e-ISSN: 2582-5208

International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science

( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com

COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING AND

CONVENTIONAL STEEL BUILDING
Awais Iqbal*1, Dr. B.H. Shinde*2
*1PG Student, Department Of Civil Engineering, G H Raisoni University,
Amravati 444701, India.
*2Assistant Professor, Department Of Civil Engineering, G H Raisoni University,
Amravati 444701, India.
DOI : https://www.doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS43841
ABSTRACT
This research paper aims to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis between two prominent
construction methods: Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs) and Conventional Steel Buildings (CSBs). The study
delves into the design, construction, cost, time efficiency, sustainability, and structural performance of both
PEBs and CSBs. Through an in-depth examination of case studies, industry data, and expert insights, this
research aims to offer valuable insights into the advantages and limitations of each approach. The findings of
this study will aid architects, engineers, and construction professionals in making informed decisions when
selecting the most suitable building method for specific projects, taking into consideration factors such as
complexity, budget, timeline, and long-term sustainability.
Keywords: Conventional Steel Building (CSB), Pre Engineered Building (PEB).
I. INTRODUCTION
In the Dynamic world of construction choosing the right building method is essential for achieving cost
effectiveness, efficiency, and durability. Over the years two prominent approaches have emerged as popular
choices for industrial and commercial construction Pre-Engineered Building (PEB’s) and Conventional Steel
Building (CSB’s). PEB and CSB both employ steel as their primary Building material but their construction
processes differ significantly. PEB offer rapid construction, cost effectiveness and standardized components,
making them ideal for projects with tight timelines and budget constraints. They are designed and fabricated
off site, allowing for quicker assembly on site. This comparative study aims to analyze the strength and
weakness of each method.
1.1 Conventional Steel Building

Figure 1.1: Conventional Steel Building Frame

Conventional Steel Buildings refer to structures that are constructed using traditional methods of on-site
fabrication and assembly of steel components. In this approach, steel members such as beams, columns, and
trusses are fabricated and assembled at the construction site according to specific design requirements of the
building. This method offers a high degree of design flexibility, allowing for customization of the buildings layout
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[241]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com
and dimensions. Conventional Steel Building are known for their durability, strength and ability to span large
distances, making them suitable for various Commercial and industrial applications. While this construction
technique provides versatility in design, it can potentially involve longer construction timelines and increased
labor and material cost compared to modern construction methods like Pre Engineered Buildings.

Figure 1.2: Front View of Conventional Steel Building

1.2 Pre Engineered Building
A Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) is a structural system that is designed and manufactured off-site, using a
combination of pre-designed building components and steel framing. These components are fabricated in a
factory and then transported to the construction site for assembly. PEBs are known for their efficiency, speed of
construction, and cost-effectiveness. PEBs are known for their fast construction timeline. Since most of the
components are pre-manufactured, the assembly process on-site is streamlined and quicker. The efficient
design, manufacturing, and construction processes of PEBs generally result in lower overall costs compared to
traditional construction methods.

Figure 1.3: Pre Engineered Building Frame

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[242]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com

Figure 1.4: Front View of Pre Engineered Building

II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Neha R.Kolate et al. This paper comparison between PEB and CSB for a 60m length and 30m width for a bay
spacing 4m, 5m and 6m respectively and its analyzed and designed for wind zones (wind zone 2, wind zone 3,
wind zone 4 and wind zone 5 by using STAAD Pro. Considering cases of wind zones from their research they
found that CSB is 23% heavier than PEB and also steel wastage of pre-engineered-building is less, thereby
reducing the cost of construction. They also concluded that conventional steel-building is used for clear spans
up to 90m but pre-engineered-buildings used for greater than 90m.
Deepti D. Katkar They observed that the pre-engineered buildings are more advantageous over conventionally
designed buildings in terms of cost effectiveness, time-saving, future scope, subtleness, and economy. This
paper on a comparative study between conventional and pre-engineered buildings shows their experimental
and analytical studies carried out in this field. The results show that steel structures are far more economical
energy-efficient and flexible in design than other types of structures for industrial use.
Pradeep V et al. This paper effectively conveys that PEB structures can be easily designed by simple design
procedures by country standards. Low-weight flexible frames of PEB offer higher resistance to earthquake
loads. PEB roof structure is almost 26% lighter than Conventional Steel Building. In secondary members,
lightweight “Z” purlins are used for PEB structure, whereas heavier hot-rolled sections are used for CSB.
Support reactions for PEB are lesser than CSB as per the analysis PEB building cost is 30% lesser than the cost
of CSB structure. PEB offers low cost, strength, durability, design flexibility, adaptability, and recyclability.
III. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Details of Buildings
Table 3.1: Details of Buildings
1. Type of Structure Industrial Building
2. Location MIDC Amravati
3. Length of the structure 50 Meter
4. Width of the structure 18 Meter
5. Height 10 Meter
6. Bay Spacing 5 Meter
7. Area of Building 900 m2
8. Support condition (CSB) Fixed
9. Support condition (PEB) Fixed
10. CSB Roof Slope 18.44o
11. PEB Roof Slope 11.31o

