A NUMERICAL STUDY OF COMPARING THE DESIGN

RESULT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING BETWEEN

STAAD PRO AND ETABS.

REZWAN HAIDER
MD. MAKSUD RAHMAN
MD. ABDUR RAHMAN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DECEMBER 2021

I
 A NUMERICAL STUDY OF COMPARING THE DESIGN
RESULT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING BETWEEN
STAAD PRO AND ETABS.

A Thesis/Project
Submitted by

Rezwan Haider Student ID: 17.01.03.051

Md. Maksud Rahman Student ID: 17.01.03.087
Md. Abdur Rahman Student ID: 17.01.03.139

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Under the supervision of

Md. Munirul Islam

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DECEMBER 2021

II
 DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the thesis work entitled " A Numerical study of comparing
the design result of Reinforced Concrete building between STAAD pro and
ETABS.” submitted to the Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology done by
the members of this group collectively. We also state that the materials embodied in
this report have not been published or submitted anywhere before date for any other
purpose to award of any degree.

------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Rezwan Haider Md. Maksud Rahman
Student ID: 17.01.03.051 Student ID: 17.01.03.087

---------------------------------------------
Md. Abdur Rahman
Student ID: 17.01.03.139

This thesis titled " A Numerical study of comparing the design result of Reinforced
Concrete building between STAAD pro and ETABS." has been accepted as
satisfactory in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering on December, 2021.

-------------------------------------
Md. Munirul Islam
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology

III
 DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, praise and thanks goes to ALLAH for the blessing that has been
bestowed upon me in all my endeavors.

Then I would like to express my heartful gratitude to my thesis supervisor Assistant

Professor Md. Muniral Islam, Department of Civil Engineering, Ahsanullah University
of Science & Technology (AUST), for providing me with the wonderful opportunity of
working on this wonderful project on the topic, which also made me able to do extensive
research and understand a lot of new things. I am extremely thankful to them.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends for their help in
completing this project within the time constraints.

V
 ABSTRACT
In this era of modern civilization, it can’t be imagine a single work or activity without
Software. There are many finite element software which are being used in Civil
Engineering also. But if it comes to precision, accuracy and comfort, two finite element
software are often used by Civil Engineers which are ETABS and STAAD PRO. In this
study, a G+9 multi-story building was modeled and analyzed using two different finite
element software ETABS and STAAD PRO. Loads and other parameters are
considered using BNBC 2016. The main purpose of this study is to find out the
differences of results for the same model which was analyzed by this two software.

Each of these software has its own way to be featured, analyzed and design. So it is
necessary to expose all the benefits, advantages and limitations between the two
software. It is very important for the users to know the algorithm, advantages of this
software but it should always be kept in mind that the program should not be used
exceeding its capacity to ignore the failure.

The design results using STAAD PRO and ETABS of rectangular RCC building which
was modeled according to study, are obtained and compared. We have selected STAAD
PRO and ETABS software because in this generation this software is more user
friendly, less complex, and well known for designing.

Both of the software (STAAD PRO and ETABS) are showing same type of results,
diagrams and graphs in terms of adding same loads and assigning beams, cloumns and
slabs of same dimensions. There are some differences in Shear Force, Bending Moment
and Reaction value but it is considered to be a very minor difference.

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

DECLARATION III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT V
ABSTRACT VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS VII
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF FIGURES XI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XIV

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Background of the Study 2
1.3 Objective of the Study 3
1.4 Scope of the Study 3
1.5 Organization of the Study 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 General 5
2.2 History of RCC Frame Structure 5
2.3 High Rise Building 7
2.4 Reinforced Concrete Building 9
2.5 History of Structure Analysis 10
2.5.1 Methods of Structural Analysis 11
2.5.2 Force Method 11
2.5.3 Displacement Method 11
2.5.4 Slope Deflection Method 12
2.5.5 Moment distribution method 12
2.5.6 Kani’s Method 13
2.5.7 ETABS 13
2.5.8 STAAD PRO 14

VII
 Page
2.6 Summary of Literature Review 15

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 16
3.1 General 16
3.2 Modelling method 16
3.3 STAAD PRO Function 17
3.4 ETABS Function 17
3.5 Calculation of load 18
3.5.1 Live Load Calculation 18
3.5.1.1 Floor Slab 18
3.5.1.2 Roof Slab 18
3.5.1.3 Stair and Exit ways (Landing) 18
3.5.1.4 Wall Load on Beam 18
3.5.2 Dead Load Calculation 19
3.5.2.1 Floor Finish 19
3.5.2.1.1 Floor Slab 19
3.5.2.1.2 Roof Slab 19
3.5.2.1.3 PW 19
3.6 Calculation of seismic load 20
3.6.1 Direction and Eccentricity 20
3.6.2 Structural Period 20
3.6.3 Factors and Coefficients 20
3.6.4 Equivalent Lateral Forces 21
3.7 Wind Load Calculation 24

CHAPTER 4 MODELING AND ANALYSIS 27

4.1 General 27
4.2 Structure Element 29

VIII
 Page
4.3 Modeling in software 31
4.3.1 Member properties 31
4.3.2 Slab properties 32
4.3.3 Wall properties 33
4.4 Loads assign on the structure 34
4.5 Load dialogue box 35
4.5.1 Seismic load 35
4.5.1.1 Applied story forces of earthquake 37
4.5.1.2 Lateral load to stories for wind load 38
4.6 3D view of the structure 39
4.7 Plan view of the structure 41

CHAPTER 5 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 42

5.1 General 42
5.2 Shear Force and Bending moment for a sample beam 42
5.2.1 Dialogue Box of the beam 43
5.3 Wind Load for X Direction 54
5.4 SFD for Wind Load 55
5.5 BMD for Wind Load 58
5.6 SFD for Earthquake 61
5.7 BMD for Earthquake 64
5.8 Deflection 67
5.9 Displacement 68
5.10 Reaction of Column for Live Load Only 71

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION 76

6.1 General 76
6.2 Recommendation 77

REFERENCE 78

IX
 LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Calculated Base Shear 21
Table 3.2 Lateral Load to Story X 22
Table 3.3 Lateral Load to Story Y 23
Table 3.4 Wind load calculation along X-Axis 24
Table 3.5 Wind Load Calculation Along Y-Axis 25
Table 4.1 Frame Section 29
Table 4.2 Shell Section 30
Table 4.3 Material 30
Table 5.1 Share Force Diagram and For a Sample Beam 43
Table 5.2 Bending Moment Diagram For a Sample Beam 50
Table 5.3 Full Reaction of ETABS vs STAAD PRO (Fx) and (Fy) 73

X
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure 2.1 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati 7

Figure 2.2 S.O.M., F. Kahn, Brunswick Building, Chicago (Left), D. 8

Burnham, Reliance Building, Chicago (Right).
Figure 2.3 Grameen Bank Building (Left), BRB Cable Tower (Right). 9

Figure 4.1 Plan View of multi storied Building 27

Figure 4.2 Front View of multi storied Building 28

Figure 4.3 Frame Property 31

Figure 4.4 Frame property of a beam in STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 32
(Right)
Figure 4.5 Slab property of a beam in STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 32
(Right)
Figure 4.6 Wall property of a beam in STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 33
(Right)
Figure 4.7 Live load on the slab 34

