COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUAL DESIGN AND STAAD

DESIGN OF A G+4 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

A Project Report Submitted

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
BACHELOR OF
TECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING

Under the Guidance Of

Prof. BIREN GURUNG

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

COOCH BEHAR GOVERNMENT
ENGINEERING COLLEGE
MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY, KOLKATA- 700152

JUNE 2020
 2

NAME OF THE STUDENTS

NAME ROLL NO.

1. GOUTAM MONDAL 34901316034
2. GOURAB BAL 34901316036
3. CHHOTON SARKAR 34901316037
4. BISWAJIT MANDAL 34901316038
5. BISHAL GAYEN 34901316039
6. ARANNA DEBNATH 34901316048
7. KAMALIKA PANDIT 34901317017
8. GOURAB CHOWDHURY 34901317018
 3

Certificate

This is to certify that the project entitled ‘COMPARISON BETWEEN

MANUAL DESIGN AND STAAD DESIGN OF A G+4 RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING’ being submitted by the students of CIVIL ENGINEERING 4TH
YEAR in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor
of Technology in Civil Engineering, and has been carried out under our
guidance and supervision.

…………………………….. ……………………………..
Prof. KINGSHUK DAN Prof. BIREN GURUNG
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
 4

Acknowledgement
We extend our deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to my guide Prof.
BIREN GURUNG of CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT of COOCH BEHAR
GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, for their kind attitude, invaluable
guidance, valuable suggestion, keen interest, immense help, inspiration and
encouragement, that helped me a lot for carrying out the project.

We are extremely grateful to Prof. KINGSHUK DAN, HOD, Department of

Civil Engineering, for providing all kind of possible help, throughout the
semester for completion of the project work.

Lastly, we would like to thank those who are associated with the project
work directly or indirectly for providing the immense help in completion of the
project work.

……………………………………
1. GOUTAM MONDAL
2. GOURAB BAL
3. CHHOTON SARKAR
4. BISWAJIT MANDAL
5. BISHAL GAYEN
6. ARANNA DEBNATH
7. KAMALIKA PANDIT
8. GOURAB CHOWDHURY
 5

Abstract

Earthquakes are known to produce one of the most

destructive forces on earth. It has been seen that during past
earthquakes many of the building were collapsed. Therefore,
realistic method for analysis and design are required.
Performance Based Design is the modern approach for
earthquake resistant design. It is an attempt to predict the
performance of buildings under expected seismic event. In this
present study, a G+4 residential building is analyzed by seismic
action situated at ZONE IV. It involves the comparison of
different parameters like seismic weight, base shear,
reinforcements provided etc. This study will give a fair idea of
design process that can be undertaken in case of real life
projects.
 6

CONTENTS
S. No Chapter Name Page No

1. Certificate 3

2. Acknowledgement 4

3. Abstract 5

4. Chapter 1 : Introduction 8 - 21

5. 1.1 Introduction 8
6. 1.2 Features of Staad.Pro 9
7. 1.3 Literature Review 11
8. 1.4 Objective 21

9. Chapter 2: Building Properties 22 - 28

10. 2.1 Site Property 22

11. 2.2 Elevation and Plan of the Building 23
12. 2.3 Geometric properties of components 25
13. 2.4 Material Properties 26
14. 2.5 Loading types 27

15. Chapter 3: Modeling and Analysis 29 - 30

16. 3.1 Comparison between Seismic Weight

And Base Reaction

17. Chapter 4: Comparison of Design Data 31 - 50

18. 4.1 Staircase Design 31

19. 4.2 Slab Design Comparison 32
20. 4.3 Beam Design Comparison 40
21. 4.4 Column Design Comparison 43
22. 4.5 Foundation Design Comparison 46
 7

S. No Chapter Name Page No

23. Chapter 5: Conclusion 51

24. Chapter 6: Future Scope of Project 52

25. Chapter 7: References 53

26. List of Figures

27. 1. Load Application in Staad 28

28 2. Whole Structure 3D Model in Staad 29
29 3. Stair Section 32
30. 4. Slab Sections 39
31. 5. Beam Layout Plan 40
32. 6. Beam Sections 42
33. 7. Column Layout Plan 43
34. 8. Column Sections 45 - 46
35. 9. Isolated Footing 47
36. 10. Combined Footing 47 - 48
37. 11. Mat Foundation 49 - 50
 8

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Buildings constitute a part of the definition of civilizations,
a way of life advanced by the people. The construction of
buildings should be looked upon as a process responded to
human requirements rather than as a product to be designed
and built a great expense.

It is well known fact that users of any software for

structural analysis and Design do not know whether the
program is having any bugs or its correctness while using.
Since any program developed may contain some error or bugs
it is necessary for the users to check the model and analysis
and design results manually.

Base shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral

force that will occur due to seismic ground motion at the base
of a structure.

Earthquake-resistant structures are structures designed

to withstand earthquakes. While no structure can be immune
to damage from earthquakes, the goal of earthquake-resistant
construction is to erect structures that fare better during
seismic activity than their conventional counterparts. The
main objectives of earthquake engineering are:

 Forces the potential consequences of strong

earthquakes on urban areas and civil infrastructure.
 9

 The support condition considered are as per site

condition.

1.2 Features of Staad pro

 Quality Assurance
 Broad Collection of design codes
 Covers all aspects of structural engineering
 Reports and Documentation
 10

 Methodology:

Determination of design earthquake forces is computed by

the following methods:

1. Equivalent static lateral method

2. Dynamic Analysis

In the first method, different partial safety factors are

applied to dead, live, earthquake forces to arrive at the design
ultimate load. In the IS: 456-2000 code, while considering
earthquake effects, wind loads assuming that both severe wind
and earthquake do not act simultaneously. The American and
Australian code recommendations are similar but with
different partial safety factors.

