Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 7, July 2017, pp. 264–273, Article ID: IJCIET_08_07_029


IJCIET_08_07
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7
ISSN Print: 0976
0976-6308
6308 and ISSN
ISSN Online: 0976-6316
0976

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

A STUDY OF K4 FACTOR IMPACT ON


INDUSTRIAL AND POST
POST-CYCLONIC
CYCLONIC
IMPORTANCE STRUCTURES
STRUCTURES
B Santhosh Kumar
Ph.D Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM
GITAM University,
Deputy Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Andhra Pradesh, India

Balaji, K.V.G.D.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University,
Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh, India
Visakhapatnam,

Chandan Kumar Patnaikuni


Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM Universit
University,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
Considering the likelihood of cyclonic wind speeds are often exceeding the
regional basic wind speeds in the coastal region, revised IS 875 Part3:2015 presents
the K4 factor (Cyclonic importance factor) for augmenting the design wind speed (Vz)
with numerical values 1.15 and 1.30 for Industrial structure and post post-cyclone
cyclone
importance structures respectively. This paper attempts to explore the impact of the k4
factor on A
A-type
type steel trusses for 12 and 24 meter span with roof slopes 1in 3 and 1 in
5 for various building permeability conditions. The permeability conditions consist
low, medium and large building openings. The trusses have been modeled with SAAP
2000(14) software. The results were generated for both industrial and Post cyclone
importance structures. Comparisons were carried out for IS 875-1987
875 1987 wind code and
2015 wind code with k4 factor. Findings from the analysis suggest that even after
multiplying the design wind speed with the k4 factor, the impact
impact on the industrial
structure was insignificant. For post cyclone importance structure the subjected truss
load was increased from 25.00% to 35.00%.
35.00% Maximum variation was found in the low
permeability condition.
Key words
words: IS 875 (part3):2015, K4-
K4-factor, A-Type
Type steel truss, Building permeability,
SP 38 (S&T)
(S&T)-1987.SAAP2000
1987.SAAP2000 (R14)..
Cite this Article
Article: B Santhosh Kumar, Balaji K.V.G.D and Chandan Kumar
Patnaikuni
Patnaikuni, A Study of K4 Factor Impact on Industrial and Post-Cyclonic
Post Cyclonic Importance
Structures
Structures. International Journal
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp.
264––273.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
asp 264 editor@iaeme.com
A Study of K4 Factor Impact on Industrial and Post-Cyclonic Importance Structures

