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

net/publication/339569841

Seismic Response Analysis of Tall Building Using STAAD Pro Software

Article · February 2020

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3685732

CITATIONS READS

0 118

2 authors, including:

Sangeeta Uikey
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING USING STAAD PRO SOFTWARE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sangeeta Uikey on 28 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

Seismic Response Analysis of Tall Building Using STAAD Pro

Software
Sangeeta Uikey1*, Er. Rahul Satbhaiya2
1
M.Tech Scholar, Department of Structural Engineering, Infinity Management &
Engineering College, Sagar, M.P., India.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Infinity Management & Engineering
College, Sagar, M.P., India.
*Corresponding author
E-mail id:-sangeeta.uikey2011@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The main objective of this whole project is to Seismic Response Analysis Of Tall Building
Using Staad Pro Software Load calculations are done manually and analysis of whole
structure by STAAD Pro Software. Limit State Design conforming to Indian Standard Code of
Practice is method used in STAAD-Pro analysis for designing. STAADPro is the software of
professional’s choice. I had done the analysis of frames and manually checked the accuracy
of the software with our results obtained. The results proved to be very precise and accurate.
Ihad analyzed and designed a G+4, G+9, G+14, & G+19 storey building and checked it for
all possible load combinations (Dead, live, wind and seismic loads). STAAD.Pro has a very
user friendly and interactive user interface, which allows the users to simply draw the frame
and command the load values and dimensions. Then as per the specified criteria assigned, it
analyses the whole structure and it also analyze the structure in different seismic Zone given
by our code. The materials was chosen and geometric cross-sections of the beam and column
members has assigned. Fixed support has been fixed for whole analysis. Codal provision to
be followed has also been specified for design purpose with other important details. Then
STAAD.Pro has been used to analyze the structure. It can easily determine the parameter like
Lateral forces, bending moment, Shear force, & axial force.

Keywords:-Lateral forces, bending moment, Shear force, axial force, seismic response.

INTRODUCTION has become extremely important

The recent earthquakes in India has shown concern[21,22,23]. In particular, the
increase in the seismic zoning factor over seismic rehabilitation of old RCC
various parts of the country [13,14,15]. In structures in high seismicity areas is a
addition to this, ductility has become an matter of growing concern, since
significant issue for all those buildings that structures.In earthquake design, the
has designed and detailed using earlier building has to go through regular and
versions of the IS codes [16]. Various repetitive motion at its base, which induce
concrete structures have collapsed or to inertia force in the building that
severely damaged during these consecutively causes stresses[24,25,26]
earthquakes[1,2,17,18]. This shows the
importance for evaluating the seismic OBJECTIVES
adequacy of buildings already constructed The objective of the study are as follows:
[19,20]. India’s 60% of land constitute 1) Evolution of performance of RC frame
these four zones [10,11,12]. Under such building under seismic zone.
conditions, seismic qualification of 2) Compare the performance of structure
existing buildings under revised IS codes in different seismic zone and soil

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 1

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

condition. (vertical regular and vertical irregular)

3) To compare the seismic response of having (G+9) stories with different bracing
multistoried buildings without shear wall systems were analysed by response
in terms of Storey drift and Average spectrum method using ETABS. Outcomes
displacement. corresponded to displacement, storey drift
and storey shear was compared. In this
research , researchers concluded that both
regular and irregular RCC frame structures
X- bracing gives less displacement, storey
drift and base shear. Regular frame bears
more stiffness than irregular frame. Steel
bracing were used to strengthen and
retrofit existing structures. [5]

