sustainability

Article
Design Solutions for Sustainable Construction of
Pre Engineered Steel Buildings
Muhammad Umair Saleem * and Hisham Jahangir Qureshi
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University,
31982 Hofuf, Alahsa, Saudi Arabia; hqureshi@kfu.edu.sa
* Correspondence: mmsaleem@kfu.edu.sa; Tel.: +96-613-589-5440




Received: 15 April 2018; Accepted: 25 May 2018; Published: 28 May 2018


Abstract: Sustainable construction of ecofriendly infrastructure has been the priority of worldwide
researchers. The induction of modern technology in the steel manufacturing industry has enabled
designers to get the desired control over the steel section shapes and profiles resulting in efficient use
of construction material and manufacturing energy required to produce these materials. The current
research study is focused on the optimization of steel building costs with the use of pre-engineered
building construction technology. Construction of conventional steel buildings (CSB) incorporates
the use of hot rolled sections, which have uniform cross-section throughout the length. However,
pre-engineered steel buildings (PEB) utilize steel sections, which are tailored and profiled based
on the required loading effects. In this research study, the performance of PEB steel frames in
terms of optimum use of steel sections and its comparison with the conventional steel building
is presented in detail. A series of PEB and CSB steel frames is selected and subjected to various
loading conditions. Frames were analyzed using Finite Element Based analysis tool and design was
performed using American Institute of Steel Construction design specifications. Comparison of the
frames has been established in terms of frame weights, lateral displacements (sway) and vertical
displacements (deflection) of the frames. The results have clearly indicated that PEB steel frames
are not only the most economical solution due to lesser weight of construction but also have shown
better performance compared to CSB frames.

Keywords: sustainable; pre-engineered; conventional steel building; design; hot rolled sections;
built-up sections; optimizations; minimum weight

1. Introduction
Steel construction is growing very rapidly all over the world [1–3]. Apart from making the steel
building economical in terms of cost, time and quality, experts are also working on making those steel
buildings environmentally friendly and green throughout its life-cycle [1,4–6].
Overall, steel is an expensive material as compared to the rest but when it comes to the cost-savings
during the life span of the structure, steel proves to be a very affordable material [3,7]. Steel can also
be made rust proof by the application of special coated paints [2]. Apart from that, steel is an insect
and termite resistant material and the maintenance cost is lower during its life span as compared to
other materials [8].
Pre-engineered steel buildings prove to be very economical and environmentally friendly as
compared to conventional steel frames [5,7]. Pre-engineered steel structures result in reduction in
factors that are contributing to global warming and pollution. Pre-engineered steel buildings usually
save a lot of landfill space. Pre-engineered steel frames have longer life spans. Once the design life is
over, most of the pre-engineered steel buildings end up at a recycling center where they are melted

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761; doi:10.3390/su10061761 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 2 of 16

and Sustainability
used for the 2018, 10, x FOR
other PEER REVIEW
purposes rather than being dumped at the local available land/ground, 2 of 16thus

reducing construction and demolition waste [8].

and used for the other purposes rather than being dumped at the local available land/ground, thus
Construction of pre-engineered steel buildings saves energy, and, as a result of that, it cuts down
reducing construction and demolition waste [8].
on heating and cooling bills. There is much less chance of error during construction of pre-engineered
Construction of pre-engineered steel buildings saves energy, and, as a result of that, it cuts
buildings
down as on everything
heating andiscoolingpre-fabricated
bills. Therein the factory
is much to chance
less an accuracy
of errorof during
millimeters [9,10]. of
construction Once
constructed, there isbuildings
pre-engineered very little chance thatisthe
as everything steel frames
pre-fabricated in will creep and
the factory to anloosen
accuracywithof the passage of
millimeters
time,[9,10].
windows
Once constructed, there is very little chance that the steel frames will creep and loosen with to
and doors that are framed within jambs and headers inside the building continue
remain
the tightly
passageshut, and, windows
of time, as a result, thedoors
and chances thatofare airframed
leaks are very jambs
within minimal. and headers inside the
Pre-engineered
building continuedesign
to remain is atightly
new terminology
shut, and, as awhere the chances
result, the excess steel
of air is avoided
leaks are verybyminimal.
tapering the
sections asPre-engineered
per the bending design is a newenvelope
moment’s terminology [9]. where the excess steel simulation
The section-moment is avoided by tapering
method the in
results
sections as per the bending moment’s envelope [9]. The section-moment
lightweight structural members, which mainly contribute to the reduction of weight and cost of the simulation method results
in lightweight
structure. PEBs arestructural
designedmembers, whichin
and fabricated mainly contribute
the factory, thentotransported
the reduction of weight
to the and cost
construction ofin a
site
the structure. PEBs are designed and fabricated in the factory, then
completely knocked down condition and all structural components are assembled and erected with transported to the construction
site in a completely knocked down condition and all structural components are assembled and
nut-bolts on site as per the construction plan, thereby reducing the construction time and wastage as
erected with nut-bolts on site as per the construction plan, thereby reducing the construction time
compared to convention steel where structural members are welded on site, thus reducing wastage
and wastage as compared to convention steel where structural members are welded on site, thus
and energy [7,9–11].
reducing wastage and energy [7,9–11].
Pre-engineering
Pre-engineering primary
primaryframing structureisisanan
framing structure assembly
assembly of I-shaped
of I-shaped structural
structural members. members.
The
The I-shaped beams are usually formed in the factory by welding steel
I-shaped beams are usually formed in the factory by welding steel plates together to form plates together to form the I-sections.
the
The I-section
I-sections.beams are then
The I-section assembled
beams are then on site with
assembled onbolted
site with connections to formtothe
bolted connections entire
form frame of
the entire
the pre-engineered building. Steel
frame of the pre-engineered Manufacturers
building. taper thetaper
Steel Manufacturers framing members
the framing as per as
members theperrequired
the
required specifications and design codes to account for the local loading
specifications and design codes to account for the local loading effects. Larger plate dimensions are effects. Larger plate
useddimensions
in areas whereare used
the loadin areas
effectswhere the loadwhereas
are higher, effects are
thehigher,
secondarywhereas the secondary
structural elementsstructural
such as roof
elements
purlins, side andsuchendas roof
wall purlins, side and
girts consist of Coldend Formed
wall girtsZ-consist of Cold Formed
and C-shaped members Z-[9–11].
and C-shaped
members [9–11].
In the construction industry, most of the clients demand longer spans i.e., large spacing between
In the construction industry, most of the clients demand longer spans i.e., large spacing
columns along with larger bay spacing in steel buildings so that they can easily locate their racking
between columns along with larger bay spacing in steel buildings so that they can easily locate their
system, equipment and machinery. The concept of pre-engineered buildings enables for achieving
racking system, equipment and machinery. The concept of pre-engineered buildings enables for
longer spans and large bay spacing values [9]. Design engineers mostly use a method of tapered
achieving longer spans and large bay spacing values [9]. Design engineers mostly use a method of
sections to design
tapered sectionspre-engineered steel frames
to design pre-engineered steelwith
frames large
withspans, thus eliminating
large spans, thus eliminatingexcess steelsteel
excess by the
method
by theof tapered
method of section,
tapered which is as
section, per the
which is asshape
per the of shape
the bending MomentMoment
of the bending Diagram as shown
Diagram as in
Figure 1. in Figure 1.
shown

Figure 1. Pre-engineered steel building.

