GohKerShin AA070057d11ttt

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.
1/07)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT
Authors full name :
GOH KER SHIN
Date of birth
14-12-1987
Title
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PINNED BASE PORTAL FRAME TO

EUROCODE 3.
________________________________________________
Academic Session :
2010/2011
I declare that this thesis is classified as :
CONFIDENTIAL
(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED
(Contains restricted information as specified by the

organization where research was done)*
OPEN ACCESS
I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

(full text)
I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose
of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.
Certified by :
SIGNATURE
871214-06-5250
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)
Date : 10/5/2011
NOTES :
SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
ASSOC. PROF. DR. ARIZU SULAIMAN
NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date : 10/5/2011
If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis is
sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the
Bachelor Degree of Civil Engineering
Signature
: ..
Name of Supervisor : ASSOC. PROF. DR. ARIZU SULAIMAN

Date
: ..
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PINNED BASE PORTAL FRAME TO

EUROCODE 3
GOH KER SHIN
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
May 2011
ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis entitled Analysis and Design of Pinned Based Portal Frame
to Eurocode 3 is the result of my own research except as cited in the references. The
thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in
candidature of any other degree.
Signature
Name
GOH KER SHIN
Date
MAY 2011
iii
To my beloved parents, supervisor and friends for their help and never ending care
and support. Thank you very much.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to say my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Dr.

Arizu Sulaiman for giving me a chance to study about frame and focus on portal
frame based on Eurocode 3. Since portal frame is not included in the syllabus of civil
engineering, I felt very glad that I have the chance to deeply study about portal frame
under supervision of Dr. Arizu Sulaiman. Thanks to Dr. Arizu for guiding me to
carry on my study in the field of portal frame design.
Besides, thousand of thanks go to my friends, they give me some opinions

and help me to figure out on how to design portal fame based on Eurocode 3. Thanks
to them, when Im facing problem in how to use software to carry out my calculation,
they teach me in developing my calculation and analysis of portal frame design.
Lastly, I also would like to express my grateful to my parents for mentally

supporting me to carry on my study even it is not easy to complete. My deepest
appreciation also goes to my siblings, who mentally support their sister.
ABSTRACT
Portal frame analysis and design based on Eurocode 3 is presented in this

project. The typical portal frame dimension is initially considered and changes
accordingly throughout design portal. Portal frame is assumed pinned base and
haunch is used at the connection between column and rafter. Portal frame analysis is
carried out by manual calculation together with the application of software named
Staad-Pro. After analysis, the portal frame will be designed based on BS 5950 and
Eurocode 3 and comparison between these two designs are made. In the design of
portal frame, different sets of parameter are used and their influences in the design
are observed. From the results, it is found that as the span of portal frame increases,
the required size of column and rafter will also increase. In the same time, it is
observed that the size required from the design based on BS 5950 is always greater
than the size required based on Eurocode 3. Besides, the design strength obtained
based on BS 5950 is also always greater than the value based on Eurocode 3. From
the comparison, it can be concluded that the usage of Eurocode 3 is seen to be more
economical.
However, the differences between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 are
significant. Therefore, portal frame design based on BS 5950 is recommended as the

design steps are simpler.
vi
ABSTRAK
Analisis dan rekabentuk kerangka portal menggunakan Eurocode 3

dipersembahkan dalam projek ini. Pada mulanya, dimensi kerangka portal yang
lazim digunakan dan diubah sejajarnya semasa prosidur rekabentuk.
Kerangka
gerbang dianggap sebagai adalah sambungan pin dan sambungan haunch digunakan
pada sambungan tiang dan kasau. Analisis kerangka gerbang dijalankan dengan
menggunakan kiraan manual dan satu perisian yang bernama Staad-Pro. Selepas
analisis, rekabentuk kerangaka portal dibuat berdasarkan BS 5950 dan Eurocode 3
dan perbandingan di antara kedua-dua rekabentuk tersebut dibuat. Dalam rekabentuk
kerangka portal pelbagai parameter digunakan dan pengaruhnya diperhatikan.
Daripada keputusan, didapati bahawa apabila rentang kerangka portal bertambah,
saiz yang diperlukan untuk tiang dan kasau juga akan bertambah. Dalam masa yang
sama, didapati saiz yang diperlukan dalam rekabentuk kerangka portal berdasarkan
BS 5950 sentiasa lebih besar daripada rekabentuk berdasarkan Eurocode 3. Dalam
pada itu, kekuatan kerangka portal berdasarkan BS 5950 sentiasa lebih besar
daripada Eurocode 3. Selepas membuat perbandingan di antara BS 5950 dan
Eurocode 3, didapati bahawa rekabentuk kerangka portal berdasarkan Eurocode 3
adalah lebih ekonomi.
Walaubagaimanapun, perbezaan antara BS 5950 dan
Eurocode 3 tidak begitu ketara.
Oleh sebab itu, rekabentuk kerangka portal
mengguanakn BS 5950 memadai kerana langkah rekabentuknya yang lebih mudah.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xiv
LIST OF APPENDIX
xv
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Statement of Problem
1.3
Objectives
1.4
Scope of Study
1.5
Significance of Study
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Eurocodes
2.2.1 Design Concept of EC 3
2.2.1.1 Ultimate Limit State
2.2.1.2 Serviceability Limit State
viii
2.3
British Standard
2.3.1
2.4
Design Concept of BS 5950

Portal Frame
2.4.1 Types of Portal Frame
2.4.2 Single-Storey Structure
10
2.4.3
2.4.2.1
Flat Roof Systems
10
2.4.2.2
Pitched Roof Systems
11
Multi-Storey Structure
12
2.5
Base Fixity
12
2.6
Types of Portal Frame Based on Connection
13
2.6.1 Simple Portal Frame
13
2.6.2 Rigid Portal Frame
13
2.6.3 Semi-Rigid Portal Frame
14
2.7
Columns and Rafters
15
2.8
Haunches and Other Connections
15
2.9
Analysis
16
2.9.1 Plastic Analysis Method
2.10
18
2.9.1.1
Plastic Hinge
21
2.9.1.2
Principles of Plastic Analysis
22
2.9.1.3
Mechanism Method
22
2.9.2 Elastic Analysis
24
2.9.3 First-Order and Second-Order Analysis
24
Stability
25
2.10.1 Member Stability
25
2.10.2 Frame Stability
26
METHODOLODY
27
3.1
Introduction
27
3.2
Design Procedure for Portal Frame
29
3.3
Change of Portal Frame Span and Slope Angle
31
3.4
Portal Frame Design with Microsoft Excel Worksheets
31
ix
4
RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
32
4.1
Practical Application
32
4.2
Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950
77
4.3
4.4
4.5
Axes
77
4.2.2
Partial Safety Factors
77
4.2.3
Load Combinations
78
4.2.4
Second-Order Effects Consideration
78
Comparison of Results between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 78

4.3.1
Column
80
4.3.2
Rafter
85
Changing of Design Parameter based on EC3
90
4.4.1
Comparison Results in Varying Span
91
4.4.2
Comparison Results in Varying Slope Angle
93
Discussion of Results
94
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
97
5.1
Conclusion
97
5.2
Recommendation
98
REFERENCE
APPENDIX
4.2.1
99
100 -106
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
3.1
Design procedures to Eurocode 3
29
4.1
Portal frame analysis and design to Eurocode 3
33
4.2
Portal frame analysis and design to BS 5950
62
4.3
Portal frame geometry varied in span
79
4.4
Portal frame geometry varied in slope angle
79
4.5
Unfactored loads
79
4.6
Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for

plastic modulus
4.7

column size
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
80

shear capacity
moment capacity
80
81
82
plastic modulus
column size
shear capacity
moment capacity
83
plastic modulus
rafter size
shear capacity
85
84
84
84
85
84
xi
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
4.36

moment capacity
plastic modulus
rafter size
shear capacity
moment capacity
Span of portal frame in varying values
Slope angle of rafter in varying values
Plastic modulus of portal frame in increasing span
Design plastic shear resistance of portal frame in
increasing span
Design plastic normal forces resistance in increasing
span
Design buckling resistance of a compression member in
increasing span
Design buckling resistance moment in increasing span
Plastic modulus of portal frame in increasing slope
Design plastic shear resistance of portal frame in
increasing slope
Design plastic normal forces resistance in increasing slope
Design buckling resistance of a compression member in
increasing slope
Design buckling resistance moment in increasing slope
Required plastic modulus formula
Partial safety factor based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950
Shear capacity formula based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950
87
89
89
89
90
90
90
91
91
91
92
92
93
93
93
94
94
95
96
96
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Typical portal frame
2.2
Types of portal frame
10
2.3
Haunch connections
16
2.4
Bending moment diagram resulting from the plastic analysis
17
2.5
Bending moment diagram resulting from the elastic analysis
17
2.6
Stress distribution at the centre of the beam
19
2.7
Load-deflection curves for beam with fixed ends
20
2.8
Plastic hinge formation under plastic moment
21
2.9
Beam mechanism
23
2.10
Sway mechanism
23
2.11
Combined mechanism
24
3.1
Design flow
28
4.1
Portal frame analysis based on EC 3
61
4.2
Required plastic modulus of column based on EC 3

and BS 5950
81
4.3
Moment capacity of column based on EC 3 and BS 5950
82
4.4
Shear capacity of column based on EC 3 and BS 5950
83
4.5
Required plastic modulus of rafter based on EC 3 and

BS 5950
86
4.6
Shear capacity of rafter based on EC 3 and BS 5950
87
4.7
Moment capacity of rafter based on EC 3 and BS 5950
88
4.8
Analysis of portal frame with 30 m span
100
4.9
101
4.10
102
4.11
103
xiii
4.12
Analysis of portal frame with 8o slope angle
104
4.13
105
4.14
106
xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
BS 5950
Eurocode 3
Depth of section
Width of section
Thickness of web
tw
Thickness of Flange
tf
Area of section
Design strength
Py
fy
Elastic modulus
Wel
Plastic modulus
Wpl
Warping constant
Iw
Torsional constant
It
Shear capacity
Pv
Vpl,Rd
Moment Capacity
Mc
Mpl,Rd
xv
LIST OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
100
101
102
103
104
Analysis of portal frame with 10 slope angle
105
106
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Preface
Structural design has been widely used in the field of civil engineering.
Structural design code has played an important role in the creation of structure such
as a building, a tunnel, a bridge and so on. There are several structural design code
had developed all around the word, those design codes are to regulate and unify the
work of structural engineering. The most common code practices used in Malaysia
is British Standards BS5950.
In this year, Eurocodes had replaced British Standards as the structural design
code practices used in Malaysia. Hence, there are beneficial for current engineer to
study and understand about Eurocode.
In other words, the whole construction
industry needs to embrace them and move forward.
The Eurocodes are a new set of European structural design codes for building
and civil engineering works. Eurocode is developed by the European Committee for
Standardisation (CEN). European structural design codes had been conceived and
developed over the past 30 years with the combined expertise of the member states
of the European Union. The design code is the most advanced structural codes in the
word.
Eurocodes are consisting of ten Eurocodes made up of 58 parts in all
structural design.
2
Portal frame is typically consisting of beams and columns which are designed
to carry load. Dennis L. (2004) mentioned that portal frames are the most commonly
used structural forms for single-storey industrial structures such as warehouses,
factories and many other purposes. For the design of portal frame, Eurocode 0,
Eurocode 1 and Eurocode 3 are used which allows the engineer to analyse and design
portal frames easily. Plastic design methods of analysis are used and this method
basically needs to determine the load that can be applied to the frame. The various
methods of plastic design in Eurocodes will be discussed later.
Dennis L.et.al (2004) defined that portal frame may be of rigid, semi-rigid
and pinned base construction. The pinned-base portal is the most common type
adopted because of the greater economy in foundation design.
1.2
Statement of Problem
Government has decided to start implementing Eurocodes in construction

design to have a standardize design code, eliminate conflicting design codes and
have better communication all around the world. Even though civil construction in
Malaysia had changed to fully implement Eurocodes in 2010, the preparations of
construction industry or academician are far enough from the goals.
References of structural design based on Eurocodes are lack. Furthermore,

there is not much changing in construction industry. Some engineers still even using
British Standards in their design like they are lack of alertness that British Standards
are being replaced by Eurocodes. Therefore, there are obstacles to direct change
from using British Standards to Eurocodes as the structural design code. In nutshell,
it is necessary to study structural design based on Eurocode and its influence on
structural design.
3
Eurocodes look more complex than British Standards.
Plastic design
Methods are applied in portal frame design. However, it is very difficult to find any
references related to design based on Eurocode. Therefore, it is a need to study
portal frame in Eurocodes based on plastic design.
1.3
Objectives
The objectives of this study are based on the following:
i.
To establish the design procedures for portal frame design based on

