International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)

ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8, Issue-1, May 2019

Effect of Bracing under Different Loading for

Conventional and Pre Engineering Industrial
Structure
Suraj Tale, K.Vasugi


Abstract: Industrial building is used to store any openings of industrial structures as well as low dead weight of
manufacturing products. Mostly these buildings are constructed structure. The conventional steel buildings are made by hot
with steel material. Ordinary steel structure are made up of truss rolled sections by heavyweight of material.
as a roofing system with roof top covering, it is called as
conventional steel building (CSB). Pre engineering building
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
(PEB) is new type of building framing system adopted in the
industrial building, the concepts is steel framing system, Y.M Manjunath [1], he analyzed the industrial buildings
supporting members and roof covering are connected each other. with two categories namely normal and simple industrial
Pre Engineering Building (PEB) systems being an alternative to buildings. Normal industrial buildings consist of simple
conventional steel building in cost wise. Due to its less in dead
weight, industrial building designed for lateral loads. To with
single-storeyed industrial sheds with or without gantry
stand the lateral load bracing are provided in the industrial girders to house workshop. The pre engineering building has
structure. The aim of this research work is optimize the bracings lightest possible structure under heavy load without any
for both conventional steel building structure (CSB) and Pre compromise. Comparison between trapezoidal trusses
Engineering Building (PEB), analyze the behavior of structure decreases the axial force in the chord members adjacent at
under different loads by using Etabs software. Cost comparison of support.
steel used for CSB and PEB are also studied.
Darshana. P. Zoad [2], brought the suggestion that the PEB
is the most economical, low cost and also benefits from
Index Terms: Industrial building, bracings, optimization, lateral faster construction cycle. In PEB system has been speedy,
loads, steel cost. valuable and also save percentage of steel.
A Kailasa Rao [3], the study of steel has the ductile and
flexible material. The pre-engineered building (PEB) is
I. INTRODUCTION
fabricated in the steel factory by pre-fabricated the PEB
India is the second fastest growing steel manufacturing design economically as per the requirements. PEB can be
industries. In modern construction industries usage of steel made in many applications like mezzanine floors, canopies,
quantity is increased in India. Steel is highly ecofriendly and fasciae, interior partition walls, etc. The PEB structure
globally used in the world. And steel manufactured products matches the shape of the internal stress (bending moment)
are 100% of recyclable after usable in structure and the diagram and reducing the total weight of the PEB structure.
advantage of high tensile strength and ductility of the steel Swapnil N. Dhandel [4], he analyzed the different types of
material. Steel is mostly used in construction of steel bracings namely Inverted V Bracing (IVB), Vertical V
structures or industrial structures with large span. The bracing (VVB) and Cross Diagonal Bracing (CDB), he
construction of industrial building has discovered, invented found that bracing configuration reduce the natural time
and developed a number of technologies, one of the concepts period of vibration.
of pre-engineering buildings. The pre-engineering building is
T.D. Mythili [5], Pre-Engineered Building involves
designed by tapered section with different plate sizes and
predesigned and prefabricated. PEB is new technique
often has with the flanges and web with variable thickness
preferred when the demand for large span needed and good
plate or sections based on the internal and external stresses
appearance in aesthetic view. Based on the BMD the
over the section. Pre engineering building are delivered as
sections can be varied throughout its length.
complete or proper finished products to the site of
construction period of structure and supplied by one week of B. Meena Sai Lakshmi1 [6], this paper effectively conveys
structural framed materials as compared to conventional steel that Pre-Engineered Steel can be easily designed as per
building structure. Pre engineering building has large IS800-2007 with simple procedure due to its low in weight.
Flexible frames and Pre-Engineered Building offer higher
resistance to earthquake load. Pre-Engineered steel Building
Revised Manuscript Received on 30 May 2019. (PEB) concept involves predesigned and prefabricated.
* Correspondence Author Kavya.Rao [7], The Pre-Engineered Building (PEB)
Suraj Sadashiv*, Tale, M.Tech Structural Engineering, School of
includes the technique of providing the most effective
Mechanical Building and science, VIT Chennai, India.
Vasugi K, Assistant Professor (Sr) Division of Structural Engineering, attainable section in line with the optimum demand.
School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT, Chennai, India.

