SIMPLIFIED BUILDING ANALYSIS WITH SEQUENTIAL

DEAD LOADS—CFM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Chang-Koon Choi, 1 Hye-Kyo Chung, 2 Dong-Guen Lee, 3 and

E. L. Wilson 4

ABSTRACT: The effect of the sequential application of dead load due to the se-
quential nature of construction is an important factor to be considered in the
multistory frame analysis. Unfortunately, however, this effect has been ignored by
many engineers in practice in the past. One of the ways to include this effect properly
in the analysis is to carry out the analysis through step-by-step procedures in ac-
cordance with the sequential application of dead loads as the construction proceeds.
These procedures, however, require elaborated computations and more solution
time. A simplified approach, termed as correction factor method (CFM), to solve
the problem without elaborated step-by-step analyses has been proposed in this
paper. This method utilizes the correction factors established by regression from
the data obtained from the existing buildings to modify the results from the ordinary
analysis to produce more accurate solutions. Some numerical tests are presented
to show the validity and effectiveness of the method.

INTRODUCTION

In the structural analysis of multistory buildings, there are two important

facts that have very significant effects on the accuracy of the analysis but
are seldom considered in the practice (Choi et al. 1989). They are: (1) The
effect of sequential application of dead loads due to the sequential nature
of construction; and (2) the differential column shortening due to the dif-
ferent tributary areas that the exterior and interior columns support.
In fact, the structural members are added in stages as the construction
of the building proceeds and hence their dead load is carried by that part
of the structure completed at the stage of their installation. Therefore, it is
clear that the distribution of displacements and stresses in the part of the
structure completed at any stage due to the dead load of members installed
by that stage does not depend on sizes, properties, or the presence of
members composing the rest of the structure. The correct distribution of
the displacements and stresses of any member can be obtained by accu-
mulating the results of analysis of each stage. Ignoring this effect may lead
to the seriously incorrect results of analysis, particularly at the upper floors
of the building.
The exterior column in a building is loaded with roughly one-half of the
gravity load to which the interior column is subjected (Fig. 1). In many
design practices, however, there is a tendency to design the exterior columns

•Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Korea Advanced Inst, of Sci. and Tech., Seoul 131,
Korea.
2
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Korea Advanced Inst, of Sci. and Tech.,
Seoul 131, Korea.
3
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Korea Advanced Inst, of Sci. and Tech., Seoul
131, Korea.
4
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, C A 94720.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the A S C E Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
August 15, 1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
118, N o . 4, April, 1992. © A S C E , ISSN 0733-9445/92/0004-0944/$1.00 + $.15 per
page. Paper No. 303.

944

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 Floor load carried by exterior column
•loor load carried by interior column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

Interior column loads Exterior column loads

It il
rtfTTT

(b)

FIG. 1. Column Loads Transferred from Floors: (a) Floors; and (b) Frame

to have cross-sectional areas nearly equal to the interior ones, since addi-
tional cross sections are required in the exterior columns to resist the forces
induced by the overturning moments due to lateral loads such as winds and
earthquakes. Therefore, there exists a substantial inequality between the
ratio of the applied dead load to the cross-sectional area of an exterior
column and that of an interior one. This inequality may cause a differential
shortening in the exterior and interior columns in the frame.
Because of the aforementioned two facts, the considerable amounts of
the differential column shortening are accumulated in the members of the
upper floors of the multistory building, and so are the bending moments
and shear forces when the dead-load analysis for the frame is performed by
an ordinary method, such as the finite element analysis in which the entire
frame is assumed to resist all the applied loads instantaneously. The seri-
ousness of the problem was well demonstrated in the numerical examples
by Choi and Kim (1985), where the erroneous bending moments in the
beams of the top floor due to the differential column shortening under dead
load alone reached more than 60% of the yielding moments of the member.
Unfortunately, however, only limited attention has been given to this prob-
lem in the current literature (Choi and Kim 1985; Nair 1973; Saffarini and
Wilson 1983) even though the seriousness of the problem has long been
recognized among many practicing engineers. It may be helpful in the de-
velopment of new methods to review briefly two previous major contri-
butions to the problem.
Assuming that the building is constructed one floor (or a group of floors)
at a time, a floor is constructed on the top of the frame that was completed
at that particular stage of construction and in which the column shortening
due to the dead weight already took place before the construction of the
floor is started. Moreover, since each floor is leveled at the time of its
construction, the deformations that occurred in the frame below are of no
consequence.
Based on the preceding description, Choi and Kim (1985) developed a
945

