WSM V/S LSM

IS:800-2007

VISHAL A. NALWAR
 INTRODUCTION

 Design defined by set of variables that need to be

adjusted so that the purpose of design is satisfied.
 The design is considered feasible if it satisfies the
performance criteria.
 Out of the feasible designs, some are better than others.
 It is the skill of the designer to select the most optimum
of those designs.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 2

 Objective of the design:
Structures shall be:
 Fit for their purpose (functional)

 Safe and robust

 Economical and durable

 The variables in the design

 Loading uncertainty
 Uncertainty in material properties
 Behaviour of the structures

 Size of the structural elements

Institute for Steel Development & Growth
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 3
 This objective is achieved by a particular method often
called “the design philosophy”
1. WORKING STRESS METHOD (WSM)

Working  Yield Stress

Stress Factor of Safety

• Stresses caused by the characteristic loads must be less

than a “permissible stress”, which is a fraction of the Yield
Strength
• Permissible stress may be defined in terms of a “factor of
safety" which represents a margin for overload and other
unknown factors which could be tolerated by the structure
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 4
 Stress – Strain Curve for Mild Steel under Uniaxial Tension

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 5

 Idealised Stress – Strain Curve for Limit State Design

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 6

Limitations of the WSM

• Material non-linearity not considered

Non-linear behavior in the post buckled state and the
property of steel to tolerate high stresses by yielding
locally and redistributing the loads not accounted for.

• No allowance for redistribution of loads in statically

indeterminate members

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 7

 Limit State Design- International Scenario
CAN/CSA S 16.1 - 94 Canadian Standards Association 1974
Limit state design of steel structures

CSN – 73 – 1401 Czechoslovak Standards – Design of Steel 1976

Structures

AISC American Institute of Steel Construction 1986

Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings

BS – 5950 – Part I British Standards – Structural Use of Steelwork in 1990

Building

AS 4100 Australian Standard – Steel Structures 1990

EC3 Euro Code for Design of Steel Structures, EC3 1992

IS : 800 Indian Standards: General Construction in Steel – 2007

Code of Practice

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 8

2. LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)
• Probabilistic Approach
• Overcomes limitations of WSM
• Guarantees serviceability of the structures under all
loading conditions

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 9

 BASIS OF LIMIT STATE METHOD

Frequency Probability of
failure

f(S)
f(Q)

Resistance, S
Load effect, Q
Qm Sm
Probability density functions for strength and load effect

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 10

• Characteristic Load:
• That value of load Q which is not expected to be
exceeded with more than 5% probability during the life
of the structure.
• Characteristic Strength:
• That value of strength R below which not more than 5%
tests are expected to fall.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 11

  (R-Q) Reliability Index
f(R-Q)

(R-Q)m
R-Q
R-Q<0 R-Q>0

Fig. 1 Probability distribution of the safety margin R-Q

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 12

• “Limit States" are various conditions beyond which a
structure would be considered to have failed to fulfil the
purpose for which it was built.

• “Serviceability Limit State" refers to the limits on

acceptable performance of the structure during service.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 13

 Code Contents and Major Changes from WSM :

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 14

 Limit States considered by IS 800

Limit States of Strength Limit States of Serviceability

Strength as governed by • Deflection

material • Vibration
• Buckling , yielding, • Fatigue cracks (reparable
rupture damage)
• Stability against • Corrosion
overturning and sway • Fire resistance
• Fatigue Fracture

• Brittle Fracture

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 15

 Principles of LSM
• Two partial safety factors are considered
1. Partial Safety factor for loading (f)

• f allows for;

– Possible deviation of the actual behaviour of the

structure from the analysis model
– Deviation of loads from specified values and
– Reduced probability that the various loads acting
together will simultaneously reach the characteristic
value.
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 16
 2. Partial Safety factor for Material Properties (m)

• m allows for;

– Possible deviation of the material in the structure

from that assumed in design
– Possible reduction in the strength of the material
from its characteristic value
– Manufacturing tolerances.
– Mode of failure (ductile or brittle)
(Resistance )
(Load * Load Factor f)  (Resistance Factor m)

