International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)

Volume 4, Issue 2 Feb 2022, pp: 103-108 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
1
Rajeshkumar Suthar2, Prof. Mili Sankhla3
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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted: 25-01-2022 Revised: 05-02-2022 Accepted: 08-02-2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT:Steel industry is growing rapidly The package that was in the main used for the
within the majority of parts of the world. the use of whole coming up with and analysis half was
steel structures is not exclusively economical Bentley STAAD-PRO, SAP-2000, E-Tabs and it
however collectively eco-friendly. The structure absolutely was found that the Pre-engineered
ought to accommodate strength, stability, and building offers a lot of property results as
malleability to accommodate each horizontal and compared to traditional steel buildings.
vertical loading. Horizontal Loading results in the KEYWORDS:STADD-Pro, Tapered Section,
assembly of sway and any ends up in vibration and (PEB) Pre-Engineered Building,Optimizations,
construction drift. Strength and stiffness are the Bracing System, Seismic Load, Wind Load,
two major keys for any structure to resist gravity Minimum Weight, (CSB) Conventional Steel
and lateral masses. Provision of bracing and Building, Steel Consumption.
dampers results in lateral stability. once distribution
dampers or bracings, the overall system changes to I. INTRODUCTION
a lateral load resisting system (LLRS). If the Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) are the
buildings aren't designed to resist the lateral buildings which are engineered at a factory and
masses, then perhaps collapse leading to the loss of assembled at the site. Usually, PEB’s are the steel
the life or its content. Analysis of truss is finished structure. built-up sections are fabricated at the
for various factors of parcel of land classes, Factory to exact Size, transported to site and
category of structure, topography, height, and assembled at the site with bolted or Welded
calculated wind load as per provisions of the Indian Connections.The current study is formulated to
customary Code. the look of structural members accomplished the staggered plan-based
with most potency & minimum price is usually a enhancement of pre-engineered steel structure. To
challenge to the Architects & Engineers. the most accomplish it, a wide range of PEB and CSB
objective of this paper is to grasp the ideas of PEB structures are considered for the study and will be
and to reduce the usage of price and time. whereas planned under specific parameters to make the
compared to different technologies in construction structure increasingly effective.The concept of the
Pre-Engineered Building is a lot of property and pre-designing structure is comparatively a new idea
stands within the prime position compared with when contrasted with conventional steel building
different technologies. If we tend to select a typical (CSB).
steel structure the timeframe is going to be longer
and therefore the value are going to be higher as As the name shows, it incorporates the
compared with PEB. The paper presents pre-designing of every single basic part of the
comparative results of the study to urge optimum structure considering the engineering and
style of steel industrial shed structure. The architectural prerequisites. The structural concept
materials that square measure employed in this idea of PEB is to utilize just the necessary profundity of
square measure reusable, reusable and eco-friendly. the part that is required at that specific spot

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0402103108 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 103
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 4, Issue 2 Feb 2022, pp: 103-108 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

contingent on the bending moment. The output -up members. The utilization of tapered sections
comes in the tapered sections all through the range brings out the de-minimizing the expense of the
of the structure. The decreased shape is got by built structure by cutting off superfluous steel.

1.1 Need of Pre-Engineered building Railway Stations

In almost all part of world, the steel Office building
industry is Developing Speedily. The use of Steel Exhibition halls
Structures at a time is not only economical but it is Cold Storage building
environment friendly. If we go for the standard Convention centres
steel structure, the time consumption will be more Factories
and price will be higher. i.e. time and cost, will Power-plants
make PEB inexpensive. Therefore, the complete
Boiler houses
construction is performed in the factory in present
engineering structures, and according to the design, Apartments
members are prefabricated and then transported to Stadiums
the site where they are erected in less than 6-8 Bridges
weeks. Shipyard, etc.

1.2 Benefits of PEB The adoptability of PEB in the place of

Economical and Speedy in construction. conventional steel building design concept resulted
Good quality, manufacturing and erection, in many advantages, including economy and easier
therefore the project time is saved by 30%- fabrication. These types of building structure can
40%. be finished internally to serve any functions that is
Suitable for long span Construction. actually help in low rise building design. Steel
structures also have much better strength to weight
Resistant to all types of weather and fire.
ratios than RCC and they can also be reused after
Economical design, thereby reducing the dismantling. PEB can be shifted and/or expanded
overall weight. as per the requirements in future. With the
Expansion and modification can be done easily improvement in technology, computer software’s
in future. have contributed immensely to the enhancement of
Less maintenance cost. quality of life through new researches. PEB is one
It can be easily disassembled and shifted. such revolution. [1-11]
It is eco-friendly in nature.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1) Amin Tahmasebi, Mostafa Rahimi
(2021) [1]:They have studied three types of steel
1.3 Application of PEB buildings were defined for seismic analysis,
including five, eight, and fifteen-storey steel
Industrial Shed building as the representative of multi-storey,
Ware-houses middle rise, and small high-rise building,

