Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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.
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)
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
K = Rel. stiffness
Kcols = I.II
KAB = 1.24
KBC = 1.46
B~ms sizes:
AB-23x65cm
BC-23x60cm
All
cols: 25.Sx68.6cm
4.49m
12.425m[
B
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
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
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
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
e ~ e
o--~--o
End
Ena
|
u1
~A e c o
I
50 60
!/, i
I ,,I
70 80 90
kg -
o-.--.,
o----o
o.ga
~.oo
,___J
~.2o
Ratio (incrernentol
vs one sl~o analysis)
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.
,, - ~ X
10--9
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
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).
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.
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
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.