Comparison of Etabs Staad 105 PDF

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
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and

ETABS Software
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, Pilani-
333031, Rajasthan
3- Professor and Associate Head, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS (Formerly AAI-
DU), 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.
Received on December, 2011 Published on February 2012 860

Assessment of reinforced embankment on soft soil with PET and PP geotextile
Jigisha M. Vashi , Atul K. Desai, Chandresh H. Solanki
Figure 1: Plan of the regular structure considered
Table 1: Preliminary Data

Length x Width 25x25m
No. of storeys 11
Storey height 3m
Beam 400x400mm
Column 6-11 storeys 650x650mm
Column 1-6 storeys 850x850mm
Slab thickness 125mm
Support conditions Fixed
Beam Releases Axial force
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 861

Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
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 STAADPro ETABS

DL 1696.285 kN 1695.86kN
LL 210.32 kN 209.91 kN
EQ(along length) 183.626 kN 172.66 kN
EQ(along width) 183.626 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 Forces STAADPro ETABS

DL Axial force Fx 231.21 230.82
Shear force Fy 18.879 19.31
Shear force Fz 18.879 19.31
BM Mx 0 0
My 28.282 28.425
Mz 28.282 28.425
LL Axial force Fx 31.597 31.48
BM Mx 0 0
My 5.928 6.014
Mz 5.928 6.014
EQ(along length) Axial force Fx 13.267 14.76
Shear force Fz 0 0
BM Mx 0 0
My 0 0
Mz 9.341 9.203
EQ(along width) Axial force Fx 13.267 14.76
Shear force Fz 0 0
BM Mx 0 0
My 0 0
Mz 9.341 9.203
Design results of a sample beam and column by STAADPro and ETABS are given in below
Table 4

Table 4: Design results of a sample beam and column
Section Total reinforcement (sq.mm)

STAADPro ETABS
Beam 1131 1048
Column 3380 3380
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.
Figure 2: Plan of the irregular structure considered
Table 5: Preliminary Data
Length x Width 25x25m

No. of storeys 5
Storey height 3m
Beam along length 300x350mm
Beam along width 300x300mm
Column 500x500mm
Slab thickness 125mm
Support conditions Fixed
Beam Releases Axial force

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 STAADPro ETABS

DL 613.509 kN 613.57 kN
LL 85.002 kN 85.01 kN
EQ(along length) 44.27 kN 44.23 kN
EQ(along width) 44.05 kN 44.09 kN
Similarly, Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column is given in Table 7.

Table 7: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column
Loading Forces STAADPro ETABS

DL Axial force Fx 613.509 613.57
BM Mx 0 0
My 10.449 10.43
Mz 10.224 10.21
LL Axial force Fx 85.002 85.01
BM Mx 0 0
My 1.963 1.957
Mz 1.906 1.898
EQ(along length) Axial force Fx 44.217 44.23
BM Mx 0 0
My 16.742 17.82
Mz 73.072 74.152
EQ(along width) Axial force Fx 45.04 45.09
Shear force Fy 0 0
BM Mx 0 0
My 75.811 76.271
Mz 0 0
Design results of a sample beam and column by STAADPro and ETABS are given in below
Table 8.
Section Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)

STAADPro ETABS
Beam 1816 1678
Column 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.
Section Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)

STAADPro ETABS Manual Calculations
Beam 1573 1408 1388
Column 2000 2000 2000

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.


Comparison of Etabs Staad 105 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Comparison of Etabs Staad 105 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and

Keywords: Structure Design, STAADPro and ETABS.

Received on December, 2011 Published on February 2012 860

Figure 1: Plan of the regular structure considered

Table 1: Preliminary Data

2.1.1 Loading consideration

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 861

2.1.2 Results and Discussions

Table 2: Maximum Deflection at the Roof without Shear Wall

Loading STAADPro ETABS

Table 3: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column

Loading Forces STAADPro ETABS

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 862

Table 4: Design results of a sample beam and column

Section Total reinforcement (sq.mm)

Figure 2: Plan of the irregular structure considered

Table 5: Preliminary Data

Length x Width 25x25m

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 863

2.2.1 Loading consideration

Figure 3: Elevation of the irregular structure considered

2.2.2 Results and Discussions

Table 6: Maximum Deflection at the Roof without Shear Wall

Loading STAADPro ETABS

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 864

Table 7: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column

Loading Forces STAADPro ETABS

Table 8: Design results of a sample beam and column

Section Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)

Table 9: Design results of a sample beam and column

Section Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 865

4. Hammad Salahuddin, Saqib Habib, Talha Rehman (2010), Comparison of design of a

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 866

Potrebbero piacerti anche