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 17

 Partial Safety factor for loading (f) :

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 18

 Partial Safety factor for Materials (m) :

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 19

 DISCLAIMER

Some formulae in the Presentation taken from IS 800-

2007 may have remained inadvertently uncorrected per
Amendment no. 1
Please Refer Amendment no. 1 dt. Jan 2012 for the
correct formulae and phrases to be used in reading the
code.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 20

 Type of Deflecti Maximum
Design Load Member Supporting
Building on Deflection
Purlins and Elastic
Live load/Wind Girts cladding Span / 150
load Purlins and Brittle Span / 180
Girts cladding
Elastic
Live load Simple span Span / 240
cladding
Brittle
Live load Simple span Span / 300
Deflection Limits

cladding
Cantilever Elastic
Live load Span / 120
span cladding
Industrial building

Cantilever Brittle
Live load Span / 150
Vertical span cladding
Profiled
Metal Span / 180
Live load or Wind Rafter
Sheeting
load supporting
Plastered
Span / 240
Sheeting
Crane load
(Manual Gantry Crane Span / 500
operation)
Crane load
(Electric operation Gantry Crane Span / 750
up to 50 t)
Crane load
(Electric operation Gantry Crane Span / 1000
over 50 t)

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 21

 Type of Deflecti Maximum
Design Load Member Supporting
Building on Deflection
Elastic
No cranes Column Height / 150
cladding
Masonry/Br
No cranes Column ittle Height / 240
cladding
Crane + wind Gantry Crane(absol
Span / 400
(lateral) ute)
Relative
Industrial building

displacemen
10 mm
t between
Lateral rails
Column/fra Gantry Height / 200
me (Elastic  
cladding;  
Deflection Limits

  pendent  
  operated)
Crane+ wind  
Column/fra Gantry Height / 400
me (Brittle
  cladding;
cab
operated)

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 22

 Maximu
Type of Deflectio m
Design Load Member Supporting
Building n Deflectio
n
Elements not

 
Span /
Live load Floor & Roof susceptible to
300
cracking
Elements
Span /
Live load Floor & Roof susceptible to
360

Vertical
cracking
Elements not
Span /
Live load susceptible to
Other Buildings

150
cracking
Cantilever
Elements
Span /
Live load susceptible to
180
Deflection Limits

cracking
Elastic Height /
cladding 300
Wind Building  
Lateral

Brittle cladding Height /

500
Storey
Inter storey
Wind --- height /
drift
300

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 23

 Methods of Analysis
 Notional horizontal loads = 0.5% factored DL+LL
for stability analysis

1. Elastic Analysis
1. First order analysis ( when Ky, Kz <1.4)
2. Second order analysis ( as per Annexure B)
– Moment Amplification (as per 9.3.2.2)

2. Plastic Analysis
• Fy<450 mPa
• Elongation >15%
• Only compact and Plastic sections to be used

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 24

 Design of Tension Members :

WSM: Stress = 0.6 fy

k takes care of the shear lag

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 25

LSM: T < Td ( T= Factored load; Td= Design Strength)

Strength is least of:

A. Yielding of Gross Section

B. Rupture of Critical Section

• Net section area deducting for bolt holes
• Shear lag effects e.g. single angles
(Length of connection is considered)

C. Block Shear

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 26

 A. Yielding of Gross Section
 Gross Area Design Strength Tdg
Tdg = Ag  fy /  m0 ( m0 = 1.10)

 Ag = Gross cross-sectional area

B. Rupture of Critical Section

Tdn = An  fu /  m1 ( m1 = 1.25)

Rupture ofw net

 fy section
 bs  affected by shear lag
  1.4  0.076   
c gm1 + b × Ago × fy / gm0
Tdn = 0.9×t Ancfu×fuL/
 fu   m0 
    See
f   
 y  m1  Amd-
1
 0.7
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 27
  fu   m0 
   
f   
 y  m1 
 0.7
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 28
 C. Strength governed by Block shear

 w  f  bs 
  1.4  0.076  y  
 t  fu  Lc 
 fu   m0 
   
f   
 y  m1 
 0.7
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 29
 Design of Tension Member example

P=125 kN
Pu=1.5*125=187.50
L65*65*6 passes efficiently in LSM and FAILS in WSM.