Figure 1. Pre-engineered steel building.
In the past, significant research has been done on the design and performance evaluation of hot
In the steel
rolled past,sections,
significant research
which has for
are used beenthedone on the design
construction and performance
of Conventional evaluation
Steel Buildings of hot
(CSB)
rolled steel sections,
frames. whichRen
For instance, are used for the[12]
and Zeng construction
conducted ofanConventional
experimentalSteeland Buildings
numerical(CSB)
studyframes.
to
For instance,
evaluate the Ren and Zeng
capacity [12] conducted
of a various I-shaped hotan rolled
experimental andsection
steel column numerical study to
by selecting theevaluate
different the
slenderness
capacity ratios and
of a various load eccentricities.
I-shaped Ellobody
hot rolled steel column[13]section
modeled bythe bucklingthe
selecting behavior of hot
different rolled
slenderness
steel stiffened and unstiffened hollow slender sections using the Finite Element Method.
ratios and load eccentricities. Ellobody [13] modeled the buckling behavior of hot rolled steel stiffened Dowling et
al. developed a design method by using tapered steel portal frames for the industrial
and unstiffened hollow slender sections using the Finite Element Method. Dowling et al. developed buildings
located
a design in the United
method Kingdom
by using andsteel
tapered discussed
portalthe advantages
frames for theandindustrial
role of slender webs in
buildings achieving
located in the
United Kingdom and discussed the advantages and role of slender webs in achieving the economy
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 3 of 16

of the steel buildings [14]. Rangelov determined the effective stiffness of slender steel sections for
deflection calculations [15]. The feasibility of tapered beam-column joints for the steel construction
was elaborated by Šapalas et al. [16] and Deb and Gulati attempted to reduce the weight of CSB truss
buildings by using genetic algorithms [17]. Saka used genetic algorithms to optimize the design of
conventional pitched roof steel frames [18]. Chan et al. determined the nonlinear behavior of pitched
roof steel framed when subjected to sequential loading [19]. Horridge and Morris compared the design
and cost of CSB low pitched portal frames with pinned-base stanchions, low pitched lattice girders
with fixed-base, pitched roof trusses with fixed-base and two-layer space frames with fixed-base [20].
Chan discussed the stability design procedures for the conventional steel structures by evaluating
the theory and practice in steel construction [21]. However, there are very few who have opted for
PEB steel as an area of research. Saleem et al. [22] optimized the steel weight of PEB buildings by
proposing a relationship between an unbraced length ratio of the members and flange slenderness
of slender built-up sections. He considered a wide range of steel sections having non-compact and
slender flanges and webs. Saleem et al. determined the optimum values of flange and web slenderness
to have a minimum weight of a built-up steel section [22]. Wankhade and Pajgade [23] compared
between the design procedures of PEB and CSB steel buildings. They effectively convey that PEB
structures can be easily designed by simple design procedures in accordance with country standards.
In addition, they concluded that PEB structures are more advantageous than CSB structures in terms
of cost effectiveness, quality control speed in construction and simplicity in erection. Their paper also
imparts simple and economical ideas on preliminary design concepts of PEBs. The concept depicted
clarifies the design procedure of a PEB concept. Charkha and Latesh worked on a senior design
project specialized in the economization of a steel Building using tapered steel sections. They used a
few techniques and used different tapered steel sections to achieve the economic sustainability in an
optimum quantity. In addition, they presented a cooperative study of PEB and CSB [24]. Firoz et al.
just elaborated on the design procedures for PEB steel buildings [25].
In the recent past, different researchers have compared the PEB steel frames with CSB frames.
For instance, Pradip and Lande compared a truss roof conventional building with a PEB frame of
22.0 m width and 7.5 m height and found that PEB structure weight is 35% less than the weight of
a conventional CSB truss frame [26]. Shashank and Kulkarni compared a 12.0 m wide steel frame
and found that PEB steel frames are 33% lighter than the CSB steel frames [27]. Darshan et al. also
performed a similar kind of study using PEB and CSB frames of 20 m width and tried hot rolled
tube sections for CSB frames [28]. He found 35% reduction in the PEB frame weight compared to
CSB. Thakre et al. and Titiksh et al. just elaborated on the advantages of PEB steel frames with CSB
frames [29,30]. Pradeep and Rao compared the forces and moments of a 20 m CSB truss frame with a
PEB frame and found it is 26% lighter than the CSB truss frame [31]. Similar kinds of studies were
also performed by Takre et al., Pradeep et al. and by Titiksh et al. [29–31]. All of the aforementioned
research works present the weight comparison for a frame that consists of a single span. However, the
percentage reduction in frame weight is a function of frame span, bay spacing and the lateral force
effects. Moreover, the aforementioned studies just present the comparison of single PEB and CSB
frames in terms of weight and cost only. No information regarding the structural response (sway and
deflection), the effect of wind forces and the effect of seismic forces is presented in detail. The current
study elaborates on the effect of frame span, bay spacing and lateral forces on the economy achieved
by the use of PEB steel frames. In order to achieve these objectives, a detailed study was planned and
48 different frames were analyzed, profiled, designed and optimized. In the first part of the study,
spans of the frames (for both CSB and PEB) were varied from 30 m to 35 m, 40 m, 45 m and 50 m and
the effect of this variation is monitored in terms of weight, deflection and sideway of the frames and
later on these values were also compared with the allowable values of MBMA 2006. In the next part,
the bay spacing of the frames varied from 4 m to 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 m, respectively. In the third and
fourth part, the seismic forces and wind forces were gradually varied. The effect of all these variations
was compared in terms of weight and deflections.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 4 of 16

2. Materials and Methods

In the present research study, all of the required information such as building layout as well as
span lengths and bay-spacing of pre-engineered steel building is decided based upon the most common
industrial buildings construction practices in the Middle East or Gulf Region of the world. A detailed
study was planned to investigate the behavior of CSB and PEB steel buildings. Different frame spans,
bay spacing values, seismic loads and wind forces were the main parameters of the study as given in
Table 1. The dead, live and wind loads were calculated using the American Society of Civil Engineers
Minimum Design Loads (ASCE/SEI 7-10) [32] and seismic forces were calculated using Uniform
Building Code (UBC 97) [33]. The design of the frames was carried using the American Institute of
Steel Construction Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10) [34] and all the
material strengths were conforming to ASTM A572—15 [35]. The serviceability checks for the lateral
displacements and vertical deflections were considered by applying the limiting values proposed by the
Metal Building Manufacturing Association (MBMA 2006) [36]. The steel main frames were analyzed
and designed by using Finite Element Method based computer software STAAD PRO. The steel frames
were subjected to the different load combinations and the frames sections were optimized by using the
technique of the bending moment profile. The steel frames were subjected to the load combinations
consisting of dead, collateral, live, wind and earthquake as given in Table 2. The steel main frames
were analyzed by considering the building under fully enclosed conditions. The research work mainly
discusses the comparison between PEB frame and CSB main frames steel weight, lateral displacement
(sway) and vertical displacement (deflection). The whole study is comprised of four parts. In the first
part, the frame spans were varied from 30 m to 50 m with an interval of 5 m (See Table 1) and the effect
of span on the frame weight, sway and deflection was determined. In the second part, the frame span
was kept constant at 33 m and the bay spacing is varied from 4 m to 10 m as given in Table 1. In the
third and fourth part, the frames were subjected to different seismic forces and wind speeds according
to UBC 97 [33] and ASCE/SEI 7-10 [32], respectively. A typical CSB and a PEB frame modelled in
STAAD Pro. is shown in Figure 2.

Table 1. Parameters of the research study.

