Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Decision support system to select the optimum steel portal frame

coverage system
Mohamed A. El-Aghoury a, Ahmed M. Ebid b,⇑, Ibrahim Mahmoud Mahdi b
a
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
b
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Future University, Cairo, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Portal frame systems are widely used as coverage system in industrial projects. Selecting the proper por-
Received 19 February 2020 tal frame system for a certain project depends on many technical, financial and logistical factors such as
Revised 5 July 2020 estimated cost, construction duration, availability of materials, equipment and skilled labor, besides envi-
Accepted 18 July 2020
ronmental factors such as recycling and durability. The aim of this research is to create a Decision Support
Available online xxxx
System (DSS) to decide the optimal portal frame system considering all these factors. The proposed (DSS)
depends on integrating the Value Engineering (VE) concept with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Keywords:
technique to identify the optimum system. The considered systems in this research are conventional por-
DSS
VE
tal made of hot rolled section, pre-engineered built-up portal frame, trussed frames and portal Frame
AHP truss. The developed (DSS) was tuned for the current Egyptian market conditions in 2019 and success-
Portal frame fully verified using four selected projects with different height to span ratio.
Steel coverage Ó 2020 THE AUTHORS Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction which is not appropriate with the construction projects. In con-

Portal frames are generally low-rise structures and very effi-
cient for enclosing large volumes. Apart from the typical applica-
tions like factories and warehouses, recently seminar halls, hall
centers, supermarkets, showrooms, aircraft hangars, residential
buildings, petrol canopies, cold storages, telecom shelters, defense
shelters, schools, health centers, community centers . . .etc.; are
used. Portal frames are usually supporting both roofing and side
cladding via cold-formed purlins and sheeting rails. They are com-
prised of columns and horizontal or pitched rafters, connected by
moment-resisting connections. Resistance to lateral and vertical
actions is provided by the rigidity of the connections and the bend-
ing stiffness of the members, which is increased by a suitable
haunch or deepening of the rafter sections. This form of continuous
frame structure is stable in its plane and provides a clear span that
is unobstructed by bracing. They may also be composed of tapered
stanchions and rafters fabricated from plate elements. Portal
frames of lattice members made of angles or tubes are also com-
mon, especially in the case of longer spans.
Linear programing optimization technique can have only one
optimal value, but it can have more than one optimal solution,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mohamed.Elaghoury@eng.asu.edu.eg (M.A. El-Aghoury), ahmed.
abdelkhaleq@fue.edu.eg (A.M. Ebid), ibrahim.mahdi@fue.edu.eg (I.M. Mahdi).
struction projects, decision made in the presence of multiple fac-
tors or criteria usually conflicting. Each diverse criterion may
have dissimilar units of measurement, quality feature, and relative
weight. It is possible that some criteria measured quantitatively
and other criteria can only be described qualitatively or subjec-
tively. Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are fre-
quently used to solve real world problems with multiple,
conflicting, and incommensurate criteria and/or objectives.
Researches on human judgments and decision-making showed
that the human brain is able to consider only a limited amount
of information at any one time [13], which makes it unreliable to
take decisions when facing complex problems. Fundamentals of
modern MCDM had developed in 1950s and 1960s. There are doz-
ens methods available for solving MCDM problems. The MCDM
methods are able to provide solutions for a wide range of manage-
ment problems [12].
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), initially introduced by Saaty
(1980) [15], is a classification scheme; a reference repository has
been established, including around 200 international journal
papers (starting from 2004). Recently, development of hybrid and
modular methods is becoming increasingly important. They are
based on previously developed well-known methods and their
modification.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.021
2090-4479/Ó 2020 THE AUTHORS Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: M. A. El-Aghoury, A. M. Ebid and I. M. Mahdi, Decision support system to select the optimum steel portal frame coverage system,
Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.021
M.A. El-Aghoury et al.
2. Objective
The aim of this research is to create a decision support system
(DSS) for optimal steel portal frame coverage system. An integrated
evaluation approach is based on the implementation of Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) with Delphi method to create this evalu-
ation approach. Developing this approach does not limit to cost
reduction only, but it extends to problem-solving that can decrease
costs while sustaining or improving performance and quality
requirements. In addition, using AHP provide strong tool of identi-
fying the relative degree of importance of criteria for deciding the
optimum soil improvement alternatives. A description of the Del-
phi method is introduced in the following sections. The proposed
