Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A new method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames under blast loading
Yanchao Shi a,b , Zhong-Xian Li a,b, , Hong Hao a,b,c
a

School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

Key Laboratory of Coastal Civil Engineering Structure and Safety (Tianjin University), Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300072, China

School of Civil & Resource Engineering, The University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia

article

info

Article history:
Received 30 June 2008
Received in revised form
1 February 2010
Accepted 4 February 2010
Available online 29 March 2010
Keywords:
Reinforced concrete (RC) frame
Blast loading
Progressive collapse
Numerical analysis
Initial damage
Non-zero initial condition
Direct numerical simulation
Member-removal procedure

abstract
The progressive collapse of structures under blast loading has attracted great attention all over the
world. Some guidelines give specific procedures to analyse the progressive collapse of building structures.
Numerical analysis and laboratory test results of the progressive collapse of structures have also been
reported in the literature. Because the progressive collapse of a structure induced by blast loading
occurs only after the blast-loading phase, most of these studies and guideline procedures perform
progressive analysis by removing one or a few load-carrying structural members with static and zero
initial conditions. The damage on adjacent structural members that might be induced by blast loads
and the inevitable non-zero initial conditions when progressive collapse initiates are neglected. These
simplifications may lead to inaccurate predictions of the structural collapse process. In this paper, a new
method for progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures by considering nonzero initial conditions and initial damage to adjacent structural members under blast loading is proposed.
A three-storey two-span RC frame is used as an example to demonstrate the proposed method. Numerical
results are compared with those obtained using the alternative load path method, and with those from
comprehensive numerical simulations by directly applying the blast loads on the frame. It is found that
the proposed method with a minor and straightforward extension of the simplified member-removal
procedure is efficient and reliable in simulating the progressive collapse process of RC frame structures.
It requires substantially less computational effort as compared to direct numerical simulations, and gives
more accurate predictions of the structural progressive collapse process than the member-removal
approach.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Progressive collapse refers to the failure of one or a group of
key structure load-carrying members that gives rise to a more
widespread failure of the surrounding members and partial or
complete structure collapse. It is defined as the spread of an initial
local failure from element to element resulting in the collapse of an
entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it [1]. Many
accidental and intentional events, such as false construction order,
local failure due to accidental overload, damage of a critical component by earthquake and explosion, could induce the progressive
collapse of a structure. However, because of the high peak, short
duration and negative phase of the blast load, the progressive collapse induced by an explosion is very different from that by earthquake ground excitations. With the recent progressive collapse of

Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin

300072, China. Tel.: +86 22 2740 2397; fax: +86 22 2740 7177.
E-mail address: zxli@tju.edu.cn (Z.-X. Li).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.017

the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and World Trade Centre due
to blast and impact, research is focused more than ever to make
buildings safer from progressive collapse induced by blast and impact loading.
For an economic and safe design of structures against progressive collapse to blast loads, a reliable progressive collapse analysis is essential. Because of the catastrophic nature of progressive
collapse and the potentially high cost of retrofitting buildings to
resist it, it is imperative that the progressive analysis methods
be reliable [2]. Engineers need an accurate and concise methodology to produce trustworthy and timely results. Thus, many researchers have been spending lots of effort in developing reliable,
efficient and straightforward progressive collapse analysis methods recently.
Krauthammer et al. [3] developed a procedure for studying
progressive collapse both theoretically and numerically, and established a reliable structural damage assessment procedure to
predict a possible future phase of progressive collapse. Luccioni
et al. [4] carried out an analysis of the structural collapse of a reinforced concrete building caused by a blast load. In the analysis,

1692

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

the building was modelled using 3D solid elements, including the

reinforced concrete columns, beams and masonry walls. The volume of air in which the structure was immersed was also modelled. The comparison of numerical results with photographs of the
collapsed structure by blast load showed that the numerical analysis reproduced the collapse of the building under the blast load.
Marjanishvili [5] summarized the progressive collapse procedures
defined in the US General Service Administration (GSA) [6] and US
Department of Defence (DoD) [7] guidelines and discussed their
advantages and disadvantages. Kaewkulchai and Williamson [8]
proposed a framework for computing the dynamic response of
frame structures during a progressive collapse event to overcome
the limitations of the Alternative Load Path method, i.e., the GSA
method and DoD method. Sasani [9] evaluated the response of a
six-storey reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure following
the simultaneous removal of two adjacent exterior columns using
the finite element method and the applied element method. They
found that the analytical results show good agreement with experimental data. Tsai and Lin [10] carried out nonlinear static and
nonlinear dynamic analyses to estimate the progressive collapse
resistance of a building subjected to column failure. The results
showed that different assessed results are obtained by the linear
static method and the nonlinear acceptance criterion suggested by
the GSA guidelines. Mohamed [11] investigated the implementation of UFC 4-023-23 to protect against the progressive collapse
of corner floor panels when their dimensions exceed the damage
limits through analysing the progressive collapse potential of a
reinforced concrete building using the alternative path method.
Kwasniewski [12] carried out the progressive collapse analysis of
an existing eight-storey steel framed structure built for fire tests
using nonlinear dynamic finite element simulations following the
GSA guidelines. A detailed 3D model with a large number of finite elements was developed for the entire structure, and the main
modelling parameters affecting the numerical results were identified. Hao et al. [2] found that both the GSA and DoD methods may
not give reliable predictions of structural progressive collapse and
usually underestimate the stress and strain response at the supporting joint of adjacent columns. The authors [13] also found that
even the nonlinear dynamic alternative load Path method would
underestimate the collapse potentials of RC frames and its dynamic responses. Starossek [14] developed a typology and classification of the progressive collapse of structures based on a study of
the various underlying mechanisms of collapse. Six different types
and four classes of progressive collapse are discerned; the characteristic features of each category are described and compared.
They are pancake-type collapse, zipper-type collapse, dominotype collapse, section-type collapse, instability-type collapse and
mixed-type collapse. Vlassis et al. [15] proposed a novel simplified
framework for the progressive collapse assessment of multi-storey
buildings, considering the sudden column loss as a design scenario.
Using the proposed procedure, they conducted a case study to learn
the progressive collapse process of a typical steel-framed composite building. The result demonstrated that steel-framed composite buildings with typical structural configurations could be prone
to progressive collapse initiated by local failure of a vertical supporting member. Vlassis et al. [16] also proposed a new designoriented methodology for the progressive collapse assessment of
floor systems within multi-storey buildings subject to impact from
an above failed floor. The proposed method was applied to analyse the progressive collapse of a typical multi-storey steel-framed
composite building with the impact of a floor plate. Saffen [17] carried out a simple analysis of the progressive collapse of the World
Trade Center. In the analysis, a simplified variable-mass collapse
model was used. By solving the governing equation of motion, information about the overall collapse conditions was obtained.
As reviewed above, the current methods of analysing structural
progressive collapse consist of two major approaches, namely the