Sr# Parameter Values

30 m
35 m
1 Span Length 40 m
45 m
50 m
4m
5m
6m
2 Bay Spacing 7m
8m
9m
10 m
Zone 1
Zone 2A
3 Seismic Zone Zone 2B
Zone 3
Zone 4
100 km/h
115 km/h
130 km/h
4 Wind Speed 145 km/h
160 km/h
175 km/h
190 km/h
 study is comprised of four parts. In the first part, the frame spans were varied from 30 m to 50 m
with an interval of 5 m (See Table 1) and the effect of span on the frame weight, sway and deflection
was determined. In the second part, the frame span was kept constant at 33 m and the bay spacing is
varied from 4 m to 10 m as given in Table 1. In the third and fourth part, the frames were subjected to
different seismic
Sustainability forces and wind speeds according to UBC 97 [33] and ASCE/SEI 7-105 of
2018, 10, 1761 [32],
16
respectively. A typical CSB and a PEB frame modelled in STAAD Pro. is shown in Figure 2.

CSB Frame PEB Frame

Figure2.2.CSB
Figure CSBmain
mainframe
framevs.
vs.PEB
PEBmain
mainframe.
frame.

3. Loading Table 1. Parameters of the research study.

Sr# Parameter Values

3.1. Dead Load
30 m
It includes the self-weight of rigid frames and imposed 35 dead
m load due to secondary elements
like roof sheeting, purlins, insulation,
1 etc. It can be
Span Length precisely
40 mdetermined by knowing the material
properties of the component used in the construction. Generally,
45 mthe self-weight of structural members
is assumed to be 10% of the total dead load acting on it. To achieve
50 m accurate results, the self-weight of
structural members is computed by STAAD Pro. In this study, 2
4 ma DL of 0.15 kN/m is considered.
5m
3.2. Collateral Load
2 Bay Spacing 6m
7 madditional permanent materials rather
Collateral load is an additional weight that generates from
8m
than the structural system, for instance, ceilings, lighting, mechanical shafts and mechanical ducting
system. Typical values range from 0.1 to 0.3 kN/m [16].2

3.3. Live Loads and Roof Live Loads

Live load acting on structural members is due to the moveable equipment and stuff. For
pre-engineered buildings, live load is generated on the roof during construction and maintenance
work. The corresponding code used for calculating life load is ASCE/SEI 7-10 [32]. This code specifies
live load on purlin and sheeting to be 0.96 kN/m2 . For the main frame, live load according to the code
can be reduced by 30% due to the roof slope and tributary area. This results in a range from 0.57 to
0.6 kN/m2 , which is commonly used for the design of main frames as a minimum live load [16].

3.4. Wind Loads

The wind loads acting on main frames are determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10 [32].
Wind loads are governed by wind speed, roof slope, eave height, exposure category and open wall
conditions of the building. Usually, steel buildings are not designed for a wind speed less than
110 km/h.
Wind design pressure p depends on Importance Factor Iw , velocity pressure q and pressure
coefficient GCp as calculated by using Equation (1) [16]:

p = qh [ GCP − GCPi ], (1)

where velocity pressure q is evaluated by using Equation (2):

 
kN
q = 2.456 V 2 H 2/7 × 10−5 . (2)
m2
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 6 of 16

3.4.1. Wind Exposure Category

Wind exposure category indicates the nature of the topographical conditions that influence the
wind speed and intensity. For the current research work, the wind exposure category C is considered.
The wind exposures as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 [32] are designated by A, B, C, D letters as described below:

A: Urban center city locations.

B: Suburban areas where various types of obstructions are presented such as trees, houses and hills.
C: Open terrain with scattered obstruction—flat, open country and grasslands.
D: Exposure to open terrain as in the coastal region.

3.4.2. Wind Enclosure Condition

This condition describes how much the building’s surfaces are enclosed. Briefly, they are described
as follows:

(a) Open Building: a building having total surface area at least 80% open. This condition could be
expressed by Equation (3):
Ao ≥ 0.8 A g . (3)

(b) Partially Enclosed Building: a building provided with the following conditions is considered as
partially enclosed building:

(i) The sum of all areas of the openings in a wall that receives positive external pressure
exceeds the sum of the areas of openings in the balance of the building envelope (walls
and roof) by more than 10%.
(ii) The sum of area openings in the building pressure exceeds 1% percent of the total
surface area.

These conditions are expressed by the following Equation (4):

Ao ≥ 0.1 A g . (4)

(c) Enclosed Building: a building that does not meet the requirements for open or partially enclosed
buildings. For the current research study, the enclosed building conditions are considered.

3.5. Earthquake Load Calculation

UBC-97 [17] commonly specialized in seismic load calculations. According to the location of
seismic zone of the building, with some categories this code provides a number of different coefficients
to perform these calculations. According to UBC-97, the total design base shear can be determined by
using Equations (5)–(8):
C IW
V= V , (5)
RT
Vmin = 0.11 Ca IW, (6)
Ca I
Vmax = W, (7)
R
Vmax > V > Vmin . (8)

The total force is distributed over the height of the structure in conformance with UBC-97 formulas
as given by Equation (9):
V = Ft + ∑ in=1 Fi . (9)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 7 of 16

The concentrated force Ft at the top, which is in addition to Fn , is determined by Equation (10):

Ft = 0.07TV. (10)

The value of T is the period as 0.7 s or less. The remaining portion of the base shear is distributed
over the height of the structure, including level n, according to Equation (11):

wx hx
Fγ = (V × Ft) n . (11)
∑ i =1 wi h i

3.6. Load Combinations

The design of frames was conducted by adopting design load combination given by Table 2.
The load combinations are taken from the ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum design loads for building and
structures [16].

Table 2. LRFD and ASD load combinations as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 [16].

Sr# LRFD ASD

1 1.4DL DL
2 1.2DL + 1.6LL DL + LL
3 1.2DL + 1.6LL + 0.8WL DL + 0.75LL
4 1.2DL + 1.0EQ DL + WL
5 0.9DL + 1.6WL DL + 0.75LL + 0.75WL
6 0.9DL + 1.0EQ 0.6DL + WL

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Performance Comparison of CSB and PEB at Varying Span Lengths

4.1.1. Frame Weight Comparison

In order to understand the efficiency of PEB frames in terms of weight and span compared to
conventional steel frames, five different span lengths of frames were considered. The same single
span rigid frame was used for both PEB and CSB. The bay pacing of the frames was kept constant
at 6.0 m and both of the frames were subjected to identical load combinations as given in Table 2.
The span lengths of the frames were varied from 30 m to 50 m with an increment interval of 5.0 m.
After performing analysis and design for each frame, it has been found that the PEB frame was
approximately 32% lighter compared to the CSB frame when 30 m of span length was used for both
steel frames as given in Table 3. Table 3 also presents the mean and standard deviation of PEB and CSB
frames for different span length. However, the percentage difference was comparatively higher than
the smaller span, but the mean percentage reduction of weight in the case of PEB frames remained at
36%. This reduction in frame weight hit the maximum when the span was 40 m. Even at 45 m span,
the percentage reduction of the PEB frame weight was 40% compared to the CSB frame. However,
in the case of a 35 m span, the percentage reduction was 31% only. The percentage reduction in frame
weight is a function of hot rolled section inventory. If in the hot rolled section inventory a suitable
lightweight section is available in the series of sections, then the percentage reduction could be small;
otherwise, it can increase. However, the average percentage reduction in the case of PEB frames was
36%. Figure 3 presents the variation of the PEB and CSB frame weights under increasing span lengths.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 8 of 16

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Table 3. Total frame weight (varied span length).
Table 3. Total frame weight (varied span length).
Total
Total Frame Weight in
Frame Weight inTon
Ton
Span
Span Length
Length (m)
(m) PEB(Ton)
PEB (Ton) CSBCSB
(Ton)
(Ton) % Reduction in Weight
% Reduction in Weight
30 3.75 5.5 32
30 3.75 5.5 32
35 5 7.2 31
35 5 7.2 31
4040 6.3
6.3 10.6
10.6 41
41
4545 7.8
7.8 13 13 40 40
5050 10.5
10.5 16.216.2 36 36
Mean 6.67 10.5 36.0
Mean
SD 6.67
2.62 4.3210.5 4.53 36.0
SD 2.62 4.32 4.53

