International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
Volume 119 No. 12 2018, 9169-9181
ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)
url: http://www.ijpam.eu
Special Issue
LIMIT STATE METHOD OF DESIGN FOR STEEL
STRUCTURES
Dr. S. J. Mohan1, R. Chitra2, S. Thendral3
Professor ,Assistant Professor2,3 ,Department of Civil Engineering 1,2,3
1
BIST, BIHER, Bharath University
mohansjm@yahoo.com
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A Civil Engineering Designer has to
ensure that the structures and facilities
he designs are (i) fit for their purpose (ii)
safe and (iii) economical and durable.
Thus safety is one of the paramount
responsibilities of the designer.
However, it is difficult to assess at the
design stage how safe a proposed design
will actually be – consistent with
economy. There is, in fact, a great deal
of uncertainty about the many factors,
which influence both safety and
economy. Firstly, there is a natural
variability in the material strengths and
secondly it is impossible to predict the
loading, which a structure (e.g. a
building) may be subjected to on a future
occasion. Thus uncertainties affecting
the safety of a structure are due to
 uncertainty about loading
 uncertainty about material strength
and
 uncertainty about structural
dimensions and behaviour.
These uncertainties together make it
impossible for a designer to guarantee
that a structure will be absolutely safe.
All that the designer could ensure is that
the risk of failure is extremely small,
despite the uncertainties[1-7].
An illustration of the statistical meaning
of safety is given in Fig. 1. Let us
9169
ijpam.eu
consider a structural component (say, a
beam) designed to carry a given nominal
load. Bending moments (B.M.) produced
by characteristic loads are first
computed. These are to be compared
with the characteristic resistance or
strength (R.M.) of the beam. But the
characteristic resistance (R.M.) itself is
not a fixed quantity, due to variations in
material strengths that might occur
between nominally same elements. The
actual resistance of these elements can
be expected to vary as a consequence.
The statistical distribution of these
member strengths (or resistances) will be
as sketched in (a).
Similarly, the variation in the maximum
loads and therefore load effects (such as
bending moment) which different
structural elements (all nominally the
same) might encounter in their service
life would have a distribution shown in
(b). The uncertainty here is both due to
variability of the loads applied to the
structure, and also due to the variability
of the load distribution through the
structure. Thus if a particularly weak
structural component is subjected to a
heavy load which exceeds the strength of
the structural component, clearly failure
could occur.
Unfortunately it is not practicable to
define the probability distributions of
loads and strengths, as it will involve
hundreds of tests on samples of
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

components. Normal design

calculations are made using a single
value for each load and for each material
property and making appropriate safety Characteristic resistance of a material
factor into the design calculations. The (such as Concrete or Steel) is defined as
value used is termed as “Characteristic that value of resistance below which not
Strength or Resistance” or “ more than a prescribed percentage of
Characteristic Load”. test results may be expected to fall. (For
example the characteristic yield stress of
steel is usually defined as that value of
yield stress below which not more than
5% of the test values may be expected to
Variation of fall). In other words, this strength is
expected to be exceeded by 95% of the
maximum life time
cases[8-12].
load effects (B.M.)
Similarly, the characteristic load is that
Variation of value of the load, which has an
resistance accepted probability of not being
Cu
(R.M.) exceeded during the life span of the
rv
Frequency

Cu between structure. Characteristic load is

e
rv nominally therefore that load which will not be
(a)
e identical exceeded 95% of the time.
(b) materials
2.0 STANDARDISATION
Ri
sk Most structural designs are based on
of experience. Standardisation of all
fa designs is unlikely within the
il foreseeable future hence design rules,
ur based on experience, become useful. If
e a similar design has been built
successfully elsewhere, there is no
reasons why a designer may not consider
it prudent to follow aspects of design
Load that have proved successful, and adopt
effects standardised design rules. As the
Stren
divided by consequences of bad design can be
Load gth
Resistance catastrophic, the society expects
used in (or
moment designers to explain their design
calcul resist
ation ance) decisions[13-16]. It is therefore
used advantageous to use methods of design
in that have proved safe in the past.
calcu Standardised design methods can help in
Fig. 1 Statistical
lation comparing alternative designs while
Meaning sof Safety

