SEPTEMBER 2022

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
GAZİANTEP UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL & APPLIED SCIENCES
Ph.D. in Civil Engineering

STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

RETROFITTED WITH VARIOUS SCHEMES AGAINST PROGRESSIVE
COLLAPSE

Ph.D. THESIS
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING

BY
BARHAM ALI

BARHAM ALI

SEPTEMBER 2022
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
RETROFITTED WITH VARIOUS SCHEMES AGAINST PROGRESSIVE
COLLAPSE

Ph.D. Thesis
in
Civil Engineering
Gaziantep University

Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Esra METE GÜNEYİSİ

by
Barham ALI
SEPTEMBER 2022
©2022[Barham ALI]
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
RETROFITTED WITH VARIOUS SCHEMES AGAINST PROGRESSIVE
COLLAPSE

submitted by Barham ALI in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University is approved by,

Prof. Dr. Mehmet İshak YÜCE

Director of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences …………..............

Prof. Dr. Aytaç GÜVEN

Head of the Department of Civil Engineering …………..............

Prof. Dr. Esra METE GÜNEYİSİ

Supervisor, Civil Engineering
Gaziantep University …………..............

Exam Date: September 09, 2022

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Esra METE GÜNEYİSİ

Thesis Supervisor, Civil Engineering
Gaziantep University …………..............

Prof. Dr. Aytaç GÜVEN

Civil Engineering
Gaziantep University …………..............

Prof. Dr. Ali Fırat ÇABALAR

Civil Engineering Department
Gaziantep University …………..............

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hatice Öznur ÖZ

Civil Engineering
Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University …………..............

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dia Eddin NASSANI

Civil Engineering
Hasan Kalyoncu University …………..............
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.

Barham ALI
 ABSTRACT
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
RETROFITTED WITH VARIOUS SCHEMES AGAINST PROGRESSIVE
COLLAPSE
ALI, Barham
Ph.D. in Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Esra METE GÜNEYİSİ
September 2022
133 pages

Primary local damage in the building spreads outward in a process known as

"progressive collapse." Damages caused by removing one or more load-bearing
columns lead to a sequence of failures that eventually lead to structural collapse. Multi-
story reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with varying numbers of stories were
investigated in this paper to observe how various retrofitting techniques affect the
structures' ability to withstand progressive collapse. As a result, eight distinct scenarios
involving three distinct building heights of seven, thirteen, and nineteen stories were
examined. To begin with, there was an RC moment-resisting frame (bare frame) for
each of the three different story numbers. The other frames included X-braces,
diagonal braces, inverted V-braces, viscous dampers in the central bay and two inner-
bay, viscous damper only in certain stories, and carbon fiber reinforced polymer
jackets. In order to analyze the different RC frame's capacity in relation to the number
of storeys, deriving each numerical model was conducted for the ultimate load-
carrying ability to progressive collapse. In addition, for each case study structure, three
distinct scenarios for column removal were evaluated as column failures at the ground,
middle, and last floors. It was found that there was a significant improvement in the
RC building's ability to withstand a collapse following a column's failure, depending
on the method utilized to upgrade the structure's bare frame. It is also possible to resist
the gradual collapse by raising the number of stories, which guides a rise in the number
of the component that redistributes the burden after the incident.

Key Words: Progressive Collapse; Reinforced Concrete Building; Retrofitting;

Nonlinear Analysis; Column Removal.

v
 ÖZET
FARKLI METOTLARLA GÜÇLENDİRİLMIŞ BETONARME BİNALARIN
AŞAMALI GÖÇMEYE KARŞI YAPISAL DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

ALI, Barham
Doktora Tezi, İnşaat Mühendisliği
Danışman: Prof. Dr. Esra METE GÜNEYİSİ
Eylül 2022
133 sayfa

Binalardaki bölgesel hasarlar, "aşamalı göçme" olarak bilinen bir süreçte diğer
elemanlara doğru yayılırlar. Bir veya daha fazla taşıyıcı kolonun kaldırılmasından
kaynaklanan problemler, sonunda yapısal çökmeye yol açan bir dizi hasara yol
açabilir. Bu çalışmada, farklı güçlendirme tekniklerinin, yapıların aşamalı göçmeye
dayanma kabiliyetini nasıl etkilediğini görmek için, farklı kat yükseklikleri olan çok
katlı betonarme binalar incelenmiştir. Yedi, on üç ve on dokuz katlı olmak üzere üç
farklı bina yüksekliği ve sekiz farklı senaryo düşünülmüştür. Başlangıç olarak, üç
farklı binanın her biri için betonarme moment aktaran çerçeve (mevcut durum)
seçilmiştir. Mevcut çerçevelerin güçlendirilmesinde ise, X-çapraz, diogonal çapraz,
ters V çapraz, orta açıklıkta ve iki iç açıklıkta viskoz sönümleyici, yalnızca belirli
katlarda viskoz sönümleyici ve karbon fiber takviyeli polimer mantolaması
düşünülmüştür. Farklı kat yüksekliklerine sahip betonarme çerçevelerin aşamalı
göçmeye karşı nihai yük taşıma kapasitenin analizi için, analitik modelleri üretilmiştir.
Ayrıca, her bir yapının vaka çalışması için, üç farklı kolon kaybı senaryosu, zemin,
orta ve son katlardaki kolon hasarları olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Analizlerden, yapının
mevcut halini iyileştirmek için kullanılan güçlendirme yöntemine bağlı olarak,
betonarme binanın bir kolonun kaybından itibaren göçmeye kadarki direnme
kabiliyetinde önemli bir gelişme görülmüştür. Yapıdaki kat sayısını artması ile,
hasardan sonra yükü yeniden dağıtan eleman sayısında artışa yol açarak, aşamalı
göçmeye karşı direnci artırabildiği gözlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Aşamalı Göçme; Betonarme Bina; Güçlendirme; Doğrusal
Olmayan Analiz; Kolon Kaldırma.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Prof.
Dr. Esra METE GÜNEYİSİ, for her helpful comments, criticisms, guidance, and many
creative insights offered during this thesis. Furthermore, I would like to express my
gratitude to her for sharing her vast knowledge and advice with me during my research
and writing this thesis and for helping to surpass the barriers by encouraging me.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................v

ÖZET .................................................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xx

LIST OF SYMBOLS ......................................................................................... xxii

CHAPTER I INTROUCTION ...............................................................................1

1.1 General .......................................................................................................1

1.2 Design consideration for progressive collapse .............................................7

1.3 Research Significance and Scope of the Thesis ...........................................9

1.4 Outline of the Thesis .................................................................................10

CHAPTER II LITRATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND ......................... 12

2.1 General ..................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Studies on Alternate Load Paths of beam-column structures ..................... 13

2.2.1 Quasi-static analyses of beam-column structures ................................... 14

2.2.1.1 Quasi-static tests ............................................................................ 15

viii
 2.3 Beam-column structures dynamic analyses ............................................... 20

2.3.1 Evaluation of dynamic systems using non-linear static responses ..........20

2.3.1.1 Free-fall dynamic tests ...................................................................23

2.3.2 Beam-column structures in blast-induced dynamic behavior ..................27

2.4 Alternate Path Method Analysis Procedures.............................................. 30

2.4.1 Linear Static Analysis ........................................................................... 30

2.4.2 Non-linear Static Analysis ..................................................................... 31

2.4.3 Linear Dynamic Analysis ...................................................................... 31

2.4.4 Non-linear Dynamic Analysis ............................................................... 32

2.5 Literature Involved Analysis Methods ......................................................32

2.6 Robustness Design Provisions .................................................................. 35

2.6.1 Strength Development ........................................................................... 35

2.6.2 Improving Continuity ............................................................................ 35

2.6.3 Ductility Improvement ..........................................................................37

2.6.4 Improving Redundancy .........................................................................38

2.7 Investigation of Progressive Collapse .......................................................38

2.7.1 Potential of Progressive Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Buildings ..... 39

2.8 Approaches To Mitigate Progressive Collapse .......................................... 44

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DESCRITPTIONS ............................58

3.1 Description of Structural Models ..............................................................58

3.1.1 Modeling the Bracing System................................................................59

ix
 3.1.2 Modeling the Viscous Damper .............................................................. 62

3.1.3 Modeling the CFRP...............................................................................69

3.2 Column Removal and Elaborations of the Analysis ................................... 69

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................74

4.1 Frames Performance Level .......................................................................74

4.1.1 7-Floor Frame Performance Level .........................................................75

4.1.2 13-Floor Frame Performance Level .......................................................78

4.1.3 19-Floor Frame Performance Level .......................................................84

4.2 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column ......................................89

4.2.1 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column in7-Floor Frame.........89

4.2.2 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column in 13-floor Frame.......91

4.2.3 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column in 19-floor Frame.......93

4.3 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column

Removal .............................................................................................................. 96

4.3.1 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column

Removal for 7-floor Frame .............................................................................. 96

4.3.2 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column

Removal for 13-floor Frame .......................................................................... 100

4.3.3 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column

Removal for 19-floor Frame .......................................................................... 103

4.4 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal ............................................................................................................ 106

4.4.1 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal for 7-floor Frame ............................................................................ 107

x
 4.4.2 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column
Removal for 13-floor Frame .......................................................................... 110

4.4.3 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal for 19-floor Frame .......................................................................... 113

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 117

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 121

CURRICULUM VITAE (CV) ............................................................................ 134

xi
 LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 4.1 Vertical displacement due to column loss in the floors ........................ 91

Table 4.2 Vertical displacement due to column loss in the floors ........................ 93

Table 4.3 Vertical displacement due to column loss in the floors ........................ 96

Table 4.4 Forces result for element 172 on floor one .......................................... 99

Table 4.5 Forces result for element 175 on floor four ......................................... 99

Table 4.6 Forces result for element 178 on floor seven .......................................99

Table 4.7 Forces result for element 118 on floor one ........................................ 102

Table 4.8 Forces result for element 123 on floor six ......................................... 102

Table 4.9 Forces result for element 130 on floor thirteen .................................. 102

Table 4.10 Forces result for element 172 on floor one ....................................... 105

Table 4.11 Forces result for element 180 on floor 9 ........................................... 106

Table 4.12 Forces result for element 190 on floor 19 ......................................... 106

Table 4.13 Forces result for element 77 on floor 1 ............................................. 108

Table 4.14 Forces result for element 80 on floor 4 ............................................. 109

Table 4.15 Forces result for element 83 on floor seven ...................................... 109

Table 4.16 Forces result for element 53 on floor one ......................................... 110

Table 4.17 Forces result for element 58 on floor 6 ............................................. 111

Table 4.18 Forces result for element 65 on floor 13 ........................................... 112

Table 4.19 Forces result for element 77 on floor one ......................................... 113

xii
Table 4.20 Forces result for element 86 on floor nine ........................................ 115

Table 4.21 Forces result for element 95 on floor 19 ........................................... 116

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure 2.1 ALPs on RC beams (Qian et al., 2016a) .........................................14

Figure 2.2 The layout instrumentation and test setup (Alashker et al., 2011) .... 15

Figure 2.3 Results of test for IMF sample (Alashker et al., 2011) .....................16

Figure 2.4 Test setup (J. Yu & K.-H. Tan, 2013; J. Yu & K. H. Tan, 2013) ..... 17

Figure 2.5 Results of test for S1 and S2 (J. Yu & K.-H. Tan, 2013) .................18

Figure 2.6 Layout for testing of beam-column (Lim et al., 2015) ..................... 19

Figure 2.7 Results of test of Quasi-static for 2D frames (Lim et al., 2015) .......19

Figure 2.8 Simplification of dynamic approach (Izzuddin et al., 2008) .............22

Figure 2.9 DIF and Characteristic response value for various systems
(Izzuddin and Nethercot 2010) ............................................................23

Figure 2.10 F5 and DF5 test results (Qian and Li 2012c, b) ................................. 24

Figure 2.11 Test results of F6 and DF6 (Qian and Li 2012c, b)............................ 24

Figure 2.12 Static and dynamic tests in different loading configurations

(Sagiroglu, 2012)................................................................................25

Figure 2.13 Layout of test setup for the scenario of sudden column elimination
(Liu et al., 2015) ................................................................................. 26

Figure 2.14 Release time from the mechanism (Liu et al. 2015)........................... 26

Figure 2.15 Location of eliminated column B5 (Sasani et al., 2007) ....................28

Figure 2.16 Test results (Sasani et al., 2007)........................................................ 28

Figure 2.17 Specimen design (Yu et al., 2014) .................................................... 29

Figure 2.18 Test setup (Yu et al., 2014) ............................................................... 29

Figure 2.19 Alternative load pathways to the failing column are possible (AISC,
2005b) ................................................................................................ 36

Figure 2.20 Distributing the ties throughout the frame structure (UFC, 2009) ....... 37

xiv
Figure 2.21 Reversing the load above the collapsed column (El-Hacha &
Bullock, 2006)....................................................................................38

Figure 2.22 Plate with two sides (Houghton and Karns, 2001)..............................45

Figure 2.23 Scheme for connection retrofitting (Liu, 2010) ..................................46

Figure 2.24 Cables are used in slabs to keep them from collapsing (Astaneh-Asl,
2003) .................................................................................................. 47

Figure 2.25 The strengthening plan view; a) Sketch 1, b) Sketch 2 (Kai Qian &
Li, 2012) ............................................................................................ 50

Figure 2.26 Steel frame system; a) V-shaped brace, b) X-shaped brace (Liu &
Zhu, 2019).......................................................................................... 51

Figure 2.27 Layout of cross braces (Hu & Zhao, 2020) ........................................ 52

Figure 2.28 Various kinds of eccentrically braced frames (Mirjalali et al., 2019) . 53

Figure 2.29 Building of an initial numerical model (NMi) (Marchis & Botez,
2019) .................................................................................................. 53

Figure 2.30 Investigated numerical models (Marchis & Botez, 2019) .................55

Figure 2.31 A 15-story building equipped with viscous dampers experienced the
abrupt collapse of an inner column (Kim et al., 2013) ........................56

Figure 2.32 Model structures' vertical displacements with and without dampers
with different length bay of (a) 6-m, (b) 9-m, (c) 12-m (Kim et al.,
2013) .................................................................................................. 57

Figure 3.1 Plan perspective of the RC building.................................................... 58

Figure 3.2 Force–displacement relationship of braces (FEMA-356, 2000) ........... 60

Figure 3.3 Braces layout for 7-story frame ..........................................................60

Figure 3.4 Braces layout for 13-story frame ........................................................61

Figure 3.5 Braces layout for 19-story frame ........................................................61

Figure 3.6 Layout of viscous damper (Ding et al., 2016) .....................................63

Figure 3.7 Layout of viscous damper for 7-story ................................................. 63

Figure 3.8 Layout of viscous damper for 13-story ............................................... 64

Figure 3.9 Layout Viscous damper for 19-story ................................................... 65

xv
Figure 4.1 Formation of hinge in the moment-resisting frame (Bare frame)
subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor
seven. .................................................................................................75

Figure 4.2 Formation of hinge in the X braced frame subjected to column loss
in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven. .............................75

Figure 4.3 Formation of hinge in the diagonally braced frame subjected to

column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven ...........76

Figure 4.4 Formation of hinge in the inverted V-braced frame subjected to

column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven ...........76

Figure 4.5 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in central bay
subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor
seven ..................................................................................................77

Figure 4.6 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in two inner bays
subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor
seven ..................................................................................................77

Figure 4.7 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame only in certain
stories subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and
(c) floor seven ....................................................................................78

Figure 4.8 Formation of hinge in the frame with CFRP subjected to column loss
in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven ..............................78

Figure 4.9 Formation of hinge in the moment-resisting frame (Bare frame)

subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor
thirteen ...............................................................................................79

Figure 4.10 Formation of hinge in the X-braced frame subjected to column loss
in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen ............................. 80

Figure 4.11 Formation of hinge in the diagonally braced frame subjected to

column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen ..........80

Figure 4.12 Formation of hinge in the inverted V-braced frame subjected to loss
of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen.............81

Figure 4.13 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in central bay
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c)
floor thirteen....................................................................................... 82

Figure 4.14 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in two inner bays
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c)
floor thirteen....................................................................................... 82

xvi
Figure 4.15 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame only in certain
stories subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and
(c) floor thirteen .................................................................................83

Figure 4.16 Formation of hinge in the frame with CFRP subjected to loss of
column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen .................84

Figure 4.17 Formation of hinge in the moment-resisting frame (Bare frame)

subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c)
floor nineteen ..................................................................................... 84

Figure 4.18 Formation of hinge in the X braced frame subjected to loss of

column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen .............85

Figure 4.19 Formation of hinge in the diagonally braced frame subjected to loss
of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen ......... 85

Figure 4.20 Formation of hinge in the inverted V-braced frame subjected to loss
of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen ......... 86

Figure 4.21 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in central bay
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c)
floor nineteen ..................................................................................... 86

Figure 4.22 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in two inner bays
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c)
floor nineteen ..................................................................................... 87

Figure 4.23 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame only in certain
stories subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine,
and (c) floor nineteen ......................................................................... 88

Figure 4.24 Formation of hinge in the frame with CFRP subjected to loss of
column (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen ................. 88

Figure 4.25 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor one ................................................................ 89

Figure 4.26 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor four ...............................................................90

Figure 4.27 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor seven .............................................................90

Figure 4.28 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor one ................................................................ 92

Figure 4.29 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor six ................................................................. 92

xvii
Figure 4.30 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor thirteen .......................................................... 92

Figure 4.31 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor one. ............................................................... 94

Figure 4.32 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor nine ............................................................... 95

Figure 4.33 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to
loss of column on floor nineteen .........................................................95

Figure 4.34 Behavior of beam after removing of the column in floor one: (a)
moment and (b) shear .........................................................................97

Figure 4.35 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor four: (a)
moment and (b) shear .........................................................................98

Figure 4.36 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor seven: (a)
moment and (b) shear .........................................................................98

Figure 4.37 Behavior of beam after removing of the column in floor one: (a)
shear and (b) moment ....................................................................... 100

Figure 4.38 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor six: (a)
shear and (b) moment ....................................................................... 101

Figure 4.39 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor thirteen: (a)
shear and (b) moment ....................................................................... 101

Figure 4.40 Behavior of beam after removing of the column in floor one: (a)
moment and (b) shear ....................................................................... 104

Figure 4.41 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor nine: (a)
moment and (b) shear ....................................................................... 104

Figure 4.42 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor nineteen:
(a) moment and (b) shear .................................................................. 105

Figure 4.43 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor one: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear............................................... 108

Figure 4.44 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor four: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear............................................... 109

Figure 4.45 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor seven: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear............................................... 110

Figure 4.46 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor one: (a)
axial force, (b) shear, and (c) moment............................................... 111

xviii
Figure 4.47 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor six: (a)
axial force, (b) shear, and (c) moment............................................... 112

Figure 4.48 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor thirteen:
(a) axial force, (b) shear, and (c) moment ......................................... 113

Figure 4.49 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor one: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear............................................... 114

Figure 4.50 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor nine: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear. .............................................. 114

Figure 4.51 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor nineteen:
(a) axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear. ....................................... 116

xix
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ALP Alternate Load Path

SLR Specific Local Resistance
CFRP Carbon fiber reinforced polymers
BRB Buckling-restrained braces
VD Viscous dampers
GSA General service adminstrations
ASCE American Society for Civil Engineers
UFC Unified Facilities Criteria
DOD Department of Defense
DCR Demand to Capacity Ratio
CA Catenary Action
CAA Compressive Arch Action
L Length
2D Two Dimension
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
Δy Yielding
Δcr Buckling Displacements
Py Tension Force
Pcr Compression Force
Pc Buckling Load
PT Tensile Load
A Cross Section Area
c Compression Axial Deformation
T Tensile Axial Deformation
E Modulus of Elasticity
K Stiffness
CA Damper Capacity

xx
To Natural Period
ST Story
A Total cross-sectional area of the steel core
BRB Buckling restrained brace
C Damping coefficient
CP Collapse Prevention
IO Immediate occupation
LS Life safety
NC Near collapse
RC Reinforced concrete
VD Viscous damper
CL Concentrated Load
SMF Special moment frame
FR Full-restraint condition
PR Partial-restraint setup
MID Middle-joint displacement
UDL Uniformly distributed loads
DIF Dynamic Increase Factor

xxi
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

E Modulus of elasticity
F Damping force
Fy Yielding strength
m Mass
α Damping exponent
α Ratio of the decreased cross-sectional area to the whole area
β Ratio of the length of the decreased core to the whole length
∆ Displacement
V Velocity of piston relative to the cylinder

xxii
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

With terrorist attacks on government and public facilities increasing in recent years, it
is becoming increasingly critical to keep structures from such deadly accidents and
progressive collapse. In this context, the ASCE (2010) describes progressive collapse
as "the extent of localized failure from an initiating event to subsequent elements,
eventually resulting in the collapse of a whole structure or a disproportionately
significant portion of it. It was coined following the collapse of the Ronan Point
Apartments in East London in May 1968 (Pearson & Delatte, 2005) (see Figure 1.1).
The catastrophe was sparked by a gas explosion on the 18th floor of a corner unit,
which resulted in the rapid collapse of an external bearing wall that served as the
primary structural component for the above flat. For the first time, the progressive
collapse was identified as a crucial concern for structural design when unusual stresses
such as collisions or explosions were applied. Over the subsequent decades, guidelines
and requirements for structural design have been incorporated into codes of practice,
initially in British Standards and later in other international policies such as EN 1991-
1-7 (2006) and ACI 318-11(ACI, 2011; ECS, 2006).

In the early 1990s, terrorist acts using lethal weapons and explosives prompted severe
concerns about the design technique used to defend buildings against progressive
collapse as a consequence of localized explosion damage. The partial fall of the
Murrah Federal Building in April 1995 (Kazemi-Moghaddam & Sasani, 2015) as a
result of a vehicle bomb and the devastating collapse of the World Trade Center twin
towers in September 2001 are both clear instances of terrorist threats (Le & Bažant,
2022) (see Figure 1.2). After the complete progressive fall of the World Trade Center
(WTC) towers, as represented in Figure 1.3, study interest in progressive collapse
intensified. The WTC towers were constructed in New York City in 1972 and were
the tallest skyscrapers.

1
Figure 1.1 Oversized Ronan Point Apartments collapse in 1968 (Pearson & Delatte,
2005)

a) Collapse of the Murray Federal Building b) the Second attack on the World Trade
in 1995 Center in 2001

Figure 1.2 Iconic events of progressive collapse (Kazemi-Moghaddam & Sasani,

2015; Le & Bažant, 2022)

The building's structure was composed of closely placed perimeter columns and
widely separated inside columns that encircled the shafts of the elevators and
stairways, forming a tube-in-tube structural system. In the year 2001, two planes
attempted to crash into the main World Trade Center towers (Le & Bažant, 2022). The
first plane struck the north tower between floors 94 and 98 at an estimated speed of
760 kilometers per hour, and the second plane hit the south tower between floors 78

2
and 84 at an estimated speed of 950 kilometers per hour (FEMA-403, 2002). The
aircraft colliding with the tops of the towers caused substantial damage to the
structures and resulted in local failures. Additionally, the gasoline explosion produced
other losses. It spread the fire to a larger area, resulting in huge wreck loads on the
beneath storys which sparked the catastrophic collapse that resulted in the buildings'
entire progressive collapse (Vlassis et al., 2009).

Figure 1.4 depicts the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete corner bays in
Turkey. According to Risk Management Solutions, the progressive collapse was
triggered by the collapse of the weak corner column as a result of the earthquake
(RMS, 1999).

Figure 1.3 The falling of the World Trade Center tower (Le & Bažant, 2022)

So recently, public awareness has increased about the progressive collapse of

buildings. As a result, the Government United States has developed several rules in
response to this threat. Among these are the General Service Administration's (GSA,
2003b) and the Department of Defense's UFC 4-023-03 (Defense, 2013) standards for
resisting federal buildings and significant facilities to disproportionate collapse.

These standards contain needs for various levels of significance and procedures for
analyzing and designing building structures subjected to harsh loading conditions.

3
Figure 1.4 Storys above the failed corner column progressive collapse that resulted
from Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey Earthquake (RMS, 1999)

Within the present norms and guidelines, indirect and direct policies are the most
frequently employed (Ellingwood & Leyendecker, 1978). The indirect technique
demands a particular amount of tie forces between all structure parts to ensure that
catenary or tensile membrane action is mobilized and improves structure continuity
and ductility. It was initially incorporated into British codes following the collapse of
the Ronan Point Apartment and has since been adopted by EN 1991-1-7 and the
Department of Defense (Defense, 2013; EN‐1‐7, 1991). However, this method does
not require structural analysis. The direct method, on the other hand, analyzes
structural reactions to strange loading events. This strategy employs two distinct
design techniques: the Alternate Load Path (ALP) and the Specific Local Resistance
(SLR). To guarantee that damage is limited, the former focuses on ensuring that it does
not spread, while the latter focuses on designing crucial components to protect against
a particular hazard.

