Erudite Journal of Engineering Technology and Management Sciences
Vol. 1, No. 1, September, 2021, pp. 19-23
Journal homepage: http://www.ejetms.com
Impact of Various Parameters on Buildings Which are Pre- Engineered
P. Aditya Milind1*
1
Freelancer Designer and Researcher, Ganesh Krupa, Jogale Aali, Dapoli, Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra, India
Received: 26 May 2021 ABSTRACT
Accepted: 16 July 2021 The experimental study is conducted to analyze the effect of different
parameters on pre-engineered buildings and comparison of pre-engineered
building with conventional building. In first stage effect on structure for
Keywords: different roof angles and bay spacing is checked and the optimum structure is
pre-engineered building, conventional selected. Further effect of column height on structure are studied. Comparison
building, steel structure, steel consumption. made based on steel consumption, displacement, base reaction and moment
values. From the models most optimized is selected and compared with
conventional roof truss model. From pre-engineered buildings model with
height 5.45m, roof angle 5.71° and bay spacing 7m is selected and compared
with conventional structure of same properties but deigned using truss members.
Finally results shows that pre engineered buildings are optimum and reduces
steel consumption by approximately 25-30%.
1. INTRODUCTION 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The utilization of steel structures in an industrial building is Muhammad Umair Saleem (2018) was conceived in his
developing quickly in all regions of the world. It isn't just present study to implement layered optimization based on the
financially beneficial yet additionally eco-friendly. For the design of pre-engineered steel truss industrial buildings. To
most part, there are two kinds of steel structures, Conventional this end, a wide range of industrial steel buildings were
Buildings, and Pre-Engineered Buildings. The present study is selected for the analysis and design of traditional industrial
formulated to accomplish the staggered plan-based buildings integrated with truss systems. The analysis showed
enhancement of pre-engineered steel structures. To that truss height plays an important role in the structural
accomplish it, a wide range of PEB structures are considered efficiency and cost of steel truss buildings. Hollow steel
for the study and will be planned under specific parameters to sections performed better than hot rolled steel sections.
make the structure increasingly effective. The upsides of steel Bala murali krishnan R. and Ibrahim Shabbir Mohammedali
as a development material are generally acknowledged, and (2019) in their study of the analysis and design of a two-story
the idea of the pre-designing structure is a moderately new (G + 1) PEB showroom using STAAD Pro in accordance with
idea when contrasted with conventional steel building (CSB). British standards (BS 5950-1: 2000) and Euro codes (EC3)
The upside of pre-designed structures over conventional steel EN-1993 -1) with the analysis of wind and earthquakes. As
structures is in banter right now. Pre-engineered buildings part of the project, two showroom models were created,
(PEB) allude to those steel structures which are pre-fabricated namely the British Standard (BS) model and the Eurocode (EC)
before being moved to the task site. As the name shows, it model using the STAAD Pro.BS model, which proved to be
incorporates the pre-designing of every single basic part of the an economical model compared to the Euro symbol [6-10].
structure considering the engineering and architectural Sai Chowdeswara Rao Korlapati1 at al. (2018) in his paper
prerequisites. The structural concept of PEB is to utilize just 16 different 2D Frames were selected for each pre-engineered
the necessary profundity of the part that is required at that building and conventional steel building. By varying the
specific spot contingent on the bending moment. These tributary width and wind speed, the frames were analyzed by
outcomes in the tapered sections all through the range of the a software of structural analysis i.e., STAAD pro (V8i). A
structure. The decreased shape is gotten by the built-up comparison was conducted depending upon base reactions,
members. The utilization of tapered sections brings about moments at eave, horizontal defection at eave, vertical
diminishing the expense of the structure by cutting off deflection at ridge and steel take off. Concluded that, the
superfluous steel [1-5]. performance and cost effectiveness of pre-Engineered
building was much improved under heavy loading as
compared to the conventional ones.
19
Nitin Vishwakarma (2018) incorporates in his research parameters above are roof slope (θ), span (B) and column
paper a traditional and pre-engineered steel building concept height (h). Also, a traditional truss model has been prepared
for the design of 18m industrial buildings located in Palwal for comparison.
near New Delhi, India. The rigid structure of a pre-engineered
building with elements of varying thickness, a conventional
building with conventional steel elements, and a conventional
building with various hollow and composite sections in paper
is discussed. A total of five cases were studied. The aim is to
achieve the most economical project for this purpose, a
comparison of the designed structures is made and finally the
most suitable and economical structure for construction is
selected [11].
3. OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this paper is to study of the concept
of pre-engineered buildings with its applications and
advantages over conventional structure. Creation of pre-
engineered building model using a commercial software and
validation of model result by comparing it with analytical
solution. To study effect of parameters such as bay spacing, Pre-engineered Building Model
roof angle, column height on pre-engineered buildings. To
compare conventional steel building with pre-engineered
building [12-14].