The dynamic analysis involves the rigorous analysis of the

structural system by studying the dynamic response of the
structure by considering the total response in terms of
Component modal responses. Dynamic analysis are mainly of
two types – a) Response spectrum analysis and b) Time History
analysis

In this project, we have limited our study to static analysis

of seismic forces.
 11

1.3 Literature Review

Earthquakes result from the sudden movement of tectonic plates in the

earth’s crust. The movement takes place at fault lines, and the energy released

is transmitted through the earth in the form of waves that causes ground

motion many miles from the epicentre. Regions adjacent to active fault lines are

the most prone to experience earthquake. As the ground moves, inertia tends to

keep structure in place, resulting in the imposition of displacements and forces

that can have catastrophic results. The purpose of the seismic design is to

proportion structures so that they can withstand the displacements and the

forces induced by the ground motion. Seismic design has emphasised the effects

of horizontal ground motion, because the horizontal components of an

earthquake usually exceed the vertical component and because structures are

usually much stiffer and stronger in response to vertical loads than they are in

response to horizontal loads.

Any learning process has different components through which learning

takes place. School learning may be based on book knowledge, theoretical

explanations and study, but most people learn more from real examples and

learning by doing. Seeing is also much more educative than just reading, reason

for which the illustration of a topic is of great importance to the learning

process. Analysing post-earthquake pictures does vividly teach about what

designs were faulty and why. Unfortunately, that cannot be said from the

structures that were not damaged because from the outside little can be seen.
 12

Only the study of the drawings and calculations can determine why a certain

structure did not fail, and while neighbouring structure were damaged or

totally collapsed. In particular those constructions that are at the point of total

failure are interesting because they present themselves as a freeze frame during

the process of collapsing.

Earthquake engineers in recent years have emphasized the need for

performance-based seismic analysis. An essential element in many seismic

evaluations is the determination of ultimate inelastic response of the structure.

Performance-based methods require reasonable estimates of inelastic

deformation or damage in structures which are better quantities to assess

damage than stress or forces. The performance based analysis is based on

quantifying the deformation of the members and the bridge structure as a

whole, under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a certain level of seismic

hazard. Existing codes are based on elastic analysis which has no measure of

the deformation capability of members of bridges. The performance based

analysis gives the analyst more choice of ‘performance’ of the bridges as

compared to the limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based on

limit state method.

Flexibility of soil causes lengthening of lateral natural period due to

overall decrease in lateral stiffness of the structural system. Such lengthening of

lateral natural period may considerably alter the seismic response of the

building frames resting on isolated foundation.

 13

Considerable amount of works have been carried out in the above said

areas by researchers.

In the present work, a few literatures related to these areas are reviewed and

reported.

 Jaya Prakash Kadali et al[1](2015) conducted study on static analysis

of multi-storeyed RC buildings by using pushover methodology. The

frames with various configuration are designed and detailed as Special

Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) and Ordinary Moment Resisting

Frames (OMRF) as per IS 1893 (2002). Total 10 frames are selected with

various number of storeys, number of bays, infill wall configurations, and

design methodology. The designs for SMRF buildings are done using

IS13920 (2002). The buildings are modelled and Pushover Analysis is

performed in SAP2000. Pushover analysis is a static nonlinear procedure

to analyse a building with the increase in the magnitude of loads, the

weak links and failure modes of the building are found. Special Moment

Resisting Frames (SMRF) is used as seismic force resisting systems in

buildings to resist earthquakes. SMRF resist strong earthquake shaking

without loss of stiffness or strength. The buildings designed as SMRF

perform much better compared to the SMRF building. Ductility and base

shear of SMRF is more compared to OMRF.

 14

 Mr.K.Lova Raju et al[2] (2015) studied the effective location of shear

wall on performance of building frame subjected to earthquake load. In

this paper, four types of structures with G+7 are considered in which one

of the frame without shear wall and three frames with shear wall in

various positions. The Non Linear Static analysis is done using ETABS

v9.7.2 software. The structure is designed for Seismic zone II, III, IV and

V. In pushover analysis, the lateral force increases with increase in height

of building. The behaviour of structure is determined including ultimate

load and maximum deflection. The pushover curve is generated by

plotting base shear and roof displacement. Frame with shear wall

performs better and the base shear increased when compared to the

frame without shear wall. Shear wall performs better to lateral

displacement and it reduces when compared to the frame without shear

wall.

 Md. Rashedul Kabir et al[3](2015) has determined response of multi-

storey regular and irregular buildings of identical weight under static

and dynamic loading in context of Bangladesh. In this paper, a 15

storeyed regular shaped and irregular shaped buildings have been

modelled using program ETABS 9.6 for Dhaka (seismic zone 2),

Bangladesh. The effect of static load, dynamic load and wind load is

analysed. The mass of the each buildings were considered to be same.

 15

Displacement due to wind load is maximum in all type of buildings. Static

and dynamic analysis gives less variation in displacement. The

displacement obtained from static analysis is more when compared to

dynamic analysis. The displacement increases with storey height. C

shaped and L shaped structure has higher displacement. Rectangular and

irregular shaped structure show almost similar displacement against

wind load as the total mass is constant.

