Automated Structural Model Verification Tool for ETABS | SQVE-MV-ET-01 | Ver 1.0
Model File : D:\1-Tech\Software demo\1-Tall building\1-Tall building.EDB
Report Generated : 28-Mar-2026 20:09:51
Model verification is a key step in structural quality assurance.
The Structural Model Verification Tool performs automated checks on selected parameters
of the ETABS model to assist engineers in reviewing model consistency and identifying
potential issues at an early stage.
This report presents the results of Phase-1 verification checks.
Additional automated checks will be incorporated in future versions of the tool
to further enhance the reliability of structural model review.
ℹ Note:
The following mass source multipliers correspond to different load patterns defined in the model.
The user should verify that appropriate scale factors are assigned,
and that no relevant load pattern is omitted from the mass source definition.
Mass Source Multipliers for different Load Patterns :
Dead : 1.00
Live : 0.50
ℹ Note:
For ready reference, the total dead load, live load, and reduced live load
considered in the structure are presented below.
These values help in verifying the magnitude of gravity loads
contributing to seismic mass.
Total Dead Load : 293340.69 kN
Total Live Load : 122880.00 kN
Reduced Live Load : 61440.00 kN
Total Gravity Load Used for Mass Calculation : 354780.69 kN
ℹ Note:
The structural mass calculated from applied gravity loads is compared
with the mass extracted from the ETABS joint mass table.
This comparison helps identify inconsistencies in mass modeling
or load application.
Calculated Structural Mass (from loads) : 36165208.23 kg
ETABS Mass Source (from Joint Mass Table) : 36177674.30 kg
ℹ Note:
Following shows the percentage difference between mass calculated from applied loads
and that obtained from joint masses.
Mass Difference : 0.03 %
✔ Result : PASS
Mass source definition appears consistent with applied loads in one of the directions.
ℹ Note:
As per structural dynamics principles, seismic mass should be considered in all three translational directions (UX, UY, and UZ).
The following values show the total mass in each direction for ready reference and user verification.
Total UX Mass (kg) : 36177674.30
Total UY Mass (kg) : 36177674.30
Total UZ Mass (kg) : 0.00
⚠ WARNING : Vertical mass is absent.
➜ Recommendation : If vertical earthquake effects
are required to be considered as per the IS code provisions,
please enable vertical mass in the ETABS Mass Source definition.
ℹ Note:
The following values represent story-wise seismic mass, taken as the maximum of mass values in UX, UY, and UZ directions.
Since mass is defined generally in three directions (UX, UY, and UZ), the maximum value among these is reported for each story.
The user should verify that the mass distribution is reasonable
and consistent across similar floors.
Story30 : 1045097.30 kg
Story29 : 1205922.40 kg
Story28 : 1205922.40 kg
Story27 : 1205922.40 kg
Story26 : 1205922.40 kg
Story25 : 1205922.40 kg
Story24 : 1205922.40 kg
Story23 : 1205922.40 kg
Story22 : 1205922.40 kg
Story21 : 1205922.40 kg
Story20 : 1205922.40 kg
Story19 : 1205922.40 kg
Story18 : 1205922.40 kg
Story17 : 1205922.40 kg
Story16 : 1205922.40 kg
Story15 : 1205922.40 kg
Story14 : 1205922.40 kg
Story13 : 1205922.40 kg
Story12 : 1205922.40 kg
Story11 : 1205922.40 kg
Story10 : 1205922.40 kg
Story9 : 1205922.40 kg
Story8 : 1205922.40 kg
Story7 : 1205922.40 kg
Story6 : 1205922.40 kg
Story5 : 1205922.40 kg
Story4 : 1205922.40 kg
Story3 : 1205922.40 kg
Story2 : 1205922.40 kg
Story1 : 1205922.40 kg
Base : 160827.40 kg
ℹ Note:
For ready reference of the user, percentage difference in mass is also calculated for adjacent stories.
This provides an immediate indication of any inconsistencies in mass distribution.
Large variations may indicate modelling inconsistencies such as
missing loads, incorrect load assignment, or irregular geometry.
This will also help in identifying mass irregularities as per IS code provisions.