© The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and

Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the
CC-BY-NC-ND license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Published By:
Retrieval Number A2969058119/19©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 118 & Sciences Publication
 Effect of Bracing under Different Loading for Conventional and Pre Engineering Industrial Structure

The study is achieved by coming up with associate industrial bracing, alternate diagonal bracing, V-type& Inverted V-type
building exploitation each the ideas and analyzing them bracing for both CSB and PEB shown in figure 3. To develop
exploitation the structural analysis. the model the input parameters are taken in account which is
shown in Tabel 1.
Kavita.K.Ghogare1 et al. [8], she is suggest that various
types of industrial shed, variety of industrial sheds, hot rolled Tabel 1 Input Parameter for Modeling CSB & PEB
steel shed. Howe truss is economical other than trusses. This
paper suggest suitable configuration of the industrial shed. S. No. Description Values
1 Building Dimensions 25 m x 48 m
B K Raghu Prasad [9], the analysis pre engineering building 2 Type Of Roofing G.I Sheet
includes the technique provides the most effective potential 3 Location Of Building Pune
section in keeping with the optimum demand. This concept 4 Bay Spacing 6m
has several benefits over the traditional steel building (CSB). 5 Number of bays 8 No.
According to that PEB structures square measure a lot of 5 Wind Speed 39 m/s
merits compared to CSB structures in terms of value 6 Roof Slope 1in3
effectiveness, speedy in construction and ease in erection. 7 Riser Height 3m
Raveesh.R.M [10] he analyzed by PEB structure and studied 8 Height Of The Column 8m
the effect of bracings in the PEB structure, under wind loads 9 Purlin Spacing 1.42 m c/c
and dampers for earthquake loads. The determine the change 10 Type Of Truss Pratt Truss
in dynamic for those condition in terms of different mass 11 Column Section(CSB) UC/ISMB
ratio and height by breath ratio. Compare to dampers model 13 Truss Chord Section RHS
with bracing provides more effectiveness in reducing the 14 Column Section(PEB) Tapered
structural parameters. 15 Rafter Section(PEB) Tapered
Vrushali Bahadure [11], this paper gives a comparison 16 No. of Bays 8
between numerous configurations of a commercial shed. 17. Width of the building 25 m
This paper can provide the U.S.A. the appropriate
configuration of the commercial shed by creating and
scrutiny style and analysis of varied configurations of
commercial sheds.
Aditya Dubey [12], he is suggested for pre-engineered
building has tapering sections to reduce the excessive steel as
per the bending moment’s demand. In PEB suggest decrease
or increase the depth so strength also varies and at the same
time leading to economic structures. The PEB structure
provides a clear span; it weighs 10% lesser than conventional
steel buildings.
Anitha M [13], she analyzed a double knee braced frames
with eccentric bracings and it’s without bracings and
comparison are made. The total load for double knee
bracings is more compared to without bracings with Fig.1 Plan for CSB and PEB Structure
eccentric bracings. For seismic analysis double knee bracing
provides better performance. Bearing of ultimate load by
double knee bracing is grater compared to without bracing
with eccentricity.

. III. OBJECTIVE
1. To model the Conventional Steel Building (CSB) and Pre
Engineering Building (PEB) for different bracing by using
Etabs software.
2.To analyze the Conventional Steel Building (CSB) and Pre
Engineering Building (PEB) for different loads with
different bracing by using Etabs software.
3.To optimize the bracing for lateral loads.
4.Result comparison of PEB with CSB structure.
Fig 2 & 3 Model showing Cross sectional view of CSB &
PEB structure in Etabs software
IV. STRUCTURAL MODELLING
As per IS code SP38 for the span 25 m Pratt truss pattern is
adopted and used for analyzing Conventional Steel Building
(CSB), and for PEB Tapered I section varied in depth is used
which is shown in figure 1 & 2. The 3D cross sectional view
using different bracing like X-bracing, K-bracing, Diagonal
Published By:
Retrieval Number A2969058119/19©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 119 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8, Issue-1, May 2019

Conventional Steel Pre-Engineered Building

Building (CSB)

(f) Inverted V bracing

(a) X-bracing
Fig4 (a) to (f) 3D Models showing cross sectional view
with different bracings for both CSB and PEB structure

A. Section Properties of Tapered Section

The frame of a Pre-Engineering Building modeled by

assigning the Tapered sections for rafter is an equal length
tapered 2, tapered 3 tapered 4 and tapered 1 for the column
shown in fig 4 and section properties shown in table 2.
(b) K-Bracing

