View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
© 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.
© 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 643
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
© 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 644
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
© 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 645
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.
© 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 646
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
© 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 647
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
© 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 648
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.
Recommended