Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Assistant Professor
Dr. YOGESH AGGARWAL
Department of Civil Engineering
Kurukshetra-136119
COMPARITIVE STUDY ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF MULTI STOREY
(G+2) IRREGULAR BUILDING USING STAAD PRO
We would like to express our gratitude to all the people behind the screen who helped us to transform
an idea into a real application.
We profoundly thank Dr. H.K Sharma, Head of the Department of CIVIL Engineering who has
been an excellent guide and also a great source of inspiration to our work. We would like to thank
our project guide Dr. Yogesh Aggarwal for his technical guidance, constant encouragement and
support in carrying out our project at college.
The satisfaction and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of the task would be great
but incomplete without the mention of the people who made it possible with their constant guidance
and encouragement crowns all the efforts with success. In this context, we would like to thank all
other staff members, both teaching and non-teaching, who have extended their timely help and eased
our task.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the work presented in this Project report entitled, “COMPARITIVE
STUDY ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF MULTI STOREY (G+2)
IRREGULAR BUILDING USING STAAD PRO " submitted to National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of Bachelor of
Technology in Civil Engineering, is an authentic record of my own work carried out during the
period from January 2018 to April 2018 under the guidance or Dr. Yogesh Aggarwal, Assistant
Professor Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra.
Dated:
Submitted by:
Ashok Kumar (1140495)
This is to certify that the above statement made by the students is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Student’s Declaration:
I hereby declare that the work entitled “MAJOR PROJECT REPORT” is my original work. I have
not copied from any other students’ work or from any other sources except where due reference or
acknowledgement is made explicitly in the text, nor has any part been written for me by another
person.
Date : ____/______/_____
__________________________________
(NAME OF STUDENT)
Today is the era of Performance Based Engineering philosophies in seismic design of Civil
Engineering structures. Qualitative seismic design provisions require Structural Engineers to perform
both static and dynamic analysis for the design of structures. However, given that seismic prediction
is still far from becoming a reality but, it is very important to modify the prediction of the seismic
behaviour of existing structures. This is the reason why studies of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings
have been developed to evaluate the expected damage in the different types of buildings. For
analysing a multi storied building one has to consider all the possible load combinations and see that
the structure is safe against all or not. Aim of this project is to analyse a multi-storeyed (G+2)
irregular building both statically and dynamically using a software STAAD.pro and hence compare
the seismic behaviour for both. Although there are several methods to analyse a structure but
STAAD.pro has proved to be the most efficient, detailed and accurate software. These analyses are
carried out to determine maximum displacements, centre of mass, base shear and storey
displacements.
GROUP DETAILS
Name Student ID
Kunal 1140370
Vansh 1140242
Mandeep 1140565
Praveen 1140645
2|Page
7.2.2.7 Comparison of Reinforcement in Beams .............................................................57
7.2.2.8 Comparison of Reinforcement in Columns .........................................................58
7.2.2.9 Node displacements .............................................................................................58
7.2.2.10 Beam end forces ...................................................................................................59
7.2.2.11 Design details of beams .......................................................................................59
CHAPTER - 08 .................................................................................................................................61
8 Manual Analysis of Seismic Forces ..........................................................................................61
Introduction....................................................................................................................................61
8.1 Reference Plan of Structure ................................................................................................61
8.2 Reference Data....................................................................................................................62
8.3 Structure Load Calculation .................................................................................................62
8.3.1 Dead Loads ..................................................................................................................62
8.3.1.1 Weight of Beams ..................................................................................................62
8.3.1.2 Weight of Columns ..............................................................................................64
8.3.1.3 Weight of Slabs ....................................................................................................65
8.3.1.4 Floor Finishes .......................................................................................................65
8.3.1.5 Weight of Walls ...................................................................................................66
8.3.2 Live Load ....................................................................................................................67
8.4 Seismic Weight Calculation ...............................................................................................67
8.4.1 Dead Load ...................................................................................................................67
8.4.2 Live Load ....................................................................................................................68
8.5 Static Analysis ....................................................................................................................69
8.5.1 Time Period Calculation ..............................................................................................69
8.5.2 Base and Storey Shear Calculation .............................................................................70
8.6 Dynamic Analysis ...............................................................................................................71
8.6.1 Holzer’s Method ..........................................................................................................71
CHAPTER-09 ...................................................................................................................................75
9 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................75
10 References .................................................................................................................................76
3|Page
TABLE OF FIGURES
4|Page
TABLES
5|Page
CHAPTER – 01
1 INTRODUCTION
In every aspect of human civilization we needed structures to live in or to get what we need. But it is not
only building structures but to build efficient structures so that it can fulfil the main purpose for what it
was made for. Here comes the role of civil engineering and more precisely the role of analysis of structure.
Structural analysis is mainly used for finding out the behaviour of the structure when subjected to some
action. This action can be in the form of load due to the weight of things such as people furniture, wind,
snow, etc. or some other kind of excitation such as an earthquake, shaking of the ground due to a blast
nearby, etc. Since all these loads are dynamic including the self-weight of the structure because at some
point in time these loads were not there. The distinction is made between the dynamic and the static
analysis on the basis of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison with structure’s
natural frequency. Structural design of buildings for seismic loads is very important for structural safety
during major ground motions. The recent earthquakes, in which many reinforced concrete structures have
been severely damaged or collapsed, indicated the need for evaluating the seismic performance buildings.
In particular, the seismic rehabilitation of concrete structures in high seismicity areas is a matter of
growing concern, so damage qualification of a building must be determined and an acceptable level of
safety must be determined. Building has the potential to “wave” back and forth during an earthquake.
This is called the fundamental mode and is the lowest frequency of building response. Most buildings,
however, have higher modes of response, which are uniquely activated during earthquakes. Nevertheless,
the first and second modes tend to cause the most damage in most cases.
The main objective of this project is to study the seismic behaviour and damage of concrete reinforced
building. Also, analysis of structure by using equivalent static method, time history method and response
spectrum method has been surveyed. The building has been analysed by using the equivalent static,
response spectrum, based on IS codes and software. The maximum storey displacements result have been
obtained by using all methods of analysis and compared to displacement capacity of building to assess
the damage of building.
A building frame consists of number of bays and storeys. A multi-storey, multi-panelled frame is a
complicated statically intermediate structure. A design of R.C building of G+3 storey frame work is taken
up. The building in plan consists of columns built monolithically forming a network.
6|Page
The design is made using software on structural analysis design-STAAD.pro. The building is subjected
to both the vertical loads as well as horizontal loads. The vertical load consists of dead load of structural
components such as beams, columns, slabs etc. and live loads. The horizontal load consists of the
earthquake forces. Thus the building is designed for dead load, live load and earthquake load as per IS
1893-2002.
7|Page
1.2.2 General Notations
The notations adopted throughout the work are same as per IS-456-2000 and IS-1893 part-3.
1. Partial safety factor for loads in accordance with clause 36.4 of IS-456-2000 as ϒt=1.5.
2. Partial safety factor for material in accordance with clause 36.4.2 is IS-456-2000 is taken as 1.5 for
concrete and 1.15 for steel.
3. Using partial safety factors in accordance with IS-1893-2002 for combination of loads:
1.5( DL +/- LL )
1.2(DL +/- LL + EL)
1.5( DL +/- EL)
0.9 DL+/- 1.5 EL
1.2.3 Objectives
8|Page
CHAPTER -02
2 Literature Review
P. Jayachandran: The design and analysis of multi-storeyed G+4 building at Salem, Tamil
Nadu, India. The study includes design and analysis of footings, columns, beams and slabs by
using two softwares named as STAAD.PRO and RCC Design Suit.
L.G. Kalurkar: The design and analysis of multi-storeyed G+5 building using composite
structure at earthquake zone-3. A three dimensional modelling and analysis of the structure are
carried out with the help of SAP 2000 software. Equivalent Static Method of Analysis and
Response spectrum analysis method are used for the analysis of both Composite and RCC
structures. The results are compared and found that composite structure more economical.
Dr. S.Suresh Babu (2015) study, he performed linear static analysis and dynamic analysis on
multi-storeyed buildings with plan irregularities for the determination of lateral forces, base
shear, storey drift, storey shear. The paper also deals with the effect of the variation of the
building plan on the structural response building. Dynamic responses under prominent
earthquake, related to IS 1893– 2002(part1).
Bagheri Krishna, Ehsan (2013), They assess damage percentage of irregular building when
analyzed by static and dynamic analysis. Displacement demands of model have been obtained,
using equivalent static, time history and response spectrum analysis. ELCENTRO and CHI-CHI
recorded accelerograms are used to perform time history analysis on building. Finally push over
analysis has been done in order to estimate the displacement capacities of building. As a result,
the level of damage has been obtained for building, based on each methods of analysis, and then
the results are compared with each other.