(c) Diagonal Bracing

Fig 5 Cross sectional view showing various Tapered

Sections assigned for PEB

Table 2 Section Properties of Tapered sections for PEB

(d) Alternate diagonal bracing
Description Taper1 Taper2 Taper3 Taper4
Depth of section at
start node (m) 0.4 0.40 0.35 0.25
Thickness of web 0.0089 0.0081 0.0069 0.0075
(m)
Depth of section at
end node (m) 0.45 0.35 0.25 0.3
Width of top flange 0.14 0.14 0.125 0.14
(m)
Thickness of top
(e) V bracing flange (m) 0.016 0.0142 0.0125 0.0124
Width of bottom
flange (m) 0.14 0.14 0.125 0.14
Thickness of bottom
flange (m) 0.016 0.0142 0.0125 0.0124

Published By:
Retrieval Number A2969058119/19©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 120 & Sciences Publication
 Effect of Bracing under Different Loading for Conventional and Pre Engineering Industrial Structure

V.ANALYSIS VI. RESULT ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON

The design of CSB and PEB as per IS 800-2007. The Pratt
A. Comparison of Weight
truss is being used as the truss for CSB as from literature
reviews it was found that the most economical in analysis of Whole structural weight of conventional steel and
conventional steel building. The Pratt truss chord was pr-engineering building showing that graphically and also get
designed and analyzed with different sections such as ISA, the comparison between two buildings is a minimum weight
ISMB, and RHS. The most economized section is then used of X-Type bracing for conventional building and the
for CSB’s truss chord member. The CSB is then modeled and minimum weight of V-Type bracing. If two comparisons
design for six (6) different bracing such as cross bracing, K conclude that PEB reducing steel quantity given table 5 and
bracing, diagonal bracing, alternate diagonal bracing, V is graphical representation shown in fig 6.
bracing, Inverted V bracing. The PEB is modeled and
analysis for the same bracing as above CSB. Both the CSB Table 5 Weight comparison for the sections used for
and PEB will be analyzed for under different loads. CSB and PEB structure

1. Loads Type of bracing CSB (Tons) PEB (Tons)

Dead; live and wind loads used for analysis as per IS875 I, II, X-Bracing 39.35 35.77
and III respectively shown in table 3. Internal pressure K-Bracing 38 35.2
coefficient (Cpi) = ± 0.5 (assuming 20% wall area opening)
Diagonal 38.25 33.34
and external pressure coefficient taken for the wind analysis
shown in table 4. Earthquake Load, taken for analysis as per Alternate Diagonal 37.95 33.54
the Zone – III, R = 5 (Steel structure), I = 1 Z=0.16 T a= 0.2 V-Type 37.08 30
sec. Soil Type- Medium =2.5 damping=5% Ah=0.05 Inverted V-Type 37.68 32.12

Table 3 Loads used for analysis

Type of Loads Load Intensity IS code

DL 0.48 kN/m IS875-I
LL 2.76 kN/m IS875-II
WL 39 m/s IS875-III
EL As per IS1893
Design wind speed= Vz = 34.32 m/s
Design wind pressure (Pz) = 0.707 kN/m2
Internal pressure coefficient (Cpi) = ± 0.5 (assuming 20%
wall area opening)
Wind load = (Cpe ± Cpi) x Pz x bay spacing along length Fig 6 Weight vs. Type of bracings for both CSB and PEB

Table 4 External pressure coefficient (Cpe) B. Natural Time Period

The natural time period of a building is the time taken by it, to
Angle Roof Wall undergo one complete cycle of oscillations. It is an inherent
0° -0.72 -0.4 0.7 -0.25 property of building controlled by its mass (m) and stiffness
90° -0.8 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 (k) so that pre-engineering building reducing steel quantity as
well as the whole weight of building as compared to
conventional steel building, therefore, the time period of CSB
2. Load Combinations is 0.5 sec and PEB is 0.32 sec. In this result PEB building
1. 1.5(DL+LL) reducing vibration as well as oscillations to gives great
2. 1.2(DL+LL)+0.6(WLP) resistance capacity than CSB. Details shown in table 7 and
graphically representation shown in fig 6
3. 1.2(DL+LL)-0.6(WLN)
4. 1.2(DL+LL+WLP) Table 7 Time period taken for CSB and PEB structure
Type of bracing CSB (Sec) PEB (Sec)
5. 1.2(DL+LL-WLN)
X-Bracing 0.56 0.432
6. 1.5(DL+WL)
K-Bracing 0.538 0.408
7. 1.5(DL-LL)
Diagonal bracing 0.623 0.568
8. 1.2(DL+LL+EQLP) Alternate Diagonal bracing 0.613 0.44
9. 1.2(DL+LL-EQLN) V-Type bracing 0.50 0.32
10. 1.5(DL+EQL) Inverted V-Type bracing 0.52 0.38
11. 1.5(DL-EQL)