direct simulation of blast-loading effects on structural damage and

collapse, and uncoupled alternative load path analysis of structural progressive collapse without considering the blast-loading
effects. The direct simulation method can yield reliable predictions
of structural collapse to blast loads [2,4], but it is extremely time
consuming, and requires a profound knowledge of structural
dynamics, damage mechanics, dynamic material properties and
computational skills. It is therefore not practical for common engineering applications. The uncoupled alternative load path analysis as specified in the GSA [6] and DoD [7] guidelines is easy to
implement, but does not necessarily yield reliable predictions of
structural progressive collapse induced by blast loading. The primary drawback of the alternative load path approaches is that they
neglect the initial damage, or damage in adjacent structure members caused by the blast load, and the non-zero initial condition [2].
Obviously, if the blast load is big enough to knock off one or a few
structural columns, a certain degree of damage in adjacent structural members is inevitable, which will definitely reduce the members stiffness and strength. Moreover, the structure will not have
zero initial conditions when progressive collapse initiates although
structural progressive collapse usually occurs after the action of
blast loads.
The objective of this paper is to develop a new method for the
progressive collapse analysis of RC frames with consideration of
both the non-zero initial condition and existing damage in structural members. The method consists of three steps: (1) determination of critical blast scenarios of the RC frame for progressive
collapse analysis; (2) determination of the non-zero initial condition and initial damage of the structural members caused by the
blast loads, and (3) progressive collapse analysis with consideration of both the non-zero initial condition and damage in structural
members. A three-storey two-span RC frame is used as an example to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of the method. The
commercial software LS-DYNA is used to perform the numerical
calculations. The commonly used alternative load path method and
the direct simulation method are also used to analyse the progressive collapse of this example frame. Numerical results obtained
from the three approaches are compared. The reliability and efficiency of the proposed method in the analysis of the structural
progressive collapse to blast loadings are verified.
2. Critical blast scenarios for progressive collapse analysis of RC
frames
As discussed above, besides completely destroying some key
structural members, a blast load also causes damage to other structural members and non-zero structural velocity and displacement
when progressive collapse initiates. Therefore, a reliable structural
progressive analysis should take into consideration the non-zero
initiation conditions and possible damage to other structural members. Since the velocity, displacement, and the damage severity
of the structure at the end of the blast-loading phase depend on
the blast scenarios, the critical blast scenarios that completely destroy some key structural members to cause progressive collapse
need be determined first. The corresponding structural displacement, velocity, and damage at the end of the blast-loading phase
can then be determined and used in the subsequent progressive
collapse analysis.
The principles for selecting the critical blast scenarios (including the location and charge weight) are as follows.
a. The critical explosive location should be selected at places
where terrorist bombing or accidental explosion is possible.
b. The critical charge weight is defined, in association with the
explosion center, as the minimum charge weight that will cause
collapse to the columns that will be removed in the subsequent
analysis. This can be easily done by using many pressureimpulse
(PI) curves or design charts available in the literature for particular structural columns.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1693

It should be mentioned that, for a given RC frame, there might

be several critical blast scenarios, i.e., placing explosives at a few
possible locations may all cause the collapse of the column under
consideration. In these cases, in order to get a full understanding
of the progressive collapse resistant capacity of the RC frame, several progressive collapse analyses under different blast scenarios
should be carried out.
3. Derivation of the non-zero initial condition and initial
damage of adjacent structural members
3.1. Non-zero initial conditions
The initial condition is normally considered as the velocity
and displacement of the structure or structure member at the
beginning of dynamic response analysis. Herein it is the velocity
and displacement of the adjacent members at the time of complete
loss of the key columns. It is also the beginning of the progressive
collapse analysis in the GSA and DoD guidelines.
In order to derive the initial conditions of the adjacent members, it is assumed that the progressive collapse begins at the end
of the blast-loading phase. This is a reasonable assumption because
the blast-loading duration is very short, usually of an order of microseconds. To derive these initial conditions, the commonly used
equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) approach is used, as
explained in the following.
3.1.1. Damage modes and deflection shape function
Both numerical and experimental studies indicate that the
damage modes of RC members under blast loading depend not
only on the blast load, but also on the properties of the structural
member, such as the shear force and bending moment resistance
capacity of the member. In general, there are three failure modes,
namely shear failure mode, flexural failure mode and the combined
shear and flexural failure mode. The exact damage mode and
corresponding deflection shape of a structural member under
blast loading are normally predicted through detailed numerical
analysis or field tests. However, in practice, the structural member
deflection shape is usually assumed when deriving the equivalent
SDOF system [18], and this often leads to an acceptable prediction
of the overall structural response.
In this paper, to simplify the calculation, a plastic deflection
shape is assumed with the plastic mechanism for the structural
beam or column. The deflection shape function is triangular, with
two hinges at both ends plus a hinge at the mid-span, as shown
in Fig. 1. It should be noted that in theory the use of an elastic
deflection shape is more appropriate because the considered
structural members for calculations of initial conditions and
damage are assumed not to collapse by the blast loads. However,
either elastic deflection or plastic deflection shape assumption
brings in some error in deriving the equivalent SDOF system,
especially in deriving the loadmass factor. In this study, the plastic
deflection shape is adopted only because of its simplicity and
popularity in practice. The assumption might lead to some error.
If the displacement at the mid-span of the member is smax , the
deflection shape function of the member could be described by
s(y) = smax


1

v(y) = vmax 1

where vmax is the velocity at the end of the blast-loading phase at

the mid-span of the structural element.
3.1.2. Maximum initial velocity and displacement
If the blast loads acting on the structural member are known,
the maximum initial velocity and displacement at the end of the
blast-loading phase can be derived easily by analysing the equivalent SDOF system. According to Biggs approach [19], the equivalent mass, stiffness and load of the SDOF system can be determined
through the following formulae:
Me = KM Mt

(3)

Mt = mL

(4)

where Me is the equivalent mass and Mt is the total mass of the

system, which is equal to the mass per unit length m multiplied by
the total length of the member L. KM is the ratio of the equivalent
mass to the total mass, which is related to the boundary condition
and deflection shape function of the member [19].
Fe (t ) = KL Ft (t )

(5)

Ft (t ) = p(t )L

(6)

ke = KL k

(7)

where Fe (t ) is the equivalent load. Ft (t ) is the total load of the system, which is equal to the load per unit length p(t ) multiplied by
the total length of the member L. KL is the ratio of the equivalent
load to the total load, which is also related to the boundary condition and the deflection shape function. Time t is the same in the
two systems.
Through Eqs. (3)(7), all the parameters of the equivalent SDOF
system can be derived. Suppose that the equivalent blast load is
Fe (t ); since the blast load is of very short duration, the equation of
motion can be approximately written as
Fe (t ) = Me a.

