Comparison of Design Procedures for Pre Engineering Buildings

(PEB): A Case Study

by

Sai Kiran Gone, Kailash Rao, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla

in

International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering

Report No: IIIT/TR/2014/-1

Centre for Earthquake Engineering

International Institute of Information Technology
Hyderabad - 500 032, INDIA
August 2014
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering Vol:8 No:4, 2014

Comparison of Design Procedures for Pre

Engineering Buildings (PEB): A Case Study
G. Sai Kiran, A. Kailasa Rao, R. Pradeep Kumar

having the dimensions length 187m, width 40m, eave height

AbstractIn recent years, the introduction of Pre Engineered 8m(clear), &roof slope 1:10.Structure suited in seismic zone
Building (PEB) concept in the design of structures has helped in IV with wind speed 47 m/sec considered life span of structure
optimizing design. The adoptability of PEB in the place of as 5 years. Complete structure configuration details can be
Conventional Steel Building (CSB) design concept resulted in many found in Table I as follows [1]-[2], [10]-[11]:
advantages, including economy and easier fabrication. In this study,
an industrial structure (Ware House) is analyzed and designed TABLE I
according to the Indian standards, IS 800-1984, IS 800-2007 and also STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION DETAILS
by referring MBMA-96 and AISC-89. In this study, a structure with Location : Rajasthan, India.
length 187m,width 40m,with clear height 8m and having R-Slope Length : 187 m
International Science Index Vol:8, No:4, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9998849

1:10,isconsidered to carry out analysis& design for 2D frames (End Width : 40 m

frame, frame without crane and frame with 3 module cranes). The Eave height : 8m (clear)
economy of the structure is discussed in terms of its weight Seismic zone : IV
comparison, between Indian codes (IS800-1984, IS800-2007) & Wind speed : 47 m/sec
American code (MBMA-96), & between Indian codes (IS800-1984, Wind terrain category : 2
IS800-2007). Wind Class : C
Life Span : 5 years
KeywordsAISC, Crane Beam, MBMA, Pre-Engineered- Slope of roof : 1:10
Crane Capacity : 10 t (for all 3- cranes)
Buildings, Staad Pro, Utilization Ratio.
Soil type : Medium
Importance factor : 1
I. INTRODUCTION Response reduction factor : 5
Purlin spacing : 1800 mm
S TEEL is the material of choice for design because it is
inherently ductile and flexible. In structural engineering, a
pre-engineered building (PEB) is designed by a manufacturer,
Girt spacing : 2200 mm

to be fabricated using a pre-determined inventory of raw III. DEAD LOAD CALCULATION

materials and manufacturing methods that can efficiently Dead load calculation includes the weight calculation of
satisfy a wide range of structural and aesthetic design sheeting, sag angles, purlins and insulation material as follows
requirements. PEB can be fitted with different structural in Table II [2].
accessories including mezzanine floors, canopies, fasciae,
TABLE II
interior partitions, etc. The concept of PEB is the frame CALCULATION OF DEAD LOAD
geometry which matches the shape of the internal stress Sheeting unit weight : 4.78 kg/m2(5mm thick galvanized sheet)
(bending moment) diagram thus optimizing material usage and : 4.71 kg/m(spacing of purlin = 1.8m)
reducing the total weight of the structure. The complete Purlin wt. : 4.71/1.8
: 2.61 kg/m2
designing is done at the factory and the building components : 1.2 kg/m
are brought to the site in knock down condition. These Sag rods wt.
: 1.2/1.8 :0.667 kg/m2
components are then fixed/ jointed at the site and raised with Insulation material wt. : 2 kg/m2
the help of cranes. : 4.78 + 2.61 + 0.667 + 2
Dead load
: 10kg/m2 : 0.1 KN/m2

II. STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

IV. LIVE LOAD CALCULATION
Selected structure is located in Rajasthan, India. Structure
Calculation of live loads includes consideration of live
loads according to different codes (Indian, American) as
G. Sai Kiran(M.Tech) is Structural Engineer, with the PS Engineering follows in Table III [2].
Consultancy, Nagole X roads, Hyderabad, (www.psec.in).
A. Kailash Rao is Associate vice president (AVP) with the Phenix TABLE III
Construction Technologies, Plot No. 30 P, Village Naranpura, Taluka Sanand, CALCULATION OF LIVE LOAD
Dist. Ahmedabad 382213(Phone: +91 (02717) 612 500, Fax: +91 (02717) As per IS: 875(part-2) -1987-Table-II (Imposed loads on various types of roofs).
612 501,(http://www.mbphenix.com).
R. Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar is Professor of Civil Engineering & Head, Angle of roof truss () : tan-1(1/10) : 5.71 (<10)
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre,IIIT,Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500 As per Indian- LL : 0.75 KN/m2
032, India, (Ph: +91 (40) 6653 1187 (o), 93911 31199 (m),Fax: +91 (40) 6653 As per MBMA-96, Cl-1.3.2.
1413,e-mail: [email protected], url: http://eerc.iiit.ac.in/index.html). As per AISC - LL : 0.57 KN/m2

