Analysis and design of high rise building frame using staad pro
3 likes•1,140 views
The document presents a study on the analysis and design of a 30-storey high-rise building using STAAD Pro 2008, examining the effects of seismic and wind load combinations. It details the calculations for dead, live, wind, and seismic loads, along with structural analysis results, including shear bending and deflection of beams and columns. Conclusions highlight the greater reinforcement requirements under dynamic analysis compared to static analysis, indicating the influence of load types on structural integrity.
![IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org 237
4.0 CASE 2. STRUCTURE ANALYZED FOR
WIND LOAD + LIVE LOAD + DEAD LOAD
COMBINATION.
Same building is considered for the study and wind
analysis is carried out as per IS 875.
Basic wind speed As per IS 875 (PART 3), 50 m/s for
CTC
As per IS 875 (PART 3), Wind intensity and height
considered is 1.5 kN/m2
at a height 90 m in CTC.
Table 3- Shear Bending of Beams and Columns for case 2
Particulars Distance
(m)
FY
(KN)
MZ
( kip-in)
BEAM 1632 0.00 -15.467 -353.557
BEAM 1042 0.00 -113.008 -2505.793
BEAM 79 0.00 -128.012 -2833.974
COLUMN 1948 0.00 29.212 242.395
COLUMN 130 0.00 164.378 4233.017
COLUMN 715 0.00 95.204 1237.146
Table 4- Deflection in Beams and Columns
Particulars DISTANCE
(m)
DISPLACEMENT
(in)
Global
Deflection
BEAM 1632 0.00 13.538 X direction
BEAM 1042 0.00 9.399 X direction
BEAM 79 0.00 0.277 X direction
COLUMN 1948 0.00 13.398 X direction
COLUMN 130 0.00 0.273 X direction
COLUMN 715 0.00 6.155 X direction
Table 5- Comparison of Seismic and wind load
combinations
Particulars EQ+DL+LL WL+DL+LL
SHEAR BENDING -189.057 kip-in -353.557 kip-in
DEFLECTION 6.89 in 13.538 in
REINFORCEMENT 7#12 and 6#12 5#12 and 4#12
AREA OF STEEL 5400 mm2
5850 mm2
% OF STEEL 0.98% 1.04%
Fig 4- Concrete design of Column 715 in CASE 1
Fig 5- Concrete design of Column 715 in CASE 2
5. CONCLUSIONS
It can be clearly observed that when a 30- storey high rise
structure with same beam and column size is analyzed and
designed for static and dynamic loads:
1) The top beam of the structure requires more
reinforcement in case 1 compared to case 2. Hence it
reveals that more reinforcement is required in static
analysis than dynamic analysis
2) Deflection and shear bending is more in dynamic
analysis compare static analysis
3) In lower beams more reinforcement is required for
dynamic loads compared to static loads.
4) For columns, area of steel and percentage of steel is
always greater for dynamic oad combination compared
to static load combination.
REFERENCES
[1] Murty C.V.R. and Jain. S. K "A Review of IS-1893-
1984 Provisions on seismic Design of Buildings". The
Indian concrete journal, Nov.1994.
[2] Sarkar P. Agrawal, R and Menon, D."Design of beam,
columns joints under Seismic loadings" A review,
Journal of structural engineering SERC, Vol.33. No.6.
Feb.2007.
[3] Reddell R. and Lira, J.C.D.L."Seismic analysis and
design" Current practice and Future trends. Eleventh
World Conference on earthquake Engineering Mexico.
[4] BIS-1893, Criteria for Earthquake resistant design of
structures-Part-1, General Provisions and Buildings,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi -2002.
[5] IS-456-2000 "Indian standard of code and practice for
plain and reinforced concrete" Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi -2000.
[6] IS-875-1987."Indian standard code of practice for
structural safety loadings standards” Part-1, 2 Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[7] SP-16-1980- Design Aids for Reinforced concrete to
IS-456-1978-Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[8] Agarwal Pankaj and Shrikhande Manish "Earthquake
resistant design of structure” PHI, Learning Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi-2010.
[9] Rai. Durgesh. C. Hemant. B. Kaushik, Jain.Sudhir.
