Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No.

1 (2022) 1169-1177
© Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Publisher’s Office

RTCEBE
Homepage: http://publisher.uthm.edu.my/periodicals/index.php/rtcebe
e-ISSN :2773-5184

Comparative Study in the Design of a Reinforced

Concrete Structure
Wong Jing Xian1, Mohammad Soffi Md Noh1*
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, 86400, MALAYSIA

*Corresponding Author Designation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30880/rtcebe.2022.03.01.133
Received 4 July 2021; Accepted 13 December 2021; Available online 15 July 2022

Abstract: Nowadays, the application of software is popular in engineering field. This

raised a problem that which software should be used in order to get the best solution.
The objectives of this study are to model a double storey reinforced concrete building
using Esteem Integrated Total Solution and Tekla Structural Designer and to evaluate
the structural design outputs in term of the loading analysis, structural analysis,
reinforcement detailing and the taking off results. A double storey reinforced concrete
integrated office building was modelled, analyzed and designed complying with the
Eurocode (EC) and the Malaysian Standard (MS). The load combination was
designed according to serviceability load limit state and ultimate limit state. Seismic
load and wind load were not considered in this study to reduce the complexity in
achieving the objectives. The structure was modelled, analyzed and designed in
Esteem and Tekla based on specifications and assumptions in accordance with
Eurocode (EC) and the Malaysian Standard (MS). The structural design outputs and
taking off results were exported form Esteem and Tekla and compared. The structural
design outputs for beams and pile caps differ within 5% and 10% respectively while
the structural design outputs for columns differ up to 32.2%. Tekla resulted in higher
beam shear force and higher pile cap axial load in overall while Esteem resulted in
higher beam bending moment, higher column axial load and higher column bending
moment in overall. For reinforcement, both software had provided same
reinforcement for simply supported beams and slabs meanwhile Tekla had provided
about 35% greater area of reinforcement for continuous beams, columns and pile caps
compared to Esteem. In term of taking off results, the concrete volume required for
both software were almost similar. However, Tekla has a higher the taking off results
in term of reinforcement mass which is about 8000kg. In term of material costing,
Tekla cost about RM27000 higher compared to Esteem. From this study, it was found
that both Esteem and Tekla have their own strengths where Esteem resulted a more
cost-effective taking off result while Tekla is more conservative, flexible and user-
defined.

Keywords: Esteem, Tekla, Structural Design Outputs, Taking off Results

1. Introduction

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

2022 UTHM Publisher. All rights reserved.
publisher.uthm.edu.my/periodicals/index.php/rtcebe
Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

As the world continues to move towards the new era of information technology, structural analysis
and design software are developed by engineers to ease the engineering practices by providing a quick
and reliable solution to engineering problems[1]. Esteem Integrated Total Solution and Tekla Structural
Designer are two software used to design and analyze any kind of structure. However, these two
software will give different design and analytical results for the same structural configurations due to
different analytical mechanism which rise a need to carry out a comparative study between these two
software to know the feasibility of these two software[2].
Esteem Integrated Total Solution is one of the leading software for the structural building design.
It has been chosen as the key productivity tools in many structural consulting engineering firms. Esteem
includes modelling, visualization, analysis, design and detailing of the building structures.
Tekla Structural Designer is one of the most advance structural design software that enable
engineers to create accurate, information-rich 3D models that includes all the structural data of the
structure. Tekla is able to undertake structural analysis and design, produce professional calculations
and construction drawings, or provide full detailing services.
The characteristic loads, load combinations, reinforcements, external forces and the soil bearing
capacity has to be considered for the design of a structure. As the number floor keep increasing, the
information that has to be included increases causing the manual calculation to be more complex[3].
Hence, the use of a software is ideal to reduce time cost and minimize the chances of the error. This
paper carried out a comparative study of design results of Esteem and Tekla software by taking the
structural design output and the material taking off result of a double storey building in account.
Esteem and Tekla are two of the leading ultimate encoded design software in consulting firms
in Malaysia. These software aid structural engineers to design a safe and economical structure using
technologies, so that they can tackle the complex and large structures to design. Hence, the efficiency
of these two structural design software has to be assessed. The structural design outputs have to be
compared for building safety while the material taking off results have to be compared for construction
cost.The objectives of this study are as following:
• To model a double storey reinforced concrete building using Esteem Integrated Total Solution
and Tekla Structural Designer.
• To evaluate the structural design outputs in term of the loading analysis, structural analysis,
reinforcement detailing and the taking off results using Esteem Integrated Total Solution and
Tekla Structural Designer.
In this study, a double storey reinforced concrete integrated office building was modelled, analyzed
and designed by using two of the most common commercial software used in Malaysia which are
Esteem Integrated Total Solution and educational version of Tekla Structural Designer. This study
complied with the Eurocode (EC) published by European Committee for Standardization and the
Malaysian Standard (MS) published by the Department of Standards Malaysia. The concrete grades for
superstructures and foundations are C25/30 and C30/37 respectively while the steel for main
reinforcement and shear reinforcement are high yield steel, S460 and mild steel, S250 respectively. The
elastic modulus, E and shear modulus of steel reinforcement, G is fixed as 210000N/mm2 and
80769N/mm2 respectively. The load combination was designed according to serviceability load limit
state and ultimate limit state. Seismic load and wind load were not considered in this study to reduce
the complexity in achieving the objectives. The structural design output of the building was evaluated
in term of the the loading analysis, structural analysis, reinforcement detailing and the taking off results
only.

