EFFECTIVE OF CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS

Submitted by:
Eng. Ahmed Sherif Rezk
Eng. Mohamed Rashwan Rabie
Eng. Mohamed Magdy sadad
Eng. Yasmine tharwat abdeltwwab

Submitted to:
Dr. Hazem Hossam Elanwar

2019

1
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Conventional Analysis............................................................................................................................................4
1.1.1 Linear Static Analysis (LSA)............................................................................................................................4
1.1.2 Linear Dynamic Analysis (LDA).......................................................................................................................4
1.2 Construction Sequence Analysis (CSA)..................................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Material Time Dependent Effect....................................................................................................................4
1.2.2 Effects of shrinkage and creep deflections....................................................................................................4
2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK................................................................................................................................5
2.1 General..................................................................................................................................................................5
3 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................................................14
3.1 Objective.............................................................................................................................................................14
3.2 Scope................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................................14
4.1 PARAMETERS AFFECTING ON CSA.......................................................................................................................15
4.2 REINFORCED CONCRETE MODEL.........................................................................................................................16
4.2.1 Material Nonlinearity Case..........................................................................................................................16
4.2.2 Section Properties........................................................................................................................................16
4.2.3 Loading criteria............................................................................................................................................17
4.2.4 Parameters considered and studied in model.............................................................................................17
4.2.5 Ratio of Internal Action of Columns.............................................................................................................17
4.3 Steel model..........................................................................................................................................................21
4.3.1 Martial Properties........................................................................................................................................21
4.3.2 Section Properties........................................................................................................................................21
4.3.1 Loading Criteria............................................................................................................................................22
4.3.2 Ratio of Internal Action of Columns.............................................................................................................22
5 CONCLOSOIN AND RECOMNDATION...........................................................................................................................25
References.......................................................................................................................................................................... 26
1 INTRODUCTION
Multi-storied building have been analyzed in a single step as a complete unit with all the loads acting on
the building at a given instant. In reality, the dead load due to each structural components and finishing
items are imposed in separate stages as the structures are constructed story by story.
Staged construction is analysis of a sequence of stages wherein portions of the structure can be added or
removed, loads are applied to portions of the structure, and time-dependent material behavior such as aging,
creep, and shrinkage are applied.
Staged construction is considered a type of nonlinear analysis because the structure may change during
the analysis.

Fig.1: Conventional and sequential analysis. Ref (1)

1.1 Conventional Analysis:
1.1.1 Linear Static Analysis (LSA)
In linear static analysis first mode of the structure is considered for analysis. The modeling of the entire
structure has done and then all the loads are applied after the modeling of the complete structure.

1.1.2 Linear Dynamic Analysis (LDA)

Linear Dynamic Analysis is also known as response spectrum analysis. In this analysis, the structure is
modeled and analyzed as a multi-degree of freedom system with linear elastic stiffness matrix. The response
spectrum procedure is accurate as compared to the LSA because all the higher modes are considered for
analysis in this procedure.
Both linear static and linear dynamic procedure are based on Conventional Method.

1.2 Construction Sequence Analysis (CSA)

Construction sequence analysis also known as staged construction analysis is a nonlinear static form of
analysis which takes into account the concept of incremental loading. Load on the building frame is applied
in stages as the construction of the frame proceeds. Staged construction analysis is a more practical and
accurate method of analysis as it takes into account the various stages in which load is applied on the frame,
by analysis for strength, stability and deflection at the end of each step. Like so many other analyses,
construction sequential analysis have specific purposes in design phase of the structures. it deals with
behavior under static loads in the form of sequential load increment and its effects on structure considering
the structural members are started to react against load prior to completing the whole structure

1.2.1 Material Time Dependent Effect

The determination of strains in structures caused by creep and shrinkage is a complex problem.
Creep is defined as deformation of structure under sustained load. Basically, long term pressure or stress on
concrete can make it change shape with time.
This deformation usually occurs in the direction of the applied force. Creep does not necessarily cause
concrete to fail or break apart. The effect of creep is considered in design by factoring the elastic
deformation. Shrinkage is a time-dependent volumetric change associated with the drying and moisture
transfer, thermal effects of restrained reinforce-concrete (RC) systems. Volume change is one of the most
detrimental properties of concrete, mainly because it causes unsightly cracks in concrete.

