Journal of Physics:

Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Finite Element Analysis of Coated
A Comparative Study of the Pre-Engineered (Intumescent Coating Protection) Cellular
Steel Beam (CSB) Expose to Fire
Building and Conventional Steel Building F A A Zakwan, R R Krishnamoorthy, A
Ibrahim et al.

- Geometrical optics-based ray field tracing

To cite this article: M. Varshitha and B D V Chandra Mohan Rao 2024 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2779 method for complex source beam
012050 applications
Min Gao, , Feng Yang et al.

- P-doped porous carbon from camellia shell

for high-performance room temperature
sodium–sulfur batteries
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Xiangqi Peng, Kejian Tang, Ziying Zhang
et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 106.193.87.20 on 31/01/2025 at 18:02

International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

A Comparative Study of the Pre-Engineered Building and

Conventional Steel Building

M. Varshitha1* and B D V Chandra Mohan Rao2*

1
PG scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Hyderabad, India.
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Hyderabad, India.
*Corresponding E-mail:[email protected]
Abstract. Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs) are the most preferred choice for construction due
to their cost-effectiveness and quick construction process. In comparison to traditional steel
buildings, PEBs are optimized steel structures that save material about 20 to 30%. This study
focuses on the comparision of PEB and CSB in terms of steel take off. The aim of this study is
to give valuable insights into efficiency and cost effectiveness of utilizing steel in these two
construction methods. Also, to improve understanding of optimal steel usage practices for
multiple construction projects by examining the differences between pre-engineered and
conventional steel buildings.
Based on the building's geometrical characteristics such as roof angle, length, breadth, height,
bay spacing, and location of the structure, the need for steel is determined. A typical PEB and
CSB have been modelled and analysed based on several factors in this project work using
Staad Pro software. Based on IS 875 and IS 1893, different types of loads have been computed.
These loads have been applied to the Staad Pro model and examined. For the analysis, more
than 70 different load combinations were taken into account.
The various response parameters such as shear force, bending moment, axial force, support
reactions are compared. The amount of steel required for a PEB against a CSB has been
compared. The structures have been analysed both for wind load and seismic loads and the
critical load combination has been determined. The amount of steel required for PEB is lesser
by 24.90 % compared to CSB.
Key words : Conventional Steel Building (CSB), Pre-Engineered Building (PEB), Wind Load,
Seismic Load, Load Combinations, Steel Take off.

1. INTRODUCTION
Conventional Steel Buildings (CSB) and Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEB) are the two common
approaches to construct steel-framed buildings. This study undertakes a comparison of both PEB and
CSB, by focusing on the critical aspect of steel takeoff. Both methods present unique features,
challenges and advantages influencing the overall efficiency, sustainability and cost of construction
projects. In Conventional steel building construction, components are fabricated on-site whereas, pre-
engineered buildings are units of construction in which the components of structure are designed and
fabricated off-site with accurate proportions required on-site. After fabricating, the components are

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

transferred to site and fitted using bolted connections [1]. PEB with columns, rafters and purlins is
shown in Figure1.
Design and fabrication of the structural units are done under the direction of a quality control
officer. The adoptability of PEB by replacing CSB arises in numerous advantages including its
economy and quick fabrication. Due to its ductile property steel is earth-quake resistant compared to
concrete which is the key reason for increase in steel structures. Under the influence of earthquake
forces, the performance of PEB is much better than CSB. It is due to the good structural behaviour and
lighter weight of the PEB [1]. Almost in every single feature, PEB gives finer result compared with
traditional steel building. The steel buildings are custom-made to have a lighter weight and higher
strength. So, the usage of PEB should be adopted more in India as it is eco-friendly.

Figure 1. A typical PEB with Columns, Rafters and Purlins.

Comparison between both structures is based on different parameters of existing Pre-Engineered

