A Comparative Study on Analysis of G+8 Commercial Steel Building Using STAAD. PRO And ETABS

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

A Comparative Study on Analysis of G+8 Commercial Steel Building Using STAAD. PRO And ETABS

2

1UG Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Amity University Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India 2Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Amity University Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India ***

Abstract - In this term paper analysis and design of a G+8 commercial building is carried out on STAAD.Pro and ETABS software and a comparison is presented. There are several software packages available in the market to aid civil engineers with designing and analysing large projects in a shorter period. Many of these design/analysis programmes even have functions like checking for geometrical mistakes, simulating the structure of different materials, and analysing the diverse profile of structural parts.Staad. ProandEtabsare the two most popular design softwareprogramsavailableand are widely used by many design firms. The main focus of this paper is present the findings acquired when designing a steel building using both the softwares. Calculating the load and examining the entire structure is part of the design process. The design techniques utilised using both the software are Limit State Designs that follow the Indian Standard Code of Practice. A structural engineer's primary goal is to use technology to create a structure that is both safe and costeffective so that they can then dare to design increasingly larger and more complex structures. The modern user interface, visualisation tools, and other features are available in STAAD.pro and Etabs softwares.

Key Words: Comparative Study, Etabs, STAAD.Pro, CommercialBuilding,ComplexStructures,etc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Civilengineeringisaprofessionalengineeringsubjectthat dealswiththeplanning,development,andmaintenanceof the built environment, including public works like roads, bridges,canals,dams,airports,sewagesystems,pipelines, building structural elements, and trains with the use of mathematical calculations, physics laws, and mechanics theories.Predictinghowastructurewillrespondtoexternal stress is the practice of structure analysis. During the preliminary design phases, the loads being applied to the structureareevaluatedusingtheanticipatedexternalloads. Thesizeandreinforcementtobeemployedforthevarious members are computed. The link between these external loads placed on the members and the internal forces and displacementsproducedwithinthememberstobalanceout these external loads during use is developed through structuralanalysis.

Now a days structural engineering software’ s are used to analyse and design a wide range of different types of

structures. Because of their adaptable modelling environment, cutting-edge features, and flexible data collaboration,itenablesstructuralengineerstoanalyseand designpracticallyanysortofstructures,includingbuildings, bridges,towers,structuresfortransportation,industry,and utilities,canbeeasilyanalysedanddesignedusingvarious design softwares like STAAD.Pro and Etabs. Thus, eliminatingtherigoroushumaneffortsanderrors.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

Analysis and designing of a G+8 commercial steel buildingbySTAADandETABS

Compare the horizontal displacements, support reactions,axialforcesincolumns,shearforcesand bending moment in beams obtained from both software’s.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Mohammed Arham Siddiqui,Dr.Khalid Moin (2021) carried out analytical study of a G+2 building using STAAD.ProandEtabs.Theyfoundthattheverticalreactions obtainedusingboththesoftware’swerealmostthesamebut a considerable deviation was found in shear forces and bendingmomentvalues.

Sayeed Ur Rahman, Dr. Sabih Ahmad (2019) diddynamic analysisofamulti-storeyedbuildingusingSTAAD.Proand Etabs respectively. They found that the effect of forces obtained from both the softwares were almost similar. However, while analysis and designing Etabs was found moresuitableanduser-friendlysoftware.

Shubham Srivastava, Mohd. Zain, Vineet Pathak (2018) carriedoutcomparativeanalyticalstudyofaG+7building using STAAD.Pro and Etabs. They found that the bending momentandhorizontaldisplacementforthebuildingframe washigherascomparetotheEtabsresults.

Mohammad Kalim, Abdul Rehman, B S Tyagi (2018) carriedoutacomparativeanalyticalstudyusingSTAAD.Pro and Etabs for a G+14 building. They found that the axial forces obtained were same from both the softwares. However,Etabswasfoundmoresuitablewhiledesigninga RCCframedbuilding.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

K Venu Manikanta, Dr. Dumpa Venkateswarlu (2016) carried out analytical study of a multi-storeyed unsymmetricalbuildingusingSTAAD.ProandEtabs.They found that the Support reactions obtained from the two softwares were almost identical, however Etabs gives the lesservaluesofsupportreactions.

3.0 MODELLING OF G+8 COMMERCIAL BUILDING

3.1 PLAN AND 3-D VIEW OF THE BUILDING

Fig. -3 1:ATypicalStructuralPlanoftheG+8Building ShowingVariousBeams,ColumnsandShearWallsin ETABS

Fig. -3.3:3-DRenderedViewinETABS

3.2 ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING

A technical representation of a structure that meets the concept of architecture is an architectural drawing. The architectural details, such as rooms, lobbies, staircases, kitchens, wall thicknesses, balconies, and restrooms, are identifiedbytheengineersusingthesedrawings

Thebuildingisdesignedinsuchawaythatthecolumngrid shouldremainuniformfortheeaseofanalysisanddesign. The normal floor to floor height and plinth height for the buildingistakenas3.75mand3.0mrespectively.