R td
v td =

(1)

L/ 2

y
L/2


(2)

(8)

Then
0

Fe (t )dt
Me

where y is the distance measured from the mid-span of the

member and L is the length of the member. Because of the very
short duration of the blast load, the acceleration of the member can
be assumed as a constant during the loading phase. In this case, the
relationship between the velocity and the displacement is linear.
Therefore, the distribution of the initial velocity along the member
is

Fig. 1. Assumed deflection shape of a uniformly loaded RC member.

Z
s td =
0

td

Ie

R td R t
v dt =

(9)

Me
0

Fe (t )dtdt
Me

(10)

in which td is the loading duration. vtd and std are the velocity and
displacement at time td , respectively. If the blast load is assumed
to be triangular, the displacement can be finally derived as
2

vt td .
(11)
3 d
Therefore, both the initial velocity and displacement can be
obtained based on the above equations. It is worth noting that if
s td =

1694

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Fig. 2. PI curves for different damage degree D.

the blast load duration is so small that the member has no time
to deform during the blast-loading phase, the initial displacement
will be very small compared with the length of the member.
In this case, for the purpose of simplification, this small initial
displacement is ignored in the progressive collapse analysis of the
RC frame. However, the velocity is not necessarily small, depending
on the blast-loading impulse, and it is always important to include
it in the analysis.
3.2. Initial damage
Initial damage is another very important parameter that should
be considered in the progressive collapse analysis of RC frames. The
damage severity can be estimated by using the pressureimpulse
(PI) diagram for RC members [2023]. The damage degree of the
member is obtained by using the following proposed procedure.
Suppose that the pressureimpulse diagram of a column developed by the authors [20], as shown in Fig. 2, is available, the procedure is as follows.
a. Estimate the pressure and impulse acting on the member and
locate it in the pressureimpulse diagram in the PI space.
b. If the point is in the small damage range, for example, the
damage index D is smaller than 0.2, the initial damage of this RC
member is ignored.
c. If the point is in the range of collapse (D > 0.8), it means that
the RC column is totally damaged and does not have or only has
minimum load-carrying capacity. In this case, the corresponding
column(s) are removed at the beginning of the progressive collapse
analysis.
d. If the point is in other ranges, for example point A in Fig. 2,
the damage degree of this column is obtained by interpolation between the two adjacent damage degrees DA and DB . It should be
noted that the proper interpolation is done by deriving an intermediate PI curve that has point A on it because of the nonlinearity of the PI curve. In this study, a program is written in MATLAB
to derive this PI curve. Fig. 2 shows the pressureimpulse curve
corresponding to the damage degree D.
In order to model the initial damage of an RC member, one
should relate the above damage degree to the member material
strength and stiffness degradation. In order to do this, a few
assumptions related to the member damage are made. First, it is
assumed that damage only occurs in the concrete material. This is
reasonable because, for an RC member that still maintains a certain
level of load-carrying capacity at the end of the blast-loading
phase, the steel bar is normally in the elastic range. This is because
the blast-loading duration is very short, and damage to the RC
member in this loading phase is usually brittle failure. Therefore,
the reinforcement is unlikely to enter the plastic deformation
stage. Moreover, plastic deformation of steel bars is associated with
large cracks in the concrete, which dramatically reduces the loadcarrying capacity of the RC member. Second, it is assumed that the

damage of an RC member is limited to several damage zones. The

number and the location of the damage zones are dependent on
the damage modes of the RC member. If an RC member is damaged
primarily by shear damage mode, two damage zones, each at one
end, are assumed. If the damage is primarily by flexural mode,
one damage zone at the mid-span of the member is assumed. The
length of the damage zone is assumed to be one fifth of the member
length. In every damage zone, the damage degree is assumed to
be uniform. The occurrence of damage type, i.e., primarily shear
or flexural damage, depends on the blast-loading duration and
the vibration period of the structural member. In this study, if
the loading is quasi-static, the damage is assumed to be primarily
flexural failure; if the loading is of impulsive type, the damage is
assumed to be primarily shear failure [20].
The damaged concrete compressive strength and Youngs modulus for each damage zone are defined as
fc0,dmg = KY fc0 (1 D)

(12)

Edmg = KE E (1 D)

(13)

where fc0 and E are the yield compressive strength and the Youngs
modulus of the undamaged concrete; fc0,dmg and Edmg are the yield
compressive strength and the Youngs modulus of the damaged
concrete, respectively. KY and KE are the modification factors used
to reduce the errors arising from the simplifications related to the
assumptions of uniform loading and damage only to the concrete.
In this study, however, both KE and KY are set to be 1, which, as will
be demonstrated, gives a very good representation of the effect of
structural member damage on the progressive collapse. However,
more examples with different blast-loading and structural damage
scenarios need be analysed to derive more appropriate KY and KE
values.
3.3. Validation
Numerical simulations are carried out to validate the above
procedures in deriving the initial condition and initial damage of
RC members. A typical RC column, which is extracted from the RC
frame in Section 5, is analysed using LS-DYNA. This column is 3 m
long with a cross-section of 300 mm 300 mm. It has four vertical
steel bars, each having a diameter of 24 mm with the yield stress
335 MPa. The stirrup is D10@200 with the yield stress 235 MPa.
The finite elements and material model for the studied column
are exactly the same as those used in modelling the RC frame in
Section 5, and will be described in detail there. In order to relate
the studied column to the actual member within the frame, column
constraints with higher fidelity are employed. As shown in Fig. 3(a),
a footing and a head are included in the numerical model. The outer
vertical faces of the footing and the head were constrained against
horizontal motions (i.e., in the x-direction and the y-direction)
and the bottom face of the footing is constrained against vertical
motion (i.e., in the z-direction).
The peak overpressure applied on the column is 2495 kPa, while
the reflected impulse is 3642 kPa ms. This is the same as the
blast load acting on column C1 in the RC frame in Section 5. Since
the critical standoff distance considered is 10 m, the blast load
is applied uniformly on one side of the RC column. Fig. 3(b) and
(c) give the contours of the transverse velocity and the effective
plastic strain of the column at the end of the positive phase of
the blast load. As can be seen, the distribution of the transverse
velocity along the column is approximately triangular, as assumed
in Section 3.1. The damage zones are also at both ends. Since the
blast load applied is in the impulsive range, this indicts that the
assumption made in Section 3.2 is reasonable.
In order to derive the initial velocity of the RC column using
the method discussed in Section 3.1, the RC column is simplified
into an SDOF system. The equivalent mass of the column is 369 kg;
the equivalent stiffness is 1.13 108 N/m, the equivalent blast
load is derived as 1437 kN, and the equivalent impulse is 2.10 kN s.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1695

