P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM

Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

COMPARISION OF PRE ENGINEERED STRUCTURES WITH

SECTION 12 OF IS 800:2007 (PINNED BASE)

P SRINIVAS 1*, J VIKRANTH 2*
1. II.M.Tech , Dept of CIVIL ENGG, PYDAH COLLEGE OF ENGG &
TECH ,VISAKHAPATNAM, AP .
2. Asst .Prof, Dept of CIVIL ENGG, PYDAH COLLEGE OF ENGG &
TECH ,VISAKHAPATNAM, AP .

ABSTRACT:
The pre-engineered steel building system construction has great advantages to the
single storey buildings, practical and efficient alternative to conventional buildings, the
System representing one central model within multiple disciplines. Pre engineered
building creates and maintains in real time multidimensional, data rich views
through a project support is currently being implemented by Staad pro software
packages for design and engineering.

1. INTRODUCTION advantageous over the conventional

Technological improvement buildings and is really helpful in the low
over the years has contributed immensely rise building design. Pre engineered
to the enhancement of quality of life buildings are generally low rise buildings
through various new products and however the maximum eave height can
services. One such revolution was the Pre go up to 25 to 30 meters. Low rise
Engineered Buildings. Although PEB buildings are ideal for offices, houses,
systems are extensively used in industrial showrooms, shop fronts etc. The
and many other non residential application of pre engineered buildings
constructions worldwide, it is relatively a concept to low rise buildings is very
new concept in India. As compared to economical and speedy. The roof of low
other countries Indian codes for building rise buildings may be flat or sloped.
design are stringent but safer in design of
PEB. 2. COMPONENTS OF PEB BUILDING:

PEB is very versatile building

systems and can be finished internally to
serve any functions and accessorized
externally to achieve attractive and
unique designing styles. It is very

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

Figure 1.1: Components of PEB  Low maintenance: Energy

efficient roofing and wall
systems: .
 Main frame  Architectural versatility: .
Purlins , Grits And Eave Struts  Single source responsibility
 Sheeting’s and Insulation:
Paints and Finishes: Doors and
windows.
 Ribbed Sheet Used for Roof
and Wall Liners
 False Ceiling
 Partition Walls
 Flooring
 Columns and Rafters
 Z-Purlin And C-Purlin
 Hi-rib Roofing Sheets
 Curved Eaves

3. APPLICATIONS:
Applications of pre-engineered steel
buildings include (but are not limited)
to the following:
 Houses & Living Shelters  Office Buildings
 Factories  Figure
Labor Camps
2.1: Concept of Response
 Warehouses  Reduction
Petrol Pumps/Service
Factor Buildings
 Sport Halls  Schools
 Aircraft Hangers  Community Centers
 Supermarkets  Railway Stations
 Ductility should be quantified and
 Workshops  Equipment
equalhousing/shelters
care has to be taken as
 Distribution Centers  Telecommunication shelters
strength and stability.
 Commercial Showrooms  Restaurants
 Plastic potential zone should be
calculated for special moment
5. ADVANTAGES OF PRE
resisting frames and sections are
ENGINEERED BUILDINGS
provided either compact or plastic
due to high bending moments in
 Reduced construction time:
Lower cost: Flexibility of that sections.
expansion: .
 Large clear spans:
 Quality control: .