480
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering Vol:8 No:4, 2014

V. WIND LOAD CALCULATION

Wind load calculation is done according to Indian code IS:
875(part-2)-1987-Cl.5.3, as follows in Table IV [2].
TABLE IV
CALCULATION OF WIND LOAD
Wind speed (Vb) : 47 m/sec
Risk coefficient (K1) : 0.71
Probability factor (K2) : 0.93
Topography factor (K3) : 1.0
Fig. 1 End frame with wind columns
: K1*K2*K3*Vb
Design wind speed (VZ) : 0.71*0.93*1*47
: 31.03 m/sec
:0.6*(Vz)2
: 0.6*31.032
Design wind pressure (PZ)
: 578 N/m2
: 0.578 KN/m2

VI. PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDINGS BY STAAD.PRO

The power tool for computerized structural engineering
International Science Index Vol:8, No:4, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9998849

STAAD Pro is the most popular structural engineering

software product for 2D, 3D model generation, analysis and
multi-material design. It has an intuitive, user-friendly, Fig. 2 Internal frame without crane
visualization tools, powerful analysis and design facilities and
seamless integration to several other modeling and design
software products. The software is fully compatible with all
Windows operating systems. In STAAD Pro utilization ratio is
the critical value that indicates the suitability of the member as
per codes. Normally, a value higher than 1.0 indicates the
extent to which the member is over-stressed, and a value
below 1.0 tells us the reserve capacity available. Critical
conditions used as criteria to determine Pass/Fail status are
slenderness limits, Axial Compression and Bending, Axial
Tension and Bending, Maximum w/t ratios and Shear. For Fig. 3Internal main frame with cranes
static or dynamic analysis of Pre-engineered building, STAAD
Pro has been the choice of design professionals around the VIII. LOAD COMBINATIONS
world for their specific analysis needs [1]-[9]. Load combinations include different combinations of loads
according to different codes (AISC-89/MBMA-86, IS800-
VII. DRAWINGS 1984, IS800-2007) by considering serviceability and strength
Following drawings includes drawings of frames which are criteria as follows in Table V [4]-[7].
selected for analysis [11], [12].

TABLE V
LOAD COMBINATIONS ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT CODES
AISC-89/MBMA-86 IS 800-1984 IS 800-2007
Limit State of Serviceability: (DL+LL) Limit State of Serviceability:
(DL+LL) (DL+WL/EL) (DL+LL)
(DL+WL/EL) (DL+LL+WL/EL) (DL+WL/EL)
(DL+CL) (DL+LL+CL) (DL+LL+CL)
(DL+ 0.5*WL/EL+CL) (DL+ LL + CL+ WL/EL) (DL+0.8*LL+0.8*WL/EL+0.8*CL)
Limit State of Strength: Limit State of Strength: Limit State of Strength:
(DL+LL) (DL+LL) 1.5*(DL+LL)
(DL+ CL) (DL+WL/EL) 1.5*(DL+WL/EL)
0.75*(DL+WL/EL) (DL+ LL+ CL) (0.9*DL+1.5 WL/EL)
0.75*(DL+WLRL-P) 0.75* (DL+LL+WL/EL) (1.5*DL+1.5*LL+1.05*CL)
0.75(DL+ 0.58*WL/EL+CL ) 0.75*(DL+ LL + CL+ WL/EL) (1.5*DL+1.05*LL+1.5*CL)
(1.2*DL+1.2*LL+0.6*WL/EL+1.05*CL)
(1.2*DL+1.05*LL+0.6*WL/EL+1.2*CL)
(1.2*DL+1.2*LL+1.2 *WL/EL+0.53*CL)
(1.2*DL+1.2*LL+1.2*WL/EL+0.53*CL)

481
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering Vol:8 No:4, 2014

IX. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (AISC-89/MBMA-86, IS800-1984, IS800-2007) as follows in