PEB vs CSB in Weight

PEB CSB
20

16
Frame Weight (Ton)

12

0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Span Length (m)
Figure 3. PEB vs. CSB frame total weight (span length comparison).
Figure 3. PEB vs. CSB frame total weight (span length comparison).
4.1.2. Sway Comparison of the Frames
4.1.2. Sway Comparison of the Frames
The lateral displacement (sway) of PEB frames is compared to conventional steel frames at five
The lateral
different spandisplacement (sway)
lengths of frames. Theofvariation
PEB frames is compared
of lateral to conventional
displacement with respect tosteel frames
different at five
span
lengths
different spanis lengths
shown inofFigure
frames. 4 and
TheTable 4 gives
variation the percentage
of lateral difference
displacement of respect
with lateral displacement
to different span
between
lengths CSB and
is shown PEB frames
in Figure 4 andalong with4their
Table mean
gives thevalues and standard
percentage deviations.
difference Whendisplacement
of lateral the span
length was increased from 30 m to 35 m, both CSB and PEB frames have shown a slight decrease in
between CSB and PEB frames along with their mean values and standard deviations. When the span
lateral sway. A similar behavior was observed when the span length was further increased from 35
length was increased from 30 m to 35 m, both CSB and PEB frames have shown a slight decrease in
to 40 m. This decrease in lateral displacement is attributed due to the provision of stronger column
lateral sway. A similar behavior was observed when the span length was further increased from 35
sections. The lateral displacement in both of the frames remains lower than the allowable frame
to 40lateral
m. This decrease inwhich
displacement, lateralis displacement is attributed
82 mm as suggested due to [36].
by the MBMA the provision
CSB framesofhave
stronger
showncolumn
a
sections. The lateral displacement in both of the frames remains lower than the allowable
significant increase in lateral displacement compared to PEB frames at each span length as shown frameinlateral
displacement,
Figure 4. Thewhich is 82 mm
maximum as suggested
difference by the MBMA
in the displacement was [36]. CSBatframes
observed have
45 m span shown
length a significant
as given in
Table
increase in4.lateral displacement compared to PEB frames at each span length as shown in Figure 4.
The maximum difference in the displacement was observed at 45 m span length as given in Table 4.
Table 4. Frame lateral sway (span length comparison).
Table
Span 4. Frame
Length (m) lateral sway
PEB (mm) (span
CBSlength
(mm) comparison).
% Difference
30 27.6 30.7 10
35 (m)
Span Length 20.5
PEB (mm) 27.3
CBS (mm) 25
% Difference
40 21.4 26.3 18
30 45 27.6
21.4 30.7
32.2 34 10
35 50 20.5
25.2 27.3
34.7 27 25
40 21.4 26.3 18
Mean 23.22 30.24 22.80
45 21.4 32.2 34
SD 3.05 3.47 9.15
50 25.2 34.7 27
Mean 23.22 30.24 22.80
SD 3.05 3.47 9.15
 Sustainability2018,
Sustainability 2018,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 99 of
of 16
16
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 9 of 16

PEBvs
PEB vsCSB
CSBin
inDisplacement
DisplacementSway
Sway
PEB
PEB CBS
CBS AllowableSway
Allowable Sway
100
100
90
90
80
(mm)
80
Displacement(mm) 70
70
FrameDisplacement

60
60
50
50
40
40
Frame

30
30
20
20
10
10
25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50 55
55
SpanLength
Span Length(m)
(m)

Figure
Figure4.4.
Figure Frame
4.Frame displacement
Framedisplacement in
displacementin the
inthe x-direction
thex-direction (span
x-direction(span length
(spanlength comparison).
lengthcomparison).
comparison).

4.1.3.Comparison
4.1.3. Comparison of FrameDeflection Deflection
4.1.3. ComparisonofofFrame Frame Deflection
Figure55shows
Figure shows thevariation
variation ofvertical
vertical deflectionof of theCSBCSB andPEB PEB framesat at differentspanspan
Figure 5 showsthe the variationof of verticaldeflection
deflection ofthe the CSBand and PEBframes
frames atdifferent
different span
lengths. In
lengths. In general,
general, by by increasing
increasing span span length,
length, the the deflection
deflection of of both
both CSB
CSB andand PEB
PEB frames
frames has has
lengths. In general, by increasing span length, the deflection of both CSB and PEB frames has increased.
increased.
increased. In
IntheFigure
Figure 5, the PEB
5, the PEB frames has performed
frames hascomparatively comparatively
performed comparatively better
better than the CSB frames.
In Figure 5, PEB frames has performed better than the CSB than the Table
frames. CSB frames.
5 shows
Table55shows
Table showsthe thepercentage
percentagedifference
differenceof ofPEB
PEBandandCSB CSBframe
frameweights
weightsand andalso
alsogives
givesthe
thestandard
standard
the percentage difference of PEB and CSB frame weights and also gives the standard deviation and
deviationand
deviation and meanof of theseframes.
frames.The ThePEBPEBframes
frameshas hasshown
shownaapercentage
percentagedifference
differenceof of 18%and and
mean of thesemean frames. these
The PEB frames has shown a percentage difference of 18% and 11% 18% at a span
11% at
11% at aa span
span length
length of of 30
30 mm and
and 35 35 m.
m. However,
However, the the mean
mean percentage
percentage difference
difference ofof the
the frame
frame
length of 30 m and 35 m. However, the mean percentage difference of the frame displacement was 20.4
displacementwas
displacement was20.4
20.4with
withaastandard
standarddeviation
deviationof of 7.33as asgiven
givenin inTable
Table5.5.AsAs thespan
spanlength
lengthof ofthe
the
with a standard deviation of 7.33 as given in Table7.33 5. As the span length of thethe
frame increases, this
frame
frame increases,
increases, this percentage
this percentage difference
difference also increases,
also increases, which shows
which shows better
better performance
performance of PEB
percentage difference also increases, which shows better performance of PEB frames. At a span of PEB
of 45 m,
frames.At
frames. Ataaspanspanof of4545m,m,the
theCSB
CSBframes
frameshas hasshown
shown31% 31%higher
higherdeflection,
deflection,which
whichisisaasignificant
significant
the CSB frames has shown 31% higher deflection, which is a significant deflection value. However,
deflection value.
deflection value. However,
However, all all of thethe deflection
deflection values
values werewere less
less than
than the
the allowable
allowable values
values of of
all of the deflection values were of less than the allowable values of deflections as proposed by MBMA
deflections
deflections as proposed by MBMA (2006) [36]. In the case of PEB frames, the designer has control
(2006) [36].as Inproposed
the case ofby MBMA
PEB frames,(2006) [36]. In the
the designer hascase of PEB
control overframes, thesection
the cross designer has
sizes duecontrol
to the
over the
over the cross
cross section
section sizes
sizes due
due to to the
the tapering
tapering facility
facility of
of the
the sections.
sections. ItIt allows
allows the
the designer
designer to to
tapering facility of the sections. It allows the designer to provide the higher section depth at mid span
providethe
provide the highersection
sectiondepth
depthat atmid
midspan
spanor oratatcritical
criticalsections
sectionsof ofdeflections.
deflections.
or at criticalhigher
sections of deflections.

