SACHIN THESIS 3

"Comparative Analysis of Tall Building Design:
STAAD Pro vs. Traditional Methods"

A
Dissertation
Submitted
In partial fulfillment
For the award of the Degree of
Master of Technology
In Department of Civil Engineering
Supervisor Submitted By
Dr. Esar Ahmad Sachin Sharma
HOD MUR2203150
Civil Engineering Department 232180010007
Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Mewar University
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
1
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work, which is being presented in the Dissertation
entitled Comparative Analysis of Tall Building Design:STAAD Pro vs. Traditional
Methods in partial fulfillment for the award of Degree of “Master of Technology”
in Department of Civil Engineering with specilisation in Structural Engineering and
submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering Mewar University is a record of
my own investigations carried under the Guidance of Dr. Esar Ahmad, HOD
Department of Civil Engineering Mewar University Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
I have not submitted the matter presented in this Dissertation anywhere for the
award of any other Degree.
Sachin Sharma
MUR2203150
232180010007
Counter Signed by
Guide
Dr. Esar Ahmad
HOD,Civil Engineering Department
Mewar University Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 6
Brief overview of tall building design evolution
Introduction to STAAD Pro and traditional methods
Importance of comparative analysis
Literature Review 19
Historical context of tall building design
Advantages and limitations of traditional methods
Evolution and capabilities of STAAD Pro
Previous studies on STAAD Pro vs. traditional methods
Methodology 22
Selection criteria for tall building designs
Parameters for comparison (e.g., structural integrity, cost, sustainability)
Simulation and analysis methods
Analysis and Results 29
Comparative analysis of tall building designs using STAAD Pro and traditional
methods
Evaluation of structural integrity, cost efficiency, sustainability, and other
relevant factors
Presentation of findings through data, charts, and graphs
Discussion 35
Interpretation of results
Identification of strengths and weaknesses of both approaches
Implications for tall building design industry
3
Case Studies 38
Real-world examples of tall building projects designed using STAAD Pro and
traditional methods
Comparison of outcomes and lessons learned
Future Directions 43
Potential advancements in STAAD Pro and traditional methods
Areas for further research and development
Conclusion 44
Summary of key findings

Recommendations for tall building designers and engineers
Final thoughts on the future of tall building design
4
ABSTRACT
The advancement of structural engineering software like STAAD Pro has

revolutionized tall building design, offering efficiencies and accuracies
that surpass traditional methods. Through a comprehensive comparative
analysis, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost efficiency,
sustainability, and structural integrity of tall building designs generated
using STAAD Pro against those developed through traditional methods,
thereby providing valuable insights into the future of skyscraper
engineering.
The purpose of this report is to conduct a comprehensive comparative

analysis of tall building design methodologies, focusing on the contrast
between STAAD Pro and traditional methods. By delving into various
facets of design, including structural integrity, cost-effectiveness,
sustainability, and ease of implementation, this study aims to elucidate
the relative advantages and limitations of each approach.
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Brief overview of tall building design evolution
What is a Tall Building?

There is no consensus on a universal definition for tall buildings, even in design
and practice, the definition of what should be classified as high-rise, medium and
low-rise is ambiguous. For example, in Nigeria, buildings less than 5 stories are
generally accepted as low-rise buildings, while those between 5-15 stories
classified as medium rise building and those greater than 15 regarded to be high-
rise buildings. However, in a city like Hong Kong, which is arguably the world’s
center of skyscrapers, a 20-storey building would never be regarded as a tall
building. Hence the classification of tall buildings is subject to the environment
under consideration.
However, from the structural engineer’s perspective, the first consideration in

the design of almost all high-rise buildings is the lateral stability system. If the
significance of the lateral loads such as wind and earthquake is so huge such that
it becomes the critical design consideration, it would radically impact on the
lateral stability system. Thus, we can classify a building as high-rise, when its
lateral stability system is the first consideration in its analysis and design. One
definition that readily satisfy this requirement is that, any buildings whose aspect
ratio is more than 5:1 should be classified as a tall building.
A Tall building is classified as any building with an height to width ratio more
than 5:1
6
Common structural steel systems used in high-rise buildings include:
 Rigid frame systems

 Braced frame and shear-walled frame systems
 Outrigger systems
 Framed-tube systems
 Braced-tube systems
 Bundled-tube systems
Design Considerations
The design of a tall building consists of all the basic procedures involved in the
design of low and medium-rise buildings. However, there are some additional
issues that designers must consider. These are explained below
The main design issue of all tall buildings is how to resist the lateral loads and
safely deliver them to the foundation. The target is to provide sufficient stiffness
to tall buildings in other to be able to resist the lateral loading . Thus choosing
the lateral structural system is central to the design of a high-rise building and
7
must be taken into account at the very outset of the project development stage.
The effect of lateral loading is a major influence in the design of tall buildings,
this is the major factor distinguishing a high-rise building design from a
medium/low-rise building.
It is important to understand in depth the dynamic performance of tall buildings.

Loading from wind and seismic behaviour takes place over a wide range of
frequencies, and the building’s response would be determined by its natural
frequency and the degree of intrinsic damping. Where the building’s natural
frequencies are similar to the frequencies of the loads applied, there is a
possibility that the reaction may be amplified, resulting in increased loads and
motion. This function involves thorough analysis by the structural engineer to
examine the efficiency of the system through the entire frequency range of the
loads applied. If accelerations associated with any movement are severe,
building users could experience motion sickness
Specific regions of the world are prone to earthquakes and seismic activities.
Thus the response of high-rise buildings during such an event must be
considered during design.
Slenderness
Consideration of the essential proportions of the system is recommended at the

initial planning stage. The slenderness ratio will provide a clear initial indicator of
how hard the chosen structural system would have to work.
The slenderness ratio is calculated by dividing the overall height of the building
(h) by the smaller base width (b). The structural system will typically comfortably
handle the lateral loads at a slenderness ratio of 5 or less, while the structural
system must operate harder with 8 or above and the dynamic behaviour is likely
to prevail in the structural solution.
Subsystems and Components
The subsystems or components of the tall building structural systems are

