© IJCIRAS

May 2018 | Vol. 1 Issue. 1

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SECTIONS USED IN

INDUSTRIAL ROOF TRUSS AND PORTAL FRAME
Nischay S. Patel1, Dr. Dhara Shah2
1U.G. Student, Faculty of Technology, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
2Assistant Professor, Faculty of Technology, CEPT University, Ahmedabad

Abstract
There are two types of roofing systems for any
industrial building, truss system or portal frame.
There is a vast difference in design of both systems
and in materials. This study is to find the best
possible option for constructing an industrial roof
system efficiently. Even in both systems, there are
options for building them with different materials.
Truss systems are build using angle sections, square
and rectangle hollow sections. Portal frames are
build using built up box sections and I-beams. This
study is also about to decide the sufficient economic
material for truss and portal frame. I think due to
the profile of the hollow sections, dead weight is
likely to reduce for many structural members, which
derives overall economy. And for any industrial
roofing system, most critical part is the cost of
materials. For proper effectiveness, four spans
considered, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m & 25 m. All the
trusses and portals designed for these four spans,
and then material consumptions calculated. For
designing, IS800:2007, IS875:1987 & Staad software
used. Software calculations compared with manual
calculations for justification. After this study, we
can conclude the best efficient system about total
material consumptions. For materials of portal
frames, built up box sections are 116% heavier than
ISMB sections. In truss system, using square hollow
sections, we can get a saving of 77% rather than
angle sections. Portal frames are 148% heavy to
truss systems. The best option for roofing system is
to build truss system with square hollow sections as
material for 10 m to 25 m spans.
Keyword: Truss System, Portal Frame, Hollow Steel
Sections, STAAD PRO V8i, IS800-2007
1.Introduction
Industrial buildings are flat steel structures
characterized by their low height, without interior
floors and walls with large open spaces. Whenever the
roof system for this building is truss or gantry with
appropriate roofing. The most important components
of an industrial building are strips, beams, trusses,
columns. The elements used in the steel reinforcement
system are usually angles, double angles, channels,
double C channels, square hollow sections (SHS),
rectangular hollow sections (RHS), circular hollow
sections (CHS). cold-formed steels. Gantries are
generally flat structures consisting of vertical columns
and beams of horizontal or inclined beams.
Resistance to lateral and vertical effects due to
the stiffness of the joints and the bending stiffness of
the limbs. They are very effective for surrounding large
areas; Therefore, they are often used for industrial
applications, storerooms, retail and commercial and
agricultural purposes. The hollow sections form the
most efficient sections for some of the structural
elements. Wide span ceiling beams with hollow profiles
have a lower dead weight and are multiply R.C.C. The
columns can even be replaced by masonry columns,
which allow considerable savings.
Advantages and Disadvantages:
1. These have small self-weights. Also because of
direct connections, gusset plates are eliminated
further reducing dead loads.
2. They have uniform radius of gyration and for the
same weight their torsional strength is more than
any other rolled section.

IJCIRAS1003 WWW.IJCIRAS.COM 9
 © IJCIRAS
May 2018 | Vol. 1 Issue. 1

3. For the same load the surface area of a tube is
about 60 to 70% of that for other rolled sections.
Also, because of less surface area considerable
economy is achieved in maintenance, painting and
fire proofing.
to be prudent. Add up to cost sparing is 36%. Basic
Structural Member having bigger unsupported lengths
can be relegated tubular segments will infer general
economy.

4. The change in the load with the floor levels can be D. Design and Comparison of Steel Roof Truss with
accommodated by varying the thickness and the Tubular Section
external tube dimension may be maintained.

