International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015 148

ISSN 2229-5518

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

G enerally supports are assumed to be restrained or im-

movable in analysis. However, they move, these move-
Fig (a)

IJSER
ments produce a structural response. In addition to the
displacement response, there also be a force response (addi-
tional 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 antici-
pated in design, may result in serious consequences. A struc-
tural engineer should be able to analyze the response (particu-
larly, 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 de-
tail...

THE STRUCTURE
The boiler supporting structure is a steel structure consisting
of columns, beams and Vertical bracing in both longitudinal Fig (b) Fig (c)
and transverse directions along with horizontal floors at dif-
ferent 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 (d) Fig (e)

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015 149
ISSN 2229-5518
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 graph-
ically for critical cases.
1. The axial loads induced in the beams were very small
indeed and therefore could be neglected;
2. The axial loads induced in the columns were signifi-
Fig (f) Fig (g)
cant and could be either compressive or tensile;
3. The variation of support reactions of all columns in
METHODOLOGY
Initially, the structure has been analyzed by considering only the critical frame are linear from 2mm to 8mm settle-

IJSER
secondary loads which were applied in the form of support ment for 2mm scale;
displacements on supports of the critical frames chosen from
the structure. After that, the structure has been again analyzed 4. The weight of the steel was increased after consider-
and redesigned by considering both primary and secondary ing the secondary loads due to settlement.
loads due to settlement. The analysis and design has done by
using STAAD.pro 2006. Thus three diagrams were drawn for each loading case, show-
The support displacement of magnitudes 2mm, 4mm, 6mm ing the pattern of
and 8mm were applied on the supports of the critical frames
chosen from the structure. Totally, eight different cases were 1. Distribution of axial loads induced in the columns;
considered based on number of supports in the critical frames 2. Variation of support reaction in the columns; and
which are given below:
Case – 1 3. Variation of steel weight of the structure.

2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S6L These results are shown in the following figures, for critical

Case – 2 loading case.

2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S7L

Case – 3 1. SUPPORT REACTIONS
The following graphs shows the support reactions induced in
2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S8L
various columns due to 8mm settlement in different load cases
Case – 4
2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S9L
Case – 5
2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S13
2000
Case – 6 922 842
Support Reaction

1000 431 486

2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S10L 82
0
(kN)

Case – 7 S6L S7L S8L S9L S10L S11

-1000
2mm, 4mm, 6mm and 8 mm settlement of support S11
-2000
Case – 8
-3000
-2776
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
Supports
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015 150
ISSN 2229-5518

2000 1384 2000

904 1130 1132
Support Reaction (kN)

790

Support Reaction (kN)

1000 373 1000
0 0
S6L S7L S8L S9L S10L S11 S6R S9L S13 S9R
-1000 -603 -1000
-754
-2000 -2000
-2010
-3000 Supports -3000
-2796
Fig 1 case – 1 Supports
Fig 5 case – 5
Fig 2 case – 2
2000 1454

Support Reaction (kN)

1500 960
911 1000 713
1000
Support Reaction (kN)

469
500 161 158 0
0 S6L S8L S9L S10L S16 S10R
S6L S7L S8L S9L S11 -1000 -729 -689
-500

IJSER
-1000 -2000 -1721
-1500
Supports
-2000 -1653
Fig 6 cases – 6
Supports
Fig 3 case – 3 2000 1415 1415
Support Reaction (kN)

2000 1212 1000

890
Support Reaction (kN)

1000 573
151 386 0
0 S6L S11 S6R
-1000
S6L S7L S8L S9L S10L S13 S9R
-1000 -403 -2000
-2000 -3000
-3000 -3104
-4000
-2974
-4000 Supports

Supports Fig 7 case –7

Fig 4 cases – 4
3000
1883 1883
2000
Support Reaction (kN)

1000
0
-1000 S10L S16 S10R
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000 -4050
Supports
Fig 8 cases – 8
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015 151
ISSN 2229-5518
2 DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL LOADS 400 369 364
The following graphs show the distribution of axial loads in-
300
duced in the columns due to 8mm settlement in load case –

Axial Force (kN)

