Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Question: Part of Cl. 4.5.2.1 perhaps should read (suggested change in quotes):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the cross section of the member varies within the length Lm, the "minimum" value
of ry and the maximum value of xt should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since ry is in numerator and xt in denominator. Also, it might be a good idea to explain
the basis of the magic formula given in this clause, may be in a commentary. Formulae
corresponding to values given in various tables or graphs will help software developers .
-Rudra Nevatia
I agree to the point of Mr. Rudra, those tables, charts in code should be accompanied
with the related formulas. This is not only useful for programming; it will also give clear
picture of properties/relationship of various parameters of the structure. It will also help
in designing the members (by hearting formulae) even if charts are not available.
-H.S.Nagle
Ans: For all the tables and charts presented in the IS: 800 draft equations have been
presented to the extent they are available. Explanations of the equations in the codes will
be presented in the commentary.
Question: I went to Himachal Pradesh when last incident of cloud burst was take place.
We don't have any provisions of such disasters in any of our IS codes and over there I
saw a whole bridge was taken away by flash flood so I just want to say that can we make
any arrangements in codes for particularly in this type of areas so we can save more lives
.I think the factor of safety in this type of region should be more as compare to other
areas. -Mihir Joshi
Ans: Such flooding due to cloud burst and the corresponding bridge pier scouring/
washout are a part of hydraulic studies while planning a bridge. The corresponding force
on piers is a part of bridge sub-structure code. These are outside the scope of IS: 800.
Question: So far I have not come across any guideline in the draft code for flexural
members braced along tension flange. This is a very common occurrence in continuous
construction - Rudra Nevatia
Ans: Such information is to be obtained from specialist literature. However using the
code provisions one can conservatively design such bottom compression flange,
conservatively, by assuming the beam upto point of inflection as a cantilever.
Question:There seems to be a discrepancy between Cl. 8.2.1.2 and Cl. 9.2.2. Perhaps Cl.
8.2.1.2 should just point to Cl. 9.2.2. . - Rudra Nevatia
Ans: We do not see any discrepancy. The limiting shear above which the moment
capacity should be decreased.
Question: I was particularly looking for 1 clause contained in the current IS800, which
limits the web. Flange thickness of primary member to 4mm and secondary member to
2mm. I could not find it in the draft. Is it proposed to do away with this requirement?
- Sundar Chandramouli
Ans: The minimum thickness requirement from durability point of view has not been
included in the draft code since the durability requirement in section 15 of the draft code
would ensure adequate protection for all thicknesses.
Question: I was looking for slenderness coefficients for columns supporting trusses but I
could not get it. The previous code (APPENDIX - H) if i am right, had a very clear
pictorial presentation for slenderness coefficient for industrial structures; this seems to
be missing in this code. Appendix - E, which deals with this, seems to be silent on what I
am looking for. If there are any other references to column - truss combination
-R. Narendrakumar
Ans: Appendix E in draft IS: 800 is similar to Appendix C in old code and contains all
the recommendation for industrial building column. As far as the boundary conditions to
be used in these columns the designer needs to understand the boundary condition in
actual design. Unless the top of the column is laterally restrained against translation by
bracing system sway restraint cannot be assumed.
Question: In continuation with the view points of Mr. Jignesh Shah I would like to point
out that neither in the earlier IS: 800 nor in the newly drafted IS: 800 has any provision
of relative displacement of the top of rail while the crane is in operation. In industry
buildings with high crane capacity relative displacement of the top of rail becomes a
critical aspect from serviceability point of view. A definite recommendation in this reg ard
in given by the Russian Code of practice is reproduced below with heavy service
conditions. Refer Clause No. 10.7 & Table46 of Snip II - B.3-72
1> H/2500 (with plane structural scheme)
2> H/4000 (with 3D structural scheme)
where, H = Height of column from u/s of column to the top of crane rail It has been
observed the above clauses make the frame very heavy and thereby uneconomic. So the
Question: What are the measures to be taken in case of composite construction where
there may be different cases of only columns are composite and the beams are not or vice
versa .Coming to Design of composite structures it is not mentioned at all except in the
appendix that to for vibration of floors. But in India composite steel deck floor are still
not used because the codes are not available. Neither the clients nor the manufacturers
want to spend on experimental design. In India the steel structure can be economical if it
is used as a composite structure. One of the INSDAG's publications for design of
composite floors (deck span) clearly says that the design example is based on BS 5950 as
no mention of it is found in IS: 800 now that the code is being revised it is necessary to
incorporate composite section designs. - Vijay Patil
Ans: There is a special code IS: 11384 for the design of composite structures.