2.Literature Review In this research paper, different configuration of steel

A. The Economic and Structural Analysis of Hollow
Structural Sections
The investigation point is to think about the
quality(strength) and prudent correlation of hollow
structural to the ordinary areas in trusses. This
additionally covers the upsides of hollow areas in its
viability to limiting general cost and change in stylish
esteem. Author inferred that, the Hollow Steel Sections
are fundamental structure is more proficient at that
point Open Steel Sections because of its properties like
Smooth Surface Finish, High Strength to Weight Ratio,
High Torsional Resistance, Free from Sharp Edges, and
so forth. At the point when Conventional Sections are
supplanted by Hollow Sections, saving in steel is of
least 20 – 30%.
roof trusses, such as Howe type, Fan type, Fink Fan
type, and N-type with different span has 9m, 12m,
15m, 18m and 21m, with varying slopes like 12, 14 and
16 degrees with different wind zones, different spacing
have been analyzed and design as per SP: 38 and IS:
800-2007 by using tubular section and angular section.
The results are compared in terms of weight and steel
saving is calculated. The conclusion made by the
authors is, after the study of literature review,
consuming proper choice of materials, the building can
be cost-effective. When large area to be covered, more
unsupported length is required, tubular section which
will be find overall economy. The tubular steel sections
are structurally more efficient than conventional
section because its resistance of torsional is very high
and high strength to weight ratio.

B. Design & Evaluation of Various Types of

Industrial Buildings
The steel lattice construction with pipe section and PEB
is economically compared with steel latticework with
angle cutting. The comparison also shows that the
weight of a single grid with angle and tube is smaller
compared to PEB, but due to the weight of the fault,
the weight of the steel net is greater.

C. Assessment between Conventional (Angular)

Steel Section and Tubular Steel Section
In this Research paper, the examination is tied in with
outlining parts(Designing) of roof truss by regular point
areas and tubular segments. Looking at the favorable
circumstances utilizing the angle edge and tubular
segments, as tubular areas are more conservative and
proficient. The examination and design study are done
for regular angle edge areas, tubular segments and
steel sparing is figured for all segments. The authors'
investigation uncovers that; tubular segments turns out

IJCIRAS1003 WWW.IJCIRAS.COM 10
 © IJCIRAS
May 2018 | Vol. 1 Issue. 1

3. CASE FORMULATION
Assumptions:

• Location = Ahmedabad • Spacing of truss = 6 m

• Roofing Sheet = G.I. Sheet (5 mm Thk.) • Height to the eves = 6 m
• Purlin Spacing = 1.4 m • Pitch Angle = 20˚
• Purlin Spacing (from ends) = 0.15 m • Bay Spacing = 1.32 m (below purlins)
• Shed length = 48 m • Width of truss = 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, 25 m

Figure 1 10 m Truss Case Figure 2 10 m Portal Frame

Load Combinations:

All combinations are derived from CL-3.5.1 & 5.3.3, Table-4, Pg-29, IS800:2007

(1) DL+(1) LL (1.5) DL+(1.5) WL

(1) DL+(1) WL (1.2) DL+(1.2) LL+(1.2) WL

(1) DL+(0.8) LL+(0.8) WL (1.2) DL+(1.2) LL+(0.6) WL

(1.5) DL+(1.5) LL (0.9) DL+(1.5) LL

4. ANALYSIS
Truss Cases, Axial Forces:
For the Load case, (0.9) Dead Load + (1.5) Wind Load, the acting load is highest in all other cases, and we get maximum
axial forces for that case only. In following figure, Red hatch shows compression and Blue hatch shows tension.

Figure 3 Axial Forces of 10 m span truss Figure 4 10 m Truss Case Beam no.

Member Design:
Design for Compression:
The design compressive strength of a member Pd is given by, Pd = Ae * fcd

Where, Ae = Sectional area of member, fcd = Design compressive stress.

IJCIRAS1003 WWW.IJCIRAS.COM 11
 © IJCIRAS
May 2018 | Vol. 1 Issue. 1

Design for Tension:

The design strength of members under axial tension, Tdg, as governed by yielding of gross section, is given by, Tdg = Ag
* fy / γmo

Where, fy = yield stress of material, Ag = gross area of cross section, γmo = partial safety factor for failure in tension by
yielding, 1.1 (as per Table-5, IS800:2007)

