Base Plate and

1
Steel Design Guide

Anchor Rod Design

Second Edition

JAMES M. FISHER, Ph.D., P.E.

Computerized Structural Design, S.C.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

and

LAWRENCE A. KLOIBER, P.E.

LeJuene Steel Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota

AMERICAN INSTITUTE O F S T E E L C O N S T RU C T I O N , I N C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Column base plate connections are the critical interface the equations shown herein are independent of the load ap-
between the steel structure and the foundation. These con- proach and thus are applicable to either design methodology.
nections are used in buildings to support gravity loads and These are shown in singular format. Other derived equations
function as part of lateral-load-resisting systems. In addition, are based on the particular load approach and are presented
they are used for mounting of equipment and in outdoor sup- in a side-by-side format of comparable equations for LRFD
port structures, where they may be affected by vibration and or ASD application.
fatigue due to wind loads. The typical components of a column base are shown in
Base plates and anchor rods are often the last structural Figure 1.1.
steel items to be designed but are the first items required Material selection and design details of base plates can
on the jobsite. The schedule demands along with the prob- significantly affect the cost of fabrication and erection of
lems that can occur at the interface of structural steel and steel structures, as well as the performance under load.
reinforced concrete make it essential that the design details Relevant aspects of each of these subjects are discussed
take into account not only structural requirements, but also briefly in the next section. Not only is it important to design
include consideration of constructability issues, especially the column-base-plate connection for strength requirements,
anchor rod setting procedures and tolerances. The impor- it is also important to recognize that these connections
tance of the accurate placement of anchor rods cannot be affect the behavior of the structure. Assumptions are
over-emphasized. This is the one of the key components to made in structural analysis about the boundary conditions
safely erecting and accurately plumbing the building. represented by the connections. Models comprising beam or
The material in this Guide is intended to provide guidelines truss elements typically idealize the column base connection
for engineers and fabricators to design, detail, and specify as either a pinned or fixed boundary condition. Improper
column-base-plate and anchor rod connections in a manner characterization can lead to error in the computed drifts,
that avoids common fabrication and erection problems. This leading to unrecognized second-order moments if the
Guide is based on the 2005 AISC Specification for Structur- stiffness is overestimated, or excessive first-floor column
al Steel Buildings (AISC, 2005), and includes guidance for sizes if the stiffness is underestimated. If more accurate
designs made in accordance with load and resistance factor analyses are desired, it may be necessary to input the stiffness
design (LRFD) or allowable stress design (ASD). of the column-base-plate connection in the elastic and plastic
This Guide follows the format of the 2005 AISC Specifi- ranges, and for seismic loading, possibly even the cyclic
cation, developing strength parameters for foundation sys- force-deformation relations. The forces and deformations
tem design in generic terms that facilitate either load and from the structural analyses used to design the column-base-
resistance factor design (LRFD) or allowable strength de- plate connection are dependent on the choice of the column-
sign (ASD). Column bases and portions of the anchorage base-plate connection details.
design generally can be designed in a direct approach based
on either LRFD or ASD load combinations. The one area
of anchorage design that is not easily designed by ASD is
the embedment of anchor rods into concrete. This is due to
the common use of ACI 318 Appendix D, which is exclu-
sively based on the strength approach (LRFD) for the design
of such embedment. Other steel elements of the foundation
system, including the column base plate and the sizing of
anchor diameters are equally proficient to evaluation using
LRFD or ASD load methods. In cases such as anchors sub-
jected to neither tension nor shear, the anchorage develop-
ment requirement may be a relatively insignificant factor.
The generic approach in development of foundation de-
sign parameters taken in this Guide permits the user a choice
to develop the loads based on either the LRFD or ASD ap-
proach. The derivations of foundation design parameters, as
presented herein, are then either multiplied by the resistance
factor, φ, or divided by a safety factor, Ω, based on the ap-
propriate load system utilized in the analysis; consistent
with the approach used in the 2005 Specification. Many of Figure 1.1. Column base connection components.

DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN / 1
mentary to the AISC Seismic Provisions notes some signifi- 3.0 DESIGN OF COLUMN BASE PLATE
cant differences: CONNECTIONS
1. Long anchor rods embedded in concrete will strain much
more than high-strength bolts or welds in beam-to-column This section of the Design Guide provides the design re-
connections. quirements for typical column base plate connections in
buildings, such as the one shown in Figure 1.1.
2. Column base plates are bearing on grout and concrete,
Five different design load cases in column base plate con-
which is more compressible than the column flanges of
nections are discussed:
the beam-to-column connections.
• Section 3.1 Concentric Compressive Axial Loads
3. Column base connections have significantly more longi-
tudinal load in the plane of the flanges and less transverse • Section 3.2 Tensile Axial Loads
load when compared to beam-to-column connections.
• Section 3.3 Base Plates with Small Moments
4. The shear mechanism between the column base and the
grout or concrete is different from the shear mechanism • Section 3.4 Base Plates Large Moments
between the beam end plate and the column flange.
• Section 3.5 Design for Shear
5. AISC standard hole diameters for column base anchor In column base connections, the design for shear and the
rods are different than AISC standard holes for high- design for moment are often performed independently. This
strength bolts. assumes there is no significant interaction between them.
Several design examples are provided in the following sec-
6. Foundation rocking and rotation may be an issue, espe- tions for each loading case.
cially on isolated column footings. The general behavior and distribution of forces for a col-
As the Commentary to the AISC Seismic Provisions sug- umn base plate connection with anchor rods will be elastic
gests, research is lacking regarding the performance and de- until either a plastic hinge forms in the column, a plastic
sign of base details for high seismic loading. However, the mechanism forms in the base plate, the concrete in bearing
Commentary also acknowledges that these details are very crushes, the anchor rods yield in tension, or the concrete
important to the overall performance of the SLRS. There- pullout strength of the anchor rod group is reached. If the
fore, careful consideration must be given to the design of concrete pullout strength of the anchor rod group is larger
these details. than the lowest of the other aforementioned limit states, the
behavior generally will be ductile. However, it is not always
necessary or even possible to design a foundation that pre-
vents concrete failure.

Figure 2.6. Typical moment base detail. Figure 2.7. Embedded moment base detail.

DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN / 13
 For example, in statically loaded structures, if the strength Equation J8-2:
is much larger than the demand, the ductility is not necessary
 A 
and it is acceptable to design with the limit state of tensile or Pp = (0.85 f c′A1 ) 2  ≤ 1.7 f c′A1
shear strength of the anchor rod group governing the design.  A1 
However, frames designed for seismic lateral load resistance
are expected to behave in a ductile manner and, in this case,
These equations are multiplied by the resistance factor, φ, for
it may be necessary to design the foundation and the col-
LRFD or divided by the safety factor, Ω, for ASD. Section
umn-base-plate connection so that the concrete limit states
J8 stipulates the φ and Ω factors (in the absence of Code
of tensile or shear strength of the anchor rod group do not
Regulations) for bearing on concrete as follows:
govern the design. See ACI Appendix D, Section D3.3.4.
φ = 0.60 (LRFD) Ω = 2.50 (ASD)
OSHA Requirements
Alternatively, ACI 318-02 stipulates a φ factor of 0.65 for
The regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Ad- bearing on concrete. This apparent conflict exists due to an
ministration (OSHA) Safety Standards for Steel Erection oversight in the AISC Specification development process.
(OSHA, 2001) require a minimum of four anchor rods in The authors recommend the use of the ACI-specified φ fac-
column-base-plate connections. The requirements exclude tor in designing column base plates.
post-type columns that weigh less than 300 lb. Columns, The nominal bearing strength can be converted to a stress
base plates, and their foundations must have sufficient mo- format by dividing out the area term Pp equations such that,
ment strength to resist a minimum eccentric gravity load On the full area of a concrete support:
of 300 lb located 18 in. from the extreme outer face of the
fp(max) = 0.85 fc′
column in each direction.
The OSHA criteria can be met with even the smallest of When the concrete base is larger than the loaded area on
anchor rods on a 4-in. × 4-in. pattern. If one considers only all four sides:
the moments from the eccentric loads (since including the  A 
gravity loads results in no tensile force in the anchor rods), f p(max) = (0.85 f c′) 2  ≤ 1.7 f c′
and the resisting force couple is taken as the design force  A1 
of the two bolts times a 4-in. lever arm, the design moment
strength for w-in. anchor rods equals (2)(19.1 kips)(4 in.) = The conversion of the generic nominal pressure to an
306 kip-in. For a 14-in.-deep column, the OSHA required LRFD or ASD available bearing stress is
moment strength is only (1.6)(0.300)(18 + 7) = 12.0 kip-in. fpu(max) = φ fp(max) (LRFD)