PEBvs
PEB vsCSB
CSBin
inDeflection
Deflection
PEB
PEB CBS
CBS Allowabledeflection
Allowable deflection

400
400

360
360
(mm)
Deflection(mm)

320
320
FrameDeflection

280
280

240
240
Frame

200
200

160
160

120
120
30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50
Span Length (m)
Span Length (m)

Figure5.5.
Figure
Figure Framedeflection
5.Frame
Frame deflectionin
deflection inthe
in the y-direction(span
they-direction
y-direction (spanlength
(span lengthcomparison).
length comparison).
comparison).
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 10 of 16

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Table 5. Frame deflection y-axis (span length comparison).
Table 5. Frame deflection y-axis (span length comparison).
Span Length (m) PEB (mm) CBS (mm) % Difference
Span Length (m) PEB (mm) CBS (mm) % Difference
30 30 168.5
168.5 138.6
138.6 18 18
35 35 192.3
192.3 170.6
170.6 11 11
40 40 263.7
263.7 213.4
213.4 19 19
45 45 333333 228.5
228.5 31 31
50 50 351.6
351.6 269.3
269.3 23 23
MeanMean 261.82
261.82 204.08
204.08 20.4020.40
SD SD 81.66
81.66 50.86
50.86 7.33 7.33

4.2. Performance Comparison of CSB and PEB at Different Bay Spacing

4.2. Performance Comparison of CSB and PEB at Different Bay Spacing
4.2.1.
4.2.1.Effect
Effecton
onMain
MainFrame
FrameWeight
Weight
In
Inorder
orderto tounderstand
understandthe theeffect
effectof ofbay
bayspacing
spacingon onthe
theframe
frameweights,
weights,seven
sevendifferent
differentamounts
amounts
of
of bay spacing ranging from 4 m to 10 m with an interval of 1.0 m were considered.The
bay spacing ranging from 4 m to 10 m with an interval of 1.0 m were considered. Thespan
spanlength
length
of
ofboth
bothPEBPEBandandCSB CSBframe
frame waswas kept
keptconstant
constant at at
a value
a valueof 33
of m. In addition,
33 m. 10 m10bay
In addition, spacing
m bay is theis
spacing
maximum bay spacing that is allowed in PEB frames as higher bay spacing can
the maximum bay spacing that is allowed in PEB frames as higher bay spacing can lead to the failure lead to the failure of
cold formed steel purlins. The most commonly used bay spacing in the steel
of cold formed steel purlins. The most commonly used bay spacing in the steel frames lies between frames lies between 6 m
and
6 m8.0
and m.8.0
Atm.each
At bay
eachspacing,
bay spacing,the load
the on theonframes
load is calculated
the frames and applied
is calculated to each
and applied to frame. The
each frame.
frames
The frames are analyzed, designed and fully optimized based upon the available design sections(for
are analyzed, designed and fully optimized based upon the available design sections (for
CSB
CSBframes)
frames)and andinventory
inventoryof ofsteel
steelplates
plates(for
(forPEB
PEBframes).
frames).Figure
Figure66andandTable
Table66give
givethethecomparison
comparison
of
ofCSB
CSBandandPEB
PEBframe
frameweights
weightsand andtheir
theirpercentage
percentagedifference.
difference.AAlinear
linearbehavior
behaviorof ofboth
bothframes
frameswas was
observed under increased bay spacing. As the bay spacing increases, the percentage
observed under increased bay spacing. As the bay spacing increases, the percentage difference in both difference in
both
PEB PEB
and and
CSB CSBframesframes
also also increases.
increases. At every
At every interval
interval of bay
of bay spacing,
spacing, PEBPEB frames
frames have have
shownshownless
less weight than the CSB frames. At a bay spacing of 10 m, the PEB frame
weight than the CSB frames. At a bay spacing of 10 m, the PEB frame was found to be 38% lighter was found to be 38%
lighter
than thethan
CSBthe CSB which
frame, frame, iswhich is a significantly
a significantly higher
higher value andvalue andproportional
directly directly proportional
to the savingsto the of
savings
the cost.ofTable
the cost. Tablethat
6 shows 6 shows
the PEB that the PEB
frames wereframes were
lighter thanlighter than
the CSB the CSB
frames withframes
a mean with a mean
percentage
percentage difference
difference value of 35%value
andof 35%a and
with with adeviation
standard standardofdeviation
2.74. of 2.74.

PEB & CSB Weight

PEB CSB
12

10

8
Weight (ton)

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bay Spacing (m)

Figure
Figure6.6.PEB
PEBvs.
vs.CSB
CSBframe
frametotal
totalweight
weight(bay
(bayspacing
spacinglength
lengthcomparison).
comparison).

Table 6. PEB vs. CSB with different bay spacing.

Span Length (m) PEB (Ton) CSB (Ton) % Reduction in Weight

4 3.79 5.4 30
5 4.22 5.84 28
6 4.28 6.82 37
7 5.2 7.5 31
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 11 of 16

Table 6. PEB vs. CSB with different bay spacing.

Span Length (m) PEB (Ton) CSB (Ton) % Reduction in Weight

4 3.79 5.4 30
5 4.22 5.84 28
6 4.28 6.82 37
Sustainability 2018, 10, x7FOR PEER REVIEW 5.2 7.5 31 11 of 16
8 5.47 8.27 34
9 6 9.26 35
8 5.47 8.27 34
10 6.3 10.21 38
9 6 9.26 35
Mean10 5.45
6.3 10.218.41 38 35
SDMean 0.78
5.45 8.41 1.35 35 2.74
SD 0.78 1.35 2.74

4.2.2. Effect on Lateral Displacement (Sway)

4.2.2. Effect on Lateral Displacement (Sway)
Figure 7 and
Figure Table
7 and 7 describe
Table 7 describethe theperformance
performance of ofPEB
PEBandand CSB
CSB frames
frames in terms
in terms of lateral
of lateral sway.sway.
The variation in bay
The variation spacing
in bay spacinghas hasmuch
much less
less effect onthe
effect on thein-plane
in-plane displacements
displacements of steel
of steel frames.
frames.
Moreover, the selection
Moreover, of sections
the selection of sections also
alsoplays
playsaa significant roleininthis
significant role this regard.
regard. A non-uniform
A non-uniform trendtrend
of of
frameframe sways
sways hashas
beenbeen observed.As
observed. Asthe
the bay
bay spacing
spacing increases
increases from
from4m 4 to
m 5tom,5 sway also also
m, sway increases,
increases,
but,
but, at at a bay
a bay spacing
spacing of 6.0
of 6.0 m,m,it itreduces
reducesandand aa similar
similar kind
kindofoftrend
trend waswasalso observed
also when
observed the bay
when the bay
spacing was further increased. This non-uniform behavior is due to the selection
spacing was further increased. This non-uniform behavior is due to the selection of design sections forof design sections
for steel frames. At all bay spacing values, the PEB frames have performed better than the CSB
steel frames. At all bay spacing values, the PEB frames have performed better than the CSB frames.
frames. This can be seen from Figure 7 and this difference increases with an increase in bay spacing
This can be seen from Figure 7 and this difference increases with an increase in bay spacing as shown
as shown in Table 7. The mean lateral displacement of CSB frames was found to be higher than the
in Table
PEB7.frames
The mean
with alateral
standard displacement
deviation of 1.72.of CSB frames was found to be higher than the PEB frames
with a standard deviation of 1.72.

PEB & CSB Sway

PEB CSB Allowable Sway
90

80

70

60
Sway (mm)

50

40

30

20

10

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bay Spacing (m)

Figure 7. Frame
Figure displacements
7. Frame displacementsin the x-direction
in the (bayspacing
x-direction (bay spacing length
length comparison).
comparison).