Mohammad A. et al. (2016) - donea

numerical approach to show dissimilarity
between shear wall and steel bracing
Fig.1:-Earhtquake In Nepal systems. The new methodology of this
research was to strengthened lateral force
RELATED WORK resisting system via steel bracing. A
Kuldeep dubey & Rakesh patel (2018) - measured has been done step by step to
floating column then the cost of building is show understandable contrasts between
increases due to increase in reinforcement systems. The overall investigation has
& concrete but building gives satisfactory been carried out by response spectrum
results and the with floating column. [3] using ETABS 9.7 that is of six case
studies. It is coherent that model 1 (shear
Anes B et al. (2017) - deal with effect of wall at core) is the safest among six
steel bracings on RC framed structures. models assessed in the research tenacity.
Reinforced concrete building (G+9) was Positioning of shear wall is a principal
shaped and analysed in three parts point. Besides, the orientation in floor
comprising model sans steel bracing and bracing is of less significant dissecting
shear wall, with dissimilar bracing with the vertically oriented bracing
systems, with shear wall. Bracings and systems. Further modification in floor
shear wall were positioned at the middle bracing will escort good formulation as
bays and all these simulations were seismic force resisting system. [6]
analysed for seismic forces at seismic
zones II, III, IV and V using ETABS 2015. Anirudh Gottala, Kintali Sai Nanda et
As per conclusion chevron category of al (2015) - has done comparative study of
steel bracing was originate to be more static and dynamic seismic analysis of a
effectual in zones II and III, X type tall building. A multi-storied framed
bracing was originate to be more effective structure of (G+9) pattern has been
in zones IV and V. Steel braced building selected. Seismic analysis linearlyhas been
significantly decreases the lateral drift done for the tall building by static method
when associated with shear wall building. (Seismic Coefficient Method) and dynamic
[4] method (Response Spectrum Method)
using STAAD-Pro as per the IS-1893-
Rakshith (2017) - examined effect of 2002-Part-1. A comparison has been done
bracings on Multi-Storied RCC building between the static and dynamic analysis
under dynamic loading. RCC building and the results such as Bending moment,

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 2

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

Nodal Displacements, Mode shapes are MEMBER LOADING

computed, compared and summarized for All the members has assigned the
Beams, Columns and Structure as a whole following loading
during both the analysis.[7]  Self-weight
 Live load
METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION  Earthquake load as per IS-
MODELLING OF FRAME code:1983:2002/2005
All the preliminary modelling has done in  It was assumed that the wind force
STAAD Pro. V8i by using staad modelling was not governing the frame
tools, A 5,10,15 & 20 storey frame was efficiency
modeled in STAAD Pro. Along with the
above frame. The main aim is to compare LOAD COMBINATION
storey drift, storey deflection, bending In this project we will generated load
moment & shear forces [27,28]. combination during analysis process. The
 All the beam is the frame for 5, 10, 15 generate load combination is the
&20 storey were size to combination of the load obtained as per
(0.23x0.35)mm when we go more code in this project we are following
than G+9 storey building then we used Indian standard code design criteria so the
this value of column. load generated by the STAAD Pro. V8i
 All the beam is the frame for 5, 10, 15 has based on concrete design type using
& 20 storey were size to(0.23x.30)mm IS1893:2002/2005. Load combination
 All the column is the frame for 5, 10, generated as follows: [12]
15 & 20 storey were size to
(0.23x0.46)mm

Table 1:-Load cases details

Load case no. Load cases
1 D.L
2 L.L
3 EQ_X +VE
4 EQ_X -VE
5 EQ_Z +VE
6 EQ_Z -VE
7 1.5(D.L+L.L)
8 1.2(D.L+L.L+EQ_X) +VE
9 1.2(D.L+L.L+EQ_X) -VE
10 1.2(D.L+L.L+EQ_Z) +VE
11 1.2(D.L+L.L+EQ_Z) -VE

RESULT results are obtained as deflected shape,

This chapter present the results on RCC drift shape, shear force and bending
frame of 5, 10, 15 & 20 storey without moment. The top displacement with
shear wall. The analysis of 5, 10, 15 & 20 respect to base reaction have obtained by
storey RC frame has performed under the load deflection and the result for this
statics load by using STAAD PRO analysis have concluded [30].
Software [28,29]. Subsequently these

