Haydar 2018

Articles
Hussein Haydar DOI: 10.1002/stco.201700011

Harry Far*
Ali Saleh
Portal steel trusses vs. portal steel frames

for long-span industrial buildings
Portal frames and portal truss structures are two of the most The investigation takes an engineering approach by
cost-effective and sustainable structural forms for the design and considering the weights, costs and construction times for
construction of long-span industrial buildings. Although the use both structure types and uses 24 different design configu-
of both structure types as steel-clad structures is widely ac- rations where the internal column heights are 5, 7.5 and
cepted, due to frame complexity and variation of frame types for 10 m and the span lengths are 30, 40, 50 and 60 m.
use in single-storey buildings with spans > 30 m, literature provid- Major design and construction implications arise
ing a comprehensive investigation of the concepts of portal when recognizing the qualitative characteristics between
trusses and portal frames is scarce. This study compares the be- the implementation of a portal frame configuration or a
haviour of a portal truss configuration with pitched portal frames portal truss configuration for a desired application. The
for use in industrial buildings with spans > 30 m, focusing on behaviour of both structures is dependent on specific pa-
weight, costs and construction time. Furthermore, this study en- rameters, including structural dimensions, weight, mate-
tails a numerical investigation that utilizes the SAP2000 computer rial properties, site conditions and load combinations [3].
program to model and structurally optimize the member proper-
Furthermore, it was suggested by Woolcock et al. [2] that
ties for both portal frame and portal truss configurations. Based
as the design span increases, so a roof truss should be
on the results obtained from the investigation, it has become ap-
used in lieu of rafters. By doing so, the weight-saving
parent that, due to the smaller sections used, the portal truss
characteristics will be more pronounced – that is, until
configurations are lighter and cheaper to fabricate and construct
in comparison to the pitched portal frames, which, however, re- the cost of fabricating the truss system is offset by the cost
quire a shorter construction time. of fabricating a typical portal frame system, as pointed
out by Woolcock et al. [2]. However, as elucidated by
Brohn et al. [6], reducing the total weight of a portal
1 Introduction structure will not always provide the most economical
design, and the relationship between cost and weight is
During past and present periods, light steel portal struc- not linear, but rather parabolic. When designing a portal
tures have been utilized as main structural elements for truss structure or any portal frame, Brohn et al. [6]
engineering works and are extensively implemented demonstrated that an engineer must assess if there is the
around the globe as major modules in single-level building possibility of a simpler configuration or if rationalization
applications. Several researchers (e.g. Salter et al. [1], of section sizes can lead to an improvement in the overall
Woolcock et al. [2], Dundu [3], McKinstray et al. [4] and costs. In addition, as pointed out in [3] and [6], consider-
Tabatabaiefar and Mansoury [5]) have studied the struc- ing the supporting foundations as fixed bases costs more
tural behaviour of portal structures with spans in the range to construct due to the more complex connection type.
20–30 m and have implemented the appropriate design Therefore, the portal frame and portal truss configura-
procedures and analytical formulations to provide solu- tions in this study have been designed with simply sup-
tions. Although their studies identified the behaviour of ported bases.
portal frames and observed that weight-saving is more pro-
nounced when implementing a portal truss structure for 2 Models studied
spans > 30 m, there is no sign of a detailed investigation
that supports the behaviour of a portal truss with spans A common portal truss structure is comprised of a set of
> 30 m while considering the financial and practical as- braced columns that support an overhead truss. A promi-
pects. Thus, this study has been conducted to provide a nent attribute of a portal truss is the way its members are
qualitative review by investigating and comparing the be- structurally designed to withstand uplift loadings due to
haviour of portal trusses and portal frames for use in long- wind. Fig. 1 depicts the portal truss configuration exam-
span buildings, i.e. exceeding a span of 30 m. ined in this study, where a pitch of 3° has been adopted
([3], [4], [6]). As stated previously, the span lengths consid-
ered were 30, 40, 50 and 60 m and the internal column
* Corresponding author: heights were 5, 7.5 and 10 m. The truss structure com-
harry.far@uts.edu.au prised a bracing system with top, bottom, vertical and di-
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 205
H. Haydar/H. Far/A. Saleh · Portal steel trusses vs. portal steel frames for long-span industrial buildings
Fig. 1. Portal truss model used in this study
Fig. 2. Portal frame model used in this study
agonal members connected by pin joints. The bracing sys- of steel design and wind codes. This study applied the Aus-
tem provides a higher stiffness and the utilization of pin- tralian Standards (AS 4100-1998 [9], (AS 1170.0-2011 [10]
ended members prevents rotation within the joints, and and (AS 1170.2-2011 [11]). Additionally, this study in-
keeps bending in the members negligibly small. cluded a concise design optimization procedure based on
According to [2], one of the pronounced difficulties in a second-order structural analysis in order to determine
contrasting both structures is that building a truss above the most competitive structural design.
two lateral columns is distinctively higher than building
with rafters, assuming that the internal height clearance 3 Steel section optimization
for both structures is the same. Henceforth, in order to
provide a fair comparison between both structures, the When designing steel structures, engineers must consider
overall height offsets between both must be kept minimal. how load combinations influence the behaviour of the
Consequently, after a careful investigation, a pitch of 9° frame members. Members that are not design-optimized
was adopted for all portal frame designs, while the portal may fail due to the design loads imposing forces that are
truss had a top chord inclination of 3°. Additionally, due to larger than the section and member capacities. The section
the haunch design, the clear internal height for the portal and member capacity checks were conducted in accord-
frames as depicted in Fig. 2 does not apply to the entire ance with section 8 of AS 4100-1998 [9] and the design
frame span. actions were developed by observing the requirements of
Figs. 1 and 2 depict the frame configurations for all AS 1170 [10,11].
cases examined. The portal frames examined in this nu- SAP2000 is a powerful computer program that con-
merical study had a generic pitched configuration, whereas siders the design approaches documented in [9]. The steel
the portal truss had a Pratt truss configuration. Both types design preferences for AS 4100-1998 have been imple-
of structures are easy to design and construct and, in con- mented in this investigation and the program selects the
trast to other types, i.e. scissors, vaults, gambrel, hip etc., appropriate material properties based on the combined
represent the type most commonly used ([7]). action effects. This may be a tedious and long process if
According to Woolcock et al. [2] and Kirke [8], any conducted by hand; fortunately, developments in com-
steel-clad structure must suit the intended application and puter programs have provided great assistance in the field
must be designed in accordance with the general principles of structural engineering.
206 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Fig. 3. Building model: a) 3D view, b) plan view
Table 1. Structure dimensions