Table Frame
7. 7.
Table Framelateral
lateralsway
sway (bay spacinglength
(bay spacing length comparison).
comparison).

Bay Spacing (m) PEB (mm) CBS (mm) % Difference

Bay Spacing4(m) PEB (mm)
24.1 CBS24.8
(mm) % Difference
1
4 5 24.126 26.9
24.8 3 1
5 6 2623.1 24.4
26.9 5 3
6 7 23.123.6 28.3
24.4 17 5
7 8 23.621.4 28.5
28.3 25 17
8 9 21.422.4 28.1
28.5 20 25
9 10 22.423.4 28
28.1 16 20
10 Mean 22.78
23.4 27.46
28 16.60 16
SD 0.90 1.72 7.37
Mean 22.78 27.46 16.60
SD 0.90 1.72 7.37
4.2.3. Comparison in Terms’ Frame Deflection
The deflection of CSB and PEB steel frames under varying bay spacing values is shown in
Figure 8. Likewise, the lateral sway of both CSB and PEB frames have shown a non-uniform behavior
of frame deflection when subjected to varied bay spacing values. However, CSB frames have shown
comparatively higher deflection values than the PEB values as shown in Figure 8. The percentage
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 12 of 16

4.2.3. Comparison in Terms’ Frame Deflection

The deflection of CSB and PEB steel frames under varying bay spacing values is shown in Figure 8.
Likewise, the lateral sway of both CSB and PEB frames have shown a non-uniform behavior of
frame deflection when subjected to varied bay spacing values. However, CSB frames have shown
comparatively higher deflection values than the PEB values as shown in Figure 8. The percentage
difference is lesser
Sustainability for
2018, 10,smaller
x FOR PEERbay spacing values, whereas it increases as the bay spacing
REVIEW 12 of increases
16
beyond 6 m as given in Table 8. Table 8 shows that the CSB frames have 29.4% higher displacement
than thedifference
PEB frames, is lesser for smaller
whereas bay spacing values,
the corresponding whereas deviation
standard it increases was
as the bay spacing
found equal increases
to 9.71.
beyond 6 m as given in Table 8. Table 8 shows that the CSB frames have 29.4% higher displacement than
the PEB frames, whereasTable
the corresponding standard at
8. Frame deflections deviation was
different found
bay equal to 9.71.
spacing.
Table 8. Frame deflections at different bay spacing.
Bay Spacing (m) PEB (mm) CBS (mm) % Difference
Bay Spacing (m) PEB (mm) CBS (mm) % Difference
4 176.2 194.1 9
4
5 182.4176.2 194.1
208.8 9
13
6 5 161.6182.4 208.8
192.2 13 16
7 6 123.7161.6 192.2
215.8 16 43
8 7 147 123.7 215.7
215.8 43 32
9 8 151.8147 213.2
215.7 32 29
10 9 154.4151.8 211.0
213.2 29 27
Mean 10 154.4
147.70 211.0
209.58 27 29.40
SD Mean 147.70
14.42 209.58
9.92 29.40 9.71
SD 14.42 9.92 9.71

PEB & CSB Deflection

PEB CSB Allowable Deflection
300

250

200
Deflection (mm)

150

100

50

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bay Spacing (m)

8. Frame
FigureFigure deflections
8. Frame inin
deflections they-direction
the (bayspacing
y-direction (bay spacing length
length comparison).
comparison).

4.3. Behaviour
4.3. Behaviour of CSBofand
CSBPEB
and PEB Frames
Frames under
under Seismic Forces
Seismic Forces
The performance of steel frames under seismic forces was evaluated by subjecting both types of
The performance of steel frames under seismic forces was evaluated by subjecting both types of
steel frames to the increasing seismic forces. The earthquake forces were calculated for five seismic
steel frames
zonesto 1, the
2A, increasing
2B, 3 and 4 as seismic
given byforces.
the UBCThe(1997)
earthquake
[33]. For forces
both CSB were
and calculated
PEB frames,for thefive
spanseismic
zones 1, length
2A, 2B,was kept at 33 m, whereas the bay spacing was kept equal to 6.0 m. CSB and PEB frames were length
3 and 4 as given by the UBC (1997) [33]. For both CSB and PEB frames, the span
was keptinitially
at 33 m, whereas
designed for the
zonebay spacing
1, and, later was kept
on, the equal
forces wereto gradually
6.0 m. CSB and PEB
increased forframes
the restwere
of theinitially
designed seismic zone.
for zone 1, After
and, performing
later on, the analysis
forcesandweredesign for eachincreased
gradually case, it has
forbeen
the found
rest ofthat,
the due to zone.
seismic
lesser self-weight of the steel structures, the earthquake forces did not govern the
After performing analysis and design for each case, it has been found that, due to lesser self-weight design. The steel
frame designed for earthquake zone 1 has successfully gone through the seismic forces of zones 2A,
of the steel structures, the earthquake forces did not govern the design. The steel frame designed for
2B, 3 and 4 and the frame weight remained constant for both CSB and PEB frames as shown in
earthquake
Figurezone 1 has successfully
9a. However, PEB frame gone through
has shown the seismic
approximately 30%forces
lesserof zonesthan
weight 2A,the 2B,CSB
3 and 4 and the
frame.
frame weight
Figure remained
9b gives theconstant
comparison forofboth CSB
lateral and
sway PEBincrease
under framesearthquake
as shown forces.
in Figure 9a.case,
In this However,
both PEB
frame hasCSB shown
and PEB approximately 30% lesser
frames have shown weight
similar than
behavior andthea CSB
very frame. Figurein9blateral
small increase givessway
the comparison
was
of lateralobserved
sway under at seismic zone earthquake
increase 4. For all seismic zones,
forces. the case,
In this vertical
bothdeflection
CSB and of the
PEBCSB framehave
frames was shown
restricted to 76 mm, whereas it remained at 69 mm for the PEB steel frame.
similar behavior and a very small increase in lateral sway was observed at seismic zone 4. For all
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 13 of 16

seismic zones, the vertical deflection of the CSB frame was restricted to 76 mm, whereas it remained at
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16
69 mm for the PEB steel frame.

PEB vs CSB in Weight PEB vs CSB in Displacement Sway

Sustainability 2018, 10, xPEB
FOR PEER REVIEWCBS PEB CSB 13 of 16
20 40
18
35

(mm)
16 PEB vs CSB in Weight PEB vs CSB in Displacement Sway
(ton)Weight (ton)