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

6.1 Load Combinations:

Earthquake loads shall be calculated as

per IS 1893(part1), except that the
reduction factors recommended in
section 12.3 of IS 800:2007 may be used.
In the limit state design of frames
resisting earthquake loads, the load
combinations shall conform to table as
shown below as per IS 800:2007.
Figure 3.1: Moment- Rotation
Behavior of four classes of
DESIGN SERVICEABILIT
Cross-section defined by IS-800:2007
STRENGT Y CRITERIA
H
6. Types of lateral load resisting
CRITERIA
system
1.5 DL + DL + LL
1. Braced Frame System
1.5 LL
a. Ordinary Concentrically
1.5 DL + DL + WL
Braced Frame (OCBF)
1.5 WL
b. Special Concentrically
0.9 DL + DL + EL
Braced Frame (SCBF)
1.5 WL
c. Eccentrically Braced
1.5 DL + DL + 0.8 LL + 0.8 WL
Frame (OCBF)
1.5 EL
2. Moment Frame System
0.9 DL + DL + 0.8 LL + 0.8 EL
a. Normal Moment
1.5 EL
Resisting Frame (NMF)
1.2 DL +
b. Ordinary Moment
1.2LL + 1.2
Resisting Frame (OMF)
WL
c. Special Moment
1.2 DL +
Resisting Frame (SMF)
1.2LL + 1.2
The major study of the project is on
EL
Moment Frame System.

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

225, 250, 275, 300, 325,

375, 400, 425, 450, 500
7. Major points considered while
8) For each set of dimensions 3
making the model: different frames have been
modeled
1) Frames with same h/w ratio (0.2)
1. Normal Moment Resisting
and l/w (1.5) have been
Frame (NMF)
considered.
2. Ordinary Moment Resisting
2) Supports are considered as
Frame (OMF)
pinned.
3. Special Moment Resisting
3) Member length has been
Frame (SMF)
maintained as 3 m for maximum
9) For Normal and Ordinary Moment
members in the frame.
Resisting Frames:
4) Columns depth is not varied along
1. Column minimum as semi
height as the moments will be
compact.
high for frames with mezzanine
2. Rafter minimum as
floors.
Slender.
5) Rafter and column depths are
10) Load Combinations are taken from
taken as tapered as per bending
Table 4 of IS 800-2007 For
moment profile by not reducing
Ordinary Moment Resisting
the depth less than 50% than
Frame:
required.
1. Same member sections as
6) The section properties of member
considered as in Normal
has been calculated using
Moment resisting frame.
following formulas taken from
2. Extra load combinations
practice:
𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 from Section 12.2.3 are
1. 𝑑 =
28 considered along with Load
𝑑
2. ≤ Combinations from Table 4
𝑡𝑤
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 of IS 800-2007 .
𝑑 11) For Special Moment Resisting
3. 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 =
𝑏
5 Frame:
4. ≤ 1. Column and Rafter
𝑡𝑓
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 minimum compact.
5. Overall section 2. Plastic potential zone is
classification is the considered as 1.5 times
minimum of web and depth required (d
flange section calculated above)
classification. 3. In plastic potential zone
7) Dimensions of steel members the member is taken as
available in market plastic section.
1. Max length of any section 4. Plastic sections are
available is 12m considered at column-
2. Thicknesses of web rafter junction and near
available are 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, support.
12, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 28, 12) Load Combinations are taken from
32, 36, 40 Table 4 of IS800-2007
𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛
3. Widths of flange available 13) Deflection limit =
180
are 130, 150, 180, 200,

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

By considering different frames (without

cranes, with cranes and with mezzanine
floors) with different dimensions given in
following table, the results have been
tabulated below.
Aspect Ratio: h/w = 0.2
Bay width = 7.5 m
Internal wind coefficient, Cpi = ±0.2
as %opening is <5%
Wind Load Calculations done As per IS:
875-Part3

Height
Width(m) Length(m)
(m)
3 15 22.5
4 20 30 Figure 5.3: STAAD model for SMF without
5 25 37.5 crane and with mezzanine
6 30 45
7 35 52.5

Geometric properties of frame 8. RESULTS

Data of frames considered for the project

Sample STAAD frame models for an and their results are explained in this
chapter.
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame, 1) Frames with same h/w ratio (0.2)
along with crane and with mezzanine and l/w (1.5) have been
are shown below: considered.
2) Supports are considered as
pinned.

