International Journal of Civil, Structural,

Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering

Research and Development (IJCSEIERD)
ISSN(P): 2249-6866; ISSN(E): 2249-7978
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 23-32
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

ANALYTICAL STUDY OF PHYSICAL BEHAVIOUR OF UC AND UB SECTION IN

COMPARISON WITH THE INDIAN STANDARD STEEL SECTIONS
DHARA SHAH1 & NISHANT MAKADIA2
1
2

Faculty of Technology, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India

M. Tech student, Faculty of Technology, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India

ABSTRACT
Industrial market in India is demanding as well as complex. The requirement of steel structures having larger
spans along with heavy loads are gaining priorities, to which the physical properties of Indian rolled steel sections are
becoming deficient in terms of stiffness. British universal beam (UB) and universal coulmn (UC) sections are highly
suitable for such structures. UC and UB sections are stiffer than ISMB (Indian Standard Medium Beam) or ISMC
(Indian Standard Medium Channel) at web, which provides more stiffness in shear and buckling resistance. This study
focuses on the compatibility of UC and UB sections with respect to available Indian standard sections in industrial
structures, gantry girders, commercial structures and stackers for Indian industries. It is observed that UC and UB
sections are superior to Indian sections along with reduction in section weight by nearly 10%.

Received: Sep 02, 2016; Accepted: Sep 26, 2016; Published: Sep 28, 2016; Paper Id.: IJCSEIERDOCT20163

INTRODUCTION
Steel industry is considered as the backbone of countrys economy, there by revealing its development

Original Article

KEYWORDS: Universal Beams, Universal Columns, Indian Standard Rolled Sections, Compatibility

and performance. A major shift from concrete based to steel based construction of structures have proven to be
efficient with fast pace in construction and taking almost half the completion time. Steel sections are the primary
elements for industrial construction and has evolved with time and demand of the market. The per capita
consumption of total steel in India has reached about 60 kg in 2014-15. Looking to the present requirement of steel
structures, with large spans and high loadings, Indian rolled steel sections are deficient when compared to British
universal sections. There is a wide industrial and commercial need to offer solutions for sustaining higher
loadings and large member spans with permissible deflection criteria.
The aim of this study is to compare Indian rolled steel sections to British universal sections for Indian scenario
including industrial structures, gantry girders, commercial structures and stackers. Initial comparison states that
UB sections are wider in flange, UC sections are wider at web as compared to Indian sections, thus imparting
higher stiffness. At the same time the sections might be costlier for smaller spans and loadings.
Physical Properties of Steel Sections
The availability of the Indian rolled steel sections with different sizes is very limited. In order to check
the compatibility of the physical attributes of UC and UB sections with Indian standard steel sections, physical
properties of the sections are directly compared by their shape and size. Moment of inertia and section modulus of
the sections can directly be compared for the similar depth of the section. If we take a look on Indian steel tables
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

24

Dhara Shah & Nishant Makadia

(SP6-(1), 1964), most frequently used section is ISMB (Indian Standard Medium Beam), of which only 14 types of
sections are available whereas 81 types of sections are available with UC UB steel table (Steel Construction Institute,
2007), (Red Book) along with different flange width and web/flange thickness for the same depth. The physical properties
of ISMB sections and UB sections in terms of section modulus and moment of inertia are listed in Table 1 and Table 2.
Comparison of Indian sections and UB sections in terms of section modulus is shown in Table 3.
Table 1: Physical Properties of ISMB
INDIAN SECTIONS
ISMB200
ISMB250
ISMB300
ISMB350
ISMB400
ISMB450
ISMB500
ISMB550
ISMB600

Izz
cm4
2235
5132
8604
13630
20458
30391
45218
64894
91813

Iyy
cm4
150
335
454
538
622
834
1370
1834
2651

Zxx
cm3
250
458
641
877
1161
1534
2048
2678
3465

Zyy
cm3
55
100
125
144
164
205
291
364
479

Table 2: Physical Properties of UB Sections

UB Sections
UB203X133X25
UB254X146X37
UB305X165X46
UB356X171X51
UB406X178X60
UB457X191X74
UB457X191X98
UB533X210X109
UB610X229X125