1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the improvements in regulations and design provisions for buildings, the economic
impact and loss of life as a result of wind induced damage is still significantly high. Post
hurricane investigations have repeatedly reported that wind and wind –driven rain have been
the cause of extensive damage to building components and their premises (Tecle, et al,
2013)[26]. Very strong winds more than 80 km/h are associated with the cyclonic storms IS
875Part3:2015 [13]. Studies of wind speed and damage to buildings and structures point to the
fact that the speed given in the basic wind speed map is often exceeded during the cyclones IS
875 Part3:2015 [13]. In order to ensure better safety of structures in the cyclonic region, the
IS 875-Part3:2015 [13] introduced the k4 factor /Importance factor for enhancing the design
wind speed calculations. The k4 factor has a numerical value 1.15 for industrial structures,
1.30 for Post cyclone importance structures and 1.00 for general structures.
By UN definition(Cardona,2005) the risk of losses is a function of hazard, risk element
and vulnerability as referred by Desi Sri Pasca Sari Sembiring et al,(2015)[1]. Since the
degree of vulnerability of a given severity of cyclones to emergency service structures such as
Cyclone shelters, hospitals, schools and communication towers, etc., are very less and these
structures are defined as Post cyclone importance structures in IS 875-Part3-2015 [13]. Gupta
et al, (2016)[4]defined the Industrial buildings, a subset of low- rise buildings are normally
used in steel plants, automobile industries, utility and process industries, thermal power
stations, warehouses, assembly plants, storage, garages, small scale industries, etc., and these
buildings require large column free areas. A-type Steel trusses are commonly used in all
industries and hospitals, laboratories for spans ranging from 9 m to 30 m.
This study attempts to explore the impact of the k4 factor on A-type steel angular trusses
for 12 and 24 meter span with roof slopes 1in 3 and 5 for various degrees of building
permeability conditions. The permeability conditions consist low, medium and large building
wall openings. The trusses are modeled with SAAP2000 (R4) software [23]. The general
loading on these trusses have been adopted from IS 800-2007 Code Provisions [12]. The
results were generated for both industrial and Post cyclone importance structures.
Comparisons were presented with the existing code for wind load.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Cyclones and East Coast of India
(Suresh Kumar et al (2012), Koete, et al(2014), Mishra(2014), HB 202-2002 and IS 15498-
2004)[24,17,18,5,11][ appraises the extreme tropical cyclones being dominated on the east
coast and less frequent ones on the west coast of India. In the recent past (2006 to 2014) the
Eastern coastal states of India have been battered by Ogni, Lila, Jal, Thane, Nilam, Lehar,
Phalin and Hud hud cyclones[7,8]. Specifically, the Andhra Pradesh in 2014, Orissa in 2013
and Tamilnadu in 2011 year were extremely affected by the very severe cyclones and a large
scale financial loss was reported.
More than sixty cyclones have effected the Andhra Pradesh state this century (History of
Disasters)[6]. The incidence of cyclones seems to have increased in the past decades, to the
extent that severe cyclones have become a common event occurring every two to three
years(History of Disasters)[6]. Contrary to this statement(Raghavan and Rajesh,2003)[22]
concluded that, greater vulnerability to tropical cyclone damage in Andhra Pradesh state was
mainly due to economic and demographic factors, but not meteorological factors.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 265 editor@iaeme.com


B Santhosh Kumar, Balaji K.V.G.D and Chandan Kumar Patnaikuni

2.2. Cyclonic Importance factor –Various Suggestions


(Venkateswarlu et al., 1985 as referred by Iyer,2013)[14] developed the cyclone wind speed
map of the coastal regions of the country. After considering the opinions among
academicians, researchers, consultants and others, the basic wind speed for cyclonic region
was recommended as 65 m/s. To account for this, the enhancement factor for Cyclone, ‘f’,
was recommended as 1.0, 1.15 and 1.30 for dwellings, industrial buildings and post-cyclone
importance structures respectively. These findings were incorporated in the IS: 15498-
2004[11].
Government of India in a joint effort with the United Nation Development Program
(UNDP) in 2006 for disaster risk management program, prescribed the basic wind speed at 65
m/s for the design of cyclone shelters in the coastal region [3].
Further, the Government of India organization- National Disaster Management Authority
(NDMA,2008)[19]- while circulating the management of cyclones guidelines in 2008
suggested the basic wind speed in the cyclonic region shall be increased by a factor 1.30 for
designing buildings, cyclone shelters, schools, and other life line structures, thus the wind
speed shall be 50m/s x1.30 is 65 m/s, this design wind speed is same as tsunami guidelines16.

2.3. Steel Roof Trusses and A –Type Configuration


(Kaur, et al,2016)[16]studied the shape optimization of twenty truss shapes for the different
spans and different roof pitches. They demonstrated that only trail and error method coupled
with engineer’s intuitive can accomplish the optimum selection of the truss system.
Dhameliya et al, (2014)[2] examined the parametric study of 2-D Industrial roof truss
configuration. They concluded that the most appropriate span will be formulated considering
the geometric shape, weight, economical and other criteria. Pathak and Garg, 2015[21]
examined the optimization and rationalization of various geometries and different sections of
steel roof truss. They concluded that the A –type truss has lesser weight compared to other
truss geometries.
The typified designs of steel roof trusses of SP:38 (S&P):1987 [25] have been developed
by the combination of optimum selection of fink /fan truss and N-truss. The geometry of A-
type truss of SP 38 (S&T) -1987[25] has the minimum weight among the other types of
trusses SP 38 (S&T) -1987 [27] elucidate A-type trusses are recommended for small, medium
and large spans and lean –to roof trusses are suggested for a maximum span of 15m. Hence
the type of roof truss depends mainly upon certain various factors and parameters like span,
slope and height of the building.