Retrofitting is not a frequent strategy for bringing an older system into compliance
with the current code's regulations, as this is an inefficient method. Alternately,
performance-based retrofit objectives are proposed for a structure vulnerable to
progressive collapse to maintain a predefined level or prevent the building from
collapsing. When it comes to providing lateral stiffness and resisting lateral stresses,
steel braces are widely utilized in steel constructions (AISC, 2005a, 2005b; R. AISC,
API, 2005). Many people are interested in seismic retrofitting using steel bracing for
existing RC frames because of the simplicity with which steel braces may be placed

4
(Badoux & Jirsa, 1990; Maheri & Sahebi, 1997; Nateghi-A, 1995). The impact of steel
bracing on structural resilience to progressive collapse has recently piqued the interest
of researchers using two-dimensional numerical models. The progressive collapse of
steel 10-story frames braced to endure a range of earthquake intensities was also
examined, and it was shown that frames with concentric braces are more likely to
collapse than frames with eccentric braces (Khandelwal et al., 2009). The findings
show that increasing the percentage of rebar in RC frames strengthened against
progressive failure and lowered vertical displacement (Shayanfar et al., 2018). It was
revealed that removing a column from a higher level enhances the framing's
vulnerability to collapse in 20-story 3-dimensional braced steel frames (Fu, 2009,
2012). Another research studied the progressive collapse endurance of five one-quarter
scaled two-bay by three-story RC frames with four different kinds of steel bracing
(Feng et al., 2019). They observed that any bracing, with eccentric X braces being the
most effective, may improve the resistance to progressive collapse. To resist
earthquakes or give lateral stability, steel bracing is designed with earthquake
resistance in consideration. Despite running from the ground to the thirteenth floor in
height, the steel bracing is only found at one or a few specific spans. To simplify and
boost the structural system's ductility and waste capacity, they analyzed the XCBFS
design rules and criteria. Costanzo et al. (2019) braced the roof story to provide a
structural response with a good spreading of plastic deformation section height. For
three-story constructions, however, it can be ignored. In addition, the effect of beam
flexural stiffness on the seismic behavior of concentric braces was investigated by
Costanzo et al. (2020); (D'Aniello et al., 2015). The results reveal that when stiffness
increases, the drift ratio decreases. As a result, the brace's distortion during
compression is reduced. If the lost column is positioned in the braced span, the braces
can offer progressive collapse endurance; otherwise, their contribution is modest (Fu,
2009, 2012; Maheri & Sahebi, 1997). Thus, steel bracing intended to resist earthquake
loads and ensure lateral stability may not be able to improve robustness of the
structure. On the other hand, the most effective method for designing steel bracing is
still being researched as a potential substitute for strengthening existing structures
against gradual collapse. Likewise, the influence of suggested carbon fiber reinforced
polymers (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) retrofitting approaches
was evaluated using a range of flat slab substructures to reveal enhanced progressive

5
collapse behavior (Qian et al., 2016b). In addition, the efficiency of 10 RC beams that
use CFRP anchors and U-wraps is investigated (Kim et al., 2013). Because of this,
CFRP is utilized to develop the continuation of RC beams to shift load from a
destroyed column to an undamaged zone, which helps to restrict the development of
progressive collapsing (Orton et al., 2014). They discovered that discontinuous
reinforcement enhanced beams by approximately 55 to 60%, while the continuation of
reinforcement boosted beams by 109 percent.

Retrofitting of viscous dampers has received less attention than other retrofitting
technologies, such as bracing and CFRP. However, adding viscous dampers to a
structure may also assist in withstanding progressive collapse since they are often
employed to dampen building vibrations caused by wind or earthquakes. Research by
Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2013) investigated the resistance of buildings equipped with
viscous dampers, frequently employed to reduce vibrations induced by wind or seismic
activity.

Then, buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) and viscous dampers (VDs) control the
deformations between layers in steel frames, reduce energy, and make them more
rigid. Thus, it can be said that they help make the structure more efficient and protect
it from damage. The BRBs are made of a single piece of steel, and the VDs have cross-
sections that allow them to work under compressive and tensile forces, depending on
the effect shown. The slenderness ratio (Celik et al., 2005; Dicleli & Mehta, 2007; Lin
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) is the ratio between the rigidity and the net length of
the cross in terms of the radius of rotation, which controls the buckling in this bracing
element. In this case, the pressure force is a limiting factor that dictates the element's
stiffness and cross-sectional area. Buckling, a prevalent problem with compression
elements, necessitates a high cross-sectional area.

When studied passive energy distribution systems, they can positively alter the
response of civilian structures in structural reinforcement scenarios to the dynamic
impacts of strong impact, in addition to their employment in new designs. When
utilized in structures, such devices, which do not require additional energy to operate,
can produce a controlled force or better energy distribution to the structural systems in
which they are used. Researchers have proposed and created many passive energy

6
distribution systems in the literature to lessen the detrimental consequences of natural
disasters that cause strong dynamic effects, such as earthquakes and gradual collapse
(Symans et al., 2008).

When the basic structural qualities of VDs are evaluated, viscoelastic layers,
copolymers, or glassy materials in manufacture and bonded with steel plates are often
found. The hysteresis, or relative movement of the polymer molecules, causes the
damping effect to form. Butyl and silicon, for example, have inherently strong
damping properties and are commonly used in VDs. Other materials, like natural
rubber and neoprene, can be employed as fillers in these systems (along with oil,
carbon black, and other additives). These materials are coupled to provide high
damping, although this may sacrifice other system qualities like tensile strength and
elongation, which would occur during dynamic impacts. A hybrid damping system is
created by combining viscoelastic shock absorbers with a displacement device that can
effectively control their reaction to produce a wide range of displacement amplitudes
across the structures. VDs can distribute the energy of vibrations caused by low-level
dynamic effects, but devices made due to displacement may not be able to dampen
small vibrations enough to keep them from getting worse. Devices for displacement,
on the other hand, have a lot of power against big earthquakes and can make VDs
better at absorbing energy in strong earthquakes. It was suggested by Tsai et al. (1998)
to put an efficiency device next to a VD shock absorber. Some researchers also did
numerical and real-world tests on three different hybrid passive control systems
(Marshall & Charney, 2012; Silwal et al., 2015; Yamamoto & Sone, 2014).

1.2 Design consideration for progressive collapse

The gradual collapse process operates in two distinct modes. The first mode is shown
by support removal, which results in the spread of collapse to the members located
above. The second phase is exemplified by damage on a higher floor, which results in
loads of debris that activate the domination mechanism. On the other hand, research
into structures that collapsed due to an earthquake has revealed a variety of alternative
failure modes. The earthquake failure mechanisms entail the buildings swaying
laterally and collapsing under their gravity loads. However, records of fallen structures
indicate that earthquakes may fail one or more columns, resulting in a double span

7
mechanism (in the case of inner column collapse) or a cantilever span mechanism (in
the possibility of column removal located in the corner), which may result in
progressive collapse (Gurley, 2008). For example, as shown in Figure 1.4, the corner
bays of reinforced concrete buildings are subjected to progressive collapse in Turkey.
According to Risk Management Solutions, the progressive collapse was triggered by
the loss of the weak column located at the corner as a result of the earthquake (RMS,
1999).

According to records, abnormal loads resulted in disproportionate and progressive

collapse, posing catastrophic risks to the life of humans and destruction of the property
despite the low incidence of such incidents (Ellingwood, 2006). Structural safety has
always been a primary concern for civil engineers when designing civil engineering
structures because failures result in fatalities and economic consequences. Conversely,
in civil engineering structures, the cost is a significant element, especially in
commercial ones. When compared to traditional construction, designing structures to
withstand progressive collapse results in an increase in project cost.

Buildings' ability to withstand progressive collapse has recently been one of the
architectural imperatives in various design codes and rules. According to GSA (2003b)
requirements, while constructing federal buildings in the United States, progressive
collapse must be taken into account. In the design phase, ASCE-07 (2005) advised that
the progressive collapse be taken into account. Different design standards and levels
of protection were established by the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC, 2005a, 2009a)
to limit the danger of progressive collapse based on perspective risks. Regardless of
the failure, varied hazard impacts on life and property loss are experienced by
collapsed buildings depending on the building type and occupancy. Therefore, it was
determined by UFC (2009) that the resistance criteria for buildings should be specified
per the occupancy categories established by ASCE-07 (2005) and ASCE/SEI-41
(2006). ASCE-07 (2005) and ASCE/SEI-41 (2006) categorized structures according
to credible threats such as earthquakes, floods, snow, and wind. ASCE-07 (2005)
defines four categories of occupancy based on the likelihood of hazardous incidents in
a structure. From the lowest danger (Occupancy Category I) to the most significant
hazard (Occupancy Category V), the categories represent the severity of the
consequences of structural collapse on the life of humans. Occupancy Category I is for

8
deficient inhabitant buildings that include modest warehouses and farm facilities,
Category II includes buildings with average occupant numbers, and Category III
includes structures with a substantial number of people. Lastly, Category IV comprises
sensitive infrastructure such as hospitals, rescue facilities, and essential military
installations that must continue to operate even if damaged by hazardous occurrences.
Buildings are categorized appropriately in the British Approved Document
(Regulations, 2004) based on progressive collapse design requirements and human life
danger consequences. The British Approved Document (2004) required that the
progressive collapse be considered per the building category, which ranges from the
least hazardous (Category 1) to the most hazardous (Categoy 3).

Furthermore, regulations and standards included procedures to avoid gradual collapse

at various degrees of protection. Preventing the progressive collapse of buildings is
addressed in several ways in the codes of design and standards. These range from basic
declarations on structural integrity (ACI, 2008) to enlight regulatory rules (ASCE-07,
2005; NIST, 2007) and design guidelines (GSA, 2003b; UFC, 2009a).

1.3 Research Significance and Scope of the Thesis

This research aims to determine the impact of various retrofit systems and the
building's story height on the resistance to the progressive collapse of three multi-story
RC buildings. This was accomplished by considering three distinct scenarios, each
with a varying height of seven and thirteen—nineteen-story moment resisting frames
(bare frames). In contrast, other frames were upgraded using X-brace, diagonal brace,
inverted V-brace, the viscous damper in the central bay, the viscous damper in two
inner bays, and the viscous damper only in the two inner bays certain stories, and
carbon fiber reinforced polymer. X-brace and diagonal brace (CFRP). As a result, three
possibilities for column failure were considered for each number of story frames:
ground, middle, and end. Finite element analysis was used to do a non-linear dynamic
analysis. GSA (2003b) and UFC (2009a) guidelines are used to conduct the
investigations. This was accomplished by the employment of a strategy that took into
account the collapse capability of the SAP2000 program. To associate the unexpected
loss of columns in various scenarios using non-linear analysis, dead and live loads
were applied for 0–5 s and then withdrawn, with the structure's reaction monitored

9
over the following 10 s (GSA, 2013b; Kim & Kim, 2009; UFC, 2009a). The parametric
analysis results for each case considered the shear, axial, and moment of adjacent
columns to the removed one. In addition, as a result of the collapse of the vertical
component, researchers examined the moment and shear stresses on the beam
positioned upper the removed column. Finally, all of the variables that were examined
in each case were compared and assessed.

1.4 Outline of the Thesis

Chapter 1 - Introduction: The thesis's main objectives and research significance are
presented.

Chapter 2 - Literature review and background: A literature survey associated with the
thesis objectives are presented in this section. First of all, progressive collapses and
the newest systems of mitigation are addressed, including the classification and
previous research. Next, different retrofitting systems like bracings, viscous dampers,
and CFRP are explained.

Chapter 3 – Methodology: In this part of the study, two-dimensional reinforced

structures with three various heights, including seven, thirteen, and nineteen-story
examined in the scope of this thesis, are given. In addition, the design, modeling, and
analysis methods used in the structures upgraded with various retrofitting systems,
such as X-brace, diagonal brace, inverted V-brace, the viscous damper in the central
bay, the viscous damper in two inner bays, viscous damper only in certain stories, and
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), are described in detail. Finally, the column
removal scenario is applied in the ground, middle and last story. Once this has been
accomplished, the non-linear dynamic analysis will be discussed in further detail.

Chapter 4 - Results and discussions: For this chapter, the analysis of non-linear
dynamics and discussion of the findings are presented, as well as considerations for
columns neighboring the collapsed column's axial, shear, and moment loads.
Following the loss of the vertical member, the moment and shear forces for the beam
above the removed column were analyzed using the building's recorded story
displacements and performance levels.

10
Chapter 5 - Conclusions: This part draws the main conclusions according to the

findings and the results of non-linear dynamic analysis.

11
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND

2.1 General

In 1968, the local progressive collapse of the Ronan Point building in England sparked
civil engineering interest in progressive collapse. A lot of attention has been devoted
to progressive collapse since the partial progressive collapse of the Murrah building in
1995 and the entire collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001. There is an increased
need for resistance to progressive collapse in buildings and structures throughout the
design phase due to the possibility of catastrophic effects and the rising frequency of
unusual occurrences that might result in such a collapse. Widespread research
investigations, government directives, and design regulations and standards have all
drawn attention to progressive collapse (Mohamed, 2006). The validity of existing
design elements and provisions provided by design guidelines and rules at the time has
been reviewed in light of the progressive collapse danger in earlier research (Burnett,
1975; Ferahian, 1972). Earlier research included describing and discussing general
techniques to prevent the building from progressive collapse (Ellingwood &
Leyendecker, 1978; Fintel & Schultz, 1979; McGuire, 1974).

Recent advancements in high-fidelity modeling software, combined with the increased

computing power and speed of modern computers, have aided research and
investigations into progressive collapse throughout the last decade. Researchers have
released several publications on progressive collapse as a consequence of the partial
progressive collapse of the Murrah building in 1995 and the total progressive collapse
of the World Trade Center in 2001. These researches are primarily classified as
follows: (a) displaying and assessing progressive collapse evaluation analysis
approaches, (b) specifying and exploring the buildings' increasing collapse
performance, and (c) providing concrete plans to mitigate a progressive collapse. A
short review and discussion of general design requirements and analytic approaches

12
that address the progressive collapse of structures, as well as prior research that
examined the building's progressive collapse performance, are explained in this
chapter.

The alternate path analysis methodologies specified in the general instructions and
used in progressive collapse examinations are discussed in Section 2.2. In Section 2.3,
previous articles that examine analysis methods are offered to ensure an understanding
of each analysis performance approach. Next, section 2.4 explains the general design
guidelines that may lessen the danger of building progressive collapse. The following
section, Section 2.5, presents and discusses a brief assessment of selected papers that
explore the progressive collapse performance of buildings. A careful examination of
prior publications reveals the increasing collapse performance of reinforced concrete
with varying degrees of resilience. Additionally, Sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 highlights
available retrofitting system concepts for mitigating the progressive collapse of
buildings, and the effects of the number of the story on the progressive collapse were
discussed.

2.2 Studies on Alternate Load Paths of beam-column structures

The beams and columns are the most significant parts in a standard RC construction
for supporting gravity loads. In a typical RC construction for bearing gravity loads, the
columns and beams are the essential sections. The beams and columns are the most
significant sections in a standard RC design for sustaining gravity loads. The beam
system must be capable of supporting the vertical loads of the slabs and other non-
structural components while contributing to the structure's continuity and stability. The
columns must also transmit loads to the foundations in vertical and lateral directions.
The columns, in conjunction with the wall system of shear, ensure the structure's
horizontal rigidity and stability. Beams and columns are crucial in preserving the entire
structure's integrity and avoiding disproportionate collapse under heavy loads.
Consequently, the bulk of ALP research for concrete structures concentrates on the
performance of beam-column subassemblies and beam-column frames. (McConnell
& Brown, 2011).

When the supporting column is withdrawn from an RC beam-column junction, the

flexural mechanism in the beams is first mobilized at minor deformations.
Compressive arch action (CAA) can improve ultimate moment capacity by mobilizing

13
axial compression if the beams are provided with enough lateral constraint (Figure
2.1(a)). After that, catenary action (CA) may occur (Figure 2.1(b) if the joint
displacement (at the site where the column was removed) continues to increase to a
value equal to one beam depth. This mechanism is thought to be the last line of defense
in the case of a gradual collapse (Alashker et al., 2011; Bao et al., 2008; Yi et al.,
2008). Progressive collapse is a complex structural response to non-linear dynamic
phenomena. Most studies on the ALP approach have attempted to incorporate dynamic
influences into the static analysis procedure. Research on RC beam-column
substructures exposed to the elimination of single column scenarios in quasi-static to
free fall dynamic and finally, actual real conditions will be described in the following
section.

a)CAA

b) CA

Figure 2.1 ALPs on RC beams (Qian et al., 2016a)

2.2.1 Quasi-static analyses of beam-column structures

Considering the dynamic features of progressive collapse, quasi-static response gives

more details on the development of many structural systems, notably joint
displacement vs. applied stress. Before performing any dynamic investigation,
information into structural behavior can be gathered and studied using such results
(Liu et al., 2016).

14
2.2.1.1 Quasi-static tests

Nowadays, immense quasi-static experimental research has been conducted on the

ALP approach for beam-column structures (Alashker et al., 2011; Aoki et al., 2013;
Bao et al., 2008; Choi & Kim, 2011; Lim et al., 2015; Yi et al., 2008; J. Yu & K.-H.
Tan, 2013; J. Yu & K. H. Tan, 2013). Most studies employed concentrated loads (CL)
at the mid joint of a double-span beam to study structural responses to progressive
collapse scenarios in quasi-static conditions. In addition, the development and visible
mobilization of CAA and CA, both strongly reliant on neighboring axial constraint
circumstances, were examined. The following are the results of significant
experimental investigations looking into CA mobilization.

Alashker et al. (2011)evaluated concrete beam-frame assemblies. To simulate column

loss, two RC beam-column components were cast and tested with the central beam-
column connection vertically displaced.

Figure 2.2 The layout instrumentation and test setup (Alashker et al., 2011)

The IMF (conventional design for moderate seismic resistance) specimen was one,
while the SMF (particular moment frame) specimen was the other (highly seismic-
resistant design). As shown in Figure 2.2, the removal of the column was modeled by
applying a vertical force via four steel rods attached to the strong story to the middle
joint.

15
Figure 2.3 shows the results of the IMF sample. The sample maintained elastic
behavior as the middle joint moved downwards, and at the initial peak of 267 kN for
the vertical load, the specimen reached its maximum flexural capacity. Following that,
the crushing of concrete in the compressive zone resulted in a reduction in load
capacity. In Yi et al., this declining period was not noticed (2008). As CA was
mobilized, the vertical load increased again as the downward displacement increased,
reaching the second peak of 547 kN. The vertical load was lessened when the
longitudinal rebars in the bottom broke, signaling the test's end. Because of the
strengthening of longitudinal and stirrup reinforcement, test results for sample SMF
demonstrated the same effect, with an enormous vertical force value.

Figure 2.3 Results of test for IMF sample (Alashker et al., 2011)

In the Sadek et al. (2011) test collapse, the bottom longitudinally rebars in the beams
close to the mid joint fractured at a certain point. Sasani and Kropelnicki (2008), Choi
and Kim (2011), Yu and Tan (2013b), and Lim et al. (2015) revealed that the top rebars
may still take part in CA with a more tremendous vertical applied stress. Tests were
performed by Yu on RC sub-assemblages (J. Yu & K.-H. Tan, 2013; J. Yu & K. H.
Tan, 2013).

Nanyang Technological University conducted an investigation on resistance of

progressive collapse of beam-column sub-assemblages with the removal of the column
in the middle. From S1 to S8, eight specimens were used in the test series. The first
six examples were identical in geometry but had various reinforcement ratios and

16
configurations, whereas the latter two (S7 and S8) had varying beam spans. As
illustrated in Figure 2.4, the structure comprises a two-span beam with a center
junction and two column stubs. Two horizontal restraints were employed to indicate
end joint translational and rotational constraints for each column stub. Using a vertical
actuator, the loss of the supporting column was associated with gradually rising
displacement of the mid joint (J. Yu & K.-H. Tan, 2013; J. Yu & K. H. Tan, 2013).

Figure 2.4 Test setup (J. Yu & K.-H. Tan, 2013; J. Yu & K. H. Tan, 2013)

In this sequence, the test results indicated three stages of behavior: simply flexural
action at the start, CAA, and CA (Figure 2.5). A shift in horizontal reactions from
compression to tension indicated CA. First-fracture bottom rebar failure at 41 kN and
39 kN for S1 and S2, respectively, allowed further displacement and increased vertical
loads to be sustained by the specimens. The top rebars at the end joints split when the
applied load reached 69 kN for S1 and 66 kN for S2, resulting in complete collapse.
In Yi et al. (2008) and Sadek et al. (2012), this behavior was not seen because the
bottom rebars fractured at the middle joint before the testing was completed (2011).

Two-dimensional beam-column frames were tested by Lim (Lim et al., 2015). Lim et
al. (2015) conducted two frame tests to investigate the mobilization of CA in beam-
column substructures under various conditions of nearby restraints. The two
specimens, FR and PR, were similar in geometry and reinforcement arrangement,
except that the design parameters on the two sides of the samples were different.

17
 a) Load applied vertically

b) Reaction in the horizontal direction

Figure 2.5 Results of test for S1 and S2 (J. Yu & K.-H. Tan, 2013)

While the frame in the FR test (Figure 2.6(a) was constrained on both sides (internal
loss of column), the frame in the PR test (Figure 2.6(b) was entirely restrained on the
left side but partially restrained on the right side (representing next-to-outermost
elimination of column). The variations in structural behavior between the two samples
were shown by the test findings, which showed that CA was powerfully mobilized
under the full-restraint condition (FR) even after the bottom rebars at the mid joint
were fractured (Figure 2.7(a)). In the static PR test, once the bottom rebars in the beam
split, the partially-restrained side column began to move inward excessively, with no

18
CA development. As a result, CA did not result in a considerable increase in structural
load-carrying capacity (Figure 2.7(b)). PR specimen was stopped at an MJD of 396
mm before any top rebar fracture had occurred to preserve laboratory equipment from
being destroyed by the violent collapse of the column on the side.

a) Full-restraint setup (FR) b) Partial-restraint setup (PR)

Figure 2.6 Layout for testing of beam-column (Lim et al., 2015)

a) FR sample b) PR sample

Figure 2.7 Results of test of Quasi-static for 2D frames (Lim et al., 2015)

To summarize, mobilization and improvement of both CAA and CA, which are heavily
dependent on the lateral restraint conditions, were examined in earlier quasi-static
studies on RC beam-column systems under single elimination of column scenarios.
CA began to kick in when the mid-joint displacement (MJD) of a two-span beam had
reached roughly one beam depth. As the deflection increased, the rebars around the

19
middle joint on the bottom of the beam began to fracture, resulting in a significant
reduction in load capacity. In the experiments conducted by Yu and Tan (2013a, b)
and Lim et al. (2015), the displacement corresponding to this collapse was roughly 1/8
to 1/11 of the single clear span, whereas that ratio was 1/6 and 1/5 according to the
investigation of

To summarize, Yi et al. (2008) and Sadek et al. (2011) summarize that the span-depth
ratio, rebar arrangement, and final longitudinal reinforcing strain all impact the
fracture of bottom rebars. If the downward displacement continued to grow after the
fracture of the bottom rebars, the load capacity would increase (Sasani and Kropelnicki
2008, Yu and Tan 2013a, b, Lim et al. 2015), and the ultimate load resistance may be
larger than the peak strength given by CAA. Therefore, it CA stages before the fracture
of the bottom rebars (Sasani and Kropelnicki 2008, Yu and Tan 2013a, b, Lim et al.
2015). Nonetheless, due to time constraints, most quasi-static beam-column tests used
the CL condition. In real-world buildings, the beam-column substructure can be
exposed to either uniformly distributed loads (UDL) or column loss situations. The
key question is whether CA in RC frames can be fully mobilized in a UDL situation.
However, due to the complexity of the loading configuration, no quasi-static tests on
2D beam-column systems subjected to UDL conditions have been performed so far.
Static testing on 2D frames using the UDL approach will be proposed in this thesis to
see if the loading condition affects the mobilization of CAA or CA.

2.3 Beam-column structures dynamic analyses

Because progressive collapse is a dynamic process, several analytical investigations

using non-linear static reactions have been conducted to assess its dynamic impacts on
structures. In addition to the analytical work, some dynamic free-fall tests were
performed in the lab to simulate real-world missing column events (Agnew &
Marjanishvili, 2006).

