IS: 800 – Indian Code of Practice for

Construction in Steel

Comparison with International Codes

Arijit Guha
Sr.Manager (Civil & Structural)
&
Manas Mohon Ghosh
Sr.Manager (Civil & Structural)

Institute for Steel Development & Growth

• TOPICS COVERED
 INTRODUCTION

 BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN

METHODOLOGIES

 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)

 IS 800 (2007) & OTHER INTERNATIONAL

CODES

 CONCLUSIONS
 INTRODUCTION
• Codes & Standards provides specifications and
stipulations for state-of-the-art design to be put into
practice.
• Codes and Standards pertaining to Steel Design must be
 Understandable
 Shall be based on good structural theory
 Shall deal with elastic instability, dynamic loads and fatigue

• IS 800 --- Basic Code for Design of Steel Structures

• The code was last revised in the year 2007 prior to which
it was in 1984.
 INTRODUCTION
• Almost all countries have adopted more efficient
techniques of design based on various efficient codes.
• The current practice all over the world is based on Limit
State Method (LSM) or Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) method.
• Country wise practice of design procedure is given in
Table 1.

Table: 1 Countries and their Design Format

Australia, Canada, Limit State Method (LSM)

China, Europe, U.K.,
Japan
U. S. A Load and Resistance factor Design
(LRFD) Method & Allowable Stress
Design (ASD)
India Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
 INTRODUCTION

• LSM has become the design philosophy in

most of the International design standards.

• LSM design ensures

Rationality in Design
Economy of Design

• It was also felt that this modification would

render steel design novel and will facilitate
accuracy of design.
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES

A. ASD METHODS
• Unit stress is not allowed to exceed a pre-defined
allowable stress,
 factual < fallowable where

• The allowable stress is defined by a limiting stress

divided by a factor of safety
 fallowable = (fy / Fs)
(fy = minimum yield stress and Fs = factor of Safety)
• factual is determined using a load factor of 1.0 for all load
combinations.
• Factor of safety (Fs) is fixed.
 BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
• ASD METHODS (Contd.)
• No matter how variable the loads are in terms of frequency
or magnitude, the factor of safety is always the same.
• Advanced knowledge about strength of materials beyond
yield point and its plastic plateau led to the development of
LSM as an alternative to ASD.
• A better way than “Effective length” methods can also be
adopted using Merchant – Rankine approach to find the
limiting load of the whole structure.
• 1/Plimit = 1/Pfield + 1/Pcritical
• Where, Plimit, Pfield, and Pcritical are the factored limit load of
the structure, load at plastic collapse ignoring instability,
and the elastic critical load of the structure respectively.
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
B. LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)
• The Limit State Method of design was developed to
address the drawbacks of the ASD.
• LSM makes use of the plastic range of material for the
design of structural members.
• It incorporates Load Factors to take into account of the
variability of loading configurations.
• A rational but variable factor of safety in different
structural performance enables to use steel efficiently
and economically in different structural systems to
withstand tension, compression etc.
• LSM considers the good performance of steel in
tension compared to compression and specifies
variable factors.
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
B LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)
• The main advantage of the limit state method is that it
takes into account this variance by defining limit states,
which address strength and serviceability.
• This method renders a structure or part of it unfit for use
when it exceeds the limit states.
• Beyond this limit states the structure infringes one of the
criteria governing its performance.
• The two limit states are classified as
 Limit State of Strength ---- It takes care of the structure from
strength point of view
 Limit State of Serviceability ---- It takes care of the structure
in terms of safe operation
 BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
B LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)
• The criteria which defines limit state of Strength are
 Strength (Yielding & Buckling)
 Stability against Overturning and Sway
 Fracture due to Fatigue
 Brittle failure

• Serviceability limit states takes care of the performance

and behavior of the structure during its service period.
• The criteria which defines serviceability limit states are
 Deflection (including drift)
 Vibration
 Fatigue checks (including reparable damage due to fatigue)
 Corrosion
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
B LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)
• LSM considers the critical local buckling stress of the
constituent plate elements of a beam.
• Thus, the resistance of plate elements can be
increased by suitably reducing the slenderness ratio of
the element.
• Thus, full flexural moment capacity of a member or the
limit state in flexure may be developed.
• Based on slenderness ratio of constituent plate element
a section may be classified as
 Plastic
 Compact
 Semi-compact
 Slender
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES

B LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)

• In ASD (based on IS 800 – 1984) however, the extreme
fibre stress is restricted to 0.66fy irrespective of the
slenderness ratio of the constituent plate elements.