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 structural analysis model for the behavior of a floor in the frame with the
concepts of "active," "inactive," and "deactivated" floors as shown in Fig.
2. The behavior of the entire frame can be obtained by a progressive (suc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cessive) nature of analysis, i.e., "one floor (or a group of floors) at a time"
fashion, as the active floor moves from the top down to the bottom of the
building.
Saffarini and Wilson (1983) developed a simulation model of actual be-
havior of building structures under sequential loads in which the stiffness
matrix is assembled in stages, adding the stiffness of elements in the order
of the assemblage of those elements in construction. At each stage, there
will be a unique stiffness representing the behavior of the structure at that
stage of construction. The final level of stresses and displacements to account
for in the design of a member that will be completely assembled at a certain
stage is obtained by accumulating the effects of the weights added at that
stage and at all subsequent stages.
It is interesting to notice that the previous two works dealing with the
same problem (Choi and Kim 1985; Saffarini and Wilson 1983) are carried
out nearly simultaneously, but independently without having any knowledge
of each other's work. While the former is based on more physical interpre-
tation of the phenomenon, the latter utilizes a more numerical approach.
In this paper, a new simple way to approximate the reality that may sub-
stitute for the elaborate progressive analysis previously used is presented to
enhance a wide use of the technique in the practicing community.

SIMPLIFIED APPROACHES—CORRECTION FACTOR METHOD (CFM)

The two methods discussed previously to handle the problems associated

with the segmental application of dead loads give accurate results with some
increase of computational efforts once the computer codes are developed.
In the practical application of these methods, however, practicing engineers
may need to know about the nature of problems involved, and algorithms
and their computer implementations for proper utilization of the schemes.
In order to enhance the increased use of correction techniques among the
practitioners, a simplified yet reasonably reliable method needs to be de-
veloped.

Conceptual Development
The erroneous stresses and displacements of the ordinary analysis are
induced by the combined effects of the erroneous differential column short-

Leveled at time of
construction
I Additional
I load on i - t h
\ floor
J (DEACTIVATED)

th
ir
Iloor
-It M i n I
IPS
III1IH -
floor
(ACTIVE) 1

Column
shortening
already
took place
(INACTIVE)

F 1
FIG. 2. Modeling for Typical Floor Analysis

946

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 enings and joint rotations. To obtain the correct stresses and displacements
in the frame analysis by excluding these erroneous values, a step-by-step
analysis for each stage of construction was carried out with some success
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Choi and Kim 1985; Saffarini and Wilson 1983). Instead of carrying out
the elaborate repetitive analysis, an approach that modifies the finite ele-
ment analysis solution by adding or subtracting the correction forces cal-
culated by the use of correction factors should be more effective to obtain
an improved solution. The correction factors can be obtained by the curve
to be established statistically from the results of existing building analyses,
whose basic concept is similar to the design response spectrum for seismic
design.
To establish a correction factor curve, a number of buildings with various
number of floors and members of various sizes are analyzed by two different
methods:

1. The conventional finite element analysis of the structure as a whole where

the effects of sequential application of dead loads are not considered (method
A).
2. The analysis of the structure considering the sequential application of dead
loads such as the analysis by the method in Choi and Kim (1985) (method B).

The basic conceptual sketches are given in Figs. 3(a) and (b), where the

Differential Column S h o r t e n i n g Normalized E r r o n e o u s Differential

Column S h o r t e n i n g

(a) (b)
FIG. 3. Calculation of Correction Factor for Normalized Curves: (a) Erroneous
Differential Column Shortening; and (b) Correction Factor for /th Floor

"5 0.8 •
I| 0.8-
(mean-o-) ^s^^
X
$ 0.6- /y' (mean)
s 1-
K 0.4 • 1 "*- ff (mean+ir)
"3
G 0.2 -
|
o | -
z
0 -
-0.2 0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Erroneous Differential Normalized Erroneous Differential
Column Shortening Column Shortening

(a) (b)
FIG. 4. Regression of Erroneous Differential Column Shortening: (a) Assembled
Normalized Curves; and (b) Mean and Mean ± <x Curves
947