Figure 4.8 Seismic Load Calculation Dialogue Box in ETABS 35

Figure 4.9 Seismic Load Calculation Dialogue Box in STAAD PRO 35

Figure 4.10 Wind Load Calculation Dialogue Box in ETABS 36

Figure 4.11 Wind Load Calculation Dialogue Box X direction in STAAD 36

PRO
Figure 4.12 Wind Load Calculation Dialogue Box Z direction in STAAD 36
PRO
Figure 4.13 Earthquake load to X direction 37

Figure 4.14 Earthquake load to Y direction 37

Figure 4.15 Wind load to stories 38

Figure 4.16 3D view of STAAD PRO 39

Figure 4.17 3D view of ETABS 40

Figure 4.18 Plan view of STAAD PRO 41

XI
 Page

Figure 4.19 Plan view of ETABS 41

Figure 5.1 Plan of ETABS showing the selected beam 42

Figure 5.2 SFD and BMD dialogue box for the beam of STAAD PRO 43
(Left) and ETABS (Right)
Figure 5.3 SFD for Dead load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 44
in 3D view
Figure 5.4 SFD for Dead load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 45
in front view
Figure 5.5 SFD for Dead load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 46
in side view
Figure 5.6 SFD for Live load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 47
in 3D view
Figure 5.7 SFD for Live load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 48
in front view
Figure 5.8 SFD for live load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 49
in side view

Figure 5.9 BMD for Dead load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 50
(Right) in 3D view

Figure 5.10 BMD for Live load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 51
in 3D view
Figure 5.11 BMD for Dead load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 52
in front view
Figure 5.12 BMD for Dead load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 53
in side view
Figure 5.13 Wind load in X direction for STAAD PRO 54
Figure 5.14 SFD for Wind load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 55
in 3D view
Figure 5.15 SFD for Wind load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 56
in front view

XII
 Page

Figure 5.16 SFD for Wind load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 57
in side view
Figure 5.17 BMD for Wind load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 58
in 3D view
Figure 5.18 SFD for Wind load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 59
in front view
Figure 5.19 SFD for Wind load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 60
in side view
Figure 5.20 SFD for Earthquake load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 61
(Right) in 3D view
Figure 5.21 SFD for Earthquake load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 62
(Right) in front view
Figure 5.22 SFD for Earthquake load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 63
(Right) in side view
Figure 5.23 BMD for Earthquake load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 64
(Right) in 3D view
Figure 5.24 BMD for Earthquake load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 65
(Right) in front view
Figure 5.25 BMD for Earthquake load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS 66
(Right) in side view
Figure 5.26 Deflection of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) 67

Figure 5.27 Displacement of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D 68

view
Figure 5.28 Displacement of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 69
front view
Figure 5.29 Displacement in STAAD PRO plan view 70

Figure 5.30 Displacement in ETABS plan view 70

Figure 5.31 Base level numbering 71

Figure 5.32 Column reaction in ETABS 71

Figure 5.33 Column reaction in STAAD PRO 72

Figure 5.34 Reaction (Fx) vs Column in STAAD PRO 74

XIII
 Page

Figure 5.35 Reaction (Fx) vs Column in ETABS 74

Figure 5.36 Reaction (Fy) vs Column in ETABS 75

Figure 5.37 Reaction (Fy) vs Column in STAAD PRO 75

XIV
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
PW Partition Wall
BNBC Bangladesh National Building Code
f’c Concrete Compressive Strength
fy Bending Reinforcement Yield stress
Fy Yield Strength
E Modulus of Elasticity
n Poisson’s ratio
Ct Time period
CG Gust Co-efficient
CI Important Co-efficient
S Site co-efficient
I Importance factor
Fu Tensile Strength of Steel
Z Seismic zone co-efficient
R Response modification co-efficient
C Numerical co-efficient
e Eccentricity
hn Height in meter above the base to level n
Mn Ultimate moment
V Base shear
FF Floor Finish
T Fundamental period of vibration
DL Dead Load
LL Live Load
ACI American Concrete Institute
UDL Uniformly Varying Load
STAAD STRUCTURAL AIDED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
ETABS EXTENDED 3D ANALYSIS OF BUILDING SYSTEMS
2D Two-dimension
3D Three-dimension
SFD Shear Force Diagram
BMD Bending Moment Diagram
Vb Basic wind speed
CC Velocity to pressure conversion coefficient
Qz Sustained wind pressure
Cg Gust coefficient
Cp Pressure coefficient of structure
Pz Design wind pressure
F Wind force

XV
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
In the present-day world, everything is impeccably designed and developed to get its
most extreme usage with the least venture of 3M’s i.e. Mind, Money and Manpower.
Each interaction whether it be fabricating, handling or creation is turning out to be more
improved and proficient with the assistance of new advances. Development and
Designing are among those areas which are straightforwardly associated with the
economy and security of people because of which their streamlining in the measure of
speculation alongside guaranteed wellbeing is turning into a need.

With the accessible land region being restricted, the speculation for any development
project is expanding this leads to the widespread development of Highrise
Superstructures both for private and business use. Built-up concrete substantial
constructions have become broadly acknowledged and carried out because of its
different benefits over different materials like Steel, Wood, and so on appropriately
planned and designed RCC constructions can furnish adequate pliability to structures
alongside strength and they are simpler to project at more prominent elevations than
steel structures (Shukla & Saha, 2017). Building these superstructures require very
complicated calculations which need to be more accurate result for the safety of these
superstructures. In the beginning, this calculations were done manually by Engineers.
In any case, with all the headway of innovation currently, it's more dependable and
sophisticated using computer-aided software for detailed calculation. Not extremely
long this act of utilizing programming is grown, however with the innovative upset
structural designing society embrace this technique. In view of its easy-to-use interface,
less possibility of mistake, devour less an ideal opportunity to work out, and
furthermore different advantages as well. Additionally, consistently programming
updates to accomplish more broad work to lessen human work. Many software in the
market right now like ETABS, STAAD PRO, SAP2000, TEKLA, RISA, SAFE, etc.
But in this paper, ETABS and STAAD PRO are used for the calculations and comparing
the design results of these two software.

The significant benefit and rationale of utilizing this software are that they make
development financial as well as make it more straightforward and less tedious.

1
Practically a wide range of burdens and mathematical designs can be taken care of
effectively. 3D edge study is extremely hard to do physically. With precision both
softwares are done this more straightforwardly. Also limited component interlocking is
done by these softwares. This software is best for the most exact outcomes. Practically
immaterial manual estimations were not needed as both the product have all the most
recent different codes consolidated in them which brings about advancement as far as
material prerequisite keeping up with the necessary norms of wellbeing (Shukla &
Saha, 2017).

1.2 Background of the Study

In RCC framed structure, the load is transferred from a slab to the beam then to the
columns, further to the lower columns, and finally to the foundation which transfers the
load to the soil, the walls are constructed after the frame is prepared, most tall buildings
use RCC technology.