1170
 Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

Nowadays, analysis and design software had become a necessity for engineers to equipped with.
The application of these software help and ease engineers in solving a variety of problems ranging from
simple loading calculation to superstructure and substructure design and analysis[1]. Recently, the
application of software in civil engineering field is very common as software reduce all the extensive
works such as the complex calculations, modelling, drafting and designing activities[4]. Software that
was developed to ease engineers’ job include drafting and design software, geotechnical and
environment software, structural engineering software, construction engineering and management
software, hydraulic engineering software and road design and transportation software. Software play an
important role in engineering field which increased the efficiency of work as well as time and cost. It
facilitates engineering work and perform the work in an accurate, time saving and cost saving way as
the workload and manpower had reduced compared to the work that is done manually[4]. The
application of software assist engineers by elevating the quality of design, modelling and analysis
process of the engineering tasks. Software is applicable for many engineering works such as huge
structure design, virtual reality, prediction of structural behavior, equations solving, resource
optimization, earth-work estimation, cost estimation, project management, structural drawing and
predictive model making.
The application of software makes engineering works to be more productive and quantitative.
Some examples of engineering software are AutoCAD, PLAXIS, STAAD. Pro and MS Project.
Structural design software increased the efficiency of engineering practices, fulfilling the required
function safely, economically and aesthetically within the service lifetime of the structure. Hence, the
software have to be evaluated and their respective feasibilities will be determined at the end of this
study.
2. Methodology
In order to achieve the objectives, a double storey reinforced concrete integrated office building
was modelled, analyzed and designed in Esteem and Tekla based specifications and assumptions in
accordance with Eurocode (EC) and the Malaysian Standard (MS). The flowchart of the procedure
framework is shown in Figure 1.
The design procedure used in this study conform to the Eurocode (EC) published by European
Committee for Standardization and the Malaysian Standard (MS) published by the Department of
Standards Malaysia. Malaysia Standards are used together with the Malaysia National Annex to
Eurocode. The codes of practice and standards used are as following:
• BS EN 1990: Eurocode - Basis of structural design
• BS EN 1991: Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures
• BS EN 1992: Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures
• MS EN 1990: Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode - Basis of structural design
• MS EN 1991: Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures
• MS EN 1992: Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures

1171
Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

Start

Settings of project parameters

Modelling of double storey integrated

office buidlding

Design and analysis

Export of structural design outputs

Comparison of structural design outputs

form both software

Export of taking off results

Comparison of taking off results form

both software

Conclusion and recommendation

End

Figure 1: Flowchart of procedure framework

The materials involved in this study includes only concrete and steel reinforcement. The material
properties are shown in Table 1 while the dimensions of the structural elements are shown in Table 2.
In this study, all the slabs were designed as suspended slab while the roof was assumed to be flat roof.