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 differential column shortenings for the bays and floors of each building are
calculated by two different methods and plotted along with the building
heights. Based on the fact that the analysis by method B represents the real
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

behavior of the structure more closely, the difference between two curves
(§'A ~ $B) is defined as "the erroneous differential column shortening" in-
cluded in the solutions by the ordinary analysis. The difference, however,
is nonexistent in the reality as discussed in Choi and Kim (1985). The
erroneous differential column shortening is then normalized with maximum
value at the top floor to form a single curve [Fig. 3(b)]. The normalized
curves that represent different frames are assembled in a single figure to
show the general trends of variations [Fig. 4(a)]. The curves of the mean
values and the mean plus/minus the standard deviation can be formed in
the figure, and the equations of the curves can be determined by regression
[Fig. 4(b)].
The correction factor for r'th floor C'f, that is the ratio of the erroneous
differential column shortening of j'th floor to that of the top floor, is defined
by the following equation.

q = v(8i_z3)
^ _ ^ _ (1)
8'i
where 8 = the differential column shortening; subscripts A and B = the
methods of analysis; and i and n = ith and nth (top) floor, respectively.
The erroneous differential column shortening for ith floor h'e can be cal-
culated approximately by the use of correction coefficient C} (see the de-
termination of correction factor [DCF]).
81 = 8^ - 8k = 8^ x Of (2)
The amounts of the corrections needed for member end moments M'c and
shear forces S'c of beams on ith floor can be calculated as the moments and
shears induced in the beams by the erroneous differential settlements based
on the basic elastic theory [(3)].
Mi
^wfw)xK (3fl)
^7FI
L 3 (l + 2(3) v
'
2
where p = (6EI/(L AG); L = the length of beam; and E, I, A, and p
denote Young's modulus, the moment of inertia, the effective shear area,
and the shear flexibility factor, respectively.
Once the correction forces (Mc and Sc) in each beam are determined,
these are combined with the results obtained by the ordinary analysis to
form the final solutions [(4)].
M^Mh-Mi (4a)
Sf = S'0 - S>c (4ft)
where Mfaad Sf = the final (corrected) bending moments and shear forces,
respectively; and M0 and S0 = the bending moments and shear forces from
the ordinary analysis, respectively.
The moments in columns are also corrected in the same manner. The
amount of correction forces are determined based on the equilibrium of the
948

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 correction forces at each joint where beams and columns are connected
together.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Determination of Correction Factor

Based on the basic concept discussed previously, a practically applicable
correction factor curve is developed using the data obtained from the typical
frames of the five existing buildings. The list of the buildings used to obtain
the data in this study are given in Table 1. The differential column short-
enings of those buildings are normalized with the frame height (floors) and
assembled in Fig. 4(a) to establish the correction factor curve. The fitted
curve representing the mean values of factors is given in Fig. 4(b) together
with the mean plus/minus standard deviation curve.
The correction factor for ith floor can be obtained either graphically from
Fig. 4(b) or numerically by the equation obtained by regression for n-story
building or the following

^GTTT)" e>
where a = the parameter that has different values, e.g., 2.8 for mean, 2.3
for (mean + a), 3.3 for (mean - CT), andCTis the standard deviation,
respectively.
In Fig. 5, the amounts of correction moments obtained by method B,
which are the differences between the results by methods B and A, and
those obtained by CFM using the different correction factors are plotted
along with the normalized building heights. The exact correction forces
needed for a 30-story building approximately coincide with the forces com-
puted by CFM using the factor for the mean curve whereas the correction
forces computed by CFM for a 10-story building and 50-story building are
shifted a little from the mean curve and fit better with the curves for the
mean plus/minus standard deviation, respectively. This shift may be attrib-
utable to the fact that the erroneous joint rotations that are fairly uniform
with the building heights in the tall buildings (40-60-story buildings) have
relatively large effects in low-rise buildings (up to 15-story buildings) (Chung
1992). Therefore, the mean value curve can be used for moderately tall
buildings (say, 30-story buildings) while the curves between the mean value
curve and mean minus/plus standard deviation curves for the high-rise/low-
rise buildings, respectively. The suggested values of a to be used in practice
are given in Table 2.

TABLE 1. List of Buildings Used in Determining Correction Factors

Total
Structural number
Name system of floors Use Location Remark
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
E-Soo RC 9 Office Seoul, Korea —
Yang-Jae Composite 20 Office Seoul, Korea —
Euljee Steel 30 Office Seoul, Korea —
KOEX Steel 54 Trade fair and Seoul, Korea —
office
63 buildings Steel 60 Shopping center Seoul, Korea Fig. 6(6),
and office Table 3

949

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 OADX
fo.a- OA n^^
oa n /
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^0.6 OAD/
CD cAa/
So.4 ceo/
a u/
g 0.2 J (a)
o
^' 10-story BIdg.
1 0 1 2 ^ 4 i
Correction Moment(KN.m) Correction Moment(KN.m) Correction Moment(KN.m)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Correction Moment(KN.m) Correction Moment(KN.m) Correction Moment(KN.m)