and Conventional Steel Buildings. Those parameters involve resistance to seismic forces, further
expansions, architectural design, accessories of building, software need, usage of codal provisions, and
the weight of the overall structure either directly or indirectly. The factors mentioned above play a
crucial part in the sustainable construction of structures. Pre-engineered Building shows better
solutions in all the factors over Conventional Steel Building [1]. The major problem in structural
engineering is safety. In PEB all the precautionary measures are followed by reducing construction
rate and time. In future, PEB is going to play a vital role in India [2]. Usage of steel structures is
rapidly increased from past few decades. PEB theory was evolved in US, and almost 70% of one-
storied buildings at present utilizes pre-engineered structures for non-domestic construction. Up to
1990, PEB was utilized in the Middle east and North America but at present it is utilized in every
segment of Asia and Africa [2][3]. PEB design is mostly preferred by contractors and designers for
speedy construction and cost-effectiveness.
Cost savings for PEB is nearly 35% compared to CSB[3][4]. In today’s circumstances reducing
time and money is increasing their significance in all sectors which include the construction industry.
The world is rushing for sustainability. PEB is positioned at the top when differentiated from other
technologies in every aspect. The used material for PEB is reusable and biodegradable too. In pre-
engineered buildings, steel is the key material among all materials. Steel is a biodegradable material
that reflects sustainability. By effectively using high-grade steel and also advanced composite
materials the economy of construction in civil can be attained. Traditional steel buildings use steel that
is twice as heavy as PEB. The quantity of steel required for the PEB structure is smaller than for the
CSB structure [4].

2
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

Mainly, the performance relies on the load combination and structural design framework by
following Indian and international codes. Pre-engineered building analysis and design will be carried
out both manually and with the use of Staad Pro software. The outcome displays how the two codes,
using tonnage and deflection criteria, differ from one another. The PEB structure’s design procedure is
easy with country standards and its construction is faster, eco-friendly, and sustainable [5]. Reason for
increasing in weight using IS 800-2007 is due to additional load combination of wind load than AISC.
This is based on detailing and designing [5]. Compared to the Indian Code, AISC code gives
economical solution. So, that’s the major priority for adopting AISC codes [5][6].
For distinct spacing of bay and length of span, the AISC code shows 3% to 10% lighter sections
than the IS code. This is based on a lower factor of safety of the American code [6]. Deflection limits
are lesser for MBMA than IS codes. Because of limiting ratios, IS 800-2007 shows greater weight than
AISC/MBMA [7]. The suitable retrofitting technique for the available seismic deficient structures that
are not only affordable but also acceptable to stakeholders, owners, and investors is identified. For
non-engineered structures, losses can be reduced by 2-11 times and by 3-50 times respectively with
the use of proper retrofitting techniques. The huge loss is minimized for steel bracing then after for
shear wall and then jacketing [8]. Newly manufactured pre-engineered connection and traditional
welded junction are compared in terms of bearing capacity [9].
PEC (Partially Encased Composite Column) is a combination of steel section that is partially
outfitted to support a concrete composite column. Tensile strength and ductility are high in steel
whereas, fire resistance and compressive strength are high in concrete. So, high strength and stiffness
is achieved [10]. Framed beams and columns helps the structure to withstand during earthquake.
Repairing the framed structure which is damaged during an earthquake is challenging, and its
performance is also poor [11]. Compared to pre-engineered buildings, traditional steel buildings are
heavier in weight [12]. Pre-engineered buildings are less expensive when it comes to steel takeoff [12].
2. OBJECTIVES AND NUMERICAL STUDY
The objectives of the present research work are presented below.
 To model a Conventional Steel Building (CSB) and Pre-Engineered Building (PEB).
 To estimate the different loads acting on the structures.
 To analyze the CSB and PEB subjected to different loads and load combinations.
 To design the various elements of PEB and CSB as per IS codes.
 To compare the PEB with CSB.
2.1. Geometry
A Pre-Engineered Building has been modelled in Staad Pro software. Load calculations have been
computed for a 19 m width x 41.1 m length. The geometrical model of the PEB along with the bay
spacings in X, Z directions are shown in Figure 2. The columns, rafters and bracings of the PEB are
shown in Figures 3 to 5 respectively.

Figure 2. PEB Geometry Figure 3. Columns of PEB

3
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

Figure 4. Rafters of PEB Figure 5. Bracings of PEB

2.2. Properties
The properties of PEB columns are shown in Table 1. The properties of end and middle rafters
(Rafter-1, 2) are shown in Table 2. The properties of cross-bracings of PEB are shown in Table 3.
Table 1. Description of PEB columns
Properties of column Dimensions of column (m)
Depth at the start node 0.2
Web thickness 0.005
Depth at the end node 0.6
Top flange width 0.2
Top flange thickness 0.010
Table 2. Description of PEB rafters
Properties of Rafter Dimensions of Dimensions of
Rafter-1 (m) Rafter-2 (m)
Depth at the start node 0.55 0.2
Web thickness 0.005 0.005
Depth at the end node 0.2 0.15
Top flange width 0.25 0.25
Top flange thickness 0.010 0.010
Table 3. Description of bracings and cross-bracings of PEB
Description of the element Type Material
Eave strut PIP483L Steel
Cross bracings at end frame PIP761L Steel
Cross bracings at middle frame PIP483L Steel
The properties columns, rafters, eave strut and cross-bracings used in CSB are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Description of CSB elements
Description of the element Type
Column 1 ISWB 400
Column 2 ISWB 350
Rafter 1 ISWB 450
Rafter 2 ISWB 350
Eave strut PIP 483 L
Cross bracings at end frame PIP 761 L
Cross bracings at middle frame PIP 424 L