Md.Kabir, Debasish Sen,(2015) To assess the seismic vulnerability and response of regular
and irregular shaped multi-storey building of identical weight in context of Bangladesh. Both
9|Page
static and dynamic (response spectrum) analysis has been performed to study the influence of
shape of a building on its response to various loading.15 storied regular (rectangular, C-shape
and L-shape) shaped and irregular (combination of rectangular, C-shape and L-shape) shaped
buildings have been modelled using program ETABS 9.6 for Dhaka (seismic zone 2),
Bangladesh.
Bahador, Salimi Firoozabad and Mohammadreza (2012-11-27) To study the Static and
Dynamic Analysis of a Multi-Storey Irregular Building & to obtain the displacement of stories
by performing different analysis methods of static & dynamic analysis affected due to floating
column. A four storey two bay 2D frame with and without floating column are analysed for static
loading using the present FEM code and the commercial software STAAD Pro.
Dr. Savita Maru (2014), Analysis and design of buildings for static forces is a routine affair
these days because of availability of affordable computers and specialized programs which is
used for the analysis. On the other hand, dynamic analysis is a time consuming process and
requires additional input related to mass of the structure, and an understanding of structural
dynamics for interpretation of analytical results. Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings are
most common type of constructions in urban India, which are subjected to several types of forces
during their lifetime, such as static forces due to dead and live loads and dynamic forces due to
the wind and earthquake. Here the present works (problem taken) are on a G+30 storied regular
building. These buildings have the plan area of 25m x 45m with a storey height 3.6m each and
depth of foundation is 2.4 m. & total height of chosen building including depth of foundation is
114 m. The static and dynamic analysis has done on computer with the help of STAAD-Pro
software using the parameters for the design as per the IS-1893- 2002-Part-1 for the zones- 2 and
3 and the post processing result obtained has summarized.
T. Mahdi (2012) In this paper, the seismic behaviour of three concrete intermediate moment-
resisting space frames with unsymmetrical plan in five, seven and ten stories are evaluated. In
each of these three cases, plan configurations of the structure contain re-entrant corners.
Nonlinear static and linear dynamic procedures have been used to analyze these structures. To
measure the accuracy of these two methods, the non-linear dynamic analysis has been used.
Although the differences between the results of these two methods with the nonlinear dynamic
procedure are quite wide, the linear dynamic analysis has shown slightly better results than
nonlinear static analysis.
10 | P a g e
Rao S., Ramanujam I.V.R. (2015), have conducted comparative study on seismic forces based
on static and dynamic analysis as per IS 1893-2002. Two buildings each situated in seismic zone
ӀӀ and ӀӀӀ have been modeled as space frames in analysis, with the application of earthquake loads
as member weights. Equivalent lateral load method has been used in static analysis whereas
response spectrum method has been used for dynamic analysis.
The 1st building consists of Stilt Floor + 11 floors (Total 12 floors) and it is of 42.25 m height,
resting on the hard soil stratum situated in zone II. It has been concluded that the base shear
values obtained by static analysis are comparable to that obtained by dynamic analysis in both X
& Z directions.
The 2nd building consists of basement + Stilt Floor + 11 floors (Total 13 floors) and it is of 42.70
m height, resting on the hard soil stratum situated in seismic zone IӀI. Results show that the base
shear obtained by static analysis is lower in X- direction as compared to that obtained by dynamic
analysis, whereas base shear in Z- direction is lesser in dynamic analysis as compared to that
obtained in static analysis.
It has been concluded that the response spectrum method may be employed for buildings in Zone
II & III. Authors have concluded that the storey moments are high in Static Analysis (Seismic
Coefficient Method) compared to storey moments in Dynamic Analysis (Response Spectrum
Method). The response spectrum method may be carried out for symmetric buildings in Zone II
and III. This may approximately optimize the design as the values obtained by dynamic analysis
are lower.
Verma S.K., Srivastava S., Zain M. (2017) have done a comparative study of static and
dynamic analysis of high rise building with and without open ground storey. In this study a multi
storied frame structure of (G+14) pattern has been used. Plan size of the building used was
19.23m X 42.23m and floor height was 3.3m. Type-II, medium soil has been used, as per IS-
1893. Materials used were M-30 grade concrete and Fe-415 steel for reinforcement.
Authors have concluded that the difference of values of displacement between static and dynamic
analysis remains insignificant for lower stories but the difference has increased in higher stories
and static analysis has given higher values than dynamic analysis including response spectrum
method. The results of equivalent static analysis have proved approximately uneconomical since
the values of displacements are higher than that obtained in dynamic analysis. Also from the
results for both equivalent static analysis and response spectrum analysis, authors have found
that the storey displacement and storey drift to be more along shorter span.
Manchalwar S., et al. (2016) has conducted a comparative study on seismic analysis of 3 storey
RC frame. Analysis of structure by equivalent static method and response spectrum method for
finding out the seismic loads with the use of SAP-2000 has been carried out. For validation of
SAP-2000, comparison between manual analysis results of equivalent static method and SAP-
2000 results for base shear has been done.
The building consists of 4@5m each bay in X-direction and 3@5m bay in Y-direction, situated
in Seismic zone V, having type (II) medium soil conditions. The seismic forces have been
calculated as per IS: 1893(part 1):2002. Study has been conducted on a building with Plan
dimension 20m x 15m and stories of 3m height.
11 | P a g e
This study has proved that the equivalent static method is simpler than response spectrum
method. Results obtained using SAP-2000 by equivalent static method and response spectrum
method has given nearly same values. Authors have concluded that the Response spectrum
method results are more accurate than ESM. Hence suggested Static analysis is not sufficient for
high rise buildings and it is necessary to provide dynamic analysis.
Mahdi T; Bahreini V. (2013) have conducted research work on the seismic behaviour of three
concrete intermediate moment-resisting space frames with unsymmetrical plan in five, seven and
ten stories. In each of these three cases, plan configurations of the structure contain re-entrant
corners. Nonlinear static and linear dynamic procedures have been used to analyse these
structures. To measure the accuracy of these two methods, the non-linear dynamic analysis has
been used. Although the differences between the results of these two methods with the nonlinear
dynamic procedure are quite wide, the linear dynamic analysis has been concluded to give
slightly better results than nonlinear static analysis.
Yajdhani S; Kishore K.S.N; Gottala A. (2015) have done comparative study of static and
dynamic seismic analysis of a multi-storeyed building. G+9 (Rigid joint regular frame) building
is analysed by STADD PRO. Plan size of building used in analysis is 22.98m X 15.67m and floor
height is 3m.Type of soil is type-II, medium soil as per IS-1893.Equivalent lateral force method
is used for static analysis and response spectrum method is used for dynamic analysis.
Authors have concluded that the values for moments are 35 to 45 percent higher for dynamic
analysis that the valued obtained for static analysis .There is not much different in the values of
axial forces as obtained by static and dynamic analysis of the RCC structure. Values of
displacement of columns are 40 to 45 percent higher for dynamic analysis than the values
obtained for static analysis. Nodal displacement and bending moments in beams and columns
due to seismic excitation showed much larger values compared to that due to static loads.
Kim H.S ; Lee D.G. (2001) have considered the effect of basements on seismic analysis of high
rise buildings. The basement is not included in the analytical model and the building is assumed
fixed at ground level in general. A typical framed structure (structure type A) and a framed
structure with a reinforced concrete core (structure type B) were used as example structures to
investigate the seismic response of high rise buildings with basement. All the example structures
had 20 storeys above ground level and the structural behaviour was investigated by varying the
number of storeys from 1 to 5. Equivalent static analysis, Eigen values analysis, response
spectrum analysis and the time history analysis was performed on all the example structures.
As the number of storeys in the basement increased, the lateral stiffness decreased resulting in
the increase of lateral displacements. It was more significant in framed structures with a core. As
the number of storeys in the basement increased, natural time periods of vibration became longer.
In structures with shear walls the effect of the basement on seismic turned out to be more
significant.
It was also observed that lateral loads not only affected the response of the super structure but
also of the basement structure. Also, it was found that both gravity loads and seismic loads must
be considered in the analysis for high rise buildings for design of basement structures.
12 | P a g e
An investigation has been carried out by Wilson E.L. (1981) to present an improved technique
to be used in place of SRSS method. According to the author a complete Quadratic combination
method can be degenerated into the SRSS method for system with well-spaced frequencies. In
two dimensional analysis the SRSS method appears to yield good results when compared to time-
history response calculations. The problem of four-story building has been analysed by SRSS
method which is symmetrical, however its centre of mass is located 25 inches from geometric
centre of building. For this structural model and loads, the base shear represents the exact results.
The complete analysis cleared that SRSS method greatly underestimates the forces in the
direction of motion and the base shear in the frame normal to the motion are overestimated by
factor 14. Authors have concluded these errors as unacceptable errors.
The CQC method applied gives an approximate relation to the exact results. It has been concluded
that the continuous use of SRSS method will overestimate the required design forces in some
structural elements or it may under estimate the forces in other elements.
