A REPORT

ON

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF

TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMN
-A CASE STUDY
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the award of the degree

Masters of Engineering
[Structural Engineering]

Supervised by: Co-Supervised by: Submitted by:

Prof. R.K. KHARE PROF.NIKUNJ BINNANI GOVIND SAGAR JOSHI
CE& AMD Assistant Professor 0801CE20ME08
S.G.S.I.T.S. Indore CE & AMD CE & AMD

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND APPLIED MECHANICS

SHRI G. S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE,
INDORE (M.P.)

i
SHRI G. S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, INDORE (M.P.)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND APPLIED MECHANICS
A Govt. Aided Autonomous Institute
Affiliated to R.G.P.V., Bhopal

RECOMMENDATION

We are pleased to recommend that the dissertation entitled “Seismic

behaviour of long span roof truss structure supported on rcc column -a
case study” submitted by Govind Sagar Joshi may be accepted in partial
fulfillment of the degree of Master of Engineering (Structural Engineering) of
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M.P.) during 2021-2022.

Supervised by: Co-Supervised by: Submitted by:

Prof. R.K. KHARE PROF.NIKUNJ BINNANI GOVIND SAGAR JOSHI
CE& AMD Assistant Professor 0801CE20ME08
S.G.S.I.T.S. Indore CE & AMD CE & AMD
Forwarded by:
Dean Academics
S.G.S.I.T.S, Indore (M.P.)

ii
SHRI G. S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, INDORE (M.P.)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND APPLIED MECHANICS
A Govt. Aided Autonomous Institute
Affiliated to R.G.P.V., Bhopal

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “Seismic behaviour of

long span roof truss structure supported on rcc column -a case study”
submitted by Govind Sagar Joshi is accepted in partial fulfillment of the degree
of Master of Engineering (Structural Engineering) of Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki
Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal during 2021-2022.

Internal Examiner External Examiner

Date: Date:

iii
 DECLARATION

I, Govind Sagar Joshi, student of M.E. (Structural Engineering), CE-

AMD, SGSITS declares that the dissertation entitled “Seismic behaviour of
long span roof truss structure supported on rcc column -a case study” is my
own work conducted under the supervision of , Prof.R.K.Khare Professor
Civil Engg. & Applied Mechanics Department, S.G.S.I.T.S. Indore (M.P.).

I further declare that to the best of my knowledge that this dissertation

work does not contain any part which has been submitted for the award of any
degree or any work either in this University or in any other University/ website
without proper citation.

Signature of the candidate: ______________________________

Name of the candidate: ______________________________

Enrollment No.: ______________________________

Date: ______________________________

iv
 CONTENT

Chapter Description Page No.

List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii

1. Introduction 8
1.1 General 8
1.2 long span roof truss 8
1.3 Structural Framing For An Long
11
Span Roof Truss Building
1.3 Shock Transmission Units
1.4 Use Of STUs 12

2. Literature Review 16

3. Critiques 19
4 Objective of the study 20
5 Methodology 21
6 Problem Formulation 22
7.1 Models 22
7.2 Loadings 23

7 Expected Outcomes 32

8 References 33

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Description of Figure Page No.

Figure 1 King post roof truss 9

Figure 2 Queen post roof truss 10
Figure 3 Types of trusses 10
Figure 4 Structural framing of an long span roof truss building 11
A wide base building comprising sections with STUs installed
Figure 5 13
at expansion joints,
An STU is installed at the expansion joint of a multi-span
Figure 6 14
building
Figure 7 An STU installed in the multi-span building 14
A Buildings subjected to pounding problems connected with
Figure 8 15
STUs
Figure 9 Three dimensional view (ISBT Indore) 22
Figure 10 3D rendering view of ISBT (side view) 23

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description of Tables Page No.