In this paper RCC structures are analyzed by ETABS and STAAD PRO. For nearly
thirty years, ETABS has been identified as the industry standard for Building Analysis
and Design Software. Today, continuing along with the similar tradition, ETABS has
emerged into a quietly developed structure analysis and design program. A well-known
and established across the world structural & earthquake engineering software
company, Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI) established in 1975 and located in
Walnut Creek, California with a further office position in New York. The structural
analysis and design software CSI is a developer of lot of software including CSiBridge,
SAFE, and CSiCOL, ETABS, and SAP2000. The most useful structural analysis and
design software developed by Computers and Structures, Inc, is ETABS. Which at first
utilized to develop the mathematical complete model of the Burj Khalifa, right now the
highest building of the world. Burj Khalifa has been developed and designed by
Chicago, Illinois-based Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM). Taking the position
of the Design and Construction of the world’s highest building in their Structural
Engineering magazine article on December 2009 in the Structural analysis part: The
Burj Dubai next time renamed as Burj Khalifa, William F. Baker, S.E. and James J.
Pawlikowski, S.E. Mentioned that the gravity as well wind and seismic behavior were
everything considered using ETABS. (Moyn,2021)

2
STAAD PRO is a structural analysis and design software application originally
developed by Research Engineers International in 1997. In late 2005, Research
Engineers International was bought by Bentley Systems. STAAD PRO is one of the
most used structural analysis and design software products worldwide. It can apply
more than 90 international steel, concrete, timber and aluminum design codes.
(wikipedia)

1.3 Objective of the Study

The main cause of this study is to bring out a detailed analysis and design applying
loads on a RCC building based on BNBC 2016 code using ETABS & STAAD PRO.
There are more objectives are given below:

• To simulate and model a (G+9) multistoried building located in Savar, Dhaka,

Bangladesh by two different software ETABS & STAAD PRO.
• To analyze and compare the result of various structural components (e.g. shear
force, bending moment, Reactions at column, deflection and displacement) of
the same model by two different software due to the same loading using BNBC
2016.
• To find out the most economical and safe structure using this two software.

1.4 Scope of the Study

Residential building is the most important place for accommodation. It is important to
make sure that these buildings can withstand in any loading condition. The main
purpose of this study is to analysis a (G+9) story building using two software STAAD
PRO and ETABS and also find out which software is more useful and gives exact result
data. The loads which are used in this thesis is taken from BNBC 2016.

3
1.5 Organization of this study

Chapter 01: In this chapter, an introductory brief discussion on RCC structure and
scopes of this study has been highlighted.
Chapter 02: In this chapter, the literature review is thoroughly described. History of
RCC building, History of structure analysis, how ETABS and STAAD PRO software
work are reviewed on basis of previous researches.
Chapter 03: In this chapter, the methodology portion is discussed. Calculations of
earthquake, wind load, live load, dead load are described in this chapter.

Chapter 04: This chapter deals with the details of modeling with two different finite
element software (ETABS and STAAD PRO) for the research work. Specification of
the building, frame section, slab section, building properties, etc is described in this
chapter.
Chapter 05: In this chapter, the building analysis results are described. And also
discussed the analysis of the result.

Chapter 06: This chapter contains the conclusion of this paper and it also discussed
about the future scope of this thesis.

4
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General

The paper shows the preview works that is subjected on the topic that is showed the
importance of the research. This content is important for realizing current design
practice, theoretical strength evaluation, or the advanced work using the Code. It shows
similar type of research that has been conducted on this particular paper and their
judgement on this occasion.

2.2 History of RCC frame structure

Francois Coignet pioneered the apply of iron RCC. He used it in the construction of
building constructions. Coignet constructed the world's first iron reinforced concrete
construction in 1853, a four-story house on 72 rue Charles Michels in the Paris suburbs.
Coignet's descriptions of reinforcing concrete indicate that he did it not to increase the
strength of the concrete but to prevent monolithic walls from overturning. In Brooklyn,
the Pippen building builds as a tribute to him and his technique. William B. Wilkinson,
an English builder, strengthened the concrete roof and floors of a two-story house he
was constructing in 1854. His placement of the reinforcement proved, in contrast to his
predecessors, that he was familiar with ductile pressure.

In nineteenth-century, a French gardener named Joseph Monier worked with the

evolution of constructional, mass-produced, and RCC after becoming unhappy with the
available substance for producing enduring plant stand. He received a copy right for
RCC plant stand with a cable interlock and mortar carapace mixture. Monier received
again copy right in 1877 for another sophisticated method of strengthening solid
supports and beams by the use of iron rods laid out in a mesh system. While Monier
was clearly aware that RCC would get better internal cohesiveness, so this is unclear if
he was aware of the extent to which reinforcing increased the tensile strength of
concrete.

Prior to the 1870s, Roman Empire, despite dating all the way back and being instituted
in the untimely nineteenth century, concrete construction technology scientifically not

5
proven. Thaddeus Hyatt who issued a paper titled “An Account of Some Experiments
with Portland-Cement-Concrete Combined with Iron as a Building Material” with the
reference of Metal Wealth in Building and Fire Resistance in the Construction, in which
he detailed his research on reinforced concrete behavior. Hyatt work was crucial in the
development of concrete building. Without his efforts, riskier trial and error tactics
would use to progress technology.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, Ernest L. Ransome, who was born in England and
also an engineer, was a pioneer in the improvement of RCC techniques. He developed
practically all the techniques used by the earlier developers of RCC by applying the
knowledge gained over the preceding 50 years. Ransome's critical invention was
twisting the reinforcing iron rod, which enhanced its tie with the solid. After increasing
his fame for concrete structures, Ransome created North America's two concrete
bridges which was the first RCC bridges. Among those bridges one of still remains in
New York's East End. The place is called Shelter Island. In 1876, William Ward erected
one of the earliest solid structures in USA, which was a personal house designed by
Ward. The house was purpose-built to be fire resistant.

G.A. Wayss who was born in Germany, was a civil engineer who pioneered the use of
iron and steel solid. Wayss acquired Monier's copyright in 1879. In his office, Wayss
and Freytag, used RC for the first time commercially in 1884. Until 1890s, Wayss made
significant contributions to the evolution of Monier's reinforcing pattern and established
this a mature scientific technique.

6
 Fig 2.1: Ingalls Building in Cincinnati

The Ingalls Building which is 16 story and situated in Cincinnati, erected in 1904, was
one of the first RCC skyscrapers. The Laughin Annex in downtown Los Angeles was
the first RCC structure in California, having been erected in 1905. In 1906, the City of
Los Angeles reportedly approved 16 building licenses for reinforced concrete
structures, including a Chapel Auditorium and the eight-story hotel which name is
Hayward.

Julia Morgan was an architect and engineer who was born in America, pioneered the
artistic use of RCC. In April 1904, She constructed her first RCC project named El
Campanil, which height was a 72-foot (22 m). It was a bell tower situated at Mills
College in San Francisco. After two years, El Campanil escaped unharmed from the
1906 earthquake. This incident established her fame and launching her productive
career. From this earthquake public also altered perceptions of RCC as a building-
properties, which had previously been chastised for its recognized dullness. In the year
of 1908, the San Francisco Board of Members amended the town’s building laws to
permit the use of RCC in a broader range of applications. (Wikipedia)

2.3 High Rise Building

An elevated structure, here and there known as a high rise, is a multistory construction
that is sufficiently tall to require the utilization of a mechanical vertical transportation
framework like lifts. A skyscraper is an extremely tall high-rise structure. In the 1880s,

7
the first high-rise structures were constructed in the United States. They developed in
metropolitan areas as a result of rising land prices and population density, creating a
need for buildings that rose vertically rather than spread horizontally, so consuming
less valuable land space. The use of steel structural frames and glass external cladding
enabled the construction of high-rise buildings. By the mid-twentieth century, such
structures had become a ubiquitous element of the architectural landscape in the
majority of the world's countries.

Fig 2.2: S.O.M., F. Kahn, Brunswick Building, Chicago (Left), D. Burnham, Reliance
Building, Chicago (Right).