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[243]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com
3.2. Load Calculations
3.2.1. Load Calculation for Conventional Steel Building
I) Dead load
Dead load is calculated according to IS 875 (Part I) 1987.
Self Weight of A.C Sheet = 150 N/m2
Self Weight of Purlin = 120 N/m2
Total Dead Load = 15300 N
DL on Intermediate Panel Point = 15300/6 = 2550 N
= 2.5 KN
DL On End Panel Point = 2.55/2 = 1.275 KN
II) Live / Imposed Load Calculations
Live load is calculated according to IS 875 (Part II) 1987.
Live load on Slopping roof = 750 – 20(α -10) N/m2
Total LL = 34874 N
LL on Intermediate Panel Point = 34.87/6 = 5.80 KN
LL on End Panel Point = 5.80/2 = 2.90 KN
III) Wind Load Calculations
Wind load is calculated according to IS 875 (Part III) 2015
Basic Wind speed Vb = 39 m/sec (For Amravati)
K1 = 1.0 (For 50 Years Life Span)
K2 = 1.03 (Terrain Category 1 Class B)
K3= 1.0 (Topography factor)
Design Wind Speed Vz = Vb.K1.K2.K3 = 40.17 m/sec
Design Wind Pressure P = 0.06(Vz)2 = 968.18 N/m2
The Internal Coefficients are taken as +0.5 and -0.5 (5-20% Opening)
F = (Cpe – Cpi) x A x P
F= -119318.50 N/m2
(-) Indicates Suction
WL On Intermediate Panel Point = 119318.50/6
= 19.88 KN
WL On End Panel Point=9.94 KN
3.2.2. Load Combinations of Conventional Steel Structure
 1.5(DL+LL)
 1.5(DL+LL)
 1.2(DL+LL+WL)
3.2.3. Load Calculation for Pre Engineered Building
I) Dead load
Dead load is Calculated according to IS 875 (Part I) 1987.
Self Weight of A.C Sheet = 150 N/m2
Self Weight of Purlin = 120 N/m2
Total DL On Main Rafter = 1.35 Kn/m
DL On Gabble Rafter = 1.35/2 = 0.675 Kn/m
II) Live / Imposed Load Calculations
Live load is calculated according to IS 875 (Part II) 1987

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[244]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com
Total Live Load = 3.75 Kn/m
LL On Gabble Rafter = 3.75/2= 1.875 Kn/m
III) Wind Load Calculations
Wind load is calculated according to IS 875 (Part III)2015.
Basic Wind speed Vb = 39 m/sec (For Amravati)
K1 = 1.0 (For 50 Years Life Span)
K2 = 1.03 (Terrain Category 1 Class B)
K3= 1.0 (Topography factor)
Design Wind Speed Vz = Vb.K1.K2.K3 = 40.17 m/sec
Design Wind Pressure P = 0.06 (Vz)2 = 968.18 N/m2
The Internal Coefficients (Cpi) are taken as +0.5 and -0.5 (5-20% Opening)
H/W = 0.55 AND L/W = 2.77
The External Coefficient (Cpe) is Calculated According to IS 875 (Part 3) – 1987
Table 04 Page 14 Clause 6.2.2.1 and Table 05 Page 16 Clause 6.2.2.2.
Total Wind load
Left to right = 5.8 Kn/m (For Column)
= 2.61 Kn/m (For Rafter)
= 0.387 Kn/m (For Rafter)
= 0.968 Kn/m (For Column)
Right to Left = 0.968 Kn/m (For Column)
= 7.45 Kn/m (For Rafter)
= 5.22 Kn/m (For Rafter)
= 3.872 Kn/m (For Column)
3.2.4. Load Combinations of Pre-Engineered Building
 1.5(DL+LL)
 1.5(DL+LL)
 1.2(DL+LL+WL)
IV. MODELING AND ANALYSIS
In this Work, the Structural analysis is carried out with the help of STAAD Pro V8i Software.
4.1. Analysis of Conventional Steel Building
Steel Sections used in Conventional Steel Building,
1. Column - ISA180X180X15 (261.991 KN)
2. Rafter – 80012B50012 (654.041 KN)
3. Purlin – ISMC350 (250.739 KN)

Figure 4.1: Three Dimensional View of CSB

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[245]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com

Figure 4.2: Conventional Steel Building Loadings

4.2. Analysis of Pre Engineered Building
Steel Sections used in Conventional Steel Building
1. Column - Tapered 1 (294.471 KN)
2. Rafter - Tapered 2 (236.147 KN)
3. Purlin - ISMC400 (122.527 KN)

Figure 4.3: Three Dimensional View of PEB

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[246]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com

Figure 4.4: Pre Engineered Building Loadings

V. RESULT
1. Steel Take OFF
Table -5.1: Comparison of Steel Consumptions
Building Dimension LxBxH Total Weight (tons)
Conventional Steel Building 50x18x10 118.98
Pre Engineered Building 50x18x10 66.60