Table 1 List of codes referred 23

Table 2 List of loads applied 24
Table 3 List of load combinations 25

vii
SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
Long span roofs are generally defined as those that exceed 12 m in span. Long span roofs can
create flexible, column-free internal spaces and can reduce substructure costs and
construction times. They are commonly found in a wide range of building types such as
factories, warehouses, agricultural buildings, hangars, large shops, public halls, gymnasiums
and arenas. Their primary functions are, similar to normal roofs, typically, protecting against
the weather, restricting the spread of fire, providing sound and thermal insulation and so on.
However, as they are the structural system which provides support for building services,
access routes, lifting equipment, lighting, and so on.

1.2 Long span roof Truss

Trusses are triangulated plane frames spaced at suitable centres. To prevent spreading, the
rafters, which form the top edge of the truss are connected at their feet by a tie member.
Bracing is provided within the basic triangle by using struts and ties. Purlins are fixed
between the trusses to which roof coverings can be attached. Trusses comprise assemblies of
tension and compression elements. Under gravity loads, the top and bottom chords of the
truss provide the compression and tension resistance to overall bending, and the bracing
resists the shear forces.
They are often made from steel sections, connected together with bolts or by welding to
shaped plates called gussets.
Steel trussmembers are usually angle sections since they are economic and accept both tensile
and compressive stresses.
Steel is often preferred due to its high strength and because it will not spread fire over its
surface.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 8 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Common type of roof trusses are-

King post roof truss:-These trusses have a greater depth at the mid-span. Due to this even
though the overall bending effect is larger at mid-span, the chord member and web member
stresses are smaller closer to the mid-span and larger closer to the supports.

Figure 1 King post roof truss

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 9 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Figure 2 Queen post roof truss

Figure 3 different type of truss

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 10 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

1.3 Structural Framing For An Steel Long Span Roof Truss Building
The components of industrial steel buildings are broadly divided into the following parts,
namely:

a) Main Frame / Primary System

b) Secondary Frame / Secondary System
c) Wind Bracing
d) Exterior Cladding
e) Accessories

Figure 4 Structural framing of PEB building

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 11 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

1.4 Shock Transmission Units (STUs)

Shock Transmission device are device that could distribute suddenly applied horizontal
forces (due to earthquake, wind storm, etc.) on a multi span structure between its various
substructure elements, they are more frequently used to withstand the effects of earthquakes.
It is therefore appropriate to consider STUs as part of present-day seismic protection systems,
which include seismic isolation and energy-dissipation devices.STU permits seismic energy
resulting from an earthquake event to enters the structure at as many locations as possible.
Thus the distribution of stress will be constant over the entire structure in order to avoid
significant energy accumulation at only a few structural locations. In case of seismic event
STUs behaves like a rigid device distributing the horizontal seismic to several structural
elements.therefore the capacity of the structure to store elastic and kinetic energy is
increased, and the resulting structural displacements are smaller than for those structures
without STUs

In case of medium to severe seismic events the distribution of the energy input to several
structural locations is not sufficient to protect the structure, thus for seismic protection in
such case the concept of energy mitigation or energy disposition needs to be applied by the
means of additional damping devices.

1.5 Use Of Shock Transmission Units In Long Span Roof Structures

When there is a long span structure comprising sections of different heights, it is necessary to
provide expansion joints to allow for the deflection due to temperature variation. In such
cases, STUs can be placed between the expansion joints, to tie them together during a seismic
event but allowing them to move together due to temperature effects ,

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 12 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Figure 5 A wide base building comprising sections with STUs installed at expansion joints, allowing
temperature variations under service load condition

STUs can be used to connect a large roof structure having many sections separated by
expansion joints. Expansion joints are necessary in such a large roof structure to allow
expansion and contraction due to temperature variations. Unfortunately, the presence of
expansion joints reduces the rigidity of a roof, and hence its capacity to resist wind storm and
seismic forces. When connected by STUs, such a roof structure can expand and contract
without any interference, while holding the roof sections together as a single unit during an
earthquake or wind storm event, and thereby making it structurally stronger to resist such
dynamic forces.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 13 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Figure 6 An STU is installed at the expansion joint of a multi-span building

