Comparatives Structural Analysis of Industrial Shed using STAAD Pro & ETABS

  The present study carried out a comparative structural analysis and design of a steel industrial shed using STAAD Pro and ETABS to evaluate the variation in structural response, member forces, utilization ratio, and material consumption under identical loading and design conditions. The analysis results obtained from both software platforms indicate that although the overall structural behavior remains similar, slight variations are observed due to differences in modelling approach, analysis algorithms, and design interpretation adopted by the software. From the analysis, it was observed that the maximum horizontal displacement obtained from STAAD Pro [1] is approximately 6.2% lower than that obtained from ETABS [2], while the vertical displacement is about 2.2% lower in STAAD Pro [1]. This indicates that STAAD Pro [1] predicts comparatively stiffer structural behavior for the industrial shed model. The support reaction comparison shows that the maximum horizontal and vertical reactions in STAAD Pro [1] are approximately 1.5% and 1.8% lower, respectively, than those obtained in ETABS [2]. Similarly, the maximum compression force, tension force, and shear force are found to be nearly 1.8%, 3%, and 2.4% lower in STAAD Pro [1]. These minor differences demonstrate that both software programs produce closely comparable analytical results, thereby validating the reliability of the structural analysis. The utilization ratio obtained from STAAD Pro [1] is approximately 2.2% lower than ETABS [2], indicating a slightly more economical and conservative member performance prediction. Based on the overall findings, it can be concluded that both STAAD Pro [1] and ETABS [2] are efficient and reliable software tools for the analysis and design of steel industrial sheds. STAAD Pro [1] demonstrates comparatively lower displacement and force values, whereas ETABS [2] results in slightly reduced estimated steel quantity. Therefore, the selection of software may depend on the designer’s project requirements, design preference, ease of modelling, and optimization objectives. The study also confirms that the variation between the two software packages is relatively small and remains within acceptable engineering limits, making both suitable for practical industrial shed design applications.

1.                Bentley System Inc., STAAD Pro 2.                Computer and Structures Inc., ETABS 3.                Lallotra, B., & Singhal, D. (2017). State of the Art Report: A Comparative Study of Structural Analysis and Design Software – STAAD Pro, SAP2000 and ETABS. 4.                Yadav, H., & Jaldhari, R. Comparative Study of Simulation Tools STAAD Pro and ETABS Software for Multi-Storey Buildings. 5.                Porras Rodríguez, I. A. Comparison of Modeling, Analysis and Design of an Industrial Shed Using ETABS and STAAD.Pro. 6.                A Comparative Study Between the Pre-Engineered Structures and Conventional Structures Using STAAD.Pro. 7.                Comparative Study on Structural Performance and Steel Consumption of Industrial Mono-Slope and Dual-Slope PEB Sheds Using STAAD Pro. 8.                IS 875 (Part 1): 2026 - Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for Building and Structures, Part-1 Dead Loads 9.                IS 875 Part-3 2015 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures - Part 3 Wind Loads 10.             IS 800: 2007 General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice