Thesis Report

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/346570556
Cost Saving Analysis Between Portal Frame and Truss Systems.
Thesis · February 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 3,968
2 authors, including:
Omar Ajaje
Griffith University
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Omar Ajaje on 02 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

6007ENG-IAP Cost Saving Analysis, Trimester 1, 2020
Griffith School of Engineering

Griffith University
6007 – Industry Affiliates Program
Cost Saving Analysis Between Portal

Frame and Truss Systems.
Omar Ajaje, s5105464
03 February, Trimester 3, 2020
ANH Consulting Engineers
Antoun El Hajjeh
Dr. Shanmuganathan Gunalan
Bachelor of Engineering (Honours)
The copyright on this report is held by the author and/or the IAP Industry Partner. Permission has been granted to Griffith University to
keep a reference copy of this report.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Steel has been used as the major material in construction due to its high strength, durability,
design flexibility and sustainability. Although the cost of steel is high, however the modern
optimized designs ensures the minimum use of the material while maintaining the required
strength and durability. The mass of the steel is the major component of the total cost which
must be minimized as the final objective of a keenly designed structure. There are extensive
benefits of steel in the construction sector where it is recognized as the only high strength
material that can last for decades without degradation in mechanical properties such as tensile
strength etc. For the construction of larger structures such as multi storey buildings, bridges,
industrial buildings steel is always a preferred material because it can withstand considerable
external pressure and resist earthquakes. The high tensile strength and high strength to weight
ratio makes it a favourable material for large constructions.
The two common designs are mainly used in steel commercial structures, portal frames and
truss structures. Portal frames are categorized under low rise structures consisting of
horizontal or pitched rafters and columns connected by the moment resisting connection.
These connections provide the rigidity which resists the lateral and vertical forces. Portal
frames are very common because they can efficiently cover the large volumes thus used in
industrial setups, storage area constructions and other commercial applications. The drawback
of portal structures is that they cannot be used cost efficiently with the construction requiring
more than 30m span. According to (Woolcock et al, 2011) truss frames are suggested to be
used instead of portal frames as the span length increases.
This study investigates the cost of each system for a 100m length structure with different
span lengths to determine the point where truss system become more cost-efficient.
Furthermore, frame spacing plays an important role in the section selection of each of the
systems. Therefore, the frame spacing has been taken into consideration to study its effect
on cost. This study is to make it easier for structural designers to make a correct decision in
the preliminary design stage on which of the systems to use. In this study, span length
deviates from 15m to 60m on 15m increments. External column heights vary from 6m to
9m and 12m. Frame spacing is studied on 2 cases of 9m and 6.27m. The results have shown
that when span is more than 30 m truss structure is a preferable and cost-effective solution.
2
Acknowledgments
ANH Consulting Engineers is an engineering firm that provided much help and addon to
this study. Antoun El Hajjeh, the chief engineer and supervisor at ANH Consulting
Engineers, made it clear that the industry need for such a study and they as ‘professionals’
must go over multiple designs to be able to determine which design system is the most
efficient. Starting from there, getting the approval and support of Dr Gunalan with offering
all help required every time I asked. All this support pushed me forward to proceed in
completing all of the 48 models using SpaceGass as a tool to build the database needed for
my study. After completing all models with a section capacity check, a reach out for local
steel suppliers like Herzog Steel and Infrabuild and DHC Engineering was done for cost
quoting. Even though I struggled in the early stages, eventually after several reach-outs for
different suppliers, my determinacy made things work. It helped me complete all work
successfully and finally achieve results that made me satisfied. Following all, relative help
remained appreciated for the proofreading done for this paper.
3
Table of Contents
Cost Saving Analysis Between Portal Frame and Truss Systems. ........................................................... 1
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Research Problem ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Aim and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Research Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Literature ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Models: ....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Loading on Structures ............................................................................................................ 10
3.1.1 Wind Loading .................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Wind Load Cases ............................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Load Combinations:........................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Purlins and Girts Design ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Purlin Design ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Girt Design ......................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Numerical Analysis .................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Deflection Limitation......................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Determining Section Capacity ........................................................................................... 13
3.4 Deflection and Section Capacity Check ................................................................................. 15
3.4.1 Frame Deflection Check Results ....................................................................................... 15
3.4.2 Section Capacity Check Results ........................................................................................ 15
4.0 Section Selection Results: ........................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Full Structure Members quantity. ........................................................................................... 16
5.0 Cost Optimizations ......................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Spacing effect on cost ............................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Cost per tonne .......................................................................................................................... 19
6.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix C .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix D .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix E .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix F .......................................................................................................................................... 55
4
1.0 Introduction
The steel industry in Australia is recognised for the significant value added to the economic
expansion, preservation of employment and increasingly environmental protection. Steel
known to be a main component in construction and infrastructure. According to (ASI, 2005)
Australia became as one of the most active steel sectors in the world where the steel industry
contributes to $11 billion to Australia’s (GDP) with an annual turnover of $29 billion in
accordance to (Australian Bureau of Statistics 8155, Australian Industry, 2015–2016).
Engineers have been designing commercial structures using steel as a main element due to
the impressive strength/weight ratio. Mainly two designs have been used throughout history,
portal frames and truss frames. Portal frames are known to be the simple method of
construction due to the simple design consisting mainly of columns and rafters. According to
(L. Beeche & T. Scarfford, 2020), Modular truss frame can be assembled in different ways
using chords placed diagonally and vertically connected to either top member or bottom
member.
1.1 Research Problem

Steel prices are unstable around the globe, according to (The Australian Steel Industry, 2016),
Arrium is facing a global oversupply problem which is causing Australian steel producers to
lower the prices. Due to these price changes the end cost of the steel structure is affected. It
is important for engineers to design the structures efficiently with minimum use of steel while
maintaining the required strength. As the two main designs for steel structures are portal
frames and truss frames, it has been a question for a while, which system is more efficient?
What variables affect that end design cost?
1.2 Aim and Objectives

Increased and optimized use of steel adds value to the government revenues and is in the
benefit of the community. As steel has been widely used in commercial structures, there is a
need to perform a design analysis that incorporate the overall cost in terms of steel weight for
a single-story commercial structure. This paper investigates both the portal and truss frame.
This study took into consideration all aspects that may affect the design cost. Starting with
span length and column height, and finally the effect of frame spacing has to be studied. The
aim of this study is to find an effective region after which the truss become more cost efficient
than a portal frame particularly when varying the span length. And if this condition changes
5
what will be the effects under different column height conditions. What makes this study
unique is the consideration of important parameter i.e. frame spacing as it directly affects
member selection in each of the frame system.
1.3 Research Methodology

Designing in accordance with Australian Standards building codes from AS4100 to AS1170.0
and AS1170.2, Second-order structural analysis method has been used in order to determine
the efficient section for each member in both frame systems. Following design of each frame
system, a method of comparison has been used where structures with same characteristics are
compared depending on the cost per weight.
1.4 Research Outcomes

This study outcome is to build a better understanding of the efficiency of each system and the
variables affecting end construction cost. The relation of cost with span length proved to vary
between a portal frame and truss system. The truss showed to be more efficient as the span
length increases. The study of the frame spacing relation to efficiency proved a positive
outcome as the 9m frame spacing showed a reduction of about 20% for 100m length structure.
The height variable showed not to change any of the proved results except a minor change to
the percentage of efficiency.
2.0 Literature
For single-level building applications, light portal structures have been the preferred building
elements (Haydar, Far, & Saleh, 2018). The structural behaviour of these constructions shows
that for more than 30m span. The weight-saving is more pronounced. However, it has been
found that very few researchers have investigated the behaviour of portal truss with this much
heights (Wu et al, 2012). There are several factors that come into play when qualitative
characteristics are considered for the selection of truss or portal frames. The parameters such
as the thickness of sheets/bars, strength, elasticity, structural dimensions, site conditions, the
total weight of the structure significantly influence the behaviour of both kind of structures
(Altammar, Kaul, & Dhingra, 2017). The researchers have suggested that rafters should be
replaced with roof trusses for bigger lengths. This technique not only saves the weight of the
6
steel but also reduces the cost. This structure saves the cost by reducing the weight until it
becomes impossible to further reduce the weight of steel due to issues such as strength.
The aforementioned theory was challenged by (Mortazavi, Toğan, & Nuhoğlu, 2017) who
claimed that reducing the weight of the structure alone is not always the best strategy to reduce
the costs. This was because, when weight and cost are plotted it is parabolic and is not a linear
relationship. The researcher has emphasized that the designer must assess whether a simpler
design or rationalization of the middle section can lead to required strength structure while
cutting down the costs. Moreover, it was previously studied that fixed base which acts as a
supporting foundation always costs more because of the complex structural connection
(Hayaligolu & Degertekin, 2005).
Several designs of portal truss structure are proposed by researchers, however, the general
design comprises of a set of braced columns which are used to support an overhead truss (Ho-
Huu et al, 2016). The major design feature of the truss structure is how the individual
components are aligned so that they can withstand high winds while carrying the loads. These
designs were numerically investigated for their strengths since 1960 (Islam, Li, & Deb, 2017).
The initial design that describes these structures were based on the foundation structural
approaches where the nodes were distributed over the entire structure connected through bars.
The design variable which defined the cross-sectional area was then linked with these bars.
The complexity of optimizing the minimum weight problems of truss structure has shown
that the difficulty in solving these problems arises from joint deflection and component
stresses.
When optimizing and selecting the truss vs. portal structures, the design problems carries all
the difficulties that are present in optimizing the more advanced structures (Van Mellaert et
al., 2017). The issues are categorized under large scale non-convex variables. These variables
do not satisfy the standard constraint qualifications. The finite element method can be used
to optimize the truss structures, however, there is a core difference when implementing this
technique for this structure i.e. there are few state variables (nodal displacements) while the
number of design variables is large. Several problems are discussed in the literature while
optimizing the truss structures. These problems include ground structure approach, structural
analysis and assumptions, the minimum compliance problem, reformulation in the design
variables, reformulation as non-linear problems, and the minimum weight problem (Tyburec
et al., 2018).
7
Some other researchers proposed hybrid methods for optimizing the geometry and keeping
the weight minimum using stress and displacement constraints (Dong & Zhang, 2019). The
algorithm used in these optimizations was a combination of discrete particle swarm
optimization and method of moving asymptotes. The area was initially kept fixed resulting in
geometry as the only variable to be optimized. In the second stage, the area variables are
optimized using particle swarm optimization and geometry is kept constant. In comparison to
genetic algorithms, the hybrid method of optimization was less time consuming, fewer errors
and light on the resources (Kaveh et al., 2017).
Ant colony optimization was also used by some researchers to solve the optimal truss
problems (Arjmand, Sheikhi Azqandi, & Delavar, 2018). Several methods such as coupling
the ant colony optimizations and rank based ant system for minimum weight evaluation has
been proposed (Pholdee et al., 2016). The later combination of algorithms was executed using
local stress, nodal displacement and critical buckling load constraints. Improvements in ant
colony optimization of truss structures were made possible by dividing the search space into
a fine grid. It must be considered here that these techniques were used only to optimize the
size of the structures while no method was devised for challenging topology optimization
problems.
Simulated annealing is another method that was used by researchers in optimizing the truss
design (Millan-Paramo, 2018). This method designated nodal displacement and local stress
as the constraints. Other researchers also used neural network approach for executing
simulated annealing.
Numerous researchers have studied the optimization of portal frames because it is one of the
extensively implied and studied structures (Kaveh et al., 2017). There are two major design
methodologies adopted during the optimization of portal steel frames i.e. use compact hot-
rolled sections thus benefiting from plastic design and using slender built-up sections with
the wide material distribution. The design of steel structures either truss or portal frames
requires the engineers to consider the influence of load combinations. Some computer
programs such as SAP-2000 and SpaceGASS provide the provision to select the material
properties and study the combine action effects.
8
3.0 Models:
Each of the portal and truss frame systems has been designed as a dual pitch roof ≥ 3° and <
4° pitch. Figure 2 shows each of the frames. Figure 3 shows a 3D front view of the portal
frame spanning 60m with 9m height.
Portal frame has been designed in accordance to (Woolcock et al, 2011), Adding knee brace to
the rafter column connection was a must for a fair comparison as it reduces the moment
acting on the column in the portal frame which will eventually lead to a more efficient
design. Portal frames knee bracing were designed in accordance to (Phan et al., 2017), the
knee brace depth is not to exceed 1/3rdof the external column height with knee angle ranging
between 37° and 39°. As seen in figure 1
Figure 1: Pitched Roof with a Knee brace
Truss structure has been designed using the Pratt system with square hollow sections of
grade 450 for a higher strength per weight ratio compared to steel grade 350. Grade 350
SHS was used for sections with a relatively low axial capacity. Moment connection has
been used for the truss column connection to minimize deflection. The truss has been
designed to sit in between the columns as an additional design method to minimize lateral
deflection due to external transverse wind, as shown in Figure 2.
9
Figure 2: Portal Frame and Truss Frame
Pin based columns have been used for each of the portal and truss frames. To minimize
material manufacturing cost for portal frame, knee bracing and rafters were planned using the
same section. The rafter column connection in the portal frame has been designed as a bolted
end connection.
Figure 3: 3D Front View Portal Frame
3.1 Loading on Structures