Figure 7 Showing An STU installed in the multi-span building

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 14 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Structures close to one another in a seismic or wind storm area are subjected to ‘pounding’
problems. In such buildings, having either a fixed-base or a base-isolated structure, pounding
can be avoided by connecting the buildings with STUs at the top

Figure 8 A Buildings subjected to pounding problems connected with STUs

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 15 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Dhiraj Ahiwale et. al (2020)-This study considered various field evidences of damage
of structures due to vertical component of ground motion for near-fault earthquakes and
therefore the importance of inclusion of effect of vertical component of earthquake in seismic
design has been recognized as equally important as horizontal component of earthquake.

From this study, it is concluded that response of truss under vertical ground motion is critical
for ground motions having V/H ratio more than 1 and therefore the long-span structure in
near-fault zone should be considered separately in design rather than taken as 2/3 of
horizontal acceleration.

Aijaz Ahmad Zende and others (2013)- In this study the comparative study of static
and dynamic analysis and design of Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEB) and Conventional steel
frames is done.This study discusses the various advantages of pre-engineered buildings and
also, with the help of various examples, a comparison will be made between pre-engineered
buildings and conventional steel structures.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 16 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

This study PEB structures weighs 10% lesser than that of Conventional Buildings. also “Pre-
Engineered Building Construction gives the end users a much more economical and better
solution for long span structures where large column free areas are needed”.

Roshni Ramakrishnan (2021). Carried out a comparative study between Pre-

Engineered building and truss arrangement steel building for varying spans and hence arrive
at an economical configuration for a given span.
By this study it is understood that PEB is more economical than CSB for mid and large span
industrial building structures in the range of 40-90m. It was deduced that the size of steel
cross sections was greatly influenced by the serviceability requirements in CSB models,
hence giving comparatively lesser economy in steel take off as compared to PEB. The
conclusion is that due to the rigidity of the joints model members carried lesser forces than
CSB and also due to the variation of member profiles along the length,there was more
economy in material in PEB than in CSB

Kavya Rao et al. (2014).- This study carried out a comparitive study between Pre-
Engineered building and conventional steel building.The observation is PEB reduces steel
used by 36% than that required by conventional steel building. The analysis forces are lesser
in PEB as compared to Conventional Steel Building. Since the reactions in PEB are lesser
due to lighter sections used,foundations are comparitively lighter. also 30% cost reduction
was observed in PEB as compared to CSB

MertolTüfekci and others (2020).This study investigated the failure of the roof, with
steel truss construction, of a factorybuilding in which failure occurred under hefty weather
conditions including lightningstrikes, heavy rain, and fierce winds.This study aimed to study
a case in which a sudden partial failure of a steel truss roof of a factory built in July 2011
happened during heavy weather conditions on 22 October 2012 in the northwestern part of
Turkey.According to analysis, the structure is quite strong and insensitive to the vertical dead
loads (rain, snow, etc.) even at some higher values, which are judged to be extreme and
unrealistic.

Goraviyala Yogesh et. Al (2016). This paper involves the study of comparative
analysis of a truss using tubular and angled sections under the influence of usual loading
values.Steel roof trusses with different span has 9m, 12m, 15m, 18m and 21m, with varying
slopes like 12, 14 and 16 degrees with different wind zones, different spacing have been
analyze and design as per SP: 38 and IS: 800-2007.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 17 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

A. Jayaraman et. Al (2014).- This paper presents a study on behavior and economical
of roof trusses and purlins by comparison of limit state and working stress method.This paper
presents a study on behavior and economical of fink type roof trusses, channel section
purlins.
This study concluded that the total roofing load configuration is same in both the working
stress and limit state method. The conclusion also deduced that area of section is 37% needed
for limit state method in compare to the working stress method.