Eurocode.
ii.
To evaluate factors that affects the design of portal frame by using plastic
analysis method with EC3.
iii.
To obtain comparison in terms of material in designing a portal frame

based on EC3 and BS.
1.4
Scope of Study
This study will focus on the permanent and variable loads acting vertically on
portal frame using plastic analysis based on EC3. There are three types of load
combinations will be considered based on EN 1990. Only one type of load case will
be considered in this study.
Steel grade of S275 will be used along this study with a typical portal frame.
Hot-rolled I and H sections with light gauge steel cladding is generally the most
economical form of construction for steel portal framed buildings. In this study, hot-
4
rolled I section will be used. Analysis will be carried out on typical portal frame in
order to get shear and moment values and design for the typical portal frame.
Portal frame design will be done by using two structural design codes in
which are British Standards BS5950 and Eurocode 3. The results get from two
different design codes are being compared and make some conclusion from it.
A single span of typical portal frame will be analysed. After analysis and
design for a typical portal frame, a series of changes will be made on the typical
portal frame to compare the results.
1.5
Significant of Study
In 2010 year, structural design code in Malaysia had changed from British
Standards BS 5950 to Eurocodes. However, portal frame design based on Eurocodes
has not been widely applied in civil construction in Malaysia.
There are not much references of portal frame design based on Eurocodes.
Therefore, this study help engineer and researcher to have a better understanding and
help them to enhance their knowledge in this field of portal frame.
Since the changing process from using British Standard to Eurocodes is

inefficient.
Besides, there is lacking of resources of design example based on
Eurocodes in which slow down the evolution process. This study will help to speed
up the evolution process as references to analysis and design portal frame.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
This section study an overview of previous studies that had been conducted
by researcher in the field related to structural steel design. Different resources were
reviewed to have a better understanding about techniques that used in the field of
structural steel design.
2.2
Eurocodes
M.A. Serna.et.al (1998) mentioned that a series of testing have been

conducted on different ways that showing Eurocodes 3 allows researcher to carry out
analysis whether on sway or non-sway frames. Besides, EC3 also allows for larger
deflections in the serviceability state proved that EC3 allows for more design options
and analysis techniques, thus yielding more flexibility but also and imposes slightly
less restrictive resistance checks for cross sections. Plastic design of structures is
more complete in EC3.
6
In this year, government has changed British Standard design code to
Eurocode. Eurocodes represent the most wide-ranging change to codification of civil
and structural design. Although government had implement Eurocode as structural
steel design code, JKR are not fully change to use Eurocode yet. This is because
there is lack of resources as a design guide. Therefore this study is to develop design
procedures of portal frame based on Eurocode.
2.2.1 Design Concept of EC3
EC3 are based on limit state design which covers ultimate limit state and
serviceability state. Loadings are multiplied or divided with given partial safety
factor in EC3 in order to ensure structures are designed in a certain degrees of
reliability.
2.2.1.1Ultimate Limit State
The limit states that concern about the safety of people or the structure shall
be classified as ultimate limit states. Failure of structures by excessive deformation,
transformation of the structure or any part of it, loss of stability and structural
collapse also may be treated as ultimate limit states.
The limit states that concern about the comfort of people, the appearance of
the construction works and the functioning of the structure shall be classified as
serviceability states. The appearance of the construction work also concerned with
7
high deflection and extensive cracking that might affect the out-looking of the
construction works.
2.3
British Standard
British Standards are the standard produced by BSI Group which in

incorporated under a Royal Charter.
There are many different parts of British
Standard and BS5950 is a standard which is used for structural steelwork design.
BS 5950 is combining codes of practice covering the design, construction and fire
protection of steel structure and specifications for materials, workmanship and
erection.
2.3.1 Design Concept of BS 5950
There are several design methods used in BS 5950 such as simple design,
continuous design and semi-continuous design. In each case the details of the joints
should be such as to fulfill the assumptions made in the relevant design method.
There are two limit states concept used in BS 5950 such as ultimate limit states and
serviceability limit state. Partial safety factor also applied with loadings to increase
reliability of the structure design.
Ultimate limit states concern the safety of the whole part of the structure
especially the strength of the structure. When the structure start yielding, rupture,
buckling and forming a mechanism, the structure indicate the strength are unfit for
8
the structure already.
Besides, ultimate limit states also concern with stability
against overturning and sway stability, and fracture due to fatigue and brittle fracture.
Serviceability limit state correspond to limits beyond which specific service

criteria are no longer met when the structure are undergoing deflection, vibration,
wind induced oscillation and durability. Structure that over the serviceability limit
state but does not collapse, it will cause unpleasant effects to the user.
2.4
Portal Frame
Portal frame was developed to satisfy the need to achieve low-cost building.
Now, they are the most commonly used structural forms for single-storey industrial
structures such as industrial, distribution, retail and leisure purposes.
Steel portal frames are very efficient and economical when used for singlestorey buildings, provided that the design details are cost-effective and the design
and analysis assumptions are well chosen. In countries where this technology is
highly developed, steel portal frames are the dominant forms of structure for singlestorey industrial and commercial buildings. In the UK, for example, more than 90%
of such buildings have a steel structure, and about half of these are portal frames.
(Mr. C M King.et.al, 2001)
Portal frame is famous among single-storey industrial and commercial

buildings.
This is because portal frame can be designed with low cost, rapid
fabrication, simple cladding, and simple erection and so on. Besides, it is easy to
maintain the building too. Due to its suitability and cost saving, portal frame of vary
9
sizes, roofs and column bases can be found everywhere especially in the industrial
and commercial area.
A typical portal of a single span is normally consists of beams and columns

as well as haunch at the connection parts. A typical single bay portal frame is shown
in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Typical portal frames
2.4.1
Types of Portal Frame
The single-storey clear-span building is in constant demand for industrial

buildings, commercial buildings and so on. Portal frame is easy to fabricate, low
construction cost, easy to maintain and others. Therefore, portal frame is become
more and more famous in the field of structural steel construction especially in
industrial and commercial buildings.
There are many different types of portal frame such as single span symmetric
portal frame, propped portal frame, mono-pitch portal frame and others. In between
those portal frames, the most common is the portal shape with pinned bases.
10
Figure 2.2: Types of portal frame
2.4.2
Single-Storey Structure
Single-storey structure can be found easily in industrial buildings. Typical

examples of such structures include sports complexes, exhibition halls, factory units
and others. Single-storey structures have two types of roof system, flat roof system
and pitched roof systems. This study is based on pitched roof system and further
discussion will be carried on later.
2.4.2.1 Flat Roof Systems
The most common flat roof system portal frame that can be seen is simple
rectangular frames. Its roof is in zero degree and shaped like rectangular.
L.H. Martin.et.al (2008) stated that this type of beam incurs high fabrication
costs and requires a higher construction depth than ordinary rolled sections; the holes
in the web allow services to be contained within the beam depth.
11
When consider about flat roof, the drainage system is one of the problem.
The flat roof is not contributing to adequate run-off. If the roofs are not flat enough,
there might be a condition with roof flooding at shallow part. Therefore, flat roof
systems are not common in portal frame design.
2.4.2.2 Pitched Roof System
Besides flat roof system, there also exists another roof system which is
pitched roof system. Pitched roof system is more famous in portal frame design if
compared with flat roof system.
L.H. Martin.et.al (2008) discussed that pitched Rood system is a roof with
certain degree of slope in order to enhance drainage system. A pitch of between
4and 10 is adequate to allow run off and to allow the joints in the roof sheeting to
remain watertight.
This type of truss is generally fabricated from square or
rectangular rolled hollow sections with fully welded nodal connections, with circular
hollow sections sometimes being used for the web members in Grade S355 steel,
owing to availability, pitches greater than 10 are only seen where an existing
building with traditional large pitch trusses designed for tiles or slates as roofing
materials is being extended, or where a large pitch is required for architectural
reasons in. For example, pitched rood system can be found at most of the shopping
malls.
Pitched roof system is speeding up the construction works if compared with

flat roof system.
Horridge.et.al (1986) mentioned the most common method of
single storey construction is the pitched roof portal frame whether for factory units,
small sports complexes or warehouses. This is basically due to the high speed and
simplicity of construction. The internal bays are designed as rigid jointed frames.
The end frames, unless there is likely to be an extension to the structure, are much
lighter and have the rafters designed as spanning across the gable end posts which
are also used to support the sheeting rails for the cladding. The most economic
12
frame spacing is generally 7.5 m or 9.0 m for much higher frame spans. For spans
below 20 m a frame spacing of 6.0 m may be adopted.
2.4.3 Multi-Storey Structure
The steel skeleton is generally designed to carry vertical loading due to the
permanent and variable actions only, with the horizontal loading from wind and the
notional horizontal loading taken by a bracing system, or more commonly the lift
shaft(s) and stair well(s). Gibbons (1995) had discussed about the economics of
various types of multi-storey. When using lift shafts or stairwells as bracing care
must be taken in their layout as torsional effects from lateral loading on an
asymmetric layout must be avoided.
2.5
Base Fixity
Portal frame bases are generally classified as pinned bases, partial base fixity
or fixed bases. Mostly portal frame are constructed with pinned based, although this
gives a slightly heavier frame than the fixed-base option. Mr. C M King.et.al (2001)
discussed about advantage of pinned bases, the foundation is simplified and so
should be less expensive. Fixed bases portal frame are more stiffness and increase
stability. Partial base fixity can reduce deflections significantly without necessarily
affecting foundation costs.
13
2.6
Types of Portal Frame Based on Connection
The portal can be divided into three types of portal frame based on different
connection such as rigid portal frame, semi-rigid portal frame and simple portal
frame.
Different portal frames are designed differently because the moment
distribution or force distribution at the column base are different.
2.6.1 Simple Portal Frame
In simple framing, the connections between the members may be assumed

not to developed moment. This type of connection is not able to transmit moments.
A nominally pinned connection shall be so designed that it cannot develop
significant moment which might adversely affect members of the structure. This
type of connection should be capable of transmitting the forces calculated in design
and should be capable of accepting the resulting rotations.
P.C.G.daS.Vellasco.et.al (2005) explained that pinned joints are characterised

by almost free rotation movement between the connected elements that prevents the
transmission of bending moments.
2.6.2
Rigid Portal Frame
This type of portal frame also can be named as continuous portal frame.
Rigid portal frame is fixed at the connection between members of portal frame. A
rigid connection also indicate that deformation have no significant influence on the
distribution of internal forces and moments in the structure.
14
P.C.G.daS.Vellasco.et.al (2005) explained that rigid connection has no
relative rotations occur between the connected members, transfer not only substantial
bending moments, but also shear and axial forces.
In another word, rigid connection is capable to transmit the forces and

moments. The deformation of rigid portal frame does not reduce the resistance of the
structure.
2.6.3
Semi-Rigid Portal Frame
As the name, the connection is capable to transmit partial moment. This