Lee S. (2008) has provided a solution on the ABAQUS platform to the nonlinear dynamic
earthquake analysis of skyscrapers by selecting the right analysis procedure, accurate nonlinear
models for the structural members, an efficient dynamic equation integration scheme and
appropriate earthquake records. The results of analysis of some prominent projects in China, such
as Shanghai World Financial Centre (492 m in height), Jitna (330m in height) and Guangzhou
West Tower (435m in height) were presented. After the analysis of the projects by BAPTA, it
was concluded that the nonlinear dynamic earthquake analysis with numerically exact nonlinear
models for skyscrapers was practical and the computer analysis for the project was about one day
which could be used in the preliminary design stage. It was also concluded that the explicit
scheme to integrate the dynamic equation was a feasible method to solve the large and
complicated problems and with the complex and numerically exact model used to model the
nonlinearities at stress - strain level.
It has been concluded that the BEPTA + ABAQUS solution proves to be a practical way to
implement the nonlinear dynamic earthquake analysis.
13 | P a g e
CHAPTER - 03
General
A structure can be defined as a body which can resist the applied loads without appreciable
deformations. Civil engineering structures are created to serve some specific functions like human
habitation, transportation, bridges, storage etc. in a safe and economical way. A structure is an
assemblage of individual elements like pinned elements (truss elements), beam element, column,
shear wall slab cable or arch. Structural engineering is concerned with the planning, designing and
the construction of structures.
Structure analysis involves the determination of the forces and displacements of the structures or
components of a structure. Design process involves the selection and detailing of the components
that make up the structural system.
The main object of reinforced concrete design is to achieve a structure that will result in a safe
economical solution.
There are three types of reinforced concrete beams Single reinforced beams, double reinforced
beams, and flanged beams.
In singly reinforced simply supported beams steel bars are placed near the bottom of the beam where
they are effective in resisting in the tensile bending stress.
14 | P a g e
Figure 1 Stress Strain Diagrams of a Beam
It is reinforced under compression tension regions. The necessities of steel of compression region
arise due to two reasons.
15 | P a g e
3.2 Column Design
A column may be defined as an element used primary to support axial compressive loads and with a
height of a least three times its lateral dimension. The strength of column depends upon the strength
of materials, shape and size of cross section, length and degree of proportional and dedicational
restrains at its ends.
16 | P a g e
3.3 3.3 Slab Design
Slabs are most widely used structural elements forming floor and roof of building. Slab support
mainly transverse load and transfer them to supports by bending actions more or one directions.
When the slab is supported on two opposite side parallel edges, it spans only in the directions
perpendicular to the supporting edges. It bends in one directions and main steel is provided in
the directions of the span. Such a slab is known as one- way slab.
17 | P a g e
3.3.2 Two Way Slab
When the slab is supported on all four edges, it spans in the both the directions, perpendicular
and parallel to the supporting edges. It bends in both directions and main steel is also provided
in the both the directions. Such a slab is known as two- way slab.
18 | P a g e
3.4 Limit state method
The object of design based on the limit state concept is to achieve an acceptability that a structure
will not become unserviceable in its life time for the use for which it is intended i.e. it will not reach
a limit state. In this limit state method all relevant states must be considered in design to ensure a
degree of safety and serviceability.
The acceptable limit for the safety and serviceability requirements before failure occurs is called a
limit state.
This is corresponds to the maximum load carrying capacity. Violation of collapse limit state implies
failures in the source that a clearly defined limit state of structural usefulness has been exceeded.
However it does not mean complete collapse.
This limit state corresponds to:
a) Flexural
b) Compression
c) Shear
d) Torsion
19 | P a g e
CHAPTER - 04
4 Software Used
4.1 STAAD Pro
STAAD Pro or STAAD is a Structural Analysis And Design computer program originally
developed by Research Engineers International at Yorba Linda, CA in 1997
4.1.1 An Overview
Staad Icons
STAAD or STAAD Pro is software which is used to design and analysis of various type of
structures. It is a program which is developed by Research Engineers international at Yorba Linda,
CA in 1997. The commercial version of STAAD Pro is the most widely used structural analysis
and design software products. It supports several steel, concrete and timber design codes. It helps
structural engineers to reduce their tedious work on long procedure of manual methods. Basically
this software reduces manual calculation and time. This software is used by various construction
companies, consultants and government agencies
In late 2005, Research Engineers International was bought by Bentley Systems. STAAD stands
for Structural Analysis and Design. Any object which is stable under a given loading can be
considered as a structure. It supports several steel, concrete, timber design codes. It can make use
of various forms of analysis from the traditional 1st order static analysis, 2nd order p-delta analysis,
geometric non-linear analysis or a buckling analysis. It can also make use of various forms of
dynamic analysis from modal extraction to time history to response spectrum analysis. To
calculate SFD and BMD of a complex loading beam it takes about an hour. So when it comes to
the building with several members it will take a week but STAAD can do this job in minutes.
We can Design any type of structure using STAAD Pro which can include steel, concrete, timber,
aluminium, and cold-formed steel projects, regardless of any complexity. It can be used worldwide
as it uses over 80 international codes.
It has flexible modelling environment and advanced features such as dynamic change revisions and
management. Due to these features STAAD Pro has following benefits:
It lowers total cost of design and ownership. By STAAD Pro we can design any type of
structure including culverts, tunnels, bridges, and piles.
20 | P a g e
It increases the design productivity as it streamlines our workflow to reduce duplication of
efforts and eliminate errors.
It lowers the project cost and delays as it provide accurate and economical designs and
quickly respond to change requests.
Various form of analysis can be done by STAAD Pro which includes 1st order static analysis,
2nd order p-delta analysis, geometric nonlinear analysis, etc. It can also be used for dynamic
analysis from modal extraction to time history and RSM (response spectrum method).
STAAD has some direct links to applications such as RAM connections and STAAD
foundation to provide working with those applications whose post processing design not
handled by STAAD itself. The analysis scheme of CIM steel integration standard, version 2
is also supported by STAAD Pro and also known as CIS/2 which is used by various modelling
and analysis applications.
4.1.3 Features
4.1.4 Limitations
1. It can be used to carry out linear elastic (static and dynamic) and non linear dynamic analysis.
2. Main feature of STAAD Pro is its simplicity and easy to use interface.
3. It includes codes for over 80 countries for which it can generate loads (wind and earthquake)
for selected country.
4. It also focuses on model generation and model verification for all type of structures.
21 | P a g e
4.2 2.2 MS Excel 2013
Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet developed by Microsoft for Windows, mac, OS, Android and iOS.
It features calculation, graphing tools, pivot tables, and a macro programming language
called Visual Basic for Applications. It has been a very widely applied spreadsheet for these
platforms, especially since version 5 in 1993, and it has replaced Lotus 1-2-3 as the industry
standard for spreadsheets. Excel forms part of Microsoft Office.
4.2.1 Overview
Microsoft Excel has the basic features of all spreadsheets,[4] using a grid of cells arranged in
numbered rows and letter-named columns to organize data manipulations like arithmetic operations.
It has a battery of supplied functions to answer statistical, engineering and financial needs. In
addition, it can display data as line graphs, histograms and charts, and with a very limited three-
dimensional graphical display. It allows sectioning of data to view its dependencies on various factors
for different perspectives (using pivot tables and the scenario manager).[5] It has a programming
aspect, Visual Basic for Applications, allowing the user to employ a wide variety of numerical
methods, for example, for solving differential equations of mathematical physics,[6][7] and then
reporting the results back to the spreadsheet. It also has a variety of interactive features allowing user
interfaces that can completely hide the spreadsheet from the user, so the spreadsheet presents itself
as a so-called application, or decision support system (DSS), via a custom-designed user interface,
for example, a stock analyser, or in general, as a design tool that asks the user questions and provides
answers and reports. In a more elaborate realization, an Excel application can automatically poll
external databases and measuring instruments using an update schedule, analyse the results, make
a Word report or PowerPoint slide show, and e-mail these presentations on a regular basis to a list of
participants. Excel was not designed to be used as a database
4.2.2 Features
1. Excel Formulas. 63 people (50%) said Formulas are their favourite feature in Excel.
2. VBA, Macros & automation.
3. Pivot Tables.
4. Lookup Formulas.
5. Excel Charts.
6. Sorting & filtering data.
7. Conditional formatting.
8. Drop down validation & form controls.
22 | P a g e
CHAPTER - 05
5 Load Considerations
The concepts presented in this section provide an overview of building loads and their effect on the
structural response of typical wood-framed homes. Building loads can be divided into types based
on the orientation of the structural action or forces that they induce: vertical and horizontal (i.e.,
lateral) loads. Classification of loads is described in the following sections.
