Design of column bases in buildings

Biaxial bending moment

For the “I” profile steel columns, the elliptical interaction is quite conservative, whereas it becomes unsafe
in presence of a dominant tensile force. For this reason a more rigorous model, based on a mechanical
principles, is necessary for the evaluation of the interaction between in-plane and out-of-plane bending
moments (Seco, 2019).

The analytical model presented here is divided into three cases depending on the axial force in the
connection. The model is divided into dominant tensile force, dominant bending moment, and dominant
compressive force as shown in the following figure:

Figure 3.22: Mechanisms considered in the analytical model for biaxial bending moment (Seco, 2019)

The validity domains are determined with:

Table 3.12: Validity range of the mechanisms of the analytical model (Seco, 2019)

An expression for out-of-plane bending resistance for the case of dominant tensile force (Figure 3.21 a)
is obtained with:

(3.15)

Filip Omazić 41
Design of column bases in buildings

For specific case of a 45°biaxial bending where:

(3.16)

Resistance Mj,45,u is obtained by solving a quadratic equation as follows:

(3.17)

with

(3.18)

(3.19)

(3.20)

(3.21)

The positive solution of this equation is:

(3.22)

In presence of dominant bending moment (see Figure 3.21 b) after applying tensile and a compressive
force, inserting and solving equations, the total out-of-plane bending moment resistance is:

(3.23)

For the specific case of a 45°biaxial bending moment where:

(3.24)

Resistance Mj,45,u is obtained by solving a quadratic equation as follows:

(3.25)

with

(3.26)

Filip Omazić 42
Design of column bases in buildings

(3.27)

(3.28)

(3.29)

The positive solution of this equation is:

(3.30)

In presence of dominant compressive force (see Figure 3.21 c) the total out-of-plane bending moment
resistance is obtained as follows:

(3.31)

For the specific case of 45°biaxial moment where:

(3.32)

Resistance Mj,45,u is obtained by solving a quadratic equation as follows:

(3.33)

with

(3.34)

(3.35)

(3.36)

The positive solution of this equation is:

(3.37)

Filip Omazić 43
Design of column bases in buildings

3.4.3.1 Comparison against the experimental, numerical and parametric results

When compared to the experimental results, the analytical model gives satisfactory results. The resistance
of specimen with 10 mm base plate thickness, subjected to axial force and biaxial bending moment, was
overestimated by 5%, while the specimen with 20 mm base plate thickness was underestimated 2%.
Table 3.13: Comparison of the analytical results against the experimental tests for biaxial bending moment (Seco, 2019)

Comparison against the numerical results of the parametric study showed that the values obtained by
analytical models underestimate the resistances obtained by the FE analysis.

Figure 3.23: M-N interaction curves for P1 (Seco, 2019) Figure 3.24: M-N interaction curves for P2 (Seco, 2019)

Figure 3.25: M-N interaction curves for P3 (Seco, 2019) Figure 3.26: M-N interaction curves for P4 (Seco, 2019)

Filip Omazić 44
Design of column bases in buildings

Figure 3.27: M-N interaction curves for P5 (Seco, 2019) Figure 3.28: M-N interaction curves for P6 (Seco, 2019)

Analytical curves are generally circumscribed to the numerical curves, revealing a good accuracy of the
obtained results with an acceptable safety margin, except for specimens P3 and P4 (Seco, 2019), that were
mentioned in subchapter 3.2.4 in this thesis. When subjected to the tensile force, the model gives reliable
results.

3.5 Concluding remarks

Even though the analytical model, in some cases, underestimates the resistance of the connection, it can
be used with certainty since it remains on the safe side.

In some cases, an overestimation of the resistance was observed, although with an acceptable error. Due
to its simplification, the analytical results for high levels of applied axial compressive force show less good
agreement (Seco, 2019).

In general, this model has proven as a step forward in this field, and although there is always space for
improvement, the behavior of such connections can be determined more accurately by using the
abovementioned model.

Filip Omazić 45
Design of column bases in buildings

Filip Omazić 46
Design of column bases in buildings

SOFTWARE TOOLS
4.1 Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis

Various types of construction can be analyzed with Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis software. Among
many types of structures and different kinds of connection, a fixed column base connection can be
modeled in different ways with the possibility to modify all its elements. Thus, modification can be done
on a concrete foundation, column base plate, anchor bolts, cross-section type, stiffeners, etc.

This thesis is focused on the “I” profile column bases, connected to the concrete block by means of four
anchor bolts and base plate, which is welded to the steel column. During verification of the mentioned
connection, the software applies the following code regulations:

· steel code for members EN 1993-1-1

· steel code for connections EN 1993-1-8
· CEB (COMITE EURO-INTERNATIONAL DU BETON) Guide – Design of Fastening in Concrete Thomas
Telford 1997
· concrete code EN 1992-1
· The resistance of all components of a connection are checked during analysis, such as:
· bearing pressure resistance of foundation concrete F,CRd (EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.5.[3] and EN
1992-1[6.7.[2]),
· tensile resistance of an anchor FT,Rd which is equal to minimum value of resistance for:
· pull-out failure (EN 1992-1 point 6.4.2[2]),
· steel failure (EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.6.12 and Table 3.4.2)
· pull-out failure of concrete above the head (CEB Guide)
· concrete cone failure (CEB Guide)
· splitting failure (CEB Guide)
· anchor resistance for shear F1vb,Rd and for bearing pressure onto concrete F2vb,Rd (EN1993-1-8
section 6.2.2 [7,8] and Table 3.4)
· concrete cone resistance for pry out failure Fv,Rd,cp (CEB Guide)
· resistance for concrete edge failure Fv,Rd,c (CEB Guide)
· resistance of the base plate for shear with slippage Ff,Rd – (EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.2 [6])
· resistance for bearing pressure of the wedge onto concrete Fv,Rd – (EN1992-1)
· resistance of the column web in tension (EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.6.3)
· resistance of the column flange and web in compression (EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.6.7)
· resistance of the base plate subjected to bending in the tension zone (EN1993-1-8 section
6.2.6.11)
Filip Omazić 47
Design of column bases in buildings

· resistance of welds between the column and the base plate, as well as vertical and horizontal
welds connecting stiffeners – (EN1993-1-8 section 4.5.3)
· resistance of stiffeners (EN1993-1-1 section 6.2.1).