The foundations of high-rise buildings must occasionally handle extremely severe

gravity loads and are typically comprised of buried concrete piers, piles, or caissons.
While solid rock beds are preferable, it has been discovered that loads can be distributed
evenly even on somewhat soft ground. However, the most critical issue in high-rise
structure design is the building's ability to endure lateral pressures imposed by winds
and a severe earthquake. The majority of high-rises use steel or steel and concrete
frameworks. (Britannica.com)

There are many high-rise buildings in Bangladesh such as: Grameen Bank Building,
BRB Cable Tower etc.

8
 Fig 2.3: Grameen Bank Building (Left), BRB Cable Tower (Right).

2.4 Reinforced Concrete Building

Reinforced concrete (RC) outlines are comprised of flat (bars) and vertical (segments)
components that are joined by hardened joints. These constructions are cast
monolithically—that is, the beams and columns are cast in synchrony. Through bending
in beams and columns, RC frames resist both gravity and lateral loads . There are
various variations on the RC frame construction method:

• Νonductile RC frames with/without infill walls

• Νonductile RC frames with reinforced infill walls

• Ductile RC frames with/without infill walls

Over twenty studies explaining RC frame construction are currently included in the
World Housing Encyclopedia (WHE) database. The most frequently encountered
configuration is an RC outline with brick work infill dividers. This procedure is still
generally utilized in numerous areas of the world, particularly in developing countries.
This type of construction accounts for around 75% ofthe building stock in Turkey, 60%
in Colombia, and more than 30% in Greece. The WHE reports from Cyprus (WHE
Report 13), India (WHE Report 19), the Palestinian Territories (WHE Report 48),
Turkey (WHE Report 64), and Romania (WHE Report 64) give details on this
construction style, including regional differences (WHE Report 71). In earthquake-
prone areas, RC outlines with concrete infill dividers, regularly known as double

9
frameworks, are very successive. WE report from Chile (Report 6) and Syria (Report
59) give point by point portrayals of this kind of development. In the mid-1970s, code
norms for the plan and itemizing of RC outline structures in seismic zones were
drastically adjusted. Prior codes set a premium on strength necessities—that is, on
having underlying components with adequate solidarity to endure horizontal seismic
anxieties. Be that as it may, because of exploration and illustrations gained from the
mid-1970s seismic tremors, code necessities have become progressively centered
around the proportioning and enumerating of shafts, sections, and joints to accomplish
a particular measure of pliability notwithstanding the essential strength. One of them is
malleability. Steel (and a couple of different metals) are flexible. A metal paper cut, for
instance, perhaps twisted this way and that without breaking. Different materials, then
again, are weak (something contrary to bendable). At the point when we endeavor to
twist a piece of chalk, it will break. Concrete acts like chalk in built up cement, and
steel support acts like a paper cut. Therefore, steel support is basic for guaranteeing the
malleability of built up substantial constructions during tremors. Tremor engineers
spend impressive work deciding the suitable sum and appropriation of steel support for
a specific plan. This part of seismic plan is alluded to as seismic specifying or the craft
of enumerating. Seismic specifying ideas and rules for built up substantial designs have
developed through time and are for the most part addressed in seismic arrangements of
construction standards. (Ahmed Yakut, Middle East Technical University, Turkey)

2.5 History of Structural Analysis

A structure alludes to an arrangement of at least two associated parts used to support a

load. It very well might be considered as a get together of at least two essential parts
associated with one another so they convey the design loads securely without creating
any usefulness disappointment. When a design plan of a construction is fixed, the
design then, at that point, should be examined to ensure that it has its necessary strength
and inflexibility. The loadings should be taken from particular plan codes and local
determinations, assuming any. The forces in the individuals and the removals of the
joints are tracked down utilizing the hypothesis of primary investigation called
Structural Analysis. The entire underlying framework and its loading conditions may
be of mindboggling nature, so to simplify the analysis, certain working on presumptions
identified with the material quality, part calculation, nature of applied loads, their

10
circulation, the sort of connections at the joints and the help conditions are utilized.
This will help making structural analysis easier to a serious degree.

2.5.1 Methods of structural analysis

Right when the amount of obscure responses or the quantity of inside powers
outperforms the quantity of balance conditions available with the motivation behind
examination, the plan is known as a statically dubious construction. Numerous
developments are statically questionable. This indeterminacy may be a result of added
upholds or extra people, or by the general kind of the development. While analyzing
any unsure development, it is central to satisfy balance, similarity, and power relocation
conditions for the construction. The essential methodologies to examine the statically
dubious plans are discussed under.

2.5.2 Force method

The power strategy grew first by James Clerk Maxwell and further grew later by Otto
Mohr and Heinrich Muller-Breslau was one of the primary techniques accessible for
examination of statically vague designs. This strategy is additionally called the
similarity technique or the strategy for reliable removals. In this technique, the
similarity and power removal prerequisites for the given design are first characterized
to decide the repetitive powers. When these not set in stone, the leftover responsive
powers on the given design are discovered by fulfilling the balance necessities.

2.5.3 Displacement method

In the relocation strategy, first burden dislodging relations for the individuals from the
design are composed and afterward the balance prerequisites for the equivalent are
fulfilled. The questions in the situations are relocations. Obscure relocations are written
as far as the heaps or powers by utilizing the heap dislodging relations and afterward
these conditions are settled to decide the removals. As the not set in stone, the heaps
are determined from the similarity and burden removal conditions. Some traditional
strategies used to apply the removal technique are examined.

11
2.5.4 Slope deflection method

This strategy was first formulated by Heinrich Manderla and Otto Mohr to concentrate
on the auxiliary burdens in supports and was additionally evolved by G. A. Maney to
stretch out its application to examine uncertain shafts and outlined designs. The
fundamental suspicion of this technique is to consider the miss happenings caused
simply by bowing minutes. It is accepted that the impacts of shear power or hub power
disfigurements are immaterial in vague bars or casings. The central slant avoidance
condition communicates the second toward the finish of a part as the superposition of
the end minutes caused because of the outside loads on the part, with the closures being
expected as limited, and the end minutes brought about by the relocations and genuine
end pivots. Incline diversion conditions are applied to every one of the individuals from
the design. Involving fitting conditions of harmony for the joints alongside the slant
redirection conditions of every part, a bunch of concurrent conditions with questions as
the relocations are acquired. When the upsides of these removals are found, the end
minutes are found utilizing the incline avoidance conditions.

2.5.5 Moment distribution method

This strategy for breaking down radiates and multi-story outlines utilizing second
dispersion was presented by Prof. Strong Cross in 1930 and is additionally now and
again alluded to as the Hardy Cross strategy. It is an iterative technique. At first, every
one of the joints are briefly limited against turn and fixed end minutes for every one of
the individuals are recorded. Each joint is then delivered individually in progression
and the uneven second is conveyed to the closures of the individuals in the proportion
of their dissemination factors. These disseminated minutes are then continued to the
furthest finishes of the joints. Again, the joint is briefly controlled prior to continuing
on to the following joint. Similar arrangement of activities is performed at each joint
till every one of the joints are finished and the outcomes acquired are up to the ideal
precision. The strategy doesn't include addressing a few synchronous conditions, which
might get very convoluted while managing enormous constructions, and is
consequently liked over the slant redirection technique.

