Building and Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 1~. Pergamon Press 1978.

Printed in Great Britain

Effect of Sequence of Construction in the

Analysis of Multistoreyed Building Frame
S. C. CHAKRABARTI*
G. C. N A Y A K t
S. K. AGARWALA:~
Multistoreyed building frames are analysed in a single step on the assumption that the flame is
subjected to design load once the whole frame is constructed completely. In fact the dead load due to
the various members and finishing items are imposed in stages as theframe is constructed storey by
storey.
In this paper, a model of the sequence of construction has been assumed and two multistoreyed
frames of different configurations have been analysed. The results of analyses along with a
comparison with conventional one step analysis have been presented. The effect of sequence of
construction due to the self-weight of members has been studied and its effect on the overall design
forces has also been highlighted.

INTRODUCTION
MULTISTOREYED buildings have been analysed for
years on the assumption that whole of the load is applied
on the completed frame. Looking into the mode of
incidence of the load, it is evident that part of the load is
applied in stages as the construction of the frame
proceeds; whereas the remaining part of it is imposed on
completion of the frame. Unfortunately, this aspect of
incremental loading due to stage by stage construction of
the frame has been overlooked till now by engineers,
although its effect on the final stresses of the frame is quite
considerable.
The effect of incremental loading in conformity with
layer by layer construction has been studied by various
investigators for stability of slope, embankments and
dams [I-4]. The results obtained were conspicuous for
their variations with conventional one step analysis and
the incremental loading concept in the analysis of dams
and embankments has been widely accepted.
In the case of multistoreyed building frame, however,
the effect of sequence of construction has yet to get its due
importance. Jain et al. [5] have highlighted this aspect for
a six-storeyed building and found a maximum increase of
23.8 9/oat critical sections. Selvaraj et al. [61 observed that
negative bending moments of the end bay near the
exterior column end of a two equal bay 13-storeyed
building frame reduced more or less uniformly when axial
deformation in columns is neglected. Analysing a 30storeyed concrete frame, Palejs and Frieberg 1"7]observed
that at the 29th storey level, analysis without simulation of
sequence of construction overestimates the bending
moment by 110 9/o.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to study the
effect of sequence of construction on the final stresses of
*Scientist, Central Building Research Institute, Roorkce, India.
tProfessor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
:~Reader, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Roorkce, Roorkee, India.

two multistoreyed building frames. The analyses are

carried out by using a computer program based on Kani's
method. The program is capable of analysing multistoreyed frames both with and without simulation of
construction sequence, as desired.
M O D E L L I N G OF CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE
Depending on engineering as well as socio-economic
considerations, sequence of construction varies from
building to building. Since occurrence of incremental
loading depends on the sequence of construction planned,
it has been assumed for the purpose of this study that only
the concrete frame along with the structural slab is
constructed in stages, storey by storey and all other items
of work, e.g. filler wall, plastering, flooring are carried out
once the complete frame has been constructed. This
idealisation of the sequence of construction, although a
simplification of the construction process actually used,
can be justified if we assume that other items of work lag
by about three or four storeys behind the final stage of
construction at any instant.
The incidence of incremental loads for a three-storeyed
single bay frame simulating the sequence of construction
stipulated in this study has been shown in Fig. 1.

Da

D3

Ittlell
l-- . . . .
I
I

,0z't~.s~
f. . . . .
I
i

1
I

~4040q

---,
',O,+0,*L2

;2

First stoge

(o)

Second stoge
(b)

D3+S3

'

D~

I.

Finol s~ge

(c)

(d)

Fig. 1. Pattern of analysis for simulation of construction

sequence.