Fig. -3.2: 3-DRenderedViewinSTAAD.PRO

Fig -3.4:TypicalArchitecturalPlanoftheBuilding Showingvariousrooms,staircasesandlifts

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

4.0 PRILIMINARY DATA CONSIDERED

4.1 Dead Loads

Concretegradeused M30

Steelgradeused Fe550D

Densityofconcrete 25kN/m2

Densityoffloorfinish 22kN/m2

Floorload 2.95kN/m2

Staircaseload 9kN/m2

Terraceload 6.5kN/m2

Wallload(100mmthick) 2kN/m

Wallload(122mmthick) 2.45kN/m Wallload(145mmthick) 2.91kN/m Wallload(150mmthick) 3.015kN/m

4.2 Live Loads

LiveloadonthestructurearetakenfromIS:875(part2)are asfollows:-

Liveloadonfloors 4kN/m2

Liveloadonstaircase 4kN/m2

Liveloadonterracelevel 5kN/m2

Liveloadonlift 10kN/m2

4.3 Seismic Loads

SeismicloadonstructureIStakenfromIS:1893(part1)are asfollows:

Seismiczone: IV Z: 0.24 I: 1.2 R: 3 Sa/g: Asperspectrumcurve Timeperiod: 0.085*H0.75 Dampingofstructure: 5% Ah: ZISa/(2gR)

4.4 Various Load Combinations

18. 1.5(DL+WLZ) 19. 1.5(DL-WLZ) 20. 1.5(DL+WLX) 21. 1.5(DL-WLX) 22. 1.2(DL+LL+WLX) 23. 1.2(DL+LL-WLX) 24 1.2(DL+LL+EQZ) 25. 1.2(DL+LL-EQZ) 26. 1(0.9DL+1.5WLX) 27. 1(0.9DL-1.5WLX) 28. 1.5(DL+LL) 29. 1.5(DL+EQZ) 30. 1.5(DL-EQZ) 31. 1.5(DL+EQX) 32. 1.5(DL-EQX) 33. 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) 34. 1.2(DL+LL-EQX) 35. 1.2(DL+LL+EQZ) 36. 1.2(DL+LL-EQZ) 37. 1(0.9DL+1.5EQX) 38. 1(0.9DL-1.5EQX) 39. 1(0.9DL+1.5EQZ) 40. 1(0.9DL-1.5EQZ) 41. 1(0.9DL+1.5EQZ) 42. 1(0.9DL-1.5EQZ)

DL-DeadLoadLL-Liveload ELX-EarthquakeloadinXdirectionELZ-Earthquakeloadin ZdirectionWLX-WindloadinXdirectionWLZ-Windloadin Zdirection

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

TheG+8steelstructureismodeledandanalysedforthe various load combinations using STAAD Pro and ETABS simultaneouslyfortheidenticalconditions.Theparameters chosen for the comparative study of the structure were horizontaldisplacements,supportreactions,axialforcesin columns,shearforcesandbendingmomentinbeams.The results are presented in table 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 respectively.Similarly axial forcesincolumns,shear force andbendingmomentdiagramsarepresentedinFig.5.1to 5.6respectively.

Thecomparisonofvariousdatafromboththesoftwaresis presentedbelow:

Table -5.1: Comparison of Horizontal Displacement of the building is presented below: Displacement direction Displacement (mm) using Staad.Pro Etabs Displacementin X-direction 46.45 42.23 Displacementin Z-direction 31.76 30.96

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Table -5.2: Comparison of Support Reactions using Staad.Pro and Etabs:

Support Number Support Reactions (kN) STAAD.Pro Etabs 53 2036.2 2071.7 54 2976.7 2853.5 57 3911.8 3792.7 61 3043.1 3035.1 51 2483.7 2268.3 52 5154.8 5002.6 56 6666.7 6791.1 60 5923.5 6229.1 55 5915.6 5928.4 59 5959.9 6018.2 63 4082.5 4228.2 67 2195.1 2276.6 48 3204.6 3331.1 58 3340.3 3500.1 62 2624.1 3000.4 66 1782.3 2123.7

Table -5.3: Comparison of Axial Force for Columns 1, 2 and 3 are given below:

Floor Levels

For Column no. 1

Axial Force (kN) Staad.Pro Etabs

BASE 3905.3 3792.7 PLINTH 3730.5 3627.1 1ST 3300.5 3230.1 2ND 2900.3 2829 3RD 2500.4 2426.6 4TH 2100.3 2022.5 5TH 1700.7 1617.4 6TH 1200.3 1211.1 7TH 830.5 804.9 8TH 409.8 394.7

For Column no. 2

BASE 6700.3 6791 PLINTH 6500.4 6623 1ST 5800.8 5882.4 2ND 5100.3 5146 3RD 4300.3 4410.9 4TH 3600.7 3676.7 5TH 2900.3 2943.8 6TH 2200.3 2211.5 7TH 1500.5 1478.7 8TH 732.8 750.1

For Column no. 3

BASE 5900.3 5928.4 PLINTH 5800.3 5792.2 1ST 5100.5 5134.8 2ND 4500.8 4480.5 3RD 3800.4 3830.8 4TH 3200.3 3184 5TH 2500.3 2540.2 6TH 1900.3 1898.5 7TH 1300.3 1258.1 8TH 640.7 621.2

