ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613

ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

A COMPTABILITY STUDY ON DESIGN

AND ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
USING SOFTWARE
Balwinder Lallotra #1, Dhirendra Singhal*2
#1
Research Scholar I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University,Jalandhar, India
1
balwinder.com@gmail.com
2
Professor and Chairperson, Department of Civil Engineering,
D.C.R. University of Science and Technology, Murthal, India
2
singhald62@rediffmail.com
Abstract-It has been asserted in literature that the understanding of the software used today is the urgent
necessity of the moment in order to match the pace of infrastructural development. This study is
undertaken with the objective of checking the comptability of results obtained for the design of basic
structural elements of Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) using popularly used software STAAD Pro,
ETABS and SAP-2000.For this purpose the design results of most commonly used software are validated
with manual design by Indian standards to gain the confidence of the users. The basic elements of
structures such as beams, column and a simple frame have been discussed. The results for analysis of
shear force and bending moment of beams and columns are comparable in all the cases except for the
frame when STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 are used. For all elements the results obtained from
software differed significantly from the results obtained through manual calculations using Kani’s
method.
Keywords- Computations, ETABS, SAP-2000, STAAD Pro, Shear force, bending moment
I. INTRODUCTION
The design of a simple building in the earlier times used to take at least a week. However, the design of
complicated structures can now be done within a week’s time and with more accuracy using a host of software
available in the market. Subramanian N. [1] is of the opinion that these software should be regarded as mere
tools in the hand of structural engineer. Designer should be aware of any assumptions used and limitations of the
programs in the software. Subramanian N. [1] further put the example that some computer programs ignore
compression steel when maximum allowable reinforcement in a concrete beam is determined resulting into a
larger section. A hard fact which the society faces today is that many of the fresh graduates have not even
approached to the design software used in market during their study. Therefore, these engineers have no other
option but are bound to blindly accept the results given by the computers. Naghipour-et-al [2] used finite
element program ETABS software to find the location of plastic hinge away from the joint location in
eccentrically braced frame in 4, 7 and 10 story building. Sharma-et-al [3] studied a 3D framed RC using
pushover analysis by increasing the load in small increment till failure with the help of software. They devised
failure modes for the beam, column and joint. His study helped the engineers to focus on the weak points of
structures to be taken care while designing a structure. Azam and Hosur [4] used ETABS software studied the
provision of shear wall placed symmetrically in the building using elastic analysis for strength, stiffness and
damping to make building safer.
Attempts have, however, started to verify and gain confidence for the validity of various software. Prashanth-
et- al [5] compared these software and concluded that area of steel required by using ETABS was less. Hu-et-al
[6] studied the response spectrum, time history and linking slab in plan using software SAP-2000, ETABS,
MIDAS/GEN and SATWE software for a multistory. He concluded that ETABS is more suitable for regular
buildings where as SAP-2000 is more suited to space structures, oblique column and gymnasiums. Al-Tamimi-
et-al[7] compared the different construction material in three buildings using software ETABS, SAFE and ACI
365 to find the most reliable and beneficial material to be used for the structures. Kumar-et-al [8] studied the
building on sloping ground using software ETABS and SAP-2000. They considered seismic forces as per
I.S:1893-2002 and stressed the need for proper designing of structure on sloping ground.
Sabeer and Peera [9] compared the results obtained from STAAD Pro and ETABS for a RCC building
subjected to lateral and vertical loads and concluded that both software provided different results whereas the
difference had not been significant. Rana [10] compared the different aspects of a component design of a
building using different software STAAD Pro, STRUDS and ETABS software. He concluded that the ETABS