LSM is advantageous for single angle sections.

Cannot say so for other sections (depends on load combo)
So what has changed?
Shear lag considers length of connection
Block shear failure pattern is now recognised
Using software, ensure to define net section factor in tension

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 30

 Compression Members:
f
B1
Plastic yield defined
C by s
fy ¢ f = fy
A A Elastic buckling( scr )
defined by p2 E / l 2

lc l = l /r
Cross Section Develop Develop Mp, Only extreme Buckle before
Plastic Hinges but not full fibres reach reching ‘Fy’
plastic hinge ‘Fy’
rotation
Plastic Y
Compact N Y
Semi-Compact N N Y
Slender N N N Y
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 31
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 32
Limiting Width to Thickness Ratio
Class of section
Compression element Ratio Class I Plastic II Compact III Semi compact

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Outstanding Rolled Section b/tf 9.4ε 10.5ε 15.7ε
element of
compression Welded section b/tf 8.4ε 9.4ε 13.6ε
flange

Internal Compression due

b/tf 29.3ε 33.5ε
element of to bending
42ε
compression
flange Axial Compression b/tf Not applicable

Neutral axis at mid-

d/tw 84ε 105ε 126ε
depth
If r1 is
Web of an I, negativ d/tw 105.0ε/(1+r1)
H or box e: (84ε)/(1+r1) 126.0ε/(1+2r2)
Generally
section If r1 is but ≤42ε but ≤ 42ε
105.0ε/(1+r1)
positiv d/tw
e: but ≤ 42ε
Axial Compression d/tw Not applicable 42ε
Web of channel d/tw 42ε 42ε 42ε

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 33

Limiting Width to Thickness Ratio
Class of section
Compression element Ratio Class I Plastic II Compact III Semi compact

Angle, compression due to bending b/t 9.4ε 10.5ε 15.7ε

(Both criteria should be satisfied) d/t 9.4ε 10.5ε 15.7ε
Single angle, or double angles with the b/t 15.7ε
components separated, axial
d/t Not applicable 15.7ε
compression (All three criteria should
be satisfied) (b+d)/t 25ε
Outstanding leg of an angle in contact
d/t 9.4ε 10.5ε 15.7ε
back-to-back in a double angle member
Outstanding leg of an angle with its
back in continuous contact with d/t 9.4ε 10.5ε 15.7ε
another component
Stem of a T-section. Rolled or cut from
D/tf 8.4ε 9.4ε 18.9ε
a rolled I-or II- section
Circular hollow tube, including welded 42.ε2 52ε2
tube subjected to: D/t 146ε2
a) moment D/t Not applicable 88ε2
b) axial compression

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 34

 Design of Compression Members :

WSM:

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 35

 Design of Compression Members :

LSM:

Pd  Ae f cd
f y /  m0
f cd    f y /  m0  f y /  m0
    
2

2 0.5

 = 0.5[1+ ( - 0.2)+ 2]

fcd = the design compressive stress,

λ = non-dimensional effective slenderness ratio, f y f cc  
f y KLr
2 2
 E

fcc = Euler buckling stress = 2E/(KL/r)2

a = imperfection factor depends on buckling class
 = stress reduction factor as in Table 8

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 36

 Can be obtained from
table 8

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 37

 Design of Compression Member example

Capacity of ISMB 450 ( Leff= 4000 mm)

σac ~ 55 mPa
fcd ~ 80 mPa ( unfactored= 80/1.5= 53 mPa)
Reduces significantly for semi-compact and slender
So what has changed?
– Buckling class reduces for welded sections
– Effective length factors can now be computed using
formulae instead of graphs (Annexure-D)

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 38

 Design of Flexural Members

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 39

 WSM:

– Laterally Supported Beam: σbc = 0.66 fy

– Laterally Unsupported Beam:

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 40

 LSM:
Laterally Supported Beam:

1. Low Shear ( V<= 0.6 Vd)

Md = b Z p fy / m0  1.2 Ze fy / m0 ……. (d/tw<=67e)

