See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269098112

Comparative study of simulation tools Staad V8, Etabs 2013, and Strap 2014 for
seismic analysis of plan and vertical geometrically irregular building using
Indian Standard Codes

Technical Report · December 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4419.2322

CITATIONS READS

0 6,530

1 author:

Mandar Pandurang Ganbavale

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad
6 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design 0f Integral Bridges View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mandar Pandurang Ganbavale on 04 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A project report on,

“Comparative study of simulation tools Staad V8, Etabs

2013, and Strap 2014 for seismic analysis of plan and
vertical geometrically irregular building using Indian
Standard Codes”

Prepared in partial fulfillment of

Study oriented project,

Course code: CE G611

Computer Aided Analysis and Design

Submitted by,

Mr. Mandar Ganbavale (2013H143013H)

Under guidance and supervision of

Dr. Chandu Parimi

Assistant Professor, Department of civil engineering.

Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani.

Hyderabad Campus.
(2014- 2015)
 Comparative study of
simulation tools Staad V8,
Etabs 2013, and Strap 2014
for seismic analysis of plan
and vertical geometrically
irregular building using
Indian Standard Codes

ii
 CERTIFICATE
This is certified that the project entitled

“Comparative study of simulation tools Staad V8, Etabs

2013, and Strap 2014 for seismic analysis of plan and
vertical geometrically irregular building using Indian
Standard Codes”
Submitted by,

Mr. Mandar Ganbavale (2013H143013H)

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of course code CE G611 Study Oriented

project, BITS Pilani, Hyderabad campus for the academic year 2014-2015. It is the record of
their own work carried out under our supervision and guidance.

Dr. Chandu Parimi

(Assistant professor, Department of Civil Engineering)
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. Hyderabad Campus.
2014-15.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank the curriculum of BITS, Pilani for giving me this
opportunity in doing Study oriented project.

I sincerely appreciate Dr. Chandu Parimi for giving me opportunity to work on this
topic. I am grateful for his support and guidance that have helped me to expand our horizon of
thought and expression.
I am also thankful of my friends for their help in sharing the information about
various aspects of this project.

Mr. Mandar Ganbavale

(2013H143013H)

iv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. Objectives
 The main purpose of this study oriented project is to detailed study the simulation tools
for seismic analysis and designing of structures.
 Comparison of simulation tools STRAP, STAAD pro, ETABS and SAP 2000 for seismic
analysis of Plan and Vertical geometrically irregular multi-storey building.

2. Vertical and Plan irregular multistory buildings

According to IS 1893:2002 (Clause 7.1), there are mainly two types of irregularities,

 Plan Irregularity
 Vertical Irregularity

a. Plan irregularity –
Plan irregularity also of five types as follows:

i. Torsion Irregularity – To be considered when floor diaphragms are rigid in their

own plan in relation to the vertical structural elements that resist the lateral forces.
Torsional irregularity to be considered to exist when the maximum storey drift,
computed with design eccentricity, at one end of the structures transverse to an
axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the storey drifts at the two ends of the
structure.
ii. Re-entrant corners - Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force
resisting system contain re-entrant corners, where both projections of the structure
beyond the re-entrant corner are greater than 15 percent of its plan dimension in
the given direction.
iii. Diaphragm Discontinuity - Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or variations
in stiffness, including those having cut-out or open areas greater than 50 percent
of the gross enclosed diaphragm area, or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness
of more than 50 percent from one storey to the next.

1
 iv. Out-of-plane offsets - Discontinuities in a lateral force resistance path, such as
out-of-plane offsets of vertical elements.
v. Non-parallel Systems - The vertical elements resisting the lateral force are not
parallel to or symmetric about the major orthogonal axes or the lateral force
resisting elements.

