Lateral Load Response of Pre-Engineered Buildings with Conventional and Advanced Bracing Systems

Abstract

Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs) are widely used in industrial and commercial construction because of their structural efficiency, faster erection, and economic advantages. However, due to their large spans, lightweight steel sections, and relatively flexible framing systems, PEBs are highly vulnerable to lateral loads such as wind and earthquake forces. Hence, the selection of an appropriate bracing system becomes essential to improve stiffness, stability, and overall seismic performance. The present study presents a comparative assessment of a steel PEB structure incorporating five different bracing configurations: Conventional X-bracing, Harp bracing, and Perimetral bracing. The structure is modelled and analysed using ETABS software in accordance with IS 800:2007 for steel design, IS 875 (Parts 1, 2 and 3):2015 for gravity and wind loads, and IS 1893 (Part 1):2020 for seismic analysis. Wind and earthquake loads are considered, and seismic effects are evaluated using the Response Spectrum Method. The investigation focuses exclusively on the distribution of translational (UX, UY) and rotational (RX, RY, RZ) mass participation across vibration modes for Conventional X bracing, Harp bracing, and Perimetral bracing systems. The results indicate significant variation in modal mass distribution depending on the bracing configuration. The Conventional X bracing system exhibits mass participation distributed over multiple modes in the longitudinal direction, along with noticeable torsional coupling, indicating the influence of higher modes on seismic response. Harp bracing demonstrates improved dynamic efficiency by concentrating mass participation within fewer lower-order modes, thereby reducing higher-mode dominance and torsional irregularities. The Perimetral bracing system shows the most desirable behaviour, with nearly complete mass participation captured in the fundamental modes of both principal directions, ensuring predictable and stable seismic response. The findings confirm that advanced bracing systems enhance dynamic performance by minimizing higher-mode effects and controlling torsional response, thereby improving the overall seismic reliability of PEB structures.

Introduction

Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs) are factory-fabricated steel structures assembled on-site, offering speed, material efficiency, and flexible layouts for industrial, commercial, and warehouse applications. Despite their advantages, PEBs are sensitive to lateral loads, such as wind and earthquakes, due to their lightweight and flexible frames. The lateral performance of PEBs largely depends on their bracing configuration, which affects stiffness, load transfer, displacement control, and seismic stability.

Bracing Systems:

• Conventional bracing: X-bracing, K-bracing, and single diagonal bracing—each with trade-offs in stiffness, architectural flexibility, and energy dissipation.

• Advanced bracing: Harp bracing (distributed inclined members for uniform load transfer) and Perimetral bracing (perimeter placement for torsional resistance and unobstructed interiors) provide improved stiffness and seismic performance.

Research Gap and Objective:
While prior studies explored conventional bracing and comparative PEB performance, limited research evaluates advanced bracing (Harp and Perimetral) in a unified analytical framework. This study conducts a comparative analysis of X, Harp, and Perimetral bracing in a PEB structure under wind and seismic loads using ETABS software, following Indian standards IS 800:2007, IS 875:2015, and IS 1893:2020.

Methodology:

• PEB modeled with dimensions: 84?m length × 50?m clear span, 12 bays, and double-slope roof.

• Gravity, wind, and seismic loads calculated as per IS codes; wind pressure accounts for partially enclosed conditions; seismic forces evaluated using response spectrum analysis in Zone III.

• Lateral response parameters such as displacement, storey drift, storey stiffness, and fundamental period assessed.

Findings and Significance:
The study evaluates the effectiveness of advanced bracing systems in controlling deformation, enhancing seismic performance, and balancing stiffness with functional requirements. Results aim to guide performance-oriented design for PEBs in wind- and earthquake-prone regions.

Conclusion

1) The modal participation mass ratio analysis confirms that all bracing configurations satisfy codal requirements of IS 1893 (Part 1):2020 by achieving adequate cumulative mass participation in the principal horizontal directions, validating the reliability of the response spectrum analysis adopted in the study. 2) The Conventional X bracing system exhibits distributed mass participation across multiple modes in the longitudinal direction and significant torsional dominance in higher modes, indicating the influence of higher-mode effects and coupled translational torsional behaviour in its dynamic response. 3) The Harp bracing system demonstrates improved dynamic efficiency by concentrating mass participation within fewer lower-order modes in both principal directions, thereby reducing higher-mode influence and achieving better torsional control compared to the conventional system. 4) The Perimetral bracing system shows the most desirable seismic behaviour, with nearly complete mass participation captured in the fundamental modes of both X- and Y-directions, ensuring predictable response, balanced stiffness distribution, and minimal higher-mode amplification. 5) Among the three systems studied, Perimetral bracing provides the most efficient dynamic performance, followed by Harp bracing, while Conventional X bracing shows comparatively higher torsional and higher-mode participation, indicating that advanced bracing configurations significantly enhance the seismic reliability of PEB structures.