S.C. Chakrabarti, G. ('. Nayak aml S. K. Agar~ala

12cm slab
23x70

II
30 x 50
I0
3 0 x 50

9
3 0 x 50

23x70

30x50
23x86

13cm

30x50
23 x 7 0

30x50
23x86

13

30x50
23 x 7 0

30x50
23x86

13

30x50
23 x 7 0

30 x 60
23 x 86

13

30 x 6 0
23 x 70

30x 6 0
23 x 86

13

30 x 60
23 x 70

40x60
23x86

13

40x60
23 x 7 0

40x 6 0
23 x 86

13

4 0 x 60
23 x 70

40x60
23x86

13

40x60
23x70

40x 8 0
23 x 8 6

13

40 x80
23x70

30 x 6 0 ]
7;
30 x 6 0 '

6
40 x 60

E
~3

5
40 x 60
4
40 x 60
:3
40 x 80
2
4 0 x 80

40x80
23 x 86

o~

13crn 4 0 x 8 0
slob
23 x 70

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

40x80

40x80

i32ml SOre I
A

Spacing of frame =3.75m

All sectional dimensions ore in cm

Fig. 2. Details of ll-storeyed frame.

K = Rel. stiffness
Kcols = I.II
KAB = 1.24
KBC = 1.46
B~ms sizes:
AB-23x65cm
BC-23x60cm

All

cols: 25.Sx68.6cm

Spoci~ of frame = 3.C=~m

4.49m

12.425m[
B

When concrete is poured at second floor level, it ~s

assumed that the frame has attained its strengd~ up to first
floor level. Hence the total loads applied at first floor level
are dead load due to the self weight of the beam and slab of
the first floor level (D~), that of second floor level (D2)
carried to first floor level through props and the self
weight of shutterings from first to second floor (521.
Similarly when concrete has been laid at the third floor
level, the shuttering has been removed from beneath the
second floor and the concrete has attained its full strength
up to second floor level. Removal of shuttering calls for
application of an upward load {D 2 -r- S 2 ) at first floor lew,;~,
The load at the second floor level at this stage is D3 + De
+ $3. Algebraic summation of the stresses obtained from
the analysis of the two-storeyed frame to those of single
storeyed frame gives the net stresses developed up to the
second stage of construction. This sequence of application
of load is followed until the final stage of analysis when
shuttering from below the roof has been removed. The
algebraic summation of the stresses of all these stages of
analysis gives the final stresses due to the self weight of
structural members only.

Fig. 3.9-storeyed 2-bay frame.

For the purpose of this study, one 11-storeyed three bay

frame and another 9-storeyed two bay frame as shown in
Figs. 2 and 3 respectively have been taken.
To arrive at the design stress with and without sequence
of construction, a wind load of 150kg/m 2 [8] and a
horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.05 have been taken [9].
Permissible increase in the stresses by 50 and 33~o
respectively were taken and the design forces due to wind
or seismic load were suitably normalised to make them
consistent with design forces due to direct load only.
In the case of wind loading, the direct loads and wind
loads have been multiplied by a factor of 2/3 and for
seismic loading, the direct loads and seismic loads have
been multiplied by a factor of 3/4.
In order to study the effect of relative stiffnesses of
beams in two adjacent spans, three different values of
relative stiffness of beam BC (Fig. 3) of the 9-storeyed
buildings were taken (KBc= 1.46, 0.46 and 0.05).
RESU LTS
Tables 1 and 2 give the ratios of the bending moments of
beams in the bays AB, BC and CD (Fig. 2) at different
storey levels of the ll-storeyed frame obtained from
sequential versus conventional one step analyses for self
weight of members only and for design loads respectively.
Table 3 gives similar ratios for design column moments
for the same frame. Figures 4 and 5 show the values of end
moments for beams in bays AB and BC at different storey
level as also the corresponding ratios (sequential vs one
step analysis). The end moment variation in bay CD is
similar to that of bay AB. Figure 6 shows the bending
moment diagram of the columns due to the self weight of
members only. In Fig. 7 are shown the ratios of design
midspan moment at different storey level.
In Figs. 8 and 9, ratios of end moments from
incremental vs one step analysis for self weight of

Effect of Sequence of Construction in the Analysis of Multistoreyed Building Frame

Table 1. Comparison of bending moment of beams for self weight of members only
Ratios of bending moments from sequential vs one step analysis
Beam in bay AB

