International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)

Volume 2, Issue 1, pp: 01-05 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

A Review on (PEB) Pre-Engineered Building Using Different

Types of Bracing on Lateral Load
Mr. Suthar Milan Girishkumar1, Prof. Mr. Aakash Rajeshkumar Suthar2, Prof.
Mili Sankhla3
1
PG Graduate Scholar, P.G. Department, L.J. Institute of Engineering and Technology, L.J. University,
Gujarat, India.
2,3
Assistant Professor, P.G. Department, L.J. Institute of Engineering and Technology, L.J. University, Gujarat,
India.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 26-01-2022 Date of Acceptance: 27-01-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

ABSTRACT: Steel industry is growing rapidly lot of property results as compared to traditional
within the majority of parts of the world. the use of steel buildings.
steel structures is not exclusively economical
however collectively eco-friendly. The structure KEYWORDS: STADD-Pro, Tapered Section,
ought to accommodate strength, stability, and (PEB) Pre-Engineered Building, Optimizations,
malleability to accommodate each horizontal and Bracing System, Seismic Load, Wind Load,
vertical loading. Horizontal Loading results in the Minimum Weight, (CSB) Conventional Steel
assembly of sway and any ends up in vibration and Building, Steel Consumption.
construction drift. Strength and stiffness are the two
major keys for any structure to resist gravity and 1. INTRODUCTION
lateral masses. Provision of bracing and dampers
results in lateral stability. once distribution dampers Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) are the
or bracings, the overall system changes to a lateral buildings which are engineered at a factory and
load resisting system (LLRS). If the buildings aren't assembled at the site. Usually, PEB’s are the steel
designed to resist the lateral masses, then perhaps structure. built-up sections are fabricated at the
collapse leading to the loss of the life or its content. Factory to exact Size, transported to site and
Analysis of truss is finished for various factors of assembled at the site with bolted or Welded
parcel of land classes, category of structure, Connections. The current study is formulated to
topography, height, and calculated wind load as per accomplished the staggered plan-based
provisions of the Indian customary Code. the look of enhancement of pre-engineered steel structure. To
structural members with most potency & minimum accomplish it, a wide range of PEB and CSB
price is usually a challenge to the Architects & structures are considered for the study and will be
Engineers. the most objective of this paper is to planned under specific parameters to make the
grasp the ideas of PEB and to reduce the usage of structure increasingly effective. The concept of the
price and time. whereas compared to different pre-designing structure is comparatively a new idea
technologies in construction Pre-Engineered when contrasted with conventional steel building
Building is a lot of property and stands within the (CSB).
prime position compared with different
technologies. If we tend to select a typical steel As the name shows, it incorporates the pre-
structure the timeframe is going to be longer and designing of every single basic part of the structure
therefore the value are going to be higher as considering the engineering and architectural
compared with PEB. The paper presents prerequisites. The structural concept of PEB is to
comparative results of the study to urge optimum utilize just the necessary profundity of the part that
style of steel industrial shed structure. The materials is required at that specific spot contingent on the
that square measure employed in this idea square bending moment. The output comes in the tapered
measure reusable, reusable and eco-friendly. The sections all through the range of the structure. The
package that was in the main used for the whole decreased shape is got by built -up members. The
coming up with and analysis half was Bentley utilization of tapered sections brings out the de-
STAAD-PRO, SAP-2000, E-Tabs and it absolutely minimizing the expense of the structure by cutting
was found that the Pre-engineered building offers a off superfluous steel.

DOI: 10.35629/5252-45122323 | Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 1
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 2, Issue 1, pp: 01-05 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

1.3 Application of PEB

• Industrial Shed
• Ware-houses
• Railway Stations
• Office building
• Exhibition halls
• Cold Storage building
• Convention centres
• Factories
• Power-plants
• Boiler houses
• Apartments
• Stadiums
• Bridges
1.1 Need of Pre-Engineered building • Shipyard, etc.

In almost all part of world, the The adoptability of PEB in the place of
steel industry is Developing Speedily. The conventional steel building design concept resulted
use of Steel Structures at a time is not only in many advantages, including economy and easier
economical but it is environment friendly. fabrication. These types of building structure can be
If we go for the standard steel structure, the finished internally to serve any functions that is
time consumption will be more and price actually help in low rise building design. Steel
will be higher. i.e. time and cost, will make structures also have much better strength to weight
PEB inexpensive. Therefore, the complete ratios than RCC and they can also be reused after
construction is performed in the factory in dismantling. PEB can be shifted and/or expanded as
present engineering structures, and per the requirements in future. With the
according to the design, members are improvement in technology, computer software’s
prefabricated and then transported to the have contributed immensely to the enhancement of
site where they are erected in less than 6-8 quality of life through new researches. PEB is one
weeks. such revolution. [1-11]