Structure Height (m) Span (m) Building length (m)
Portal frame and portal truss 5 7.5 10 30 40 50 60 72
4 Numerical investigation Table 2. Imposed actions per span length

Span Concentrated Distributed
While conducting the investigation, there were limitations Structure type length load load
brought about by various parameters, conditions and as- (m) (kN) (kN/m)
sumptions. It is therefore essential to illustrate the specific
Portal frame All 1.1 2.25
variables involved in the investigation which ultimately
govern the boundaries and limitations of the project’s Portal truss All 1.4 2.25
scope. Although this investigation focused primarily on the
design of the portal frames and portal trusses, building di-
mensions had be established in order to carry out wind tralia, which is specified as a non-cyclonic region. The
and pressure loadings applied to the frames. This numeri- wind load combinations adopted from AS/NZS 1170.2
cal investigation was based on a number of cases that are [11] as well as the imposed actions specified in Table 2
divided into two types of structural model depicted in have been examined in the design analysis. Although six
Figs. 1 to 3. Both systems are governed by their column load combinations are presented, in accordance with
heights and span lengths and are limited to a two-dimen- AS/NZS 1170.0 [10], loadings due to wind actions do not
sional single frame analysis. Table 1 gives the building and have to be considered simultaneously in an industrial por-
frame dimensions. tal frame building with non-trafficable roof. Therefore, the
following most severe load combinations, from the load
4.1 Design actions cases presented in Fig. 4, were identified and applied to
both structures in SAP2000:
This investigation considered the design actions of the col- – Load combination 1 (LC1): 0.9G + load case 1 + load
umns, rafters, truss members and secondary elements (roof case 2 (inside flange in tension)
sheeting and purlins) for each separate configuration. – Load combination 2 (LC2): 1.2G + load case 3 + load
Other elements, such as roof insulation, were also ac- case 4 (inside flange in compression)
counted for in the design. The secondary elements signifi-
cantly improve the structural stability for a full three-di- Here, both load combinations include the dead loads due
mensional model, i.e. long-span building model. Mahen- to the frame and secondary members and the wind loads
dran [12] showed that the influence of gravity and due to transverse wind maximum uplift, longitudinal wind
longitudinal wind loads acting on a fully clad frame is in- with external roof pressure and wall suction internal pres-
significant because of the roof slope. However, under sure under transverse wind and internal suction under lon-
transverse wind loads, it is essential to consider the signifi gitudinal wind illustrated in Fig. 4.
cance of full cladding, as the deflection is much smaller in
contrast to a bare frame. Therefore, the gravity loads due 5 Results and discussion
to secondary members were considered as they contribute 5.1 Member selection and design optimization
to the structure’s economic costs [13].
Both models were designed in accordance with The second-order analysis and design optimization proce-
AS/NZS 1170.2 [11] for implementation in Sydney, Aus- dure conducted in SAP2000 enabled the member sections
Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 207