9170
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
minimising the risk of the cheapest
design being less safe than the others.
Most Governments attempt to ensure
structural safety through regulations and
laws. Designers then attempt to achieve
maximum economy within the range of
designs that the regulations allow.
Frequently the professions are allowed
to regulate themselves; in these a cases
the Regulations or Codes of Practices
are evolved by consultation and
consensus within the profession[17-23].
3.0 ALLOWABLE STRESS
DESIGN (ASD)
With the development of linear elastic
theories in the 19th century the stress-
strain behaviour of new materials like
wrought iron & mild steel could be
accurately represented. These theories
enabled indeterminate structures to be
analysed and the distribution of bending
and shear stresses to be computed
correctly. The first attainment of yield
stress of steel was generally taken to be
the onset of failure. The limitations due
to non-linearity and buckling were
neglected.
The basic form of calculations took the
form of verifying that the stresses caused
by the characteristic loads must be less
than an “allowable stress”, which was a
fraction of the yield stress. Thus the
allowable stress may be defined in terms
Yield stress
Allowable stress 
Factor of safety
of a “factor of safety" which represented
a margin for overload and other
unknown factors which could be
tolerated by the structure. The allowable
stress is thus directly related to yield
stress by the following expression:
9171
Special Issue
In general, each member in a structure is
checked for a number of different
combinations of loading. The value of
factor of safety in most cases is taken to
be around 1.67. Many loads vary with
time and these should be allowed for. It
is unnecessarily severe to consider the
effects of all loads acting simultaneously
with their full design value, while
maintaining the same factor of safety or
safety factor. Using the same factor of
safety or safety factor when loads act in
combination would result in uneconomic
designs.
A typical example of a set of load
combinations is given below, which
accounts for the fact that the dead load,
live load and wind load are all unlikely
to act on the structure simultaneously at
their maximum values:
(Stress due to dead load + live load)
< allowable stress
(Stress due to dead load + wind load)
< allowable stress
(Stress due to dead load + live load +
wind) < 1.33 times allowable stress.
In practice there are severe limitations to
this approach. These are the
consequences of material non-linearity,
non-linear behaviour of elements in the
post-buckled state and the ability of the
steel components to tolerate high
theoretical elastic stresses by yielding
locally and redistributing the loads.
Moreover the elastic theory does not
readily allow for redistribution of loads
from one member to another in a
statically indeterminate structures[24-35]
.
4.0 LIMIT STATE DESIGN
An improved design philosophy to make
allowances for the shortcomings in the
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

“Allowable Stress Design” was “Limit State of Strength” are: loss of

developed in the late 1970‟s and has
been extensively incorporated 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.
“Limit States" are the various conditions
in which a structure would be considered
to have failed to fulfil the purpose for
which it was built. In general two limit
states are considered at the design stage
and these are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Limit States
Limit State of Serviceability Limit
Strength State
equilibrium of the structure and loss of
stability of the structure. “Serviceability
Limit State" refers to the limits on
acceptable performance of the structure.
Not all these limits can be covered by
structural calculations. For example,
corrosion is covered by specifying forms
of protection (like painting) and brittle
fracture is covered by material
specifications, which ensure that steel is
sufficiently ductile[36-41].
5.0 PARTIAL SAFETY FACTOR
The major innovation in the new codes
is the introduction of the partial safety
factor format. A typical format is
described below:
In general calculations take the form of
verifying that
S*  R*

where S* is the calculated factored load

Strength Deflection effect on the element (like bending
(yield, Vibration moment, shear force etc) and R* is the
calculated factored resistance of the
buckling) Fatigue checks element being checked, and is a function
Stability (including reparable of the nominal value of the material
yield strength.
against damage due to
overturning fatigue) S* is a function of the combined effects
of factored dead, live and wind loads.
and sway Corrosion (Other
Fracture due to Fire loads – if applicable, are also
considered)
fatigue
Plastic In accordance with the above concepts,
the safety format used in Limit State
collapse Codes is based on probable maximum
Brittle Fracture load and probable minimum strengths,
so that a consistent level of safety is