12
2.5.6 Kani’s method

This strategy was first evolved by Prof. Gasper Kani of Germany in the year 1947. This
is an aberrant augmentation of the slant redirection strategy. This is a productive
technique because of the effortlessness of second dispersion. The technique offers an
iterative plan for applying the incline diversion strategy for primary examination. While
the second conveyance strategy lessens the quantity of straight synchronous conditions
and such conditions required is equivalent to the quantity of interpreter removals, the
quantity of conditions required is zero if there should arise an occurrence of the Kani's
technique. (Mohammad Naser, 2015)

Those methods which are described here is used for simple frame structures. For a
multistoried superstructure, structure analysis is very much complex by these methods.
So, Now a days structure analysis is done by various software which are developed
according to these methods. ETABS and STAAD PRO are present days best software
for structure analysis which are used in this thesis paper for a multistoried building
analysis.

2.2.7 ETABS
ETABS full form is the Acronym of EXTENDED 3D ANALYSIS OF BUILDING
SYSTEMS. This product is created by Computers and Structures called CSI. This
programming organization is established in 1975. This company’s main office is
situated in Berkeley, California. ETABS is a designing programming item that can be
utilized to dissect and plan multi-story structures utilizing lattice-like calculation,
different strategies for investigation, and arrangement procedures, thinking about
different burden mixes. (Kalim,2018)

• ETABS is a powerful numerical approach for quick calculation that uses

complex algorithms. A multistory modeling and analysis software tool with a
design-oriented approach. Which is best suited for multiple analyzes such as p-
delta analysis, in sequence construction, response spectrum, pushover, and time
history analysis, etc.
• In all three directions ( X, Y & Z) for the cartesian coordinate system, right
hand rule is followed in this software. These axes are all at right angles to one

13
 another, typically determine the position of the loading and joint direction. In
ETABS, the plan is represented by the X and Y axes, and the elevation or
vertical direction is represented by the Z-axis. The structure is modeled using
this position system.
• Multiple windows can be displayed simultaneously with ETABS program.
Users can observe and identify different parts of the design. For instance,
(sectional properties, mass source, global coordinate system, joint restraints,
joint types, loading cases, load combinations, imposed loadings, push over
parameters.)
• ETABS has the powerful features “similar stories”. This makes it easier to
model huge structures that have similar patterns.
• It can answer issues at all levels from basis to sophisticated in a fraction of the
time and with a lot less memory.
• ETABS is a unique feature that uses bar arrangement as an output to create a
realistic and cost-effective design.
• Many codes are included in the software; which aids in increasing its adoption
in many parts of the world.
(Singhal, 2017)

2.2.8 STAAD PRO

STAAD PRO full name is STRUCTURAL AIDED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.

Research Engineers International made this software. Then it was offered to Bentley
frameworks in 2005. STAAD PRO is an examination and plan programming software
for underlying designing utilized in playing out the examination and plan of a wide
assortment of kinds of constructions. It permits underlying specialists to break down
and configure essentially any kind of construction through its adaptable Modeling
climate, progressed highlights, and familiar information coordinated effort. STAAD
PRO might be used for investigating and planning for all intents and purposes a wide
range of constructions – structures, spans, towers, transportation, modern and utility
designs. (Kalim,2018)

• STAAD pro is generally design-oriented program that uses a stiffness method based
on displacement to analyze any sort of structure, including bridges, towers,

14
 buildings, wooden structures, steel structures, timber designs, and aluminum
designs, among others.
• In all three directions ( X, Y & Z) for the cartesian coordinate system, right hand
rule is followed in this software. These axes are all at right angles to one another,
typically determine the position of the loading and joint direction. In STAAD Pro
Y-axis is in the elevation view and the other two axis in the horizontal view.. The
structure is modelled using this positioning system.
• STAAD Pro includes a single- window graphical user interface that is easy to use.
• STAAD Pro has a unique feature that is a translational repeat, copy, and mirror.
• Using STAAD editor page model can be done easily.
• It can solve a basic level to advance level problems with much faster time using less
memory.
• It can give an optimum design solution comparing various materials. Which gives
us an economical and safe solution.
• Many codes are included in the software; which helps to increase the acceptance of
the software in different regions of the world.
(Singhal, 2017)

2.6 Summarization of Literature Review

The current review means to plan a high rise building in Bangladesh and separate the
outcome between STAAD PRO and ETABS. The distinction of the casing structure
essentially as far as sheer power chart, bowing second outline, and response esteems
should be found. The heap is disseminated alongside the stature of the design as far as
powers as indicated by BNBC (2016) code equation. No comparative code for
configuration is accessible in Bangladesh. This technique isn't perplexing and shows
appropriate outcomes. (Mohammad Naser, 2015)

15
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
The work is carried out using the equivalent static method, which is a simple analysis
because the loads are determined by the code-based essential period of structures with
certain experimental modifications. The plan base shear is to be processed in general,
and afterward it is disseminated alongside the height of the structures depending on
some straightforward formula proper for structures with ordinary conveyance of mass
and solidness. The plan lateral force got at each floor will at that point be dispersed to
individual lateral load opposing components relaying on the floor diaphragm actively.

The research is properly based on STAAD PRO and ETABS software. A computer
program is developed for the static and seismic evaluation of many other civil
engineering structures and concrete structures. This research includes analyzing a
multi-storied frame structure using STAAD PRO and ETABS by using BNBC (2016)
code.

3.2 Modelling method

Design and Analysis on STAAD PRO and ETABS

1. Define the dimension of beams and columns. and determine the property like which
is it made of like concrete etc

2. Add columns and beams before applying “translational repeat” option for as many
storied buildings that is needed to be considered

3. Add Slabs.

4. Add stair and share walls for lift

6. Also determine the slab thickness

7. Assign to the selected “beams”, “columns” and “slabs”

8. Add support to the base of the column which is fixed support from the general option

16
9. Taping on “General” option then going to “load and definition” option and defined
dead load and live load floor load and assigned it on the structure.

10. Go to material assign concrete

11. Define “Earthquake” and “wind load”.

12. Define surface meshing

13.After going to “post processing” option and then clicked on “apply” for using the
whole load type and analyse.

14.Review the structure and run it.

15. Then it will analyse the structure and give the result.

16. Observe the result and discuss about it.

3.3 STAAD PRO Function

STAAD, sometimes known as STAAD.PRO, is a structural analysis and design
software program created by Research Engineers International in 1997. Bentley
Systems purchased Research Engineers International in late 2005. STAAD.PRO is a
structural analysis and design software application that is utilized all over the world. It
may use over 90 international design codes for steel, concrete, wood, and aluminum.
STAAD is the abbreviation for Structural Analysis and Design. STAAD.PRO is one of
the popular software that is used for analyzing & designing structures like – buildings,
towers, bridges, industrial, transportation and utility structures.

3.4 ETABS Function

ETABS use direct integration method for structure analysis. Direct integration is a
structural analysis method for measuring internal shear, internal moment, rotation and
deflection of a structure.