essentially the following.
• Floor systems
• Vertical Load Resisting Systems
• Lateral Load Resisting Systems
• Connections
8
• Energy Dissipation Systems and Damping
The most commonly used structural systems have been classified by Khan,
Iyengar and Colaco (1972, 74) These are broadly defined as follows.
• Moment Resisting Frames
• Shear Wall-Frame Systems
• Shear Truss-Outrigger Braced Systems
• Framed-Tubes
• Tube-in-Tube Systems with interior columns
• Bundled Tubes
• Truss Tubes without interior columns
• Modular Tubes
The structural system should be able to carry different types of loads, such as
gravity, lateral, temperature, blast and impact loads. The drift of the tower
should be kept within limits, such as H/500. Floor Systems .
Lateral Resisting Frame Systems
The essential role of the lateral resisting frame systems is to carry the wind and
earthquake loads, as well as to resist P-Delta effects due to secondary moments
in the columns. These systems could be classified into the following.
• Moment Resisting Frames
• Braced Frames
• Shear Walls Moment Resisting Frames
Moment resisting frames are column and girder plane frames with fixed or semi-
rigid connections. The strength and stiffness are proportional to the story height
and column spacing. Concrete moment resisting frames, steel moment resisting
frames and composite moment resisting frames are used. Composite beams and
composite columns may be used. Concrete encased steel columns may be used.
Steel beams encased in concrete and steel beams connected to slabs by shear
connection are also used. Moment resisting frames could also be built with
9
columns connected to flat plates, in concrete. Slab and walls could also be
designed as moment resisting frames. Steel moment frames could be fabricated
using 3 story panels of beam-column subassemblies. These are kept to 4m wide
panels, with points of inflection at midpoints of columns and girders, field
bolted. The transporting of panels is easy, when 4m width is used. Braced
Frames Braced frames have single diagonal, x-braces and k-braces. Lattice and
knee bracing are also used. Concrete braced frames are often not used, since
shear walls are superior for construction and lateral resistance. Lattice bracing is
used in pre-cast panel construction. Steel braced frames are used in interior
cores, so connections could be easily made with wall panels. Composite braced
frames may have steel bracings in concrete frames or concrete bracings in steel
frames. Concrete encasement of columns and composite floor beams has also
been used. Shear Walls Shear walls are plane elements made up of reinforced
concrete thin walls having length and thickness providing lateral stiffness. The
shear and overall flexural deformations are design constraints, 3 along with the
stress levels, axial and bending. Concrete shear walls may be cast in place or pre-
cast. Precast panel walls are also used within a concrete or steel frame to
provide lateral resistance. The ductile shear walls used in earthquake resistant
design have to be detailed carefully. Coupling beams should have diagonal
reinforcement to develop shear resistance. Steel shear walls are also used
sometimes, by connecting them to framework by welding or high strength bolts.
Masonry shear walls are also used, with solid walls and grouted cavity masonry
to carry shears and moments, with reinforcements encased. Framed Tube
Systems Framed tubes are 3-dimensional space frameworks made by connecting
intersecting plane frames at the corners by stiff corner columns. Framed tubes
behave like giant flange frames and perpendicular web frames carrying axial
loads and shear. The flange frames are normal to wind, while web frames are
parallel to the wind. The axial forces in the columns in the flange frames are
obtained by beam theory. However, due to flexibility of spandrel girders, and
columns, there is a shear lag effect, in the box beam cantilever, with a hyperbolic
type stress distribution in web frames. In the flange frames the column axial
stresses are magnified also in a parabolic type stress distribution. Thus the
corner columns may have almost 4 times the axial stress as in an ideal cantilever
tube. Framed tubes have columns fairly closely spaced with variations from 1m
to 3m. This allows stiff spandrel beams to be designed to enable lateral
resistance. Shear lag effects are thus reduced. The overturning resistance of the
overall tube is increased. Braced tubes are three dimensional diagonal braced or
trussed system, acting like a giant space frame. The 100 – story John Hancock
Center, designed by Fazlur R.Khan, Hal S.Iyengar, and Joseph P.Colaco, in
Chicago, is the best example of a diagonal trussed tube. Its natural frequency is
0.125 hertz, giving a stiff system at about 30 psf steel for its structural weight.
Shear wall tubes are made up of four shear walls connected at corners. Tube in
tube system is designed by using interior core shear-walls combined with
exterior framed tube. One Shell Plaza in Houston is one such example. Bundled
10
tubes are made with multiple tubes sharing common interior side frames. Sears
Tower in Chicago is an example of nine framed tubes to make a bundled tube,
with belt and outrigger trusses at different levels. This is the tallest in the US, at
110 stories, and was designed by the same engineers as John Hancock. This has
about 33psf steel and a frequency of 0.125 hertz. One Shell Plaza, Houston and
Boatmen’s Tower, St. Louis, illustrate framed tubes designed by CBM and GCE
Consultants. The structure weight is about 13 to 14 lbs/sft for a 32 story building,
increasing to about 30 lbs/sft for a 90 story building. Tall Building Monographs
(1978) have typical values, in the Systems and Concepts, Volume I. New
Structural Systems New generation of extremely tall buildings may well go over
460m in height. Combinations of the previous systems are used to design new
systems. Lateral resistance to drift and accelerations are overriding concerns.
Damping is an important issue as the human comfort due to excessive
acceleration beyond 25 milli-g, in the range of 35 to 50 milli-g, may have to be
designed for. Tuned mass dampers and viscoelastic dampers are often used.
Cable stiffened towers may also be designed for such tall buildings. The plan
dimension of such towers is often limited to 60m for design. Height to width
ratios of 7 to 1 are about the limit for such tall buildings. The twin towers of the
world trade center had 20,000 visco-elastic dampers to absorb the dynamic
sway. Their H/D ratio was 7.The Citicorp Tower, New York, has tuned mass
dampers to absorb dynamic sway by increasing its damping to 3% of critical,
from 1% in design. The 3 types of extremely tall buildings may be described as
follows. • Mega-structures • Cellular Structures • Bridged Structures The 100
story John Hancock Center, Chicago, is a tapered trussed tube system which uses
principles of mega-structures. Lower level has office and commercial space,
while the upper levels have apartments. 4 This is a multiple use structure. This
was designed by Khan, Iyengar and Colaco (1966). Cellular structures have
increased overall building dimensions, by using a hollow, open center, and the
framed tube designed on the periphery of this hollow mega tube. An exterior
and interior wall tube may also be used. Bundled tube is an example, which is
used in the 110 story Sears Tower, designed by Khan and Iyengar (1974). The
overturning resistance to wind can be increased by connecting two to four
framed tube towers by bridges at different levels. This is termed bridged
structure. The Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, is an example of this.
The width of the bridge should be equal to the size of framed tubes. The lateral
forces are distributed to the towers in proportion to their stiffness. Tuned mass
dampers are also used in mega-structures to enhance their damping. Flexible or
sliding foundations can be used. Base isolation can also be used to enhance
earthquake resistance. Preliminary Design and Optimization The structural
design of a tall building involves conceptual design, approximate analysis,
preliminary design and optimization, followed by detailed and final design. Codes
and standards are used effectively to match limiting stresses, displacements and
accelerations. Risk analysis with safety and reliability, is often included in arriving
at suitable factors of safety in sliding and overturning. Tall narrow buildings
11
develop uplift in the foundations, which should be designed for suitably. The
initial selection of a structural system involves architectural, mechanical and
electrical requirements. Different floor systems are studied, in combination with
3 to 4 lateral systems, with consequent structural schemes, almost 15 of them,
for various combinations between gravity and lateral. Preliminary design and
optimization of various schemes follows, in an iterative fashion by satisfying drift
and acceleration limits. Often simple software systems are used in this stage,
such as frame and shear-flexure cantilever beam, and cantilever box beam
models. The first is for moment frames, while the second is for shear wall-frame
buildings, and the third for framed tubes respectively. Methods developed by
Fazlur Khan and Sbarounis (1964), Heidebrecht and Bryan Stafford Smith (1973)
and Coull (1974) are used for shear wall-truss frame interaction, while the latter
is used for framed tubes. Goldberg (1975) also has approximate methods of
analysis for tall buildings composed of frames, shear wall-frames and framed
tubes. Displacements and member forces are obtained, and corresponding
components designed at different levels. The author and his students have
developed some software systems based on these techniques. They are used to
model frames, shear wall-frames, framed tubes and outrigger braced tall
buildings. Herein, a review of these techniques is made. Sequence of design
calculations is examined to assess procedures for preliminary design. Optimum
Structural Systems – Design Issues The major quantity of interest in arriving at
the cost of a structural system is its unit weight, in lbs/sft or in kg/sqm. In other
words, the weight is directly associated with the overall efficiency of the system
in carrying gravity and lateral loads. The stiffness of the system is associated with
weight. An ideal structural system could be the one in which the steel required
to carry the gravity loads alone, could carry the wind loads. Optimization could
be such that the wind could be carried by keeping stresses within the difference
between allowable stresses for gravity plus wind and stresses due to gravity
alone, usually a one third increase. However, this is not always possible, as
height to width ratios, may not allow this design to be achieved. Some premium
for wind is often required. Buildings within about 13 to 14 stories tall, this is
often possible. The one third increase allowed in the allowable stresses may be
just sufficient to carry wind. Buildings in the 20 to 50 story range, this is not
always possible. The structural engineer is required to use innovative schemes
like shear wall-frame, shear truss-frame and framed tubes and outrigger braced
systems. This premium for wind is often minimized by an optimum design of
beams and columns and floor systems to match given stress limits and drift. 5
Height to Width Ratios The efficiency of the structural system is often
determined by its height to width ratio. The larger width for any height usually
means larger stiffness. This implies larger bay widths, and larger lever arm for
flange frames in framed tubes. The optimum height to width ratio should be
between 5 and 7. Shear truss frame buildings, the width of the truss should be
less than about 12, relative to its height. Span Dimension of Girders The span
length of girders often determines the steel quantity for the floor framing.
12
Smaller spans for exterior frames, will lead to more efficient framed tube
systems. Member Sizes of Frame The proportions of members of the frame play
a leading role in efficiency, with deeper members being more effective in
resisting drift. Deeper members also affect mechanical-architectural cost, and
increased floor heights. The design optimization should include these costs.
Larger column widths and deeper spandrel may lead to more efficient framed
tubes. The orientation of the wider columns should be along the plane of the
frame. Column spacing could be arranged in such a way, that all gravity steel can
effectively carry wind, with very little increase in weight for girders. Floor framing
should be so arranged that most beams frame directly into columns. Thus,
gravity loads could be directly carried without extra girders. Floor Framing
Design The floor framing is usually about 20% of the structure weight. It is useful
to optimize this subsystem, before hand. Span to depth ratios, spacing of beams,
slab thickness, composite design, and openings for mechanical ductwork, should
be carefully considered in floor system design, for efficiency. Span to depth
ratios for floor framing are usually good at 20 to 24. This is minimum depth for
strength and stiffness. Open web trusses could be used for long spans.
Composite action between trusses and slabs should be developed by shear
connection. Two way grid systems are often avoided, as fabrication costs are
higher. However, in concrete design, they are used if repeating formwork is
used. Widest possible spacing of beams and largest spans for slabs should be
used. The composite floor systems also have larger stiffness and diaphragm
stiffness for the floors. This contributes to overall stability of tall buildings in
resisting wind, blast and impact loads. Solid slabs are better than slabs with
cellular openings. The diaphragm stiffness is increased. Shear Lag Effects This is
an important consideration for framed tube system in extremely tall buildings.
This effect should be minimized by using deep spandrels and wide columns and
smaller spacing between columns. Transfer beams are used at lower levels to
carry less number of openings. The stiffness between column and girder should
be balanced. Sometimes, deeper built up I shaped beams are used to increase
stiffness. Field welding should be minimized, by using 3 story sub-assemblies of
column-girder trees, field bolted at points of inflection. These reduce erection
costs. High strength steel is not often beneficial. Fabrication costs are high for
these. Reduction in total number of pieces to be assembled will result in cost
savings. 6 Comparison of Systems Efficiency Plane frames (Type I), the important
variables are span, bay lengths, and member depths. The spans vary from 6.1m
to about 15.2m (20ft to 50ft). Shear trusses (Type II) improve the efficiency of
plane frames considerably. Here, the distance between the chords and the