2.3.1 Evaluation of dynamic systems using non-linear static responses

The DOD and the GSA publications suggest utilizing the static analysis to account for
dynamic effects. For example, GSA (2003) proposes a simplified approach that
includes dynamic impacts in static analysis by a factor of two on applied loads.
However, this amplification is only valid for linear elastic behavior, and it cannot
correctly describe the very non-linear behavior of gradual collapse. As a result, the
20
succession of collapse processes is incorrectly simulated. The DOD (2013) guideline,
on the other hand, uses the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) as a coefficient to account
for dynamic impacts in non-linear static analysis. For the static analysis, the increased
(2.4)
gravity load is specified as follows:

𝐺𝑁 = 𝑁 [1.2𝐷 + 0.5(𝐿 or 0.2𝑆)]

The terms D, L, and S signify the dead, live, and snow loads acting on the area of the
removed column, respectively, whereas N is the DIF value, including the structure's
dynamic behavior. 𝑁 is calculated using Eqs. (2.5) and (2.6), respectively, for steel
and concrete structures:

For frames of steel: Ω = 1.08 + 0.76/ + 0.83 (2.5)

,.

For frames of concrete: Ω = 1.04 + 0.45/

pra
+ 0.48 (2.6)
⋯

Where 𝜃𝑦 and 𝜃𝑝𝑟𝑎 are the yield and the plastic rotation angles of flexural members,
respectively.

As per equation (2.4), the DIF method from DOD (2013) only takes into account the
flexural mechanism of structures in scenarios when columns are eliminated. Therefore,
other upper-bound approaches, such as CAA or CA, may be underestimated by this
method.

Izzuddin et al. (2008) provided a simplified framework for evaluating the maximum
dynamic response based on non-linear static analysis to accommodate all complex
structural reactions. The method consists of three stages: (1) describing the structure's
non-linear static response under a column removal scenario, (2) evaluating the
dynamic behavior, and (3) evaluating the connections' ductility. The use of the energy
method in turning into the dynamic response to pseudo-static resistance, as well as
treating the elimination of the column as a sudden application of additional loading on
the structure, is a novel contribution of this approach. When the structure reaches its
maximum response, the velocity drops to zero, and the external load's work equals the
structure's strain energy. By multiplying the static behavior of a similar loading
magnitude by an amplification factor b, the maximal dynamic response may be
computed. The appropriate dynamic load-level P1 that produces the same maximum

21
displacement ud,1 as the static load for a given static response at each displacement-
point ud,1 (Figure 2.8(a)) can be determined as follows (Izzuddin et al., 2008):

1 ,
𝑃 = ∫ 𝑃𝑑𝑈 (2.4)
𝑢 ,

A pseudo-static response (Figure 2.8(b)) may be simply produced by applying the

following integral equation to every point on the static response curve. It is now
possible to determine the dynamic amplification factor concerning specified gravity
load levels. Izzuddin's technique encompasses the entire non-linear response of the
member, in contrast to the DIF method from DOD (2013), which only examines the
ductility capacity of sections. Figure 2.9 depicts the hardening and snap-through
occurrences that may be explored. A simple and computationally efficient technique
inspired by Izzuddin must be examined in quasi-static and free-fall dynamic
environments before it can be used in the CA stage.

a) Nonlinear static response b) Pseudo-static response

Figure 2.8 simplification of dynamic approach (Izzuddin et al., 2008)

22
 a) Elastic-plastic with hardening b) Elastic-plastic with snap-through

Figure 2.9 DIF and Characteristic response value for various systems
(Izzuddin and Nethercot 2010)

2.3.1.1 Free-fall dynamic tests

Considering the challenges of mimicking real-world dynamic behavior in a laboratory

setting, some experimental work on free-fall dynamic evaluations of beam-column
structures has been done. The column-missing situation was replicated in these
experiments by removing the support suddenly while the testing sample was loaded
with self-weight and additional loads that represented applied actions. As a result, the
double-span specimen began freely falling under gravitational forces almost
immediately after being released. To have direct comparisons of dynamic effects, the
dynamic testing usually followed some quasi-static experiments completed earlier in
terms of structural design and boundary conditions (Yu et al., 2014).

Qian has studied removing a column in the corner. A series of dynamic experiments
were undertaken to verify the reaction under free-fall conditions based on quasi-static
results of RC substructures under the missing scenario of a corner column (Qian and
Li 2012c) (Qian and Li 2012b). Prior to testing, the specimen was briefly supported
by a rotatable column and loaded with steel plates to imitate the slab system's
additional self-weight as well as changing actions. A hammer was then used to strike
the specially-designed supporting column, allowing the test samples to deflect freely
under gravity. The change of failure mode in some situations was an intriguing
discovery from these dynamic tests compared to the related static tests. In quasi-static
23
testing, the final failure stage of specimens F5 and F6 featured the opening of vertical
cracks in the beam near the end-joints, as well as the fracture of longitudinal rebars, as
shown in Figures2.10(a) and 2.11(a) (flexural failure). The dominating failure in the
equivalent dynamic tests, DF5 and DF6, was due to severe diagonal beam cracks near
the end-joint, and the longitudinal steel had not yet broken, as indicated in Figures
2.10(b) and 2.11(b) (shear failure). The variations in loading arrangement between the
two test series caused this shift in failure mode. The dynamic tests used multiple-point
loading arrangement along the longitudinal and transverse beams, whereas the static
testing used CL configuration at the corner joint. As a result, the two test series'
findings could not be directly compared.

a) Quasi-static (F5) b) Dynamic (DF5)

Figure 2.10 F5 and DF5 test results (Qian and Li 2012c, b)

a) Quasi-static (F6) b) Dynamic (DF6)

Figure 2.11 Test results of F6 and DF6 (Qian and Li 2012c, b)

24
Su et al. (2009) and Tian and Su (2011), Sagiroglu (2012) (the dynamic and static test),
Stinger and Orton (2013), and Orton and Kirby (2014) all did identical "static and
dynamic" test series (2013). Due to their similar design and boundary conditions, the
specimens in both testing settings were subjected to distinct loads (Figure 2.12).
Different weights were placed at various points along the double-span bridge for
dynamic testing, whereas the static tests used CL configuration above the deleted
column. Other structural behaviors, load-carrying capacities, and failure modes could
result from such a variance in loading configurations. As a result, these tests cannot be
utilized to confirm the correctness of Izzuddin et al.'s dynamic evaluation framework
(2008).

a) CL static test b) UDL dynamic test

Figure 2.12 Static and dynamic tests in different loading configurations

(Sagiroglu, 2012)

A dynamic test of steel connections under removal of the middle column has been
studied by Liu (Liu et al., 2015). Compared to Tan and Yang's quasi-static testing, an
experimental program (Liu et al., 2015) was conducted to investigate the dynamic
response of steel connections (2012). Figure 2.13 depicts the test setup's arrangement.
Only half of each span beam was built, and a pin connection was used to connect it to
the horizontal reactions. In addition, a quick-release device suspended the middle
beam-column joint from a reaction frame. This unique hanging arrangement could
allow for a quick release of the middle joint, simulating free-fall.

According to the test results (Figure 2.14), the mechanism's release time was around
30 ms for all tests. In other words, it was less than one-fourth of the natural duration,
which meets the criteria for a significant dynamic response to a structural system (Liu

25
et al., 2015). The DIF value indicated by the Department of Defense overestimated
dynamic behavior within the range of CAA but underestimated realistic reaction when
the specimen moved through the CA stage, according to the findings. That is to say,
employing the DIF technique for constructing structures as advocated in the DOD
guideline may result in inaccurate CA capacity projections. As a result, more dynamic
tests in the context of RC beam-column constructions will be required to confirm this
discovery.

Figure 2.13 Layout of test setup for the scenario of sudden column elimination (Liu
et al., 2015)

Figure 2.14 Release time from the mechanism (Liu et al. 2015)

26
Based on a review of existing analytical and experimental work on the dynamic
responses of RC structures in progressive collapse, quasi-static free-fall dynamic
investigations employing the same loading configuration and boundary restriction
circumstances are needed. Furthermore, non-linear static response behavior, as well as
the efficacy of simplified dynamic evaluation methodologies, will be investigated
using this testing program (Liu et al., 2015).

2.3.2 Beam-column structures in blast-induced dynamic behavior

Although several experimental and analytical investigations on the dynamic behavior

of RC structures under a single loss of column scenario have been conducted, the
disadvantage of this assumption is that it overlooks early structural element damages.
Explosions caused by a gas explosion or a bomb strike were the most common cause
of specific events that led to progressive collapse. Therefore, research on gradual
destruction is necessary, taking into consideration the actual damage produced by the
first explosion. Nonetheless, the expense and safety requirements constrain the
conduct of such explosives tests. If the explosive weight is insufficient, the structure
is hardly harmed, and the designated column is not even fully eliminated; in contrast,
if the explosive weight is too great, the structure will most likely be blown into pieces
and fragments. There are currently only a few detonation tests available. The goal was
to provide enough charge weight to the structure to cause it to deform significantly.
An explosive experiment on an existing building, as well as a series of detonation tests
on RC specimens, are discussed in this section (Pham et al., 2017).

Sasani et al. (2007) exhibited Sasani's blast test on an existing building exposed to the
loss of one edge column. The behavior of a 10-story RC structure was analyzed once
one edge column on the ground floor exploded, producing gradual collapse (Figure
2.15). All non-structural elements and partition walls were removed prior to the test,
and the structure alone supported its weight. After the ground column was removed,
data from the beam system above the eliminated column revealed that flexural
behavior (Vierendeel action in frames) was the key mechanism for load redistribution
(ALP). The vertical displacement was only 6.4 mm (Figure 2.16(a)). There was no
evidence of CA in the structure's response, which was elastic. The test results also
showed that it took less than 12ms for the axial force of the above column on the
second level to drop to a comparatively modest amount (Figure 2.16(b)). This period

27
was explained as the time it took for the detonation to remove the ground column
altogether. Similar explosion tests on existing buildings were also undertaken based
on this experiment, according to Sasani and Sagiroglu (2010) and Sasani et al. (2011).
However, the impacts of the initial blast on adjacent structural elements were not
assessed in such studies.

Figure 2.15 Location of eliminated column B5 (Sasani et al., 2007)

a) Displacement time-history of joint B5 on floor two

b) Axial strain variation in column B5 at floor five

Figure 2.16 Test results (Sasani et al., 2007)

28
Yu et al. (2014) conducted blast tests on sub-assemblages under contact detonation. A
series of progressive collapse tests triggered by contact detonation was done at
Fraunhofer EMI in Germany to study the impact of ultra-fast dynamics relative to
quasi-static loading regimes (Yu et al., 2014). Yu & Tan's specimen S2 has a similar
design and boundary conditions (2013a). Three test samples, ranging from SD-1 to
SD-3, were included in the test series. A C-4 explosive was put in the middle column
of the specimen and detonated to approximate column removal. However, the blast
pressure blasted away the end part of the column just after it detonated, causing it to
collapse. Figures 2.17 and 2.18 depict the test sample design and general layout of the
contact detonation tests.

Figure 2.17 Specimen design (Yu et al., 2014)

Legend: Legend:

(1) Temporary brick support; (1) Horizontal connections;

(2) Frame system for additional loads; (2) Restraint Block;

(3) Ground; (3) Contact detonation

(4) Specimen

Figure 2.18 Test setup (Yu et al., 2014)

The enormous blocks on the specimen's two sides were not adequately secured to the
earth in specimen SD-1. These restraints were moved as a result of the blast pressure

29
from the detonation. Bolts were used to secure the blocks to the ground for the
subsequent tests. The middle joint in specimen SD-2 underwent an elevation within
the first 100 ms after the middle support was eliminated by blast pressure before
dropping freely under gravity load and eventually sustaining a residual deflection of
50.2 mm. SD-2 displayed flexural deformation with CAA at a load of 27 kN, as
evidenced by the mobilization of horizontal forces at the two end supports. SD-3
responded beyond the maximum CAA capability compared to SD-2, which had a more
enormous applied load of 47 kN. The specimen's displacement of the middle joint
continued to increase until it impacted the ground at 471.7 mm. Once the middle joint
was deflected by more than one beam depth, the horizontal reaction of SD-3 turned to
tension, suggesting the start of CA before the specimen touched the ground. After the
test was completed, no top rebar fracture occurred. As a result, it was unclear whether
SD-3 had indeed failed or whether the applied load of 47 kN could have been sustained
if there had been sufficient headroom for deflection. The dynamic growth effect was
more prominent than predicted by the simplified framework presented by Izzuddin et
al. (2008), which is an important finding from the study. It reveals that blast pressure
causes a large initial reduction in the strength of the sub-assemblages. However, in this
study, the stiffness of horizontal restraints, which substantially impacts the structural
behavior of sub-assemblage systems (Yu and Tan 2013a), was not measured.
Furthermore, unlike Sasani et al. (2007)'s structural test, the blast impacts in this
investigation were not quantified.

2.4 Alternate Path Method Analysis Procedures

In the framework of the alternate path technique, UFC (2009b) and GSA (2003a) has
outlined and supported the use of various analytical procedures. GSA (2003b) defined
three analysis procedures: linear elastic static, linear elastic dynamic, and non-linear
dynamic analysis methods. UFC (2009a) has established four types of analysis: linear
static, non-linear static, linear dynamic, and non-linear dynamic. The following
subsections provide a quick overview of the available analysis methodologies for
evaluating progressive collapse resistance using the alternate path method.

2.4.1 Linear Static Analysis

Due to its lack of material and geometric nonlinearity as well as dynamic

responsiveness, it is the most fundamental approach to analysis. The model's failing

30
member is lost, and gravity loads are imposed statically to their places based on their
tributary regions. For progressive collapse analysis, GSA (2003b) proposed the load
combination of 2(D.L.+0.25 LL). The dynamic magnification factor is denoted by the
number '2.'

All structural components must be tested for shear, axial, flexural, and torsion strength
and compared to their hereditary strength utilizing the demand to capacity ratio (DCR),
which refers to the percentage of desired capacity to strength capacity, as specified by
the recommendations to assess the susceptibility to progressive collapse or design new
structures. The acceptable DCR value for analyzing and planning buildings was
introduced in the GSA (2003b) recommendations as follows:

DCR <= 2 for typical buildings.

DCR <= 1.5 for atypical buildings.

GSA (2003b) determined 'typical' buildings as having a fundamental and regular

layout and design, whereas 'atypical' buildings have an unusual plan or configuration.

2.4.2 Non-linear Static Analysis

The material nonlinearity of the structure is taken into consideration using the push-
down or non-linear static technique. This approach applies the gravity load or vertical
displacement until the structure achieves the maximum displacement associated with
its ultimate strength or the model collapses. The equivalent load combination and
amplification factor were used in the linear static analysis. This approach is considered
higher in accuracy than linear static in terms of material modeling and load
redistribution since it considers the flexural ductility of the structure (Zolghadr
Jahromi et al., 2012).

2.4.3 Linear Dynamic Analysis

This approach dynamically transfers gravity loads to the structure to account for the

abrupt failure of a structural part. An elastic model for the material is used in the

analysis, with the value of the demand to capacity ratio (DCR) factored in. When

dealing with gravity loads, the same load combination should be employed without the

31
magnification factor. The dynamic reaction, one of the key components of progressive

collapse, is one area where this approach is more precise than linear and non-linear

static analysis techniques (Kokot et al., 2012).

2.4.4 Non-linear Dynamic Analysis

Because it incorporates both material nonlinearity and dynamic impacts, this method
is taken into account as the most accurate in terms of material modeling, force
redistribution, and the analysis of dynamic effects. GSA (2003b), UFC (2005b), and
UFC (2009a) defined capacity increase values for various structural elements that were
used to determine the vulnerability of this study approach (Kwasniewski, 2010).

2.5 Literature Involved Analysis Methods

Several investigations evaluated the pros and disadvantages of each analytic approach
based on the GSA (2003b) and UFC (2005b) descriptions. For example, Marjanishvili
(2004) analyzed each analysis approach's benefits, drawbacks, limitations, and
efficiency. It was demonstrated that the analysis approaches ranged from simple and
conservative linear analysis to the most challenging but precise and realistic nonlinear
dynamic analysis. Additionally, it was established that the most effective investigation
is complete and integrates the benefits of all analytical approaches. Further, it was
proposed that a systematic application of analysis methods ranging from the simplest
elastic static analysis to the most complex nonlinear dynamic analysis would provide
a full examination of progressive collapse.

Moreover, Marjanishvili and Agnew (2006) conducted numerical comparisons of the

various methods of analysis. A nine-story steel moment frame skyscraper with six bays
on each side and three bays on each side was employed in the comparative study. As
GSA (2003b) recommended, the alternative route technique was employed to perform
all linear and nonlinear static and dynamic investigations. In contrast to the earlier
research conducted by Marjanishvili (2004), the numerical investigation's results
revealed that nonlinear dynamic analysis is simple to perform and provides the most
accurate solution. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the analysis of linear static
produced a solution that was not conservative when the collapse conditions provided
by GSA were followed (GSA, 2003b).

32
Ruth et al. (2006) assessed the dynamic amplification factor used in the similar
progressive collapse static analysis approach by GSA (2003b) and UFC (2005b).
Eleven steel building frame models were investigated to understand the effect of key
variables on the value of the dynamic amplification factor. There were two-
dimensional and three-dimensional building models with different dimensions of the
bay, foundation limitations, number of bays, number of floors, size of members, and
storey heights. The SAP2000 computer application was used to carry out the
evaluation study. The findings of the investigation revealed that no parameter
evaluated in the study had a significant effect on the dynamic amplification factor.

Furthermore, the data revealed that the amplification factor of 2 suggested by both
GSA (2003b) and DOD (2005) and UFC (2005b) was moderate, with the maximum
value amplification factor being 1.41. Thus, Ruth et al. (2006) recommended using an
amplification factor of 1.5 rather than 2 in their article. Therefore, Ruth et al. (2006)
advocated using an amplification factor of 1.5 rather than 2 in their paper.

Based on their findings, Kim and Kim (2009) conclude that nonlinear dynamic
analysis yields less vertical displacements at the failing column's top than linear static
analysis. The results, on the other hand, suggest that the analysis of linear static is more
cautious in predicting the risk of progressive collapse. Furthermore, the authors
demonstrated that, despite its theoretical simplicity, linear static analysis requires
several manual steps, whereas using advanced analysis of nonlinear dynamics has
become easier because of advances in computers and the capabilities of commercial
finite element software. They also came to the conclusion that using analysis of
nonlinear dynamics to estimate the possibility for progressive collapse of buildings is
more exact and feasible than using other analysis approaches. The results of this
investigation are, without a doubt, consistent with those obtained by using the analysis
of the nonlinear dynamic approach (Marjanishvili & Agnew, 2006).

Tsai and Lin (2008) found that different analysis methodologies resulted in varying
progressive collapse resistance. It was discovered that using an amplification factor of
two in nonlinear static analysis led to highly conservative results. Ruth et al. proposed
an amplification factor of 1.5, which was confirmed by the results (Ruth et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2003) and Kim and Kim (2009) found
that static analysis led to retrogressive results.

33
Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2003) investigated the response of a planer frame to the
loss of a first story column prior to the (GSA, 2003b; UFC, 2005b) criteria. Nonlinear
studies were applied for dynamic and static, and the results were cross-checked. In that
study, two building models were analyzed in two dimensions. The first design had a
two-story building with two steel framing bays, while the second featured a three-story
building with three steel framing bays. Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2003) proved
that static analysis resulted in an imprecise solution and stressed the need to use
dynamic analysis in progressive collapse research. The dynamic increase factor
obtained by Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2003) for the vertical displacement was
more significant than 3.7, greatly above the dynamic increase factor prescribed by the
GSA (2003b) and UFC (2009a) recommendations.

Kim and Kim (2009) investigated the dynamic effect inside progressive collapse
conditions by conducting a 2-dimensional analysis on two steel building models. In a
study similar to Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2003), it was shown that the GSA
(2003) and UFC (2009) guidelines' recommendation to use an amplification factor of
two in comparable static analysis leads to an underestimation of member deformations
as well as an error in the distribution pattern of plastic hinges. In research conducted
on progressive collapse, Kim and Kim (2009) advised using the most accurate
nonlinear dynamic analytic approach.

In the progressive collapse research of reinforced concrete buildings, Meng‐Hao Tsai

and Bing‐Hui (2009) examined the implementation of the dynamic amplification
factor of two, as instructed by GSA (2003b). They used three-dimensional finite
element modeling to undertake linear static, nonlinear static, and nonlinear dynamic
assessments on an eleven-story reinforced concrete skyscraper. The analysis took into
account a variety of ground floor column failure scenarios. The results of the
investigation revealed that when the building reactions are in the elastic range, the
amplification factor is in line with the (GSA, 2003b) prescribed value (two). However,
the results of the investigation revealed that when the building behaviors are in the
inelastic region, the amplification factor drops below the specified amount (two).
However, the results of the investigation revealed that when the building reactions are
in the inelastic region, the amplification factor falls below the specified amount (two)
(Meng‐Hao Tsai & Bing‐Hui, 2009).

34
2.6 Robustness Design Provisions

Most conventional structures constructed to handle anticipated loads are susceptible to

progressive collapse due to localized failure caused by unexpected loading
occurrences. However, the vulnerability to progressive collapse varies per the
configuration and type of the building structure, the intended use of the building, and
the design for earthquake action. The failed structures were vulnerable due to a lack of
continuity, redundancy, ductility, and strength to establish an alternate load path
(Corley, 2004). Numerous design standards and guidelines outlined general principles
for preventing progressive collapse by adding specific ductility, continuity, strength,
and redundancy. This section provides a quick overview of the many methods for
preventing increasing collapse.

2.6.1 Strength Development

Structural members can be strengthened to lessen the risk of progressive collapse.

Crucial components (columns in structures) are reinforced or engineered to sustain
severe loads as part of this technique to resist local damage that causes progressive
collapse (ASCE-07, 2005).

On the other side, increasing the strength or producing beams with larger capacities
would improve their bridging capabilities over a possibly failing column. In addition,
columns must be strengthened in order to carry increased weights transmitted from
nearby columns. In the design of new structures and retrofitting existing buildings,
strengthening measures are utilized to increase shear, flexural, and axial strength, as
well as joint robustness (ASCE-07, 2005).

2.6.2 Improving Continuity

Some design codes and standards, including ACI-318 ( 2005), ASCE-05 (2005), and
GSA (2003a), emphasize the continuity of beams at the joints above the columns to
enhance progressive collapse resistance. The double span generated over the failing
column, in which progressive collapse is avoided by either frame action or catenary
action, requires beam continuation (refer to Figure 2.19). In reinforced concrete beams,
the continuity provisions need to extend the bottom reinforcement to the beam column
joints and suitable connectivity at the beam column connection in steel structures. On

35
the other hand, an opposing viewpoint stated that beam continuation could result in
horizontal collapse propagation to adjoining bays (Nair, 2006; Starossek, 2007, 2009).

To ensure the integrity of buildings, the ACI-318 ( 2005) incorporated standards to

provide sufficient continuity, ductility, and redundancy to accept and absorb produced
loads caused by damage or loss of internal support.

Frame

action

Catenary

action

Figure 2.19 Alternative load pathways to the failing column are possible
(AISC, 2005b)

To guarantee ductility, the ACI-318 ( 2005) code specifies that reinforcement of the
bottom in beams and slabs must be extended to the support zones; instead of splice
connections, moment-resistant frame structures are required, and a higher shear
capacity than flexural capacity must be met to ensure ductility. The Australian standard
AS ( 2009) is consistent with ACI-318 ( 2005) in demanding continuous reinforcement
in the beams, even though it does not address the requirement for interior support
collapse absorption.

36
UFC (2009b) presented broad structural integrity criteria in terms of tie forces, which
included supplying internal and peripheral ties in both directions of horizontal and
vertical. The ties distributions in frame structure as described by UFC (2009b) criteria
are shown in Figure 2.20. Vertical ties connecting lower levels to higher levels and
side-to-side ties were all suggested in these regulations.

To achieve continuous vertical ties on reinforced concrete columns, the appropriate

anchorage is needed. In addition, these ties will aid in connecting structural members
for proper integrity and activating catenary motion in horizontal members.

Figure 2.20 distributing the ties throughout the frame structure (UFC, 2009)

2.6.3 Ductility Improvement

There is a common belief that supplying adequate ductility to a structure will improve
its resistance to progressive collapse. Although progressive collapse and seismic
events have different failure mechanisms, several studies and practicing engineers
have linked progressive collapse endurance to more ductile seismic features. Although
it was suggested that ductility might be added to the structure to withstand large
dynamic deflections with much less damage, it was claimed that this was unnecessary.
The enhancement in structural endurance to progressive collapse resulted primarily
from two resistance mechanisms aided by increased ductility. The first is that structural
members' local ductility allows for additional energy dissipation even when the
excessive load causes individual member failure. The second is that the inherent
ductility of adjacent members to the failed member will aid in the redistribution of load
and the development of an alternate load channel (Khandelwal et al., 2008).