Gravity loads act in the same direction as gravity (i.e., downward or vertically) and include dead,
live, and snow loads. They are generally static in nature and usually considered a uniformly
distributed or concentrated load. Thus, determining a gravity load on a beam or column is a relatively
simple exercise that uses the concept of tributary areas to assign loads to structural elements,
including the dead load (i.e., weight of the construction) and any applied loads(i.e., live load). For
example, the tributary gravity load on a floor joist would include the uniform floor load (dead and
live) applied to the area of floor supported by the individual joist.
The structural designer then selects a standard beam or column model to analyse bearing connection
forces (i.e., reactions) internal stresses (i.e., bending stresses, shear stresses, and axial stresses) and
stability of the structural member or system a for beam equations.
23 | P a g e
The selection of an appropriate analytic model is, however no trivial matter, especially if the
structural system departs significantly from traditional engineering assumptions are particularly
relevant to the structural systems that comprise many parts of a house, but to varying degrees.
Wind uplift forces are generated by negative (suction) pressures acting in an outward direction from
the surface of the roof in response to the aerodynamics of wind flowing over and around the building.
As with gravity loads, the influence of wind up lift pressures on a structure or assembly(i.e., roof)
are analysed by using the concept of tributary areas and uniformly distributed loads. The major
difference is that wind pressures act perpendicular to the building surface (not in the direction of
gravity) and that pressures vary according to the size of the tributary area and its location on the
building, particularly proximity to changes in geometry (e.g., eaves, corners, and ridges).Even
though the wind loads are dynamic and highly variable, the design approach is based on a maximum
static load (i.e., pressure) equivalent. Vertical forces are also created by overturning reactions due to
wind and seismic lateral loads acting on the overall building and its lateral force resisting systems,
Earthquakes also produce vertical ground motions or accelerations which increase the effect of
gravity loads. However, Vertical earthquake loads are usually considered to be implicitly addressed
in the gravity load analysis of a light-frame building.
Lateral Loads
The primary loads that produce lateral forces on buildings are attributable to forces associated with
wind, seismic ground motion, floods, and soil. Wind and seismic lateral loads apply to the entire
building. Lateral forces from wind are generated by positive wind pressures on the windward face of
the building and by negative pressures on the leeward face of the building, creating a combined push
and-pull effect. Seismic lateral forces are generated by a structure’s dynamic inertial response to
cyclic ground movement.
The magnitude of the seismic shear (i.e., lateral) load depends on the magnitude of the ground
motion, the buildings mass, and the dynamic structural response characteristics (i.e. dampening,
24 | P a g e
ductility ,natural period of vibration ,etc).for houses and other similar low rise structures, a simplified
seismic load analysis employs equivalent static forces based on fundamental Newtonian
mechanics(F=ma) with somewhat subjective(i.e., experience-based) adjustments to account for
inelastic, ductile response characteristics of various building systems.
Flood loads are generally minimized by elevating the structure on a properly designed foundation or
avoided by not building in a flood plain.
Lateral loads from moving flood waters and static hydraulic pressure are substantial. Soil lateral
loads apply specifically to foundation wall design, mainly as an “out-of-plane” bending load on the
wall. Lateral loads also produce an overturning moment that must be offset by the dead load and
Connections of the building. Therefore, overturning forces on connections designed to restrain
components from rotating or the building from overturning must be considered.
Since wind is capable of the generating simultaneous roof uplift and lateral loads, the uplift
component of the wind load exacerbates the overturning tension forces due to the lateral component
of the wind load. Conversely the dead load may be sufficient to offset the overturning and uplift
forces as is the case in lower design wind conditions and in many seismic design conditions.
25 | P a g e
CHAPTER - 06
6 Earthquake Considerations
6.1 Introduction
Structural analysis is mainly concerned with finding out the behaviour of a structure when subjected
to some action. This action can be in the form of load due to weight of things such as people,
furniture, wind snow etc. or some other kind of excitation such as earthquake, shaking of the ground
due to a blast nearby, etc. In essence all these loads are dynamic including the self-weight of the
structure because at some point in time these loads were not there. The distinction is made between
the dynamic and static analysis on the basis of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in
comparison to the structure's natural frequency. If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia
forces (Newton’s second law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static
analysis. Structural dynamics, therefore, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behaviour
of structures subjected to dynamic (actions having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include
people, wind, waves, traffic, earthquake, and blasts. Any structure can be subjected to dynamic
loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal
analysis for the following zones and soil conditions:
The mass of the building being designed controls seismic design in addition to the building stiffness,
because earthquake induces inertia forces that are proportional to the building mass. Designing
buildings to behave elastically during earthquakes without damage may render the project
economically unviable. As a consequence, it may be necessary for the structure to undergo damage
and thereby dissipate the energy input to it during the earthquake. Therefore, the traditional
earthquake-resistant design philosophy requires that normal buildings should be able to resist (Figure
1.3): (a) Minor (and frequent) shaking with no damage to structural and non-structural elements; (b)
Moderate shaking with minor damage to structural elements, and some damage to non-structural
elements; and (c) Severe (and infrequent) shaking with damage to structural elements, but with NO
collapse (to save life and property inside/adjoining the building). Therefore, buildings are designed
only for a fraction (~8-14%) of the force that they would experience, if they were designed to remain
elastic during the expected strong ground shaking (Figure 1.4), and thereby permitting damage (Figure
1.5). But, sufficient initial stiffness is required to be ensured to avoid structural damage under minor
26 | P a g e
shaking. Thus, seismic design balances reduced cost and acceptable damage, to make the project
viable. This careful balance is arrived based on extensive research and detailed post-earthquake
damage assessment studies. A wealth of this information is translated into precise seismic design
provisions. In contrast, structural damage is not acceptable under design wind forces. For this reason,
design against earthquake effects is called as earthquake-resistant design and not earthquake-proof
design.
27 | P a g e
Figure 8 Lateral force v/s Deformation
In the present study, Response spectrum analysis is performed to compare results with Static analysis.
The criteria of level adopted by codes for fixing the level of design seismic loading are generally as
follows:
Structures should be able to resist minor earthquakes (<DBE), without damage.
Structures should be able to resist moderate earthquakes (DBE) without significant structural damage
but with some non-structural damage.
Structures should be able to resist major earthquakes (MCE) without collapse.
"Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)” is defined as the maximum earthquake that reasonable can be
expected to experience at the site once during lifetime of the structure. The earthquake corresponding
to the ultimate safety requirements are often called as
“Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ".generally,” The (DBE) is half of (MCE)”.
During an earthquake , Ground motion occur in a random fashion both horizontally
and vertically , in all directions radiating from the epicentre .The ground accelerations cause
structures to vibrate and induce inertial forces on them. Hence structures in such locations need to
be suitably designed and detailed to ensure stability, strength and serviceability with acceptable
levels of safety under seismic effects.
The magnitude of the forces induced in a structure to a given ground acceleration of earthquake will
depend amongst other things on the mass of the structure, the material , and type of construction ,
the damping , ductility and energy dissipation capacity of structure . By enhancing ductility, and
energy dissipation capacity in the structure obtained or alternatively, the probability of collapse
reduced.
28 | P a g e
Pushover Analysis: Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the
structural loading is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain displacement. With the
increase in the magnitude of the loading, weak links and failure modes of the structure are found.
The loading is monotonic with the effects of the cyclic behaviour and load reversals being estimated
by using a modified monotonic force-deformation criteria and with damping approximations. During
the pushover analysis, the base shear-roof displacement relationship is monitored. The resulting
curve can be used to assess the damage of building, using a step by step integration procedure In the
dynamic analysis of our structure we have used the Response Spectrum Method.
All design against seismic loads must consider the dynamic nature of the load. However, for simple
regular structures, analysis by equivalent linear static methods is often sufficient. This is permitted
in most codes of practise for regular, low-to medium-rise buildings. It begins with an estimation of
base shear load and its distribution on each story calculated by using formulas given in the code.
Equivalent static analysis can therefore work well for low to medium-rise buildings without
significant coupled lateral torsional effects, are much less suitable for the method, and require more
complex methods to be used in these circumstances.
Design Seismic Base Shear
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (Vb) along any principal direction shall be
determined by the following expression:
Vb = Ah W
29 | P a g e
Fundamental Natural Period
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (T,), in seconds, of a moment resisting
frame building without brick in the panels may be estimated by the empirical expression:
This excludes the basement storeys, where basement walls are connected with the ground floor deck
or fitted between the building columns. But it includes the basement storeys, when they are not so
connected. The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (T,), in seconds, of all other
buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings with brick lintel panels, may be estimated by
the empirical Expression: T=.09H/√D
d= Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction of the
lateral force..
The design base shear (V) shall be distributed along the height of the building as per the following
expression:
n= Number of storey in the building is the number of levels at which the masses are located.