2.4. Statement of Problem and Research Objectives


From the above literature, it was observed that basic wind speed in the east coast region shall
not be more than 50 m /s. The IS 875 -Part3: 2015 [13] code has very clearly stated that the
wind speed for cyclonic region is to be modified by the K4 factor.
However, there had been no studies found pertaining to the performance of structures
subjected to this design wind speed multiplication factor. Hence, this paper highlights the
impact of the K4 factor effect on A-type steel trusses, for industrial structures and for post
cyclone importance structures. Finally the truss load for IS 875 -Part3: 1987 [10] wind
provisions and 2015 revised version are studied.

3. METHODOLGY
In this study 12 and 24 m span with roof slopes 1 in 3 and 5 with three distinctive internal
pressure conditions of A-type roof trusses were illustrated for computing the impact of k4

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 266 editor@iaeme.com


A Study of K4 Factor Impact on Industrial and Post-Cyclonic Importance Structures

factor. The truss configurations were adopted from SP 38 (S&T) -1987 [25].The analysis was
carried out with SAAP 2000(14) software[23]. The IS: 800-2007 [12] code for general load
combinations were adopted. (Jayaraman, et al,2014)[15] presented a study on design and
economical roof trusses and purlins. They demonstrated that IS 800-2007[12] limit state code
method of design has higher load capacity when compared to working stress design of IS 800-
1984
IS 875 (Part3):1987 &2015 [10,13] defines the wind loads acting on a building as a whole
as well as on the connections and claddings and individual elements. For that, it is basically
needed to know the wind speed at the particular location under study. According to this Indian
Standard code, India is divided into six different wind zones and each zone is assigned a
specific basic wind speed. But the design wind speed depends on the design life of the
structure, the terrain and the height of the structure, the topography of the location and also on
a cyclone importance factor. All these corrections need to be included to get the final design
wind speed. Hence, mathematically expressed in IS 875-2015[13] .
Vz = Vb x k1 x k2 x k3 x k4 (1)
Where Vz = design wind speed at any height z in m/s; Vb is the basic wind speed for the
zone. k1= probability factor/risk coefficient, k2= terrain roughness(Category2) and height
factor varies according to the height of a structure, k3= topography factor and k4 = Importance
factor for cyclonic region are adopted. After finding the design wind speed, the pressure due
to wind at that point is found out by the Eq (2).
Pz =0. 6 x Vz2 (2)
Here, Pz is the wind pressure at a height ‘‘z”, in N/sqm. Then the design wind pressure
(Pd) is computed with the Eq (3). This equation is presented in the wind code 2015 only and
didn’t appear in the wind code 1987[10].
Pd = Kd x Ka x Kc x Pz (3)
Where, Pd is the design wind pressure at a height ‘‘z”, in N/sqm. The factor Kd in the
cyclone prone area has a maximum numerical value 1.00 for all structures because of
uncertainty of wind direction and return period. Ka is the area averaging factor and Kc is the
combination factor. The code specified the combination factor Kc has a value 0.90 for the
frames of clad buildings since the suction /pressures inside and outside of structures are not
fully correlated
And now, this wind pressure Pd exerts a force individually on the roofs, walls and other
connections as well which are evaluated separately. And due to this pressure, apart from the
pressure developed on the external sides of the building, there is also an internal pressure
developed inside the building whose combined effect gives the final total force acting on the
building. Hence, to calculate the forces, there is an inclusion of external pressure coefficients
as well as internal pressure coefficients. Thus the Force F is calculated vide Eq (4)
F= (Cpe-Cpi) xA x Pd (4)
Where, F is wind load acting in a direction normal to the individual structural element. .
Cpe=external pressure coefficient. Cpi=Internal pressure coefficient. A= Area on which the
lateral wind force acts.
The value of the external pressure coefficients for pitched roof building for different roof
angles is shown in table 6 in IS 875 (part3) :2015[13]. Depending on wind direction, the ratio
between different dimensions and the slope of the roof, the values of external pressure
coefficients are decided. Maximum Cpe values for the wind angle 90o are found for all the
slopes and spans and this value is taken for both windward and leeward direction of the roof
truss for practical purpose.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 267 editor@iaeme.com