4. SALIENT FEATURES AND IMPORTANT
DIMENSIONS
Building Dimension - 42m x 22m
Clear eave height - 5.45m
Maximum eave height - 6.55m
Roof slope - 2.86°, 5.71°, 10°
weight of sheet and purlins - 0.84KN/m
Live load of roof - 5.25 KN/m
Basic wind speed - 39 m/sec (Pune)
Seismic zone (Z) - Zone III- Pune
Conventional Roof Truss Model
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison for Bay Spacing Vs. Roof Angle-
Table 1
Max Reaction at Base of Column (Kn)
Θ/B 4m 7m 10m
2.86 216.32 217.47 228.973
5.71 218.568 220.136 232.729
10 222.7 224.59 238.112
In table- 1, the primary response does not strongly depend
Plan for Industrial Structure on the angle of the roof, but increases slightly with the span.
The largest base reaction is 238.112 at θ = 10 ° for a distance
5. MODELING between compartments of 10 m.
The analysis is performed using STAAD PRO V8i. In Table 2
accordance with IS 875, load combinations are considered, Steel Consumption (𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 )
which consist of static, temporary, wind and earthquakes. Θ/B 4m 7m 10m
Static methods are used for wind and earthquakes. The 2.86 44.827 28.912 29.109
20
5.71 45.436 28.716 29.356 spacing increases the displacement decreases while it does not
10 46.654 29.597 29.011 have a variation in a definite pattern as roof angle increases.
The largest displacement is 36.897mm when θ = 2 °.86 for a
Table 7 shows that for a frame span 42m as the angle (θ) bay spacing 4m.
increases consumption of steel increases while along bay
spacing consumption of steel quantity decreases as the bay Comparison for Different Column Heights-
spacing increases. The minimum consumption of steel from
table 7 is 28.716kg/m2when θ = 5.71° and bay spacing is 7m. Table 7 θ = 5.71 °
Max Vertical Reaction at Base of Column (KN.)
Table 3 2M 5.45M 10M
Max Moment at Beam Column Junction (Kn.M) 215.742 220.136 225.675
Θ/B 4m 7m 10m
2.86 584.609 643.2 671.381 In table- 7, The vertical reaction at base does not seem to
5.71 596.073 647.099 661.746 vary much with the column height, it increases marginally
10 598.643 651.302 655.786 with the column height. The largest base reaction is
225.675kN when H= 10m.
In table- 3 The maximum value moments are tabulated for
various inclinations of roof angle (θ) and bay spacing (B). It Table 8 θ = 5.71 °
can be similarly observed that the max moments at the beam Max Horizontal Reaction at Base of Column (Kn)
column junction increases with the bay spacing. The largest 2M 5.45M 10M
moment is 671.381 KN.m when θ = 2.86° for a bay spacing 298.038 121.179 59.991
10m.
In table- 8, The horizontal reaction along X-Direction
Table 4 shows huge difference in values. For H=2m maximum
Max Shear Force at Beam Column Junction (Kn) reaction is observed as shown in table.
Θ/B 4m 7m 10m
2.86 166.931 173.551 179.416 Table 9 θ = 5.71 °
5.71 169.51 177.558 180.208 STEEL CONSUMPTION (𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 )
10 172.68 181.9 186.223 2M 5.45M 10M
23.041 28.716 35.566
In table- 4 The maximum value of shear force is tabulated
for various inclinations of roof angle (θ) and bay spacing (B). In table- 9, The consumption of steel increases as height of
It can be similarly observed that the max shear force at the columns increases. For column height of 2m minimum value
beam column junction increases with the bay spacing. The is observed.
largest shear force is 186.223 KN when θ = 10° for a bay
spacing 10m. Table 10 θ = 5.71 °
Max Moment at Beam Column Junction (Kn.M)
Table 5 2M 5.45M 10M
Max. Horizontal Displacement-X Direction (mm) 590.023 647.099 587.43
Ɵ/B 4m 7m 10m
2.86 16.19 13.227 13.427 In table- 10, The maximum moment is observed at column
5.71 11.29 11.275 10.172 height of 5.45m and value is 647.099KN.m.
10 13.31 12.76 9.645
Table 11 θ = 5.71 °
In table 5- Maximum horizontal displacement along X- Max Shear Force at Beam Column Junction (Kn)
Direction are tabulated for various inclinations of angle (θ) and 4M 5.45M 10M
bay spacing (B). It can be similarly observed that as the bay 161.368 177.558 183.827
spacing increases the displacement decreases while it does not
have a variation in a definite pattern as roof angle increases. In table- 11, The maximum shear force observed in beam
The largest displacement is 16.19mm when θ = 2 °.86 for a column junction increases as column height increases. The
bay spacing 4m. maximum value of shear force is 183.827KN when column
height is 10m.