Fig. 4. Primary load cases for wind load combinations
Fig. 5. Example of portal frame bending moment (M), shear force (V) and axial force (N)
Fig. 6. Example of portal frame bending moment (M), shear force (V) and axial force (N)
and their corresponding capacities to be determined based design capacities. The 30 m span was optimized with a
on the most critical load combinations, i.e. load combina- 310UC137 rafter and 310UC118 columns, whereas the
tions 1 and 2. The analysis results indicated a trend where 40 m span requires a larger 500WC267 rafter and
the change in member cross-section size increased linearly 800WB146 column. This trend can be seen throughout all
with the height and span as elucidated by Wu et al. [14]. cases, including the portal truss configurations; as the
Figs. 5 and 6 show internal actions diagrams for the bend- height and span increase, the load capacity of the members
ing moments and shear and axial forces. Fig. 5 depicts the increase, consequently requiring sturdier and more dura-
second-order analysis of a portal frame case where the ble sections.
span is 30 m and the height 5 m, whereas Fig. 6 depicts the The models for the portal trusses are depicted in
40 m span with 5 m height. Table 3 provides details of all Fig. 7. Tables 3, 4 and 5 provide a list of the cross-sections
sections that have been optimized for the worst-case load and corresponding design capacity ratios of all members
combination (load combination 2). From the tabulated val- adopted in all model configurations. For each portal truss
ues in Table 3 it can clearly be identified that the 40 m configuration, the chord member subjected to the most se-
span requires a steel member that must withstand higher vere design loadings was selected. This was done to mini-

Table 3. Portal frame section design and capacity ratios

Portal Frame Section Design
Span (m) Height (m) Member Designed Section Capacity Ratios
Left and right rafter 310UC137 0.886
5
Left and right column 310UC118 0.888
Left and right rafter 310UC137 0.823
7.5
30 Left and right column 310UC118 0.902
Left and Right Rafter 310UC158 0.813
10 Left and right column 310UC158 0.813
Right column 310UC158 0.813
Left and right rafter 500WC267 0.754
5
Left and right column 800WB146 0.869
40 7.5
10
5
50 7.5
10
Left and right rafter 1200WB455 1.408
5
60 7.5
10
Fig. 7. Example of portal truss bending moment (M), shear force (V) and axial force (N)

Table 4. Portal truss section design and capacity ratios for 30 and 40 m spans
Portal Truss Section Design
Span (m) Height (m) Member Max Designed Section Capacity Ratio
Diagonals 125×125×8EA 0.78
Top Chord 150×150×10EA 0.638
Bottom Chord 100×100×8EA 0.785
5
Verticals 100×75×6UA 0.862
Right Column 250UC72.9 0.845
Left column 250UC72.9 0.84
Diagonals 100×100×10EA 0.933
Top Chord 150×150×10EA 0.752
Bottom Chord 100×75×6UA 0.901
30 7.5
Verticals 100×100×6EA 0.835
Right Column 310UC158 0.907
Left column 310UC158 0.9
Top Chord 125×125×12EA 0.825
10
Right Column 800WB192 0.888
Left column 800WB192 0.885
Diagonals 150×150×12EA 0.891
Top Chord 150×150×12EA 0.523
Bottom Chord 150×100×10UA 0.917
5
Diagonals 150×150×12EA 0.791
Top Chord 150×150×10EA 0.591
40 7.5
Verticals 100×100×10EA 0.862
Diagonals 150×150×10EA 0.718
Top Chord 150×150×16EA 0.582
10
Right Column 500WC228 0.896
Left column 500WC228 0.889
mize fabrication and construction costs; the same section nomical. From Table 3, the member capacities and sections
was adopted for all chord members even if capacity ratios are quite adequate for spans of 60 m or less; the steel frame
were different. Similar considerations were applied to all design analysis outputs a rafter member that has a capacity
verticals and all diagonals. > 1, which indicates failure.
Since the portal truss configurations are more com- Although the columns provided in the design are able
plex and contain more members, the sections that will be to withstand the effects of the loading, the rafters are inad-
considered for diagonal, vertical and horizontal members equate as their capacity is > 1. However, if a high.-capacity
will be designed according to the member with the largest steel is utilised in lieu of a 300PLUS-280 material, such as
capacity ratio. a 600HCC386 or anything within this category, then the
One of the main objectives was to provide an effective rafters will yield a capacity < 1. In Figs. 5 and 7, the mo-
cost analysis that elucidates which structure is more eco- ment in the truss system is greatly reduced compared with