Yue Yin et.al (2019).

This study discusses the pushover analysis for a long-span steel truss structure.In this paper,
pushover analysis was adopted to determine the seismic behavior of a long-span steel truss
structure under severe earthquakes.

Swapnil N. Dhande et. Al.

ThIS study propose innovative and effective structural technology and methodology for the
seismic control which can be used in new as well as old building structure.
The research work studies the response of Non-linear time history analysis (NLTHA) of 3D
industrial steel buildings braced with different bracing configurations using Sap-2000 under
Bhuj earthquake.
Conclusion is Bracing configuration in braced frames reduces the natural time period of
vibration.

F. Petruzzelli et. al (2012) -This study focus on seismic modelling and analysis of an
steel industrial building and some issues which emerged to be important in order to evaluate
seismic performances.
This study discuss and presents results from nonlinear static and dynamic analysis, both in
terms of global drift and member force demand.
Conclude that the behaviour in case of fully active transverse bracing is not necessarily better
than the behavior of individual frames at large earthquake intensity , because of P-Delta
effects generating a larger negative post -peak stiffness in the 3D model.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 18 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 3
CRITIQUES

Based on literature reviews on seismic behaviour of long span roof truss structure it is seen
that some problems are still not taken into consideration and there are still many challenges in
designing .The scope for further studies in this area are as follows-
 To determine missing parametres ignored in design
 The response of truss for verticle component of ground motion for structures in near fault
earthquake zones.
 There are number of works related on comaparative studies of PEB structures and
conventional steel frames but very less work has been done on seismic performance of
long span roof truss strcutures

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 19 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 4
OBJECTIVES

Objectives of this study are following

 Equivalent static analysis and designing considering wind and earthquake
loads.
 Response spectrum analysis
 Maximum damage of structure under seismic event.
 Use of shock transmission units (STU) in long span structures.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 20 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY

For the research work Inter State Bus Terminal building (ISBT) located in Indore for a long
span roof truss structure is considered. The steel truss building of plan dimension 70.40m X
164.45m is analyze by Staad pro V8i structural analysis and design software.The analysis of
the structure provides results of various parameters to be checked for stability and
serviceability of the structure.
In the research work analysis of model is performed using Staad pro software to do the linear
static analysis of the structure.
To achieve this following methodology is adopted

 Studying of various literature reviews available on seismic behavior of long span roof
truss structures.
 Modelling the structure in Staad pro V8i software.
 All structural members will be designed following guide lines of the codes mentioned
in section-
 Load calculation and application as per accordance with various IS codes
 Linear static and linear dynamic (Response spectrum analysis) is performed.
 Various parameters to be checked for stability and serviceability of the structure like
deflection, torsion, drift effects.
 Use of shock transmission units (STUs) in long span roof truss structure.
 Maximum damage/response of structure (fragility analysis) is done for the structure
under an seismic event.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 21 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 6
PROBLEM FORMULATION

The newly constructed ISBT is located at Super Corridor MR-10 Indore. Proposed bus
terminal will be B+G+1 floor. The plan dimension of building 70.40m X 164.45m, to neglect
the effect of temperature stress building divided into 3 separate parts, first part (70.40m X
50.65m), Second part (70.40m X 50.15m), Third Part (70.40m X 63.65m), entire building is
covered with PEB shed. The site falls under seismic zone 3
STAAD structural analysis and design software used to analyze the structure.