Design specifications include limiting ratios of cross Tables VI & VII [4]-[7].
sections and deflection limits according to different codes
TABLE VI
LIMITING WIDTH TO THICKNESS RATIO ACCORDING TO IS 800 -2007-TABLE-2
Compression Ratio Class of section
Class 1 (Plastic) Class 2 (Compact) Class 3 (Semi-Compact)
Outstanding element of compression Rolled section b/tf 9.4 10.5 15.7
flange Welded section b/tf 8.4 9.4 13.6
Internal element of compression flange Compression due to bending b/tf 29.3 33.5 42
Axial compression b/tf Not applicable
Web of an I,H or box section Neutral axis at mid-depth d/tw 84 105 126
d/tw (84)/(1+r1) (105)/(1+r1) (126)/(1+2r2)
Generally If r1 is negative but 42 but 42
If r1 is positive d/tw (105)/(1+1.5r1)
Axial compression but 42
d/tw Not applicable 42
Web of a channel d/tw 42 42 42
International Science Index Vol:8, No:4, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9998849

Angle, compression due to bending (Both criteria should be satisfied) b/t 9.4 10.5 15.7
d/t 9.4 10.5 15.7
Single angle, or double angles with the components separated, axial b/t 15.7
compression (All three criteria should be satisfied) d/t Not applicable 15.7
(b+d)/t 25
Outstanding leg of an angle in contact back-to-back in a double angle member d/t 9.4 10.5 15.7
outstanding leg of an angle with its back in continuous contact with another d/t 9.4 10.5 15.7
component
Stem of a T-section, rolled or cut from a rolled I-or H- section D/tf 8.4 9.4 18.9
Circular hollow tube, including welded tube subjected to:
a) Moment D/t 422 522 1462
b) Axial compression D/t Not applicable 882
NOTES
1. Elements which exceed semi-compact limits are to be taken as of slender cross-section.
2. = (250 /f y) 1/2.
3. The stress ratio r1 and r2are defined as:
r1 = (Actual average axial stress(negative if tensile)/(Design compressive stress of web alone)
r2 = (Actual average axial stress(negative if tensile)/(Design compressive stress of overall section)

TABLE VII
DEFLECTION LIMITS ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT CODES
Limiting Deflections
AISC-89/MBMA-86 IS 800:1984 IS 800:2007
S.No Description
Vertical Lateral Vertical Lateral Vertical Lateral
Main frame L/180 H/60 L/325 H/325 L/180 H/150
1 Main frame with crane (pendent) H/100 L/325 H/325 L/180 H/200
Main frame with crane (cab operated) H/240 L/325 H/325 L/180 H/400
Electric<50t L/600 L/400 L/750 L/750
2 Crane beam
Electric>50t L/800 L/1000 L/1000
3 Wind column H/120 H/325 H/150
4 Mezzanine beam L/240 L/325 L/240
5 Under slung crane L/450 L/750 L/750
6 Purlin L/180 L/180 L/150
7 Girt L/120 L/180 L/150
Primary 4 mm 6 mm 4 mm
8 Minimum thickness
Secondary 1.6 mm 2 mm 1.6 mm

X. COMPARISON BETWEEN IS 800-1984, IS 800-2007, MBMA

Comparison includes comparison of frame weights from
STAAD.Pro and its variation of weight percentage according
to different codes (AISC-89/MBMA-86, IS800-1984, IS800-
2007) as follows in Table VIII [9]:

482
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering Vol:8 No:4, 2014

TABLE VIII
FRAME WEIGHTS FROM STAAD.PRO & ITS PERCENTAGE VARIATION ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT CODES
Comparison (% of increase in Wt.)
MBMA/AISC IS 800-2007 IS 800-1984
Description In IS 800-2007 In IS 800-1984 compared to In IS 800-1984 compared
(Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs)
compared to MBMA MBMA (%) to IS 800-1984(%)
GL-1 2934 3334 3738 13.7 27.5 12.2
GL-2-3 1908 2411 2538 26.4 33.1 5.3
GL-4-25 2863 3599 3898 25.8 36.2 8.4
Total 7705 9344 10174 21 32 9

XI. RESULTS combinations and Serviceability according to MBMA -

Following graph shows the % increase in wt. in IS800- 1996, IS800-1984, & IS800-2007 [2], [4]-[7].
1984, 2007 compared to MBMA/AISC. 2) Internal Pressure Coefficient is considered as +/-0.2.
(Since %of opening<5%) [2].
3) External column base considered as fixed support. (Sway
% of Increase in Wt compared to is not controlling with pinned connection).Internal column
MBMA base considered as fixed support.
35
4) Wall cover is full height sheeted all around the building.
30 32
International Science Index Vol:8, No:4, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9998849