Table 1: Material properties

Material properties Values

Concrete grade for superstructures C25/30
Concrete grade for foundations C50/60
Unit weight of concrete, gc 25kN/m3
RC pile capacity 200kN
Steel for main reinforcement S460
Steel for shear reinforcement S250
Elastic modulus of steel reinforcement, E 210000N/mm2
Poison ratio, v 0.3
Shear modulus of steel reinforcement, G 80769N/mm2
Unit weight of steel, gs 7850kg/m3
1172
 Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

Table 2: Dimensions of elements

Elements Dimensions (mm)

Nominal cover for super-structure 30
Nominal cover for sub-structure 50
Slab thickness 150
Beam 250 x 600
Column 250 x 450
Floor height 3200
Stump 250 x 450
Stump height 1200
Brickwall thickness 115
RC pile 150 x 150

The building areas were categorized based on Table NA2 in Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode
1 and the imposed load values were based on the recommended values in Table NA3 in Malaysia
National Annex to Eurocode 1 according to their respective categories. The roof structure was
categorized based on Table 6.9 in Eurocode 1 as Category H where the roofs is not accessible except
for normal maintenance and repair. The recommended value for imposed load on roof referred to Table
NA7 in Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 1. Wind load and seismic load was not considered in
order to reduce the complexity of this study.
The structure was designed according to serviceability limit state and ultimate limit state. The load
combinations were shown in Eq. 1, Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 while the load envelope includes all the load
combinations.
𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.0𝐺𝑘 + 1.0𝑄𝑘 𝐸𝑞. 1
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.35𝐺𝑘 + 1.5𝑄𝑘 𝐸𝑞. 2
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.35𝐺𝑘 𝐸𝑞. 3
In both software, the building was modelled according to the specifications and assumptions made.
The structural outputs and material taking off results were exported from both Esteem and Tekla to be
compared. The results were compared based on Eq.4 where positive percentages show that Esteem
result is greater while negative percentages show that Tekla result is greater.
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑚 − 𝑇𝑒𝑘𝑙𝑎
𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒(%) = × 100 𝐸𝑞. 4
(𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑚 + 𝑇𝑒𝑘𝑙𝑎)/2
3. Results and Discussion
The structural design outputs and the taking off results from Esteem and Tekla were compared and
discussed. For taking off results, the volume of concrete and mass of reinforcement used for the building
structures will be compared and discussed.
3.1 Structural design outputs
For structural design outputs, two simply supported beams, two continuous beams, two interior
columns, two exterior columns, three slabs and four pile caps were compared and discussed in term of
loading analysis, structural analysis, reinforcement detailing. The results were tabulated.

1173
Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

Table 3: Difference in structural design output for beams

Difference
Element Output Esteem Tekla
(%)
Maximum shear force, V (kN) 68.56 73.2 -6.5
Simply supported beam
Bending moment, M (kNm) 76.22 74.4 2.4
1
Midspan reinforcement (mm2) 628 628 0
Maximum shear force, V (kN) 41.57 36.6 12.0
Simply supported beam
Bending moment, M (kNm) 14.89 11.7 21.4
2
Midspan reinforcement (mm2) 452 452 0
Maximum shear force, V (kN) 60.39 64.4 -6.4
Continuous beam 1 Maximum bending moment, M (kNm) 52.21 46.1 11.7
Reinforcement at max. moment (mm2) 628 804 -24.6
Maximum shear force, V (kN) 58.94 63.8 -7.9
Continuous beam 2 Maximum bending moment, M (kNm) 64.25 78.3 -19.7
Reinforcement at max. moment (mm2) 628 1030 -48.5

From Table 3, it shows that Tekla has an average shear force of 2.2% higher in overall while
Esteem has an average bending moment of 4.0% higher in overall for both simply supported and
continuous beams. For simply supported beams, both Esteem and Tekla had provided same area of
reinforcement, while Tekla had provided an average area of reinforcement of 36.6% higher for
continuous beams.

