You are on page 1of 5

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS BASED ON IS 800-2007 AND IS 800-1984- COMPARISON
M. KRISHNAMOORTHY, D.TENSING M.Tech (Structures) Student, PRIST University, Thanjavur Principal, ASL Pauls College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore dtensing@rediffmail.com, m.krishk@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: The design methodologies for the steel structures namely, working stress design method and limit state design methods are briefly explained. The importance of limit state design method is highlighted. Columns form the main component of a structure which serves the basic purpose of supporting and transmitting the entire loads both vertical and horizontal for which the overall structure is intended to the foundation system. Beams are generally subjected only to flexure about the horizontal axis whereas columns are subjected to axial load along with bending moment about the major axis. The minor axis moment in columns are generally nil or very nominal since in standard structural system, the columns are so oriented that the frames along the major axis of the columns are moment resistant frames, and column bracings are provided in the frames along the other perpendicular direction. This paper focuses entirely to the procedure involved in design of compression members. Typical problem have been worked out using allowable stress design methods and limit state method and comparative studies is made. ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN With the development of linear elastic theories in the 19th century the stress-strain behavior of new materials like wrought iron & mild steel could be accurately represented. The first attainment of yield stress of steel was generally taken to be the inset of failure. The limitations due to non-linearity and buckling were neglected. The allowable stress is defined in terms of a “factor of safety” which represented a margin for overload and other unknown factors which could be tolerated by the structure. all time during the life of the structure for which is to be built. The various primary loads and other secondary effects required to be considered for Indian condition m while computing maximum stresses in a structure are mainly as follows a) Dead load b) imposed load or live load c) wind load d) seismic load e) erection load f) Secondary effects due to contraction or expansion resulting from temperature changes, shrinkage, creep in compression members etc. As a general approach, a structure is analyzed for all the probable primary load cases and their combinations are mentioned above. Only for special structures or under stringent conditions, the secondary effects are considered in the overall analysis and in the design of connections of the structural components. While designing a structure using the popular “Allowable stress design method”, the above load combinations are considered with an individual load factor of unity. As per IS: 800-1984, the permissible stress can be increased upto 33%, whenever wind or seismic load is taken in to consideration. In the proposed Limit state method of design also the above load combinations are considered, but with variable load factors called the “partial safety factor for load as described in Table4. This variable load factors basically account the loading and thus enable to use steel efficiently and economically in different structural systems. Similarly, to determine the strength of the member to be designed against the factored loads as described above, a reduction factor for strength called “partial safety factor for material” is taken into consideration, which accounts for uncertainty in material strength and quality as well as manufacture tolerance. Various

Yield Stress Factor of Safety LIMIT STATE DESIGN An improved design philosophy to make allowances for the shortcomings in the “allowable stress design” was developed in the late 1970’s and has been extensively corporated in design standards and codes formulated in all the developed countries. Although there are many variations between practices adopted in different countries the basic concept is broadly similar. The probability of operating conditions not reaching failure conditions forms the basis of “Limit States Design” adopted in all countries. Ultimate limit states are those catastrophic states, which require a larger reliability in order to reduce the probability of its occurrence to a very low level.” Serviceability limit state” refers to the limits on acceptable performance of the structure. LOAD AND LOAD COMBINATIONS To design a structure, it is analyzed first for its intended structural configuration and assumed sectional properties against various loads individually and in combination with each other in a way by which the structure may be subjected any time or at
Allowable stress =

ISSN: 0975 – 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1

Page 73

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
material safety factors as have been adopted in IS: 800-2007 are given in the table –5 The detail design procedure of compression member using allowable stress design method as per IS: 8001984 and also limit state design method as per IS: 800-2007 have been discussed with the help of example and comparatives study as been done

DESIGN PROCEDURES

DESIGN A MEMBER SUBJECTED HAVING A SPAN OF 3M WHICH IS FIXED @ BOTH ENDS LSM (As per IS: 800-2007) Let us take ISMB 200 @ 254 N/m Area = 3233mm 2 Depth (d) = 200mm Width of flange (b) = 100mm Thickness of the flange (tf) = 10.8mm, Thickness of the web (tw) = 5.7mm Step 1: Type of the Section

The section is Compact

b 100 = = 9.259 t f 10.8

d 178 = = 31.22 t w 5.7

Step 2: Determination of Effective Length Leff = 0.65 x 3000 = 1950mm Step 3: Calculate the Slenderness Ratio

KL l x 1950 = = 23.43 r x rx 83.2 ISSN: 0975 – 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1

Page 74

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
Step 4: Load Carrying Capacity σac x Area = 289.030 kN