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0402103108 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 104
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 4, Issue 2 Feb 2022, pp: 103-108 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

respectively. The designed building wasanalyzed material used here is not only eco-friendly but also
statically and dynamically as per the criteria reusable. The cost study shows that the PEB
determined in the FEMA-P750, Standarad code- structures are economical as the effective size of
2800, FEMA-356, and FEMA-P695, and then, Structural member in PEB Structure are smaller
force and displacement-based seismic design (FBD than the CSB Structure. The weight of PEB is
& DBD) results were compared. Non-linear and almost 50% or Less than of the Steel used in
steel structure design were done by SAP-2000 and Conventional Steel Structures. PEB Structure is
Opensees Software. The result shows, the storey approximately 35% Cost Saving as compared to
displacement in seismic demand, the braced frames CSB. From the analysis the weight of the member
subjected to near-field earthquake showed an in both cases are 1301Kg and 2013Kg for PEB and
admissible performance especially in multi-storey CSB. It clearly states that half the steel usage is
building. The drift of 0.5% is threshold of replacing reduced in PEB.
in brace, the values of drift in the multi-story (5-
story) and middle-rise (8-story) buildings did not 4) Sneha G. Hirekhan, Pranoti D.
exceed the allowable drift values designated in Wadaskar, Abhay G.Hirekhan (2021)[4]:A
FEMA 356 (2%), i.e., the results met FEMA 356 Comparative Study on design wind pressure for
criteria. Industrial Steel Shed according to IS 875 (Part-3):
1987 , IS 875 (part-3): 2015, MBMA Code. To
2) B. Ravali, P. Poluraju (2019) [2]: Seismic give optimum and economical design for the
analysis of the building using bracing and dampers structure. A 3-D model of warehouse is prepared in
is done. The study involves in proposing the STAAD-Pro Software. Taking Vb= 44m/s for three
suitability of type of dampers and bracing for different cities. Based on analysis result shows the
controlling the seismic activity on industrial “Serviceability Criteria”: Deflection limits by IS-
structures in respective seismic zones III & V of Code are higher than deflection limits by MBM.
India. To control vibration, lateral displacement There is considerable increase in quantity of steel
and storey drift. Response spectrum analysis of 3-D only in Coastal Zone. The main difference between
Industrial structure with concentric bracing and the Indian code (IS 800:2000) and the other
dampers using SAP-2000 & E-Tabs. For these equivalent American codes are in the classification
three different types of bracing and two types of of cross-section of the steel member. Limiting
dampers are used. The result shows the X-bracing Ratio of section are higher in IS 800:2007 than
is more effective and economical for structure in MBMA. Loadings values are higher as per Indian
seismic zone-V. As Stiffness of structure increase, Codes than MBMA code. They had made increase
time-period decreases. when compared bracing in wind pressure by 24% and 44% by IS 875 (P-3):
with damper, bracing reduces the time-period. 1987 & IS 875 (P-3): 2015 respectively. It shows
Acceleration is inversely proportional to time- that higher wind pressure will give higher usage of
period and as time-period decrease, acceleration of steel so the for 44% Increase in wind Pressure
structure increase. X-bracing system greatly shows higher tonnage of Steel Quantity 16.788
influences the base-shear of structure and reduce it. (Tone).
When compare to other bracing and dampers X-
bracing greatly reduces the lateral displacement. 5) Mr. Hitesh Jibhkate, Prof. Dilip L.
Dampers require regular maintenance for their Budhlani (2021) [5]: A Comparative analysis of
effective behavior. From this bracing proves the PEB and CSB by STAAD-Pro. A G+3 Industrial
economical in nature. warehouse structure in Nagpur is designed and
examined in this study in accordance with Indian
3) Shaik Kalesha, B.S.S. Ratnamala Standard Code IS 800: 2007 (LSM). A comparative
Reddy, Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu study is also conducted for the hot-rolled section
(2020) [3]:The main objective of this paper is to used in CSB and the cold-formed purlins used in
understand the concepts of PEB and to minimize PEB. 3-D model of PEB structure are
the usage of cost and time. PEB & CSB are accomplished by employing wind load as a critical
designed for forces like wind and seismic using load for the structure. Analysis is done to reduce
Indian Standarad code IS 875 (Part-3)-1987 for the steel usage and compare the outcomes for both
wind and IS 1893-2002 for seismic analysis. A 2-D design procedures. The result shows,
Model is prepared.If we go for standard steel Displacement: - the PEB structure designed by IS
structure the time -taken will be more and the price 800-2007 has more displacement as compared to
will be higher in comparison with PEB. Using CSB due to less weight of the structure. Support
STAAD-Pro V8i Software. The result shows the Reaction: - As compared to CSB the PEB Structure