Izz
cm4
2340
5537
9899
14140
21600
33320
45730
66820
98610

Iyy
cm4
308
571
896
968
1203
1671
2347
2943
3932

Zxx
cm3
258
483
720
896
1199
1653
2232
2828
3676

Zyy
cm3
71
119
166
174
209
272
379
436
535

Table 3: Comparison of Indian and UB sections

Indian Sections
ISMB200
ISMB250
ISMB300
ISMB350
ISMB400
ISMB450
ISMB500
ISMB550
ISMB600

Ub
Sections
UB203X133X25
UB254X146X37
UB305X165X46
UB356X171X51
UB406X178X60
UB457X191X74
UB457X191X98
UB533X210X109
UB610X229X125

% Variation
In Zxx
3.10
5.18
10.97
2.12
3.17
7.20
8.24
5.30
5.74

% Variation
In Zyy
22.54
15.97
24.70
17.24
21.53
24.63
23.22
16.51
10.47

Table 3 clearly shows the superiority of UB sections against Indian sections. This is mainly due to increase in
flange size and thickness of UB sections. The vaiation along stronger axis i.e. Zxx value is about 5% whereas the variation
along weaker axis i.e. Zyy value is in the range of 15 25%. Hence, UB sections have stronger minor axis as compared to
Indian sections. This attribute might help in design of structural elements which cannot be restrained in the weaker
direction due to lack of connection space availability or aesthetic aspect of the structure. Weaker minor axis will lead to
buckling which will affect and highly distort the serviceability of the structure.
Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

Analytical Study of Physical Behaviour of UC and UB Section in

Comparison with the Indian Standard Steel Sections

25

Problem Formulation
Present study includes analysis of four different practical structures in context to Indian scenario and comparing
the results for different spans and loadings for well defined seismic and wind loading condition (Subramanian, 2008).
The structures in consideration are :

Gantry girders

Industrial structures

Stackers

Commercial buildings

Gantry Girders
The usage of crane gantry girders have significantly increased with the evolution of the port development and
shipping industries. The import-export business has tremendous demand of continuous and effective usage of the crane
gantry girders. These industries demand higher efficiency in terms of spans and loadings along with serviceability.
A typical plan and elevation of gantry girder is shown in Figure 1. Following span and loading condition have been
assumed for the girders

5 Ton capacity with span as 5m, 7.5m, 10m, 12.5 and 15m

10 Ton capacity with span as 5m, 7.5m, 10m, 12.5 and 15m

15 Ton capacity with span as 5m, 7.5m, 10m, 12.5 and 15m

20 Ton capacity with span as 5m, 7.5m, 10m, 12.5 and 15m

25 Ton capacity with span as 5m, 7.5m, 10m, 12.5 and 15m

30 Ton capacity with span as 5m, 7.5m, 10m, 12.5 and 15m
The design of gantry girders have been done as per IS800 (IS800, 2007). The girders are designed for the loading

specified in IS875 part 1,2, 3 and 5 (IS875 part-1, 1987), (IS875 part-2, 1987), (IS875 part-3, 1987),
(IS875 part-5, 1987). Main loading constitutes vertical load from selfweight and impact wheel load, horizontal thrust and
longitudinal surge. Combination of loadings are taken into consideration for design. Table 4 shows typical comparison of
sections for 7.5m span of gantry girder. Maximum permissible deflection for 7.5m span is L/750 where L is the span of the
girder (IS800, 2007). Hence, permissible deflection is 10mm.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

26

Dhara Shah & Nishant Makadia

Figure 1: Gantry Girder A) Elevation, B) Plan

Table 4: Comparison of Gantry Girder Sections for 7.5m Span
Capacity
5 Tons
10 Tons
15 Tons
20 Tons
30 Tons

Section
Indian
British
Indian
British
Indian
British
Indian
British
Indian
British