Question: For Industrial structures design, Crane load is considered as Occasional load
since crane may not be operating with full capacity all the time. Hence while combining
with Wind/Seismic loads, building structure is designed for either, \Reduced Wind/EQ
load or Zero/reduced crane lifted load (Not wheel load) with full wind/Seismic load.
These provisions are probabilistic in nature and varies across codes. For example Article
1612.3.2 of Section 1612 of UBC-1997 states "Crane hook loads need not be combined
with roof live load or with more than three fourth of snow load or one half of the wind
load". Load combination specified in Table 5.1 of IS: 800 Draft (Line 2) matches with
above criteria where WL/EL factor is specified as 0.6 ( 1.2x 50 % WL) with full crane
load Alternate to this combination is another case where full wind/Seismic load is
combined with zero/reduced crane lifted capacity. IS: 800:1984 (Article 3.4.2.5) as well
as IS: 800 draft (Article 3.5.5) makes statement " While investigating the effect of
earthquake forces, the resulting effect from dead loads of all cranes parked in each bay
positioned to cause maximum effect shall be considered.” This means that along with
seismic only (emphasis mine) dead loads of cranes shall be considered i.e. lifted load
need not be considered. Going to Table 5.1 of IS: 800 Draft crane load factor specified
is0.53 with full seismic load. To my understanding factor 0.53 is derived by 1.05 x 50 %
crane wheel load. As we know wheel load is factor of (crab weight + bridge weight +
lifted load) and only (crab weight + bridge weight) will not total to 50 % of maximum
wheel load derived with full lifted capacity. This means part of lifted load is inbuilt in
combination involving seismic load. This shall not be a problem except that article 3.5.5
from draft code shall be removed to avoid confusion. Also, since percentage of lifted load
that gets inbuilt is unknown, determining transverse surge loads under this condition will
involve some back calculation. Surge load is dependent only on crab weight and
lifted load, which needs to be extracted from wheel load calculated above In order to
avoid this problem, a better solution will be to specify percentage of lifted load to be used
with Wind/Seismic. I have come across some international norms, which specifies 50 %
lifted load with wind and 20 % lifted load with seismic load. - Jignesh shah
Question: Automated fabrication finds welding on only one side of the I section more
economical & experiments have proven these to be effective. IS 800 is silent on the
fabrication detail, even if some illustrations indicate the flange welded to both sides of
the web— Sundar
Ans: The norm is to use fillet welds on both sides of the web, intermittent unless
designed for fatigue .In thin walled construction used in Pre-engineered building weld
from one side would usually be either partial or full penetration butt weld and is
acceptable, provided distortion due to single side welding is avoided.
Question: Buckling behaviour (both local & overall buckling) of n on-prismatic members
(which are the norm in PEB) are not detailed in IS 800. What factors are to be used?
-Sundar
Ans: The local buckling has to be checked using clauses associated with Fig 3.1 and table
3.1 for non-prismatic member also. The overall buckling of columns of non – prismatic
section can be checked using equivalent slenderness ratio suggested in stability text
books (Timoshenko and Gere). The lateral buckling of non-prismatic beams is dealt with
in Appendix.F
Question: Most of the PEB systems rely on experimental values determined & published
by MBMA for the entire system behaviour (including diaphragm action of the wall / roof
cladding) and safety factors / coefficients used accordingly. This results in substantial
savings in material & cost. This is part of the pioneering work done by an eminent
Question: May I request that some guidance on corrosion allowance and its implication
on use of cold formed steel be included in IS 800. - (B. J. Gupta)
Ans: The corrosion protection measures in general are discussed in Section 15. The
design of cold-formed steel members should be as per IS: 801. Nevertheless section 15
may be used for cold-formed steel members also.
Question: Refer to Note: 5 of Table 3.1. If r1 is the ratio of actual average axial
compressive stress to design compressive stress of web alone and r2 is the ratio of actual
average axial compressive stress to design compressive stress of overall section, then
under what circumstances can the values of r1 and r2 be negative as indicated in Table
3.1 for web of I-H or box section? Please clarify. -Amit
Ans: r1 and r2 will be negative when the numerator of these ratios namely actual average
axial stress is tensile in nature.
Question: The definition of average thickness of tapered elements may be given in this
document itself, instead of referring to SP:6 -S.P.Srinivasan
Ans : The value depends on section profile and the actual average thickness are specified
in the section handbook .
