Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
AvailableScienceDirect
Availableonline atatwww.sciencedirect.com
Procedia online www.sciencedirect.com
Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
The 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering
The 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering
A numerical assessment of the progressive collapse resistance of RC
A numericalframes
assessment
with of the progressive
respect to the number collapse resistance of RC
of stories
Manufacturing frames with
Engineering respect toa, the number
Society International Conference ofa stories2017, 28-30 June
2017, MESIC
2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain
Adrian G. Marchis *, Mircea D. Botez
0F

a, a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Adrian G. Marchis *, Mircea D. Botez
Costing models for capacity optimization in Industry 4.0: Trade-off
a
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,
0F
15 C. Daicoviciu Street, 400020, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 15 C. Daicoviciu Street, 400020, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
between used capacity and operational efficiency
Abstract
Abstract A. Santana , P. Afonso , A. Zanin , R. Wernke
a a,* b b
This paper presents the results of a numerical investigation into the influence of the number of stories on the progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete planar frames. a
Starting
University from4800-058
of Minho, the specifications
Guimarães, provided
Portugal by Yi et al. (2008) in their experimental
This paper presents the results of a numerical b investigation into the influence of the number of stories on the progressive collapse
program, an initial numerical model was developed Unochapecó, in Midas FEAChapecó,
89809-000 softwareSC,package.
Brazil To assure a high results accuracy for the
resistance of reinforced concrete planar frames. Starting from the specifications provided by Yi et al. (2008) in their experimental
current and the following investigations based on this set-up, this initial numerical model was successfully validated against the
program, an initial numerical model was developed in Midas FEA software package. To assure a high results accuracy for the
data’s revealed by the experimental test. To achieve the proposed objective, five numerical models are developed starting from
current and the following investigations based on this set-up, this initial numerical model was successfully validated against the
the initial one by increasing/decreasing the number of structure’s stories. To simulate the gradual failure of the first story column
data’s revealed by the experimental test. To achieve the proposed objective, five numerical models are developed starting from
Abstract
caused by the abnormal loadings such as explosions or impact, a target displacement of 50mm is imposed and a nonlinear static
the initial one by increasing/decreasing the number of structure’s stories. To simulate the gradual failure of the first story column
“push-down” analysis is conducted in each case. As a result, the ultimate load carrying capacity to progressive collapse for each
caused by
Under thethe abnormalofloadings
concept "Industrysuch4.0",
as explosions
production or impact, a target displacement
processes of 50mm isincreasingly
imposed and interconnected,
a nonlinear static
numerical model is determined and the additional capacity of the RCwill be with
frames pushed to tobethe
respect number of stories is assessed.
“push-down” based
information analysis isaconducted inbasis
each and,
case. necessarily,
As a result, the ultimate load carryingIncapacity to progressive collapse for each
The activation of the supplementary resisting mechanisms (Compressive Arch Action – CAA and Catenary Actionoptimization
on real time much more efficient. this context, capacity – CA) of the
numerical
goes model is determined and the additional capacity of the RC frames with respect to the number of stories is assessed.
planarbeyond
frames the traditional
to better aim of capacity
resist progressive collapsemaximization,
is also discussed.contributing
The obtainedalsoresults
for organization’s
indicate that, asprofitability
expected, theand value.
structure’s
The activation of the supplementary resisting mechanisms (Compressive Arch Action – CAA and Catenary Action – CA) of the
Indeed, lean capacity
load carrying management increasesandwith
continuous
the numberimprovement
of stories but,approaches
when expressed suggest capacity
in terms optimization
of percentage instead
with respect of
to the
planar frames to better resist progressive collapse is also discussed. The obtained results indicate that, as expected, the structure’s
activation of theThe
maximization. initial failure
study of mechanism
capacity (three-hinge and
optimization mechanism)
costing the valueisdecreases.
models an Also,research
important based ontopic
the results
that obtained
deserves
load carrying capacity increases with the number of stories but, when expressed in terms of percentage with respect to the
herein, a simplified
contributions from approach
both is proposed
the practical andto estimate theperspectives.
theoretical peak load that canpaper be sustained byand thediscusses
planar RC frames without
activation of the initial failure mechanism (three-hinge mechanism) theThis presents
value decreases. Also, based on thearesults
mathematical
obtained
collapse.
model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
herein, a simplified approach is proposed to estimate the peak load that can be sustained by the planar RC frames without
developed
collapse. and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
value. The trade-off capacity maximization vs operational efficiency is highlighted and it is shown that capacity
© 2019
© 2018 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
optimization might hide operational inefficiency.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND license
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
© 2017
© 2018 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
This is an open
Peer-review access
under article under
responsibility the scientific
of the CC BY-NC-ND license
committee (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
2017.
Keywords: progressive collapse; abnormal loads; RC frames; nonlinear analysis; catenary action

progressive
Keywords: Cost
Keywords: Models;collapse; abnormal
ABC; TDABC; loads; RC
Capacity frames; nonlinear
Management; analysis;Operational
Idle Capacity; catenary action
Efficiency