a
Head
S
S

H
Rebar and ties

Concrete

Footing

Fig. 3. RC column model and its transverse velocity and effective plastic strain contours at the end of the blast-loading phase. (a) boundary conditions, (b) transverse velocity
contours, (c) effective plastic strain contours.

1696

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

According to Eqs. (9)(11), the initial velocity and displacement of

the column are obtained as 5.52 m/s and 10.75 mm, respectively,
as compared to 5.55 m/s and 9.62 mm derived from the numerical
simulation. These results indicate that using the equivalent SDOF
system gives reliable displacement and velocity estimations of the
column at the end of the blast-loading phase.
4. Proposed method for progressive collapse analysis of RC
frames under blast loading
The proposed method is based on the alternative load path
method in the GSA and DoD guidelines [6,7], but incorporates the
non-zero initial condition and initial damage of structural members in the analysis. The procedure of this method is as follows.
a. Establish the finite element model of the RC frame.
b. Select the critical blast scenarios from all possible cases
according to the above proposed principles; for each blast scenario,
do Steps c to f.
c. Prior to the removal of the key element, bring the model to
static equilibrium under the combination of dead loads and live
loads as defined in the GSA and DoD guidelines.
d. From available PI diagrams, assess the damage levels of all
members close to the explosion center, and calculate the initial velocity, displacement and the initial damage of the structural members that are not completely damaged by direct blast loading using
the above proposed method; and modify the material properties of
these structural members according to the estimated damage degrees from PI diagrams.
e. Remove those elements that are completely damaged by direct blast loading instantaneously to perform progressive collapse
analysis with the non-zero initial velocity and displacement applied to the structure.
f. Continue the dynamic analysis until the structure reaches a
steady and stable condition or collapse.
5. Progressive collapse analysis of an RC frame: Comparison
and verification
5.1. Numerical model
The software LS-DYNA is utilized to carry out the progressive
collapse analysis of the example frame structure, as shown in Fig. 4.
The frame has two bays with a span of 6 m each in the x-direction,
and 3 m in the y-direction. The storey height is 3 m for all levels.
The dimensions of all the columns are 300 mm 300 mm, and the
beams are 200 mm 300 mm. All the columns and beams have
2% longitudinal reinforcement with the yield stress 335 MPa and
10@200 mm hoop reinforcement with the yield stress 235 MPa.
The slab is 150 mm thick with a dimension of 6 m 3 m. The
longitudinal reinforcement is also 2% and the yield stress of the
steel bar is 335 MPa.
Solid elements (50 mm cubes) with a single integration point
are used to model the column, beam and slab. The shell element
is utilized to model the rigid ground. The numerical convergence
study shows that further decrease of the mesh size only has a little
effect on the numerical results but leads to a much longer calculation time. Therefore, a mesh size of 50 mm is used in the study.
The material model MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE (MAT_72) available in LS-DYNA is used in the present study to model the concrete [24]. This model has been used to analyse concrete subjected
to impulsive loading successfully [20]. Different strain rate effects
can be implemented for tension and compression to simulate the
desired rate effects. The simulated crack patterns using this concrete damage model also agree well with the experimental observations [24,25].
The material model MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC (MAT_003) is
used to model the steel. It is an elasticplastic material model

Fig. 4. Sketch of the RC frame.

Table 1
Material properties of concrete.
Compressive strength

Youngs modulus

Poissons ratio

Density

24 MPa

23 000 MPa

0.2

2500 kg/m3

Table 2
Material properties of steel.
Strength

Youngs modulus

Poissons ratio

Steel ratio

335 MPa

200 000 MPa

0.3

2%

with strain rate effect. The material model MAT_RIGID (MAT_20) is

used to model the rigid ground. The contact between the structure
members and rigid ground is also considered using the *CONTACT
model available in the software [24]. The material properties of the
concrete and steel used in the model are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Many empirical relations are available in the literature to consider the strain rate effect on concrete material properties. In this
paper, the K&C model, which is an improvement of the CEB model
based on test results, is adopted [26,27]. The effect of strain rate on
the concrete and steel strength is typically represented by a parameter, namely the dynamic increase factor (DIF ). It is the ratio of the
dynamic-to-static strength versus strain rate. In the K&C model,
the DIF values for compressive and tensile strengths are defined
separately.
The DIF of the tensile strength is given by the following
equations:


d
for d 1 s1
fts
ts
 1/3
ftd
d
TDIF =
=
for d > 1 s1
fts
ts
TDIF =

ftd

(14)

(15)

where ftd is the dynamic tensile strength at the strain rate d , fts is
the static tensile strength at the strain rate ts ( ts = 106 s1 ), and
log = 6 2, in which = 1/(1 + 8fc0 /fco0 ), fco0 = 10 MPa, and fc0
is the static uniaxial compressive strength in MPa. In compression,
the empirical formulae are given as
CDIF =
CDIF =

fcd
fcs
fcd
fcs


=

d
cs

1.026

for d 30 s1

= (d )1/3 for d > 30 s1

(16)
(17)

where fcd is the dynamic compressive strength at the strain rate d ,

cs = 30 106 s1 , log = 6.156 0.49, = (5 + 3fcu /4)1 ,

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1697

fcs is the static compressive strength, and fcu is the static cube
compressive strength in MPa.
For steel, the dynamic increase factor (DIF ) is given as [28]