connection normally does not meet the criteria for a rigid connection or a pinnedconnection.
Despite rigid base and pinned base portal frame, it is largely recognised that
the great majority of joints does not exhibit such idealized behaviour. These joints
are called semi-rigid, and their design should be performed according to their actual
structural behaviour. This is explained by the fact that in semi-rigid frames the
internal force distributions, lateral displacement magnitudes, and collapse modes
are functions of the joint flexibility.
(P.C.G. da S. Vellasco.et.al, 2005)
15
2.7
Columns and Rafters
Mr. C M King.et.al (2001) discussed that portal frame used to adapt I sections
rather than H sections as columns and rafters.
The external column sections are normally significantly heavier (in terms of
mass/unit length) than the rafter sections, if the rafters are hunched at the rafter or
column connections. The rafter will normally be reinforced by a haunch at the
connection to the columns or valley beams.
The column head may need stiffening, as it carries high local loads at the
connection to the rafter (tension in some bolts and bearing from the haunch
compression flange) and, if there is a high column moment at the connection to the
rafter, it will also carry high shear. The need to stiffen depends on the proportions of
the column and the connections to the rafter.
2.8
Haunches and Other Connections
The haunch has a great effect on the economy of the structure by allowing
smaller rafter sections. The proportions of the haunch depend on the characteristics
of each individual building, especially the size of the rafter, inclined horizontal beam.
Typical details are shown in Figure 2.3, but it is important to note that these are not
definitive and that the only requirement is the ability to carry the loading throughout
the design life of the structure. If the environment is clean, dry and protected from
the weather, details such as intermittent fillet welds or bolts at very large spacing are
usually acceptable.
16
Figure 2.3: Haunch connections
2.9
Analysis
There are two types of frame analysis which are elastic analysis and plastic
analysis. Portal frames are analysed by the plastic methods of structural analysis
tend to be more economical than the elastically designed portal frame. The term
plastic analysis is used to cover both rigid-plastic and elastic-plastic analysis.
A.S.Malik.et.al (2004) discussed that plastic analysis commonly produces a

more economical portal frame as it allows large redistribution of bending moment
throughout the frame, due to plastic hinge rotation. At the plastic hinge, infinitely
large rotation can occur under plastic moment of the section.
A typical bending moment diagram resulting from a plastic analysis of a

portal frame with pinned bases is shown in Figure 2.4. The first hinge to form is
normally adjacent to the haunch.
The second hinge developed at the rafter
depending on the proportions of the portal frame, at the point of maximum sagging
moment.
17
Figure 2.4: Bending moment diagram resulting from the plastic analysis
A typical bending moment diagram resulting from an elastic analysis of a

frame with pinned bases is shown in Figure 2.5.
For this case, the maximum
moment is higher, and then the structure needs to be designed with higher moment
regime.
Figure 2.5: Bending moment diagram resulting from the elastic analysis
18
2.9.1
Plastic Analysis Method
Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar.et.al (1996) discussed about plastic analysis and

design of a structure and explained the ultimate load of the structure as a whole is
regarded as the design criterion. The term plastic has occurred due to the fact that
the ultimate load is found from the strength of steel in the plastic range.
This method is rapid and provides a rational approach for the analysis of the
structure. It also provides striking economy as regards the weight of steel since the
sections required by this method are smaller in size than those required by the
method of elastic analysis.
In another word, the ultimate load is the guideline for the analysis and design
to be carried on. Plastic analysis and design has its main application in the analysis
and design of statically indeterminate framed structures.
J.M.Davies.et.al (1996) stated that plastic design takes advantage of an

important and unique property of mild steel, namely ductility.
Plastic design is
applicable to steel structures of the resistance of their members to bending. Besides,

plastic design also concerned with providing an adequate load factor against collapse
of the structure.
In plastic design, structures are assumed to collapse by the formation of a

collapse mechanism. Collapse mechanisms are brought about by the formation of
one or more plastic hinge. At a plastic hinge, the cross-section has become fully
plastic as shown in Figure 2.6(d) with the result that it can rotate at constant bending
moment. The bending moment at a plastic hinge is termed the fully plastic moment
of resistance or, more briefly, the full plastic moment.
19
Figure 2.6: Stress distribution at the centre of the beam
From the figure 2.6(b) the triangular shape of stress distribution inflects that
stresses and strains have linear proportional relationship. In other words, stresses are
proportional to the strains. This condition is in elastic behavior.
While figure 2.6 (c) have trapezium shape of stress distribution which mean
the steel structure is in elastic-plastic behavior. Figure 2.6 (d) shows the beam is in
plastic behavior which means it will direct collapse without any form of instability
develop in the beam. In this stage, the beam can accept no more load and the loaddeflection curve have become horizontal at the collapse value of the load factor.
20
Figure 2.7: Load-deflection curves for beam with fixed ends
J.M.Davies.et.al (1996) explained plastic analysis based on figure 2.7.

Initially the curve is linear elastic but becomes non-linear as plasticity spreads
through the section at the fixed ends. When the plastic hinges at the ends are fully
formed, the curve becomes approximately linear again at a reduced slope as these
hinges rotate and bending moments are redistributed towards the centre of the beam.
When the third plastic hinge has formed at mid-span, a collapse mechanism exists
and the load-deflection curve is horizontal. The structure can continue to deform at
constant load.
Plastic analysis is concerned about the yield point and mainly about steel
structure. Much of the theory which follows will be concerned with the prediction of
collapse mechanism and plastic hinges formed in the structure. In structure design,
direct collapse condition will be considered first without considering the intermediate
elastic-plastic conditions prior to collapse. Therefore, plastic analysis implicit the
structure is sufficiently robust to direct collapse without the adverse influence of any
form of instability.
21
2.9.1.1 Plastic Hinge
Prof.S.R.Satish.Kumar.et.al (1996) mentioned at the plastic hinge an

infinitely large rotation can occur under a constant moment equal to the plastic
moment of the section. Plastic hinge is defined as a yielded zone due to bending in a
structural member at where an infinite rotation can take place at a constant plastic
moment of the section.
Figure 2.8: Plastic hinge formation under plastic moment
The number of hinges necessary for failure does not vary for a particular
structure subject to a given loading condition, although a part of a structure may fail
independently by the formation of a smaller number of hinges.
The member or structure behaves in the manner of a hinged mechanism and

in doing so adjacent hinges rotate in opposite directions. Theoretically, the plastic
hinges are assumed to form at points at which plastic rotations occur. Thus the
length of a plastic hinge is considered as zero.
22
2.9.1.2 Principles of Plastic Analysis
There are three types of fundamental conditions for plastic analysis according
to (Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar, Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar, 1996).
The fundamental
conditions are shown as below.
(i) Mechanism condition:
The ultimate or collapse load is reached when a mechanism is formed. The

number of plastic hinges developed should be just sufficient to form a mechanism.
(ii) Equilibrium condition:

Fx = 0,
Fy = 0,
Mxy = 0
(iii) Plastic moment condition:
The bending moment at any section of the structure should not be more than
the fully plastic moment of the section.
2.9.1.3 Mechanism Method
When plastic analysis applied to portal frame, we considered collapse

mechanism. A structure in which it performs no resistance against deformation when
loaded is known as a mechanism.
A portal frame usually involves high degrees of indeterminacy. Therefore,

there are always a large number of partial and complete collapse mechanisms
(sometimes termed basic mechanisms) that can be combined to form new collapse
23
mechanisms with some plastic hinge becoming elastic (unloading) again.
For
complex frames, it requires substantial judgment and experience in using this method
to identify all possible partial and complete collapse mechanisms.
(M. Bill Wong, 2009)
In portal frame, a steel structure in which the material properties are ductility,
it normally fails plastically by complete or partial collapse. The stiffness of the
structure at collapse is considered as zero.
For frame, when the degree of
indeterminacy is large, partial collapse is not uncommon.
According to M. Bill Wong (2009), for simple portal frames, the following
types of collapse mechanisms should be identified:
(a) Beam mechanismwhen vertical loads are applied to beams and horizontal loads
to columns to form partial collapse mechanisms as shown in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9: Beam mechanism
(b) Sway mechanismwhen horizontal loads are applied to form complete collapse
mechanisms as shown in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10: Sway mechanism
24
(c) Combined mechanisma combination of beam and sway mechanisms only if
unloading occurs to one or more plastic hinges as shown in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11: Combined mechanism
2.9.2
Elastic analysis
A.S.Malik.et.al (2004) discussed that elastic analysis still being used for
structure design where it is more appropriate in such conditions:
Tapered members are used
Instability of the frame is a controlling factor.
Deflections are critical to the design of the structure.
2.9.3 First-order and Second-Order Analysis
A.S.Malik.et.al (2004) stated that there are the choice of first-order or second
order analysis for either plastic anaylsis or elastic analysis of frames. To decide first
order or second order analysis, it depends on the in-plane flexibility of the frame and
the method to be used to check the in-plane stability of the frame. Normally all
single-span ordinary portal except tied portal, will have sufficient stiffness to be
analysed with first-order analysis. Tied portal should be check with elastic or elasticplastic second order analysis for the in-plane stability.
25
2.10
Stability
Stability is another important issue to be considered in portal frame design.

Any structure with high lateral loading or where vertical loading can be applied
outside the frame envelope must be checked for overturning. Also any continuous
member with a cantilever must be checked for the possibility of uplift on any support.
L.H. Martin.et.al (2008) stated that stability can be considered at two levels: member
stability and frame stability.
2.10.1 Member Stability
This effectively ensures that there will be sufficient ductility in the member to
ensure that plastic rotational capacity is available when required by the
design/analysis synthesis. The ductility check is made by considering limiting values
of flange and web slenderness. It is essential that where plastic analysis is used Class
1 sections are mandatory, although where only a single hinge is needed for collapse,
as in a simply supported beam, Class 2 sections may be used.
The assumption is made in plastic analysis that the member can achieve its
full plastic moment capacity before the onset of elastic-plastic buckling. For
members in simple construction or isolated beam elements, this condition is not
necessary as the load carrying capacity of the member can be checked using reduced
strengths which allow for buckling.
For rigid jointed frames premature elastic-plastic buckling is not permissible

and must be counteracted either by bracing which reduces effective, or system,
lengths below critical values or by increasing member sizes.
26
2.10.2 Frame Stability
For portal frame systems this takes the form of two checks. The first is the
determination of vertical deflections at the ridges and horizontal deflections at the
top of the stanchions at the eaves.
The second check is only for multi-span portals and is designed to avoid
snap through of the rafters. For multi-storey structures both the relative lateral
deflections on each storey and the overall lateral deflection of the whole structure is
subject to limits.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This section discusses about the design procedure that will be used to achieve
those objectives that mentioned at chapter 1. The main purpose of the research is to
design a series of pinned-base portal frame. In this analysis and design of portal
frame, plastic analysis method will be used based on Eurocode 3. From the design,
the strength of column and rafter are determined.
For analysis and design of portal frame, permanent loads and variable loads
are selected based on BS 6399. After analysis, a suitable column and rafter size are
chosen. To compare the portal frame design based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950, a
series of portal frame design will be carried out to look for the differences.
Besides, selected design parameter will be changed to see how the changes
affect their strength capacities. Repeated design will be carried out to determine the
changes of strength. For this project, the design parameter chosen is the slope angle,
and span of portal frame.
28
The overall flow on these studies and methodology is generally shown in the
schematic diagram below:
Figure 3.1: Design flow
29
3.2
Design Procedure for Portal Frame
There are two types of analysis, only the plastic analysis will be considered in
this report, as plastic design will normally allow the most economical structures.
Portal frame design will be carried on by using Eurocode 3 and BS 5950. Firstly,
portal frame design is designed according to Eurocode 3 to obtain design procedure.
In the same time, portal frame also designed according to BS 5950. In designing
portal frame, Staad-pro is used to analyze the bending moment, shear and axial
forces developed.
Table 3.1 Design procedures to Eurocode 3

Member size determination:
Class 1 or 2 cross section
(Clause 6.2.5)
Wpl =
Mpr x M0
fy
Ultimate limit state analysis:

EC 3 requires that all loads that could occur at the same time are considered
together, so frame imperfection forces are considered as additive to permanent
loads and variable loads.
Clause 5.3.2
1) Frame imperfection
= 0 h m
2) Second order effects
1
[1-1/cr ]
Stability Check:
Clause 5.2.2
1) Sway stability check
cr =
HEd x
VEd x H, Ed
30
2) Snap-through check:
Snap-through check need to refer back to BS5950 as it is not detail in
Eurocode3.
Clause 5.5.3.3
1
1

