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

net/publication/362536565

Comparison of Axial Load on Column by Tributary Area Method and 3D

Modelling by ETABS

Conference Paper · August 2022

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6962604

CITATIONS READS

0 533

1 author:

Md.Golam Rabbi
Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Md.Golam Rabbi on 07 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 5 Issue 3
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962604

Comparison of Axial Load on Column by Tributary Area

Method and 3D Modelling by ETABS
Md.Golam Rabbi1
1
Student (M Engg), Department of Civil Engineering, DUET, Gazipur, Bangladesh.
*Corresponding Author
E-mail: reaid110056@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Structural analysis of building frame is most important for human being to design a safe
nation. Blessing of science now a days to analyze a structure, engineers are used Finite
Element Model (FEM)[1]. But in before the analysis was performed tributary area method
(TAM) in where the stiffness of slab not considered. So, it is very important to compare the
result TAM and FEM also verify the structural safety. In this paper, it is an endeavor to
realize how to distribute the slab loads on columns in a structure and grasp the effect of slab
stiffness in a finite element model to assign slab as shell and membrane properties for
vertical load. Finite element model was created with a commercial software ETABS to
compare the results obtained from TAM. Based on the analytical results, Finite element
model is the suitable method to calculate structure reaction on columns and design
according to the result.

Keywords: - Tributary area method, Shell slab, Membrane slab, FEM analysis, ETABS.

INTRODUCTION method which is being used to calculate

In the world, it has a growing trend
towards construction of multi storied
buildings but it is very important to
choose an appropriate structural analysis
procedure. Designing a building, any civil
engineer has to calculate the forces in the
structural elements which a building
contains like slabs, beams, columns, and
footings.
Then civil engineer uses these forces to
design building in correct case. Column
one of the structural elements can be
defined as a member that carry loads
chiefly in compression [2]. Columns
transmit loads from the upper floors to the
lower levels and then to the soil through
the foundation. Since columns are one of
the most significant part of a structure so
that failure of column can cause the failure
of entire structure. In this paper, column
reaction has been calculated by finite
element model and tributary area method
[3]. Tributary area method (TAM) is a
the forces carried by column. The area
surrounding the column bounded by the
centerline of the panel is the tributary area
on which loads are supported by the
column at the center of the area [4].
ETABS is an engineering software that
caters to multi story building analysis and
design. Basic or advanced systems under
static or dynamic conditions may be
evaluated using ETABS [5].
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
For the analysis of a structure to be
complete and correct, an appropriate
model must be chosen to represent the
structure and an adequate analysis
procedure must be chosen to reflect the
system's response to applied loads. It is
required for the structural stability and
safety. In the past there are many
procedures to analyze a structure,
Tributary area is one of the most popular
and familiar method. Tributary area is the
area surrounding the column that is

HBRP Publication Page 1-6 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 1

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
bounded by a panel centerline. In order to
calculate the forces and static loads
transferred from slabs to the columns
tributary area method is used. Commonly,
designers use tributary area in columns for
transferring loads from slabs to columns
or compute reactions of the beams
framing into the columns. The application
of the former method is more common.
Now-a-days finite element method is most
familiar for time consuming and more
accurate results. There are many analyses
software such as ETABS [6], Staadpro
[7], SAP [8] etc. In this research used
ETABS software. It is the ultimate
integrated software for the structural
analysis and design of buildings.
ANALYTICAL DESCRIPTION
ETABS version16.2.1 program is used to
create and analyze finite element model
for one story building, there is some
Fig 1: Plan view of the structure.
HBRP Publication Page 1-6 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume 5 Issue 3
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962604
compatibility between this model and the
actual case, as shown in Figures 1&2
bellow. In order to represent a structural
model for one story building, the
following assumptions are used:
1. Each model consists of a flat plate
slab with (10in thickness in actual
model) carried by nine columns.
2. The dimensions of slab are (40ft x
40ft) divided into two spans in each
direction each one equal (20ft).
3. The height of columns in the building
equal (10ft).
4. Pin hinges are used to support of
(10*10 in) columns.
5. All beam size 10 X 20 in.
6. All models made by concrete unit
weight 150psf.
7. Dead load = Self weight + Floor finish
(30psf).
8. Live load = 100 psf.
Page 2
 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 5 Issue 3
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962604

Fig 2: ETABS model of structure.