(DSS) is applied on steel coverage systems in Egypt at current mar-
ket condition and the results are verified by case studies from
Egypt.
3. Background
3.1. Delphi technique
Zavadskas and Podvezko (2016) [19] point out the fact that the
weights of criteria are of great importance in multiple criteria
decision-making. Therefore, the significance of evaluation criteria,
i.e., the weights of criteria, is important because it has an impact on
the ranking of the results obtained by applying MCMD methods.
Identifying the relative weight of criteria especially which have
qualitative measure have a great importance where they are
mainly depends on experts and their judgment. The Delphi method
is one of most effective method for attain expert judgment to be
measured.
The Delphi method is an approach used to collect data and real-
ize consent on a concern. It has been broadly used in project man-
agement research as a tool to achieve consensus on a topic [1,2,5],
and [14]. The main advantage in this method is that it is not nec-
essary to have all experts physically be in one location, which
makes it simpler to get experts’ opinion without location limits.
In addition to, it excludes biases where experts provide their input
separately. Multiple rounds are conducted to achieve consensus.
Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) [3] had stated that usually 1–3
rounds are piloted in a study. This depends on the incidence of har-
mony or discord in the results in each round.
3.2. Decision support systems
A decision support system aids decision makers in solving
unstructured and semi-structured problems using human judg-
ment and computers. Less structured problems require the inter-
ference of several individuals from several divisions and
organizational levels and sometimes even from different organiza-
tions. This highlights the important role of the decision support
systems. Decision support systems such as multi criteria
decision-making (MCDM) are created to channel expert judgment
and form educated opinions to make decisions [4,5].
Decision support systems (DSS) such as multi-criteria decision-
making are formed to channel expert finding and make decisions.
The objective of MCDM is to structure a problem and identify
and evaluate the multiple criteria available. These techniques have
been used in construction management research in areas such as
highway management, project delivery methods, risk identifica-
tion and ranking, and [6,16]. However, rare research has proposed
a DSS for proper portal frame system selection. In this paper, the
MCDM technique used is Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
Decision-making based on multiple criteria model can be devel-
oped through five main steps, which include:
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
1. Alternatives of the solution should be identified or defined. For
example, when choosing structure system in design process- all
possible solutions for the project should be identified.
2. Criteria for the evaluation of those alternatives should be set. It
means that factors that are important and have influence on
choice of proper structure system should be identified.
3. System of criteria evaluation should be established. Each crite-
rion is evaluated differently, so the system should be defined.
For example, cost could be evaluated as Monterey values.
While, quality as outstanding, very good, average, below aver-
age or unsatisfactory whereas performance could be defined
as high, average or low and etc.
4. Criteria weights should be defined. In this step, important and
less important criteria should be identified. The more important
the criterion is the bigger weight it should have. Then each cri-
terion of each alternative should be evaluated.
5. Counting with the help of computer software should be made
and the proper alternative chosen.
The decision-aiding method was developed by (Saaty) and
named (AHP) Analytical Hierarchy Process, which aims to quantify
relative priorities for more alternatives on a scale, depends on
decision-maker judgment and stresses alternatives comparison
for decision-making process [7].
3.3. Steel portal frames coverage systems
Engineers are always looking for increasing the speed and effi-
ciency of construction projects. As such, different frame structural
systems with spans ranging from 10 to 45 m; and a series of post
eave heights from 6 to 20 m are considered in the present study.
These systems are shown in Fig. 1.
3.3.1. Portal frame made of hot rolled section (HRS)
Segments comprising such steel frames are selected from stan-
dard hot rolled ‘‘I” sections, which are heavier, in many parts of
these frames, than what is required by design. Usually these frames
have constant cross-sections regardless of the variation in straining
actions along the member length. Since each project is a unique,
more time is needed to develop the structural designs as well as
the details of such frames [10,17], and [18].
3.3.2. Pre-engineered built- up portal frame (BUS)
Pre-Engineered based design Buildings are on average 30%
lighter than other system due to efficient use of steel sections. Steel
framing members as main supporting elements are built-up sec-
tions having variable depth that vary with level of internal forces.
The fabrication and erection of this type of frame system is easier
than other frame coverage systems. This framing system along
with the usage of standard connections is quick and efficient.
Moreover, design time is significantly reduced. Computer analysis
and design programs are required to optimize the frame material.
