SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF ARCH ROOFED STEEL

A thesis submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Bachelor of Technology

In

Civil Engineering

Submitted by

Antiksha Priyam Nath Udeshna Mali Ram Kumar Panjiyara Deepak Kumar
(CEB22002) (CEB22040) (CEB22049) (CEB22051)

Vikrant Verma Md. Firdoush Srabana Bora

(CEB22053) (CEB22060) (CEB22082)

Department of Civil Engineering

School of Engineering

Tezpur University

Napaam, Sonitpur - 784028, Assam, India

December, 2025

i
 ABSTRACT

Steel buildings with arch roofs are preferably used in long-span structures because of
their structural advantages, aesthetics, and facilitation of a large column-free area. The article
describes the structural design and seismic vulnerability of a semicircular arch roof structure
for a long-span structure to be located in Jaigaon, West Bengal. The proposed semicircular arch
roof to be designed has a span of 50 m and a height of 25 m, resulting in a structure resembling
a half dome, thus making the structure free from sharp corners, resulting in reduced wind
actions and minimizing the horizontal forces at the supports. The design adheres to the codes
IS 875, IS 800:2007, IS 2062:2011, and IS 4923:2017. The thickness of the roof sheet has been
calculated based on wind pressure and live load, and the results of the calculations satisfy the
structural conditions, i.e., the hoop stresses. The purlins have been calculated based on their
behaviour as flexural members laterally supported, and their calculated results have been
justified by SAP2000.

The roof truss system is designed and analysed three dimensionally by considering the
effects of dead load, live load, wind load, earthquake load, and temperature effects. The critical
members of the truss system and the locations of the welded joints are designed to resist highly
tensile forces effectively by using gusset plates and codal provisions for welding.
Contemporarily, the research framework emphasizes the assessment of earthquake
susceptibility by considering the effects of various arch shapes, spans, and rise and span ratios
during earthquake loading conditions. Modern methods of analysis, like response spectrum and
time histories, are adopted to analyse the seismic effects realistically. The integrated design and
analysis procedure aims to explore an optimum design of the arch to provide earthquake-
resistant long-span steel arch roofed buildings effectively.

ii
 DECLARATION

We do hereby declare that the thesis entitled, “Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Of

Arch Roofed Steel” being submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, School of
Engineering, Tezpur University is a record of original research work carried out by us. All
sources of assistance have been assigned due Acknowledgment. We also declare that neither
this work as a whole nor a part of it has been submitted to any other University or Institute
for award of any other degree or diploma.

Place: Tezpur

Date: 19 December 2025

Antiksha Priyam Nath Udeshna Mali Ram Kumar Panjiyara Deepak Kumar
(CEB22002) (CEB22040) (CEB22049) (CEB22051)

Vikrant Verma Md. Firdoush Srabana Bora

(CEB22053) (CEB22060) (CEB22082)

iii
 Department of Civil Engineering
Tezpur University
(A Central University established by an Act of Parliament)
Napaam, Sonitpur -784028, Assam, India
Dr. Debaraj Bailung Sonowal Phone: 03712275962
Assistant Professor Email: bailung@[Link]

CERTIFICATE BY THE SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Arch
Roofed Steel” submitted to the Civil Engineering department of the School of Engineering,
Tezpur University in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of B. Tech in Civil
Engineering, is a record of research work carried out by Antiksha Priyam Nath (CEB22002),
Udeshna Mali (CEB22040), Ram Kumar Panjiyara (CEB22049), Deepak Kumar (CEB22051),
Vikrant Verma (CEB22053), Md. Firdoush (CEB22060), Srabana Bora (CEB22082) under my
supervision and guidance.

All help received by them from various sources has been duly acknowledged. No part of this
thesis has been submitted elsewhere for the award of any other degree.

Date: Dr. Debaraj Bailung Sonowal

Supervisor

iv
 Department of Civil Engineering
Tezpur University
(A Central University established by an Act of Parliament)
Napaam, Sonitpur -784028, Assam, India

CERTIFICATE OF THE EXTERNAL EXAMINER

This is to certify that we have examined the project report on “Seismic Vulnerability
Assessment of Arch Roofed Steel” and hereby accord or approve of it as a study carried out
and presented in a manner required for its acceptance and partial fulfilment for the
bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. The report has been submitted by

Antiksha Priyam Nath (CEB22002)

Udeshna Mali (CEB22040)

Ram Kumar Panjiyara (CEB22049)

Deepak Kumar (CEB22051)

Vikrant Verma (CEB22053)

Md. Firdoush (CEB22060)

Srabana Bora (CEB22082)

This approval does not necessarily accept every statement made, opinion expressed, or
conclusion drawn as recorded in the report. It only signifies the acceptance of this report for
which it has been submitted.

The Viva-Voce of the above students of [Link] (Civil Engineering) for their project has been
held on 19th December and found satisfactory.

Head of the Department External Examiner

Date: Date:

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It would be our immense pleasure to take this opportunity to thank those people
whose help and support have made this work possible.

At the outset, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to our research supervisor
Dr. Debaraj Bailung Sonowal, Department of Civil Engineering, Tezpur University for his
enthusiasm and guidance during our research and for his patience while the thesis was being
written. We greatly appreciate his care and valuable suggestions for our work, including our
thesis.