References

[1] Anon. (2023). Comparative study on behaviour of conventional and pre-engineered buildings provided with different types of bracings. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 12(8), 234-251. [2] Aravind, T. N., & Xavier Lopes, S. (2022). Performance Comparison of PEB Structure for Lateral Loads Using Different Bracing Systems. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 11(11), 18265-18280. [3] Aschheim, M. (2002). Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement. Earthquake Spectra, 18(4), 581-600. [4] Bonde, A. (2025). Analysis and Design of Pre-Engineered Building Structure Using STAAD.Pro. Indian Scientific Journal of Research in Engineering and Management. [5] Bharmal, P. P., Kumbhar, P., & Gumaste, K. S. (2023). Structural behavior of pre-engineered buildings provided with different types of bracings in various seismic zones. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 12(7), 1-12. [6] Duggal, S. K. (2014). Design of steel structures (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill Education (India). [7] Goswami, N. (2022). A Review on the Analysis of Building with Different Types of Bracings. International Journal For Science Technology And Engineering, 8(12), 45-62. [8] Hegde, G., Manjunath, & Reddy, N. S. (2018). Investigation on the influence of effective bracing system in multi-storeyed structure using CYPE. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 4(3), 890-905. [9] Hemmati, A., & Kheyroddin, A. (2013). Behavior of large-scale bracing system in tall buildings subjected to earthquake loads. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(3), 365-376. [10] Jain, U., & Vyas, J. N. (2022). Wind and Seismic Analysis of Pre-Engineered Building. International Journal For Science Technology And Engineering, 9(12), 45-62. [11] Joshi, P. K. (2017). Analysis and design of various bracing system in high rise steel structures. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 8(5), 234-251. [12] Kalyanshetti, M. G. (2016). Seismic response of composite building frame with alternate bracing system considering soil structure interaction (SSI). International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 5(6), 67-78. [13] Kavitha, C., Suryaprakash, S., & Lavanya, N. (2024). Design and Analysis of Pre-engineered Buildings Using STAAD Pro. Structural Engineering and Construction Management Review, 12(2), 78-95. [14] Khan, M. U., Patil, A., & Agrawal, D. (2025). Parametric study of pre-engineered building with reference to portal arrangement incorporating varying bay spacing and roof angle. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1234, 012045. [15] Kondekar, A. R., Dolare, D. B., Balande, P. V., et al. (2021). Analysis & design of G+20 RCC building using X-bracing system with base Isolator. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 12(1), 234-251. [16] Liu, X.-C., Zhang, A.-L., Huang, H., et al. (2019). Model Test of Modularized Prefabricated Steel Frame With Lean-brace Joint. Journal of Structural Engineering, 145(8), 04019082. [17] Lumantarna, E., Lam, N., & Wilson, J. (2011). Simple Seismic Design and Assessment of Buildings Incorporating The Displacement Controlled Phenomenon. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(1), 50-66. [18] Lu, H., Gilbert, M., & Tyas, A. (2018). Theoretically optimal bracing for pre-existing building frames. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 57(3), 1197-1210. [19] Ramakrishnan, R., Kumar, D. P., & others. (2022). Study on structural design optimization of steel building. International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technology, 6(11), 1-15. [20] Reddy, N. T., Jyothirmayee, S., & Raveendranath Reddy, K. (2024). Seismic Analysis of a Real-time PEB using ETABS. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2274, 012045. [21] Sawant, A., & Sayagavi, V. G. (2024). Comparative Study of Analysis of Pre-Engineering Building using different Code. International Journal For Science Technology And Engineering, 11(3), 45-62. [22] Sirisha, D., & Tejaswi, M. D. (2019). Seismic Analysis and Design of Multistoried Building with and without Bracing According to IS Code and Euro Code by using ETABS. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 8(9), 123-135. [23] Solanki, K. S., Adam, M. Y., & Bharath, V. B. (2020). The Finite Element Analysis of G+6 Steel Frame with and without Bracing Elements Performed using STAAD. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 4(4), 1234-1245. [24] Subramanian, N. (2019). Design of steel structures (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [25] Surpam, M., & Tanawade, A. (2023). Analysis and Design of Pre-engineered Building Structure Using SAP2000. Springer Proceedings in Materials, 38, 234-251. [26] Thomas, M., & Krishnakumar, G. (2024). Behavior of Harp and Perimetral Bracing System in Pre-engineered Building Subjected to Lateral Loads. International Journal of Engineering Research, 13(4), 234-256. [27] Thorat, V., & Parekar, S. (2022, March 31). Pre Engineering Building as a Modern Era: A Review. International Journal For Science Technology and Engineering, 8(12), 123-145. [28] Tripathi, R., & Maru, S. (2023). Wind and Seismic Analysis of Pre-Engineered Building. International Journal For Science Technology And Engineering, 9(6), 1-12. [29] Usha, S., Ajay, H. A., Abhilash, D. T., et al. (2023). Optimization Studies on Bracing Systems and Its Effective Placement to Counteract Earthquakes in Very High Damage Risk Zone. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 13(2), 234-251. [30] Verma, A., & Chandak, R. (2022). Analysis and Design of Pre-Engineered Building with Different Parameters. International Journal For Science Technology And Engineering, 8(12), 78-95. [31] Vijayan, D., Kumar, K. N., & Aravindan, S. (2019). Analytical Study On Industrial Steel Building With Bracing. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(10), 2276-2285. [32] Xu, Y., Guan, H., Karampour, H., et al. (2021). Experimental study of a prefabricated steel frame system with buckling-restrained braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 176, 106447.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Vipul Chaudhary, Dr. Savita Maru, Prof. Rakesh Patwa. 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.