.
140
120
100
Steel Qaunity

80
60
STEEL TAKE-OFF (Tons)
40
20
0
CSB PEB
Types of Building

Figure 5.1: Comparison of Steel Consumptions

2. Cost of the Structure
Table -5.2: Comparison of Cost
Building Total Weight (Kg) Total Cost (INR)
Conventional Steel Building 118977.4 13682401 /-
Pre Engineered Building 66602.3 7659264 /-

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[247]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com

.
16000000
14000000
Cost of Structure in Rs

12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000 Cost of Structure
4000000 (INR)
2000000
0
CSB PEB
Types of Building

Figure 5.2: Comparison of Cost

3. Maximum Support Reaction
Table -5.3: Comparison of Support Reaction
Building Maximum Support Reaction (DL)

Conventional Steel Building 61.944 KN

Pre Engineered Building 42.921 KN

.
70
Support Reactiom in KN

60
50
40
30 Max Support
20 Reaction in KN
10
0
CSB PEB
Types of Building

Figure 5.3: Comparison of Support Reaction

4. Bending Moment
Table -5.4: Comparison of Bending Moment
Building Bending Moment
Conventional Steel Building 18.726 Kn.m
Pre Engineered Building 69.990 Kn.m

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[248]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com

.
80
Max Bending Moment
60

40
Max bending
20 Moment in Kn.m

0
CSB PEB
Types of Building

Figure 5.4: Comparison of Bending Moment

5. Shear Force
Table -5.5: Comparison of Shear Force
Building Shear Force (Fy) Shear Force (Fz)
Conventional Steel
1.742 KN 0.225 KN
Building
Pre Engineered Building 23.635 KN 0.141 KN

25

20
Shear force in KN

15

Shear Force (Fy)

10
Shear Force (Fz)
5

0
CSB PEB
Tpes of Building

Figure 5.5: Comparison of Shear Force

VI. CONCLUSION
1. It is observed that Conventional Steel Buildings tend to require a 40% larger quantity of steel as compared
to their Pre Engineered buildings.
2. Pre Engineered Building cost is 40% lesser than the cost of CSB Structure. Cost of structure is totally
dependent upon quantity of steel, hence lesser the quantity of steel, lesser the cost of structure and this makes
pre-engineered building economical than conventional steel structure.
3. It is observed that in Pre Engineered Building Maximum support Reaction is less as Compared in Convention
Steel building as a result of which foundation of Pre Engineered Building is more economical as compared to
Conventional Steel Building.

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[249]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:05/Issue:08/August-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com
4. The Bending moment in Pre Engineered Building is more as compare to Conventional Steel Building because
in Pre Engineered Building, tapered sections can lead to higher bending moments. Tapered sections result in
varying cross-sectional dimensions along the length of a structural member. This variation in dimensions
affects the distribution of loads and forces, often leading to increased bending moments at certain points
compared to uniform sections. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in tapered roof beams or columns
where the change in section causes an uneven distribution of loads, resulting in higher bending stresses and
moments in specific areas.
5. A comparative analysis of shear force distributions between pre-engineered buildings (PEBs) and
conventional steel buildings as shown in 4.6 reveals an intriguing trend. In the context of pre-engineered
buildings, the shear force tends to exhibit a higher magnitude in contrast to its conventional steel counterparts.
This phenomenon can primarily be attributed to the unique design characteristics and construction methods of
pre-engineered buildings. PEBs often incorporate lightweight materials and innovative tapered sections, which
can lead to variations in load distribution and subsequently induce elevated shear forces. Additionally, the
streamlined fabrication and assembly processes of PEBs may result in optimized designs that place higher
demands on specific elements, contributing to increased shear force concentrations. Understanding and
accounting for these distinctions is imperative in the meticulous engineering and execution of pre-engineered
structures to ensure their integrity and resilience in the face of shear-induced challenges.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] Neha R.Kolat et al. “Comparative study of Pre-Engineered Buildings and Conventional steel frames for
different wind zones”, International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science Volume 4, Issue 7
(July 2015), PP.51-59.M. Young, The Technical Writer’s Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science,
1989.
[2] Hemant Sharma, “A Comparative Study on Analysis & Design of Pre-Engineered & Conventional
Industrial Building”, International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology,
(Mar2017), Volume 3 , Issue 10.
[3] Md Shahid Wasim Chaudhary et al. “Comparative Study of Multi-Storey Multi Span G+4 Building by PEB
and CSB Concept”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology Volume: 06 Issue: 05
May 2019.
[4] Quazi Syed Shujat et al. “Comparative Study of Design of Industrial Warehouse Using CSB, PEB and
Tubular Sections”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Application ISSN : 2248-9622,
Vol. 8, Issue (April 2018).
[5] Shivam Prajapati, “Comparative Study of Various PEB Frame Types”, International Journal of Advance
Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD), Vol. 5, Issue 04, 2018.
[6] IS 875 (Part I) – 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than EQ load) for buildings and
structures (Dead Load).
[7] IS 875 (Part II) – 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than EQ load) for buildings and
structures (Imposed Load).
[8] IS 875 (Part III) – 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than EQ load) for buildings and
structures (Wind Load).

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[250]