Section Provided
ISLB500
UB457X191X82
ISMB500
UB533X210X82
ISWB500
UB610X229X101
ISMB550
UB686X254X125
ISWB600
UB762X267X134

ISLC250
CH200X75X23
ISMC225
CH230X75X26
ISMC300
CH260X75X28
ISLC400
CH230X75X26
ISMC400
CH305X102

Deflection
Mm
9.10
9.96
9.84
9.25
9.62
6.95
8.45
5.36
6.82
4.73

Ratio
0.675
0.71
0.87
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99

Weight Of
Section, Ton
0.78
0.78
0.85
0.81
0.99
0.966
1.12
1.12
1.37
1.35

%
Variation
0
3.56
2.2
0
2

Portal Frames In Industrial Structures

Industrial structure with haunched portal frame having slope of 170 is considered here with a shed size of 100m x
50m . A typical section of portal frame is shown in Figure 2. The spacing of the portal frame considered here is 10m,
12.5m, 15m, 17.5m and 20m. The assumptions made are as follows :

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

Analytical Study of Physical Behaviour of UC and UB Section in

Comparison with the Indian Standard Steel Sections

Industrial Building Location: Ahmedabad

Terrain Category: 2

Class of Building: 50 years

Width of Building: 15 m

Height At Eaves: 10 m

Topography: < 30

Basic Wind Speed: 39 m/s

Rise: 2m

27

The loads acting on the portal consists of weight of sheeting, purlins, bracing, self-weight of the portal frame and
if any suspended load from the frame (SP40, 1987). AC sheet is assumed as per IS875 part-1. Live load is considered as
per IS875 part-2 and wind load as per IS875 part-3. The analysis is done in STAAD software (STAAD. Pro) along with
load combinations. Table 5 shows typical comparison of sections for 12.5m span of portal frame.

Figure 2: Haunched Portal Frame

Table 5: Comparison of Portal Frame Sections for 12.5m Span
Section
Indian
British

Sections Provided
ISMB500
ISLB450
UC254X254X73
UB457X152X60

Length, m
15
12.85
15
12.85

Total weight of
sections, Tons

%
variation

2.1
13
1.82

Stackers
The racker and stackers have been a vital component for transferring shipping containers. The unloading process
of the ship is such that the container is directly placed on the stacker and the whole container can be unfolded for the
further services. There are single/ double storeyed stackers available as shown in Figure 3. Here both types are considered.
Standard 40 feet container has been assumed. The container size is 12000 x 2400x 2400 mm (Hapag - Llyod).

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

28

Dhara Shah & Nishant Makadia

Figure 3: Double Storey Stackers

The main frame in the figure consists of two main line components on which the container is unloaded.
Cross bracings are provided for the impact loading or the horizontal surge created by the container. The loading pattern of
the container is such that the whole load is transferred by the peripherial lines of the container and the corner imposes the
concentrated loading on the frame. Hence container load is applied on the peripheral lines and corners along with impact
loading. Stackers are modelled and analysed in STAAD software. A typical table showing comparison of sections for two
storey stacker is shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Comparison of Stacker Sections
Section
Indian
British

Sections Provided
ISMB200
ISMB250
ISMB350
UB178X102X19
UB254X102X22
UC203X203X52

Length, M
96
70
56
96
70
56

Total Weight of
Sections, Tons

%
Variation

7.10
13.3
6.15

Multistorey Commercial Building

Multi-storeyed building can be defined as one that, by virtue of its height, is affected by lateral forces due to wind
or earthquake or both to an extent that they play an important role in the structural design. The commercial building usually
carries larger amount of dead and live loads resulting in larger horizontal loads, causing tremendous effect in the structural
element in its weaker direction. The present study includes G+4 commercial building in earthquake zone III
(IS1893 part-1, 2002) with 3 bays in planar directions having hypothetical grid floor as :

4 x 4m

5 x 5m

6 x 6m

7 x 7m

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

Analytical Study of Physical Behaviour of UC and UB Section in

Comparison with the Indian Standard Steel Sections

29

A typical figure of commercial building is shown in Figure 4. The structure is modelled in STAAD software with
base condition as hinged. Structure below plinth is assumed as RCC structure. The loads considered are as per IS875 for
commercial structures. The flooring consists of RCC slab supported by the steel channel sections. The floor to floor height
is taken as 3 m. Table 7 shows comparison of commercial building for 6 x 6m grid floor using Indian and British universal
sections.