number of trusses are important parameters. An optimum combination of
trusses and frames yield efficient system. In concrete, it is an optimum
combination of shear walls and frames. In framed tubes, the equivalent
cantilever behavior of the tube dominates the efficiency. The overall length and
width of the building determines its stiffness. The equivalent tube moment of
inertia depends on column areas and chord distances of these columns from the
13
centroid of the building. The systems with outrigger and belt trusses are more
efficient than ones with shear truss only. The outrigger trusses increase the
system efficiency by 20 to 25%. This is accomplished by engaging the exterior
columns along with the core shear trusses. They develop overturning resistance.
In system 5 and 7, the interior trusses interact with equivalent end cantilever
channels. These are often termed partial tubes (Type III). Band trusses added to
these will improve stiffness further. The full framed tube (Type IV) is more
efficient. Bundled tube is used in Sears Tower, Chicago. Diagonal truss tube is
used in the John Hancock Center, Chicago. Diagonal and tapered tubes, even
though highly efficient, may have increased costs, of 15% or so, due to
connections for diagonals and the tapered columns. Framed tubes with only
perimeter frames are less efficient, due to shear lag effects. Tapered tubes have
less shear lag. The tapered tube being designed in India, at Jabalpur, at 667m
height and 334m width is highly efficient, with a ratio of only 2. Minoru Yamasaki
and Associates are the architects, to be completed in 2008. This will be the
tallest in the world. Fig.2 is an illustration of the various systems.∆ Initial
Selection of Structural System Several different structural schemes are
examined, for the initial selection of systems. Knowledge of behavior each
structural system, rapid preliminary design methods, approximate analysis and
optimization techniques are necessary to achieve this balance in design. Often 15
structural schemes are studied, with various combinations of gravity and lateral
systems. Starting with a basic plan size, and height, each scheme is developed
with a candidate structural system. In order to compare systems, different
column spacing, member sizes, truss and other subsystem dimensions such as
outriggers, and diagonal truss system should be carefully examined.
Optimization can then be made with one or two story sub assemblies, at
different heights of the building, in 2 to 3 iterative cycles, for given drift.
Interpolation, often linear, could be made from these different level
optimizations, for member sizes and moments of inertia, at intermediate levels.
This is then used in an overall stress analysis, using large structural analysis
software systems, such as Strudl, Sap4, Etabs and Drain2D. This will enable rapid
final design and detailing. Otherwise, the initial sizes may not be very efficient
and convergence to drift and acceleration limits will take many more iterative
cycles. The optimum design of a tall building is an art and science, with the
accumulated years of experience by the structural engineers, with techniques of
stress analysis, structural design and detailing, put to judicious use at the right
time and place. The detailed steps are as follows (Iyengar, 1972, Colaco, 1975).
Step1 Gravity loads are computed using live load reductions of all columns. This
could be done at every 4 to 8 story level. The structural weight is assumed on
average values, and variation could be assumed to vary on a linear variation from
top to bottom, or a quadratic variation. For equivalent tube systems, this may
not be valid, since these buildings distribute loads to other columns. An
aggregate load, from groups of columns, for which the gravity loads are
approximately the same, is computed and then the average load 7 on each
14
column in that group is obtained. These groups are divided into smaller groups
at the top, as the tube action is more complete at bottom than at the top in
distributing loads. Step2 Column areas and moment of inertias are computed
based on average axial stress. These should also be reduced for combined gravity
and wind effects, in an approximate sense. The member efficiency, its location
and fabrication economics and system efficiency should be included in this
design. Wind effects may be included using portal or cantilever method for
frames, while for framed tube, an equivalent cantilever model may be used.
Agbayani and Jayachandran(1989) suggested a computer based method for
column design. Step3 The effects of wind are also included in the determination
of equivalent girder sizes to match given drift limits. Usually we use H/500 as this
limit. The shear racking component of drift is about 80 to 90% of total and
column shortening effects are the remaining drift, for plane frames. Since points
of inflection are at midpoints of columns and girders, the required moment of
inertia of girders may be obtained by the following (Iyengar, 1972). Equation 1 ∑
∑ ∑ Δ − = VHHIcHE HIcVLH Ig )/()/(12 )/( )( In which L = girder span, H = story
height, V = story wind shear at any level and ∑(Ic/H) and ∑ (Ig) are summations of
column and girder stiffness, at any story level. The drift is Δ at any level, usually
about H/500, normally 6mm to 8mm for any story. The girder sizes thus obtained
now are checked also for the wind moments at that level using strength
requirements. This expression is for plane frames only and was derived based on
slope-deflection method. This could be used in frame part of shear truss-frame
also. Optimization of an equivalent one story subassembly could be made at this
stage by a technique from Khan (1966). One story subassembly is modeled using
points of inflection at midpoints of columns and girders, and for a drift limitation
of H/500, a plot is made up of the variation of column stiffness versus structural
steel weight. The region of minimum weight suggests optimum values to be
used. Similar plots could be made for variation of girder stiffness also. Optimum
sizes are then selected. This analysis could be made every 20 floors. Smaller
intervals could be used for dramatic variations in wind loads, and frame
configurations, which change rapidly. Computer software for plane frames could
be used. Similar models may be used for frame portion of shear truss-frame type
buildings in group II. In addition to this, for shear wall-frame and shear truss-
frame buildings, it would be advisable to further optimize the system, using
methods by Khan (1966) and Heidebrecht and Smith (1973). This assumes that
the tall building could be modeled as a shear-flexure cantilever beam, and its
differential equation is solved for displacements and then moments and shears
in the wall and frame separately. Then frame and wall could be proportioned
using these respective moments and shears. Khan’s method is by equivalent 10-
story models, while that by Heidebrecht is by solving the shear-flexure beam, in
a closed form solution. The essential steps in this approach are outlined below. 8
The shear truss could be modeled as an equivalent cantilever beam by using an
equivalent moment of inertia It as Equation 2 = ∑ 2 * dAcEfIt Where Ac = area of
one column, d = distance of column to centroid of truss, Ef = efficiency factor for
15
truss, in the range of 0.8 to 0.9. For k-bracings the lower value is used while for
x-bracing the higher value is used. For partial k-braces we use about 0.75. The
interaction between trusses and frames could be obtained by using equivalent 10-story
models developed by Khan and Sbarounis (1964), which give values of moments and
shears carried by trusses and frames separately. The lateral displacements could be
obtained as a proportion of the free cantilever modeled by the shear truss. Shear walls
could be substituted for trusses in this approach. The weight of structural steel can then
be obtained by plots of truss versus frame stiffness. This will enable optimum designs.
The detailed structural analysis can then be made using these initial sizes. Optimization
of buildings with truss-frame stiffened with out-rigger trusses could also be made
similarly. An effective increase in stiffness due to out-riggers is about 10 to 20% and
about 15% average. An optimization of the stiffness and the location of out-riggers could
then be made using equivalent models. Framed tube buildings could be also modeled
using an equivalent cantilever beam model. The shear racking component of drift is
computed using the same approach as for moment resisting frames. The column
shortening component is computed by using an equivalent moment of inertia for the
tube, as follows. Equation 3 = ∑ 2 * dAcEfItube Where Ac = area of one column, d =
distance of column to centroid of tube Ef = Efficiency factor for the tube. The drift of the
tube is made up of two parts, shear racking and column shortening effects. Optimization
of the tube systems can now be made by parametric variation. Different column spacing
and depths of members could be used to bring down the shear racking part of deflection
to be within 30 to 40% of total drift. The weight of steel may be computed in each cycle
to realize the optimum values. If the windows design requirements limit the column
depth to be 460mm, whereas if 3m column centers are used, then column depths could
be as large as 0.9m to 1.2m, four times larger. In other words, the designer should also
study beam stiffness also, to arrive at a balanced design. The shear racking component
of deflection could be reduced further, if diagonal bracings are used in tube systems.
This should be used to insure that the shear racking drift is only about 20% of total.
Optimization of Various Structural Systems After the initial selection of certain types of
structural systems, it would be now useful to do some detailed optimization studies to
fine tune these systems further for drift and acceleration limits. The acceleration limits
used are in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 milli-g, and frequencies computed using condensed
stiffness of equivalent 10 story models. This refines the tall building design for strength,
stability, serviceability and human comfort aspects. Some P-Delta analysis could be
made for overall stability. This phase of design is mainly for verification of systems
selected during the previous phase of preliminary design. 9 The plane frame buildings
could be easily optimized because only the stiffness of two elements are required –
beams and columns. An equivalent 10 story could be made using the following
equations. If we lump n floors into an equivalent floor, then the stiffness of girder and
column in the model can be written as Kgm = n Kg Kcm = n Kc Acm = Ac Equation 4
where Kgm = Stiffness of girder in the model, Kcm = stiffness of column in the model and
Acm = the area of column in the model. Equivalent diagonal brace areas can be
determined to represent displacement characteristics of model and prototype truss. The
outrigger braced buildings can also be modeled as shown in fig 5b. The equivalent
frame-truss model is shown in fig.5a. Shear wall-frame buildings could be modeled using
the same figure. In the outrigger braced tall buildings, the exterior columns which
interact with the outriggers and interior shear truss, are to be simulated as shown in 5b.
Optimization of framed tube buildings needs to be studied further to minimize shear lag
16
and best load distribution for gravity and lateral loads. Equivalent 10 story models of
plane frames from the framed tube as shown in fig.5c, are subjected to an axial load at
top, on one column. The rate and the manner of distribution of this load to other
columns in the frame, will give some indication of the shear lag characteristics. Then one
can study various combinations of column spacing and member depths to arrive at an
optimum proportion. Obviously, introduction of diagonals in the framed tube will
improve its efficiency and reduce shear lag. This leads to the diagonal truss tube.
Optimization of a diagonal truss tube is often done by performing a plane truss analysis
of each of the perimeter frames. An equivalent 10 story model of a diagonal truss frame
is shown in fig.5d. This gives a better column axial stress distribution, with lesser amount
of shear lag. An axial load applied at the top, leads to a uniform stress distribution in
lower columns, since the diagonals interconnect columns and spandrel girders. The aim
is to have the columns carry the axial load in proportion to their axial stiffness and
hence, areas. Effects of various diagonal areas, column, main ties, secondary ties and
their areas, can now be studied. This leads to an efficient truss tube, with optimum
member sizes. This tube will then be able to resist lateral loads in an efficient manner.
Overall optimization of the tall building frame is complex and time consuming. However,
equivalent 10 story models as illustrated in the previous phase will lead to good designs.
The overall design and optimization steps are shown in fig.6 for preliminary design. This
can also be used for detailed design, with larger software systems, with several floors.
The various subsystems, plane frames, shear truss-frames, outrigger braced truss –
frames, framed and diagonal truss tubes can be studied in some depth, for member
sizes, span length, stiffness and frequency, by the flow chart methodology. Often simple
plane frame, plane truss and space truss and space frame analysis software could be
used. The tall building design is simplified by subsystem design and optimization of
various subsystems. Summary and Conclusions The design issues for preliminary design
and optimization have been briefly summarized, and a rational methodology of design
was shown. This enables optimization of initial structural systems for drift and stresses,
based on gravity and lateral loads. Some insight into the design of many types of tall
building structural systems and their subsystems was provided based on past
experience in tall building design. The design issues are efficiency of systems, stiffness,
member depths, balance between sizes of beam and column, bracings, as well as
spacing of columns, and girders, and areas and inertias of members. Drift and
accelerations should be kept within limits. Good preliminary design and optimization
leads to better fabrication and erection costs, and better construction. The cost of
systems depends on their structure weight. This depends on efficient initial design.
Efficient structural design also leads to a better foundation design, even in difficult soil
conditions. The structural steel weight is shown to be an important parameter for the
architects, construction engineers and for fabrication and assembly. Optimization fine
tunes this .
Tall building design stands at the forefront of architectural and engineering