4
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

2.3. Computation of Wind load

Wind load acting on PEB at angles θ=00, 900, 1800 and 2700 are calculated as per IS 875 (Part III)
and tabulated in Tables 5 & 6.
Table 5. Wind load on members with internal pressure coefficient Cpi= + 0.2
Member WL - Left WL - Right WL – Top WL - Bottom
θ=00 θ=1800 θ=900 θ=2700
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
A 1.919 -1.727 -2.687 -2.687
B 1.727 -1.919 2.687 2.687
C -3.54 -3.54 2.22 -1.33
D 3.54 3.54 1.33 -2.22
EF 3.41 1.86 - -
GH 1.86 3.41 - -
EG - - 3.11 1.86
FH - - 1.86 3.11
A (corner columns) 0.959 -0.863 -1.343 -1.343
B (corner columns) 0.863 -0.959 1.343 1.343
C (corner columns) -1.77 -1.77 1.11 -0.66
D (corner columns) 1.77 1.77 0.66 -1.11
EF (corner rafters) 1.71 0.93 - -
GH (corner rafters) 0.93 1.71 - -
EG (corner rafters) - - 1.55 0.93
FH(corner rafters) - - 0.93 1.55
Table 6. Wind load on members with internal pressure coefficient Cpi= - 0.2
Member WL - Left WL - Right WL - Top WL - Bottom
θ=00 θ=1800 θ=900 θ=2700
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
A 3.45 -0.191 -1.151 -1.151
B 0.191 -3.45 1.151 1.151
C -1.77 -1.77 3.98 -0.44
D 1.77 1.77 0.44 -3.98
EF 2.17 0.62 - -
GH 0.62 2.71 - -
EG - - 1.86 0.621
FH - - 0.621 1.86
A (corner columns) 1.727 -0.095 -0.575 -0.575
B (corner columns) 0.095 -1.727 0.575 0.575
C (corner columns) -0.88 -0.88 1.99 -0.22
D (corner columns) 0.88 0.88 0.22 -1.99
EF (corner rafters) 1.08 0.31 - -
GH (corner rafters) 0.31 1.08 - -
EG (corner rafters) - - 0.93 0.31
FH (corner rafters) - - 0.31 0.93
2.4. Seismic parameters
Site location : Hyderabad
Zone factor : 0.1
Importance factor (I) : General building

5
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

Damping ratio (DM) : 0.05

Type of structure (ST) : Steel frame building
Response reduction Factor (RF) : Special RC moment resisting frame
Rock and soil site factor (SS) : Medium soil
Live loads acting on middle and end rafters are shown in Figures 6, 7 and Wind loads with internal
pressure coefficients +0.2 acting on Pre-Engineered building are shown in Figures 8 to 11
respectively.

Figure 6. LL acting on middle rafters Figure 7. LL acting on end rafters

Figure 8. WL-Left at angle θ = 00 & +0.2 Cpi Figure 9.WL-Right at angle θ = 1800 & + 0.2 Cpi

Figure 10. WL-Top at angle θ = 900 & +0.2 Cpi Figure 11. WL-Bottom at angle θ = 2700 &+ 0.2 Cpi

Maximum bending moment and shear forces of PEB are shown in Figures 12 to 13. The maximum
bending moment and shear forces of CSB are shown in Figures14 to 15

6
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

Figure 12. The maximum BMD of PEB Figure 13. The maximum SFD of PEB

Figure 14. The maximum BMD of CSB Figure 15. The maximum deflection of CSB

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The PEB and CSB are analysed for 74 different load combinations as per the IS codes. The results
obtained from the analysis are tabulated in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 7. Steel take-off for PEB
S.No. Profile Length (m) Weight (kN)
1 Tapered Member No:1 92.40 41.89
2 Tapered Member No:2 19.81 9.36
3 Tapered Member No:3 102.91 53.18
4 Tapered Member No:4 91.98 40.80
5 PIP 761 L 208.97 11.77
6 PIP 483 L 76.66 2.44
7 PIP 1143 L 102.20 9.81
Total : 169.25
Table 8. Steel take-off for CSB
S.No. Profile Length (m) Weight (kN)