Figure 4: G+4 Commercial Building, 4 X 4m Grid Floor

Table 7: Comparison of Sections for 6 X 6m Grid Commercial Building

TB
ST
FR
LD
ST

Indian Section
Profile
ISMB600
ISMB450
ISMC200
ISA100X75X6
ISMB500

TOTAL =
UC-UB SECTION
PROFILE
ST
UC356X368X129
ST
UC356X368X177
ST
UB457X152X52
TB
UB457X191X74
FR
CH200X90X30
LD
UA100X75X8
TOTAL
www.tjprc.org

Length
M
96
750
810
509.12
144
Length
m
228
12
507
240
810
509.12

Weight
Tons
35.12
53.18
35.11
7.93
12.25
-------------143.58
Weight
Tons
28.72
2.08
25.94
17.44
47.17
10.56
---------------131.91

% Variation

8.13

editor@tjprc.org

30

Dhara Shah & Nishant Makadia

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Variation in Weight of Gantry Girder Section

Variation in weight of gantry girder is observed in the range of 1.5 7.5%, when Indian sections and Universal

sections are compared for all loadings and spans of the gantry girder as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Average % Variation in Weight of Gantry Girder Section

Variation in Weight of Portal Frame Section

Variation in weight of portal frame is observed in the range of 4.5 12.5%, when Indian sections and Universal

sections are compared for all spans of the portal frame as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Average % Variation in Weight of Portal Frame Section

Variation in Weight of Stacker Section

Variation in weight of stacker is observed

nearly 13%, when Indian sections and Universal sections are

compared.

Variation in Weight of Commercial Building Section

Variation in weight of commercial building is observed in the range of 5 10%, when Indian sections and

Universal sections are compared for all different grid floors of commercial building as shown in Figure 7.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

Analytical Study of Physical Behaviour of UC and UB Section in

Comparison with the Indian Standard Steel Sections

31

Figure 7: Average % Variation in Weight of Commercial Building Section

Table 8 shows the variation in weight of sections for all structure types.
Table 8: Variation in Weight of Sections for All Structure Types
Type of Structure
Gantry girders
Industrial portal frame
Stackers
Commercial building

% Weight Variation
1.5 7.5
4.5 12.5
13
5 - 10

CONCLUSIONS

British universal sections are superior to Indian steel sections in terms of strength and reduction in weight.

The nature of superiorty varies with the application of horizontal forces in form of earthquake and wind forces.

REFERENCES
1.
2.

Hapag - Llyod. (acessed 2013). Container Specification. www.hapagliyod.com.

IS1893 part-1. (2002). `Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures : Part 1 General provisions and Buildings.
Delhi: Bureau of Indian standards.

3.

IS800. (2007). General construction in steel- code of practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standard.

4.

IS875 part-1. (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Dead Loads.
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

5.

IS875 part-2. (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Imposed
Loads . New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

6.

IS875 part-3. (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Wind Loads.
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

7.

IS875 part-5. (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Special loads
and combinations. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

8.

Red Book. (acessed 2013). Jindal Steel Design Guidelines. Jindal Steel and Power Limited, http://www.steelinsdag.org/SteelSubsections/PDF/JSPL/range-hbeams.pdf.

9.

SP40. (1987). Handbook on structures with steel portal frames (without cranes). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

32

Dhara Shah & Nishant Makadia

10. SP6-(1). (1964). Handbook for Structural Engineers. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
11. STAAD. Pro. (acessed 2013). 3D Structural Analysis and Design Software . www.bentley.com.
12. Steel Construction Institute. (2007). Handbook of structural steel work. London: The British constructinal Steel Work
Association Ltd.
13. Subramanian, N. (2008). Design of steel structures. Oxford university.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01