b. Vertical Irregularity –
Plan irregularity also of five types as follows:

i. Stiffness Irregularity -
1. Soft Storey - A soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than
70 percent of that in the storey above or less than 80 percent of the average
lateral stiffness of the three storeys above.
2. Extreme Soft Storey - A extreme soft storey is one in which the lateral
stiffness is less than 60 percent of that in the storey above or less than 70
percent of the average stiffness of the three storeys above. For example,
buildings on STILTS will fall under this category,
ii. Mass Irregularity - Mass irregularity shall be considered to exist where the
seismic weight of any storey is more than 200 percent of that of its adjacent
storeys. The irregularity need not be considered in case of roofs.
iii. Vertical Geometric Irregularity - Vertical geometric irregularity shall be
considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting
system in any storey is more than 150 percent of that in its adjacent storey.
iv. In-Plane Discontinuity in vertical elements resisting lateral force - An in-plane
offset of the lateral force resisting elements greater than the length of those
elements.
v. Discontinuity in capacity – Weak storey - A weak storey is one in which the storey
lateral strength is less than 80 percent of that in the storey above, the storey lateral
strength is the total strength of all seismic force resisting elements sharing the
storey shear in the considered direction.

2
 CHAPTER 3

COMPUTER TOOLS

1. STRAP –
STRAP is one of the most comprehensive and versatile structural analysis and design
software systems available on the market today. It's also the easiest to use, due to its superb graphic
user interface (GUI) and context-sensitive help system. It offers the engineer a powerful but
affordable tool for analysis and design of a wide range of skeletal and continuum structures such as
buildings, bridges, shells, towers and more.

STRAP uses graphical input for the generation of models and loads. Every drawing on the
screen can be printed, imported into other documents, or (through DXF) into drawings. Complete
analysis and design can be performed for any structure without ever referring to joint or beam
numbers. Load combinations can be created after analysis is performed. Combinations can be
changed instantly without solving the model again.

STRAP comes with design modules for designing reinforced concrete, post-tensioned
concrete and structural steel (hot-rolled and cold-formed). For the engineer interested in dynamic
effects, STRAP also includes modules for modal analysis, seismic response spectra calculations
according to many codes and time history response calculations.

The learning curve to start using STRAP is practically non-existent. The program's flow is
similar to the analysis and design process performed by hand. During the execution of every action
the prompt line at the bottom of the screen guides us through. Combine this with the context-sensitive
help.

2. STAAD Pro –
STAAD.Pro allows structural engineers to analyze and design virtually any type of
structure through its flexible modeling environment, advanced features and fluent data
collaboration. Flexible modeling is provided by a state-of-the-art graphical environment and the
design supports over 70 international codes and over 20 U.S. codes in 7 languages.

An array of advanced structural analysis and design features are included such as nuclear
certification for 10CFR Part 50, 10CFR 21, ASME NQA-1-2000, time history and push over
analysis and cable (linear and non-linear) analysis.

3
 Efficiencies are gained through the ability to maintain and streamline current workflows
with fluent data collaboration. STAAD.Pro integrates with other Bentley products such as
STAAD.foundation and ProSteel and OpenSTAAD is provided for integration with third party
programs. Increased client base and therefore business growth can be realized in using
STAAD.Pro to serve a broad spectrum of structural design projects and a global market.

3. SAP 2000 –
From its 3D object based graphical modeling environment to the wide variety of analysis
and design options completely integrated across one powerful user interface, SAP2000 has
proven to be the most integrated, productive and practical general purpose structural program on
the market today. This intuitive interface allows you to create structural models rapidly and
intuitively without long learning curve delays. Now you can harness the power of SAP2000 for
all of your analysis and design tasks, including small day-to-day problems. Complex Models can
be generated and meshed with powerful built in templates. Integrated design code features can
automatically generate wind, wave, bridge, and seismic loads with comprehensive automatic
steel and concrete design code checks per US, Canadian and international design standards.

Advanced analytical techniques allow for step-by-step large deformation analysis, Eigen
and Ritz analyses based on stiffness of nonlinear cases, catenary cable analysis, material
nonlinear analysis with fiber hinges, multi-layered nonlinear shell element, buckling analysis,
progressive collapse analysis, energy methods for drift control, velocity-dependent dampers,
base isolators, support plasticity and nonlinear segmental construction analysis. Nonlinear
analyses can be static and/or time history, with options for FNA nonlinear time history dynamic
analysis and direct integration. From a simple small 2D static frame analysis to a large complex
3D nonlinear dynamic analysis, SAP2000 is the easiest, most productive solution for your
structural analysis and design needs.