RESULT & DISCUSSION CASE1- Analysis of Shell slab under

By using ETABS version16.2.1 software
to analyze one story building model to
find axial load carried by columns under
different parameters: gravity load, shell
slab and membrane slab.
vertical load
In this type the slab has a large stiffness
for assign the slab as shell thick in
ETABS. The 3D view shown in Figure:

Fig 3: 3D view of structure (Shell thick slab).

HBRP Publication Page 1-6 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 3

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 5 Issue 3
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962604

Fig 4: Axial Force on column at support in kip.

Table 1: Axial load under gravity load for Shell slab

Column Case (Number) Axial load (Kip)
Center column (C5) 154.75

Edge column (C2,C4,C6,C8) 57.15

Corner column (C1,C3,C7,C9) 21.40

CASE 2- Analysis of Membrane slab In this type, the slab has a large stiffness
under vertical load for assign the slab as membrane in
ETABS. The 3D view shown in Figure:

Fig 5: 3D view of structure (Membrane slab).

HBRP Publication Page 1-6 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 4

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 5 Issue 3
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962604

Fig 6: Axial Force on column at support in kip.

Table 2: Axial load under gravity load for Membrane slab

Column Case (Number) Axial load (Kip)

Center column (C5) 141.31

Edge column (C2,C4,C6,C8) 59.53

Corner column (C1,C3,C7,C9) 22.38

CASE 3- Analysis Tributary area method under vertical load

1. Weight of slab = (10/12) *150 = 125 psf
2. Weight of beam = (10*20/144) *150 = 208.3 plf
3. Weight of per column = (12*12/144)*10*150 = 1500 lb.
4. Total dead and live load on slab = (125+30+100) = 255 psf.

Table 3: Axial load on column by Tributary area method

Column Case (Number) Axial load (Kip)
Center column (C5) 111
Edge column (C2,C4,C6,C8) 58.12
Corner column (C1,C3,C7,C9) 30.75

Table 4: Comparison of axial force on column

Column Id Tributary method(kip) Shell Slab(Kip) Membrane slab(Kip)

C5 111 154.75 141.36

C2, C4, C6, C8 58.12 57.15 59.53
C1, C3, C7, C9 30.75 21.40 22.38

HBRP Publication Page 1-6 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 5

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Fig 7: Graph of column axial load comparison.
CONCLUSION
According to the analysis of the data
obtained under different parameters:
gravity load, shell slab, membrane slab
can conclude that –
1. The axial load carried by columns
under vertical load condition is
different the values of axial load
obtained by TAM and FEM. It also
shown that FEM result is nearly same
for different stiffness of slab.
2. Axial loads carried by edge columns
under vertical load and different
stiffness approximately equal the
values of axial loads obtained by
TAM.
3. FEM is more compatible and
mathematic than TAM to grope axial
forces in column.
4. TAM is used only for preliminary
selection of column size but for final
design FEM is inevitable.
HBRP Publication Page 1-6 2022. All Rights Reserved
View publication stats
Volume 5 Issue 3
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962604
REFERENCES
1. Introduction to the Finite Element
Method for Structural Analysis
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-
8733-2_1
2. Arthur Nilson et al. (2003), Design of
concrete structures. 15th .ED, p 273.
3. Leet K, Uang CM, Gilbert AM.
Fundamentals of structural analysis
(Chichester: McGraw-Hill; 2002).
4. Edwared G. Nawy, (2005), Reinforced
concrete a fundamental approach. 5th
edition.
5. Etabs 16.2.1 software manual.
6. https://www.csiamerica.com/products/
etabs
7. https://www.bentley.com
8. https://www.sap.com
Cite this article as: Md.Golam
Rabbi. (2022). Comparison of Axial
Load on Column by Tributary Area
Method and 3D Modelling by
ETABS. Journal of Structural
Engineering, Its Applications and
Analysis, 5(3), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6962
604
Page 6