We would also like to thank the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. Kamal
Uddin Ahmed for his constant inspiration throughout the period of our study and all the
faculty members of the Department of Civil Engineering, Tezpur University for their constant
encouragement and support.

We would also like to acknowledge the help received from Tezpur University in the
form of help and support for carrying out our research work.

We would like to thank our family members for their constant support and
encouragement during our entire research period.

Last but not least, we would like to thank all our well-wishers for their constant support
and encouragement throughout our period of research.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii

Declaration iii

Certificate by the Supervisor iv

Certificate of the External Examiner v

Acknowledgement vi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3

3 SURVEY OF EXISTING ARCH-ROOFED STEEL STRUCTURES 5

3.1 Types of Existing Arch-Roofed Steel Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Span, Geometry, and Structural System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 Materials and Construction Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 Observed Seismic Performance and Damage Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5 Case Studies of Arch-Roofed Steel Structures in India . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5.1 Industrial Warehouse Structures in Northeast India (Seismic Zone
IV–V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5.2 Aircraft Hangars at Major Indian Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.3 Indoor Stadiums and Exhibition Halls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6 Relevance to the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 METHODOLOGY 8

5 SELECTION OF ARCH TYPE 9

6 Selection of Roofing Material Thickness 11

6.1 Design Loads on Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Hoop Stress Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3 Material Strength Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

vii
7 Design of Purlins 13
7.1 Live Load on Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2 Dead Load Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3 Structural Analysis Results (SAP2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4 Design of Purlin Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5 Selection of Purlin Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

8 Roof Truss (Three-Dimensional Analysis) 16

8.1 Load Transfer Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2 Loads Considered in 3D Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3 Two-Dimensional Structural View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4 Three-Dimensional Structural Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5 Provision for Translucent Roofing Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

9 Design of Truss Member (Tension Member) 19

9.1 Design Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2 Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3 Required Gross Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.4 Selection of Truss Member Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.5 Check for Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

10 Design of Welded Connections 21

10.1 Weld Design for Main Rafter Butt Joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.2 Gusset Plate Connection for Main Rafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.3 Weld Design for Connection Between Bracing and Main Member . . . . . . 23

11 Design of Base Plate 25

11.1 Bearing Strength of Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2 Base Plate Geometry and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.3 Net Bearing Pressure Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.4 Thickness of Base Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

12 CONCLUSION & OUTCOMES 28

12.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.2 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

References 30

viii
List of Figures

5.1 Cross-Sectional View of Selected Semicircular Arch Truss (Site: Jaigaon,

West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

7.1 Bending Moment Diagram of Purlin Obtained from SAP2000 . . . . . . . . 14

7.2 Shear Force Diagram of Purlin Obtained from SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3 Transfer of Joint Reaction Force to Main Truss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8.1 Two-Dimensional View of Steel Arch Roof Truss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

8.2 Three-Dimensional View of Steel Arch Roof Truss Model . . . . . . . . . . 18

10.1 End Joint Between Main Section (Dimensions in metres) . . . . . . . . . . 23

10.2 Joint Between Bracing and Main Member (Dimensions in metres) . . . . . 24

11.1 Base Plate Layout and Dimensional Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

ix
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Long-span steel structures have a critical application in modern infrastructure solutions

as they have a large span without internal supports. Among these, the most popular
application of steel structures is observed in arch roofed steel structures, which include
sheds, auditoriums, exhibition centers, warehouses, and transportation hubs. The rationale
behind their structural advantages is that it is a self-supporting structural form where the
primary force transfer is due to compression rather than bending, leading to efficient use
of material and good rigid behaviour. Because of these advantages, arch roofs tend to find
applications where larger unobstructed space is necessitated.
In history, the arch ranks among the oldest structural shapes, going back to the Roman
period when masonry arches showed impressive strength endurance. As material science
and construction methods have progressed, the steel arch design has appeared as the con-
temporary version of the classic design. Modern steel arch roofs are more adaptable in terms
of design, quicker to erect, and stronger for a given weight than the corresponding roofs
designed with the use of traditional building materials. This is especially true regarding the
semicircular and truss arch designs.
Nonetheless, despite these numerous benefits, seismic resilience has emerged as a matter
of concern for steel buildings that use an arch roof structure, especially for seismic areas.
For instance, as compared to normal buildings, arch buildings use a complex dynamic
model during seismic forces, which stem from arch curvature, spatial transfer, as well as
arch support type. Moreover, during seismic forces, a considerable force distribution, local
flutter, joint damage, and considerable displacement can also occur, which, if unaddressed
during designs, may significantly impact structural safety and serviceability.
The current study combines practical structural design with the analysis of the seismic
response of the long span steel arch roof structure designed for Jaigaon, West Bengal. A
semicircular steel arch structure is designed that will span 50 m and stand 25 m high to avoid
the effects of wind forces and the concentration of stresses. The designed steel structure
will include the roof structure, purlins, steel trusses, and weld joints that will comply with
Indian Standards such as IS 875, IS 800:2007, IS 2062:2011, and IS 4923:2017.
Apart from the codal designs, the importance of the vulnerability assessment of the
seismic effect via numerical models and analysis has equally been highlighted. For the pur-
poses of the research, three-dimensional numerical models of the steel arch roof structures
with different designs, spans, and height-to-span ratios have been created via the SAP2000

1
software. The numerical models have been subjected to different types of loads, including
the dead, live, wind, earthquake, temperature, and dynamic earthquake loads via response
spectrum and time-history analysis. By integrating structural designs and advanced seismic
analyses, the goals of this research are to find the most efficient and seismically resilient
form of the arch that can be effectively applied in long-span architecture. The results will
play their part in improving the seismic behaviour of steel buildings with the arch roof
design.

