International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

Structural Analysis of a Multi-Storeyed Building

using ETABS for different Plan Configurations

Abhay Guleria
Undergraduate, Deptt. of Civil Engineering,
J.N.G.E.C. Sundernagar,
Sundernagar, India

Abstract—ETABS stands for Extended Three dimensional II. MODELLING OF RCC FRAMES
Analysis of Building Systems. ETABS is commonly used to An RCC framed structure is basically an assembly of slabs,
analyze: Skyscrapers, parking garages, steel & concrete beams, columns and foundation inter-connected to each other
structures, low and high rise buildings, and portal frame as a unit. The load transfer mechanism in these structures is
structures. The case study in this paper mainly emphasizes on
from slabs to beams, from beams to columns, and then
structural behavior of multi-storey building for different plan
configurations like rectangular, C, L and I-shape. Modelling of ultimately from columns to the foundation, which in turn
15- storeys R.C.C. framed building is done on the ETABS passes the load to the soil. In this structural analysis study, we
software for analysis. Post analysis of the structure, maximum have adopted four cases by assuming different shapes for the
shear forces, bending moments, and maximum storey same structure, as explained below.
displacement are computed and then compared for all the 1. Rectangular Plan
analyzed cases. 2. L-shape Plan
3. I-shape Plan
4. C-shape Plan
Keywords- Structure Design, ETABS, High Rise Buildings, The building is 32m x 24m in plan with columns spaced at 4m
Plan Irregularity
from center to center. A floor to floor height of 3m is
assumed. Plan of the building for all the cases is shown in the
I. INTRODUCTION following figure.

Structural analysis means determination of the general

shape and all the specific dimensions of a particular structure
so that it will perform the function for which it is created and
will safely withstand the influences which will act on it
throughout its useful life. ETABS was used to create the
mathematical model of the Burj Khalifa, designed by
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP (SOM). The input, output
and numerical solution techniques of ETABS are specifically
designed to take advantage of the unique physical and
numerical characteristics associated with building type
structures. ETABS provides both static and dynamic analysis
for wide range of gravity, thermal and lateral loads. Dynamic Units
analysis may include seismic response spectrum or
accelerogram time history.
This analysis mainly deals with the study of a rectangular,
L, C and I shaped plan using ETABS. A 32m x 24m 15-
storeys structure having 4m x 4m bays is modelled using
ETABS. The height of each storey is taken as 3m, making Fig 1: Plan (a) Rectangular (b) L shape (c) I shape (d) C shape of the Building
total height of the structure 45m. Loads considered are taken
in accordance with the IS-875(Part1, Part2), IS-1893(2002)
code and combinations are acc. to IS-875(Part5). Post analysis
of the structure, maximum shear forces, bending moments,
and maximum storey displacement are computed and then
compared for all the analysed cases.

IJERTV3IS051552 www.ijert.org 1481

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

TABLE 1 = 2.07 kN/m (acting on the beam)

Building Description
3. Live load: Floor load: 4kN/m2 and Roof load: 2
Length x Width 32m x 24m kN/m2 (IS 875 (Part 2) acting on beams
No. of storeys 15 4. Seismic Load: Seismic zone: V (Z=0.36), Soil
Storey height 3m type: I, Importance factor: 1, Response reduction

Beam dimensions 450x450mm

factor: 5, Damping: 5%. IS 1893(Part-1):2002.

Column 1-5 storeys dimensions 600x600mm

Here Seismic load is considered along two
Column 6-12 storeys dimensions 500x500mm
directions EQlength and EQwidth
Slab thickness 125mm

Thickness of main wall 230mm

V. LOADING COMIBINATION
The structure has been analyzed for load combinations
Height of parapet wall 0.90m considering all the previous loads in proper ratio. Combination of
Thickness of parapet wall 115mm
self-weight, dead load, live load and seismic load was taken into
consideration according to IS-code 875(Part 5).
Support conditions Fixed
TABLE 3

III. MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS

TABLE 2
Material Specifications

Grade of Concrete ,M30 fck= 30N/mm2

Grade of Steel fy= 415N/mm2

Density of Concrete ϒc= 25kN/m3

Density of Brick walls considered ϒbrick= 20kN/m3

IV. LOADING

Loads acting on the structure are dead load (DL), Live load
and Earthquake load (EL).
1. Self weight comprises of the weight of beams,
columns and slab of the building.
2. Dead load: Wall load, Parapet load and floor
load (IS 875(Part1))
a) Wall load= (unit weight of brick masonry X
wall thickness X wall height)
= 20 kN/m3 X 0.230m X 3m
= 13.8 kN/m (acting on the beam)
b) Wall load (due to Parapet wall at top floor)
= (unit weight of brick masonry X
parapet wall thickness X wall height)
= 20 kN/m3 X 0.115m X 0.90m

IJERTV3IS051552 www.ijert.org 1482

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

VI. MODELLING IN ETABS
TABLE 4
Max B.M. and Shear Force of Beam
Forces Rectangular L -shape I-shape C-shape
B.M. My 92.99 97.38 101.54 99.74
B.M. Mz 0.11 1.56 0.64 1.12
Shear 161.09 159.18 158.18 159.27
Force Fy
Units –kN-m
TABLE 5
Max B.M. and Shear Force of Column
Forces Rectangular L-shape I-shape C-shape
Axial 399.265 453.41 400.40 435.03
Force Fx
Shear 88.16 87.68 91.96 90.59
Force Fy
Shear 90.11 86.15 95.23 87.59
Force Fz
Fig 2: 3-D View of the 15-storeys Rectangular-shape building B.M. My 181.93 172.35 174.40 173.63
B.M. Mz 182.11 172.24 173.64 172.39