1.2 Benefits of PEB 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

• Economical and Speedy in 1) Amin Tahmasebi, Mostafa Rahimi (2021) [1]:

construction. They have studied three types of steel buildings
• Good quality, manufacturing and were defined for seismic analysis, including five,
erection, therefore the project eight, and fifteen-storey steel building as the
time is saved by 30%-40%. representative of multi-storey, middle rise, and
small high-rise building, respectively. The
• Suitable for long span
designed building was analyzed statically and
Construction.
dynamically as per the criteria determined in the
• Resistant to all types of weather
FEMA-P750, Standarad code-2800, FEMA-356,
and fire.
and FEMA-P695, and then, force and
• Economical design, thereby displacement-based seismic design (FBD &
reducing the overall weight. DBD) results were compared. Non-linear and
• Expansion and modification can steel structure design were done by SAP-2000
be done easily in future. and Opensees Software. The result shows, the
• Less maintenance cost. storey displacement in seismic demand, the
• It can be easily disassembled and braced frames subjected to near-field earthquake
shifted. showed an admissible performance especially in
• It is eco-friendly in nature. multi-storey building. The drift of 0.5% is
threshold of replacing in brace, the values of drift
in the multi-story (5-story) and middle-rise (8-

DOI: 10.35629/5252-45122323 | Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 2
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 2, Issue 1, pp: 01-05 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

story) buildings did not exceed the allowable clearly states that half the steel usage is
drift values designated in FEMA 356 (2%), i.e., reduced in PEB.
the results met FEMA 356 criteria.
4) Sneha G. Hirekhan, Pranoti D. Wadaskar,
2) B. Ravali, P. Poluraju (2019) [2]: Seismic Abhay G.Hirekhan (2021)[4]: A Comparative
analysis of the building using bracing and Study on design wind pressure for Industrial
dampers is done. The study involves in Steel Shed according to IS 875 (Part-3): 1987 ,
proposing the suitability of type of dampers IS 875 (part-3): 2015, MBMA Code. To give
and bracing for controlling the seismic activity optimum and economical design for the
on industrial structures in respective seismic structure. A 3-D model of warehouse is
zones III & V of India. To control vibration, prepared in STAAD-Pro Software. Taking
lateral displacement and storey drift. Response Vb= 44m/s for three different cities. Based on
spectrum analysis of 3-D Industrial structure analysis result shows the “Serviceability
with concentric bracing and dampers using Criteria”: Deflection limits by IS-Code are
SAP-2000 & E-Tabs. For these three different higher than deflection limits by MBM. There
types of bracing and two types of dampers are is considerable increase in quantity of steel
used. The result shows the X-bracing is more only in Coastal Zone. The main difference
effective and economical for structure in between the Indian code (IS 800:2000) and the
seismic zone-V. As Stiffness of structure other equivalent American codes are in the
increase, time-period decreases. when classification of cross-section of the steel
compared bracing with damper, bracing member. Limiting Ratio of section are higher
reduces the time-period. Acceleration is in IS 800:2007 than MBMA. Loadings values
inversely proportional to time-period and as are higher as per Indian Codes than MBMA
time-period decrease, acceleration of structure code. They had made increase in wind pressure
increase. X-bracing system greatly influences by 24% and 44% by IS 875 (P-3): 1987 & IS
the base-shear of structure and reduce it. When 875 (P-3): 2015 respectively. It shows that
compare to other bracing and dampers X- higher wind pressure will give higher usage of
bracing greatly reduces the lateral steel so the for 44% Increase in wind Pressure
displacement. Dampers require regular shows higher tonnage of Steel Quantity 16.788
maintenance for their effective behavior. From (Tone).
this bracing proves the economical in nature.
5) Mr. Hitesh Jibhkate, Prof. Dilip L. Budhlani
3) Shaik Kalesha, B.S.S. Ratnamala Reddy, (2021) [5]: A Comparative analysis of PEB and
Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu (2020) CSB by STAAD-Pro. A G+3 Industrial
[3]
: The main objective of this paper is to warehouse structure in Nagpur is designed and
understand the concepts of PEB and to examined in this study in accordance with
minimize the usage of cost and time. PEB & Indian Standard Code IS 800: 2007 (LSM). A
CSB are designed for forces like wind and comparative study is also conducted for the
seismic using Indian Standarad code IS 875 hot-rolled section used in CSB and the cold-
(Part-3)-1987 for wind and IS 1893-2002 for formed purlins used in PEB. 3-D model of PEB
seismic analysis. A 2-D Model is prepared. If structure are accomplished by employing wind
we go for standard steel structure the time - load as a critical load for the structure. Analysis
taken will be more and the price will be higher is done to reduce the steel usage and compare
in comparison with PEB. Using STAAD-Pro the outcomes for both design procedures. The
V8i Software. The result shows the material result shows, Displacement: - the PEB
used here is not only eco-friendly but also structure designed by IS 800-2007 has more
reusable. The cost study shows that the PEB displacement as compared to CSB due to less
structures are economical as the effective size weight of the structure. Support Reaction: - As
of Structural member in PEB Structure are compared to CSB the PEB Structure has less
smaller than the CSB Structure. The weight of support reaction. Due to its light weight. Axial,
PEB is almost 50% or Less than of the Steel Shear-Force and bending moment: - Peb
used in Conventional Steel Structures. PEB Structure has less Axial, Shear Force and
Structure is approximately 35% Cost Saving as Bending Moment as compared to CSB. Steel
compared to CSB. From the analysis the Quantity: - PEB structure are light in weight as
weight of the member in both cases are compared to CSB. PEB are 64% lighter in
1301Kg and 2013Kg for PEB and CSB. It weight than CSB. Wind Resistance: - PEB has

DOI: 10.35629/5252-45122323 | Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 3
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 2, Issue 1, pp: 01-05 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Higher Resistance to wind than CSB. Purlin: - On the other hand, nonlinear dynamic analysis
The Cold formed purlin is 32.5% Lighter as results showed that lateral displacement was
Compared to hot Rolled Purlin. minimum in unbraced, V-bracing, and one-
story X-bracing systems for 5, 10, and 15
6) Anisha Goswami, Dr. Tushar Shende (2018) stories, respectively.
[6]
: PEB was designed and analysed and
compared with CSB. An Industrial Warehouse 8) Advait Sagavekar, Prof. Virupaksh Khurd
is designed by considering wind load as the (2021) [8]: Experimental study is conducted to
critical load for the structure. CSB is also analyze the effect of different parameters on
designed for same span considered. Then the Pre-Engineered buildings and comparison of
designs are compared to find out economical PEB and CSB. In first stage effect on structure
Section. The design is carried out in for different roof angles and bay spacing is
accordance with the Indian standard and by the checked and the optimum structure is selected.
help of STAAD-Pro V8i Software. The The effect on column height of structure are
comparative result shows that the PEB studied. Comparison based on steel
structure gives lesser value in Support consumption, displacement, base-reaction, and
Reaction, Self-weight, Steel Consumption as bending moment values. From the models
compared to CSB. PEB gives more most optimized is selected and compared with
displacement value as compared to CSB due to conventional roof-truss model. From the
its light weight. Steel quantity depends on analysis the result shows that with change of
primary members and purlins. As spacing of roof angle there is not much variation in steel
Frame is increased steel Consumption consumption. For different roof angle and bay-
decreased for primary members and increased spacing, it shows that model with 7m bay
for secondary members.by reducing dead load spacing and roof angle of 5.71 is optimum for
the size of foundation is also reduce. Cold every parameter and shows the optimum steel
formed steel section over hot rolled section as consumption. when models are compared for
purlin is almost lighter in weight than 32%. different column height it shows that column
The (Table-1) shows the comparative result. with 2m height shows less consumption of
steel, but in practical column with height of 5-
7) Sulaiman Al‑Safi, Ibrahim Alameri, Waleed 7m are more used. CSB shows more vertical
Abdullah Wasel, Amjad Basheer Al‑kadasi reaction at base. When compared for
(2021) [7]: They had investigated the effects of displacement, values for conventional building
wind and seismic loads on 5, 10, and 15 Storey are on higher side.
Steel Building with different types of bracing
system. Linear Static and non-linear dynamic 9) V. Vishnu Sai, P Poluraju, and B Venkat
analysis were performed to assess the base- Rao (2021) [9]: The comparison has been made
shear, base-moment, and storey drift for kinds on the structural performance of multiple bay
of bracing systems. The cost analysis was system with different wind zones [Location:
taken into the consideration. Five Structural Vijayawada & Hyderabad]. Analysis and
configurations were used: V-bracing, Inverted design have been carried-out using STAAD-
V-bracing, one-storey X-bracing, and Pro Software. The structural performance of
multistorey X-bracing. The purpose of this PEB has been assessed through the shear-force
article is to find the best bracing system that (SF) and bending moment (BM) magnitudes.
causes minimum displacement, which 3-D model of ware house is used for analysis.
indicates maximum lateral stiffness. The Result shows the PEB structure located in
conclusion shows the use of bracing systems vijayawada is 1074.10 KN & for Hyderbad is
for earthquake resistant steel structures 955.51 KN. Results concludes structure weight
significantly affected the base shear and located in vijayawada is 11.04% higher than
displacement of the structure; these systems that of the structure in Hyderabad. The section
can be success-fully used to increase the sizes of columns and rafters are less for the
strength and rigidity properties against structure located in Hyderabad then
horizontal loads. Static linear analysis results Vijayawada. The BM & SF are less for the
showed that the best bracing systems to reduce structure located in Hyderabad. The
lateral displacement were the one-story X- parameters that affect the structural weight and
bracing system for 5 and 15 story buildings and section sizes are wind speed and seismic-zone.
the V-bracing system for 10 story buildings.

