INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 2, No 3, 2012
© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article
ISSN 0976 – 4399
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and
ETABS Software
Prashanth.P1, Anshuman.S2, Pandey.R.K3, Arpan Herbert4
1- Higher Degree Student, Civil Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology & Science,
Pilani- 333031, Rajasthan
2- Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Group, Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani333031, Rajasthan
3- Professor and Associate Head, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS (Formerly AAIDU), Allahabad- 211007, U.P.
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS (Formerly AAI-DU),
Allahabad- 211007, U.P.
rkpandey1105@rediffmail.com
doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202030014
ABSTRACT
STAADPro and ETABS are the present day leading design softwares in the market. Many
design companies use these softwares for their project design purposes. So, this project
mainly deals with the comparative analysis of the results obtained from the design of a
regular and a plan irregular (as per IS 1893) multi storey building structure when designed
using STAADPro and ETABS softwares separately. These results will also be compared with
manual calculations of a sample beam and column of the same structure designed as per IS
456.
Keywords: Structure Design, STAADPro and ETABS.
1. Introduction
STAADPro and ETABS are the present day leading design softwares in the market. Many
design companies use these softwares for their project design purposes. So, this project
mainly deals with the comparative analysis of the results obtained from the design of a multi
storey building structure when designed using STAADPro and ETABS softwares separately.
For first case, a 25mx25m 11 storey structure is modeled using both STAADPro and ETABS
softwares. The height of each storey is taken as 3mts making the total height of the structure
30mts. Analysis and design of the structure is done and then the results generated by these
softwares are compared and a conclusion is drawn from them. For second case, a 25mx25m 5
storey plan irregular structure as per IS 1893 is modeled using both STAADPro and ETABS
softwares. The height of each storey is taken as 3mt making the total height of 15mts. Design
results of both the softwares are compared along with the manual calculations of a sample
beam and column designed using IS 456.
2. Problem Definition
2.1 Case 1
A 25mtx25mt 11 storey multi storey regular structure is considered for the study. Modeling,
analysis and design of the structure is done separately on both STAADPro and ETABS
software. Plan of the building considered is shown in Figure 1.
Received on December, 2011 Published on February 2012
869
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software
Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert
Figure 1: Plan of the regular structure considered
Table 1: Preliminary Data
Length x Width
No. of storeys
Storey height
Beam
Column 6-11 storeys
Column 1-6 storeys
Slab thickness
Support conditions
Beam Releases
25x25m
11
3m
400x400mm
650x650mm
850x850mm
125mm
Fixed
Axial force
2.1.1 Loading consideration
Loads acting on the structure are dead load (DL), Live Load (IL) and Earthquake Load (EL)
DL: Self weight of the structure, Floor load and Wall loads
 LL: Live load 3KN/sq.m is considered
 SL: Zone: I
 Soil type: II
 Response reduction factor: 5
 Importance factor: 1
 Damping: 5%
 Time period: 0.54 sec (calculated as per IS 1893: 2002)
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
870
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software
Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert
2.1.2 Results and Discussions
Results of vertical reactions of a sample node for different loads have been tabled in Table 2.
