Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 350
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS OF
TALL BUILDINGS USING STAAD-Pro AND
ETABS. Sayeed ur Rahman¹, Dr. Sabih Ahmad²
1. P.G. Student (M.tech-Structural engineering), Civil Engineering Department, Integral University, Lucknow, India.
2. Associate Professor, Civil engineering Department, Integral University, Lucknow, India.
ABSTRACT
High-rise buildings are exposed to both static and dynamic loads. During earthquakes it is seen that many of structure are totally
or partially damaged due to seismic loads. So, it is necessary to determine seismic responses of such buildings. There are
different techniques of seismic analysis of structure. Time history analysis and response spectrum analysis are the two methods
commonly used for dynamic analysis. In this paper dynamic analysis is done for G+15 residential building with and without
shear wall. The main purpose of this study is to carry out a detailed analysis on simulation tools ETABS and STAAD0-Pro, which
have been used for dynamic analysis of the G+15 building model. This study is focused on bringing out advantages of using
ETABS over current practices of STAAD-Pro. It is observed that ETABS is more user friendly, accurate, compatible for analysing
design results and many more advantages to be discussed in this study over STAADPRO. The dynamic analysis is done by the
two softwares and various results such as maximum storey displacement, maximum storey shear, frequencies and time periods
are compared and discussed with and without shear wall simultaneously.
Keywords: Dynamic Analysis, Tall buildings, STAAD PRO, E-TABS, displacement, storey shear, frequency and time periods.
INTRODUCTION
Dynamic analysis is one of the effective procedures for evaluating the seismic as well as wind loading performances of the
building. Nowadays, construction of high rise building is a basic need because of scarcity of land. Conventional method of
manual design of high rise building is time consuming as well as possibility of human errors. So it is necessary to use some
computer based software which gives more accurate results and reduces the time. The damage control is one of important design
considerations which is increasing its influence and can be achieved only by introducing dynamic analysis in the design. The
dynamic analysis can be done by software like ETABS, STAAD-Pro and SAP. Dynamic analysis may be done by using two
most common methods i.e. response spectrum method and time history method. Seismic analysis using various load combination
to confirm various codes such as IS 456:2000, IS 1893:2002, etc.
OBJECTIVES
To analyse the dynamic behaviour of G+15 regular residential building by using STAAD-Pro and ETABS.
The building without shear wall and with shear wall are analysed using response spectrum method by both the softwares.
To compare the dynamic behaviour of structures on both the software with and without shear wall by and discussed the
results such as maximum displacement, peak storey shear, frequencies and time periods.
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 351
METHODOLOGY
Description of Building
Member Dimensions Column size: 750 mm * 500 mm
Beam size: 450 mm *300 mm
Slab thickness: 150 mm
Thickness of external Wall: 230 mm
Thickness of internal Wall: 115 mm
Importance Factor: 1
Response Reduction Factor: 5
Live load on floor: 2kN/m2
All the supports are assumed to be fixed in nature
Materials Used Grade of concrete: M25 Grade of steel: Fe-415
Density of concrete: 25 KN/m3
Density of masonry infill: 20 KN/m3
The size of the
building in plan
24 m x30 m.
Type of structure Tall building RC frame
structure
Occupancy Residential building
Number of stories 16 (G+15)
Total Height 48 m
Ground storey height
3 m
Intermediate floor
height
3 m
Type of soil Medium soil
Zone V
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
ANALYSIS USING STAAD-Pro ANALYSIS USING ETABS
MODELLINGWITHOUT SHEAR WALL WITH SHEAR WALL
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 352
MODELLING
Plan of model
3-D view of model by STAAD-Pro with & without Shear Wall
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 353
3-D view of model by ETABS with & without shear wall
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 354
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The comparative study of dynamic analysis of G+15 tall building with and without shear wall in different
stories by response spectrum is performed with different parameters as storey displacement, storey shear
and frequencies. The results obtained from STAAD-Pro and ETABS with and without shear walls are given
below and comparative study is carried out as follows.
A). COMPARISION OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS.