1.2.2 Effects of shrinkage and creep deflections

The amount of the absolute deflection from drying shrinkage and creep that advance as the time passes will
be twice as large as the amount of flexural deflection. Therefore, in the case of a high-rise building, an error
will be generated if the amount of inelastic deflection of the concrete members was ignored. The accurate
 compensation value and stress can only be calculated by taking into consideration the amount of inelastic
deflection and stress redistribution from the frame action of the overall structure, not an independent
member.

2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK

2.1 General
Sequential analysis which is the subject of research of some researchers among the world is important while
analysis of building. Following is a brief review of work that has been done in previous studies of sequential
analysis.
Das and Praseeda [1] studied construction stage analysis and conventional analysis for a commercial
building of 2B+G+6. The case study building is modelled in ETABS for construction stage analysis. The
deformation, bending moment and shear force are considered in the study for comparison between
conventional analysis and construction stage analysis. In conventional analysis dead loads, live loads, wind
loads and seismic loads are applied simultaneously to the entire complete structure.
In construction stage analysis, dead loads are applied in a sequential manner, Since the difference exists
only in the application of dead load. So only dead load and live load conditions were considered in this
study. It is found from comparison results that the deformation, bending moment and shear force are
underestimated for the bottom floors for conventional analysis and the same are over estimated in the upper
floors when compared with construction stage analysis

Fig.2: 3D-view. Ref (2)

The effect of column shortening is a major consideration in the design and construction of tall buildings,
especially in concrete and composite structural systems. In this study the column shortening due to applied
load is calculated. The column shortening values of exterior and interior columns as shown in figure is
found for section for both conventional analysis and construction stage analysis.

Fig.3: axial column shorting for interior & exterior column. Ref (2)
Rao et al. [2] compared results of conventional analysis and sequential analysis of LB+UB + G + 22 building
situated in zone III. Main factor considered in present study is Cycle time for floor to floor construction and
strength of concrete. Analysis is compared for transfer girder and the frame above transfer girder. It is
concluded that there is considerable increment in loads and deformations by sequential analysis than
conventional analysis.

Fig.4: 3D-view. Ref (3)

Shirhatti and Vanakudre [3] studied the effects of linear static analysis, time dependent and construction
sequential analysis for two construction materials RCC and steel. Three dimensional modeling for ( 5 + 10
+15 + 20 +25 + 30 ) story buildings with transfer beam of concrete and steel is done and the analysis results
are taken for the same . Therefore the analysis result helps to comprehend the structural responses against
load variations for linear static analysis, time dependent and sequential analysis.
 Fig.5: 3D-view. Ref (4)

Finally, a relative study of shear, moments and displacements was done at every story for conventional
model and construction sequence model for two construction materials RCC and steel using “ETABS”

Fig.6: Bending moment in the critical beam in steel & RC structure. Ref (4)
 Fig.7: Comparison of Shear Force in beam of RCC and Steel structure. Ref (4)

Fig.8: Comparison of Displacements in RCC and Steel structure. Ref (4)

Pathan et al. [4] analyzed several numbers of multistory reinforced concrete building frames of different bay
width and length, storey height and number of stories using STAAD.pro, followed by the construction stage
analysis of each model. Also all full frame models are analyzed for earthquake forces in Zone – II. Finally, a
comparative study of Axial forces, bending moments, Shear forces and Twisting moments was done at every
storey for full frame model and construction stage model.
 Fig.9: plan-view . Ref (5)

Fig.10: Response for main elements of building. Ref (5)

Pranay et al. [5] studied two cases, in case 1 the multistoried building (22 storied) with floating columns and
transfer girder were analyzed as a whole for the subjected loading and in case 2 the multistoried building (22
storied) with floating columns and transfer girder were analyzed with reference to the construction sequence
or staged construction. A detailed study and comparison of the variation in deformations and forces was
presented for the transfer girders, for the floating column on girders and for the frames which is above
transfer girders.