.6.1 MODEL

Y
X
Z Load 11

Fig 9 Three dimensional Rendering view (ISBT Indore)

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 22 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Figure 10 . 3D rendering view of ISBT (side view)

6.2Codes and Standards:

1. IS 800: 1984 Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel. (Old

code
2. IS 800: 2007 Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel. (New
code).
3 IS 875 (Part I and II) - Code of Practice for Design Dead and Live Loads
1987
4 IS 875 (Part III) - Code of Practice for Design Loads Other than
2015 Earthquake such as Wind Loads (For Buildings and
Structures
5 IS 456: 2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice

6 SP: 16: Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS: 456-1978.

Table 1. list of codes referred

6.3 Units of Measurements

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 23 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

All Dimensions used in drawings are in Millimetres and Levels.are in Meters.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 24 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

6.4LOAD COMBINATIONS .
Following load combinations are adopted as per IS 456, IS875 and IS1893-
LOAD CASES
1. . Dead Load (DL)

2. . Live Load (LL)

3. Soil Load (SL)

4. EQX (X- dir. earthquake with eccentricity as per code –site E-W direction)

5. EQZ (Z- dir. earthquake with eccentricity as per code- site N-S direction)

6. WLL+0.5P
WLL-0.5P
WLR+0.5P
WIND LOAD WLR-0.5P
WLG-0.5P
WLG+0.5P
WLG (+0.5P) 270
WLG (-0.5P) 270

Table 2 . list of load applied

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 25 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

6.5 LOAD COMBINATIONS (COLLAPSE)

1. 1.50(DL+ LL) 21. 1.5 (DL+ EQZ)
2. 1.20(DL+LL+ WLL+0.5P) 22. 1.5 (DL- EQZ)
3. 1.20(DL+LL+ WLL-0.5P 23. 1.20 (DL+LL+EQX)
4. 1.20 (DL+LL+ WLR+0.5P) 24. 1.20 (DL+LL+ EQZ)
5. 1.20 (DL+LL+ WLR-0.5P) 25. 1.20 (DL+LL+EQ-X)
6. 1.20 (DL+LL+WLG+0.5P) 26. 1.20 (DL+LL+ EQ -Z)
7. 1.20 (DL+LL+WLG-0.5P) 27. (0.9 D. L.) + (1.5 EQX)
8. 1.20 (DL+LL+WLG+0.5P) 28. (0.9 D. L.) – (1.5 EQX)
9. 1.20 (DL+LL+WLG-0.5P) 29. (0.9 D. L.) +(1.5 EQZ)
10. 1.50 (DL+WLL+0.5P) 30. (0.9 D. L.) – (1.5EQZ)
11. 1.50 (DL+WLL-0.5P) 31. (0.90DL+1.50WLL+0.5P)
12. 1.50 (DL+WLR+0.5P) 32. (0.90DL+1.50WLL-0.5P)
13. 1.50 (DL+WLR-0.5P) 33. (0.90DL+1.50WLR+0.5P)
14. 1.50 (DL+WLG+0.5P) 34. (0.90DL+1.50WLR-0.5P)
15. 1.50 (DL+WLG-0.5P) 35. (0.90DL+1.50WLG+0.5P)
16. 1.50 (DL+WLG-0.5P) 36. (0.90DL+1.50WLG-0.5P)
17. 1.50 Dl 37. ( 0.90DL+1.50WLG+0.5P)
18. 1.5 (DL+ EQX) 38. ( 0.90DL+1.50WLG-0.5P)
19. 1.5 (DL+ EQX) 39. 1.50 (DL+SL)
20. 1.5 (DL- EQX)

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 26 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