For (d/tw>67e), shear is resisted by web alone and M & P by Flanges

Also Web buckling strength shall be checked if d/tw>67e
– Simple Post critical method (for all girders)
– Tension Field method ( girders with intermediate transverse stiffeners)

2. High Shear (V> 0.6 Vd)

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 41

 3. Effect of holes in Tension Zone to be ignored if
(Anf / Agf)  (fy/fu) (m1 / m0 ) / 0.9

4. Shear lag effect to be ignored if

b0<=L0/20
(b0 is outstand; L0 is distance between points of
contraflexure)

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 42

 LSM prescribes
slightly less
shear strength
than WSM

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 43

 Laterally Unsupported Beam:

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 44

The design bending strength of laterally unsupported beam is given by:
Md = b Zp fbd
fbd = design stress in bending, obtained as , fbd = LT fy /γm0
LT = reduction factor to account for lateral torsional buckling
given by:
1
 LT   1.0

[  LT   LT  LT
2

2 0.5
]


 LT  0.5 1   LT  LT  0.2  LT
2

LT   b Z p f y / M cr
LT = 0.21 for rolled section,
LT = 0.49 for welded section

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 45

Elastic Lateral Torsional Buckling Simplified equation:
Moment

0.5
  EI y  
2
 EI w  
2
 2 EI y h 
2

M cr     GI t   1  KL / ry  
2  2  M cr  1  
  KL   
  KL    2( KL)  20  h / t f 
2

 

Annexure E for Computing Mcr for sections symmetrical about minor axis
e.g. Gantry girder with horizontal channel at top

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 46

 Combined Stress:
– High Shear and Bending
Sections subjected to HIGH shear force > 0.6 Vd
a) Plastic or Compact Section

M dv  M d    M d  M fd   1.2 Z e f y  m0

   2 V / Vd  1 2
b) Semi-compact Section

M dv  Z e f y /  m 0

Mfd = plastic design strength of the area of c/s excluding the shear area
and considering partial safety factor

V = factored applied shear force; Vd = design shear strength

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 47

9.3 Combined Axial Force and Bending Moment
1 2
 My   Mz 
9.3.1 Section Strength       1.0
M 
 ndy   M ndz 
9.3.1.1 Plastic and Compact Sections
N My Mz
  1.0
N d M dy M dz

N My Mz
9.3.1.3 Semi-compact section fx.  fy /m0
   1.0
N d M dy M dz
9.3.2 Overall Member Strength

9.3.2.1 Bending and Axial Tension 


M eff  M  T Z e c / A 
P K yM y KzM z
   1.0
Pd M dy  M dM dz

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 48

 9.3.2.2 Bending and Axial Compression

P Cmy M y Mz
 Ky  K LT  1.0
Pdy M dy M dz
P Cmy M y Cmz M z
 0.6 K y  Kz  1.0
Pdz M dy M dz

 Cmy, Cmz = equivalent uniform moment factor as per table 18

 Also CmLT

K y / z  1  ( y / z  0.2)n y / z  1  0.8n y / z
0.1LT n y 0.1n y
K LT  1   1
(CmLT  0.25) (CmLT  0.25)
n y / z  P / Pdy / z
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 49
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 50
End distance =1.5D CONNECTIONS: 4.6, 8.8,10.9 grade

Edge distance =1.5D

c/c distance =2.5D


m =1.25
An=0.78 As

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 51

 HSFG

Combined Shear and Tension Prying Force

Annexure-F:
Simple, Rigid ,Semi-rigid
Connections

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 52

 Section 12: Design and Detailing for EQ loads Ref: 1893 (Part-1)

Important points:
12.1 Scope: Design and Detailing for earthquake resisting frames
only
12.2 Load and Load Combinations
Earthquake Loads as per IS 1893 – 2002 except for R-factors
load combinations for limit state design
1.5 (DL+ LL)
1.2 (DL + LL + EL)
0.9 DL + 1.50EL
– Special requirements to avoid instabilities like
buckling & over-turning
a) 1.2 DL +0.5 LL + 2.5 EL
b) 0.9 DL + 2.5 EL