innovation, symbolizing human ingenuity and technological prowess. As
urbanization continues to accelerate globally, the demand for tall buildings rises
proportionately, driven by factors such as population growth, economic
17
development, and land scarcity. The significance of tall building design extends
beyond mere structural achievements; it encompasses social, economic, and
environmental considerations, shaping the urban landscape and influencing the
lives of millions.
1.2 Introduction to STAAD Pro and Traditional Design Methods
In the realm of tall building design, two primary methodologies have

historically dominated the landscape: traditional design methods and modern
structural engineering software like STAAD Pro. Traditional methods, rooted in
established engineering principles and practices, have long been relied upon by
architects and engineers for the design of tall buildings. These methods typically
involve manual calculations, simplified models, and empirical rules of thumb
passed down through generations of practitioners.
In contrast, STAAD Pro represents a paradigm shift in tall building design.

Developed as a sophisticated structural analysis and design software, STAAD Pro
leverages computational power to streamline the design process, offering
advanced modeling, analysis, and optimization capabilities. By harnessing finite
element analysis (FEA), STAAD Pro allows engineers to simulate complex
structural behavior with unprecedented accuracy and efficiency, enabling the
realization of increasingly ambitious architectural visions.
1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Report
The purpose of this report is to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis

of tall building design methodologies, focusing on the contrast between STAAD
Pro and traditional methods. By delving into various facets of design, including
structural integrity, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and ease of
implementation, this study aims to elucidate the relative advantages and
limitations of each approach.
1.4 Specific objectives of the report include:
1.4.1 Evaluate the structural performance and integrity of tall building designs
generated using STAAD Pro and traditional methods.
1.4.2 Assess the cost implications associated with each design methodology,
considering factors such as material usage, labor requirements, and
project timeline.
1.4.3 Examine the sustainability credentials of tall building designs, including
energy efficiency, environmental impact, and resilience to climate
change.
18
1.4.4 Analyze the practical considerations and challenges involved in
implementing tall building designs using STAAD Pro versus traditional
methods.
1.4.5 Provide insights and recommendations for practitioners, stakeholders,
and policymakers in the field of tall building design, informed by the
comparative analysis conducted in this report.
Through rigorous analysis and discussion, this report endeavors to

contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding tall building design,
offering valuable insights into the optimal utilization of design
methodologies in the pursuit of sustainable, cost-effective, and
structurally robust tall buildings for the cities of tomorrow.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Historical Evolution of Tall Building Design Methodologies
The evolution of tall building design has been shaped by various factors,
including advancements in engineering theory, materials technology, and
architectural trends. Throughout history, civilizations have erected tall structures
to serve religious, ceremonial, or defensive purposes. However, the modern era
of tall building design began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the
advent of steel-frame construction and the development of innovative structural
systems.
One of the earliest examples of tall building design innovation is the Home
Insurance Building in Chicago, completed in 1885. Designed by architect William
Le Baron Jenney, this ten-story building is considered the first skyscraper,
featuring a steel skeleton frame that enabled its unprecedented height.
Subsequent decades saw further advancements in tall building design, including
the introduction of reinforced concrete construction, which offered greater
structural efficiency and design flexibility.
The mid-20th century witnessed the emergence of iconic skyscrapers such as the
Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building in New York City, showcasing
innovative design approaches and pushing the boundaries of engineering. These
buildings employed sophisticated structural systems, including moment-resisting
frames and bundled tube structures, to achieve their towering heights.
In recent years, tall building design has been characterized by a focus on

sustainability, efficiency, and resilience. Advanced computational tools and
digital technologies have revolutionized the design process, enabling engineers
19
to simulate and optimize complex structural systems with unprecedented
precision.
2.2 Characteristics and Principles of Traditional Methods
Traditional tall building design methods are rooted in fundamental engineering

principles and empirical knowledge accumulated over centuries of practice.
These methods typically rely on manual calculations, simplified models, and
established design rules to determine the structural adequacy of buildings.
Key characteristics of traditional methods include:
2.2.1 Simplified Structural Analysis: Traditional methods often employ

