1.To study the concept of Conventional Steel Building. 2.To study the concept of Pre Engineered Building. 3.To prepare a model of P.E.B. 4.To analyze structure using Staad Pro. 5.Comparison between Pre Engineered Building and Conventional building.

1. Comparative Study of
an Industrial PEB
with Conventional
Building
Presented by Ms.Kadam Y.S

2. Objective
1. To study the concept of Conventional Steel
Building.
2. To study the concept of Pre Engineered Building.
3. To prepare a model of P.E.B.
4. To analyze structure using Staad Pro.
5. Comparison between Pre Engineered Building and
Conventional building.

3. Conventional steel buildings
 Conventional steel buildings (CSB) are low rise steel
structures with roofing systems of truss with roof
coverings.

4. Pre-engineered building
 Pre-Engineered Building concept involves the steel
building systems which are predesigned and
prefabricated. The basis of the PEB concept lies in
providing the section at a location only according to
the requirement at that spot.

5. The basic parameters that define pre-
engineered buildings are
1. Building Width
2. Building Length
3. Building Height
4. Roof Slope (x/10)
5. End bay length
6. Interior bay length
7. Design Loads

6. Main Frame
a) Primary Members
i. Columns
ii. Rafters
Secondary Members
a) Purlins
b) Girts
Sheeting
a) Roof
b) Wall
c) Fascias
Components of Pre-engineered steel
building

8. CRANE BRACKETS &
BEAMS
STRUCTURAL PARTIONS
MEZZANINE FLOORS
FASCIAS
CANOPIES
OTHER MAJOR COMPONENTS OF PEB

9. Problem Statement
 Internal dimensions of building: l=60 m, b=15 m
 Height of building up to eaves level= 6 m
 Location of building= Pune region
 Type of roofing = G.I.sheets
 Area of opening (permeability of building 5% to
20%)
 Angle of rafter = < 100
 Spacing between two columns = 6 m
 Number of frames = 10

10. Load Calculation
 Dead load
1. Wight of purlin :5 kg/m2
2. Weight of sheeting :5 kg/m2
Total weight :10 kg/m2=0.1kN/m2
3. Self weight of tapered section
 Live load
Live load =0.75 kN/m2 = 0.75*6=4.5 kN/m2
Collateral load:
Collateral load = 0.2* 6 =1.2 KN/M(Assumed)

11. Load Combination
Load combination of strength:
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.5+1.05 *C.L.
 (D.L.+W.L.S.)*1.5
 (D.L.+W.R.P.)*1.5
 (D.L.+W.R.S.)*1.5
 (D.L.+W.P.P.)*1.5
 (D.L.+W.P.S.)*1.5
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.2+1.05*C.L.+0.6* W.L.P.
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.2+1.05*C.L.+0.6* W.L.S.
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.2+1.05*C.L.+0.6* W.R.P.
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.2+1.05*C.L.+0.6* W.R.S.
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.2+1.05*C.L.+0.6* W.P.P.
 (D.L.+L.L.)*1.2+1.05*C.L.+0.6* W.P.S.

12.  Load combination of serviceability:
 (D.L.+L.L.+C.L.)*1
 D.L.* 1+(L.L.+C.L+W.L.P.)*0.8
 D.L.* 1+(L.L.+C.L+W.L.S.)*0.8
 D.L.* 1+(L.L.+C.L+W.R.P.)*0.8
 D.L.* 1+(L.L.+C.L+W.R.S.)*0.8
 D.L.* 1+(L.L.+C.L+W.P.P.)*0.8
 D.L.* 1+(L.L.+C.L+W.P.S.)*0.8
 (D.L.+W.L.P.)*1
 (D.L.+W.L.S.)*1
 (D.L.+W.R.P.)*1
 (D.L.+W.R.S.)*1
 (D.L.+W.P.P.)*1
 (D.L.+W.P.S.)*1

13. B.M.D.
CONVENTIONAL BUILDING PRE ENGINEERED BUILDING

17. Results
Sr.
No.
Description PEB CSB
1 Steel Take Off (kN) 12.194 84.595
2 Support Reaction (kN) 10.62 375.582
3 Maximum deflection (mm) 39.48 8.611
4 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 66.894 453.981
5 Maximum Moment (kNm 175.52 908.577

18. Advantages of Pre Engineered Buildings
 Aesthetic Appeal
 Faster Completion
 Economical
 Seismic Resistance
 Ease of Expansion
 Maintenance Free
 Large Clear Spans
 Controlled Quality
 Hassle Free
 Low initial cost

19. COMPARISON OF PRE-ENGINEERED
STEEL BUILDINGS OVER
CONVENTIONAL STEEL BUILDINGS

23. RELEVANCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
 Industrial Buildings
 Ware houses
 Air Craft Hangers
 Commercial complexes
 Offices
 School Buildings
 Offices
 Indoor stadiums
 Outdoor stadiums
 Gas Stations
 Metro stations and Bus
terminals
 Parking lots
 Stadiums
 Railway platforms
 Cold storages

24. RELEVANCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
Warehousing industry Residential Construction

25. Multistory PEB Building PEB Building with Mezzanin

26. CONCLUSION
 In light of the study, it can be concluded that PEB
structures are more advantageous than CSB structures in
terms of cost effectiveness, quality control speed in
construction and simplicity in erection.
 For PEB structure weight is 35 % lesser than the weight
of CSB structure. Reason for higher weight in IS
800:2007 compared to AISC/MBMA is limiting ratio of
the section.
 Weight of PEB depends on the bay spacing with the
increase in bay spacing up to certain spacing, the weight
reduces and further increase makes weight heavier.

27. CONCLUSION
 PEB roof structure is almost 30% lighter than
conventional steel building. In Secondary members ,
light weight “ Z” purlins are used for PEB structure.
 As per Indian code, the classes of section considered
for design are Plastic, Compact and Semi- compact,
slender cross-section. It is well known that many
PEB manufacturers use sections with very thin webs
in order to reduce the weight of the section and be
economical/competitive in their commercial offers,
and these thin webs do not satisfy the codal
provisions of IS 800: 2007.

28. REFERENCES
 Aijaz Ahmad Zende, A. V. Kulkarni, Aslam Hutagi, “Comparative Study of Analysis
and Design of Pre- Engineered-Buildings and Conventional Frames”, IOSR Journal
of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSRJMCE), Vol. 5, Issue 1, Jan. - Feb. 2013.
 S.D. Charkha & Latesh S. Sanklecha, “Economizing Steel Building using Pre-
engineered Steel Sections”, International Journal of Research in Civil Engineering,
Architecture & Design, Vol. 2, Issue 2, April-June, 2014.
 C. M. Meera, “Pre-Engineered Building Design ofan Industrial Warehouse”,
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Emerging Technologies, Vol. 5,
Issue 2, June 2013.
 G. Sai Kiran, A. Kailasa Rao, R. Pradeep Kumar, “Comparison of Design Procedures
for Pre Engineering Buildings (PEB): A Case Study”, International Journal of Civil,
Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol.8, No: 4, 2014.
 Syed Firoz1, Sarath Chandra Kumar B1, Design concept of pre-engineered building.
International journal of engineering research & applications, volume 2 , issue 2 ,
pp:267-272
 Jatin D. Thakar, 2 Prof. P.G. Patel. Comparative study of pre engineered steel
structure by varying width of structure. International journal of advanced
engineering technology, volume 4, issue 3, 2009.

29.  IS: 800-2007: Code of practice for general construction in steel
 IS: 875 (Part 1) - 1987:- Code of Practice for Design Loads(Other
Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures- Dead Loads.
 IS: 875 (Part 2) - 1987:- Code of Practice for Design Loads(Other
Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures- Live Loads.
 IS: 875 (Part 3) - 1987:- Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other
than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures-Wind Loads.
 Metal Building Systems Manual 2006, http://www.mbma.com.
 www.zamilsteel.com
 www.kirbyinternational.com
 www.tatabluescopesteel.com

30. THANK YOU