The Effect of Differential Settlement of Supports On A Large Steel Framed Boiler Supporting Structure

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015
ISSN 2229-5518
148
The Effect of Differential Settlement of Supports

on a Large Steel-Framed Boiler Supporting
Structure
Gade Nagamani Devi.
Department of Civil Engineering, Universal College of Engineering & Technology, Medikonduru, Guntur, AP.
E-mail: nagamanidevig9@gmail.com
Abstract The paper gives details of the distribution of forces induced in the members and variation of steel weight of an existing Boiler
supporting structure, due solely to a vertical settlement of any column. The construction is described and typical frames were chosen and
analyzed elastically. From this approach, a pattern appears to emerge, and it is hoped that this information will be of use to engineers
engaged in the design of such structures on difficult sites where sizeable differential settlements may have to be accepted.
Index Terms Differential settlement, distribution of forces induced.
THE PROBLEM
Fig (a)
enerally supports are assumed to be restrained or immovable in analysis. However, they move, these movements produce a structural response. In addition to the
displacement response, there also be a force response (additional internal forces and support reactions), which is a kind of
indirect loading (secondary loading). Usually this type of
loading occurs in addition to direct loading, and if not anticipated in design, may result in serious consequences. A structural engineer should be able to analyze the response (particularly, the force response) caused by such indirect loading. One
of the sources of such indirect loading is support displacement
and this is the problem which will be considered in more detail...
IJSER
THE STRUCTURE
The boiler supporting structure is a steel structure consisting
of columns, beams and Vertical bracing in both longitudinal
and transverse directions along with horizontal floors at different levels. The dimensions of the structure are 32 m 31.6 m
in plan and 64.47m in height. The sections used for beams,
columns and bracings are mild steel, and all the structural
joints are simple joints (all moments released). The column
bases are hinged. The typical frames chosen are shown in the
fig (d), (e) and (f). Details of the plan and elevations are
shown below.
Fig (b)
Fig (d)
IJSER 2015
http://www.ijser.org
Fig (c)
Fig (e)
ISSN 2229-5518
149
2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S16
RESULTS
The 250 MW fossil fuel boiler supporting structure has been
analyzed and designed by considering all possible cases of
secondary loads due to settlement of supports by using
STAAD.pro 2006 and the results such as support reactions of
the columns, variation of axial forces in the columns and the
variation of steel weight of the structure will be given graphically for critical cases.
1.
The axial loads induced in the beams were very small

indeed and therefore could be neglected;
Fig (f)
2.
Fig (g)
The axial loads induced in the columns were significant and could be either compressive or tensile;
3.
METHODOLOGY
Initially, the structure has been analyzed by considering only
secondary loads which were applied in the form of support
displacements on supports of the critical frames chosen from
the structure. After that, the structure has been again analyzed
and redesigned by considering both primary and secondary
loads due to settlement. The analysis and design has done by
using STAAD.pro 2006.
The support displacement of magnitudes 2mm, 4mm, 6mm
and 8mm were applied on the supports of the critical frames
chosen from the structure. Totally, eight different cases were
considered based on number of supports in the critical frames
which are given below:
Case 1
The variation of support reactions of all columns in

the critical frame are linear from 2mm to 8mm settle-
IJSER
2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S6L
ment for 2mm scale;
4.
The weight of the steel was increased after considering the secondary loads due to settlement.
Thus three diagrams were drawn for each loading case, show-
ing the pattern of

1.
Distribution of axial loads induced in the columns;
2.
Variation of support reaction in the columns; and
3.
Variation of steel weight of the structure.
These results are shown in the following figures, for critical

loading case.
Case 2
1. SUPPORT REACTIONS
Case 3
Case 4
The following graphs shows the support reactions induced in

various columns due to 8mm settlement in different load cases

Case 5
Case 7
Case 8
2000
Support Reaction
(kN)
Case 6
1000
486
431
0
-1000
S6L
S7L
S8L
S9L
-2000
-3000
IJSER 2015
922
-2776
Supports
842
82
S10L S11
ISSN 2229-5518
1000
904
790
S7L
S8L
1384
373
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
S6L
S9L
S10L
-754
S11
S6R
-603
-2010
Supports
Support Reaction (kN)
2000
2000
150
1132
1130
1000
0
S9L
-1000
S13
S9R
-2000
-3000
-2796
Supports
Fig 1 case 1
Fig 5 case 5
1500
911
1000
469
500
161
158
S9L
S11
0
S6L
-500
S7L
-1000
-1500
S8L
Fig 2 case 2
2000
713
1000
0
-1000
S6L
S8L
IJSER
-2000
-1000
151 386
S6L S7L S8L S9L S10L S13 S9R