B Santhosh Kumar, Balaji K.V.G.D and Chandan Kumar Patnaikuni

The values of the internal pressure coefficients depend on the the openings in the building
which is decided by finding out the permeability of the building, in terms of the percentage of
openings in the buildings. The code specified that, if the permeability is less than 5%, it is a
case of low permeability and the in internal
ternal pressure coefficient equals ±0.20. Two cases are
evaluated, one with pressure value on the internal side and the next case with the negative
pressure (suction) acting on the internal side. Thus, the value of the internal pressure
coefficient taken iiss +0.20 and -0.20.
0.20. Similarly, if the permeability is medium, i.e., from 5% to
20% opening of the building, the internal coefficient taken is ±0.50. And if the permeability is
high, i.e., more than 20%, ±0.70 value is used as the internal pressure coefficie
coefficient.
nt. Having
known the values of the external pressure coefficients and the internal coefficients, and the
affected area as well as design pressure value, the force acting can be calculated. This
completes the wind load analysis of a building which gives the idea about the maximum
lateral wind force a particular building can withstand.
Then the net force with dead load and wind load is arrived and distributed as panel point
loads (nodal loads). These loads are shown as W and H. One model consists of one span,
slope and internal permeability condition. Hence, for two spans, two slopes and three internal
permeability conditions (2X2X3) have altogether 12 models. Hence 12 models for IS 875
Part-3:1987
3:1987 code provisions[10]
provisions[10] and the same models for IS 875 Part3:2015[13]
Part3:2015 13] code
provisions have been simulated in SAAP 2000(14) software. Table. 1 depicts the various
parameters considered in the study. Fig 1& 2 show the 12 &24 m span truss diagrams for
nodal loads and members and Fig 3 shows 24 m truss span Truss model in SA SAP P 2000(R4).
2000(R4)
The members are depicted in circles.

Figure 1 Twelve metre span of A-Type


Type truss

Figure 2 Twenty four metre span of A-Type


Type Truss

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
asp 268 editor@iaeme.com
A Study of K4 Factor Impact on Industrial and Post
Post-Cyclonic
Cyclonic Importance Structures

Figure 3 SAAP 2000(R14) Model 24 m span with roof slope 1 in 5 truss

Table 1 Various Parameters considered in this study


Description of Parameters Industrial structure Post cyclonic structures
IS 875-1987
1987 IS 875
875-2015 IS 875- IS 875-2015
875
1987
K1-Risk
Risk factor / Design life in 1.00/50 1.00/50 1.08/100 1.08/100
8/100
years
K2-Terrain,
Terrain, height factor Varies according to the height of the truss.
(Terrain category 2)
considered)
K3-Topography
Topography factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
K4-Cyclonic
Cyclonic Importance factor -- 1.15 -- 1.30

Vb -Basic
Basic wind speed (m/s) 50 50 50 50
Vz - Design wind speed at k1 x k2x k3 k1x k2 x k3 x k4 k1 xk2 x k3 k1 x k2 x k3 x k4
height “z” (m/s)
Pz - (wind pressure at height z) 0. 6 x Vz2 0. 6 x Vz2 0. 6 x Vz2 0. 6 x Vz2
(N/m2)
Ka - Area average factor -- Varies with the -- Varies with the
Tributary area of Tributary area of
roof slope roof slope
Kd -Wind
Wind directionality factor -- 1.00 -- 1.00