=
2
55.7(4 + /) + 275
The arching ration if less than 1, then snap through will not occur and there
are no further checking are needed.
Design:
1) Classification (Table 5.2)
For class 1:
396
Web check : = (13 1)
Flange check: c/tf = 9
2) Cross-section resistance (Clause 6.2.8)

i.
Check VEd not equal to 0.5 Vpl,Rd

, =
ii.
(/3)
0
Check plastic moment of resistance(Clause 6.2.9)

a) . 25 ,
b)
.5
0
3) Buckling resistance (Clause BB3.1.1 and Clause 6.3.3)

=
38
1
[ 57.4 +
, 2
1
(
)
756 12 235
31
3.3
Change of Portal Frame Span and Slope Angle
From the design guide developed above, it can be observed that there are
many design parameters that can influence the results of portal frame. Among the
design parameters, the span of portal frame and slope angle of portal frame had been
chosen to look at the differences of the design.
After changing those parameter, the beam and rafter size required to build up
at reliable portal frame are compared. From the result, we can see that the design
parameter will influence the rafter and column size as well as the strength of portal
frame.
3.4
Portal Fame Design with Microsoft Excel Worksheets
The design procedures of the portal frame are carried by hand-calculation as

well as by using Microsoft Excel Software. The procedures are calculated when
entering the required values and formulas in Microsoft Excel Software. The use of
Microsoft Excel is useful and time-saving for continual and repeated calculations.
Besides, the uses of Microsoft Excel also prevent calculation error.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
Practical Application
Since Eurocodes start to be implemented in construction design and there are

not much reference of portal frame design to Eurocode 3. One of the aims is to
establish design procedures of portal frame design to Eurocode 3. Frame geometry
used in this design is in the range of typical portal frame.
First of all, plastic analysis is being carried out to find the plastic moment
developed over the portal frame. Then, analyse the portal frame by using software
such as STAAD-PRO. By using software, it is more time saving and accurate to
determine the maximum shear force, axial force as well as maximum bending
moment.
This chapter will show the application of the analysis and design procedures
to Eurocode 3. Those analysis and designs was shown as follows:
i.
Table 4.1: Portal frame analysis and design to Eurocode 3.
ii.
Table 4.2 : Portal frame analysis and design to BS 5950
33
Table 4.1: Portal frame analysis and design to Eurocode 3
1. Frame Geometry
Design Code Based: Eurocode 3
hr
hc
span
Span
Spacing of portal frame
Height of column
Height of rafter
Slope of rafter
= 30
=5
=6
= 1.58
=6
m
m
m
m
degree
2. Loading
The following loads have been selected by reference to BS
6399-3
2.1 Unfactored Loads
Permanent loads:
sheeting
=
purlin
=
frame
=
services
=
=
Variable loads:
Imposed
loads
=
0.20
0.07
0.11
0.28
0.66
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
BS 63990.60 kN/m
2.2 Partial safety factors

Partial safety factor are used to increase the reliability of the
structure design, it can be found at ENV 1993-1-1:1992,
Table 1.
Partial safety factors for loads
G
=
1.35
Q
=
1.50
Partial safety factors for
resistance
MO
=
M1
=
BS 648-1964
1.00
1.00
3:1998
34
2.3 Combination Factor,
From the Eurocode 1.1 Part 1.1 , the combination factor, is 1.0
for structures supporting storage loads. In this analysis, the wind
load is considered in combination with vertical loading.
2.4 Load combination
The permanent load and variable are applied with correspond
partial safety factor according to BS EN 1990 Table A1.2B
total factored design load, q =
8.955 kN/m
3.0 Preliminary member size determination

3.1 Plastic Analysis
By using plastic collapse mechanism, assume the plastic hinge is

developed at the second purlin and base of the haunch at
column.
at base :
at B :
at C :
1007.44
1007.44
6.45
-(M +
-(M +
-(M +
7.58 x R )
2.13 x R )
0.13 x R )
=
=
=
0
+ Mp
- Mp
solving :
B + C : 1013.89
506.94
at base : 1007.44
- (2M +
-(M +
-(M +
2.25 x R )
1.13 x R )
7.58 x R )
R
=
=
=
=
0
0
0
500.49
6.45
77.55
solving the equation will

give :
Mp =
422.98 kNm
M =
419.63 kNm
R =
77.55 kN
35
Using these values, the assumed position of plastic hinges is
checked to ensure that the assumption is safe. At third purlin
from the apex, the bending moment is :
M3 = 25.79
- (M+ 0.2528 x R )
-413.44 kNm
It is found that the moment at third purlin is less than Mp.

Therefore the assumption that the plastic hinge occurs at second
purlin is correct.
By using the haunch at the eave, the size of the rafter can be
reduced, which will increase the value of R up to 25%. By
reducing the size of rafter so that its plastic moment capactiy
only 60% of the capacity of column Mpc, the equations become:
at base :
at B :
at C :
R
=
=
1007.44
1007.44
6.4476
-(M +
-(M +
-(M +
7.58 x R )
2.13 x R )
0.13 x R )
=
=
=
0
+Mpc
0.6Mpc
1.2 x 77.55
93.06kN
Solving the equations will give :

R =
93.06 kN
M =
302.07 kNm
Mpc =
507.58 kNm
Mpr =
304.55 kNm
3.2 Member Size Determination
Using steel grade of
fy
= 275 N/mm
the required plastic modulus for rafter is :
Wpl =
Mpr x M0
fy
=
1107.45
cm
EN 1993-1-1
clause 6.2.5
rafter:
Wpl =
therefore select section 457 x 191 x 67UB (1471cm)
1107.45 cm
the required plastic modulus for column is :

Wpl =
Mpc x M0
fy
=
1845.75
cm
column:
therefore select section 533 x 210 x 92UB ( 2366cm)
Wpl =
1845.75 cm
36
4.0 Section Properties
4.1 Column
h
=
533.1
b
=
209.3
tw
=
10.2
tf
=
15.6
b/tf =
6.7
d/tw =
46.7
A
=
117.8
r
=
12.7
As t <
40mm
fy = 275 N/mm
4.2 Rafter
h
=
453.6
b
=
189.8
tw
=
8.5
tf
=
12.7
b/tf
=
7.5
d/tw =
48.0
A
=
85.4
r
=
10.2
As t <
40mm
fy = 275 N/mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
cm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
cm
mm
Iy
Iz
Wpl,y
Wel,y
iy
iz
d
x
= 55353 cm
= 2392 cm
= 2366 cm
= 2076 cm
=
21.7 cm
=
4.51 cm
= 476.5 mm
=
36.4
It
Iw
=
=
Iy
Iz
Wpl,y
Wel,y
iy
iz
d
x
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
29401
1452
1471
1296
18.5
4.12
407.9
37.9
It
Iw
=
=
37.1 cm
0.706 dm
76.2 cm
1.6 dm
cm
cm
cm
cm
cm
cm
mm
37
5.0 Ultimate Limit State Analysis
5.1 Frame Imperfection-equivalent horizontal forces
The effects of imperfections shall be allowed for in frame
analysis by means of an equivalent geometric imperfection in the EN 1993-1-1
form of an initial sway imperfection determined from:
clause 5.3.2
= 0 h m
where,
0
h
m
=
=
=
1/200
2/h
(0.5[1+1/m])
but 2/3 h 1.0
Where,
h is the height of the structure in meters
and m is the number of columns
h
m
=
=
= 0.00354
0.8165
0.8660
= 0 h m
= 0.00354
the equivalent horizontal forces are given by:

p=N
if N is taken as the axial load in the column, then it may be taken
equal to V
N=
p=
134.325 kN
0.475 kN
Note:
EC 3 requires that all loads could occur at the same time are
considered together, so frame imperfection forces should be
considered as additive to permanent loads and variable loads
with the appropriate load combination.
N = 134.32kN
p = 0.475kN
38
39
5.2 Partial Safety factor and Second-Order Effects
The stability of the frame as a whole is affected by the
slenderness of the members, the second order effects of axial
compression increase the deflections beyond the deflections
predicted by normal first-order analysis.
Second-order effects increase not only the deflections but also
the moments and force beyond those calculated by first-order
analysis.
For simplicity, when carrying analysis modified the partial
safety factory by:
Assume for preliminary calculations, based on experience, that :

cr = 9
EN 1993-1-1
clause 5.2.2
= 1.125
=
1.125
therefore the modified parital safety factors are :

G
=
Q
=
modified load
1.35
1.50
= 10.07
x
x
kN/m
1.125
1.125
=
=
1.52
1.69
6.0 Stability Check

These checks use the partial safety factors 1.35 and 1.50, not the
increased values used to allow for second order effects in the
ultimate limit state analysis.
6.1 Sway Stability Check
From 2.3 analyses, the bases have been assumed as pinned for
simplicity.
Assuming truly pinned bases:
EN 1993-1-1
clause 5.2.1
The deflection h under a force p applied at the top of the frame
is given by:
40
Lr =
14.9178 m
Ir h/(Ic Lr)
2(Ir h/Ic Lr) + 6 + 3(h1/h)
(Ir h / Ic Lr) + 3 + 3(h1/h) + (h1/h)
h =
h =
102.581
348724
0.00112
=
=
=
0.21363
7.21726
4.07298
-3.80385
6.2 Snap-through Check

For the frame stability, frames with non-triangulated pitched
roofs shall be checked for snap-through buckling.
EN 1993-1-1
clause 5.5.3.3
where:
L=
h=
Ic =
fyr =
Ffeb =
=
=
=
=
30 m
E=
210
6 m
s=
15.08
55353 cm
Ir = 29401
275 N/mm
max. vertical load to cause failure of rafter
treated as fixed ended beam(plastic moment,
Mp = wl/16)
16 x Mp/L
217.34 kN
factored vertical load
Ffeb
8.955
x
22.42
217.34
0.92376
1.0
the arching ratio is less than 1, snap through will not occur and
there are no further checking are needed.
EN 1993-1-1
clause 5.5.3.3
1.0
41
7.0 Column Design
MEd
VEd
NEd
=
=
=
648
108
151
kNm
kN
kN
7.1 Classification
Ensure the section is class 1 to accommodate plastic hinge
formation.
EN 1993-1-1
Table 5.2
Sheet 1
Web check :
web is under combined axial and bending forces, so find :
depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load
= NEd/(fy x tw/M0 )
= 53.83mm
So,
=
=
0.5 + 0.0565
0.556
From table,
= 0.92
For class 1:
d/tw = 58.43
= 58.43
act d/tw = 46.7

Actual d/tw
46.7
Since actual d/t w is smaller than the limit , so the web is

classified as class 1.
column is
class1
EN 1993-1-1
42
Flange Check:
for class 1:
Table 5.2
Sheet 2
= 8.28
Since actual c/tf is less than the limit, so flange is class 1

class 1
7.2 Cross Sectional Resistance
Check plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the
coexistent shear force.
VEd less than 0.5 Vpl,Rd
Av =
=
hw tw
4860.30 mm
=
=
0.5Vpl,Rd
Max VEd
108kN
Max VEd
Clause 6.2.6
Clause 6.2.8
Av (fy/3)/M0
771.68 kN
=
=
Vpl,Rd
EN 1993-1-1
385.84kN
108kN
< 385.83kN
< 0.5Vpl,Rd
VEd<0.5Vpl,Rd
So the plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the


coexistent axial force.
1. NEd less than 0.25 Npl,Rd
0.25Npl,Rd
Max VEd
151kN
Max NEd
=
=
809.88kN
151kN
< 809.88kN
< 0.25Npl,Rd
NEd<0.25Npl,Rd
43
2.
NEd
0.5 hw tw fy
M0
151kN
Max NEd
0.5 hw tw fy
M0
= 668.291 kN
< 668.29N
< 0.5hwtwfy/M0
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.2.9
Max NEd <

0.5hwtwfy/M0
Check 1 and 2 shows that the plastic moment of resistance is not

required by the coexistent axial force.
Therefore, the effects of shear and axial force on the plastic
resistance moment can be neglected according to EC 3 and the
frame analysis assumption is validated.
7.3 Buckling between Intermediate Restraints