37
2.6.4 Improving Redundancy

By combining an alternate load path with the building structure's traditional primary
load path, the structure's redundancy can be improved. As a result, if any structural
member breaks, the alternate load path is responsible for transmitting the residual loads
that the failed member carried through the primary load path. Any preceding
provisions, or a combination of them, can result in increased redundancy. Beams with
bottom reinforcement attached to their supports provide an alternative load path, as
shown in Figure 2.21, which may be reversed near the removed column. Catenary
action in bridge beams over the collapsed column shows that adequate ductility allows
for significant deflections, which help activate a different load path (Abdelwahed,
2019).

Figure 2.21 Reversing the load above the collapsed column (El-Hacha & Bullock,
2006)

Instead of adopting a one-way slab system, alternative structural systems such as a

two-way slab system and bracings in the building frame panels may provide alternate
path load and redundancy to the structure independently (ASCE-07, 2005; NIST,
2007).

2.7 Investigation of Progressive Collapse

Progressive collapse studies fall into two broad categories: a study on model
methodology and analyses examining how structures behave to progressive collapse
and mitigation strategies. In addition, several studies have also highlighted the impact
of general robustness provisions in mitigating progressive collapse, as well as various

38
retrofitting methods and resistance mechanisms (Alshaikh et al., 2020). The following
subsections summarize pertinent studies on the progressive collapse of buildings, with
an emphasis on the performance of buildings concerning mitigating techniques.

2.7.1 Potential of Progressive Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Buildings

In reinforced concrete components, especially flexural members, compression loads

are primarily supported by the concrete, whereas all tensile stresses are supported by
steel reinforcement. Apart from the concrete's minimal stress capacity, Reinforced
concrete structures' dynamic response, including the possibility of moment reversal,
may be significantly impacted by its brittle behavior. The dynamic moment reversal
phenomenon of progressive collapse requires significant investigation and
specification to reduce the danger of progressive collapse of reinforced concrete
buildings (Elsanadedy et al., 2021). Numerous examinations of the progressive
collapse of buildings, including reinforced concrete structures, have been carried out.
In addition to examining the mechanics of progressive collapse, these studies also look
at present design details and recommend acceptable changes to reduce the danger of
progressive collapse. In addition to numerical and experimental assessments, there
were studies on how reinforced concrete structures degrade. The mentioned paragraph
summarizes some of the selected previous research.

Sucuoğlu et al. (1994) looked into how a five-story reinforced concrete building would
react if one, two, and a set of ground story columns were all lost at the same time. The
effects of brick infill walls on the progressive collapse reaction were also examined in
this research. Static analysis in three dimensions was employed in the study. According
to the findings, most of the load beared by the removed column was shifted to nearby
columns in the orthogonal planes to which the failed column belonged. As a result, it
was discovered that a building with no infill walls was vulnerable to progressive
collapse. However, it was figured out that the probability of a progressive collapse
declined when brick-infill walls were taken into account in the research. The effect of
slab stretching, on the other hand, was shown to be insignificant due to the collapsed
members having suffered minor deformations.

The progressive collapse resistance of seismically constructed reinforced concrete

buildings has been explored in a variety of studies (Baldridge & Humay, 2003; Bilow
& Kamara, 2004; Ioani et al., 2007). The investigations used a three-dimensional

39
elastic finite element model and a linear static analysis based on the alternate load path
method indicated in the GSA (2003) standards. In addition, the studies took into
account various degrees of seismic design for reinforced concrete buildings and
various failure scenarios. It was proved in these investigations that seismically
constructed buildings are capable of resisting progressive collapse. Buildings designed
for intense seismic action, on the other hand, demonstrate better than those intended
for low to moderate seismic action.

Baldridge and Humay (2003), Bilow and Kamara (2004), and Ioani et al. (2007)studied
progressive collapse resistance in the framework of demand of capacity ratio (DCR)
using the simple elastic static analysis approach. When comparing the intended
strength to the members' inherited capacity in the inelastic ductile response modes,
load redistribution is not taken into consideration.

Tsai and Lin (2008) looked at the inelastic response of seismically built reinforced
concrete buildings when subjected to various ground floor column failure scenarios.
The experiments included linear static, nonlinear static, and nonlinear dynamic
analytic techniques in addition to the alternative route approach given by GSA (2003).
The research considered an existing 11-story reinforced concrete building in Taiwan
that was seismically engineered per seismic code criteria. The building slabs were
constructed in a one-way and two-way configuration. The analysis included a three-
dimensional simulation using the SAP 2000 application. Models for the beams and
columns were made of 3-D frame elements with plastic hinges at each end to account
for the beam's nonlinearity. In addition, the columns were made out of elastic frame
elements. During the analysis, the applied loads, including the slab's weight, were
dispersed on the beams per their tributary areas. Even though the bridge beams
spanning the failed column reacted inelastically, which was captured by the plastic
hinges formation at the ends, the seismically designed structure effectively absorbed
the collapse of the ground floor column, according to the study. On the other hand,
the results of the investigation indicated that the columns responded within the elastic
range.

In Tsai and Lin (2008) research, an inelastic analysis of the building model was used
to account for ductility and load redistribution. As a result, Tsai and Lin (2008)
demonstrated the benefits of seismic design by increasing redundancy, continuity, and

40
ductility in preventing the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings. On
the other hand, the independent influence of members' strength, continuity, ductility,
and redundancy was not shown.

ACI-318 ( 2005) and UFC (2005b) tested the progressive collapse protection of
reinforced concrete structures that satisfied the integrity standards and tie force criteria,
respectively (Abruzzo et al., 2006). Strengthening the integrity of reinforced concrete
structures has been recommended using the (UFC, 2005b) tie force standard and the
ACI-318 ( 2005) integrity criteria for bridging over failed columns. Following the
International Structure Code of 2000, a typical five-story commercial reinforced
concrete structure was only intended to withstand gravity loads during the tests.
Therefore, the structure was also designed to meet the ACI-318 ( 2005) code integrity
criteria and the Unified Facility Criteria tie force requirements (UFC, 2005b).

Three-dimensional building simulations were used to perform linear and nonlinear

static analyses. In the nonlinear analysis, material nonlinearity was described using a
plastic hinge model at the ends of members; despite adhering to ACI-318 ( 2005) and
UFC's (2005 tie force criteria, the structure was susceptible to progressive collapse.
The beams suffered massive plastic rotations that exceeded the section capacities,
resulting in gradual destruction, according to the nonlinear static analysis.
Furthermore, it was discovered that the ability to bridge over the failed column using
catenary action was much less than the required capacity to prevent the building from
collapsing. According to a study conducted by (Abruzzo et al., 2006), the ACI-318
(2005) continuity provisions and the (UFC, 2005b) tie force criteria failed to prevent
the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings caused by the failure of a
single interior column.

The code reinforcement continuity criteria of ACI-318 ( 2005)were discussed by

Sasani and Sagiroglu (2008a). To increase the structural integrity of the beams, various
flexural reinforcements along the beams have been recommended to absorb the
possible failure of intermediate supports (ACI-318, 2005). However, these extended
flexural reinforcements were susceptible to early fracture even before the catenary
action was triggered to prevent progressive collapse. According to the ACI-318 ( 2005)
continuity standards, the Sasani and Sagiroglu (2008a) investigation shows
unjustifiable catenary action following flexural failure and inappropriate structural

41
robustness. When members are subjected to catenary action beyond the point at which
the members' flexural failure occurs, severe damage is inflicted on the members as a
consequence (Izzuddin et al., 2008 Sasani and Kropelnicki, 2008).

It explored how the potential inelastic behavior of beam-column joints affected the
endurance of reinforced concrete structures to progressive collapse (Bao et al., 2008).
A simple finite element model of reinforced concrete joints was employed in the trials.
At the beam-column joint region, the validity of the simplified joint model was tested
using a comprehensive finite element model. In the simulation, only 2-dimensional
plane frame models were used. The evaluations looked at ten-story reinforced concrete
buildings with two-way slab systems on the floors built for low, moderate, and high
seismic risk. The results of the investigation revealed that buildings constructed for
high seismic risk were less prone to progressive collapse than buildings planned for
low to moderate seismic hazard. The findings of the comparison with the elastic joint
model revealed that joint modeling has a significant impact on progressive collapse
behavior. However, according to the findings (Bao et al. 2008), the joint response
substantially affects the progressive collapse consequences only at large deformations
that exceed the approved capacity values.

An actual ten-story reinforced concrete frame construction was tested for progressive
collapse performance (Sasani et al., 2007). The method of load redistribution following
the removal of a first-floor outside column was explored. There were no live loads
present throughout the inquiry, and the building's partitions were removed. By
applying a three-dimensional numerical simulation, a nonlinear dynamic analysis was
carried out. The nonlinearity of beams was represented by the use of a plastic hinge
model at the ends of beams. It was determined through experimental and numerical
data that the building had absorbed the column failure and had not collapsed. After
much research, it was discovered that the bidirectional vierendeel (frame) action was
the primary mechanism responsible for transferring loads and keeping the structure
from collapsing. The findings of the investigation revealed that the numerical analysis
and the experimental analysis were in excellent agreement.

Further experimental studies were carried out by Sasani and Sagiroglu (2008b), who
assessed the progressive collapse of a real-life six-story reinforced concrete frame
structure. Similar to the previous investigation, (Sasani & Kropelnicki, 2008)

42
discovered that the bidirectional vierendeel (frame) action was the most important
mechanism for spreading the loads. In addition, Sasani et al. (2007) and Sasani and
Sagiroglu (2008b) determined that the more consistent flexural reinforcements provide
more resistance to the progressive collapse of the structure.

The performance of a reinforced concrete model frame in terms of the progressive

collapse was tested experimentally (Yi et al., 2008). An eight-story reinforced concrete
building created by Chinese construction codes was used as a model for the frame,
which was built at a one-third scale of the lower three stories. In the investigations,
just the plane frame of the building model with three storeys and four bays was taken
into consideration. On the other hand, a detailed analytical investigation was carried
out based on the plastic mechanism of the model frame. The findings of the
experiments revealed that the planar frame went through three separate stages: elastic,
plastic, and catenary.

Furthermore, it was demonstrated that when the catenary action was taken into
account, the ultimate resistance derived from the plastic limit analysis was only 70%
of the achieved testing capacity. The plastic limit design yields safe and conservative
outcomes, according to the researchers (Yi et al., 2008). Also, beyond the flexural load
path, the catenary action was found to be an alternate resistance path.

The feasibility of seismic reinforcing methods for reinforced concrete buildings to

reduce the danger of blast and progressive collapse was explored (Hayes Jr et al.,
2005). There were several distinct seismic strengthening schemes described and
investigated in the research. The Murrah Federal Building, which was extensively
damaged in a bomb attack in 1995, was taken into consideration for the investigations.
The initial design and construction of the skyscraper occurred in an earthquake-free
area. To develop the strengthening schemes, the structure was first assessed for seismic
risk as though it were situated in a seismically active location with high seismic
activity. Then, by incorporating new structural systems that were built explicitly for
seismic weaknesses and applying them to the original design of the structure, three
different strengthening schemes were executed. The pier-spandrel system, a specific
reinforced concrete moment frame, and a series of shear walls were among the various
strengthening techniques implemented. In addition to the pier-spandrel system, a
particular frame of the moment was installed on the street face of the structure, while

43
shear walls were installed on the interior of the building. In addition to these seismic
reinforcing measures, the original structure was modified to conform to the seismic
requirements of ACI 318-02 (2002). While conducting a comprehensive investigation
of the 1995 explosion and progressive collapse, the three strengthening techniques and
revised frames were evaluated under the same explosive load as the previous year. The
findings of the research revealed that the blast and accompanying progressive collapse
analyses in the cases of the pier-spandrel and special moment frame schemes, as well
as in the seismically engineered structure, were significantly decreased. The findings
of the investigation, on the other hand, revealed that the interior shear walls were
ineffectual in decreasing the explosion and gradual collapse damages. Therefore, it is
evident that the implementation of seismic strengthening methods, such as those
proposed by Hayes Jr et al. (2005), will help to prevent the progressive collapse of
buildings.

In summary, investigations on the gradual collapse performance of reinforced concrete

structures are reviewed. The traditionally constructed buildings, including steel
buildings, are prone to gradual collapse in the event of column failure. Additionally,
various studies were conducted on seismically built structures to study the effect of the
inherited ductility, continuity, and redundancy of those seismically designed buildings.
On the seismically designed buildings' gradual collapse resistance, It was discovered
that similar to steel buildings, increasing the load-carrying capability of the building
members significantly prevents progressive collapse. On the other hand, various
research has focused on the (ACI-318, 2005; UFC, 2009b) integrity provisions for
preventing the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings. It has been
demonstrated that adopting such precautions to avoid increasing collapse is
unjustified.

2.8 Approaches To Mitigate Progressive Collapse

Numerous methods for preventing progressive collapse have been proposed, including
implementing one or more of the following strategies: minimum strength, continuity,
ductility, or redundancy.

Crawford (2002) suggested various retrofitting approaches for steel, reinforced

concrete, and masonry structures to mitigate progressive collapse. For example,
retrofitting methods of steel buildings include: (1) incorporating extra steel sections

44
into members, (2) cables are used to connect members, (3) increasing redundancy
through the use of diagonal bracing, and (4) utilizing giant trusses at various levels
intervals to support damaged areas and give alternate load paths, and (5) Using side
plates to reinforce the joints between beam-columns. Reinforced concrete building
retrofitting schemes, on the other hand, include (1) Jacketing/wrapping columns to
ensure the behavior of ductility; and (2) connecting the members with cables to add
extra integrity (Crawford, 2002). In addition, Crawford (2002) highlighted many
methods based on an indirect design that had not been explored to prove their validity
and applicability.

Houghton and Karns (2001), to strengthen the joint integrity by providing sufficient
continuity over the probably failed columns, it was proposed that the double-sided
plate connection depicted in Figure 2.22 be used. This would lessen the likelihood that
the joint would fail progressive collapse. Therefore, in addition to the regular girder-
to-column connection, the performance of the double-sided plate connection was
investigated, and the results were analyzed and compared (Houghton & Karns, 2001).
In the experiments, a thorough finite element model of the double-span bridging beams
subassemblies was used, which took into account both material and geometric
nonlinearity. Therefore, the building is subjected to progressive collapse as a result of
a failure of one of the columns. As a result, stresses in the immediate region of the
double-sided plate connection are much lower than the ultimate strength at which the
progressive collapse was effectively prevented.

Figure 2.22 Plate with two sides (Houghton and Karns, 2001)

From Houghton and Karns (2001), it was demonstrated that maintaining the continuity
of the steel beams could reduce the probability of a progressive collapse. In this
context, Houghton and Karns (2001) have recommended using double-sided plates to

45
reduce the risk of the progressive collapse of steel buildings. It was evident that
Hamburger and Whittaker (2004) suggestion is in line with (Houghton & Karns,
2001); a guideline for using restricted beam-column connection details is provided.

Furthermore, Liu (2010) two retrofitting solutions were presented to improve the
continuity of steel bridge beams over a potentially failing column. The shear fin plate
is converted to a moment frame connection in the proposed methods (Liu, 2010). As
seen in Figure 2.23, the first plan included welding a lapped cover plate over the beam
flange, welding the beam flange and web to the column flange, and bracing the column
at the connection joint. Figure 2.23 shows that (b) high-strength bars are introduced
through the column flange and fastened to the beam webs near the beam flange.

But welds

Fillet

welds
(a) (b)

Figure 2.23 Scheme for connection retrofitting (Liu, 2010)

According to Astaneh-Asl (2003) and Tan and Astaneh-Asl (2003), steel cables
horizontally positioned parallel to the steel beams in the building's composite steel,
and concrete floors were proposed to reduce the danger of progressive collapse via a
catenary action mechanism. They advocated inserting the cables in the floor slab for
new structures, while for retrofitting existing buildings, they proposed putting the
wires beneath the slabs. The usage of cables in slab members is presented in Figure
2.24.

Experiments were carried out on a full-scale one-floor slab with one inner column
removed. The research used three groups of 10 tests: samples without cables, samples
inserted in the slabs, and samples with cables positioned below the slabs. The
analytical findings showed that the floor slab's capacity to bridge over the removed
column was improved by the employment of the cable system.

46
 Cables in the Floors

Floors and Cables

Develop collapse action

Before removal of column After removal of middle column

Figure 2.24 Cables are used in slabs to keep them from collapsing (Astaneh-Asl,
2003)

The study results, on the other hand, revealed that while the cable systems stopped the
progressive collapse, the places above the column loss had considerable deflections in
the range of 0.4 m-0.6 m. Despite the substantial deflection above the removed
column, according to Astaneh-Asl (2003), using horizontal cables that benefit from
catenary motion may effectively and inexpensively avoid the progressive collapse of
buildings.

On the other hand, Tan and Tan and Astaneh-Asl (2003) carried out three experimental
studies, including one which used a composite steel beam with a reinforced concrete
deck without cables, while the second and the third tests contained the retrofitting with
external cables. Tan and Astaneh-Asl (2003) fastened the cables to the columns on
each side of the interior and removed the column by aligning the cables with the steel
beams. Similar findings were produced by Tan and Astaneh-Asl (2003) compared to
the results of Astaneh-Asl (2003). Recommendations made by Tan and Astaneh-Asl
(2003) are in agreement with creating catenary action over the likely failed column to
avoid the progressive collapse of the composite reinforced concrete slab with steel
frames, as suggested by Astaneh-Asl (2003). The created catenary action was obtained
by laying horizontal cables parallel to the beams to improve continuity. Yu et al. (2010)
did additional research, utilizing finite element simulation and considering the use of
horizontal cables inserted beneath the composite slab for retrofitting composite floor
slabs to withstand probable progressive collapse. The impact of the composite slab
profile, joint stiffness, composite slab concrete compression, and tension strength on
the efficiency of the retrofitting strategy were all studied. As Yu et al. (2010)

47
demonstrated, pre stressing the retrofitting cables and connecting them at intermediate
places as well as beam column joints improves the retrofitting scheme's effectiveness.

Steel bracings should be utilized in corner panels of reinforced concrete structures to

avoid progressive collapse caused by corner column losses, according to Mohamed
(2009). To obtain his conclusion, he employed a three-dimensional simulation and
linear static analysis. Steel bracings had been installed in an eight-story reinforced
concrete structure with five bays in each direction for the investigation.

In the retrofitting concept, steel bracings of various forms were used at the corner
panels, including inverted V-bracing, compression, and tension diagonal bracings. The
findings of the analysis revealed that by increasing the building's redundancy through
the use of steel bracings, the risk of progressive collapse was minimized. However, it
was discovered that, despite the additional structural redundancy provided by using a
bracing system, members' capacities must be raised.

To avoid the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures, Mohamed (2009)

advises enhancing building redundancy by adding bracing to the framed structure. This
scheme is consistent with the findings of Suzuki et al. (2003), Khandelwal et al.
(2008b), and Kim et al. (2009b) on the importance of bracings in prohibiting the
progressive collapse of steel buildings (Khandelwal et al., 2009; Kim & Kim, 2009;
Wada et al., 2003).

Kai Qian and Li (2012) prepared Six samples with equal measurement and reinforcing
aspects were constructed; two were unstrengthened and served as control samples,
while the other four were strengthened using two distinct sketches: carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates attached orthogonally (Sketch 1) or diagonally
(Sketch 2) to the top surface of the slab (see Figure 2.25). The load-displacement
relationships, first peak strength, initial stiffness, and energy damping capabilities of
the reinforced specimens' progressive collapse performances were investigated. Based
on the results of the tests, it was determined that both methods were successful in
enhancing the resistance to progressive collapse of RC flat slabs.

Carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) were suggested by Orton (2009) as a way
to retrofit RC beams with insufficient continuity over a potential failing column and
decrease the danger of progressive collapse. Experiments were carried out to

48
demonstrate the effectiveness of CFRP in the strengthening layout. The investigation
included seven half-scale examples of RC beam. Each specimen depicted a bridge
formed by two bay frame beams across a column loss. The performance of beams with
discontinuous flexural reinforcement was assessed and contrasted with that of beams
upgraded with CFRP and continuous reinforcements. The analysis found that utilizing
FRP in beams without bottom reinforcement’s continuity achieved 55 percent to 60
percent of the GSA (2003) necessary loads. However, considering catenary action, the
capacity can be enhanced to 109 percent of the needed loads.

Moreover, the study's results indicated that beams constructed with continuous bottom
reinforcements could achieve 50% of the GSA (2003) required load and reach 108
percent of the needed load when catenary action was observed. Nonetheless, when CA
was included, only 78 percent of the necessary weights were achieved in beams
without CFRP or continuous bottom reinforcement. Orton et al. (2009) demonstrate
that more CFRP layers are demanded to increase the moment capabilities of the
bridging beams used to span the probably failed column. The retrofitting approach
proposed by Orton (2009) to resist the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete
beams consistently enhances the continuity of these beams by CFRP. This scheme got
advantage from CA. Additionally, it was proposed that members be strengthened to
maximize their load-carrying capacity.

As with Mohamed's earlier study Mohamed (2009), it is evident that the strength of
the members must be increased in conjunction with the mitigation plan to reach the
required load capacity and avoid gradual collapse. Moreover, Orton (2009) mitigation
approach, based on increasing continuity to benefit from catenary action, is
comparable to Astaneh-Asl (2003) approach for absorbing the failure of intermediate
columns without catenary action in the event of exterior or corner column failures.

49
 a)

b)

Figure 2.25 The strengthening plan view; a) Sketch 1, b) Sketch 2 (Kai Qian &
Li, 2012)

Steel frame, V-shaped, and X-shaped braced frame structures (see Figure 2.26) are
analyzed and compared for their resistance mechanisms to progressive collapse in
view of GSA and DOD design criteria (Liu & Zhu, 2019). According to the findings,

50
a steel braced frame structure has a higher robustness index (RI) than a steel frame
structure, and an X-shaped brace is more effective than a V-shaped brace. In addition,
nonlinear dynamic analysis and static pushdown are used to investigate the dynamic
consequences of removing a column. The findings demonstrate a high degree of
consistency between the eventual failure mechanisms determined by the two analytic
approaches. When a column is braced, the dynamic displacement reaction to its sudden
removal is dampened; an X-shaped brace is superior than a V-shaped one in this
regard.

a) b)

Figure 2.26 Steel frame system; a) V-shaped brace, b) X-shaped brace (Liu &
Zhu, 2019)

Dynamic responses of structural steel produced by column removal may be reduced

by the use of cross bracing (Hu & Zhao, 2020). Through a nonlinear dynamic history
study of the structure, the effectiveness of various cross brace layouts is analyzed using
the alternative path method (APM) (see Figure 2.27). Prior to anything else, a three-
dimensional finite element model of a 12-story steel composite frame building is
developed with the composite behavior of the floor system taken into consideration.
Finally, the model is subjected to a number of progressive collapse assessments, each
using a unique combination of column removal and cross brace configurations. The
dynamic response due to column failure was reduced by the addition of cross bracing,
but only in the damaged bay; in the other bays, no such reduction was seen. Cross
bracing prevented the horizontal spread of progressive collapse in a building with a
vertical cross brace configuration, which might have a negative impact on the dynamic
response of the impacted bay by shielding the remaining structure from further
damage. Using a cross bracing configuration on the top layer reduced the peak
51
displacement by over 50% for the corner column failure mode and by over 30% for
the lateral column failure mode.

Figure 2.27 Layout of cross braces (Hu & Zhao, 2020)

The eccentrically braced frames of various kinds and topologies as illustrated in figure
2.28, were studied by Mirjalali et al. (2019) to determine their progressive collapse
behavior. A five-story structure with varying braced bays was analyzed for progressive
collapse under gravity and seismic loads. The frames were either diagonal, Inverted-
V, or a combination of the two. To evaluate the progressive collapse-resisting ability
of these braced frames, a nonlinear dynamic analysis and an alternative route approach
were used to identify the most crucial areas of element loss and the impact factor of
removing elements. The removal impact factor was determined using a variety of
scenarios that included the unexpected removal of columns and the braces that
supported them. The findings demonstrate that, as a consequence of experiencing
fewer shocks, Inverted-V eccentrically braced frames with two braced bays are more
resilient in their ability to prevent progressive collapse. Moreover, the combined V and
Inverted-V eccentrically braced frame (using V and Inverted-V braces in the
subsequent stories alternatively) is less resistant to progressive collapse based on the
comparison of the impact factors of various kinds of bracings.
52
Figure 2.28 Various kinds of eccentrically braced frames (Mirjalali et al., 2019)

Marchis and Botez (2019) looked at how the number of the story numerically, affects
the resistance of progressive collapse of RC planar frames. Based on the samples
empirically analyzed by Yi et al., five numerical models (shown in Figure 2.29) are
created to achieve this purpose (Yi et al., 2008).