 Akshay V. Raut et al[4] (2014) has performed pushover analysis of G+3

reinforced concrete building with soft storey. They have created the

basic computer model of four storey building frame structure and define

properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges .The program

includes several built-in default hinge properties that are based on

average values from ATC-40 for concrete members and average values

from FEMA-356 for steel members. With the increase in the magnitude

of the loads, weak links and failure modes of the building are found. The

curves show the behavior of the frame in terms of its stiffness and

ductility. For bare frame maximum base shear from pushover analysis is

951.78 KN and maximum displacement of 240.65mm in X direction. The

performance point is obtained by superimposing demand spectrum on

capacity curve transformed into spectral coordinates. The performance

point is obtained at a base shear level of 550KN and displacement of

45mm in the X direction. Hinges have developed in the beams and

 16

columns showing the three stages immediate occupancy, Life safety,

Collapse prevention. The column hinges have limited the damage.

 Lakshmi K.O et al[5] (2014) determined effect of shear wall location in

buildings subjected to seismic loads. Analysis software ETABS 9.5 is used

to create the 3D model and run the linear static and dynamic analysis.

Pushover analysis is done in SAP2000 V.14.1. Eight different models

were considered. Sixteen storey (G+15) residential building having

ground storey height and

floor height of 3m is analysed for the soil type medium. Loads are taken

from IS:875( Part 2). The load combinations considered for the analysis

and design is as per IS:1893-2002. The seismic weight is calculated using

full DL+ 25% of LL. Fixed supports are provided at base. Medium high

rise buildings with shear wall are found to be effective in improving the

overall seismic capacity of the structure. Drift value is reduced when

shear wall is provided at the corner. The reinforcement requirement in

column is affected by the location and orientation of adjacent shear walls

and columns. Push over analysis results provides a detail about the

performance of structures in post elastic range.

 17

 Nitin Choudhary et al[6](2014) performed pushover analysis of RC

frame building with shear wall. In this project, a four-storied reinforced

concrete frame building situated in Zone IV, is taken for the purpose of

study. Euro codes EC2 and EC8 are also based on performance based

design philosophy, but Indian codes are still silent over this method.

FEMA-273, FEMA-356 and ATC40 gives the detailed procedure of non-

linear pushover analysis. The performance based seismic design

obtained by above procedure satisfies the acceptance criteria for

immediate occupancy and life safety limit states for various intensities of

earthquakes. Performance based seismic design obtained leads to a

small reduction in steel reinforcement when compared to code based

seismic design (IS 1893:2002) obtained by STAAD.Pro.

 Riza Ainul Hakim et al[7] (2014) performed a seismic assessment of an

RC building using pushover analysis. In this paper, a 6- story reinforced

concrete structure located in Saudi Arabia with a story height of 4.0 m

was used in the static pushover analysis. The type of soil is soft rock or

site class C is selected according to the Saudi Building Code 301. The

FEMA 356 rule, which is built in SAP 2000 with the IO(Immediate

Occupancy), LS(Life Safety) and CP(collapse prevention) limit states for

hinge rotation have been used for the

acceptance criteria. Pushover analysis produces a pushover curve or

capacity curve that presents the relationship between the base shear (V)
 18

and roof displacement (∆). The Pushover curve depends on the strength

and deformation capacities of the structure and explains the behaviour

of the structure beyond the elastic limit. The structural system was

designed using design based only on the gravity load and design of

intermediate resisting frame (IMRF) according to SBC 301. The

comparison of the pushover curve shows that the stiffness of frame is

larger in IMRF (SBC301) compared to the gravity load design. SBC design

has a greater capability to resist lateral load (seismic load) than the

gravity load design. The performance point location is at IO (Immediate

Occupancy) level which means the structure experience light damage.

The design satisfies pushover analysis according to ATC 40.

 Praveen Rathod et al[8] (2014) performed Non-Linear Static analysis

of G+6 storeyed RC buildings with openings in infill walls. In this paper a

two-dimensional seven storeyed reinforced concrete (RC) building

models are considered with of 5%, 25%, and 35% openings. Bare frame

and soft storey buildings are modeled considering special moment

resisting frame (SMRF) for medium soil profile and zone III. Pushover

analysis as per FEMA 440 is done using SAP2000. The moment-

curvature values for beam column and load deformation curve values for

strut are substituted instead of default hinge values in SAP2000. Base

force and displacement along longitudinal direction for all building

models are obtained. The percentage of openings increases the base

 19

force at performance point decreases for both default and user defined

hinges. The default-hinge model is preferred due to simplicity. The user-

defined hinge models are more successful in capturing the hinging

mechanism compared to the default hinge models.

 B.Cinitha et al[9] (2012) performed Nonlinear Static analysis to assess

seismic performance and vulnerability of code - conforming RC

buildings. In this paper, non-linear analysis described in National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) guidelines is used for

the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Analysis is done using SAP2000.

4 and 6 storey buildings are designed according to the code IS456:2000

and IS1893:2002. The data used for analysis are gravity load design

ground acceleration - 0.36g and seismic load design ground acceleration-

0.16g with medium soil. The buildings are designed for two cases, such

as ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) and special moment

resisting frame (SMRF). A 100% dead load + 50% live load is applied to

the lateral load on the structure. Inelastic beam and column members are

modelled as elastic elements with plastic hinges at their ends. The

analysis results observed for displacement shows that the modern codes

for framed structure are within collapse prevention level.