14 PEB CBS 30
20 PEB CSB

Frame Displacement
12 40
25
18
10 35

(mm)
16 20
8 30
Frame

14 15

Frame Displacement
6
12 25
Frame Weight

10
4
10 20
2 5
8
0 15
0
6
1 2A 2B 3 4 10 1 2A 2B 3 4
4 Seismic Zone Seismic Zone
2 5
(a) (b)
0 0
1 2A 2B 3 4
Figure 9. Seismic performance of steel frames (a) comparison of 1 frames
2Aweight;2B(b) comparison
3 of4
Figure 9. Seismic performance of steel frames (a) comparison of framesSeismic
weight; (b) comparison of
Zone
frame displacements.Seismic Zone
frame displacements. (a) (b)
4.4. Behaviour
Figure 9.of CSB and
Seismic PEB Frames
performance underframes
of steel Wind (a)
Forces
comparison of frames weight; (b) comparison of
4.4. Behaviour
frame ofdisplacements.
CSB and PEB Frames under Wind Forces
To understand the performance of CSB and PEB frames under wind loading, frames were
To understand
subjected the performance
to an increasing wind speedof CSB
from 100and
km/h PEB frames
to 190 km/h.under
The frame wind spanloading,
and bayframes
spacing were
4.4. Behaviour of CSB and PEB Frames under Wind Forces
were kept constant at values of 33 m and 6.0 m, respectively.
subjected to an increasing wind speed from 100 km/h to 190 km/h. The frame span and bay spacing Wind forces were calculated according
weretokept
ASCE/SEI
To 7-10
understand
constant at [32] the
values forperformance
each
of 33 15
m km/h
andof6.0interval
CSBm, and (100,
PEB115,
respectively. 130,
frames 145,forces
under
Wind 160,
wind175
were andcalculated
loading,190frames
km/h)according
and
were
applied
subjected to totheanframes
increasing whilewindkeeping
speed all
fromother100 parameters
km/h to 190 constant.
km/h. TheFigure
frame 10a
spandemonstrates
and bay the
spacing
to ASCE/SEI 7-10 [32] for each 15 km/h interval (100, 115, 130, 145, 160, 175 and 190 km/h) and
effect
were keptof different
constantwind speeds
at values of 33tomthe andmain
6.0 m,frame weight. Wind
respectively. The weight relatively
forces were stays according
calculated constant
applied to the frames while keeping all other parameters constant. Figure 10a demonstrates the effect
throughout
to ASCE/SEI the7-10
whole[32]testing,
for each but15it km/h
increases at wind
interval (100,speed ranging
115, 130, 145,from
160, 175
175 to 190190
and km/h.
km/h)In this
and
of different
case,
wind speeds
the wind
to the mainthe frame weight. The weightThe relatively stays constant throughout
applied to theloadsframesdo not govern
while keeping design
all other butparameters
gravity loads. constant. weight
Figure difference between PEB
10a demonstrates the
the whole
and CSB
effect testing,
of stays but
mostly
different itwind
increases
speedsat
constant wind
atto37%. speed
the Asmainshown ranging
frame in Figurefrom10b,
weight. 175with
The to 190
weightthekm/h.
increase
relativelyInofthis case,
wind
stays the wind
speed,
constant
loadsthere
do notis angovern
throughout increase the
the whole in design
lateral
testing,butbutgravity
sway. Wind loads.
speed
it increases The
is wind
at one of weight difference
the critical
speed ranging frombetween
factors, which PEB
175 toaffects
190 andlateral
the
km/h. CSB
In thisstays
mostly
swayconstant
case, of
thethewind at loads
37%.
steel frames.Asnot
do shown
The in Figure
lateral
govern sway
the 10b,but
increases
design with the increase
linearly
gravity an of
with The
loads. wind difference
increase
weight speed,
in there
the wind is anThe
speed.
between increase
PEB
difference in lateral sway between PEB and CSB is relatively small until
in lateral sway. Wind speed is one of the critical factors, which affects the lateral sway of the steel
and CSB stays mostly constant at 37%. As shown in Figure 10b, with the
the wind speed
increase of of 175
wind km/h,
speed,
but
frames. it increases
there
The is lateral
an increaseat 190
sway km/h. The
inincreases
lateral sway. frame
Winddeflections
linearly speed
with were
anisincrease
one not
of the governed
incritical
the wind by the
factors,
speed.whichwind speed.
Theaffects theFor
difference inalllateral
lateral
these
swaysway cases,
between of thePEBthe PEB
steeland frames
frames.
CSBThe have shown
lateral sway
is relatively better performance
increases
small untillinearly
the wind in terms
with of weight
an increase
speed of 175in and lateral
the wind
km/h, response.
butspeed. The at
it increases
difference
190 km/h. The framePEBin lateral sway between
deflections were PEB and CSB is relatively small
PEB until the
CSB wind speed of
Allowable175
Swaykm/h,
CSB not governed by the wind speed. For all these cases, the PEB
but8it increases at 190 km/h. The frame deflections were 90 not governed by the wind speed. For all
frames have shown better performance in terms of weight and lateral response.
these
7 cases, the PEB frames have shown better performance in terms of weight and lateral response.
75
6 PEB CSB Allowable Sway
PEB CSB
8 90
60
Weight (ton)Weight (ton)

5
Sway (mm) Sway (mm)

7
4 75
45
6
3 60
30
5
2
4 45
15
1
3 30
0 0
2100 115 130 145 160 175 190 100 115 130 145 160 175 190
15 Wind Speed (km/h)
1 Wind Speed (km/h)

0 (a) 0 (b)
100 115 130 145 160 175 190 100 115 130 145 160 175 190
Figure 10. Performance
Wind Speedof(km/h) Wind Speed
steel frames under wind forces (a) comparison (km/h)weight; (b)
of frames
comparison of frame displacements.
(a) (b)

Figure 10. Performance of steel frames under wind forces (a) comparison of frames weight; (b)
Figure 10. Performance of steel frames under wind forces (a) comparison of frames weight; (b) comparison
comparison of frame displacements.
of frame displacements.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 14 of 16

5. Conclusions
In this research study, the PEB and CSB frames were subjected to various loading affects to
compare their performance in terms of weight and displacements. The frame span, bay spacing,
seismic earthquake zones and different wind speed has been selected and were the parameters of the
research study. In the current study, the performance of the PEB and CSB frames is compared in terms
of frame weight, lateral sway and deflection. The current study mainly compares the steel weight and
the cost comparison was not conducted because the steel price per metric ton is a variable, and it varies
from country to country and is highly dependent on the global financial market conditions. The cost
of the pre-engineered building is also dependent upon the location of the project and transportation
freight (via sea or land). The majority of the pre-engineered steel suppliers charge the fabrication price
per metric ton; therefore, any reduction in the frame weight will be proportional to steel fabrication
price per metric ton only.
A number of steel frames were analyzed and designed using FEM-based computer package
(Staad Pro.). The use of tapered sections in pre-engineered steel structure plays a significant role in
reducing steel weight by roughly 35% of the weight of the conventional steel structure. As a result,
the size of the foundation will be minimized due to the reduction in dead load. An overall reduction
of 30–40% in steel weight was observed in the main frames, which spanned between 30 and 50 m.
For bigger frame spans (40 m, 45 m and 50 m), a higher percentage reduction in frame weight was
found as compared to smaller frame spans. A similar kind of trend was also observed for higher
bay spacing values. The seismic forces has no significant effect on the frame weights (both CSB and
PEB) because of the lesser weight and lighter roofing of the building. However, on the other hand,
due to the lesser weight of the frames and load over it, wind forces became more critical and play
a vital role in governing the design of the frames. The earthquake forces may become critical for
multilevel PEB steel frames, which have intermediate mezzanine floors of significantly higher dead
and live loads. For all of the frames analyzed, the PEB steel frames have shown lesser lateral and
vertical displacements compared to conventional hot-rolled steel frames. This is because of the better
control over the cross-sectional sizes and tapering technology of steel sections. By choosing thicker
sections of the CSB frames, the displacement will become closer to the PEB frame, but it will result in
higher steel weight. One of the reasons for higher CSB frame weights is no availability of a series of
hot rolled sections. For instance, if a design section fails at a given loading, then the next available
option of the hot rolled sections may result in increased tonnage. To have a lighter CSB frame weight,
it is highly desirable to have a variety of sections available in the inventory of a hot-rolled table. PEB
construction is environmentally friendly because of energy efficiency and the elimination of material
wastage through cutting and welding. In the PEB industry, the fabrication processes are monitored
and performed inside the factory, while in conventional steel construction, all fabrication work is
performed on-site, resulting in material waste. Pre-engineered building construction gives the end
users a much more economical and better solution for long span structures where large clear span and
rapid construction are the utmost priority of the builders.