30 | P a g e
Distribution of Horizontal Design Lateral Force to Different Lateral Force Resisting Elements in
case of buildings whose floors are capable of providing rigid horizontal diaphragm action, the total
shear in any horizontal plane shall be distributed to the various vertical elements of lateral force
resisting system, assuming the floors to be infinitely rigid in the horizontal plane. In case of building
whose floor diaphragms cannot be treated as infinitely rigid in their own plane, the lateral shear at
each floor shall be distributed to the vertical elements resisting the lateral forces, considering the in-
plane flexibility of the diagram.
The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree freedom system having
certain period and damping, during earthquake ground motions. The maximum response plotted
against of undamped natural period and for various damping values and can be expressed in terms
of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement.
For this purpose response spectrum case of analysis have been performed according to IS 1893.
31 | P a g e
displacement. For this purpose Response spectrum case of analysis have been performed based on
IS 1893; the standard response spectrum diagram is shown in figure
It is an analysis of the dynamic response of the structure at each increment of time, when its base is
subjected to a specific ground motion time history. Recorded ground motion data base form past
natural earthquakes can be a reliable source for time history analysis.
32 | P a g e
CHAPTER - 07
7.1 Design
33 | P a g e
PLAN OF THE STRUCTURE
34 | P a g e
Figure 13 3D Rendering
35 | P a g e
7.1.1.2 Loading on Structure
The loads under consideration are assigned to the structure elements in Staad pro.
Dead loads consist of the permanent construction material loads compressing the roof, floor, wall,
and foundation systems, including claddings, finishes and fixed equipment. Dead load is the total
load of all of the components of the components of the building that generally do not change over
time, such as the steel columns, concrete floors, bricks, roofing material etc. In STAAD pro
assignment of dead load is automatically done by giving the property of the member.
Self-Weight
In load case we have option called self-weight which automatically calculates weights using the
properties of material i.e., density and after assignment of dead load the skeletal structure looks red
in colour as shown in the figure.
36 | P a g e
Wall Load
The wall loads are calculated in three categories according to the thickness and height of the wall.
Outer Walls: 1 Brick Thick
37 | P a g e
Inner Walls: ½ Brick thick
38 | P a g e
Parapet Walls: ½ Brick thick with 1 m height.
39 | P a g e
Floor Load
The load of the slab and the finishing loads are included in the dead load of the floor.
40 | P a g e
7.1.1.2.2 Live Loads
Live loads are produced by the use and occupancy of a building. Loads include those from human
occupants, furnishings, no fixed equipment, storage, and construction and maintenance activities. As
required to adequately define the loading condition, loads are presented in terms of uniform area
loads, concentrated loads, and uniform line loads. The uniform and concentrated live loads should
not be applied simultaneously n a structural evaluation. Concentrated loads should be applied to a
small area or surface consistent with the application and should b e located or directed to give the
maximum load effect possible in endues conditions. In STAAD we assign live load in terms of floor
load distributed uniformly on the slab .We have to create a load case for live load and assign the load
to the structure. After the assignment of the live load the structure appears as shown below.
For our structure live load is taken as 4KN/m²for design.
41 | P a g e
7.1.1.2.3 Seismic Load
Response Spectrum
43 | P a g e
In Z Direction
44 | P a g e
7.1.1.2.4 Load combinations
All the load cases are tested by taking load factors and analysing the building in different load
combination as per IS456 and analysed the building for all the load combinations and results are
taken and maximum load combination is selected for the design. LOAD COMB 8 1.5 (DL+LL)
LOAD COMB 9 1.5(DL+SL+X)
LOAD COMB 10 1.5 (DL+ SL-X)
LOAD COMB 11 1.5(DL+SL+Z)
LOAD COMB 12 1.5(DL+SL-Z)
LOAD COMB 13 1.2(DL+LL+SL+X)
LOAD COMB 14 1.2(DL+LL+SL-X)
LOAD COMB 15 1.2(DL+LL+SL+Z)
LOAD COMB 16 1.2(DL+LL+SL-Z)
LOAD COMB 17 0.9 DL+ 1.5 SL+X
LOAD COMB 18 0.9 DL+ 1.5 SL-X
LOAD COMB 19 0.9 DL+1.5 SL+Z
LOAD COMB 20 0.9 DL+ 1.5 SL-Z
45 | P a g e
7.1.2 Using Staad Editor
STAAD SPACE
START JOB INFORMATION
ENGINEER DATE 14-Jan-18
END JOB INFORMATION
INPUT WIDTH 79
UNIT METER KN
JOINT COORDINATES
37 0 0 0; 38 18.517 0 0; 39 0 0 4.68601; 40 18.517 0 4.68601; 41 0 0 17.221;
42 18.517 0 17.221; 43 18.517 0 -2.248; 44 23.66 0 -2.248; 45 23.66 0 0.600001;
46 23.66 0 6.32501; 47 18.517 0 19.271; 48 26.0681 0 19.271;
49 26.0681 0 15.385; 50 26.0681 0 12.718; 51 22.292 0 19.271;
52 22.292 0 15.385; 53 3.70301 0 4.68601; 54 7.40701 0 4.68601;
55 11.11 0 4.68601; 56 14.813 0 4.68601; 57 3.70301 0 0; 58 7.40701 0 0;
59 11.11 0 0; 60 14.813 0 0; 61 3.70301 0 17.221; 62 7.40701 0 17.221;
63 11.11 0 17.221; 64 14.813 0 17.221; 65 21.8 0 11.885; 66 0 2 0;
67 18.517 2 0; 68 0 2 4.68601; 69 18.517 2 4.68601; 70 0 2 17.221;
71 18.517 2 17.221; 72 18.517 2 -2.248; 73 23.66 2 -2.248; 74 23.66 2 0.600001;
75 23.66 2 6.32501; 76 18.517 2 19.271; 77 26.0681 2 19.271;
78 26.0681 2 15.385; 79 26.0681 2 12.718; 80 22.292 2 19.271;
81 22.292 2 15.385; 82 3.70301 2 4.68601; 83 7.40701 2 4.68601;
84 11.11 2 4.68601; 85 14.813 2 4.68601; 86 3.70301 2 0; 87 7.40701 2 0;
88 11.11 2 0; 89 14.813 2 0; 90 3.70301 2 17.221; 91 7.40701 2 17.221;
92 11.11 2 17.221; 93 14.813 2 17.221; 94 0 6.00001 0; 95 18.517 6.00001 0;
96 0 6.00001 4.68601; 97 18.517 6.00001 4.68601; 98 0 6.00001 17.221;
99 18.517 6.00001 17.221; 100 18.517 6.00001 -2.248; 101 23.66 6.00001 -2.248;
102 23.66 6.00001 0.600001; 103 23.66 6.00001 6.32501;
104 18.517 6.00001 19.271; 105 26.0681 6.00001 19.271;
106 26.0681 6.00001 15.385; 107 26.0681 6.00001 12.718;
108 22.292 6.00001 19.271; 109 22.292 6.00001 15.385;
110 3.70301 6.00001 4.68601; 111 7.40701 6.00001 4.68601;