Design of each frame start by determining the loads acting on the structure, wind loading is
the main external load to act on the structure. Wind loading has been designed in accordance
with AS/NZ 1170.2 and (Woolcock et al, 2011)
3.1.1 Wind Loading

Assuming location in Canberra,ACT Category 3, Assuming Shielding multiplier, and wind
direction multiplier, and topographic multiplier = 1 for whole study.
According to AS/NZ1170.2-2011 and (Woolcock et al, 2011).
Vu = Vsit,β = 45 * 0.83
10
Vs = 37 * 0.83
𝑉
To simplify calculations Ultimate Strength are multiplied by( 𝑉 25 )2 to obtain the serviceability
500
load.
3.1.2 Wind Load Cases

Wind load cases were calculated in Accordance to (Woolcock et al, 2011) and AS1170.2
Load Cases:
LC1: Dead Load

LC2: Live Load
LC3: Transverse Wind Max uplift:
LC4: Transverse Wind Min uplift
LC5: Longitudinal Wind First Internal Frame
LC6: Longitudinal Wind with 0.2qu External roof pressure and 0.2 qu wall suction
(LW2)
LC7: Internal pressure under transverse wind (IPTW)
LC8: Internal pressure under longitudinal wind:
LC9: Internal suction under Transverse wind:
LC10: Internal suction under longitudinal wind
3.1.3 Load Combinations:

Load Combination: 20: 1.2LC1+1.5LC2
Load Combination 21: 0.9LC1+LC3+LC7
Load Combination 24: 0.9LC1+ LC5+LC8
Load Combination 25:1.2LC1+LC6+LC10
3.2 Purlins and Girts Design

3.2.1 Purlin Design
Assuming a uniform spacing for all models, 1.2m for purlin spacing.
According to (Breust, 2006) the capacity of the purlins and girts should be greater than the
worst inward and outward combination.
R inward = [external pressure + internal suction] *purlin spacing + self-weight
R outward = [external suction + Internal pressure] * purlin spacing
11
Hence Z15019 with 1 row bridging for with 6.27m structures with frame spacing.
And Z20024 with 1 row bridging for structures with 9m frame spacing.
3.2.2 Girt Design
Assuming a uniform spacing for all models, 1.5m for girt spacing
Rinward = [external pressure + internal suction] ×1.5m
Routward = [external suction +internal pressure] ×1.5 m
Z15019 with 1 row bridging for 6.27m frame spacing structures.
Z30024 with 1 row bridging for 9m frame spacing structures.
3.3 Numerical Analysis
3.3.1 Deflection Limitation

According to (Woolcock et al, 2011) Lateral deflection at eaves under serviceability transverse
wind are obtained from the ultimate strength limit state deflection by factoring them by the
𝑉
(𝑉 25 )2 which is equal to 0.676. Horizontal deflection is limited by transverse wind load
500
LC3 with internal Pressure LC7: the limit of the horizontal deflection is dependent on the
ℎ
𝑒
column height (150 )
• Dead Load deflection limit is L/360. According to AS4100

• Live load deflection limit is L/240.
• Rafter deflection under serviceability transverse wind and internal pressure is L/150.
Table 1: Deflection Limit Portal and Truss Frame
Member Deflection Limit (mm)

Height(m) Direction
Type Span 15m Span 30m Span 45m Span 60m
Horizontal
Column Serviceability sway 40 40 40 40
deflection (h/150)
Vertical under dead

6 Rafter 41.66 83.33 125 166.66
load (L/360)
Vertical under Live 62.5 125 187.5 250

Rafter
load (L/240)
12
Vertical Serviceability
Rafter sway deflection 100 200 300 400
=L/150
Horizontal
deflection (h/150)
Vertical under dead

Rafter 41.66 83.33 125 166.66
load (L/360)

9 Rafter
load (L/240)
=L/150
Horizontal
deflection (h/150)
Vertical under dead

Rafter 41.66 83.33 125 166.66
load (L/360)
12
Rafter
load (L/240)
=L/150
3.3.2 Determining Section Capacity

𝑀𝑠𝑥 = 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑧𝑒𝑥
Φ𝑁𝑠 = 𝑘𝑓 ∗ Φ𝑁𝑡
• Major axis compression capacity
𝛂𝑐𝑥 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
Φ𝑁𝑐𝑥 = 0.9 ∗ 𝑘𝑓 ∗ 𝛂𝑐𝑥 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑔
• Minor axis Compression Capacity
Φ𝑁𝑐𝑦 = 0.9 ∗ 𝑘𝑓 ∗ 𝛂𝑐𝑦 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑔
13
• Combined actions on the column

-Inside flange in tension
• In-plane Capacity
𝑁𝑥∗
Φ𝑀𝑟𝑥 = 1.18 ∗ Φ𝑀𝑠𝑥 ∗ (1 − ( ))
Φ𝑁𝑡
According to (Woolcock et al, 2011) because the column is in tension, the in-plane member
capacity check is the same as the section capacity check
• Out-of-plane Capacity
𝜋 2 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐼𝑦 𝜋 2 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐼𝑤
𝑀𝑜 = ( √ ∗ √( 𝐺 ∗ 𝐽) + )
𝑙𝑒2 𝑙𝑒2
Φ𝑀𝑏𝑥 = 0.9 ∗ 𝛂𝑚 ∗ 𝛂𝑠 ∗ 𝑀𝑠𝑥
Inside Flange in Compression
Check section Capacity
𝑁𝑐∗ 82 − 𝛌𝑤
Φ𝑀𝑟𝑥 = Φ𝑀𝑠𝑥 ∗ (1 − ( )) ∗ (1 + 0.18 ∗ ( ))
Φ𝑁𝑠 82 − 𝛌𝑤𝑦
• In-Plane Member Capacity
𝑁∗
Φ𝑀𝑖 = Φ𝑀𝑠𝑥 ∗ (1 − ( Φ𝑁𝑥 ) >𝑀𝑥∗
𝑡
• Out-of Plane Member Capacity
𝜋 2 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐼𝑦 𝜋 2 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐼𝑤
𝑀𝑜 = ( √ ∗ √( 𝐺 ∗ 𝐽) + ) ∗ 10−6 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑙𝑒2 𝑙𝑒2
If Φ𝑀𝑜𝑥 > 𝑀𝑥∗
Moment, shear, and torsion capacity check for truss frame members have been checked in
accordance to (midaliasteel, 2020) Table 8-6(1) in the product manual.
14
3.4 Deflection and Section Capacity Check

3.4.1 Frame Deflection Check Results
Following section 4.1, Tables 6,7,8, and 9 in appendix C show the maximum deflection in
members for each of the 6.27m and 9m spacing. As seen in Tables 6,7,8, and 9 in appendix
C, the horizontal serviceability sway deflection is the most critical for a 15m span frame.
Horizontal sway deflection decreases with the increase in span length in contrary to the
vertical deflection under dead load as it increases with span increase to become the frame
limiting deflection for larger spans.
After that each of the designs has been checked against the deflection limit, a section
capacity check took placing following the formulas listed in 4.2 and according to AS4100
and (Woolcock et al., 2011).
3.4.2 Section Capacity Check Results

Tables from 10 till 17 in appendix D shows the section moment capacity and axial capacity
columns of the portal frame under the critical tension and compression load combination.
In appendix E, Tables from 18 till 23 shows the maximum compression and tension axial
force in each of the truss members.
4.0 Section Selection Results:

The use of SpaceGass provided the opportunity to determine the critical tension and
compression load combination quickly. It helped to select the Ideal member section after a
long process of trial and error. Following that, each section has been mathematically checked
in accordance to AS4100. For frames with span length more than 30m, the critical deflection
limit has always been set by the vertical dead load. The aim was always to find the lightest
beam or truss formation that will also provide enough support to resist horizontal
serviceability sway deflection as the column height increases. According to portal frame
section capacity tables in appendix D and Truss axial loading and section selection in
appendix E, the column section increased with the rise of the column height for frames with
spans 15 and 30m, which is when the critical load was the transverse wind. We realize in
frames spanning 45m and 60m, the significant load was the dead load due to roof structure
that as the structure height increases, the column section slightly decreases. We also realize
15
that the formation of a truss provided a more sustainable structural configuration in contrast
to using rafters as roofing elements for frames with large spans.
4.1 Full Structure Members quantity.