Design and drafting based on using computer and standard details
minimizes the use of custom project details. In addition; using
such system reduce significantly the cost compared with other
portal frames systems [10,17], and [18].
3.3.3. Trussed frames (column and truss) (TR. Fr.)
Labor was relatively cheap in the early days of warehouse
design compared to now, so the process of prefabrication was rel-
atively inexpensive. As such, this system was reasonably econom-
ical and adoptable. Recently, due to the increase of labor costs,
prefabrication has become more expensive. In addition, such sys-
tem has less steel to be used than both the portal frame system
and the portal frame truss system [10,17], and [18].
M.A. El-Aghoury et al.
Fig. 1. Considered alternatives for steel portal frame coverage systems.
3.3.4. Portal frame truss (web truss) (Port. T.)
The web truss is another system to cover large unencumbered
spaces. For spans up to 45 m and more, portal frame truss system
provides a low cost and more economical alternative utilizing mas-
sively wide universal beams and beam-columns. Architecturally,
truss frames are aesthetically very pleasing [10,17], and [18].
4. Methodology
4.1. Impact of cost and time factor on the construction alternatives
To study the impact of cost and time on each construction alter-
native, a structural design must be carried out to determine dimen-
sions, specification and quantities of used materials. Two separate
research programs were carried out, the first using two hinged
frames and the second for two fixed frame. The cores of this struc-
tural design are illustrated for the alternatives as follows.
The considered design procedure starts with estimating prelim-
inary sections for all members and calculating the straining actions
based on the preliminary relative stiffness. The calculated straining
actions were used to design each member, and then the updated
sections were used to calculate the straining actions again. The
new straining actions were used to update the members sections
and the cycle goes on until the error is neglected. Structural design
was carried out according to ASD code ECP 205–2008.
In order to carry out the two research program, the following
points were considered in the design:
A) Geometry:
– All alternatives have the same column height and same frame
span.
– Spacing between frames is always 6.0 m and roof slope is 1:10
– All systems are symmetric with respect to their apexes
– The inclined angles of diagonal members are ranged between
30° and 60o
– Rafters are hunched at the ends and in the middle; hunch length
is span / 12. Hunched section is always has twice the depth of
the original section.
– For trussed frame system, minimum height of truss is 1.0 m
– Roof truss of portal frame truss system has a constant depth.
– For all systems, columns are tapered for hinged support and
straight for fixed one.
B) Stability
– All purlins, side girts, horizontal bracing and corrugated sheets
are the same
– Vertical bracing members are arranged to maintain the out of
plane buckling factor of columns below 60 (allowable compres-
sive stress more than 1.2 ton/cm2)
3
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
– Longitudinal bracing for both trussed frame and portal frame
truss are considered 10 m spacing to allow out of plane buckling
factor of tension cord below 300
– Knee bracing are considered to support the compression flange
out of plane to avoid stress reduction due to lateral torsion
buckling.
C) Loads & Materials:
– Both Live load and wind loads are 60 kg/m2
– Allowable stresses is increased by 20% for wind combination
– Steel (28/44) is used for built up sections and mild steel (24/36)
for other members. Both steel types are comply with Egyptian
Standard (ES 260/71)
– All used sections except purlins are non-compacted
D) Members Sections:
– Sections of rolled-section portal frame members are IPE.
– Sections of built-up portal frame members follow the ratios
below:
o Flange width = Section height / 3
o Flange thickness = Section height / 30
o Web thickness = Section height / 60
– Section of trussed frame column is IPE
– For trussed frame and portal frame truss, all cord members are
double angles, and all web members are single angle.
– All horizontal bracing members are double angles, all longitudi-
nal and vertical bracing members are star shape
– All used angles are equal angles with thickness equals to one
tenth of the size.
4.2. Value engineering approach
Three stages are involved in the study of Value Engineering. The
first stage is a preparation to a workshop. Then, the workshop is
carried out (Execution of the six phases Job Plan) and the last stage
is the post-workshop (Documentation and Implementation). These
three standard stages were described in details with related activ-
ities and suggested tools by SAVE (2007) [11]. The most vital
phases in the VE methodology are including the function analysis,
the creativity in finding alternatives and the evaluation process.
Based on measurable factors (cost, time) and judgmental factors
(constructability, sustainability, environmental impact, risk impact
and safety, technology impact, and conflict with MEP), the selec-
tion of the optimal steel portal frame coverage system is decided.
In this study, eight factors are considered to identify the optimal
alternative; those factors are Cost, time, Constructability, Sustain-
ability, Environmental Impact, Risk Impact and Safety, Technology
Impact and Infrastructure Conflict. Those factors are assessed and
rated using Delphi method.
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