DIF =


(18)

104

= 0.074 0.040

fy
414

(19)

where is the strain rate of the steel bar in s1 and fy is the steel bar
yield strength in MPa. This formulation is valid for steel bars with
yield stress between 290 and 710 MPa and for strain rate between
104 s1 and 225 s1 .
In order to simulate the progressive collapse process of the RC
frame, the so-called erosion algorithm is used. This algorithm is
employed to capture the physical fracture process of the material if no significant reverse loading occurs to the fractured elements [29]. There may be a variety of criteria governing the
erosion of the material, such as principal stress, principal strain,
shear strain, pressure, and so on. Xu and Lu [29] used the principal tensile strain as the erosion criterion for reinforced concrete.
The maximum principal tensile strain at failure is assumed as 0.01.
Their simulation results for concrete spallation show a consistent
comparison with the relevant experimental observations. Unosson [30] adopted numerical erosion based on a shear strain criterion to simulate the penetration and perforation of three types
of high-performance concrete (HPC) targets. The maximum shear
strain at failure they used is 0.8 to 0.9.
It must be emphasized here that the erosion technique is introduced to overcome the large distortion problem in numerical
simulations. It has no solid physical background. The erosion criteria must be used with caution, as early and premature erosion of
material can lead to incorrect model predictions, and significantly
increase the mesh-size dependency of the calculation [31,32].
Therefore, the limiting value for the erosion criteria, i.e., the maximum value of each damage criterion at failure, cannot be too small.
Otherwise, incorrect model predictions might occur.
In this study, two erosion criteria, i.e., principal strain and
shear strain, are adopted. The element will be deleted if either
one of the two erosion criteria is met. Limiting values for both
the principal strain and shear strain erosion criterion are carefully
selected. First, the range of the limiting value is decided according
to the available references in the literature. For the principal strain
criterion, the limiting value is set to be 0.10 initially, which is
ten times the limiting value for principal tensile strain criterion
in [29]. The limiting value for the shear strain criterion is set
to be 0.8 according to [30]. In order to get reasonable values of
these two erosion criteria, several calculations are carried out; on
gradually increasing the limiting values of these two criteria from
the numerical results, the limiting value of the principal strain
criterion for erosion is decided to be 0.15 and the shear strain
criterion to be 0.9. Further increasing these values will lead to large
distortion of the numerical elements, while decreasing the values
may result in premature eroding of the materials in the structural
model.
5.2. Benchmark analysis
In order to verify the proposed method of progressive collapse
analysis of RC frames, a benchmark progressive analysis of the
example RC frame is carried out by using the direct simulation
method. In the analysis, blast loads acting on the front face of the
RC frame are directly applied to the structure.
The blast scenario considered is a detonation on the ground surface at a distance of 10 m from the centre column in front of the RC
frame. The blast load estimation formulae and pressureimpulse

Fig. 5. Pressureimpulse diagram of a column in the RC frame.

diagram of the RC column developed by the authors [20,33] are

used to determine the critical TNT charge weight that only knocks
off the centre column (key column).
For a standalone rectangular column, the reflected pressure and
impulse at the base are estimated by [33]
PrF (0) =

1.936 + 0.402 ln (b) + [4.833

o
+ 1.980 ln (b)]e0.65Z Ps0F (0.5 Z 10)
n
IrF (0) = 2.154 + 0.291 ln (b) + [136.554
o
+ 65.001 ln (b)]e6Z IsF (0.5 Z < 1)
n
IrF (0) = 1.452 + 0.287 ln (b) + [3.221
o
+ 1.577 ln (b)]e0.65Z IsF (1 Z 10)

(20)

(21)

(22)

where PrF (0) and IrF (0) are the reflected pressure and impulse
respectively at the base of the column, b is the width of the column,
Z is the scaled distance defined by the charge weight and standoff
distance in m/kg1/3 . Ps0F and IsF are the incident pressure and
impulse at the same point as PrF (0), respectively. They could be
easily obtained from the design charts in TM5-1300 [18].
It should be mentioned here that Eqs. (20)(22) can only be used
to predict the reflected pressure and impulse at the base of the RC
column that is exactly in front of the explosive charge center with
a zero degree incident angle. For other columns, the equivalent
standoff distance is used to take into account the incident angle
effect [18].
In this study, the blast load is assumed to be uniform on each
column and all equal to the blast load at the base of the respective
column. However, as the RC frame is of three storeys, the top floor
column is up to 69 m above the ground. Therefore, for the columns
in a different storey, the height effect is considered. The formulae
to estimate the reflected pressure and impulse at height hp are [33]
PrF (hp ) = PrF (0) 31.53Z 2.64 h2p
PrF (hp ) 0 (kPa)

(0.5 Z 10)

IrF (hp ) = IrF (0) (49.86Z 2.82 )h2p

IrF (hp ) 0 (kPa)

(0.5 Z 10)

(23)

(24)

where hp is the height at the base of each column measured from

the ground surface. hp is zero for the first-storey columns and
equal to the storey height for the second-storey and third-storey
columns.
The pressureimpulse diagram of the RC column can be
obtained using the formulae in [20]. The PI diagrams are represented by Eq. (25), in which P0 and I0 are the pressure and impulsive asymptotes corresponding to each critical damage degree

1698

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Table 3
Pressure and impulsive asymptotes for PI curves obtained from the formulae in [20].
D = 0.2

Numerical results

D = 0.5

D = 0.8

P0 (kPa)

I0 (kPa ms)

P0 (kPa)

I0 (kPa ms)

P0 (kPa)

I0 (kPa ms)

750

1690

1000

2190

1300

3450

Table 4
Calculated blast loads acting on the columns.
Column

C1 & C3

C2

C4 & C6

C5

C7 & C9

C8

Peak pressure (kPa)

Impulse (kPa ms)

2495
3642

3639
4062

2117
3062

3072
3164

1362
1900

1936
1369

of the column. The pressure and impulsive asymptotes depend

on the column dimensions, longitudinal and hoop reinforcement
ratio, and concrete and reinforcement strength. Table 3 lists the
estimated pressure and impulse asymptotes for the column under consideration. The corresponding PI curves are shown in
Fig. 5. More detailed information regarding the PI diagrams can
be found in [20].

(P P0 )(I I0 ) = 12(P0 /2 + I0 /2)1.5 .

