparing Results with Barnwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3 Comparison with Data from University of California at Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4 Normalization of Rotational Stiffness vs. Embedment Length Curves . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter 4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.1 Superimposed Elastic Stiffness Slopes on Hysteretic Plots (Barnwell) . . . . . . . 60

4.2 Rotational Stiffness vs. Embedment Length Plots (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.3 Superimposed Elastic Stiffness Slopes on Hysteretic Plots (Grilli, et al) . . . . . . 68
4.4 Normalized Rotational Stiffness vs. Embedment Length Curves . . . . . . . . . . 71

Chapter 5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

W
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

IE
Appendix A Alternate Approach: Stiffness Method Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

A.1 Stiffness Method Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

EV
A.1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
A.1.2 Width Adjustment Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A.1.3 Base Plate Stiffness Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
A.1.4 Stiffness Matrix Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
PR

A.2 Calibrated Values for Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . 100

Appendix B Normalized Rotational-Stiffness vs. Embedment Curves for Wide-Flange

Column Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B.1 Strong Axis Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B.2 Weak Axis Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

v
 LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Test Matrix and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Specimen Data for Barnwell’s Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Stiffness Data from Barnwell’s Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.1 Specimen Data from Barnwell’s Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.2 UC Davis Specimen Data for Continuous Model Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.1 Experimental vs. Theoretical Rotational Stiffness of Barnwell’s Specimens . . . . 64

A.1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Values Calibrated Using Continuous and Stiffness
Method Models to Barnwell’s Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

W
IE
EV
PR

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Steel Column-to-Footing Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Typical Block-out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Base Plate Strength Methods (DeWolf and Sarisley) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Exposed Connection Specimen Schematic (Thambiratnam and Paramasivam) . . . 7
2.3 Specimen from First Round of Experiments (Kanvinde and Deierlein) . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Exposed Connection Loading Under High Eccentricity (Kanvinde, et al) . . . . . . 10
2.5 Deformed Exposed Connection Under Lateral Load (Kanvinde, et al) . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Representative Finite Element Exposed Connection (Kanvinde, et al) . . . . . . . . 11

W
2.7 Anchor Rod Force Comparison from Tests and FE Analysis (Kanvinde, et al) . . . 12
2.8 Test Specimen Drawings, Side View (Pertold, et al; units in mm) . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.9 Assumed Stress Distribution (Pertold, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
IE
2.10 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Embedment Lengths . . . . . . . . . 16
2.11 Test Setup for ECB Connection Specimen (Grilli & Kanvinde) . . . . . . . . . . . 17
EV
2.12 Sample Test Specimen, (Cui, et al; units in mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.13 Shallow Embedded Column Specimen After Block-Out Pour (Barnwell) . . . . . . 21
2.14 Loading Protocol Used in Barnwell’s Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
PR

2.15 Specimen B2 Post-Failure (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.16 Lateral Displacement Contributions (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.17 Data from First Loading Cycle (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.18 Detailing of Specimens Tested (Marcakis and Mitchell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.19 Embedment Detail (Harries & Petrou) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.20 Test Setup (Richards, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.21 Test Setup (Baltay & Gjelsvik) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.22 Test Setup (Eastman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.23 Test Setup (Xiao, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.24 Cap-Member-Soil Model (Castilla, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.25 Typical Test Specimen (Sheikh, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.26 Panel Shear Strength Mechanisms (Deierlein, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

vii
2.27 Test Specimen Dimensions (Shahrooz, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.28 Effective Fixity with e (Shahrooz, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.29 Test Setup (Motter, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.30 Test Setup (Roeder & Lehman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.1 Beam on Elastic Foundation Under Point Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.2 Beam on Elastic Foundation Under Point Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3 Continuous Beam Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4 Beam on Elastic Foundation with a Concentrated Load at One End . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5 Beam on Elastic Foundation with a Concentrated Moment at One End . . . . . . . 45
3.6 Continuum Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