Storey Overturning Moments for different Plan Configurations

Fig 3: 3-D View of the 15-storeys L-shape building

VII. USING THE TEMPLATE

Fig 6: Storey Height Vs Overturning Moments

The figure shows that the overturning moment varies inversely

with storey height. In case of rectangular plan, a moment
produced is higher than other shapes. Storey overturning
moment decreases with increase in storey height for all cases.

Comparison of Storey Shear for 1 st, 5th, 10th, 15th storey for
different configurations
Fig 4: 3-D View of the 15-storeys I-shape building

Fig 5: 3-D View of the 15-storeys C-shape building Fig 7: Graph of Storey Shear for different Plan configurations

IJERTV3IS051552 www.ijert.org 1483

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

As per above fig. it has been concluded that the storey shear
decreases with the increase in storey height. Storey shear is
less in L-shape building among all the cases. C

paper and are not topically subordinate to each other.

Fig 8:Graph of Storey Shear for 5th Storey Fig 9: Graph of Storey Drift Vs Storey height
Roof Displacement Vs Height of the Building

TABLE 6
STOREY LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Rectangular L-shape I-shape C-shape
0 0 0 0 0
1 1.37 1.30 1.27 1.37
2 3.41 3.58 3.51 3.41
3 5.95 6.29 5.85 6.05
4 8.49 9.11 8.29 8.59
5 11.12 12.03 10.93 11.32
6 13.76 15.07 13.76 14.24
7 16.78 18.32 16.49 17.37
8 19.51 21.57 19.41 20.39
9 22.24 24.72 22.15 23.22
10 24.59 27.64 24.49 25.85
11 26.83 30.46 26.93 28.49
12 28.88 32.95 28.88 30.63
13 30.15 34.91 30.34 32.49
14 31.61 36.86 31.71 34.15
15 32.39 38.16 32.78 35.02

Above table shows that the storey displacement increases

with the increase in storey height. Displacement in
rectangular shape building is less than other cases.

Max Lateral Drift for various storey heights

TABLE 7
STOREY LATERAL DRIFT (mm)
Rectangular L-shape I-shape C-shape Fig 9: Mode Shape for 12th mode for (a) Rectangular (b) L-shape (c) I-shape (d) C-
0 0 0 0 0 shape of the building
1 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8
2 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.4 VIII. CONCLUSIONS
3 8.1 8.4 8.1 8.4
4 8.2 8.7 8.4 8.8 The analysis of the multi-storeyed building reflected that the
5 8.2 8.9 8.5 9
storey overturning moment varies inversely with storey height.
6 9.5 10.04 9.7 10.03
7 9.4 10.01 9.6 10.01 Moreover, L-shape, I-shape type buildings give almost similar
8 9.0 9.8 9.3 9.9 response against the overturning moment. Storey drift
9 8.5 9.4 8.9 9.5 displacement increased with storey height up to 6 th storey
10 7.9 8.8 8.3 9.0 reaching to maximum value and then started decreasing. From
11 7.1 8.0 7.6 8.3
dynamic analysis, mode shapes are generated and it can be
12 6.2 7.2 6.7 7.4
13 5.1 6.1 5.6 6.3
concluded that asymmetrical plans undergo more deformation
14 3.7 4.8 4.3 5.0 than symmetrical plans. Asymmetrical plans should be
15 2.3 3.7 3.1 3.9

IJERTV3IS051552 www.ijert.org 1484

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

adopted considering into gaps. The Fig. 9 shows that

asymmetrical plans undergo more deformation and hence
symmetrical plans must be adhered to.

ACKNWOLEDGMENT

This case study would not have been possible without the able
guidance of Prof.RL Sharma, Director JNGEC, S.P.Guleria
(H.O.D.), Madhu Sharma, Assistant Professor, and Tarun
Goel, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering. I extend my
heartfelt thanks to our worthy faculty.

REFERENCES

[1] Poonam, Anil Kumar and A. K. Gupta, “Study of Response of

Structural Irregular Building Frames to Seismic Excitations,”
International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and
Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development, Vol.2,
Issue 2 (2012) 25-31
[2] B. K. Sanghani and P. G. Patel, “Behaviour of Building
Component in Various Zones,” International Journal of Advances
in Engineering Sciences, Vol. 1, Issue 1(Jan. 2011)
[3] P. Prashanth, S. Anshuman, R.K. Pandey, Herbert Arpan,
“Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using
STAAD and ETABS Software,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, Volume 2, No
3, 2012
[4] Salahuddin Hammad, Habib Saqib, Rehman Talha , “Comparison
of design of a building using ETABS V 9.5 & STAAD PRO,”
2005
[5] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 1 (1987), Dead Loads on
Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India.
[6] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-1893, part 1 (2002), Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part 1 General
provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India.

IJERTV3IS051552 www.ijert.org 1485