Figure 2.29 Building of an initial numerical model (NMi) (Marchis & Botez, 2019)

In their study, they provided the findings of a numerical inquiry into the effect of the
number of stories on the progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete planar
frameworks. An initial numerical model was created in the Midas FEA software

53
package based on the specifications supplied by Yi et al. (2008) in their experimental
program (AISC Manual). This preliminary numerical model was successfully
evaluated against the data disclosed by the practical test to ensure high accuracy of the
current and future investigations based on this setup. To attain the suggested goal, five
numerical models (as illustrated in Figure 2.30) are created, starting with the first and
increasing/decreasing the number of the story in the structure. A target displacement
of 50mm is imposed, and a nonlinear static "push-down" analysis is done in each
scenario to model the gradual failure of the first story column induced by aberrant
loadings such as explosions or impact. As a result, for each numerical model, the final
load-carrying capacity to progressive collapse is evaluated, and the extra capacity of
the RC frames concerning the number of stories is analyzed. The activation of the
planar frames' auxiliary resistant mechanisms (Compressive Arch Action – CAA and
Catenary Action – CA) to improve progressive collapse resistance is also highlighted.
The results demonstrate that, as anticipated, the structure's load-carrying capacity
improves with the number of stories. Still, the value falls when represented as a
percentage of the activation of the initial failure mechanism (a three-hinge
mechanism). In addition, based on the findings, a simplified method for estimating the
peak load that planar RC frames can withstand without collapsing is given.

The extra load carrying capacity rises from 19.22 kN to 66.59 kN as the number of
stories increases, as projected. It is found that the additional capacity stated in
percentage settles at 25% for the last two numerical models studied (NM8 and NM10).
The CAA resisting mechanism operates in all examples studied until a maximum
displacement of 5.5% (≈ L/17.5) of the span length (L) is reached. For all numerical
models, the CA-resistant mechanism is activated once this limit is exceeded. It's also
worth noting that the axial tensile force values in adjacent beams in each scenario rise
from the lower to the upper level. A more straightforward approach is proposed to
decrease the computational process associated with assessing the ultimate load
carrying capacity of RC planar frames by establishing an equation capable of
accounting for many structural characteristics (α, n, m, Nt, and θ). This equation is
only applicable to constructions that have the CA-resistant mechanism activated. The
recommended load reduction factor applies solely to the numerical models under
investigation because this study examines the effect of story numbers on the ultimate
load of RC planar framed structures (Yi et al., 2008).

54
Figure 2.30 Investigated numerical models (Marchis & Botez, 2019)

Kim et al. (2013) used nonlinear dynamic analysis to determine the influence of
viscous dampers on minimizing the progressive collapse potential of steel moment
frames. The effects of dampers fitted in a steel beam-column subassembly with
changing natural period and yield strength on the decrease of progressive collapse
potential were initially evaluated using parametric analysis. Then, using nonlinear
dynamic analysis, 15-story moment-resisting frames with three different span lengths
were built with and without viscous dampers, and the influence of viscous dampers
was explored (see Figure 2.31). Generally, vertical displacement reduced while the
system damping ratio increased, and dampers were effective in both elastic and elasto-
plastic systems, according to the parametric analysis as shown in Figure 2.32.
Additionally, it was noticed that the damper's influence grew as the structure's natural
period increased and the strength ratio reduced. Viscous dampers, originally developed
to mitigate earthquake-induced vibration, were found to be effective in the 15-story
analysis model structures in mitigating vertical displacement caused by the abrupt
elimination of the column in first-story, with the effect being more pronounced in the
longer-span structures.

After the column was abruptly removed, the effects of dampers installed in steel beam-
column sub assemblages with variable natural period and yield strength were
investigated. The dynamic response factor was 2.0 when the beams were in the elastic
stage and rose following the creation of plastic hinges, according to the analysis
results.

55
Figure 2.31 A 15-story building equipped with viscous dampers experienced the
abrupt collapse of an inner column (Kim et al., 2013)

The dynamic response factor decreased (see Figure 2.33) as the damping ratio climbed,
eventually reaching 1.0. It was also discovered that the damper's influence improved
as the structure's natural period increased and the strength ratio decreased. The results
of the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the 15-story analysis models indicated that the
dampers, designed to mitigate earthquake-induced vibration, effectively reduced the
structure's vertical displacement when a column was abruptly removed from the bay
where the dampers were installed. The impact was more pronounced in the 12-m span
construction, which had the most deflection and plastic deformation. This outcome
was in line with the findings of the parametric analysis.

The dynamic response for vertical displacement decreased as the damping coefficient
of the viscous dampers increased until the damping coefficient approached saturation.
As the span length increased, the saturation level for the damping ratio elevated, which
was already found in the subassembly structure analysis (Yi et al., 2008).

56
 a b

Figure 2.32 Model structures' vertical displacements with and without dampers
with different length bay of (a) 6-m, (b) 9-m, (c) 12-m (Kim et al., 2013)

Figure 2.33 Changes in dynamic response parameters as a consequence of damping

ratio (Kim et al., 2013)

57
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND MODELS DESCRIPTION

3.1 Description of Structural Models

This study focuses on 7-, 13-, and 19-story RC structures. The two-dimensional (2D)
structure has five bays with a span length of 6 m (see Figure 3.1). The height of each
story is 3.2 m. Dead and live loads are 4 and 2 kN/m2, respectively. According to the
specified factory, the compressive strength of the concrete is 25 MPa, and the yield
strength of the steel bar is 392 MPa. The model descriptions are illustrated in Table
3.1 for the different number of story. The structure is developed by ACI Committee
318 (2014) (AISC Manual, 2005). For each varied number of levels, eight distinct
cases were taken into account to assess the behavior of the RC structures against
progressive collapse. The first one is the RC moment-resisting frame (bare frame).

In contrast, the others are the upgraded frames: X-braced frame, diagonally braced
frame, inverted V-braced frame, viscously damped frame in the central bay, viscously
damped frame in two inner bays, viscously damped frame only in a certain story, and
frame with CFRP. Afterward, three unique scenarios for removing the center column
were established by examining its collapse at the ground, middle, and final floor.
Finally, the structural performance of the eight frames of each number of stories to
progressive collapse has been evaluated and compared. Table 3.2 lists the analyzed
cases.

Figure 3.1 Plan perspective of the RC building

58
Table 3.1 Sections a description of different story number frames

Number of Floor Beam sections Floor Column sections

story number (mm) number (mm)
1-3 500x350 1-3 300
7-story frame 4-7 450x300 4-7 300
1-4 600
13-story frame 1-13 500x350 5-9 500
10-13 400
1-10 (600x300) 1-6 700
19-story frame 11-19 (500x350) 7-12 600
13-19 500

Table 3.2 Descriptions of various frames

Number of cases Name of Frame Model

Case1 Moment resisting frame (Bare frame)

Case2 X braced frame

Case3 Diagonally braced frame

Case4 Inverted V braced frame

Case5 Viscously damped frame in the central bay

Case6 Viscously damped frame in two inner bays

Case7 Viscously damped frame only in certain stories

Case8 Frame with CFRP

3.1.1 Modeling the Bracing System

Inverted-V (chevron)-type, X-type, and diagonal braces are some of the known
patterns for concentric bracing systems. The analyzed structural models used in this
research are the unique concentric braced frames accordıng to ASCE 41-13 and
obtained compressive strength bracing, and the relationship force-displacement
between braces depend on the uniaxial phenomenological model, admitted in FEMA-
356 (2000), is shown in Figure 3.2 in which Δy and Δcr are the yielding and buckling

59
displacements and Py and Pcr are the tension and compression forces, respectively.
The braces are hollow steel tubes. And sections for the 7-story frame are 2UNP8; for
the 13-story frame, the sections are 2UNP14 and 2UNP12 for the ground floor to
middle and beyond middle to last floors, respectively. At the same time, the sections
for the 19-story frame are 2UNP14 and 2UNP12 from ground to floor ten and from
floor eleven to the last floor, respectively. Bracing is triggered to its maximum
potential when the ground, middle and last-story center columns are removed from the
structural models, which results in symmetrical deformation of the structure. Figures
3.3 to 3.5 show the different configurations of braces to be analyzed.

Figure 3.2 Force–displacement relationship of braces (FEMA-356, 2000)

X braced frame Diagonally braced frame Inverted V braced frame

Figure 3.3 Braces layout for 7-story frame

60
 X braced frame Diagonally braced frame Inverted V braced frame

Figure 3.4 Braces layout for 13-story frame

X braced frame Diagonally braced frame Inverted V braced frame

Figure 3.5 Braces layout for 19-story frame

For obtaining compression and tension strenght brace, according to (AISC360, 2010),
Pc is expected to bear buckling load in the compression brace equation (3.1) and obtain
PT Tensile load. Therefore, the expected yield limit in a tensile brace according to

61
Equation (3.2) is the axial deformation at the expected buckling load in the
compression brace as shown in equation (3.3) and is the tensile axial deformation of
the yield strength in the tensile brace given in equation (3.4).

𝐹 = 0.658 ×𝐹 (3.1)

𝐹 =
× (3.2)

𝑃 =𝐹 𝐴 (3.3)

𝑃 =𝐴×𝐹 (3.4)

Δ = (3.5)

Δ = (3.6)

Where Fcre is critical buckling stress, Fy is yield stress, Fe is elastic Euler buckling
stress, E is the modulus of elasticity, K is the influential length factor based on end
boundary conditions, and R is the radius of gyration, and Pc is. Buckling load, Fae is
effective elastic stress, A is the cross-sectional area, PT is total vertical load, Fye is
Effective yield stress, and L is laterally unbraced length of the member.

3.1.2 Modeling the Viscous Damper

The conventional arrangement for viscous dampers is the diagonal brace or chevron
brace. Figure 3.6 shows the typical layout of the viscous damper in the building (Ding
et al., 2016). The viscous dampers cases are viscously damped frames in the central
bay, viscously damped frames in two inner bays, and viscously damped frames on a
certain floor, as presented in Figures 3.7 to 3.9. Under G. P. Cimellaro and R.
Retamales (2007)’s study, the damper's capacity has been determined (see Equation
3.7).

The impact of viscous damping with a 15% target damping factor was evaluated in the
researched structure. The entire stiffness of the structure should be evaluated to

62
 determine the amount of damping required to achieve the specified damping
percentage. Each story's degree of drift and the triangle pattern of the base shear force
is estimated. As a result, the shear stiffness of each story can be determined by using
the shear force of each story and the corresponding drift with the same shear force.
The actual damping coefficient that must be provided to the structure to achieve the
required damping may be calculated using Equation 3.7, where (CA) stands for damper
capacity, and To is referring to natural period, which is equal to 2.05, ϛ*, ϛ is damping
ratio which equal to 0.2 and 0.05 respectively.

Figure 3.6 Layout of viscous damper (Ding et al., 2016)

Viscously damped frame Viscously damped frame in Viscously damped frame only
in the central bay two inner bays in certain stories

Figure 3.7 Layout of viscous damper for 7-story

63
Viscously damped frame in Viscously damped frame in Viscously damped frame
the central bay two inner bays only in certain stories

Figure 3.8 Layout of viscous damper for 13-story

For adding the viscous dampers in certain floor cases, the maximum effect of the
viscous damper is considered, as shown in Tables 3.3 to 3.5. Also, the target damping
of (CA) is distributed in proportion to the drift shape of the first model of the structure.
as shown in Tables 3.3 to 3.5 ST is referring for number of story, P and V are the loads
and shear forces, respectively, And the d is the value of displacement due to load
applied on each story and the differences of displacement between each story
considered as drift which is measured by (mm), k which stands for stiffness, can be
found through the division of shear forces by the drift per each story, combination of
all stiffness becomes the stiffness of the structure, while fi refers for the displacement
of each story according to mode number and this will be got from the SAP 2000
software, The differences between fi of each story will be resulted in dfi, and landa
can be calculated as ratio of dfi for each story to the total of dfi, Now, the damping for
each story ci can be determined through the multiplying of total damping which is
obtained from Equation 3.7 to the landa of each story, The angle of the viscous damper
per each story is considered as teta, and the cosine square of this teta will be multiplied
by the damping value of each story (ci), The damping distribution in different classes
in different modes is considered. The slope of the dampers is also included in the
damping values. Therefore, due to the fact that dampers are used in two spans,
damping is used in each class with half of the value in the diagonal method.

( ∗ )× (3.7)
𝐶𝐴 = ×𝐾

64
Viscously damped frame in Viscously damped frame in Viscously damped frame
the central bay two inner bays only in certain stories

Figure 3.9 Layout Viscous damper for 19-story

65
Table 3.3 Viscous damper property for 7-story

V D Drift K C-Axial
ST P φ Dφ Λ Ci (N.s/m) ϴ
(KN) (mm) (mm) (kN/mm) (N.s/m)
7 70 70 121.04 7.38 9.49 10.17 0.55 0.054080629 2.90E+05 4.90E-01 372837.69
6 60 130 113.66 13.21 9.84 9.62 1.04 0.102261554 5.49E+05 4.90E-01 705002.17
5 50 180 100.45 18.09 9.95 8.58 1.48 0.145526057 7.81E+05 4.90E-01 1003272.32
4 40 220 82.36 20.26 10.86 7.1 1.71 0.168141593 9.02E+05 4.90E-01 1159186.26
3 30 250 62.1 21.2 11.79 5.39 1.83 0.179941003 9.66E+05 4.90E-01 1240532.66
2 20 270 40.9 22.43 12.04 3.56 1.95 0.191740413 1.03E+06 4.90E-01 1321879.07
1 10 280 18.47 18.47 15.16 1.61 1.61 0.158308751 8.50E+05 4.90E-01 1091397.59
79.12 10.17 1

66
Table 3.4 Viscous damper property for 13-story

V D Drift K Ci C-Axial
ST P Φ dφ λ ϴ
(KN) (mm) (mm) (KN/mm) (N.s/m) (N.s/m)
13 650 650 110.64 3.17 20.504.732 1.4 0.04 0.0285714 1.34E+07 0.4899573 1.72E+07
12 600 1250 107.47 5.55 22.522.523 1.36 0.07 0.05 2.34E+07 0.4899573 3.00E+07
11 550 1800 101.92 7.8 23.076.923 1.29 0.09 0.0642857 3.01E+07 0.4899573 3.86E+07
10 500 2300 94.12 9.78 23.517.382 1.2 0.12 0.0857143 4.01E+07 0.4899573 5.15E+07
9 450 2750 84.34 8.13 33.825.338 1.08 0.0999 0.0713571 3.34E+07 0.4899573 4.29E+07
8 400 3150 76.21 9.14 34.463.895 0.9801 0.1161 0.0829286 3.88E+07 0.4899573 4.98E+07
7 350 3500 67.07 10.07 34.756.703 0.864 0.1289 0.0920714 4.31E+07 0.4899573 5.53E+07
6 300 3800 57 10.39 36.573.628 0.7351 0.1339 0.0956429 4.48E+07 0.4899573 5.75E+07
5 250 4050 46.61 11.43 35.433.071 0.6012 0.1475 0.1053571 4.93E+07 0.4899573 6.33E+07
4 200 4250 35.18 9.95 42.713.568 0.4537 0.1286 0.0918571 4.30E+07 0.4899573 5.52E+07
3 150 4400 25.23 10.03 43.868.395 0.3251 0.1294 0.0924286 4.32E+07 0.4899573 5.55E+07
2 100 4500 15.2 9.425 47.745.358 0.1957 0.1215 0.0867857 4.06E+07 0.4899573 5.22E+07
1 50 4550 5.775 5.775 78.787.879 0.0742 0.0742 0.053 2.48E+07 0.4899573 3.19E+07
4.777.894 1.4 1

67
Table 3.5 Viscous damper specification for 19-story

Drift Ci C-Axial
ST P V (KN) D (mm) k(kN/mm) φ dφ λ ϴ
(mm) (N.s/m) (N.s/m)
19 95 95 358.898 6.21042 15.30 5.82 0.06 0.01031 8.08E+05 4.90E-01 1.04E+06
18 90 185 352.687 9.63441 19.20 5.76 0.14 0.02405 1.89E+06 4.90E-01 2.42E+06
17 85 270 343.053 13.3874 20.17 5.62 0.2 0.03436 2.69E+06 4.90E-01 3.46E+06
16 80 350 329.666 17.0518 20.53 5.42 0.26 0.04467 3.50E+06 4.90E-01 4.50E+06
15 75 425 312.614 20.4738 20.76 5.16 0.32 0.05498 4.31E+06 4.90E-01 5.54E+06
14 70 495 292.14 23.4961 21.07 4.84 0.37 0.06357 4.98E+06 4.90E-01 6.40E+06
13 65 560 268.644 25.685 21.80 4.47 0.41 0.07045 5.52E+06 4.90E-01 7.09E+06
12 60 620 242.959 24.7965 25.00 4.06 0.41 0.07045 5.52E+06 4.90E-01 7.09E+06
11 55 675 218.162 22.8935 29.48 3.65 0.36 0.06186 4.85E+06 4.90E-01 6.23E+06
10 50 725 195.269 20.9599 34.59 3.29 0.35 0.06014 4.72E+06 4.90E-01 6.06E+06
9 45 770 174.309 21.0184 36.63 2.94 0.35 0.06014 4.72E+06 4.90E-01 6.06E+06
8 40 810 153.291 21.6032 37.49 2.59 0.36 0.06186 4.85E+06 4.90E-01 6.23E+06
7 35 845 131.688 22.1372 38.17 2.23 0.37 0.06357 4.98E+06 4.90E-01 6.40E+06
6 30 875 109.55 21.5339 40.63 1.86 0.37 0.06357 4.98E+06 4.90E-01 6.40E+06
5 25 900 88.0164 21.6629 41.55 1.49 0.36 0.06186 4.85E+06 4.90E-01 6.23E+06
4 20 920 66.3536 21.3701 43.05 1.13 0.37 0.06357 4.98E+06 4.90E-01 6.40E+06
3 15 935 44.9835 20.1012 46.51 0.76 0.34 0.05842 4.58E+06 4.90E-01 5.88E+06
2 10 945 24.8823 16.654 56.74 0.42 0.28 0.04811 3.77E+06 4.90E-01 4.84E+06
1 5 950 8.22829 8.22829 115.46 0.14 0.14 0.02405 1.89E+06 4.90E-01 2.42E+06
684.14 5.82 1

68
3.1.3 Modeling the CFRP

CFRP-enhanced frameworks have the carbon fiber reinforcement polymer (CFRP)

wrapped around their two ends and the underside of their beams. The ultimate strength
of the fibers is 3200 MPa, and the elastic modulus is 210,000 MPa in the longitudinal
direction. The thickness of the warped CFRP is 1.4 mm. The efficiency of the
suggested CFRP reinforcing strategies in preventing the progressive collapse of the
study's structures is investigated.
Equation (3.8) expresses the nominal shear strength (𝑉 ) of an RC section reinforced
with CFRP (Soudki & Alkhrdaji, 2005):

𝑉 =𝑉 +𝑉 +𝑉 (3.8)

𝑉 is the shear strength of the concrete, 𝑉 is the shear strength of the steel
reinforcement, and 𝑉 is the shear contribution of the CFRP. The design shear strength,
𝑉 , is achieved by multiplying the nominal shear strength by a strength reduction factor
for shear, the factor for steel and concrete contribution from ACI (2002) is 0.85 (Aiello
et al., 2014), and the factor for CFRP addition is preferred to be 0.70. Equation (3.9)
depicts the design shear strength (Aiello et al., 2014).

𝜙𝑉 = 0.85(𝑉 + 𝑉 ) + 0.7𝑉 (3.9)

Equation (3.10) provides the formula for calculating the CFRP contribution (ACI,
2002). Same as steel shear reinforcement, this equation is compliant with ACI 440.2R-
02.
𝐴 × 𝑓 (𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛽 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽) × 𝑑 2 𝑓𝑐 × 𝑏 × 𝑑 (3.10)
𝑣 = ≤ −𝑉
𝑆 3

3.2 Column Removal and Elaborations of the Analysis

Because of the shock formed by the column loss, the structure should be able to
perceive the dynamic impact of the removal process. This was accomplished by using
a mechanism in SAP2000 that considers collapse ability. Figures 3.10-3.12 depict the
joints and components that were the subject of the investigation. To imitate the abrupt
column loss in various scenarios using non-linear analysis, dead and live loads were
applied for 0–5 s and then collapsed, with the structure's reaction monitored over the
following 10 s. Figure 3.13 illustrates the removal of the inner columns at various floor
levels to accommodate a variety of story number frames. Both recommendations GSA

69
(2013b) and UFC (2009b) advise against using the dynamic amplification factor in
dynamic analysis. Instead, prior to removing the column, the axial force acting is
computed to use dynamic analysis. The column is then substituted by point loads equal
to the member forces (GSA, 2013a; Kim & Kim, 2009; UFC, 2009b).

Figure 3.10 Circled in red colors are investigated elements for a 7-story frame

70
Figure 3.11 Circled in red colors are investigated elements for a 13-story frame

71
Figure 3.12 Circled in red colors are investigated elements for a 19-story frame

72
Figure 3.13 Location of column removal on different floors for the different story
numbers

73
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this part, after implementing the column removal scenario, the amount of
displacement and the redistribution forces are examined. Non-linear dynamic analysis
(NDA) is used to remove interior columns from the ground, middle, and top floors in
different-story structures, and the results are shown below. SAP2000 plots four graphs:
vertical displacement vs. time, axial force vs. time, bending moment vs. time, and
shear vs. time. First, at the point where the column was lost, the vertical displacement
is measured. Next, the beam with the tremendous axial force and bending moment vs.
time is plotted.

A 2D frame analysis was performed on all of the cases. As seen in Figures 4.1–4.24,
all two-dimensional frame analysis cases exhibited local progressive collapse. The 2D
frame analysis collapse zones were determined immediately after the damaged beams
were linked to the column removal. According to the General Service Administration,
the two-dimensional frame analysis found that the damage extends to entire building
floors, suggesting that the structure is at higher hazard of progressive collapse and
should be altered (GSA, 2005b). Furthermore, the static system of beams got longer
as the primary support was eliminated, culminating in collapse owing to inadequate
reinforcing.

4.1 Frames Performance Level

Non-linear analytic approaches were used to assess the damage levels of members
utilizing different levels of performance, such as instant occupancy (IO), life safety
(LS), and collapse prevention (CP). According to GSA standards, the structure's
performance level should not exceed collapse prevention; otherwise, structural
members would be categorized as significantly failed (GSA, 2013a). The plastic hinge
development is shown in 2D frames in all cases. The performance level of the frames
after the column has been removed is explained in the subsections below.

74
4.1.1 7-Floor Frame Performance Level

Figure 4.1 shows the formation of the hinge scheme in the 7-story moment-resisting
frame (Bare frame) subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c)
floor seven. The removal of 1st story and 4th story columns caused the generation of
plastic hinges in the respective joints of the upper floors.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.1 Formation of hinge in the moment-resisting frame (Bare frame) subjected
to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven.

When introducing X bracing to the frame, the mode of distribution of plastic hinges
changed to occur in one of the bracing members, as shown in Figure 4.2. In addition,
the 1st and 4th story column removal has shown more lateral displacement compared
to the control frame, probably due to the loss of stiffness symmetry of the frame.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.2 Formation of hinge in the X braced frame subjected to column loss in (a)
floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven.

When introducing diagonal bracing to the frame, no plastic hinges have occurred in
any joint, as shown in Figure 4.3. Furthermore, the column removal of all cases has
shown an approximately similar distribution of hinge formation. Therefore, it can be

75
said that this bracing facilitates the load path across the frame members, eliminating
plastic hinges formations and keeping other joint formations quite similar in every
scenario.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.3 Formation of hinge in the diagonally braced frame subjected to column
loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven

When introducing inverted V bracing to the frame, the mode of distribution of plastic
hinges has mainly occurred in one of the bracing members, as shown in Figure 4.4.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.4 Formation of hinge in the inverted V-braced frame subjected to column
loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven

The 1st and 4th story column removal has shown more lateral displacement compared
to the control frame, probably due to loss of stiffness symmetry of the frame, a
response more or less similar to X braced frame.

By introducing viscous damping in the central bay of the frame, the number of plastic
hinges has significantly reduced for all cases of column removal, as shown in Figure

76
4.5. The lateral stiffness is also restored compared with previous bracing systems, a
response more or less similar to the moment-resisting frame.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.5 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in central bay
subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven

The same is true for the frame viscous-damped in two inner bays, as shown in Figure
4.6, more or less identical in behavior to the frame with viscous damping in the central
bay.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.6 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in two inner bays
subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven

By introducing viscous damping only in the frame's certain (lower) stories, as shown
in Figure 4.7, no significant behavior change in hinge formation is found. This justifies
the saving in the viscous damping bracing systems.