For a sample beam with an applied weight w(x), taking downward to be positive, the
internal shear force is given by taking the negative integral of the weight;

V(x) = - ∫ w(x) dx

The internal moment M(x) is the integral of the internal shear;

17
M(x) = ∫ V(x) dx = - ∫ [∫ w(x) dx] dx

The angle of rotation from the horizontal, θ is the integral of the internal moment
divided by the product of the Young’s modulus and the area moment of inertia;

1
θ(x) = 𝐸𝐼 ∫ M(x) dx

Integrating the angle of rotation obtains the vertical displacement v;

v(x) = ∫ θ(x) dx

These are the equation ETABS using for analysis a structure

3.5 Calculation of Load

Dead load: Dead load is assumed as the structure’s own self-weight. (Sabeer,2015)
Live load: live load is the particular load on the design because of troubling weight. For
different structures live loads are different. (Sabeer,2015)
In this thesis, loads are calculated according to BNBC 2016.
Structure = G+9
Floor Height (First floor to Roof) = 10 ft

3.5.1 Live Load Calculation

3.5.1.1 Floor Slab
-Residential, Dwelings (one and two families),all others area except stair and balconies
= 2 kN/m2 × 20.89
= 41.78 psf (1 kN/m2 = 20.89 psf )

3.5.1.2 Roof Slab

-Roof used for promenade purpose = 2.90 kN/m2 × 20.89
= 60.58 psf

3.5.1.3 Stairs and exit ways(landing) = 4.80 kN/m2× 20.89

= 100.27 psf

3.5.1.4 Wall Load on Beam = Brick unit wt. × Brick wall area
= 121.34 × 10/× (5/12)/

18
 = 505.58 lb/ft
= 0.51 k/ft

3.5.2 Dead Load Calculation

3.5.2.1 Floor Finish

3.5.2.1.1 Floor Slab
-Clay tiling,13 mm (0.52//) thick = 0.268 kN/m2
-Cement plaster per 10 mm(0.4//) thickness = 0.230 kN/m2
-Ceiling cement plaster 13 mm(0.52//) thick = 0.287 kN/m2
Total Load = 0.785 kN/m2
= 0.785 × 20.89
= 16.4 psf

3.5.2.1.2 Roof Slab

-Lime plaster per 10 mm(0.4//) thickness = 0.191 kN/m2
-Ceiling cement plaster 13 mm(0.52// ) thick = 0.287 kN/m2
Total Load = 0.478 kN/m2
= 0.478 × 20.89
= 9.99 psf

3.5.2.1.3 PW
-Minimum partition wall load on floor slab according to BNBC 2017,
-Brick masonry work, excluding plaster:
Burnt clay, per 100 mm(4”) thickness = 1.910 kN/m2
-Cement plaster, per 10 mm (0.4”) thickness = 0.230 kN/m2
Total = 1.910+0.230
= 2.14 kN/m2
= 2.14 × 20.89
= 44.70 psf (minimum PW load)

19
3.6 Calculation of Seismic Load
During a shake, ground developments are made both in an evenly and in an upward
direction heading all over and sending from the point of convergence. On account of
these ground developments, the development vibrates inciting inertial powers on them.
Along these lines, structures arranged in seismic zones are arranged and point by
highlight ensure strength, usefulness, and security with OK levels of prosperity under
seismic powers.

Numerous developments are as of now being fittingly expected to endure tremors. This
should be visible from the tasteful show of a colossal number of upheld considerable
plans subject to outrageous seismic quakes in various districts of the planet.

In this thesis, the calculation presents the automatically generated lateral seismic loads
for load pattern earthquake according to UBC 94, as calculated by ETABS. UBC 94
code is very close and more likely to BNBC 2016 that’s why we use UBC 94 instead
of BNBC because ETABS 2016 doesn’t have BNBC 2016 code.

3.6.1 Direction and Eccentricity

Direction = Multiple
Eccentricity Ratio = 5% for all diaphragms

3.6.2 Structural Period

Period Calculation Method = User Specified
User Period T = 1.11 sec

3.6.3 Factors and Coefficients

Factor, [UBC Table 16-N] Rw = 7
Importance Factor, [UBC Table 16-K] I = 1
Seismic Zone Factor, [UBC Table 16-I] Z = 0.2
Site Coefficient, [UBC Table 16-J] S = 1.5

20
3.6.4 Equivalent Lateral Forces
Base Shear Coefficient [UBC Eq. 28-2] = 1.25S/T3
maximum =2.75
minimum = 0.075
min ≤ Vcoeff ≤ max
Base Shear, V [UBC Eq. 28-1] V = (ZICW)/Rw

Table 3.1: Calculated Base Shear

Period
W V Ft
Direction Used Vcoeff
(kip) (kip) (kip)
(sec)

X 1.11 1.748984 6282.3795 313.9367 24.3929

Y 1.11 1.748984 6282.3795 313.9367 24.3929

X+Ecc. Y 1.11 1.748984 6282.3795 313.9367 24.3929

Y+Ecc. X 1.11 1.748984 6282.3795 313.9367 24.3929

X-Ecc. Y 1.11 1.748984 6282.3795 313.9367 24.3929

Y-Ecc. X 1.11 1.748984 6282.3795 313.9367 24.3929

21
Table 3.2: Lateral Load to Story X

Elevation X-Direction Y-Direction

Story
(ft) (Kip) (Kip)

Roof 111 70.024 0

Story9 101 44.43 0

Story8 91 40.031 0

Story7 81 35.517 0

Story6 71 31.233 0

Story5 61 26.834 0

Story4 51 22.435 0

Story3 41 18.036 0

Story2 31 13.593 0

Story1 21 9.238 0

GF 11 2.568 0

Base 0 0 0

22
Table 3.3: Lateral Load to Story Y

Elevation X-Direction Y-Direction

Story
(ft) (Kip) (Kip)

Roof 111 0 70.024

Story9 101 0 44.43

Story8 91 0 40.031

Story7 81 0 35.517

Story6 71 0 31.233

Story5 61 0 26.834

Story4 51 0 22.435

Story3 41 0 18.036

Story2 31 0 13.593

Story1 21 0 9.238

GF 11 0 2.568

Base 0 0 0

23
3.7 Wind Load Calculation:
Height of the building =h
Basic wind speed ,Vb = 210 km/hr
Important coefficient , CI = 1
Velocity to pressure conversion coefficient , Cc=47.2 x 10-6
Sustained wind pressure = qz = Cc CI CzVb2
Gust coefficient= CG
Pressure coefficient of structure= Cp
Design wind pressure = Pz= CG Cp qz
Wind force= F= Pz * A
As both the software doesn’t have installed BNBC conde for calculation for wind
load, therefore calculation of wind load is done by manually with the help of Excel.
Those data are shown below-

Table 3.4: Wind load calculation along X-Axis

H Fx Fx
Cz qz Pz A
(m) (kn) (kip)

3.04 0.36 0.76 1.15 36.22 41.69 9.37

6.09 0.41 0.86 1.31 36.22 47.36 10.65

9.14 0.50 1.04 1.56 36.22 56.65 12.73

12.19 0.56 1.18 1.78 36.22 64.46 14.49

15.24 0.62 1.30 1.96 36.22 71.15 15.99

18.29 0.68 1.41 2.13 36.22 77.15 17.34

24
 21.34 0.73 1.51 2.28 36.22 82.71 18.59

24.39 0.77 1.60 2.40 36.22 87.24 19.61

27.43 0.81 1.69 2.55 36.22 92.45 20.78

30.48 0.85 1.77 2.67 18.11 48.43 10.89

Table 3.5: Wind Load Calculation Along Y-Axis

H Fy Fy
Cz qz Pz A
(m) (kn) (kip)

3.04 0.36 0.76 1.45 89.66 130.89 29.42

6.09 0.41 0.86 1.65 89.66 148.68 33.42

9.14 0.50 1.04 1.98 89.66 177.84 39.98

12.19 0.56 1.18 2.25 89.66 202.39 45.49

15.24 0.62 1.31 2.49 89.66 223.37 50.21

18.29 0.68 1.41 2.70 89.66 242.23 54.45

21.341 0.73 1.51 2.89 89.66 259.66 58.37

24.39 0.77 1.60 3.05 89.66 273.88 61.57

25
27.43 0.81 1.69 3.23 89.66 290.25 65.24

30.48 0.85 1.77 3.39 44.83 152.06 34.183

26
 CHAPTER 4
MODELING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 General
A (G+9) multistoried regular concrete structure is designed in this thesis which is
located in Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The area of the building is 5292 sq ft. The story
height of each floor is 10 ft. The Basement height is 11ft. It is a multi-storied apartment
building.