7.3.1 Upper Section Analysis
stable length of column:

EN 1993-1-1
BB3.1.1
NEd /A
Wpl,y
Wpl,y/ A It
fy/235
=
=
=
=
12.8184
2366cm3
623.63
1.17
44
C1 is dependent on based on the shape of the bending moment
diagram determined from table 6.6
=
0.71563
Kc =
0.91421
C1 =
1.19649
Lm =
1713.8
1.006174
1703.283 mm
EN 1993-1-1
Table 6.6
Lm =
1703mm
Lt =1300mm
So 1300mm is acceptable.
(acceptable)
7.3.2 Lower Section Analysis
a) calculate slenderness and LT
assume side rail depth = 200mm
Distance from columns shear centre to centre of side rail,a

a=
366.55 mm
is =
iz + iy + a
=
203055 mm
distance between shear centers of flanges ,hs:

hs
hs
=
=
533.1
517.5
mm
15.6
EN 1993-1-1
BB3.3
45
Lt is the length of the beam between points that have lateral
restraint to both flanges.
Lt = 1300mm
the slenderness of the column is given by :
1
93.9
86.38
=
=
=0.3326
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.3.1.3
= 2.9x107
EN 1993-1-1
BB3.3
EN 1993-1-1
= 2.0x107
BB3.3
= 5451.3kNm
=
=
cm =
B0 =
=
NcrE
Ncr T
1.48795
1
B0 + B1 t +B2 t
1 +10
1 +20
0.51626
EN 1993-1-1
BB3.3
46
5
+10
0.3976
B1 =
0.5
1+
B2 =
EN 1993-1-1
BB3.3
0.5
1 +20
0.08722
t = 0
Because it is the ratio of the smaller end moment to the larger
end moment in the column.
cm
c
=
=
1.9703
1
= 10559.3kNm
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.3.2.2
= 0.2483
b) calculate buckling resistance for axial force
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.3
= 0.5[1 + ( - 0.2) + ]
h/b = 2.55
47
curve b for rolled I sections from table 6.3
imperfection factor, = 0.34
EN 1993-1-1
= 0.5[1 + ( - 0.2) + ]
= 0.578
Table 6.3
=
=
Nb,Rd =
=
1
1.050
0.952
Nb,Rd =
Afy/M1
3084.091 kN
3084.9kN
c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending

Mb,Rd =
LT =
LT 0 =
=
Table 6.2
LT Wpl,yfy/M1
0.25
0.40
0.75
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.3
(maximum value)
(maximum value)
= 0.5[1 + LT( LT- LT0) + LT ]

= 0.4859
curve c for rolled I sections
from table 6.3
imperfection factor, LT = 0.49
LT =
1.08
Mb,Rd =
705.92 kNm
d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
Mb,Rd =
705.92kNm
EN1993-1-1
Clause
6.3.3(4)
48
The following simplifications may be made:
1. My,Ed and Mz,Ed equal to zero for class 1
2. no bending minor axis
NEd
z NRk
M1
kzy My,Ed
My,Rk
M1
NEd
Nb.Rd
kzy My,Ed
Mb,Rd
>0.4
kzy
EN1993-1-1
=
1-
0.1
(CmLT - 0.25)
CmLT
=
=
0.6 + 0.4
0.6
kzy
0.986
0.872
kzy My,Ed
Mb,Rd
1.0
z NRk
M1
Table B.2
EN1993-1-1
Table B.3
NEd
Nb.Rd
NEd
ok!
0.4
49
8.0 Rafter Design
MEd
VEd
NEd
=
=
=
294
110
119
kNm
kN
kN
8.1 Classification
Ensure the section is class 1 to accommodate plastic hinge
formation.
EN 1993-1-1
Table 5.2
Sheet 1
Web check :
web is under combined axial and bending forces, so find :
depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load
= NEd/(fy x tw/M0 )
= 53.83mm
So,
=
=
0.5 +
0.05768
0.558
From table,
= 0.92
For class 1:
d/tw = 58.29
act d/tw = 48
= 58.29
Actual d/tw
48
Since actual d/tw is smaller than the limit, so the web is

classified as class 1.
column is
class1
50
EN 1993-1-1
Flange Check:
for class 1:
Table 5.2
Sheet 2
= 8.28
Since actual c/tf is less than the limit, so flange is class 1

class 1
8.2 Cross Sectional Resistance

VEd less than 0.5 Vpl,Rd
Av =
=
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.2.6
Clause 6.2.8
hw tw
3467.15 mm
Av (fy/3)/M0
550.484 kN
=
=
Vpl,Rd
=
=
0.5Vpl,Rd
Max VEd
110kN
Max VEd
275.242
110kN
VEd<0.5Vpl,Rd
< 275.242kN
< 0.5Vpl,Rd
So the plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the


coexistent axial force.
1. NEd less than 0.25 Npl,Rd
0.25Npl,Rd
Max VEd
119kN
Max NEd
=
=
587.125kN
119kN
< 587.125kN
< 0.25Npl,Rd
NEd<0.25Npl,Rd
51
EN 1993-1-1
NEd
2.
0.5 hw tw fy
M0
119kN
Max NEd
0.5 hw tw fy
M0
= 476.733 kN
Clause 6.2.9
Max NEd <

< 476.733kN
< 0.5hwtwfy/M0
0.5hwtwfy/M0
Check 1 and 2 shows that the plastic moment of resistance is not

required by the coexistent axial force.
Therefore, the effects of shear and axial force on the plastic
resistance moment can be neglected according to EC 3 and the
frame analysis assumption is validated.
8.3 Buckling between Intermediate Restraints

8.3.1 Stable length check for high bending moment
MEd
VEd
NEd
=
=
=
319
0
108
kNm
kN
kN
EN1993-1-1
BB3.1.1
NEd /A
Wpl,y
Wpl,y/ A It
Fy/235
=
=
=
=
12.6464
1471cm3
682.96
1.17
52
C1 is dependent on based on the shape of the bending moment
diagram determined from table 6.6
C1 =
1.0
EN 1993-1-1
Table 6.6
This is because the bending moment is approximately uniform

between restraints.
The stable length of the rafter is given by:
Lm =
1703mm
Lm =
=
1565.6
1.207233
1296.83 mm
So 1200mm is acceptable.
8.3.2 Combined Axial and Moment check for Lower Bending

Moments
When bending moment is lower, the purlin spacing can be
increased.
MEd =
294 kNm
VEd =
110 kN
NEd =
119 kN
The critical case is in right hand rafter. Try purlin spacing at 2m
L =1200mm
(acceptable)
53
Check for lateral torsional buckling between purlins.
a) Calculate slenderness
EN1993-1-1
Clause 6.3.2.2
= 0.56193
C1 =1
This is because the bending moment is approximately uniform
between restraints.
EN1993-1-1
Table 6.3
LT = 0.48415
= 0.5[1 + ( - 0.2) + ]
h/b = 2.39
EN 1993-1-1
= 0.5[1 + ( - 0.2) + ]
= 0.666
=
=
1
1.122
0.891
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
54
Nb,Rd =
=
Afy/M1
2092.91 kN
EN 1993-1-1
Mb,Rd =
LT =
LT 0 =
=
LT Wpl,yfy/M1
0.48
0.40
0.75
Clause 6.3
(maximum value)
(maximum value)
but LT 1.0
= 0.5[1 + LT( LT- LT0) + LT ]
= 0.6085
from table 6.3
LT =
0.95
Mb,Rd =
385.44 kNm
EN1993-1-1
Clause
6.3.3(4)
The following simplifications may be made:

1. My,Ed and Mz,Ed equal to zero for class 1
2. no bending minor axis
55
NEd
z NRk
M1
NEd
Nb.Rd
kzy My,Ed
My,Rk
M1
kzy My,Ed
Mb,Rd
EN1993-1-1
Table B.2
EN1993-1-1
Table B.3
>0.4
kzy
1-
0.1
(CmLT - 0.25)
1 (conservative)
CmLT
=
=
0.6 + 0.4
1.0
0.992
kzy
NEd
z NRk
M1
0.4
0.8139< 1.0
Rafter is
stable.
NEd
Nb.Rd
0.8139
kzy My,Ed
Mb,Rd
1.0
ok!
The rafter is stable between intermediate restraints to

compression flange.
Ok!
56
8.4 Buckling between torsional restraints
Where the bottom flange is in compression, the stability must be
checked between torsional restraints.
MEd,H =
MEd,2 =
MEd,3 =
MEd,4 =
MEd,R =
194
74
-28
-116
-189
kNm
kNm
kNm
kNm
kNm
a) calculate slenderness and LT

assume side rail depth = 200mm
EN1993-1-1
BB.3.3
Distance from columns shear centre to centre of side rail,a

a=
326.8 mm
is =
iz + iy + a
=
157965 mm
distance between shear centers of flanges ,hs:

hs
hs
=
=
453.6
440.9
mm
12.7
57
Lt is the length of the beam between points that have lateral restraint
to both flanges.
Lt
=
=
6000
mm
a + (hs / 2)
is
0.98374
the slenderness of the column is given by :
Lt / iz
[ + (It Lt/2.6 Iz is)]^0.5
145.631
1.1003
132.356
=
=
EN1993-1-1
Clause 6.3.1.3
EN1993-1-1
BB3.3.2
1 =
=
93.9
86.388
= 1.53211
Where,
Cn
12
R1 + 3R2 + 4R3 + 3R4 + R5 + 2(Rs-RE)
Rn =
My,Ed, + a NEd
fy Wpl,y
R1=
-0.39827 < 0
omitted
R2=
-0.26231 < 0
omitted
R3=
0.07883 < 0
ok
R4=
0.51638 < 0
ok
R5=
0.78583 < 0
ok
EN1993-1-1
BB3.3.2
58
RE = Max of R1 to R5
RE = 0.78583
Rs is max value of R in the length studied
Rs = 0.78583
Cn = 4.52799
Conservatively,
C =1
EN1993-1-1
Clause 6.3
EN 1993-1-1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
= 0.5[1 + ( - 0.2) + ]
h/b = 2.39
= 0.5[1 + ( - 0.2) + ]
= 1.9
=
=
Nb,Rd =
=
1
3.024
0.331
Nb,Rd =
Afy/M1
776.611 kN
776.61kN

Mb,Rd =
LT =
LT 0 =
=
LT Wpl,yfy/M1
0.19
0.40
0.75
EN 1993-1-1
Clause 6.3
(maximum value)
(maximum value)
59
LT = 0.5[1 + LT( LT- LT0) + LT ]

= 0.4629
from table 6.3
LT =
1.12
Mb,Rd =
452.02 kNm
Mb,Rd =
452.02kNm

EN1993-1-1
Clause
6.3.3(4)
NEd
z NRk
M1
NEd
Nb.Rd
kzy My,Ed
My,Rk
M1
kzy My,Ed
Mb,Rd
>0.4
kzy
1-
0.1
(CmLT - 0.25)
1 (conservative)
NEd
z NRk
M1
60
CmLT
=
=
0.6 + 0.4
1.0
kzy
0.98
NEd
Nb.Rd
0.7578
kzy My,Ed
Mb,Rd
1.0
0.4
ok!
The rafter is stable between intermediate restraints to

compression flange.
0.7578 1.0
Rafter is
stable.
61
Figure 4.1: Portal frame analysis based on EC 3
62
Table 4.2: Portal frame analysis and design to BS5950
1. Frame Geometry
Design Code Based: BS5950
hr
hc
span
Span
Spacing of portal frame
Height of column
Height of rafter
Slope of rafter
= 30
=5
=6
= 1.58
=6
m
m
m
m
degree
2. Loading
The following loads have been selected by reference to BS
6399-3
2.1 Unfactored Loads
Dead loads:
sheeting
=
purlin
=
frame
=
services
=
=
Live loads:
Imposed
loads
=
0.20
0.07
0.11
0.28
0.66
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
BS 648-1964
BS 63990.60 kN/m
3:1998
2.2 Partial safety factors

Partial safety factor are used to increase the reliability of the
structure design, it can be found at BS 5950, Table 2.
Table 1.
BS 5950
Partial safety factors for loads
fd =
=
1.40
fi
=
1.60
Clause 2.4
Table 2.
63
2.3 Load combination,w
The permanent load and variable are applied with correspond
partial safety factor according to BS 5950.
total factored design load, w =
9.42 kN/m
3.0 Preliminary member size determination

3.1 Plastic Analysis
By using plastic collapse mechanism, assume the plastic hinge

are developed at the second purlin and base of the haunch at
column.
at base :
at B :
at C :
1059.75
1059.75
6.78
-(M +
-(M +
-(M +
7.58 x R )
2.13 x R )
0.13 x R )
=
=
=
0
+ Mp
- Mp
solving :
B + C : 1066.53
533.27
at base : 1059.75
- (2M +
-(M +
-(M +
2.25 x R )
1.13 x R )
7.58 x R )
R
=
=
=
=
0
0
0
526.48
6.45
solving the equation will

give :
=
81.57
Mp =
444.948 kNm
M =
441.42 kNm
R =
81.57 kN
Using these values, the assumed position of plastic hinges is
checked to ensure that the assumption is safe. At third purlin
from the apex, the bending moment is :
64
M3 = 27.13
- (M+ 0.2528 x R )
-434.91 kNm
It is found that the moment at third purlin is less than Mp.