Fig -5.1:LabelShowingSupportNumbering

Fig.-5.2:ComparisonofFloor-wiseVerticalLoadon VariousSelectedColumns

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Table -5.4: Comparison of Maximum Shear Force for Beams 1 and 2 at different levels are given below:

Beams Maximum Span Shear Forces (kN) using Staad.Pro Etabs

For B1

PLINTH 45.8 55

1ST 294 320 2ND 291.5 315 3RD 289.1 314 For B2

PLINTH 37.1 27

1ST 210 211 2ND 210 211 3RD 211.1 212

Table -5.5: Comparison of Maximum Span Bending Moment for Beams 1 and 2 are given below:

Beams Maximum Bending Moments (kN-m) using Staad.Pro Etabs

For B1

PLINTH 71 63 1ST 449 419 2ND 438 408 3RD 432 400 For B2

PLINTH 60 35 1ST 347 306 2ND 346 305 3RD 350 309

Fig. -5.3:ShearForceDiagramsforbeamsondifferent floorsobtainedusingSTAAD

Fig. -5.5:BendingMomentDiagramsforbeamson differentfloorsobtainedusingSTAAD

Fig. -5.4:ShearForceDiagramsforbeamsobtainedusing ETABS

Fig. -5.6:BendingMomentDiagramsforbeamson differentfloorsobtainedusingETABS

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

6. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been drawn from the analysis and design of the G+8 Commercial steel building usingSTAADPro andETABSsoftware: 

Displacementofthebuildingduetoresponsespectrum in X direction and Z direction comes out to be higher withSTAADWithETABSthedisplacementinXdirection isslightlylesserandfortheZdirectionitisnearlysame. 

Comparing the values for Axial force, STAAD gives highervalueforcolumn1oneachlevelthantheresults obtained from Etabs, while for columns 2 & 3 it was foundvice-versa. 

Comparing the highest values for shear force and bending momentat eachfloorlevel,it wasfound that they were roughly equal, with ETABS software displayinghighervaluesformaximumshearforceand STAAD showing higher values for maximum span bendingmoments. 

The vertical loads on most of the supports for both piecesofsoftwarewereassessedanddeterminedtobe roughlyequivalent. 

TheETABSprogrammeminimiseseffortandprovidesa moreuser-friendlyinterface. 

InETABS,modelinganddesigningthestructureaswell asassigningtheloadsareconsiderablysimplerandtake muchlesstime.

[2] GurudathC.,SahA.K.,Sah,M.K.,SharmaR.B.,SahR.: “Analysis and design of commercial building using Etabs”5[12],678-683,IJIRT,May-2019.

[3] Rahman S. U., Ahmad S.: “A comparative study on dynamicanalysisoftallbuildingsusingStaadProand Etabs”,6[4],350-358,JETIR,April-2019.

[4] Srivastava S., Zain M., Pathak V.: “Analysis of multistoreybuilding(G+7)duetoseismicloadingusingEtabs andcompareitsresultswithStaadPro“ ,5[7],642-648, JETIR,July-2018.

[5] KalimM.,RehmanA.,TyagIB.S.:“Comparativestudyon analysisanddesignofregularconfigurationofbuilding byStaadProandEtabs”5[3],1793-1797,IRJET,March2018.

[6] ManikantaK.V.,VenkateswarluD.:“Comparativestudy ondesignresultsofamulti-storiedbuildingusingStaad Pro and Etabs for regular and irregular plan configuration”, 2[15], 204-215, IJRSAE, September2016.

[7] STAAD.Pro,BentleySystems.

[8] Etabs Software, Integrated Building Design Software, UniversityAvenueBerkeleyCalifornia.

[9] IS:456-2000, “Code of Practice Plain And Reinforced Concrete”,BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

[10] IS:875(part1)-2015,“CodeofPracticeforDesignloads (otherthanearthquake)forbuildingsandstructures”, BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.



Overall, both programmes are highly useful for structuralanalysisanddesign.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thepresentstudyisapartofactualliveprojectatstructural designfirm"NNCDesignInternational"NewDelhi,Indiaon whichIhaveworkedduringmysixweekssummertraining andsubmittedaprojectreportinAmityUniversity,Noida, India.

Iwould liketogivespecial thankstothedirector of the saidfirmforgivingmethisgreatopportunityforwritingthis paper.

REFERENCES

[1] Siddiqui M. A. and Moin K.: " Comparative Study on Analysis of G+2 Residential Building by STAAD Pro V8i(SELECTseries5)andETABS2018Software’s",8[8], 1521-1527,August-2021.

[11] IS:875(part2)-2015,“CodeofPracticeforDesignloads (otherthanearthquake)forbuildingsandstructures”, BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

[12] IS:875(part5)-2015,“CodeofPracticeforDesignloads (otherthanearthquake)forbuildingsandstructures”, IndianStandardInstitution,NewDelhi.

[13] IS:1893(Part1):“IndianStandardcodeofpracticefor criteriaforearthquakeresistantdesignofstructures”, BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page766