Kc -Combination
Combination factor -- 0.90 -- 0.90
Pd -Design
Design wind pressure = Pz Kd x Ka x Kc x Pz =Pz Kd x Ka x Kc x Pz
(N/m2)

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


DISCUSSION
4.1. Results
Table 2 aand
nd 3 show the overall truss force in kN and variation of truss forces for industrial
structures and post cyclone importance structures. The variations of truss forces are pictorially
represented in Fig. 1 and 2.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
asp 269 editor@iaeme.com
B Santhosh Kumar, Balaji K.V.G.D and Chandan Kumar Patnaikuni

Table 2 Overall Truss


Truss force (kN) and Variations of truss forces for the Industrial structure.
Low permeability Medium permeability Large permeability
IS 875(part3) IS 875 (Part 3) IS 875 (Part3)
Variati
Span and 1987 2015 on
1987 2015 Variation 1987 2015 Variati
slope ( kN ) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) on
12 m 1 in 3 226 223 -1% 315 311 -1%
1% 374 370 -1%
12 m 1 in 5 397 394 -1% 557 553 -1%
1% 664 660 -1%
24 m 1 in 3 807 756 -6% 1157 1089 -6%
6% 1390 1312 -6%
24 m 1 in 5 1282 1198 -7% 1851 1740 -6%
6% 2230 2102 -6%

Table 3 Overall Truss force (kN) and Variations of truss forces for Post cyclonic Importance structure.
Low permeability Medium permeability Large permeability
IS(875 part3) IS (875 part3) IS (875 part3)
Span and 1987 2015 Variati 1987 2015 1987 2015 Variati
slope (kN) (kN) on (k
(kN) (kN) Variation (kN) (kN) on
12 m 1 in 3 275 367 34% 379 498 31% 448 586 31%
12 m 1 in 5 486 655 35% 673 893 33% 798 1051 32%
24 m 1 in 3 985 1254 27% 1392 1751 26% 1664 2082 25%
24 m 1 in 5 1571 2009 28% 2233 2816 26% 2676 3355 25%

Fig
Figure 1 Variation of truss forces in 12 and 24 m spans with roof slope 1 in 3 and 1 in 5

Fig
Figure 2 Variation of truss forces in 12 and 24 m spans with roof slope 1 in 3 and 1 in 5

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
asp 270 editor@iaeme.com
A Study of K4 Factor Impact on Industrial and Post-Cyclonic Importance Structures

5. DISCUSSION
A-type roof truss spans12 and 15 m, with slopes 1 in 3 and 5 for three building internal
permeability conditions have been modelled and simulated for total truss forces with respect
to IS 875(Part3):1987 provisions.
However, IS 875(part3):2015 revised version specified the k4 factor for industrial and post
cyclone importance structures. Hence, the above mentioned models with the K4 factor have
been stimulated for truss forces. The results obtained for all the models for the provisions of
IS 875:1987 and 2015 have been compared and presented in Table 2 and Table 3. The
following observations were made in Industrial structure and the Post cyclone importance of
structures. The relevant factors are considered for terrain category 2 only. Hence all the
results are pertain to this terrain category.

Industrial Structures
1) For the 12 m span, for both the slopes with all building permeability conditions exhibited
the marginal decrease in the truss forces when when compared to 1987 provisions.
2) While the 24m m span all the models exhibited a decrease of 7% for the truss forces when
compared to the 1987 code provisions.
Even though the k4 factor for industrial structures is 1.15, but its outcomes are
predominantly affected by the new definition of design wind pressure equation (Pd)in IS
875(Part3) - 2015 code.
From the above discussions it was found that the truss forces generated by considering
2015 code decreased when compared to truss forces generated using the 1987 code. This is
due to the additional multiplication factors such as area average factor(Ka) & combined factor
(Kc) incorporated in the design wind pressure calculation(pd).