Therefore the assumption that the plastic hinge occurs at second
purlin is correct.
By using the haunch at the eave, the size of the rafter can be
reduced, which will increase the value of R up to 25%. By
reducing the size of rafter so that its plastic moment capactiy
only 60% of the capacity of column Mpc, the equations become:
at base :
at B :
at C :
R
=
=
1059.75
1059.75
6.78
-(M +
-(M +
-(M +
7.58 x R )
2.13 x R )
0.13 x R )
=
=
=
0
+Mpc
0.6Mpc
1.2 x 81.58
97.89kN
Solving the equations will give :

R =
97.89 kN
M =
317.75 kNm
Mpc =
533.94 kNm
Mpr =
320.36 kNm
3.2 Member Size Determination

Using steel grade of
Py
= 275 N/mm
the required plastic modulus for rafter is :
Sx =
Mpr
Py
=
1164.96 cm
EN 1993-1-1
clause 6.2.5
rafter:
Sx =
1164.96cm3
therefore select section 457 x 191 x 67UB (1471cm)
the required plastic modulus for column is :

Sx =
Mpc
Py
=
1941.59 cm
therefore select section 533 x 210 x 92UB ( 2366cm)
column:
Sx =
1941.59cm3
65
4.0 Section Properties
4.1 Column
D
=
533.1
B
=
209.3
t
=
10.2
T
=
15.6
b/T
=
6.7
d/t
=
46.7
A
=
117.8
r
=
12.7
As T <
16mm
py = 275 N/mm
4.2 Rafter
D
=
453.6
B
=
189.8
t
=
8.5
T
=
12.7
b/T =
7.5
d/t
=
48.0
A
=
85.4
r
=
10.2
As T <
16mm
py = 275 N/mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
cm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
cm
mm
Ix
Iy
Sx
Zx
rx
ry
d
x
J
H
= 55353 cm
= 2392 cm
= 2366 cm
= 2076 cm
=
21.7 cm
=
4.51 cm
= 476.5 mm
=
36.4
=
76.2 cm
=
1.6 dm
Ix
Iy
Sx
Zx
rx
ry
d
x
J
H
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
29401
1452
1471
1296
18.5
4.12
407.9
37.9
37.1
0.706
cm
cm
cm
cm
cm
cm
mm
cm
dm
BS5950
Clause 3.1
Table 9
66
5.0 Moment Capacity

The moment capacity of both column and rafter will be reduced
slightly because of axial loads. The reduction in moment
capacity is usually ignored at the preliminary design stage.
5.1 Column
axial force, Fc = v = wl/2
= 141.3kN
n =
=
Fc
A py
0.04
span/height to eaves L/h

Rise/span hr/L
Vertical load wL
wL
Mcx
=
=
=
=
=
5.00
0.05
282.60 kN
8478.00 kNm
650.65 kNm
Vol 1
Reduced moment capacity = 0.99 x 650.65

Mrx = 645.44kNm
Therefore, Mrx > Mpc (533.94kNm)
C108
ok!
5.2 Rafter
From the plastic analysis, R is the reaction at base, equal to
horizontal force.
H
V
=
=
97.89kN
141.3kN
axial force, Fc = v = Hcos + Vsin

= 112.12kN
n =
=
Fc
A py
0.05
Mcx
= 404.53 kNm
Reduced moment capacity = 0.99 x 404.53
Mrx = 401.49kNm
Therefore, Mrx > Mpr (320.36kNm)
ok!
Vol 1
C110
67
6.0 Classification of sections with axial load

At the detailed design stage, it is necessary to ensure that the
sections can be classified as plastic cross-sections or Class 1
cross-section.
BS5950
6.1 Column
Clause 3.5
Table 11
= 1.0
Flange Check:
Flange b/T = 6.7
Limiting b/T value for class 1 plastic hinge = 9
= 9.0
since, 6.7 < 9
Then the flange is classified as plastic.
b/T = 6.7
Limiting b/T
= 9.0
6.7 < 9
Web check:
Web d/t
r1
=
=
=
1 + r1
Limiting d/t
BS5950
46.7
Fc
d t pyw
0.106
=
=
=
Clause
3.5.5(a)
1.106
80
1 + r1
72.35
d/t = 46.7
limiting d/t=
72.35
since, 46.7 < 72.35

Then the web is classified as plastic.
46.7 < 72.35
Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic, so the
section can be classified as plastic.
Column is
class 1
section.
68
6.2 Rafter
BS5950
Clause 3.5
= 1.0
Table 11
Flange Check:
Flange b/T = 7.5
Limiting b/T value for class 1 plastic hinge = 9
= 9.0
since, 7.5 < 9
Then the flange is classified as plastic.
b/T = 7.5
Limiting b/T
= 9.0
7.5 < 9
Web check:
Web d/t
r1
=
=
=
1 + r1
Limiting d/t
BS5950
48.0
Fc
d t pyw
0.118
=
=
=
Clause
3.5.5(a)
d/t = 48.0
1.118
80
1 + r1
71.58
limiting d/t =
71.58
48.0 < 71.58
since, 48.0 < 71.58

Then the web is classified as plastic.
Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic, so the
section can be classified as plastic.
Rafter is class
1 section.
69
7.0 In-plane Frame Stability

7.1 Check the geometry of the frame
BS5950
Clause 5.5.4
using sway check method:

a)
5h
L
L 5h
=
=
30
30
ok
m
m
1.58
7.5
ok
m
m
L 5h
b)
hr
=
0.25L
=
hr 0.25L
So, geometry of the frame is satisfied.
7.2 Sway Check method for gravity load.
Where,
Assuming Ds approximately equal to Dh

bh =
=
Lb =
length of haunch
2.98357 m
27.0164 m
=
=
=
(2Ic/Ir)(L/h)
3.77 x 5.0
18.83
Lr
L/cos
30.17
Wr =
=
wL
282.6
kN
Wo =
16 Sx py
L
hr 0.25L
70
=
215.75 kN
= 1.31
Lb/D = 59.56
= 167.96 x 0.82104 x 1.0

= 137.9
Lb/D < 137.9
So the frame is stable under gravity load.
Therefore, the required load factor for frame stability r = 1.0
for gravity load case.
7.3 Sway check method for horizontal loads.
= 14.1 x 0.82 x 1.0

= 11.58
= 1.09
Therefore, for this load case, p must not be less than 1.10. The
actual value of p would depend on the magnitude of the applied
horizontal loads, but generally p would be greater than r.
In this analysis, it is assumed that vertical load case is critical.
Lb/D < 137.9
71
8.0 Layout of purlins and side rails

At this stage, a more detailed assessment of the frame geometry
can be made. It is also useful to determine a layout of purlins
and side rails that can provide restraint to plastic hinges and
adjacent lengths.
the value of the bending moment can be found at any point in

the rafter from the formula:
Mx = VPx -H hx - W Px/2
Where,
Px is the horizontal distance to the point considered
hx is the height of the point considered
hx =h + Pxtan
V is the vertical reaction at the base due to w
H is the horizontal reaction at the base due to w
w is the load per unit length of the frame.
8.1 Determination of the plastic failure load

At the detailed design stage, however, the plastic failure load, w'
will be used instead of the applied factored loading, w.
Assume that the plastic hinges are located in the column at the
bottom of the eaves haunch and in the rafters.
From plastic analysis, plastic hinges at the second purlin from
the ridge at the rafter.
Moment in the rafter at second purlin point:
M2 = V'Lx - H'hx -w'Lx/2
72
and the moment in the column:

MB
= H'(h-Dh-Ds/2)
Where,
w is the collapse load
V and H are the reaction at the base due to w
At the point of collapse, the moment M2 and MB must be equal
to the reduced moment capacities of the rafter and column
sections provided.
Thus,
M2 =
MB =
401.491 kNm
645.44 kNm
Lx
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
hx
H'
V'
13.700
13.625
6+1.432
7.432
118.332
w'L/2
15
cos
m
m
kN
w'
Substituting given:
M2 = 15 w x 13.625 879.441 w x 92.81
M2 = Mrx
= 401.49kNm
Solved:
w = 11.48kN/m
w =
11.48kN/m
the corresponding base reactions are:

H'
=
118.33 kN
V'
=
172.24 kN
p =
=
w'
w
1.22
Collapse load factor > r
p > r
ok
ok!
73
8.2 Column Stability
The hinge position will be torsionally restrained by the provision

of a rafter stay at the base of the haunch.
8.2.1 Eaves Region

BS 5950-1:2000 Clause 5.3.3(a) is used to check the length
between restraints at side rails. Assume restraint is provided at B
and C by means of column stays.
BS5950
Limiting length Lm is given by:
Fc
=
=
Clause 5.3.3
V
A
14.62N/mm2
Lm =
1608.78mm
= 1608.78mm
Thus, the length of 1300mm from the plastic hinge position at
side rail B to the column stay at side rail C is stable.
Length =
1300mm
1300< 1608
ok
74
8.2.2 Mid-height region away from plastic hinge

There is no plastic hinge in the length between C and base and a
restraint to the compression flange has been provided at side rail
B by means of a column stay.
For external columns, the relevant check is for out-of-plane
buckling only, because in-plane member stability is already
satisfied by checking the in-plane stability of the frame.
Check the lateral stability of column height between C and base.
Fc +
Pcy
mLT MLT
Clause 4.8.3.2
Mb
MLT = moment at side rail C

= 524.26kNm
Fc = V = 172.24kN
mLT = 0.6
Pz = Ag Py
= 157 x 275
= 4317.5kN
for =0
Table 18
Fc/Pz = 0.04
LEY
LE
=
=
=
4.15 m
4.15 m
92.09
refer to table 23 and 24:

Pcy
=
159.16 x 10-1 x 157
=
2498.81 kN
Mb
=
401.49 kNm
Fc +
Pcy
mLT MLT
Table 23
Table 24
Mb
0.0689 + 0.7835 1
0.8524 1
Therefore, no further column restraints are required between side rails
C and base.
0.8524 1
stable
75
8.3 Rafter Stability

8.3.1 Eaves Region
Provided the geometrical limitations are complied with, the
spacing Ly between restraints to the compression flange should
not exceed the limiting spacing Ls.
For S 275
BS 5950
Clause 5.3.4
ry and x for the unhaunched section (rafter)

Dh/Ds is approximately equal to 1, then K1 = 1.25
= 2533.93mm
Ls
The length of the haunch is 3000mm, this is greater than Ls, and
therefore an additional stay at purlin 2 would be required.
=2533.9mm
76
8.3.2 Apex Region

The plastic hinge formed at second purlin 1.2m from the apex.
The hinge must be torsionally restrained at both flanges.
The next lateral restraint to the compression flange must not
exceed Lm.
Limiting length Lm is given by:
Clause 5.3.5
Third purlin :
Lx = 12.23m
Vx = Hcos + Vsin Lx wsin
= 97.32kN
Fc
=
=
V
A
15.15
N/mm2
Lm =
= 1414.58mm
Thus, the length of 1200mm from the plastic hinge position at
side rail B to the column stay at side rail C is stable.
1414.58mm
77
4.2
Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950
The design steps between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 have obvious differences.
Once comparing the design steps between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950, the design steps
of portal frame based on Eurocode 3 are more tedious.
Eurocodes 3 put all
possibilities into consideration while BS 5950 does not. Many of the differences will
be discussed more detailed below.
4.2.1 Axes
The axes convention between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 is different. EN 19931-1, Clause 1.7 and figure 1.1 show the conventions for member axes. All rules in
Eurocode relate to principal axis properties, which are generally defined by the axes
y-y and z-z. In contrast, BS 5950 defined related principal axis properties by axes xx and y-y.
In Eurocode, the convention for member axes is x-x along the member, y-y
for the cross section and z-z for axis of the cross section. For steel members, the
conventions used for the cross section axes are y-y (cross-section axis parallel to the
flanges) and z-z (cross-section axis perpendicular to the flanges).
4.2.2
Partial Safety Factors
Eurocode 3 use partial safety factor M to decrease resistance and partial

safety factor of G and Q to increase loads. This is quite different from BS 5950
which use partial safety factor of fd and fi and there are no using of partial safety
factor for resistance. In term of partial safety factor to increase load, BS 5950 use
bigger value compared to Eurocode 3.
78
4.2.3 Load Combinations
In Eurocode 3, it takes all possibilities into consideration. In principle, EC 3

requires that all variable actions (live loads, wind loads etc.) are considered in the
same load combination. EC 3 also uses a reduction factor on all variable action.
In contrast, BS 5950 use simple load combination compared to Eurocode 3.