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0402103108 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 105
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 4, Issue 2 Feb 2022, pp: 103-108 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

has less support reaction. Due to its light weight. one-story X-bracing system for 5 and 15 story
Axial, Shear-Force and bending moment: - Peb buildings and the V-bracing system for 10 story
Structure has less Axial, Shear Force and Bending buildings. On the other hand, nonlinear dynamic
Moment as compared to CSB. Steel Quantity: - analysis results showed that lateral displacement
PEB structure are light in weight as compared to was minimum in unbraced, V-bracing, and one-
CSB. PEB are 64% lighter in weight than CSB. story X-bracing systems for 5, 10, and 15 stories,
Wind Resistance: - PEB has Higher Resistance to respectively.
wind than CSB. Purlin: - The Cold formed purlin is
32.5% Lighter as Compared to hot Rolled Purlin. 8) AdvaitSagavekar, Prof. Virupaksh
Khurd (2021) [8]:Experimental study is conducted
6) Anisha Goswami, Dr. Tushar to analyze the effect of different parameters on Pre-
Shende(2018) [6]:PEB was designed and analysed Engineered buildings and comparison of PEB and
and compared with CSB. An Industrial Warehouse CSB. In first stage effect on structure for different
is designed by considering wind load as the critical roof angles and bay spacing is checked and the
load for the structure. CSB is also designed for optimum structure is selected. The effect on
same span considered. Then the designs are column height of structure are studied. Comparison
compared to find out economical Section. The based on steel consumption, displacement, base-
design is carried out in accordance with the Indian reaction, and bending moment values. From the
standard and by the help of STAAD-Pro V8i models most optimized is selected and compared
Software. The comparative result shows that the with conventional roof-truss model. From the
PEB structure gives lesser value in Support analysis the result shows that with change of roof
Reaction, Self-weight, Steel Consumption as angle there is not much variation in steel
compared to CSB. PEB gives more displacement consumption. For different roof angle and bay-
value as compared to CSB due to its light weight. spacing, it shows that model with 7m bay spacing
Steel quantity depends on primary members and and roof angle of 5.71 is optimum for every
purlins. As spacing of Frame is increased steel parameter and shows the optimum steel
Consumption decreased for primary members and consumption. when models are compared for
increased for secondary members.by reducing dead different column height it shows that column with
load the size of foundation is also reduce.Cold 2m height shows less consumption of steel, but in
formed steel section over hot rolled section as practical column with height of 5-7m are more
purlin is almost lighter in weight than 32%. The used. CSB shows more vertical reaction at base.
(Table-1) shows the comparative result. When compared for displacement, values for
conventional building are on higher side.
7) Sulaiman Al‑ Safi, Ibrahim Alameri,
Waleed Abdullah Wasel, Amjad Basheer 9) V. Vishnu Sai, P Poluraju, and B
Al‑ kadasi (2021) [7]:They had investigated the Venkat Rao (2021)[9]:The comparison has been
effects of wind and seismic loads on 5, 10, and 15 made on the structural performance of multiple bay
Storey Steel Building with different types of system with different wind zones [Location:
bracing system. Linear Static and non-linear Vijayawada & Hyderabad]. Analysis and design
dynamic analysis were performed to assess the have been carried-out using STAAD-Pro Software.
base-shear, base-moment, and storey drift for kinds The structural performance of PEB has been
of bracing systems. The cost analysis was taken assessed through the shear-force (SF) and bending
into the consideration. Five Structural moment (BM) magnitudes.3-D model of ware
configurations were used: V-bracing, Inverted V- house is used for analysis. Result shows the PEB
bracing, one-storeyX-bracing, and multistorey X- structure located in vijayawada is 1074.10 KN&
bracing. The purpose of this article is to find the for Hyderbad is 955.51 KN. Results concludes
best bracing system that causes minimum structure weight located in vijayawada is 11.04%
displacement, which indicates maximum lateral higher than that of the structure in Hyderabad. The
stiffness. The conclusion shows the use of bracing section sizes of columns and rafters are less for the
systems for earthquake resistant steel structures structure located in Hyderabad then Vijayawada.
significantly affected the base shear and The BM & SF are less for the structure located in
displacement of the structure; these systems can be Hyderabad. The parameters that affect the
success-fully used to increase the strength and structural weight and section sizes are wind speed
rigidity properties against horizontal loads. Static and seismic-zone.
linear analysis results showed that the best bracing
systems to reduce lateral displacement were the