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-0264-401-345.
E-mail address: Adrian.Marchis@mecon.utcluj.ro
* The
Corresponding author.
cost of idle Tel.: +4-0264-401-345.
capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
E-mail address: Adrian.Marchis@mecon.utcluj.ro
in modern
2351-9789 ©production systems.
2018 The Authors. In general,
Published it isLtd.
by Elsevier defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several
This ways:
is an open accesstons
articleofunder
production, available
the CC BY-NC-ND hours
license of manufacturing, etc. The management of the idle capacity
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
2351-9789
Selection © 2018
and The Authors.
peer-review under Published by Elsevier
responsibility of the 253Ltd.International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
12th
* Paulo Afonso. Tel.: +351 253 510 761; fax: +351 604 741
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
E-mailand
Selection address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt
peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review
2351-9789 © under
2019responsibility
The Authors. of the scientificbycommittee
Published Elsevier of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.194
 Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143 137
2 A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

1. Introduction

Preventing progressive collapse of buildings has become a major concern of the engineering community after the
terrorist attacks from the Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma City, 1995) and the World Trade Center (New York,
2001). The progressive collapse is referred as a situation where the local failure of a structural component causes the
collapse of the adjoining members, which leads to the collapse of the entire building or of an important part of it [1].
The total damage is disproportionate with the original failure. The initial cause for this type of structural failure can
be man-made (e.g. gas explosion, bombs, impact by vehicles) or produced by natural hazard (e.g. earthquakes).
Since these accidental loads are extremely rare events that can occur during the lifetime of a building, from an
economical point of view, it is more appropriate to mitigate the risk for progressive collapse than to especially
design them to resist for all possible threats. In this context, two major design guidelines [1, 2] are available to
reduce the potential for progressive collapse in new and existing buildings, released by the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) and the U.S. General service Administration (GSA).
Recent numerical studies [3, 4 ,5, 6] have shown the inherent ability to better resist progressive collapse of the
reinforced concrete framed structures with seismic detailing, when subjected to column removal as the result of an
extreme loading. The results were validated by the experimental studies [7, 8, 9, 10] carried out on RC beam column
sub-assemblages; it is shown that the specimen with seismic detailing could develop supplementary resisting
mechanisms (Compressive Arch Action – CAA and Catenary Action – CA) before collapse which increases the
ultimate load carrying capacity to progressive failure of the tested sub-assemblages. Sadek et al. [8] had shown that
a seismically designed beam-column sub-assemblage is capable to resist for a peak load (Fu) of 1092kN which is
50% higher than the yield load (Fy) associated to the development of the three-hinge failure mechanism. Yi et al.
[11] has shown that a four-bays three-stories reinforced concrete planar frame is capable to resist for a peak load of
105kN, which is 35% higher than the yield load.
In this context, this study intends to numerically investigate the progressive collapse resistance of RC planar
frames, with respect to the number of stories. Based on the specimen experimentally tested by Yi et al. [11], five
numerical models are developed by modifying the number of stories. A nonlinear static push-down analysis is
carried out to simulate de gradual failure of the first-story column. Based on the vertical load vs. vertical
displacement curves, the ultimate load carrying capacity to progressive collapse is determined for each numerical
model. The additional load carrying capacity of the RC frame is assessed with respect to the number of stories.
Based on the obtained results, a simplified approach is proposed to estimate the ultimate capacity to progressive
failure of RC planar frames.