77
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.7 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame only in certain stories
subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven

CFRP frame showed the best performance regarding the number of hinges formed and
the absence of any plastic hinge in the frame compared to all other bracing systems, as
shown in Figure 4.8. This may be attributed to the significant increase in member
strength and the improvement in beam-column joint strength, and enhancing the
continuity for frame members by CFRP. From their side, Orton et al. (2014b) reached
the point that continuity provided by CFRP after the incident improved the frame
performance.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.8 Formation of hinge in the frame with CFRP subjected to column loss in
(a) floor one, (b) floor four, and (c) floor seven

4.1.2 13-Floor Frame Performance Level

Figure 4.9 shows the formation of the hinge scheme in the 13-story moment-resisting
frame (Bare frame) subjected to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor
thirteen. The removal of 1st story and 6th story columns caused the creation of plastic

78
hinges in the respective joints of the upper floors and their adjacent joints on each side.
As a result, the percentage of the number of joints formation to the total number of
frame joints is significantly increased. This is in confirmation of the finding found in
the literature that the structure’s load carrying capacity decreases with the number of
floors when stated in terms of percentage with respect to the activation of the initial
failure mechanism (a three-hinge mechanism) (Yi et al., 2008). İt is worth noting that
Yi et al. frames consisted of 10 story maximum, which would confirm our thirteen-
story frame cases. The column removal in story six led the beams to collapse and
approach the point of life safety on all subsequent levels, and the structure could not
correctly disperse the forces. Also, losing the column in story thirteen puts its beam in
danger of collapsing altogether.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.9 Formation of hinge in the moment-resisting frame (Bare frame) subjected
to column loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

Steel bracings are a preventative measure to prevent progressive collapse (Qian et al.,
2019). Even if few bracing components break during compression by buckling, a
bracing mechanism may reinforce a structure to avoid further collapse. Figure 4.10,
for example, demonstrates how to remove columns at various levels using an X brace.
However, after the removal of the column and bracing, the beams' operating
performance was compromised. And the 1st and 6th story column removal cases have
shown more lateral displacement than the control frame, probably due to the loss of
stiffness symmetry of the frame after the incident.

The plastic hinges produced in the beams reach the acceptable threshold. Similar to
the equivalent 7-story frame instance, on the diagonally braced component within the

79
collapse limit, the formation of a plastic hinge took place, which is deemed brace
compression failure (see Figure 4.10 a, b, and c).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.10 Formation of hinge in the X-braced frame subjected to column loss in
(a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

Figure 4.11 shows that the efficiency of the complete structure was improved by the
placement of one-way bracing on both sides. The plastic hinge did not reach the
nonlinear region since the chain function of the structure was effectively carried out.
However, even the brace's performance did not get the level of operational
performance. As demonstrated in Figure 4.11, a, b, plastic hinge development has
started on brace members.

Consequently, the development of plastic hinges in columns and beams was

distributed across certain building components inside the immediate occupancy zone.
Moreover, relative to ordinary braced frames, the lateral stiffness is boosted.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.11 Formation of hinge in the diagonally braced frame subjected to column
loss in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

Therefore, it may be argued that this bracing facilitates the load distribution across the
frame elements to the extent that it prevents the generation of plastic hinges and

80
maintains the formation of other joints in all scenarios. Furthermore, there is no lateral
deflection that may be linked to the same attribution.

The addition of inverted V-bracing to the structure improved its resistance to

progressive collapse, as demonstrated in Figure 4.12. Both the redistribution of forces
throughout the structure and the chain performance was enhanced as a direct
consequence of the elimination of the column that was located on the top levels of the
building. The inverted-braced design raises the amount of constraint at the beam end,
permitting catenary action. In addition, a new load transfer route was created by the
bracing system. The horizontal braces were responsible for transmitting certain
gravitational loads to the surrounding structures, and the vertical braces were then
responsible for transporting those stresses to the foundation. Following the buckling
of compression bracing, some columns buckled prior to the yielding of tension braces,
resulting in brittle failure modes. Due to the fragility of single-bay braced structures,
a column near the braced bay was removed. Unlike the corresponding 7-story case, the
mode of distribution of plastic hinges seldom occurred in any of the bracing members;
that is why the 1st and 6th story column removal has shown more lateral displacement
than the control frame, probably due to loss of stiffness symmetry of the frame.
Designing the frame with bracing prevents progressive collapse in this scenario.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.12 Formation of hinge in the inverted V-braced frame subjected to loss of
column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

In Figure 4.13, the frame in the central bay is referred to as a viscously damped frame;
in the diagonal span, a viscous damper was utilized. Figures 4.13 a, b, and c show that
the created plastic hinges in beams on floors three and four were on the verge of failing
and that the application of a viscous damper prevented the structure from experiencing

81
excessive oscillation and shock. Furthermore, at the end of beams, plastic rotation was
reduced to less than the immediate occupancy phase, and ignoring of plastic hinges
was conducted in various locations. However, compared to the similar 7-story
instance, the lateral stiffness is significantly reduced since the additional building
height adds to the stiffness asymmetry.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.13 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in central bay
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

As demonstrated in Figure 4.14, the installation of viscous dampers in two inner bays
improved the tensile performance of the structure as well as the performance of the
beams in comparison to the viscously damped frame in the case of the center bay.
Figure 4.14 a, b depicts the evolution of plastic hinges in the vicinity of columns lost
(the connection of beam and column loss). As a result, the vertical elements of the
structure are more likely to have plastic hinges. Moreover, the lateral stiffness is
greatly improved compared with the corresponding 7-story case and 13-story viscous
damping in the central bay case because the two-bay viscous damping case restored
the stiffness symmetry of the building.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.14 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in two inner bays
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

82
Based on the approach of G. P. Cimellaro and R. M. Retamales (2007), the ideal
scenario is in 3 stories case, which is viscously damped frames in two inner bays, as
demonstrated in Figure 4.15. According to the results, it had little effect on the
building's performance, the redistribution of loads was not done adequately, and the
plastic hinges were not utilized to keep the structure from collapsing. Moreover, the
lateral stiffness is greatly improved compared with the corresponding 7-story case and
13-story viscous damping in the central bay case because the two-bay viscous damping
case restored the stiffness symmetry of the building. Therefore, it can be said that this
frame provides a similar performance to the more costly viscous damping along the
height of the building.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.15 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame only in certain stories
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

A CFRP frame with a CFRP layer running through each beam is shown in Figure 4.16.
Based on these data, it can be concluded that the beams were correctly radiating forces
and tensile performance, hence increasing structural strength while also improving
chain performance inside the beam structure. In addition to this, the comparatively
modest cost of the structure resulted in a high performance against progressive
collapse. The column, in a condition of immediate occupation, is where the plastic
hinge creation is broadly dispersed. This may be attributed to the significant increase
in member strength, beam-column joint strength, and improved frame continuity
provided by CFRP strengthening. The lateral stiffness continues to be restored in 7-
story and this 13-story frames despite the increased number of stories.

83
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.16 Formation of hinge in the frame with CFRP subjected to loss of column
in (a) floor one, (b) floor six, and (c) floor thirteen

4.1.3 19-Floor Frame Performance Level

It's easy to see in Figure 4.17 how a hinge scheme is formed in a 19-story moment-
resistant frame (Bare frame) that's been exposed to column loss in (a) floor one, (b)
floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen. The removal of 1st story and 9th story columns
caused plastic hinges in the joints of the upper floors but didn’t form in their adjacent
joints on each side, as in the 7-story and 13-story frames. As a result, the percentage
of the number of joints formation to the total number of frame joints is significantly
increased. Although, when stated as a percentage concerning the activation of the first
failure mechanism, the load-bearing capability of the structure diminishes with the
number of floors (Yi et al., 2008), however, the building strength is increased with
floor number due to the increased number of component of resistance.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.17 Formation of hinge in the moment-resisting frame (Bare frame)

subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

84
When introducing X bracing to the 13-story frame, the mode of distribution of plastic
hinges extended to occur in one of the bracing members on each floor and to the right
(weaker) part of the frame, as depicted in Figure 4.18.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.18 Formation of hinge in the X braced frame subjected to loss of column in
(a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

The 1st and 9th story column removal cases have shown less lateral displacement than
the control frame, possibly due to the increase in building height contributing to
reducing the stiffness symmetry of the frame by the column removal incident.

Unlike the corresponding 7-story and 13-story frame cases, when introducing diagonal
bracing to the 19-story frame, many plastic hinges occurred in the diagonals of the
bracing system, as shown in Figure 4.19.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.19 Formation of hinge in the diagonally braced frame subjected to loss of
column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

The column removal of all cases has shown an approximately similar distribution of
hinge formation. Lateral displacements are minimal, probably due to the effect of

85
bracing on the integrity of frame action and the increased building height, reducing the
loss of stiffness symmetry.

When introducing inverted V bracing to the 19-story frame, like the 13-story frame,
but unlike the corresponding 7-story case, the mode of distribution of plastic hinges
seldom occurred in any of the bracing members, as shown in Figure 4.20. The 1st and
9th story column removal has shown more lateral displacement compared to the
control frame, which may be due to the loss of stiffness symmetry of the frame.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.20 Formation of hinge in the inverted V-braced frame subjected to loss of
column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

By introducing viscous damping in the central bay of the 19-story frame, the number
of plastic hinges has significantly reduced for all cases of column removal compared
to previous bracing cases, as shown in Figure 4.21. However, compared with the
corresponding 13-story frame, the lateral stiffness is significantly increased because of
the increased building height that added to reduce the stiffness asymmetry.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.21 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in central bay
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

86
By introducing viscous damping in two inner bays of the 19-story frame, the number
of plastic hinges has significantly reduced for all cases of column removal compared
to previous bracing cases and with a case of viscous damping in the central bay, as
demonstrated in Figure 4.22. Moreover, the lateral stiffness is greatly improved
compared with the corresponding 7-story case and 13-story viscous damping in the
central bay case because the two-bay viscous damping case restored the stiffness
symmetry of the building.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.22 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame in two inner bays
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

By introducing viscous damping in two inner bays of specific stories in the 19-story
frame, the performance is comparable to previous viscous damping cases in which the
number of plastic hinges has significantly reduced for all cases of column removal,
compared to last bracing cases, as shown in Figure 4.23. Moreover, the lateral stiffness
continued to be restored, as is the case of the corresponding 7-story case and 13-story
viscous damping. It can be said that this frame provides similar performance to the
more costly viscous damping along the height of the building.

CFRP 19-story frame showed high performance in terms of the number of hinges
formed and the reduced number of plastic hinges in the frame compared to all other
bracing systems, as shown in Figure 4.24. This may be attributed to the significant
increase in members' strength and the improvement in beam-column joint strength,
and the improved continuity provided by the CFRP strengthening. In addition, the
lateral stiffness continues to be restored in 7-story, 13-story, and this 19-story frames
despite the increased number of stories.

87
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.23 Formation of hinge in the viscously damped frame only in certain stories
subjected to loss of column in (a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

This may be attributed to the significant increase in members' strength and the
improvement in beam-column joint strength, and the improved continuity provided by
the CFRP strengthening. In addition, the lateral stiffness continues to be restored in 7-
story, 13-story, and this 19-story frames despite the increased number of stories.

A general note can be stated hereby that all bracing systems attempted in this work
present a better performance for high-rise buildings than those of moderate-rise or low-
rise ones. It is well known that bracing in a slender framing system is more effective
in improving performance than bracing for non-slender frames. This work has
introduced a higher rise frame system with all bracing kinds and attempted to reach a
conclusion that was not found in the literature.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.24 Formation of hinge in the frame with CFRP subjected to loss of column
(a) floor one, (b) floor nine, and (c) floor nineteen

88
4.2 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column

The maximum allowable ductility and rotational restrictions of beams are investigated
per GSA specifications. Damage induced by a column loss is evaluated using ASCE
(2014) non-linear analytical criteria for RC structures. A beam's maximum ductility
would be revealed if any of the frames' beam end rotations exceeded the permitted
requirements, as stated by ASCE (2014); GSA (2013a).

4.2.1 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column in7-Floor Frame

For internal loss of columns on the floor one, four, and seven, Figures 4.25–4.27 show
the numerical findings from non-linear dynamic determinations up to 10 s. In addition,
figures 4.25 to 4.27 show the displacement value at the point of column loss and
behavior in a few seconds after the removal incidence for the 7-story building of the
various eight frame systems described previously, when the loss of column occurred
on floor one, floor four and floor seven, respectively.
For floor one incident (Figure 4.25), the displacements occurred suddenly for all
frames as expected. However, for the braced frames, the bracing elements restored part
of the displacement in the last few seconds, especially for the diagonally braced frame.
For the X and inverted V braced frames, the restoration is showing periodic in damped
semi-sine wave due to the framing of the brace element to the joint where the column
is being removed.

Figure 4.25 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor one

89
For the story four incident (Figure 4.26), the displacements occurred suddenly for all
frames as expected. However, for the braced frames and the CFRP frame, the bracing
elements restored part of the displacement in the last few seconds, especially for the
diagonally braced frame. For the X, inverted V, and CFRP frames, the restoration is
showing periodic in damped semi-sine wave due to the framing of the brace element
to the joint where the column is being removed, and for the CFRP frame due to the
improved column beam joint action and to the confinement provided by the CFRP
layer.

Figure 4.26 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor four

The CFRP frame in story one incident case did not show such behavior, probably due
to the failure of the CFRP layer under the more significant load of all the floors above
the incident point.

Figure 4.27 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor seven

90
On the other hand, X-braced and inverted V-braced frames have a lower displacement
than different kinds of frames, as seen in Figure 4.27. Furthermore, the moment-
resistant frame (bare frame) collapses for all column removal scenarios, as shown in
Table 4.1. Therefore, the displacement values for the rest of the cases rely primarily
on the applied strengthening technique.

Table 4.1 Vertical displacement due to column loss in the floors

ST1 ST4 ST7

Type of Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
case 1 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
case 2 -25.71 -18.93 -26.28 -19.77 -26.31 -19.84
case 3 -4.58 -3.82 -5.96 -5.00 -5.44 -4.77
case 4 -24.46 -19.27 -25.43 -20.58 -25.74 -18.38
case 5 -104.14 -104.14 -133.57 -133.57 -49.16 -49.05
case 6 -103.54 -103.54 -135.02 -135.02 -103.61 -103.61
case 7 -103.54 -103.54 -205.43 -205.43 -170.78 -167.62
case 8 -129.63 -129.63 -56.63 -34.09 -56.40 -34.07

Because of the column loss on the first floor, as depicted in Table 4.1, case 8 generates
the maximum value of displacement, and collapsing is considered in all storys, and
case 3 shows the best performance. In contrast, on floor four, case 7 shows the higher
Vertical displacement, and the least is associated with case3, which is −5.96 mm. This
might be due to that the braces provide lateral stability and enhanced frame action after
the incident, i.e., improved load path of the frame after the incident, especially the
diagonal braced one. Thus, the column failure on the last floor was followed by a
decrease in displacement in cases 3 and 7 compared to the fourth floor, which is
presumably to be anticipated when the occurrence happens in a roof joint.

4.2.2 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column in 13-floor Frame

Figures 4.28–4.30 show the numerical results of non-linear dynamic calculations up

to 10 seconds for the internal removal of columns on floors one, six, and thirteen. Due
to the quick interior loss of column on floor one, the maximum displacement for the
braced frames varies around 45 cm, as shown in Figure 4.28. Eliminating columns on

91
the first, sixth, and thirteenth floors has no impact on the displacement of an X-braced
frame compared to other kinds of frames.

Figure 4.28 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor one

Figure 4.29 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor six

Figure 4.30 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor thirteen

92
However, the displacement of other types of frames is often more significant than that
of X-braced and inverted V-braced frames. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.2, the
moment-resistant frame (bare frame) fails in all loss of column cases. The variations
in values of displacement for the others vary depending on the application of the
strengthening technique.

Because of the column loss on the first floor, as seen in Table 4.2, case 7 generates the
maximum vertical displacement, and the failure occurs in case 1 on all storys. Case 3
demonstrates the best performance. While the loss of column on the sixth floor is
expected, case 7 generates the most significant vertical displacement, and case 3
demonstrates the least is 8.63 mm. Due to that, apart from column loss in the last story,
there was a reduction in displacement in case3 and case7 compared to story 4, which
is probably expected when the incident occurs in a roof joint.

Table 4.2 Vertical displacement due to column loss in the floors

ST1 ST6 ST13

Displacement
Type of Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(mm)
Cases
Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case 1 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
Case 2 −49.94 −43.38 −44.20 −37.99 −28.77 −22.18
Case 3 −8.68 −7.73 −9.72 −8.63 −13.10 −11.50
Case 4 −50.19 −44.05 −47.08 −41.33 −37.32 −30.38
Case 5 −76.75 −76.75 −66.65 −66.65 −76.48 −76.48
Case 6 −55.15 −55.15 −56.81 −56.81 −77.93 −77.93
Case 7 −116.87 −116.87 −168.79 −168.79 Fail Fail
Case 8 −78.35 −50.45 −78.64 −51.37 −71.40 −47.77

4.2.3 Displacements of Frame Due to Loss of Column in 19-floor Frame

Figures 4.31 to 4.33 show the displacement value at the point of column loss and
behavior in a few seconds after the removal incidence for the 19-story building of the
various eight-frame systems described previously when the column elimination
occurred on floors one nine, and floor nineteen, respectively.
For story one (Figure 4.31), the displacements have occurred for all frames in a
somewhat less sudden manner than in the 7-story building cases, similar to 13-story
frames. This may be since the number of floors (elements of resistance) is raised more,

93
i.e., the whole frame ductility characteristic is increased. Moreover, the displacement
values are much less than in the previous frames.
The more significant displacement is shown for the bare frame case, and the smaller
is for the inverted V braced frame. All other cases are banded in between.
For the braced frames, the bracing elements restored part of the displacement in the
last few seconds, especially for the inverted V braced frame. For the braced frames,
the restoration is showing periodic in damped semi-sine wave due to the framing of
the brace element to the joint where the column is being removed. The viscous
damping frames show the expected damped non-periodic behavior in the aftermath of
the incident. The CFRP frame shows damped periodic behavior

Figure 4.31 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor one.

For story nine and story nineteen incidents (Figure 4.32 and 4.33, respectively), the
displacements have occurred less suddenly for all frames described in story one. A
similar finding of story one incident can be said for stories nine and nineteen.

94
Figure 4.32 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor nine

Displacement is frequently smaller than that of other types of frames for X braces
and inverted V-braces. Furthermore, for all column removal scenarios, the moment-
resistant frame (bare frame) is enhanced, and the joint remains intact and does not
fail, as in the comparable seven and 13-story examples. Therefore, variations in the
values of displacement for the others are primarily dependent on the methods used
for retrofitting.

Figure 4.33 Vertical displacement at the place of the eliminated column due to loss
of column on floor nineteen

The most vertical displacement is recorded in cases 1 and 8 owing to the loss of the
column on floor one, as indicated in Table 4.3. However, failure is not detected in all
cases due to the increased height of the building compared to 7 and 13-story structures,
95
which leads to improved distribution to adjacent elements. At the same time, in story
nine, robustness and catenary action enhanced, the most significant Vertical
displacement is associated with case1, and the least belongs to case4 (-18,61mm).
Therefore, apart from the loss of column on the last story, the displacement value is
dropped (-17.67mm) in case8 and case4 compared to story 9, which is probably
expected when the incident occurs in a roof joint.

Table 4.3 Vertical displacement due to column loss in the floors

ST1 ST9 ST19

Type Displacement
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
of (mm)
cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
case1 -43.25 -35.21 -49.34 -38.05 -39.45 -27.76
case 2 -27.44 -27.11 -31.55 -31.30 -28.20 -28.19
case 3 -27.01 -27.01 -32.21 -32.21 -28.47 -28.47
case 4 -16.25 -13.71 -18.61 -14.29 -17.67 -14.66
case 5 -28.35 -27.84 -32.33 -31.34 -27.86 -27.73
case 6 -26.49 -26.49 -31.53 -31.53 -27.76 -27.76
case 7 -26.52 -26.48 -31.53 -26.84 -10.6 -27.76
case 8 -33.40 -23.20 -38.85 -27.07 -32.90 -24.00

4.3 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column

Removal

The surviving columns and beams must resist a new gravity load to maintain the
building when each column is torched and removed. The structural members are
subjected to extra stress due to redistributing the building's weight to neighboring
columns and beams. A combination of axial loading and a bending moment has
resulted in new stress (Giriunas, 2009).

4.3.1 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column

Removal for 7-floor Frame

Figures 4.34 to 4.36 show the behavior in shear and bending moment of the beam
located next to the column lost after column removal, in a few seconds after the
removal incidence, for the 7-story building of the various eight frame systems

96
described previously when the column loss occurred in floor one, four and seven,
respectively.
For all incidents, i.e., story one, story four, and story seven (Figure 4.34 to 4.36), it can
be said that the shear and bending moments have been found greatest for the CFRP
frame, indicating a superior performance over the other frame systems. For the braced
and viscously damped frames, lower shear and average moment values have been
taken. For the braced CFRP frames, the behavior is showing periodic in damped semi-
sine wave due to the framing of the brace element to the joint where the column is
being removed and due to the improved beam-column joint performance in the CFRP
system.

Compared to other story incidences, the bending moment and shear brought on by
unexpected column loss were more prominent for the beams of floor one in CFRP
frames (Case8). However, these higher forces may be tolerated because of the
CFRP-framed structure's improved flexural stiffness.

Figure 4.34 Behavior of beam after removing of the column in floor one: (a)
moment and (b) shear

The bending moment and shear on the beam carried on by the loss of column are
shown for the first and fourth storys, respectively, in Figures 4.34 and 4.36. Figure
4.35 demonstrates that the bending moments of the bare frame and various
retrofitting frames are less than those of the first and fourth floors framed with
CFRP. This is since CFRP frames' joint stiffness draws more force except in
Case8, whereas In all other cases, forces are distributed uniformly over all floors.

97
Consequently, a CFRP-framed structure reduces the bending moment
requirements in a simple-jointed beam, boosting the progressive collapse
resistance of the CFRP frame due to column loss.

Figure 4.35 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor four: (a)
moment and (b) shear

Figure 4.36 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor seven: (a)
moment and (b) shear

In beam number 172, case 8 is associated with the highest shear force (177865 N),
while case 2 is associated with the lowest shear force (2106.42 N); When it comes to
the bending moment model, the tremendous force is 177865 N-M, while the lowest is
-12082 N-M. Figure 4.35 and Table 4.5 reveal that when the fourth-floor column is
removed, the maximum shear force (24841.25 N) is generated in case 8, the lowest
shear force (-734.581 N) is associated with case 4, and the lowest bending moment
value (-16363.7 N-M) is recorded in case3. As seen in Figure 4.36 and Table 4.6, case8
has the maximum shear force of 19505.35 N, while case 4 has the lowest shear force

98
of 616.139 N. Regarding bending moments, the largest is associated with Case 8 and
has a value of 117490.2 Nm; nevertheless, the least is associated with Case 1, which
equals 75451.5 Nm.