2
Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Long-span steel structures, particularly arch roof systems, have been the subject of exten-
sive research due to their widespread application in industrial and commercial buildings.
Researchers have focused on various aspects such as structural behaviour, seismic per-
formance, wind response, material efficiency, and vulnerability assessment. This chapter
presents a brief review of relevant studies related to steel arch roof structures and their
seismic behaviour.
Bai, Hao, and Li (2010) investigated the seismic response of steel trussed arch structures
subjected to spatially varying earthquake ground motions. Their study highlighted that
spatial variation of ground motion can significantly influence internal force distribution
and displacement patterns in long-span arch structures. The authors emphasised the need
for considering site effects and non-uniform ground excitation in seismic analysis of arch
systems.
Xiang, Luo, and Shen (2017) proposed an extended modal pushover procedure for esti-
mating the in-plane seismic response of latticed arch structures. Their research demonstrated
that traditional single-mode pushover methods may not accurately capture the seismic be-
haviour of long-span arches. The study showed that higher-mode effects play an important
role in governing the response of arch roof systems under earthquake loading.
Zhang et al. (2020) carried out a parametric study on the seismic performance of
concrete-filled steel tube arch bridges. Although the study was focused on bridge structures,
the findings provided valuable insight into the influence of geometric parameters, material
properties, and load distribution on the seismic response of arch-shaped steel systems. The
authors reported that arch geometry significantly affects stiffness and energy dissipation
capacity.
He and Zou (2021) analysed large-span steel truss structures using PKPM software and
studied their seismic behaviour under different loading conditions. Their results indicated
that long-span steel structures are highly sensitive to seismic excitation and require careful
modelling of connections and boundary conditions to obtain realistic results.
Wang and Smith (2020) studied seismic design loads for truss arch frames with ceiling
systems subjected to combined vertical and horizontal earthquake motions. The study
concluded that vertical seismic effects should not be neglected in the design of long-span
arch roof structures, as they can contribute significantly to axial force variation in members.
In addition to research articles, several design guidelines and codes have provided

3
recommendations for the analysis and design of steel roof structures. Indian Standard
IS 800:2007 provides comprehensive guidelines for the design of steel members and con-
nections. IS 875 (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) specifies the procedures for calculating dead
load, live load, and wind load, respectively, while IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 outlines the criteria
for earthquake-resistant design of structures.
From the reviewed literature, it is evident that the seismic performance of steel arch
roof structures depends on several factors such as geometry, span-to-rise ratio, loading
conditions, boundary restraints, and modelling assumptions. However, limited studies are
available that focus specifically on the seismic vulnerability assessment of arch roofed steel
structures used in industrial buildings in the Indian context. This identified research gap
forms the basis of the present study.
The present work aims to contribute to this area by analysing the seismic behaviour
of arch roofed steel structures using Indian Standard codes and modern structural analysis
tools, thereby providing insight into their suitability and safety in seismic regions.

4
Chapter 3

SURVEY OF EXISTING ARCH-ROOFED STEEL STRUC-

TURES

3.1 Types of Existing Arch-Roofed Steel Structures

Architectural steel buildings with arch roofs are generally used in industrial and infras-
tructure projects like warehouses, aircraft hangars, sports complexes, exhibition halls, and
transportation terminals like railways and buses. The commonly used arch patterns are
the semicircular arches, parabolic arches, and polygonal trussed arches. Of these, semicir-
cular and trussed arches are commonly used because of simplicity, load distribution, and
aesthetics. Structurally, arches can be generally categorized, depending upon the support
conditions, into two-hinged, three-hinged, and fixed arches. Two-hinged arches are com-
monly adopted for industrial buildings because of the structural determinacy offered by these
arches under the effects of temperature changes. Three-hinged arches are more flexible and
have a less susceptible support settlement, whereas fixed arches have higher stiffness but
require stronger subsurface support and robust earthquake-resistant design provisions

3.2 Span, Geometry, and Structural System

A survey of existing long span steel arch roofs reveals that the span values vary from 30 m to
80 m, while the rise-to-span ratio varies between 0.3 and 0.6. Arches of higher rise-to-span
ratios are found to perform well in terms of force distribution but can be vulnerable to lateral
forces. Roofing systems are designed using steel sheets or lighter roofs supported by purlins
that are fixed to the arch ribs or truss structures. In existing buildings, the rooftop design may
incorporate the use of secondary bracing systems and lateral systems to provide stability.
In the past, there are buildings that lacked sufficient bracing systems or earthquake-resistant
designs.

