This document presents a comparative study on the dynamic analysis of a four-story reinforced concrete building in a seismic zone using the response spectrum method with STAAD Pro and ETABS software. The study highlights the differences in base shear, frequencies, and modal participation factors calculated by both software, revealing a minimal variance of 1.3% in base shear. The findings underscore the necessity for proper modeling and understanding of ground motion in seismic analysis for reliable structural designs.

1. IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 2, Issue 07, 2014 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 501
Dynamic Analysis of RC Multi-Storeyed Building- A Comparative Study
M. Lakshmi1
B. Divya2
A. Angeline Getrude Nancy3
A. Venkatesan4
G. Murali5
K. Karthikeyan6
1,2,3
B.E. Student 4,5,6
Assistant Professor
1,2
Department of Civil Engineering
1,2,3,4,5
Panimalar Engineering College 6
VIT University
Abstract— In India with a seismic moderate zone, the
equivalent static force method to estimate the seismic force,
subsequent vulnerability and behavior of RC building under
seismic load is inadequate. The main goal of this paper is to
show how the modal analysis can contribute to the
understanding the behavior of building using Response
Spectrum Method. In this study, Dynamic Analysis of four
storied Reinforced Concrete building was investigated using
Staad pro and Etabs software packages. For this, Response
Spectrum Method was used to evaluate the base shear,
frequency, modal mass participation and the mode shapes of
the building have been plotted for 15 frequencies. Seismic
Zone 3 has been considered and base shear was calculated
as per the procedure recommended by IS 1893-2002. The
results shows that only slight variation in frequencies and
modal participation factors was observed as each software
has its own way of considering the mass.
Key words: Dynamic Analysis, mode shape, frequency,
mass participation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Response of reinforced concrete framed structures will
experience to seismic action is dynamic in nature that
depends on the duration, magnitude, intensity, and
frequency content of the exciting ground motion. It is
important to estimate and stipulate these lateral forces on the
structure in order to design the structure to resist an
earthquake. The building codes often suggested equivalent
static load analysis for design of buildings in seismic zones
due to its simplicity. However dynamic analysis becomes
even more complicated, questionable and accurate when
nonlinearity in materials and geometry is considered.
Therefore, the analytical tools such as Staad Pro, Etabs, and
Sap were used for further development and enhancement in
earthquake engineering with significant advances achieved
in recent years. Haroon and Umesh (2012) seismic analysis
was carried out on reinforced concrete (RC) frame building
with different model such as bare frame, infilled frame and
open first storey frame. Results showed that the infilled
frames must be preferred in seismic regions than the open
first storey frame, because the storey drift of first storey is
very large than the upper storeys, this may most likely cause
the collapse of structure. Mohit Sharma and Maru (2014)
performed the static and dynamic analysis of RCC framed
structure in zone II and III and the results obtained from the
dynamic analysis are higher than the values as obtained
from static analysis. Amin (2014) performed the pushover
analysis of an asymmetric building and results showed that
the maximum displacements of the buildings which are
obtained from pushover analysis are higher than the
response spectrum analysis. Sunayana Varma et al (2014)
studied the seismic response of reinforced concrete framed
structures in different seismic zone and comparisons were
between the Staad pro and Etabs results.
II. ANALYSIS DATA FOR THIS INVESTIGATION
Following data is used in the analysis of the RC frame
building models
Type of frame : RC Frame
Seismic zone : III
Number of storey : Four
Floor height : Each 3.3m
Depth of Slab : 165mm
Size of beam in longitudinal direction :300 x 450mm
Size of beam in Transverse direction : 300 x 450mm
Size of column : 350 x 350 mm
Spacing between frames : 4m
Live load on floor : 3 kN/m2
Materials : M25 concrete, Fe 415 steel and Brick infill
Thickness of external infill wall : 250 mm
Thickness of external infill wall : 150 mm
Density of concrete : 25kN/m2
Density of infill : 20kN/m2
Type of soil : Medium
Response spectrum : As per IS 1893(Part-1):2002
Damping of structure : 5 percent
Fig. 1: Plan and 3D view of the building
The four storied symmetrical building consisting of four
bays in each direction and height of building is 13.2m from
the ground level. The dimensions of the building as shown
in figure 1 and the rendered 3D view from the Staad pro and
Etabs model as shown in figure 2.