112 11.11 6.00001 4.68601; 113 14.813 6.00001 4.68601; 114 3.70301 6.00001 0;
115 7.40701 6.00001 0; 116 11.11 6.00001 0; 117 14.813 6.00001 0;
118 3.70301 6.00001 17.221; 119 7.40701 6.00001 17.221;
120 11.11 6.00001 17.221; 121 14.813 6.00001 17.221; 122 0 10 0;
123 18.517 10 0; 124 0 10 4.68601; 125 18.517 10 4.68601; 126 0 10 17.221;
127 18.517 10 17.221; 128 18.517 10 -2.248; 129 23.66 10 -2.248;
130 23.66 10 0.600001; 131 23.66 10 6.32501; 132 18.517 10 19.271;
133 26.0681 10 19.271; 134 26.0681 10 15.385; 135 26.0681 10 12.718;
136 22.292 10 19.271; 137 22.292 10 15.385; 138 3.70301 10 4.68601;
139 7.40701 10 4.68601; 140 11.11 10 4.68601; 141 14.813 10 4.68601;
142 3.70301 10 0; 143 7.40701 10 0; 144 11.11 10 0; 145 14.813 10 0;
146 3.70301 10 17.221; 147 7.40701 10 17.221; 148 11.11 10 17.221;
149 14.813 10 17.221; 150 0 14 0; 151 18.517 14 0; 152 0 14 4.68601;
153 18.517 14 4.68601; 154 0 14 17.221; 155 18.517 14 17.221;
156 18.517 14 -2.248; 157 23.66 14 -2.248; 158 23.66 14 0.600001;
159 23.66 14 6.32501; 160 18.517 14 19.271; 161 26.0681 14 19.271;
162 26.0681 14 15.385; 163 26.0681 14 12.718; 164 22.292 14 19.271;
165 22.292 14 15.385; 166 3.70301 14 4.68601; 167 7.40701 14 4.68601;
168 11.11 14 4.68601; 169 14.813 14 4.68601; 170 3.70301 14 0;
46 | P a g e
171 7.40701 14 0; 172 11.11 14 0; 173 14.813 14 0; 174 3.70301 14 17.221;
175 7.40701 14 17.221; 176 11.11 14 17.221; 177 14.813 14 17.221;
178 21.8 2 11.885; 179 21.8 6.00001 11.885; 180 21.8 10 11.885;
181 21.8 14 11.885; 182 18.517 2 0.600001; 183 18.517 2 6.32501;
184 23.66 2 4.68601; 185 18.517 2 15.385; 186 21.8 2 6.32501;
187 21.8 2 15.385; 188 21.8 2 12.718; 189 18.517 2 11.885;
190 18.517 6.00001 6.32501; 191 21.8 6.00001 6.32501;
192 18.517 6.00001 11.885; 193 18.517 6.00001 15.385; 194 21.8 6.00001 15.385;
195 21.8 6.00001 12.718; 196 23.66 6.00001 4.68601;
197 18.517 6.00001 0.600001; 198 18.517 10 6.32501; 199 18.517 10 15.385;
200 18.517 10 0.600001; 201 22.2976 10 6.32501; 202 18.517 10 12.718;
203 21.8 10 15.385; 204 21.8 10 6.32501; 205 18.517 10 11.885;
206 23.66 10 4.68601; 207 21.8 10 12.718; 208 18.517 14 0.600001;
209 18.517 14 6.32501; 210 22.298 14 6.32501; 211 21.8 14 6.32501;
212 18.517 14 15.385; 213 21.8 14 15.385; 215 18.517 14 11.885;
216 21.8 14 12.718; 217 23.66 14 4.68601;
MEMBER INCIDENCES
76 37 66; 77 38 67; 78 39 68; 79 40 69; 80 41 70; 81 42 71; 82 43 72; 83 44 73;
84 45 74; 85 46 75; 86 47 76; 87 48 77; 88 49 78; 89 50 79; 90 51 80; 91 52 81;
92 53 82; 93 54 83; 94 55 84; 95 56 85; 96 57 86; 97 58 87; 98 59 88; 99 60 89;
100 61 90; 101 62 91; 102 63 92; 103 64 93; 104 66 86; 105 68 82; 106 70 90;
107 66 68; 108 67 182; 109 68 70; 110 69 183; 111 67 72; 112 72 73; 113 73 74;
114 74 184; 115 71 76; 116 76 80; 117 77 78; 118 78 79; 119 80 77; 120 78 81;
121 82 83; 122 83 84; 123 84 85; 124 85 69; 125 86 87; 126 87 88; 127 88 89;
128 89 67; 129 90 91; 130 91 92; 131 92 93; 132 93 71; 142 66 94; 143 67 95;
144 68 96; 145 69 97; 146 70 98; 147 71 99; 148 72 100; 149 73 101; 150 74 102;
151 75 103; 152 76 104; 153 77 105; 154 78 106; 155 79 107; 156 80 108;
157 81 109; 158 82 110; 159 83 111; 160 84 112; 161 85 113; 162 86 114;
163 87 115; 164 88 116; 165 89 117; 166 90 118; 167 91 119; 168 92 120;
169 93 121; 170 94 114; 171 96 110; 172 98 118; 173 94 96; 174 95 197;
175 96 98; 176 97 190; 177 95 100; 178 100 101; 179 101 102; 180 102 196;
181 99 104; 182 104 108; 183 105 106; 184 106 107; 185 108 105; 186 106 109;
187 110 111; 188 111 112; 189 112 113; 190 113 97; 191 114 115; 192 115 116;
193 116 117; 194 117 95; 195 118 119; 196 119 120; 197 120 121; 198 121 99;
200 110 118; 201 111 119; 202 112 120; 203 113 121; 204 110 114; 205 111 115;
206 112 116; 207 113 117; 208 94 122; 209 95 123; 210 96 124; 211 97 125;
212 98 126; 213 99 127; 214 100 128; 215 101 129; 216 102 130; 217 103 131;
218 104 132; 219 105 133; 220 106 134; 221 107 135; 222 108 136; 223 109 137;
224 110 138; 225 111 139; 226 112 140; 227 113 141; 228 114 142; 229 115 143;
230 116 144; 231 117 145; 232 118 146; 233 119 147; 234 120 148; 235 121 149;
236 122 142; 237 124 138; 238 126 146; 239 122 124; 240 123 200; 241 124 126;
242 125 198; 243 123 128; 244 128 129; 245 129 130; 246 130 206; 247 127 132;
248 132 136; 249 133 134; 250 134 135; 251 136 133; 252 134 137; 253 138 139;
254 139 140; 255 140 141; 256 141 125; 257 142 143; 258 143 144; 259 144 145;
260 145 123; 261 146 147; 262 147 148; 263 148 149; 264 149 127; 266 138 146;
267 139 147; 268 140 148; 269 141 149; 270 138 142; 271 139 143; 272 140 144;
273 141 145; 274 122 150; 275 123 151; 276 124 152; 277 125 153; 278 126 154;
279 127 155; 280 128 156; 281 129 157; 282 130 158; 283 131 159; 284 132 160;
285 133 161; 286 134 162; 287 135 163; 288 136 164; 289 137 165; 290 138 166;
291 139 167; 292 140 168; 293 141 169; 294 142 170; 295 143 171; 296 144 172;
297 145 173; 298 146 174; 299 147 175; 300 148 176; 301 149 177; 302 150 170;
303 152 166; 304 154 174; 305 150 152; 306 151 208; 307 152 154; 308 153 209;
47 | P a g e
309 151 156; 310 156 157; 311 157 158; 312 158 217; 313 155 160; 314 160 164;
315 161 162; 316 162 163; 318 162 165; 319 166 167; 320 167 168; 321 168 169;
322 169 153; 323 170 171; 324 171 172; 325 172 173; 326 173 151; 327 174 175;
328 175 176; 329 176 177; 330 177 155; 332 166 174; 333 167 175; 334 168 176;
335 169 177; 336 166 170; 337 167 171; 338 168 172; 339 169 173; 340 65 178;
341 178 179; 342 179 180; 343 180 181; 344 182 69; 345 74 182; 346 183 189;
347 75 186; 348 184 75; 349 69 184; 350 185 71; 351 81 187; 352 186 183;
353 178 186; 354 187 185; 355 178 188; 356 188 187; 357 79 188; 358 189 185;
359 178 189; 360 190 192; 361 103 191; 362 191 190; 363 179 191; 364 192 193;
365 179 192; 366 193 99; 367 109 194; 368 194 193; 370 195 194; 371 107 195;
372 196 103; 373 97 196; 374 197 97; 375 102 197; 376 108 109; 377 198 205;
378 199 127; 379 137 203; 380 200 125; 381 130 200; 382 131 201; 384 201 204;
386 202 199; 387 203 199; 389 204 198; 390 180 204; 391 205 202; 392 180 205;
393 206 131; 394 125 206; 396 135 207; 397 137 136; 398 208 153; 399 158 208;
400 209 215; 401 159 210; 402 210 211; 403 211 209; 404 181 211; 405 212 155;
406 165 213; 407 213 212; 409 164 161; 410 165 164; 412 215 212; 413 181 215;