• In LSM, the factored loads, in different combinations,

are applied to the structure to determine the load
effects.

• These are then compared with the design strength of

the elements.
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
B LIMIT STATE METHOD (LSM)
• Mathematical representation of strength check criteria in LSM
is

•  1  (Function of y and other

 L .Qk   variables) 
geometric
  f . m1. m 2 
where

L = partial factor for loads.

factor that takes account of inaccuracies in
f = assessment of loads, stress distribution and
construction.
factors that take into account, uncertainty in material
m1 & , m2 = strength and quality, and manufacturing
tolerances respectively.
Qk = specified nominal load.
y = yield strength of the material.
Level for different design methods at which calculations are
conducted
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
• A steel member subjected to external system of
loading may be subjected to one of the following:
 Compression
 Tension
 Bending
 Combined effect of Bending and Tension
 Combined effect of Bending and Compression
• The basic stresses in a member are either
 Compressive
 Tensile
 Shear
• The primary forces are
 Compressive forces
 Tensile forces
 Bending Moments
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)

Comparative Study of Design Outputs

between ASD and LSM
• The comparisons have been made by designing
various sets of members subjected to same tensile,
compressive, or flexural Loads.

• The charts shown gives an account of the

percentage of design strength of a member utilised in
WSM w. r. t. percentage in LSM.

• It may be seen that LSM gives more economy in

tension and flexure, whereas in compression WSM
gives better results.
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
TENSION MEMBERS

120.00
Percentage Strength

100.00
80.00
Utilised

WSM
60.00
40.00 LSM
20.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Various Design Options

Fig 1 Percentage strength utilized in Tension Members

 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
TENSION MEMBERS
• Margin of economy in LSM is considerably high
comparative to WSM.
• LSM gives equal weightage to yielding of the gross
section, as well as the rupture of net section and block
shear failure which even nullifies the benefit of increase
in stress by 33% under wind load condition in WSM.
• Shear lag effect is considered both in WSM and LSM.
• In WSM stress is allowed to reach up to the yield value in
both connected and outstanding element of a member,
whereas in LSM stress in the connected element is
allowed up to the ultimate strength of the material and
that of the outstanding member up to the yield strength.
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
COMPRESSION MEMBERS

120.00
Percentage Strength

100.00
80.00
Utilised

WSM
60.00
LSM
40.00
20.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Various Design Options

Fig 2 Percentage strength utilized in Compression Members

 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
COMPRESSION MEMBERS
• The WSM method gives a better result than LSM.
• The major reason is that In LSM the column buckling
curve is considered more rationally as per the particular
column buckling behaviour whereas in WSM a mean
curve is considered for all cases. This can be explained
as follows:
 It is clear from the curves in Fig 3, that curve ‘a’ gives the
maximum permissible stress fcd for a particular slenderness ratio
and curve ‘d’ gives the minimum value of fcd with ‘b’ and ‘c’ in
between (Refer: Eurocode 3)
 Most cases in LSM adopts either curve ‘c’ or ‘d’, with a few
adopting curve ‘b’ and only in two cases it is ‘a’ (Refer Table 2).
 WSM adopts curve ‘b’ for all cases. Thus, it gives economy for
most of the cases in compression members.
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
COMPRESSION MEMBERS
1
0.9
a
0.8
b
0.7
0.6
fcd / fy

c
0.5
0.4
0.3 d
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Slender Ratio 

Fig 3 Column Buckling Curves

 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
Table: 2 Buckling Class of Cross Sections

Cross Section Limits Buckling Buckling

about axis Class
Rolled I - Section h / b > 1.2: tf ≤ 40 mm z-z a
y–y b
y
tf
40 mm < tf ≤ 100 mm z–z b
h
d tw y-y c
z z
h / b ≤ 1.2: tf ≤ 100 mm z-z b
b
y–y c
y

tf > 100 mm z–z d

y-y d
Welded I - Section
y y t
tf ≤ 40 mm z-z b
t
tf f tff y–y c
tw tw
h z zh z z
tf > 40 mm z–z c
y y y-y d
b b
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
Table: 2 Buckling Class of Cross Sections (Contd.)

