Design of Steel structures

Course Project

Chakshu Gautam 4/17/2012 2011 CES 3018

Abstract This project is done to comprehend and compare various types of analysis that are currently in practice in IS 800:2007. The project solves a simple problem of steel structure having 2 bays and 3 stories for linear, nonlinear (both geometric and material), first order, second order, and time history analysis. The analysis was done on SAP2000 v15 as suggested and the source files are attached in the CD provided. The same frame was then taken and subsequently analyzed for pinned end connection rather than fixed ones. A comparison has been made and shown the variation in the forces due to different types of analysis. The modeling of steel was done based on the Fe250 given in the Indian Standards and has been shown. The members have also been checked for safety (both strength and serviceability) and stability as per IS 800. The pushover analysis is also done to show the failure of structure in extreme deflection cases. Material Modeling The material used for the analysis and design was Fe250. The properties of which are as given below: Modulus of Elasticity Poissons Ratio Max Yield Stress Max Tensile Stress Weight per unit volume Shear Modulus Hysteresis Type = = = = = = = 2e8 0.3 250000 410000 76.9729 76923077 Kinematic

Fig 1 Model for Kinematic Hysteresis model [1]

Here the kinematic smooth hysteretic model was used which has the following properties: a. Accounts for bauschingers effect. b. Applicable for materials with linear strain hardening. The stress strain curve for steel is as shown below:

Fig 2 Stress Strain curve for steel

Structural Modeling The modeling of intermediate frame of the structure was done and the forces being calculated. The frame was modeled as plane frame in XZ global axis and the sections assigned were as per the given problem. The model and section assignments were easily incorporated in the structure during the initialization of the frame properties and section definitions. The elements were modeled as cener line. The frame is as shown below:

Fig 3 Plane Frame model and section assignments

Section Properties a. Beam Section ISMB 600

A (mm2) Bf (mm) tf (mm) 15621 210 20.8

tw (mm) Ixx (mm4) Iyy (mm4) Zexx (mm3) Zeyy (mm3) Zpxx (mm3)

12.0 918130000 26510000 3060400 252500 3510630

b. Box Section
A (mm2) Ixx (mm4) Iyy (mm4) Zexx (mm3) Zeyy (mm3) pxx (mm3) Zpyy (mm3) The figures of the sections defined are as follows 30976.00 1210707285.33 1210707286.33 4842829.14 4842829.14 5624192.00 5624192.00

Fig 4 Section details of box and beam sections

Load Calculations
Intensity a. DEAD LOAD (Concrete Slab) Thickness (m) Density (KN/m3) Total (KN/m2) 0.3 25 7.5 Notes Assumed From IS 875:Part 1 Thk*density

b. LIVE LOAD Total (KN/m2) c. WIND LOAD K1 K2 K3 Vb(m/s) Cpi Cpe Cpe-Cpi Vz(m/s) Pz(KN/m2) W(m) Load (KN/m) d. EARTHQUAKE LOADS Zone Zone Factor (Z) I R H D T Soil Conditions Sa/g Ah 4 .24 1 4 12 12 .55 Soft 2.5 .075 Importance Factor Response Reduction Factor Height of building Width of building .085*H.075(For framed structure without Infills) Assumed From graph in IS 1893 1 1.05 1 47 0.7 -0.8 1.5 49.35 2.19 6 52.56 IS 1893 Delhi K1*K2*K3*Vb 0.6*Vz2*( Cpe-Cpi)/1000 Width of structure 5 Given From IS 875:Part 3 Risk coefficient (Given) Height factor (Given) Topography factor (Given) (Given) External Pressure Coefficient(For openings more than 20 percent) Assumed in this case

The dead load of slab was distributed as a triangular load on beams using the tributary method as given in IS456. The live load on the slab was distributed similarly. The distribution of Dead and live loads is as shown in the figures 5 and 6.

Fig 5 Dead Loads

Fig 6 Live Loads

The shear force in each frame due to earthquake loads is calculated using the procedure given in 4.2.1.2 in IS 1893.The detailed calculations are given in Annexure A. The forces came out to be 9.44, 37.77, 63.73 KN for floors 1, 2, 3 respectively.

Fig 7 Wind Loads

Fig 8 Earthquake Loads

Load Combinations The following load combinations were used in the analysis of the frame:
Name UDSTL1 UDSTL2 UDSTL3 UDSTL4 UDSTL5 UDSTL6 UDSTL7 UDSTL8 UDSTL9 UDSTL10 UDSTL11 UDSTL12 UDSTL13 UDSTL14 UDSTL15 UDSTL16 UDSTL17 Dead Load 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 1.5 -1.5 1.2 2.5 -2.5 -2.5 2.5 -1.5 1.5 Live Load 1.2 1.5 1.5 -1.5 1.5 -1.5 Wind Load Earthquake Load -1.2 Notes IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 87 IS 800:2007 pg. 87 IS 800:2007 pg. 87 IS 800:2007 pg. 87 IS 800:2007 pg. 87 IS 800:2007 pg. 87 IS 800:2007 pg. 29 IS 800:2007 pg. 29

ANALYSIS As given in section 4 of IS:800, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the limit states of stability, strength, and serviceability the following assumptions are made. a. Regular building structures, with orthogonal frames in plan, may be analyzed as a series of parallel two dimensional sub structures the analysis being carried out in each of the two directions at right angles to each other. b. When beams at a floor level in a multi bay building structure are considered as a substructure the bending moment at the support of the beam due to gravity loads may be determined based on the assumption that beam is fixed at the far end, one span away from the span under consideration. Both these assumptions were satisfied during the analysis and modeling.

Fig 9 Comparison of different analysis methods

I)

First-Order Elastic Analysis

This is the most basic method of analysis, in which the material is modeled as linear elastic and equilibrium is expressed in terms of the geometry of the undeformed structure. Thus by definition this method excludes non linearity, but it generally represents the loads very well. A first order analysis is sufficient for normal framed structures which are braced against sway.[4] The following assumptions are made: a. The materials behave linearly and hence all yielding effects are ignored. b. P- effects are ignored. c. The frame instability effects caused by moments due to horizontal frame deflections and gravity loads acting on the displaced structures are ignored.