For a structure with 100m length, the girts total length was determined depending on the
column length and girt spacing. While the total purlin length was depending on the span
length and purlin spacing, frame spacing will only affect the manufacturing cost of purlins
and girts as more section cutting will be involved.
Assuming 1500mm for girt spacing and 1200mm for purlins.
Table 2 Girt total cost for 100m structure
Cost for 6.27m Cost for 9m

Column\girt Length(m)
spacing ($) spacing ($)
6 792 23760 31680
9 2012 60360 80480
12 1584 47520 63360
Table 3 Purlin total cost for 100m structure
Cost for 6.27m Cost for 9m spacing

span\purlin Length(m)
spacing ($) ($)
15 1386 41580 76230
30 2574 77220 141570
45 3762 112860 206910
60 4851 145530 266805
Number of frames was related to frame spacing, a total of 12 frames for 9m frame spacing
and 17 frames for 6.27m spacing, getting the total structure to 99m and 100.32m
respectively.
Prices quotes have been received from Infrabuild and Herzog Steel.
5.0 Cost Optimizations
16
5.1 Spacing effect on cost

Figures 4,5,6, and 7 shows the cost for a single frame vs span length for each of the 6,9, and
12m. Firstly Studying the relation of spacing and cost. We studied the case for portal and truss
frames cost tables in Appendix F, to realize that frames with 6.27 m single span are cheaper
but if multiplying the number by 12 for the 9m and 17 for the 6.27m, the 100m length
structure consisting of 9m spacing will be more cost effective. Leading to a saving of about
25% in raw material cost. Furthermore, 9m spacing structure will have a less construction and
connection costs.
Portal Frame
6.27m Spacing
50000
44174.7
45000
40000
35402.4
35000 31654.8
30000
25000
20000
15172
13140
15000
10266
10000 6676 7192
4082 5096
5000 2474
0
0 15 30 45 60 75
6m height 9m height 12m height
Expon. (6m height) Linear (9m height) Expon. (12m height)
Figure 4 Portal frame Cost Per Fame vs Span Length
17
Portal Frame
9m Spacing
60000
50000 45827.1
40934.7
40000 36248.6 34986.6
30000
17745.6
20000
14377
10034
7474 7694
10000 4558 6070
2474
0
0 15 30 45 60 75
Expon. (6m height) Expon. (9m height) Expon. (12m height)
Figure 5 Portal frame Cost Per Fame vs Span Length
Truss Frame 6.27m Spacing
40000 37048.07
35000
30000 27294.54
25000 22396.9
20000 18077.6
15743.5
13978.47 14635.43
15000 12447.67
8496.44
10000
4701.832 5213.641
5000 2550.197
0
0 15 30 45 60 75
Expon. (6m height) Linear (9m height) Log. (12m height)
Figure 6: Truss Frame cost of 1 frame spaced at 6.27 m
18
Figure 7: Truss Frame cost of 1 frame spaced at 9m
5.2 Cost per tonne

As the purlin and girts cost will be uniform along both frame system it will not be included
in the comparison. According to the previous investigation the 9m spacing turned out to be
more efficient, figure 8 has been developed to study the cost per weight for each of the portal
and truss frame. Figure 8 shows that the portal frame cost. The increase in weight was caused
by the increase of span length, increase in height which led to an increase in member section
cross section. Cost per weight for the portal frame seemed to be linear while the cost per
weight for the truss frame showed to be nonlinear due to the massive variation in weight with
the variation in height.
19
Portal Frame vs Portal Truss Cost per Weight

80000
70000
Cost per Frame ($)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Weight (tonnes)
Portal Truss Linear (Portal) Linear (Truss)
Figure 8: Cost per weight for portal frame and truss frame spaced 9m
As a result, the average cost of the 6,9, and 12m height structure for each of the portal and
truss frame have been analysed against the span length in figure 9.Figure 8 shows the
linearity of cost per weight in the portal frame as manufacturing cost is limited.
Table 4 Cost for 9m Spacing truss structure
9m Spacing Truss Frame
Total Structure
Height (m) Span (m) Cost per Frame ($)
Cost ($)
15 2346.0928 28153.1136
30 4887.29348 58647.52176
6 45 17753.2535 213039.042
60 20284.2 243410.4
15 4778.728 57344.736
30 3422.251 41067.012
9 45 14263.12 171157.44
60 20964.53 251574.36
20
15 10147.18 121766.16
30 17753.26 213039.12
12 45 12149.89 145798.68
60 21619.26 259431.12
Table 5 Cost for 9m Portal frame structure
9m Spacing Portal Frame
Total Structure
Height (m) Span (m) Cost per Frame ($)
Cost ($)
15 2474 29688
30 6070 72840
6
45 14377 172524
60 34986.6 419839.2
15 4558 54696
30 7694 92328
9
45 17745.6 212947.2
60 40934.7 491216.4
15 7474 89688
30 10034 120408
12
45 36248.6 434983.2
60 45827.1 549925.2
6.0 Conclusions
21
This study was aimed at optimizing the two major steel structures used in the construction
industry i.e. portal and truss. The objective was to identify the region where a truss structure
surpasses the benefits of portal structure in terms of cost and strength. Although a significant
number of researchers have worked on selection and optimizing of individual structure types,
however, a very few researchers have worked in prioritizing the structures. Industrial
standards were followed in designing and developments of the models such as Pratt system
was used to design the truss structures with square hollow sections of grade 450 steel
providing higher strength per weight ratio. Portal frames were desined as per the design of
Wooclock et. Al. Wind loading was designed as per AS/NZ 1170.2 standards. Purlins and
Girts were designed such that the capacity was more than inward and outward combinations.
SpaceGass was used to find the critical tension and compression load combination. Finally
the sections have been numerically checked in accordance to AS4100.
It can be concluded from the study that the column section of portal frame increases with the
increase in column height for frames with spans of 15m and 30m. It was concluded from the
study that formation of truss provided more sustainable structural configuration in
comparison with the rafters as roofing elements in portal designs with large spans. In this
study, the effect on cost was also calculated for each type of structures. It was found that for
all the structures, a 9m spacing was most cost efficient reaching up to 25% reduction in overall
raw material costs. The study also concludes that the average structure cost was same for both
the portal and truss structures for span of 30m. Above 30m, the cost of portal frame increases
rapidly. Finally, at a span of 60m the cost almost doubles than the truss structure. Therefore,
it is concluded that for larger structures, truss is a more economical alternative design while
providing the same strength and durability.
600000
Average structure Cost($)
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Span length (m)
Truss Frame Portal Frame Poly. (Truss Frame) Expon. (Portal Frame)
22
Figure 9: full structure average cost average.
Figure 9 studies the full structure cost for each frame system, averaging 3 the different
heights for a more accurate result. Figure 9 shows the cross point between the portal and the
truss frame of which the truss become more efficient. Figure 9 shows that the cross point of
which the truss become more cost effective is at 28m span length. Hence the ideal structures
to be designed as portal frames with frames spaced 9m apart for span length less than 28m
and truss frames spaced 9m apart for any span greater than 28m.
23
References:
AS1170.2-2011: Structural design actions- Wind actions. Standards Australia, NSW, Australia
AS4100-1998: steel structures. Standards Australia, NSW, Australia.
Arrium Mining And Materials. (2016). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE AUSTRALIAN STEEL
INDUSTRY [Ebook]. NSW. Retrieved from
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=0a0cfc3f-1de6-4b4b-bd6b-
3bfa2d66f17d&subId=409465
ASI - Our industry. (2015). Retrieved 5 February 2020, from https://www.steel.org.au/about-

us/our-industry/
Breust,T. D.:(2006) the design and structural analysis of a steel portal framed shed for the
Darling Downs Historical Rail Society
Phan, T., Lim, J., Selowara Joo, M., & Lau, H. (2017). Design Optimization of Long-Span
Cold-Formed Steel Portal Frames Accounting for Effect of Knee Brace Joint Configuration.
Technologies, 5(4), 81. doi: 10.3390/technologies5040081
Sydigate.info, Steel mills face higher costs after Australia mines flood. (2011, January 10). Oil
& Gas News. Retrieved from https://link-gale-
com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/apps/doc/A246141525/STND?u=griffith&sid=STND&xid
=6e1ea226
Woolcock, S., Haddad, G., Bradford, M., & Kitipornchai, S. (2011). Design of portal frame
buildings (4th ed.). North Sydney, Australia: Australian Institute of Steel Construction.
(2020). Retrieved 2 January 2020, from