W
3.7 Continuous Model Superposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.8 Strong Axis Resisting Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.9
IE
Weak Axis Resisting Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.10 Continuous Base Plate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.11 Continuous Base Plate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
EV
3.12 Bearing Mechanism of Eccentrically Loaded Exposed Connections . . . . . . . . . 51
3.13 Strong Axis Resisting Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
PR

4.1 Specimen A1 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.2 Specimen A2 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3 Specimen CA2 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.4 Specimen B1 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.5 Specimen B2 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.6 Specimen B3 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.7 Specimen CB2 Hysteretic Plot (Barnwell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.8 Rotational Stiffness vs. Embedment Length for W8X48 Strong Axis Shapes . . . . 65
4.9 Rotational Stiffness vs. Embedment Length for W8X35 Strong Axis Shapes . . . . 66
4.10 Rotational Stiffness vs. Embedment Length for W8X35 Weak Axis Shapes . . . . 67
4.11 Test 1 Hysteretic Plot (Grilli, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.12 Test 2 Hysteretic Plot (Grilli, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

viii
4.13 Test 3 Hysteretic Plot (Grilli, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.14 Test 4 Hysteretic Plot (Grilli, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.15 Test 5 Hysteretic Plot (Grilli, et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.16 Normalized W8 Strong Axis Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.17 Normalized W8 Weak Axis Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.18 Common Normalized Strong Axis Curves with Simplified Equation . . . . . . . . 75
4.19 Common Normalized Weak Axis Curves with Simplified Equation . . . . . . . . . 76
4.20 All Normalized Strong Axis Curves with Simplified Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.21 All Normalized Weak Axis Curves with Simplified Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

A.1 Typical Shallow Embedded Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

W
A.2 Stiffness Method Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
A.3 Strong Axis Resisting Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
IE
A.4 Weak Axis Resisting Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A.5 Discrete Base Plate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A.6 Base Plate and Column Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
EV
A.7 Stiffness Method Model, Divided into Beam Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
A.8 Free Body Diagrams of Unit Horizontal Translations at DOF’s . . . . . . . . . . . 95
A.9 Free Body Diagrams of Unit Rotations at DOF’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
PR

A.10 Detail of Column Displacement and Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

B.1 W4 and W5 Strong Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B.2 W6 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
B.3 W6 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
B.4 W8 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
B.5 W8 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
B.6 W8 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
B.7 W8 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
B.8 W10 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B.9 W10 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B.10 W10 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

ix
B.11 W10 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
B.12 W12 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
B.13 W12 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
B.14 W12 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
B.15 W12 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
B.16 W12 Strong Axis - Family 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
B.17 W12 Strong Axis - Family 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
B.18 W14 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
B.19 W14 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
B.20 W14 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
B.21 W14 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

W
B.22 W14 Strong Axis - Family 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
B.23 W14 Strong Axis - Family 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
IE
B.24 W14 Strong Axis - Family 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
B.25 W16 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
EV
B.26 W16 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
B.27 W16 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
B.28 W18 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
PR

B.29 W18 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

B.30 W18 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
B.31 W18 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
B.32 W21 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
B.33 W21 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
B.34 W21 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
B.35 W24 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
B.36 W24 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
B.37 W24 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
B.38 W24 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
B.39 W27 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
B.40 W27 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

x
B.41 W27 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
B.42 W30 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
B.43 W30 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
B.44 W33 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
B.45 W33 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
B.46 W36 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
B.47 W36 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
B.48 W36 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
B.49 W40 Strong Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
B.50 W40 Strong Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
B.51 W40 Strong Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

W
B.52 W40 Strong Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
B.53 W44 Strong Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
IE
B.54 W4 and W5 Weak Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
B.55 W6 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
EV
B.56 W6 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
B.57 W8 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
B.58 W8 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
PR

B.59 W8 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

B.60 W8 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
B.61 W10 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
B.62 W10 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B.63 W10 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B.64 W10 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
B.65 W12 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
B.66 W12 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
B.67 W12 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
B.68 W12 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
B.69 W12 Weak Axis - Family 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
B.70 W12 Weak Axis - Family 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

xi
B.71 W14 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
B.72 W14 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
B.73 W14 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
B.74 W14 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
B.75 W14 Weak Axis - Family 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
B.76 W14 Weak Axis - Family 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
B.77 W14 Weak Axis - Family 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
B.78 W16 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
B.79 W16 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
B.80 W16 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
B.81 W18 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