Cross Section Limits Buckling Buckling

about axis Class
Hollow Section Hot Rolled Any a

Cold Formed Any b

Welded Box section Generally Any b

y tf
(Except as bellow)
tw
h z Thick Welds and
z
b / tf < 30 z–z c
b y h / tw < 30 y-y c
Channel, Angle, Tee and solid Sections
y
Any c
z z
y

Built-up Members y

z z Any c

y
 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
Percentage Strength FLEXURE MEMBERS

120.000
100.000
80.000
Utilised

WSM
60.000
40.000 LSM
20.000
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Various Design Options

Fig 4 Percentage strength utilized in Flexure Members

 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF IS 800 (2007)
FLEXURE MEMBERS
• Members subjected to Flexure in LSM give
reasonably good economy over WSM.
• This is due to the fact that, in LSM the plastic
moment of resistance is allowed for plastic and
compact sections as limiting moment, whereas in
WSM the elastic moment of resistance is the guiding
criteria.
• Since almost all the sections available in India are
either plastic or compact, design of members
subjected to flexure will always give more economical
design in LSM than in WSM.
 IS 800 (2007) & OTHER INTERNATIONAL CODES
C Comparison of IS 800 (2007) with International
Codes
• A brief comparison of IS 800 and other international codes
have been tabulated for a general comparative study.
• It may be worthwhile to notice that, like other codes
though the basic design concept following the Limit States
procedure are same for IS: 800, the limiting values of
various parameters vary according to design and
fabrication / erection practices existing in India .
• In India automation in fabrication / erection is fast
developing but as still much behind the state-of-the-art
methodologies.
• As such parameters governing the tolerances due to
fabrication / erection as well as material strength are more
conservative in IS: 800 compared to other international
codes.
 Table: 3 Tension Members

PRAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC 360

(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) (2005)

Partial Safety Factor

 mo 1.10 1.00 1.10  1.11  1.11

 m1 1.25 1.20 1.25  1.31  1.31

(In eff. Area)

 - - - 0.90 0.90

Fabrication Factor
For Punched Hole, dh dh + 2mm dh dh dh dh + 2mm
For Drilled Hole, dh dh dh dh dh dh + 2mm

Gross Section fy Ag / mo - fy Ag / mo  fy Ag  fy Ag

Capacity

( (
 Table: 3 Tension Members (Contd.)

PARAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC

(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) 360
(2005)

Net Section Capacity

0.9Anfu / m1 fy Ae 0.9Anfu / m1 0.85 An fu Ae.fu
( = 0.75)
Plates (Bolted Conn.) - do - - do - - do - - do - - do -
Plates (Welded Conn.) - do - - do - - do - - do - - do -
Angles 0.9Anc fu / m1 U An fu / m1 0.85 kt An fu - do -
+  Ago fy / mo
Single Angle (Bolted) - do - fy (Ae – 0.5a2 ) - do - kt = 0.85 - do -
Double Angle (both side - do - fy (Ae – 0.25a2 ) - do - kt = 1.00 - do -
of Gusset) - bolted
Double Angle (Same side - do - fy (Ae – 0.5a2 ) - do - kt = 0.85 - do -
of Gusset) - bolted
Single Angle (Welded) - do - fy (Ae – 0.3a2 ) - do - kt = 0.85 - do -
Double Angle (both side - do - fy (Ae – 0.15a2 ) - do - kt = 1.00 - do -
of Gusset) - Welded
Double Angle (Same side - do - fy (Ae – 0.5a2 ) - do - kt = 0.85 - do -
of Gusset) - Welded
 Table: 3 Tension Members (Contd.)
PARA- IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS AISC
METERS (2007) (2000) (1993) 4100 360
(1998) (2005)

Shear Lag
Factor, U
U (General)  fu fy   
f y Ae  0.5 Ago - kt
 0.9 Anc  m1  Ago  mo 
  An f u x

f
An u
 m1  f
1
  { Ae  u An  Ag }
1.2 f y
L

Angle (n = 1) 2(e2-0.5do)/An 0.85 0.60

Angle (n = 2) 0.85 0.60
Angle (n = 3) 0.85 0.60
0 .2
Angle (n = 4 or 0 .5   p  2.5d o   0.7 0.85 0.80
2.5d o
more)
0.2
Unequal angle 0 .4   p  2.5d o   0.7 0.75 -
2.5d o
(short leg conn.)
Other shapes (n=2) 0.85 -
Other shapes (n=4) 0.85 -
 Table: 3 Tension Members (Contd.)