414 216 213; 415 163 216; 416 217 159; 417 153 217; 418 179 195; 419 216 181;
420 180 207; 421 207 203;
DEFINE MATERIAL START
ISOTROPIC CONCRETE
E 2.17184e+007
POISSON 0.17
DENSITY 23.6158
ALPHA 5e-006
DAMP 0.05
TYPE CONCRETE
STRENGTH FCU 27578.9
END DEFINE MATERIAL
MEMBER PROPERTY INDIAN
78 TO 81 92 TO 95 100 TO 103 144 TO 147 158 TO 161 166 TO 169 210 TO 213 224 -
225 TO 227 232 TO 235 276 TO 279 290 TO 293 298 TO 301 PRIS YD 0.6 ZD 1
175 176 200 TO 203 241 242 266 TO 269 307 308 332 TO 335 360 364 366 377 378 -
386 391 400 405 412 PRIS YD 0.762 ZD 0.3048
170 TO 174 177 TO 198 204 TO 207 236 TO 240 243 TO 264 270 TO 273 302 TO 306 -
309 TO 316 318 TO 330 336 TO 339 361 TO 363 365 367 368 370 TO 376 -
379 TO 382 384 387 389 390 392 TO 394 396 TO 399 401 TO 404 406 407 409 410 -
413 TO 421 PRIS YD 0.3 ZD 0.4
76 77 82 TO 91 96 TO 99 104 TO 132 142 143 148 TO 157 162 TO 165 208 209 214 -
215 TO 223 228 TO 231 274 275 280 TO 289 294 TO 297 340 TO 358 -
359 PRIS YD 0.5 ZD 0.5
CONSTANTS
MATERIAL CONCRETE ALL
SUPPORTS
37 TO 65 FIXED
DEFINE 1893 LOAD
ZONE 0.24 RF 5 I 1.5 SS 2 ST 1 DM 0.05
SELFWEIGHT 1
MEMBER WEIGHT
105 TO 124 129 TO 132 171 TO 190 195 TO 198 237 TO 256 261 TO 264 344 TO 348 -
350 TO 358 360 362 TO 364 366 TO 368 370 TO 372 374 375 377 TO 381 386 387 -
390 391 393 396 418 420 421 UNI 18.3
349 359 365 373 392 394 UNI 9.144
48 | P a g e
302 304 305 307 309 TO 316 323 TO 330 401 402 404 409 415 416 419 UNI 3.429
FLOOR WEIGHT
YRANGE 3 14 FLOAD 5.5
LOAD 1 LOADTYPE Seismic TITLE SL+X
SELFWEIGHT X 1
SELFWEIGHT Y 1
SELFWEIGHT Z 1
MEMBER LOAD
349 359 365 373 392 394 UNI GX 9.144
105 TO 124 129 TO 132 171 TO 190 195 TO 198 237 TO 256 261 TO 264 344 TO 348 -
350 TO 358 360 362 TO 364 366 TO 368 370 TO 372 374 375 377 TO 381 386 387 -
390 391 393 396 418 420 421 UNI GX 18.288
302 304 305 307 309 TO 316 323 TO 330 401 402 404 409 415 416 419 UNI GX 3.429
349 359 365 373 392 394 UNI GY 9.144
105 TO 124 129 TO 132 171 TO 190 195 TO 198 237 TO 256 261 TO 264 344 TO 348 -
350 TO 358 360 362 TO 364 366 TO 368 370 TO 372 374 375 377 TO 381 386 387 -
390 391 393 396 418 420 421 UNI GY 18.288
302 304 305 307 309 TO 316 323 TO 330 401 402 404 409 415 416 419 UNI GY 3.429
349 359 365 373 392 394 UNI GZ 9.144
105 TO 124 129 TO 132 171 TO 190 195 TO 198 237 TO 256 261 TO 264 344 TO 348 -
350 TO 358 360 362 TO 364 366 TO 368 370 TO 372 374 375 377 TO 381 386 387 -
390 391 393 396 418 420 421 UNI GZ 18.288
302 304 305 307 309 TO 316 323 TO 330 401 402 404 409 415 416 419 UNI GZ 3.429
FLOOR LOAD
YRANGE 3 14 FLOAD 5.5 GX
YRANGE 3 14 FLOAD 5.5 GY
YRANGE 3 14 FLOAD 5.5 GZ
SPECTRUM SRSS 1893 X 0.036 ACC SCALE 4.8947 DAMP 0.05
SOIL TYPE 2
LOAD 2 LOADTYPE Seismic TITLE SL+Z
SPECTRUM SRSS 1893 Z 0.036 ACC SCALE 4.1506 DAMP 0.05
SOIL TYPE 2
LOAD 3 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE DL
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
FLOOR LOAD
YRANGE 3 14 FLOAD -4.75 GY
MEMBER LOAD
349 359 365 373 392 394 UNI GY -9.144
105 TO 124 129 TO 132 171 TO 190 195 TO 198 237 TO 256 261 TO 264 344 TO 348 -
350 TO 358 360 362 TO 364 366 TO 368 370 TO 372 374 375 377 TO 381 386 387 -
390 391 393 396 418 420 421 UNI GY -18.288
302 304 305 307 309 TO 316 323 TO 330 401 402 404 409 415 416 419 UNI GY -3.429
LOAD 4 LOADTYPE Live TITLE LL
FLOOR LOAD
YRANGE 3 14 FLOAD -3 GY
LOAD COMB 5 1.5 (DL+LL)
3 1.5 4 1.5
LOAD COMB 6 1.5(DL+SL+X)
3 1.5 1 1.5
LOAD COMB 7 1.5 (DL+ SL-X)
3 1.5 1 -1.5
LOAD COMB 8 1.5(DL+SL+Z)
49 | P a g e
3 1.5 2 1.5
LOAD COMB 9 1.5(DL+SL-Z)
3 1.5 2 -1.5
LOAD COMB 10 1.2(DL+LL+SL+X)
3 1.2 4 0.3 1 1.2
LOAD COMB 11 1.2(DL+LL+SL-X)
3 1.2 4 0.3 1 -1.2
LOAD COMB 12 1.2(DL+LL+SL+Z)
3 1.2 4 0.3 2 1.2
LOAD COMB 13 1.2(DL+LL+SL-Z)
3 1.2 4 0.3 2 1.2
LOAD COMB 14 0.9 DL+ 1.5 SL+X
1 1.5 3 0.9
LOAD COMB 15 0.9 DL+ 1.5 SL-X
1 -1.5 3 0.9
LOAD COMB 16 0.9 DL+1.5 SL+Z
2 1.5 3 0.9
LOAD COMB 17 0.9 DL+ 1.5 SL-Z
2 -1.5 3 0.9
LOAD COMB 18 1 (DL+LL)
3 1.0 4 1.0
PERFORM ANALYSIS PRINT ALL
PRINT ALL
LOAD LIST 1 3 5 6
PERFORM ANALYSIS
START CONCRETE DESIGN
CODE INDIAN
FC 25000 ALL
DESIGN BEAM 104 TO 132 170 TO 198 200 TO 207 236 TO 264 266 TO 273 -
302 TO 316 318 TO 330 332 TO 339 344 TO 368 370 TO 382 384 386 387 -
389 TO 394 396 TO 407 409 410 412 TO 421
DESIGN COLUMN 76 TO 103 142 TO 169 208 TO 235 274 TO 301 340 TO 343
END CONCRETE DESIGN
FINISH
50 | P a g e
7.2 Analytical Study with Staad Pro
51 | P a g e
7.2.1 Response Spectrum Loading (Mode Shape)
Mode 1
Mode 2
52 | P a g e
Mode 3
Mode 4
53 | P a g e
Mode 5
Mode 6
54 | P a g e
7.2.2 Results and Discussion
The above RCC frame structure is analysed both statically and dynamically and the results are
compared for the following three categories namely Beam Stresses, Axial Forces, Torsion,
Displacements and Moment at different nodes and beams and the results are tabulated as a shown
below.
STATIC DYNAMIC
COLUMN
L/C ANALYSIS L/C ANALYSIS
NUMBER
(KN-M) (KN-M)
274 SL+X 4.52 SL+X 7.109
277 SL+X 69.759 SL+X 28.713
143 SL+X 183.089 SL+X 316.632
287 SL+X 6.732 SL+X 29.255
144 SL+X 475.47 SL+X 740.775
STATIC DYNAMIC
COLUMN
L/C ANALYSIS L/C ANLYSIS
No.
(KN) (KN)
274 SL+X 11.787 SL+X 26.525
277 SL+X 52.602 SL+X 86.504
287 SL+X 10.759 SL+X 13.659
143 SL+X 40.537 SL+X 100.501
144 SL+X 71.714 SL+X 169.398
55 | P a g e
7.2.2.3 Comparison of Storey Shear
Static Dynamic
Storey Level
Analysis Analysis
4 14 810.358 1559.08
3 10 678.2 1777.58
2 6 240.115 812.6
1 2 17.562 57.08
STATIC ANALYSIS
BEAM No. L/C MAX COMPRESSIVE STRESS (N/mm2) MAX TENSILE STRESS (N/mm2)
56 | P a g e
7.2.2.6 Comparison of Beam Stresses in Dynamic Analysis
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
BEAM L/C MAX COMPRESSIVE MAX TENSILE
No. STRESS (N/mm2) STRESS (N/mm2)
287 SL+X 4.473 -4.234
277 SL+X 5.875 -5.833
274 SL+X 5.251 -4.798
144 SL+X 13.758 -12.744
143 SL+X 16.392 -15.636
Beams
57 | P a g e
7.2.2.8 Comparison of Reinforcement in Columns
Columns
58 | P a g e
7.2.2.10 Beam end forces
59 | P a g e
BEAM NO.104 DESIGN RESULTS
M25 Fe415 (Main) Fe415 (Sec.)
60 | P a g e
CHAPTER - 08
Introduction
Static and dynamic analysis of given structure under the expected loading conditions has been carried
out manually with the help of Microsoft Excel sheets. This chapter describes the manual calculations
and their results.