http://www.midaliasteel.com/files/3813/6394/3187/DCT_CF_Small.pdf
L. Beeche, G., & T. Scarfford, R. (2020). US5214899A - Modular truss frame system - Google
Patents. Retrieved 4 February 2020, from
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5214899A/en
Altammar, H., Kaul, S., & Dhingra, A. (2017). Use of wavelets for damage diagnostics in truss
structures. International Journal Of Structural Integrity, 8(3), 373-391. doi: 10.1108/ijsi-05-
2016-0017b
24
Mortazavi, A., Toğan, V. & Nuhoğlu, A. 2017, "Weight minimization of truss structures with
sizing and layout variables using integrated particle swarm optimizer", Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 985-1001
Hayalioglu, M.S. & Degertekin, S.O. 2005, "Minimum cost design of steel frames with semi-
rigid connections and column bases via genetic optimization", Computers and Structures, vol.
83, no. 21, pp. 1849-1863.
Ho-Huu, V., Nguyen-Thoi, T., Vo-Duy, T. & Nguyen-Trang, T. 2016, "An adaptive elitist
differential evolution for optimization of truss structures with discrete design variables",
Computers and Structures, vol. 165, pp. 59-75.
Islam, M., Li, X. & Deb, K. 2017, "Multimodal truss structure design using bilevel and niching
based evolutionary algorithms", ACM, , pp. 274.
Van Mellaert, R., Mela, K., Tiainen, T. et al. Mixed-integer linear programming approach for
global discrete sizing optimization of frame structures. Struct Multidisc Optim 57, 579–593
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1770-9
Tyburec, M., Zeman, J., Novák, J., Lepš, M., Plachý, T. & Poul, R. 2019, "Designing modular
3D printed reinforcement of wound composite hollow beams with semidefinite
programming", Materials & Design, vol. 183, pp. 108131.
Dong, W.Y. & Zhang, R.R. 2019, "Order-3 stability analysis of particle swarm optimization",
Information Sciences, vol. 503
Kaveh, A., Bakhshpoori, T. & Hamze-Ziabari, S.M. 2019, "Development of predictive models
for shear strength of HSC slender beams without web reinforcement using machine-learning
based techniques", Scientia Iranica. Transaction A, Civil Engineering, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 709-
725.
Sheikhi Azqandi, M., Delavar, M. & Arjmand, M. An enhanced time evolutionary optimization
for solving engineering design problems. Engineering with Computers (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00729-w
Pholdee, Nantiwat & Bureerat, Sujin. (2013). An efficient optimum Latin hypercube sampling
technique based on sequencing optimisation using simulated annealing. International Journal
of Systems Science. 46. 1-10. 10.1080/00207721.2013.835003.
25
Appendix A
Load Case 1
Load Case 2
Load Case 3
26
Load Case 4
Load Case 5
Load Case 6
27
Load Case 7
Load Case 8
Load Case 9
28
Load Case 10
29
Appendix B
Wind Loading Calculation Details
Vu = Vsit,β = 45 * 0.83 =37.35 m/s
qu = 0.837 kPa
Vs = 37 * 0.83 = 30.71 m/s
qs = 0.566 kPa
LC1: Dead Load
Spacing 6.27: Dead load on rafter = 0.15 kPa * 6.27m= 0.9405 kN/m
Spacing 6.27m: Deadload on Column: 0.1*6.27=0.627 kN/m
LC2: Live Load
Spacing 6.27: Live load on rafter = 0.25*6.27 = 1.5675 kN/m
Additional 1.4 kN point load at ridge for 6.27m and 9m spacing
LC3: Transverse Wind Max uplift:
Spacing 6.27: Roof Tributary area = 6.27*15 = 94.05m2 ➔ Ka = 0.807933 =0.808
When h/d<0.5, 6.27m spacing Ka=0.808

𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.9 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.6087 ∗ 6.27 = 3.816 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.338 ∗ 6.27 = 2.12 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
Roof UDL = 𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 2ℎ 𝑡𝑜 3ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.3 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.203 ∗ 6.27 = 1.27 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
{ > 3ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.1674 ∗ 6.27 = 1.05 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
For: h/d=0.6, 6.27m spacing

𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 0.5ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.98 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.6087 ∗ 6.27 = 4.156 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
UDL = 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0.5 𝑡𝑜 1ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.86 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.338 ∗ 6.27 = 3.647 𝑚
𝑢𝑝
𝑘𝑁
{ 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.54 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.365 ∗ 6.27 = 2.29 𝑚
𝑢𝑝
For: h/d=0.8, 6.27m spacing

𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 0.5ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 1.14 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.771 ∗ 6.27 = 4.834 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
UDL = 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0.5ℎ 𝑡𝑜1ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.78 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.5175 ∗ 6.27 = 3.307 𝑚
𝑢𝑝
𝑘𝑁
{ 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.62 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.419 ∗ 6.27 = 2.63 𝑚
𝑢𝑝
30
6.27m Spacing, Walls Ka = 1
UDL Windward Column 0.8*0.7 * 0.837 * 6.27 =0.469*6.27= 2.94 kN/m
UDL Leeward Column 0.8*0.5 * 0.837 * 6.27 =0.335*6.27= 2.1 kN/m
LC4: Transverse Wind Min uplift
6.27m Spacing, Ka =0.808, h/d<0.5

𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 1ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.4 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.27052 ∗ 6.27 = 1.7 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
UDLmin = 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0 𝑚
𝑘𝑁
{2ℎ 𝑡𝑜 3ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.1 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.50662 ∗ 6.27 = −0.424 𝑚
𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛
h/d=0.6, Ka=0.808, 6.27m Spacing

𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 0.5ℎ 0.837 ∗ 0.44 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 1.865 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
UDLmin 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0.5ℎ 𝑡𝑜 1ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.38 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 1.61 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
{𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.06 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.365 ∗ 6.27 = 0.2544 𝑚
𝑢𝑝
12m height 15m span h/d=0.8, 6.27m Spacing

𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 0.5ℎ 0.837 ∗ 0.52 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 2.205 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
UDLmin 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0.5ℎ 𝑡𝑜 1ℎ 0.837 ∗ 0.34 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 1.44 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
{𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ 0.837 ∗ 0.18 ∗ 0.808 ∗ 6.27 = 0.365 ∗ 6.27 = 0.763 𝑚
𝑢𝑝
Span ≥ 30m, h/d always< 0.5
Ka=0.8
𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 0 𝑡𝑜 ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.4 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 6.27 = 0.6087 ∗ 6.27 = 1.68 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1ℎ 𝑡𝑜 2ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 6.27 = 0.338 ∗ 6.27 = 0 𝑢𝑝
𝑚
Roof UDL = 𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 2ℎ 𝑡𝑜 3ℎ: 0.837 ∗ 0.1 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 6.27 = 0.203 ∗ 6.27 = 0.42 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
{ > 3ℎ = 0.837 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 6.27 = 0.1674 ∗ 6.27 = 0.84 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛
𝑚
ℎ 9
For 9m frame spacing with same 𝑑 ratio, and same Ka Ratio. Multiply each of load by to
6.27
minimize calculations.
31
Walls Ka = 1, Kc,e = 0.8
6.27m Frame spacing:
UDL Windward Column 0.8*0.7 * 0.837 * 6.27 =0.469*6.27= 2.94 kN/m
UDL Leeward Column 0.8*0.5 * 0.837 * 6.27 =0.335*6.27= 2.1 kN/m
9m Frame spacing:
UDL Windward Column = 4.22 kN/m
UDL Leeward Column =3.01 kN/m
LC5: Longitudinal Wind First Internal Frame
The two side walls and two roof surfaces treated as one under longitudinal wind and classified
as thee effective surface
Ka = 0.8
0.9+0.5
UDL (rafters) = 0.8 * ( ) * 0.837 *6.27 =0.4687*6.27= 2.91 kN/m
2
0.65+0.5
UDL (columns) = 0.8 * ( ) * 0.837 * 6.27=0.385*6.27 = 2.42 kN/m
2
LC6 : Longitudinal Wind with 0.2qu External roof pressure and 0.2 qu wall suction (LW2)
Ka =0.8 for roof and walls and Kc,e not to be applied
UDL = Ka Cp,e qu * frame spacing
UDL (rafters) = 0.8*0.2*0.837 *6.27 =0.134*6.27= 0.84 kN/m
UDL (columns) = 0.8*0.2*0.837 *6.27 =0.134*6.27= 0.84 kN/m
LC7: Internal pressure under transverse wind (IPTW)
Assume permeability ratio = 2.8125
Hence Cp,i = 0.7* 0.821875 = 0.5753
UDL = Kc,i Cp,i qu * frame spacing
UDL (rafter and columns) = 0.8*0.5753 * 0.837 * 6.27 =0.385 * 6.27 = 2.42 kN/m
LC8: Internal pressure under longitudinal wind:

4∗3.6
Permeability ratio = 0.3∗0.6∗32 = 2.5 hence Cp,i= 0.543
UDL (rafters and columns) = 0.8*0.543*0.837 *6.27 =0.3636*6.27= 2.85 kN/m
32
LC9: Internal suction under Transverse wind:
UDL (rafters and columns) = 0.8*(-0.5) *0.837 *6.27 =-0.335*6.27= -2.1 kN/m
LC10: Internal suction under longitudinal wind
UDL (rafter and columns) = 0.8*(-0.65) *0.837 *6.27=-0.435*6.27= -2.73 kN/m
33
Appendix C
Table 6: Portal Frame Deflection 6.27m Spacing
H Deflectio Deflectio
Load Deflection Deflection
ei Member n 30m n 60m
Combinatio Direction 15m Span 45m Span
gh Span Span
Type (mm) (mm)
n
t (mm) (mm)
Horizontal
Column LC3+LC7 Serviceability 24.87 16.72 3.248 1.12
sway deflection
Vertical under
Rafter LC1 11.15 79.061 114.212 162.007
dead load
6
Vertical under 13.09 110.443
Rafter LC2 91.728 96.614
Live load
Vertical
Rafter LC3+LC7 Serviceability 32.82 99.33 139.1945 155.27
sway deflection
Horizontal
Column
LC3+LC7 Serviceability 56.8 58.27 21.52 5.99
sway deflection
Vertical under
Rafter LC1 7.93 66.656 117.651 161.728
dead load
9
Vertical under
Rafter LC2 9.26 77.698 102.391 110.259
Live load
Vertical
Rafter LC3+LC7 Serviceability 19.36 125.25 181.73 164.03
sway deflection
Horizontal
75.9
Column 12000 Serviceability 76.51 51.24 13.056
sway deflection
12 Vertical under 5.12
Rafter 15000 37.475 121.677 149.655
dead load
Vertical under 5.95 39.114
Rafter 15000 102.833 102.091
Live load
Vertical
Rafter 15000 Serviceability 76.15 106.82 178.055 163.657
sway deflection
34
Table 7: Portal Frame 9m Spacing Maximum Deflection
H Deflecti Deflectio Deflectio Deflectio

Load
ei Member on 15m n 30m n 45m n 60m
Combin Direction
gh Span Span Span Span
Type
ation
t (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Horizontal
LC3+
Column Serviceability sway 35.92 25.9 2.822 1.632
LC7
deflection
Vertical under dead
Rafter LC1 12.44 82.6 121.334 164.502
load
6
Vertical under Live
Rafter LC2 18.26 102.116 119.8 136.211
load
Vertical
LC3+
Rafter Serviceability sway 32.47 163.6 173.9 192.46
LC7
deflection
Horizontal
Column LC3+
Serviceability sway 59.6 58.7 24.2 2.55
LC7
deflection
Vertical under dead
Rafter LC1 7.18 66.778 124.683 165.8
load
9
Vertical under Live
Rafter LC2 9.73 82.6 123.1 96.4
load
Vertical
LC3+
LC7
deflection
Horizontal
LC3+
LC7
deflection
12 Vertical under dead
Rafter LC1 4.69 38.932 123 156.46
load
Vertical under Live
Rafter LC2 6.07 39.844 121.3 129.45
load
Vertical
LC3+
LC7
deflection =L/150
35
Table 8: Truss 6.27m Spacing Maximum Deflection
H Deflectio Deflectio Deflectio Deflectio

