JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS BASED ON

IS 800-2007 AND IS 800-1984- COMPARISON
M. KRISHNAMOORTHY, D.TENSING
M.Tech (Structures) Student, PRIST University, Thanjavur
Principal, ASL Pauls College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore
dtensing@rediffmail.com, m.krishk@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: The design methodologies for the steel structures namely, working stress design method and limit
state design methods are briefly explained. The importance of limit state design method is highlighted. Columns
form the main component of a structure which serves the basic purpose of supporting and transmitting the
entire loads both vertical and horizontal for which the overall structure is intended to the foundation system.
Beams are generally subjected only to flexure about the horizontal axis whereas columns are subjected to axial
load along with bending moment about the major axis. The minor axis moment in columns are generally nil or
very nominal since in standard structural system, the columns are so oriented that the frames along the major
axis of the columns are moment resistant frames, and column bracings are provided in the frames along the
other perpendicular direction. This paper focuses entirely to the procedure involved in design of compression
members. Typical problem have been worked out using allowable stress design methods and limit state method
and comparative studies is made.

ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
With the development of linear elastic theories in the
19th century the stress-strain behavior of new
materials like wrought iron & mild steel could be
accurately represented. The first attainment of yield
stress of steel was generally taken to be the inset of
failure. The limitations due to non-linearity and
buckling were neglected. The allowable stress is
defined in terms of a factor of safety which
represented a margin for overload and other unknown
factors which could be tolerated by the structure.
Yield Stress
Allowable stress =
Factor of Safety
LIMIT STATE DESIGN
An improved design philosophy to make allowances
for the shortcomings in the allowable stress design
was developed in the late 1970s and has been
extensively corporated in design standards and codes
formulated in all the developed countries. Although
there are many variations between practices adopted
in different countries the basic concept is broadly
similar. The probability of operating conditions not
reaching failure conditions forms the basis of Limit
States Design adopted in all countries. Ultimate
limit states are those catastrophic states, which
require a larger reliability in order to reduce the
probability of its occurrence to a very low level.
Serviceability limit state refers to the limits on
acceptable performance of the structure.
LOAD AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
To design a structure, it is analyzed first for its
intended structural configuration and assumed
sectional properties against various loads individually
and in combination with each other in a way by
which the structure may be subjected any time or at
all time during the life of the structure for which is to
be built. The various primary loads and other
secondary effects required to be considered for Indian
condition m while computing maximum stresses in a
structure are mainly as follows
a) Dead load b) imposed load or live load c) wind
load d) seismic load e) erection load f) Secondary
effects due to contraction or expansion resulting from
temperature changes, shrinkage, creep in
compression members etc.
As a general approach, a structure is analyzed for all
the probable primary load cases and their
combinations are mentioned above. Only for special
structures or under stringent conditions, the
secondary effects are considered in the overall
analysis and in the design of connections of the
structural components. While designing a structure
using the popular Allowable stress design method,
the above load combinations are considered with an
individual load factor of unity. As per IS: 800-1984,
the permissible stress can be increased upto 33%,
whenever wind or seismic load is taken in to
consideration.
In the proposed Limit state method of design also the
above load combinations are considered, but with
variable load factors called the partial safety factor
for load as described in Table4. This variable load
factors basically account the loading and thus enable
to use steel efficiently and economically in different
structural systems.
Similarly, to determine the strength of the member to
be designed against the factored loads as described
above, a reduction factor for strength called partial
safety factor for material is taken into consideration,
which accounts for uncertainty in material strength
and quality as well as manufacture tolerance. Various
material safety factors as have been adopted in IS:
800-2007 are given in the table 5

ISSN: 0975 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1 Page 73

 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
The detail design procedure of compression member
using allowable stress design method as per IS: 800-
1984 and also limit state design method as per IS:
DESIGN PROCEDURES 800-2007 have been discussed with the help of
example and comparatives study as been done

DESIGN A MEMBER SUBJECTED HAVING A

SPAN OF 3M WHICH IS FIXED @ BOTH ENDS
LSM (As per IS: 800-2007) The section is Compact
Let us take ISMB 200 @ 254 N/m
Area = 3233mm2 Step 2: Determination of Effective Length
Depth (d) = 200mm Leff = 0.65 x 3000 = 1950mm
Width of flange (b) = 100mm
Thickness of the flange (tf) = 10.8mm, Step 3: Calculate the Slenderness Ratio
Thickness of the web (tw) = 5.7mm
Step 1: Type of the Section KL l x 1950
23.43
b