10
 Fig.11: Elevation of the building. Ref (6)

Fig.12: Result of internal actions. Ref (6)

Yousuf Dinar et al. [6] have analyzed rigid frame structures of both concrete and steel model of different
configurations for sequential analysis. The time-dependent effects of creep, shrinkage, the variation of
concrete stiffness with time, sequential loading and foundation settlement were accounted for by analyzing
12 separate three-dimensional finite element analysis models. Study of results concluded that with the
increasing story the variation decreases with the structures constructed with RCC where Steel does not
follow any identical order in nonlinear analysis.

11
 Fig.13: Construction sequence analysis. Ref (7)

Fig.14: Story moment under Construction sequential analysis. Ref (7)

Fig.15: Structural response of critical beam . Ref (7)

Santosh Panigrahi . [6] The present study conducted on ongoing project of DB Crown in Prabhadevi,
Mumbai involves conducting sequential analysis. The aim of study is to find out the differences in forces &
displacement of an irregular shaped high rise building using Etabs 15.0 software as compared to normal
linear dynamic analysis.
In this present study sequential analysis of 20 story, 45 story and 68 story will be carried keeping the plan
same as shown in Figure 3. The plan dimension in X direction is 64.8m and in Y direction is 38.1m. In the
elevation typical floor height 3.0m.
for FC1 axial force in model 1 is 4827kN and in model 2 it is 6164kN having difference of 28% at P2 level
and increasing upto maximum 54% at story 18.

Fig.16: Axial Force of FC1. Ref (1)

for C3 axial force in model 1 is 26373kN and in model 2 it is 34957kN having maximum difference of 33%
at B2 level.

Fig.17: Axial Force of C3. Ref (1)

 For B1 bending moment at midspan in model 1 is 519kNm & in model 2 it is 640kNm with difference of
23% at P2 level and reducing at P8 level & at Support in model 1 is 1076kNm & in model 2 it is 1383kNm
with difference of 29% at P2 level and reducing at P9 level in CSA.

Fig.18: Support Bending Moment of B1. Ref (1)

3 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

3.1 Objective
The objective of this study is to recognize in what way the time-dependent and construction sequence
analysis including P-Delta effects influence the variation of responses of structure such as bending moments,
displacements and shear forces against linear static analysis for two main construction materials of the
structures i.e., reinforced concrete and steel.

3.2 Scope
Deformation and forces with reference to P-delta effects, material nonlinearity and construction sequence and
how we can include these effects in design.
Nonlinear analysis helps to avoid overdesign and built better products.

4 METHODOLOGY
 Using Etabs analysis of time dependent properties of the material with staged construction analysis are
carried out on two different prototype models. These models includes Core supported structure (core +
frames ) for model (1) and Steel moment frames for model (2) nonlinear analysis with construction
staged analysis is carried out for the same prototype models. CEB-FIP 1990 model code is used for the
calculation of time dependent parameters.
 Fig.19: show the 2 models used in analysis

4.1 PARAMETERS AFFECTING ON CSA

 Cases  Examples

Number of stories 10-15-30-50-100

Rate of construction 7-14-21-35-work has stopped for 2 years

Grade of concrete Fcu 20-30-40-60

Slab system Solid slab – flat slab – steel deck

Time of analysis Just after construction – after 2 years – after 50 years

After passing the strength and serviceability criteria by assuming linear static analysis, the material and
geometric non-linearity with construction staged analysis is performed on the models. Four load cases are
created to compare the results are
• Linear static analysis,
• Construction Sequence with Geometric Nonlinearity,
• Construction Sequence with Material Nonlinearity.
• Construction Sequence with Geometric and Material Nonlinearity.
4.2 REINFORCED CONCRETE MODEL
Reinforced concrete building 30x30 m with story height of 3m was chosen to perform the analysis. the
structure system is composed of rectangular columns and grid of beams and the lateral loads resisting
system is the middle core.

a) ground floor b) repeated floor

Fig.20: show the plan of reinforced concrete building.