4.3. Developing the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model
All ranked factors are used to identify the optimal steel portal
frame coverage system alternative technique using value engineer-
ing methodology integrated with analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) developed by Saaty [8,9]. Analytical hierarchical process
(AHP) is a method of optimization and consists of the following
levels [8,9]:
(1) Creating a hierarchical arrangement of criteria (goals);
(2) Performing pair-wise comparison of criteria and alternatives
in the (n  n) comparison matrix using proper scale;
(3) Pair-wise evaluation of elements in the hierarchy (goals, cri-
teria (sub-criteria) and alternatives); and (4) Calculation of
the maximal eigenvectors (kmax) and the consistency index
[CI = (kmax - n)/(n 1)]. The consistency of the decision is
obtained with consistency ratio (CR). If in comparison matrix
is CR < (0.10), then the estimates of the relative importance
of the criteria (priorities of the alternative) is counted as
acceptable.
The relative level of importance for soil improvements alterna-
tives with respect to each evaluation criterion is carried out using
AHP method.
4.4. Development of (DSS) for optimum steel portal frame coverage
system
The AHP and Delphi method are integrated in a DSS for the
selection of optimal portal frame coverage system alternatives on
the basis of assessment factors using an excel sheet to be user
friendly. The output of this (DSS) is a score for each alternative
with certain combination of frame height and span.
5. Developing the DSS for steel portal frame coverage systems
within Egyptian’s conditions
The DSS developed as per section 4.4 was applied on portal
frame coverage system in Egypt by considering the current con-
Table 1
Unit Prices and Productivity for alternatives.
Item Cost
Materials, fabrication, painting, erection of hot 20,000 L.
rolled sections steel frame structure E./ton
Materials, fabrication, painting, erection of built up 21,000 L.
sections steel frame structure E./ton
Materials, fabrication, painting, erection of hot 24,000 L.
rolled sections steel trussed frame structure E./ton
Materials, fabrication, painting, erection of hot 26,000 L.
rolled sections steel portal frame truss structure E./ton
Materials, erection of cold formed purlins and 225 L.E./
single layer corrugated sheets 0.5 mm thick m2
Indirect cost 5000 L.
E./day
struction conditions such as material prices, labor productivity,
equipment availability. . .etc., as follows:
5.1. Quantitative factors cost and time impact on the alternative
selection decision
Firstly, the quantities of each alternative were estimated
according to the method described above for different frame height
(6, 8, 10 . . . and 20 m) with different frame span (10, 15, 20. . .. and
45 m), considering both supporting conditions. The cost and time
of construction for each case were calculated using the average
current prices and productivity in the Egyptian market which is
illustrated in Table 1.
Based on the calculated values, the relative weight for both cost
and construction duration for each alternative was calculated for
each combination of frame height, frame span and support type.
Tables 2 and 3 are illustrating the impact of cost and time of con-
struction for each alternative for some selected combinations.
5.2. Identifying the qualitative factors based on the Delphi method
A group of ten Egyptian experts of steel structure construction
was involved in this process. This group has two with experience
more than 20 years, One head of technical office of first class steel
structure construction company with experience more than
15 years, five senior highway engineers designers with experience
more than 10 years and finally, two faculty stuff one specialized in
steel structure and the other specialized in construction manage-
ment with experience more than 25 years. They were asked to
assess the four portal frame alternative systems in terms of eight
evaluation factors. These factors are including: cost, time of con-
struction, sustainability, constructability, environmental impact,
risk impact, technology impact, conflict with electromechanical
systems and safety. Besides that, they were asked to estimate both
price and productivity per ton for each alternative. After collecting
and analyzing the results, they were sent to the experts for a sec-
ond round. If the results of second round showed some dissent
with respect to the first, a third round would necessary. The results
of applying Delphi method for the considered eight factors are
illustrated in Table 4.
5.3. Developing the (DSS) using (AHP) model
Productivity
Developing the decision support system (DSS) using the Analyt-
10.0
ton/day
ical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was carried out according to the
8.0 ton/day methodology described above. Each alternative is evaluated with
respect to all considered factors including both measurable factors
6.0 ton/day (cost, time) and judgmental factors (constructability, environmen-
tal impact, risk and technology impact, sustainability conflict with
6.0 ton/day
MEP and safety). Initially, the four alternatives are evaluated based
350 m2 / on the judgmental factors according to their relative weights
day which are identified via the application of the Delphi method, as
– illustrated in section 5.2. This initial process is carried out by con-
sidering the judgmental factors are independent of the structure