Fig 4.1: Plan View of multi-storied building

27
Fig 4.2: Front View of multi-storied building

28
4.2 Structure Element
This ten-storied building is designed with various dimensions of beams, columns and
slabs.

Table 4.1: Frame Section

Structural Element Cross Section
(Floor Beam) (in)
FB1 10×20
FB2 10×15
FB3 10×20
FB4 10×15
FB5 10×20
FB6 10×20
FB7 10×20
FB8 10×20

Cross Section
Grade Beam
(in)
GB1 12×20
GB2 12×15
GB3 12×20
GB4 12×15
GB5 10×20
GB6 12×20
GB7 12×15
GB8 12×20

Cross Section
Column
(in)
C1 12×18

C2 12×20

29
 C3 12×24

C4 12×24

C5 12×30

C6 15×30

C7 10×30

C8 10×20

Table 4.2: Shell Section

Design Element Thickness

Name Material
type type (in)

Slab Slab Membrane 4000 PSI 5

Stair Slab Slab Membrane 4000 PSI 8

Wall 10 Wall Shell-Thick 4000 PSI 10

Table 4.3: Material

Unit
E Design
Name Type v Weight
lb/in2 Strengths
lb/ft3

4000 Psi Concrete 3604996.5 0.2 150 Fc=40000 lb/in2

Fy=245100 lb/in2
A416Gr270 Tendon 28500000 0 490
Fu=270000 lb/in2

Fy=60000 lb/in2
A615Gr60 Rebar 29000000 0.3 490
Fu=90000 lb/in2

30
4.3 Modeling in Software
Two distinct software programs, ETABS and STAAD PRO, are used to model the
loads that have been determined.

4.3.1 Member Properties

Fig 4.3: Frame Property

31
 Fig 4.4: Frame Property of a beam in STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right)

4.3.2 Slab Properties

Fig 4.5: Slab property of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right)

32
4.3.3 Wall Properties

Fig 4.6: Wall property of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right)

33
4.4 Loads assign on the Structure

Fig 4.7: Live load on the slab

34
4.5 Load Dialogue Box
4.5.1 Seismic Load

Fig 4.8: Seismic Load Calculation Dialogue Box in ETABS

Fig 4.9: Seismic Load Calculation Dialogue Box in STAAD PRO

35
 Fig 4.10: Wind Load Calculation Dialogue Box in
ETABS

Fig 4.11: Wind Load Calculation Fig 4.12: Wind Load Calculation
Dialogue Box X direction in Dialogue Box Z direction in
STAAD PRO STAAD PRO

36
4.5.1.1 Applied Story Forces of Earthquake

Fig 4.13: Earthquake load to X Fig 4.14: Earthquake load to Y

direction direction

37
4.5.1.2 Lateral Load to Stories for Wind Load

Fig 4.15: Wind load to stories

38
4.6 3D view of the Structure

Fig 4.16: 3D view of STAAD PRO

39
Fig 4.17: 3D View of ETABS

40
4.7 Plan view of the structure

Fig 4.18: Plan view of STAAD PRO

Fig 4.19: Plan view of ETABS

41
 CHAPTER 5
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
5.1 GENERAL
The two software analyzed the building and below the results are shown.

5.2 Shear Force and Bending Moment for a sample beam

Here the beam is located in elevation 5’s A-B grid line.

Fig 5.1: Plan of ETABS showing the selected beam

42
5.2.1 Dialogue Box of the Beam

Fig 5.2: SFD and BMD dialogue box for the beam of STAAD PRO (left) and ETABS
(Right)

Table 5.1: Shear Force Diagram and For a Sample Beam:

STAAD PRO ETABS

-4.119 kip-ft -1.977 kip-ft

43
Fig 5.1: SFD for Live Load in STAAD PRO 3D

Fig 5.3: SFD for DEAD Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D view

44
Fig 5.4: SFD for DEAD Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in front
view

45
Fig 5.5: SFD for DEAD Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in side
view

46
Fig 5.6: SFD for Live Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D view

47
Fig 5.7: SFD for Live Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in front view

48
Fig 5.8: SFD for Live Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in side view

49
Table 5.2: Bending Moment Diagram for a Sample Beam

STAAD PRO ETABS

-9.514 kip-ft/ft -6.7814 kip-ft/ft

Fig 5.9: BMD for DEAD Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D
view

50
Fig 5.10: BMD for Live Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D view

51
Fig 5.11: BMD for DEAD Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in front
view

52
Fig 5.12: BMD for DEAD Load of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in side
view

53
5.3 Wind Load for X Direction
Here are some wind load diagram given below;

Fig 5.13: Wind Load in X Direction for STAAD

PRO

54
5.4 SFD for Wind Load

Fig 5.14: SFD of wind load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D view

55
Fig 5.15: SFD of wind load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in front view

56
Fig 5.16: SFD of wind load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in side view

57
5.5 BMD for Wind Load

Fig 5.17: BMD of wind load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D view

58
Fig 5.18: BMD of wind load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in front
view

59
Fig 5.19: BMD of wind load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in side view

60
5.6 SFD For Earthquake

Fig 5.20: SFD of earthquake load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D
view

61
Fig 5.21: SFD of earthquake load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in
front view

62
Fig 5.22: SFD of earthquake load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in side
view

63
5.7 BMD for Earthquake

Fig 5.23: BMD of earthquake load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in 3D
view

64
Fig 5.24: BMD of earthquake load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in
front view

65
Fig 5.25: BMD of earthquake load for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in
side view

66
5.8 Deflection

Here are some deflection fig attached below for STAAD PRO and ETABS;

Fig 5.26: deflection of STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right)

67
5.9 Displacement

Fig 5.27: Displacement of structure for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in
3D view

68
Fig 5.28: Displacement of structure for STAAD PRO (Left) and ETABS (Right) in
front view

69
27 -0.004 -0.009 0.023 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000
32 -0.004 -0.010 -0.003 0.011 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
10 0.007 -0.008 -0.004 0.011 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
1 0.008 -0.008 0.023 0.025 0.000 0.000 -0.000