4. ETABS 2013 -
The innovative and revolutionary new ETABS is the ultimate integrated software
package for the structural analysis and design of buildings. Incorporating 40 years of continuous
research and development, this latest ETABS offers unmatched 3D object based modeling and
visualization tools, blazingly fast linear and nonlinear analytical power, sophisticated and
comprehensive design capabilities for a wide-range of materials, and insightful graphic displays,
reports, and schematic drawings that allow users to quickly and easily decipher and understand
analysis and design results.

4
 From the start of design conception through the production of schematic drawings,
ETABS integrates every aspect of the engineering design process. Creation of models has never
been easier - intuitive drawing commands allow for the rapid generation of floor and elevation
framing. CAD drawings can be converted directly into ETABS models or used as templates onto
which ETABS objects may be overlaid. The state-of-the-art SAPFire 64-bit solver allows
extremely large and complex models to be rapidly analyzed, and supports nonlinear modeling
techniques such as construction sequencing and time effects (e.g., creep and shrinkage). Design
of steel and concrete frames (with automated optimization), composite beams, composite
columns, steel joists, and concrete and masonry shear walls is included, as is the capacity check
for steel connections and base plates. Models may be realistically rendered, and all results can
be shown directly on the structure. Comprehensive and customizable reports are available for all
analysis and design output, and schematic construction drawings of framing plans, schedules,
details, and cross-sections may be generated for concrete and steel structures.

ETABS provides an unequaled suite of tools for structural engineers designing buildings,
whether they are working on one-story industrial structures or the tallest commercial high-rises.
Immensely capable, yet easy-to-use, has been the hallmark of ETABS since its introduction
decades ago, and this latest release continues that tradition by providing engineers with the
technologically-advanced, yet intuitive, software they require to be their most productive.

5
 CHAPTER 3

PARAMETERS USED (GEOMETRIC AND SEISMIC)

1. Materials properties
a. Steel -
i. Modulus of elasticity of steel, E = 200 GPa
ii. Poisson’s ratio, µ = 0.3
iii. Steel density = 77 kN/m3 (7.850 kg/m3)
iv. Yield strength of steel, Fy = 350 MPa
v. Ultimate yield strength of steel, Fu = 450 MPa
b. Concrete –
i. Characteristic strength of concrete, Fck = 25 Mpa
ii. Density of concrete, 𝜌 = 25 kN/m3
2. Building Parameters –
a. Beam and Columns - ISMB 450
b. Slab – 150 mm
c. Bay length – 6m (in each horizontal direction)
d. Storey height – (3.5m)
e. Supports – Fixed
3. Loading Conditions –
a. Dead Load = 4.75kN/m2 (Self weight 3.75kN/m2 + Floor finish 1kN/m2)
b. Live Load = 2kN/m2
Seismic weight –
c. Dead load = 1
d. Live Load = 0.25
Seismic parameters –

e. Code – IS 1893:2002 - Seismic analysis in X1 and X3 directions.

f. Method of combining mode shapes – Complete quadratic combination with damping
ratio 0.05
g. Zone – III (0.16)
h. Soil type – Medium II
i. Importance factor – 1.5
j. Reduction factor – 5
k. Time (Ta) – 0.7735 sec

6
Fig. 1. Building 3D View

Fig. 2. Building Plan

7
Fig.3. Building Front Elevation

Fig.4. Building Side Elevation

8
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

1. STAAD Pro
a. DISPLACEMENT:

9
b. BENDING

10
c. AXIAL FORCE

11
2. STRAP 2014 –
a. Bending Moments –

b. Shear Forces –

12
c. Displacement –

d. Modal results –

13
e. Mode Shapes –

f. Seismic Data –

14
3. ETABS –
a. Text File output -
ETABS v9.7.0 File:MODEL-1 Units:KN-m December 2, 2014 20:54 PAGE 1

AUTO SEISMIC INDIAN

Case: EQX

AUTO SEISMIC INPUT DATA

Direction: X
Typical Eccentricity = 5%
Eccentricity Overrides: No

Period Calculation: User Defined

User T = 0.7735

Top Story: 4
Bottom Story: BASE

R=5
Z = 0.16
Soil Type = II
I = 1.5

AUTO SEISMIC CALCULATION FORMULAS

V = Z I Sa W / (2 R g)

Sa/g = 1 + 15T for 0.0 <= T <= 0.1

Sa/g = 2.5 for 0.1 <= T <= 0.55 (Soil Type II)
Sa/g = 1.36/T for 0.55 <= T <= 4.0 (Soil Type II)