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0402103108 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 106
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 4, Issue 2 Feb 2022, pp: 103-108 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

III. CONCLUSION PEB structure give less Support reaction then

From the past Studies the PEB structures CSB.
are prove to be more economical and results in PEB Structure have more displacement than
material saving and It is also Environment friendly. CSB.
The researcher shows that the PEB Structures are PEB structure has less Axial Force reaction
easy to design. This design is efficient and results then CSB.
in Speedy construction. PEB Structures are more PEB structure has less Shear Force reaction
reliable then CSB Structures. PEB Structure then CSB.
requires less maintenance then CSB Structures. PEB structure has less Bending Moment then
CSB.
For lateral stiffness the use of X-bracing PEB structure has less Steel Take -off then
proves to be economical then dampers. CSB.
Dampers are usually used for only High-rise
building. It gives greater stiffness than bracing.
It becomes costly in nature.

(Table-1 of Comparative study [6])

Sr. CSB CSB
Description PEB
No. (portal) (Truss)
Displacement
1 278.707 81.99 44.861
(mm)
Support
2 Reaction 195.855 277.218 48.756
(Fx) (KN)
Support
3 Reaction 193.855 277.218 48.756
(Fy) (KN)
Support
4 Reaction 404.019 947.317 148.981
(Mz)
Axial Force
5 212.628 294.43 557.477
(KN)
Shear Force
6 195.855 277.516 48.756
(KN)
Bending
7 Moment 771.235 947.317 148.981
(KN.M)
Steel Take-
8 511.733 940.882 704.951
Off

Hence the more research required for more outputs [2] B. Ravali, P. Poluraju “Seismic Analysis of
for design methods and reducing material in PEB Industrial Structure Using Bracings and
structures. Dampers” International Journal of Recent
Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
REFERENCES [3] Shaik Kalesha, B.S.S. Ratnamala Reddy,
[1] Amin Tahmasebi, Mostafa Rahimi Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu “An
“Evaluation of nonlinear static and dynamic analytical study on pre-engineered buildings
analysis of steel braced frame buildings using Staad-Pro” Civil Engineering
subjected to near-field earthquake using Department, K L Educational Foundation,
FBD and DBD” Evaluation of nonlinear Guntur 522502, Andhra Pradesh, India
static and dynamic analysis of steel braced (ELSEVIER)
frame buildings subjected to near-field [4] Sneha G. Hirekhan, Pranoti D. Wadaskar,
earthquake using FBD and DBD Abhay G.hirekhan “Comparative Study of
(ELSEVIER) Design Wind Pressures for Steel Industrial
Shed According toIS875: 1987 (Part 3),

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0402103108 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 107
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 4, Issue 2 Feb 2022, pp: 103-108 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

IS875:2015 (Part 3) and MBMA Code” Systems” Department of Civil Engineering,

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen
Engineering, Sent Vincent Pallotti College (Springer)
of Engineering, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India [8] AdvaitSagavekar, Prof. Virupaksh Khurd
(NVEO) “Optimization of Pre-Engineered Building
[5] Mr. Hitesh Jibhkate, Prof. Dilip L. Budhlani Structures” Dept. of Civil Engineering,
“Comparative Analysis of Pre-Engineered Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur,
Building and Conventional Steel Building Maharashtra, India (IRJET)
by Staad-Pro” Civil Engineering, Guru [9] V Vishnu Sai, P Poluraju and B Venkat Rao
Nanak Institute of Technology, Nagpur, “Structural Performance of Pre-Engineered
Maharashtra, India (IRJETS) Building: A Comparative Study”
[6] Anisha Goswami, Dr. Tushar Shende “Pre- Department of Civil Engineering, V R
Engineered Building Design of an Industrial Siddhartha Engineering College, Kanuru,
Warehouse” Dept. of Civil Engineering, Vijayawada, Krishna (Dist.), Andhra
G.H. Raisoni Academy of Engg. & Tech, Pradesh. (ICACE)
Nagpur, Maharashtra, India (IRJET)
[7] Sulaiman Al‑ Safi · Ibrahim Alameri ·
Waleed Abdullah Wasel · Amjad Basheer
Al‑ kadasi “Linear and Nonlinear Behavior
of Steel Buildings with Different Bracing

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0402103108 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 108