Membe Load
ei n Span n Span n Span n Span
r Combi Direction
gh 15m 30m 45m 60m
Type nation
t (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Horizontal
LC3+ 8.82
Column Serviceability sway 29.98 23.23 8.741
LC7
deflection
Vertical under dead
Rafter LC1 12.03 73.63 120.02 165.25
load
6
Vertical under Live
Rafter LC2 16.91 92.84 119.33 133.48
load
Vertical
LC3+
Rafter Serviceability sway 31.826 159.4 183.65 194
LC7
deflection
Horizontal
Column LC3+
Serviceability sway 56.37 59.75 1.65 15.26
LC7
deflection
Vertical under dead
Rafter LC1 4.73 43.86 119.71 161.97
load
9 Vertical under Live

Rafter LC2 5.99 57.52 150 150.14
load
Vertical
LC3+
LC7
deflection
Horizontal
LC3+
LC7
deflection
12 Vertical under dead
Rafter LC1 3.59 28.51 106.7 139.39
load
Vertical under Live
Rafter LC2 4.38 38.37 139.53 112.02
load
Vertical
LC3+L
C7
deflection
36
Table 9: Truss 9m Spacing Maximum Deflection
Load Deflectio
Memb Deflection Deflection Deflection
Hei Com n Span
er Direction Span Span Span
ght binat 15m(mm
30m(mm) 45m(mm) 60m(mm)
Type )
ion
Horizontal
Colum LC3+
Serviceability 38.9 26.76 8.17 6.15
n LC7
sway deflection
Vertical under 13.66

Rafter LC1 81.65 122.34 160.66
dead load
6
Vertical under
Rafter LC2 18.61 103.6 138.62 96.67
Live load
Vertical
LC3+
Rafter Serviceability 35.9 176.7 211.5 140
LC7
sway deflection
Colum Horizontal
LC3+
n Serviceability 55.5 58.77 38.85 16.46
LC7
sway deflection
Vertical under
Rafter LC1 7.44 48.3 117.6 156.38
dead load
9
Vertical under
Rafter LC2 10.15 61.84 125.56 152.07
Live load
Vertical
LC3+
Rafter Serviceability 22.89 118.46 200.6 234.68
LC7
sway deflection
Horizontal
Colum
12000 Serviceability 79.88 68.11 77.42 34.45
n
sway deflection
Vertical under
12 Rafter 15000 4.42 28.02 109.74 161.23
dead load
Vertical under
Rafter 15000 Live load 5.67 36.06 117.57 152.42
(L/240)
Vertical
Rafter 15000 Serviceability 13.54 66.26 214.35 240.5
sway deflection
37
Appendix D
Table 10: Portal Frame 60m Span 9m Spacing Moment Capacity
Height 6000 9000 12000

Section Column 1200WB249 900WB282 900WB218
Section Rafter 800WB146 800WB146 800WB168
Msx= 3612 3808 2788.8
ΦMsx 3250.8 3427 2509.92
ΦNt 7988.4 9406.8 7005.6
ΦNs 5374.1 7644.5 5604.5
λnx 11.84 25.83 29.735
ΦNcx 5589.6 7323.6 5290.4
ΦNcy 5374.1 7606.57 5524.9
Critical LC Tension 23 23 23
M*x 1877.74 1519.2 1852.2
N* 162.637 236.404 349.3
ΦMrx 3757.84 3938.4 2814.03
ΦMrx 3250.8 3427.2 2509.92
le 1275 1275 1275
Mo 60763.7 18559.1452 304042.41
ΦMbx 3187.08 3491.56 2585.39
Critical LC
23 20 20
Compression
M* 1752.734 1369.6 1588.5
N*c 196.006 173.06 204.78
N*r 371.48 202.17 175.83
ΦMrx 3218.2 3384.78 2443.6
ΦMi 3136.8 3349.5 2418.0
λc 9.0063 12.056 10.08
Lex(Column) 84463.1 73627.8 62308.89
λnx 166.68 211.29 154.39
ΦNcx 1422.0 1217.0 1563.2
Mo 5323.85 7473.5 6316.54
αs 0.71 0.7775 0.8075
38
ΦMbx= 4033.65 4663.4 3547.08
ΦMox= 3886.5 4557.3 3415.6
Status pass pass pass
Height 6000 9000 12000 1200

Section Column 800WB122 800WB146 800WB122 800WB146
Section Rafter 610UB125 610UB101 610UB101 610UB101
Msx= 1359 1713 1359 1713
ΦMsx 1223.1 1541.7 1223.1 1541.7
ΦNt 4212 5022 4212 5022
ΦNs 3024.2 3831.8 3024.2 3831.8
Column height
6000 9000 12000 12000
λnx 17.568 26.017 35.138 34.69
ΦNcx 2982.7 3668.3 2795.7 3548.7
ΦNcy 2885.24 3702.003 2885.24 3702.003
Critical LC Tension 23 23 23 23
M*x 978.9 1021.9 1055.8 1062.944
N* 194 284.3 182.257 165.859
ΦMrx 1376.78 1716.219 1380.806 1759.124
ΦMrx 1223.1 1541.7 1223.1 1541.7
le 1275 1275 1275 1275
Mo 19744.46 33104.29 19744.46 33104.29
ΦMbx 1187.9 1523.12 1187.9 1523.12
Critical LC
Compression 20 20 20 20
M* 861.24 820.332 848.8 851.857
N*c 141.7 142.299 142.813 142.813
N*r 181.42 123.863 95.594 96.647
ΦMrx 1150.87 1465.45 1150.356 1465.25
ΦMi 1165.0 1481.9 1164.5 1481.7
39
λc 12.645 11.984 8.6 8.5616
Lex(Column) 41587.9 48593.04 50196.94 57387.59
λnx 121.775 140.475 146.98 165.89
ΦNcx 1245.3 1257.6 9189.3 944.8
Mo 2011.613 1797.8875 617.372 1072.21
αs 0.710 0.6144 0.3598 0.455
ΦMbx= 1519.9 1657.68 770.204 1228.217
ΦMox= 1445.3 1594.0 786.07 1180.8
Status pass pass fail pass
Height 6000 9000 12000

Section Column 460UB82.1 610UB101 610UB113
Section Rafter 360UB56.7 410UB53.7 530UB82
Msx= 552 870 921.2
ΦMsx 496.8 783 829.08
ΦNt 2835 3510 3654
ΦNs 2775.5 3116.9 3383.6
Column height 6000 9000 12000
λnx 34.592 38.39 49.677
ΦNcx 2571.4 2840.8 2918.3
ΦNcy 2528.14 2910.06 3174.08
M*x 391.134 468.282 597.95
N* 97.57 109.365 82.63
ΦMrx 566.05 895.15 956.19
ΦMrx 496.8 783 829.08
le 1275 1275 1275
Mo 5144.83 10561.5 12429.96
ΦMbx 463.97 750.13 800.9494
Critical LC
Compression 20 20 25
40
M* 365 349.249 384.143

N*c 86.94 87.865 37.95
N*r 77.796 53.646 5.506
ΦMrx 558.52 838 916.242
ΦMi 480.0 759.1 819.04
λc 7.37 7.27 39.678
Lex(Column) 33844.65 48482.839 33867.85
λnx 195.1255 206.809 140.206
ΦNcx 512.83 515.74 1113.9
Mo 603.35 475.803 470.95
αs 0.626 0.414 0.3939
ΦMbx= 544.56 567.38 571.627
ΦMox= 525.84 550.2 564.79
Height 6000 9000 12000

Section Column 310UB46.2 460UB67.1 530UB92.4
Section Rafter 310UB32 310UB46.2 410UB59.7
Msx= 218.7 444 711
ΦMsx 196.83 399.6 639.9
ΦNt 1601.1 2316.6 3186
ΦNs 1586.7 2135.9 2956.6
Column height 6000 9000 12000
λnx 50.331 50.896 58.356
ΦNcx 1363.5 1829.4 2418.1
ΦNcy 1423.01 1947.6 2731.8
M*x 137.96 214.64 328.32
N* 57.52 71.85 93.58
ΦMrx 223.9154 456.9 732.9
ΦMrx 196.83 399.6 639.9
le 1275 1275 1275
Mo 1679.57 3958.37 7588.5
41
ΦMbx 218.7 371.32 606.02

Critical LC Compression 25 25 25
M* 88.32 114 132.1
N*c 35.49 36.59 37.25
N*r 54.68 51.11 41
ΦMrx 224.38 440.48 715.952
ΦMi 191.7 392.23 630.22
λc 15.021 23.87 31.135
Lex(Column) 19242.67 25864.68 30982.152
λnx 161.41 146.26 150.066
ΦNcx 411.0 654.52 859.98
Mo 236.11 249.065 304.66
αs 0.622 0.421724 0.3435
ΦMbx= 214.51 294.9115 384.679
ΦMox= 209.16 289.37 379.53
Status pass pass Pass
Table 14: Portal Frame 15m Span 6.27m Spacing Moment Capacity
Height 6000 9000 12000

Section 310UB46.2 410UB53.7 410UB53.7
Msx= 218.7 339.2 339.2
ΦMsx 196.83 305.28 305.28
ΦNt 1601.1 1984.32 1984.32
ΦNs 1572.62 1654.1 1654.1
Lex= h 6000 9000 12000
λnx 50.3 58.965629 78.62
ΦNcx 810.431 1475.8 1250.7
ΦNcy 1423.0135 1624.3 1624.3
M*x 91.64 147.26 224.96
N* 37.94 49.1 64.23
ΦMrx 226.75573 351.32 348.57
ΦMrx 196.83 305.28 305.28
Mo 1679.5731 2493.51 1951.682
ΦMbx 189.75122 293.3163 287.01
M* 67.36 79.64 95.79
42
N*c 27.66 27.66 27.66

N*r 54.01 23.99 26.1
ΦMrx 252.12919 337.15 337.15
ΦMi 1.9300E+02 299.55 298.53
λc 6.177439 26.367 25.96
Lex(Column) 33987.984 22557.23 22733.5
λnx 285.10807 147.78 148.94
ΦNcx 144.28598 545.24 537.74
Mo 234.45239 162.3683 103.244
αs 0.6206728 0.37478 0.2572
ΦMbx= 213.79231 200.2356 137.38
ΦMox= 209.63669 196.81 135.8723
Status pass Pass Pass
Height 6000 9000 12000