Table 4.4 Forces result for element 172 on floor one

Type of Shear (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 6058.07 -25155 85746.4 -3666.4
Case2 2106.42 -8686.7 69210.3 38540.2
Case3 -21457 -22080 -12082 -14027
Case4 3604.67 -4383.2 77761.5 56806.3
Case5 5010.47 5010.47 81753 81753
Case6 4987.83 4987.83 81682.4 81682.4
Case7 5720.96 5720 83778.7 83800
Case8 177865 96458.1 177865 96458.1

Table 4.5 Forces result for element 175 on floor four

Type of Shear (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 3404.70 -24050.1 75429.17 -3507.02
Case2 -2390.72 -10354 47748.46 25174.62
Case3 -22176.1 -22568.5 -16363.7 -17588.4
Case4 -734.581 -6814.1 57000.91 39759.03
Case5 2996.582 2996.58 72892.59 72892.59
Case6 2998.51 2998.51 72891 72891
Case7 3127.90 3130 73261 73300
Case8 24841.25 4514.36 127652.8 65474.22

Table 4.6 Forces result for element 178 on floor seven

Type of Shear (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 -24051.92 -24050.1 75451.5 -3507.02
Case2 -23916.40 -9623.29 45433.64 24922.45
Case3 -24029.60 -22787.6 -17149.8 -18464.5
Case4 -23178.56 -7959.07 58317.97 34325.41
Case5 1331.22 1228.13 68375.29 68128.51
Case6 1382.62 1268.48 68410.45 68047.64
Case7 3479.72 1265.25 74686.65 67700
Case8 19505.35 1320.62 117490.2 59160.92

99
4.3.2 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column
Removal for 13-floor Frame

Compared to CFRP frames, shear and bending moments induced by the quick loss of
column were greater for story one beams (Case 8). This is due to the CFRP-framed
structure's enhanced flexural rigidity, which can withstand larger forces. Figures 4.37
and 4.38 exhibit the beam's bending moment and shear due to column loss for the first
and sixth floors, respectively. Figure 4.38 demonstrates that the bending moments for
the bare frame and different retrofitting frames are less than those for the CFRP-framed
first story. It's because the stiffness of the joints in CFRP frames gets additional force.
All other cases, except for Case8, have the same distribution of forces on all floors.
Therefore, the bending moment requirements will be minimized in a simple-jointed
beam for a model reinforced with CFRP, hence boosting the prevention of progressive
collapse of the CFRP frame due to loss of column.
There is less beam shear force in Case 1 (the bare frame) on the first and sixth floors
compared to the other cases (see Figures 4.37 and 4.38). This is due to the stiffness of
the joints in CFRP frames, which draws additional force. In other cases, forces are
uniformly distributed throughout the whole plot. Consequently, a CFRP-framed
structure reduces the axial force demands in a simple jointed beam, increasing the
CFRP frame's resilience to progressive collapse owing to column loss.

Figure 4.37 Behavior of beam after removing of the column in floor one: (a) shear
and (b) moment

100
Figure 4.38 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor six: (a) shear
and (b) moment

The bending moment on floor thirteen for the viscously damped frame in two inner
bays is greater than the bending moment for CFRP framed (see Figure 4.39). Case 8
is resistant to progressive collapse because of its stiffness. However, a few moments
in the column close to the brace would need the adoption of a less stiff brace. It was
shown that different dampers were capable of reducing bending moment forces and
providing adequate absorption of energy in the instances where they were used.

Figure 4.39 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor thirteen: (a)
shear and (b) moment

It is indicated in Table 4.7 that case 8 has the maximum shear force in beam 118,
whereas case 1 has the lowest shear force, which was found after the column was
removed from the first floor in case 8. In cases 8 and 3, however, the bending moment
model shows the most significant and lowest force. Following the elimination of the
sixth-floor column, case 8 has the most shear force, while case 3 experiences the least.
According to Figure 4.38 and the values in Table 4.8, case 8 produces the most shear
force, whereas case 7 produces the least and case 3 is therefore associated with the
bending moment force. And the highest value for bending moment is recorded in
case4.

101
Table 4.7 Forces result for element 118 on floor one

Type of Shear (N) Moment (Nm)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 −954.38 −41857 137747 −4271.2
Case2 −2409.6 −23488 129084 −2396.7
Case3 −25662 −40876 −11803 −4171
Case4 −2531.8 −23531 128930 −2401.2
Case5 −2031.4 −2044.9 130093 −208.66
Case6 −3693 −3693 125379 −376.84
Case7 −1123.5 −1123.5 132357 −114.65
Case8 91115 39827 345480 4063.98

Table 4.8 Forces result for element 123 on floor six

Type of Shear (N) Moment (Nm)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 −1860.2 −42805 137632 23002.7
Case2 −4208.8 −21984 126347 78079.4
Case3 −26358 −45391 −23574 −26477
Case4 −4254.7 −20611 1242119 802693
Case5 −3646.9 −3646.9 127990 127990
Case6 −6524.5 −6524.5 115720 115720
Case7 −1857.7 −1857.7 137318 137318
Case8 71997.3 26287.7 304069 175567

According to Figure 4.39 and Table 4.9, case 8 has the largest shear force, whereas
case 7 has the lowest shear force, reaching the value of 2622.87 N. After oscillation,
the bending moment starts to demonstrate. Case 8 shows the most outstanding
performance in bending moment, while the lowest bending moment is associated with
case7, which is 20838.58 N.

Table 4.9 Forces result for element 130 on floor thirteen

Type of Shear (N) Moment (Nm)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 −2625.25 −43752.4 137480.4 20838.6
Case2 −24073.4 −33571.7 28612.19 4591.762
Case3 −26772.2 −19,694.6 −24506.6 −38748.3
Case4 −7316.24 −19,694.6 118550.3 80526.13
Case5 −5218.5 −5218.5 126341.4 126341.4
Case6 −5199.03 −5199.03 126519.3 126519.3
Case7 −2622.87 −43,752.4 137660 20838.58
Case8 37417.97 3799.409 228482.2 126166.3

102
4.3.3 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Beams Next to Column
Removal for 19-floor Frame

Figure 4.40 to 4.42 show the behavior in shear and a bending moment of the beam
located next to the column lost after column removal, in few seconds after the removal
incidence, for the 19-story building of the various eight frame systems described
previously, when the column loss occurred in story one, story nine and story nineteen,
respectively.
For all incidents, i.e., story one, story nine, and story nineteen (Figure 4.40 to 4.42), it
can be said that the shear and bending moments have been found greatest for the CFRP
frame, indicating a superior performance over the other frame systems. For the braced
frames and viscously damped frames, lower shear and moment values have been taken.
However, they were closer in bending moment to the CFRP frame results, owing to
the fact that the bracing system becomes more effective as the building becomes high
rise. This is found in this work that the nineteen-story frame has shown an effective
bracing system in comparison with the other lower-rise frames, something not found
quantitatively in literature. For the braced and CFRP frames, the behavior is showing
periodic in damped semi-sine wave due to the framing of the brace element to the joint
where the column is being removed and due to the improved beam-column joint
performance in the CFRP system. The shear and bending moment values are more
significant than the seven-story and 13-story frame cases.
Shear and bending moments caused by the unexpected loss of column were more
significant for story one beams compared to CFRP frames (Case 8). This is because
the higher flexural stiffness of the CFRP-framed structure allows it to tolerate larger
forces. Figures 4.40 to 4.42 illustrate the beam's bending moment and shear due to
column loss for the first and sixth storeys.
Because of this, the first and ninth floors of the building, which are composed of CFRP,
have lower bending moments than the bare frame and different retrofitting frames
(Figure 4.41). To explain this, it is owing to the stiffness of CFRP joints, which absorb
extra force.

103
Figure 4.40 Behavior of beam after removing of the column in floor one: (a)
moment and (b) shear

Forces are evenly distributed over all levels in all other cases, except for Case 8.
Consequently, the bending moment requirements of a simple jointed beam are reduced
in a CFRP-framed structure, boosting the CFRP frame's resilience to progressive
collapse due to loss of column.

Figure 4.41 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor nine: (a)
moment and (b) shear

The shear force of the beam for the bare frame (Case1) is lower in the first and ninth
storeys than in the other cases (see Figures 4.40 to 4.42). This is due to the stiffness of
the joints in CFRP frames, which receives additional force. In other cases, forces are
uniformly distributed throughout the whole level. Improved resilience to progressive
collapse owing to column loss is achieved using a CFRP-framed model, which requires
less axial force in a simple jointed beam than conventional models, as shown in Figure

104
4.42. Even though there are multiple moments in the column near the brace where a
less rigid brace is required, Case 8 holds up effectively against progressive collapse
because of its stiffness. The bending moment requirements of a simple jointed beam
are reduced in a CFRP-framed structure, boosting the CFRP frame's resilience to
progressive collapse due to loss of column..

Figure 4.42 Behavior of beam after removing of the column on floor nineteen: (a)
moment and (b) shear

Table 4.10 Forces result for element 172 on floor one

Type of Shear (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 6058.07 -25155 85746.4 -3666.4
Case2 2106.42 -8686.7 69210.3 38540.2
Case3 -21457 -22080 -12082 -14027
Case4 3604.67 -4383.2 77761.5 56806.3
Case5 5010.47 5010.47 81753 81753
Case6 4987.83 4987.83 81682.4 81682.4
Case7 37026.09 37000 145894.82 146000
Case8 177865 96458.1 177865 96458.1

In many beams 172, case 8 recorded the highest shear force with the value of 177865
N, and the lowest value with 2106.42 N is associated with case 2; Even so, in terms of
bending moment, case 8 has the maximum force (177865 N-M) while case 3 has the
lowest (12082 N-M). As presented in Figure 4.41 and demonstrated in Table 4.11,
after column removal on floor nine, the maximum shear force (62255.07 N) is

105
generated in case 8, the lowest shear force (28891.14 N) is generated in case 4, and the
lowest bending moment force (129463.66 N-M) is generated in case 4.

Case 4 has the maximum shear force (28891.14 N), as illustrated in Figure 4.42 and
Table 4.12, while case6 has the lowest shear force (2201.9 N). After the oscillation,
the enormous bending moment (100788.58 N-M) is found in case 8, while the lowest
is found in case 1, with a value of 16409.52 N.

Table 4.11 Forces result for element 180 on floor 9

Type of Shear (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 38347.61 13688.74 156029.34 88473.048
Case2 36992.06 34701.96 150981.89 144912.61
Case3 36805.16 36804.74 150043.9 150042.9
Case4 28891.14 9800.64 129463.66 77944.485
Case5 37212.04 33974.89 152112.69 143439.25
Case6 35574.63 35520.80 146471.59 146327.29
Case7 35597.61 13700.00 156018.99 88600.00
Case8 62255.07 32850.76 220454.08 139742.46

Table 4.12 Forces result for element 190 on floor 19

Shear (N) Moment (N-M)

Type
Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 16409.52 2200.98 16409.52 2200.986
Case2 2738.550 2710.94 55790.03 55722.69
Case3 3088.837 3088.83 56949.08 56949.08
Case4 28891.14 9800.64 48781.44 32537.92
Case5 2368.35 2041.03 54800.09 54048.23
Case6 2201.92 2201.19 54420.64 54420.32
Case7 16344.04 12700.00 94773.89 83900.00
Case8 16652.97 23714.52 100788.58 59628.04

4.4 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal
The axial loading is a concentrated force operating at the center of the structural
member's cross-section, resulting from the live and dead loads in the building. The
structural member experiences compressive or tensile axial stress as a result of the
axial loading. The bending moment is caused by the structure's weight acting on the

106
cross-section center of the structural member rather than directly on it. Therefore, the
bending moment causes bending stress to be generated in the structural member
(Giriunas, 2009). The following figures and tables show the residual axial, shear, and
moment created in each column for different column removal scenarios.

4.4.1 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal for 7-floor Frame

Figs. 4.43 shows the behavior in axial force, shear, and bending moment of the column
located next to the column lost after column removal, in a few seconds after the
removal incidence, for the 7-story building of the eight frame systems described
previously.

For the axial force carried by the column next to the incident location, Figure 4.43, the
CFRP frame column shows a tremendous increase in receiving additional axial force.
This is due to the better frame action and performance of the joint under incident
provided by the CFRP wrapping. The lowest is found in the bare and X-braced frames,
indicating the formation of plastic hinges and consequently loss of continuity, force,
and moment redistribution.

It can be said that the column’s shear and bending moments have been found most
significant for bare and X-braced frames, which indicates the formation of plastic
hinges, thereby losing the symmetric frame action and the joint stiffness condition,
which explains the increase in the column share of shear and moment.

As depicted in Figure 4.43 and Table 4.13, after column removal on floor one, the
results indicate that Case 8 recorded the highest axial force corresponding to a value
of -858249.11N. In contrast, the lowest in Case 2 corresponds to a value of -516522.91
N. In flexural anchor, the highest applied force (36091.93 N) is associated with Case
2, and Case 3 has the lowest (1130.09 N).

107
 Table 4.13 Forces result for element 77 on floor 1

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 10548.76 9119.20 -661321.94 -615602.19 11512.00 9948.173
Case2 36091.93 22300.45 -516522.91 -466912.57 62875.30 39617.14
Case3 1130.09 846.15 -657447.50 -575615.84 1223.41 913.0824
Case4 33954.05 16723.06 -533722.79 -497434.28 58043.79 28479.42
Case5 18671.39 9567.41 -633871.74 -633871.74 29919.46 10822.22
Case6 9236.65 9236.65 -644143.12 -641852.96 10090.09 10090.09
Case7 9526.12 9530.00 -673229.62 -644000 10405.44 10400.00
Case8 21049.235 12645.55 -858249.11 -676733.02 22934.04 13827.57

Figure 4.43 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor one: (a) axial
force, (b) moment, and (c) shear

After the loss of the column on floor four, the higher axial force in the column is
generated in case8 which is -462836.75 N. In comparison, higher shear force in the
column is associated with case 2 with the value of 28552.26 N, as presented in Figure
4.44 and Table 4.14. And the bending moment shows the greatest value with 41403.09
N-M, which belongs to case 2. Despite certain members' excellent performance, the
chain's performance and forces were improved.

108
 Table 4.14 Forces result for element 80 on floor 4

Type of Shear (N)* Axial force (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case 1 19056.99 14850.94 -362829.71 -329010.3 26545.50 21875.69
Case 2 28552.26 18491.10 -284328.56 -261960.02 41403.09 27270.02
Case 3 596.29 316.87 -364671.32 -313714.95 -161.90 -378.87
Case 4 24858.58 14328.3 -297053.19 -275290.4 34633.11 20377.12
Case 5 18106.53 9431.05 -351289.42 -351289.43 23759.64 7592.38
Case 6 8259.24 8259.24 -356558.39 -356558.4 5489.14 5489.14
Case 7 8311.57 8310.00 -355934.23 -357000.00 5528.50 5530.00
Case 8 17865.72 10224.25 -462836.75 -364806.76 13050.798 7123.10

Figure 4.44 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor four: (a) axial
force, (b) moment, and (c) shear

Table 4.15 Forces result for element 83 on floor seven

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case 1 25226.37 17265.98 -92874.69 -84118.38 30110.62 20697.96
Case 2 35460.75 23134.15 -75315.62 -69945.12 43027.22 27485.44
Case 3 777.78 473.16 -62724.93 -60552.46 542.35 334.7087
Case 4 27085.65 16820.67 -84060.38 -74862.00 31062.27 18693.26
Case 5 23711.12 14274.86 -89514.95 -89482.16 24964.77 10452.68
Case 6 14458.98 14334.62 -89739.48 -89561.79 10578.98 10479.37
Case 7 16218.38 14400.00 -92689.53 -89600.00 11864.65 10600.00
Case 8 27573.94 15846.01 -114696.70 -91487.02 20679.71 11815.43

109
The bending force created in Case 2 has the highest value with 43027.22 N, while the
lowest (542.35 N-M) bending force is generated in Case 3, as it is whion in Figure
4.45 and Table 4.15. In the shear force case, case 8 has the maximum force with the
value of 27573.94 N, while case 3 has the lowest value of 777.78 N greatest.

Figure 4.45 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor seven: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear

4.4.2 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal for 13-floor Frame

After column removal on the first floor, as depicted in Figure 4.46 and Table 4.16, the
maximum axial force in Case 4 is -3683775.9 N, as indicated in the results. Although,
at the same time, Case2 has the lowest value with -2260521.9 N, in the flexural anchor
case, the maximum applied force goes to Case 5 with 114224 N, and the minimum
with the value of (20330.7N) belongs to Case 7.

Table 4.16 Forces result for element 53 on floor one

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (Nm)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case 1 31745.6 31742.8 -2413731.7 −2413732 32907.1 32878.7
Case 2 90041.5 26483 -2260521.9 −2059768 398733 252295.7
Case 3 6833.02 6028.07 -3201736.4 −2890048 7058.88 6225.3
Case 4 77242.5 29757.9 -2289128.4 −2080616 345715 215709.8
Case 5 114224 29249.3 -2413731.7 −2413732 404512 166427.8
Case 6 18863.2 18847.7 -2964215.2 −2964215 19528.7 19506.1
Case 7 20330.7 20318.1 -3123714.7 −2984732 21128.2 21106.5
Case 8 77252.2 49470.8 -3683775.9 −3013599 80140.9 51206.8

110
Figure 4.46 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor one: (a) axial
force, (b) shear, and (c) moment

After eliminating the column on floor six, as illustrated in Figure 4.47 and Table 4.17,
the axial force in the column is generated in case 8 with the value of -2148417 N,
which is recorded as the maximum value. In contrast, the maximum shear force
formation in the column belongs to case2 which is 69741.2. This is because case2
recorded most of the bending moment, even though the chain's performance and the
forces inside the members have improved, and certain members exhibit excellent
performance.

Table 4.17 Forces result for element 58 on floor 6

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (Nm)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case 1 24731.7 24718.8 -1702456 −1,702,429 0.9 −428
Case 2 69741.2 40499.1 -1336853 −1228997 168017.6 118980.8
Case 3 4886 3924 -1845742 −1619619 1640.2 629.3
Case 4 65370.1 32649.9 -1372706 −1241878 124436.8 81744.3
Case 5 16127.4 −522.1 -1444982 −1444982 33400.3 329.2
Case 6 16423.7 15919.1 -1687510 −1687495 7708.1 6959.7
Case 7 17723.2 17067.8 -1567330 −1567263 8725.8 7948.4
Case 8 56651.4 35584.6 -2148417 −1752195 30784.9 18377.1

111
Figure 4.47 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor six: (a) axial
force, (b) shear, and (c) moment

According to Figure 4.48 and Table 4.18, the highest bending force value created in
Case 2 is 92318.4 N, whereas Case 3 recorded the lowest value of bending force. In
terms of shear force, the greatest force is associated with case 8, while Case 3
recorded the lowest value, 5244.2 N.

Table 4.18 Forces result for element 65 on floor 13

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (Nm)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case 1 43963 38738.9 -206160.6 −200110 29336.2 25964.6
Case 2 74027.3 48891 -154795 −149529 92318.4 61104.8
Case 3 5244.2 4527.3 -144098 −141667 4554.1 4132.5
Case 4 60214 39615.7 -183579.8 −168470 68195.2 44635.9
Case 5 68762.7 40588.4 -190001.8 −190002 85899.2 33461.9
Case 6 33930.3 33930.3 -193062.2 −193062 22858 22858
Case 7 44140.8 39111 -206402.7 −200602 29511.1 26201.8
Case 8 77010.4 49050.8 -248757.8 −207391 51915.9 33394.9

112
 Figure 4.48 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor thirteen: (a)
axial force, (b) shear, and (c) moment

4.4.3 Distribution of Force Due to Loss of Column in Columns Next to Column

Removal for 19-floor Frame

After removing the first-floor column, as depicted in Figure 4.49 and Table 4.19, the
results indicate that the highest axial force (--2878453.6N), which belongs to Case 8
and Case 4 has the lowest (-2045003.2 N). In the flexural anchor case, Case 4 has the
highest applied force (86058.52 N), and Case 6 has the lowest applied force
(34342.23 N).

Table 4.19 Forces result for element 77 on floor one

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 38745.53 24978.55 -2696596 -2347688 39375.816 25344.329
Case2 48223.69 37484.23 -2373322 -2362372.6 89667.344 50716.417
Case3 35034.53 35004.91 -2493986.7 -2390219.1 35752.489 35606.988
Case4 86058.52 59975.81 -2045003.2 -1958244.4 270493.7 196794.11
Case5 56470.25 36851.39 -2387968.8 -2370108 124555.2 49229.061
Case6 34342.23 34328.82 -2433412 -2352474.3 34976.274 34935.18
Case7 34351.25 34300.00 -2496047.3 -2350000.0 35044.30 34900.00
Case8 50185.114 34700.495 -2878453.6 -2399615.2 51002.64 35275.561

For the axial force carried by the column next to the incident location, Figure 4.49, the
CFRP frame column shows a greater increase in receiving additional axial force.

113
However, other frame systems offer closer results to the CFRP one because the
percentage of difference is reduced compared to the lower height frames. The lowest
is found in the inverted V-braced frame. Therefore, it can be said that the column’s
shear and bending moments have been found greatest for bare and X-braced frames,
which indicates the formation of plastic hinges, thereby losing the symmetric frame
action and the joint stiffness condition, which explains the increase in the column share
of shear and moment.

Figure 4.49 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor one: (a) axial
force, (b) moment, and (c) shear

As depicted in Figure 4.50 and Table 4.20, after column removal on floor nine, the
axial force in the column is recorded as maximum and associated with Case8, which
is -1550014,64 N. In contrast, the shear force in the column has a maximum value of
5179626 N, which is related to Case4. When it comes to bending moment, most of it
(103505.27 N-M) is related to Case 4, although certain members have performed well
and the chain as a whole has improved.

Figure 4.50 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor nine: (a) axial
force, (b) moment, and (c) shear.

114
Table 4.20 Forces result for element 86 on floor nine

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 13616.42 6809.01 -1448715,77 -1232345.2 13616.42 6809.01
Case2 32315.40 27562.75 -1232588,23 -1228632.4 27714.66 13245.68
Case3 28547.23 28502.60 -1297487,56 -1253890.5 12105.58 12058.41
Case4 51796.26 23532.44 -1050641,53 -982502.63 103505.27 56284.83
Case5 37458.54 26872.44 -1245475,33 -1227525.7 49704.37 11286.43
Case6 27929.62 27754.13 -1252005,86 -1233844 11725.93 11382.48
Case7 32224.92 18400 -1145707,9 -1230000 13750.36 6830.00
Case8 40655.25 26899.22 -1550014,64 -1281551.2 17643.63 10790.65

The axial force carried by the column next to the incident location (Figure 4.50), the
CFRP frame column shows a greater increase in receiving additional axial force.
However, other frame systems show closer results to the CFRP one because the
percentage of difference is reduced compared to the lower height frames. The lowest
is found in the inverted V-braced frame. Therefore, it can be said that the column’s
shear and bending moments have been found greatest for bare and X-braced frames,
which indicates the formation of plastic hinges, thereby losing the symmetric frame
action and the joint stiffness condition, which explains the increase in the column share
of shear and moment.

The bending force recorded the highest value with 35609.39 N-M, associated with
Case2, while Case6 recorded the lowest (18031.26 N-M). On the other hand, in the
case of shear force, the highest force is 46389.57 N, associated with Case8, and the
lowest is 30259.08 N in case6, as shown in Figure 4.51 and Table 4.21.

The general results are shown in Table 4.21 as more banded and steady because the
incident happened in the roof story. For the axial force carried by the column next to
the incident location (Figure 4.51), the CFRP frame column shows a greater increase
in receiving additional axial force. However, other frame systems show closer results
to the CFRP one because the percentage of difference is reduced compared to the
lower-height frames. The lowest additional axial force is found in the inverted V-
braced frame.

115
 Table 4.21 Forces result for element 95 on floor 19

Type of Shear (N) Axial force (N) Moment (N-M)

cases Max Constant Max Constant Max Constant
Case1 45222.76 30244.70 -115597.6 -99611.24 26334.64 18001.29
Case2 34973.03 30977.63 -99998.85 -99994.26 35609.39 18209.17
Case3 31309.22 31309.20 -100589.2 -100589.22 18922.88 18922.85
Case4 33344.22 24946.40 -92534 -87303.64 32568.29 23909.86
Case5 34450.50 29661.84 -99820.28 -99751.00 34874.46 17429.90
Case6 30259.08 30245.47 -99614.59 -99611.1 18031.26 18000.63
Case7 45212.62 56800.00 -115620.7 -108000 26323.81 59800.00
Case8 46389.57 31953.60 -122820.1 -106338.68 28370.38 20023.05

It can be said that the column’s bending moments (Figure 4.51) have been found
greatest for the X braced frames, which displays the formation of plastic hinges and
thereby losing the symmetric frame action and the joint stiffness condition, which
explains the increase in the column share of shear and moment.

Figure 4.51 Behavior of column after removal of the column on floor nineteen: (a)
axial force, (b) moment, and (c) shear.

116
 CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to achieve the goal of this research by evaluating three different
scenarios, each with a different height, namely seven-story, thirteen-story, and
nineteen-story moment-resistant frames (bare frames). In contrast, other frames were
upgraded using X-brace, diagonal brace, inverted V-brace, the viscous damper in the
center bay, the viscous damper in two inner bays, and viscous damper only on specific
floors, and carbon fiber reinforced polymer. X-brace and diagonal brace (CFRP). In
addition, three potential column removal situations were taken into account as column
failures at the ground, middle, and last storeys. A finite element software was used to
do a nonlinear dynamic analysis. The parametric study results in each scenario took
into account the shear, axial, and moment of columns near the collapsed column.
Following the loss of the vertical member, story displacements and building
performance levels were recorded, in addition to examining the moment and shear
forces for the beam above the failed column. Finally, each case's variables were
compared and evaluated.