Published By:
Retrieval Number A2969058119/19©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 121 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8, Issue-1, May 2019

and wind bracings of PEB also helped in the functioning of

the structure effectively and also due to reducing wind effects
and lateral earthquake force means that reduces displacement
of structure. When wind load acts at 90° the bracing plays a
significant role in preventing displacement of the members.
Displacement obtained for different bracing shown in table 9
and Fig 8 shows the variation of displacement for different
bracings.

Table 9 Displacement both CSB and PEB structure

Type Of Bracing CSB (mm) PEB (mm)

Fig 7 Time period vs. Type of bracings for both CSB and PEB X-Bracing 52.6 50.4
C. Base Shear K-Bracing 45.06 40.2
Diagonal bracing 43 34
Base shear is the maximum lateral force that will occur due to
Alternate Diagonal bracing 43.36 35.33
seismic acceleration at the base of the structure. The base
shear depend input seismic acceleration and weight of V-Type bracing 36.36 30.2
structure. Base shear obtained for different bracing shown in Inverted V-Type bracing 48.45 46.2
table 8 and Fig 7 shows the variation of base shear for
different bracings
Table 8 Base shear for both CSB and PEB structure

Type CSB(kN) PEB(kN)

Cross bracing 15.72 8.78
K bracing 14 8.8
Diagonal bracing 15.63 8.74
Alternate diagonal 15.63 8.74
V bracing 13.2 7.5
Inverted V bracing 14.2 8.32
(a)

(b)
Fig 9 (a) & (b) Displacement for both CSB and PEB using
V-Bracing
Fig 7Base shear vs. Type of bracings

D. Displacement
The models are analyzed with cross bracing, K- bracing,
diagonal bracing, alternate diagonal bracing, V-type bracing,
inverted V-type bracing to avoid high displacement. First the
structures were to be analyzed with none bracing than the
displacement of the structure once the wind load hits at 90°
are going to be on the far side and result in the failure of the
structure. Therefore it is suggested to go with bracing since
the roof and the ridge cannot alone provide rigidity to the
structure especially for Knee bracing of PEB the ridge of the Fig 10 Displacement vs. Type of bracings
tapered frame can fail simply for any slight lateral force. The
structures were analyzed for wind loads at 0° and wind loads
at 90°. When the wind acts at 0° the significant displacement
is prevented by the columns and truss chords of CSB or by
tapered structures in case of PEB, however the Knee bracings

Published By:
Retrieval Number A2969058119/19©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 122 & Sciences Publication
 Effect of Bracing under Different Loading for Conventional and Pre Engineering Industrial Structure