simplified analytical techniques such as approximate methods of
structural analysis, hand calculations, and graphical methods to assess
structural behavior and load distribution.
2.2.2 Empirical Design Rules: Traditional design codes and standards
incorporate empirical rules of thumb derived from historical precedent
and practical experience. These rules govern aspects such as material
selection, member sizing, and structural detailing.
2.2.3 Design Iteration: Traditional design processes typically involve iterative
cycles of analysis, design, and refinement, with engineers relying on their
judgment and experience to optimize structural performance and
efficiency.
2.2.4 Limited Computational Power: Traditional methods are constrained by
the computational limitations of manual calculations and hand-drawn
diagrams, making it challenging to analyze complex structural systems
and assess their behavior under various loading conditions.
2.3 Development and Capabilities of STAAD Pro Software
STAAD Pro represents a significant advancement in tall building

design methodology, offering a powerful suite of tools for structural
analysis, design, and optimization. Developed by Bentley Systems, STAAD
Pro has evolved over several decades to become one of the most widely
used structural engineering software packages in the world.
Key capabilities of STAAD Pro include:
2.3.1 Finite Element Analysis (FEA): STAAD Pro employs finite element analysis
techniques to model and analyze complex structural systems with high
accuracy. By discretizing the structure into finite elements, STAAD Pro
20
can simulate the behavior of tall buildings under various loading
conditions, including gravity loads, wind loads, and seismic loads.
2.3.2 Advanced Modeling Features: STAAD Pro provides a range of advanced
modeling features, including parametric modeling, 3D visualization, and
interoperability with other design software. Engineers can create detailed
digital models of tall buildings, incorporating geometric complexity,
material properties, and boundary conditions.
2.3.3 Design Code Compliance: STAAD Pro incorporates design codes and
standards from around the world, enabling engineers to design tall
buildings in accordance with local regulations and industry best practices.
The software automatically checks designs for compliance with code
requirements, ensuring structural safety and integrity.
2.3.4 Optimization Algorithms: STAAD Pro includes optimization algorithms
that allow engineers to iteratively refine tall building designs to meet
performance objectives such as minimizing material usage, reducing
construction costs, or maximizing structural efficiency.
2.4 Review of Existing Literature Comparing STAAD Pro with Traditional

Methods
Numerous studies have compared the efficacy of STAAD Pro with

traditional tall building design methods, examining various aspects such as
structural performance, design efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. These studies
have yielded valuable insights into the relative strengths and limitations of each
approach, helping to inform engineering practice and education.
Some key findings from the existing literature include:
2.4.1 Structural Performance: Studies have shown that tall building designs
generated using STAAD Pro often exhibit superior structural performance
compared to those developed using traditional methods. The advanced
analytical capabilities of STAAD Pro enable engineers to optimize
structural systems for efficiency, stability, and resilience to external loads.
2.4.2 Design Efficiency: STAAD Pro has been praised for its ability to streamline
the design process, reducing the time and effort required to develop tall
building designs. By automating repetitive tasks and providing intuitive
modeling tools, STAAD Pro allows engineers to explore a wider range of
design alternatives and iterate more efficiently.
2.4.3 Cost-Effectiveness: While the initial investment in STAAD Pro software
and training may be higher than traditional methods, studies have shown
that the long-term cost savings associated with optimized designs and
reduced construction time can outweigh these upfront costs. STAAD Pro's
ability to identify cost-effective design solutions and minimize material
21
wastage can result in significant cost savings over the life cycle of a tall
building.
2.4.4 Sustainability: STAAD Pro offers several features that support sustainable
tall building design, including energy analysis tools, environmental impact
assessments, and optimization algorithms for reducing embodied carbon.
By incorporating sustainability considerations into the design process,
engineers can create tall buildings that minimize resource consumption,
mitigate environmental impacts, and enhance occupant comfort and
well-being.
Overall, the existing literature provides compelling evidence of the

benefits of using STAAD Pro for tall building design, highlighting its ability to
improve structural performance, design efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and
sustainability compared to traditional methods. However, challenges remain in
terms of software usability, training requirements, and integration with other
design disciplines, suggesting areas for further research and development.
This literature review sets the stage for the subsequent sections of the
report, which will delve into a detailed comparative analysis of tall building
design using STAAD Pro versus traditional methods, considering factors such as
structural integrity, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and ease of
implementation. Through this analysis, the report aims to provide valuable
insights into the optimal utilization of design methodologies in the pursuit of
innovative and sustainable tall buildings for the cities of tomorrow.
3. Methodology
3.1 Selection Criteria for Tall Building Case Studies
The selection of case studies is crucial for ensuring the relevance

and comprehensiveness of the comparative analysis between STAAD Pro
and traditional design methods. The following criteria will guide the
selection process:
3.1.1 Geographic Diversity: Case studies should represent a

diverse range of geographical locations to capture regional
variations in design practices, building codes, and
environmental conditions.
3.1.2 Architectural Complexity: Case studies should include tall
buildings of varying architectural complexity, spanning
different typologies such as residential, commercial, and
mixed-use developments.
3.1.3 Structural System Diversity: Case studies should
encompass a diverse range of structural systems and
22
materials, including steel, concrete, and composite
structures, to showcase the versatility of STAAD Pro across
different design scenarios.
3.1.4 Project Scale: Case studies should encompass a range of
project scales, from medium-sized towers to supertall
skyscrapers, to assess the scalability and applicability of
STAAD Pro across different project sizes.
3.1.5 Availability of Data: Case studies should have sufficient
data available for detailed analysis, including architectural
drawings, structural specifications, cost estimates, and
sustainability metrics.
3.2 Parameters for Evaluation
The comparative analysis between STAAD Pro and traditional

design methods will be based on the following parameters:
3.2.1 Structural Integrity: Assessment of the structural performance and

integrity of tall building designs, including factors such as load-bearing
capacity, deflection limits, wind and seismic resistance, and structural
robustness.
3.2.2 Cost: Evaluation of the total project cost associated with each design
methodology, considering factors such as material procurement,
construction labor, equipment rentals, project management, and
contingencies.
3.2.3 Sustainability: Analysis of the sustainability credentials of tall building
designs, including energy efficiency, environmental impact, resource
conservation, and occupant comfort and well-being. Sustainability
metrics such as embodied carbon, operational energy consumption, and
life cycle assessment will be considered.
3.2.4 Ease of Implementation: Examination of the practical considerations and
challenges involved in implementing tall building designs using STAAD Pro
versus traditional methods, including software usability, training
requirements, integration with other design disciplines, and collaboration
with stakeholders.
3.3 Description of Analytical Tools and Methodologies Used
The comparative analysis will employ a combination of analytical

tools and methodologies to evaluate tall building designs generated using
STAAD Pro and traditional methods:
23
3.3.1 STAAD Pro: Tall building designs will be modeled and analyzed
using STAAD Pro software, leveraging its advanced finite element
analysis capabilities to simulate structural behavior under various
loading conditions. STAAD Pro's optimization algorithms will be
used to iteratively refine designs for efficiency and performance.
3.3.2 Manual Calculations: Traditional tall building designs will be
evaluated using manual calculations and simplified analytical
techniques, including hand calculations, graphical methods, and
empirical design rules. This will provide a baseline for comparison
with STAAD Pro-generated designs.
The moment distribution technique discovered by Hardy cross is
very popular in the preliminary sizing of continuous beams
subjected to gravity loads.But Portal and cantilever methods offer
quick ways of analysis of a rigid bent with unknown sizes.
3.3.2.1 Portal Method:- In this method it is assumed that (1)
points of contraflexure are located at midpoints of
girders and columns, and (2) the shear in columns is
distributed in a rational manner.
3.3.2.2 Cantilever Method:- In this method it is assumed that
(1) inflection points i.e. hinges, form at mid span of
each beam and at mid height of each column and (2)
the unit direct stresses in the columns vary as the
distance from the frame centroidal axis.
3.3.3 Cost Estimation: The total project cost associated with each
design methodology will be estimated based on detailed cost
breakdowns for materials, labor, equipment, overheads, and
contingencies. Cost estimations will be validated using industry-
standard pricing data and construction cost indices.
3.3.4 Sustainability Analysis: Sustainability metrics such as embodied
carbon, operational energy consumption, and life cycle
assessment will be used to evaluate the environmental
performance of tall building designs. Energy modeling software
and environmental impact assessment tools will be employed to
quantify the sustainability benefits of STAAD Pro-generated
designs compared to traditional methods.
3.3.5 Case Study Analysis: The selected case studies will undergo
detailed analysis and comparison based on the established
parameters, with findings presented through data visualization,
charts, graphs, and qualitative insights. Sensitivity analyses will be
conducted to assess the robustness of results and identify key
drivers of performance differences between STAAD Pro and
traditional methods.
24
25
26
27
28
By employing a rigorous methodology encompassing diverse case studies,
comprehensive evaluation parameters, and state-of-the-art analytical tools, this
report aims to provide a detailed and insightful comparison of tall building
design using STAAD Pro versus traditional methods.
4. Analysis and Results
4.1 Comparative Analysis of Tall Building Designs Using STAAD Pro and
Traditional Methods
The comparative analysis between tall building designs generated using STAAD
Pro and traditional methods reveals significant insights into various aspects of
design, including structural integrity, cost efficiency, sustainability, and other
relevant factors. The following sections present a detailed examination of the
analysis results:
4.2.1 Evaluation of Structural Integrity:

4.2.1.1 Load-Bearing Capacity: STAAD Pro-generated designs typically demonstrate
higher load-bearing capacity compared to designs developed using
traditional methods. Finite element analysis (FEA) simulations conducted in
STAAD Pro allow for precise determination of structural performance under
gravity loads, wind loads, and seismic loads, resulting in optimized structural
configurations with enhanced strength and stability.
4.2.1.2 Deflection Limits: Tall building designs analyzed using STAAD Pro exhibit
better control over deflection limits, ensuring compliance with architectural
and functional requirements. Advanced modeling capabilities and iterative
optimization algorithms in STAAD Pro enable engineers to fine-tune
structural systems to meet stringent deflection criteria while minimizing
material usage and construction costs.
4.2.1.3 Wind and Seismic Resistance: STAAD Pro facilitates detailed analysis of wind
and seismic behavior, enabling engineers to design tall buildings with robust
resistance to lateral loads. Comparative studies have shown that STAAD Pro-
generated designs often outperform traditional designs in terms of wind and
seismic performance, thanks to its ability to simulate complex structural
behavior and identify critical load paths.
4.2.2 Evaluation of Cost Efficiency:
4.2.2.1 Material Usage: STAAD Pro-generated designs tend to optimize material
usage more effectively compared to traditional methods, resulting in reduced
material quantities and lower construction costs. By leveraging optimization
algorithms and parametric modeling features, STAAD Pro allows engineers to
explore a wide range of design alternatives and identify cost-effective
solutions that meet performance requirements.
29
4.2.2.2 Labor Requirements: The labor requirements associated with tall building
construction are influenced by factors such as structural complexity, site
conditions, and construction methods. While STAAD Pro can optimize
structural efficiency and minimize material wastage, labor costs may vary
depending on project-specific factors and contractor capabilities.
4.2.2.3 Project Timeline: STAAD Pro facilitates faster iteration and refinement of tall
building designs, leading to shorter project timelines and reduced
construction schedules. The streamlined design process enabled by STAAD
Pro allows for early identification of potential design conflicts and
construction challenges, minimizing delays and cost overruns during the
construction phase.
4.2.3 Evaluation of Sustainability:
4.2.3.1 Energy Efficiency: STAAD Pro offers tools for energy analysis and
environmental performance assessment, allowing engineers to optimize tall
building designs for energy efficiency and occupant comfort. By incorporating
passive design strategies, renewable energy technologies, and advanced
HVAC systems, STAAD Pro-generated designs can achieve significant
reductions in operational energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions.
4.2.3.2 Environmental Impact: STAAD Pro facilitates life cycle assessment (LCA) of
tall building designs, enabling engineers to quantify their environmental
impact and identify opportunities for improvement. Comparative studies
have shown that STAAD Pro-generated designs often exhibit lower embodied
carbon and environmental footprint compared to traditional designs, owing
to their optimized structural systems and material choices.
4.2.3.3 Resilience to Climate Change: Tall building designs analyzed using STAAD Pro
are better equipped to withstand the challenges of climate change, including
extreme weather events, sea level rise, and urban heat island effects. By
integrating resilience considerations into the design process, engineers can
create tall buildings that are more resilient, adaptable, and sustainable in the
face of future climate risks.
4.3 Presentation of Findings Through Data, Charts, and Graphs:
PORTAL METHOD
Moment and forces at Roof Level
30
(24.50) 1.22k 40.36 (15.86)
20k
1.22k (24.5) 1.22k
3.77k 6.22k
Moment and forces at Level 15

65.37K
39.62K
(529.60) 26.48k 449.2 (344.24)
222k
424.9
272.1 (257.5) 26.48k (529.6) 26.48K
41.88k 69.11k

105.84K
31
64.15K
(1073.60) 53.68k 1083.4 (697.8)
348k
687.9
656.6 (417.0) 53.68k (1073.6) 53.68K
65.66k 108.34k
CANTILEVER METHOD
Moment and forces at Roof Level
32
(21.90) 1.09k 43.1 (21.2)
1.09k (21.9) 1.63k
1.09
3.37k 6.63k
0.53

187.08 69.62K 91.67
35.37K
(230.0) 23.64k 458.0 (452.57)
472.8
472.8
242.86 23.64k (478.23) 35.23K
37.39k 73.60k
210.72 103.26

586.31 112.72K 287.3
33
57.27K
958.40 (372.25) 47.92k 928.07 (732.68)
958.4
586.62 47.92k (1153.8) 71.39K
58.62k 115.38k
634.23 310.77
The analysis results are presented through a combination of data, charts,

and graphs to facilitate clear and concise communication of key findings. Data
tables are used to present quantitative metrics such as structural performance
indicators, cost estimates, and sustainability metrics. Charts and graphs are
employed to visualize comparative analysis results, highlighting trends, patterns,
and discrepancies between STAAD Pro and traditional methods.
Key findings are summarized in graphical format, with side-by-side

comparisons of STAAD Pro-generated designs versus traditional designs across
various evaluation parameters. Bar charts, line graphs, and scatter plots are
utilized to illustrate differences in structural integrity, cost efficiency,
sustainability, and other relevant factors, providing stakeholders with actionable
insights for decision-making.
Overall, the presentation of findings through data, charts, and graphs

enhances the clarity and accessibility of the analysis results, enabling
stakeholders to grasp the implications of using STAAD Pro versus traditional
methods in tall building design effectively. Through visual representation and
data-driven analysis, the comparative analysis outcomes contribute to informed
decision-making and drive continuous improvement in tall building engineering
practice.
5. Results and Discussion
34
Presentation and Interpretation of Findings from the Comparative
Analysis:
The comparative analysis between tall building designs using STAAD Pro
and traditional methods has yielded valuable insights into various aspects of
design, including structural integrity, cost efficiency, sustainability, and other
relevant factors. The following section presents a summary of key findings and
their interpretation:
5.1 Structural Integrity:

5.1.1 STAAD Pro-generated designs demonstrate superior structural integrity
compared to designs developed using traditional methods. Finite element
analysis (FEA) simulations conducted in STAAD Pro enable engineers to
optimize structural configurations for enhanced load-bearing capacity,
deflection control, and resistance to wind and seismic loads.
5.1.2 Traditional methods often rely on simplified analytical techniques and
empirical design rules, leading to conservative design assumptions and
suboptimal structural performance. Manual calculations may overlook
complex structural behavior and fail to capture critical load paths,
resulting in designs that are less robust and efficient.
5.2 Cost Efficiency:
5.2.1 STAAD Pro facilitates cost-effective tall building design through
optimization algorithms, parametric modeling, and iterative refinement
processes. By minimizing material usage, construction labor, and project
timeline, STAAD Pro-generated designs can achieve significant cost
savings over traditional methods.
5.2.2 Traditional methods may lead to higher construction costs due to
conservative design assumptions, material overestimations, and
construction inefficiencies. Manual calculations and iterative design
processes may also prolong project timelines, resulting in increased labor
costs and project delays.
5.3 Sustainability:
5.3.1 STAAD Pro offers tools for optimizing tall building designs for
sustainability, including energy analysis, environmental impact
assessment, and life cycle assessment (LCA). By incorporating passive
design strategies, renewable energy technologies, and sustainable
materials, STAAD Pro-generated designs can reduce operational energy
consumption and environmental footprint.
5.3.2 Traditional methods may overlook sustainability considerations, focusing
primarily on structural adequacy and cost efficiency. Without the
advanced analytical capabilities of STAAD Pro, traditional designs may
miss opportunities for improving energy efficiency, minimizing embodied
carbon, and enhancing resilience to climate change.
35
Identification of Strengths and Weaknesses of STAAD Pro and
Traditional Methods:
5.1.1 Strengths of STAAD Pro:

5.1.1.1 Advanced Finite Element Analysis (FEA) capabilities for simulating complex
structural behavior.
5.1.1.2 Optimization algorithms for minimizing material usage and construction
costs.
5.1.1.3 Energy analysis tools for optimizing tall building designs for sustainability.
5.1.1.4 Parametric modeling features for exploring a wide range of design
alternatives.
5.1.2 Weaknesses of STAAD Pro:
5.1.2.1 Steeper learning curve and higher initial investment compared to traditional
methods.
5.1.2.2 Dependence on computational resources and software updates for optimal
performance.
5.1.2.3 Integration challenges with other design disciplines and software platforms.
6.1 Strengths of Traditional Methods:
6.1.1 Familiarity and established practices among engineers and architects.
6.1.2 Flexibility to adapt design approaches to project-specific requirements.
6.1.3 Minimal reliance on computational resources and software licenses.
7.1 Weaknesses of Traditional Methods:
7.1.1 Limited accuracy and efficiency compared to advanced software tools like
STAAD Pro.
7.1.2 Tendency towards conservative design assumptions and suboptimal
solutions.
7.1.3 Inadequate consideration of sustainability and resilience factors in design
decisions.
8.1 Discussion on the Implications of Results for Tall Building Design Practice:
The findings of the comparative analysis have significant implications for tall
building design practice, influencing decision-making processes, industry norms, and
professional standards. The following discussions highlight key implications of the
results:
8.1.1 Adoption of Advanced Software Tools: The superior performance and efficiency
demonstrated by STAAD Pro in tall building design underscore the importance of
adopting advanced software tools and computational methods in engineering
practice. By leveraging the capabilities of software like STAAD Pro, engineers can
unlock new possibilities in design innovation, optimization, and sustainability.
8.1.2 Integration of Sustainability Considerations: The emphasis on sustainability in
STAAD Pro-generated designs highlights the growing importance of integrating
36
sustainability considerations into tall building design practice. Engineers and
architects must prioritize energy efficiency, environmental impact, and resilience
to climate change in design decisions, leveraging advanced analytical tools to
optimize building performance across its lifecycle.
8.1.3 Continuous Professional Development: The evolving nature of tall building
design practice necessitates continuous professional development and lifelong
learning among engineers, architects, and other stakeholders. Training
programs, workshops, and certifications in advanced software tools like STAAD
Pro can empower professionals to stay abreast of industry trends, best practices,
and technological advancements.
8.1.4 Collaboration and Interdisciplinary Integration: The successful implementation of
advanced software tools like STAAD Pro requires effective collaboration and
interdisciplinary integration among different design disciplines. Engineers,
architects, sustainability consultants, and other stakeholders must work together
to integrate structural, architectural, and sustainability considerations into tall
building designs, ensuring holistic solutions that meet performance objectives
and stakeholder needs.
Overall, the implications of the comparative analysis results underscore

the transformative potential of advanced software tools like STAAD Pro in
shaping the future of tall building design practice. By embracing innovation,
sustainability, and interdisciplinary collaboration, engineers and architects can
create tall buildings that are not only structurally robust and cost-effective but
also environmentally sustainable and socially responsible.
Case Study Selection
Description of Selected Tall Building Projects
9.1Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE:
37
 Height: 828 meters (2,717 feet)
 Structural System: Bundled tube structure with reinforced concrete core and steel
perimeter columns
38
39
 Architect: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM)
 Construction Period: 2004-2010
 Justification: The Burj Khalifa represents a pinnacle of tall building engineering, featuring
innovative design solutions and structural engineering challenges. Its iconic form and
ambitious height make it an ideal case study for evaluating the capabilities of STAAD Pro
in optimizing complex tall building designs.
9.2Shanghai Tower, Shanghai, China:
Height: 632 meters (2,073 feet)

Structural System: Triangular core with exterior mega-braces and a reinforced concrete
inner tube
Architect: Gensler
Construction Period: 2008-2015
Justification: The Shanghai Tower is renowned for its groundbreaking design and
sustainable features, including a twisted form that reduces wind loads and innovative
double-skin façade for energy efficiency. Studying its structural performance and
sustainability aspects will provide valuable insights into the role of STAAD Pro in
achieving design excellence.
40
9.3One World Trade Center, New York City, USA:

Structural System: Reinforced concrete core with a steel frame and concrete-filled
composite columns
Architect: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM)
41
Justification: As the centerpiece of the rebuilt World Trade Center complex, One World
Trade Center embodies resilience and innovation in tall building design. Its hybrid
structural system and iconic design elements make it an intriguing case study for
comparing STAAD Pro with traditional methods in achieving structural integrity and cost
efficiency.
9.4The Shard, London, UK:

Structural System: Concrete core with a steel frame and glass façade
Architect: Renzo Piano Building Workshop
Justification: The Shard is renowned for its elegant design and structural innovation,
featuring a tapered form that minimizes wind loads and maximizes natural daylight
penetration. Examining its structural performance and sustainability features will
provide insights into the applicability of STAAD Pro in optimizing tall building designs
with complex geometries.
Justification for Choosing Specific Case Studies
9.1.1 Technical Complexity: The selected case studies represent a diverse range of
technical challenges and structural systems, allowing for a comprehensive
evaluation of STAAD Pro's capabilities across different design scenarios.
9.1.2 Architectural Significance: Each case study has architectural significance and
represents a landmark project in its respective city, showcasing innovative design
solutions and pushing the boundaries of tall building engineering.
9.1.3 Geographic Diversity: By selecting case studies from different regions around the
world, the comparative analysis will capture regional variations in design
42
practices, building codes, and environmental conditions, ensuring the relevance
and applicability of findings on a global scale.
9.1.4 Availability of Data: The chosen case studies have extensive documentation and
data available, including architectural drawings, structural specifications, cost
estimates, and sustainability metrics, facilitating detailed analysis and
comparison between STAAD Pro and traditional methods.
Overall, the selected case studies offer a rich and diverse set of examples
for evaluating tall building design using STAAD Pro versus traditional methods,
providing valuable insights into the relative advantages and limitations of each
approach in achieving structural integrity, cost efficiency, sustainability, and
design innovation.
Future Directions
Potential Advancements in STAAD Pro and Traditional Methods :
10.1 Integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI): STAAD Pro and traditional methods can
benefit from advancements in AI technologies, such as machine learning algorithms
and predictive analytics. AI-driven tools can automate repetitive design tasks,
optimize structural configurations, and enhance decision-making processes, leading
to more efficient and innovative tall building designs.
10.2 Cloud-Based Collaboration Platforms: Both STAAD Pro and traditional methods
can leverage cloud-based collaboration platforms to streamline communication and
data sharing among project stakeholders. Cloud computing technologies enable
real-time collaboration, version control, and project coordination, facilitating
seamless integration of design disciplines and improving project efficiency.
10.3 Building Information Modeling (BIM) Integration: STAAD Pro and traditional
methods can integrate with BIM platforms to enhance interoperability and data
exchange between structural, architectural, and MEP (mechanical, electrical,
plumbing) design disciplines. BIM integration enables comprehensive visualization,
analysis, and coordination of building systems, resulting in more coordinated and
efficient tall building designs.
10.4 Performance-Based Design Standards: Both STAAD Pro and traditional methods
can evolve towards performance-based design standards that prioritize structural
performance, sustainability, and occupant safety. Performance-based design
approaches enable engineers to tailor design solutions to specific project objectives
and performance criteria, leading to more resilient, adaptable, and sustainable tall
buildings.
Areas for Further Research and Development:
10.1.1 Advanced Structural Materials: Research into advanced structural materials,

such as high-performance concrete, fiber-reinforced polymers, and carbon
43
nanotubes, can enhance the structural performance and sustainability of tall
building designs. Investigating the mechanical properties, durability, and
environmental impact of emerging materials can inform material selection and
design optimization processes.
10.1.2 Multi-Hazard Resilience: Further research is needed to develop integrated design
strategies for enhancing multi-hazard resilience in tall buildings, considering risks
such as earthquakes, windstorms, floods, and climate change impacts. Advanced
analytical tools and simulation techniques can help engineers assess the
vulnerability of tall buildings to multiple hazards and develop mitigation
strategies to improve resilience.
10.1.3 Parametric Design Optimization: Research into parametric design optimization
methodologies can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of tall building
design processes, enabling engineers to explore a wider range of design
alternatives and identify optimal solutions. Parametric optimization algorithms
can leverage computational techniques to iteratively refine design parameters
based on performance objectives and constraints.
10.1.4 Human-Centric Design Principles: Investigating human-centric design principles
and occupant-centered performance metrics can improve the livability, comfort,
and well-being of occupants in tall buildings. Research into factors such as
daylighting, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and acoustic performance can
inform design decisions and enhance the overall quality of tall building
environments.
10.1.5 Urban Sustainability and Resilience: Research into urban sustainability and
resilience strategies can inform tall building design practice by considering
broader urban contexts and interconnected systems. Integrated approaches to
sustainable urban development, such as green infrastructure, transit-oriented
design, and mixed-use zoning, can enhance the sustainability and resilience of
tall buildings within the urban fabric.
Overall, the future of tall building design lies in embracing innovation,

sustainability, and interdisciplinary collaboration. By advancing both software
tools like STAAD Pro and traditional design methods and conducting research
into emerging technologies and design strategies, engineers and architects can
create tall buildings that are not only structurally robust and cost-effective but
also environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, and resilient to future
challenges.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the comparative analysis between STAAD Pro and

traditional methods in tall building design has provided valuable insights into
various aspects of structural integrity, cost efficiency, sustainability, and design
innovation. The study has shed light on the relative strengths and weaknesses of
each approach and has implications for the future of tall building design practice.
44
Summary of Key Findings and Conclusions:
11.1 Structural Integrity:

 STAAD Pro-generated designs demonstrate superior structural integrity compared to
traditional methods, thanks to advanced finite element analysis capabilities and
optimization algorithms.
 Traditional methods may lead to conservative design assumptions and suboptimal
solutions, compromising structural performance and efficiency.
11.2 Cost Efficiency:
STAAD Pro facilitates cost-effective tall building design through optimization algorithms,
parametric modeling, and energy analysis tools, leading to significant cost savings over
traditional methods.
Traditional methods may result in higher construction costs due to material
overestimations, construction inefficiencies, and prolonged project timelines.
11.3 Sustainability:
STAAD Pro enables engineers to optimize tall building designs for sustainability,
incorporating passive design strategies, renewable energy technologies, and sustainable
materials.
Traditional methods may overlook sustainability considerations, focusing primarily on
structural adequacy and cost efficiency, without adequately addressing environmental
impacts and resilience to climate change.
Final Thoughts on the Suitability of STAAD Pro versus Traditional Methods in Tall
Building Design:
While both STAAD Pro and traditional methods have their respective strengths and
weaknesses, the study suggests that STAAD Pro offers significant advantages in terms of
structural performance, cost efficiency, and sustainability. Its advanced analytical
capabilities, optimization algorithms, and energy analysis tools enable engineers to
create tall buildings that are not only structurally robust but also environmentally
sustainable and cost-effective.
However, it is essential to recognize that the suitability of STAAD Pro versus traditional
methods may vary depending on project-specific requirements, design objectives, and
stakeholder preferences. While STAAD Pro excels in optimizing tall building designs for
efficiency and performance, traditional methods may offer flexibility and familiarity in
certain contexts, particularly for smaller-scale projects or projects with simpler
structural requirements.
Sophisticated computer analyses are indispensable in reducing the number of

inaccuracies caused by hand analysis techniques and are being used routinely in
everyday engineering practice. Although such computer analysis may intimidate the
structural engineer by virtue of their unbelievable amount of documentation and
45
output. The prudent engineer will always verify the reasonableness of the computer
analysis by using approximate hand calculated values for forces, moments and
deflections. Approximate analysis is therefore a powerful tool in providing the engineer
with (1) a basis for preliminary sizing of members (2) an orderly method for evaluating
several schemes to select the most likely one for further study and (3) methods for
obtaining approximate values of forces, moments and deflections to check on the
validity of the computer solutions.
Ultimately, the decision to use STAAD Pro or traditional methods in tall building design
should be informed by careful consideration of project constraints, performance
objectives, and sustainability goals. By leveraging the strengths of both approaches and
embracing innovation, sustainability, and interdisciplinary collaboration, engineers and
architects can create tall buildings that are not only technically sound and cost-effective
but also environmentally responsible and socially equitable, shaping the future of our
cities in a sustainable and resilient manner.
STAAD Pro:
 STAAD Pro is a widely-used structural analysis and design software that offers advanced
capabilities for modeling, analyzing, and designing complex structures including tall
buildings.
 It provides a user-friendly interface and automation features that can streamline the
design process, reducing the time required for design iterations.
 STAAD Pro offers a wide range of analysis options including linear and nonlinear static
and dynamic analysis, which are crucial for accurately simulating the behavior of tall
buildings under various loading conditions.
 It allows for detailed modeling of structural elements and consideration of factors such
as wind, seismic loads, and foundation design.
 STAAD Pro's ability to generate detailed reports and documentation can facilitate
communication among project stakeholders and regulatory compliance.
Traditional Methods:
 Traditional methods of tall building design typically involve manual calculations, hand
sketches, and simplified analytical techniques.
 While traditional methods can be effective for simple structures or preliminary design
stages, they may lack the accuracy and efficiency required for complex tall buildings.
 Manual calculations may be time-consuming and prone to errors, especially when
dealing with large and intricate structures.
 Traditional methods may not adequately account for dynamic effects such as wind and
seismic loads, which are critical considerations for tall buildings.
46
However, experienced engineers may still prefer traditional methods for certain aspects
of the design process, particularly when verifying results obtained from software or for
conceptual design phases.
In summary, STAAD Pro is generally preferred for tall building design due to its advanced
capabilities, efficiency, and accuracy. However, the choice between STAAD Pro and
traditional methods ultimately depends on the specific requirements of the project and
the expertise of the design team.
In this research work a comparison was made between approximate and exact methods
of analysis for tall buildings. One representative tall buildings system was chosen for
comparison purposes, namely the Rigid Frame System. The proposed structure was
modelled in a square plan area of 35×35m². The models were solely subjected to wind
loads. Then, models were analysed using both approximate manual methods and a
Finite Element based computer program. An Excel sheet was formulated and developed
to carry out the approximate method procedure. Results for manual and computerized
analysis were compared for three different building heights. The same structure was
subjected to gravity loads in addition to wind loads, and was analysed and designed
using the Finite Element based computer program. The design results were compared
for three different heights. Obtained results indicated that manual analysis methods are
reliable for buildings with heights lower than 25-storeys, especially for the higher
storeys. Developed model would help in quick structural preliminary analysis,
procedures and preparations of tall buildings
References
BUNGALE S. RARANATH, 1988. Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings. Mc

Graw-Hill Book Company
Khan, F.R. Recent Structural Systems in Steel for High-Rise Buildings. In Proceedings of
the British Constructional Steelwork Association Conference on Steel in Architecture,
London, UK, 24–26 November 1969. [Google Scholar]
47

SACHIN THESIS 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SACHIN THESIS 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Comparative Analysis of Tall Building Design:

STAAD Pro vs. Traditional Methods"

For the award of the Degree of

Dr. Esar Ahmad Sachin Sharma

Civil Engineering Department 232180010007

Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Department of Civil Engineering

Dr. Esar Ahmad

HOD,Civil Engineering Department

Mewar University Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

Summary of key findings

The advancement of structural engineering software like STAAD Pro has

The purpose of this report is to conduct a comprehensive comparative

1.1 Brief overview of tall building design evolution

What is a Tall Building?

However, from the structural engineer’s perspective, the first consideration in

 Rigid frame systems

It is important to understand in depth the dynamic performance of tall buildings.

Consideration of the essential proportions of the system is recommended at the

Subsystems and Components

The subsystems or components of the tall building structural systems are

• Vertical Load Resisting Systems

• Lateral Load Resisting Systems

• Moment Resisting Frames

• Shear Wall-Frame Systems

• Shear Truss-Outrigger Braced Systems

• Tube-in-Tube Systems with interior columns

• Truss Tubes without interior columns

Lateral Resisting Frame Systems

• Moment Resisting Frames

• Shear Walls Moment Resisting Frames

Tall building design stands at the forefront of architectural and engineering

1.2 Introduction to STAAD Pro and Traditional Design Methods

In the realm of tall building design, two primary methodologies have

In contrast, STAAD Pro represents a paradigm shift in tall building design.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Report

The purpose of this report is to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis

1.4 Specific objectives of the report include:

Through rigorous analysis and discussion, this report endeavors to

2.1 Historical Evolution of Tall Building Design Methodologies

In recent years, tall building design has been characterized by a focus on

2.2 Characteristics and Principles of Traditional Methods

Traditional tall building design methods are rooted in fundamental engineering

Key characteristics of traditional methods include:

2.2.1 Simplified Structural Analysis: Traditional methods often employ

2.3 Development and Capabilities of STAAD Pro Software

STAAD Pro represents a significant advancement in tall building

Key capabilities of STAAD Pro include:

2.4 Review of Existing Literature Comparing STAAD Pro with Traditional

Numerous studies have compared the efficacy of STAAD Pro with

Some key findings from the existing literature include:

Overall, the existing literature provides compelling evidence of the

3.1 Selection Criteria for Tall Building Case Studies

The selection of case studies is crucial for ensuring the relevance

3.1.1 Geographic Diversity: Case studies should represent a

3.2 Parameters for Evaluation

The comparative analysis between STAAD Pro and traditional

3.2.1 Structural Integrity: Assessment of the structural performance and

3.3 Description of Analytical Tools and Methodologies Used

The comparative analysis will employ a combination of analytical

4. Analysis and Results

4.2.1 Evaluation of Structural Integrity:

1.22k (24.5) 1.22k

Moment and forces at Level 15