3.1. Concentric Compressive Axial Loads f p(max)

f pa(max) = (ASD)
Ω
When a column base resists only compressive column axial
loads, the base plate must be large enough to resist the bear- The concrete bearing strength is a function of the concrete
ing forces transferred from the base plate (concrete bearing compressive strength, and the ratio of geometrically similar
limit), and the base plate must be of sufficient thickness concrete area to base plate area, as indicated in Section 10.17
(base plate yielding limit). of ACI 318 (ACI, 2002), as follows:

A2
3.1.1 Concrete Bearing Limit
(
f p(max) = φ 0.85 fc′ ) A1
The design bearing strength on concrete is defined in
ACI 318-02, Section 10.17, as φ(0.85fc′A1) when the sup-
A2
porting surface is not larger than the base plate. When the ≤2
supporting surface is wider on all sides than the loaded area, A1
the design bearing strength above is permitted to be multi-
where
plied by A2 A1 ≤ 2.
fp(max) = maximum concrete bearing stress, ksi
The 2005 AISC Specification, Section J8, provides the
nominal bearing strength, Pp, as follows: φ = strength reduction factor for bearing, 0.65 per
Section 9.3, ACI 318-02
Equation J8-1:
fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete, ksi
Pp = 0.85fc′A1 on the full area of a concrete support.

14 / DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN
 A1 = area of the base plate, in.2 Many column base plates bear directly on a layer of grout.
Because, the grout compressive strength is always specified
A2 = maximum area of the portion of the supporting higher than the concrete strength—the authors recommend
surface that is geometrically similar to and con- that the grout strength be specified as two times the concrete
centric with the loaded area, in.2 strength—it is conservative to use the concrete compressive
The increase of the concrete bearing capacity associated strength for fc′ in the above equations.
with the term A2 A1 accounts for the beneficial effects of The important dimensions of the column-base plate con-
the concrete confinement. Note that A2 is the largest area nection are shown in Figure 3.1.1.
that is geometrically similar to (having the same aspect ratio
as) the base plate and can be inscribed on the horizontal top 3.1.2 Base Plate Yielding Limit (W-Shapes)
surface of the concrete footing, pier, or beam without going For axially loaded base plates, the bearing stress under the
beyond the edges of the concrete. base plate is assumed uniformly distributed and can be ex-
There is a limit to the beneficial effects of confinement, pressed as
which is reflected by the limit on A2 (to a maximum of four
times A1) or by the inequality limit. Thus, for a column base Pu
f pu = (LRFD)
plate bearing on a footing far from edges or openings, A2 A1 = 2. BN
= 2.
Pa
The bearing stress on the concrete must not be greater f pa = (ASD)
than fp(max): BN

This bearing pressure causes bending in the base plate at

Pu
≤ f pu(max) (LRFD) the assumed critical sections shown in Figure 3.1.1(b). This
A1
Pa
≤ f pa(max) (ASD)
A1

Thus,
Pu
A1( req ) = (LRFD)
f pu(max)
Pa
A1( req ) = (ASD)
f pa(max)

When A2 = A1, the required minimum base plate area can

be determined as

Pu
A1( req ) = (LRFD)
φ0.85 f c′

ΩPa
A1( req ) = (ASD)
0.85 f c′

When A2 ≥ 4A1, the required minimum base plate area can

be determined as
1  Pu 
A1( req ) =   (LRFD)
2  φ0.85 f c′ 

1  ΩPa 
A1( req ) =   (ASD)
2  0.85 f c′ 

Figure 3.1.1. Design of base plate with axial compressive load.

DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN / 15
bearing pressure also causes bending in the base plate in the It is conservative to take λ as 1.0.
area between the column flanges (Thornton, 1990; Drake For the yielding limit state, the required minimum thick-
and Elkin, 1999). The following procedure allows a single ness of the base plate can be calculated as follows (Thornton,
procedure to determine the base plate thickness for both situ- 1990) (AISC, 2005):
ations.
The required strength of the base plate can be determined 2 Pu
tmin = l (LRFD)
as φFy BN
 l 2 
M pl = f pu   (LRFD) 2ΩPa
 2  tmin = l (ASD)
Fy BN
 l 2 
M pl = f pa   (ASD)
 2  where
φ = resistance factor for flexure, 0.90
Where the critical base plate cantilever dimension, l, is the
larger of m, n, and λn′, Ω = factor of safety for ASD, 1.67

N − 0.95d Fy = specified minimum yield stress of base plate, ksi

m=
2 Since l is the maximum value of m, n, and λn′, the thin-
nest base plate can be found by minimizing m, n, and λ. This
B − 0.8b f
n= is usually accomplished by proportioning the base plate di-
2 mensions so that m and n are approximately equal.
db f
λn ′ = λ 3.1.3 Base Plate Yielding Limit (HSS and Pipe)
4
For HSS columns, adjustments for m and n must be made
N = base plate length, in. (DeWolf and Ricker, 1990). For rectangular HSS, both m
and n are calculated using yield lines at 0.95 times the depth
B = base plate width, in. and width of the HSS. For round HSS and Pipe, both m and
n are calculated using yield lines at 0.8 times the diameter.
bf = column flange width, in. The λ term is not used for HSS and Pipe.
d = overall column depth, in.
3.1.4 General Design Procedure
n′ = yield-line theory cantilever distance from col- Three general cases exist for the design of base plates sub-
umn web or column flange, in. ject to axial compressive loads only:
2 X
λ= ≤1 Case I: A2 = A1
1 + 1− X Case II: A2 ≥ 4A1
Case III: A1 < A2 < 4A1
 4db  P
 f  u The most direct approach is to conservatively set A2 equal
X =  (LRFD)
 (d + b f ) 2  φc Pp to A1 (Case I); however, this generally results in the largest
 
base plate plan dimensions. The smallest base plate plan di-
 4db f  Ω P mensions occur when the ratio of the concrete to base plate
c a
X =  (ASD) area is larger than or equal to 4, i.e., A2 ≥ 4A1 (Case II). Base
 (d + b f ) 2  Pp
  plates resting on piers often meet the case that A2 is larger
than A1 but less than 4A1, which leads to Case III.
where When a base plate bears on a concrete pedestal larger than
the base plate dimension, the required minimum base plate
Pu = the required axial compressive load (LRFD), kips area cannot be directly determined. This is because both A1
and A2 are unknown.
Pa = the required axial compressive load (ASD), kips
As mentioned before, the most economical base plates
A2 usually occur when m and n, shown in Figure 3.1.1(b), are
Pp = 0.85 f c′A1
A1

16 / DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN
equal. This situation occurs when the difference between B N = base plate length, in.
and N is equal to the difference between 0.95d and 0.8bf.
In selecting the base plate size from a strength viewpoint, B = base plate width, in.
the designer must consider the location of the anchor rods
within the plate and the clearances required to tighten the bf = column flange width, in.
bolts on the anchor rods.
d = overall column depth, in.
Steps for obtaining base plates sizes for these cases are
suggested below. Anchor rod design is covered in Section n′ = yield-line theory cantilever distance from col-
3.2. umn web or column flange, in.

Case I: A2 = A1 2 X
λ= ≤1
The largest base plate is obtained when A2 = A1. 1 + 1− X

 4db f  P

u
1. Calculate the required axial compressive strength, Pu X =  (LRFD)
 (d + b f ) 2  φPp
(LRFD) or Pa (ASD).  

2. Calculate the required base plate area.  4db f  ΩP

a
X =  (ASD)
 (d + b f ) 2  Pp
Pu  
A1( req ) = (LRFD)
φ0.85 f c′
where
ΩPa
A1( req ) = (ASD) φPP = φ0.85 f c′ A1 (LRFD)
0.85 f c′

3. Optimize the base plate dimensions, N and B. PP 0.85 f c′ A1

= (ASD)
Ω Ω
N ≈ A1( req ) + ∆ Find l max (m, n, λn′)

0.95d − 0.8b f 2 Pu
where ∆ = tmin = l (LRFD)
2 φFy BN
then
2 Pa Ω
A1( req ) tmin = l (ASD)
B= Fy BN
N

Note that the base plate holes are not deducted from the 5. Determine the anchor rod size and the location of the an-
base plate area when determining the required base plate chor rods. Anchor rods for gravity columns are generally
area. As mentioned earlier in the Guide, from a practical not required for the permanent structure and need only to
view point set N equal to B. be sized for OSHA requirements and practical consider-
ations.
4. Calculate the required base plate thickness.
Case II: A2 ≥ 4A1
N − 0.95d
m= The smallest base plate is obtained when A2 ≥ 4A1 for this
2
case.
B − 0.8b f 1. Calculate the factored axial compressive load, Pu (LRFD)
n=
2 or Pa (ASD).

db f 2. Calculate the required base plate area.

