Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

A state of art review on analysis and design of pre-engineered buildings

Subhash Kumar Sah a,⇑, Muhammed Zain Kangda a, Sandeep Sathe b,⇑, Nilesh Mate c
a
School of Civil Engineering, REVA University, Bangalore 560064, India
b
School of Civil Engineering, MIT WPU, Pune 411038, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Amrutvahini College of Engineering, Samgamner 422608, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Construction of steel buildings is increasing very rapidly due to its strength, flexibility, recyclable nature,
Available online 2 December 2022 longer span, no limitation in size of components and more seismic resistance capacity as compared to
concrete buildings. A Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) refers to a building which is engineered at a factory
Keywords: as per the specifications, codes and the loads that will be acting on the structure before production of the
Pre-engineered building building components and then finally assembled at site thereby reducing the completion time. The con-
Conventional steel building cept of PEB involves predesigning and prefabrication process. The material usage in PEB is optimized by
Tapered sections
matching the frame geometry with the bending moment diagram’s shape, which reduces the overall
Structural Loading
weight of the structure. In the present study, a review on the analysis and design of PEB structure is pre-
sented. The study discusses the various components of the PEB system and provides a detailed step to
model PEB structures. From the past studies, it has been found that PEB structures are up to 50% lighter
due to the usage of tapered I-sections and cold formed ‘‘Z” & ‘‘C” sections, approximately 35% cheaper as
compared to the conventional steel structures and show reduced lateral and vertical displacements when
subjected to the seismic loading and can be constructed in half the time taken for conventional steel
buildings (CSB). PEB gives a better output from the architectural point of view with large clear spans &
flexibility in future expansion. It has also been found that construction of PEB is more sustainable, envi-
ronment friendly and economical than CSB.1
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on ‘‘Innovations in Mechanical and Civil Engineering’’.

1. Introduction
With time, there has been great improvements in the techno-
logical advancements which contributed tremendously to improve
the standards of living with the invention of new products and util-
ities. One such example of structural revolution is Pre-Engineered
Buildings (PEBs). PEBs make use of a set stock of raw materials
which have been verified over time to fulfill an extensive range
of structural and aesthetic design conditions.
In 1917, The Austin Company, located in State of Ohio, used the
concept of Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings and included ten pre-
engineered commercial building designs in their product catalogue
which were shipped within weeks to construction site. In the con-
struction industry, it was a complete shift and Pre-engineered
⇑ Corresponding authors:
E-mail address: sandeepsatheresearch@gmail.com (S. Sathe).
1
Corresponding Author. E-mail address: sandeepsatheresearch@gmail.com (San-
deep Sathe).
structures became popular during World War (WWII), when the
US Army used the PEB structures as aircraft hangers and portable
barracks. During the late 1960 s, the standardized building designs
were first marketed as PEBs. Post 1980 s, PEB dominated low rise
non-residential buildings market in US, Europe and Middle East.
Until 1990, PEB’s use was limited to North America and the Middle
East. The use of PEBs have increased throughout the world since
then. PEB’s concept entered the Indian construction industry in late
1990 s. The current growth rate of PEB in India is at 12–15 % per
year.
The steel industry is increasing expeditiously in almost every
part of the world. Its usage is increasing due to its high strength
to weight ratio, flexibility in expansion, recyclable nature, longer
span, no limitation in size of components and more seismic resis-
tance capacity as compared to reinforced concrete buildings. Steel
is an eco-friendly material since it does not have any negative
effect on the environment, this makes steel structures more sus-
tainable as compared to other construction types. The only disad-
vantage associated with standard steel structures, is that the cost