Table 5. Portal truss section design and capacity ratios for 50 and 60 m spans
Portal Truss Section Design
Span (m) Height (m) Member Max Designed Section Capacity Ratio
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 0.609
Top Chord 200×200×13EA 0.6
5
Top Chord 200×200×13EA 0.869
50 7.5
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 0.583
Top Chord 200×200×13EA 0.871
10
Verticals 125×125×10EA 0.828
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 0.676
Top Chord 200×200×16EA 0.515
5
Verticals 150×150×10EA 0.689
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 0.682
Top Chord 200×200×16EA 0.652
60 7.5
Verticals 150×150×10EA 0.779
Diagonals 200×200×16EA 0.753
Top Chord 200×200×18EA 0.617
10
Verticals 125×125×10EA 0.867
the portal frame; this is due to the larger lever arm of the tion reduces the combined bending and axial action ef-
truss chord members, while the axial compression remains fects, the structure can be modelled to suit higher load
almost unaffected. This provides a clear advantage when capacities in contrast to the portal frame.
designing for combined actions and leads to smaller col-
umn sections. 5.2 Cost and weight analysis
From the design outputs presented in Tables 3, 4 and
5, the utilization of a truss provides a more sustainable The following cost analysis provides a comprehensive re-
structural configuration in contrast to using rafters as roof- view of the total fabrication costs for all portal frame and
ing elements. Using the chords as bracing elements reduces portal truss configurations. The focus turns from strength
the sway of the structure as they provide the frame with and performance to contrasting all 24 cases in reference to
larger stiffness. Therefore, since the portal truss configura- their total cost of fabrication. The price for each member

Table 6. Portal frame fabrication costs and steel weights

Portal Frame Steel Weight and Fabrication Costs
Span Height Designed Total Member Total Weight Total
Weight Kg Cost Cost Per Tonne
(m) (m) Section Length Kg Manufacturing
310UC137 36.3738 4983 TOTAL $ 35,525.20 TOTAL
5
310UC118 10 968 5951 $ 8,412.20 $ 43,937.40 $ 7,382.93
310UC137 36.3738 4983 TOTAL $ 35,525.20 TOTAL
7.5
30 310UC118 15 1452 6435 $ 12,618.30 $ 48,143.50 $ 7,481.26
310UC158 36.3738 4983 $ 40,970.72
10 310UC158 10 1370 TOTAL $ 11,263.80 TOTAL
310UC158 10 1370 7723 $ 11,263.80 $ 63,498.32 $ 8,221.75
500WC267 48.498 12949 TOTAL $ 103,462.24 TOTAL
5
800WB146 10 1460 14409 $ 11,298.90 $ 114,761.14 $ 7,964.56
500WC267 48.498 12949 TOTAL $ 103,462.24 TOTAL
40 7.5
800WB192 15 2880 15829 $ 22,288.35 $ 125,750.59 $ 7,944.33
500WC267 48.498 12949 TOTAL $ 103,462.24 TOTAL
10
900WB218 20 4360 17309 $ 33,742.00 $ 137,204.24 $ 7,926.77
500WC414 60.622 25098 TOTAL $ 200,529.09 TOTAL
5
1000WB215 5 1075 26173 $ 8,589.25 $ 209,118.34 $ 7,990.00
500WC414 60.622 25098 TOTAL $ 200,529.09 TOTAL
50 7.5
900WB257 15 3855 28953 $ 29,833.80 $ 230,362.89 $ 7,956.58
500WC414 60.622 25098 TOTAL $ 200,529.09 TOTAL
10
900WB257 20 5140 30238 $ 39,778.40 $ 240,307.49 $ 7,947.33
1200WB455 72.74 33097 TOTAL $ 264,442.63 TOTAL
5
900WB257 5 1285 34382 $ 9,944.60 $ 274,387.23 $ 7,980.62
1200WB455 72.74 33097 TOTAL $ 264,442.63 TOTAL
60 7.5
900WB257 15 3855 36952 $ 29,833.80 $ 294,276.43 $ 7,963.81
1200WB455 72.74 33097 TOTAL $ 264,442.63 TOTAL
10
1200WB342 20 6840 39937 $ 54,651.60 $ 319,094.23 $ 7,990.00
per metre was determined after consultation with One presented in Table 6 show the total cost of fabricating the
Steel manufacturers. This assisted in the computation of steel portal frame structure. It should be noted that the
the steel frame costs. For a more detailed cost analysis, the costs associated with labour have not been considered in
price for construction including labour, delivery and time Tables 6 and 7. However, as specified previously, a range
must be considered. According to several steel contractors, between $3000 and $4200 per tonne is assumed to cover
it generally takes longer to erect a portal truss in contrast the costs of construction and labour. From this relation-
to a portal frame due to the number of members and con- ship, it can be established that structures with larger
nections. In terms of costs, according to research con- weights incur more costs.
ducted by a quantity surveyor (Rider Levett Bucknall [15]), The information in Table 6 is associated with Fig. 8,
the cost of fabrication, detailing and erection could range which plots the total weight of each individual case against
from $3000 to $4200 per tonne. Based on the cases mod- the total costs implicated with the specific configuration.
elled in this study and their corresponding data from the A somewhat linear relationship can be seen in relation to
steel optimization examination, the cost of fabricating a costs and weight as the span and height increase; addition-
portal frame is higher than the cost of fabricating a portal ally, the designed sections that are larger in size influence
truss. This is due to the members selected having relatively the cost per metre length. This is elucidated in Fig. 8, where
larger and more expensive sections in contrast to the por- the 30 m portal frame represents the lowest cost, ultimately
tal truss configuration. increasing in value as the span length and height increase.
From this indication, it can be determined that the
5.2.1 Portal frame cost and weight analysis greatest influencing factors are in fact the cross-sectional
properties, height and span length, with the first being the
The total lengths of the rafters included the lengths of the most critical. This relationship was established with all
haunches. In this study the haunch lengths were deter- portal frame cases examined in this study and is shown
mined as being 10 % of the span length and designed with graphically in Fig. 8, where the structure with the largest
the same cross-sectional properties as the rafters. The data weight will cost more to fabricate and construct.