-403
-2000
-3000
-4000
890
573
2000
S10R
-689
-1000
S6L
S11
S6R
-2000
-3000
-3104
-4000
-2974
1415
1415
1000
Supports
Fig 7 case 7
Supports
Fig 4 cases 4
1000
S16
Fig 6 cases 6
Fig 3 case 3
1212
S10L
-1721
Supports
Supports
2000
S9L
-729
-1653
-2000
1454
960
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
1883
1883
S10L
S16
-4050
Supports
Fig 8 cases 8
IJSER 2015
S10R
ISSN 2229-5518
151
400 369 364
2 DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL LOADS

The following graphs show the distribution of axial loads in-
300
Axial Force (kN)
duced in the columns due to 8mm settlement in load case

1.The distribution of axial force for remaining cases also similar to case 1.
Height of Column (m)
0
-200
0
40 -22 60
-164
20
-600
100
0
-20
80
-542
-800
-20
Axial Force (kN)
-1000
-1242
-1400
Axial Force (kN)
Fig 9 Distribution of axial load in column S6L

1000 904 941
800
600
200 0
0
-20
0
-50
80
IJSER
-250
-300
-313
1500 1384
438
400
0
-20
60
Fig 13 Distribution of axial load in column S6R
790
40
-2
-2 0
20 -13 40 -18 60
80
1000
600
200
20
-200
Axial Force (kN)
800
-150
20
40
60
80
1000
9 17
-100
-350
269
400
-1200
102
Height Of Column (m)

-400
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
-20
200
50
47
0
20
40
60
80
Height Of column (m)
500
428
97
18
0
-50
50
100
Fig14 Distribution of axial load in column S11
3 VARIATION OF SUPPORT REACTIONS

The following graphs show the variation of support reactions
induced due to various settlements for case 5.
IJSER 2015
1200
Weight of Steel (TON)
ISSN 2229-5518
1130
1000
800
787
600
515
400
250
200
0
152
840
834
835
830
836 837
836 837
830
825
820
W.S C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8
CASES
4
6
8
Settlement (mm)
Fig 15 Variation of support reaction of column S9L
Fig 18 Weight of steel required for different cases
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
1200
1132
1000
1. AXIAL LOADS INDUCED IN THE COLUMNS
800
These are shown in figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
788
600
It can be seen that in all cases a tensile force is induced in the
516
400
250
200
0
2
members of the column on which the settlement is applied.
IJSER
These tensile forces are greatest at the bottom of the building
4
6
Settlement (mm)
and decrease in magnitude up the frame. Naturally such
members will normally be in compression due to the dead
Fig 16 Variation of support reaction of column S9R
-645
-2000
-3000
plus super imposed loads, and so the effect of the settlement

to reduce these compressive forces throughout the columns on
Settlement (mm)
0
Support Reaction
(kN)
833
829
-1000
839
which the settlement is applied.
On the other hand compressive forces are induced in the

members of the columns immediately on either side of the
-1319
column on which the settlement is applied. These forces also
-1996
-2796
Fig 17 Variation of support reaction of column S13
have their maximum value at the bottom of the structure and

decrease steadily upwards. Such forces will of course increase
the compression which already exists in these members.
4 variation of weight of steel

The following graph shows the weight of steel required for
different cases.
2 VARIATION OF SUPPORT REACTIONS

These are shown in figures 15, 16 and 17.
It can be seen that in all cases a negative reaction (tensile force)
is induced in the supports of the column on which the settlement is applied and variation of these support reactions are
linear from 2mm to 8mm settlement with 2mm scale.
On the other hand positive reactions (compressive force) are
induced in the supports of the columns immediately on either
side of the column on which the settlement is applied and
these variations are also observed to be linear from 2mm to
IJSER 2015
ISSN 2229-5518
8mm settlement with 2mm scale.
b.
From the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 it can be seen that the

settlement of the end column produces greater effects over a
wider area than that from any interior column. Finally it can
be observed that the increase in the reactions and axial loads
in the columns is not greater than 10% for members at the bottom of the structure where the effect of settlement is more severe.
These are shown in figure 18
The weight of steel was increased after applying the settlement for all cases and it can be observed that case 4 needs
2.5% for a critical case.