W
B.82 W18 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
B.83 W18 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
IE
B.84 W18 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
B.85 W21 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
EV
B.86 W21 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
B.87 W21 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
B.88 W24 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
PR

B.89 W24 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

B.90 W24 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
B.91 W24 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
B.92 W27 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
B.93 W27 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
B.94 W27 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
B.95 W30 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
B.96 W30 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
B.97 W33 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
B.98 W33 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
B.99 W36 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
B.100W36 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

xii
B.101W36 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
B.102W40 Weak Axis - Family 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
B.103W40 Weak Axis - Family 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
B.104W40 Weak Axis - Family 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
B.105W40 Weak Axis - Family 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
B.106W44 Weak Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

W
IE
EV
PR

xiii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of Steel Column-to-Footing Connections

In the design of steel buildings, most columns are selected based on their ability to with-
stand vertical loads and transmit them to the foundation of the structure. Three types of steel
column-to-footing connections are commonly used: exposed, embedded, and shallow embedded
connections. Exposed connections, such as the one illustrated in Figure 1.1(a), are typically used

W
in buildings such as industrial facilities where aesthetics are unimportant and the exposed base
plate and anchor bolts do not interfere with facility functions. Embedded connections, as shown in
IE
Figure 1.1(b), are used in moment frame design due to their superior moment and shear capacity.
Such connections can be expensive and complicated because of the major concrete work that must
EV
be done after the structural steel is placed. These may be referred to as deeply embedded connec-
tions throughout this work. Shallow embedded connections like the one depicted in Figure 1.1(c)
are the most common steel column-to-footing connection, being more economical than embedded
PR

connections and more aesthetically appealing than exposed connections.

(a) Exposed (b) Embedded (c) Shallow Embedded

Figure 1.1: Steel Column-to-Footing Connections

1
 When constructing shallow embedded connections, a part of the concrete slab is left un-
filled, as shown in Figure 1.2. After the steel column is installed, the unfilled region, or block-out,
is filled with unreinforced concrete. This additional concrete may provide significant moment
resistance which is neglected in current design models. In current design practice, shallow em-
bedded connections are assumed to be pinned for structural analysis purposes, transmitting only
vertical gravity loads into the foundation and providing no lateral stiffness. While shallow embed-
ded connections do not provide as much fixity as deeply embedded connections, their rotational
stiffness may be quantifiable and usable in design. As such, these connections may be more accu-
rately termed partially fixed. In other words, they transmit both vertical and lateral loads into the
foundation, but both the column and the concrete slab contribute to deflections and rotations. To
clarify, a fixed connection is assumed to be one where only the column contributes to deflections

W
and rotations; the concrete slab is assumed to remain elastic.
IE
EV
PR

Figure 1.2: Typical Block-out

2
1.2 Scope of Research

Recent research suggests that shallow embedded connections with no reinforcement may
provide moment resistance closer to that of fixed connections than previously believed. Several
experimental tests on pipe pile-to-pile cap specimens identify mechanisms pertinent to shallow
embedded connections that may contribute to their moment resistance. One source of additional
stiffness reported by Eastman is the bearing resistance of the column against the embedment ma-
terial [1]. Another study by Richards, et al, suggests that friction between the column and the
embedment material may provide additional moment resistance [2]. This suggests that the block-
out concrete provides additional lateral strength and stiffness that is currently unaccounted for in
design. Most recently, a series of tests performed by Barnwell on shallow embedded connections

W
showed that such connections have significant lateral strength and stiffness [3].
It is the goal of structural engineers to economically design structures that are safe for hu-
man use. If the concrete block-out in shallow embedded connections can be relied upon to provide
IE
lateral strength and stiffness, quantified values for such strength and stiffness may assist structural
engineers in designing safe steel column-to-footing connections more economically. For example,
EV
the inclusion of shallow embedded connections may reduce the need for deeply embedded con-
nections, and embedment lengths required for such connections may be reduced. This represents
significant reduction in material and labor costs, as well as in time required for construction.
PR

