ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 2, Issue 10, April 2013
Comparative Study of Beam using IS: 800-1984
& IS: 800-2007
L.A.Pasnur, S.S.Patil
Abstract— IS: 800 code is the basic code for general
construction in steel structures and the prime document for any
structural design and has influence on many other codes
governing the design of other special steel structures. IS: 8001984,
furnished provisions, for designing the structures, mainly, by
“Working Stress Method”. Realizing the necessity to update the
standard to the state of the art of the steel construction technology
and economy, the current revision of the standard (IS: 8002007)
was undertaken. The latest version of the Code of Practice for
general construction in steel IS 800:2007 is based on Limit State
Method of design. The design concept is totally changed in
comparison to earlier IS 800:1984 which is based on elastic
method. 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. In the present work, the detailed study of structural
component as Beam by designing using Limit State Method and
Working Stress Method has been carried out and submitted the
comparative study of the same in the form of graphs.
Index Terms— IS 800:1984, IS 800:2007, Limit state method
(Plastic method), Working stress method (Elastic method).
I. CONCEPT OF ELASTIC METHOD
In the elastic method of design, the worst combination of
loads is ascertained and the members are proportioned on the
basis of working stresses. These stresses should never exceed
the permissible ones as laid down by the code. The method
basically assumes that the structural material behaves in linear
elastic manner, and that adequate safety can be ensured by
suitably restricting stresses in the material due to the expected
working loads (service loads) on the structure. Stresses
caused by the „characteristic‟ loads are checked against the
permissible stress which is a fraction of yield stress. Thus the
permissible stress may be defined in terms of factor of safety,
which takes care of the overload or other unknown factors.
Thus,
Permissible stress = Yield stress / factor of safety
Thus, in working stress method
Working stress ≤ permissible stress
II. CONCEPT OF LIMIT STATE METHOD
The object of limit state design can be paraphrased as
achievement of an acceptable probability that a part or whole
of structure will not become unfit for its intended use during
its life time owing to collapse, excessive deflection etc, under
the actions of all loads and load effects. The acceptable limits
of safety and serviceability requirements before failure occurs
are called as limit state. For achieving the design objectives,
the design shall be based on characteristic values for material
241
strengths and applied loads (actions), which take into account
the probability of variations in the material strengths and in
the loads to be supported. The characteristic values shall be
based on statistical data, if available. Where such data is not
available, these shall be based on experience. The design
values are derived from the characteristic values through the
use of partial safety factors, both for material strengths and for
loads. In the absence of special considerations, these factors
shall have the values given in this section according to the
material, the type of load and the limit state being considered.
The reliability of design is ensured by satisfying the
requirement:
Design action ≤ Design strength
III. TYPES OF BEAMS
There are various forms of beam cross sections used in
practice. The selection of a section would depend upon the
use for which it is intended and the overall economy. The
beam chosen should posses required strength and it should not
deflect beyond a limit. Generally thin walled open sections
are used as beams (e.g. rolled sections). This is mainly due to
their capability for forming easy and convenient connections
to adjacent members. If suitable rolled sections are not
available, they may be fabricated out of rolled plates. Such
members are called plate girders. Compound sections may
also be fabricated out of rolled sections for special purposes.
Other economical type of beams that can be fabricated out of
rolled sections, are the castellated and tapered beams.
Composite steel beams and concrete encased steel beams,
which act in concert with concrete, derive added strength ,
economy, and in the latter case fire protection also.
IV. LATERALLY SUPPORTED BEAMS (RESTRAINED
BEAMS)
A beam is said to be laterally restrained, when its
compression flange is supported laterally and is not allowed
to have movements in the lateral direction.
Fig.1 Laterally Supported Beam
( Ref. Subramanian K. ‘Design of Steel Structures’)
Because the tendency of the compression flange to buckle
under axial compressive stress is prevented, the safe
 ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 2, Issue 10, April 2013
allowable bending stress in compression may be taken the
same as that for tension.

V. LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED BEAMS

(UNRESTRAINED BEAMS)
The beam is considered laterally unsupported when,
i) Compression flange of beam is not restrained laterally
against the lateral buckling.
ii) Bending take place in weaker direction.
For hot rolled beams and channel section which have very
small moment of inertia about minor axis as compared to that
about major axis, this make section relatively weak against
torsion and bending about weaker axis, and if not held or
supported in the direction normal to weak axis, it will bend in
the weaker direction even if the load is normal to axis. It will
be weakened further, if a horizontal load were to be applied
normal to y-y axis. This bending is usually accompanied by
twisting. This phenomenon of bending in the weaker direction
and twisting may be called as “Lateral Torsional Instability”.

VI. COMPARATIVE STUDY

Table 1List of Studied Parameters
1 Type of
Flexure member ( Beam)
. Member
2 Laterally supported &
. Type of Beam
unsupported
3 Sections
. ISJB150 to ISHB450
analyzed
4 Effective
. 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m, 5m, 6m
length

A. Comparison of Beam by IS:800-1984 & IS:800-2007

1) Laterally Supported Beam
Here, the moment carrying capacity and shear force of all
the sections and for effective length mentioned in table 3 is
carried by both the codes i.e. IS:800-1984 & IS:800-2007 and
load (kN/m) is calculated from moment carrying capacity and
shear force and its variation is shown in the form of
graphs.(Fg.2,3,4).

2) Laterally Unsupported Beam

Variation of load (kN/m) from moment carrying capacity is
shown in the form of graph below.(Fig. 5).
Shear force will be same in both the types of beam.

242
 ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 2, Issue 10, April 2013
b) The shear force is more in elastic method than limit state
by 13%.
2) Laterally Unsupported Beam
a) The moment carrying capacity for spans 1000mm &
2000mm is more in limit state method than elastic method for
almost all sections except ISHB200 to ISHB350 by about 5%.
b) For remaining spans, the moment carrying capacity is
more in elastic method by max. of 23% except for few
sections.
REFERENCES
[1] Design Manual for Designing Steel Structure according to new
IS: 800-2007.
[2] Duggal.S.K. „Limit State Design of Steel Structures‟ Tata
McGraw Hill Education Private Limited , New Delhi, 2010.,
3rd edition.
[3] Subhramanian K. „Design of Steel Structures‟ (Published in
India) by Oxford University Press 2007.
[4] IS: 800- 2007, Indian Standard, code of practice for general
construction in steel (second edition), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 2008.
[5] IS: 800- 1984, Indian Standard, code of practice for general
construction in steel (second edition) Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1985.

VII. OBSERVATIONS
1) Laterally Supported Beam
a) The moment carrying capacity is more in limit state
method than elastic method by about 8% for smaller sections
and decreases upto 5% for ISHB150@34.6kg/m.
b) From ISHB200 to ISHB350, the moment carrying
capacity is less in limit state method than elastic method by
8%.
c) From ISHB400 to ISHB450, the moment carrying
capacity is again more in limit state method than elastic
method by 3%.
d) From fig. 2,3, as the span increases, the load goes on
decreasing.
e) From fig.4, the shear force is more in elastic method
than limit state by 13%.
2) Laterally Unsupported Beam
a) The moment carrying capacity for spans 1000mm &
2000mm is more in limit state method than elastic method for
almost all sections except ISHB200 to ISHB350 by about 5%.
b) For remaining spans, the moment carrying capacity is
more in elastic method by max. of 23% except for few
sections.

VIII. CONCLUSION
1) Laterally Supported Beam
a) The moment carrying capacity is more in limit state
method than elastic method by about 8% for smaller sections
and decreases upto 3% for higher sections.

243