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1012

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

gave more economical design than the STAAD Pro and STRUDS. Baral and Yajdani [11] studied five models
one with shear wall and four without shear wall using software ETABS to verify how the bending moment,
shear force in beam and axial force in the column change by changing the position of the shear walls in the
building. Jennifer and Jegidha [12] reviewed the literature of various researchers on the different codes to find
which code gives better performance during earthquake. They used software ETABS and SAP-2000 for
analysis. He used various codes to find which code gave best results. Leonetti-et-al [13] proposed the efficient
treatment of load combination to make the shakedown analysis more affordable tool for practical applications.
They used the sap-2000 for analysis. Ramya and Saikumar [14] also compared these software and concluded
that area of steel required by using ETABS was less.
Nguyen-et-al [15] studied the fifteen storied building for soil structure interaction on a shallow foundation
using ABAQUS software and concluded that the size of the foundation influences the lateral deformation of
midsized building which is important information to the design engineers. Ahmed Farghly [16] studied the
location of shear wall in 12 storied building using SAP-2000 software which will help the design engineers for
better building design. Massumi and Mohammadi [17] devised the evaluation criteria for a seismic behavior of a
structure. Gorgun [18] investigated the column beam connection of skeletal structures for stability in semi-rigid
frames using computer based method. He pointed out that economies can be achieved by second order
(deflection induced) due to reduction in effective length of a column.
Purulekar-et-al [19] studied the seismic performance of a shear wall considering two parameters ultimate load
and ultimate drift, verified it analytically and experimentally. They further highlighted the failure pattern,
capacity and performance of a shear wall.
This study has been undertaken with the objective that the results obtained from the design software available
in the market and generally used for analysis and design of structures by the engineers such as STAAD Pro,
SAP-2000 and ETABS confirm theoretical background and various guidelines such as Indian Standards [20-22].
II. PROBLEM DEFINATION
In order to achieve above objective, basic elements of structures i.e. beams, column and simple frame were
analyzed and designed. These elements were analyzed using all the three software and the results were
compared with the manual calculations using Kani’s method and IS-456 [20-22]. The details are as under:
A. Fixed Beam
The prismatic beam of sides 0.3mx0.3m and span 7m is loaded with uniformly distributed load under fixed
end conditions using all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro [23-25].
The results are compared with the manual calculations for the following data.
Size of beam=0.3mx0.3m
Span of beam=7m
Load = Dead load + 20kN/m
Grade of concrete: M-20 as per IS: 456-2000
Grade of Steel: Fe415 as per IS: 1786-2008

Fig.1 Fixed beam

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1013

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig.2 Beam analysis by software

B. Column with point load

The column of 0.3mx0.3m of length 3.5m is considered. The column is loaded with axial vertical load on top
and fixed at the bottom end. The results are compared with the manual calculations for the following data.
Size of Column=0.3mx0.3m
Load=Dead load=500kN
Length of Column=3.5m
Grade of concrete: M-20 as per IS: 456-2000
Grade of Steel: Fe415 as per IS: 1786-2008

Fig.3 Column with one end fixed other free

Fig.4 Column analysis by software

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1014

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

C. Cantilever beam
The prismatic cantilever beam of size 0.3mx0.3m with one end ‘A’ fixed and free end ‘B’ of span 7m is loaded
with concentrated load at free end .The structure is analyzed using all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and
STAAD Pro. [20-22] and results are compared with the manual calculations for the following data.
Size of cantilever beam=0.3mx0.3m
Length of cantilever beam=7m
Load = Dead Load+10kN at free end
Grade of concrete: M-20 as per IS: 456-2000
Grade of Steel: Fe415 as per IS: 1786-2008

Fig.5 Cantilever Beam loaded at free end

Fig. 6 Cantilever beam analysis by software

D. Portal frame
A portal frame with beam size 0.3m×0.3m and column size 0.3m×0.3m having concentrated load on one span
and uniformly distributed load on the other span as shown in the Figure7 is considered. Modeling and analysis
of the structure are done separately using software ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro. [20-22].The results
obtained are compared with manual calculations using Kani’s method for the following data.
Length of Beam AD=2m
Length of Beam DB=4m
Height of Column=4m
Size of Beam AD=300mm x 300mm
Size of Beam DB=300mm x 300mm
Size of Column CD=300mm x 300mm
Grade of concrete: M-20 as per IS:456=2000
Grade of Steel: Fe415 as per IS: 1786=2008

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1015

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig.7 Portal frame

Fig.8 Portal frame analysis by software

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results as obtained from ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro [20-22] and from Kani’s method are presented
below and have been discussed further.
A. Fixed Beam Results
The results output of a sample beam for all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro. Obtained
have been tabulated. Table 1 is for the bending moment at five different locations i.e. at end A, 1/4L,1/2L,3/4L
and end B.
Table-1 Comparison of Bending Moment results for fixed beam.