For Post cyclonic importance structures


3) For 12 m span with roof slope 1 in 3 indicated an increase of 31%, 31% and 34% of truss
force and for slope 1 in 5 showed an increase of 32%, 34% &35% of truss force.
4) For 24 m span with slope 1 in 3 exhibited 25%, 26% & a 27% increase and for slope 1 in 5
exhibited 25%, 26%, & 28% increase of the truss forces in comparison with IS 875:1987 code
provision.
For the Post cyclone importance structure, it was found that truss force generated by
considering the 2015 code increased in comparison with 1987 wind code. This is due to K4
factor multiplied to the design wind speed (Vz)
A recent review and experiments conducted by (Tecle et al,2013) concluded that low
permeability has experienced the largest truss load when compared to other permeability
conditions since the positive internal pressure developed in the low permeability condition.
This conclusion further supports that low permeability condition has experienced the largest
variation of truss load when compared to other permeability conditions or in other words the
truss load increases from large permeability condition to low permeability conditions for both
Industrial structures and Post cyclone importance structures.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Twelve models with different spans, slopes and permeability conditions, using IS 875-1987
code provisions were stimulated and compared the same models for IS 875:2015 Codal
provisions. After thorough discussions as above, the following a few conclusions have been
drawn.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 271 editor@iaeme.com


B Santhosh Kumar, Balaji K.V.G.D and Chandan Kumar Patnaikuni

a) All the results are pertain to the Terrain category 2 only.


b) The impact of k4 factor of Industrial structures of A-type roof truss for 12 m span is a
marginal decrease of 1% and for 24 m span maximum decrease of 7%, even though IS875-
2015 code provides k4 multiplication factor with numerical value 1.15 for computing the
design wind speed (vz). (Refer table1).
c) For post cyclonic importance structure category, 12 m span exhibits the highest of about
35% and 24 m span exhibits a maximum increase of 25% truss force with respect to1987 code
provisions.
d) In the case of industrial structure, 24 m span with slope 1 in 5 exhibited the best result and
found to be the best model for low permeability condition.
e) The slope effect on the span is negligible for Industrial and post cyclone importance
structures. For post cyclone importance structures the smaller span is more affected relative to
large span.
f) For post cyclone importance structures all spans and all slopes have shown the minimum
variation of truss forces for the large permeability when compared to the low permeability
condition

REFERENCES
[1] Desi Sri Pasca Sari Sembiring, Ritha F. Dalimunthe, Delvian and R. Hamdani, ( 2015).
Disaster Risk Index in Disaster Prone Area of Simeulue District Province of ACEH,
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 10, pp. 801-806. DOI:
10.3923/rjasci.2015.801.806.
http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=rjasci.2015.801.806
[2] Dhameliya, H. K., Sharma, J. B., and Tandel, Yogendra.(2014). Parametric Studies of
Standard 2-D Roof Truss Configuration, International Journal of Engineering Trends and
Technology (IJETT), 11, pp. 214-218.
[3] Guidelines for Design and construction of Cyclone /Tsunami Shelters, GOI-UNDP
Disaster Risk Management Programme-2006. http://nidm.gov.in
/PDF/safety/public/link3.pdf.
[4] Gupta, L.R., Samruddhi, S., Thawari. (2016), Analysis of an Industrial Building,
International Journal of Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology
(IJRASET), 4, pp. 611-615.
[5] HB 202-2002, Handbook of design wind speeds for the Asia pacific region
[6] History of Disasters-Revenue Disaster Management, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
http://disastermanagement.ap.gov.in/historyofdisasters.aspx.
[7] IMD (2013). A Report On Very Severe Cyclonic Storm , PHALIN over the Bay of Bengal
(08-14 October 2013. http: //www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in /images/ pdf/ publications
/preliminary-report/phailin.pdf. Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi
[8] IMD (2014). A Report On Very Severe Cyclonic Storm , HUDHUD over the Bay of
Bengal (07-14 October 2014) .http: //www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in /images/ pdf/
publications /preliminary-report/hud.pdf . Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi
[9] IS 800:1984. Indian Standard Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel, Bureau
of Indian standards, New Delhi
[10] IS 875 (Part3):1987 (Re affirmed 1997). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design
Loads (Other than Earthquake)for Buildings and Structures, Part-3,Wind loads, Bureau of
Indian standards, New Delhi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 272 editor@iaeme.com