Table 4: Difference in structural design output for columns

Element Output Esteem Tekla Difference (%)

Axial load, P (kN) 874.90 793.8 9.3
Interior column 1 Maximum moment, M (kNm) 34.14 24.8 27.4
Reinforcement (mm2) 1206 2945 -83.8
Axial load, P (kN) 527.56 512.8 2.8
Interior column 2 Maximum moment, M (kNm) 4.73 2.8 40.8
Reinforcement (mm2) 1206 679 43.7
Axial load, P (kN) 273.04 176.1 35.5
Exterior column 1 Maximum moment, M (kNm) 7.60 2.3 69.7
Reinforcement (mm2) 1206 1885 -43.9
Axial load, P (kN) 540.13 504.1 6.7
Exterior column 2 Maximum moment, M (kNm) 14.03 15.1 -7.3
Reinforcement (mm2) 1206 1885 -43.9

For columns, Table 4 shows that Esteem has higher average axial load and bending moment of
13.6% and 32.2% higher respectively compared to Tekla. However, Tekla provided a greater average
area of reinforcement of 32.0%.

1174
 Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

Table 5: Difference in structural outputs for slabs

Reinforcement provided
Element Reinforcement layer Direction
Esteem Tekla Difference (%)
Parallel T10-250 T10-250 0
Top
Perpendicular T10-250 T10-250 0
Corner slab
Parallel T10-250 T10-250 0
Bottom
Perpendicular T10-250 T10-250 0
Parallel T10-250 T10-250 0
Top
Perpendicular T10-250 T10-250 0
Edge slab
Parallel T10-250 T10-250 0
Bottom
Perpendicular T10-250 T10-250 0
Parallel T10-250 T10-250 0
Top
Perpendicular T10-250 T10-250 0
Centre slab
Parallel T10-250 T10-250 0
Bottom
Perpendicular T10-250 T10-250 0

For slabs, Table 5 shows that both software had provided same reinforcement arrangements. The
bar diameter and bar spacing were exactly same for both software.

Table 6: Difference in structural design output for pile caps

Element Output Esteem Tekla Difference (%)

Axial load, P (kN) 705.0 799.2 -12.5
Interior pile cap 1
Reinforcement (mm2) 1885 2796 -38.9
Axial load, P (kN) 405.6 512.8 -23.3
Interior pile cap 2
Reinforcement (mm2) 1571 1571 0
Axial load, P (kN) 223.1 176.1 21.1
Exterior pile cap 1
Reinforcement (mm2) 1257 2356 -60.83
Axial load, P (kN) 436.0 507.7 -15.2
Exterior pile cap 2
Reinforcement (mm2) 1571 2749 -54.5

For pile caps, Table 6 shows that Tekla has higher axial load value and greater area of
reinforcement in overall with average difference of 7.5% and 38.6%.
The software output difference in shear force for beams had a maximum of 12% while the software
output difference in bending moment for beams had a maximum of 21.4%. For columns, the difference
in axial load and bending moment exceeds 50%. For pile caps, the difference in pile caps is about 20%.
In term of reinforcement, Tekla had provided greater reinforcement area for mostly all elements. Hence,
it was concluded that the design approach for both software differs. Esteem possess a more cost-
effective design while Tekla possess a more conservative design.
3.2 Taking off results
The taking off results for the building structural elements were exported from Esteem and Tekla
and tabulated. The results were extracted from the Quantity Take Off Report from Esteem and Material
Listing Report from Tekla. Table 7 and Table 8 shows the volume of concrete used based on the
concrete grade, mass of reinforcement used based on reinforcement type, its unit prices and its costs.