Beam in bay BC

Beam in bay CD

Storey
level

Left
end

Mid
span

Right
end

Left
end

Mid
span

Right
end

Left
end

Mid
span

Right
end

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

0.643
0.716
0.756
0.485
0.412
0.458
0.350
0.432
0.240
0.254
0.724

1.456
1.421
1.388
1.510
1.599
1.598
1.581
1.446
1.476
1.559
1.277

0.734
0.784
0.825
0.613
0.552
0.600
0.508
0.575
0.442
0.432
0.804

1.088
1.081
1.058
1.107
1.128
1.118
1.130
1.103
1.118
1.130
1.029

0.965
0.930
0.952
0.895
0.880
0.885
0.870
0.892
0.869
0.859
0.947

0.989
0.990
0.993
0.988
0.986
0.988
0.987
0.990
0.990
0.995
0.989

0.840
0.872
0.896
0.740
0.689
0.724
0.648
0.700
0.596
0.550
0.796

1.389
1.357
1.282
1.120
1.570
1.479
1.566
1.435
1.485
1.579
1.171

0.668
0.720
0.770
0.514
0.441
0.497
0.381
0.460
0.280
0.222
0.571

Table 2. Comparison of design bending moment in beams

Ratios of bending moment from sequential vs one step analysis
Beam in bay AB

Beam in bay BC

Beam in bay CD

Storey
level

L~
end

Mid
span

Right
end

L~
end

Mid
span

Right
end

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

0.923
0.975
0.933
0.902
0.884
0.891
0.865
0.875
0.820
0.780
0.875

1.187
1.173
1.130
1.206
1.249
1.207
1.238
1.182
1.197
1.227
1.073

0.921
0.936
0.953
0.890
0.878
0.888
0.856
0.869
0.815
0.772
0.912

1.030
1.027
1.020
1.034
1.041
1.038
1.041
1.035
1.040
1.041
1.023

0.966
0.965
0.973
0.958
0.944
0.952
0.950
0.958
0.951
0.950
0.962

1.002
1.002
1.002
1.003
1.005
1.006
1.003
1.002
1.002
1.000
1.003

Left
end
0.966
0.981
0.987
0.957
0.958
0.963
0.949
0.953
0.928
0.897
0.935

Mid
span

Right
end

1.152
1.138
1.095
1.203
1.221
1.183
1.220
1.181
1.191
1.227
1.081

0.938
0.945
0.962
0.910
0.901
0.915
0.892
0.896
0.861
0.782
0.837

Table 3. Comparison of design column moments

Ratio of bending moments from sequential vs one step analysis
Column A
Storey
level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Top
0.458
0.650
0.755
0.623
0.599
0.640
0.561
0.621
0.489
0.465

Bottom
1.505
1.190
1.078
1.120
1.186
1.140
1.066
0.975
0.995
0.964
0.875

Column B
Top
0.487
0.674
0.767
0.645
0.621
0.661
0.580
0.495
0.505
0.454

Bottom
1.488
1.190
1.080
1.124
1.089
1.048
1.067
0.992
1.003
0.978
0.732

Column C
Top
0.704
0.835
0.898
0.811
0.796
0.823
0.762
0.804
0.695
0.580

Bottom
1.250
1.132
1.057
1.086
1.071
1.047
1.064
1.015
1.021
1.022
0.869

Column D
Top
0.633
0.788
0.862
0.765
0.746
0.779
0.711
0.763
0.652
0.470

Bottom
1.290
1.141
1.052
1.083
1.060
1.034
1.051
0.998
1.008
1.000
0.836

S.C. Chakrabarti, G. C. Nayak and S. K. Agarwa/a

B
--

id

=L,oLIll
;! !! J.

~.

"~

'

: 'b

t,t-CCq
A

S C

`5
-,

./-

LilII

'/
'

\\

l ......

t000

2000

:3000

40o0

b.m.,

,/

5000

(J

_L

6000

\\

3F

.'J

!/

7000

I
0

'

11
.5

o-o----.-..J
IO

Ratio (incremental
vs one step analysis)

kcj - m

b.m. with simulation of construction.

e ~ e

o--~--o

b.m. without simulation of construction.

