Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

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.P 1 , Anshuman.S 2 , Pandey.R.K 3 , Arpan Herbert 4

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

rkpandey1105@rediffmail.com doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202030014 ABSTRACT STAADPro and ETABS are the present day leading

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

869

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

Software Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert Figure 1: Plan of the regular structure considered Table 1:

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 Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

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

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

Shear force Fy

3.899

4.05

Shear force Fz

3.899

4.05

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 Fy

8.579

9.13

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 Fy

8.579

9.13

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

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

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.

Plan of the building considered is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Plan of the irregular

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

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)

Time period: 0.246 sec (calculated as per IS 1893: 2002) Figure 3: Elevation of the irregular

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.

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

Forces

STAADPro

ETABS

DL

Axial force Fx

613.509

613.57

Shear force Fy

10.63

10.62

Shear force Fz

10.657

10.65

BM Mx

0

0

My

10.449

10.43

Mz

10.224

10.21

LL

Axial force Fx

85.002

85.01

Shear force Fy

1.982

1.98

Shear force Fz

2.016

2.01

BM Mx

0

0

My

1.963

1.957

Mz

1.906

1.898

EQ(along length)

Axial force Fx

44.217

44.23

Shear force Fy

22.004

22.34

Shear force Fz

4.798

5.09

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

Shear force Fz

19.327

19.47

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.

Table 8: Design results of a sample beam and column

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.

Table 9: Design results of a sample beam and column

Section

 

Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)

STAADPro

ETABS

Manual Calculations

Beam

1573

1408

1388

Column

2000

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