Section 410UB59.7 460UB82.1 610UB101
Msx= 360 552 870
ΦMsx 324 496.8 783
ΦNt 2062.8 2835 3510
ΦNs 1934.9 2775 3116.9
Lex= h 6000 9000 12000
λnx 37.8908 51.89 51.187
ΦNcx 1767.4 2363.5 2797.4
ΦNcy 1750.4 2510.8 2996.09
M*x 210.86 274.845 341.686
N* 55.248 74.093 67.763
ΦMrx 372.265 570.902 906.1
ΦMrx 324 496.8 783
Mo 2954.24 5144.8305 10561.494
ΦMbx 298.06 463.97 750.13
M* 235.519 242.133 283.066
N*c 54.899 57.503 58.794
N*r 194.057 122.142 106.172
ΦMrx 355.834 564.63 846.09
43
ΦMrx 324 496.8 783

ΦMi 313.94 484.71 765.66
λc 4.71 6.022 9.986
Lex(Column) 40562 46048.5 50580.2
λnx 256.158 265.5 215.75
ΦNcx 214.56 287.82 498.52
Mo 343.71 353.50172 374.213
αs 0.586 0.4623 0.34456
ΦMbx= 332.28 401.93 472.136
ΦMox= 321.86 392.7 462.87
Table 16: Portal Frame 45m Span 6.27m Spacing
Height 6000 9000 12000 12000

Section 610UB113 610UB113 610UB113 610UB125
Msx= 921.2 921.2 921.2 1030.4
ΦMsx 829.08 829.08 829.08 927.36
ΦNt 3654 3654 3654 4032
ΦNs 3383.6 3383.6 3383.6 3830.4
Lex= h 6000 9000 12000 12000
λnx 24.84 37.258 49.677604 49.711024
ΦNcx 3253.5 3099.3 2918.3 3303.1
Spacing Girt 1500 1500 1500 1500
ΦNcy 3174.088 3174.1 3174.1 2856.4
21
M*x 527.363 469.608 492.978 495.776
N* 90 89.523 +82.33 82.33
ΦMrx 954.00 954.35 956.27 1071.94
ΦMrx 829.08 829.08 829.08 927.36
Le 1275 1275 1275 1275
Mo 12429.96 12429.959 12429.95 14347.947
ΦMbx 800.95 800.95 800.95 897.97
Critical LC
25 25 25
Compression 25
M* 640.065 599.853 618.712 598.618
N*c 146.859 107.372 96.304 +96.304
44
N*r 134.859 90.622 39.585 40.214

λw 57.813 57.813 57.813 54.42
ΦMrx 886.415 897.23 900.26 1025.34
ΦMrx 829.08 829.08 829.08 927.36
ΦMi 786.82 798.2 803.32 899.98
λc 7.579 12.84 14.24 17.86
Lex(Column) 39392.059 35401.4 35489.743 33633.07
λnx 163.075 146.55 146.92 139.32
αcx 0.25439 0.30542 0.303702 0.30542
ΦNcx 860.76 1033.4 1027.6 1169.9
αm 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
Mo 1344.68 748.211 460.33 553.0
αs 0.7065 0.53632 0.3872 0.4084
ΦMbx= 1025.091 778.141 561.902 662.82
ΦMox= 977.66 751.82 544.85 640.46
Fail, Fly Brace
Status pass pass Required or pass
increase section
Height 6000 9000 12000

Section 800WB146 800WB168 900WB257
Msx= 1713 1915.2 3416
ΦMsx 1541.7 1723.68 3074.4
ΦNt 5022 5392.8 8240.4
ΦNs 3831.8 4308.8 6839.5
Lex= h 6000 9000 12000
λnx 17.345 24.96723 29.44
ΦNcx 3684.4 4141.3 5897.9
ΦNcy 3831.7 4180.7 6802.36
Critical Tension LC 24 24 24
M*x 857.989 803.469 794.492
N* 107.345 152.171 156.22
ΦMrx 1780 1976.54 3559.01
ΦMrx 1541.7 1723.68 3074.4
Le 1275 1275 1275
Mo 33104.3 41690.8 1616.93
45
ΦMbx 1523.12 1712.75 3130.3

Critical Compression LC 23 20 20
M* 1314.017 1220.73 1252
N*c 170.778 222.061 228.88
N*r 679 518.496 474.533
λw 84.63 84.63 79.84
ΦMrx 1454.14 1613.93 3002.71
ΦMrx 1454.14 1723.68 3002.71
ΦMi 1461.0 1631.3 2953.6
λc 5.703 6.107 5.8
Lex(Column) 64298.98 60080.19 86644.78
λnx 185.87 166.67 212.568
αcx 0.1914 0.24465 0.1569
ΦNcx 733.48 1054.2 1073.2
αm 1.75 1.75 1.75
Mo 3382.8 2338.87 4866.63
αs 0.778 0.658 0.70017
ΦMbx= 2101.5 1985.43 3767.06
ΦMox= 2007.8 1880.0 3640.3
46
Appendix E
Table 18: 60m Span 9m Spacing Axial Loading and Section Selection
Maximum
Critical Load
Section Tension/Compression LE Section
Combination
Axial Force
6m Column 900WB282
24 1339.07
top Flange 1.5 250*10 SHS
20 -1292.9
20 1689.66
Bottom 1.5 200*10 SHS
24 -1770.07
20 123.34
Vertical 0.8 75*3.5 SHS
24 -129
24 276.83
Diagonal 1.7 75*3.5 SHS
20 -257.51
9m Column 900WB175
24 1018.35
23 -1222.04
23 1600.97
24 -1408.67
24 -160
23 182
24 265.41
23 -302.61
12m Column 900WB192
24 781.15
23 -998.69
23 1312
24 -1130.77
23 187.35
24 -163.51
24 230.99
23 264.29
Table 19: 45m Span 9m Spacing Axial Loading Section Selection
Critical Load Maximum

Section LE Section
Combination Tension/Compression
47
Axial Force
6m Column 700WB150
24 815.5
top Flange 125*5 SHS
23 -850.25 1.87408
23 1304.74
Bottom 125*9 SHS
24 -1304.8 1.87408
23 126.5
Vertical 65*2 SHS
24 -124.1 0.8
24 304.5
Diagonal 75*5 SHS
23 -310.93 2.037688
9m Column 530UB82
23 1301.3
23 -633.91 1.874078
23 1116.8
Bottom 125*8 SHS
23 -1170.6 1.87408
23 227.44
Vertical 65*3 SHS
24 -58.46 1.33578
24 109.12
Diagonal 75*5 SHS
23 -424.41 2.175242
12m Column 610UB101
20 517.9
24 -538.01 1.874078
24 611.81
Bottom 100*6 SHS
23 -557.68 1.87408
23 137.4
Vertical 75*5 SHS
24 -129.79 1.498
24 201.56
Diagonal 65*3 SHS
23 -212.96 2.3707
Table 20: 30 m Span 9m Spacing Axial Loading and Section Selection
Maximum
Critical Load
Combination
Axial Force
6m Column 360UB50.7
top Flange 23 391 1.872332 89*5SHS
48
24 -457.03
23 438.3 1.872332
Bottom 89*5SHS
24 -463.8
23 71.7 0.8
Vertical 50*4SHS
24 -87.67
Diagonal 24 213.9 2.036082
65*4SHS
23 -202.16
9m Column 460UB74.6
20 297.49
top Flange 1.872332 100*4 Grade 350
24 -311.88
23 335.92 1.872332
Bottom 75*6 SHS
21 -370.5
23 89.8 1.133579 Grade 350: 50*4
Vertical
24 -82.56 SHS
24 156.28 2.173752
Diagonal 65*4 SHS
23 -169.82
12m Column 400WC303
21 221.05
top Flange 1.86272 89*3.5 SHS
23 -223.82
23 341.95 1.86272
Bottom 75*6 SHS
21 -388.86
23 87.97 1.431327
Vertical 50*4 SHS
21 -97.5
21 152.93
Diagonal 2.336733 65*4 SHS
23 -137.98
Table 21: 15 m Span 9m Spacing Axial Loading and Section Selection
Maximum
Critical Load
Combination
Axial Force
6m Column 310UB46.2
20 109.67
top Flange 65*3 SHS
23 -119.1 1.865781
23 121
Bottom 65*2.5 SHS
21 -152.71 1.865781
23 40.03 0.8
Vertical 65*1.6 SHS
21 -48.3
49
Diagonal 21 109.8 2.071507

65*2.5 SHS
23 -91.02
9m Column 530UB82
21 92.54
21 -100.7
23 165.02
Bottom 65*3 SHS
21 -224.83 1.86272
23 45.33 Grade 350
Vertical
21 -63.63 1.13365 50*2 SHS
21 121.59
Diagonal 65*2.5SHS
23 -86.64 2.180571
12m Column 610UB113
22 132.17
top Flange 1.86272 89*2SHS
23 -133.14
23 237 1.86272
Bottom 75*3.5 SHS
21 -237.35
21 -62.18 1.431327 Grade 30
Vertical
23 84.03 50*4 SHS
21 100.9
Diagonal 2.336733 65*4 SHS
23 -136.45
Table 22: 60m Span 6.27m Spacing Axial Loading and Section Selection
Maximum
Critical Load
Combination
Axial Force
6m Column 400WC361
24 1012.01
23 -1223.54
24 -1288.58
Bottom 1.499962 150*9 SHS
23 1689
24 -244.63
20 120.97
Diagonal 23 -323.21
1.699967 75*3.5 SHS
24 243.43
9m Column 400WC361
23 `725.38
23 -830.65
50
Bottom 24 1097.33
1.499 200*6 SHS
24 -937.08
Vertical 24 -99.45
1.13358 65*2 SHS
23 128
Diagonal 24 180.92
1.866136 65*3 SHS
23 -213.78
6m Column 500WC383
23 694.52
24 -657.23
23 856.74
23 -621.18
24 -95.83
Vertical 1.498 65*3 SHS
23 134.51
23 -199.98
24 145.98
Table 23: 45m Span 6.27m Spacing Axial Loading
Maximum
Critical Load Section grade
Section Tension/Compression LE
Combination 450Plus
Axial Force
6m Column 400WC181
top Flange 24 515.57
150*5 SHS
23 -591.21 1.87408
23 898.03
Bottom 125*8 SHS
24 -819.88 1.87408
24 -78.49
Vertical 65*2 SHS
23 87.28 0.8
Diagonal 23 -228.69
75*2.5 SHS
24 205.42 2.037688
9m Column 350WC230
24 358.38
23 -379.97 1.874078
23 585.89
Bottom 89*6 SHS
24 -617.85 1.87408
23 92.26
Vertical 65*2 SHS
24 -84.07 1.33578
Diagonal 24 160.33 75*2.5 SHS
51
20 -147.39 2.175242
12m Column 350WC197
20 353.45
24 -395.28 1.874078
23 398.7
Bottom 89*5 SHS
24 -402.8 1.87408
23 90.67
Vertical 65*2 SHS
24 -95.07 1.498
24 148.75
Diagonal 75*2 SHS
23 -141.61 2.3707
Table 24: 30 m Span 6.27m Spacing Axial Loading
Section Maximum LE Section