PARA- IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC 360

METERS (2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) (2005)

Block Shear
capacity (Case
– 1)
Shear Plane
capacity

Avg . f y / 3 mo  0.6 Avg.fy - -  0.6 Anv Fy

Tension Plane 0.9 Atn.fu / m1 0.6 Ke Atn.fy - -  Ubs Agt Fu

Capacity
Ubs = 1 for uniform
tensile stress
Ubs = 0.5 for
uniform tensile
stress

Block Shear
capacity (Case
– 2)
Shear Plane 
0.9 Avn . f u / 3 m1  - - -  0.6 Agv Fy
capacity
Tension Plane Atg.fy / mo - - -  Ubs Ant Fu
Capacity
 Table: 3 Tension Members (Contd.)

where
n = Number of Avn = Net shear plane area
bolts
d = Diameter of Atg = Gross tension plane
fasteners area
dh = Diameter of Atn = Net tension plane area
fastener hole
x = Connection a2 = Area of outstanding leg
eccentricity
An = Net area fu = Ultimate tensile stress
Ae = Effective area fy = Yield stress
Avg = Gross shear L = Length of connection
plane area
 Table: 4 Compression Members

PARAMETERS IS 800 BS Eurocode AS 4100 AISC

(2007) 5950 (1993) (1998) 360
(2000) (2005)

Effective Area of
Cross Section
Plastic Section Ae = Ag Ae = A g Ae = Ag Ae =  be.t = Ag Ae = Ag
Compact section Ae = Ag Ae = A g Ae = Ag Ae =  be.t = Ag Ae = Ag
Non-compact Ae = Ag Ae = A g Ae = Ag Ae =  be.t = Ag Ae = Ag
section
Slender Section Ae =  beff.t Ae =  beff.t Ae =  beff.t Ae =  be.t Ae =  beff.t

Capacity of Cross
Section
Plastic Section fy.Ag / mo fy.Ag fy.Ag / mo .kf .fy .An = fy .Ag (kf = 1) c.fy.Ag
Compact section fy.Ag / mo fy.Ag fy.Ag / mo .kf .fy .An = fy .Ag (kf = 1) c.fy.Ag
Non-compact fy.Ag / mo fy.Ag fy.Ag / mo .kf .fy .An = fy .Ag (kf = 1) c.fy.Ag
section
Slender Section fy.Ag / mo fy.Ag fy.Ag / mo .kf .fy .An = fy .Ae (kf ≠ 1) c.fy.Ag
k=A /A &A =A
 Table: 4 Compression Members (Contd.)

PARAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC 360

(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) (2005)

Eff. Slenderness
Ratio, 
Plastic Section Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r
Compact section Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r
Non-compact Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r
section
Slender Section Leff / r Leff / r (Aeff / Ag )0.5 Leff / r Leff / r Leff / r

Section Capacity
(Member Buckling)
Plastic Section .fy.Ag / mo f ’y.Ag .fy.Ag / mo c.fy.Ag c.Fcr.Ag
Compact section .fy.Ag / mo f ’y.Ag .fy.Ag / mo c.fy.Ag c.Fcr.Ag
Non-compact .fy.Ag / mo f ’y.Ag .fy.Ag / mo c.fy.Ag c.Fcr.Ag
section
Slender Section .fy.Ae / mo f ’y.Ae .fy.Ae / mo c.fy.Ae c.Fcr.Ae
= f (L/r) ≤1 f ‘y= f (L/r) = f (L/r) ≤1 c= f (L/r) ≤1 Fcr= f (L/r) ≤1
 Table: 4 Compression Members (Contd.)

PARAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC 360

(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) (2005)

Buckling Curve
Rolled I -Section (z-z) tf ≤ 40 a a a - -
Rolled I -Section (y-y) tf ≤ 40 b b b - -
Rolled I -Section (z-z) tf > 40 b b b - -
Rolled I -Section (y-y) tf > 40 c c c - -
Rolled H -Section (z-z) tf ≤ 40 b ( tf ≤ 100 ) b b ( tf ≤ 100 ) - -
Rolled H -Section (y-y) tf ≤ 40 c ( tf ≤ 100 ) c c ( tf ≤ 100 ) - -
Rolled H -Section (z-z) tf > 40 d ( tf ≤ 100 ) c d ( tf ≤ 100 ) - -
Rolled H -Section (y-y) tf > 40 d ( tf ≤ 100 ) d d ( tf ≤ 100 ) - -
Welded I -Section (z-z) tf ≤ 40 b b b - -
Welded I -Section (y-y) tf ≤ 40 c c c - -
Welded I -Section (z-z) tf > 40 c b c - -
Welded I -Section (y-y) tf > 40 d d d - -
 Table: 4 Compression Members (Contd.)

PARAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC 360

(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) (2005)

Buckling Curve (Contd.)

Welded Box-Section (z-z) tf ≤ 40 c b c - -
Welded Box-Section (y-y) tf ≤ 40 c b c - -
Welded Box-Section (z-z) tf > 40 c c c - -
Welded Box-Section (y-y) tf > 40 c c c - -
Hollow Section (Hot Rolled) a a a - -
Hollow Section (Cold Formed) b c b - -
Channel, angles Tees c c c - -
Two rolled section (Built-up) c c c - -
Imperfection Factor ( Curve a ) 0.21  0.21 0.21 - -
Imperfection Factor ( Curve b ) 0.34  0.34 0.34 - -
Imperfection Factor ( Curve c ) 0.49  0.49 0.49 - -
Imperfection Factor ( Curve d ) 0.76  0.76 0.76 - -
 Table: 5 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Restrained)

PARA- IS 800 BS Euro AS 4100 AISC

METERS (2007) 5950 code (1998) 360
(2000) (1993) (2005)

Bending
Resistance
under low
shear
[V ≤ 0.6Vd ]
Plastic Zp.fy / mo Zp.fy Zp.fy / mo .Zp.fy Mp = .Zp.fy
Section ≤ 1.2 Ze.fy / mo ≤ 1.5 . Ze.fy
Compact Zp.fy / mo Zp.fy Zp.fy / mo .Zp.fy Mp = .Zp.fy
Section ≤ 1.2 Ze.fy / mo ≤ 1.5 . Ze.fy
 
 sy  s  

Non- Ze.fy / mo Zp.fy Ze.fy / mo f y  Z e  
   c
 Z  Z e   -
compact  
 sy sp  

section
Slender - Zeff.fy Zeff.fy / mo . Ze.fy (sy – s) -
Section
Zp = Plastic Section Modulus sp = Plastic Limit (Slenderness)
Ze = Elastic section Modulus sy = Yield Limit (Slenderness)
Zeff = Effective Section Modulus s = Section Slenderness Ratio
 Table: 5 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Restrained)

PARA- IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS AISC

METERS (2007) (2000) (1993) 4100 360
(1998) (2005)

Bending
Resistance
(High shear)
[V > 0.6Vd ]
Plastic Section fy / mo ( Zp - .Zpv ) fy ( Zp - .Zpv ) fy / mo ( Zp - .Zpv ) - Mp = .Zp.fy
≤ 1.2 Ze.fy / mo
Compact Section fy / mo ( Zp - .Zpv ) fy ( Zp - .Zpv ) fy / mo ( Zp - .Zpv ) - Mp = .Zp.fy
≤ 1.2 Ze.fy / mo
Non-compact Ze.fy / mo fy ( Ze - .Zpv / 1.5) fy / mo ( Ze - .Zpv ) - -
section
Slender Section - fy ( Zeff - .Zpv / 1.5) fy / mo ( Zeff - .Zpv ) - -
Zpv (equal Flanges) Zp - Zf Zv Zv - -
Zpv (unequal Zp - Zf Zp - Zf Zp - Zf - -
Flanges)
Zf = Plastic modulus of effective section excluding shear area
Zz = Plastic modulus of the shear area
2 2 2
 Table: 6 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Un-restrained)

PARA- IS 800 BS Eurocode AS 4100 AISC 360

METERS (2007) 5950 (1993) (1998) (2005)
(2000)

Buckling
Resistance
Moment
Plastic LT.Zp.fy / mo fb.Zp LT.Zp.fy / mo m.s..Zp.fy ≤
section 1.5m.s..Ze.fy
  L  L p 
Lp < Lb ≤ Lr - - - - Cb  M p   M p  0.7 f y Z e  b 
  L  L 
 r p 