Table 2
Samples for Relative Weights for Considered Alternatives with respect to Cost (Case of 12 m height frame).

Hinged - Hinged Fixed - Fixed

Alternative Span (m) Span (m)
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
HRS Frame 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.90 0.99 1.00 0.92 0.80
BUS Frame 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.92
Trussed Frame 0.77 0.87 0.95 0.98 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00
Portal frame truss 0.74 0.88 0.91 0.90 0.84 0.91 0.90 0.85

4
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Samples for Relative Weights for Considered Alternatives with respect to Duration (Case of 12 m height frame).

Hinged - Hinged Fixed - Fixed

Alternative Span (m) Span (m)
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
HRS Frame 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
BUS Frame 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.92 0.95 1.00
Trussed Frame 0.73 0.79 0.83 0.88 0.79 0.86 0.89 0.97
Portal frame truss 0.75 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.90

Table 4
6. Sensitivity analysis
The relative weight of qualitative evaluation factors using delphi method.

Evaluation factors
Cost
Construction Duration
Constructability
Sustainability
Environmental Impact
Risk Impact and Safety
Technology Impact
Conflict with MEP
dimensions. Their impact on the evaluation process was found less
than 35% while the impact of the measurable factors (Cost and
time) was representing about 65% as shown in Table 4. The relative
degrees of importance to the four alternatives according to the
judgmental factors are summarized in Table 5.
Evaluation the score of each alternative based on both measur-
able and judgmental factors for each dimension combination
between frame height and frame span for each support type gives
clear maps for the optimum portal frame system. These maps are
illustrated in Tables 6 and 7. Sample of the calculations is pre-
sented in Appendix.
5.4. Verifying the results
The optimum choices as indicated in Table 6 were verified using
case study projects with different height to span ratio which were
carried out in Egypt and their data are summarized in Table 8. Ver-
ification results shows good matching between the actual chosen
frame system and the proposed optimum one by the (DSS).
Relative weight The total relative weights of the measurable factors (Cost and
35.7% time) is exceeding 65%, therefore they selected to study their
28.6% impact in deciding the optimum alternative. Because the measure-
10.7% able factors are directly depend on the structure dimensions, any
7.1%
3.6%
variation in their relative weight of importance will affect the map-
3.6% ping of the optimum alternative. To illustrate the impact of varying
3.6% the relative weight of cost (and corresponding relative weight of
7.1% time) on mapping the optimum alternative, our values are given
to the relative weight of cost, two above the default value (based
on the survey) to be 115% and 130%. The remaining two values
are below the default value to be 70% and 85%. The results are illus-
trated in Fig. 2.
7. Research findings and discussion
The results of applying the developed (DSS) to select the opti-
mum type of steel portal frame system considering the current
market conditions in Egypt are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Both
tables mapped the optimum alternative with respect to frame
height and span. This mapping leads to the following findings:
– Regardless the support type, the (height-span) space is divided
into (more or less) four quarters. For the first quarter with low
and short frame, (HRS) frame is the optimum system. While
(BUS) frame is the best choice for the second one with high
and short frame. In case of low and long frame in the third quar-
ter, trussed frame is the suitable system. Finally, the portal
frame truss is the favorable system for high and long frames
of the fourth quarter.

Table 5
Relative Weights of Alternatives based on the Qualitative Evaluation Factors.

Alternative Constructability Sustainability Environmental Risk and Safety Technology Impact Conflict with MEP R
HRS Frame 0.100 0.100 0.101 0.100 0.400 0.200 1.00
BUS Frame 0.200 0.300 0.218 0.200 0.100 0.100 1.12
Trussed Frame 0.300 0.200 0.304 0.300 0.300 0.400 1.80
Portal frame truss 0.400 0.400 0.377 0.400 0.200 0.300 2.08

Table 6
Optimum Alternative for Different Frame Height and Span in Egypt at current market conditions (Hinged – Hinged Frames).

Frame Span (m)

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Eave Height (m) 6 HRS HRS HRS HRS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
8 HRS HRS HRS BUS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
10 HRS HRS BUS BUS BUS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
12 HRS HRS BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T. Tr. Fr.
14 BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T.
16 BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T.
18 BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T.
20 BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T.

HRS: Hot Rolled Section Frame Tr. Fr.: Trussed Frame.

BUS: Built Up Section Frame Port.T.: Portal Frame Truss.

5
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 7
Optimum Alternative for Different Frame Height and Span in Egypt at current market conditions (Fixed – Fixed Frames).

Frame Span (m)

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Eave Height (m) 6 HRS HRS HRS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
8 HRS HRS HRS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
10 HRS HRS BUS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
12 HRS BUS BUS Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
14 BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
16 BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
18 BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T. Port.T. Tr. Fr. Tr. Fr.
20 BUS BUS BUS Port.T. Port.T. Port.T. Port.T. Port.T.