Member Max. Axial Load Carrying Capacity Utilization Ratio Max. Utl Ratio Section
No. Utl (Staad) Used
Comp. Tens. Comp. (kN) Tens. Comp. Tens.
Ratio
(kN) (kN) (kN)
Bottom 172 123 202.404 385.527 0.850 0.319 0.850 0.829 60x60x6
LD
Top 113 154 133.138 320.145 0.849 0.481 0.849 0.839 50x50x6
LD
29 53.3 35.3 69.383 244.055 0.768 0.145 0.768 0.755 75x75x6
14, 28 25.9 43.9 34.998 192.764 0.740 0.228 0.740 0.73 60x60x6
9, 23 19.2 11.3 29.894 142.882 0.642 0.079 0.642 0.928 45x45x6
13, 27 21.3 36 30.454 160.073 0.699 0.225 0.699 0.689 50x50x6
10, 24 8.03 7.74 10.311 63.409 0.779 0.122 0.779 0.763 25x25x5
12, 26 18.5 31.3 28.177 142.882 0.657 0.219 0.657 0.645 45x45x6
11, 25 0 0 32.838 63.409 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 25x25x5
Portal Frame case:
10 m Section Used Design Carrying Utilization
Load Capacity (kN) Ratio
Section Used Design Carrying Utilization
(kN)
Load Capacity (kN) Ratio
ISMC 300 FR 169.138 220.232 0.768
(kN)
ISMC 150 FR 44.94 55.141 0.815 ISMB 400 169.138 232.332 0.728
ISMB 200 44.94 50.780 0.885
25 m
15 m Section Used Design Carrying Utilization
Load Capacity (kN) Ratio
Section Used Design Carrying Utilization
(kN)
Load Capacity (kN) Ratio
ISMC 400 FR 286.404 409.149 0.700
(kN)
ISMC 225 FR 92.77 124.859 0.743 ISMB 500 286.404 411.500 0.696
ISMB 300 92.77 130.295 0.712

20 m 150
5. MATERIAL CONSUMPTION
Percentage

100
Material Consumption (Ton)
Type Truss Portal Frame 50
Length Angle Rectangle Square Box ISMB 0
10 m 0.277 0.203 0.179 0.358 0.270 10 m 15 m 20 m 25 m
15 m 0.626 0.454 0.416 0.827 0.706
Angle Rectangle Square Box ISMB
20 m 1.138 0.986 0.977 1.524 1.311
25 m 1.886 1.542 1.450 2.629 2.312

IJCIRAS1003 WWW.IJCIRAS.COM 12
 © IJCIRAS
May 2018 | Vol. 1 Issue. 1

6.Conclusion

For materials of portal frames, built up box sections

and ISMB sections are widely sued. But if we compare
these two sections, we can conclude that built up box
sections are heavier than ISMB sections. Built up box
sections are 116% heavier than ISMB sections. So,
providing ISMB sections for portal frames is a more
economical option. In truss system, comparing angle
sections, square hollow sections, and rectangle hollow
sections, most cost-effective material is square hollow
sections across all analyzed spans. If we use square
hollow sections, we can get a saving of 77% rather than
angle sections. For rectangle sections, they are 106%
heavy than square sections. So, it is clear that use of
square hollow sections s most economical choice. For
roofing system, truss system is more efficient rather
than portal frames. Portal frames are 148% heavy to
truss systems. So, if we use truss systems, we can get
68% reduction in total weight, which is more
economical also.

References

[Consider below all reference format if you will take

any reference for your paper]

Article/ Research Paper

[1] Dhruv Agarwal, A. C. (2015). The Economic and

Structural Analysis of Hollow Structural Sections.
ISSN:2321-8169, 057-062.

[2] Duggal, S. K. (2007). Design of Steel Structures.

[3]Goraviyala Yogesh, P. K. (2016). Design and

Comparison of Steel Roof Truss with Tubular Section.
ISSN:2321-0613.

[4]Rakesh Nora, U. M. (2015). Comparison between

Conventional (Angular) Steel Section and Tubular Steel
Section. ISSN:2319-6890, 2347-5013.

[5]Sagar Wankhade, P. P. (2014). Design & Comparison

of Various Types of Industrial Buildings. ISSN:2319-
183X, 2319-1821.

[6] Subramanian, N. (2008). Design of Steel Structures.

IJCIRAS1003 WWW.IJCIRAS.COM 13