1175
Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

Table 7: Taking off results from Esteem

Element Amount Unit price (RM/unit) Material cost (RM)

C25/30 concrete 393.2 m3 208 81784.98
C30/37 concrete 13.5 m3 218 2936.90
High yield steel, S460 27120.1 kg 3 81360.30
Mild steel, S250 5453.6 kg 3 16360.80
Total - - 182442.97

Table 8: Taking off results from Tekla

Element Amount Unit price (RM/unit) Material cost (RM)

C25/30 concrete 403.8m3 208 83990.40
C30/37 concrete 12.6m3 218 2746.80
High yield steel, S460 36316.56 kg 3 108949.68
Mild steel, S250 4638.77 kg 3 13916.31
Total - - 209603.19

Table 7 and Table 8 showed that the taking off results are almost similar in term of concrete volume.
However, the taking off results in term of reinforcement mass has a significant difference of about
8000kg where Tekla required higher amount of high yield steel while Esteem required higher amount
of mild steel. The material unit prices were referred to Quantity Surveyor Online where the concrete
was assumed to be normal mix. From Table 7 and Table 8, it shows that Tekla has an about RM27000
higher total material cost compared to Esteem. This might be due to the different calculation approach
of the two software. Hence, this study shows that Esteem is a more cost-effective software. The costing
difference will cost a huge amount of money if it is a huge construction project.
4. Conclusion
From the structural design outputs and the taking off results from Esteem and Tekla, there were
some differences for the results from both Esteem and Tekla. The structural design outputs for beams
and pile caps differ within 5% and 10% respectively while the structural design outputs for columns
differ up to 32.2%. Tekla resulted in higher beam shear force and higher pile cap axial load in overall
while Esteem resulted in higher beam bending moment, higher column axial load and higher column
bending moment in overall. For reinforcement, both software had provided same reinforcement for
simply supported beams and slabs meanwhile Tekla had provided about 35% greater area of
reinforcement for continuous beams, columns and pile caps compared to Esteem.
In term of taking off results, the concrete volume required for both software were almost similar.
However, Tekla has a higher the taking off results in term of reinforcement mass which is about 8000kg.
In term of material costing, Tekla cost about RM27000 higher compared to Esteem.
In Tekla, the properties of every element such as reinforcements can be changed singly during
modelling process but the element properties can only be change as a whole in Esteem. Moreover,
elements can be grouped at which the grouped elements’ properties can be change together at once
instead of selecting them one by one. Furthermore, failed element can be modified in Interactive Design
option where the element properties that caused failure can be replaced. Lastly, the failed element in
Tekla can be easily recognized as they were highlighted in red color instead of listed in a table in Esteem.
Conclusively, both Esteem and Tekla have their own strengths. In this study, Esteem resulted a
more cost-effective taking off result while Tekla is more conservative, flexible and user-defined. Hence,
users can select their choice of software based on their preferences concluded in this study for a better

1176
 Wong et al., Recent Trends in Civil Engineering and Built Environment Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022) p. 1169-1177

analysis and design experience. From this study, it was found that both Esteem and Tekla have their
own strengths. Further studies were recommended to be carry out using three software so that there will
be a decisive choice that which software should be selected for the specific purpose.
Acknowledgement
I would like to extend my deep and sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Ir. Dr. Mohammad Soffi
bin Md Noh for his patient guidance and professional advises in completing this study. Besides that, I
would like to offer my special thanks to Ir. Dr. Zainorizuan bin Mohd Jaini for his support in the
installation of software. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and siblings for
their wise encouragements and motivations throughout the duration for this study. Last but not least, I
would like to thank all my friends and course mates who lend me their helping hand and giving precious
suggestions during my study years. Appreciation also goes to everyone involved directly or indirectly
towards the completion of this study.
References
[1] Chaw, K. T. (2005). Comparison of Different Structural Software for Multistory Building
Design in Terms of Concrete Columns Reinforcement. Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS: Bachelor’s
Project Report.
[2] Ramanjaneyulu, V., Dharmesh, M., & Chiranjeevi, V. (2018). Comparative Study on Design
Results of a Multi-storied Building using STAAD PRO and ETABS for Regular and Irregular Plan
Configuration. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 05(01).
[3] Kalim, M., Rehman, A., & Tyagi, B. S. (2018). Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of
Regular Configuration of Building by Staad. Pro and Etabs. International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 05(03).
[4] Salih, A. G., & Ahmed, H. A. (2014). The Effective Contribution of Software Applications in
Various Disciplines of Civil Engineering. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
5(12), 316–333.

1177