Base <-> Story1 : 86.66 %
Story1 <-> Story2 : 0.00 %
Story2 <-> Story3 : 0.00 %
Story3 <-> Story4 : 0.00 %
Story4 <-> Story5 : 0.00 %
Story5 <-> Story6 : 0.00 %
Story6 <-> Story7 : 0.00 %
Story7 <-> Story8 : 0.00 %
Story8 <-> Story9 : 0.00 %
Story9 <-> Story10 : 0.00 %
Story10 <-> Story11 : 0.00 %
Story11 <-> Story12 : 0.00 %
Story12 <-> Story13 : 0.00 %
Story13 <-> Story14 : 0.00 %
Story14 <-> Story15 : 0.00 %
Story15 <-> Story16 : 0.00 %
Story16 <-> Story17 : 0.00 %
Story17 <-> Story18 : 0.00 %
Story18 <-> Story19 : 0.00 %
Story19 <-> Story20 : 0.00 %
Story20 <-> Story21 : 0.00 %
Story21 <-> Story22 : 0.00 %
Story22 <-> Story23 : 0.00 %
Story23 <-> Story24 : 0.00 %
Story24 <-> Story25 : 0.00 %
Story25 <-> Story26 : 0.00 %
Story26 <-> Story27 : 0.00 %
Story27 <-> Story28 : 0.00 %
Story28 <-> Story29 : 0.00 %
Story29 <-> Story30 : 13.34 %
ℹ Note:
The following seismic load patterns are defined in the model
and are listed below for user reference.
In the subsequent sections, the total applied seismic load in the model
will be cross-checked for verification.
Detected 'Seismic' Load Pattern : EQX
Detected 'Seismic' Load Pattern : EQy
Detected 'Seismic' Load Pattern : RSX
Detected 'Seismic' Load Pattern : RSY
ℹ Note:
The following values represent the maximum base shear in X, Y, and Z directions,
extracted from all seismic load cases in the model.
These are envelope values and do not correspond to any single load case,
but represent the maximum response observed in each direction.
Vx(max) : 9432.46 kN
Vy(max) : 8476.88 kN
Vz(max) : 0.00 kN
ℹ Note:
The total gravity load reported below represents the sum of total dead load
and reduced live load considered for seismic mass calculation in the above sections.
Total Gravity Load (W) : 354780.69 kN
ℹ Note:
The following values represent the ratio of maximum base shear to total gravity load,
as calculated in the above sections.
These percentages indicate the magnitude of seismic forces applied in the model
relative to the total vertical load of the structure.
This ratio provides a quick understanding of the proportion of lateral forces
acting on the structure with respect to gravity loads.
These values may also be cross-checked manually using the seismic coefficient
as per IS 1893, given by (Z/2) × (I/R) × (Sa/g),
based on the fundamental time period of the structure.
Vx(max) / W : 0.0266 (2.66 %)
Vy(max) / W : 0.0239 (2.39 %)
Vz(max) / W : 0.0000 (0.00 %)
ℹ Note:
The following response spectrum load cases are identified in the model.
In the subsequent sections, the base shear obtained from these load cases
will be reviewed, and scaling of the response spectrum loads will be checked.
Response Spectrum Load Case : RSX
Response Spectrum Load Case : RSY
ℹ Note:
The following values represent the maximum base shear obtained
from all defined response spectrum load cases in the model.
These are envelope values, indicating the maximum response
in X, Y, and Z directions across different response spectrum load cases,
and do not correspond to any individual load case.
Vx(RS max) : 4976.00 kN
Vy(RS max) : 4876.64 kN
Vz(RS max) : 0.00 kN
ℹ Note:
In this section, the maximum base shear obtained from response spectrum load cases
is compared with the maximum base shear from equivalent static analysis.
Based on this comparison, the response spectrum scaling check is performed.
This check is essential to ensure proper consideration of seismic forces,
Static Base Shear X : 9432.46 kN
Static Base Shear Y : 8476.88 kN
Response Spectrum Base Shear X : 4976.00 kN
Response Spectrum Base Shear Y : 4876.64 kN
Scaling Check Criterion :
Response spectrum base shear should not be
less than equivalent static base shear.
⚠ WARNING : Response spectrum scaling not satisfied.
➜ Recommendation : Apply a suitable scale factor so that the response spectrum base shear
is not less than the equivalent static base shear as per code requirements.
The scaled response spectrum forces should be used only for strength design.
Response spectrum load cases defined exclusively for drift evaluation
do not require scaling, provided they are not used for strength design.
ℹ Note:
In this section, a check is performed to verify whether vertical seismic force is considered in the model.
⚠ WARNING:Vertical seismic force not detected.
➜ Recommendation : Check whether vertical earthquake load
is required as per IS 1893.
ℹ Note:
In this section, the mass participation of initial translational modes
in X and Y directions is evaluated.
The position of torsional mode shapes is also reviewed
with respect to the translational mode shapes
to identify any irregular behavior.
ℹ Note:
Classification of modes :
Mode classification is performed based on mass participation
in translational (UX, UY) and rotational (RZ) directions.
Pure Translational Mode :
A mode is classified as a pure translational mode when
mass participation is dominant in a single translational direction
(UX or UY), while participation in rotational direction (RZ)
and the other translational direction remains negligible.