VII. DISCUSSION Therefore minimum time period for K bracing of

pre-engineering building and maximum time period for K
For the usage of the section for the most economical members
bracing of conventional steel building comparative results.
for the truss chord member, it’s found that RHS and ISA for
the inner and outer chord.
It is found that ISLC/ISA, UC (Universal Column), and RHS
REFERENCES
(Rectangular Hollow Section) and ISLC. Sectional property
RHS is found to be economical with section weight of 9.82kg. 1. Y.M Manjunath,” Structural behavior of industrial structure subjected to
Knee bracing property ISLB is a lightweight good resistance lateral loads”, IJERT, 2015, vol.4, issue 05, pp.636-641.
2. Darshana. P. Zoad, “Evaluation of pre-engineering structure design by
property for the deflection of a structure. IS-800 as against pre-engineering structure design by AISC”, IJERT,
An economic analysis is found that in the percentage of steel, 2012, vol.1, issue 5, pp. 1-9.
1. Percentage of weight increased in CSB as compared to PEB 3. A. Kailasa Rao, R. Pradeep Kumar,” Comparison of Design Procedures
in cross bracing is 9.1%. for Pre Engineering Buildings (PEB)”, ETIJC, 2014, vol. 8, issue 4,
pp.480-484.
2. Percentage of weight increased in CSB as compared to PEB 4. Swapnil N. Dhande1,”Industrial Building Design on Seismic Issues”,
in K bracing is 9.2%. IJIRSET, 2015, vol. 4, issue 5, pp.2840-2856.
3. Percentage of weight increased in CSB as compared to PEB 5. T.D. Mythili,”An overview of pre-engineered building systems”, IJSER,
in Diagonal bracing is 8.7%. 2017, vol.8, issue 4, pp.557-563.
6. B.Meena Sai Lakshmi,” Comparative Study of Pre Engineered and
4. Percentage of weight increased in CSB as compared to PEB Conventional Steel Building” IJRET, 2015, vol. 2, issue 3, pp. 124-129.
in alternate diagonal bracing is 8.8%. 7. Kavya.Rao,”Design Optimization of an Industrial Structure from Steel
5. Percentage of weight increased in CSB as compared to PEB Frame to Pre-Engineered Building”, IJRAT, 2014, vol. 2, issue 9,
in V bracing is 7.1%. pp.6-10.
8. Kavita.K.Ghogare, “Analysis of an industrial structure for wind load”,
6. Percentage of weight increased in CSB as compared to PEB IJCESR, 2018, vol.5, issue 2, pp. 106-110.
in inverted V bracing is 8.5%. 9. B K Raghu Prasad Optimization of Pre Engineered Buildings, IJERA,
7. The maximum displacement among PEB is obtained when 2014, vol. 4, issue 9, pp.174-183.
cross bracing and minimum displacement is observed by V 10. Raveesh.R.M,”Dynamic analysis of industrial steel structure by using
bracing and dampers under wind load and earthquake load”, IJERT,
bracing. 2016, vol. 5, issue 07, pp.87-92.
8. The maximum displacement among CSB is obtained when 11. Vrushali Bahadure,”Comparison between Design and Analysis of
cross bracing and minimum displacement is observed by Various Configuration of Industrial Sheds”, IJSDR, 2016, vol. 1, issue 7,
also V bracing. pp.208-213.
12. Aditya Dubey ,” Main frame design of the pre-engineered building” ,
The maximum deflection located in the structure of ridge
IJIER, 2016, vol.3, issue 11, pp.12-18.
and rafter that is wind load is obtained by a front of the 13. Anitha M, “Study on Seismic Behavior of Knee Braced Steel Frames”,
structure by the angle of 90° and earthquake load IJCIRT, 2015, vol. 5, issue 9, pp.383-389.
considerable at maximum displacement at whole structure.
Technical analysis is found that, AUTHORS PROFILE
1. Percentage of base shear increased in CSB as compared to
Suraj tale was born in Sangli Maharashtra India He is
PEB in V bracing is 5.68%. obtained B Tech in Civil Engineering from Department
2. Percentage of time period increased in CSB as compared to of Technology Shivaji University Kolhapur .He is
PEB in V bracing is 6.4%. studying M.Tech in structural engineering at VIT-
Chennai Tamilnadu India
3. Percentage of displacement in CSB as compared to PEB in .
V bracing is 8.3%.
Vasugi.K was born in Dharmapuri,India She obtained
the M.E in Structural Engineering from, Government
College of Engineering, Salem, India.She is working as
VIII. CONCULSION Assistant Professor (sr) at VIT Chennai India.
1. The analysis of pre-engineering building is the most
economical than a conventional steel building.
2. The pre-engineering building gives an aesthetic and good
appearance view of the structure.
3. The used knee bracing in pre-engineering building its gives
more resistance of deflection of a structure.
4. The pre-engineering building reduces steel quantity, always
the reduction of dead load of the structure.
5. The reduction of weight of structure for pre-engineering
building also reduces the size of the foundation.
6. The pre-engineering building most effective and
economical to arresting different load on structure than a
conventional steel building.
7. It is found that pre-engineering building with V bracing
comes out to be best suited when economical (reduction of
weight) and deflection of the structure.
8. Above the results reduction of the time period of the
pre-engineering building than a conventional steel building.

Published By:
Retrieval Number A2969058119/19©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 123 & Sciences Publication