3.3 Materials and Construction Practices

Most of the current arch-roofed steel buildings are made from mild steel or high-strength
structural steel according to a nation’s standards. The technology for welded and bolted
connections is widely used, and gusset plates are arranged at the truss joints and the bracing
intersections. It follows from the field surveys and literature that connection detailing is

5
very critical in seismic performance, and most of the damage has been observed at the
joints rather than the primary members. Construction practices for older structures focused
primarily on gravity and wind load considerations, while there was limited emphasis on
seismic design. As such, many existing arch-roofed steel buildings are not fully conforming
to current seismic design provisions in regions of moderate to high seismicity.

3.4 Observed Seismic Performance and Damage Patterns

Steel arch and truss buildings that experienced an earthquake have been studied, and it has
been observed that, although complete collapse is a rare occurrence, damage patterns that
generally take the form of connection failures, local buckling, excessive roof displacement,
and bracing system yield are quite common. In long-span arch buildings, differential support
displacement and nonuniform ground acceleration have been found to significantly impact
internal forces and deformations. These structures, when not taking into consideration the
spatial variability of earthquake motions, can cause amplified responses during earthquakes.
This can be exacerbated further by the absence of ductility and earthquake energy dissipation
capabilities.

3.5 Case Studies of Arch-Roofed Steel Structures in India

3.5.1 Industrial Warehouse Structures in Northeast India (Seismic

Zone IV–V)
SeVarious industrial warehouses in Assam and the surrounding northeastern states lie in
Seismic Zones IV and V, known for their high seismic intensities. These areas have
had moderate to strong earthquakes in the past and therefore have a very critical seismic
performance. The warehouses surveyed were generally characterized by steel trussed arch
roofs with spans between 35 m and 55 m inclusive, and rise-to-span ratios between 0.35 and
0.5. The roof system is composed of lightweight steel sheeting supported on cold-formed
steel purlins that are connected to the main arch ribs. Most of the structures have two-
hinged arch systems with pinned base connections anchored to reinforced concrete pedestals.
Post-earthquake inspections showed that primary arch members generally remained elastic,
although localized damage occurred in secondary members and connections. Yielding of
bracing members, bolt loosening’s, weld cracks at gusset plates, and excessive deflection of
purlins were commonly found. Support settlement due to minor soil liquefaction enhanced
internal forces within the arch ribs in a few buildings.

6
3.5.2 Aircraft Hangars at Major Indian Airports
Large aircraft hangars at airports like Delhi and Bengaluru (Zone IV and II, respectively)
are provided with long-span steel arch and trussed roof systems. With great variation in
seismic demand for these structures at different locations, the design philosophy adopted
for these structures is that of high safety and operational reliability. Hangars are designed
with clear spans greater than 60 m, using steel arch or space-truss roofing systems on
fixed or semi-rigid supports. High-strength sections of structural steel are specified with
multiple load paths for redundancy. The roof system will often be provided with heavy
purlins and bracing arrangements in order to control deflections and vibrations. Structural
health monitoring and regular inspections also showcase very good performance both under
service and seismic conditions. There have not been any significant reports on structural
distress, even during moderate seismic events. However, according to analytical studies,
long support spacing may lead to differential ground motion effects in strong earthquakes.

3.5.3 Indoor Stadiums and Exhibition Halls

Indoor stadiums and exhibition halls at Guwahati, Hyderabad, and New Delhi use this
type of roof to achieve obstruction-free interior space. These structures are situated in
Seismic Zones III and IV. Typical spans vary from 40 m to 70 m, with semicircular or
polygonal trussed arch roofs. Many of the older structures were designed for gravity and
wind loads only, while newer facilities have seismic-resistant features that include braced
frames and energy dissipating connections. Field surveys indicate signs of distress in the
forms of corrosion in members, fatigue cracks in welds, and inadequate bracing system.
During seismic events, excessive roof displacement and vibration were reported, although
no collapse occurred. Newer buildings with improved detailing and adherence to updated
seismic codes performed significantly better.

3.6 Relevance to the Present Study

The survey of existing structures, and Indian case studies, provides valuable guidance for
selecting arch geometry, support conditions, and analysis methods in the present project.
These observations reinforce the need for advanced seismic analysis and improved detailing
practices to enhance the safety and reliability of arch-roofed steel buildings under earthquake
loading.

7
Chapter 4

METHODOLOGY

The proposed research work introduces a novel approach using codal design methods,
mathematical models, and seismic analysis for seismic vulnerability assessments of steel
buildings with an arch roof system. First, the existing building stock with an arch roof system
and relevant literature sources are reviewed to gain awareness about the structural system
types, material characteristics, and seismic performance. After the survey or literature
reviews, a steel semicircular arch roof system with an appropriate span length, height-to-
span ratio, and support type is chosen.
The structural members, namely roofings, purlins, arch ribs, bracing members, and
joints, are designed as per the Indian Standards IS: 875 for loadings, IS: 800:2007 for steel
design, IS: 2062 for material resistance, and IS: 4923 for hollow sections. The load analysis
for dead loads, live loads, wind load, temperature load, and earthquake load is calculated,
and critical sections are designed to meet the strength and serviceability criteria.
A three-dimensional analytical model of the arch roofed structure is developed in
SAP2000. Linear static analysis is performed to assess the effect of load due to gravity
and wind, while modal analysis is performed to determine the characteristics of the dy-
namics of the structure, which is then analysed using response spectrum analysis and time
history analysis to determine the effect of seismic activity on the structure. Parametric
analysis is performed by modifying the shape of the arch to produce the most effective shape
to withstand seismic activity.