K.”A case for use of dynamic analysis in designing for
earthquake forces”- Department of Civil engineering,
IIT Kanpur-India.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/analysisanddesignofhighrisebuildingframeusingstaadpro-160922120629/85/Analysis-and-design-of-high-rise-building-frame-using-staad-pro-3-320.jpg)
Analysis and design of high rise building frame using staad pro
- 1. IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org 235 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF HIGH RISE BUILDING FRAME USING STAAD PRO Tejashree Kulkarni1 , Sachin Kulkarni2 , Anjum Algur3 , M. H. Kolhar4 1,2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SECAB Institute of Engineering & Technology, Vijayapur- 586101,VTU Belgaum, Karnataka, India 3,4 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SECAB Institute of Engineering & Technology, Vijayapur- 586101,VTU Belgaum, Karnataka, India Abstract The Aim of present study “Analysis and design of high rise building by staad pro 2008” is to define proper technique for creating Geometry, cross sections for column and beam etc, developing specification and supports conditions, types of Loads and load combinations. In this study a 30- storey high rise structure is analyzed for seismic and wind load combination using staad pro 2008 and comparison is drawn. Keywords: Analysis, Geometry, Structure, Wind load --------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INTRODUCTION With the immense increase in population, demand of land keeps on mounting which in turn leads the responsibility of civil engineer to greater extent. Earlier Horizontal system of construction was in use but now a day’s vertical system of construction is preferred more due to a lesser amount of ground existing. In multistoried buildings one should apprehension about all the forces acting on a structure, its self weight as well as the SBC .Good quality of beam column reinforcement should be used to counter react the external forces satisfactorily acting on a structure. The soil beneath the structure should be hard enough to distribute the load uniformly to the foundation. Deep foundation is preferred for loose soil. As number of floors keeps on increasing, manual calculations process becomes tedious, consumes more time and there are chances of human errors as well. 1.1 Advantages of STAAD pro 1. Extremely Flexible Modeling Environment. 2. Broad Spectra of Design Codes. 3. International Best Seller. 4. Interoperability and Open Architecture. 5. Covering All Aspects of Structural Engineering. 6. Quality Assurance. 7. Extremely Scalable. 8. Easy Reports and Documentation. 1.2 Loads and Load Combinations Loads considered: Dead load: the load due to its self weight Live load: for residential building live load is taken as KN/m2 Wind load: the load due to wind intensities. Seismic load: the load due to acceleration response of the ground to the super structure 2. CALCULATION OF LOADS According to IS code: FOR DEAD LOAD CALCULATIONS, Unit weight of brick masonry= 19.2 kN/m3 . Unit weight of RCC= 25 kN/m3 FLOOR FINISHES =2kN/m2 on each floor and (-1.5kN/m2 ) on roof. (negative sign indicates its acting on downward direction.) 3. Wind load calculation: AS PER IS CODE 875 PART 3 4. Seismic load calculation: AS PER IS-CODE 1893(part 1) 2.1 Load Combination Load combination for Static analysis: • 1.5(DL + IL) • 1.2(DL + IL ± EL) • 1.5(DL ± EL) • 0.9 DL ± 1.5 EL Load combination for For dynamic analysis: • DL +LL • DL+WL • DL+0.8LL+0.8WL
