Analysis of the Conventional Steel Building and Pre-Engineered Building Structures for Various Bay Lengths

Abstract

Comparing PEB structures to conventional structures is the main goal of this study. Pre Engineered Buildings (PEB) are constructions that are manufactured and assembled on site. This study assesses both traditional steel structures and pre-engineered structures. Usually, industrial buildings are built using this kind of structural principle. An industrial structure with 5 and 6 m-long bays is under consideration. STAAD PRO software is used for structure analysis. In this study, the maximum reaction, maximum stress analysis, and maximum axial force results for conventional steel structures and pre-engineered structures with bay lengths of 5 and 6 metres are examined and compared. We consequently conclude that PEB is preferable to CSB.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

A pre-engineered building (PEB) is a structure that has been designed in advance by a manufacturer to be built using a predetermined supply of raw materials and manufacturing processes that may successfully meet a range of structural and visually pleasing design standards. Pre-engineered steel buildings can incorporate mezzanine floors, canopies, fascias, interior partitions and other structural accessories. To make the structure waterproof, special mastic beads, filler strips, and trimmings are employed. Pre-engineered buildings (PEB) have revolutionized the process of creating storage capacity structures. a steel-only structural framework with conventional walls and a normal roof. The fully built structure is moved using cranes from the manufacturer to the installation site. The framework of PEBs is also far lighter than that of conventional steel structures, which lowers the price of steel and increases the affordability of these structures. Due to their quick installation, low cost, high quality, and long lifespan, PEBs are recognised as a breakthrough in the building industry. Pre-engineered structures meet one of the industry's most crucial needs, which is for large, column-free sections.

II. CONVENTIONAL STEEL BUILDINGS

Traditional steel structures are conservative and expert. In traditional constructions, structural members are hot rolled and utilised. The materials are created in the factory or made there before being transported to the location. On location, the raw materials are transformed into the desired form and then built. Cut and weld changes can be made while the erection is being performed. The traditional system makes use of truss systems. In typical conventional construction, excavation and foundation building occur first, followed by frame. The effectiveness of each trade determines how quickly each component may be finished before moving on to the next stage. Because each component must be designed from start, design has a significant impact on time, especially if it is complex. Project duration is typically between six and 10 months. Complex designs are best suited for conventional construction. But in contrast to pre-engineered building, conventional construction not only takes longer but also costs more. Even though conventional construction can frequently result in more intricate buildings, this approach has higher labor costs and generates a lot of construction waste. Conventional construction can offer more flexible design possibilities, but it also necessitates comprehensive, continuous upkeep, and because it weighs more than pre-engineered construction, it might eventually damage foundations.

III. TYPE OF PEB FRAMES

PEB frame have many types mainly five types are widely used-

1. CLEAR SPAN
2. MULTI SPAN
3. SINGLE SLOPE
4. MULTI GABLE
5. LEAN TO

Conclusion

Let\'s wrap up by discussing the inferences that may be drawn from a comparison of the CSB and PEB frame data. The steel takeoff, the maximum shear force, the maximum moment analysis, and the maximum deflection are among the seven distinct sorts of results presented here. These conclusions come from the work done for the study. These conclusions come from this research project. A. Conclusion Based on Maximum Reaction 1) For a 5 m bay length, the maximum reaction of CSB is 57.19% higher than PEB. 2) For a 6 m bay length, the maximum reaction of CSB is 21.19% greater than PEB. B. Conclusion Based on Maximum Stress Analysis 1) For a 5 m bay length, the maximum stress analysis of CSB is 69.90% more compressive and 71.6% more tensile than PEB. 2) For a 6 m bay length, the maximum stress analysis of CSB is 51.31% more tensile stress and 47.80% more compressive stress than PEB. C. Conclusion Based on Maximum Axial Force 1) For a 5 m bay length, the maximum axial force of the CSB is 74.46% more than the PEB. 2) For a 6 m bay length, the maximum axial force of the CSB is 50.24% more than the PEB. Overall findings indicate that for the same parameter, pre-engineered building are superior to traditional steel building. The pre-engineered buildings are also effective and affordable.

References

[1] Jinsha M S and Linda Ann Mathew(2016) \" Analysis of Pre –Engineered Buildings \" International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). [2] K. Prabin Kumar and D.Sunny Praksh (2018)\"Planning Analysis and Design of Industrial Building Using STAAD PRO\" International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 119 No. 17. [3] Manoj Kumar v, Syed Suhel Gutti, Nasir shaikh, Vivekananda and Gurupada swamy N M (2019)\"A Comparative Study on Pre Engineered Building by using STAAD PRO\" International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)Volume: 06 Issue: 06. [4] Mitaali Jayant Gilbile and S. S. Mane (2020) \"A Review on Comparative Study on the Structural Analysis and Design of Pre-Engineered Building [PEB] with Conventional Steel Building [CSB]\" International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Vol. 9 Issue 09. [5] Bhupesh kumar (2020) \"Comparative Study of Warehouse Structure in P.E.B. with C.S.BInternational Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Volume 7(3), ISSN: 2394-9333 [6] Rajnandan Verma and Raghvendra Singh. (2020) \"Comparative Analysis Of Pre-Engineered Steel Building And Conventional Steel Building Using Etab-A Review\" International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and ScienceVolume:02/Issue:02 [7] Animesh patel (2021)\"Analysis And Comparative Study On Conventional Steel Building And Pre Engineered Building Using Staad.Pro\" International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science volume 3 [8] Laishram singh (2021) An Analytical Study On Pre Engineered Building By Using Staad ProJetir May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 [9] Sudhir paswas ( 2022) Design & Analysis of Industrial Building Using STAAD.Pro softwareInternational Journal of Research Publication and Reviews. [10] Jaya tarmarkar (2022) \" A Review of Study and Analysis of Pre-Engineered Building Using Staad Pro Software\" International Journal of Research Publication and ReviewsVol 3, no 8, [11] T D Mythili (2015) \"Analysis and Comparative Study of Conventional Steel Structure with PEB Structure\" International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 [12] T.D. Mythili (2017) \" An Overview Of Pre-Engineered Building Systems\" International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 8, Issue 4 [13] M D Gawade and U. P. Waghe (2018) \" Study Of Pre-Engineered Building Concept\" Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences JREAS, Vol. 3, Issue 03 [14] Humanaaz Arif Qureshi, Dr. Kuldeep R. Dabhekar, Amol Shahakar, Dr. Isha P. Khedikar (2020) \" Comparative analysis of Pre Engineered and Conventional Steel Building\" Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) Volume 7, Issue 5 [15] V Vishnu Sai, P Poluraju and B Venkat Rao (2021) \" Structural Performance of Pre Engineered Building: A Comparative Study\" International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering. [16] Shubham Shrivastava and Gaurav Shrivastava (2022) \" Pre Engineered Structure study: A review\" International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 09 Issue: 12 [17] IS : 875 part 1. dead load of structure General (Sixth Revision), BIS, New Dehli, India [18] IS : 875 part 2. live load of structure General BIS, New Dehli, India [19] IS : 875 2015 part 3. wind load analysis of structure, BIS, New Dehli, India [20] IS : 800 2007 reinfocement steel – Code of Practice New Dehli, India

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Shubham Upadhyay, Prof. Umesh Pendharkar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.