 C. Bhatt et al[10] (2012) performed a comparison between American

 20

and European codes on the Non Linear Static analysis of RC buildings. In

this paper they explained about non-linear Static Procedure (NSP),

which is a performance based seismic design which behaves sensible in

seismic force than a strength designed in force based philosophy. They

evaluate deformation in Global and Component level. N2 and Capacity

spectrum method in FEMA 440, ATC 40 and EURO 8 is used. Static

pushover analysis is done on 5 storey RC building which survived

without damage in earthquake (1997). The building is designed properly

for shear and collapse. The building is modelled using Fibre element

model in SeismoStruct software. Hysteric damping is predefined in the

model while non-hysteric damping is 5% of tangent stiffness

proportional damping. The displacement is calculated using N2 method.

The torsional effect is calculated using torsional correction factor by

amplifying the displacement results. In pushover analysis, N2 method is

performed by applying Mass proportional force and Modal proportional

force. However, the CSM method is done by applying modal-proportional

load patterns. Top displacements, lateral displacement profiles and

interstorey drifts were determined using both methods. The CSM-

FEMA440 was usually closer to the time-history.CSM-FEMA440 gives

accurate procedure to calculate the target displacement. N2 method is

the only method, which gives the correct torsional motion of the building.
 21

1.4 OBJECTIVE

This project report comprises of seismic analysis and

design of a five-storied R.C. building with asymmetrical plan.
The building is modelled as a 3D space frame with six
degrees of freedom at each node using the software STAAD
PRO CONNECT EDITION. Building is analyzed using
Equivalent Static Method. Equivalent Static Method as per IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002 for medium soil is used. Analysis is
performed for various load cases and combinations and the
worst case is considered for the design of beams and
columns. Reinforced concrete design is carried out as Per IS
456: 2000 and ductile detailing is done as per IS 13920:
1993. Various static checks are applied on the results.
Finally, the design obtained from the software is compared
by manual design of floor and roof slabs, storey beams,
columns and foundation.
 22

Chapter 2: BUILDING PROPERTIES

2.1 SITE PROPERTY
LOCATION= JALPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL, INDIA

SEISMIC ZONE = IV (ACCORDING TO IS 1893 – (1) -2002)

TYPE OF SOIL = COHESIVE SOIL WITH MEDIUM HARDNESS

SOIL ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY = 187.5 KN/m2

COHESION = 24 KN/m2

ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION = 35O

BULK UNIT WEIGHT = 24 KN/m3

DEPTH OF WATER TABLE BELOW GROUND = 1.5 m

 23

2.2 ELEVATION AND PLANS OF THE BUILDING:

24
 25

2.3 GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF COMPONENTS

o SLABS:

THICKNESS= 130 mm
CLEAR COVER TO REINFORCEMENT = 25 mm
STAIR WAIST SLAB THICKNESS= 135 mm
STAIR RISER= 150 mm
STAIR TREAD= 250 mm

o BEAMS:

WIDTH = 350 mm
DEPTH = 400 mm
MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT X AXIS= 18.67 x 108 mm4
CLEAR COVER = 30 mm

o BRICK MASONRY WALLS:

THICKNESS= 125 mm

o COLUMNS:

WIDTH = 500 mm
DEPTH = 500 mm
MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT X AXIS= 52.08 x 108 mm4
CLEAR COVER = 40 mm
HEIGHT= 3 m

o FOUNDATION:

WIDTH = 8.51 m
LENGTH= 10.8 m
DEPTH = 500 mm
CLEAR COVER= 60 mm
 26

2.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

o CONCRETE:

GRADE USED= M20

MIX RATIO = 1:1.5:3 (CEMENT: FINE AGGREGATES: COARSE AGGREGATES)

CHARACTERISTIC 28 DAY STRENGTH (fck) = 20 N/mm2

MODULUS OF ELASTICIY (EC) = 5000 √ fck = 22360 N/mm2

FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR LIMIT STATE METHOD= 1.5

FLEXURAL STRENGTH (fcr) = 0.7 √ fck = 3.13 N/mm2

POISSON’S RATIO= 0.2

UNIT WEIGHT OF PLAIN CONCRETE = 24 KN/m3

UNIT WEIGHT OF REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE = 25 KN/m3

o STEEL (REBAR) :

GRADE USED= Fe 415

ULTIMATE STRENGTH (fy) = 20 N/mm2

MODULUS OF ELASTICIY (ES) = 2 x 105 N/mm2

FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR LIMIT STATE METHOD= 1.15

POISSON’S RATIO= 0.3

 27

2.5 LOADING TYPES

o DEAD LOADS (DL):
I. SELF WEIGHTS

II. FLOOR FINISH (AT EACH FLOOR SLAB)= 1 KN/m2

III. DAMP PROOF FINISH (AT ROOF SLAB) = 1.5 KN/m2

o LIVE LOADS (LL):

I. AT EACH FLOOR SLAB = 3 KN/m2

II. AT ROOF SLAB = 1.5 KN/m2

o EARTHQUAKE LOADS (EL):

ACCORDING TO IS 1893- I- 2002,

I. ZONE FACTOR (Z) = 0.24

II. IMPORTANCE FACTOR (I) = 1.0 (For residential building)

III. RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR (R) = 5.0 (for special RC moment resisting
frame)

IV. TIME FACTOR (Ta) = 0.09 h/(√ d) = 0.432 (for brick infill panel)

V. Sa/g = 2.5 (for medium soil)

Earthquake forces have been applied at both horizontal directions.

o LOAD COMBINATIONS
ACCORDING TO IS 1893- I – 2002,

I. 1.5 (DL + LL)

II. 1.2 (DL + LL + EL)
III. 1.5 (DL + EL)
IV. 0.9 DL + 1.5 EL
V. 1.2 (DL + LL - EL)
VI. 1.5 (DL - EL)
VII. 0.9 DL - 1.5 EL
 28