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 53

 12.3 Response Reduction Factors

SI.No Lateral Load Resisting System R

1 Braced frame systems:

a)Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames (OCBF) 4

b) Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) 4.5

c) Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) 5

2 Moment Frame System:

a)   Ordinary moment frame (OMF) 4

b)   Special moment frame (SMF) 5

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 54

 CONNECTIONS, JOINTS AND FASTENERS

• All bolts used in frames resisting earthquake loads shall be fully

tensioned, High Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) bolts, in standard
holes.
• All welds used in frame resisting earthquake loads shall be
complete penetration butt welds, except in column splice
• Bolted joints shall not be designed to share load in combination
with welds on the same faying surface

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 55

 Beam to Column- ( also refer Ann-F)

Used in non-sway frames with bracings etc.

Used in frames upto 5 storeys

(b) Semi-rigid – model actual behaviour but make analysis

difficult (linear springs or Adv.Analysis). However lead
to economy in member designs.

(c) Rigid – transfer significant end-moments undergoing

negligible deformations. Used in sway frames for
stability and contribute in resisting lateral loads and
help control sway.
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 56
 column
web diagonal web
stiffeners stiffener plate

(a) (b) (c)

Rigid beam-to-column connections a) Short end plate

b) Extended end plate c) Haunched

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 57

 Column strength
When Pr/Pd is greater than 0.4…..

Pr is required compressive strength of the member

Pd is actual compressive strength of the member

…… the required axial compressive in the absence of moment to be

determined from load combinations
a) 1.2 DL +0.5 LL + 2.5 EL
b) 0.9 DL + 2.5 EL
The required strength determined in above need not exceed
1.2 times the connecting beam or brace nominal strength or the
resistance of the foundation to uplift.
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 58
 COLUMN SPLICE

• Partial-joint penetration groove welds, provided in columns

splice, shall be designed for 200% of the required strength.

Pmin =1.2 fyAf Pmin =1.2 fyAf

STORY DRIFT
• The Design Story Drift and story drift limits shall be confirm to
IS:1893-2002

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 59

 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF FRAMES
Link
Zipper Column Beams

(a)Diagonal (b)Cross or (c )Chevron (d)Eccentric

bracing X-bracing bracing bracing

Bracing systems in Steel Frames

K bracings are not permitted

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 60

 GENERAL COMMENTS ON FRAME CLASSIFICATION

• Structural steel frames classified as ordinary ( rotation>0.02 rad)

and special( rotation>0.04 rad) depending upon their design
ductility levels.
• High seismic zones and important frames, relying more on ductility
and use of higher response reduction factors would be beneficial
from economic and safety consideration

• Ordinary frames not permitted in seismic zones IV and V

• Also in Zone III for structures with I > 1.0

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 61

 12.7 ORDINARY CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (OCBF)
Frame Configuration
• Provisions only for diagonal and X- bracing
• V and inverted-V to be designed as per specialist literature
• K-braced frames not permitted

12.7.2 Bracing Members

• Slenderness of bracing member < 120
• P(required) < 0.8 P(design)
• Bracing cross-section not slender (b/t < 15.7 )
• Bracing slopes in both directions
• Tensile braces carry 30-70% of load
• Built-up braces: local slenderness < 0.4 Overall slenderness

• Connection strength to withstand 1.2Agfy, force under additional

load combinations and maximum possible force
• Check for tension rupture, block shear and gusset local buckling
• Connection to withstand 1.2 Mp of brace section

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 62

SPECIAL CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (SCBF)
Frame Configuration
• Provisions only for diagonal and X- bracing
• V and inverted-V to be designed as per specialist literature
• K-braced frames not permitted

Bracing Members
• Slenderness of bracing member < 160
• P(required) < 1.0 P(actual)
• Bracing cross-section plastic (b/t < 9.4 )
• Bracing slopes in both directions
• Tensile braces carry 30-70% of load
• Built-up braces: local slenderness < 0.4 Overall slenderness

• Connection as in OCBF
• Columns should have plastic cross-sections
• Splices to resist shear and 0.5Mp of smaller section

12.9 Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF) as per specialist literature

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 63
 12.10 ORDINARY MOMENT FRAMES (OMF)

 Rigid or Semi-rigid moment Connections permitted.