8
Chapter 5

SELECTION OF ARCH TYPE

Several arch configurations were considered for the roof system, including parabolic arches,
polygonal trussed arches, and semicircular arches. After evaluating the structural behaviour,
constructability, and environmental loading conditions, a semicircular arch truss system was
selected for the present study.
The semicircular arch configuration offers smooth curvature without sharp angles, which
results in reduced wind pressure concentration and improved aerodynamic performance.
This characteristic makes the system particularly suitable for regions subjected to significant
wind effects.
In the selected structural arrangement, the arch ribs are directly connected to the base
plate without the need for separate beams or intermediate columns. This creates a half-
dome-like structural form, ensuring efficient load transfer from the roof system directly to the
foundation. The absence of vertical columns within the span provides a large unobstructed
interior space and simplifies the load path.
Furthermore, since the structure does not rely on separate columns, the horizontal force
effects are significantly reduced. The thrust generated by the arch action is effectively
transferred to the supports, enhancing the overall stability of the structure under gravity,
wind, and seismic loads.
Based on these considerations, the semicircular steel arch truss system is adopted as the
most suitable and efficient structural solution for the present project.

9
 Rise 25 m

Cross section view of arch

span 50 m

Figure 5.1: Cross-Sectional View of Selected Semicircular Arch Truss (Site: Jaigaon, West
Bengal)

Site Location: Jaigaon, West Bengal

10
Chapter 6

Selection of Roofing Material Thickness

As per IS 875 (Part 2): 1987, live loads on roofs need not be considered when the roof is not
accessible except for maintenance purposes. However, a nominal worker load is considered
during construction and maintenance activities in accordance with Clause 4.1 of IS 875
(Part 2).
In the present study, a steel semicircular arch roof system is adopted. Structurally,
this type of roof behaves similar to a thin shell or half-dome, where the dominant stress
induced due to uniformly distributed pressure is hoop stress. Hence, the thickness of the
steel roofing plate is designed considering wind pressure and nominal live load acting on
the roof sheeting.

6.1 Design Loads on Roof

• Wind pressure on roof (IS 875 Part 3):

𝑝 𝑤 = 3525.57 N/m2

• Live load on roof (IS 875 Part 2, Clause 4.1):

𝑝 𝐿 = 500 N/m2

Total service load on the roof is given by:

𝑝 = 𝑝 𝑤 + 𝑝 𝐿 = 3525.57 + 500 = 4025.57 N/m2

Applying a load factor of 1.5, the factored design pressure becomes:

𝑃 = 1.5 × 4025.57 = 6038.355 N/m2

6.2 Hoop Stress Analysis

For a thin curved shell subjected to uniform pressure, the maximum hoop stress is calculated
using the following expression:
𝑃×𝑅
𝜎ℎ =
𝑡

11
 where,

• 𝑃 = factored pressure (N/m2 )

• 𝑅 = radius of curvature of the arch (m)

• 𝑡 = thickness of roofing plate (m)

The assumed and adopted parameters are:

• Thickness of steel plate, 𝑡 = 1.6 mm = 0.0016 m

• Radius of arch, 𝑅 = 25 m

Substituting the values:

6038.355 × 25
𝜎ℎ = = 94.35 MPa
0.0016

6.3 Material Strength Verification

Structural steel conforming to IS 2062:2011 (Grade E250) is used for the roofing plate.

• Yield stress of steel,

𝑓 𝑦 = 250 MPa

The utilization ratio of yield stress is:

94.35
× 100 = 37.7%
250

12
Chapter 7

Design of Purlins

Purlins are secondary structural members provided to support the roofing sheets and transfer
the roof loads to the main arch truss. The purlins are designed as laterally supported flexural
members in accordance with IS 800:2007.
*Purlin Spacing
The spacing between purlins is selected based on standard practice and recommendations
given in SP 38.

Spacing between purlins = 1.48 m

7.1 Live Load on Roof

As per IS 875 (Part 2), Clause 4.1, the imposed load on the roof is given by:

𝑤 𝐿 = 0.75 − 0.25𝑦 2

Where:
ℎ
𝑦=
𝐿
For the present structure:
ℎ = 25 m, 𝐿 = 25 m

25
𝑦= =1
25

𝑤 𝐿 = 0.75 − 0.25(1) 2 = 0.50 kN/m2

7.2 Dead Load Calculation

• Thickness of roofing material = 1.6 mm

• Weight of roofing material = 123.21 N/m2

• Length of arch = 78.54 m

• Purlin spacing = 1.48 m

13
 • Number of purlins = 54

• Self-weight of purlin = 294.3 N/m

Total uniformly distributed load on purlin:

𝑤 = 1.22 kN/m

7.3 Structural Analysis Results (SAP2000)

The purlin is analysed using SAP2000, and the governing bending moment, shear force, and
joint reaction are obtained as shown below.