Table 2: Maximum Deflection at the Roof without Shear Wall
Loading
DL
LL
EQ(along length)
EQ(along width)
STAADPro
1696.285 kN
210.32 kN
183.626 kN
183.626 kN
ETABS
1695.86kN
209.91 kN
172.66 kN
172.66 kN
Similarly, Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column is given in Table 3
Table 3: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column
Loading
DL
LL
EQ(along length)
EQ(along width)
Forces
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
STAADPro
231.21
18.879
18.879
0
28.282
28.282
31.597
3.899
3.899
0
5.928
5.928
13.267
8.579
0
0
0
9.341
13.267
8.579
0
0
0
9.341
ETABS
230.82
19.31
19.31
0
28.425
28.425
31.48
4.05
4.05
0
6.014
6.014
14.76
9.13
0
0
0
9.203
14.76
9.13
0
0
0
9.203
Design results of a sample beam and column by STAADPro and ETABS are given in below
Table 4
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
871
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software
Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert
Table 4: Design results of a sample beam and column
Section
Total reinforcement (sq.mm)
STAADPro
ETABS
1131
1048
3380
3380
Beam
Column
2.2 Case 2
A 25mtx25mt 5 storey multi storey plan irregular structure as per IS 1893:2002 is considered
for the study. Modeling, analysis and design of the structure is done separately on both
STAADPro and ETABS software. Plan of the building considered is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Plan of the irregular structure considered
Table 5: Preliminary Data
Length x Width
No. of storeys
Storey height
Beam along length
Beam along width
Column
Slab thickness
Support conditions
Beam Releases
25x25m
5
3m
300x350mm
300x300mm
500x500mm
125mm
Fixed
Axial force
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
872
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software
Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert
2.2.1 Loading consideration
Loads acting on the structure are dead load (DL), Live Load (IL) and Earthquake Load (EL)
 DL: Self weight of the structure, Floor load and Wall loads
 LL: Live load 3KN/sq.m is considered
 SL: Zone: II
 Soil type: II
 Response reduction factor: 5
 Importance factor: 1
 Damping: 5%
 Time period: 0.246 sec (calculated as per IS 1893: 2002)
Figure 3: Elevation of the irregular structure considered
2.2.2 Results and Discussions
Results of vertical reactions of a sample node for different loads have been tabled in Table 6.
Table 6: Maximum Deflection at the Roof without Shear Wall
Loading
DL
LL
EQ(along length)
EQ(along width)
STAADPro
613.509 kN
85.002 kN
44.27 kN
44.05 kN
ETABS
613.57 kN
85.01 kN
44.23 kN
44.09 kN
Similarly, Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column is given in Table 7.
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
873
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software
Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert
Table 7: Bending Moment and Shear Force of a sample column
Loading
DL
LL
EQ(along length)
EQ(along width)
Forces
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
Axial force Fx
Shear force Fy
Shear force Fz
BM Mx
My
Mz
STAADPro
613.509
10.63
10.657
0
10.449
10.224
85.002
1.982
2.016
0
1.963
1.906
44.217
22.004
4.798
0
16.742
73.072
45.04
0
19.327
0
75.811
0
ETABS
613.57
10.62
10.65
0
10.43
10.21
85.01
1.98
2.01
0
1.957
1.898
44.23
22.34
5.09
0
17.82
74.152
45.09
0
19.47
0
76.271
0
Design results of a sample beam and column by STAADPro and ETABS are given in below
Table 8.
Table 8: Design results of a sample beam and column
Section
Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)
STAADPro
ETABS
1816
1678
2000
2000
Beam
Column
Design results comparison of a sample beam and column designed by STAADPro and
ETABS with manual calculations are given in below Table 9.
Table 9: Design results of a sample beam and column
Section
Beam
Column
STAADPro
1573
2000
Total Req. reinforcement (sq.mm)
ETABS
Manual Calculations
1408
1388
2000
2000
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
874
Comparison of design results of a Structure designed using STAAD and ETABS Software
Prashanth.P, Anshuman.S, Pandey.R.K, Arpan Herbert
3. Conclusion
From the design results of beams, we may conclude that ETABS gave lesser area of required
steel as compared to STAAD PRO. It is found out from previous studies on comparison of
STAAD results with manual calculations that STAADPro gives conservative design results
which is again proved in this study by comparing the results of STAADPro, ETABS and
Manual calculations (refer below table). Form the design results of column; since the required
steel for the column forces in this particular problem is less than the minimum steel limit of
column (i.e., 0.8%), the amount of steel calculated by both the softwares is equal. So
comparison of results for this case is not possible.
4. References
1. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 1 (1987), Dead Loads on Buildings and
Structures, New Delhi, India.
2. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 2 (1987), Live Loads on Buildings and
Structures, New Delhi, India.
3. 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.
4. Hammad Salahuddin, Saqib Habib, Talha Rehman (2010), Comparison of design of a
building using ETABS V 9.5 & STAAD PRO 2005, University of Engineering and
Technology, Taxila, Pakistan.
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012
875