λn ′ = λ
4 Pu
A1( req ) = (LRFD)
2φ0.85 f c′

DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN / 17
 ΩPa 6. Determine the base plate thickness using Step 4, as shown
A1( req ) = (ASD) in Case I.
2 (0.85 f c′)
7. Determine the anchor rod size, and their locations.
3. Optimize the base plate dimensions, N and B.

Use the same procedure as in Step 3 from Case I. 3.2 Tensile Axial Loads
The design of anchor rods for tension consists of four steps:
4. Check if sufficient area, A2 exists for Case II applicability
(A2 ≥ 4A1). 1. Determine the maximum net uplift for the column.

Based on the pier or footing size, it will often be obvious 2. Select the anchor rod material and the number and size of
if the condition is satisfied. If it is not obvious, calculate anchor rods required to resist uplift.
A2 geometrically similar to A1. With new dimensions N2
and B2, A2 then equals (N2)(B2). If A2 ≥ 4A1, calculate the 3. Determine the appropriate base plate size, thickness, and
required thickness using the procedure shown in Step 4 of welding to transfer the uplift forces.
Case I, except that
4. Determine the method for developing the strength of the
anchor rod in the concrete (i.e., transferring the tension
φPp = φf c′2 A1 (LRFD)
force from the anchor rod to the concrete foundation).
Pp f c′2 A1
= (ASD) Step 1—The maximum net uplift for the column is obtained
Ω Ω from the structural analysis of the building for the prescribed
building loads. When the uplift due to wind exceeds the
5. Determine the anchor rod size and location.
dead load of a roof, the supporting columns are subjected
to net uplift forces. In addition, columns in rigid bents or
Case III: A1 < A2 < 4A1 braced bays may be subjected to net uplift forces due to
1. Calculate the factored axial compressive load, Pu (LRFD) overturning.
or Pa (ASD). Step 2—Anchor rods should be specified to conform to the
material discussed in Section 2.5. The number of anchor
2. Calculate the approximate base plate area based on the rods required is a function of the maximum net uplift on the
assumption of Case III. column and the strength per rod for the anchor rod material
Pu chosen.
A1( req ) = (LRFD) Prying forces in anchor rods are typically neglected. This
2φ0.85 f c′
is usually justified when the base plate thickness is calculat-
ΩPa ed assuming cantilever bending about the web and/or flange
A1( req ) = (ASD) of the column section (as described in Step 3 below), and be-
2 (0.85 f c′)
cause the length of the rods result in larger deflections than
for steel to steel connections. The procedure to determine
3. Optimize the base plate dimensions, N and B.
the required size of the anchor rods is discussed in Section
Use the same procedure as in Step 3 from Case I. 3.2.1 below.
Step 3—Base plate thickness may be governed by bending
4. Calculate A2, geometrically similar to A1. associated with compressive or tensile loads.
For tensile loads, a simple approach is to assume the an-
5. Determine whether
chor rod loads generate bending moments in the base plate
A2 consistent with cantilever action about the web or flanges
Pu ≤ φPp = φ0.85 f c′A1 (LRFD) of the column section (one-way bending). See Figure 3.1.1.
A1
If the web is taking the anchor load from the base plate, the
Pp  0.85 f c′A1  A2 web and its attachment to the base plate should be checked.
Pa ≤ =   (ASD) Alternatively, a more refined base plate analysis for anchor
Ω  Ω  A1
rods positioned inside the column flanges can be used to
consider bending about both the web and the column flanges
If the condition is not satisfied, revise N and B, and retry (two-way bending). For the two-way bending approach, the
until criterion is satisfied. derived bending moments should be consistent with com-

18 / DESIGN GUIDE 1, 2ND EDITION / BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR ROD DESIGN