Figure 7.1: Bending Moment Diagram of Purlin Obtained from SAP2000

Figure 7.2: Shear Force Diagram of Purlin Obtained from SAP2000

Figure 7.3: Transfer of Joint Reaction Force to Main Truss

Maximum values obtained from analysis:

𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 14.64 kN-m

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 7.32 kN

𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 14.64 kN

14
7.4 Design of Purlin Section
The purlin is designed as a laterally supported flexural member as per IS 800:2007,
Clause [Link].
Assuming:
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 < 0.6𝑉𝑑

Hence, shear does not govern the design.

Design bending strength is given by:

𝑓𝑦
𝑀𝑑 = 𝛽 𝑏 × 𝑍 𝑝 ×
𝛾𝑚0

Where:
𝛽𝑏 = 1.0 (plastic and compact section)

𝑓 𝑦 = 310 MPa

𝛾𝑚0 = 1.10

Equating:
𝑍 𝑝 × 310
14.64 × 106 × 1.5 =
1.10

𝑍 𝑝 = 76.964 cm3

7.5 Selection of Purlin Section

From IS 4923:2017, the selected section is:

• Section size = 125 × 125 × 4.5 mm

• Grade = Yst 310

• 𝑍 𝑝 (Available) = 80.93 cm3

• 𝑍 𝑝 (Required) = 76.964 cm3

Since:
𝑍 𝑝 (available) > 𝑍 𝑝 (required)

the selected purlin section is found to be safe in bending.

15
Chapter 8

Roof Truss (Three-Dimensional Analysis)

A three-dimensional structural analysis of the steel arch roof truss system is carried out to
evaluate the realistic behaviour of the structure under various loading conditions. The roof
truss system consists of arch ribs, purlins, bracing members, and roofing elements, all of
which contribute to the overall stiffness and load transfer mechanism.

8.1 Load Transfer Mechanism

The roofing load and imposed live load acting on the roof surface are first transferred to the
purlins. The uniformly distributed load acting on each purlin is calculated as:

𝑤 = 0.926 kN/m

For simplicity and conservative design considerations, this value is approximated as:

𝑤 ≈ 1.0 kN/m

The loads from the purlins are then transferred to the main arch truss members through
joint connections, and finally to the foundation through the base plates.

8.2 Loads Considered in 3D Analysis

The following load cases are considered in the three-dimensional analysis model developed
using SAP2000:

1. Dead Load

2. Live Load

3. Wind Load

4. Earthquake Load

5. Temperature Variation

These load cases are combined as per relevant Indian Standard codes to obtain the
governing load combinations for design.

16
8.3 Two-Dimensional Structural View
A two-dimensional view of the arch roof truss is used to understand the geometry, support
conditions, and member connectivity. This view helps in verifying the span, rise, and overall
configuration of the arch system.

Figure 8.1: Two-Dimensional View of Steel Arch Roof Truss

8.4 Three-Dimensional Structural Model

A detailed three-dimensional model of the arch roof structure is developed to capture the
actual load distribution, structural interaction between members, and global response of the
system. The 3D model includes arch ribs, purlins, bracing members, and support conditions.

17
 Figure 8.2: Three-Dimensional View of Steel Arch Roof Truss Model

8.5 Provision for Translucent Roofing Material

In cases where translucent roofing material is required for natural light visibility, an addi-
tional purlin is proposed between the regular purlin spacing at the required locations. This
ensures adequate support for the translucent sheets and limits excessive deflection.
For translucent roofing, a minimum material thickness of 3 mm is recommended to
ensure sufficient strength and durability under service loads.

18
Chapter 9

Design of Truss Member (Tension Member)

The truss members subjected to tensile forces are designed to safely resist the axial tension
developed under the governing load combinations. The design is carried out in accordance
with the provisions of IS 800:2007 using the limit state method.

9.1 Design Force

From structural analysis, the maximum tensile force acting on the truss member is obtained
as:

𝑇 = 6425.698 kN

The design tensile force is given by:

𝑇𝑑𝑔 = 6425.698 kN

9.2 Design Criteria

As per IS 800:2007, the design strength of a tension member governed by yielding of the
gross section is given by:

𝑓 𝑦 × 𝐴𝑔
𝑇𝑑𝑔 =
𝛾𝑚0
Where:
𝑓 𝑦 = 460 N/mm2 (Yield stress of steel)

𝛾𝑚0 = 1.10 (Partial safety factor)

𝐴𝑔 = Gross cross-sectional area

9.3 Required Gross Area

Rearranging the above equation:

𝑇𝑑𝑔 × 𝛾𝑚0
𝐴𝑔 =
𝑓𝑦

19
 Substituting the values:

6425.698 × 103 × 1.10

𝐴𝑔 =
460

𝐴𝑔 = 15.36 × 103 mm2

𝐴𝑔 = 153 cm2

9.4 Selection of Truss Member Section

Based on the required gross area, a hollow structural steel section conforming to IS 4923:2017
is selected.

• Section size = 400 × 400 × 12 mm

• Steel grade = 𝑓 𝑦 = 460 N/mm2

Gross area of selected section:

𝐴𝑔 = 182.54 cm2 = 18,254 mm2

9.5 Check for Adequacy

𝐴𝑔 (provided) = 182.54 cm2

𝐴𝑔 (required) = 153 cm2

Since:
𝐴𝑔 (provided) > 𝐴𝑔 (required)

the selected truss member section is **safe in tension**.