Fig 5.29: Displacement in STAAD PRO plan view

Fig 5.30: Displacement in ETABS plan view

70
5.10 Reaction of Column for Live Load Only

Fig 5.31: Base level numbering

Fig 5.32: Column reaction in ETABS

71
Fig 5.33: Column reaction in STAAD PRO

72
Table 5.3: Full Reaction of ETABS vs STAAD PRO (Fx) and (Fy)
STAAD PRO ETABS ETABS STAAD PRO
Column
(Fx) (Fx) (Fy) (Fy)
C1 -8.941 -2.467 -17.83 -20.35
C2 -8.653 -2.419 -15.639 -15.859
C3 -8.585 -2.185 -4.03 -14.929
C4 -2.603 -2.093 -2.66 -13.837
C5 -2.581 -0.113 -0.346 -0.404
C6 -0.158 -0.104 -0.295 -0.397
C7 -0.129 -0.07 -0.289 -0.368
C8 -0.125 -0.069 -0.211 -0.358
C9 -0.1 -0.057 -0.193 -0.281
C10 -0.086 -0.055 -0.192 -0.26
C11 -0.079 -0.038 -0.188 -0.258
C12 -0.07 -0.037 -0.175 -0.245
C13 -0.068 -0.015 -0.166 -0.227
C14 -0.056 -0.013 -0.122 -0.184
C15 -0.037 -0.008 -0.024 -0.165
C16 -0.034 -0.006 -0.013 -0.128
C17 -0.01 0.052 -0.013 0.089
C18 -0.007 0.053 -0.009 0.03
C19 0.034 0.057 0.079 0.057
C20 0.052 0.057 0.145 0.084
C21 0.06 0.075 0.149 0.097
C22 0.065 0.075 0.161 0.172
C23 0.076 0.079 0.199 0.183
C24 0.085 0.08 0.205 0.187
C25 0.103 0.088 0.208 0.203
C26 0.129 0.09 0.275 0.218
C27 0.129 0.099 0.281 0.23
C28 0.158 0.099 0.344 0.289
C29 0.169 2.785 2.527 14.322

73
C30 2.468 2.792 3.757 14.842
C31 2.5 3.113 16.93 16.931
C32 9.226 3.138 17.05 20.554

Fig 5.34: Reaction (Fx) vs Column in STAAD PRO

Fig 5.35: Reaction (Fx) vs Column in ETABS

74
Here at ETABS graph at column 3 line is linear but in STAAD PRO column 3 point is
Curved because of the shear wall.

Fig 5.36: Reaction (Fy) vs Column in ETABS

Fig 5.37: Reaction (Fy) vs Column in STAAD PRO

75
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
6.1 GENERAL

In this study, it is shown that there are differences in reactions despite the fact applying
the same loads in both of the software. STAAD PRO is general design software. It is
not suitable for a multi-story RCC building.(Sujaykumar R Sanglikar). STAAD PRO
is compatible to design steel structures.(Jaikey Jaish)

ETABS is normally used for building design. ETABS is not used to design steel
structures. ETABS software is used for the analysis of concrete shear walls and concrete
moment frames. It is highly acclaimed for static and dynamic analysis of multi-story
frame and share wall building. (Ramanjaneyulu et al, 2018)

Here are some points are given below:

1. The reaction value of STAAD PRO is high as compared to ETABS. It is because

two software uses two different algorithms for the calculation.

2. The total weight of the building for gravitational load is 444390.6929 KN in

ETABS and 494508.97 KN in STAAD PRO which are so close.

3. ETABS has calculated the stresses after meshing but STAAD PRO has
calculated this 4 node plate options. No meshing is generated in STAAD PRO.

4. By comparing the results for gravitational load by using the two software, it is
showed bending moments, shear forces are very less different.

5. The shear force diagram and bending moment diagram after providing lateral
loads which was earthquake, wind load are almost same.

It is clear that STAAD PRO incorporates good provisions from different standards and
because of that results accordingly are very accurate. Nonetheless, ETABS gives more
flexibility in modeling the structures and in the design details. There are many claims
that this software times gives values which does not confirm the requirement of codes.
These limitations in the software should be removed and cleared for better uses of the

76
designer. If this limitation is being rectified using software will be more advanced.
(Pallapolu, 2017)

6.2 Recommendation

1. By undergoing this project it can be said that the pressure acting on the particular
frame structure can persist or not be shown. In the future, this study intending to provide
this structural method into paper. This would help to achieve knowledge about
designing and analyzing a particular frame structure.

2. In this study BNBC 2006 has been used. Latest versions of BNBC can be used for
updated results.

3. For further investigations to achieve thorough behaviours or style of the structures,

non linear static or dynamic analysis can be processed.

4.Different ranges and shapes of Structures (L shape, T shape, Triangular shape etc.)
and other types of Frame Structures like commercial buildings can be experimented to
check out the effects and results.

5. The analysis and differences could be more detailed if a few of the sophisticated
software like SAP2000, SAFE, ANSYS, ABACUS can be used. Because of the time
limitations STAAD PRO and ETABS software was used here in this study.

77
 REFERENCE

D.R. Deshmukh.et al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application ISSN:
2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 7, (Part-1) July 2016, pp.17-19

Dinar, Yousuf, et al. “Descriptive Study of Pushover Analysis in RCC Structures of

Rigid Joint.”

Kalim, M., Rehman, A., Tyagi, B. S., (Mar 2018) Comparative Study on Analysis and
Design of Regular Configuration of Building by STAAD PRO and ETABS.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Volume: 05,
Issue: 03

MahmadSabeer, D. GousePeera “Comparision of design result of RCC Building using

STAAD PRO AND ETABS Software”. International Journal of Innovative Research
in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163 Issue 8, Volume 2(August 2015)

Naser, M. (June 2015). Seismic Analysis and Design of Hospital Building by

Equivalent Static Analysis. National Institute of Technology Rourkela. Rourkela-
769008

Pallapolu, M., Pilli, A A., Prasanthi, k., (April- 2017). International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology (IJCIET). Volume: 08, Issue: 04, PP.1445

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.

Prashant. P., Anshuman S, Pandey R.K., Arpan Herbert, “Comparison of design result
of Structure designed using STAAD PRO AND ETABS Software”, International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Volume 2, No.3,2021

Ramanjaneyulu, V., Dharmesh, M., Chiranjeevi, V., (Jan-2018). Comparative Study on

Design Results of A Multi-Storied Building Using STAAD PRO and ETABS for

78
Regular and Irregular Plan Configuration. International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Volume: 05, Issue: 01

Ramya, D. “COMPARATIVE STUDY ON DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF

MULTISTORYED BUILDING (G+10) BY STAAD. PRO AND ETABS
SOFTWARE’S” International Journal of Engineering Science & Research Technology
1.4: 125-130

S. Mahesh., Dr.B.PandurangaRao “Comparison of analysis and design of regular and

irregular configuration of multi-Story building in various seismic zones and various
types of soils using ETABS and STAAD PRO” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11,
Issue 6 Ver. I (Nov- Dec. 2014), PP 45-52.

Sabeer, M. (August 2015) Comparison Design Result of RCC Building Using STAAD
PRO and ETABS Software. International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced
Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163, Issue: 8, Volume: 2

Shukla, R., & Saha, P. (12 July 2017). Comparative Study of a G+10 Storied Building
Using ETABS and STAAD. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and
Technology (www.ijsrst.com) Volume: 03, Issue: 06

Shweta A. Wagh et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications ISSN:

2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 4(Version 1), April 2014, pp.369-376

Singhal, D. (April 2017.) State of the Art Report A Comparative Study of Structural
Analysis and Design Software -Staadpro, SAP-2000 and Etabs Software. Volume:9,
No: 2 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316684115.

Yakut, A. (2021, September 13). Performance of structures in İzmir after the Samos
island earthquake. SpringerLink.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10518-021-
01226-6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=11a4a7e8-01f6-4a3e-bcb4-
d1d713e88dbc

Yash Raj Rana “Comparison of Analysis & Design Results of A Structural Elements
using STAAD PRO, STRUBS AND ETABS Software” International Journal of
Scientific progress and Research (IJSPR) ISSN: 2349-4689 Volume -14, Number 1,

79
2015. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS 875, part (1) 1987, Dead Load on buildings and
Structures, New Delhi, India.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/HISTORY/history.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAAD

https://structuralbd.com/etabs-software-advantages-downlad/

https://www.britannica.com/technology/high-rise-building

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322520401.

80