— : Exact(Method B) O : Mean-CT(a=3.3)
A : Mean(a=2.8) D : Mean+<j(a=2.3)
FIG. 5. Correction Factor a for Various Building Heights

TABLE 2. Suggested Values for a for Practical Use

Building height (number of floors) a
(1) (2)
1-15 2.3
16-30 2.8
31 and more 3.3

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

In order to check the validity of the methods discussed, two 60-story

buildings are numerically tested and the results from three different methods
(methods A, B, and CFM) are compared. The 60-story reinforced concrete
(RC) building is the building of which data is not included in computing
the correction factor curves in Fig. 4.

Sixty-Story RC Building
A 60-story RC building is analyzed in this example. The profile of the
frame is shown in Fig. 6(a) along with the story heights and the bay widths.
The properties of columns and beams are given in Table 3. The correction
factors used were obtained from the mean minus standard deviation curve
(a = 3.3). This example was also tested previously by Saffarini and Wilson
(1983).
The results from three different methods are shown and compared in Fig.
7. These figures show that differential column shortenings and member
forces (bending moments and shear forces) obtained by CFM are virtually
identical to the reference solutions by Saffarini and Wilson (1983). Some
950

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 7600 600 x 9 = 5400
1st bay gnd bay 1st bay 2nd bay
*R00F ROOF* - \ < - -
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

_ .450
i5^

i50'

z45 F
F
^ K

140
35 x
i35F

i30F

i25F
20 a
*20r
15 x
F
*15

xlO F

*5F • T 960
')/////)////)/////)//////)} ¥///////W///)/)/)/ //X
(UNIT:cm)
(a) * ' (b)
FIG. 6. Frame Elevations Used in Numerical Examples: (a) 60-Story RC Building;
and (b) 60-Story Steel Building

TABLE 3. Member Sizes and Material Properties Used in Numerical Examples

RC BUILDING Steel Building
Column
Story Center Other Beam Story Column (•) Beam {H)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
41-60 183 x 183 244 x 244 183 x 61 52-60 60 x 50 x 1.6 x 1.6 58.2 X 30 x 1.2 x 1.7
46-51 60 x 50 x 2 x 2
40-45 60 X 50 x 2.5 X 2.5
35-39 60 X 50 x 3 x 3
21-40 152 x 152 183 x 183 29-34 60 X 50 x 4 X 4
26-28 70 X 50 x 5 X5
20-25 70 X 50 x 6 x 6
1-20 122 X 122 152 x 152 14-19 70 X 50 X 7 x 7
8-13 80 X 50 x 8 x 8
2-7 80 X 50 x 9 x 9
1 80 x 50 x 10 x 10
Note: Material properties of Concrete: Ec = 2,462 kN/cm2, v = 0.3, p = 23.5 kN/m3. Material
properties of structural steel: Es = 20,601 kN/cm2, v = 0.3, p = 77.5 kN/m3. Slab weight is considered
as additional beam weight (210 kN/m3) in RC analysis. Slab thickness in steel analysis: 15 cm deck
plate for all floors. Units: cm

abrupt changes of displacements and forces in the figures were observed

where the sizes of the members in the frame are changed. Considering the
simplicity of the method used, the results obtained by CFM are very sat-
isfactory. Because of the large amount of dead loads in RC buildings, the
951

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 8
-tx. 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0) 4 0 -
X
8 /
uilding

jT
o

2 20
'3 Rign _
m j y n
(Inte riorJ%
0- <sr
30 35
Differential Column Shortening Bending Moment(KN.mxl0 2 ) Shear Force(KNxK) 2 )
(cm)
(a) (b) (c)

'B 40

a
2 20
Right
[interior
100 ISO 200
Differential Column Shortening Bending Moment(KN.mxlO ) Shear Force(KNxlO )
(cm)
(d) (e) (0
Method A : Method B
Saffarini & Wilson(1983)
o CFM
FIG. 7. Differential Column Shortening and Member Force Diagram for 60-Story
RC Building: Exterior (First) Bay—(a), (b), and (c); and Interior (Second) Bay—(d),
(e), and (f)

result obtained by method A shows that the erroneous differential column

shortenings and the erroneous member forces are more serious than steel
buildings when the conventional analysis method is used.