9172
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

achieved. Thus, the design requirements when loads act alone or in

are expressed as follows: combination.
 Serviceability Limit State is related
Sd  Rd to the criteria governing normal use.
Unfactored loads are used to check
where Sd = Design value of internal the adequacy of the structure.
forces and moments caused by the  Fatigue Limit State is important
design Loads, Fd where distress to the structure by
Fd = f * Characteristic Loads. repeated loading is a possibility.
f = a load factor which is The above limit states are provided in
determined on probabilistic basis terms of partial factors reflects the
severity of the risks.
Rd = Characteristic Value of An illustration of partial safety factors
Resistance for applied load and materials as
m suggested in the revised IS: 800 for
Limit States of Strength and Limit States
where m = a material factor, which is of Serviceability are given in Table 2
also determined on a „probabilistic and 3 respectively.
basis‟
Table 2: Partial safety factors
Limit state of
It should be noted that f makes
Limit State of Strength
Serviceability
LL’ LL’
allowance for possible deviation of loads Combin Ac
W
and the reduced possibility of all loads ation
DL Lead
Acco WL/
AL DL
Lea co
L/
acting together. On the other hand m
mpan EL din mp
ing EL
ying g any
allows for uncertainties of element ing
behaviour and possible strength DL+LL+
1.5 1.5 1.05   1.0 1.0 1.0 
CL
reduction due to manufacturing
DL+LL+ 1.2 1.2 1.05 0.6
tolerances and imperfections in the CL+  1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8
1.2 1.2 0.53 1.2
material[42-47]. WL/EL
1.5
DL+WL/
(0.9)   1.5  1.0   1.0
Collapse is not the only possible failure EL *

mode. Excessive deflection, excessive 1.2

vibration, fracture etc. also contribute to DL+ER 1.2       
(0.9)
Limit States. Fatigue is an important
DL+LL+
design criterion for bridges, crane 1.0 0.35 0.35  1.0    
AL
girders etc. (These are generally assessed *
This value is to be considered when the dead load contributes to
under serviceability Limit States) stability against overturning is critical or the dead load causes reduction
in stress due to other loads.
„
Thus the following limit states may be When action of different live loads is simultaneously considered, the
leading live load is whichever one causes the higher load effects in the
identified for design purposes: member/section.
Abbreviations: DL= Dead Load, LL= Imposed Load (Live Loads), WL=
 Ultimate Limit State is related to the Wind Load,
CL= Crane Load (Vertical/horizontal), AL=Accidental Load,
maximum design load capacity under
ER= Erection Load, EL= Earthquake Load.
extreme conditions. The partial load
factors are chosen to reflect the
probability of extreme conditions,

9173
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Table 3: Partial safety factors The buildings should be effectively tied

Sl. together at each principal floor and roof
Partial Safety level, in both directions. The
No Definition
Factor recommended minimum tie strengths are
.
75 kN at floor level, 40 kN at roof level.
1 Resistance, 1.10 Each section between expansion joints
governed by should be treated as a separate building.
yielding m0 These requirements are aimed at
2 Resistance of 1.10 ensuring that the collapse of one element
member to of a structure does not trigger the failure
buckling m0 of the structure as a whole. By tying the
structure together, it is possible to ensure
3 Resistance, 1.25 that there is an alternative load path that
governed by would help to enhance safety.
ultimate stress
m1 Suggested requirements for integrity of
4 Resistance of Shop Field buildings of five storeys or more are
connection Fabrica Fabricati given below:
m1 tions ons
 For sway resistance, no portion of
structures should be dependent on
(i) Bolts- only one bracing system.
Friction Type,  The minimum tie strengths to be
mf 1.25 1.25
provided are 0.5 Wf St La internally
and 0.25 Wf St La externally.
(ii) Bolts- 1.25 1.25 Wf - total factored load / unit area
Bearing Type, St - tie spacing
mb 1.25 1.25
La - distance between columns in
(iii) Rivets, 1.25 1.50 the direction
mr  At the edge of the structure, columns
should be restrained by horizontal
(iv) Welds, ties resisting 1% of column load.
mw  Columns should be continuous
vertically through the floors, as far as
possible.
Requirements for all Buildings to  Collapse must not be
maintain Structural integrity are given disproportionate and the role of key
below: elements should be identified.
Structures should remain as complete
 Precast floors must be anchored at
integral units even when (due to an
both ends[8-12].
accident such as explosion) one of the
members fail or become inoperative.
6.0 FACTORS GOVERNING THE
This requirement provides a significant
ULTIMATE STRENGTH
measure of safety for the occupants and
is termed “Structural integrity
Stability is generally ensured for the
requirement”.
structure as a whole and for each of its

