You are on page 1of 8

VPandya wrote:

Dear Mr. Sahildhingra

1) Use revised Metal Building
Manufacturers Association (MBMA)
Design Manual based on IBC
2006/2010. You can also use
software MBS for design of PEB

These two are widely used in USA for

all PEB Steel Buildings.

2) 2D Vs 3D Analysis and Design

of PEB Steel Frames.
Say there is a 108m Long and 20m
wide and 12m high PEB, Ware House
. Let us say PEB frames are span at
6m. Now you have 17 middle PE
frames + 2 PE End frames . Total 0f 19
PEB Frames at 6m span.
All these 19 frames are repeatative
structure of size 20mX12m. So you
make one 2D Model of 20mX12m and
do Analysis and Design. You design one
or two 2D frame and you design all 19
frame or the whole structure.

There is no 3D effects in such

structures. If you use STAAD/PRO
Axis system where XZ is Plan and XY
Elevation in Long Direction 108 m and
YZ Elevation in width direction
20m, then Structure is repeatative in
YZ direction. So a 2D Analysis and
Design of Frame in YZ direction,
designs the whole structure.


Vasudeo Pandya P.E. : S.E.

Structural Engineer

Hello Sir,
How about the design for wind bracing and
flange braces, which are both perpendicular to
the frames.

Please comment...


Ashish Phadke.Reply via Website| Reply via

Mostly I agree with what Prabhakar Sir has
said. A few things I would want to add here:

1. The main reason for using AISC/MBMA

codes is that their defection criteria are much
less stringent than those in IS 800. This single
point can amount to a huge difference in costs.
Also as per IBC the rafters supporting metal
roofs have to have a live load deflection of
L/150 (IS 800 has the best limit as L/240,
(which is again a general requirement- there is
no mention for a PEB roof) which again is
copied from American Joist
Association...something like that is the name)
and Dead Load+ Live load deflection as L/60.
ASCE 7-10 clearly says that there is no
Kumar_Abhishek_Singh tabulated limits which they would want to
Time:30 Oct 2017 06:06 PM propose; rather it clearly mentions in Appendix
All posts by C that the deflection values should be
Posts:585 judiciously chosen depending upon the
functional usage of the building. Hence the
American codes give the PEB vendor a lot of
room to play around.

2. I think slender sections can be used as long as

their design capacity is evaluated using the
reduced cross section area technique. No
problem. As per American code the strength is
reduced by a factor Q.

3. The design code is not that important as the

loading code. For example as per Indian
standard, we should take 75 kg/sqm of Live
Load on PEB roofs because they are generally
inaccessible except for maintenance. As per
American codes we can take 57 kg/sqm. This
itself amounts to huge difference in section

So there are many places where Indian codes

are conservative as compared to American
codes and hence PEB guys prefer American.


N. Prabhakar wrote:
Dear Sefians,

On the subject of PEB Design using

AISC code and MBMA manual, I am
writing my observations which I had
expressed earlier in the SEFI columns 5
years ago:

1. When there is an Indian Code IS 800 :

2007 for steel design, there is no need for
anyone in India to refer to a foreign code
like that of AISC unless some aspect of
design is missing in the Indian code..
More than the consultants, it is the PEB
manufacturers who normally specify the
American codes in their competitive offer
which is generally accepted by the client
(owner) and the consultant/architect.

2. The main difference between the

Indian Code and the other American
Codes is in the classification of the cross-
section of the steel member. As per
Indian code, the classes of section
considered for design are Plastic,
Compact and Semi-compact. Class of
Slender cross-section, particularly with
thin webs and flanges, are not considered
for design as the elements buckle locally
even before reaching yield stress. It is
well known that many PEB
manufacturers use sections with very thin
webs and flanges in order to reduce the
weight of the section and be
economical/competitive in their
commercial offers, and these thin webs
and flanges do not satisfy the codal
provisions of IS 800 : 2007.

3. To use codes of two different country,

to suit one’s requirement or
convenience, is not a good engineering
practice, and code of only country is to be
used throughout unless there is no such
provision exists in the code one is
using. The analysis part is not normally
different between the two codes, but the
codal provisions for the safe
permissible stresses, deflection and other
values do differ. Besides, the properties
and grade of the material considered in
the code do vary from one country to the
other. This aspect cannot be easily
assessed in the design.

4. As it is said earlier, the main reason to

use the AISC/MBMA code for PEB
structures is due the fact that it leads to an
economical structural solution as
compared to the Indian Code. In the
present day cut-throat competition among
PEB manufacturers, the price of the
structure that governs in the end, and not
the design considerations. It is possible
that AISC/MBMA codes are misread and
misused to suit their convenience as
many Indian engineers accepting this
design are not fully aware of all the
provisions of the American codes.