4.2.1 Material Nonlinearity Case

Time dependent type considered for creep, shrinkage, compressive strength and stiffness creep analysis is full
integration Current Time Dependent type is CEB-FIP 1990 CEB-FIP parameters are:
Cement type coefficient =0.25 , Shrinkage coefficient = 5 , Relative humidity = 50%, Shrinkage Start Days = 0
days
4.2.2 Section Properties

Sectio Dimensions (mm)

n
800x800 – As=40T20
C1
C2 400X1400 – As=34T20

PC1 400x400 – As=12T16

All beams (B1) 300x70
0
Transfer beam ( TB1) 400x120
0
Slab 20
thickness 0
4.2.3 Loading criteria
structure has been designed According to ACI 318-14 using liner static analysis for these vertical loads

Load pattern Value kn/m2

Dead Cover
Structure own
Live loads
weight 2
Wall loads 5
2
4.2.4 Parameters considered and studied in model :
Cases PARAMETERS VARIED

Number of 10
stories
Rate of 1
construction 4
Grade of concrete F’c 3
0
Slab system Solid slab

Time of analysis Just after

4.2.5 Ratio of Internal Action of Columns construction
The ratio of internal actions and displacement for columns. axial force, moment (M22), moment
(M33), Axial column shorting for dead load have been Obtained.

internal action considring CSA

Ratio α =internal action of linear static
analysis

CSA+Time dependant CSA+Time dependant

CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
1 1
2 CSA+Time 2 CSA+Time
dependant+P.delta dependant+P.delta
1 1
0 0
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER

8 8

6 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.9 1 6 0 0. 1 1.5 2 2.

2 4 RATIO 8 5 RATIO Α 5
4 Α 4

2 2

0 0

Fig. 21: Ratio of normal force for column (C1). Fig. 22: Ratio of axial shorting for column (C1).
 CSA+Time dependant CSA+Time dependant
CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
CSA+Time dependant+P.delta CSA+Time dependant+P.delta

12 12
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
RATIO Α RATIO Α

Fig. 23: Ratio of M33 for column (C1). Fig. 24: Ratio of M22 for column (C1).

12
12
STORY NUMBER

10
STORY NUMBER

10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4 RATIO Α
RATIO Α
CSA+Time dependant CSA+Time dependant
CSA+P.delta
CSA+P.delta
CSA+Time dependant+P.delta

Fig. 25: Ratio of normal force for column (PC1). Fig. 26: Ratio of Axial shorting for column (PC1).
 CSA+Time dependant CSA+Time dependant
1 CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
2
CSA+Time
dependant+P.delta CSA+Time
1
0 0 0. 1 1.5 2 2. 3 - - dependant+P.delta
- RATIO 0 12 5 1
5 RATIO 5 15 10 5 Α 0
10
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER
8 Α
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0

Fig. 27: Ratio of M22 for column (PC1). Fig. 28: Ratio of M33 for column (PC1).
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER

12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 3
RATIO Α RATIO Α
CSA+Time dependant
CSA+Time dependant
CSA+P.delta
CSA+P.delta
CSA+Time dependant+P.delta CSA+Time dependant+P.delta

Fig. 29: Ratio of normal force for column (C2). Fig. 30: Ratio of axial shorting for column (C2).
 CSA+Time dependant CSA+Time dependant
CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
CSA+Time dependant+P.delta CSA+Time dependant+P.delta

12 12
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 5 10 15 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
RATIO Α RATIO Α

Fig. 31: Ratio of M22 for column (C2). Fig. 32: Ratio of M33 for column (C2).