9174
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
elements. This includes overall frame
stability against overturning and sway,
as given below. The structure as a whole
or any part of it are designed to prevent
instability due to overturning, uplift or
sliding under factored load as given
below:
a) The actions are divided into
components aiding instability and
components resisting instability.
b) The permanent and variable
actions and their effects causing
instability are combined using
appropriate load factors as per the
Limit States requirements to obtain
maximum destabilizing effect.
c) The permanent actions (loads) and
effects contributing to resistance
shall be multiplied with a partial
safety factor 0.9 and added
together with design resistance
(after multiplying with appropriate
partial safety factor). Variable
actions and their effects
contributing to resistance are
disregarded
d) The resistance effect shall be
greater than or equal to the
destabilizing effect. Combination
of imposed and dead loads should
be such as to cause most severe
effect on overall stability[21-28].
7.0 LIMIT STATE OF
SERVICEABILITY
As stated in IS: 800, Serviceability Limit
State is related to the criteria, governing
normal use. Serviceability limit state is
limit state beyond which service criteria,
specified below, are no longer met:
a) Deflection Limit
b) Vibration Limit
c) Durability Consideration
9175
Special Issue
d) Fire Resistance
Load factor, f, of value equal to unity
are used for all loads leading to
Serviceability Limit States to check the
adequacy of the structure under
serviceability limit states, unless
specified otherwise.
The deflection under serviceability loads
of a building or a building component
should be such that, they do not impair
the strength of the structure or
components or cause damage to
finishing. Deflections are to be checked
for the most adverse but realistic
combination of service loads and their
arrangement, by elastic analysis, using a
load factors as per Table 3. Table 4
gives recommended limits of deflections
for certain structural members and
systems.
As per IS: 800, suitable provisions in the
design are required to be made for the
dynamic effects of live loads, impact
loads and vibration due to machinery
operating loads. In severe cases
possibility of resonance, fatigue or
unacceptable vibrations shall be
investigated. Unusually flexible
structures (generally the height to
effective width of lateral load resistance
system exceeding 5:1) need to be
investigated for lateral vibration under
dynamic wind loads. Structures
subjected to large number of cycles of
loading shall be designed against fatigue
failure.
Durability or Corrosion resistance of a
structure is generally, under conditions
relevant to their intended life as are
listed below:
a) The environment
b) The degree of exposure
 International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

c) The shape of the member and the Crane

structural detail load
d) The protective measure (Electric Span /
operatio Gantry Crane
750
e) Ease of maintenance n
up to 50
t)
Fire resistance of a steel member is a
Crane
function of its mass, its geometry, the load
actions to which it is subjected, its (Electric Span /
structural support condition, fire operatio Gantry Crane
n
1000
protection measures adopted and the fire over 50
to which it is exposed. Design t)

provisions to resist fire are briefly No Column Elastic Height

covered. cranes cladding / 150
No Masonry/B Height
Column rittle
cranes / 240
cladding
Crane Gantry Crane(abso Span /
+ (lateral) lute) 400
Lateral
Table 4: Partial safety factors wind Relative
[According to IS: 800 (2007)] displaceme 10 mm
nt between
Type De Maxim Column/f Gantry
rails Height
Desig
of fle Supportin um Crane rame (Elastic / 200
n Member
uildi cti g Deflect + cladding;
Load
ng on ion wind Column/f Gantry
pendent Height
Live Purlins Elastic Span / rame (Brittle
operated) / 400
load/ and Girts cladding 150 cladding;
Elements
Live Floor & Span /
Wind Purlins Brittle Span / cab
not
load Roof 300
load and Girts cladding 180 operated)
susceptible
Live Simple Elastic Span / Live Floor & Elements Span /
to cracking
susceptible
load span cladding 240 load Roof 360
Vertical