20
Chapter 10

Design of Welded Connections

The welded connections are designed to safely transfer the forces developed in the truss
members to the supporting structural elements. The design is carried out in accordance
with IS 800:2007 using the limit state method.

10.1 Weld Design for Main Rafter Butt Joint

Initially, a direct butt weld connection is checked for the main rafter member.
Effective throat thickness of weld:

5
𝑡𝑒 = × 12 = 7.5 mm
8

Material properties:
𝑓 𝑦 = 460 N/mm2

Available weld length:

𝐿 𝑤 = 400 × 4 = 1600 mm

Design strength of weld:

𝑓𝑦 × 𝐿 𝑤 × 𝑡𝑒
𝑇𝑑𝑤 =
𝛾𝑚𝑤
Substituting values:
460 × 1600 × 7.5
𝑇𝑑𝑤 =
1.5

𝑇𝑑𝑤 = 3680 kN

Since:
𝑇𝑑𝑤 < 6425.698 kN

the butt weld alone is found to be **insufficient** to transfer the design tensile force.

10.2 Gusset Plate Connection for Main Rafter

To safely transfer the design force, a gusset plate connection is provided.
As per IS 800:2007, Clause [Link], the design strength of weld is given by:

21
 𝐾 𝑠 × 𝐿 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 × 𝑓𝑢
𝐹= √
3 × 𝛾𝑚𝑤
Where:
𝐾 𝑠 = 0.7, 𝑓𝑢 = 460 N/mm2 , 𝛾𝑚𝑤 = 1.5

Design force to be transferred:

𝐹 = 6425.698 × 103 N

Substituting values:

0.7 × 10.5 × 𝐿 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 × 460

6425.698 × 103 = √
3 × 1.5

𝐿 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 = 4937.72 mm

Since the gusset plate is welded on all four sides, the effective weld length on one side
is:

4937.72
𝐿= = 1234.43 mm
4
Considering corner loss and practical detailing, the weld length provided on one side is:

𝐿 = 1240 mm

From geometric considerations:

380 + 𝑥 + 𝑥 = 1240

𝑥 = 430 mm

Available weld length:

𝐿 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 = 440 + 440 + 380 − 2 × 10.5 = 1239 mm

Required weld length:

𝐿 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 1234.43 mm

Since:
𝐿 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 > 𝐿 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑

the weld connection is found to be **safe**.

22
 0.4400

0.4000 0.3800

End to end joining of

main member

Figure 10.1: End Joint Between Main Section (Dimensions in metres)

Size of gusset plate provided:

380 × 880 × 12 mm

10.3 Weld Design for Connection Between Bracing and

Main Member
The connection between the bracing member and the main member is designed to transfer
the axial force developed in the bracing.
Maximum force to be transferred (from SAP2000 analysis):

𝐹 = 443 kN

As per IS 800:2007, Clause [Link]:

𝐾 𝑠 × 𝐿 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 × 𝑓𝑢
𝐹= √
3 × 𝛾𝑚𝑤

Substituting values:

0.8 × 10.5 × 𝐿 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 × 460

443 × 103 = √
3 × 1.5

𝐿 𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 = 297 mm

23
Since welding is provided on both sides:

297
𝐿𝑒 𝑓 𝑓 = ≈ 150 mm
2

The weld length provided on each side exceeds the required effective weld length.

Gusset plate 12mm

0.4000 thickness

0.4000
0.5000

0.5000

Joint between
bracing and main
member

Figure 10.2: Joint Between Bracing and Main Member (Dimensions in metres)

Size of gusset plate provided:

500 × 500 × 12 mm

24
Chapter 11

Design of Base Plate

The base plate is designed to safely transfer the axial load from the steel arch structure
to the reinforced concrete foundation without exceeding the permissible bearing stress of
concrete. The design is carried out in accordance with IS 800:2007.

11.1 Bearing Strength of Concrete

The characteristic compressive strength of concrete is assumed as:

𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 25 MPa

The design bearing strength of concrete is:

𝜎𝑏𝑟 = 0.6 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 15 MPa

11.2 Base Plate Geometry and Detailing

Based on structural requirements and load distribution considerations, a square base plate
of size 2700 mm × 2700 mm is adopted. The detailed dimensions of the base plate, column
spacing, and edge distances are shown in Figure 11.1.

25
 15000

4000
27000

4000
2000
2000
23000

27000

Figure 11.1: Base Plate Layout and Dimensional Details

The important geometric parameters of the base plate are summarized below:

• Overall base plate size = 2700 mm × 2700 mm

• Distance between columns = 1500 mm

• Edge distance from plate boundary = 400 mm

• Effective plate length = 2700 mm

11.3 Net Bearing Pressure Check

The factored axial load transferred to the base plate is:

𝑃𝑢 = 10103 × 103 N

The net bearing pressure on concrete is:

𝑃𝑢
𝑤=
𝐴

10103 × 103
𝑤=
2700 × 2700

26
 𝑤 = 1.38 N/mm2

Since:
1.38 N/mm2 < 15 N/mm2

the bearing pressure is within permissible limits.