25 XIII. CONCLUSION
20 Following are the conclusions which are observed:
21 1) One of the main reason to increase in weight in IS 800-
15
1984 compared to IS 800-2007 is Serviceability
10 Criteria. Deflection limits by IS code are higher than
5 deflection limits by MBMA.
2) Reason for higher wt. in IS 800-2007 compared to
0
AISC/MBMA is limiting ratios of the sections (Table 2 of
IS 800-2007
. IS 800-1984 IS800-2007).
Indian Codes 3) Live load is 0.75 KN/m2 in IS code & whereas it is 0.57
KN/m2 in MBMA. Thus, concluded that loading as per
Fig. 4 Comparison between Indian codes (IS800-1984 &IS800-2007) Indian codes is greater than MBMA code.
& American code (MBMA) 4) The main difference between the Indian Code (IS800-
2007) to the other equivalent American Codes are in the
Following graph shows the % increase in wt. in IS800-1984 classification of the cross-section of the steel member. As
compared to IS 800-2007. per Indian code, the classes of section considered for
design are Plastic, Compact and Semi- compact, slender
% of Increase in Wt compared to IS800- cross-section. It is well known that many PEB
2007 manufacturers use sections with very thin webs in order to
10 reduce the weight of the section and be
economical/competitive in their commercial offers, and
8 9 these thin webs do not satisfy the codal provisions of IS
800: 2007.
6 5) It was observed in industries most of the projects done
with AISC/MBMA. Reasons to preferring AISC/MBMA
4 Code are IS 800:2007 has not considered slender sections
which are often encountered in cold formed thin sections,
2 because there is another code IS 801 for this. Hence
people using cold formed sections cannot use IS 800.May
0 be that is the reason people are using AISC code &the
IS 800-1984 main reason to use the AISC code for PEB structures is
.
due the fact that it leads to an economical structural
solution as compared to the Indian Code.
Fig. 5 Comparison between Indian codes(IS800-1984 & IS800-2007)
6) It is observed that crane Impact load allowance is similar
in case of vertical loads whereas in case of horizontal
XII. CONSIDERATIONS
loads (surge, barking loads) the impact allowance is more
1) Wind Load application as per IS 875 (Part-3) -1987 in MBMA compared to IS codes.
(reaffirmed 1997), Design According to ASIC -1989,
IS800-1984, & IS800-2007 for Built-up Members& Load

483
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering Vol:8 No:4, 2014

REFERENCES
[1] Indian Standard: 1893 (Part1); 2002. Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design Structures: New Delhi: BIS; 2002.
[2] IS 875: Part 1 to 5 Code Of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than
Earthquake) For Buildings and Structures,1st Revision, New Delhi:
BIS..
[3] Indian Standard: 801 1975; Code Of Practice For Use Of Cold-Formed
Light Gauge Steel Structural Members In General Building
Construction, 1st Revision, New Delhi: BIS.
[4] Indian Standard: 800 2007; General Construction in Steel Code of
Practice; 3rd S Revision, New Delhi: BIS.
[5] Indian Standard: 800 1984; Code of Practice for General Construction,
In Steel; 1st Revision, New Delhi: BIS.
[6] MBMA: Metal Building Manufacturers Association-2006, Metal
Building Systems Manual, http://www.mbma.com.
[7] AISC: American Institute of Steel Construction-1989, Manual of Steel
Construction, Allowable Stress Design.
[8] Syed Firoz (2012), Design Concept of Pre-engineered Building,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
(IJERA), Vol. 2, Issue 2, 267-272.
[9] C. M. Meera (2013),Pre-Engineered Building Design of an Industrial
Warehouse, international journal of engineering sciences & emerging
technologies, volume 5, issue 2, pp: 75-82.
International Science Index Vol:8, No:4, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9998849

[10] Indian Standard: 807 1976; Code Of Practice For Design,

Manufacture, Erection And Testing (Structural Portion) Of Cranes and
Hoists, 1st Revision, New Delhi: BIS.
[11] Technical Manual, Zamil Steel, Saudi Arabia, Pre-Engineered Buildings
Division.
[12] Technical Hand Book, Kirby Building Systems-INDIA.LTD.

G. Sai Kiran completed M.Tech Structural Engineer from

IIIT-Hyderabad, Telangana in the year 2014 & he completed
B.Tech Civil Engineering from TRR College of Engineering
& Technology (TRRCET), Patancheru, Telangana, in the year
2012. He is now working as structural Engineer at PS
Engineering Consultancy (www.psec.in), Nagole X roads,
Hyderabad, Telangana, India. His research interest is Seismic
Behavior of Structures. (E- mail:[email protected]).

484