Thus it would appear from this information that if a differential settlement of 8mm is to be tolerated in such a structure, the
design engineer should increase initially; either the axial loads
in the columns by 10% or the weight of the members by 2.5%
for the members most affected in the bottom half of the struc-
REFERENCES
[1]
maximum weight of steel and increase in weight of steel will

not exceed 0.25 percent.
[2]
[3]
COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
E. Litton, J.M Buston, The effect of differential settlement on a large,

rigid, steel-framed, multi-storey building, Journal of The structural
enginer,46:353-356,1968.
IS 800: 1984 Indian standard code of practice for general constructions in steel, Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 875: 1987 (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5), Indian Standard Code of practice
for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Bureau of Indian Standards.
Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, (2007) Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Prentice hall of India New Delhi.
IJSER
The results obtained are applicable to this particular structure

and also to similar structures with same bracing system. It
[4]
would clearly be unwise to claim a sweeping generalization

from this investigation. Nevertheless it does appear to suggest
1.
The significant forces induced are confined to the bot-
tom half of the structure, and these are decrease steadily upwards.
2.
The settlement of the end column produces greater effects over a wider area than that from any interior column.
In this project, the structure has been analyzed and redesigned

by considering the loads induced due to settlement of supports with magnitudes of 2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8mm. It is
observed that the results for 8mm settlement are critical. The
conclusions for differential settlement of 8mm are given below:
a.
The increase in the weight of steel is not greater than
ture.
3 Variation of weight of steel
that, for such a structure:
153
The increase in the axial loads in columns is not

greater than 10% for members at the bottom of the
structure where the effect of settlement is more severe.
IJSER 2015
ISSN 2229-5518
IJSER
IJSER 2015
154

The Effect of Differential Settlement of Supports On A Large Steel Framed Boiler Supporting Structure

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Effect of Differential Settlement of Supports On A Large Steel Framed Boiler Supporting Structure

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015

The Effect of Differential Settlement of Supports

2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S16

The axial loads induced in the beams were very small

The variation of support reactions of all columns in

2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S6L

ment for 2mm scale;

ing the pattern of

Distribution of axial loads induced in the columns;

Variation of support reaction in the columns; and

Variation of steel weight of the structure.

These results are shown in the following figures, for critical

The following graphs shows the support reactions induced in

2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S9L

Support Reaction (kN)

Support Reaction (kN)

Support Reaction (kN)

Support Reaction (kN)

S6L S7L S8L S9L S10L S13 S9R

Support Reaction (kN)

Support Reaction (kN)

400 369 364

2 DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL LOADS

duced in the columns due to 8mm settlement in load case

Height of Column (m)

Axial Force (kN)

Fig 9 Distribution of axial load in column S6L

Fig 13 Distribution of axial load in column S6R

Axial Force (kN)

Height of Column (m)

Height Of Column (m)

Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

Height of Column (m)

Fig14 Distribution of axial load in column S11

3 VARIATION OF SUPPORT REACTIONS

Support Reaction (kN)

Weight of Steel (TON)

Support Reaction (kN)

Fig 18 Weight of steel required for different cases

1. AXIAL LOADS INDUCED IN THE COLUMNS

These are shown in figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

It can be seen that in all cases a tensile force is induced in the

members of the column on which the settlement is applied.

These tensile forces are greatest at the bottom of the building

and decrease in magnitude up the frame. Naturally such

members will normally be in compression due to the dead

Fig 16 Variation of support reaction of column S9R

plus super imposed loads, and so the effect of the settlement

which the settlement is applied.

On the other hand compressive forces are induced in the

column on which the settlement is applied. These forces also

Fig 17 Variation of support reaction of column S13

have their maximum value at the bottom of the structure and

4 variation of weight of steel

2 VARIATION OF SUPPORT REACTIONS

8mm settlement with 2mm scale.

From the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 it can be seen that the

2.5% for a critical case.

maximum weight of steel and increase in weight of steel will

COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

E. Litton, J.M Buston, The effect of differential settlement on a large,

The results obtained are applicable to this particular structure