Critical Load Tension/Compression
Combination Axial Force
6m Column 250UC72.9
top Flange 23 268.27 1.872332 89*3.5 SHS
24 -312.79
Bottom 23 312.17 1.872332 75*5 SHS
24 -331.22
Vertical 23 57.91 0.8 Grade 350: 35*2
24 -61.22 SHS
Diagonal 24 151.68 2.036082 65*3 SHS
23 -143.41
9m Column 310UC96.8
top Flange 20 189.57 1.872332 75*4 SHS
24 -234.42
Bottom 23 228.67 1.872332 75*4 SHS
21 -255.82
Vertical 23 58.25 1.133579 Grade 350: 35*2
21 -64 SHS
Diagonal 24 118 2.173752 65*3 SHS
23 -107.94
12m Column 350WC258
top Flange 21 151.79 75*3 SHS
23 -152.83 1.872332
Bottom 23 233.44 1.872332 75*3 SHS
52
21 -269.5
Vertical 21 -68.6 1.498391 GRADE350
23 60.28 50*4 SHS
Diagonal 21 107.31 2.369353 GRADE350
23 -94.3 75*2 SHS
Table 25: 15 m Span 6.27m Spacing Axial Loading and Section Selection
Section Maximum LE Section

Critical Load Tension/Compression
Combination Axial Force
6m Column 250UC72.9
top Flange 20 74.96 65*2 SHS
21 -80.63 1.865781
Bottom 23 106.57 65*2 SHS
21 -130.9 1.865781
Vertical 23 28.04 0.8 Grade 350: 65*2
24 -28.74 SHS
Diagonal 21 84.67 2.071507 Grade 350: 65*4
23 -70.22 SHS
9m Column 310UC96.8
top Flange 23 75.83 1.86272 65*6 SHS
21 87.07
Bottom 23 98.59 65*4 SHS
21 -136.41 1.86272
Vertical 23 32.42 Grade 350: 65*3
21 -44 1.13365 SHS
Diagonal 21 83.78 Grade 350: 65*3
23 -61.72 2.180571 SHS
12m Column 350WC197
top Flange 23 99.21 1.86272 65*4 SHS
21 -100.1
Bottom 23 127.5 1.86272 65*3 SHS
21 -177.94
Vertical 23 39.12 1.431327 Grade 350: 65*3
21 -58.39 SHS
Diagonal 21 94.76 2.336733 Grade 350: 65*3
23 -63.47 SHS
53
54
Appendix F
Table 26: Cost for Truss Frame 6.27m Spacing
Truss Frame 6.27m Spacing

Total
Sp Hei Unit Qu Total Total
Memb Weight total cost
an ght( Section Length ant Length member
er (Tonne per frame
(m) m) (m) ity (m) Cost
s)
Colum 250UC
6 2 12 0.878 1756
n 72.9
Top 173.743
65*2 1.8658 8 14.9264 0.058
Flange 296
Botto
173.743
m 65*2 1.8658 8 14.9264 0.058
296
Flange 2550.197
6
Grade
Vertic
350: 0.8 10 8 0.034 93.12
al
65*2
Grade
Diago 353.590
350: 2.034 8 16.272 0.118
nal 56
65*4
Colum 310UC
9 2 18 1.752 3504
n 96.8
15 Top 456.658
65*6 1.863 8 14.904 0.152
Flange 56
Botto
323.863
m 65*4 1.863 8 14.904 0.109
92
9 Flange 4701.832
Grade3
Vertic
50:65* 1.134 10 11.34 0.071 164.43
al
3
Grade3
Diago
50:65* 2.18 8 17.44 0.099 252.88
nal
3
Colum 350WC
12 2 24 4.729 12960
n 197
12 13978.47
Top 323.811
65*4 1.8627 8 14.9016 0.109
Flange 768
55
Botto
216.073
m 65*3 1.8627 8 14.9016 0.085
2
Flange
Grade3
Vertic
50: 1.431 10 14.31 0.089 207.495
al
65*3
Grade3
Diago
50: 2.337 8 18.696 0.106 271.092
nal
65*3
Colum 250UC
6 2 12 0.878 2913.48
n 72.9
Top 815.592
89*3.5 1.872 16 29.952 0.271
Flange 96
Botto
6 925.816
m 75*5 1.872 16 29.952 0.309
32 5213.641
Flange
Grade3
Vertic
50: 0.8 18 14.4 0.03 86.4
al
35*2
Diago
65*3 2.036 16 32.576 0.184 472.352
nal
Colum 310UC
9 2 18 1.752 6372
n 118
30 Top
75*4 1.872 16 29.952 0.255 748.8
Flange
Botto
m 75*4 1.872 16 29.952 0.255 748.8
9 Flange 8496.44
Grade3
Vertic
50: 1.134 18 20.412 0.043 122.472
al
35*2
Grade3
Diago
50: 2.174 16 34.784 0.197 504.368
nal
65*3
Colum 350WC
12 2 24 6.198 16734.6
n 280
12 18077.6
Top
75*3 1.872 16 29.952 0.198 405.9
Flange
56
Botto
m 75*3 1.872 16 29.952 0.198 405.9
Flange
Grade
Vertic
350: 1.498 18 26.964 0.171 250
al
50*4
Diago
75*2 2.369 16 37.904 0.152 281.2
nal
Colum 400WC
6 12 72 2.167 5850.9
n 181
Top 2976.44
150*5 1.87 24 44.88 0.994
Flange 16
6 Botto
m 125*8 1.87 24 44.88 1.245 2552.25 12447.67
Flange
Vertic
65*2 0.8 27 21.6 0.084 251.424
al
Diago 816.652
75*2.5 2.04 24 48.96 0.276
nal 8
Colum 350WC
9 2 18 4.14 11178
n 230
Top
100*3 1.87 24 44.88 0.403 826.15
Flange
45 Botto
9 m 89*6 1.87 24 44.88 0.661 1355.05 14635.43
Flange
Vertic 405.537
65*2 1.34 26 34.84 0.119
al 6
Diago
75*2.5 2.175 24 52.2 0.294 870.696
nal
Colum 350WC
12 2 24 4.729 12768.3
n 197
Top
100*3 1.874 24 44.976 0.403 826.15
Flange
12 Botto 15743.5
m 89*5 1.874 24 44.976 0.562 1039.7
Flange
Vertic 453.354
65*2 1.498 26 38.948 0.157
al 72
57
Diago
75*2 2.3707 24 56.8968 0.32 656
nal
Colum 400WC
6 2 12 4.33 11691
n 361
Top
200*5 1.5 40 60 1.797 3683.85
Flange
Botto
6 m 150*9 1.5 40 60 2.64 5412 22396.9
Flange
Vertic
75*2.5 0.8 42 33.6 0.191 560.448
al
Diago
75*3.5 1.7 40 68 0.512 1049.6
nal
Colum 400WC
9 2 18 6.5 17550
n 361
Top
200*5 1.5 40 60 1.797 3683.85
Flange
Botto
60 9 m 150*9 1.5 40 60 2.264 4641.2 27294.54
Flange
Vertic 554.389
65*2 1.134 42 47.628 0.189
al 92
Diago
65*3 1.866 40 74.64 0.422 865.1
nal
Colum 500WC
12 2 24 9.94 26838
n 383
Top
125*5 1.5 40 60 2.137 4380.85
Flange
Botto
12 m 100*8 1.5 40 60 1.797 3683.85 37048.07
Flange
Vertic
65*3 1.5 42 63 0.365 748.25
al
Diago 1397.11
75*2.5 2.094 40 83.76 0.466
nal 68
58
Table 27: Cost for Truss Frame 9m Spacing
Truss Frame 9m Spacing
Total
Sp Hei Total Cost
Unit Qu Total cost
an ght Mem Sectio Unit mass per
Lengt anti Lengt per
(m (m ber n Mass (Ton mem
h(m) ty h (m) Frame
) ) nes) ber
($)
Clou 130UB
6 2 12 0.878 1756
mn 46.2
Top
1.86 14.9 0.55 216.
Flang 65*3 8 5.66
58 264 9 4328
e
Bott
0.07
om 1.86 14.9 186. 2446.
6 65*2.5 8 4.78 1348
Flang 58 264 58 413
192
e
Verti 0.02
65*1.6 0.8 10 8 3.13 84
cal 504
0.07
Diag 2.03 16.2 203.
65*2.5 8 4.78 7780
onal 4 72 4
16
15
Colu 530UB 4006
9 2 18 1.484
mn 82 .8
Top
1.86 14.9 0.06 223.
Flang 30.91 8 4.5
3 04 7068 56
e
Bott 3739.
9 0.08
om 1.86 14.9 216. 928
65*3 8 5.66 4356
Flang 3 04 108
64
e
Grade 0.03
Verti 1.13 11.3 79.3
350: 10 2.93 3226
cal 4 4 8
50*2 2
59
0.08
Diag 17.4 252.
65*2.5 2.18 8 4.78 3363
onal 4 88
2
Colu 610UB
12 2 24 3.014 6028
mn 113
Top 0.08
1.86 14.9 268.
Flang 89*2 8 5.38 0170
27 016 2288
e 608
Bott
0.11
om 1.86 14.9 312.
21 8 7.53 2209 7144.
12 Flang 27 016 9336
048 216
e
Grade 0.07
Verti 1.43 14.3 128.
350: 10 5.35 6558
cal 1 1 79
50*4 5
0.13 406.
Diag 2.33 18.6
65*4 8 7.23 5172 2640
onal 7 96
08 8
Colu 360UB 1826
6 2 12 0.609
mn 50.7 .16
Top
1.87 29.9 0.37 1108
Flang 89*5 16 12.5
2 52 44 .224
e
Bott
om 1.87 29.9 0.37 1108
89*5 16 12.5 4887.
30 6 Flang 2 52 44 .224
293
e
0.08
Verti 15.2 136.
50*4 0.8 18 5.35 1325
cal 01 809
35
0.23 707.
Diag 2.03 32.5
65*4 16 7.23 5524 8764
onal 6 76
48 8
60
Colu 460UB
9 2 18 1.345 4140
mn 74.6
Top 0.34 714.
1.87 30.0
Flang 100*4 16 11.6 8475 3749
2 41
e 6 8
Bott
om 1.87 30.0 0.36 961.
30.91 16 12 6755.
9 Flang 2 41 0492 312
251
e
0.10
Verti 1.13 20.4 183.
50*4 18 5.35 9204
cal 4 12 708
2
0.25 755.
Diag 2.17 34.7
65*4 16 7.23 1488 8563
onal 4 84
32 2
Colu 400W 1490
12 2 24 7.272
mn C303 7.6
Top 0.29 818.
1.87 30.0
Flang 89*3.5 16 9.7 1397 0164
2 41
e 7 3
Bott
om 1.87 30.0 0.36 961.
30.91 16 12 17753
12 Flang 2 41 0492 312
.26
e
0.22
Verti 1.49 26.9 242.
50*4 18 8.49 8924
cal 8 64 676
36
1.17 823.
Diag 2.36 37.9 30.9
65*4 16 1612 6539
onal 9 04 1
64 2
Colu 700W 4857 13884
45 6 6 12 72 1.799
mn B150 .3 .56
61
Top
44.8 0.81 3141
Flang 125*5 1.87 24 18.2
8 6816 .6
e
Bott
4120
om 44.8 1.37
125*9 1.87 24 30.6 .881
Flang 8 3328
6
e
Verti 0.08 251.
65*2 0.8 27 21.6 3.88
cal 3808 424
1513
Diag 48.9 0.50
30.91 2.04 24 10.3 .353
onal 6 4288
6
Colu 530UB 1.48 4006
9 2 18
mn 82 4 .8
Top 4120
44.8 1.37
Flang 125*9 1.87 24 30.6 .881
8 3328
e 6
Bott
om 44.8 1.37 4016 14263
9 125*8 1.87 24 30.6
Flang 8 3328 .76 .12
e
0.19
Verti 34.8 505.
65*3 1.34 26 5.66 7194
cal 4 18
4
Diag 30.9 0.55 1613
30.91 24 52.2 10.6
onal 1 332 .502
Colu 610UB
12 2 24 1.978 7272
mn 101
Top 0.75 1539
1.87 44.9
Flang 100*6 24 16.7 1099 .753 12149
12 4 76
e 2 36 .89
0.63 1309
Bott 1.87 44.9
100*6 24 14.2 8659 .251
om 4 76
2 36
62
Flang
e
0.40 1203
Verti 1.49 38.9
30.91 26 10.3 1164 .882
cal 8 48
4 68
0.32
Diag 2.37 56.8 825.
65*3 24 5.66 2035
onal 07 968 0036
888
Colu 900W 9131
6 2 12 3.382
mn B192 .4
Top
4.36 3979
Flang 150*5 1.5 40 60 72.7
2 .2
e
Bott
20284
6 om
125*8 1.5 40 60 57 3.42 5040 .2
Flang
e
Verti 0.25 705.
21 0.8 42 33.6 7.53
cal 3008 6
Diag 0.51
21 1.7 40 68 7.53 1428
60 onal 204
Colu 900W 8507
9 2 18 3.151
mn B175 .7
Top
5719
Flang 200*8 1.5 40 60 46.5 2.79
.5
e
Bott 20964
9
om 2.03 4169 .53
150*8 1.5 40 60 33.9
Flang 4 .7
e
0.35
Verti 1.13 47.6 1000
21 42 7.53 8638
cal 4 28 .188
84
63
0.56
Diag 1.86 74.6 1567
21 40 7.53 2039
onal 6 4 .44
2
Colu 900W 1241