1 ISWB 400 92.40 60.33

2 ISWB 350 111.79 62.26
3 ISWB 450 102.19 79.29
4 PIP 761 L 208.97 11.77
5 PIP 424 L 76.66 1.91
6 PIP 1143 L 102.20 9.81
Total : 225.37

7
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

Table 9. Analysis results of PEB and CSB

S.No. Parameter PEB CSB % change
1 Maximum bending moment (kN-m) 189.56 171.61 9.46 %
2 Maximum shear force (kN) 52.43 56.20 6.70 %
3 Maximum axial force (kN) 65.77 70.60 6.83 %
4 Maximum support reaction (kN) 67.02 71.52 6.29 %
The results of PEB are compared with that of CSB and the quantity of steel required for Pre-
engineered building is reduced by 24.90 % compared to CSB. Thus, the cost of PEB is reduced
considerably. For eave struts and cross bracings, same pipe sections are used. When compared both
seismic and wind load analysis, wind load combinations are found to be critical.
PEB and CSB were analyzed for various load combinations and results obtained from the analysis
were presented in Table 9. The maximum BM, maximum SF, maximum AF and maximum support
reactions are presented in Table 9.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Two typical steel buildings, one with PEB sections and the other with CSB sections available from
steel tables have been designed for various load combinations.
 The quantity of steel required for Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) is lesser by 24.90 % compared to
Conventional Steel Building (CSB), which is considered to be significant.
 When compared to both seismic and wind loads, wind load combination is found to be more
critical compared with seismic load combination.
 It is observed that the maximum bending moment, shear force, axial force and support reactions in
PEB and CSB varies from 6.3 to 9.5 %
 As the PEB offers various advantages like cost reduction, speedy construction, future expansion,
good architectural view over CSB, structural engineers can prefer PEB's over CSB’s.
 It is concluded that a PEB is considerably cost effective compared to a CSB.
REFERENCES
[1] Sharma L, Taak N, Mishra PK. 2020. A comparative study between the pre-engineered
structures and conventional structures using STAADPRO. Materials Today: Proceedings.
45:3469-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.942.
[2] Zoad MD. 2012. Evaluation of pre-engineering structure design by IS-800 as against pre-
engineering structure design by AISC. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT).1(5):8.
[3] Sai VV, Poluraju P, Rao BV. 2021. Structural Performance of Pre Engineered Building: A
Comparative Study.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
1197:012086.https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012086
[4] Shaik K, BSS RR, Jagarapu DC. 2020. An analytical study on pre engineered buildings
using staad pro. Materials Today: Proceedings. 33:296-302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.076
[5] Dipali K. Chhajed, Dr Sachin B. Mula. 2020. Design and Analysis of Pre Engineered Steel
Building withIndian Standard Code and International Code. International Research
Journal of Engineering andTechnology (IRJET).7(9):2395-0056.
[6] Nihar S, M.G.Vanza,& Prasham V. 2021. Comparative study of PEB by Indian and
American Code.International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET). 8(5):2395-0056.
[7] Kiran GS, Rao AK, Kumar RP. 2014. Comparison of design procedures for pre-engineering
buildings (PEB): a case study. International Journal of Civil,Architectural,Structural
&Construction Engineering(IJCASCE).8(4):477-81.

8
International Conference on Materials Innovation and Sustainable Infrastructure IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2779 (2024) 012050 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2779/1/012050

[8] Dumaru R, Rodrigues H, Varum H. 2019. Cost-benefit analysis of retrofitted non-engineered

and engineered buildings in Nepal using probabilistic approach. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering.122:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.04.004
[9] Wang H, Yang H, Qian H, Chen D, Jin X, Fan F. 2022. Static experimental analysis and
optimization of innovative pre-engineered tubular section beam-column connections in
cold-form steel frames. Journal of Building Engineering.48:103989.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.103989
[10] Mao Y, Zhang Z, Yin Z. 2023. Study on Mechanical Properties of Steel Frame Structure
with PEC Columns. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2650(1):012049.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2650/1/012049
[11] Liu J, Zeng WH. 2023. Seismic Design Optimization of Frame-multi-ribbed Composite Wall
Structure. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.2476(1):012006.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2476/1/012006
[12] Jacob B, Althaf M. 2020. Design comparison of conventional steel structure with pre-
engineeredstructure.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
989(1):012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757899X/989/1/012008