- 2. IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org 236 3. DETAILS OF THE STRUCTURE Fig-1. Elevation of structure 3.1 Case 1. Structure Analyzed For Seismic Load +Live Load+ Dead Load Combination. Multi-storey plane frame with fixed joint is considered for the present study Seismic zone II is considered Number of stories 30, (G+29) Floor height considered is 3.00m 4 No of bays with 5.00m bay length is considered. Grade of concrete considered is M35 and grade of steel considered is Fe 415 Size of column- 800mm x800mm Size of Beam- 300mm x 450mm Depth of Slab- 125 mm thick Medium soil is considered Response spectra analysis is carried out As per IS 1893. 3.2 Analysis and Results Table 1- Shear Bending of beams and columns Particulars Distance (m) FY (KN) MZ ( kip-in) BEAM 1632 0.00 -8.440 -189.057 BEAM 1042 0.00 -40.806 -903.712 BEAM 79 0.00 -22.805 -504.629 COLUMN 1948 0.00 13.739 57.642 COLUMN 130 0.00 37.535 1319.674 COLUMN 715 0.00 29.041 437.253 Fig 2- Shear bending of BEAM 1632 Table 2- Deflection in Beams and Columns Particulars DISTANCE (m) DISPLACEMENT (in) Global Deflection BEAM 1632 0.00 6.890 X direction BEAM 1042 0.00 4.256 X direction BEAM 79 0.00 0.081 X direction COLUMN 1948 0.00 6.809 X direction COLUMN 130 0.00 0.083 X direction COLUMN 715 0.00 2.527 X direction Fig 3- Deflection in BEAM 1632
- 3. IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org 237 4.0 CASE 2. STRUCTURE ANALYZED FOR WIND LOAD + LIVE LOAD + DEAD LOAD COMBINATION. Same building is considered for the study and wind analysis is carried out as per IS 875. Basic wind speed As per IS 875 (PART 3), 50 m/s for CTC As per IS 875 (PART 3), Wind intensity and height considered is 1.5 kN/m2 at a height 90 m in CTC. Table 3- Shear Bending of Beams and Columns for case 2 Particulars Distance (m) FY (KN) MZ ( kip-in) BEAM 1632 0.00 -15.467 -353.557 BEAM 1042 0.00 -113.008 -2505.793 BEAM 79 0.00 -128.012 -2833.974 COLUMN 1948 0.00 29.212 242.395 COLUMN 130 0.00 164.378 4233.017 COLUMN 715 0.00 95.204 1237.146 Table 4- Deflection in Beams and Columns Particulars DISTANCE (m) DISPLACEMENT (in) Global Deflection BEAM 1632 0.00 13.538 X direction BEAM 1042 0.00 9.399 X direction BEAM 79 0.00 0.277 X direction COLUMN 1948 0.00 13.398 X direction COLUMN 130 0.00 0.273 X direction COLUMN 715 0.00 6.155 X direction Table 5- Comparison of Seismic and wind load combinations Particulars EQ+DL+LL WL+DL+LL SHEAR BENDING -189.057 kip-in -353.557 kip-in DEFLECTION 6.89 in 13.538 in REINFORCEMENT 7#12 and 6#12 5#12 and 4#12 AREA OF STEEL 5400 mm2 5850 mm2 % OF STEEL 0.98% 1.04% Fig 4- Concrete design of Column 715 in CASE 1 Fig 5- Concrete design of Column 715 in CASE 2 5. CONCLUSIONS It can be clearly observed that when a 30- storey high rise structure with same beam and column size is analyzed and designed for static and dynamic loads: 1) The top beam of the structure requires more reinforcement in case 1 compared to case 2. Hence it reveals that more reinforcement is required in static analysis than dynamic analysis 2) Deflection and shear bending is more in dynamic analysis compare static analysis 3) In lower beams more reinforcement is required for dynamic loads compared to static loads. 4) For columns, area of steel and percentage of steel is always greater for dynamic oad combination compared to static load combination. REFERENCES [1] Murty C.V.R. and Jain. S. K "A Review of IS-1893- 1984 Provisions on seismic Design of Buildings". The Indian concrete journal, Nov.1994. [2] Sarkar P. Agrawal, R and Menon, D."Design of beam, columns joints under Seismic loadings" A review, Journal of structural engineering SERC, Vol.33. No.6. Feb.2007. [3] Reddell R. and Lira, J.C.D.L."Seismic analysis and design" Current practice and Future trends. Eleventh World Conference on earthquake Engineering Mexico. [4] BIS-1893, Criteria for Earthquake resistant design of structures-Part-1, General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi -2002. [5] IS-456-2000 "Indian standard of code and practice for plain and reinforced concrete" Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi -2000. [6] IS-875-1987."Indian standard code of practice for structural safety loadings standards” Part-1, 2 Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [7] SP-16-1980- Design Aids for Reinforced concrete to IS-456-1978-Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [8] Agarwal Pankaj and Shrikhande Manish "Earthquake resistant design of structure” PHI, Learning Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi-2010. [9] Rai. Durgesh. C. Hemant. B. Kaushik, Jain.Sudhir. K.”A case for use of dynamic analysis in designing for earthquake forces”- Department of Civil engineering, IIT Kanpur-India.