You are on page 1of 8

Queries on IS:800-2007

Queries
What shall be the slenderness ratio for the bracing members under Specially Concentric Brace
frames? As per clause 12.7.2, slenderness ratio is 120 for OCBF.
Clause 12.8.3.1 : Bracing end connections shall be designed to withstand the minimum of 1.1*f*Ag
and maximum force that can be transferred to the brace by the system. I feel, 1.1*f*Ag will always be
higher. In that case, why have they mentioned this as minimum?
Though the new Code does not rule out Working Stress Design, Section 12 is more specific to limit
state design. How to emphasize the member sizes for the working stress design based on the
classification of width to thickness limitations (as per Table 2) to achieve ductility. (Classification of
members as Plastic as required for Special Moment Frames).
Can one still continue the design of members under Working Stress Design and design the
connections alone as per Section 12? In that case, should one still select only the Plastic Members
based on the width or depth to Thickness ratio (as per Table 2)? Is it also mandatory to have the
column stiffness 1.2 times more than the beam under Working Stress Design approach?
There seems to be few errors in the Code. The list is also available in the internet. When can we have
amendment on these?
When Column design is governed by deflection (serviceability criteria), and if the stresses are within
the elastic limit, is it mandatory to design base-plate for 1.2 times plastic moment capacity according to
IS 800:2007?
Refer to Clause 12.11.2.2. To calculate the shear due to 1.2 time Mp, by applying Mp in the same
direction at each end. Need clarification on this. How to calculate the shear on the beam due to this
Mp acting in the same direction. I do not understand.
Section 3.1.2.2 says Working stress method of design may be used, when Limitstate method can not
be adopted conveniently. What is the meaning of this?
What is the difference between Working stress method of design with IS 800-1984 and IS 800-2007?
Canwe follow WSM as per IS800-1984 and ductile detailing as per Section 12 of IS800-2007.
Clause 10.7 of the IS800:2007states the shear force of at least 0.15 times the member design shear
capacity or 40kN, whichever is "lesser". Should this not be "greater"? Should this not be Maximum of
"greater" value of these two and the Actual force coming on the beam?
As per section 12.12.2, Column bases (Base Plate) should be designed to withstand the full shear
under any load case or 1.2 times the shear capacity of the column section, whichever is higher. Always
1.2 times the shear capacity of the column section will be higher than the actual shear under any load
case. Why it is given as whichever is higher?

Response

Refer to Annex - D1(b)- Effective length of columns for Sway Frames - We need to understand the
procedure for calculating the Column and Beam Stiffness, K c and Kb? The correction factor "C" as in
Table 35 is related to P/Pe i.e., Applied load / Elastic buckling load. When the structure is designed
using Plastic Analysis, why do we compare with Pe?
Refer to Design of column bases as per Clause 12.12. It is required the design for 1.2Mpl and 1.2Vpl.
And what about the axial load? It will be important to find tension on bolts and compression on the
concrete. We are considering both, the maximum and the minimum values resulting from the ultimate
analysis.
In a special concentric braced structure, IS800:2007 explains what to do for X-bracings, but also states
to go as per specialized literature when designing V-bracings. Is it correct, in the same structure, mix
two different approaches on what regards slenderness and compacity / seismic compacity?
Refer to working stress design, clause 11.1.3: The working stress shall be calculated applying
respective partial load factor for service load / working load. What factors are these? We are
considering all loads combined with a factor equal to 1, unless some reasonable considerations will be
taken into account, as for instance, 0.25 wind load for the test condition.
Increase in permissible stresses under wind or seismic load, clause 11.1.4: In load combinations
involving wind or seismic loads, the permissible stresses in steel structural members may be increased
by 33%. Such an increasee in allowable stresses should not be considered if the wind or seismic load
is the major load in the load combination (such as acting along with dead load alone). What is the
correct interpretation of this clause? What is the meaning of "the major load in the load
combination"? We are considering the potential effect of load on the structure, therefore, under
erection, we consider that wind could be important (since no operating weight exists), so no increase
on allwable stresses is considered. But, when combining wind or seismic loads under operating
conditions, we have considered the allowable stress increment.