LOADS APPLIED TO STAAD MODEL

Typical earthquake load applied to Z direction

Typical building displacement due to earthquake load

 29

Chapter 3: MODELING AND ANALYSIS

STAAD 3D Model of Whole Structure

3.1 COMPARISON BETWEEN SEISMIC WEIGHT AND BASE

SHEAR REACTIONS:

Components Manual Values Staad Values

FOR X DIRECTION ( along 9.769 m)
Time Period (Ta) 0.432 sec. 0.432 sec.
Sa/g 2.5 2.5
Ah 0.06 0.0676
Seismic Weight (W) 4927.2 KN 5766.09 KN
Max Base Shear (VB) 295.63 KN 390.06 KN
FOR Y DIRECTION ( along 7.51 m)
Time Period (Ta) 0.49 sec. 0.49 sec.
Sa/g 2.5 2.5
Ah 0.06 0.0676
Seismic Weight (W) 4927.2 KN 5766.09 KN
Max Base Shear (VB) 295.63 KN 390.06 KN
30
 31

Chapter 4: COMPARISON OF DESIGN DATA:

4.1 STAIRCASE DESIGN

General considerations and dimensions

SIZE OF STAIRCASE 4.212 m. X 3.173 m.

WIDTH OF EACH FLIGHT 1.2 m.

SPAN OF LANDING 0.9 m.

RISER (10 nos.) 150 mm.

TREAD (9 nos.) 250 mm.

DEPTH OF WAIST SLAB 135 mm.

Loads and load combinations

WEIGHT OF WAIST SLAB ON 3.93 KN/m
HORIZONTAL AREA

WEIGHT OF STEPS 1.875 KN/m

FLOOR FINISH 1 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 3 KN/m

COMBINATION 14.7 KN/m

=( 1.5 (DL+LL))

Reinforcement provided
ALONG THE SPAN OF STAIR 10 mm dia. of 15 nos. @ 80 mm
c/c.
NEAR THE SUPPORTS 10 mm dia. of 8 nos. both upper
(landing slab) and bottom layer
 32

DISTRIBUTION 8 mm dia. @ 300 mm c/c.

REINFORCEMENT

SECTION OF STAIR

4.2 COMPARISON OF SLAB DESIGN

FLOOR SLAB

Slab No. : S1
Ly = 3.17 m, Lx = 3.05 m
Ly / Lx = 1.039 < 2, Hence it is a two-way
slab.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
LONGER SPAN 3.17 m
SHORTER SPAN 3.05 m
THICKNESS 130 mm
WIDTH OF SUPPORT 350 mm
PANEL TYPE Two Adjacent Edges
Discontinuous
GRADE OF CONCRETE M20
GRADE OF STEEL Fe415
 33

Loads and load combinations

SELF WEIGHT 3.25 KN/m

FLOOR FINISH 1 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 3 KN/m
COMBINATION 10.875 KN/m
=( 1.5(DL+LL))

REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON

SHORTER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

LONGER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

Slab No. : S2
Ly = 4.21 m, Lx = 3.17 m
Ly / Lx = 1.33 < 2, Hence it is a two-way slab.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DIMENSIONS

LONGER SPAN 4.21 m
SHORTER SPAN 3.17 m
THICKNESS 130 mm
WIDTH OF SUPPORT 350 mm
PANEL TYPE Two Adjacent Edges
Discontinuous
GRADE OF CONCRETE M20
GRADE OF STEEL Fe415
 34

Loads and load combinations

SELF WEIGHT 3.25 KN/m

FLOOR FINISH 1 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 3 KN/m
COMBINATION 10.875 KN/m
=( 1.5(DL+LL))

REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON
SHORTER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

LONGER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
Slab No. : S3
Ly = 3.17 m, Lx = 3.05 m
Ly / Lx = 1.039 < 2, Hence it is a two-way
slab.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND

DIMENSIONS
LONGER SPAN 3.17 m
SHORTER SPAN 3.05 m
THICKNESS 130 mm
WIDTH OF SUPPORT 350 mm
PANEL TYPE One Long Edge Discontinuous
GRADE OF CONCRETE M20
GRADE OF STEEL Fe415
Loads and load combinations
SELF WEIGHT 3.25 KN/m
 35

FLOOR FINISH 1 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 3 KN/m
COMBINATION 10.875 KN/m
=( 1.5(DL+LL))

REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON
SHORTER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

LONGER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

ROOF SLAB
Slab No. : S1
Ly = 3.17 m, Lx = 3.05 m
Ly / Lx = 1.039 < 2, Hence it is a two-way
slab.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND

DIMENSIONS
LONGER SPAN 3.17 m
SHORTER SPAN 3.05 m
THICKNESS 130 mm
WIDTH OF SUPPORT 350 mm
PANEL TYPE Two Adjacent Edges
Discontinuous
GRADE OF CONCRETE M20
GRADE OF STEEL Fe415
 36

Loads and load combinations

SELF WEIGHT 3.25 KN/m

FLOOR FINISH 1.5 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 1.5 KN/m
COMBINATION 9.375 KN/m
=( 1.5(DL+LL))

REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON

SHORTER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

LONGER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN

SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm

c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

Slab No. : S2
Ly = 4.21 m, Lx = 3.17 m
Ly / Lx = 1.33 < 2, Hence it is a two-way slab.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DIMENSIONS