 Rigid moment connection to withstand 1.2Mp of beam or the
maximum moment that can be delivered, whichever is less.
 Semi-rigid connections to withstand 0.5Mp of beam, or the
maximum moment that can be delivered, whichever is less .
The design moment shall be achieved within a rotation of 0.01 rad.
 The stiffness and strength of semi-rigid connection shall be
accounted for in the analysis and design, and the overall stability
of the frame ensured
 Both Rigid and Semi-Rigid connection, to withstand a shear
resulting from the load combination 1.5DL+1.5LL plus the shear
corresponding to the design moment defined above (respectively).
 In Rigid fully welded connections, continuity plates (stiffener
plates) of thickness equal to or greater than the thickness of the
beam flange shall be provided and welded to the column flanges
and web.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 64

 12.11 SPECIAL MOMENT FRAMES (SMF)
Beam-to-column joints and connections
• Rigid connections only, to withstand a moment of 1.2Mp of
beam.
In case of a reduced beam section, 0.8Mp of unreduced
section.
• The connection to withstand a shear from the load
combination 1.2DL+ 0.5LL plus the shear from the
application of 1.2 Mp in the opposite sense, at each end of
the beam. The shear strength need not exceed the value
corresponding to additional load combinations.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 65

 BUCKLING OF WEB PLATES IN SHEAR

cr

Shear buckling of a plate

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 66

 Beam-to-column joints and connections (SMF)
• In column strong axis connections, the panel zone shall be
checked for shear buckling at the design shear defined above.
Doubler plates or diagonal stiffener may be used to strengthen
the web against shear buckling.
The individual thickness of the column webs and doubler plates,
shall exceed (dp+bp)/90.

• Continuity plates (stiffener plates) shall be provided in all

strong axis welded connections except in end plate connection

Continuity
plate

dp

bp

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 67

 SPECIAL MOMENT FRAMES (SMF)
Beam and column limitation
 Beam and column sections shall be plastic or compact. At
potential plastic hinge locations, they shall be necessarily
plastic.

 The section selected for beams and columns shall satisfy the
following relation
 Mpc > 1.2  Mpb

 Lateral support to the column at both top and bottom beam

flange levels shall be provided so as to resist at least 2% of the
beam flange strength, except for the case described below.

 A Plane frame with support in the direction perpendicular to its

plane, shall be checked for buckling, also under the additional
load combination.
06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 68
 12.12 Column Bases

 Fixed column bases and anchor bolts to withstand a moment

of 1.2 times Mp of column section

 All bases to withstand full shear under all load

combinations or 1.2 times shear capacity of column section
whichever is higher

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 69

 FATIGUE

 S-N curves to be followed

 SCF as per detailing category
 Detailing such that SCF is less
 Specialist codes like DNV RP-C203 to be referred

DURABILITY
 Exposure Conditions defined in code
 Surface Protection
 Drain holes for closed sections
 Vent holes during HDG
 Seal welding to avoid trapping of moisture
 b/b sections, + sections difficult for painting

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 70

 FIRE Resistance
 PSA Calculation
 Temperature rise and transfer to be considered- Reactor
supporting structures,
 Fire proofing of members- Light weight
concrete/Intumescent paint
 Bolts 10.9 grade shall not be preferred as Anchor bolts

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 71

 FABRICATION and ERECTION

Few Important points:

• Painting of surfaces to be connected shall be avoided
• Erection tolerances shall be checked and monitored
• High strength members with Fy>1100 mPa shall not be galavnised

VIBRATION

Natural frequency shall not be less than 5 Hz is not acceptable for floors

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 72

 Acknowledgement
Some Slides and references are copied from Presentations made
by other distinguished authors, books, Codes etc.

This is purely unintentional and shall not be treated as

Plagiarism.

I deeply acknowledge and thank all the authors of such

presentations.

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 73

 QUESTIONS ?

Email : vishalnalwar@rediffmail.com

06/08/2020 WSM v/s LSM 74