According to the EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.8.2., the total resistance of a connection for simple compression
is:

Nj,Ed / Nj,Rd ≤ 1.0 (4.1)

Also, according to the EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.8.3 and Table 6.7, the total resistance of a connection
subjected to bending and/or axial force Mj,Rd, is calculated as:

Mj,Ed,y / Mj,Rd,y ≤ 1.0 (4.2)

or

Mj,Ed,z / Mj,Rd,z ≤ 1.0 (4.3)

Thus, the total resistance of a connection for biaxial bending moment and/or axial force is verified as:

Mj,Ed,y / Mj,Rd,y + Mj,Ed,z / Mj,Rd,z ≤ 1,0 (4.4)

For a connection subjected to shear force Vj,Rd, total resistance, according to the EN1993-1-8 section 6.2.2,
is calculated as a sum of bolt resistances, slippage resistance, and wedge resistance:

Vj,Ed,y / Vj,Rd,y ≤ 1.0 (4.5)

or

Vj,Ed,z / Vj,Rd,z ≤ 1.0 (4.6)

The software also evaluates the stiffness of a connection and classifies a column base as rigid, semi-rigid,
or pinned. The evaluated stiffness of a connection can be ascribed to a structure by defining additional
elastic releases in the analyzed connection. Recalculation of the structure enables a more accurate
estimation of loads acting on a connection (Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis - User’s Guide).

Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2017 v. 30.0.0.5913, with activated student license, was
used for this thesis.

4.2 IDEA StatiCa

The theory of bar members is very common while designing steel structures, but for some cases, it is not
valid (e.g., welded joints, bolted connections…) and structural analysis in such locations is difficult and
Filip Omazić 48
Design of column bases in buildings

non-linear behavior must be considered. The component method (which is described in Chapter 2.4 of
this thesis) is used very often and it calculates the joint as a system of interconnected components. The
corresponding model is built per each joint type to be able to determine forces and stresses in each
component (IDEA StatiCa – Theoretical background), as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Example of a corresponding joint model with component method approach (IDEA StatiCa – Theoretical background)

IDEA StatiCa team, in cooperation with the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Prague and Brno University of
Technology, developed a new Component Based Finite Element Model (CBFEM) method, for the advanced
design of steel structural joints. Idea was that most of the useful parts of CM should be kept, while
analyzing stresses of individual components (which is the weak spot of CM) were replaced by modeling
and analysis using the Finite Element Method (FEM).

Check methods of specific components like bolts or welds are done according to the standard Component
method (Eurocode), while for fasteners (bolts and welds) special FEM components had to be developed
to model its behavior. There are a lot of guidance, for all types of joints, but this chapter will focus on
elements that are contained in column base connections.

All parts of 1D members and all additional plates are modeled as plate/walls. These elements are made
of steel and the behavior of this material is significantly nonlinear (IDEA StatiCa – Theoretical background).
Thus, the real stress-strain steel diagram is replaced by the Ideal plastic material (Bilinear stress-strain
diagram) for design purposes in building practice (see Figure 4.2).

The connection between the edge of one plate and the surface (or edge of the other plate) is ensured by
additional special massless force interpolation constraints between the meshes. This calculation model
obtains good results and the method is protected by patent.

The connection between the steel base plate and concrete foundation is modeled in a way that it resists
compression fully, but it does not resist tension, as shown in Figure 4.3.

Welds are modeled by using a special elastoplastic element, which is added between the plates in order
to eliminate the stress peaks that appear at the end of plate edges, in corners and rounding. Thus, the
element takes into account the position, orientation and weld throat thickness.
Filip Omazić 49
Design of column bases in buildings

The nonlinear material analysis is applied and elastoplastic behavior in equivalent weld solid is
determined. The plasticity state is controlled by stresses in the weld throat section. The stress peaks are
redistributed along the longer part of the weld length (IDEA StatiCa – Theoretical background), as shown
in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.2: Material diagrams of steel in numerical models (IDEA StatiCa – Theoretical background)

Figure 4.3: Stress-strain diagram of contact between the concrete block and the base plate

Figure 4.4: Constraint between weld elements and mesh nodes (IDEA StatiCa – Theoretical background)

Filip Omazić 50
Design of column bases in buildings

Finally, the stress in throat section of fillet weld is calculated according to EN 1993-1-8 – Cl. 4.5.3.

When it comes to anchor bolts, as for the structural bolts, Component-Based Finite Element Method
(CBFEM) describes its behavior with the dependent nonlinear springs.

Figure 4.5: Load-deformation of the anchor bolt

The bolt behavior in IDEA StatiCa is modelled as represented in Figure 4.5, where:

K: linear stiffness of bolt,

•• : stiffness of bolt at plastic branch,
!" : limit force for linear behavior of bolt,
",#$ : limit bolt resistance,
%! : limit deformation of bolt.

Figure 4.6: Example of interaction of axial and shear force (Eurocode)

Filip Omazić 51