LONGER SPAN 4.21 m
SHORTER SPAN 3.17 m
THICKNESS 130 mm
WIDTH OF SUPPORT 350 mm
 37

PANEL TYPE Two Adjacent Edges

Discontinuous
GRADE OF CONCRETE M20
GRADE OF STEEL Fe415

Loads and load combinations

SELF WEIGHT 3.25 KN/m

FLOOR FINISH 1.5 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 1.5 KN/m
COMBINATION 9.375 KN/m
=( 1.5(DL+LL))

REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON
SHORTER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

LONGER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

Slab No. : S3
Ly = 3.17 m, Lx = 3.05 m
Ly / Lx = 1.039 < 2, Hence it is a two-way
slab.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
LONGER SPAN 3.17 m
SHORTER SPAN 3.05 m
THICKNESS 130 mm
WIDTH OF SUPPORT 350 mm
 38

PANEL TYPE One Long Edge Discontinuous

GRADE OF CONCRETE M20
GRADE OF STEEL Fe415

Loads and load combinations

SELF WEIGHT 3.25 KN/m

FLOOR FINISH 1.5 KN/m

LIVE LOAD 1.5 KN/m
COMBINATION 9.375 KN/m
=( 1.5(DL+LL))

REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON

SHORTER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.

LONGER DIRECTION
POSITION MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN
SPAN 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
SUPPORT 10 mm dia. @ 200 mm 10 mm dia. @ 300 mm
c/c. c/c.
 39

PLAN VIEW OF SLAB

 40

4.3 COMPARISON OF BEAM DESIGN

BEAM LAYOUT PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR

4.3.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DIMENSIONS:

Width (b) = 350 mm, Depth (D) = 400 mm, clear cover = 30 mm,
Clear span = 4.2-0.5 = 3.7 m, effective depth (d) = 364 mm, effective length
for bending moment calculation = 3.7+0.364 = 4.1 m.
Span of Special confined transverse reinforcement from the support
toward middle of the beam span (Acc. To IS 13920 – 1993)=2d= 728 mm.

4.3.2 BEAM TYPES

TYPE OF SUPPORT BEAMS

ONE END FIXED AND OTHER END B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B11, B12,
CONTINUOUS B14, B15, B17
BOTH END CONTINUOUS B10, B13, B16

We chose the beam B3 for comparing the design between manual and
Staad as it is being subjected to maximum shear force, bending moments.

4.3.3 BEAM END MOMENTS (MANUAL)

SUPPORT MAX LOAD MAX LOAD

NEGATIVE COMBINATION POSITIVE COMBINATION
MOMENT MOMENT
Fixed 146 KN-m 1.5 (DL+ELY) 67 KN-m 0.9 DL -1.5 ELY
continuous 155 KN-m 1.5 (DL+ELY) 72.2 KN-m 0.9 DL -1.5 ELY
 41

4.3.4 BEAM MIDSPAN MOMENTS (MANUAL)

POSITION MAX. POSITIVE LOAD COMBINATION
MOMENT
Mid-span 62.89 KN-m 1.5 (DL+LL)

4.3.5 BEAM MAXIMUM SHEARS (MANUAL)

LOCATION MAX SHEAR FORCE

SUPPORT 154.09 KN

4.3.6 BEAM END MOMENTS (STAAD)

SUPPORT MAX LOAD MAX LOAD

NEGATIVE COMBINATION POSITIVE COMBINATION
MOMENT MOMENT
Fixed 119.42 KN-m 1.5 (DL+ELY) 57.24 KN-m 0.9 DL -1.5 ELY
continuous 135.48 KN-m 1.5 (DL+ELY) 75.12 KN-m 0.9 DL -1.5 ELY

4.3.7 BEAM MIDSPAN MOMENTS (STAAD)

POSITION MAX. POSITIVE LOAD COMBINATION
MOMENT
Mid-span 48.39 KN-m 1.5 (DL+LL)

4.3.8 BEAM MAXIMUM SHEARS (STAAD)

LOCATION MAX SHEAR FORCE

SUPPORT 137.53 KN

4.3.9 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REINFORCEMENT

PERCENTAGE

p (%) As = pbD/100
Min. Reinforcement 0.26 % 331.64 mm2
Max. Reinforcement 2.5 % 3185 mm2
 42

4.3.10 REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON

MANUAL DESIGN
BEAM LONGITUDINAL NON CONFINING
REINFORCEMENT CONFINING STIRRUPS
TOP BOTTOM STIRRUPS
B3 3 nos. 25 mm 4 nos. 16 mm 2 lgd 8 mm dia 2 lgd 8 mm dia
dia. dia. @ 145 mm c/c @ 125 mm c/c

STAAD DESIGN
BEAM LONGITUDINAL NON CONFINING
REINFORCEMENT CONFINING STIRRUPS
TOP BOTTOM STIRRUPS
B3 3 nos. 25 mm 4 nos. 16 mm 2 lgd 8 mm dia 2 lgd 8 mm dia
dia. dia. @ 130 mm c/c @ 110 mm c/c

TYPICAL SECTIONAL ELEVATION

TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

 43

4.4 COMPARISON OF COLUMN DESIGN

COLUMN LAYOUT PLAN

4.4.1 GENERAL DIMENSIONS

Width (b) = 500 mm, Depth (D) = 500 mm, clear cover = 40 mm,
Storey Height (L) = 3 m., (Leff / (b or D)) = 3.56 < 12, hence short column.
Min. eccentricity = (L/500) + (b or D /30) = 22.12 mm > 20 mm,
Span of Special confined transverse reinforcement from the support
toward middle of the column span (Acc. To IS 13920 – 1993) = 450 mm.