CSA+Time dependant CSA+Time dependant

CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
CSA+Time dependant+P.delta CSA+Time dependant+P.delta
12 12
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER

10 10

8 8

6
6
4
4
2
2
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0
RATIO Α AT RIGHT END OF THE BEAM ( AT FLOOTING 0 0.5 1 1.5
COLUMN ) RATIO Α AT LEFT END OF THE BEAM ( AT CORE )

Fig. 33: Ratio of M33 for Beam (B1) at right end of the beam. Fig. 34: Ratio of M 33 for Beam (B1) at left end of the beam.

20
 DEAD DEAD

CSA+Time Dependant CSA+Time Dependant

CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
CSA+Time CSA+Time

35.046

1745.5
dependant+P.delta
D E FL E C T I O N A T M I D SP B Ndependant+P.delta
DI N G M O M E N T A T M I D S

33.286
AN PAN

1642
MOMENT (M3)-KN.M

1526
DEFLECTION (MM)

985.33
16.915
10.123

Fig. 35: deflection of transfer beam (Tb1). Fig. 36:M33 of transfer beam (Tb1).

4.3 Steel model

A Steel building with dimension of (30 m x 15.4 m) and height of 57.5 m with story height of 5.17 m was
chosen to perform the analysis and the lateral load resisting system is moment resisting frames

Fig.1: Ground floor plan Fig.1: Typical floor plan

4.3.1 Martial Properties
Time dependent was not considered in the steel building since the steel don't effected by the creep and
shrinkage the martial in linear condition was used for steel sections
E = 2100 ton/cm2 fy = 3.6 ton/c𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐 fu = 5.2 ton/𝒄𝒄𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐
4.3.2 Section Properties
Tabel.1: Section Properties of steel building

SECTI DIMENSIONS
ON (MM)
C1 C2 W14x500
PC1 W14x500
21 W14x500
 1200 ∗ 350
Transfer Beam ( TB1)
8 ∗ 22
1200 ∗ 350
Transfer Beam ( TB2)
8 ∗ 22
4.3.1 Loading Criteria
Structure has been designed According to ACI 318-14 using liner static analysis for these vertical
loads.

LOAD VALUE KN/M2

PATTERN
Structure own
Dead Cover
weight 20cm R.C
Live loads
floor+steel deck 5
Wall loads 2
Collateral
0.50
4.3.2 Ratio of Internal Action of Columns
The ratio of internal actions and displacement for columns. Axial force, moment (M22), moment (M33), axial
column shorting for dead load have been Obtained.

Ratio α =
�𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
�
�𝒂𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒊
�
�𝒄𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒄𝒊
� 𝑪𝑪
�𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
�
�𝒂𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒊
� 𝒂𝒇
�𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
�
�𝒄𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒄
�
�𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊
�

12
12 12

10
10 10
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER

8
8 8

6 6 6
4 4 4

2 2 2

0
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 0.95 1 1.05
Ratio α
Ratio α Ratio α
CSA+P.delta
CSA+P.delta CSA+ P.deLta

Ratio of moment (m2) for Ratio of axial shorting for Ratio of normal force for
column (C1) column (C1) column (C1)
 12 12 12

10 10 10

STORY NUMBER
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER
8 8 8

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 2

0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2 3 0 0.5 1 1.5
Ratio α Ratio α Ratio α
CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta

Ratio of axial shorting for

column (PC1) Ratio of normal force for Ratio of moment (m3) for
column (PC1) column (C1)

12 12 12

10 10 10
STORY NUMBER
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER

8 8 8

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 2

0 0
0
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
Ratio α Ratio α
Ratio α
CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta
CSA+P.delta

Ratio of normal force for Ratio of moment (m3) for Ratio of moment (m2) for
column (C2) column (PC1) column (PC1)
 12 12 12

10 10 10
STORY NUMBER

STORY NUMBER
STORY NUMBER
8 8 8

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 2

0
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Ratio α
Ratio α Ratio α
CSA+P.delta
CSA+P.delta CSA+P.delta