8.1 Reference Plan of Structure
PLAN VIEW
2 4
1
6
7 9
Column Lines
61 | P a g e
8.2 Reference Data
Table 10 Reference Data
Material Properties Values Remarks
Concrete Grade 25
Characteristic Strength (fck) 25000
2
(kN/m )
Concrete Unit Weight (kN/m3) 23.6
Poisson Ratio 0.17
RC Unit Weight (kN/m3) 25
Modulus of Elasticity(kN/m2) 21718400
Steel Grade 415
Yield Strength (fy)(N/mm2) 415
Infill Brick Size
Unit Weight (kN/m3) 20.6
Gravity (m/s2) 10
64 | P a g e
8.3.1.3 Weight of Slabs
Floor Finishes
2
Floor Area(m ) Intensity(kN/m2) Total Load(kN)
1 433.4428 0 0
2 433.4428 1 433.4428
3 433.4428 1 433.4428
Roof 433.4428 1 433.4428
1300.3284
65 | P a g e
8.3.1.5 Weight of Walls
66 | P a g e
8.3.2 Live Load
Live Load
Floor Area (m2) Intensity (kN/m2) Total Load (kN)
1 433.4428 0 0
2 433.4428 3 1300.3284
3 433.4428 3 1300.3284
∑Weight
Floor 1 2 3 Roof
(kN)
Total Weight of Columns
545.538 1091.075 1091.075 1091.075 3818.763
(kN)
Total weight of Walls (kN) 0.000 2616.937 2581.901 2454.188 342.521 7995.546
∑Weight (kN) 545.538 3708.012 3672.976 3545.263 342.521 11814.309
0.5*∑Weight (kN) 272.769 1854.006 1836.488 1772.632
∑Weight (kN) 3353.538 6520.933 6439.559 4945.592 21259.621
67 | P a g e
8.4.2 Live Load
Imposed Load
Seismic Live Load
Floors Area(m2) Load Intensity (kN/m2) Total Live Load (kN)
Intensity (k(N/m2))
1 433.4428 0 0 0
2 433.4428 3 0.75 325.0821
3 433.4428 3 0.75 325.0821
Roof 433.4428 3 0 0
650.1642
Seismic Weight
Floor Dead Load (kN) Live Load (kN) Total Lumped Load (kN)
1 3353.538 0 3353.538
2 6520.933 325.0821 6846.015
3 6439.559 325.0821 6764.641
Roof 4945.592 0 4945.592
Total Seismic Weight of Building 21909.786
68 | P a g e
8.5 Static Analysis
Base Dimensions
Direction
(m)
X 26.068
Z 21.519
City Kurukshetra
Zone IV
Structure Type RC Frame Building
Soil Type Medium Soil
Building Frame Systems Special RC moment-resisting frame ( SMRF )
Importance Important Building
Damping (%) 5
Direction X
Fundamental Natural Period of
0.24678
Vibration (Ta)
Factors Values
Response Reduction Factor ( R ) 5.0
Importance Factor ( I ) 1.5
Zone Factor ( Z ) 0.24
Direction In X Direction
Avg. Response Acceln Coefficient (
2.500
Sa/g )
Design Hz. Seismic Coefficient ( Ah ) 0.090
69 | P a g e
8.5.2 Base and Storey Shear Calculation
70 | P a g e
8.6 Dynamic Analysis
a4 1 1 1
Fi4=m4.Wn2.a4 6769.128 9139.503 10706.93
Fk4=Fi4 6769.128 9139.503 10706.93
∆ k4=Fk4/k4 0.002098 0.002832 0.003318
1 2 3
71 | P a g e
Table 32 Modal Mass and Participation Factor for 1st Mode
Storey weight (W) Ø (W.Ø) (W.Ø)2 W. Ø2
4 4945.5916 1.0371 5129.0457 26307109.7357 5319.304936
3 6764.6408 1.0322 6982.2890 48752358.9919 7206.939776
2 6846.0151 1.0198 6981.4268 48740320.1870 7119.516894
1 3353.538161 1.0000 3353.5382 11246218.1970 3353.538161
21909.7857 22446.2996 135046007.1115 22999.29977
Mk Mk% Pk
2233.088267 99.9854 0.975955783
Mode 2
Storey Weight Ø (W.Ø) (W.Ø)2 W. Ø2
4 4945.591586 1.0506 5196.057788 26999016.53 5459.208684
3 6764.640819 1.0439 7061.707072 49867706.77 7371.81886
2 6846.015104 1.0270 7030.706348 49430831.75 7220.380178
1 3353.538161 1.0000 3353.538161 11246218.2 3353.538161
∑ 21909.78567 22642.00937 137543773.3 23404.94588
Mk Mk% Pk
2232.817785 99.97333066 0.967402765
Mode 3
Storey Weight Ø (W.Ø) (W.Ø)2 W. Ø2
4 4945.591586 1.0598 5241.198973 27470166.67 5554.475374
3 6764.640819 1.0518 7115.180931 50625799.68 7483.885846
2 6846.015104 1.0318 7063.849434 49897968.83 7288.615066
1 3353.538161 1 3353.538161 11246218.2 3353.538161
∑ 21909.78567 Ø 22773.7675 139240153.4 23680.51445
Mk Mk % Pk
2232.593339 99.9632812 0.961709153
Calculation of Modal mass and Modal participation factor for 1st has been shown in Table 32.
Where Mk- Modal mass is given by,
Mk = (Σ WiØik)2/ g Σ Wi(Øik)2
72 | P a g e
Modal participation factor-Pk is given by,
Pk = Σ WiØik/ Σ Wi(Øik)2
Determination of storey shear for the Modes have been tabularised below.
Table 33 Calculation of Ah
Mode Wn T Sa/g Ah
1 9.635455 0.103783 2.5 0.09
2 26.77069 0.037354 2.5 0.09
3 37.61994 0.026582 2.4085 0.086706
MODE- 2
MODE- 3
Where, Vk=Σ Qk
73 | P a g e
Since the modes are closely spaced CQC method has been used for the calculation of base shear
due to the effect of all three modes.
Table 35
β β Pij storey λ
1,2 2.778232767 0.872389626 4 726.8386103
2,3 1.405258797 0.984552933 3 1714.789871
3,1 3.904136038 0.788765499 2 2698.763586
1 3168.388299
Where,
Pij –cross modal coefficient
β – Frequency ratio
R – damping ratio
λ – Response quantity in given mode
Pij= 8R2(1+ β) β1.5/(1- β2)2+4R2 β(1+ β)2
74 | P a g e
CHAPTER-09
9 Conclusions
Following conclusions have been made by analysing the given structure under specified loading
conditions using STAAD.PRO software and comparing the same with manual calculations. Static
and dynamic analysis of structure for seismic loading has been done.
1. Structure possesses irregularity in geometry as well as in stiffness and hence cannot be
modelled for dynamic analysis by considering it as a system of lumped masses.
2. Since the base shear obtained in dynamic analysis is greater than the base shear obtained in
static analysis, multiplication factor is not to be used.
3. Provision of shear walls is preferable as the cross-sections of columns and beams are larger
in size than usual values in order to carry the given loads safely.
From the comparison of results obtained from STAAD.Pro and Manual computations, almost
all the structural elements passed the checks carried out on them including the deflection,
shear forces and bending moment. The list of failed elements was indicated by STAAD Pro
software program and superior sections were selected. The analysis and design of the new
sections were performed again and positive results were obtained immediately.
The use of Computer Aided tools in structural analysis and design has been proven to be
effective from the results output. It was observed that the time for performing the design work
is significantly reduced by the use of computer software. However, the software programs
can be easily misused without observing proper precautions in the analysis and design
procedures which can lead to structural failures, costly disputes and poor performing
structures. Thus, this explains the importance of comparison between different software
packages and more importantly performing hand calculations for like a floor and comparing
for the same floor in the software packages. Therefore, it can be concluded that the structure
has fulfilled the Ultimate Limit State and the Serviceability Limit State requirements.
75 | P a g e
10 References
Kim H.S ; Lee D.G. "Efficient seismic analysis of high-rise buildings." New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering. 2001.
Rao S., Ramanujam I.V.R. "COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC FORCES BASED ON
STATIC AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AS PER IS: 1893 -2002." International journal of
structural and civil engineering research 04, no. 01 (2015): 63-74.
Lee S. "Nonlinear dynamic earthquake analysis of skyscrapers." CTBUH 2008 8th world congress.
Dubai, 2008.
Mahdi T; Bahreini V. . "Seismic Response of Asymmetrical Infilled Concrete Frames." Procedia
Engineering 54 (2013): 341 – 352.
Manchalwar S., Mathane A., Hete S., Kharabe T. "Comparative Study of Seismic Analysis of 3-
Storey RC Frame." International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
Research 5, no. 4 (2016): 1090-1093.
Verma S.K., Srivastava S., Zain M. "A Comparative Study on Static & Dynamic Analysis of High
omparative Study on Static & Dynamic Analysis of High." International Journal of
Engineering Technology Science and Research 4, no. 5 (2017): 268-278.
Wilson E.L. A replacement for the SRSS method in seismic analysis. Wiley, 1981.
Yajdhani S; Kishore K.S.N; Gottala A. "Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Seismic
Analysis of a Multistoried Building." International Journal of Science Technology &
Engineering 02, no. 01 (2015): 173-183.
76 | P a g e