to cracking
Elements
Live Simple Brittle Span /
Other Buildings

load span cladding 300 Live not Span /

Industrial building

Live Cantileve Elastic Span / load Cantileve susceptible 150

load r span cladding 120 r to cracking
Vertical

Live Cantileve Brittle Span / Live Elements Span /

load r span cladding 150 load susceptible 180
Live Profiled to cracking
Elastic Height
Span /
load Rafter Metal cladding / 300
180 Wind Building
Lateral

or supportin Sheeting Brittle

Wind g Plastered Span / cladding Height
load Sheeting 240 Inter Storey
/ 500
Wind ---
Crane storey height /
load Span / drift 300
(Manual Gantry Crane
500
operatio
n)
8.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This papaer reviews the provisions of

safety, consequent on uncertainties in

9176
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
loading and material properties. The
partial load factors employed in design
to take into account these variations are
discussed and illustrated.
9.0 REFERENCES
1. Owens G.W., Knowles P.R : "Steel
Designers Manual", The Steel
Construction Institute, Ascot,
England, 1994
2. British Standards Institution : "BS
5950, Part-1 Structural use of
steelwork in building", British
Standards Institution, London, 1985
3. IS: 800 (2007), General Construction
in Steel – Code of Practice, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
2007.
4. Ramamoorthy, R., Kanagasabai, V.,
Kausalya, R., Impact of celebrities'
image on brand, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-18 Special
Issue, PP-251-253, 2017
5. Ramamoorthy, R., Kanagasabai, V.,
Vignesh, M., Quality assurance in
operation theatre withreference to
fortis malar hospital, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-14 Special
Issue, PP-87-93, 2017
6. Ramya, N., Arthy, J., Honey comb
graphs and its energy, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-18 Special
Issue, PP-83-86, 2017
7. Ramya, N., Jagadeeswari, P., Proper
coloring of regular graphs,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16
Special Issue, PP-531-533, 2017
8. Ramya, N., Karunagaran, K., Proper,
star and acyclic coloring of some
graphs, International Journal of Pure
9177
Special Issue
and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-
16 Special Issue, PP-43-44, 2017
9. Ramya, N., Muthukumar, M., On
coloring of 4-regular graphs,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16
Special Issue, PP-491-494, 2017
10. Ramya, N., Muthukumar, M., On
star and acyclic coloring of graphs,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16
Special Issue, PP-467-469, 2017
11. Ramya, N., Pavi, J., Coloring of
book and gear graphs, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-17 Special
Issue, PP-401-402, 2017
12. Ramya, P., Hameed Hussain, J.,
Alteration framework for integrating
quality of service in internet real-
time network, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-8 Special Issue, PP-57-61,
2017
13. Ramya, P., Sriram, M., Tweet
sarcasm: Peep, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-10 Special Issue, PP-231-
235, 2017
14. Sabarish, R., Meenakshi, C.M.,
Comparision of beryllium and CI
connecting rod using ansys,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-17
Special Issue, PP-127-132, 2017
15. Sabarish, R., Rakesh, N.L., Outcome
of inserts for enhancing the heat
exchangers, International Journal of
Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-
116, I-17 Special Issue, PP-419-422,
2017
16. Sangeetha, M., Gokul, N., Aruls, S.,
Estimator for control logic in high
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
level synthesis, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-20 Special Issue, PP-425-
428, 2017
17. Sangeetha, M., Gokul, N., Aruls, S.,
Image steganography using a
curvelet transformation, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-20 Special
Issue, PP-417-422, 2017
18. Saraswathi, P., Srinivasan, V., Peter,
M., Research on financial supply
chain from view of stability,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-17
Special Issue, PP-211-213, 2017
19. Saravana Kumar, A., Hameed
Hussain, J., Expanding the pass
percentage in semester examination,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15
Special Issue, PP-45-48, 2017
20. Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., AdaBoost
SVM based brain tumour image
segmentation and classification,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-20
Special Issue, PP-399-403, 2017
21. Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., Dynamic
power management monitoring and
controlling system using wireless
sensor network, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-20 Special Issue, PP-405-
408, 2017
22. Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., Clustered
morphic algorithm based medical
image analysis, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-20 Special Issue, PP-411-
415, 2017
23. Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S.,
Networks, International Journal of
9178
Special Issue
Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-
116, I-20 Special Issue, PP-393-396,
2017
24. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Adsorptive removal of heavy metal
chromium from aqueous medium
using modified natural adsorbent,
International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, V-8, I-