Based on the discussions above, the following conclusions are drawn:

 Overall, when buildings were strengthened with different braces, introducing

a diagonal bracing system outperformed other braces in terms of initial
occupancy performance and enhanced how plastic hinges are distributed across
structures. In addition, the brace's structure is more resistant to progressive
failure, a major drawback of this strategy. 2D models, on the other hand, are
ineffective in redistributing forces or changing the behavior of other frames.
 The development of the plastic hinge on the braced section of X-braced frames
took place within the zone of collapse, which is known as compression failure
of the brace.
 Brace components have begun to form a plastic hinge configuration in diagonal
bracing. As a result, within the immediate occupancy zone, plastic hinges.

117
 started to form in columns and beams and were dispersed among certain
building elements
 The findings indicate that in structures strengthened with viscous dampers,
dampers in specific stories operate less effectively than other systems.
 On the third and fourth levels in the viscously damped frame in the central bay,
the plastic hinges in beams are on the verge of collapsing; oscillation and shock
to the structure will be avoided by using the viscous damper.
 The findings reveal that using CFRP to retrofit the structures improves overall
performance, boosts chain performance, and promotes force redistribution in
the structures. The benefits of this technique are that it is simple to adopt across
the structure and does not pose architectural issues. On the other hand, the
drawback of this procedure is that it may generate significant force after
column removal; this issue may be suspicious, raising the likelihood of damage
to the structure.
 There is a variety of retrofitting options available to reinforce the structure and
boost its resistance to progressive collapse. In addition, for optimum chain
performance during the progressive collapse, their combined utilization might
be used to redistribute forces more rapidly and more effectively.
 A general note can be stated hereby that all bracing systems attempted in this
work present a better performance for high-rise buildings than those of
moderate low-rise buildings. It is well known that bracing in a slender framing
system is more effective in improving performance than bracing for non-
slender frames. This work has introduced a higher rise frame system with all
bracing kinds and attempted to reach a conclusion that was not found in the
literature.
 Unlike the corresponding 7-story and 13-story frame cases, when introducing
diagonal bracing to the 19-story frame, in the diagonals of the bracing system,
many plastic hinges have occurred. The column removal of all cases has shown
an approximately similar distribution of hinge formation. Lateral
displacements are minimal, probably due to the effect of bracing on the
integrity of frame action and the increased building height, reducing the loss of
stiffness symmetry.

118
 By introducing viscous damping in two inner bays of the 19-story frame, the
number of plastic hinges has significantly reduced for all cases of column
removal compared to previous bracing cases and with a case of viscous
damping in the central bay. Moreover, the lateral stiffness is greatly improved
compared with the corresponding 7-story case and 13-story viscous damping
in the central bay case because the two-bay viscous damping case restored the
stiffness symmetry of the building.
 Because of column removal on the first story, the maximum vertical
displacement is recorded in cases 1 and 8. Still, failure is not observed in all
cases due to the increased height of the building compared to 7 and 13-story
buildings, which leads to improved distribution to adjacent elements and
improved robustness and catenary action. In contrast, on the ninth level, the
highest Vertical displacement is associated with case 1, and the least with a
value of -18.61 mm is associated with case 4. Then, in addition to column
removal on the top floor, there was a reduction in displacement (-17.67 mm)
in case 8 and case 4 compared to story 9, which is probably expected when the
incident occurs in a roof joint.
 It is found in this work that the nineteen-story frame has shown an effective
bracing system in comparison with the other lower-rise frames, something that
is not found quantitatively in literature. For the braced and CFRP frames, the
behavior is showing periodic in damped semi-sine wave due to the framing of
the brace element to the joint where the column is being removed and due to
the improved beam-column joint performance in the CFRP system. In addition,
the shear and bending moment values are more significant than the seven-story
and 13-story frame cases.
 The axial force carried by the column next to the incident location, the CFRP
frame column, shows a greater increase in receiving additional axial force.
However, other frame systems show closer results to the CFRP one because
the percentage of difference is reduced compared to the lower height frames.
The lowest is found in the inverted V-braced frame. Therefore, it can be said
that the column’s shear and bending moments have been found greatest for
bare and X-braced frames, which indicates the formation of plastic hinges,

119
thereby losing the symmetric frame action and the joint stiffness condition,
which explains the increase in the column share of shear and moment.

120
 REFERENCES

Abdelwahed, B. (2019). A review on building progressive collapse, survey and

discussion. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 11, e00264.

Abruzzo, J., Matta, A.,Panariello, G. (2006). Study of mitigation strategies for

progressive collapse of a reinforced concrete commercial building. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(4), 384-390.

ACI-318. ( 2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.

ACI. (2002). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures. In (pp. 45).

ACI. (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and
commentary.

ACI. (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.
In ACI 318-11.

Agnew, E.,Marjanishvili, S. (2006). Dynamic analysis procedures for progressive

collapse. Structure, 24.

Aiello, M. A., Ascione, L., Baratta, A., Bastianini, F., Battista, U., Benedetti,
A.,Briccoli, B. (2014). Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening existing structures. Catalogo Pubblicazioni Polimi.

AISC360. (2010). Specification for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10).

American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago-Illinois.

AISC. (2005a). ANSI/AISC 341-05. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.
In.

AISC. (2005b). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings; AISC. In Chicago, IL,
USA.

121
AISC Manual, A. R., API. (2005). ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), ACI Committee
318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005 ACI 530, Building
Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/TMS 402-05),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005. In.

AISC, R., API. (2005). ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), ACI Committee 318, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005 ACI 530, Building Code Requirements
for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/TMS 402-05), . American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.

Alashker, Y., Li, H.,El-Tawil, S. (2011). Approximations in progressive collapse

modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(9), 914-924.

Alshaikh, I. M., Bakar, B. A., Alwesabi, E. A.,Akil, H. M. (2020). Experimental

investigation of the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures: An
overview. Structures, 25, 881-900.

Aoki, Y., Valipour, H., Samali, B.,Saleh, A. (2013). A study on potential progressive
collapse responses of cable-stayed bridges. Advances in Structural Engineering, 16(4),
689-706.

AS. ( 2009). Australian design code for concrete structures. In Australian Standards.

ASCE-05. (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. In
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-05, Reston, VA, USA.

ASCE-07. (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers. In ASCE 7-05, Reston, VA, USA.

ASCE. (2014). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.

ASCE, A. S. o. C. E. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
In ASCE 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

ASCE/SEI-41. (2006). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American

Society of Civil Engineers. In ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA, USA.

122
Astaneh-Asl, A. (2003). Progressive Collapse Prevention in New and Existing
Buildings Ninth Arab Structural Engineering Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE 2003:
1001–1008.,

Badoux, M.,Jirsa, J. O. (1990). Steel bracing of RC frames for seismic retrofitting.

Journal of Structural Engineering, 116(1), 55-74.

Baldridge, S. M.,Humay, F. K. (2003). Preventing progressive collapse in concrete

buildings. Concrete International, 25(11), 73-79.

Bao, Y., Kunnath, S. K., El-Tawil, S.,Lew, H. S. (2008). Macromodel-based

simulation of progressive collapse: RC frame structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 134(7), 1079-1091.

Bilow, D. N.,Kamara, M. (2004). US General Services Administration progressive

collapse design guidelines applied to concrete moment-resisting frame buildings. In
Structures 2004: Building on the Past, Securing the Future (pp. 1-27).

Burnett, E. (1975). The avoidance of progressive collapse: Regulatory approaches to

the problem[Final Report].

Celik, O. C., Berman, J. W.,Bruneau, M. (2005). Cyclic testing of braces laterally

restrained by steel studs. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(7), 1114-1124.

Choi, H.,Kim, J. (2011). Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of RC beam–column

sub-assemblage. Magazine of Concrete Research, 63(4), 297-310.

Cimellaro, G. P.,Retamales, R. (2007). Optimal softening and damping design for

buildings. Structural Control and Health Monitoring: The Official Journal of the
International Association for Structural Control and Monitoring and of the European
Association for the Control of Structures, 14(6), 831-857.

Cimellaro, G. P.,Retamales, R. M. (2007). Optimal softening and damping design for

buildings. Structural Control Health Monitoring: The Official Journal of the
International Association for Structural Control Monitoring of the European
Association for the Control of Structures, 14(6), 831-857.

Corley, W. G. (2004). Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist

attacks. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 18(2), 68-78.

123
Costanzo, S., D'Aniello, M.,Landolfo, R. (2019). Proposal of design rules for ductile
X‐CBFS in the framework of EUROCODE 8. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 48(1), 124-151.

Costanzo, S., D’Aniello, M.,Landolfo, R. (2020). Seismic design rules for ductile
Eurocode-compliant two-storey X concentrically braced frames. Steel and Composite
Structures, An International Journal, 36(3), 273-291.

Crawford, J. E. (2002). Retrofit methods to mitigate progressive collapse. The

Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Report
on the July 2002 National Workshop and Recommendations for Future Effort,

D'Aniello, M., Costanzo, S.,Landolfo, R. (2015). The influence of beam stiffness on

seismic response of chevron concentric bracings. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 112, 305-324.

Defense, D. o. (2013). Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. In Unified

Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03. Washington, D.C.

Dicleli, M.,Mehta, A. (2007). Seismic performance of chevron braced steel frames

with and without viscous fluid dampers as a function of ground motion and damper
characteristics. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63(8), 1102-1115.

Ding, K., Zhao, X., Yang, Y.,Ye, L. (2016). Application of viscous dampers for super
tall residential buildings in high-wind strong-seismic area. Proceedings of the 2016
World Congress on Advances in Civil, Environmental, and Materials Research
(ACEM16),

ECS. (2006). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures—General actions—Accidental

actions. In EN 1991-1-7: 2006. CEN, Brussels.

El-Hacha, R.,Bullock, B. (2006). Progressive Collapse for Reinforced Concrete

Buildings. Proceedings of the Is' Specialty Conference on Disaster Mitigation CSCE,

Ellingwood, B.,Leyendecker, E. (1978). Approaches for design against progressive

collapse. Journal of the Structural Division, 104(3), 413-423.

Ellingwood, B. R. (2006). Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive

collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(4), 315-323.

124
Elsanadedy, H. M., Al-Salloum, Y. A., Alrubaidi, M. A., Almusallam, T. H.,Abbas,
H. (2021). Finite element analysis for progressive collapse potential of precast
concrete beam-to-column connections strengthened with steel plates. Journal of
Building Engineering, 34, 101875.

EN‐1‐7. (1991). Eurocode 1: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures.

FEMA-356, C., B.S.S. . (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings.

FEMA-403. (2002). World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data

Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations. In Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Feng, P., Qiang, H., Ou, X., Qin, W.,Yang, J. (2019). Progressive collapse resistance
of GFRP-strengthened RC beam–slab subassemblages in a corner column–removal
scenario. Journal of Composites for Construction, 23(1), 04018076.

Ferahian, R. (1972). Buildings-Design for Prevention of Progressive Collapse. Civil

Engineering, 42(2), 66-&.

Fintel, M.,Schultz, D. M. (1979). Structural integrity of large panel buildings. Journal

Proceedings, 76(5), 583-620.

Fu, F. (2009). Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite
element modeling method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(6), 1269-
1278.

Fu, F. (2012). Response of a multi-storey steel composite building with concentric

bracing under consecutive column removal scenarios. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 70, 115-126.

Giriunas, K. (2009). Progressive collapse analysis of an existing building The Ohio

State University].

GSA. (2003a). General services administration alternate path analysis and design
guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. In: US General Services Administration
Washington (DC).

125
GSA. (2003b). Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal
office buildings and major modernization projects. In: The US General Services
Administration Washington, DC.

GSA. (2013a). General services administration alternate path analysis and design
guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. In: US General Services Administration
Washington (DC).

GSA. (2013b). General Services Administration Alternate Path Analysis and Design
Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance;. In US General Services
Administration: Washington, DC, USA, .

Gurley, C. (2008). Progressive collapse and earthquake resistance. Practice Periodical

on Structural Design and Construction, 13(1), 19-23.

Hamburger, R.,Whittaker, A. (2004). Design of steel structures for blast-related

progressive collapse resistance. Modern Steel Construction, 44(3), 45-51.

Hayes Jr, J. R., Woodson, S. C., Pekelnicky, R. G., Poland, C. D., Corley, W. G.,Sozen,
M. (2005). Can strengthening for earthquake improve blast and progressive collapse
resistance? Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(8), 1157-1177.

Houghton, D.,Karns, J. (2001). Effective mitigation of progressive collapse in steel

frame buildings using ductile high-capacity girder-to-column moment connections
exhibiting discrete structural continuity across a failed column. Proc., National Symp.
on Compreh. Force, Society of Military Engineers, Charleston, SC,

Hu, Y.,Zhao, J. (2020). Layout of cross braces on progressive collapse analysis of 3-

D 12-story steel composite frame structures. Journal of Engineering Research, 8(2).

Ioani, A., Cucu, H.,Mircea, C. (2007). Seismic design vs. progressive collapse: a
reinforced concrete framed structure case study. Proceedings of ISEC-4, Melbourne,
Australia.

Izzuddin, B., Vlassis, A., Elghazouli, A.,Nethercot, D. (2008). Progressive collapse of

multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss—Part I: Simplified assessment
framework. Engineering Structures, 30(5), 1308-1318.

126
Kaewkulchai, G.,Williamson, E. (2003). Dynamic behavior of planar frames during
progressive collapse, 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference. In: University
of Washington Seattle.

Kai Qian, A.,Li, B. (2012). Strengthening and retrofitting of RC flat slabs to mitigate
progressive collapse by externally bonded CFRP laminates. Journal of Composites for
Construction.

Kazemi-Moghaddam, A.,Sasani, M. (2015). Progressive collapse evaluation of

Murrah Federal Building following sudden loss of column G20. Engineering
Structures, 89, 162-171.

Khandelwal, K., El-Tawil, S., Kunnath, S. K.,Lew, H. (2008). Macromodel-based

simulation of progressive collapse: Steel frame structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 134(7), 1070-1078.

Khandelwal, K., El-Tawil, S.,Sadek, F. (2009). Progressive collapse analysis of

seismically designed steel braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
65(3), 699-708.

Kim, J.,Kim, T. (2009). Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel

moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(1), 169-179.

Kim, J., Lee, S.,Choi, H. (2013). Progressive collapse resisting capacity of moment
frames with viscous dampers. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
22(5), 399-414.

Kokot, S., Anthoine, A., Negro, P.,Solomos, G. (2012). Static and dynamic analysis of
a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse. Engineering
Structures, 40, 205-217.

Kwasniewski, L. (2010). Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a

multistory building. Engineering Structures, 32(5), 1223-1235.

Le, J.-L.,Bažant, Z. P. (2022). Spontaneous Collapse Mechanism of World Trade

Center Twin Towers and Progressive Collapse in General. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 148(6), 04022065.

127
Lim, N., Lee, C.,Tan, K. (2015). Experimental studies on 2-D RC frame with middle
column removed under progressive collapse. Proceedings of Fiber Symposium 2015,
Copenhagen, Denmark,

Lin, P. C., Takeuchi, T.,Matsui, R. (2018). Seismic performance evaluation of single

damped‐outrigger system incorporating buckling‐restrained braces. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 47(12), 2343-2365.

Liu, C., Fung, T. C.,Tan, K. H. (2016). Dynamic performance of flush end-plate beam-
column connections and design applications in progressive collapse. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 142(1), 04015074.

Liu, J. (2010). Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-column

connection, Part 1: Theoretical analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
66(2), 229-237.

Liu, Z.,Zhu, Y. (2019). Progressive collapse of steel frame-brace structure under a

column-removal scenario. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,

Maheri, M.,Sahebi, A. (1997). Use of steel bracing in reinforced concrete frames.

Engineering Structures, 19(12), 1018-1024.

Marchis, A. G.,Botez, M. D. (2019). A numerical assessment of the progressive

collapse resistance of RC frames with respect to the number of stories. Procedia
Manufacturing, 32, 136-143.

Marjanishvili, S. (2004). Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse.

Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 18(2), 79-85.

Marjanishvili, S.,Agnew, E. (2006). Comparison of various procedures for progressive

collapse analysis. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(4), 365-374.

Marshall, J. D.,Charney, F. A. (2012). Seismic response of steel frame structures with

hybrid passive control systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
41(4), 715-733.

McConnell, J. R.,Brown, H. (2011). Evaluation of progressive collapse alternate load

path analyses in designing for blast resistance of steel columns. Engineering
Structures, 33(10), 2899-2909.

128
McGuire, W. (1974). Prevention of Progressive Collapse”, Proceeding of the Regional
Conference on Tall Buildings. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Meng‐Hao Tsai,Bing‐Hui. (2009). Dynamic amplification factor for progressive

collapse resistance analysis of an RC building. The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, 18(5), 539-557.

Mirjalali, H., Ghasemi, M.,Labbafzadeh, M. (2019). Effect of bracing type and

topology on progressive collapse resistance of eccentrically braced frames.
International Journal of Steel Structures, 19(5), 1497-1510.

Mohamed, O. A. (2006). Progressive collapse of structures: annotated bibliography

and comparison of codes and standards. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 20(4), 418-425.

Mohamed, O. A. (2009). Assessment of progressive collapse potential in corner floor

panels of reinforced concrete buildings. Engineering Structures, 31(3), 749-757.

Nair, R. S. (2006). Preventing Disproportionate Collapse”, Journal of Performance of

Constructed Facilities ( ASCE),, vol.20,(no.4), pp309-314.

Nateghi-A, F. (1995). Seismic strengthening of eightstorey RC apartment building

using steel braces. Engineering Structures, 17(6), 455-461.

NIST. (2007). Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in
Buildings. In National Institute of Standards and Technology, U S department of
Commerce, USA.

Orton, S. L., Chiarito, V. P., Minor, J. K.,Coleman, T. G. (2014). Experimental testing

of CFRP-strengthened reinforced concrete slab elements loaded by close-in blast.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(2), 04013060.

Pearson, C.,Delatte, N. (2005). Ronan point apartment tower collapse and its effect on
building codes. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 19(2), 172-177.

Pham, A. T., Tan, K. H.,Yu, J. (2017). Numerical investigations on static and dynamic
responses of reinforced concrete sub-assemblages under progressive collapse.
Engineering Structures, 149, 2-20.

129
Qian, K., Li, B.,Zhang, Z. (2016a). Influence of multicolumn removal on the behavior
of RC floors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(5), 04016006.

Qian, K., Li, B.,Zhang, Z. (2016b). Influence of multicolumn removal on the behavior
of RC floors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(5), 04016006.

Qian, K., Weng, Y.-H.,Li, B. (2019). Improving behavior of reinforced concrete

frames to resist progressive collapse through steel bracings. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 145(2), 04018248.

Regulations, T. B. (2004). Structure Approved Document; Loading, Ground

Movement, Disproportionate Collapse In Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, U.K.

Ruth, P., Marchand, K. A.,Williamson, E. B. (2006). Static equivalency in progressive

collapse alternate path analysis: Reducing conservatism while retaining structural
integrity. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(4), 349-364.

Sasani, M., Bazan, M.,Sagiroglu, S. (2007). Experimental and analytical progressive

collapse evaluation of actual reinforced concrete structure. ACI Structural Journal,
104(6), 731.

Sasani, M.,Kropelnicki, J. (2008). Progressive collapse analysis of an RC structure.

The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 17(4), 757-771.

Sasani, M.,Sagiroglu, S. (2008a). Progressive collapse of reinforced concrete

structures: a multihazard perspective. ACI Structural Journal, 105(1), 96.

Sasani, M.,Sagiroglu, S. (2008b). Progressive collapse resistance of hotel San Diego.

Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(3), 478-488.

Shayanfar, M., Bigonah, M., Sobhani, D.,Zabihi-Samani, M. (2018). The effectiveness

investigation of new retrofitting techniques for RC frame against progressive collapse.
Civil Engineering Journal, 4(9), 2132-2142.

Silwal, B., Michael, R. J.,Ozbulut, O. E. (2015). A superelastic viscous damper for

enhanced seismic performance of steel moment frames. Engineering Structures, 105,
152-164.

130
Soudki, K.,Alkhrdaji, T. (2005). Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures (ACI 440.2 R-02).
Structures Congress 2005: Metropolis and Beyond,

Starossek, U. (2007). Disproportionate collapse: a pragmatic approach. Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 160(6), 317-325.

Starossek, U. (2009). Progressive collapse of structures (Vol. 153). Thomas Telford

London.

Sucuoğlu, H., Çitipitio Oğlu, E.,Altin, S. (1994). Resistance mechanisms in RC

building frames subjected to column failure. Journal of Structural Engineering,
120(3), 765-782.

Symans, M., Charney, F., Whittaker, A., Constantinou, M., Kircher, C., Johnson,
M.,McNamara, R. (2008). Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications: current
practice and recent developments. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(1), 3-21.

Tan, S.,Astaneh-Asl, A. (2003). Use of steel cables to prevent progressive collapse of

existing buildings. Proceedings of Sixth Conference on Tall Buildings in Seismic
Regions,

Tsai, C., Chen, K.-C.,Chen, C.-S. (1998). Seismic resistibility of high-rise buildings
with combined velocity-dependent and velocity-independent devices. ASME-
PUBLICATIONS-PVP, 366, 103-110.

Tsai, M.-H.,Lin, B.-H. (2008). Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and

inelastic response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure.
Engineering Structures, 30(12), 3619-3628.

UFC. (2005a). Department of Defense, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive

Collapse., Approved for public release.

UFC. (2005b). UFC 4-023-03: Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse.

Washington : Department of Defense.

UFC. (2009a). Department of Defense, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive

Collapse., Approved for public release. In.

131
UFC. (2009b). UFC4-023-03: Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. In
Washington : Department of Defense.

Vlassis, A., Izzuddin, B., Elghazouli, A.,Nethercot, D. (2009). Progressive collapse of

multi-storey buildings due to failed floor impact. Engineering Structures, 31(7), 1522-
1534.

Wada, A., Ohi, K., Suzuki, H., Nishiyama, I., Hasegawa, T., Sakumoto, Y.,Kamura,
H. (2003). Study on high-rise steel building structure that excels in redundancy.
Technical Memorandum of Public Works Research Institute, 3906, 366-379.

Wang, H., Feng, Y., Wu, J., Jiang, Q.,Chong, X. (2019). Damage concentration effect
of multistory buckling-restrained braced frames. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019.

Yamamoto, M.,Sone, T. (2014). Damping systems that are effective over a wide range
of displacement amplitudes using metallic yielding component and viscoelastic
damper in series. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 43(14), 2097-2114.

Yi, W.-J., He, Q.-F., Xiao, Y.,Kunnath, S. K. (2008). Experimental study on

progressive collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI
Structural Journal, 105(4), 433.

Yu, J., Rinder, T., Stolz, A., Tan, K.-H.,Riedel, W. (2014). Dynamic progressive
collapse of an RC assemblage induced by contact detonation. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 140(6), 04014014.

Yu, J.,Tan, K.-H. (2013). Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive

collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages. Engineering
Structures, 55, 90-106.

Yu, J.,Tan, K. H. (2013). Structural behavior of RC beam-column subassemblages

under a middle column removal scenario. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(2),
233-250.

Yu, M., Zha, X.,Ye, J. (2010). The influence of joints and composite floor slabs on
effective tying of steel structures in preventing progressive collapse. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 66(3), 442-451.

132
Zolghadr Jahromi, H., Izzuddin, B. A., Nethercot, D. A., Donahue, S., Hadjioannou,
M., Williamson, E. B.,Waggoner, M. (2012). Robustness assessment of building
structures under explosion. Buildings, 2(4), 497-518.

133
 CURRICULUM VITAE (CV)

Name and surname : Barham ALI

EDUCATION

Graduate school Year

Master University of Gaziantep 2013

Bachelor University of Sulaimani 2010

High school Salahadin High School 2006

WORK EXPERIENCE

Years Place Enrollment

2015-Present View Group Company Erbil Branch Manager

2013-2015 Khozan Construction Company Site Engineer

PUBLICATIONS

A. International Journals

A1. Gesoğlu, M., Güneyisi, E., Ali, B., & Mermerdaş, K. (2013). Strength and
transport properties of steam cured and water cured lightweight aggregate
concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 417-424.

A2. Hafez, H., Kurda, R., Kurda, R., Al-Hadad, B., Mustafa, R., & Ali, B. (2020).
A critical review on the influence of fine recycled aggregates on technical

134
 performance, environmental impact, and cost of concrete. Applied Sciences,
10(3), 1018.

A3. Jalal Khoshnaw, G., & Haidar Ali, B. (2019). Experimental study on the
performance of recycled aggregate concrete: Effect of reactive mineral
admixtures. IJCIET INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET), 10(1), 2566-2576.

A2. Ali, B. H., Mete Güneyisi, E., & Bigonah, M. (2022). Assessment of
Different Retrofitting Methods on Structural Performance of RC Buildings
against Progressive Collapse. Applied Sciences, 12(3), 1045.

135