12 2 24 4.597
mn B282 1.9
Top
250*1 1.32 2718
Flang 1.5 40 60 22.1
0 6 .3
e
Bott
om 200*1 1.66 3407 21619
12 1.5 40 60 27.7
Flang 0 2 .1 .26
e
Verti 0.47
21 1.5 42 63 7.53 1323
cal 439
0.63
Diag 2.09 83.7 1758
21 40 7.53 0712
onal 4 6 .96
8
64
Table 28: Cost for Portal Frame Single Frame at 6.27m Spacing
Portal Frame 6.27m Spacing

Total
Span( Height( Total Total Cost Per
Section Length(
m) m) Mass(T) frame
m)
310UB32 21.156 0.678
6 2474
310UB46.2 12 0.559
310UB46.2 22.915 1.067
15 9 4082
410UB53.7 18 0.974
410UB53.7 25.25 1.36
12 6676
460UB82.1 24 1.978
360UB50.7 35.996 1.828

6 5096
410UB59.7 12 0.72
360UB56.7 37.166 2.112
30 9 7192
460UB82.1 18 1.484
460UB67.1 39.854 2.684
12 10266
610UB101 24 2.449
610UB101 50.992 5.204
6 13140
610UB113 12 1.366
610UB101 52.181 5.325

45 9 15172
610UB125 18 2.261
610UB101 99.847 10.189
12 32436
610UB125 48 6.029
800WB146 68.294 9.972
6 31654.8
800WB146 12 1.752
800WB146 69.089 10.088
60 9 35402.4
800WB168 18 3.024
800WB146 69.86 10.2
12 44174.7
900WB257 24 6.161
Table 29: Cost for Portal Frame Single Frame at 9m Spacing
65
Portal Frame 9m Spacing

Span( Height( Total Total Total Weight Total Cost Per
Section
m) m) Length(m) Mass(T) per frame($) frame ($)
310UB32 21.156 0.678

6 1.237 2474
310UB46.2 12 0.559
310UB46.2 22.915 1.067

15 9 2.279 4558
460UB67.1 18 1.212
410UB59.7 25.25 1.514

12 3.737 7474
530UB92.4 24 2.223
360UB56.7 35.996 2.046

6 3.035 6070
460UB82.1 12 0.989
410UB53.7 37.166 2.01

30 9 3.847 7694
610UB101 18 1.837
530UB82 39.854 2.285

12 5.017 10034
610UB113 24 2.732
610UB101 50.992 5.204

6 6.674 14377
800WB122 12 1.47
610UB101 52.181 5.325

45 9 7.953 17745.6
800WB146 18 2.628
610UB101 99.847 10.189

12 16.067 36248.6
800WB122 48 5.878
800WB146 68.294 9.972

6 12.958 34986.6
1200WB249 12 2.986
800WB146 69.089 10.088

60 9 15.161 40934.7
900WB282 18 5.073
800WB168 69.86 11.736

12 16.973 45827.1
900WB218 24 5.237
66
View publication stats

Thesis Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Thesis Report

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

Thesis Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Cost Saving Analysis Between Portal Frame and Truss Systems.

Thesis · February 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Griffith School of Engineering

6007 – Industry Affiliates Program

Cost Saving Analysis Between Portal

Omar Ajaje, s5105464

03 February, Trimester 3, 2020

ANH Consulting Engineers

Dr. Shanmuganathan Gunalan

Bachelor of Engineering (Honours)

1.1 Research Problem

1.2 Aim and Objectives

1.3 Research Methodology

1.4 Research Outcomes

Figure 1: Pitched Roof with a Knee brace

Figure 2: Portal Frame and Truss Frame

Figure 3: 3D Front View Portal Frame

3.1 Loading on Structures

3.1.1 Wind Loading

According to AS/NZ1170.2-2011 and (Woolcock et al, 2011).

3.1.2 Wind Load Cases

LC1: Dead Load

3.1.3 Load Combinations:

3.2 Purlins and Girts Design

3.3 Numerical Analysis

3.3.1 Deflection Limitation

• Dead Load deflection limit is L/360. According to AS4100

Table 1: Deflection Limit Portal and Truss Frame

Member Deflection Limit (mm)

Vertical under dead

Vertical under Live 62.5 125 187.5 250

Vertical under dead

Vertical under Live 62.5 125 187.5 250

Vertical under dead

3.3.2 Determining Section Capacity

• Major axis compression capacity

𝛂𝑐𝑥 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)

Φ𝑁𝑐𝑥 = 0.9 ∗ 𝑘𝑓 ∗ 𝛂𝑐𝑥 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑔

• Minor axis Compression Capacity

Φ𝑁𝑐𝑦 = 0.9 ∗ 𝑘𝑓 ∗ 𝛂𝑐𝑦 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑔

• Combined actions on the column

Φ𝑀𝑏𝑥 = 0.9 ∗ 𝛂𝑚 ∗ 𝛂𝑠 ∗ 𝑀𝑠𝑥

Inside Flange in Compression

Check section Capacity

• In-Plane Member Capacity

• Out-of Plane Member Capacity

If Φ𝑀𝑜𝑥 > 𝑀𝑥∗

3.4 Deflection and Section Capacity Check

3.4.2 Section Capacity Check Results

4.0 Section Selection Results:

4.1 Full Structure Members quantity.

Table 2 Girt total cost for 100m structure

Cost for 6.27m Cost for 9m

Table 3 Purlin total cost for 100m structure

Cost for 6.27m Cost for 9m spacing

5.0 Cost Optimizations

5.1 Spacing effect on cost

UDL Windward Column 0.80.7 0.837 * 6.27 =0.469*6.27= 2.94 kN/m

UDL Leeward Column 0.80.5 0.837 * 6.27 =0.335*6.27= 2.1 kN/m

UDL Windward Column 0.80.7 0.837 * 6.27 =0.469*6.27= 2.94 kN/m

UDL Leeward Column 0.80.5 0.837 * 6.27 =0.335*6.27= 2.1 kN/m

UDL (rafters) = 0.80.20.837 6.27 =0.1346.27= 0.84 kN/m

UDL (columns) = 0.80.20.837 6.27 =0.1346.27= 0.84 kN/m

UDL (rafters and columns) = 0.80.5430.837 6.27 =0.36366.27= 2.85 kN/m

UDL (rafter and columns) = 0.8(-0.65) 0.837 6.27=-0.4356.27= -2.73 kN/m