Lb > Lr - - - - .Fcr.Ze

Compact LT.Zp.fy / mo fb.Zp LT.Zp.fy / mo m.s..Zp.fy ≤

section 1.5m.s..Ze.fy
  L  L p 
Lp < Lb ≤ Lr - - - - Cb  M p   M p  0.7 f y Z e  b 
 L  L 
  r p 

Lb > Lr - - - - .Fcr.Ze
 Table: 6 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Un-restrained)
PARA- IS BS Euro AS 4100 AISC 360
METER 800 5950 (1993) (1998) (2005)
(2007) (2000)

Buckling
Resist.
Moment
Non- LT.Ze) fb.Ze LT.Ze.   sy  s  
compact fy /mo fy /mo  m s . f y  Z e    Z c  Z e  
Section   sy  sp  
Lp< Lb ≤ Lr - - -   L  L p 
Cb  M p   M p  0.7 f y Z e  b 
  L  L 
 r p 
    L pf 
   M p   M p  0 .7 f y Z e   
     
 rf pf  

Lb > Lr - - - .Fcr.Ze ≤ 0.9E kc.Ze / 2
Slender - fb.Zeff LT.Zeff.
Section fy /mo
Lp< Lb ≤ Lr - - - Same as Non-compact
Section
Lb > Lr - - - - Do -
Lt & fb = Depends on m = Moment Modification Factor
equivalent slenderness s = Slenderness Reduction Factor
 Table: 6 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Un-restrained)
PARAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS AISC
(2007) (2000) (1993) 4100 360
(1998) (2005)

Equivalent LT   b Z p f y / M cr LT  u  w LT   b Z p f y / M cr - -

Slenderness Ratio
Imperfection factor 0.21  0.21 0.21 - -
(Rolled Section)
Imperfection factor 0.49  0.49 0.49 - -
(Welded Section)
Effective Length Normal Destab. Normal Destab. - - -
Warping restraint 0.70L 0.85L 0.70L 0.85L - - -
Both Flanges fully 0.75L 0.90L 0.75L 0.90L
Restrained
- - -
Comp. Flange fully 0.80L 0.95L 0.80L 0.95L - - -
restrained
Both Flanges partly 0.85L 1.00L 0.85L 1.00L - - -
Restrained
Comp. Flange partly 1.00L 1.20L 1.00L 1.20L
restrained
- - -
Warping not restrained 0.70L 0.85L 0.70L 0.85L - - -
in both direction
Compression Flange laterally restrained against torsion
 Table: 6 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Un-restrained)
PARAMETER IS 800 BS 5950 Euro AS 4100 AISC 360
(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) (2005)

Effective length Norm Destab Norm Destab - - -

(Contd.)
Partially restrained 1.0L+ 1.2L+ 1.0L+ 1.2L+ - - -
by bottom flange 2D 2D 2D 2D
support connection
Partially restrained 1.2L+ 1.4L+ 1.2L+ 1.4L+ - - -
by bottom flange 2D 2D 2D 2D
bearing support
Compression flange laterally restrained against
torsion

Permissible
Shear
Vd Av.fy / (3.mo) 0.6 fy.Av Av.fy / (3.mo) 0.6  fy.AwCv
dw / tw ≤ 82 / (fy / 250) 0.5  0.6 fy.Av -
dw / tw > 82 / (fy / 250) 0.5 v 0.6 fy.Av -
 = 0.9 to 1.0
Cv ≤ 1.0
 Table: 6 Flexure Members (Compression Flange Laterally Un-restrained)
PARAMETERS IS 800 BS 5950 Eurocode AS 4100 AISC
(2007) (2000) (1993) (1998) 360
(2005)

Shear Area
Hot Rolled I & H h.tw h.tw A – 2b.tf + (tw + 2r).tf h.tw h.tw
Section
(Major Axis Bending)
Rolled Channel h.tw h.tw A – 2b.tf + (tw + r).tf h.tw h.tw
Section
(Major Axis Bending)
Welded I, H & Box  (d.tw)  (d.tw)  (d.tw)  (d.tw)  (d.tw)
Section
(Major Axis Bending)