Table 7. Portal truss fabrication costs and steel weights for 30 and 40 m spans
Portal Truss Steel Weight and Fabrication Costs
Total
Span Height Max Designed Total Cost Per
Member Member Weight Cost Total Cost
(m) (m) Section Weight Tonne
Length
Diagonals 125×125×8EA 44.4909 663 $ 4,684.00
Top Chord 150×150×10EA 30.04 658 $ 4,648.69
Bottom Chord 100×100×8EA 30 354 $ 1,786.50
5
Verticals 100×75×6UA 34.3638 274 $ 1,547.40
Right Column 250UC72.9 6.875 501 TOTAL $ 3,572.94 TOTAL
Left column 250UC72.9 6.875 501 2951 $ 3,572.94 $ 19,812.47 $ 6,712.93
Diagonals 100×100×10EA 47.7416 678 $ 3,421.64
Top Chord 150×150×10EA 30.04 658 $ 4,648.69
Bottom Chord 100×75×6UA 30 239 $ 1,350.90
30 7.5
Verticals 100×100×6EA 34.3638 315 $ 1,588.64
Right Column 310UC158 7.5 1185 TOTAL $ 8,447.85 TOTAL
Left column 310UC158 7.5 1185 4260 $ 8,447.85 $ 27,905.57 $ 6,550.64
Diagonals 100×100×10EA 47.7416 678 $ 3,421.64
Top Chord 125×125×12EA 30.04 676 $ 4,776.06
Bottom Chord 100×75×6UA 30 238 $ 1,350.90
10 Verticals 100×100×6EA 34.3638 315 $ 1,588.64
Right Column 800WB192 11.875 2280 TOTAL $ 17,644.94 TOTAL
Left column 800WB192 11.875 2280 6466 $ 17,644.94 $ 46,427.13 $ 7,179.97
Diagonals 150×150×12EA 63.66 1738 $ 12,280.01
Top Chord 150×150×12EA 20.02 547 $ 3,861.86
Bottom Chord 150×100×10UA 40 720 $ 5,087.60
5
Verticals 100×100×6EA 45.884 418 $ 2,121.22
Left column 800WB168 7.5 1260 5942 $ 9,751.13 $ 42,852.94 $ 7,211.86
Diagonals 150×150×12EA 63.66 1738 $ 12,280.01
Top Chord 150×150×10EA 20.02 438 $ 3,098.10
Bottom Chord 125×125×8EA 40 720 $ 4,211.20
40 7.5
Verticals 100×100×10EA 45.884 652 $ 3,288.51
Right Column 800WB192 10 1920 TOTAL $ 14,858.90 TOTAL
Left column 800WB192 10 1920 7388 $ 14,858.90 $ 52,595.62 $ 7,119.15
Diagonals 150×150×10EA 63.66 1394 $ 9,851.39
Top Chord 150×150×16EA 20.02 709 $ 5,007.80
Bottom Chord 125×125×8EA 40 720 $ 4,211.20
10 Verticals 125×125×8EA 45.884 826 $ 4,830.67
Right Column 500WC228 12.5 2850 TOTAL $ 22,771.50 TOTAL
Left column 500WC228 12.5 2850 9349 $ 22,771.50 $ 69,444.06 $ 7,428.15
5.2.2 Portal truss cost and weight analysis and cost of each configuration. Although the relation-
ships may be identical, there is a great difference in the
Although the portal truss is a completely different con- total weight and total costs for all portal truss configu-
figuration, an identical relationship can be established rations. The sections design-optimized for the portal
from the results of the portal frame: Where internal truss configurations are much smaller in size in compar-
height and truss dimensions increase, a larger section is ison to the portal frame section properties. The sections
required to suit the specific loading conditions. Tables 6 identified in Tables 6 and 7 are also cheaper to fabricate
and 7 provide tabulated outputs of the results from the and are much lower in weight, thus resulting in a much
design optimization analysis including the total weight lower total cost.