(25)

With the PI diagrams and the standoff distance, using Eqs.

(20)(22), the critical charge weight can be determined such that
the generated blast pressure and impulse will just cause the key
column to collapse. This standoff distance and the corresponding
explosion weight are then considered as the critical explosion
scenario, which represents the minimum explosion threat to cause
possible progressive collapse of the structure. In this study, as
shown in Fig. 5, the critical charge weight is determined to be
1000 kg with the standoff distance 10 m from the centre column
in front of the frame. The corresponding blast loads acting on the
RC columns calculated from Eqs. (20)(24) are given in Table 4.
It should be noted that the uplifting loads on the beams and
slabs are neglected because the explosive is located 10 m away
from the structure. In this case, the blast load acting on the top and
bottom surface of the beam is almost the same; the overall uplifting
load is therefore very small. However, for the case when the
explosive is near the frame, the uplifting loads on the beams and
slabs must be considered since they generate an uplifting initial
velocity and displacement, which is probably another important
factor that needs be addressed in progressive collapse analysis.
In the benchmark analysis, from 0 ms to 100 ms, the combination of dead loads and live loads as defined in GSA guidelines
is gradually applied to the frame. According to the GSA guidelines, when carrying out the nonlinear dynamic progressive collapse analysis of buildings, the static load as defined below should
be applied on the structure first.
Load = DL + 0.25LL

(26)

in which DL is the self-weight and LL is the live load of the structure. In this paper, the live load considered is 4 kN/m2 . The weight
of the infill walls, which are not modelled, is also applied on the
beams. The value is 80 kN/m2 .
At t = 100 ms, after applying the static load to the structure,
all the blast loads acting on the column of the RC frame are applied
to the structure. Fig. 6 shows the collapse process of the RC frame
simulated in the benchmark analysis through the direct simulation
method. From the figure one can see that, at t = 150 ms, the
key column collapses. At this moment, it is obvious to see that the
adjacent columns also suffer a certain level of damage. At about
t = 400 ms, the combination of the vertical load and transverse
load damages the other two first-floor columns heavily and the
two columns begin to collapse. At t = 500 ms, the second-floor
columns begin to fail due to the pulling force of the connected
beams. The whole frame goes down rapidly and collapses to the
ground at about t = 800 ms.

5.3. Alternative load path method

The alternative load path method included in the GSA and DoD
guidelines allows for four levels of analysis, namely linear elastic
static analysis, nonlinear static analysis, linear elastic dynamic
analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis. In this section, the GSA
nonlinear dynamic analysis, which is known as the most accurate,
is carried out to obtain the progressive collapse process of the
established RC frame. The procedure can be briefly summarized in
the following [6].
a. Establish the finite element model of the RC frame.
b. Prior to the removal of the key element, bring the model to
static equilibrium under the combination of the dead loads and live
loads as defined in Eq. (26).
c. With the model stabilized, remove the appropriate key
element instantaneously.
d. Continue the dynamic analysis until the structure reaches a
steady and stable condition or collapse.
Fig. 7 gives the numerical results of the GSA nonlinear
dynamic analysis. Since the first two steps of applying the
combined dead load and live load are the same as the above
benchmark analysis, the pictures from 0 ms to 100 ms are
not presented herein. The figure shows that, after the removal
of the key column, the slabs and columns above the removed
key column go down rapidly until t = 350 ms because of
the dynamic effects and the redistribution of the load path.
Afterwards, the displacement response becomes slower and the
whole structure stabilizes without total collapse, indicating that
the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure overestimates the
structural capacity against progressive collapse because it neglects
the non-zero initial condition and damage in the structural members in the progressive collapse analysis.
5.4. The proposed method
Using the proposed method, the initial velocity and initial
damage of the other structural members are derived from the
method proposed in Section 3. The maximum initial velocities and
displacements of the adjacent RC columns are given in Table 5. As
can be seen, the maximum initial displacement of all the columns
is only 8.06 mm, which is only 0.3% of the column height. This is
because of the very short duration of the blast load. As modelling
of these initial displacements is very time consuming and they
are also rather small, the initial displacements of the columns
are neglected in the analysis. Moreover, because the uplifting
forces acting on the beams and slabs are neglected, only the blast
load in the transverse direction acting on the beam is considered.
However, because the RC floor with high in-plane stiffness and
large mass constrains the possible response of the beam in the
transverse direction, both the initial velocity and displacement of
the beam are very small at the end of the blast-loading phase, so

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1699

Fig. 6. Collapse process of the RC frame from the benchmark analysis (direct simulation).

Fig. 7. Response process of the RC frame from the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis.

they are also neglected in the analysis. Therefore, only damage and
the initial velocity of columns are considered.
The blast loads acting on the columns listed in Table 4
are plotted in the pressureimpulse diagram of the RC column
generated in Section 5.2, as shown in Fig. 8. The damage degrees of

the columns are obtained from the method proposed in Section 3.

They are also given in Table 5. The damage level of each column is
used to modify the column properties accordingly.
With the modified column properties, the progressive collapse
analysis is carried out by removal of the key column for dynamic

1700

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Table 5
Initial damage degree and maximum initial velocity and displacement of RC columns.
Column

C1 & C3

C4 & C6

C5

C7 & C9

C8

Initial damage degree D

Maximum initial velocity (m/s)
Maximum initial displacement (mm)

0.65
5.85
8.06

0.53
4.91
6.70

0.61
5.07
4.93

0.00
3.05
4.03

0.00
2.20
1.47

force of the connected beams, and the whole frame collapses to the
ground at about t = 800 ms.
5.5. Comparison and discussion

Fig. 8. Pressureimpulse diagram of the column and different blast loads on

columns.

analysis with nonzero initial velocities applied to respective

columns. This is done as a full restart analysis in LS-DYNA. It should
be noted that, when applying the initial velocity on the RC columns,
it is very time consuming to apply the initial velocity to every
node according to the deflection shape function. For simplification
purposes, the column is divided into five segments, and each
segment is assumed to have the same initial velocity, equal to the
largest velocity in this segment.
The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 9. In the figure, it
is clear that, at about t = 400 ms, the damage in the first-floor
columns is severe, and these columns start to collapse. At t =
500 ms, the second-floor columns begin to fail due to the pulling

The numerical results of the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis

and the proposed method are compared with those of the benchmark analysis to verify the accuracy and reliability of the proposed
method.
One can clearly see from Figs. 6, 7 and 9 that the frame does not
collapse in the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis, while it collapses
to the ground almost at the same time in the benchmark analysis
and the proposed method. This is because, in the GSA nonlinear
dynamic analysis, the catenary effect of the beams will produce a
force to balance the gravity load after removing the centre column
and therefore resist the collapse of the frame. However, in the
proposed method, by considering the initial damage and the nonzero initial condition of the structure, the other first-floor columns
also fail at about t = 400 ms, which is almost the same as that in
the benchmark analysis. The damage and collapse of the adjacent
columns accelerate the collapse of the structural members, leading
to the total collapse of the frame. These observations clearly
indicate the overestimation of the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis
procedure on the capacity of the frame in resisting progressive
collapse because it neglects the initial damage and non-zero
initiation conditions generated by the blast load.
Four main response quantities at the key nodes and elements of
the structural model are also extracted from the numerical results
and compared with each other. They are the following.