I trust that those who have had the

experience of going through the design of
PEB structures will agree with the above

With best wishes,

N. Prabhakar
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E)
Reply via Website| Reply via Email

Topic: regarding I.S 13920:2016 cl 7.1.1 for columns

Watch this topic for replies||Stop watching this topic

Author Message Excerpt

Kumar_Abhishek_Singh wrote:
Certain clarifications have to come but in the figure 7 of clause 7.1.1
the value should be 20db. Its a typographical error.

Secondly that clause is valid only if the beam is yielding with R=1. If
the structural engineer can prove that the beam does not yield with R=1
then that clause is not applicable.

Time:30 Oct 2017
06:07 AM
All posts by
ashishphadke Abhishek sir,

"About the beam not yielding with R=1, then the clause is not applicable"

But IS13920 does not mention such condition, about the clause being not
applicable? Is it mentioned in any other code or is it the applied knowledge of
analysis and design, by which we can say that the clause is not applicable?


Ashish Phadke.Reply via Website| Reply via Email

Forum: SEFI Web Site Problems/ Login/Registration Issues

Watch this topic for replies||Stop watching this topic

Author Message Excerpt

Dear sir,
Time:30 Oct 2017 05:42 You can use local moments Mx,My ,Mxy for the design of plate element.
All posts by Global element can be used where you have a plan of circular
sukanta.adhikari circular foundation..wherein you will be providing reinforcement in tangential
and radial direction.
In staad for plates along X direction is Mx and along Y is My ..which is reverse
for members and nodes.

Difference of opinion in welcome.

S Adhikari

uct wrote:
May you please help me to fınd solution on my these questıons below..
1-May plate parallel to glbal XY direction in STAAD PRO...ı want to
design my plate elements manually...for that ı need to find rebur area
along global X and Y direction...which moment should ı use to calculate
rebur area? (Local Mx,My,or Global Mx,MY)?
2-Same plate should be checked for shear (for thickness)...for that
should ı take SQX local or SQY local?

thanks so mch for your kindly helps...


Reply via Website| Reply via Email

uct dear sukanta.adhikari,
Time:30 Oct 2017 07:08 thanks for your reply...ı am now cleared about that
All posts by which is Mx local moment provide me rebar area par...
Read more | Reply via Website| Reply via Email
Dear sir,

Please go through the earlier discussion in the forum,You will certainly find the
sukanta.adhikari answer.I myself have posted an excel sheet on the subject..but the irony is that
Link:78161 out of so many post I am not able to locate it.Certainly there are other excel
Time:30 Oct 2017 08:07
AM sheet and explanation the the subject,please search the forum
All posts by
Posts:693 Regards's
S Adhikari

uct wrote:
dear sukanta.adhikari,
thanks for your reply...ı am now cleared about
that which is Mx local moment provide me rebar
area parallel to local X axis and My local moment
providng me rebar area parallel to local Y axis
please let me know which parameters to use to check the thickness of
plate SQX, SQY,Sx,Sy?....
thanks for your kind helps

Note:please be aware that all my questions are about plates that are
vertical or shear wall and plate defined as a plate...ıf
the answer comprise for both so no problem....!!!
Reply via Website| Reply via Email
Dear Sir,
uct i have searched for excell sheet throughout the forum but not find..
Time:30 Oct 2017 09:33 ı am totally confused...becouse results from plate stress icon in main vindow of
All posts by staad for Mx and My loacal moment are very differen from the results that we
uct get from pull down REPORT-PLATE RESULT-PLATE STRESS res...
Read more | Reply via Website| Reply via Email
Dear sir

Please follow this link .Your doubt will get clear

Consider a circular footing or a plate element rotated by an angle.For plates,

sukanta.adhikari local X and local Y will be along the direction of plate,even if it is
Link:78163 inclined.Now if we are providing reinforcement in tangential direction local
Time:30 Oct 2017 10:14
AM moment needs to be calculated.But if we are providing reinforcement in
All posts by
sukanta.adhikari orthogonal direction then it will be the global moment.

Hope this helps.

S Adhikari

uct wrote:
Dear Sir,
i have searched for excell sheet throughout the forum but not find..
ı am totally confused...becouse results from plate stress icon in main
vindow of staad for Mx and My loacal moment are very differen from
the results that we get from pull down REPORT-PLATE RESULT-

so please make it cleare, is output we get from REPORT-PLATE

RESULT-PLATE STRESS are calculated according to GLOBAL