OUTPUT LOCATION STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THORETICAL VALUE

TYPE (Manual Calculation)
End ‘A’ -135.489 -135.489 -136.278 -137.813
Bending ¼ point -16.937 -15.899 -15.992 -17.036
Moment ½ point -67.745 -67.704 -68.139 -68.907
(KN-m) ¾ point -16.937 -15.899 -15.992 -17.036
End ‘B’ -135.489 -135.489 -136.278 -137.813

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1016

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Table 2 shows the shear force at five different locations i.e. at end A, 1/4L, 1/2L, 3/4L and end B.
Table-2Comparison of Shear Force results for fixed beam.

OUTPUT LOCATION STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL VALUE

TYPE (Manual Calculation)
End ‘A’
-116.133 -116.130 -116.810 -118.125
Shear
¼ point -58.067 -58.065 -58.404 -58.407
Force
(KN) ½ point 0 0 1.71E-13 0
¾ point -58.067 -58.065 -58.404 -58.407
End ‘B’ -116.133 -116.130 -116.810 -118.125
The tensile and compressive steel obtained are for the fixed beam for all the three software and with the
theoretical value calculated with from SP-16 have been shown in Table 3.
Table-3 Comparison of tensile and compressive steel for fixed beam.

OUTPUT TYPE STAAD ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL VALUE

Pro (Calculation by SP-16)
Factored B.M. (KN-m) -135.489 -135.489 -136.278 -137.813
Tensile steel Ast(mm2) 1073.54 825 851 885.225
Compressive SteelAsc(mm2) 1760.46 1598 1606 1630.150
Total Area of Steel(mm2) 2833.54 2423 2457 2515.375
B. Column Results
The result obtained for the column for all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro. [20-22] have
been tabulated in Table 4.
Table-4 Comparison of results for Steel in Column

OUTPUT TYPE STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL VALUE

Steel 682.63 (mm2) 787(mm2) 720(mm2) 720(mm2)
Quantity(mm2)
Table 5 shows the comparison of quantity of concrete given by all three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and
STAAD Pro along with theoretical values
Table-5 Comparison of results for concrete quantity.

OUTPUT TYPE STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL VALUE

Concrete
Quantity (m3) 0.32 0.315 0.315 0.315
C. Cantilever Beam Results
The results obtained for a simple cantilever beam for all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD
Pro. [20-22]are tabulated. Table 6 shows the bending moment at five different locations i.e. at end A, 1/4L, 1/2L,
3/4L and end B.
Table-6 Comparison of results for cantilever beam for bending moment.

OUTPUT TYPE LOCATION STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL

VALUE
Fixed End ‘A’ -182.93 -182.92 -187.66 -187.69
Bending Moment ¼ point -122.586 -122.685 -125.353 -125.261
(KN-m) ½ point -71.98 -71.98 -73.17 -73.17
¾ point -31.1205 -31.2195 -31.5225 -31.418
Free End ‘B’ 0 0 7.41E-14 0
Table 7 shows the shear force of a cantilever beam at five different locations i.e. at end A, 1/4L, 1/2L, 3/4L and
end B.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1017

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Table-7 Comparison of shear force results for cantilever beam.

OUTPUT LOCATION STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL

TYPE VALUE
Fixed End ‘A’ -37.266 -37.260 -38.618 -38.625
Shear Force ¼ point -31.699 -31.695 -32.713 -32.730
( KN) ½ point -26.133 -26.130 -26.809 -26.730
¾ point -20.566 -20.565 -20.904 -20.905
Free End ‘B’ -15 -15 -15 -15
In Table 8 steel has been compared for the cantilever beam thorough all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000
and STAAD Pro. with the theoretical value calculated as per I.S. code-2000.
Table-8 Comparison of results for cantilever beam for steel.

OUTPUT AREA OF STEEL STAAD ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL

TYPE Pro VALUE
Factored B.M. (kNm) -182.930 -182.930 -187.664 -187.688
Ast(mm2) 2316.96 2123 3216(O/S)* -
Steel
By Software Asc(mm2) 1636.36 1362 2477 -
Total Area of Steel 3953.32 3485 5693 -
(mm2)
(O/S)*-Indicates that element is overstressed.
D. Portal Frame Results
The results obtained for a simple portal frame from ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro. [20-22] are tabulated
in Table 9.
Table-9 Comparison of bending moment results for portal frame.