Fig. 8. Total weight vs. total cost for portal frame configuration
Fig. 9. Total weight vs. total cost for portal truss configuration
Therefore, since the portal truss is design-optimized 5.3 Portal frame vs. portal truss cost comparison
with members that have much smaller sections, the price
is relatively low across all cases. The price of fabricating a The information presented in Fig. 10 illustrates the cost per
portal truss is approx. 40 % cheaper than that for a portal tonne for all portal truss and portal frame configurations.
frame; although a portal truss consists of more members, The cost per tonne is influenced by the increase in span
the larger sections used in the portal frame design are length, column height and, in particular, the member
much higher in price. Once the costs for construction (la- cross-sectional area. The costs per tonne for the portal
bour and time) are factored into the total costs, the portal truss exhibits a slightly cumulative linear trend, whereas
truss configuration is still the much cheaper option accord- the costs per tonne for the portal frame is somewhat con-
ing to Fig. 9 and Tables 6 and 7. Since the cost of construc- stant for all cases.
tion is based on a price per tonne, the savings when adopt- From an economics and feasibility perspective, it is
ing the portal truss become more pronounced. The graph recommended that frames designed to span > 30 m should
illustrates the relationship between total cost and total implement the truss structure in lieu of the portal rafters.
weight for all portal truss configurations, where the total Financial implications arise due to the increase in tonnage
cost increases in proportion to the total weight of the required for frame construction, consequently resulting in
structure. greater costs. As illustrated in Fig. 10 and Table 6, it is
As illustrated in Fig. 10, the cost per tonne associ- more economical and sustainably feasible to implement a
ated with both structures is almost constant, with the portal truss for use in large-span building applications.
truss configuration being slightly cheaper. Additionally, When all cases are contrasted side by side, the total costs
Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the total average costs vs. and amount of steel utilized for constructing a portal truss
span length for the truss and frame configurations. The configuration is far less than when using the portal frame
costs in Fig. 11 are the costs presented in Tables 6 to 8 configuration.
averaged for each span over the internal heights (5, 7.5
and 10 m). 5.4 Time associated with construction
It can be seen from the trend lines in Fig. 11 that for
spans > 30 m, the average costs of portal frame construc- Time, cost and quality are three major aspects that must be
tion increase at a higher rate in comparison to the portal maintained throughout a project’s time-scale to ensure op-
truss system. timal construction is achievable. Thus far, the financial

Fig. 10. Cost per tonne, portal frame vs. portal truss
Fig. 11. Total cost vs. span for portal frame and portal truss
implications between both portal truss and portal frame 6 Conclusion and recommendation
structures have been examined in detail, consequently pro-
viding a clear emphasis on the financial variation across 24 In this study, a numerical investigation was conducted to
different models. The financial aspect should not be the examine qualitatively the behaviour of portal truss struc-
only consideration when using steel as the main structural tures compared with pitched portal frames for use in long-
material in construction; it is also necessary to consider span industrial buildings with a span > 30 m. Design opti-
low weight, minimum construction dimensions and types mization and structural analysis were conducted for 24
of connection. According to Duggal [16], these three fac- variations of portal frame and portal truss configurations,
tors generally contribute to the speed of construction. Us- with a finite element program (SAP2000) being used to
ing members that are relatively low in weight will ensure model and assess all cases. All models were designed to
that the transportation time to the site is reduced. The withstand the most severe load combination due to the
number of members and their corresponding connections design action effects. Accordingly, the members’ cross-sec-
also influence construction time, where a configuration tional properties have been quantified for all portal truss
with more connections and members will take longer to and portal frame configurations examined in this study.
construct. The portal truss configurations examined in this The portal frame models utilize larger sections to sustain
study establish a lower weight in contrast to the portal successfully the loading effects acting on the structure,
frame configurations. However, since the portal frame whereas the portal truss models utilize much smaller sec-
models utilize fewer members and connections, the portal tions. The portal truss configuration manages and per-
truss takes a longer time to construct, as pointed out by forms successfully through all 12 configurations, with the
Van Rensburg & De Vos [17]. capacity ratios all within adequate limits in comparison to