(WITHOUT SHEAR WALL)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 14 2 1
Fre
quen
cy i
n c
ycl
es/s
econds
STOREYS
FREQUENCY GRAPH
FREQUENCY BY STAAD-Pro FREQUENCY BY ETABS
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 355
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sto
rey 1
6S
tore
y 1
5S
tore
y 1
4S
tore
y 1
3S
tore
y 1
2S
tore
y 1
1S
tore
y 1
0S
tore
y 9
Sto
rey 8
Sto
rey 7
Sto
rey 6
Sto
rey 5
Sto
rey 4
Sto
rey 3
Sto
rey 2
Sto
rey 1
Dis
pla
cem
ent
in m
m
Displacement in X-Direction
Displacement by STAAD-Pro
Displacement by ETABS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sto
rey 1
6
Sto
rey 1
5
Sto
rey 1
4
Sto
rey 1
3
Sto
rey 1
2
Sto
rey 1
1
Sto
rey 1
0
Sto
rey 9
Sto
rey 8
Sto
rey 7
Sto
rey 6
Sto
rey 5
Sto
rey 4
Sto
rey 3
Sto
rey 2
Sto
rey 1D
ispla
cem
ent
in m
m
Displacement in Z-direction
Displacement by STAAD-Pro
Displacement by ETABS
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Peak Storey Shear in X-direction
Storey shear by STAAD-Pro
Storey shear by ETABS
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Peak Storey Shear in Z-direction
Storey shear by STAAD-Pro
Storey shear by ETABS
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 356
B). COMPARISION OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS.
(WITH SHEAR WALL)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 14 2 1
Fre
quen
cy i
n c
ycl
es/s
econds
STOREYS
FREQUENCY GRAPH
FREQUENCY BY STAAD-Pro FREQUENCY BY ETABS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Dis
pla
cem
ent
in m
m
Displacement in X-Direction
Displacement by STAAD-Pro
Displacement by ETABS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Dis
pla
cem
ent
in m
m
Displacement in Z-direction
Displacement by STAAD-Pro
Displacement by ETABS
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 357
CONCLUSION
The results obtain by the both softwares is approximately same. The variation in frequency, time periods, displacement
value is negligible. But, the variation in peak storey shear is visible and it is may be because of the methods used by the
STAAD-Pro and ETABS are different.
The values of the displacement analyse by both the softwares decreases as we introduced the shear wall it is because of
shear wall resist the lateral forces.
The values of peak storey shear analyse by both the softwares increases as we introduced the shear wall it is because of
shear wall increases the overall weight of the structure.
The values of frequency by both the softwares increases as we introduced the shear wall.
It is observed that ETABS is more user friendly, accurate, compatible and less time consumer for analysing design
results.
Also, ETABS requires less space for storing data, easy to assign various loads, easy to introduce shear wall at various
position.
Overall, ETABS is better than STAAD-Pro for analysing and design of the structures.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Sto
rey S
hea
r in
kN
Peak Storey Shear in X-direction
Storey shear by STAAD-Pro
Storey shear by ETABS
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Sto
rey s
hea
r in
kN
Peak Storey Shear in Z-direction
Storey shear by STAAD-Pro
Storey shear by ETABS
© 2019 JETIR April 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1904B52 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 358
REFERENCES
1. Bahador, Ehsan, and Mohammadreza, Y. (2011). Comparative study of the static and dynamic analysis of multi-storey
irregular building International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction Engineering. 6: 1045-1049.
2. Ni, W. and Kyaw, L.H. (2014). Comparative study of static and dynamic analysis of irregular reinforced concrete building
due to earthquake. IJSETR. 3: 1205-1209.
3. Mohit, S. and Savita, M. (2014). Dynamic analysis of multi-storied regular building. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE). 11: 37-42.
4. Mohammed, R.S. and Gouse, D.P. (2015). Dynamic analysis of multi-story building for different shapes. IJIRAE. 2: 85-
91.
5. Arvindreddy and Fernandes, R.J. (2015). Seismic analysis of RC regular and irregular frame structures. IRJET. 2: 44-47.
6. Geethu S N, Depthi M, Abdul Nasir N A and Izzudeen K M(2016) “Comparative study on design and analysis of multi
storied building by STAD-Pro and ETABS software”.
7. Balaji and Selvarasan (2016), “Design and Analysis of multi-storeyed building under static and dynamic loading
conditions using ETABS”, International Journal of Technical Research and Applications e-ISSN: 2320-8163.
8. Ms. Monal P Tayade, M. R. Vyawhare 2017. “A Comparative Study of Stress Parameters Obtained by STAAD-Pro and
ETABS”.IJRASET. ISSN: 2321-9653
9. Udaya Bala and Senthil, 2017. “Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey Building”, Jr. of Industrial Pollution Control 33
2017:1405-1413. 10. Ragy Jose, Restina Mathew, Sandra Devan, Sankeerthana Venu, Mohith Y, 2017. Analysis and Design of Commercial
Building Using ETABS. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), e-ISSN: 2395 -0056,
p-ISSN: 2395-0072.