Introduction

Portal frames, used in several Civil Engineering structures like buildings, factories, bridges
have the primary purpose of transferring horizontal loads applied at their tops to their
foundations. Structural requirements usually necessitate the use of statically indeterminate layout
for portal frames, and approximate solutions are often used in their analyses.

Figure A: Portal Frame Structures.

Portal frame construction is a method of building and designing simple structures,

primarily using steel or steel-reinforced precast concrete although they can also be constructed
using laminated timber such as Glulam. The connections between the columns and the rafters are
designed to be moment resistant, i.e. they can carry bending forces.

Because of these very strong and rigid joints some of the bending moment in the rafters is
transferred to the columns. This means that the size of the rafters can be reduced or the span can
be increased for the same size rafters. This makes portal frames a very efficient construction to
use for wide span buildings.

Portal frame construction is therefore typically seen in warehouses, barns and other
places where large, open spaces are required at low cost and a pitched roof is acceptable.
Generally portal frames are used for single storey buildings but they can be used for low rise
buildings with several floors where they can be economic if the floors do not span right across
the building % in these circumstances a skeleton frame, with internal columns, would be a more
economic choice). & typical configuration might be where there is office space built against one
wall of a warehouse.

Portal frames can be clad with all sorts of material but the most popular solution, for
reasons of economy and speed, is some form of lightweight insulated metal cladding with cavity
masonry work to the bottom 2m of the wall to provide security and impact resistance. The

1
lightweight cladding would be carried on sheeting rails spanning between the columns of the
portal frames.

Theory

A portal frame is composed of members in a single plane. Loading is applied to the

members, resulting in internal shear and moment as well as axial force in the members. A portal
frame can be considered as statically determinate when the degree of indeterminacy is equal to
zero and the reactions at the support can be determined using equations of static only.

Figure B: Example experiment setup on portal frame.

The equation for the horizontal reaction at the pinned support A of a portal frame (Exp 1 & 2)
are given below:

Where:

Width of member, b
Thickness of member, h
Height of portal frame, L1

2
Length of portal frame, L3
Distance of load from support A, a

Purpose of work:
The purpose is to establish the relationship between applied load and horizontal reaction at
the pinned support and observe the effect of the load position on the horizontal reaction. After
that, a graph is plotted to compare it with theoretical values of horizontal thrust.

Objective

1. To establish the relationship between applied load and horizontal reaction at the pinned
support.
2. To observe the effect of the load position on the horizontal reaction.

3
 Apparatus

Support Frame

Load Hanger

Portal Frame Digital

Indicator

Pin Support Roller Support

Loads

Procedure
1. The load cell is connected to the digital indicator.
2. The indicator is switched on. The indicator must be switched on for 10 minutes before
taking readings for stability of the reading.
3. A load hanger is placed at the location where the load is to be applied.
4. The indicator reading is noted. The tare button is pressed if it is not zero.
5. A load is placed on the load hanger.
6. The indicator reading is recorded. This represents the horizontal reaction of the pinned
support.
7. The load is increased on the load hanger and the horizontal reaction is recorded.
8. Step 7 is repeated for another four load increments.
9. The result of the experiment is tabulated.

4
 Data Collection & Recording
Width of member = 25 mm
Thickness of member = 10 mm
Second moment of area, I = 2083.33 mm4

Horizontal Reaction (N)

Load (N)
Experimental Theoretical

Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 1 Exp 2

7 0.5 3.5
10 0.7 4.9
13 0.9 6.4
16 0.9 8.1
19 1.1 9.6

5
 Data Analysis (Calculations & Results)
Width of member = 25 mm
Thickness of member = 10 mm
Second moment of area, I = 2083.33 mm4

Horizontal Reaction (N)

Load (N)
Experimental Theoretical
Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 1 Exp 2
7 0.5 3.5 0.31 -3.76
10 0.7 4.9 0.67 -5.37
13 0.9 6.4 0.87 -6.98
16 0.9 8.1 1.07 -8.59
19 1.1 9.6 1.27 -10.20

Exp 1
b d3
Second moment of Area, I =
12
L1 = 600 mm
L3 = 600 mm 25× 103
I=
12
a = 400mm
= 2083.33 mm4
W = Load (N)

Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200x103 N/mm2

Calculation for horizontal reaction (theory)

L21(2 L1 +3 L3) Wa L1 (a−L3) −L P H

Formula : AHH = LPH = HA =
(3 EI ) (2 EI ) A HH

HA For 7N , HA For 10N ,

[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHH = ¿=
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33)
0.86

6
 7(400)(600)(400−600) 10(400)(600)(400−600)
LPH = = -0.27 LPH = = - 0.58
2( 200 x 10 3 × 2083.33) 2( 200 x 10 3 × 2083.33)
−(−0.27) −(−0.58)
HA = = 0.31 N HA = = 0.67 N
0.86 0.86
HA For 13N , HA For 16N ,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHH = ¿=
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33)
0.86
13(400)(600)(400−600) 16(400)(600)(400−600)
LPH = = -0.75 LPH = = -0.92
2( 200 x 10 3 × 2083.33) 2( 200 x 10 3 × 2083.33)
−(−0.75) −(−0.92)
HA = = 0.87 N HA = = 1.07 N
0.86 0.86

HA For 19N ,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33)
19(400)(600)(400−600)
LPH = = -1.09
2( 200 x 10 3 × 2083.33)
−(−1.09)
HA = = 1.27 N
0.86

Graph Of Load Verses Displacement At The Roller Support

(Exp 1)
1.4 1.27 Theoretical
Horizontal Reaction (N)

1.2 1.07 1.1

Experimental
1 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.7
0.87
0.6 0.5
0.67
0.4 0.31
0.2
0
6 9 12 15 18 21
Load (N)

Percentage Error between Theoretical and Experimental Results

7
 Load (N) Percentage Error (%)
7 61.29
10 4.48
13 3.45
16 -15.89
19 -13.39
Experimental – Theoretical
Formula: % Error = ( Theoretical )
x 100

For 7N , For 10N ,

% Error = ( 0.50−0.31
0.31 )
x 100 % Error = ( 0.70−0.67
0.67 )
x 100

= 61.29% = 4.48%
For 13N , For 16N ,

% Error = ( 0.90−0.87
0.87 )
x 100 % Error = ( 0.90−1.07
1.07 )
x 100

= 3.45% = -15.89%
For 19N ,
1.10−1.27
% Error = ( 1.27 )
x 100

= -13.39%

Exp 2
b d3
Second moment of Area, I =
12
L1 = 600 mm
L3 = 600 mm 25× 103
I=
12
a = 530mm
= 2083.33 mm4
W = Load (N)

Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200x103 N/mm2

Calculation for horizontal reaction (theory)

8
 L21(2 L1 +3 L3) L 1 ( L1 + L3 ) a3
Formula : AHH = AHM = LPH = W [ A HH −a A HM +( )]
(3 EI ) (2 EI ) ( 6 EI )

−L P H
HA =
A HH

HA For 7N,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600 (600+600)]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHM = =
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 2(200 x 1 03 × 2083.33)
0.864x10-3

−3 5303
LPH = 7 [0.86−530(0.864 x 10 )+( )] = 3.23
6 ( 200 x 1 03 ×2083.33 )
−(3.23)
HA = = -3.76 N
0.86
HA For 10N,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600 (600+600)]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHM = =
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 2(200 x 1 03 × 2083.33)
0.864x10-3

−3 5303
LPH = 10[0.86−530(0.864 x 10 )+( )] = 4.62
6 ( 200 x 1 03 × 2083.33 )
−(4.62)
HA = = -5.37 N
0.86

HA For 13N,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600 (600+600)]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHM = =
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 2(200 x 1 03 × 2083.33)
0.864x10-3

−3 5303
LPH = 13[0.86−530(0.864 x 10 )+( )] = 6.00
6 ( 200 x 1 03 × 2083.33 )
−(6.00)
HA = = -6.98 N
0.86

9
HA For 16N,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600 (600+600)]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHM = =
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 2(200 x 1 03 × 2083.33)
0.864x10-3

−3 5303
LPH = 16 [0.86−530(0.864 x 10 )+( )] = 7.39
6 ( 200 x 1 03 ×2083.33 )
−(7.39)
HA = = -8.59 N
0.86