100
d
9.259 178 rx rx 83.2
t f 10.8
31.22
tw 5.7

ISSN: 0975 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1 Page 74

 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING

COMPARATIVE STUDY
KL l y 1950
90.69 In this study we have compared Columns fixed at
ry ry 21.5 both ends, column fixed at one end and hinged at
other, column pinned at both ends for a column
Step 4: Determination of Non Dimensional length of 2m, 2.25m, 2.5m, 2.75m, 3m, 3.25m, 3.5m,
3.75m & 4m and also Graphical study has done for
2 the Strength Vs Section and Strength Weight Ratio
KL Vs Section. The Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 show the
fy
fy r 250 x 23.432 comparative study of columns fixed at both ends of
x 0.26382m, 3m, and 4m length. The Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6
f cc E2
x 2 x10
2 5
show the comparison between the S/w ratio Vs
Section for a length of 2m, 3m and 4m. Similarly the
2
KL Fig.7 and Fig. 8 shows the section Vs the constants
fy like stress reduction factor, and effective
fy r 250 x 90.69 2
y 1 .020
slenderness ratio.
f cc 2
E 2 5
x 2 x10
COMPARISON OF LOAD CARRYING
Step 5: Calculation of CAPACITY VS DIFFERENT SECTIONS

0.51 0.2 2
0.51 .341.02 0.2 1.02 2 1.16
Step 6: Calculation of Stress Reduction Factor
1 1

2

2 0.5

[1.16 (1.16 2 1.02 2 )]
0.58

Step 7: Determination of design Compressive Stress

fcd
f y / mo Fig.1
f cd
2 =
2 0.5

fy f
y 132.64
mo mo
Step 8: Determination of Compressive stress Pd

Pd A f cd 428.82kN

WSM (As per IS: 800-1984)

Fig.2
Let us take ISMB 200 @ 254 N/m

Area = 3233mm2
Depth (d) = 200mm
Width of flange (b) = 100mm
Thickness of the flange (tf) = 10.8mm
Thickness of the web (tw) = 5.7mm

Step1: Determination of Effective Length

Leff = 3000 x 0.65= 1950

Fig.3
Step 2: maxleff/rmin = 83.33
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE STRENGTH
Step3: Calculation of Compressive Stress WEIGHT RATIO VS SECTION
ac = 89.4 N/mm2
Step 4: Load Carrying Capacity
ac x Area = 289.030 kN

ISSN: 0975 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1 Page 75

 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Fig: 4
Fig: 5
Fig: 6
From the chart it was found that the best fit curve for
describing the behavior of steel sections with respect
strength is two degree binomial. On comparison of
the strength of sections calculated using old and new
code, it was found that the strength increases with
ISSN: 0975 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1
increase in size of the sections to the maximum of
15%
From Fig.4, 5 &6, it was found that for ISMB
100,125 and 150 the strength-weight ratio was
approximately the same. For ISMB 150,
175,200,225,250 & 300 strength-weight ratio was
found to increase with increase in size of the sections.
For ISMB 300,350 and 400 the strength-weight ratio
remains the same and for ISMB 400,450,500,550 and
600, it was found to increase with increase in size of
the sections.
Fig. 7 & 8 shows the curves drawn for the Stress
Reduction factor, inclination of tension field and
effective slenderness ratio with respect to different
Indian Standard Medium Beams.
Fig: 7
Fig: 8
CONCLUSION
1. The load carrying capacity of the compression
members as per IS 800-2007 is controlled by stress
reduction factor, inclination of tension field stress in
web and effective slenderness ratio. The slenderness
ratio is inversely proportional to the stress reduction
factor. The design compressive stress is directly
proportional to stress reduction factor.
Page 76
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2. In IS 800-1984 for the design of compression
member is controlled by slenderness ratio which is
inversely proportional to the permissible stress in
axial compression.
3. The percentage increase in load carrying capacity
as per IS 800-1984 is marginally higher than IS 800-
2007. The maximum increase was found to be a
maximum of 5%.
4. The behavior of steel sections with respect to load
carrying capacity follows two degree binomial curve
for the design of sections as per both the codes.
5. The behavior of steel sections under strength-
weight ratio is controlled by the weight per unit
length.
6. The load carrying capacity of built-up columns
using ISA sections for various back to back widths as
well as for various lengths were found to vary for
smaller sections and for higher sections the values
become same irrespective of change in widths or
lengths.
REFERENCES
1.Arijit Guha and Dr.T.K. Bandyopandhya,
Structural Member Design Based on Draft IS: 800
(Limit State Method), Insdags steel journal,
Institute for steel development & Growth, Jan 2004,
Volume5.
2. N. Pandian, Arul Jayachandran, S. Seetharamal,
Structural Efficiencies of New Indian Wide Flanged
Sections Compared With the Existing Rolled
Sections, Insdags Steel Journal, Institute for steel
development & Growth, Jan 2004, Volume5.
3.Rangachar Narayanan, V.Kalayanarman, etal
Teaching Resource on Structural Steel Design
Volume 1 of 3, Institute For Steel Development &
Growth.
4.Indian Standard General Construction in Steel-
Code of Practice IS: 800-2007, December 2007.
5.Indian Standard General Construction in Steel-
Code of Practice IS: 800-1984.

ISSN: 0975 6744| NOV 11 TO OCT 12 | Volume 2, Issue 1 Page 77