Table 8. Portal truss fabrication costs and steel weights for 50 and 60 m spans
Portal Truss Steel Weight and Fabrication Cost
Total
Span Height Max Designed Total Cost Per
Member Member Weight Cost Total Cost
(m) (m) Section Weight Tonne
Length
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 79.5762 3183 $ 23,922.99
Top Chord 200×200×13EA 50.068 2003 $ 15,051.94
Bottom Chord 150×150×10EA 50 1095 $ 7,737.50
5
Verticals 100×100×6EA 57.3538 525 $ 2,651.47
Left column 800WB192 8.125 1560 9926 $ 12,072.86 $ 73,509.61 $ 7,405.67
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 79.5762 3183 $ 23,922.99
Top Chord 200×200×13EA 50.068 2003 $ 15,051.94
Bottom Chord 150×150×10EA 50 1095 $ 7,737.50
50 7.5
Verticals 125×125×8EA 57.3538 1032 $ 6,038.21
Left column 500WC228 10.675 2434 12181 $ 19,446.86 $ 91,644.37 $ 7,523.59
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 79.5762 3183 $ 23,922.99
Top Chord 200×200×13EA 50.068 2003 $ 15,051.94
Bottom Chord 150×150×12EA 50 1365 $ 9,645.00
10
Verticals 125×125×10EA 57.3538 1032 $ 7,294.83
Left column 500WC228 13.125 2993 13568 $ 23,910.08 $ 103,734.92 $ 7,645.48
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 95.491 3820 $ 28,708.41
Top Chord 200×200×16EA 60.082 2926 $ 21,991.81
Bottom Chord 150×150×16EA 60 2124 $ 15,008.40
5
Verticals 150×150×10EA 68.826 1879 $ 7,246.00
Left column 900WB218 8.75 1908 14564 $ 14,762.13 $ 102,478.88 $ 7,036.65
Diagonals 200×200×13EA 95.491 3820 $ 28,708.41
Top Chord 200×200×16EA 60.082 2926 $ 21,991.81
Bottom Chord 150×150×16EA 60 2124 $ 15,008.40
60 7.5
Verticals 150×150×10EA 68.826 1879 $ 7,246.00
Right Column 900WB257 11.25 2891.25 TOTAL $ 22,375.35 TOTAL
Left column 900WB257 11.25 2891.25 16531 $ 22,375.35 $ 117,705.33 $ 7,120.24
Diagonals 200×200×16EA 95.491 4650 $ 34,952.57
Top Chord 200×200×18EA 60.082 3268 $ 24,565.73
Bottom Chord 150×150×10EA 60 1638 $ 6,316.80
10
Verticals 125×125×10EA 68.826 1239 $ 8,753.98
Left column 500WC340 13.75 4675 20146 $ 37,353.25 $ 149,295.58 $ 7,410.78
the portal frame, which requires high-capacity sections to vide prices per tonne. Ultimately, once the construction
be used for spans ≥ 40 m. costs, i.e. labour and transportation, are factored into the
According to the cost and weight analyses conducted total value, the portal truss provides the more lightweight,
in this study, the smaller steel sections were identified as lower-cost alternative, whereas the portal frame results in
having a lower price point in comparison to the larger sec- a heavier and more expensive structure.
tions, which have a greater financial value. Additionally, The time implications relating to both configurations
the total weight for both models is also based on the sec- has been detailed, and although the portal truss configura-
tions used; this is essential as it provides the basis for the tion adopts lightweight, low-cost characteristics, it takes
construction costs as most steel building contractors pro- longer to construct compared with the portal frame. This