This work develops models to quantify the rotational stiffness provided by shallow em-
bedded connections. Two methods are developed, which are called the continuum model and the
stiffness method model. To develop the continuum model, the theory of beams on elastic founda-
tion derived by Hetenyi is applied [4]. The stiffness method of structural analysis is the basis for
the appropriately named method. Both models use these methods to account for the stiffness of the
embedment material. Using these approaches, both the properties of the column and the embed-
ment material can be used to calculate the rotational stiffness of the connection. As the stiffness
method model is essentially a complex, discretized version of the continuum model, most attention
is paid to the continuum model in this work.
To validate the accuracy of the continuum model, its outputs were compared with those
from Barnwell [3], whose work was mentioned previously, and Grilli, et al [5], who performed
similar testing on deeply embedded column connections. Upon finding reasonable agreement,

3
normalization methods were used to produce rotational stiffness vs. embedment length curves.
These plots will enable engineers to calculate the rotational stiffness of any embedded wide flange
shape. Simplified piecewise equations were also developed to obtain the same information more
quickly at the cost of some accuracy.

1.3 Outline

This chapter has served as a brief introduction to the need of additional research on the
lateral stiffness provided by steel column-to-footing connections. It also introduced the methods
by which this work seeks to model shallow embedded connections and quantify their rotational
stiffness. Chapter 2 reviews the work of previous researchers, outlining contributions relevant to

W
this work. The methods used to develop the continuum model and validate it using experimental
data are discussed in Chapter 3. Results generated using the continuum model are presented and
IE
discussed in Chapter 4. Conclusions to this thesis and propositions for further research are outlined
in Chapter 5. The previously mentioned stiffness method model is secondary to the continuum
model and is detailed in Appendix A.
EV
PR

4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous research concerning steel column-to-footing connections has been fairly limited.
Nevertheless, several studies offering noteworthy contributions were identified and reviewed to
provide background on these connections. To expand the library of pertinent research, it is noted
that steel column-to-footing connections bear some similarity to steel pile-to-cap connections. As
such, several articles discussing such connections were also reviewed. Articles pertaining to sim-

W
ilar connection types, such as corbel, composite, and concrete filled steel tube connections, were
also reviewed. This chapter serves to summarize these and other relevant articles, highlighting
IE
their pertinent experimental procedures, analytical models, and conclusions. Section 2.1 discusses
studies on exposed, embedded, and shallow embedded connections. Articles on pile-to-cap and
other similar connections are summarized in Section 2.2.
EV

2.1 Studies on Steel-Column-to-Footing Connections

PR

2.1.1 Exposed Connections

Recognizing the need to understand the behavior of exposed column connections under
moment loads, DeWolf and Sarisley identified two possible methods of characterizing the strength
of column base plates under eccentric axial loading [6]. The first of these methods, the working
stress method, assumes that moments are resisted by two elastic mechanisms in the base plate.
Tensile uplift is resisted by anchor rod engagement, and compression is resisted by bearing of the
plate against the concrete surface. In this model, it is assumed that the compression occurs in the
form of a triangular stress block, as shown in Figure 2.1(a). Given the base plate geometry and by
assuming the maximum compressive stress f p is the allowable concrete compressive stress fc0 , the
tension T in the anchor bolts and the length a of the compression stress block can be calculated
using statics. Then for a given eccentricity e, the maximum allowable load P can be found.

5
 Alternatively, the ultimate strength method assumes that the anchor bolt is at yield stress.
Following conventions in reinforced concrete design, the maximum compressive stress fs is 0.85 fc0 .
It is assumed in this method that the bearing of the plate on the concrete produces a uniformly
distributed stress block. Given plate dimensions, anchor bolt cross-sectional area, and material
properties, as well as either the eccentricity or the applied load P, all other information may be
calculated through statics. The ultimate strength method is depicted in Figure 2.1(b).