OUTPUT BEAM LOCATION STAAD ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL VALUE

TYPE Pro (Kani’s Method)
A 7.290 7.040 7.093 2.063
Bending AD D 28.808 28.799 28.934 29.625
Moment B 59.007 59.006 59.302 9.188
M z BD D 39.872 39.867 40.057 38.813
(KN-m)
C 5.460 5.459 5.488 4.593
CD D 11.064 9.825$ 11.126 9.186
$-9.825 -Value taken at effective depth of beam face for column.
In Table 10 the steel has been compared for the simple portal frame for all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000
and STAAD Pro. with the theoretical value (IS-456:2000).
Table-10 Comparison of steel results of portal frame.

ELEMENT AREA OF STEEL STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL

VALUE
Max. Factored B.M.(KN-m) 28.808 28.799 28.934 29.625
AD Ast(mm ) 2
165.29 233 233 420.79
(Beam) Asc(mm2) 359.42 251 317 Nil
Total Area of Steel (mm2) 524.71 484 550 420.79
Max. Factored B.M.(KN-m) 59.007 59.01 59.302 38.813
BD Ast(mm2) 331.50 365 468 715.37
(Beam) Asc(mm2) 781.24 731 736 Nil
Total Area of Steel (mm2) 1112.74 1096 1204 715.37
CD Max. Factored B.M.(KN-m) 7.376 6.55 7.417 9.186
(Column) AC(mm2) 452.93 720 720 720(min0.8%)

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1018

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Table 11 compares the bending moment output of all the three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and STAAD Pro.
with the theoretical value calculated by Kani’s methods at the mid points of a portal frame.
Table-11 Comparison of results of bending moment for beams at mid span for portal frame.

OUTPUT BEAM LOCATION STAAD PRO ETABS SAP-2000

TYPE
AD Mid Point
-6.177 -6.171 -6.174
Bending
BD Mid Point
Moment Mz -28.923 -28.328 -29.068
(KN-m)
CD Mid Point 2.802 2.804 2.819
Table 12 compares the reaction of a simple portal frame given by three software ETABS, SAP-2000 and
STAAD Pro. along three axis X, Y, Z .
Table-12 Comparison of reactions for portal frame at support.

LOCATION DIRECTION STAAD Pro ETABS SAP-2000 THEORETICAL

VALUE
x -1836.021 -1836.46 -1845.91 1147.50
Reactions
At Fixed y 9858.397 9867.39 9969.77 23550
Support ‘A’ z 378.737 0 0 0
(N)
x 918.011 918.23 922.95 1147.50
Reactions
At Fixed y 55430.470 55430.48 55706.16 64605
Support ‘B’ z 125.521 0 0 0
(N)
x 2754.032 2754.70 2768.86 1147.50
Reactions
At Fixed y 81916.558 81906.13 82817.42 79405.50
Support ‘C’ z 504.258 0 0 0
(N)
IV. DISCUSSION
The results obtained after the analysis for the four different basic structural elements beam, column, cantilever
beam and portal frame are discussed in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 below.
A. Fixed Beam
The results obtained for design of fixed beam have been shown in Table (1-3). It was observed that there was
no significant difference in analysis for bending moment and shear force for all the cases. The value of steel
required as obtained from ETAB, SAP-2000 and Kani’s method hardly differ by 10%. However, the steel
required as obtained by STAAD Pro differs significantly by more than 10% as compared to the steel
requirement obtained by Kani’s method. The amount of reinforcement as obtained by STAAD Pro is more than
what is required by a balanced section. Hence, this violates the basic philosophy of limit state design [20] by
producing an over reinforced section.
B. Column
The results obtained for design of the column have been shown in Table (4-5).The analysis shows that there is
no significant difference in the quantity of steel and concrete for all the cases. The values of steel given by SAP-
2000 are exactly same compared to theoretical methods and the results of ETABS are hardly different by 10%.
The amount of reinforcement given by STAAD Pro is less than minimum required (0.8% of cross-section as per
I.S. code). It is again violates the requirements of IS: 456 -2000[20].
C. Cantilever Beam
The results obtained for design of a cantilever beam for has been shown in Tables (6-8). It is clear from the
table values that there is no significant difference in the analysis and variation is less than 10%. Table 8 shows
the values of steel for a cantilever beam with different software and theoretical value as per Indian Standard
requirements. Steel area given by SAP-2000 is highest and the software shows that the beam is also over-
stressed [23]. STAAD Pro shows 13.42% more steel as compared to ETABS although the moments given by