4.4.2 COLUMN TYPES (for internal stiffness)

Columns Type Columns Type

C1 Biaxial C7 Uniaxial
C2 Uniaxial C8 Biaxial
C3 Uniaxial C9 Biaxial
C4 Biaxial C10 Uniaxial
C5 Biaxial C11 Uniaxial
C6 Uniaxial C12 Biaxial

In case of Earthquake Resistant Design, each column should be

designed for Biaxial Bending.
 44

4.4.3 COLUMN AXIAL FORCES (BY MANUAL METHOD)

Columns Axial Force Columns Axial Force

( for DL+LL) ( for DL+LL)
C1 353 KN C7 768.5 KN
C2 567 KN C8 494 KN
C3 567 KN C9 300 KN
C4 353 KN C10 458.3 KN
C5 494 KN C11 458.3 KN
C6 768.5 KN C12 300 KN

Columns Axial Force Axial Force Columns Axial Force Axial

( for ELX) ( for ELY) ( for ELX) Force
( for ELY)
C1 97 KN 110.5 KN C7 32 KN 11.3 KN
C2 32 KN 110.5 KN C8 97 KN 11.3 KN
C3 32 KN 110.5 KN C9 97 KN 99.5 KN
C4 97 KN 110.5 KN C10 32 KN 99.5 KN
C5 97 KN 11.3 KN C11 32 KN 99.5 KN
C6 32 KN 11.3 KN C12 97 KN 99.5 KN

4.4.4 COLUMNS CHOSEN FOR DESIGN (BY MANUAL METHOD)

Columns Type Maximum Axial Load Combination
Force (Pu)

C2 Biaxial 875 KN 1.5 (DL+ELY)

C6 Biaxial 1152.8 KN 1.5 (DL+LL)

Columns Type Mux Muy Load

Combination
C2 Biaxial 83.4 KN-m 77.6 KN-m 1.5 (DL+EL)
C6 Biaxial 128 KN-m 58.17 KN-m 1.5 (DL+EL)

4.4.5 COLUMNS CHOSEN FOR DESIGN (BY STAAD)

Columns Type Maximum Axial Load Combination
Force (Pu)

C2 Biaxial 1108.28 KN 1.5 (DL+ELY)

C6 Biaxial 1272.65 KN 1.5 (DL+LL)
 45

Columns Type Mux Muy Load

Combination
C2 Biaxial 171.37 KN-m 63.84 KN-m 1.5 (DL+EL)
C6 Biaxial 166.66 KN-m 140.82 KN-m 1.5 (DL+EL)

4.4.6 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REINFORCEMENT

PERCENTAGE

p (%) As = pbD/100
Min. Reinforcement 0.8 % 2000 mm2
Max. Reinforcement 6% 15000 mm2

4.4.7 REINFORCEMENT COMPARISON

COLUMN MANUAL DESIGN STAAD DESIGN

NAME LONG. NON CONFINI LONG. NON CONFINI
REINFO- CONFI- NG REINFO CONFI- -NG
RCEMEN NING LINKS RCEMEN NING LINKS
T LINKS (DUCTILE) T LINKS (DUCTILE)

C2 12 nos. 8 mm dia. 8 mm 16 nos. 8 mm 8 mm

16 mm @ 250 dia. @ 16 mm dia. @ dia. @
dia. mm c/c. 100 mm dia. 250 mm 95 mm
c/c. c/c. c/c.
C6 12 nos. 8 mm dia. 8 mm 16 nos. 8 mm 8 mm
16 mm @ 250 dia. @ 16 mm dia. @ dia. @
dia. mm c/c. 100 mm dia. 250 mm 95 mm
c/c. c/c. c/c.

TYPICAL C/S AREA

 46

TYPICAL SECTIONAL ELEVATION (G.F. COLUMN)

4.5 COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION DESIGN

4.5.1 GENERAL SOIL PROPERTIES

TYPE OF SOIL = COHESIVE SOIL WITH MEDIUM HARDNESS

SOIL ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY = 187.5 KN/m2

FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.5

SAFE BEARING CAPACITY= (UBC/2.5) = 75 KN/m2

ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENT = 25 mm

SUBGRADE MODULUS = (SBC/ALLOW. SETTLEMENT) = 3000 KN/m3

COHESION = 24 KN/m2

ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION = 35O

BULK UNIT WEIGHT = 24 KN/m3

DEPTH OF WATER TABLE BELOW GROUND LEVEL = 1.5 m

 47

4.5.2 CHOOSING THE TYPE OF FOUNDATION

I. ISOLATED FOOTING:
As the loads coming from a G+4 building are very high, , mainly due
to consideration of earthquake forces from both horizontal directions, and
the Safe Bearing Capacity is also less, Isolated Footings of bigger
dimensions are required which will overlap each other.
Therefore, we cannot consider Isolated Footing, as the chances of
Differential Settlements are also high.
The image below represents the positioning of isolated footings, which
clearly shows the overlapping upon each other.

II. COMBINED FOOTING:

As the loads coming from a G+4 building are very high, , mainly due
to consideration of earthquake forces from both horizontal directions, and
the Safe Bearing Capacity is also less, Combined Footings of bigger
dimensions are required which will overlap each other.
The image below represents the positioning of combined footings,
which clearly shows the overlapping upon each other. There are 6 nos. of
combined footings which overlaps each other due to bigger dimensions.
 48

DIMENSION OF ONE COMBINED FOOTING

III. MAT FOOTING:

Now it is feasible to put all the columns in a single foundation to remove the
chances of differential settlements and to distribute all the loads coming from
columns to a larger area to have better stress distribution to minimize soil shear
failure.
That is why; Raft or Mat Footing must be chosen.