Fig. 4. End moments of beams in bay AB (self wt. of members only).

End

Ena

|
u1

~A e c o
I

50 60

!/, i

I ,,I

70 80 90
kg -

o-.--.,

o----o

I00 I10 120

o.ga

~.oo

,___J
~.2o

Ratio (incrernentol
vs one sl~o analysis)

b.m. with simulation of construction sequence.

b.m without simulation of comtruc#on sequence.

Fig. 5. End moments of beams in bay BC (self wt. of members

only).

members only are shown for the 9-storeyed building

frame as shown in Fig. 3. The relative stiffnesses of the
columns and beams in bay AB were kept constant, but the
relative stiffness of beams in bay BC was given three
different values (1.46, 0.46 and 0.05). The effect of
variation in the beam stiffness on the end moments has
been expressed in ratio form to study the influence of the
relative stiffness of two adjacent spans on the end
moments of the common joint when simulation of
sequence of construction is incorporated in the analysis.
DISCUSSIONS O F RESULTS
The results presented above lead to some interesting
observations. It is found that incorporation of sequence of

construction in the analysis of multi-storeyed building

frame has a great influence on the final results.
(i) From Table 1 and Figs. 4, 5, 8 and 9, it is clear that
incorporation of sequence of construction leads to a
drastic change in the end moments as compared to
conventional one-step analysis. For the load case of self
weight of members only, end moments of beams are
reduced to about 50--80 % of single step analysis.
In the zone of mid-storeys, the modification is more or
less uniform (specially in the 9-storeyed building where
the column dimensions are unchanged along the full
height of the building). At the roof level, the variation is
found to be much less as compared to one storey below
roof.
From Fig. 5, it is observed that negative bending
moment at end B of beam in bay BC increases in the case
of sequential analysis for the ll-storeyed building. At end
C, although sequential analysis has resulted in reducing
the bending moment, reduction is comparatively less than
that of the two end bays. From this, it appears that the
relative stiffness of two adjacent spans has a great
influence in an analysis with simulation of the construction sequence. To study this aspect, three different
analyses were made for the 9-storeyed building with
different values of relative stiffness. The end moment
ratios shown in Figs. 8 and 9 reveal that for the joint B,
simulation of sequence of construction leads to increase in
end moments when the stiffnesses of the two beams of
bays AB and BC were 1.24 and 1.46 respectively.
Reduction of relative stiffness of beam in bay BC to 0.46
results in reduction of end moments at B in bay AB and in
smaller increase of end moment at B in the more flexible
bay BC. A similar trend is still more magnified when the
relative stiffness of the beam in bay BC is further reduced
(Kec=0.05). For ends A and C the ratio of bending
moments (sequential vs one step analysis) goes on
increasing as the value of KBc is reduced from 1.46 to 0.05.
From these results, it can therefore be said that, in the
case in which the adjacent spans are more or less of
comparable stiffness, the end moments of the common

Effect of Sequence of Construction in the Analysis of Multistoreyed Building Frame

Z
L

7
7
7

Z
Z

7
%

\
t

40oo

l
4ooo

6
(A)

1
4o0o

l
4o00

t.,
40oo

4ooo

I
4ooo

(B)
(C)
(D)
b.rn. drown on tension side
Simuloflng sequence of construction.
in
kg-m
Without simulating sequence of construction.

Fig. 6. Column moment diagram (self wt. only).

,, - ~ X
10--9

However, in the flexible bay there will always be an

increase in moment although this increase goes on
reducing as the bay becomes more and more flexible.
From these discussions, it can also be said that there
will always be reduction of end moments in the exterior
bay..
(ii) Depending on the changes in the end moments,
there will be corresponding changes in midspan moment
(Fig. 7).
(iii) From Fig. 6, it is found that bending moment
diagrams are drastically changed for all the columns in
comparison to one step analysis. The Same behaviour was
observed in the 9-storeyed building. From the figure, it is
found that some kink formation at each storey joint takes
place. This can be explained by the fact that due to stage
by stage analysis some locked-in deformations are
introduced at each column head.
(iv) From Table 2, the effect of simulation of sequence
of construction is found to affect the design moments
considerably. Reduction in end moments in bays AB and
CD is about 22 9/oat 10th floor level. Increase in midspan
design moment in AB and CD is about 20-25 % at a few
critical storey levels. Similarly for the 9-storeyed buiMing,
reduction of design moments at A of bay AB and C of bay

