Comparative Study of Pre-Engineered and Conventional Steel Structures with Crane Load

Abstract

Industrial buildings are generally constructed using either Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) systems or Conventional Steel Building (CSB) systems depending on design requirements and economy. Although both systems are commonly used, their behavior changes when crane loads are included, because crane loads add extra vertical and horizontal forces that affect member design and total steel requirement. In this study, a comparative analysis of PEB and CSB industrial structures with crane loading has been carried out using STAAD.Pro software by adopting identical geometric configurations and relevant load combinations including dead load, live load, wind load, seismic load and crane load as per Indian Standard provisions. The main aim of this study is to compare the steel tonnage of the two structural systems and to examine their displacement and internal force behavior. The results show a clear difference in steel usage and force distribution between PEB and CSB. The PEB system uses steel more efficiently because of its optimized and tapered sections

Introduction

Industrial growth has increased demand for steel structures capable of supporting large spans, heavy loads, and crane operations. Two common structural systems are:

1. Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEB) – use tapered, built-up sections optimized for bending moment distribution along the member length. This allows efficient material use, high strength-to-weight ratio, lightweight construction, faster assembly, and cost-effectiveness for large spans.

2. Conventional Steel Buildings (CSB) – use prismatic rolled sections with constant depth, offering rigid frameworks, suitability for heavy loads, flexibility in on-site modifications, and easy availability of standard sections, but may use more material than structurally necessary.

Objective
The study compares 17 m high PEB and CSB industrial buildings under crane loading, focusing on structural performance, internal forces, and steel usage to determine which system is more efficient and practical.

Methodology

• 3D models of PEB and CSB structures created in STAAD.Pro, using the same plan, layout, column height (17 m), rafter span (12 m), and crane loads (20 MT).

• Linear static analysis considered dead, live, wind, seismic, and crane loads.

• Output parameters included axial force, shear force, bending moment, support reactions, member utilization, and total steel weight.

Key Results

1. Internal Forces:

   • PEB members develop higher bending moments, axial forces, and shear forces, showing active participation in load transfer.

   • CSB members experience lower internal forces but higher support reactions, indicating underutilization of material.

2. Support Reactions:

   • CSB develops significantly higher vertical (Fy) and lateral (Fz) reactions under maximum load combinations.

   • PEB shows higher horizontal reaction (Fx) only, indicating better flexibility and optimized force transfer.

3. Beam-End Forces:

   • PEB beams experience higher shear and bending moments, reflecting rigid frame behavior and tapered section efficiency.

   • CSB beams have slightly higher axial forces but lower bending and shear, spreading forces more uniformly.

4. Utilization Ratio:

   • PEB members are designed closer to their capacity, resulting in higher utilization ratios.

   • CSB members are underutilized, leading to greater material consumption.

Conclusion

A. Support Reaction • The support reaction results clearly show that the CSB system develops significantly higher vertical reactions compared to the PEB system under all governing load conditions. • Under the maximum Fz case, the vertical reaction (Fy) in PEB is approximately 95.9% lower than CSB. • Similarly, under maximum Mx and My conditions, the vertical reactions in PEB are about 77% lower. • The vertical component Fz in PEB is also consistently reduced by nearly 68–73% compared to CSB. • The horizontal reaction (Fx) in PEB is observed to be about 90–110% higher than CSB across different load cases. B. Beam End Force Behaviour • Under the governing maximum Mz load combination, the bending moment at the beam end in the PEB system is 285 kN•m, compared to 166 kN•m in the CSB system. This shows that the PEB beam develops approximately 72% higher bending moment than the CSB beam. • Under the governing axial load combination, the axial force in the PEB beam is 109 kN, compared to 73 kN in the CSB beam, which is about 49% higher. This indicates that the PEB member is carrying more axial action in addition to bending. • Under the governing maximum shear condition, the PEB beam develops a shear force of 232 kN, which is approximately 5.5 times higher than the 42 kN observed in the CSB beam. C. Utilization Ratio • The PEB utilization ratios range between 0.85 and 0.95, whereas the CSB members remain around 0.34 to 0.38. • On average, the PEB members are utilized approximately 2.5 times more than the CSB members. D. Steel Tonnage • The PEB system uses about 1.5 times more steel in bracing members, the CSB structure consumes substantially more steel in primary components. • The main frame steel in CSB is approximately 2.7 times higher than that of PEB. • Similarly, CSB uses about 1.7 times more steel in gantry brackets and 1.3 times more in gantry girders. • Overall, the total steel consumption in CSB is nearly 2.3 times higher than in PEB.