Author Contributions: Both authors have contributed to the research based on their knowledge, capacity and
area of specialty. M.U.S. has planned the research program, prepared and analyzed the results in the presentable
form. H.J.Q. has collected the information of steel buildings in the Middle East and performed a detailed literature
survey. In addition, H.J.Q. has also modeled the frames in computer software to collect data and results.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Faisal
University (KFU) through its “Eighteenth Annual Research Project no. 180061.” The authors are thankful for
the Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Deanship of Scientific Research for providing
the required support in terms of the collection of steel buildings’ data and the computer laboratory facility for
conducting the simulations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest with any private or public sector body.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 15 of 16

Abbreviation
Symbol Description
DL Dead load
LL Live load
WL Wind load
EQ Earthquake load
p Design wind pressure in kN/m2
qh Velocity pressure in pounds kN/m2
GCp External pressure coefficient
GCpi Internal pressure coefficient
q Velocity pressure
Total surface area of the building in square meters excluding the area of the openings
Ao
present in the building such as: doors, windows skylight, etc.
Ag The gross area of that wall in which Ao is identified, in square meter
V Total design base shear
W Seismic dead load, used to calculate the base shear
Vmax Maximum allowable design base shear
Vmin Minimum allowable design base shear
Cv Coefficient dependent on the soil condition at the site and seismicity of the region
Ca Another seismic coefficient dependent on soil conditions and seismicity of region
I Seismic importance factor, used to increase margin of safety
R Structural system coefficient, measures the ductility and overall strength of the system
T Fundamental period of the structure in the direction under consideration
Ct 0.035 for steel frames
hn Height of the building in feet
Fi The force at each level according to the height of the structure
Ft Extra force in addition to Fi
wx The weight at a particular level above the base shear
hx The height at a particular level above the base shear
Wi The total weight
hi The total height

References
1. Andrade, J.B.; Braganca, L. Sustainability Assessment and Standardisation—Steel Buildings. Concepts Methods
Steel Intensiv. Build. Proj. 2012, 5, 213–224.
2. Fenker, M.; Balzer, M.; Kappl, H. Corrosion protection with hard coatings on steel: Past approaches and
current research efforts. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2014, 257, 182–205. [CrossRef]
3. Bhagatkar, S.V.; Shaikh, F.I.; Gupta, B.P.; Kharta, D. A study on pre-engineered building—A construction
technique. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2015, 5, 5–9.
4. Taha, S.H.; Ibrahim, M.G.; Ali, A.A.M. Steel as a sustainable choice towards the green building concept.
Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2016, 210, 123–134.
5. Saleem, M.U.; Zahid, A.S.; Hisham, J.Q. Minimum weight design of pre- engineered steel structures using
Built-up sections and cold formed sections. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 684, 125–129. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, C.; Li, J. The Investigation of Steel Structure Used in Residential Buildings. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014,
501–504, 936–939. [CrossRef]
7. Rao, P.P.K.V. Pre-engineered buildings the latest trend in building construction. In Proceedings of the
National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Technology, Gujrat, India, 13–14 May 2011.
8. Aksel, H.; Eren, O. A discussion on the advantages of steel structures in the contract of sustainable
constructions. Int. J. Contemp. Archit. 2015, 2, 46–53.
9. Naidu, G.D.R.; Rao, K.S.V.; Sri, V.D.; Navakanth, M.; Rao, R. Comparative study of analysis and design of
pre-engineered buildings and conventional frames. Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev. 2014, 10, 33–41.
10. Subashini, L.M.; Valentina, S. Comparative study of pre-engineered and conventional industrial building.
Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 8, 1–6.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1761 16 of 16

11. Wakchaure, S.; Dubey, N.C. Design and comparative study of pre-engineered building. Int. J. Eng. Dev. Res.
2016, 4, 2108–2113.
12. Ren, W.X.; Zeng, Q.Y. Interactive buckling behavior and ultimate load of I-section steel columns. J. Struct. Eng.
1997, 123, 1210–1217. [CrossRef]
13. Ellobody, E. Buckling analysis of high strength stainless steel stiffened and unstiffened slender hollow section
columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2007, 63, 145–155. [CrossRef]
14. Dowling, P.J.; Mears, T.; Owens, G.; Raven, K. A development in the automated design and fabrication of
portal framed industrial buildings. Struct. Eng. 1982, 60A, 311–319.
15. Rangelov, N. On the effective stiffness of slender steel sections for deflection calculations. Thin-Walled Struct.
1996, 25, 171–183. [CrossRef]
16. Šapalas, V.; Samofalov, M.; Viačeslavas, Š. FEM stability analysis of tapered beam-columns. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
2005, 11, 211–216. [CrossRef]
17. Deb, K.; Gulati, S. Design of truss-structures for minimum weight using genetic algorithms. Finite Elements
Anal. Des. 2001, 37, 447–465. [CrossRef]
18. Saka, M.P. Optimum design of pitched roof steel frames with haunched rafters by genetic algorithm.
Comput. Struct. 2003, 81, 1967–1978. [CrossRef]
19. Chan, B.H.M.; Chan, S.L. Nonlinear behaviour of pitched roof steel frames subjected to sequential loads.
J. Appl. Mech. Eng. 2000, 5, 773–794.
20. Horridge, J.F.; Morris, L.J. Comparative costs of single-storey framed structures. Struct. Eng. 1986, 64, 1–10.
21. Chan, S.L. Stability design of steel structures—Theory and practice. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, Pusan, Korea, 14–16 June 2001; pp. 43–55.
22. Saleem, M.U.; Hisham, J.Q.; Zahid, A.S. Optimum Unbraced Length Ratios of Slender Steel Sections. Int. J.
Eng. Technol. 2013, 5, 493–497.
23. Wankhade, S.D.; Pajgade, P. Review paper on comparison of conventional steel building & pre-engineering
steel building. Int. J. Res. Advent Technol. 2014, 2, 1–10.
24. Charkha, S.; Sanklecha, L.S. Economizing Steel Building using Pre-engineered Steel Sections. Int. J. Res. Civ.
Eng. Archit. Des. 2014, 2, 1–10.
25. Firoz, S.; Kumar, S.C.; Kanakambara, R. Design Concept of Pre-engineered Building. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl.
2012, 2, 267–272.
26. Pradip, S.L.; Vivek, V.K. Comparative Study of an Industrial Pre-Engineered Building with Conventional
Steel Building. J. Civ. Eng. Environ. Technol. 2015, 2, 77–82.
27. Shashank, P.; Sachin, M.K. Comparative Study on the Economy between Pre-Engineered and Conventional
Steel Buildings. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 4, 2708–2711.
28. Darshan, K.; Sujay, D.; Pavan, G. A Comparative study on the Performance of PEB with CSB considering
various parameters. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 4, 1082–1088.
29. Thakre, V.; Vairagade, L. Analysis and Cost Comparative study of conventional Industrial building with
PEB structure. J. Inf. Knowl. Res. Civ. Eng. 2016, 1, 349–352.
30. Titiksh, A.; Dewangan, A.; Khandelwal, A.; Sharma, A. Comparative Study of Conventional Steel Building
and Pre-engineered Building to be used as an Industrial Shed. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2015, 5, 25–28.
31. Pradeep, V.; Rao, P.G. Comparative Study of Pre-engineered and Conventional Industrial Building. Int. J.
Eng. Trends Technol. 2014, 9, 1–6.
32. ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
33. UBC. Unifrom Building Code; International Conference of Building Officials: Whittier, CA, USA, 1997.
34. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings; ANSI/AISC 360-10;
American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.
35. ASTM A572-15. Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium Structural Steel; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
36. MBMA. Metal Building Systems Manual; Metal Building Manufacturers Association: Cleveland, OH, USA, 2006.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).