Ratio of moment (m3) for Ratio of moment (m2) for Ratio of axial shorting for
column (C2) column (C2) column (C2)
25
160

21.68
140 135.6
20
Moment (m3)-KN.M

120
Deflection (mm)

15 100

12.75
80 76.88

10
60

40
5

20

0
0
Deflection at mid span Bnding moment at mid span
DEAD 12.75 DEAD 76.88
CSA+P.delta 21.68 CSA+P.delta 135.6
Deflection Of Transfer Moment (m3) Of Transfer
Beam (Tb1) Beam (Tb1)
25 250

21.68

200 190.96
20

Moment (m3)-KN.M
Deflection (mm)

150
15
12.75
104.5
100
10

50
5

0
Bnding moment at mid
0 span
Deflection at mid span
DEAD 104.5
DEAD 12.75
CSA+P.delta 190.96
CSA+P.delta 21.68
Moment (m3) Of Transfer Beam (Tb2)
Deflection of Transfer Beam (Tb2)

5 CONCLOSOIN AND RECOMNDATION

 The study is conducted to observe the importance of the time dependent effect that consider elastic
shortening creep and shrinkage.
 The variation in displacement and internal forces between conventional analysis and construction
sequence analysis can be observed clearly in high rise building and transfer beam.
 Construction stage analysis lead to real sections and help to avoid over design.
 The increase in dead load due to construction staged analysis is found to be within the 40 % safety factor
of the dead loads ultimate factors in typical Building without flooting columns
 Hence preference is drawn first for the steel structure than the RCC structures for construction sequence
analysis for the loading effects of long term.
 With the increasing story the variation decreases with the structures constructed with RCC where Steel
does not follow any identical order in nonlinear analysis.
 Ignoring P-Delta effects in high rise building with floating columns or shear wall design lead to failure at
early stages.
 The investigation was done through performing construction stage analysis to recommend using this way
of analysis instead of conventional analysis.
 References
1- Santosh Panigrahi1, Dr. Vikram Patil2, Madan S. H3, Somanagouda Takkalaki4 Importance of
Construction Sequence Analysis in design of High Rise Building.IJISET - International Journal of
Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 6 Issue 4, April 2019
2- Geethu Girija Das, Dr Praseeda K I, “Comparison of Conventional and Construction Stage Analysis of a
RCC Building” ,IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 3 | Issue
03 | September 2016
3- R. Pranay, I. Yamini Sreevalli, Er. Thota. Suneel Kumar, “Study and Comparison of Construction
Sequence Analysis with Conventional Lumped Analysis Using Etabs”
4- A. R. Mari, P. J. S. Cruz; and P. Roca “Nonlinear Time-Dependent Analysis of Segmentally Constructed
Structures” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124, No.3, March 1998, pp 278-287
5- K M Pathan, Sayyad Wajed Ali, Hanzala T Khan, M S Mirza, Mohd Waseem, Shaikh Zubair,
“Construction Stage Analysis of RCC Frames”, International Journal of Engineering & Technology
Research Volume-2, Issue-3, May-June, 2014, pp. 54- 58.
6- R. Pranay, I. Yamini Sreevalli, Er. Thota. Suneel Kumar, “Study and Comparison of Construction
Sequence Analysis with Conventional Lumped Analysis Using Etabs”
7- Yousuf Dinar, Munshi Md. Rasel, Muhammad Junaid Absar Chowdhury, Md. Abu Ashraf,
“Chronological Construction Sequence Effects on Reinforced Concrete and Steel Buildings” The
International Journal of Engineering and Science, issue 1, Dec 2014, pp 52-63
8- Nishant Dubey, Ranjan S. Sonparote, Ratnesh Kumar, “Effect of construction sequence analysis on
seismic performance of tall buildings” Journal of Civil engineering and Environmental Technology, Vol
2, June 2015, pp 44-49.
9- B Sri Harsha (2014) “Study and Comparison of Construction Sequence Analysis with Regular Analysis
By Using Etabs”.