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 3

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

Fig.2:-Storey Frift Of G+4

Fig.3:-Storey Drift For G+9

Fig.4:-Storey Drift In G+14

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 4

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

Fig.5:-For G+19 Storey Rc Frame Zone Wise

CONCLUSION seen that maximum deflection is

The results for G+4, G+9, G+14 & G+19 37.95% in medium soil ongoing from
storey building are discuss in results zone-II to zone-III.
section for the discussion it is concluded  In case of G+19 RC frame it can be
that seen that maximum deflection is
 In case of G+4 RC frame it can be 39.60% is same in medium soil
seen that maximum storey drift is ongoing from zone-II to zone-III.
37.74% in soft soil ongoing from
zone-II to zone-III. REFERENCES
 In case of G+9 RC frame it can be 1. Bhure and Nitin tiwari (2018)- “steel
seen that maximum storey drift is concrete composite construction a
37.44% in medium soil ongoing from review”, IJRASET, vol. 6, issue XI,
zone-II to zone-III. nov.. 2018, ISSN 2321-9653.
 In case of G+14 RC frame it can be 2. Snehal Ashok Bhoyar (2017) – “effect
seen that maximum storey drift is of floating column on building
41.97% in hard soil ongoing from performance subjected to lateral load”,
zone-II to zone-III VJER, 134-143.
 In case of G+19 RC frame it can be 3. Kuldeep dubey and Rakesh Patel
seen that maximum storey drift is (2018)- Reliability Analysis of Multi-
47.29% in medium soil ongoing from Storey Buildingwith Floating Column
zone-II to zone-III. for Long Span, IJIRSET, Vol. 7, Issue
 In case of G+4 RC frame it can be 9, September 2018
seen that maximum deflection is 4. Anes B et al. (2017) [1] “Effect of Steel
37.478% in medium soil ongoing Bracings on RC Framed Structure”
from zone-II to zone-III. ISSN 0973-1881 Volume 12, Number
 In case of G+9 RC frame it can be 1 (2017), pp. 97-112
seen that maximum deflection is 5. Rakshith K L, Smitha (2017), “Effect
37.49% is same in medium soil of Bracing on Multi-Storey RCC
ongoing from zone-II to zone-III. Frame Building under Dynamic
 In case of G+14 RC frame it can be Loading”, International Journal of
Advance Research, Ideas and

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 5

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

Innovations in Technology, Volume 3, Recommendations. Int Res J Eng

Issue 4. Technol 2018;05:1618–21.
6. Mohammad. A, Syed H (2016), 15. Tiwari N, Sakalle R, Kumar V, Dangi
“Comparative Study of Seismic S, Verma N. A Review Paper on
Analysis of Multi-Storey Building Seismic Responses Analysis of
with Shear Wall and Bracing Multistoried RC Building. Int J Res
Systems”, International Journal of Appl Sci Eng Technol 2018;6:13–4.
Advanced Strucyures& Geotechnical https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1
Engineering, Volume 5, No. 3. 1005.
7. Anirudh Gottala et. al. (2015)[5] 16. Tiwari N, Pawar A singh, Lokhande
“Comparative Study of Static and D, Karole A, Mandloi K, Singh L.
Dynamic Seismic Analysis of a Design Of Pervious Pavement For The
Multistoried Building” - International Light Load Bearing. Int J Eng Sci Res
Journal of Science Technology & Technol 2017;6:792–5.
Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 01 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.56996
ISSN (online): 2349-784X. 3.
8. Himanshu Bansal et. al. 17. Tiwari N, Satyam N. An experimental
[4]
(2013) “study on storey shear force study on the behavior of lime and
was found to be maximum for the first silica fume treated coir geotextile
storey and it decreased to a minimum reinforced expansive soil subgrade.
in the top storey”. Eng Sci Technol an Int J 2020.
9. Md. Arman Chowdhury, (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.1
[6]
“Comparative study of the Dynamic 2.006.
Analysis of Multi-storey Irregular 18. Sakalle R, Tiwari N, Reshi saadiya H.
building with or without Base Seismic Analysis of Old Masonry
Isolator”. Buildings using Equivalent Static
10. IS: 875-1987 (part-1) for Dead Loads, Method. Int Res J Eng Technol
code of practice of Design loads (other 2018;6:75–8.
than earthquake) for buildings and 19. Gakre R, Sakalle R, Tiwari N.
structures. Analysis of Railway Bridge Steel
11. IS: 875-1987 (part-2) for Live Loads Sections with Different Type of
or Imposed Loads, code of practice of Trusses for 32.5 Tonne Axle Loading.
Design loads (other than earthquake) Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol
for buildings and structures. 2018;6:241–50.
12. IS 456:2000 Plain and Reinforced https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1
Concrete - Code of Practice is an 1039.
Indian Standard code of practice for 20. Tiwari N, Sakalle R, Kumar A, Kumar
general structural use of plain and D, Gaffari MA, Thakre K, et al. A
reinforced concrete Review-Parametric Performance
13. Arbaj Kd, Rashmi S, Nitin T. Time Analysis of Tall Building under
History Analysis Of Elevated Circular various Seismic Zone and Soil
Tank. J Struct Eng 2018;7:1–11. Condition. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng
https://doi.org/10.26634/jste.7.2.1448 Technol 2018;6:4–5.
5. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1
14. Sakalle R, Tiwari N, Shah AA. a 1002.
Review Paper on Seismic Design 21. Demrot AK, Sakalle R, Tiwari N. A
Evaluation of Existing Unreinforced Comparative Seismic Study on
Masonry Structures Using Is Code Elevated Storage Tank for different
Frame conditions- Literature Review.

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 6

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 1
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732

Int J Innov Res Technol 310 Replacement of Sand with Stone Dust
2018;4:310–3. and Steel Scrap : A Review. Int J Sci
22. Vishwakarma M, Sakalle R, Tiwari N. Res Dev 2018;6:2232–6.
A Review - Comparative Structural 28. Tiwari N, Sakalle R, Shrivastava AK,
Analysis of Tall. Int J Res Appl Sci Akhtar N, Moorjani P, Shandilya S.
Eng Technol 2018;6:727–9. Static Linear and Non-Linear
23. Tiwari, N., & Satyam, N. (2019). Performance Analysis of Existing
Experimental Study on the Influence G+3 RC Frame Structure. Int J Tech
of Polypropylene Fiber on the Res Sci 2018;3:160–6.
Swelling Pressure Expansion Attrib- https://doi.org/10.30780/ijtrs.v3.i4.201
utes of Silica Fume Stabilized Clayey 8.016.
Soil. Geosciences, 9(9), 29. Sharma A, Sakalle R, Tiwari N.
377.https://doi.org/10.3390/GEOSCIE Analysis of Beam using Timeshenko
NCES9090377 Method & Compare with Eulers
24. Mandloi K, Rajeev Arya, Tiwari N, Elementry Beam Theory. Int J Sci Res
Sakalle R. Design and Seismic Dev 2018;6:599–602.
Evaluation of the Six Storey RC 30. Tiwari N, Sakalle R, Kumar A, Kumar
Residential Building. Int J Res Appl D, Gaffari A, Kapil T, et al.
Sci Eng Technol 2018;6:115–20. Parametric Performance Analysis of
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1 Tall Building under various Seismic
2017. Zone and Soil Condition. Int J Res
25. Anwar S, Tiwari N, Sakalle R. Appl Sci Eng Technol 2018;6:127–32.
Comparative study of performance of https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1
rea...pdf. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng 1023.
Technol 2018;6:2614–6.
26. Anwar S, Tiwari N, Sakalle R. Cite this article as: Sangeeta Uikey,
Comparative Study of Performance & Er. Rahul Satbhaiya. (2020).
based Pushover Analysis of Tall Seismic Response Analysis of Tall
Structure. Int J Sci Res Dev Building Using STAAD Pro Software.
2018;6:2614–6. Journal of Earthquake Science and
27. Meena S, Sakalle R, Tiwari N. An Soil Dynamics Engineering, 3(1), 1–7.
Assessment on Properties of Material http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685732
used in Concrete as a Partial

HBRP Publication Page 1- 7 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 7

View publication stats