Mixed Mode :
A mode is classified as a mixed mode when there is
significant mass participation in translational direction(s)
along with noticeable participation in rotational direction (RZ),
or when participation is distributed across multiple directions.
Torsional Mode :
A mode is classified as a torsional mode when mass participation
is dominant in rotational direction (RZ), while participation
in translational directions (UX and UY) is negligible.
Other Modes :
Modes having negligible mass participation in both
translational and rotational directions are classified
as 'Other' modes in this document.
Mode Classification Summary :
Mode 1 → Mixed (Translation + Torsion) | 3.75 sec
Mode 2 → Mixed (Translationa X & Y) | 3.2 sec
Mode 3 → Mixed (Translation + Torsion) | 2.27 sec
First three translational modes used :
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Cumulative participation :
UX : 0.68*100 (%)
UY : 0.71*100 (%)
✔ Result: PASS
65% of mass participation is achieved
in both the directions.
⚠ WARNING: Mixed mode detected among early modes.
➜ Recommendation : Review the plan stiffness distribution,
mass–stiffness eccentricity, structural symmetry,
and diaphragm modelling to minimize unintended
torsional response in the structure.
ℹ Note:
In the following section, the closely spaced modes check is performed
considering only the first three mode shapes.
However, if higher modes exhibit significant mass participation,
they should also be reviewed for potential closely spaced behavior.
Modes considered :
Mode 1 : 3.75 sec
Mode 2 : 3.2 sec
Mode 3 : 2.27 sec
Required minimum separation : 10%
✔ Result: PASS
Message : Modal separation greater than 10%.
ℹ Note:
In this section, the cumulative mass participation in X, Y, and Z directions
is evaluated.
A minimum mass participation of 90% is required in each direction
as per code recommendations.
Mass participation has a direct influence on the accuracy of seismic force estimation,
and hence it is essential to achieve at least 90% participation in all directions.
Further recommendations are provided based on the results of this check.
Total modes considered : 30
Maximum frequency achieved : 11.27 Hz
Modal analysis type : Eigenvalue Analysis
Cumulative Mass Participation :
UX : 98 %
UY : 98 %
UZ : 0 %
Minimum required : 90%
Number of modes required to reach 90% mass :
UX : Mode 10
UY : Mode 9
UZ : Mode | Not reached
⚠ WARNING: Vertical seismic force is absent.
➜ Recommendation :
Verify whether vertical seismic force is required as per IS 1893 provisions.
If applicable, ensure that vertical mass is included in the Mass Source definition
by enabling the 'Include Vertical Mass' option in the model.
If vertical mass is already enabled, consider increasing the number of modes
to ensure adequate mass participation in the vertical direction.
ℹ Note:
IS 1893 Torsional Eccentricity Requirement :
As per IS 1893 (Part 1)-2016, torsional effects
shall be considered using two eccentricity
conditions for each horizontal direction.
Therefore, a minimum of two response spectrum
load cases in X direction and two load cases
in Y direction should be defined to represent
positive and negative torsional eccentricity.
To account for eccentricity as per IS code,
override diaphragm eccentricity values must
be specified in the software.
In this section, a check is performed to verify
whether the required override eccentricity
values have been properly defined in the model.
Response Spectrum Cases Detected :
RS Case : RSX
RS Case : RSY
⚠ WARNING : Torsional eccentricity override not detected
for Response spectrum load case in X direction.
⚠ WARNING : Torsional eccentricity override not detected
for Response spectrum load case in Y direction.
ℹ Note:
This section provides a consolidated summary of all warnings
identified in the report for quick reference.
Each warning listed below corresponds to a specific check
performed by this application.
For detailed explanation, associated calculations, and
recommended actions, refer to the respective sections
in the report.
⚠ 1. WARNING : Vertical mass is absent.
⚠ 2. WARNING : Response spectrum scaling not satisfied.
⚠ 3. WARNING:Vertical seismic force not detected.
⚠ 4. WARNING: Mixed mode detected among early modes.
⚠ 5. WARNING: Vertical seismic force is absent.
⚠ 6. WARNING : Torsional eccentricity override not detected
⚠ 7. WARNING : Torsional eccentricity override not detected
This report provides a quick automated review of selected aspects of the ETABS structural model.
The information presented here is intended only as preliminary guidance to help identify
potential areas that may require further attention during model review.
This tool does NOT replace a detailed engineering review of the structural model.
Only a limited set of checks are currently implemented, and engineering judgement
should always be exercised while interpreting the results.
The purpose of this tool is to assist engineers in identifying critical modeling aspects
and to help focus attention on specific areas of the model.
The logic implemented in this tool will continue to be refined and expanded
based on feedback received from practicing engineers.
For suggestions, queries, or feedback, please contact :
apps@sqveconsultants.com
Total processing time of modal verification tool : 1.187 seconds