4.5.3 DESIGN DATA FOR MAT FOUNDATION

Plan length = 9.769 m
Plan width = 7.51 m, top clear cover = 50 mm, Bottom Clear Cover
= 60 mm, Side Clear Cover = 60 mm, Offset from column to all sides
= 500 mm, Mat Length = (9.769 + 2x0.5) = 10.8 m, Mat Width =
(7.51 + 2x0.5) = 8.5 m, Thickness = 500 mm

4.5.4 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM DESIGN MOMENTS

POSITIONS MANUAL STAAD

Longitudinal bottom 377.8 KN-m 327 KN-m
Longitudinal top 180 KN-m 157.5 KN-m
Transverse bottom 284.95 KN-m 293 KN-m
Transverse top 298.5 KN-m 308 KN-m

4.5.5 COMPARISON OF PUNCHING SHEAR TO CAPACITY RATIO:

COLUMNS MANUAL STAAD

C1 0.59 0.39
C2 0.72 0.545
C3 0.70 0.546
C4 0.58 0.39
C5 0.69 0.43
C6 0.93 0.45
C7 0.91 0.46
C8 0.68 0.43
C9 0.52 0.34
C10 0.59 0.419
C11 0.58 0.42
C12 0.51 0.34
 49

As the entire punching shear to capacity ratios are less than one (1), hence all
punching shear design is safe.

4.5.6 COMPARISON OF REINFORCEMENTS

A) In terms of reinforcement area (Ast):

POSITIONS MANUAL STAAD

Longitudinal bottom 2872.28 mm2 2352.42 mm2
Longitudinal top 1256.22 mm2 1063.12 mm2
Transverse bottom 2116.42 mm2 2152 mm2
Transverse top 2234 mm2 2292 mm2

B) In terms of bar reinforcement:

POSITIONS MANUAL STAAD

Longitudinal bottom 16 mm dia. @ 70 mm c/c 16 mm dia. @ 80 mm c/c
Longitudinal top 12 mm dia. @ 90 mm c/c 12 mm dia. @ 100 mm c/c
Transverse bottom 16 mm dia. @ 95 mm c/c 16 mm dia. @ 90 mm c/c
Transverse top 16 mm dia. @ 90 mm c/c 16 mm dia. @ 80 mm c/c
50
 51

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION:

The comparison between Manual and Staad designs

earthquake resistant residential building in Jalpaiguri is the
topic of our project. We took this topic for our project because
earthquake destroy the buildings, money as well as life too.
The main motive is to design the earthquake resistant building
and choose the most effective method to save the peoples life
as well as wealth. As we know, the last earthquake took in
Nepal, by which several lives was harm and lots of money
destroyed. We designed the earthquake residential building so
the people can feel safe and the money saves as well.
The above checks can help to a greater extend and it makes
sure that we have modeled the structure in Staad.Pro with no
mistake and further that there is no error in the input. After
running the analysis also, a simple check on the result can be
made using by comparing between the two.

 Manual analysis results are compared with the STAAD

results and identified that the Manual analysis is giving
some higher values of results.

 The values of Seismic Weight and Base Shear in Staad is
more than the value of Seismic Weight and Base Shear
by manual analysis.

 The Design results in Manual Method are having some
amounts of higher values than those of Staad Design
results.

So, as a final verdict, Staad.Pro should be chosen over

Manual Method as the rate of error in Staad is minimum, time
consumption is less and finally yet importantly, economy is
well maintained in Staad Design.
 52

Chapter 6: future scope of project:

The Provisions and the building codes and consensus

standards based on its recommendations are technical
documents used primarily by the professionals who design
and construct buildings and other structures. Understanding
the basis for the seismic regulations in the nation’s codes and
standards is nevertheless important to others outside the
technical community including elected officials, decision-
makers in the insurance and financial communities, and
individual building or business owners and other concerned
Citizens. This document is intended to provide these interested
individuals with a readily understandable explanation of the
intent and requirements of seismic design in general and the
Provisions in particular.

We wishes to express its deepest gratitude for the

significant efforts of the over 200 volunteer experts.
Americans unfortunate enough to experience the earthquakes
that will inevitably occur in the future will owe much, perhaps
even their lives, to the contributions and dedication of these
individuals. Without the expertise and efforts of these men and
Women, this document and all it represents with respect to
earthquake risk mitigation would not have been possible.

As we know the seismic area is large, enough that is why

it effects will be large.

Only the earthquake safety will save the lives from

seismic waves. The scope of seismic design buildings will be
increased.
 53

Chapter 6: REFERENCES:

1. IS-13920-1993, Ductile detailing of Reinforced Concrete

Structures Subjected to Seismic Force, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1993.

2. IS-1893, Criteria for earthquake Resistant Design of

structures-Part 1, General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth
Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, 2002.

3. IS-456, Plain and reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice,

Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000.

4. IS 875, Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than

Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures- Part 2, Imposed
Loads, (Second Revision), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1987.

5. SP 16 - 1980, Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS:

456 - 1978, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi

6. S.Unnikrishana Pillai and Devdas Menon Reinforced

Concrete Design, McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 2005.

7. B.C. Punmia Design of R.C.C. Structures, Laxmi Publication,

New Delhi.

8. Google.com

9. Wikipedia