INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 2, No 3, 2012

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

Prashanth.P1, Anshuman.S2, Pandey.R.K3, Arpan Herbert4 1- Higher Degree Student, Civil Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani- 333031, Rajasthan 2- Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Group, Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani333031, Rajasthan 3- Professor and Associate Head, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS (Formerly AAIDU), Allahabad- 211007, U.P. 4- Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS (Formerly AAI-DU), Allahabad- 211007, U.P. rkpandey1105@rediffmail.com doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202030014 ABSTRACT STAADPro and ETABS are the present day leading design softwares in the market. Many design companies use these softwares for their project design purposes. So, this project mainly deals with the comparative analysis of the results obtained from the design of a regular and a plan irregular (as per IS 1893) multi storey building structure when designed using STAADPro and ETABS softwares separately. These results will also be compared with manual calculations of a sample beam and column of the same structure designed as per IS 456. Keywords: Structure Design, STAADPro and ETABS. 1. Introduction STAADPro and ETABS are the present day leading design softwares in the market. Many design companies use these softwares for their project design purposes. So, this project mainly deals with the comparative analysis of the results obtained from the design of a multi storey building structure when designed using STAADPro and ETABS softwares separately. For first case, a 25mx25m 11 storey structure is modeled using both STAADPro and ETABS softwares. The height of each storey is taken as 3mts making the total height of the structure 30mts. Analysis and design of the structure is done and then the results generated by these softwares are compared and a conclusion is drawn from them. For second case, a 25mx25m 5 storey plan irregular structure as per IS 1893 is modeled using both STAADPro and ETABS softwares. The height of each storey is taken as 3mt making the total height of 15mts. Design results of both the softwares are compared along with the manual calculations of a sample beam and column designed using IS 456. 2. Problem Definition 2.1 Case 1 A 25mtx25mt 11 storey multi storey regular structure is considered for the study. Modeling, analysis and design of the structure is done separately on both STAADPro and ETABS software. Plan of the building considered is shown in Figure 1.

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software

Received on December, 2011 Published on February 2012

869

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert

Figure 1: Plan of the regular structure considered Table 1: Preliminary Data Length x Width No. of storeys Storey height Beam Column 6-11 storeys Column 1-6 storeys Slab thickness Support conditions Beam Releases 2.1.1 Loading consideration Loads acting on the structure are dead load (DL), Live Load (IL) and Earthquake Load (EL) DL: Self weight of the structure, Floor load and Wall loads LL: Live load 3KN/sq.m is considered SL: Zone: I Soil type: II Response reduction factor: 5 Importance factor: 1 Damping: 5% Time period: 0.54 sec (calculated as per IS 1893: 2002)
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

25x25m 11 3m 400x400mm 650x650mm 850x850mm 125mm Fixed Axial force

870

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert

2.1.2 Results and Discussions Results of vertical reactions of a sample node for different loads have been tabled in Table 2. Table 2: Maximum Deflection at the Roof without Shear Wall Loading DL LL EQ(along length) EQ(along width) STAADPro 1696.285 kN 210.32 kN 183.626 kN 183.626 kN ETABS 1695.86kN 209.91 kN 172.66 kN 172.66 kN

Similarly, Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column is given in Table 3 Table 3: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column Loading DL Forces Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz STAADPro 231.21 18.879 18.879 0 28.282 28.282 31.597 3.899 3.899 0 5.928 5.928 13.267 8.579 0 0 0 9.341 13.267 8.579 0 0 0 9.341 ETABS 230.82 19.31 19.31 0 28.425 28.425 31.48 4.05 4.05 0 6.014 6.014 14.76 9.13 0 0 0 9.203 14.76 9.13 0 0 0 9.203

LL

EQ(along length)

EQ(along width)

Design results of a sample beam and column by STAADPro and ETABS are given in below Table 4

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

871

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert

Table 4: Design results of a sample beam and column Section Beam Column 2.2 Case 2 A 25mtx25mt 5 storey multi storey plan irregular structure as per IS 1893:2002 is considered for the study. Modeling, analysis and design of the structure is done separately on both STAADPro and ETABS software. Plan of the building considered is shown in Figure 2. Total reinforcement (sq.mm) STAADPro ETABS 1131 1048 3380 3380

Figure 2: Plan of the irregular structure considered Table 5: Preliminary Data Length x Width No. of storeys Storey height Beam along length Beam along width Column Slab thickness Support conditions Beam Releases 25x25m 5 3m 300x350mm 300x300mm 500x500mm 125mm Fixed Axial force

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

872

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert

2.2.1 Loading consideration Loads acting on the structure are dead load (DL), Live Load (IL) and Earthquake Load (EL) DL: Self weight of the structure, Floor load and Wall loads LL: Live load 3KN/sq.m is considered SL: Zone: II Soil type: II Response reduction factor: 5 Importance factor: 1 Damping: 5% Time period: 0.246 sec (calculated as per IS 1893: 2002)

Figure 3: Elevation of the irregular structure considered 2.2.2 Results and Discussions Results of vertical reactions of a sample node for different loads have been tabled in Table 6. Table 6: Maximum Deflection at the Roof without Shear Wall Loading DL LL EQ(along length) EQ(along width) STAADPro 613.509 kN 85.002 kN 44.27 kN 44.05 kN ETABS 613.57 kN 85.01 kN 44.23 kN 44.09 kN

Similarly, Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column is given in Table 7.

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

873

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert

Table 7: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column Loading DL Forces Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz Axial force Fx Shear force Fy Shear force Fz BM Mx My Mz STAADPro 613.509 10.63 10.657 0 10.449 10.224 85.002 1.982 2.016 0 1.963 1.906 44.217 22.004 4.798 0 16.742 73.072 45.04 0 19.327 0 75.811 0 ETABS 613.57 10.62 10.65 0 10.43 10.21 85.01 1.98 2.01 0 1.957 1.898 44.23 22.34 5.09 0 17.82 74.152 45.09 0 19.47 0 76.271 0

LL

EQ(along length)

EQ(along width)

Design results of a sample beam and column by STAADPro and ETABS are given in below Table 8. Table 8: Design results of a sample beam and column Section Beam Column Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm) STAADPro ETABS 1816 1678 2000 2000

Design results comparison of a sample beam and column designed by STAADPro and ETABS with manual calculations are given in below Table 9. Table 9: Design results of a sample beam and column Section Beam Column STAADPro 1573 2000 Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm) ETABS Manual Calculations 1408 1388 2000 2000

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

874

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert

3. Conclusion From the design results of beams, we may conclude that ETABS gave lesser area of required steel as compared to STAAD PRO. It is found out from previous studies on comparison of STAAD results with manual calculations that STAADPro gives conservative design results which is again proved in this study by comparing the results of STAADPro, ETABS and Manual calculations (refer below table). Form the design results of column; since the required steel for the column forces in this particular problem is less than the minimum steel limit of column (i.e., 0.8%), the amount of steel calculated by both the softwares is equal. So comparison of results for this case is not possible. 4. References 1. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 1 (1987), Dead Loads on Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India. 2. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 2 (1987), Live Loads on Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India. 3. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-1893, part 1 (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part 1 General provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India. 4. Hammad Salahuddin, Saqib Habib, Talha Rehman (2010), Comparison of design of a building using ETABS V 9.5 & STAAD PRO 2005, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan.

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

875