HA For 19N,
[600¿¿ 2(2(600)+3(600))] [600 (600+600)]
AHH = ¿ = 0.86 AHM = =
3(200 x 1 03 ×2083.33) 2(200 x 1 03 × 2083.33)
0.864x10-3

−3 5303
LPH = 19[0.86−530(0.864 x 10 )+( )] = 8.77
6 ( 200 x 1 03 × 2083.33 )
−(8.77)
HA = = -10.20 N
0.86

Graph Of Load Verses Displacement At The Roller Support

(Exp 2)
15
Horizontal Reaction (N)

9.6
10 8.1 Experimental
6.4
4.9
3.5
5
0 -3.76
6 9 12 15 18 21
-5 -8.59
-5.37 -10.2
-10 -6.98 Theoretical
-15
Load (N)

Percentage Error between Theoretical and Experimental Results

10
 Load (N) Percentage Error (%)
7 6.91
10 8.75
13 8.31
16 5.70
19 5.88

Formula: % Error =¿ x 100

For 7N , For 10N ,

% Error =¿ x 100 % Error =¿ x 100
= 6.91% = 8.75%
For 13N , For 16N ,
% Error =¿ x 100 % Error =¿ x 100
= 8.31% = 5.70%
For 19N ,
% Error =¿ x 100
= 5.88%

Discussion/Conclusion

From both of the experiment, we can clearly see the result where load and displacement
at the roller support have an increasing linearly relationship. When the load increases, the
displacement at the roller support also will increase.

If brass were used as replacement of the steel in the portal frame, it will result in the
increase of about 50% the displacement because steel has bigger yield strength compare with
brass therefore steel is much stronger then brass.

From both the experiment we can conclude that, if the load is parallel to the reaction of
the roller support, the reaction there is higher. If the load is perpendicular to the reaction of the
roller support, the reaction is lower. We can say that the reaction at roller is higher when the load
is parallel, and vice versa.

Experiment 1

11
 From the data recorded and calculated as well as the graph plotted, all the values are
increasing constantly forming almost a perfect straight line. Based on the percentage error
calculated by comparing experimental slope with theoretical slope, there are very minor
difference and with only 7.99% of average percentage error. Throughout the experiment, we had
carried out with cautious and noticed that there are potential factors which will cause error in this
experiment.

Experiment 2

From the data recorded and calculated as well as the graph plotted, all the values are
increasing constantly forming almost a perfect straight line but for the experimental value it is
decreasing constantly. Based on the percentage error calculated by comparing experimental slope
with theoretical slope, there are very minor difference and with only 7.11% of average
percentage error. Thus, there is a very small error between our experimental results compared to
the theoretical result. We have noticed that there are potential factors which might be the issue of
the error to occur.

Potential factors of Experiment 1 and 2:

 Measurements or readings are not taken properly which lead to parallax error.
 The hanger for loads is still wavering when readings are taken which will produce
inaccurate results.
 Error might occur when the “tare” button is not used or the initial readings are
 not recorded.

This is most probably caused by the several factors mentioned. In this case, we have sort out
a few suggestions on the precaution when carrying out this experiment:

 Every reading of measurements or on machines has to be on eye level to avoid parallax

error.
 Ensure that the hanger with or without loads is constant and not wavering to prevent
misleading error.

12
 Ensure that the hanger is tightened by using Allen Key every time when the hanger
position is changed.
 Have only one member in putting loads on the hanger and stabilizing it. Have more
than one member to double check on the readings of measurements as well as the digital
indicator.
 Before starting, the “tare” button has to be pressed or initial reading has to be taken down
to be subtracted later.

13
 References

Experiment on portal frame by Afrina Mokhtar. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/11340119/experiment_on_portal_frame.

Design of Steel Structures by Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar. Retrieved
from nptel.ac.in/courses/105106113/2_industrial_building/6_portal_frames.pdf.

Lab Report (Portal Frame) by Wai Sheng on Feb 22, 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/256542933/Lab-Report-Portal-Frame.

14
 Appendix

Figure 1: Apply the load on Figure 2: Record the data from

the load hanger. the digitial indicator.

Figure 3: Set of loads used in

portal frame test.

15