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1019

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

both the software is same. However the section of beam is over reinforced and cannot be designed as per IS-
456:2000 Code [20]. Therefore, it is observed that the beam section designed using different software had been
over-reinforced and therefore basic inherent advantage of limit state design is not met.
C. Portal Frame
The bending moment for the portal frame given in Table 9 shows the variation at the fixed ends A and B as
compared to the theoretical values of bending moment. The variation of bending moment at the fixed end A is
253.36%, 241.25%, 243.82%, respectively, for STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 software compared to
theoretical value. The variation of bending moment at the fixed end B is 542.21%, 542.21%, 545.43%,
respectively, for STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 software compared to theoretical value. This is due to
change in the rigidity of the joint at the end of the beam making it unstable due to instability conditions at the
ends providing degree of freedom in one or more direction (Fx, Fy, Fz and Mx) [23,25]. The values in ETABS
show the variation on the account that these values are given at the effective depth from the face of the beam.
Table 10 shows steel provided in beam AD for all the three software STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 which
is 24.70%, 15.02%, 30.95% respectively, more than the theoretical results though the bending moment given by
all the three software is almost same (Table 11). Also, in case of beam BD, the steel determined by STAAD Pro,
ETABS and SAP-2000, respectively, are 55.55%, 53.21% and 68.30% more as compared to the theoretical value.
The design results of column matches with the theoretical value for ETABS and SAP software but the value of
steel given by STAAD Pro is less than the permissible limit (0.8%) (IS-456; 2000) [20] specified by the IS-456
Code .Table 12 shows the values of reactions given by STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 software. It is
observed that there is insignificant variation along X-axis and Y-axis but there is a significant variation of force
along Z-axis because of more degree of freedom provided by instability condition [23, 25]. There is no
significant variation in the values of ETABS and SAP-2000 but the variation is significant along ‘Z’ direction
for STAAD Pro at the joint ‘A’, joint ‘B’ and joint ‘C’.
V. CONCLUSIONS
 The comparison of analysis of force for the fixed and cantilever beams is closer to the theoretical value in
case of SAP-2000. Moment in STAAD Pro and ETABS is on the lower side.
 The quantity of concrete provided for a fixed beam given by all the three software is same as that of
theoretical value.
 The software provided required amount of steel in reinforced cantilever beam although the cantilever beam
cannot be designed theoretically as under reinforced section using Indian Standards.
 There is no significant variation of shear force given by STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 compared to
theoretical value for the cantilever beam
 The fixed end moment in case of a portal frame showed significant variation at the fixed ends of a frame but
the variation at continuous supports are within 5% compared to theoretical value.
 The area of steel results for ETABS and SAP-2000 exactly matches the theoretical value of steel in case of
portal frame but the steel results given by STAAD Pro are less than minimum recommended by I.S. code.
 The results reactions at the supports for STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 are almost same along X-
direction and Y-direction but there is a huge variation along Z-axis on the account of instability condition in
the joint.
All the three software STAAD Pro, ETABS and SAP-2000 give good approximation of the results for bending
moments, shear forces, axial forces with the independent results designed manually for the same problem [20-
25]. The area of steel shows a large variation of order of more than 5% even for the same moments. It is
therefore concluded that more expertise is required to a Civil Engineer when more complicated structures are
designed.
REFERENCES
[1] Subramanian N, Are our structural engineers geared up for the challenges of the profession? The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.1, pp.
20-26, 2011.
[2] Naghipour M, Javadi N and Nagipour A, “Investigation of RBS connection ductility in eccentrically braced frame”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol.14, pp. 473-752, 2011.
[3] Sharma A, Reddy G.R, Eligehausen, R. and Vaze K.K, “Experimental and analytical investigation on seismic behavior of RC framed
structure by pushover method”, Structure Engineering And Mechanics, Vol. 39, No.1, pp.125-145, 2011.
[4] Azam S.K and Hosur V, “Seismic performance evaluation of multistoried RC framed buildings with shear with shear wall”,
International Journal of Scientific Engineering Research, Vol. 4, No.1, pp.1-6, 2013.
[5] Prasanth P, Anshuman S, Pandey R.K and Herert A, “Comparison of design results of a structure designed using STAAD and ETAB
Software”. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol.2, No. 3, pp. 860-875, 2012.
[6] Hu K. Yang Y, Mu S and Qu G, “Study on High-rise Structure with Oblique Columns by ETABS, SAP-2000, MIDAS/GEN and
STAVE” , Procedia Engineering, Vol 31, pp.474-480, 2012.
[7] Al-Tamimi A.K, Ibrahim A and Al-Sughaiyer N. Evaluation of suitability of multistory reinforced concrete structure”, Physics
Procedia, Vol. 55, pp.445-450, 2014.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1020