Fig. 9. Collapse process of the RC frame from the proposed method.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

a.
b.
c.
d.

1701

Vertical and transverse displacement at node N1.

Vertical accelerations at node N1.
Vertical velocity at node N1.
Stress in element E1.

N1 is the node at the middle of the beamcolumn joint above

the first-storey front center column; E1 is the beam element that
models the horizontal steel bar on the bottom side of the joint
above the center column. Their exact locations are indicated in
Fig. 4.
Fig. 10 shows the comparison of the vertical displacement at
node N1 during the collapse process of the frame from different
approaches. As can be seen, the result from the proposed method
is very close to that of the benchmark analysis. That from the GSA
nonlinear dynamic analysis is also similar initially, but it becomes
a constant after t = 400 ms, indicating that the structure does not
collapse. As also shown, when the vertical displacement reaches
about negative 3 m, the node touches the ground and some slight
rebounds may occur.
Fig. 11 shows the comparison of the transverse displacement
at node N1 during the collapse process of the frame from the
three analyses. As shown, the transverse displacement from the
GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis is smaller than those from the
benchmark analysis and the proposed method. This is because
the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis neglects the initial non-zero
conditions in the structure. The dynamic effect of the sudden
removal of the center column enables the frame to vibrate and
deform mainly in the vertical direction, but the collapse of the
front side of the frame causes a slight rotation of the whole frame,
leading to a small displacement in the positive y-direction at node
N1. The result from the proposed method agrees reasonably well
with that from benchmark analysis. The slight overestimation of
the lateral displacement by the proposed method might be caused
by the simplified way that the initial velocity is applied on the
structure. As described above, when applying the initial velocity on
a column, the column is divided into five segments, and a constant
initial velocity equal to the largest velocity in this segment is used.
This results in a slight overestimation of the initial velocity of
each column, and hence in the lateral displacement of the frame.
Nonetheless, as shown in the figure, the difference is relatively
small.
The comparison of the vertical velocities at node N1 from different analyses is shown in Fig. 12. As shown, the vertical velocity
increases quickly with the removal of the center column because
of the dynamic effect of the redistribution of the load. The velocity increment rate slows down, indicating a smaller acceleration.
This is because, after the damage or removal of the center column,
the two beams on both sides of the collapsed column act as a long
beam. The catenary effect of the long beam generates a force to
balance the gravity load and therefore reduces the collapse acceleration of the frame. The velocity estimated from the GSA nonlinear
dynamic analysis oscillates around zero after t = 400 ms. Those
from the benchmark analysis and the proposed method rapidly increase again at about t = 300 ms until the structural member impacts the ground. This increase in velocity is caused by the damage
of the long beam or the adjacent columns. The impact between
the structural member and the ground immediately changes the
direction of the vertical velocity at node N1, indicating that some
rebounding occurs. The result from the proposed method again
agrees well with that from the benchmark analysis.
Fig. 13 compares the vertical acceleration at node N1. It shows
that the proposed method gives consistent prediction of acceleration responses as the benchmark analysis. The GSA approach
underestimates the acceleration responses. Fig. 14 compares the
stress time histories in element E1 from different analyses. As
shown, initially, the stress in the element E1 is negative; the steel
bar is in compression. This is because, after application of the dead

Fig. 10. Comparison of the vertical displacements at node N1 from different

analyses.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the transverse displacements at node N1 from different

analyses.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the vertical velocities at node N1 from different analyses.

load and live load, negative moment occurs at the joint section, and
the steel reinforcement that is at the bottom side of the beam will
be in compression. After the collapse of the center column, the two
beams above the center column will work as a longer one. The
section of the joint, which is at the middle of the long beam, will
experience a positive moment. Thus, the stress in element E1 is in
tension. In the benchmark analysis and the proposed method, the
tension stress in the element reduces suddenly when the structural
member reaches the ground, whereas that from the GSA analysis
remains almost a constant after t = 400 ms because the structure
stabilizes. The figure also shows that the proposed method and the
benchmark analysis give similar predictions of stress in element
E1.

1702

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

analysis [34]. All these examples demonstrate the accuracy of using the proposed method in the prediction of structural progressive
collapse induced by explosive loadings.
6. Conclusion

Fig. 13. Comparison of the vertical accelerations at node N1 from different

analyses.

In this paper, a new procedure for progressive collapse analysis

of RC frames is proposed. It is based on the alternative load path
method in the GSA and DoD guidelines, but with modifications by
including the inevitable non-zero initial conditions and damage in
the structural members caused by the direct blast load. The method
uses PI diagrams to estimate the damage to structural members
by the direct blast load, and the equivalent SDOF approach to
estimate the velocity and displacement of structure members at
the end of the blast-loading phase. A three-storey two-bay RC
frame is analysed to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of
the proposed method. It is found that the proposed method gives a
similar prediction of the frame collapse process to that of the direct
simulation of the structure response to blast load. Because the
proposed method does not require a comprehensive modelling of
the structure, it therefore substantially reduces the computational
time and computer memory requirements. Compared to the GSA
nonlinear dynamic analysis method, the proposed method gives
better predictions of the structural progressive collapse with
minimum additional effort in determining the non-zero initial
conditions and damage in structural members at the end of blast
loading phase when progressive collapse starts.
Acknowledgements

Fig. 14. Comparison of the stress in element E1 (steel reinforcement) from different
analyses.