B
~P

e
7

AB

--

B~, Ic ( B a y CD

3
2
I

1.0 I,I

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I.I 1.2 13 1.4 1.5
Ratio
Ratio

Fig. 7. Ratio of design midspan moments (sequential vs one step).

joint in both the bays increase whereas if one of the
adjacent spans is very flexible compared to the other there
is reduction in end moment in the stiffer bay. The
reduction increases as the stiffness ratio increases.
9
8 D
7

A,
5

End A ~

,: t

p-End B~ L

02

0,4

\\//

0.6

KBC = 1.46
KBC =0.46
KBC =0.05

/ /<"]

KAB = I. 24
KAB =1.24
KAB = 1.24

0.8

I.o

1.2

14

1.6

(8

Ratios

Fig. 8. Ratios of end moments in bay AB (incremental vs one step analysis, for self
wt. only).

S . C . Chakrabarti, G. C. Nayak and S. K. Agarwala

.....

KAB =1.24

KBC=I.46

----

KAO = 1.24
KA8 = 1.24

KBC=0.46
KBC =0.05

....
9

r" ~

8
7

End C - ~ - ~

'1
4
3

02

04

06

08

1.0

12

14

16

r8

Ratios

Fig. 9. Ratios of end moments in bay BC (incremental vs one step analysis, for self wt.
only).
CD was 20 and 15 % respectively. At B in bay BC the
increase was 19.6 %.
(v) It can be seen from Table 3 that simulation of the
sequence of construction leads to a decrease in the top
column design moments and increase in the b o t t o m
column design moments at each joint. The same
observation is true for the 9-storeyed frame which was
analysed.

analysis. It is, therefore, necessary that for multi-storeyed

building frame, the effect be taken into consideration.
Although exact simulation of the construction sequence
may be difficult, idealization of the sequence of construction on the basis of a simplified model is always
possible and some approximate ratios of sequential
analysis and one step analysis depending upon relative
beam and column stiffnesses are desirable as a design aid.

CONCLUSIONS
It is observed that simulation of sequence of construction in the analysis leads to considerable variations
in the design moments obtained by conventional one step

Acknowledgement--The authors are grateful to Director,

Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee for allowing the
first author to undertake this study as a part of the research
programme of the Institute.

REFERENCES

1. L.E. Goodman & C. B. Brown, Dead load stresses and the instability of slopes, J. Soil Mech. Foundation
Div., ASCE 89 (SM-3), (1963).
2. R.W. Clough & R. J. Woodward, Analysis of embankment stresses and deformations, J. Soil Mech.
Foundation Div. (SM-4), (1967).
3. J. Alberro, Stress-strain analysis of El-InfiernilloDam, ASCE Specialty Conf. Performance of Earth and
Earth Supported Structures, Purdue University (1972).
4. F.H. Kulhawy & J. H. Duncan, Stresses and movements in Oroville Dam, J. Soil Mech. Foundation Div.
(SMT), (1972).
5. O.P. Jain & S. P. Palaniswamy, Effect of construction stages on the stresses in multistoreyed frames, Nat.
Conf. Tall Buildings, New Delhi (1973). (Preliminary publication.)
6. Selvaraj & S. P. Sharma, Influence of construction sequence on the stresses in tall building frames,
Proc. Regional Conf. on Tall Buildings, Bangkok (1974).
7. A.A. Palejs & F. J. Frieberg, Fast non-linear analysis of 10,000 joints space frame, Proc. Syrup. Tall
Building, Planning, Design and Construction, Nashville, Tennessee (1974).
8. IS 875-1968, Code of Practice for Structural Safety of Buildings: Loading Standards, Indian Standards
Institution, New Delhi.
9. IS 1893-1974, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Indian Standards
Institution, New Delhi.