Rolled & Welded I, H 2 b.tf 1.8 b.tf A -  (d.tw) 2 b.tf 2 b.tf

& Box Section
(Minor Axis Bending)
RHS Loaded parallel A h / (b + h) 0.9A h / (b + h) A h / (b + h) A h / (b + h) -
to depth ( h )

RHS Loaded parallel A b / (b + h) 0.9A b / (b + h) A b / (b + h) A b / (b + h) -

to width ( b )

CHS 2A/ 0.6 A 2A/ 0.6 A -

Plates and Solid Bars A 0.9 A A A _
 Domestic Crude Steel Availability Projection: 2012-13
Producer Existing Capacity Capacity by
2009-10 2012-13
SAIL 12.84 21.40
RINL 2.9 6.3
Tata Steel 6.8 13.0 [3.0]
Essar 4.6 10.0
JSW Steel Ltd. 6.6 11.0
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 2.4 7.2
Ispat Industries Ltd. 3.6 5.0
Other & Secondary steel 33.02 46.0 [6.0]

Total 72.8 119.9 [9.0]

With 70 percent actualisation, 90 percent conversion rate and 90 percent capacity

utilisation, finished steel availability at 80 million tones by 2012-13 against projected
demand of 74 million tones.
[ ] -Greenfield expansion Source: JPC & Industry sources
 CHANGES IN STEEL PRODUCTION (Mt) 2008/2009
Country Rank 2009 2008 Change,%
China 1 567.8 502.0 13.1
Japan 2 87.5 118.7 -26.3
Russia 3 59.9 91.5 -35.5
United States 4 58.1 68.5 -15.2
India 5 56.6 55.1 2.7
South Korea 6 48.5 53.5 -9.3
Germany 7 32.6 45.8 -28.8
Ukraine 8 29.7 37.1 -19.9
Brazil 9 26.5 33.7 -21.4
Italy 10 19.7 30.5 -35.4
Total 1219.7 1329.7 -8.3
Over the last five years, India has increased production from 32.6 Mt to
56.6 Mt. Has moved from 9th to 5th position. Even 2008 and 2009, saw
3.8% and 2.7% increase in India.
AMONGST ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD.
 CHANGES IN STEEL PRODUCTION (Mt)
2009/2010
Rank Country 2010 2009 %2010/2009
1 China 626.7 573.6 9.3
2 Japan 109.6 87.5 25.2
3 US 80.6 58.2 38.5
4 Russia 67.0 60.0 11.7
5 India 66.8 62.8 6.4
6 South Korea 58.5 48.6 20.3
7 Germany 43.8 32.7 34.1
8 Ukraine 33.6 29.9 12.4
9 Brazil 32.8 26.5 23.8
10 Turkey 29.0 25.3 14.6
 Trend of Steel Consumption in India
C O N SUMPTIO N IN MILLIO N TO N N ES

60

55 52.786
7
7. 0) 49.420 48.988
50 - 1
009 44.328
45 R 2
G to
CA -01 39.200
40
0 00
(2 34.389
35
31.200
28.900
30 27.400
26.500
25.100
25 23.546
22.128 22.634
21.294
18.661
20

15

8.848
10
6.280
5.361
5
1.227

0
'51-52 '64-65 '74-75 '84-85 '94-95 '95-96 '96-97 '97-98 '98-99 '99-00 '00-01 '01-02 '02-03 *03- *04- *05- '06-07 '07-08 '08-09 '09-10
04 05 06

Steel Consumption in India grew @ 7.7 percent annually in last decade

Source: JPC against 4% annual growth in Global Steel Consumption
 CONCLUSIONS
• The present IS 800 (LSM) is mostly based on
international standards.

• It is evident from the comparative charts shown above,

with load factors and partial safety factors being
introduced keeping Indian conditions in consideration.

• The code has been mainly modeled in line with the

Eurocodes which are generally referred for design in
the European Countries.

• Additional references have been taken from the

existing British Codes also.
 CONCLUSIONS
• This code does not totally exclude the Allowable Stress
Design (ASD) method of analysis.

• One chapter in this code has been totally dedicated to

design concepts based on the ASD method, with certain
modification from the existing Indian Standard (IS 800-
1984) Code.

• In American code, both ASD and LRFD method of design

is equally prescribed.

• In case of IS 800, ASD method with minor modification

has been included to help in making a smooth and
proper transition of design practice in India from ASD
philosophy to LSM philosophy.
Institute for Steel Development & Growth