is due to the larger number of members used within the [10] AS1170.0-2011: Structural design actions – General princi-
truss structure, whereas the portal frame consists of two ples. Standards Australia, NSW, Australia.
rafters and two columns only. [11] AS1170.2-2011: Structural design actions – Wind ac-
In conclusion, from the results obtained from the in- tions. Standards Australia, NSW, Australia.
[12] Mahendran, M.; Moor, C.: Three-dimensional Analysis of
vestigation, the portal truss configuration was found to be
Steel Portal Frame Buildings (Vol. 97, No. 5). Physical Infra-
lighter and cheaper to fabricate and construct due to the
structure Centre, School of Civil Engineering, Queensland
smaller sections used in comparison to the pitched portal University of Technology, 1997.
frame, which was quicker to construct. As a result, it is [13] Breust, T. D.: The design and structural analysis of a steel
recommended that a portal truss configuration be utilized portal framed shed for the Darling Downs Historical Rail So-
in lieu of a pitched portal frame for applications that re- ciety, 2006.
quire a lightweight, low-cost alternative for spans longer [14] Wu, J. R.; Dong, C. C.; Xu, A.; Fu, J. Y.: Structural optimi-
than 30 m, where the project proposes adequate time for zation of long span portal-rigid frames under wind action. In:
construction, whereas the pitched portal frame is recom- 7th Intl. Colloq. on Bluff Body Aerodynamics & Applications
mended for applications where there is a limitation on (BBAA7) Shanghai, China, 2012.
construction time. Additionally, unless high-capacity sec- [15] Rider Levett Bucknall: Review of steel costs in medium rise
steel framed buildings. Australian Steel Institute, Sydney,
tions are used, the span should not exceed 50 m; this, how-
2005.
ever, would result in a more expensive structure.
[16] Duggal, S. K.: Design of steel structures. Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, 2000.
References
[17] Van Rensburg, B. W. J.; De Vos, G. P.: Lower cost light-
weight cold-formed portal frames, 1996.
[1] Salter, P. R.; Malik, A. S.; King, C. M.: Design of single-span
steel portal frames to BS 5950-1: 2000. Steel Construction
Keywords: portal frames; portal trusses; span length; construc-
Institute, 2004.
tion cost, long-span industrial building
[2] Woolcock, S. T.; Kitipornchai, S.; Bradford, M. A.: Design of
portal frame buildings. Australian Institute of Steel Construc-
tion, 2011.
[3] Dundu, M.: Design approach of cold-formed steel portal Authors:
frames. International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(3), 2011, Hussein Haydar
p. 259. School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
[4] McKinstray, R.; Lim, J. B.; Tanyimboh, T. T.; Phan, D. T.; Sha, Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
W.: Optimal design of long-span steel portal frames using fab- University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
ricated beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 104, Australia
2015, pp. 104–114.
[5] Tabatabiefarfar, H.R; Mansoury, B.: Detail Design, Building Harry Far
and Commissioning of Tall Building Structural Models for Ex- Lecturer
perimental Shaking Table Tests’, The Structural Design of Tall School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
and Special Buildings, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 357–374, Wiley-Black- Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
well. University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Building 11
[6] Brohn, D.; Brown, D.; Henderson, R.; Rathbone, A.: Model- Level 11, Broadway
ling of steel structures for computer analysis. SCI publica- Ultimo NSW 2007 (PO Box 123)
tion, 148, 1995. Australia
[7] Far, H.; Saleh, A.; Firouzianhaji, A.: A Simplified Method to Tel. +6129514 2640
Determine Shear Stiffness of Thin Walled Cold Formed Steel Harry.Far@uts.edu.au
Storage Rack Frames’, Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
search, vol. 138, pp.799–805, Elsevier Ltd. Ali Saleh
[8] Kirke, B.: Steel structures design manual to AS 4100. Doc- School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
toral Dissertation, CSI Berkeley, 2004. Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
[9] AS4100-1998: Steel structures. Standards Australia, NSW, University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
Australia. Australia

Haydar 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haydar 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articles

Hussein Haydar DOI: 10.1002/stco.201700011

Portal steel trusses vs. portal steel frames

Fig. 1. Portal truss model used in this study

Fig. 2. Portal frame model used in this study

206 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Fig. 3. Building model: a) 3D view, b) plan view

Table 1. Structure dimensions

4 Numerical investigation Table 2. Imposed actions per span length

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 207

Fig. 4. Primary load cases for wind load combinations

208 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Table 3. Portal frame section design and capacity ratios

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 209

210 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 211

Table 6. Portal frame fabrication costs and steel weights

212 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 213

214 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Fig. 10. Cost per tonne, portal frame vs. portal truss

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 215

216 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 3 217

You might also like