KL l y 1950 = = 90.69 ry ry 21.5
Step 4: Determination of Non Dimensional

λx =

fy f cc

=

 KL  fy   2  r  = 250x 23.43 = 0.2638 π 2E π 2 x 2 x105

2

λy =

fy f cc

=

 KL  fy   2  r  = 250 x 90.69 = 1.020 π 2E π 2 x 2 x105

2

COMPARATIVE STUDY In this study we have compared Columns fixed at both ends, column fixed at one end and hinged at other, column pinned at both ends for a column length of 2m, 2.25m, 2.5m, 2.75m, 3m, 3.25m, 3.5m, 3.75m & 4m and also Graphical study has done for the Strength Vs Section and Strength Weight Ratio Vs Section. The Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 show the comparative study of columns fixed at both ends of 2m, 3m, and 4m length. The Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the comparison between the S/w ratio Vs Section for a length of 2m, 3m and 4m. Similarly the Fig.7 and Fig. 8 shows the section Vs the constants like stress reduction factor, Ф and effective slenderness ratio. COMPARISON OF LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY VS DIFFERENT SECTIONS

Step 5: Calculation of 

φ = 0.5 1 + α ( λ − 0.2 ) + λ2 φ = 0.5 1 + .34(1.02 − 0.2 ) + 1.02 2 = 1.16
Step 6: Calculation of Stress Reduction Factor

[ [

]

]

χ=

[φ + (φ
[

1
2

−λ

2 0 .5

)

]

=

1 = 0.58 [1.16 + (1.162 − 1.022 )]

Step 7: Determination of design Compressive Stress fcd

f cd =

f y / γ mo

Fig.1

φ + φ 2 − λ2

]

χ fy
0.5
=

γ mo

fy

γ mo

= 1 32.6 4

Step 8: Determination of Compressive stress Pd

Pd = A × f cd = 428.82kN
WSM (As per IS: 800-1984) Let us take ISMB 200 @ 254 N/m Area = 3233mm 2 Depth (d) = 200mm Width of flange (b) = 100mm Thickness of the flange (tf) = 10.8mm Thickness of the web (tw) = 5.7mm Step1: Determination of Effective Length Leff = 3000 x 0.65= 1950 Step 2: λmax = leff/rmin = 83.33 Step3: Calculation of Compressive Stress σac = 89.4 N/mm2 Fig.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE STRENGTH WEIGHT RATIO VS SECTION Fig.2

ISSN: 0975 – 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1

Page 75

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
increase in size of the sections to the maximum of 15% From Fig.4, 5 &6, it was found that for ISMB 100,125 and 150 the strength-weight ratio was approximately the same. For ISMB 150, 175,200,225,250 & 300 strength-weight ratio was found to increase with increase in size of the sections. For ISMB 300,350 and 400 the strength-weight ratio remains the same and for ISMB 400,450,500,550 and 600, it was found to increase with increase in size of the sections. Fig. 7 & 8 shows the curves drawn for the Stress Reduction factor, inclination of tension field and effective slenderness ratio with respect to different Indian Standard Medium Beams. Fig: 4

Fig: 7

Fig: 5

Fig: 8 CONCLUSION 1. The load carrying capacity of the compression members as per IS 800-2007 is controlled by ‘stress reduction factor, inclination of tension field stress in web and effective slenderness ratio. The slenderness ratio is inversely proportional to the stress reduction factor. The design compressive stress is directly proportional to ‘stress reduction factor’.

Fig: 6 From the chart it was found that the best fit curve for describing the behavior of steel sections with respect strength is two degree binomial. On comparison of the strength of sections calculated using old and new code, it was found that the strength increases with

ISSN: 0975 – 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1

Page 76

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN CIVIL ENGINEERING 2. In IS 800-1984 for the design of compression
member is controlled by slenderness ratio which is inversely proportional to the permissible stress in axial compression. 3. The percentage increase in load carrying capacity as per IS 800-1984 is marginally higher than IS 800-2007. The maximum increase was found to be a maximum of 5%. 4. The behavior of steel sections with respect to load carrying capacity follows two degree binomial curve for the design of sections as per both the codes. 5. The behavior of steel sections under strengthweight ratio is controlled by the weight per unit length. 6. The load carrying capacity of built-up columns using ISA sections for various back to back widths as well as for various lengths were found to vary for smaller sections and for higher sections the values become same irrespective of change in widths or lengths. REFERENCES 1.Arijit Guha and Dr.T.K. Bandyopandhya, “Structural Member Design Based on Draft IS: 800 (Limit State Method), Insdag’s steel journal”, Institute for steel development & Growth, Jan 2004, Volume5. 2. N. Pandian, Arul Jayachandran, S. Seetharamal, “Structural Efficiencies of New Indian Wide Flanged Sections Compared With the Existing Rolled Sections”, Insdag’s Steel Journal, Institute for steel development & Growth, Jan 2004, Volume5. 3.Rangachar Narayanan, V.Kalayanarman, etal “Teaching Resource on Structural Steel” Design Volume 1 of 3, Institute For Steel Development & Growth. 4.Indian Standard General Construction in SteelCode of Practice “IS: 800-2007”, December 2007. 5.Indian Standard General Construction in SteelCode of Practice “IS: 800-1984”.

ISSN: 0975 – 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1

Page 77