BS 5950 uses one set of load factors for load combination (dead load + live load), but
a lower load factor for dead + live + wind loads.
4.2.4 Second-Order Effects Consideration
EC 3 requires that second-order effects are explicitly considered in analysis,

either by second-order effect analysis or thru modifications to first order analysis.
This is because the stability of a frame as a whole is affected by the slenderness of
the members, because second-order effects of axial compression increase the
deflections, moments and forces.
BS 5950 uses sway check method to determine the stiffness. It the stiffness is
too low, it has to be increased. If the stiffness is above a certain limit, second-order
effects are ignored.
4.3
Comparison of Results between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950
Portal frame design for both EC 3 and BS 5950 are using the same frame
geometry and unfactored loads.
This can improve the reliability of these
comparisons. At first, portal frame design in EC 3 and BS 5950 are compared in

term of material or more accurately in term of size using.
79
There are several sets of portal frame design are done in order to see the
differences more clearly. Those sets of portal frame design are varied in span, slope
angle and height of column which are tabulated as shown below.
Table 4.3: Portal frame geometry varied in span

No. Span f portal frame
slope
Height of column
1.
30m
6o
6m
2.
40m
6o
6m
3.
50m
6o
6m
4.
60m
6o
6m
Table 4.4: Portal frame geometry varied in slope angle

No. Span f portal frame
slope
Height of column
1.
30m
6o
6m
2.
30m
8o
6m
3.
30m
10o
6m
4.
30m
12o
6m
The loading used in these two standard codes are just the same. The wind
load and snow load are excluded in this design for simplicity. Only maximum load
combination is considered. The loading used are shown in table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Unfactored loads

sheeting
purlin
frame
services
Live load
=
=
=
=
=
0.20
0.07
0.11
0.28
0.66
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
80
4.3.1 Column
From the previous, several sets of portal frame geometry are set to see the
differences of portal frame design based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950. The column is
pinned base for this design.
The column size will be compared because this is the outcome of portal frame
design to determine which is more cost saving. Bigger column size will be more
expensive compared with smaller size.
When the span of portal frames increasing, the required plastic modulus is
increasing as shown in Figure 4.2. This is because the bending moment developed on
it is increased.
Table 4.6: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for plastic modulus
Span of portal
Plastic modulus, cm3
frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
30m
1845.75
1941.59
40m
3100.46
3261.72
50m
4570.41
4807.23
60m
6204.84
6527.04
Table 4.7: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for column size
Span of portal
Column size
frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
30m
533 x 210 x 92UB (2366cm3 )
533 x 210 x 92UB ( 2366cm)
40m
610 x 229 x 125UB (3677 cm3 ) 610 x 229 x 125UB ( 3677cm)
50m
686 x 254 x 152UB ( 4977cm) 762 x 267 x 147UB ( 5174cm)
60m
838 x 292 x 176UB ( 6809cm) 762 x 267 x 197UB ( 7167cm)
81
Required plastic modulus of column

7000
6000
plastic modulus, cm
5000
4000
BS
3000
EC 3
2000
1000
0
30
40
50
60
span of portal frame, m
Figure 4.2: Required plastic modulus of column based on EC 3 and BS 5950
Table 4.8: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for shear capacity
Span of portal
Shear capacity, kN
frame
Eurocode 3, Vpl,Rd
BS 5950, Pv
30m
771.68
897.21
40m
1033.87
1157.78
50m
1288.91
1546.32
60m
1693.11
1908.92
82
Table 4.9: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for moment capacity
Span of portal
Moment capacity, kNm
frame
Eurocode 3, Mpl,Rd
BS 5950, Mc
30m
650.65
650.65
40m
1011.18
974.41
50m
1374.18
1371.11
60m
1872.48
1899.26
When the span of portal frame are increasingly longer, it is observed that the
shear capacity of column are increasing as shown in Figure 4.4 and moment capacity
also behave the same way of shear capacity as shown in Figure 4.3. The difference of
Shear capacity between EC 3 and BS 5950 are obvious, shear capacity of BS 5950
are higher than EC 3. This is because the size using based on BS 5950 design is
bigger than the size using based on EC 3.
2000
Moment capacity of column
1800
moment capacity, kNm
1600
1400
1200
1000
Mpl,Rd
800
Mc
600
400
200
0
30
40
50
60
Figure 4.3: Moment capacity of column based on EC 3 and BS 5950
83
Shear Capacity of Column
2500
shear capacity of column, kN
2000
1500
Vpl,Rd
1000
Pv
500
0
30
40
50
60
Figure 4.4: Shear capacity of column based on EC 3 and BS 5950
Slope angle of
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
6o
1845.75
1941.59
8o
1779.79
1872.21
10o
1716.10
1805.21
12o
1654.70
1740.62
84
Table 4.11: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for column size
Slope angle of
Column size
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
533 x 210 x 92UB (2366cm )
533 x 210 x 92UB ( 2366cm)
8o
457 x 191 x 98UB (2232 cm3 )
533 x 210 x 92UB ( 2366cm)
10o
457 x 191 x 98UB (2232 cm3 )
457 x 191 x 98UB (2232 cm3 )
12o
457 x 191 x 89UB (2014cm)
457 x 191 x 98UB (2232 cm3 )
Slope angle of
Shear capacity, kN
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Vpl,Rd
BS 5950, Pv
6o
771.68
897.21
8o
738.30
897.21
10o
738.30
847.21
12o
686.49
847.21
Slope angle of
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Mpl,Rd
BS 5950, Mc
6o
650.65
650.65
8o
613.80
650.65
10o
613.80
591.48
12o
553.85
591.48
85
4.3.2
Rafter
From the previous, several sets of portal frame geometry are set to see the
differences of portal frame design based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950. The rafter is
the beam section with certain slope. The rafter size will be compared because this is
the outcome of portal frame design to determine which is more cost saving. Bigger
beam size required will be more expensive compared with smaller beam size.
Span of portal frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
30m
1107.45
1164.96
40m
1860.28
1957.03
50m
2742.24
2884.34
60m
3722.91
3916.22
Table 4.15: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for rafter size
Span of portal
Rafter size
frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
30m
457 x 191 x 67UB (1471cm)
457 x 191 x 67UB (1471cm)
40m
457 x 191 x 89UB (2010cm)
457 x 191 x 98UB (2232cm)
50m
533 x 210 x 122UB (3203cm)
533 x 210 x 122UB (3203cm)
60m
610 x 229 x 140UB (4146cm)
610 x 305 x 149UB (4572cm)
required plastic modulus of rafter are increasing as shown in Figure 4.5 and the
required plastic modulus based on BS 5950 are always larger than EC3. This is
because the partial safety factors of BS 5950 are slightly bigger value than EC 3.
86
4500
4000
Required plastic modulus of

rafter
plastic modulus, cm
3500
3000
2500
2000
EC3
1500
BS
1000
500
0
30
40
50
60
Figure 4.5: Required plastic modulus of rafter based on EC 3 and BS 5950
shear capacity of rafter are increasing as shown in Figure 4.6 and moment capacity
also behave the same way of shear capacity as shown in Figure 4.7. The difference of
Shear capacity between EC 3 and BS 5950 are obvious, this is because when the
span of portal frame are long, and column height are not typical for the span of portal
frame, the axial load on the rafter are much bigger.
Span of portal
Shear capacity, kN
frame
Eurocode 3, Vpl,Rd
BS 5950, Pv
30m
550.48
636.17
40m
686.49
847.21
50m
877.59
1108.37
60m
1138.12
1153.42
87
Span of portal
frame
Eurocode 3, Mpl,Rd
BS 5950, Mc
30m
404.52
404.52
40m
552.75
591.48
50m
830.83
848.80
60m
1140.15
1211.58
shear capacity of rafter

1400
1200
Shear Capacity, kN
1000
800
Pv
600
Vpl,Rd
400
200
0
30
40
50
60
Figure 4.6: Shear capacity of rafter based on EC 3 and BS 5950
88
Moment Capacity of rafter

1400
1200
MOment Capacity, kN
1000
800
Mc
600
Mpl,Rd
400
200
0
30
40
50
60
Figure 4.7: Moment capacity of rafter based on EC 3 and BS 5950
89
Beside comparing BS 5950 and EC 3 in varies portal frame span, comparison
also be made in varies slope angle to look the effects and differences of BS 5950 and
EC 3. As Table 4.18 shown, the required plastic modulus in both BS 5950 and EC 3
are decreasing when increasing the slope angle of rafter. This is because, when the
slope angle increased. The axial load on the rafter is transferred to column, the
moment developed will be more equally divided to both rafter and column.
Slope angle of
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
6o
1107.45
1164.96
8o
1067.87
1123.32
10o
1029.66
1083.13
992.818
1044.37
12
Table 4.19: Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 for rafter size
Slope angle of
Rafter size
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Wpl,y
BS 5950, Sx
6o
457 x 191 x 67UB (1471 cm3 )
457 x 191 x 67UB (1471 cm3 )
8o
457 x 152 x 60UB (1284 cm3 )
457 x 191 x 67UB (1471 cm3 )
10o
457 x 152 x 60UB (1284 cm3 )
406 x 178 x 67UB (1346 cm3 )
12o
457 x 152 x 60UB (1284 cm3 )
406 x 178 x 67UB (1346 cm3 )
Slope angle of
Shear capacity, kN
portal frame
Eurocode 3, Vpl,Rd
BS 5950, Pv
6o
550.48
636.17
8o
517.85
636.17
10o
517.85
594.45
12o
517.85
594.45
90
Slope angle of
portal frame
4.4

Eurocode 3, Mpl,y
BS 5950, Mc
404.53
404.53
8o
353.10
404.53
10o
353.10
370.15
12o
353.10
370.15
Changing of Design Parameter based on EC 3
To observe the effects of design parameter of portal frame design, several sets
have been done in order to look at the changing effects.
The chosen design
parameters are span of portal frame, slope angle of rafter and height of the column.
Table 4.22: Span of portal frame in varying values

No.
Span of portal
frame(m)
1.
30
2.
40
3.
50
4.
60
Table 4.23: Slope angle of rafter in varying values

No.
Slope angle (o)
1.
2.
3.
10
4.
12
91
4.4.1
Comparison Results in Varying Span
When the span of portal frame increase, the axial, shear forces and moment
developed over the portal frame will be changed. To look at the effects of these
changes, the portal frames are designed in different span.
Table 4.24: Plastic modulus of portal frame in increasing span

