analysis of multi-storey building (g+7) due to seismic

© 2018 JETIR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 7 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

JETIR1807988 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 642

Analysis of Multi-storey Building (G+7) due to

Seismic Loading Using ETABS and compare its

results with STAAD Pro

Shubham Srivastava1, Mohd. Zain2, Vineet Pathak3 1&2(Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, India)

3(Post Graduate, Department of Civil Engineering, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, India)

ABSTRACT : The result of analysis of RCC frame (G+7) residential building is analysis by the STAAD PRO and ETABS. The

analysis of structure is done under the seismic load condition by the both software. The result found that under the both software

by the seismic load compare the result of bending moment and displacement. That also need to compare the both software.

KEYWORDS – Regular, Irregular, Multi-story Building, Steel structure, and E-Tabs.

BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOTH SOFTWARE

STAAD PRO E-TABS

• Staad pro is less updated

as compare to E-tabs its

updated version comes

in 2008.

• Staad pro always gives

higher or over

reinforcement.

• Staad pro is better for

the analysis of steel

structure.

• Staad is quite fast in

analysis it takes less time

as compare to E- tabs.

• E-tabs is more updated

with latest version of

2015.

• E- Tabs Gives less or under

reinforcement in

comparison to Staad pro.

• E- Tabs is good for analysis

of concrete structure as

compare to Staad Pro.

• E- Tabs analysis procedure

is slow as compare to

Staad pro.

http://www.jetir.org/



COMPARISON OF RESULT BOTH SOFTWARE

TBALE NO 1 MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT BY STAAD

Floor Name Maximum value in EQ-X

(K-Nm)

Maximum value in EQ-Z

(K-Nm)

1

15.617 15.592

2 16.555 16.675

3 15.982 16.081

4 14.668 14.709

5 12.566 12.675

6 10.560 9.662

7 8.021 6.046

Top Floor 4.413 3.040

Fig no 1 shows Bending moment in x- direction by Staad pro




Bending moment by Staad pro on each floor in z- direction

GRAPH

Graph no 1 shows the bending moment on each floor in both direction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7TOP

FLOOR

Maximum value in EQ-X (K-Nm) 15.617 16.555 15.982 14.668 12.566 10.56 8.021 -4.493

Maximum value in EQ-Z (K-Nm) 15.592 16.675 16.081 14.709 12.675 9.662 6.046 -3.04

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

max

imu

m b

end

ing

mo

men

t v

alu

es in

K

-NM

maximum bending moment by staad Pro




Graph no 2 shows maximum displacement on each floor in both direction

ANALYSIS BY E-TABS

Table No. 2: Maximum Bending moment value on each floor

Floor Name Maximum value in EQ-X

(K-Nm)

Maximum value in EQ-Y

(K-Nm)

1 7.7767 4.1882

2 8.0226 4.2845

3 6.8425 4.0843

4 6.5478 4.3993

5 6.8464 3.818

6 5.8304 2.5350

7 4.36 2.1188

Top Floor 2.4803 0.1181

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Top

Floor

Maximum value in EQ-X (MM) 3.432 8.533 13.764 18.793 23.377 27.241 31.62 31.626

Maximum value in EQ-Z (MM) 3.6 8.881 14.227 19.456 24.179 28.16 32.651 32.662

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

max

imu

m d

isp

lace

men

t va

lue

in m

m

maximum displacement graph by Staad Pro.




Figure Shows Bending Moment On Each Floor In Both X And Y direction

GRAPHS

Graph no 1 shows bending moment on each floor due to seismic load

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Maximum value in EQ-X (K-Nm) 7.7767 8.0226 6.8425 6.5478 6.8464 5.8304 4.36 2.4803

Maximum value in EQ-Y (K-Nm) 4.1882 4.2845 4.0843 4.3993 3.818 2.535 2.1188 0.1181

0123456789

max

imu

m v

alu

e in

K-N

m

Maximum bending moment by E-Tabs




Table No. 4: Maximum Displacement with Maximum Values on each Floor

Maximum value in EQ-X

(mm)

Maximum value in EQ-Y

(mm)

1 2.60 1.30

2 2.60 2.60

3 3.90 6.3

4 5.20 5.20

5 6.50 6.50

6 11.7 9.10

7 12.6 9.10

TOP FLOOR 12.6 12.6

Graph no 2 shows maximum displacement values n each floor due to seismic load

Results and Comparison

Bending moment on each floor by the both software in above table and graph has been given. In STAAD PRO the

values on each floor is more than in comparison to E-TAB .these result comes under the seismic load

Maximum displacement on each floor in E- tabs is less than in comparison to STAAD PRO there

is such a big difference in values of displacement on each floor in comparison to the STAAD-Pro

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOPFLOOR

Maximum value in EQ-X (mm) 2.6 2.6 3.9 5.2 6.5 11.7 12.6 12.6

Maximum value in EQ-Y (mm) 1.3 2.6 6.3 5.2 6.5 9.1 9.1 12.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

max

imu

m d

isp

lace

me

nt

in m

m

Maximum displacement by E -tabs




STADD PRO is better software for steel design and E- tabs is good for the concrete design STADD PRO

does not provide the detail design report but E-tabs provide the detail report with detail and it is useful for

design analysis for future research work.

FUTURE SCOPE

The present study is done for RCC frame multistory residential building is analyze by the STADD PRO and E- tabs for the

bending moment, shear force displacement and

Reinforcement under seismic load condition And results of both software is compared. The results of this type of study it can be

vary by the story or and can be followed by the rise of building. This type of study can be done for the other load cases and result

can be compared by the both software.

REFERENCES

[1] Abhay Guleria (2014): Structural Analysis of a Multi-Storeyed BuildingUsing ETABS for different Plan Configurations”,

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3 Issue 5, May – 2014

[2] Sanghani bharat k. and Paresh Girishbhai Patel, 2011, “Behaviour of Building Component in Various Zones,” International Journal of

Advances in Engineering Sciences, Vol. 1, Issue 1(Jan. 2011)

[3] Poonam, Kumar Anil and Gupta Ashok K, 2012, “Study of Response of Structural Irregular Building Frames to Seismic Excitations,”

International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD), ISSN 2249-

6866 Vol.2, Issue 2 (2012) 25-31

[4] Prashanth.P, Anshuman. S, Pandey. R.K, Arpan Herbert (2012), “Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD

and ETABS Software, ” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, ISSN 0976 – 4399, Volume 2, No

3, 2012.

[5] Civil Engineering International Journals (CEIJ),www.civilengjournals.com [8] 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.

[6] D.Ramya, A.V.S.Sai Kumar “Comparative Study on Design and Analysis of Multistoreyed” 4(10), 125– 130, IJESRT, Oct 2015.

[7] Isha Bedi, Girish Sharma, Abhishek Gupta “Comparative study of RCC Frame Structures using Staad Pro, Etabs and Sap” 167–175,

ICITSEM, Sep 2017.

[8] Prashanth P, Anshuman S, Pandey R K, Arpan Herbert “Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and

ETABS Software” 2(3), 869–875. ICJSE, 2012.

[9] Manikanta K V, Venkateswarlu D “Comparative Study On Design Results Of A Multi-Storied Building Using Staad Pro And Etabs

For Regular And Irregular Plan Configuration” 2(15), 204–215, IJRSAE, Sep 2016.

[10] Peera D G “Comparison Design Result of RCC Building Using Staad and Etabs Software” 2(8), 92–97, IJIRAE, Aug 2015.


analysis of multi-storey building (g+7) due to seismic

Documents