References

[1] Agrawal, S., & Pendarkar, U. (2021). Wind evaluation of pre-engineering and conventional steel structure – A review. International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology (IJIRT), 7(8), January 2021. [2] Bhadoria, S. S., & Pathak, Y. (2017). Comparative study of pre-engineered building and conventional steel structures. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 4(9), 1172–1183. [3] Dongare, Y. P., Tapkire, P. P., & Chandanshive, A. S. (2024). Comparative study on pre-engineered buildings and conventional buildings using Indian and international standards for industrial warehouse. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 11(8), August 2024. [4] Firoz, S., Kumar, S. C. B., & Rao, S. K. (2012). Design concept of pre-engineered building. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), 2(2), 267–272. [5] Gawade, M. D., & Waghe, U. P. (2018). Study of pre-engineered building concept. Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JREAS), 3(3), 88–91. [6] Gilbile, M. J., & Mane, S. S. (2020). A review on comparative study on the structural analysis and design of pre-engineered building (PEB) with conventional steel building (CSB). International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 9(9), September 2020. [7] Gokul, P. T., Satheesh Kumar, K. R. P., & Raam Kumar, V. M. (2023). An optimization of pre-engineered building – A review. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(12), 507–509. [8] Iqbal, A., & Shinde, B. H. (2023). Comparative study between pre-engineered building and conventional steel building. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (IRJMETS), 5(8), August 2023. [9] Jibhkate, H., & Budhlani, D. L. (2021). Comparative analysis of pre-engineered building and conventional steel building by STAAD Pro. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (IRJMETS), 3(7), July 2021. [10] Khan, M. A. V., Patil, A. V., & Agrawal, D. (2025). Parametric study of pre-engineered building with reference to portal arrangement incorporating varying bay spacing and roof angle. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1519, 012006. [11] Kumar, N., & Grover, K. S. (2022). A comparative study of conventional steel building and pre-engineered building structure using STAAD Pro. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 10(6), 1070–1074. . [12] Lande, P. S., & Kucheriya, V. V. (2015). Comparative study of an industrial pre-engineered building with conventional steel building. Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology, 2(10), 77–82. [13] Londhe, P. M., Ambekar, R. V., Dhumal, P. R., Chipade, A. M., Barkale, A. D., & Sasane, N. B. (2024). A comparative analysis of conventional steel building and pre-engineered building systems: A case study approach. E3S Web of Conferences, 559, 04030. [14] Naathan, S. M. G., & Ramadevi, K. (2022). Comparative study on PEB structure and conventional industrial building. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT), 2(6), June 2022. [15] Naik, P. P., & Mahure, S. H. (2021). Comparative study of pre-engineered building and conventional steel building. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 8(5), 1472–1477. [16] Pantheeradi, S., & Abraham, S. (2022). Comparative study of pre-engineered building and conventional steel building. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 11(1), Article IJERTV11IS010131. [17] Pradeep, V., & Rao, P. G. (2014). Comparative study of pre-engineered and conventional industrial building. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), 9(1), March 2014. [18] Radake, N. D., & Prasad, R. V. R. K. (2022). A comparative study between the pre-engineered building and conventional steel building. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM), 4(5), 600–608. [19] Rao, K. M. N., & Vishwanath, K. N. (2014). Design optimisation of an industrial structure from steel frame to pre-engineered building. International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, 2(9), September 2014. [20] Ramakrishnan, R. (2022). Comparative study of pre-engineered building and truss arrangement building for varying spans (M.E. Dissertation). University of Mumbai, Datta Meghe College of Engineering, Navi Mumbai. [21] Saleem, M. U. (2018). Design optimization of pre-engineered steel truss buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 9(10), 304–316. [22] Siddangoudar, T. B., & Sawant, P. (2024). Comparative analysis of pre-engineered building and conventional steel building. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (IRJMETS), 6(8), 1737–1743. [23] Somvanshi, P. N., Nagare, D. S., Waghaj, Y. P., Pabnani, G. R., & Deosarkar, M. U. (2025). Comparative study of conventional and PEB steel structures using STAADPRO – A review. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 12(6), June 2025. [24] Srinivasan, K., & Selvakumar, K. (2022). Comparative study of pre-engineered building and space truss building with different span. Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, 29(4), 428–431. [25] Tagade, C., Shende, A. D., Ruprai, B. S., & Shah, J. (2023). Study & analysis of pre-engineered building (PEB) with respect to conventional steel building. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), 11(6), IJCRT2306026. [26] Tekale, O. P., & Ambadkar, S. (2024). Analysis & design of pre-engineered & conventional industrial building. International Journal of Progressive Research in Engineering Management and Science (IJPREMS), 4(6), 1301–1307. [27] Titiksh, A., Dewangan, A., Khandelwal, A., & Sharma, A. (2015). Comparative study of conventional steel building and pre-engineered building to be used as an industrial shed. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), 5(11), Part-2, 25–28. [28] Varshitha, M., & Rao, B. D. V. C. M. (2024). A comparative study of the pre-engineered building and conventional steel building. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2779, 012050. [29] Vishwakarma, N., & Tayal, H. (2018). Optimization of industrial building using pre-engineering building and conventional steel building by fully stressed design. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 13(20), 14573–14590.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Noopur Pal, Prof. Rakesh Patwa, Dr. Savita Maru. 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.