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.11.361
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on ‘‘Innovations in Mechanical and Civil Engineering’’.
S. Kumar Sah, M. Zain Kangda, S. Sathe et al.
Table 1
PEB Components.
Component Name Description
Primary structural members ‘‘I” shaped built-up or tapered framing members.
Secondary structural members ‘‘Z” & ‘‘C” shaped cold-formed structural members.
Sheeting/Cladding Roll-formed profiled sheeting.
Miscellaneous Functional components.
Accessories Aesthetic components.
incurred in the construction project will be more. A Pre-Engineered
Building (PEB) refers to a building which is pre-designed at a fac-
tory using some simulation and modelling software as per the
specifications, codes and the loads that will be acting on the struc-
ture before production of the building components and then finally
assembled at site thereby reducing the completion time. These
structures are erected in less than 1.5–2 months [1]. PEB concept
involves predesigning and prefabrication process [2]. The material
usage in PEB is optimized by matching the frame geometry with
the Bending Moment (BM) diagram’s shape, which reduces the
overall weight of the structure [4]. Pre-Engineered Building (PEB)
is a building shell consisting 3 different classifications of product
i.e., primary structural members, secondary structural members
and sheeting/cladding. The various components of a standard PEB
system are tabulated in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 1. The PEB sys-
tems also pays a way in the field of industrial and commercial agri-
cultural in the form of poultry buildings, dairy farms, greenhouses,
grain storage, animal confinement, factories, vehicle parking sheds,
warehouses, storage sheds, showrooms, supermarkets, offices,
restaurants and service stations. The institutional and recreational
field constructs PEB structures in the form of schools, exhibition
halls, hospitals, theatres, auditoriums, gymnasiums, swimming
pool enclosures and indoor sports courts. The field of aviation
and military constructs aircraft hangers, administration buildings,
residential barracks and support facilities. Thus, the PEB systems
facilitates many industries apart from the civil construction
industry.
A detailed discussion on the various components of the PEB
structures is explained as follows:
Primary structural members: The main load-bearing members
which comprises the main rigid frame of PEB and are ‘‘I” shaped
members which are tapered or built-up using hot-rolled plates.
Columns are the vertical members whereas rafters are the horizon-
tal members.
Secondary structural members: ‘‘Z” and ‘‘C” shaped cold-formed
structural members includes purlins for roof, eave struts and girts
for wall. In cold formed members, there is no cutting, welding and
grinding process involved as the members are made directly by
pressing the steel coil in a pressing machine to get the required
shape.
Sheeting/cladding: It includes roll-formed profiled sheeting for
roof and wall. These are color coated, galvalume or galvanized steel
ribbed panels.
Miscellaneous: It includes the functional components such as
mezzanine floors for intermediate floor, crane runway beams for
crane system, sag rods to limit purlins & girts movement in the
direction of its weak axis, anchor bolts to connect members with
foundation or other support & strut pipes.
Accessories: It includes the aesthetic components such as fascia
to enhance wall appearance, canopy as overhanging roof structure,
louvers as wall opening with slanted blades to allow air flow, para-
pet, roof extensions, skylight & turbo vent.
The major advantages and disadvantages of PEBs are listed in
Table 2 along with some major differences between PEBs and CSBs
as tabulated in Table 3.
705
Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710
Members
Columns & rafters
Purlins, eave struts & girts
Panels for roof & walls
Mezzanine floors, crane runway beams, sag roads, strut pipes & anchor bolts
Fascias, parapets, canopies, roof extensions, skylight, turbo vent & louvers
2. Pre-engineered building review
Steel is an alternate building material because of its numerous
advantages over reinforced cement concrete (RCC). This has led
the entrepreneurs establish factories where the complete design
and production is carried out at same place and the proposed
structure is erected at site. This gave the benefit of producing com-
ponents either before or along with the construction works at site.
Introduction of PEB’s idea in structural design gave rise to many
benefits such as optimization of design, economy and production
ease as compared to Conventional Steel Buildings [4]. In India,
PEB construction is mainly getting popularity these days due to
the cost and time savings along with other various advantages it
has over other construction types. Various researches have con-
ducted analytical tests to determine the characteristics and struc-
tural performance of PEB using different codes and compared the
results of PEB with conventional steel buildings.
2.1. Characteristics of PEB
Analytical studies conducted on PEB have shown better charac-
teristics as compared to CSB. Kalesha et al. [1] performed an ana-
lytical and comparative study on PEB and CSB of similar
configurations i.e., width 20 m, height 5 m and slope of 1 in 10
using STAAD Pro. PEB and CSB structures were designed for wind
and seismic forces as per IS 875 Part III–1987 and IS 1893–2002
respectively. It was observed that PEB structures are economical
as compared to CSB and resulted in overall lesser amount of steel
for PEB. The PEB system is more sustainable as compared to other
construction technologies and the materials used are reusable,
recyclable and eco-friendly [1]. Sharma et al. [2] compared the per-
formance of PEB and CSB structures of same configuration using
STAAD Pro. The design of PEB system is found to be more effective
as compared to CSB. The PEB system performed efficiently in terms
of total construction, maintenance, initial and final cost. The study
also recommended to reuse the components of the disassembled
PEB members for new construction, thus indirectly reducing the
cost of future projects. It must also be noted that the construction
of PEB structures can be completed in less than half of the time
taken for the completion of CSB. Roopesh et al. [4] designed a
Gas Insulated Sub-Station (GIS) in form of a PEB structure having
different interlinked GIS equipments. The design followed the
guidelines of IS 800:2007. The case study on the 765 KV GIS struc-
ture’s design in Nizamabad was compared with conventional I-
sections. The results indicated that the conventional sections were
approximately 8 % heavier than tapered I-sections detailed in the
PEB system. The study also concluded that the tapered I-sections
resulted in cost reduction, time saving and reduced dead load
which in turn reduced the size of foundation [4]. Saleem et al. [3]
observed that adopting an optimum section of flange and web
reduces the frame’s weight as compared to CSB frames. PEB con-
struction is environment friendly due to energy efficiency and least
wastage of material elimination through welding and cutting. The
fabrication process is supervised and completed inside the factory
S. Kumar Sah, M. Zain Kangda, S. Sathe et al.
Fig. 1. Components of Pre-Engineered Building.
whereas in CSB, the complete construction is done on site ensuing
substantial wastage [5]. Siddiqi et al. [6] performed minimum
weight design of PEB with quick production procedure and easy
assembly to get more efficiency of structure. The results indicated
that primary structural members with built-up section is cheaper
by almost 32 % and secondary framing using cold formed sections
are about 60 % lighter than conventional hot-rolled sections. Meera
[8] designed a frame of an industrial warehouse using PEB and CSB
concepts and analysed both structures using STAAD Pro. The load
combinations comprised of dead, live, crane and wind loads. PEB’s
design was quick and effective as compared to the design of CSB. It
was observed that the roof structure of PEB was lighter than that of
CSB by almost 30 %. Analysis showed lesser reactions at support for
PEB [8]. Pradeep [15] investigated the performance of columns and
rafters in the PEB system with CSB by comparing the axial force,
shear force and bending moments. The study observed that the col-
umns of the PEB system yielded low values of axial and shear
forces. The column bending moment value in PEB system was more
due to the structure being light weight. In rafters at mid-span, the
axial force in PEB was less but the shear force and bending moment
values in PEB were more. Charkha [16] found that the dead load of
PEB was much lesser than CSB for all crane capacities and PEB’s use
increases the aesthetic appearance of the structure. Zende [17]
concluded that PEB structure can weigh at least 10 % less and pro-
vide larger clear span than CSB.DN subramanian [18] has done
analysis on pre-engineered buildings selection of framing system,
roofing and wall materials.Kavitha [19] has design and analysis
of PEB as per IS 800:2007 using Staad Pro.
2.2. Configuration of PEB
Saleem et al. [3] studied the optimized slenderness of flange
and web for built-up sections in PEB. The observed results suggest
that the sections under higher loads and having smaller unbraced
length ratios need to be designed using compact flanges with (bf /
2  tf) = 11.0 for better economy whereas for sections with higher
unbraced length ratios need to be designed with (bf / 2  tf) = 14.0.
For structural members subjected to higher bending effects, web
slenderness of 160 or more is employed. The study also noted that
for a span of 30–50 m, a reduction of about 30–40 % in steel weight
of the primary structural frames, for larger spans more reduction in
frame weight was observed. Similar observations were examined
for higher bay spacings by [5]. Jinsha et al. [9] analysed and
706
Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710
designed a PEB of width 25 m and eave height 6 m using STAAD
Pro to determine the least quantity of steel by changing bay spac-
ings (6 m, 8 m, 10 m & 12 m). The study reported that the most
economical bay spacing for PEB was found as 8 m. The quantity
of steel mainly depended on primary structural members and pur-
lins. When spacing between bays were increased, the consumption
of steel reduced for primary structural members but increased for
secondary members [9,13]. The study also investigated the reac-
tions at base for various load cases and observed an increase in
the forces as portal spacing increases [13].
2.3. Use of different codes
The review on the strength ratio of the sections is found be dif-
ferent with the use of different design codes i.e., BS 5950 (2000),
Eurocode (2005) and AISC (2010), but the maximum performance
of the section was observed at the same ratio [3]. Darshana [11]
analysed and designed a PEB according to Indian standards (IS
800: 2007 [23], IS 875: 1987[24,25,26], IS 1893: 2016[27]) and
American standards (MBMA-96, AISC-89) and compared both the
standards. Live load was 0.75 kN/m2 as per IS code whereas it
was 0.57 kN/m2 as per MBMA. In MBMA, doors and rolling shut-
ter’s openings are not measured under open area as the members
are temporarily open. As per IS code, the percentage of openings
is considered in the calculations. The Indian Standard of practice
calculated higher loads than MBMA. The IS code have higher
deflection limits than MBMA. The IS code results in more conserva-
tive design as compared to MBMA/AISC [11]. ‘‘Serviceability Crite-
ria” is one of the important reasons for increase in weight of the
structure designed using IS 800: 1984 as compared to IS 800:
2007. Limiting ratios of the sections (Table 2 of IS 800:2007) con-
tribute to the higher weight of structure in IS 800: 2007. IS 800:
2007 code does not design the slender sections of PEB but IS
800: 1984 code does the design of slender section of PEB and
reduces structure’s weight. IS 800–1984 has deflection limits are
higher as compared to IS 800–2007 [14]. For slender sections IS
801: 1975 has to be used [12].
2.4. Structural performance of PEB
Qureshi and Saleem [5] compared the performance of PEB steel
frames with the CSB subjected to dead, live, wind and seismic loads
in terms of optimal steel section’s use, lateral displacement (i.e.,
S. Kumar Sah, M. Zain Kangda, S. Sathe et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710

Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages of PEB.

Advantages
Property
Clear Span
Fast Project Construction
Low Initial Cost
Architectural Flexibility
Functional Versatility
Factory Controlled Quality
Low Maintenance & Operating Costs
Disadvantages
Description Property Description
PEB has ability to span up to 100–120 m wide without any Future Future expansion of PEB is difficult if the
intermediate support [2]. expansion requirements are not given in the
beginning while designing.
The foundation’s construction can be started prior to the delivery of Corrosion PEB requires special coatings to prevent
PEB components using the approved anchor bolt setting plans. corrosion.
Standard PEB’s delivery time ranges from 6 to 8 weeks [7].
Due to less usage of steel, the overall cost will be lesser [7]. Fire It is more susceptible to fire.
The architectural appearance of the building can be enhanced using Thermal Reduced thermal comfort due to higher
fascias, parapets & curved eaves, trims and flashings [7]. discomfort conductivity of steel.
In future, its length and width can be increased incrementally. PEB’s Erection May collapse during erection if proper
have bay lengths of up to 10 m and eave heights of up to 30 m [7]. risk procedures are not followed.
The components are manufactured with strict adherence to the
specified codes. Quality control is adhered to the entire process [7].
PEB have long durability. Wall panels require almost no maintenance
whereas roof panels require only some cleaning [7].

Table 3
Comparison of PEB with CSB.

Property Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) Conventional Steel Building (CSB)

Overall-Weight About 20–50 % lesser than CSB due to the usage of tapered They are heavier than PEB due to the usage of conventional hot-rolled
sections and cold-formed channels [1,2,5]. sections and channels. [2,4]
Design Fast and efficient. Basic design codes are followed (AISC, Requires more time. Each CSB has to be designed from the scratch.
MBMA, AWS, IS 800) [2].
Delivery Time About 6–10 weeks for an 800 MT project [2,7]. About 24–30 weeks for an 800 MT project [2].
Foundations Simple, easy and light weight [5,8]. Extensive and heavy [5,8].
Erection Simplicity Easier, simple and faster [2]. Complex, slower and requires extra energy [2].
Seismic Resistance PEB performs much better than CSB due to its light weight Less seismic resistant as compared to PEB [2].
frame and better structural performance [2].
Overall Cost Approximately 35 % cheaper cost for PEB. [1,8] Higher cost /m2 [2].
Architecture It can be shaped as per the demand of the user after adding That’s not possible in case of existing CSB [2]. Each project requires
some extra amount [2]. special architectural design resulting in more time and cost.
Clear Span Up to 100–120 m wide without any intermediate support Up to 40 m only [2].
[2].
Structural Performance Better performance can be obtained [2]. Every structural member is designed individually which affects CSB’s
overall structural performance [2].

sway) and vertical displacement (i.e., deflection) using STAAD Pro.
The results indicated that tapered frames showed lesser sway and
deflection than hot-rolled steel frames because, in tapered case the
designer can control the cross-section sizes and tapering of steel
sections in a better way. Siddiqi et al. [6] found that the sway
and deflections in primary and secondary framing are lesser for
hot rolled sections whereas the sway and deflections for cold
formed sections are within the allowable limits of Metal Building
Manufacturing Association (MBMA): 2006 guidelines. Sai et al.
[10] compared PEB’s performance with different bay-system and
different wind and seismic zones namely Vijayawada and Hyder-
abad using STAAD Pro. The study observed that the structure’s
weight in Vijayawada was more than the structure in Hyderabad
by 11.04 %. Columns and rafters section sizes were less for the
Hyderabad’s structure when compared to the Vijayawada’s struc-
ture since the bending moment and shear force values were found
to be less for the Hyderabad’s structure. Wind speed and Seismic
zones are the conditions which affects the weight of structure
and sizes of their sections [10]. The study conducted by Wesevich
et al. [20] revealed that the Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) anal-
ysis generally gave rise to conservative predictions of structural
performance of PEB’s subjected to Vapor Cloud Explosions (VCEs)
whereas the advanced computational techniques such as Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
predicted significantly better performance of the structure. The
tests performed by Stea et al. [21] observed that PEBs can be used
as protective structures and withstand incident blast pressures of
707
approximately 3.45 kPa generated from 900 kg of nitro-carbo-
nitrate as explosive. Similarly, tests were conducted by Dobbs
et al. [22] and showed that PEBs can be used as protective struc-
tures with some modifications are essentially required to confirm
the blast resistant capacity of each structural members.
2.5. Research gaps and scope for future research
Most of the research available in the field of pre-engineered
buildings compared its performance by keeping CSB as reference
on different aspects and the results highlighted in the research
are more or less similar. The load conditions considered in the
studied cases are also limited to dead load, live load, collateral load,
wind load and seismic load. Analysis of PEB system subjected to
crane loads along with all basic loads can be researched in future.
Even different types of bracings can be tested on PEB structure to
withstand the lateral loads acting on it. The research directed
towards the material enhancement of various members of the
PEB structures also needs to be studied. Investigating the collapse
mechanism and connections of PEB systems has a lot of scope in
the near future. Evaluating the structural behaviour of PEB systems
subjected to blast and fire needs extensive research. The perfor-
mance of PEB structures equipped with passive and active control
techniques is limited and further investigations is required to mit-
igate the damages incurred during natural disasters namely
cyclones and earthquakes.
S. Kumar Sah, M. Zain Kangda, S. Sathe et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710

able structural analysis tools. Then the loads acting on the struc-
ture needs to be calculated and applied to the respective
structural members. Some of the essential guidelines proposed in
the structural codes of practice also need to be defined and
assigned to the structure. Finally, the analysis can be run and then
the necessary checks can be performed step by step from the anal-
ysis result data. The iterations may need to be repeated if the
checks are not satisfied from the result data obtained from the ini-
tial assumptions. The flowchart of the design methodology to ana-
lyze and design a PEB structure is as shown in Fig. 2. All the
sections within a member need to be checked thoroughly and
the most critical point within that section need to be subjected
for axial, bending and shear stresses and deflections. The critical
buckling load for non-prismatic members are determined using
numerical integration methods. For built-up sections, the ratios
as given in Table 4 need to be checked. The deflection limits for dif-
ferent structural members should be within the allowable limits as
per Table 6, clause 5.6.1 of IS 800:2007 or table 10.3.1(b) of
MBMA:2006 (Table 5). Under compression, the slenderness ratio
of a member should be less than 200. The section sizes need to
be safe as per the design & utilization ratios should be less than
1. The value greater than 1 shows the extent to which the member
is over-stressed whereas, less than 1 value shows the member’s
remaining reserve capacity.

3.1. General guidelines for PEB design

The general guidelines to be followed for the safe design and

construction of PEB structures as prescribed by various interna-
tional standards are follows:

i. The design shall be as per MBMA or IS code (as client

specifies).
ii. Load Considerations: Loads considered for general building
structure. They are:
a. Dead loads: It includes self-weight of frames & secondary
elements (purlins, roof & wall sheeting, insulation, etc.) as
per IS:875 (Part 1). Normally taken as 0.10 kN/m2.
Fig. 2. Design methodology for PEB structure. b. Live loads: It should be taken as per IS:875 (Part 2) or section
1.3.2 & 1.3.3 of MBMA:2006. It shall be taken as 0.57 kN/m2
as per MBMA or 0.75 kN/m2 as per IS code.
Table 4 c. Wind Loads: Wind terrain category-2 is to be selected unless
Section ratio limitations for PEB [7]. specified. As per MBMA, wind coefficients need to be fol-
Built-up section Galvanized Remarks lowed as given in section 1.3.4 of MBMA:2006. As per IS
primary member code, internal & external wind coefficients need to be found
hw/tw <= 180 hw/tw <= 100 hw = web depth, as given in IS:875 (Part 3).
tf/tw <= 2.5 wf/2tf <= 13 tw = web thickness, d. Seismic Loads: As per IS:1893 (Part 1):2016 or section 1.3.6
hw/wf <= 5 wf/tf >= 0.25hw tw tf = flange thickness & of MBMA:2006.
wf = flange width e. Collateral Loads: It includes the weight of additional perma-
nent materials other than dead loads such as solar panels as
per IS:875 (Part 1) or table 10.3.1(c) of MBMA:2006. Nor-
3. Design methodology mally taken between 0.1 and 0.3 kN/m2.
f. Load Combinations: As per table-4, clause-3.5.1 & 5.3.3 of IS
In the design process, first of all the section dimensions need to 800:2007 or section 1.3.7 of MBMA:2006. The study tabu-
be assumed and the structure need to be modelled in simulation lates the available load combinations in Table 6. to evaluate
and modelling software such as STAAD Pro, ETABS and other avail- the performance of PEB system.

Table 5
Deflection Limits for PEB.

Description As Per MBMA:2006[28] As per IS 800:2007[23]

Vertical Lateral Vertical Lateral
Main Frame Span/180 Height/60 Span/180 Height/150
Purlins Span/180 Span/180
Girts Span/120 Span/120

708
S. Kumar Sah, M. Zain Kangda, S. Sathe et al.
Table 6
Load Combinations for PEB.
As Per AISC (ASD)
Strength Design Serviceability Design
1.0DL + 1.0LL 1.0DL + 1.0LL
1.0DL + 0.75LL + 0.75WL/EL 1.0DL + 0.75LL + 0.75WL/EL
1.0DL + 1.0WL/EL 1.0DL + 1.0WL
0.6DL + 1.0WL/EL 1.0DL + 1.0EL
iii. Support conditions shall generally be taken as pinned.
iv. Standard purlin laps shall be taken as 385 mm.
4. Conclusions
In this review paper, research work carried out on PEB’s differ-
ent aspects namely characteristics, configuration and performance
with reference to conventional steel building is presented. The
study also compares the design provisions of various international
codes of practice. Based on those, the following conclusions are
summarized:
1. Pre-Engineered Building construction gives the users a better
and cost-effective structure where long clear span and fast con-
struction are the topmost priority. The sections are utilized in a
much better way in tapered frames as compared to conven-
tional I-section.
2. PEB’s weight is affected by spacing between bays i.e., with the
increase in spacing up to a certain limit, the structure’s weight
decreases but additional spacing makes the weight heavier.
3. AISC code gives a cost-effective structural solution as compared
to the IS code. There is no significant effect of seismic forces on
PEB due to its light weight structure. But it may have critical
effect on multi-level PEB structure. Due to light weight PEB
frames and loads (dead, live & collateral) acting on it, wind
forces become more critical and it plays a vital role in the design
of the frames.
4. It is interesting to note that extensive researches on the conven-
tional steel structures subjected to earthquakes and blast load-
ings are available with limited studies in the field of pre-
engineered buildings are available.
5. The performance evaluation of pre-engineering buildings sub-
jected to complex loadings such as earthquakes, fires and blast
loading may form an interesting future scope of work. Tech-
niques to protect and enhance the performance of such struc-
tures will be an interesting topic of research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Subhash Kumar Sah: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi-
gation. Muhammed Zain Kangda: Visualization, Writing – original
draft. Sandeep Sathe: Formal analysis, Methodology. Nilesh Mate:
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Shaik Kalesha, B.S.S. Ratnamala Reddy, Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu, An
analytical study on pre-engineered buildings using staad pro, Materials Today:
Proceedings, Elsevier, 2020.
709
Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710
As per IS 800:2007
Strength Design Serviceability Design
1.5DL + 1.5LL 1.0DL + 1.0LL
1.2DL + 1.2LL + 1.2WL/EL 1.0DL + 0.8LL + 0.8WL/EL
1.5DL + 1.5WL/EL 1.0DL + 1.0WL/EL
[2] Lovneesh Sharma, Nileshwar Taak, Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A comparative study
between the pre-engineered structures and conventional structures using
STAADPRO, Materials Today: Proceedings 45, 3469–3475, Elsevier, 2021.
[3] Muhammad Umair Saleem, Nauman Khurram, Hisham Jahangir Qureshi,
Zaheer Abbas Kazmi and Zahid Ahmad Siddiqui, Optimization of Flange and
Web Slenderness for Pre-Engineered Built-up Steel Sections, ICE Publishing,
2018.
[4] N. Roopesh, K. A. Swamy, and Bibhuti Bhusan Das, Pre-Engineered Building
Design of Gas-Insulated Substation Housed Under Pressurized Ventilation,
Recent Trends in Civil Engineering, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 105,
Springer, 2021.
[5] Md. Umair Saleem and Hisham Jahangir Qureshi, Design Solutions for
Sustainable Construction of Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings, Sustainability, 10
(2018) 1761, MDPI.
[6] M.d. Umair Saleem, Z.A. Siddiqi, H. Qureshi, Minimum Weight Design of Pre-
Engineered Steel Structures using Built-up Sections and Cold Formed Sections,
Adv. Mat. Res. 684 (2013) 125–129.
[7] Z.S.T. Manual, Pre-Engineered Buildings Division, Zamil Steel, Saudi Arabia,
1999.
[8] C.M. Meera, Pre-Engineered Building Design of an Industrial Warehouse,
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Emerging Technologies 5 (2)
(2013) 75–82.
[9] M.S. Jinsha, Linda Ann Mathew, ‘‘Analysis of Pre –Engineered Buildings,”
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Volume 5 Issue 7, July
2016.
[10] V. Vishnu Sai, P. Poluraju and B. Venkat Rao, ‘‘Structural Performance of Pre-
Engineered Building: A Comparative Study,” IOP Conf. Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 1197 (2021) 012086.
[11] Ms. Darshana P. Zoad, ‘‘Evaluation Of Pre-Engineering Structure Design By IS-
800 As Against Pre-Engineering Structure Design By AISC,” International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology Vol. 1 Issue 5, July – 2012.
[12] G. Sai Kiran, A. Kailasa Rao, R. Pradeep Kumar, ‘‘Comparison of Design
Procedures for Pre-Engineering Buildings (PEB): A Case Study,” Open Science
Index, Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol:8, No:4, 2014, WASET.
[13] J. D. Thakar, Prof. P.G. Patel, ‘‘Comparative Study of Pre-Engineered Steel
Structure by Varying Width of Structure,” International Journal of Advanced
Engineering Technology/IV/III/July-Sept.,2013/56-62.
[14] S. Wakchaure, N.C. Dubey, ‘‘Design and Comparative Study of Pre-Engineered
Building,” International Journal of Engineering Development and Research
(2016) Volume 4, Issue 2.
[15] V. Pradeep, P. Rao G (2016). ‘‘Comparative Study of Pre-Engineered and
Conventional Industrial Building,” International Journal of Engineering Trends
and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 9 Number 1 - Mar 2014.
[16] S.D. Charkha and L. S. Sanklecha, ‘‘Economizing Steel Building using Pre-
engineered Steel Sections,” International Journal of Research in Civil
Engineering, Architecture & Design 2(2) (2014) 01-10.
[17] A. A. Zende, Prof. A. V. Kulkarni, A. Hutagi, ‘‘Comparative Study of Analysis and
Design of Pre-Engineered Buildings and Conventional Frames,” IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) Volume 5, Issue 1 (Jan. - Feb.
2013), PP 32-43.
[18] N.S. Dr, Pre-Engineered Buildings Selection of Framing System, Roofing & Wall
Materials, The Masterbuilder (2008).
[19] C. Kavitha, S. Suryaprakash, N. Lavanya and S. Durgadevi, ‘‘Design and Analysis
of Pre-engineered Buildings using Staad Pro”, Advances in Materials Research,
Springer Proceedings in Materials 5 (2021).
[20] James Wesevich, D. Milner, L. Nikodym, V. Nasri, D. Lawver and J. Mould
Thornton Tomasetti, ‘‘Improved Blast Capacity of Pre-engineered Metal
Buildings using Coupled CFD and FEA Modeling”, Journal of Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries (2018).
[21] William Stea, Norval Dobbs, Samuel Weissman, Ammann and Whitney, ‘‘Blast
Capacity Evaluation of Pre-Engineered Building”, US Amy Armament Research
and Development Command, Dover, New Jersey (1979).
[22] Norval Dobbs, Frederick E. Sock, Kirit Shah, Ammann & Whitney, Paul Price
and Joseph Caltagirone, ‘‘Evaluation of Blast Capacities of a Pre-Engineered and
Strengthened Steel Building”, Army Armament Research and Development
Command, Dover, New Jersey (1980).
[23] IS 800 (2007) Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi. ‘‘Indian standard general
construction in steel code of practice, IS 800: 2007”.
[24] IS 875 (Part 1) (2015) Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi. ‘‘Indian
standard—code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
building and structures: Part 1—Dead loads, IS 875 (Part 1): 2015”.
S. Kumar Sah, M. Zain Kangda, S. Sathe et al.
[25] IS 875 (Part 2) (2015) Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi. ‘‘Indian
standard—code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
building and structures: Part 2—Live loads, IS 875 (Part 2): 2015”.
[26] IS 875 (Part 3) (2015) Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi. ‘‘Indian
standard—code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
building and structures: Part 3—Wind loads, IS 875 (Part 3): 2015”.
710
Materials Today: Proceedings 77 (2023) 704–710
[27] IS 1893 (Part 1) (2016) Bureau of Indian standards New Delhi. ‘‘Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016”.
[28] MBMA, Metal Building Systems Manual; Metal Building Manufacturers
Association: Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 2006.