10
Question: The value of alpha as defined below the second expression for Tdn.(Clause
6.3.3 Single Angles) Alpha is defined as "0.6 for one or two bolts, 0.7 for three bolts, and
0.8 for four or more bolts in the end connection or equivalent weld length "How do we
interpret "or equivalent weld length"? Equivalence between weld length and no of bolts
will get influenced by diameter of bolts and by the throat thickness of the weld. If a
welded joint is provided, how do we calculate alpha? After a more careful study of clause
6.3.3, I understand that Tdn, the design strength due to rupture of critical section is not
applicable to welded joints since there are no holes at a welded joint. But I still cannot
understand the presence of the term "or equivalent weld length" in the definition for
alpha. S.P.Srinivasan
Ans: Clause 6.3.3 seems to be for tearing off of section and not for shear. Since in single
angles only one leg is connected either by weld or by bolted joints diagonal tearing off of
the connected leg alone might lead to rupture. The cross sectional area of plane of rupture
may be less for single bolted joint and will increase with the number of bolts. Hence the
variation of alpha from 0.6 to 0.8 is understandable. I think 0.8 should be for 4 bolts and
above joints and for welded joints. -Narendrakumar.
Section 6.3.3 deals with failure of angles by tearing of net section at end connection,
where shear lag may cause in the outstanding leg stresses less than ultimate stress. The
first equation is the section in terms of β accounts for this effect more exactly. The
second equation in terms of α is approximate and is to be used in preliminary design. In
11
Question : I find that a foreword is missing. For a code, which recommends a change
from the way we have been designing steel, this is a MUST. We are moving from ASD (or
working stress design) to limit state design and various concepts need to be expanded. I
am also not sure why we are not going into LRFD instead of Limit State. The foreword
needs to elaborate the departures from the earlier IS 800-1984, the change in the
philosophy of design and the whys and how is of it. Without this explanation and a
concise summary of the changes proposed, it is very difficult to understand the full
impact of this revision.-Alpha
Ans: Yes, foreword will be added. However detailed explanation and derivatives will not
be in the foreword but in the commentary.
Question: SECTION 1
a) There is a very expanded terminology as compared to the IS 800-1984.
I had suggestions for the following definitions:
i) Compact Section: While the definition is quite succinct, it needs to be expanded in view
of the importance of the concept being discussed. There may be an appendix elaborating
the concept with a diagram showing the bending stress distribution for different classes
of sections- Compact vs. semi-compact vs. Slender.- S.P.Srinivasan
Ans: This is given in section 3.7
Question: ii) Design Load/Factored Load - "A load value obtained by multiplying the
characteristic load with a load factor, which is generally implies it can be less than one
also greater than one."
The definition suggests that load factor is generally greater than 1.0 We know that this is
not true in load combinations of dead with wind or earthquake and this part of the
sentence ".(load factor), which is generally one" may be removed. .- S.P.Srinivasan
Ans: The statement is generally (not always) greater than one, which is true in all cases
except when gravity load contributes to stability (see footnote in table 5.1). We can
eliminate the “ which is generally greater than one” from the definition.
12
Question: vi) Stability Limit State - A limit state corresponding to the loss of static
equilibrium of a structure by excessive deflection transverse to the direction of
predominant loads.
Again, the last part of the definition from "by excessive deflection.." may be , eliminated
as loss of static equilibrium may occur due to other reasons also.-Alpha
Ans: Overturning is different from the buckling of frame referred to here.
13
Question: Section 3
"It is quite evident that the code writers would like LSDM to be the design methodology
in the years to come and the intent of retaining ASD (WSD) is only to give transition time
to people to switch over.
Clause 3.5 Load Combinations
I agree with Jignesh that the entire details for crane loading may be removed for here
and reference be made to IS 875 part 2 for crane loadings. This should also include, as
he has mentioned elsewhere, that some % of lifted load for wind and earthquake load
needs to be considered as against the 3.5.5 clause implying that no lifted load need be
considered. Also as Vipul has brought out, the IS 875 should specify the bumper impact
loads therein.
On the same lines I think blast loading should be addressed separately in a code for blast
resistant design and referenced herein.
Clause 3.7.2 .-Alpha
Ans: See the response to similar question answered earlier
Question: As Amit has stated, the terminology "internal elements" and "outside
elements" need to be explained with figures. .-Alpha
Ans: See answer given earlier
Question: Comparison of Clauses 4.3.5.1 and 7.3.3.1 in Draft IS: 800 The clauses
4.3.5.1 and 7.3.3.1 are very similar. But clause 7.3.3.1 is more elaborate and covers two
14
Question: Clause 7.5.2.2: The term "7.5.2.1" should probably read as "7.5.1"
- S.P.Srinivasan
Ans: No, Double angles on the same side of the gusset have the principle axis parallel
and perpendicular to the gusset and hence will be designer not as per 7.5.1 , but as per
7.5.2.1
15
16