W
IE
EV

(a) Working Stress Method (b) Ultimate Strength Method

PR

Figure 2.1: Base Plate Strength Methods (DeWolf and Sarisley)

In an effort to test their accuracy, the researchers predicted the ultimate strength of sixteen
exposed connection specimens using both the working stress and ultimate strength methods. These
specimens were then tested under axial loads of varying eccentricities until failure. From the
experimental data, the researchers calculated factors of safety for each method. The working stress
method had an average factor of safety of 2.16, whereas the ultimate strength method yielded a
factor of safety of 1.11. Despite not incorporating all of the mechanisms involved in base plate
resistance, the authors concluded that both methods were reasonable for predicting the strength of
exposed column connections. Of the two methods, the researchers preferred the ultimate strength
method since it more accurately predicted the true behavior of the connection.

6
 Experimental testing by Thambiratnam and Paramasivam investigated the effect of load ec-
centricity and base plate thickness on the strength of exposed column connections [7]. Twelve test
specimens were designed with three different plate thicknesses and four varying load eccentrici-
ties. Each specimen was loaded axially, with loading occurring gradually until one of three failure
modes occurred. These modes included cracking of the concrete block, yielding of the base plate,
and yielding of the anchor bolts. A representation of these specimens is provided in Figure 2.2.

W
IE
EV
PR

Figure 2.2: Exposed Connection Specimen Schematic (Thambiratnam and Paramasivam)

The recorded strengths from these experiments were compared with predicted strength
values determined by using the working stress method described previously. It was found that
the specimens exhibited significantly larger flexural capacity than was expected. Factors of safety
ranged from 1.09 to 1.89, with a mean value of 1.35. Furthermore, it was found that base plates of
the greatest thickness did not always exhibit the largest moment capacity. Since thicker base plates
behave more rigidly, larger bending moments tend to cause such plates to overturn more uniformly.
Due to the lower bearing area this causes, the resultant bearing stresses increase, contributing to
premature failure. As such, the use of thinner base plates in design may serve to increase the
flexural capacity of such connections.

7
 The researchers found that compressive bearing stresses developed in the concrete were
non-uniform along the length of the base plate. In particular, the greatest strain was observed to
occur directly underneath the column, and smallest strains occurred at the edge of the base plate.
It can be inferred that the bearing stresses were small under the edges of the base plate, and were
largest under the column. The researchers explain this behavior by assuming the base plate to be
flexible under plate bending. Though this behavior was observed under axial loading, it is likely
that the same behavior is observed when plate bending is caused by large bending moments. If such
is the case, then the contribution of the edges of the base plate may be negligible in determining the
rotational stiffness contribution of the base plate in shallowly embedded connections. Furthermore,
this suggests that the assumption of a triangular stress block with the highest stress at the edge of
the base plate, as is assumed in the working stress method, is incorrect. For this and other reasons,

W
the researchers suggest that the working stress method does not apply to the specimens tested in
this study. IE
Recent testing performed by Kanvinde and Deierlein yielded a wealth of experimental data
that provides insight on the behavior of exposed column base connections under several different
EV
loading conditions [8]. Greater detail on the results of this experimentation is reported by Gomez
[9]. Their results were compared with recommendations made in the AISC Steel Design Guide
No. 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design [10]. Twenty large-scale specimens were tested among
PR

three experimental regimens. Of particular value to this work is the first series of experiments,
which investigated the moment capacity of the first of seven specimens. To do so, each connection
underwent cyclic lateral loading until failure occurred. It was found that each specimen remained
elastic up to 7% drift, with some remaining elastic up to 10% drift. The AISC Seismic Provisions
specify that connections remain elastic up to column drifts of up to 4% [11]. Furthermore, the
experimentally observed flexural strength of each specimen was found to be an average of 80%
higher than their estimated strength. Considering these results, the researchers suggest that a high
degree of conservatism exists in current design methods. An image of one of these specimens
post-failure is provided in Figure 2.3.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.