The above observations indicate that the proposed method

gives accurate predictions of progressive collapse of frame structures. Compared to the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis, the additional calculation effort of the proposed method in determining the
non-zero velocity and damage of each structural member is minimum, as the initial damage can be determined from available PI
diagrams and the initial velocity from an SDOF analysis, but the
results are more accurate. On the other hand, compared to the direct simulations, the proposed method gives comparable results,
but the computational time and computer memory requirement
are substantially less since the progressive analysis is a free vibration analysis, and therefore the mesh size used can be larger than
that in direct simulations.
It should be also noted that other numerical simulations with
different frame examples have also been carried out to further verify the reliability of the proposed method. One example considered
is a simple RC frame, which is similar to the one presented previously in the paper. The difference is the column dimension and
the concrete compressive strength. Herein the column dimension
considered is 250 250 mm and the concrete strength is 20 MPa.
In this example, when progressive collapse analyses of the frame
are carried out using the proposed method, GSA nonlinear dynamic
analysis and direct simulation method, the numerical results all indicate that the simple frame finally collapses under the same blast
scenario. However, it is also very obvious that both the collapse
process and the typical dynamic responses of the simple RC frame
derived from the proposed method analysis and the direct simulation method analysis are almost the same, while they are very
different from the one obtained from the GSA nonlinear dynamic

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support

from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
number 50638030 and 50528808, the National Key Technologies
R&D Program of China under Grant number 2006BAJ13B02,
the Key Project of Tianjin Application Basis and Forefront
Technology Research Program of China under grant number
08JCZDJC19500, and the Australian Research Council under Grant
number DP0774061 for carrying out this research.
References
[1] ASCE7. Minimum design for buildings and other structures. Reston (Virginia):
American Society of Civil Engineers; 2002.
[2] Hao H, Wu C, Li ZX, Abdullah AK. Numerical analysis of structural progressive
collapse to blast loads. Trans Tianjin Univ 2006;12(Suppl.):314.
[3] Krauthammer T, Hall RL, Woodson SC, Baylot JT, Hayes JR, Sohn Y. Development of progressive collapse analysis procedure and condition assessment for
structures. In: Proceeding of national workshop on prevention of progressive
collapse in Rosemont, Washington (DC): Multihazard Mitigation Council of the
National Institute of Building Sciences; 2002.
[4] Luccioni BM, Ambrosini RD, Danesi RF. Analysis of building collapse under
blast loads. Eng Struct 2004;26(1):6371.
[5] Marjanishvili SM. Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse.
J Perf Constr Fac 2004;18(2):7985.
[6] GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office
buildings and major modernization projects. Washington (DC): Office of Chief
Architect; 2000.
[7] DoD. Unified facilities criteria (UFC). DoD minimum antiterrorism standards
for buildings. Department of Defense. UFC 4-010-01. Washington (DC): US
Army Corps of Engineering. 31. 2002.
[8] Kaewkulchai G, Williamson EB. Beam element formulation and solution
procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis. Comput Struct 2004;
82(78):63951.
[9] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to
removal of two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30(9):247891.
[10] Tsai MH, Lin BH. Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and inelastic
response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure.
Eng Struct 2008;30(12):361928.
[11] Mohamed OA. Assessment of progressive collapse potential in corner floor
panels of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng Struct 2009;31(3):74957.
[12] Kwasniewski L. Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a
multistory building. Eng Struct. 2010. in press (doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.
12.048).

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

[13] Shi YC, Li ZX, Hao H. Numerical analysis of progressive collapse of reinforced
concrete frame under blast loading. J PLA Univ Sci Technol (Natural Science
Edition) 2007;8(6):6528.
[14] Starossek U. Typology of progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):23027.
[15] Vlassis AG, Izzuddin BA, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of
multi-storey buildings due to sudden column lossPart II: Application. Eng
Struct 2008;30(5):142438.
[16] Vlassis AG, Izzuddin BA, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse
of multi-storey buildings due to failed floor impact. Eng Struct 2009;31(7):
152234.
[17] Seffen KA. Progressive collapse of the world trade center: Simple analysis.
J Eng Mech 2008;134(2):12532.
[18] Technical Manual (TM5-1300). To resist the effect of accidental explosions.
Washington (DC): Department of the Army, Navy and the Air force; 1990.
[19] Biggs JM. Introduction to structure dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company; 1964.
[20] Shi YC, Hao H, Li ZX. Numerical derivation of pressureimpulse diagrams for
prediction of RC column damage to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(11):
121327.
[21] Ma GW, Shi HJ, Shu DW. PI diagram method for combined failure modes of
rigidplastic beams. Int J Impact Eng 2006;34(6):108194.
[22] Li QM, Meng H. Pressureimpulse diagram for blast loads based on
dimensional analysis and single-degree-of-freedom model. J Eng Mech 2002;
128(1):8792.
[23] Fallah AS, Louca LA. Pressureimpulse diagrams for elasticplastic-hardening
and softening single-degree-of-freedom models subjected to blast loading. Int
J Impact Eng 2006;34(4):82342.

1703

[24] LS-DYNA. Keyword users manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. Livermore (California); 2006.
[25] Tu ZG, Lu Y. Evaluation of typical concrete material models used in hydrocodes
for high dynamic response simulations. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36(1):13246.
[26] Malvar LJ, Ross CA. Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI
Mater J 1999;96(5):6146.
[27] Pandey AK, Kumar R, Paul DK, Trikha DN. Strain rate model for dynamic
analysis of reinforced concrete structures. J Strut Eng 2006;132(9):1393401.
[28] Malvar L. Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars. ACI
Mater J 1998;95(6):60916.
[29] Xu K, Lu Y. Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete
plates subjected to blast loading. Comput Struct 2006;84(56):4318.
[30] Unosson M. Numerical simulations of penetration and perforation of high
performance concrete with 75 mm steel projectile. FOA-R00-01634-311SE.
Technical report. Tumba (Sweden): Defence Research Establishment Weapons
and Protection Division; 2000.
[31] Tasdemirci A, Hall IW. Numerical and experimental studies of damage
generation in multi-layer composite materials at high strain rates. Int J Impact
Eng 2007;34(2):189204.
[32] AUTODYN. Theory manual. Century Dynamics; 2006.
[33] Shi Y, Hao H, Li Z-X. Numerical simulation of blast wave interaction with
structure columns. Shock Waves 2007;17(1):11333.
[34] Shi YC. Dynamic response and damage mechanism of reinforced concrete
structures under blast loading. Ph.D. thesis, P.R. China: Tianjin University. 2009
[In Chinese].