A Study of K4 Factor Impact on Industrial and Post-Cyclonic Importance Structures

[11] IS 15498:2004.Guide lines for Improving the Cyclonic Resistance of Low Rise Houses
and other Buildings /Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[12] IS 800:2007.Indian Standard Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel, Bureau
of Indian standards, New Delhi.
[13] IS 875(Part3):2015, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures,Part-3,Wind loads, Bureau of Indian standards,
New Delhi.
[14] Iyer, Nagesh R. (2013), Contemporary Wind Engineering Studies in India. Proccedings of
the Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, Chennai, India. pp. 115-129.
[15] Jayaraman, A., Geetarani, R., Satya Kumar, N., Karthiga , Shebagam, N. (2014). Design
and Economical of Roof Trusses & Purlins (Comparison of limit state and working stress
method), International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology,03, pp. 199-
207.
[16] Kaur, Gurinder., Bansal, Rajewinder Singh., and Kumar, Sanjeev. (2016), Shape
Optimization of Roof Truss. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT), 5, pp. 696-700.
[17] Keote, S. A, Kumar, Dhanendra and Singh, Rishabh.(2015). Construction of Low Rise
Buildings in Cyclon Prone Areas and Modification of Cyclone. J. Energy Power Sources,
2, pp. 247-255.
[18] Mishra, Ashutosh(2014). “Temperature Rise and Trend of Cyclones Over the Eastern
Coastal Region of India, J Earth Sci Clim Change, 5(9), pp. 1-5, doi 10.4172/2157-
7617.1000227
[19] NDMA (2008). National Disaster Management Guide lines - Management of
Cyclones.,National Disaster Management Authority, New Delhi
[20] Patnaik, Pratyasha., Gairola, Ajay., and Gupta, Abhay. (2015). Cyclone -Resistant Design
of Buildings as per Indian Standards. Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on
Disaster Management of Civil Engineering (ICDMCE’2015), Phuket, Thailand. pp. 70-75.
[21] Pathak , Upendra., and Garg ,Vivek (2015). Optimization and Rationalization of truss
design. International Research journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 02,
pp.624-636.
[22] Raghavan, S., and Rajesh, S. (2003). Trends in Tropical Cyclone Impact: A Study in
Andhra Pradesh, India. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84(5), pp. 635-
644, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-84-5-635.
[23] SAAP 2000(14) software.3D Structural Analysis and Design Software.
[24] Suresh Kumar, K., Cini, C., and Sifton, Valerie. (2012). Assessment of design wind
speeds for metro cities of India. The Seventh International Colloquium on Bluff Body
Aerodynamics and Applications (BBAA7), Shanghai, China, September 2-6, 2012
[25] SP 38 (S&T) -1987. Hand Book of Typified design of the structures with steel roof Truss
(with & without cranes) Based on IS Codes, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[26] Tecle, A. S., Bitsuamalk, G. T, and ALY, M.A. (2013). Internal pressure in a low –rise
building with existing envelope openings and sudden breaching. Wind and Structures,
16(1), pp. 25-46.

[27] D. Yogeswar, Dr. C. Sashidhar, A Study on the Impact of Blast Loading for Nuclear
Explosion on Structures. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2),
2017, pp. 190-198

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 273 editor@iaeme.com

Centres d'intérêt liés