15
AUTO SEISMIC CALCULATION RESULTS

T Used = 0.7735 sec

C Used = 0.0422
W Used = 17424.11

V Used = 0.0422W = 735.26

Ft Used = 0.00

AUTO SEISMIC STORY FORCES

STORY FX FY FZ MX MY MZ

4 (Forces reported at X = 30.0000, Y = 9.0000, Z = 17.5000)

262.52 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

3 (Forces reported at X = 30.7819, Y = 10.5761, Z = 14.0000)

214.31 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

2 (Forces reported at X = 27.2479, Y = 10.0475, Z = 10.5000)

153.88 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

1 (Forces reported at X = 21.9223, Y = 10.5981, Z = 7.0000)

83.20 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

G (Forces reported at X = 21.5842, Y = 10.6392, Z = 3.5000)

21.35 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

16
b. Bending Moment –

c. Shear Forces –

17
d. Storey Drift –

18
 CHAPTER 5

COMPARISON

1. Base Shear comparison –

a. BM and SF comparison –

BM AND SF COMPARISON
STAAD Pro STRAP 2014 ETABS 2013

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
MAX BM - KNM MAX SF - KN

b. Base shear and Displacement comparison –

BASE SHEAR AND DISPLACEMENT COMPARISON

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
BASE Shear - SRSS (kN) Displcament (mm)

STAAD Pro STRAP 2014 ETABS 2013

19
c. Seismic weight comparison –

Seismic weight
18000
17500
17000
16500
16000
15500
15000
14500
14000
13500
STAAD Pro STRAP 2014 ETABS 2013

Seismic weight

d. Comparison table –

Results Staad Pro Strap 12.5 ETABS 2013

Base shear (SRSS) 634 kN 683 kN 735.26 kN

Seismic Weight 15048 kN 16200 kN 17424 kN
Scale factor 1.9845 1.9621 2.031385
Maximum Bending Moment 100.545 kNm 125.12 kNm 116.42 kNm
Maximum Shear Force 83.6792 kN 86.650 kN 88.74 kN
Maximum Displacement 820mm 867 mm 790 mm

20
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Actually the results of analysis should match with the classical analysis solutions, whatever the
type of analysis we do using whatever S/W package. The finer thing that we should note in all these
packages is that, there are parameters/properties such as boundary conditions, material properties etc.,
which are applied to the generated model by the software package by default at the initial stage. May
be the ambiguity we observed in results arise due to these default prams. And these by default properties/
parameters changes from one S/W package to other.
May be more inspection of these inputs may give better results! :) Sometimes closer or exact! :)

21
 CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

[1] Giordano, M. Guadagnuolo and G. Faella “PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF PLAN IRREGULAR

MASONRY BUILDINGS” The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-
17, 2008, Beijing, China.
[2] Prof. K S Sable, Er. V A Ghodechor, Prof. S B Kandekar “Comparative Study of Seismic
Behavior of Multistory Flat Slab and Conventional Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures”
International Journal of Computer Technology and Electronics Engineering (IJCTEE) Volume
2, Issue 3, June 2012 17.
[3] Belejo, R. Bento & C. Bhatt “Comparison of different computer programs to predict the seismic
performance of SPEAR building by means of Pushover Analysis the SPEAR building by means
of Pushover Analysis” Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal
[4] “DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR FRAME-WALL
STRUCTURES” – Rose school thesis work by SUHAIB SALAWDEH
[5] “Performance Based Seismic Design and Assessment of Irregular Steel Structures R. Peres, R.
Bento IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal J. M. Castro Faculty of Engineering,
University of Porto, Portugal.
[6] “Seismic design of vertically irregular reinforced concrete structures” – Thesis work submitted
by Satrajit Das
[7] McCrum Lunch “Seismic Analysis of Braced Plan Irregular Structures Using Hybrid Testing
Daniel” lecture at the Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Trinity
College Dublin on 30th November 2011
[8] Shaikh Abdul Aijaj Abdul Rahman, Girish Deshmukh “Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular
RC Frame with Stiffness Irregularity at Fourth Floor” ISSN 2250-2459,ISO 9001:2008 Certified
Journal, Volume 3, Issue 8, August 2013

22
View publication stats