11.4 Thickness of Base Plate

As per IS 800:2007, Clause [Link], the required thickness of the base plate is calculated as:
√︄  

𝛾 𝑚0
𝑡𝑠 = 2.5𝑤 𝑎 2 − 0.3𝑏 2
𝑓𝑦
Where:
𝑤 = 1.38 N/mm2

𝑎 = 1150 mm, 𝑏 = 200 mm

𝛾𝑚0 = 1.10, 𝑓 𝑦 = 460 N/mm2

𝑡 𝑠 = 103.97 mm

Adopting:
𝑡 𝑠 ≈ 105 mm

27
Chapter 12

CONCLUSION & OUTCOMES

12.1 Conclusion
Steel arch roof truss systems are highly suitable for long-span structures, especially where
large column-free spaces are required. In the present project, a roof span of 50 m and a
longitudinal length of 72 m have been considered. Constructing such a large span using a
conventional RCC structural system would be either structurally impractical or extremely
critical due to excessive self-weight, large bending moments, and uneconomical member
sizes. Hence, the adoption of a steel semicircular arch roof truss proves to be a technically
sound and economical solution.
The selected project location, Jaigaon, West Bengal, lies in a critical zone from a
structural design perspective. The region is influenced by high wind intensity and seismic
activity, and it is also located near the hilly terrain of Bhutan, which further increases
environmental uncertainties. Therefore, all important loads such as dead load, live load,
wind load, earthquake load, and temperature variation were carefully considered during
analysis and design.
After evaluating all load cases and combinations as per relevant Indian Standards, it was
observed that wind load governs the design of the structure. This is mainly due to the large
exposed surface area and curved geometry of the arch roof. From the design point of view,
either wind load or earthquake load can become critical depending on location; however,
for the present structure and site conditions, wind load was found to be more critical than
earthquake load.
The entire structural design was carried out using codal provisions from IS 800:2007,
IS 875 (Part 2 & Part 3), IS 2062:2011, and IS 4923:2017. A 3D structural analysis was
performed using SAP2000 software, which helped in accurate load distribution, member
force evaluation, and connection force estimation. Based on detailed analysis and trial
optimization, the most efficient and economical sections were selected for purlins, arch
members, bracings, connections, and base plates.

12.2 Outcomes
• The project demonstrates that steel arch roof trusses are the most efficient structural
system for long-span buildings such as industrial sheds, warehouses, exhibition halls,

28
 and commercial spaces.

• The semicircular arch geometry significantly reduces bending moments and allows
forces to be transferred mainly through axial action, improving structural efficiency.

• Proper consideration of wind, seismic, and temperature effects ensures the safety and
durability of the structure under real site conditions.

• Use of SAP2000 software enhanced accuracy in analysis and provided better under-
standing of structural behavior.

• Design of connections, gusset plates, welds, and base plates provided practical expo-
sure to real-life steel detailing.

• The final design achieved a balance between safety, economy, and constructability,
making it suitable for practical implementation.

Overall, the project successfully proves that a steel semicircular arch roof system is
a safe, economical, and reliable structural solution for long-span construction in critical
environmental zones like Jaigaon, West Bengal.

29
References

1. Bai, F., Hao, H., & Li, H. (2010). Seismic response of a steel trussed arch structure
to spatially varying earthquake ground motions including site effect. Advances in
Structural Engineering, 13(5), 861–876.

2. Xiang, Y., Luo, Y.-F., & Shen, Z.-Y. (2017). An extended modal pushover procedure
for estimating the in-plane seismic responses of latticed arches. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 93, 42–60.

3. Zhang, X., Zhang, Q., Sun, H., Ke, W., Ma, L., & Men, L. (2020). Seismic perfor-
mance analysis of a concrete-filled steel tube arch bridge: A parametric study.

4. He, C., & Zou, Q. (2021). Seismic analysis of large-span steel truss structure based
on PKPM.

5. Wang, L., & Smith, J. (2020). Seismic design loads of truss arch frames with
ceilings subjected to vertical and horizontal earthquake motions. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 46(3), 123–135.

6. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 800:2007 – General Construction in Steel: Code of

Practice. New Delhi, India.

7. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 875 (Part 1):1987 – Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake): Dead Loads. New Delhi, India.

8. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 875 (Part 2):1987 – Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake): Imposed Loads. New Delhi, India.

9. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 875 (Part 3):2015 – Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake): Wind Loads. New Delhi, India.

10. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures. New Delhi, India.

11. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 2062:2011 – Hot Rolled Medium and High Tensile
Structural Steel – Specification. New Delhi, India.

12. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 4923:2017 – Hollow Steel Sections for Structural Use
– Specification. New Delhi, India.

30
13. Bureau of Indian Standards. SP 38 (S&T):1987 – Handbook on Typified Designs for
Structures with Steel Roof Trusses (with or without Cranes). New Delhi, India.

14. Duggal, S. K. Design of Steel Structures. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi,
India.

15. Subramanian, N. Design of Steel Structures. Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
India.

16. Arya, A. S., & Ajmani, J. L. Design of Steel Structures. Nem Chand & Bros, Roorkee,
India.

17. Computers and Structures Inc. SAP2000 – Integrated Software for Structural Analysis
and Design. USA.

31