Table 6
Maximum Horizontal Displacement-Z Direction Table 12 θ = 5.71 °
(Mm) Max. Horizontal Displacement- Z Direction
Ɵ/B 4M 7M 10M (mm)
2.86 36.897 17.381 9.679 2M 5.45M 10M
5.71 31.473 14.395 6.068 6.569 13.308 42.768
10 30.201 13.86 5.131
Table 12 shows values of horizontal displacement along Z
In table 6- Maximum horizontal displacement along z- direction for different column heights. Table shows that value
Direction are tabulated for various inclinations of angle (θ) and of displacement increases as height increases. Maximum
bay spacing (B). It can be similarly observed that as the bay
21
displacement observed at 10m height and its value is 3. When models are compared for different column height it
42.768mm. shows that column with 2m height shows less
consumption of steel, but in practical column with height
Table 13 θ = 5.71 ° of 5-6m are more and more used.
Max. Horizontal Displacement- X Direction (mm) 4. When compared with conventional steel building,
2M 5.45M 10M conventional building shows more vertical reaction at
2.794 11.298 82.606 base. Also, when compared for displacement, values for
conventional buildings are on higher sides.
Table 13 shows values of horizontal displacement along X 5. When steel consumption is compared, conventional
direction for different column heights. Table shows that value buildings shows around 35.524% more steel consumption
of displacement increases as height increases. Maximum than pre-engineered building i.e. 10.201 𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 which is
displacement observed at 10m height and its value is not economical and makes structure heavy.
82.606mm
Comparison Between Conventional Steel Building Vs. REFERENCES
Pre-Engineered Building-
Table 14 [1] Zende, A. A., Kulkarni, A. V., & Hutagi, A. (2013).
Max. Vertical Reaction at Base of Column (Kn) Comparative study of analysis and design of pre-
Conventional 276.065 engineered-buildings and conventional frames. IOSR
Pre-Engineered 220.136 Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (2013),
2278-1684.
In table- 14, Maximum vertical reaction is seen in [2] Kiran, G. S., Rao, A. K., & Kumar, R. P. (2014).
conventional structures i.e. 279.065KN and pre-engineered Comparison of design procedures for pre engineering
structures shows reduction in vertical reaction. buildings (PEB): a case study. International Journal of
Civil, Architectural, Structural &Construction
Table 15 Engineering (IJCASCE), 8(4), 4.
Max. Horizontal Displacement Z Direction (mm) [3] Saleem, M. U., & Qureshi, H. J. (2018). Design solutions
Conventional 25.554 for sustainable construction of pre engineered steel
Pre-Engineered 14.395 buildings. Sustainability, 10(6), 1761.
[4] Milind, P. A. (2020). Impact of Various Parameters on
In table- 15, conventional building shows more deflection Buildings Which are Pre-Engineered. Erudite Journal of
as compared to pre-engineered building. Hence Pre- Engineering, Technology and Management
engineered building is more suitable. Sciences, 1(1), 19-23.
[5] Kumar, R. (2013). Cost optimization of industrial
Table 16 building using genetic algorithm. International Journal
Max Horizontal Displacement X Direction (mm) of Scientific Engineering and Technology, 2(4), 185-191.
Conventional 24.07 [6] Pradeep, V., & Papa Rao, G. (2014). Comparative study
Pre-Engineered 11.275 of pre engineered and conventional industrial
building. International Journal of Engineering Trends
In table- 16, Deflection more in conventional structures and and Technology, 9(1), 1-6.
shows considerable reduction in pre-engineered buildings. [7] Shahid, S., Ali, S., & Hussain, F. (2018). Design
Optimization of Steel Structures from Conventional
Steel Building to Pre-Engineered Building by Varying
Table 17
Loads. NFC IEFR Journal of Engineering and Scientific
Steel Consumption (𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 )
Research, 6, 103-109.
Conventional 38.917
[8] Wakchaure, S., & Dubey, N. C. (2016). Design and
Pre-Engineered 28.7165
comparative study of pre-engineered building. Int. J.
Eng. Dev. Res, 4, 2108-2113.Syed Firoz, S. C. (2012).
In table- 17, conventional structures more steel
"Design Concept of Pre-Engineered Building”,
consumption as compared to pre-engineered buildings. From
International Journal of Engineering Research and
results pre-engineered buildings shows 26.211% decrease in
Applications (IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 2, Issue 2.
steel consumption.
[9] IS: 800-2007: Code of practice for general construction
in steel
[10] IS: 1893 (Part 1) – 2002.Criteria for Earthquake
7. CONCLUSION
Resistant Design structure. New Delhi BIS 2002.
[11] IS: 875 (Part 1) - 1987: Code of Practice for Design
1. From results it shows that with change of roof angle there
Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and
is not much variation in steel consumption and other
Structures- Dead Loads.
parameters as it is when they bay spacing is changed.
[12] IS: 875 (Part 2) - 1987: Code of Practice for Design
2. When models are compared for different roof angle and
Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and
bay spacing, it shows that model with 7m bay spacing and
Structures- Live Loads.
roof angle of 5.71 is optimum for every parameter and
shows optimum steel consumption i.e. 28.716𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 .
22
[13] IS: 875 (Part 3) - 1987: - Code of Practice for Design
Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures- Wind Loads.
CC-BY
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding
model which does not charge readers or their
institutions for access and distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
and the Budapest Open Access Initiative
(http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read)
which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided original
work is properly credited.
23