HRS: Hot Rolled Section Frame Tr. Fr.: Trussed Frame.

BUS: Built Up Section Frame Port.T.: Portal Frame Truss

Table 8
Verifying the (DSS) results.

Project Frame Height (m) Frame Span (m) Support type Actual Frame system (DSS) Frame system
Storehouse, 6th Oct. water station, 2002 6.0 20.0 Hinged HRS HRS
Ghabour Auto, Service Center, Luxor, 2015 9.0 33.0 Hinged BUS BUS
11.5 24.0 Hinged BUS BUS
Ramses Railway Station, 1892 13.0 45.0 Hinged Port.T. Port.T.
EL-Qadesia Co. Factory, 6th Oct., 2019 8.0 30.0 Hinged TR. Fr. TR. Fr.
APEX Co. Factory, Badr City, 2010 8.0 25.0 Hinged BUS BUS
EL-Zahraa factory, Bin-Swif, 2012 6.0 14.0 Hinged HRS HRS

Fig. 2. Impact of varying the relative weight of cost and time on optimum alternatives for steel portal frame coverage systems, a) for hinged-hinged frames, b) for fixed–fixed
frames.

6
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

– The limit between short and long frames depends on type of
support. For hinged-hinged frame, this limit is ranged between
30 m and 35 m, while it is almost 20 m for fixed–fixed frame. On
other hand, the limit between low and high frames is ranged
between 10 m and 12 m regardless the support type. It should
be clear that these limits are not fixed and they depend on mar-
ket conditions.
– The previous zoning is reasonable as follows:
o (HRS) frame is the optimum system for low and short frames
because its high constructability and low unit price compen-
sate any waste of material due to using standard sections.
o By increasing the frame height, column size increases and
the waste materials becomes significant. At certain height,
the optimized pre-fabricated (BUS) frame becomes competi-
tor when the saving of waste of material compensates the
difference in unit price.
o Similarly, increasing the span increases the rafter size and at
certain span the cost of waste material will balance the dif-
ference in unit price between (HRS) frame and trussed frame.
o Finally, increasing the height of trussed frame (which have a
standard section column) or increasing the span of (BUS)
frame leads to portal frame truss system which has the min-
imum wasted material and maximum unit price.
– Table 6 shows that for hinged-hinged frames, (BUS) frame was
the optimum choice for 31 of 64 combinations which is about
48%. On other hand, Table 7 shows that for fixed–fixed frames,
trussed frame was the optimum choice for 29 of 64 combina-
tions which is about 45%.
– (BUS) frame is the dominant system in case of using hinged sup-
ports because its unit price is less than that of portal frame
truss, and its tapered and optimized columns are more efficient
than the straight and standard columns of trussed frame.
– Increasing the zone of the trussed frame in case of fixed support
makes a perfect sense because the weak point in this system is
the waste in their standard section columns. Using fixed sup-
port deceases the moment on the columns and accordingly their
size which increases the whole efficiency of the system.
– The results of the sensitivity analysis of relative cost importance
impact are summarized in Fig. 2-a. The figure shows that for
hinged support frames, increasing the cost importance
increases the area of the (BUS) frame due to its efficiency, while
decreasing the cost importance increases the area of the portal
frame truss system. This note matches the values in Table 5,
where the portal frame truss system gets the highest score of
the judgmental factors (i.e. neglecting the cost and time).
– Similarly, Fig. 2-b shows that for fixed support frames, increas-
ing the cost importance increases the area of the trussed frame
system due to its efficiency, while decreasing the cost impor-
tance increases the area of the portal frame truss system for
the same previous reason and also the area of the (HRS) frame
due to its high constructability.
8. Conclusions
Based on the present research results and findings, the follow-
ing points could be concluded:
– The developed (DSS) for optimum steel portal frame coverage
system can successfully select the optimum system for certain
combination of frame height, span and type of support consid-
ering certain market conditions.
– The developed (DSS) needs to be tuned for considered market
conditions using expert opinions and current prices and
productivities.
– The tuned (DSS) for the Egyptian market conditions in 2019 was
successfully verified using seven projects.
– Sensitivity analysis of tuned (DSS) showed that cost is the most
important factor affecting the choice of the system and chang-
ing its relative importance weight by ±15% and ±30% from the
surveyed value will change the optimum system mapping by
about 5% and 15% respectively.
Same technique could be applied for similar problems such as
selecting the optimum floor system as well as optimum lateral
loads resisting system.
Appendix. (Sample of DSS Calculations)
This appendix presents an example for score calculations of one
alternative considering certain span and height. (Hinged-Hinged
BUS with 25 & 12 m span and height respectively)
A. Calculations for alternatives relative weights with respect to cost&
duration (Tables 2, 3):
Finite element models for all alternatives were carried out using
the well-known SAP2000 software considering the example
dimensions. All models were comply with the considered points
mentioned in section 4.1 regarding geometry, loads, materials
and cross section of elements. These models were used to analyze
and design each member of each alternative in order to calculate
the steel weight of each alternative. The calculated steel weights
were 6761, 6182, 6453, 5916 kg/frame for HRS Frame, BUS Frame,
Trussed Frame and Portal frame truss respectively. For all alterna-
tives, the summation of both sides and roof sheets areas are
294 m2/Frame.
Considering the unit prices from Table 1, the cost of each alter-
native could be calculated as follows:

- Direct cost of HRS Frame = 6 761  20 + 294  225 = 201 370 L.E./Frame
- Direct cost of BUS Frame = 6 782  21 + 294  225 = 195 972 L.E./Frame
- Direct cost of Trussed Frame = 6 453  24 + 294  225 = 221 022 L.E./Frame
- Direct cost of Portal frame truss = 5 916  26 + 294  225 = 219 940 L.E./Frame

Considering the productivity from Table 1, the duration of each alternative could be calculated as follows:

- Time of HRS Frame = 6 761 / 10 000 + 294 /350 = 1.52 day/Frame

- Time of BUS Frame = 6 782 / 8 000 + 294 /350 = 1.61 day/Frame
- Time of Trussed Frame = 6 453 / 6 000 + 294 /350 = 1.92 day/Frame
- Time of Portal frame truss = 5 916 / 6 000 + 294 /350 = 1.83 day/Frame

7
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Considering the indirect cost rate from Table 1, the indirect cost of each alternative could be calculated as follows:

- Indirect cost of HRS Frame = 1.52  5 000 = 7 581 L.E./Frame

- Indirect cost of BUS Frame = 1.61  5 000 = 8 064 L.E./Frame
- Indirect cost of Trussed Frame = 1.92  5 000 = 9 578 L.E./Frame
- Indirect cost of Portal frame truss = 1.83  5 000 = 9 130 L.E./Frame

The total cost of each alternative could be calculated as follows:

- Total cost of HRS Frame = 201 370 + 7 851 = 208 951 L.E./Frame
- Total cost of BUS Frame = 195 972 + 8 064 = 204 036 L.E./Frame
- Total cost of - Trussed Frame = 221 022 + 9 578 = 230 600 L.E./Frame
- Total cost of Portal frame truss = 219 940 + 9 130 = 229 070 L.E./Frame

Hence, the relative weight for any alternative with respect to Cost equals to the minimum total cost divided by its total cost. (As shown in
Table 2)

The relative weight for HRS Frame cost = 204 036 / 208 951 = 0.98
The relative weight for BUS Frame cost = 204 036 / 204 036 = 1.00
The relative weight for Trussed Frame cost = 204 036 / 230 600 = 0.88
The relative weight for Portal frame truss cost = 204 036 / 229 070 = 0.89

Also, the relative weight for any alternative with respect to Time equals to the minimum duration divided by its duration. (As shown in
Table 3)

The relative weight for HRS Frame time = 1.52 / 1.52 = 1.00
The relative weight for BUS Frame time = 1.52 / 1.61 = 0.94
The relative weight for Trussed Frame time = 1.52 / 1.92 = 0.79
The relative weight for Portal frame truss time = 1.52 / 1.83 = 0.83

B. Calculations for alternatives relative weights with respect to rest of BUS Frame alternative with respect to constructability is 2.0 / (1.
factors (tables 4, 5): 0 + 2.0 + 3.0 + 4.0) = 0.20 (see Table 5)