Sixty-Story Steel Building

The next illustration in this paper is the analysis of a 60-story steel building
subjected to its own weight. The configuration of the frame is shown in Fig.
6(b), and the sizes of columns and beams in the frame are given in Table
3. The results obtained by three different methods are compared in Fig. 8.
The same correction parameter used in the previous example (a = 3.3) was
used in computing correction forces in this example.
The results obtained by the method suggested in this study (correction
factor method) are reasonably close to the exact (step-by-step analysis)
solutions. In particular, the corrections obtained in the exterior bays that
have large erroneous differential column shortenings are remarkable. The
major advantages of this method are the simplicity of the algorithm and the
economy in solution. The step-by-step algorithm would need many times
(in one example, 16 times) in the solution time needed by CFM.
The significance of the erroneous differential column shortenings that
induce large erroneous bending moments at the top floors of the high-rise
952

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 60-

5 r J\ -J
\
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eo
a
S20-
3 Right \ / Left
CO
(Int irior/t, /(Exterior)
0-
0 5 10 15 20
Differential Column Shortening Bending Moment(KN.m) Shear Foroe(KN)
(cm)
(a) (b) (c)
60-
—^
J3

'*> 4 0 -
X
X
Building

Mis 20
0

/
to

Right Left '3

m Rijht
(Interio (Exterior) (Int ;rior)
0

6 10 15 20 25
Differential Column Shortening Bending Moment(KN.m) Shear Foroe(KN)
(om)
(d) (e) (f)

Method A Method B O : CFM

FIG. 8. Differential Column Shortening and Member Force Diagram for 60-Story
Steel Building: Exterior (First) Bay—(a), (b), and (c); and Interior (Second) Bay—
(d), (e), and (f)

building when the structure is analyzed by one of the conventional methods

is well demonstrated in this example.

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified approach, termed correction factor method (CFM) in this

study, to solve the problem of erroneous bending moments induced in the
members of the building due to the erroneous differential column shortening
that appear in the ordinary analysis of building where the sequential nature
of construction and of the sequential application of its weight are not ad-
equately counted for was proposed. The effect of erroneous rotation is
insignificant for the tall buildings, and, therefore, this effect can be ade-
quately counted for by appropriate selection of a.
Unlike the previous methods (Choi and Kim 1985; Saffarini and Wilson
1983) that require an elaborated step-by-step analysis, the new approach
requires only the correction of the results from the ordinary analysis by
predetermined correction factors given either in the graphical form or in a
single equation [Fig. 4(b), (5)]. This method is very effective, in particular,
for the flexible multistory buildings. Comparing with the previous ap-
proaches (Choi and Kim 1985; Saffarini and Wilson 1983), the correction
factor method simplifies the solution significantly', yet giving accurate results
at the reasonable cost.
953

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Portions of this work were performed while the first writer was on his
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sabbatical leave at the University of California at Berkeley. The partial

support for the first writer, arranged by S. C. Liu of National Science
Foundation, is gratefully acknowledged.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Choi, C.-K., and Kim, E.-D. (1985). "Multistory frames under sequential gravity
loads." /. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 111(11), 2373-2384.
Choi, C.-K., Chung, H.-K., and Kim, E.-D. (1989). "Integrated building design
system (part 1)—linear three dimensional analysis," SEMR 89-01, Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., Korea Advanced Inst, of Sci. and tech., Seoul, Korea, 52-68.
Chung, H.-K. (1992). "A new approach to the building analysis with sequential dead
loads," thesis presented to Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
at Seoul, Korea in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Nair, R. S. (1973). "Linear structural analysis of multistory building."/. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 101(3), 551-565.
Saffarini, H. S., and Wilson, E. L. (1983). "New approaches in the structural analysis
of building systems." UCBISEMM-83108, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, Calif.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = effective shear area;

Cf = correction factor;
E = Young's modulus;
/ = moment of inertia;
L = beam length;
Mc = the amount of the correction needed for bending moment of beam;
Mf = final (corrected) bending moment;
M0 = bending moment from ordinary analysis;
n, i = total number of floors and /th floor, respectively;
Sc = the amount of the correction needed for shear force of beam;
Sf = final (corrected) shear force;
S0 = shear force from ordinary analysis;
a = parameter used for determining correction factor;
P = shear flexibility factor;
8 = differential column shortening; and
CT = standard deviation.

Subscripts
A = method A (conventional finite element analysis);
B = method B (analysis considering sequential application of dead loads);
and
e = value of erroneous differential column shortening.

Superscripts
n, i = total number of floors and r'th floor, respectively.

954

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:944-954.