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Balwinder Lallotra et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

[8] Kumar S, Garg V and Sharma A, “Effect of sloping ground on structural performance of RCC building under seismic load”,
International Journal of Science Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2,pp.1310-1320, 2014.
[9] Sabeer M and Peera D.G, “Comparison design result of RCC buildings using STAAD and ETABS software”. International Journal of
Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering, Vol. 2, pp.92-97, 2015.
[10] Rana Y.R, “Comparison of analysis and design results of a structural elements using STAAD Pro, STRUDS, and ETABS software”,
International Journal of Scientific Progress and Research, Vol14, pp. 50-52, 2015.
[11] Baral A and Yajdani S.K, “Seismic analysis of RC framed building for different position of shear wall”,International Journal of
Innovative Research In Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, No5, pp.3346-3353, 2015.
[12] Jennifer P. and Jegidha KJ. (2015), “Review of seismic design of multistoried RC building using various codes”. International Journal
of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol.2, pp.44-46, 2015.
[13] Leonetti L, Casciaro R and Garcea G, “Effective treatment of complex statical and dynamical load combinations with shakedown
analysis of 3D frame”, Elsevier computers and structures,Vol.158, pp.124-139, 2015.
[14] Ramya D and Saikumar A. V. S, “Comparative study on design and analysis of multistoried building (G+10) by STAAD Pro and
ETABS software”, International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology, Vol.4,pp.125-130, 2015.
[15] Van Nguyen Q, Fatahi B and Hokmabadi A.S, “The effect of foundation size on the seismic performance of buildings considering the
soil structure-foundation-structure interaction”, Structure Engineering And Mechanics, Vol. 58, No.6, pp.1045-1075, 2016.
[16] Farghly A. A, “ Seismic assessment of slender high rise buildings with different shear Configurations”, Advances in Computational
Design, Vol.1, No.3, pp.221-234, 2016.
[17] Massumi A and Mohammadi R, “Structural redundancy of 3D RC frames under seismic excitations”, Structure Engineering And
Mechanics, Vol.9, No.1, pp.15-36, 2016.
[18] Gorgun H, “The stability of semi-rigid skeletal structures accounting for shear Deformation”, Structure Engineering And Mechanics,
Vol.57, No.6,pp.1065-1084, 2016.
[19] Parulekar Y.M, Reddy G.R, Singh R.K, Gopalkrishnan N and Ramarao G.V, “Seismic performance evaluation of mid-rise shear walls:
experimental and analysis”, Structure Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 59, pp.291-312, 2016.
[20] Standard I. Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice (IS-456:2000).Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, July2000.
[21] Bureau of Indian Standards(IS1893), Part-1: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: General Provisions and Buildings.
[22] Bureau of Indian Standard(IS 1786):High Strength Deformed Bars and Wires Concrete Reinforcement, New Delhi, India, 2008.
[23] Wilson E.L. and Habibulah A., “SAP2000 integrated finite element analysis and design of structures, Analysis reference, Computers
and Structures, 1997.
[24] STAAD PRO V8i. (2012):Technical Reference Manual Bentley, 2012.
[25] ETABS (version 9): ETABS user’s manual.CSI.

AUTHOR PROFILE
Er. Balwinder Lallotra is a research scholar at PTU, Jalandhar, India and working at M. M. University at
Ambala as an Associate Professor. He has about 20 years experience both in consultancy relates to structural
design and teaching. The other interests of author are computer aided design, remote sensing and GIS.
Dr Dhirendra Singhal is a professor and Chairperson in department of civil engineering at D.C.R. University
of Science and Technology, Murthal, India He has number of papers to his credit . He is a member of various
technical organisations and associated with various research projects.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i2/170902149 Vol 9 No 2 Apr-May 2017 1021