6.6 LOAD COMBINATIONS (SERVICIABILITY )

1. (DL+ L. L.) 18. 1.0DL

2. 1.0DL+0.80LL+ 0.80WLL+0.5P) 19. 1.0(DL+ EQX)
3. 1.0DL+0.80LL+ 0.80WLL-0.5P) 20. 1.0(DL+ EQ-X)
4. 1.0DL+0.80LL+ 0.80WLR+0.5P) 21. 1.0(DL+ EQZ)
5.. 1.0DL+0.80LL+ 0.80WLR-0.5P) 22. 1.0(DL+ EQ-Z)
6. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80WLG+0.5P) 23. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80EQX
7. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80WLG-0.5P) 24. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80EQ-X
8. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80WLG+0.5P) 25. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80EQY
9. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80WLG-0.5P) 26. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80EQ-Y
10. 1.0DL+1.0WLL+0.5P) 27. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80WNX
11. 1.0DL+1.0WLL-0.5P) 28. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80WN-X
12. 1.0DL+1.0WLR+0.5P) 29. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80WNY
13. 1.0DL+1.0WLR-0.5P) 30. 1.0DL+0.80 L.L. + 0.80WN-Y
14. 1.0DL+1.0WLG+0.5P) 31. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80EQZ
15. 1.0DL+1.0WLG-0.5P) 32. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80EQ-Z
16. 1.0DL+1.0WLG+0.5P) 33. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80EQX
17. 1.0DL+1.0WLG-0.5P) 34. 1.0DL+0.80LL+0.80EQ-X

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 27 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

6.7 LOADS CONSIDERED

6.7.1 Dead Load (DL):
Self-weight of members modelled.

Main Frame
Roof sheet =8 kg/m2
Roof sheets with overlaps (20%) = 1.6 kg/m2
Nuts and bolt = 3.5 kg/m2
Sag rods =1 kg/m2
Bracing rods =3 kg/m2
Cleats for purlin fixing to primary member = 0.4 kg/m2
MISC erection loads, and screws etc. =2 kg/m2
Collateral load = 100 kg/m2
Total Load 119.5 kg/m2=1.2 kN/m2

Purlins Spacing =1m

U.D.L. over purlins = 1.2 x 1 = 1.2 kN/m

Canopy Frame
Roof sheet =8 kg/m2
Roof sheets with overlaps (20%) = 1.6 kg/m2
Nuts and bolt = 3.5 kg/m2
Sag rods =1 kg/m2
Bracing rods =3 kg/m2
Cleats for purlin fixing to primary member = 0.4 kg/m2
MISC erection loads, and screws etc. =2 kg/m2
Collateral load = 50 kg/m2
Total Load 69.5 kg/m2= 0.7 kN/m2

Purlins Spacing =1m

U.D.L. over purlins = 0.7 x 1 = 0.7 kN/m

6.7.2 Live Load (LL):

Live Load on Roofs =75 Kg /m2

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 28 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

6.7.3 Wind Load Calculations: IS 875 (Part-III):2015

Main Frame
Basic wind speed,
Risk Coefficient,
Terrain Category-2,
Topography Factor,
Importance Factor,
Design wind velocity, Vz
Wind pressure, Pz
Vb = 47.0 m/sec (Indore)
K1 = 1.07 (100 years)
K2 = 1.07(20m Ht)
K3 = 1.0 (Flat)
K4 = 1.0 (non-cyclonic region)
= 47x 1.07 x 1.07 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 53.81 m/sec
= {0.6 x (53.81)2}/1000 = 1.737kN/m2

Design wind pressure, pd = Kd * Ka * Kc * pz

Wind Directionality Factor, Kd = 0.9 (framed structure)
Area Averaging Factor, Ka = 1
Combination Factor, Kc = 0.9

Design wind pressure, pd = 0.9 x 1 x 0.9 x 1.737 = 1.407kN/m2

Percentage opening > 20%

Internal Pressure = +0.7
Internal Suction = -0.7

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 29 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Wind Load on Roof

External Pressure Coefficient (Cpe) for Curved Roof (Table 18, IS 875-3: 2015)
H/L = 0.1
Wind Cp
Angle e
-
0o 0.8
-
90o 0.7

Wind Direction WL +X Dir WL -X Dir WL +Z Dir WL -Z Dir

Cpi 0.7 -0.7 0.7 -0.7 0.7 -0.7 0.7 -0.7
Cpnet -1.5 -0.1 -1.5 -0.1 -1.4 0 -1.4 0
Wind Force -
(kN/m) -2.11 -0.14 -2.11 -0.14 1.97 0.00 -1.97 0.00