8, PP-1382-1387, 2017
25. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Adsorptive removal of brilliant green
dye by modified coconut shell
adsorbent, International Journal of
Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-
116, I-13 Special Issue, PP-211-215,
2017
26. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Photodegradation of eriochrome
black-T dye from aqueous medium
by photocatalysis, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-13 Special
Issue, PP-183-187, 2017
27. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Photodradation of malachite green
DYE using
TIO<inf>2</inf>/activated carbon
composite, International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology,
V-8, I-8, PP-156-163, 2017
28. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Synthesis of photocatalytic
composite Fe-C/TiO2 for
degradation of malachite green dye
from aqueous medium, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-13 Special
Issue, PP-177-181, 2017
29. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Removal of heavy X`X`l from
aqueous medium using modified
natural adsorbent, International
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-13 Special
Issue, PP-205-210, 2017
30. Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Degradation of malachite green dye
using a semiconductor composite,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-13
Special Issue, PP-195-199, 2017
31. Sartiha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Photocatalytic
decolourisationoftextileindustrywast
ewaterby TiO2, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-18 Special Issue, PP-221-
224, 2017
32. Sartiha, B., Chockalingam, M.P.,
Study on photocatalytic degradation
of Crystal Violet dye using a
semiconductor, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-18 Special Issue, PP-209-
212, 2017
33. Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A.,
The effect of highly-available
epistemologies on hardware and
architecture, International Journal of
Pharmacy and Technology, V-8, I-3,
PP-17082-17086, 2016
34. Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A.,
Drith: Autonomous,random
communication, International
Journal of Pharmacy and
Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17002-
17006, 2016
35. Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A., A
case for replication, International
Journal of Pharmacy and
Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17234-
17238, 2016
36. Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A.,
Elve: A methodology for the
emulation of robots, International
9179
Special Issue
Journal of Pharmacy and
Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17182-
17187, 2016
37. Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A.,
Autonomous epistemologies for
802.11 mesh networks, International
Journal of Pharmacy and
Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17087-
17093, 2016
38. Sharavanan, R., Golden Renjith,
R.J., Design and analysis of fuel
flow in bend pipes, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-15 Special
Issue, PP-59-64, 2017
39. Sharavanan, R., Jose Ananth Vino,
V., Emission analysis of C.I engine
run by diesel,sunflower oil,2 ethyl
hexyl nitrate blends, International
Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, V-116, I-14 Special
Issue, PP-403-408, 2017
40. Sharavanan, R., Sabarish, R., Design
of built-in hydraulic jack for light
motor vehicles, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-17 Special Issue, PP-457-
460, 2017
41. Sharavanan, R., Sabarish, R., Design
and fabrication of aqua silencer
using charcoal and lime stone,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-14
Special Issue, PP-513-516, 2017
42. Sharmila, G., Thooyamani, K.P.,
Kausalya, R., A schoolwork on
customer relationship management
with special reference to domain 2
host, International Journal of Pure
and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-
20 Special Issue, PP-199-203, 2017
43. Sharmila, S., Jeyanthi Rebecca, L.,
Anbuselvi, S., Kowsalya, E.,
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Kripanand, N.R., Tanty, D.S.,

Choudhary, P., SwathyPriya, L., GC-
MS analysis of biofuel extracted
from marine algae, Der Pharmacia
Lettre, V-8, I-3, PP-204-214, 2016
44. Sidharth Raj, R.S., Sangeetha, M.,
Data embedding method using
adaptive pixel pair matching method,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15
Special Issue, PP-417-421, 2017
45. Sidharth Raj, R.S., Sangeetha, M.,
Android based industrial fault
monitoring, International Journal of
Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-
116, I-15 Special Issue, PP-423-427,
2017
46. Sidharth Raj, R.S., Sangeetha, M.,
Mobile robot system control through
an brain computer interface,
International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15
Special Issue, PP-413-415, 2017
47. Sivaraman, K., Sundarraj, B.,
Decisive lesion detection in digital
fundus image, International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
V-116, I-10 Special Issue, PP-161-
164, 2017
48. Sridhar, J., Sriram, M., Cloud
privacy preserving for dynamic
groups, International Journal of Pure
and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-
8 Special Issue, PP-117-120, 2017

9180
9181
9182