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

Height (m) Width(m) Length(m)

3 15 22.5 The notations in the tables and figures of
4 20 30 this chapter are used to represent the
5 25 37.5 following things.
6 30 45
7 35 52.5 NMF – Normal moment resisting frame

OMF – Ordinary moment resisting frame

SMF – Special moment resisting frame

NMF/OMF/SMF W CRANE – Frame with crane

NMF/OMF/SMF W MZ – Frame with mezzanine

NMF/OMF/SMF W/O CRANE – Frame without crane

SPAN HEIGHT FRAME WEIGHT WITHOUT CRANE

NMF W/O OMF W/O SMF W/O
(m) (m) CRANE CRANE CRANE %
15 3 721.57 721.57 785.12 8.80
20 4 1273.73 1273.73 1412.48 10.89
25 5 2115.69 2115.69 2208.23 4.37
30 6 3078.19 3078.19 3199.38 3.94
35 7 4199.25 4199.25 4614.05 9.88
FRAME WEIGHT WITH CRANE (5TONS)
NMF W CRANE OMF W CRANE SMF W CRANE %
15 3 803.09 803.09 889.39 10.75
20 4 1393.32 1393.32 1436.74 3.12
25 5 2197.81 2197.81 2288.58 4.13
30 6 3162.46 3162.46 3281.65 3.77
35 7 4299.54 4299.54 4778.4 11.14
FRAME WEIGHT WITH MAZZANINE
NMF W MZ OMF W MZ SMF W MZ %
25 5 2357.89 2357.89 2685.35 13.89
30 6 3273.63 3273.63 3871.93 18.28
35 7 4593.4 4593.4 5464.68 18.97

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

comparison of base shear for different frames

SPAN HEIGHT BASE SHEAR WITHOUT CRANE

(m) (m) NMF W/O CRANE OMF W/O CRANE SMF W/O CRANE
15 3 1.62 1.62 1.3
20 4 2.16 2.16 1.66
25 5 2.18 2.18 1.75
30 6 3.26 3.26 2.6
35 7 3.8 3.8 3.04
BASE SHEAR WITH CRANE (10TONS)

NMF W CRANE OMF W CRANE SMF W CRANE

15 3 5.62 5.62 4.87

20 4 6.16 6.16 5.81
25 5 7.91 7.91 6.66
30 6 8.72 8.72 7.8
35 7 8.89 8.89 8.45
BASE SHEAR WITH MAZZANINE
NMF W MZ OMF W MZ SMF W MZ

25 5 51.92 51.92 41.54

30 6 62.31 62.31 49.85
35 7 72.72 72.72 58.16
SPAN HEIGHT FRAME WEIGHT WITHOUT CRANE
NMF W/O OMF W/O SMF W/O
(m) (m) %
CRANE CRANE CRANE
15 3 721.57 721.57 785.12 8.80
20 4 1273.73 1273.73 1412.48 10.89
25 5 2115.69 2115.69 2208.23 4.37
30 6 3078.19 3078.19 3199.38 3.94
35 7 4199.25 4199.25 4614.05 9.88
FRAME WEIGHT WITH CRANE (20TONS)
NMF W CRANE OMF W CRANE SMF W CRANE %
15 3 997.89 997.89 1092.56 9.49
20 4 1552.56 1552.56 1603.14 3.26
25 5 2233.02 2233.02 2443.19 9.41

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

30 6 3155.31 3155.31 3392.84 7.53

35 7 4466.49 4466.49 4948.71 10.79
FRAME WEIGHT WITH MAZZANINE
NMF W MZ OMF W MZ SMF W MZ %
25 5 2357.89 2357.89 2685.35 13.89
30 6 3273.63 3273.63 3871.93 18.28
35 7 4593.4 4593.4 5464.68 18.97

SPAN HEIGHT BASE SHEAR WITHOUT CRANE

(m) (m) NMF W/O CRANE OMF W/O CRANE SMF W/O CRANE
15 3 1.62 1.62 1.3
20 4 2.16 2.16 1.66
25 5 2.18 2.18 1.75
30 6 3.26 3.26 2.6
35 7 3.8 3.8 3.04
BASE SHEAR WITH CRANE (20TONS)