Wind Load on Columns

Force Coefficient (Cf) for column (Table 25, IS 875-3: 2015)
Cf = 1.2
Wind force on column = 1.2 x 0.22 x1.407 = 0.371 kN/m
Canopy Frame
Basic wind speed, Vb = 47.0 m/sec (Indore)
Risk Coefficient, K1 = 1.07 (100 years)
Terrain Category-2, K2 = 1.0 (10m Ht)
Topography Factor, K3 = 1.0 (Flat)
Importance Factor, K4 = 1.0 (non-cyclonic region)
Design wind velocity, Vz = 47x 1.07 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 50.29 m/sec
Wind pressure, Pz = {0.6 x (50.29)2}/1000 = 1.517kN/m2

Design wind pressure, pd = Kd * Ka * Kc * pz

Wind Directionality Factor, Kd = 0.9 (framed structure)
Area Averaging Factor, Ka = 1
Combination Factor, Kc = 0.9

Design wind pressure, pd = 0.9 x 1 x 0.9 x 1.517 = 1.229kN/m2

Percentage opening > 20%

Internal Pressure = +0.7
Internal Suction = -0.7

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 30 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

Wind Load on Roof

External Pressure Coefficient (Cpe) for Curved Roof (Table 18, IS 875-3: 2015)
H/L = 0.2
Wind Angle Cpe
0o -0.9
90o -0.7

Wind Direction WL +X Dir WL -X Dir WL +Z Dir WL -Z Dir

Cpi 0.7 -0.7 0.7 -0.7 0.7 -0.7 0.7 -0.7
Cpnet -1.6 -0.2 -1.6 -0.2 -1.4 0 -1.4 0
Wind Force - - - -0. - 0.0 - 0.0
(kN/m) 1.97 0.25 1.97 25 1.72 0 1.72 0

6.8 Seismic Load

Zone factor (Z) = 0.16 (For Seismic zone III)
Importance factor (I) = 1.5
Response Reduction Factor (RF) = 3 (OMRF)
Soil Structure Interaction (SS) = 2 (Medium
soil)
Structure Type (ST) = 2 (Steel frame)
Damping = 0.02 (2 % for Steel structure)

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 31 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 32 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 7
EXPECTED OUTCOMES

Following are the expected outcomes of present study-

 Behaviour of long span roof truss structure under seismic event.
 Emphasisis of effect of boundary conditions for long span roof truss structure.


M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 33 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF LONG SPAN ROOF TRUSS STRUCTURE SUPPORTED ON RCC COLUMNS 2021-22

CHAPTER 8
REFERENCES

1.Robert Englekirk (1994)- STEEL STRUCTURES controlling behavior through design.

2.Dale C. Perry, Herbert S. Saffir, James R. McDonald(1990)- “Performance of Metal

Buildings in High Winds”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.

3.Goran Alpsten(2008)- Causes of structural failures with steel structures

4.Syed Firoz, Sarath Chandra Kumar B, S.Kanakambara Rao(2012)- ” Design Concept of
Pre Engineered Building.
6.IS 456 (2000). Plain And Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice (Fourth Revision).BIS,
New Delhi, India.
7.IS 800 (2007). General Construction In Steel — Code of Practice (Third Revision). BIS,
New Delhi, India.
8.IS 875. (Part 1) (1987). Code Of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For
Buildings And Structures, Part 1 Dead Loads - Unit Weights Of Building Materials And
Stored Materials (Second Revision). BIS, New Delhi, India.
9. IS 875. (Part 3) (2015). Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures — Code of Practice. Part 3 Wind Loads (Third Revision). BIS, New Delhi, India.
10.IS 1893. (Part 1) (2016). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1
General provisions and buildings (Sixth Revision). BIS, New Delhi, India.

M.E. [Structural Engineering] Page 34 CE-AMD, S.G.S.I.T.S., INDORE