© 2019 JETIR 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 A COMPARATIVE STUDY ...

© 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.

http://www.jetir.org/



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




MODELLING

Plan of model

3-D view of model by STAAD-Pro with & without Shear Wall




3-D view of model by ETABS with & without shear wall




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




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



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






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



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Dis

pla

cem

ent

in m

m

Displacement in Z-direction






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



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Sto

rey s

hea

r in

kN

Peak Storey Shear in Z-direction






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.


© 2019 JETIR 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 A COMPARATIVE STUDY ...

Documents

Transcript of © 2019 JETIR 2019, Volume 6, Issue 4 A COMPARATIVE STUDY ...