1.The distribution of axial force for remaining cases also simi- 200
102
lar to case – 1. 100
0 9 17 0
Height of Column (m) 0
0 0 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-20 0 20 40 -22 60 80
-200 Height Of Column (m)
-164
-400 Fig 12 Distribution of axial load in column S9L
Axial Force (kN)

-600 -542
Height of Column (m)
-800 0 -2 -2 0
-20 0 20 -13 40 -18 60 80
-1000 -50
-1200 -100

Axial Force (kN)

-1242
-1400 -150

Fig 9 Distribution of axial load in column S6L -200

IJSER
1000 904 941 -250
Axial Force (kN)

800 -300
600 -313
-350
400 269
Fig 13 Distribution of axial load in column S6R
200 0 0
0
-20 0
20 40 60 80
Height of Column (m)
1500 1384
Fig 10 Distribution of axial load in column S7L
1000
1000 428
Axial Force (kN)

790 500 97
18
800
Axial Force (kN)

0
600 438 -50 0 50 100
400 Height of Column (m)
200 50 47
0 Fig14 Distribution of axial load in column S11
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 3 VARIATION OF SUPPORT REACTIONS
Height Of column (m)
The following graphs show the variation of support reactions
Fig 11 Distribution of axial load in column S8L
induced due to various settlements for case – 5.

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015 152
ISSN 2229-5518

840 839
836 837 836 837

Weight of Steel (TON)

1200 834
1130 833
Support Reaction (kN)

835
1000 830
829
800 787 830
600 825
515
400
250 820
200 W.S C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8
0 CASES
4 6 82
Settlement (mm) Fig 18 Weight of steel required for different cases
Fig 15 Variation of support reaction of column S9L

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
1200
1132
Support Reaction (kN)

1000 1. AXIAL LOADS INDUCED IN THE COLUMNS

800 788 These are shown in figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
600 It can be seen that in all cases a tensile force is induced in the
516
400 members of the column on which the settlement is applied.

IJSER
200 250
These tensile forces are greatest at the bottom of the building
0 and decrease in magnitude up the frame. Naturally such
2 4 6 8
Settlement (mm) 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
to reduce these compressive forces throughout the columns on
0 Settlement (mm)
which the settlement is applied.
2 4 6 8
Support Reaction

-645 On the other hand compressive forces are induced in the

-1000
-1319 members of the columns immediately on either side of the
(kN)

-2000 -1996 column on which the settlement is applied. These forces also
have their maximum value at the bottom of the structure and
-2796
-3000 decrease steadily upwards. Such forces will of course increase
Fig 17 Variation of support reaction of column S13 the compression which already exists in these members.
4 variation of weight of steel
The following graph shows the weight of steel required for 2 VARIATION OF SUPPORT REACTIONS
different cases. 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 settle-
ment 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
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015
ISSN 2229-5518
8mm settlement with 2mm scale.
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 bot-
tom of the structure where the effect of settlement is more se-
vere.
3 Variation of weight of steel
These are shown in figure 18
The weight of steel was increased after applying the settle-
ment for all cases and it can be observed that case 4 needs
maximum weight of steel and increase in weight of steel will
not exceed 0.25 percent.
COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
153
b. The increase in the weight of steel is not greater than
2.5% for a critical case.
Thus it would appear from this information that if a differen-
tial 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-
ture.
REFERENCES
[1] 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.
[2] IS 800: 1984 “Indian standard code of practice for general construc-
tions in steel”, Bureau of Indian Standards.
[3] IS 875: 1987 (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5), “Indian Standard Code of practice
for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and struc-

IJSER
The results obtained are applicable to this particular structure tures”. Bureau of Indian Standards.
[4] Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, (2007) Earthquake Re-
and also to similar structures with same bracing system. It sistant Design of Structures, Prentice hall of India New Delhi.

would clearly be unwise to claim a sweeping generalization

from this investigation. Nevertheless it does appear to suggest
that, for such a structure:
1. The significant forces induced are confined to the bot-
tom half of the structure, and these are decrease steadi-
ly upwards.
2. The settlement of the end column produces greater ef-
fects over a wider area than that from any interior col-
umn.

In this project, the structure has been analyzed and redesigned

by considering the loads induced due to settlement of sup-
ports 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 be-
low:
a. 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 se-
vere.

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, October-2015 154
ISSN 2229-5518

IJSER

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org