Relative weights of considered factors shown in Table 4 were
calculated by applying (AHP) on the questioner results. The 1st
request in the questioner is to evaluate the importance of consider
factor from 1 for less important to 10 for most important. In the
3rd round, the evaluations were settled and the average evaluation
for the considered factors were 10.0, 8.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 and
2.0 for cost, construction duration, constructability, sustainability,
environmental impact, risk impact and safety, technology impact,
and Conflict with HVAC respectively. Accordingly, the relative
weight of certain factor is the ratio between its evaluation and
the sum of the evaluations. For example, the relative weight of
cost = 10.0 / (10.0 + 8.0 + 3.0 + 2.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 2.0) = 0.357
as shown in Table 4.
Similar approach was used to estimate the relative weights of
each alternative with respect to considered factors. The 3rd request
in the questioner is to arrange the four alternatives from 1 for less
favorable to 4 for most favorable alternative with respect to each
considered factor regardless cost and duration which relative
weights could be calculated from BOQ. For example, the average
evaluations of alternatives with respect to constructability were
1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 for HRS Frame, BUS Frame, Trussed Frame
and Portal frame truss respectively. Hence, the relative weight of
C. Alternative score calculations (Tables 6 and 7):
The optimum alternative for certain frame span and height is
the alternative with highest score. Those optimum alternatives
were mapped in tables 6, 7 for span ranged between 10 and
45 m and height ranged between 6 and 20 m. The score of each
alternative is the sum of multiplied factor relative weight from
table 4 by corresponding alternative relative weight from tables
2, 3 and 5. For example, the scores of the four alternatives in case
of 25 m span and 12 m height are:
Cost Time Constructability Sustainability
Score of HRS Frame alt. = (0.357x0.98)+(0.286x1.00)+(0.1076x0.
1.0)+(0.071x 0.10)
Environmental Safety Technology HVAC
+(0.036x0.10)+(0.036x0.10)+(0.036x0.40)+(0.071x0.20)
= 0.688
Similarly, the score of BUS Frame, Trussed Frame and Portal
frame truss are 0.694, 0.649 and 0.683 respectively. Accordingly,
BUS Frame is the optimum alternative for this case.
Utilized Questionnaire

8
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

9
M.A. El-Aghoury et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Mohamed A. Aghoury is the head of Structural Engi-

References
neering & construction management- Faculty of Engi-
neering. & Technology - Future University (FUE).
[1] Bowels, N. (1999). The Delphi technique. RCNi, 13, 32–6.
[2] Chen WT, Chang PY, Huang YH. Assessing the overall performance of value
engineering workshops for construction projects. Int J Project Manage 2010;28
(5):514–27.
[3] Hallowell MR, Gambatese JA. Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi
method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2010. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000137, 99-107.
[4] Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision-making methods and
applications. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1981.
[5] I. M. Mahdi, A. M. Ebid and R. Khallaf, Decision support system for optimum
soft clay improvement technique for highway construction projects, Ain
Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.08.007.
[6] Li F, Phoon KK, Du X, Zhang M. Improved AHP method and its application in
risk identification. J Constr Eng Manage ASCE 2013;139:312–20.
Ahmed M. Ebid is a lecturer in Structural Engineering &
[7] Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic
construction management- Faculty of Engineering. &
hierarchy process: 175. Springer; 2001.
[8] Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Analytical Network Process: Technology - Future University (FUE).
Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill;
2003.
[9] Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”. Int. J. Services
Sciences 2008;Vol. 1(No. 1).
[10] Salter PR, Malik AS, King CM. Design of single-span steel portal frames to BS
2004;5950–1::2000.
[11] SAVE International. (2007). Value methodology standard and body of
knowledge. Retrieved 2012, January 10 from http://www.value-eng.org.
[12] Seyit Ali Erdogan et al., 2017. ‘‘Decision Making in Construction Management:
AHP and Expert) Choice Approach” Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 270 –
276.
[13] Simpson L. ‘‘Do decision makers know what they prefer?” Mavt and electre ii. J
Operat Res Soc 1996;47(7):919–29.
[14] Sourani A, Sohail M. The Delphi method: review and use in construction Ibrahim Mahmoud Mahdi is an Associated Professor
management research. Int J Constr Educat Res 2015;11(1):54–76. doi: https:// Structural Engineering & construction management-
doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2014.917132. Faculty of Engineering. & Technology - Future Univer-
[15] Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources sity (FUE).
Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[16] Xia B, Chan APC, Yeung JFY. Developing a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making
model for selecting design-build operational variations. J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
2011;137(12):1176–84.
[17] Woolcock ST, Kitipornchai S, Bradford MA. Design of portal frame buildings,
Australian Institute of Steel Construction; 2011.
[18] Zaragoza, José R, Economical Structural Steelwork - Fourth Edition, Australian
Institute of Steel Construction, Sydney; 1997.
[19] Zavadskas EK, Podvezko V. Integrated determination of objective criteria
weights in MCDM. Int J Inform Technol Decis Mak 2016;15(02):267–83. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036.

10