Span of portal
Plastic modulus (Wpl,y), cm3
frame
Column
Rafter
30m
1845.75
1164.96
40m
3100.46
1957.03
50m
4570.41
2884.34
60m
6204.84
3916.22
Table 4.25: Design plastic shear resistance of portal frame in increasing span
Span of portal
Shear capacity (Vpl,Rd), kN
frame
Column
Rafter
30m
771.68
550.48
40m
1033.87
686.49
50m
1288.91
877.59
60m
1693.11
1138.12
Table 4.26: Design plastic normal forces resistance in increasing span

Span of
Axial Capacity (Npl,Rd), kN
portal frame
Column
Rafter
30m
3239.5
2348.5
40m
4389.0
3132.5
50m
5329.5
4284.5
60m
6172.5
4906.0
92
Table 4.27: Design buckling resistance of a compression member in increasing span
Span of
Compression buckling resistance (Nb,Rd ), kN
portal frame
Column
Rafter
30m
3084.09
2092.91
40m
4236.02
2636.29
50m
5219.67
3779.77
60m
6097.18
4151.79
Table 4.28: Design buckling resistance moment in increasing span

Span of
Compression buckling resistance moment
portal frame
(Mb,Rd ), kNm
Column
Rafter
30m
705.92
385.44
40m
1110.15
492.68
50m
1530.43
829.05
60m
2107.62
1022.49
93
4.4.2
Comparison Results in Varying Slope Angle
When the slope of portal frame increase, the axial, shear forces and moment
developed over the portal frame will be changed. To look at the effects of these
changes, the portal frames are designed in different slope angle. As you can see,
when the slope angle of rafter is increase, the required plastic modulus of rafter
Table 4.29: Plastic modulus of portal frame in increasing slope

Slope angle (o)
Plastic modulus (Wpl,y), cm3

Column
Rafter
1845.75
1107.45
1779.79
1067.87
10
1716.10
1029.66
12
1654.70
992.818
Table 4.30: Design plastic shear resistance of portal frame in increasing slope
Slope angle (o)
Shear capacity (Vpl,Rd ), kN

Column
Rafter
771.68
550.48
738.30
517.85
10
738.30
517.85
12
686.49
517.85
Table 4.31: Design plastic normal forces resistance in increasing slope

Slope angle (o)
Axial capacity Npl,Rd, kN

Column
Rafter
3239.50
2348.50
3445.75
2087.25
10
3445.75
2087.25
12
3132.25
2087.25
94
Table 4.32: Design buckling resistance of a compression member in increasing slope
Slope angle of
Compression buckling resistance,
portal frame
(Nb,Rd), kN
Column
Rafter
3084.09
2092.91
3262.29
1712.69
10
3262.29
1712.69
12
2691.18
1712.69
Table 4.33: Design buckling resistance moment in increasing slope
4.5
Slope angle
Compression buckling resistance moment,
of portal
(Mb,Rd), kNm
frame
Column
Rafter
705.92
385.44
664.07
306.05
10
664.07
306.05
12
598.27
306.05
Discussion of Results
For the portal frame design, portal frame span give a great influence on both
column and rafter design of portal frame. As span increasing, bigger size of rafter
and column will be required for the portal frame design. Portal frame design based
on Eurocode 3 or BS 5950 with an increasing span give a larger required value of
plastic modulus. Thru comparison made between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, it is
observed that the required plastic modulus, strength of elements (columns and rafters)
calculated using BS 5950 is always higher compared to the value calculated from
Eurocode 3. This is because, Eurocode 3 include all possibilities in design.
95
For span increasing, the load carried by the rafter will be too big if compared
to column. When increasing portal frame span, portal frame design should use
higher value of column.
When changing design parameter of portal frame design such as slope angle
of rafter, it is observed that the required plastic modulus is decreasing as the slope
angle increase. When both of the portal frame design based on Eurocode 3 and BS
5950 are being compared, you can see clearly that the portal frame design based on
Eurocode 3 always required smaller size of column and rafter. Strength developed
based on Eurocode 3 also smaller than the value gained from the portal frame design
based on BS 5950.
For this project, column and rafter design carried out with adequate size
according to the required plastic modulus. The comparison between BS 5950 and
EC 3 shows that portal frame design based on BS 5950 always required bigger size
of column and rafter. In short, Eurocode 3 is more economical in term of material
because it required smaller size of column and rafter while BS 5950 required bigger
size.
The higher required plastic modulus of column and rafter size based on BS
5950 and Eurocode 3 is because of the different consideration in the design and also
the different type of formulae used in calculation. The required plastic modulus of
column and rafter is calculated using formula shown as below based on types of
standard used in design.
Table 4.34: Required plastic modulus formula

Required plastic modulus
Section
Eurocode 3,Wpl,y (cm3)
Column
Wpl =
Rafter
Wpl =
Mpr x M0
fy
Mpr x M0
fy
BS 5950,Sx (cm3)
Sx =
Sx =
Mc
Py
Mc
Py
96
From the table, Eurocode 3 is using M0 while it does not use in BS 5950.
However, in this portal frame design the value of M0 is one which means that this is
not influencing the required plastic modulus value.
The factors influence required plastic modulus of column and rafter is

because the partial safety factor and horizontal equivalent forces used in Eurocode
and BS 5950 is different.
Table 4.35: Partial safety factor based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950

Partial safety factor
Section
load
resistance
Eurocode 3
G
Q
MO
M1
=
=
=
=
BS 5950
fd
fi
1.35
1.50
1.00
1.00
=
=
1.40
1.60
-
Table 4.36: Shear capacity formula based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950

Partial safety factor
Section
Eurocode 3
BS 5950
Column
Vpl,Rd
Av (fy/3)/M0
Pv = py Av
Rafter
Vpl,Rd
Av (fy/3)/M0
Pv = py Av
In general, we could summarize that Eurocode 3 is more economical, where

the column and rafter size are smaller based on calculation and the strength
developed is adequate to sustain the load developed. However, the differences are
not significant, since the general approach of BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 is essentially
the same. By using Eurocode 3 in design, you can understand well with all the
considerations are taken into calculation while using BS 5950 in design, the design
steps are simpler and the result came out are almost the same.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Conclusion
In conclusion, the objectives of this study have been achieved. Design guide
of portal frame based on Eurocode has been figured out and compared with portal
frame design based on BS 5950 in term of material. Besides, portal frame design
parameters have been varied in order to determine the effects of design parameters
on the portal frame design. This study set several portal frame geometries such as
increasing value of slope angle of rafter, increasing value of span and increasing
value of rafter to determine those changing effects on portal frame design.
When increasing the value of portal frames span, the required plastic
modulus of column and rafter will become larger in corresponding to the larger
portal frames span. In the same time, shear capacity and axial capacity of both
column and rafter also increase. Therefore, it observed that longer span of portal
frame required larger size of column and rafter and the stability of the portal frame
are become critical.
Furthermore, increasing the value of rafter slope angle, the required plastic
modulus of column and rafter will become smaller. In the same time, shear capacity
and axial capacity of both column and rafter also decrease. Therefore, it observed
that smaller size of column and rafter with an higher rafter angle. However, the
effects are not significant.
98
In short, portal frame design based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 are almost the
same. Eurocode 3 contribute to a more conservative design, size required are smaller
which can help to cut down the material cost as well as the construction cost. In
contrast, BS 5950 always required the larger size of column and rafter for portal
frame design. Therefore, design based on BS 5950 is less economical.
5.2
Recommendation
The design method based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 both different result of
portal frame design.
In this study, wind load are excluded from the load
combinations. Therefore, the overall design of portal frame was not considering the
existence of wind load. However, there is the need to include wind load in portal
frame design as wind load combination is always exist in structural design.
Therefore, for future recommendation, the design of portal frame can include
the consideration of wind load combination as wind load does affect the strength of
structural buildings.
Besides, the design of portal frame can be based on semi-rigid method which
is more realistic and practical. Semi-rigid based portal frame give different impact at
the base with different bending moments and shear force.
For future
recommendation, study about semi-rigid based portal frame to give different

conclusion if compared to pinned based portal frame.
Lastly, semi-rigid portal frame with wind load consideration is more complex
in design and the studies of semi-rigid connection will require the use of software.
99
REFERENCES
Bill, W. Plastic Analysis and Design of Steel Structure. London: Elsevier

Butterworth-Heinemann. 2009
Davies, J. M. and Brown, B. A. Plastic Design to BS5950. Great Britain: The Steel
Construction Institute and Blackwell Science. 1996Lam
Dennis, Ang Thien-Cheong and Chiew Sing-Ping. Structural Steelwork: Design to
Limit State Theory.3rd edition. Great Britain: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann. 2004
Gardner L. and Nethercot D.A. Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures general rules and rules for building. Great Britain:
The Steel Construction Institute. 2007
King, C. M. Design of Steel Portal Frame for Europe. Silwood Park: The Steel
Construction Institute. 2001
Mahmood Md. Tahir, Sahrin Mohamad and Mohd. Hanim Osman. Steelwork Design
Guide to BS 5950-1:2000. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malayisa. 2010
Martin, L. H., Purkiss, J.A. Structural Design of Steelwork to EN1993 and EN1994.
3rd edition. Great Britain: Butterworth-Heinemann. 2008
Morris, L.J. and Plum, D.R. Structural Steelwork Design to BS 5950. 2nd edition.
Malaysia. Prentice Hall. 1996
Steel Designers Manual. Steel Construction Institute and Blackwell Science. 2003
Yusof bin Ahmad. Lecture Notes Structural Analysis. English edition, Version 2,
NIDA. 2009
100
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Figure 4.8: Analysis of portal frame with 30 m span
101
APPENDIX B
102
APPENDIX C
103
APPENDIX D
104
APPENDIX E
Figure 4.12: Analysis of portal frame with 8o slope angle
105
APPENDIX F
106
APPENDIX G

GohKerShin AA070057d11ttt

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

GohKerShin AA070057d11ttt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

Authors full name :

GOH KER SHIN

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PINNED BASE PORTAL FRAME TO

I declare that this thesis is classified as :

(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

(Contains restricted information as specified by the

I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

Name of Supervisor : ASSOC. PROF. DR. ARIZU SULAIMAN

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PINNED BASE PORTAL FRAME TO

GOH KER SHIN

Faculty of Civil Engineering

GOH KER SHIN

First of all, I would like to say my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Dr.

Besides, thousand of thanks go to my friends, they give me some opinions

Lastly, I also would like to express my grateful to my parents for mentally

Portal frame analysis and design based on Eurocode 3 is presented in this

However, the differences between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 are

significant. Therefore, portal frame design based on BS 5950 is recommended as the

Analisis dan rekabentuk kerangka portal menggunakan Eurocode 3

Walaubagaimanapun, perbezaan antara BS 5950 dan

Eurocode 3 tidak begitu ketara.

Oleh sebab itu, rekabentuk kerangka portal

mengguanakn BS 5950 memadai kerana langkah rekabentuknya yang lebih mudah.

2.2.1 Design Concept of EC 3

2.2.1.1 Ultimate Limit State

2.2.1.2 Serviceability Limit State

Design Concept of BS 5950

2.3.1.2 Serviceability Limit State

2.4.1 Types of Portal Frame

2.4.2 Single-Storey Structure

Flat Roof Systems

Pitched Roof Systems

Types of Portal Frame Based on Connection

2.6.1 Simple Portal Frame

2.6.2 Rigid Portal Frame

2.6.3 Semi-Rigid Portal Frame

Columns and Rafters

Haunches and Other Connections

2.9.1 Plastic Analysis Method

Principles of Plastic Analysis

2.9.2 Elastic Analysis

2.9.3 First-Order and Second-Order Analysis

2.10.1 Member Stability

2.10.2 Frame Stability

Design Procedure for Portal Frame

Change of Portal Frame Span and Slope Angle

Portal Frame Design with Microsoft Excel Worksheets

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Comparison between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950

Partial Safety Factors

Second-Order Effects Consideration

Comparison of Results between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 78

Changing of Design Parameter based on EC3

Comparison Results in Varying Span

Comparison Results in Varying Slope Angle

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Design procedures to Eurocode 3

Portal frame analysis and design to Eurocode 3

Portal frame analysis and design to BS 5950

Portal frame geometry varied in span

Portal frame geometry varied in slope angle