NMF W CRANE OMF W CRANE SMF W CRANE

15 3 6.54 6.54 5.77

20 4 7.24 7.24 6.92
25 5 7.98 7.98 7.22
30 6 8.45 8.45 8.18
35 7 9.12 9.12 8.62
BASE SHEAR WITH MAZZANINE
NMF W MZ OMF W MZ SMF W MZ

25 5 51.92 51.92 41.54

30 6 62.31 62.31 49.85
35 7 72.72 72.72 58.16
Table 12.21: comparison of Base shear for different frames with crane loads(20T)

9. OBSERVATIONS: 2) If the section is failing in bending

we need to increase the flange
1) The optimisation can be done by
area.
reducing the web depth and flange
width.

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

3) If the section is lacking in shear compared to the frames without

capacity we need to increase the crane.
web area.
4) By increasing or decreasing the By comparing different frames
web area bending moment with and without section-12 load
capacity of the section does not combinations state that there is no
get effected. necessity of providing ductile sections
5) Base shear and the governing load or sections satisfying requirements of
combination do not differ when we Section-12 of IS-800:2007.
consider Sec 12.2.3 (IS800-2007) Compared to the previous code i.e.
load combinations along with IS-800:1984, the weight of the
Table 4 (IS800-2007) load structures is increasing when
combinations. designed with the latest code, IS-
6) Base shear values have drastically 800:2007. Therefore there is a
increased for the frame with increase in cost of the structure. But
mezzanine as the DL and LL acting when observed, the section-12 load
due to mezzanine is added in the combinations are not governed for the
seismic weight. same structure designed with new
7) For none of the frame section 12 code. Hence the sections may be
(IS 800:2007) load combinations reduced by satisfying the minimum
are governing. criteria as per the zone and type of
8) Less than 5% increase in frame structure through which weight of
weight is observed between structure can be reduced which
frames without crane and with ultimately decreases the cost
5MT crane. parameter.
9) Less than 10% increase in Frame
weight is observed between
frames without crane and with 10. CONCLUSION
10MT crane. Choosing steel to design a Pre-
10) Maximum deflection values have engineered steel structures building
been reduced in frames with is to choose a material which offers
crane, with mezzanine when

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217
P SRINIVAS , et al , International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering [IJRSAE] TM
Volume 2 , Issue 8, PP: 208 - 217 , OCT - DEC 2014.

low cost, strength, durability,  DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES

design flexibility, BY N. SUBRAMANIAN (Based on
adaptability and recyclability. Steel is limit state method of design as per
the basic material that is used in IS 800:2007)
the Materials that are used for  IS 800:2007, “INDIAN STANDARD
Preengineered steel building. It GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IN
negates from regional sources. It STEEL CODE OF PRACTICE”, (
also means choosing reliable Third Revision)
industrial products which come in a  IS 1893 ,“INDIAN STANDARD
huge range of shapes and colours; CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE
it means rapid site installation and RESISTANT DESIGN OF
less energy consumption. It means STRUCTURES”, PART 1 GENERAL
choosing to commit to the principles PROVISIONS AND BUILDINGS (
of sustainability. Infinitely recyclable, Fifth Revision )
steel is the material that reflects the  IS 875, “INDIAN STANDARD
imperatives of sustainable CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN
development. LOADS (OTHER THAN
EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS
REFERENCES
AND STRUCTURES”, PART 3

 “OPTIMUM SEISMIC DESIGN OF (WIND LOADS) ( Second Revision

STEEL MOMENT RESISTING )

FRAMES BY GENETIC  ECCS Manual on “DESIGN OF

ALGORITHMS (ASIAN JOURNAL STEEL STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC

OF CIVIL ENGINEERING ZONES”, First edition, 1994

(BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL.

9, NO. 2 (2008) PAGES 107-
129)”, A. Kaveh and B. Dadfar,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Iran University of Science and
Technology, Narmak, Tehran-16,
Iran.

International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering

Vol.2 (8) , ISSN: 2319 – 6106 , OCT - DEC – 2014.

208 – 217