Fig. 2: Rendered 3Dimensional view from Staad Pro and
Etabs

2. Dynamic Analysis of RC Multi-Storeyed Building- A Comparative Study
(IJSRD/Vol. 2/Issue 07/2014/109)
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 502
Fig. 3: mode shapes of the building
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Floor Level Staad Pro Results Etabs Results
4 269.11 264.77
3 471.50 500.76
2 619.86 635.06
1 733.84 741.46
Base 737.35 745.00
Table 1: Comparison of storey shear results
Mode
Frequency Modal Participating Mass
Staad Pro
Results
Etabs
Results
Staad Pro
Results
Etabs
Results
1 0.939 0.85 42.09 66.22
2 0.939 0.85 84.22 84.26
3 2.82 0.92 88.47 94.32
4 2.82 2.59 92.72 97.15
5 2.84 2.59 94.39 98.71
6 2.84 2.79 96.06 99.51
7 4.082 4.38 96.76 99.94
8 4.703 4.38 97.46 99.97
9 4.703 4.69 98.13 99.99
10 5.874 6.04 98.8 100
11 5.874 6.04 98.98 100
12 6.417 6.45 99.16 100
13 6.417 7.26 99.29 100
14 7.674 7.26 99.42 100
15 7.674 7.74 99.51 100
Table 2: Natural frequency and modal participating mass
Complete quadratic combination (CQC) rule was
employed to calculate the storey shear. It can be seen from
the table 1 the distribution of storey shears was similar from
both Etabs and Staad-Pro. The base shear difference
between the staad pro and etabs was just 1.3%. Natural
frequency is the multiplicative inverse of model natural
period and it plays a vital role in deciding the number of
modes under the dynamic responses. Modal combination
was carried out for the modes having frequency less than
33Hz and missing mass correction was applied to consider
the effects of higher modes. A cutoff frequency of 33Hz was
applied in both software as to maintain the frequency limit.
Similarly, missing mass correction was applied in software.
In this model, the first fifteen modes were dominant as they
contributed for more than 99% mass participation and effect
of the remaining mass was considered by applying missing
mass correction. The frequencies and modal mass
participation ratios obtained from Staad-Pro and Etabs are
tabulated in Table 2. Slight variation in frequencies and
modal participation factors was observed as each software
has its own way of considering the mass. The mode shapes
of first fifteen frequencies are shown in Figure 3. The mode
shapes were similar in both Staad-Pro and Etabs, with the
first two modes being translational and followed by
torsional mode beyond the third. This is because the
building was symmetrical in plan and loading.
IV. CONCLUSION
Dynamic analysis of RC buildings by response spectrum
method need proper attention in structural modeling,
understanding the suitable choice of ground motion records,
and thorough knowledge and awareness of the analyst with
the procedures and computer software employed. The base
shear difference between the staad pro and etabs was just
1.3%. The mode shapes obtained from the Staad-Pro and
Etabs are very similar, the first two modes being
translational movement in the horizontal direction following
the initiation of torsional mode beyond the third frequency,
this is because the building was symmetrical in plan and
loading.
REFERENCES
[1] Haroon Rasheed Tamboli and Umesh.N.Karadi
“Seismic Analysis of RC Frame Structure with and
without Masonry Infill Walls” Indian Journal of
Natural Sciences. Vol.3 / Issue 14/ (Oct 2012).
[2] Mohit Sharma and Maru “Dynamic Analysis of
Multistoried Regular Building” (IOSR-JMCE)
Volume 11, Issue 1 Ver. II (Jan. 2014), pp 37-42.
[3] Amin Ali Amar Ahfid “Dynamic and Pushover
Analysis of 8 Storey Building (G+8) Using ETAB
Nonlinear” International Journal of Engineering
Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 10
Number 1 – (Apr 2014). pp 40-49.
[4] Sunayana Varma, A. Malar, S. Thenmozhi, T.
Suriya, G. Murali, B. Venugopal and K.
Karthikeyan. “Comparative Study of Seismic Base
Shear of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures in
Different Seismic Zone” The International Journal
of Science & Techno ledge, Vole 2 Issue 8, (Aug,
2014), pp 74-77.
[5] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Indian Standard Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1
General Provisions and Building.