Comparative Analysis of the Geometry of the Pre-Engineered Building (Warehouse)

Abstract

The rapid development in the industry of global supply chains has resulted from traditional construction methods to high-efficiency Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) systems. This provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of PEB warehouse structures, specifically focusing on the interplay between frame geometry and span configurations. As warehouse requirements evolve from standard storage units to complex logistics hubs, the demand for varied span lengths ranging from economical short-spans to expansive, column-free long-spans—has introduced significant engineering challenges regarding material optimization and structural stability. The study looked at clear-span warehouses with a maximum long clear span of 50m. We compared them by adding a column at the middle to make a short span frame. We see how well these Pre-Engineered Building structures work when they must handle kinds of loads. We pay attention to how strong they are compared to how much their weight is and how much their cost is. We also look at the things about having short or long spans in Pre-Engineered Buildings. Key findings highlight that while long-span structures (50 meters) significantly enhance logistical throughput and accommodate automated storage systems, they require specialized geometric adjustments to manage exponential increases in bending moments and lateral deflection. Conversely, short-span systems offer superior material efficiency but limit internal adaptability. By consolidating recent advancements in structural modelling and optimization algorithms, this review serves as a strategic roadmap for engineers and architects in selecting the most viable PEB geometry to balance structural performance with functional warehouse requirements.

Introduction

Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs) have become a widely adopted construction technology in India since their introduction in the late 1990s. They are preferred over conventional construction methods because they offer faster project completion, lower costs, flexibility, and improved structural efficiency.

Components of a PEB

A typical PEB consists of three main systems:

1. Primary Framing – Built-up steel I-sections used as columns and rafters.
2. Secondary Members – Cold-formed Z, C, and hollow sections used as purlins, girts, and eave struts.
3. Building Envelope – Profiled steel sheets used for roofing and wall cladding.

Architectural Features

PEBs combine hot-rolled, built-up, and cold-formed steel components with insulated cladding systems. They are highly customizable and can include:

• Mezzanine floors and partitions.
• Canopies and decorative features.
• Weatherproofing elements for complete watertightness.

This versatility allows PEBs to meet both functional and aesthetic requirements.

Key Advantages of PEBs

• Reduced Construction Time: Simultaneous fabrication and foundation work can cut project duration by nearly 50%.
• Cost Efficiency: Optimized design, fabrication, and transportation lower overall costs.
• Easy Expansion: Modular construction enables future horizontal or vertical extensions.
• Large Clear Spans: Up to 80 m without interior columns.
• Better Thermal Performance: Insulation systems improve energy efficiency.
• Architectural Flexibility: Supports various design features and material combinations.
• Single-Source Responsibility: One manufacturer supplies all components, ensuring compatibility and easier project management.

Literature Review Findings

Previous studies show that:

• PEBs are more economical and faster than Conventional Steel Buildings (CSBs).
• Optimal structural performance is influenced by bay spacing and roof slope.
• Bracing systems significantly improve seismic performance, with X-bracing and Inverted V-bracing proving highly effective.
• Environmental conditions such as wind and seismic loads affect steel consumption.
• Material savings of up to 37–50% and cost reductions of about 35% are achievable compared to CSBs.

Objectives of the Study

1. Understand the structural behavior of PEBs.
2. Develop a complete 3D model in STAAD.Pro.
3. Apply all relevant loads (dead, live, solar, wind, and seismic).
4. Analyze three different geometries using three section types each.
5. Compare structural performance, steel weight, and cost.

Methodology

The study focuses on a warehouse building in Nagpur, India, with dimensions of 50 m × 96 m, an apex height of 10 m, and a roof slope of 1:20. Three geometrical configurations (A, B, and C) are analyzed, each using:

• I-sections,
• Tapered I-sections,
• Hollow sections.

The structures are modeled as 3D space frames in STAAD.Pro, with appropriate supports and custom section definitions. Load calculations follow Indian Standards, including seismic analysis using the Response Spectrum Method (IS 1893 Part 1) and consideration of wind, dead, live, and collateral loads.

Conclusion

1) While Comparing I Section and Tapered I Section, it is clear that Tapered (A2 Model – Long span) section is 11.66% lighter than Continuous I section (A1 Model-Long span). Tapered (B2 Model – Alternate column) is 4.76% lighter than Continuous I section (B1). Tapered (C2) is 1.81% lighter than Continuous I section (C1). 2) While Comparing I section and Hollow Section for each Geometry type separately, it is clear that Hollow section (A3) needs 19.51% more steel compared to Standard (A1). Hollow (B3) needs 12.05% more steel than Standard (B1). Hollow (C3) needs 10.99% more steel than Standard (C1). 3) The Tapered I-Section (Model C2) is the best optimized model in this dataset with a total value of 2010 KN. Also, the Hollow Section (Model A3) is the most inefficient section in terms of weight with a value of 3167 KN. 4) In I section, C1 all columns at mid-model is the most rigid section for controlling the vertical and resultant deflections. 5) Although B2 offers a good solution for controlling the vertical deflection, A2 is the most resistive section to horizontal displacements. 6) Tapered I-section models (A2, B2, and C2) were always more economical with materials than regular I-section models and hollow models across all geometries (A, B, and C). Model C2 is the most economical design, and its cost is estimated to be ?13,732,300. 7) Transitioning from the least economical model (A3) to the most economical model (C2) leads to savings of approximately 36.5% on the overall cost of the project. 8) The 50m geometry frame span has greater bending loads at the knee and apex nodes than that of the 25m geometry frame span. Consequently, the section needs to be very deep, and high-strength steel must be used. 9) Shearing loads at the support reactions and joint connections between the rafters and columns of the 50m span are double the loads of the 25m span frame structure.

References

[1] IS: 875 (Part 1) – 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake for Buildings and Structures (Dead Load). [2] IS: 875 (Part 2) – 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake for Buildings and Structures (Imposed Load). [3] IS: 875 (Part 3) – 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures (Wind Load). [4] IS 1893: 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures [5] IS: 800 – 2007 Indian Standard General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice. [6] Steel Structures: Design and Practice Book by N. Subramanian. [7] Anushri A. Isal, N. G. Gore, “Comparative Analysis of PEB Structure with Varying Bay Spacing” in International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology, July 2022. [8] B. Ravali, P. Poluraju, “Seismic Analysis of Industrial Structure Using Bracings and Dampers” at International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), April 2019. [9] V Vishnu Sai, P Poluraju and B Venkat Rao, “Structural Performance of Pre Engineered Building: A Comparative Study.” International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering, in 2021. [10] Mr. Suthar Milan Girishkumar, Prof. Mr. Aakash Rajeshkumar Suthar, Prof. Mili Sankhla, in June 2022, “Structural Analysis of (PEB) Pre-Engineered Building Using Different Types of Bracing on Lateral Load.” at International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM). [11] Jaya Tamrakar, Dr. Anil Kumar Saxena, “Study, Design and Analysis of Pre-Engineered Building with Different Parameters Using Staad.Pro Software.” at International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, August-2022.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Pratik Dudhe, Dr. Valsson Varghese. 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.