DOI: 10.35629/5252-45122323 | Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 4
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 2, Issue 1, pp: 01-05 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

3. CONCLUSION Hence the more research required for more

outputs for design methods and reducing material in
From the past Studies the PEB PEB structures.
structures are prove to be more economical and
results in material saving and It is also REFERENCES
Environment friendly. The researcher shows
that the PEB Structures are easy to design. This [1] Amin Tahmasebi, Mostafa Rahimi
design is efficient and results in Speedy “Evaluation of nonlinear static and
construction. PEB Structures are more reliable dynamic analysis of steel braced frame
then CSB Structures. PEB Structure requires buildings subjected to near-field
less maintenance then CSB Structures. earthquake using FBD and DBD”
Evaluation of nonlinear static and dynamic
• For lateral stiffness the use of X-bracing analysis of steel braced frame buildings
proves to be economical then dampers. subjected to near-field earthquake using
• Dampers are usually used for only High- FBD and DBD (ELSEVIER)
rise building. It gives greater stiffness [2] B. Ravali, P. Poluraju “Seismic Analysis of
than bracing. It becomes costly in nature. Industrial Structure Using Bracings and
• PEB structure give less Support reaction Dampers” International Journal of Recent
then CSB. Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
• PEB Structure have more displacement [3] Shaik Kalesha, B.S.S. Ratnamala Reddy,
than CSB. Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu “An
• PEB structure has less Axial Force analytical study on pre-engineered
reaction then CSB. buildings using Staad-Pro” Civil
• PEB structure has less Shear Force Engineering Department, K L Educational
reaction then CSB. Foundation, Guntur 522502, Andhra
Pradesh, India (ELSEVIER)
• PEB structure has less Bending Moment
[4] Sneha G. Hirekhan, Pranoti D. Wadaskar,
then CSB.
Abhay G.hirekhan “Comparative Study of
• PEB structure has less Steel Take -off
Design Wind Pressures for Steel Industrial
then CSB.
Shed According toIS875: 1987 (Part 3),
IS875:2015 (Part 3) and MBMA Code”
(Table-1 of Comparative study [6])
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Sent Vincent Pallotti College
Sr. CSB CSB
Description PEB of Engineering, Nagpur, Maharashtra,
No. (portal) (Truss)
Displacement India (NVEO)
1 278.707 81.99 44.861 [5] Mr. Hitesh Jibhkate, Prof. Dilip L.
(mm)
Support Budhlani “Comparative Analysis of Pre-
2 Reaction 195.855 277.218 48.756 Engineered Building and Conventional
(Fx) (KN) Steel Building by Staad-Pro” Civil
Support Engineering, Guru Nanak Institute of
3 Reaction 193.855 277.218 48.756 Technology, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
(Fy) (KN) (IRJETS)
Support [6] Anisha Goswami, Dr. Tushar Shende “Pre-
4 Reaction 404.019 947.317 148.981
(Mz)
Engineered Building Design of an
Axial Force Industrial Warehouse” Dept. of Civil
5 212.628 294.43 557.477 Engineering, G.H. Raisoni Academy of
(KN)
Shear Force Engg. & Tech, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
6 195.855 277.516 48.756 (IRJET)
(KN)
Bending [7] Sulaiman Al‑Safi · Ibrahim Alameri ·
7 Moment 771.235 947.317 148.981 Waleed Abdullah Wasel · Amjad Basheer
(KN.M) Al‑kadasi “Linear and Nonlinear Behavior
Steel Take- of Steel Buildings with Different Bracing
8 511.733 940.882 704.951
Off Systems” Department of Civil
Engineering, Sana’a University, Sana’a,
Yemen (Springer)

DOI: 10.35629/5252-45122323 | Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 5
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 2, Issue 1, pp: 01-05 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

[8] Advait Sagavekar, Prof. Virupaksh Khurd

“Optimization of Pre-Engineered Building
Structures” Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur,
Maharashtra, India (IRJET)
[9] V Vishnu Sai, P Poluraju and B Venkat
Rao “Structural Performance of Pre-
Engineered Building: A Comparative
Study” Department of Civil Engineering, V
R Siddhartha Engineering College,
Kanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna (Dist.),
Andhra Pradesh. (ICACE)

DOI: 10.35629/5252-45122323 | Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 6