2. Analysis procedure

Two major design guidelines [1, 2] are available to mitigate the potential for progressive collapse in new and
existing buildings, released by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. General service Administration
(GSA). The Alternative Path Method has been selected as the basic approach to provide resistance to progressive
collapse. According to this approach, the structure should be capable of developing alternative load paths over the
vertical support (column) suddenly removed as the result of abnormal loading. This method does not require
characterization of the threat causing the loss of the primary structural component. Both design guidelines
recommend that columns should be removed (each, in turn) in all critical locations of the building (e.g: external and
internal columns near the middle of the sort side, near the middle of the long side, at the corner of the structure).
Three analysis types are recommended by the GSA and DoD to assess the risk for progressive collapse when
subjected to column failure: linear static procedure (LSP), nonlinear static procedure (NSP) and the nonlinear
dynamic procedure (NDP). For more sophisticated analyses (NSP, NDP) the acceptance criteria for a low potential
to progressive collapse provided by the design guidelines [1, 2] is limited to a plastic rotation angle of 0.1 rad for
beam elements. Recent experimental studies [8, 11] focused on investigating the progressive collapse behaviour of
reinforced concrete framed structures have indicated that beam elements associated to the failed column develop
large deformation before failure. In the large displacement range, two supplementary resisting mechanisms
(Compressive Arch Action – CAA and Catenary Action – CA) are activated which increase the ultimate load
carrying capacity to progressive collapse. Therefore, by limiting the plastic deformation to 0.1 rad for beam
elements controlled by flexure, the maximum load attained before collapse initiation is underestimated.
In this paper, using the nonlinear static procedure, the first-story middle column (C3) is considered as suddenly
138 Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143
A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 3

removed. The gradual failure of the column is performed in a displacement-controlled manner by applying a target
displacement (∆=50cm) at the column removed point. Thus, the ultimate load carrying capacity to progressive
collapse can be identified on the load-displacement curve obtained for the numerical model.

2.1. Initial numerical model

The ultimate load carrying capacity to progressive collapse of reinforced concrete frames, with respect to the
number of building levels, is assessed through a series of five numerical models. These models are assembled
starting from an initial 3D numerical model developed in Midas FEA software package [12], successfully validated
against the results experimentally obtained by Yi et al. [11], as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Vertical load - vertical displacement curve: experimental [11] vs. numerical results [13].

The initial numerical model (NMi) consists of four 2.667m bays and three stories with a height of 1.567m for the
ground level, respectively of 1.10m for the second and third floor (Fig. 2). The geometric characteristic and the
design details of the structural elements are described in Table 1.

Fig. 2. Initial numerical model (NMi) developed based on the experimental study of Yi et al. [11].

Table 1. Geometric characteristics and design details of the initial model (NMi) [11].
Element Dimensions [mm] Bottom rebars Top rebars Shear rebars
Beam 100x200 2Φ12mm 2Φ12mm Φ6/150mm
Column 200x200 4Φ12mm Φ6/150mm
4 A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000
Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143 139

The material characteristics for both concrete and steel are similar with the ones specified in the experimental test
[11]. For concrete, a Thorenfeldt constitutive model (Fig. 3.a) is adopted in compression with a characteristic
compressive strength (fck) of 25MPa and a Young’s modulus of 24GPa. For the tension behavior, a Hordijk model is
assumed, with a considered tensile strength (ft) value of 2.2MPa. The softening function of this model (Fig. 3.b) is
governed by the ratio Gf/h, where Gf is the fracture energy and is related to the compressive strength (fck) and the
maximum aggregate size (Dmax) [12].
For the reinforcement steel a Von Mises model is assumed for both compression and tension behavior. A
simplified bilinear curve is adopted (Fig. 3.c) for the longitudinal reinforcement with the Young’s modulus of
200GPa, respectively with a characteristic yield strength (fyk) of 416MPa, an ultimate strength (fyu) of 498 MPa and
an ultimate strain (εsu) of 17%. A similar curve is considered for the transverse reinforcement with a 370 MPa
characteristic yield strength (fyk).

Fig. 3. Constitutive models for: (a) concrete in compression [12]; (b) concrete in tension [12]; (c) steel reinforcement in compression/tension.

The concrete elements and the steel reinforcement bars are modelled in Midas FEA [12] software by using solid
3D finite elements, respectively beam finite elements both with a mesh size of 25mm (on each direction for the solid
elements). More details concerning the validation of the numerical model with respect to the experimental test
performed by Yi et. al [11] are provided in an author’s previous paper [13].

2.2. Investigated numerical models

Based on previously described numerical model (NMi), five supplementary models are developed by modifying
the number of stories. Thus, a two-story frame (NM2), a four-story frame (NM4), a six-story frame (NM6), an eight-
story frame (NM8), respectively a ten-story numerical model (NM10) are obtained (Fig. 4).
The geometric and material characteristics, as well as the design detailing are preserved from the initial numerical
model (NMi).

Fig. 4. Investigated numerical models.

140 Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143
A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 5

3. Results

The main objective of this paper is to investigate the progressive collapse response of planar reinforced concrete
framed structures subjected to column removal with respect to the number of stories.
The differences between the previously described numerical models (NM2, NM4, NM6, NM8 and NM10),
expressed in terms of supplementary load carrying capacities, respectively in terms of displacement values
corresponding to the activation of the supplementary resisting mechanisms (Compressive Arch Action – CAA and
Catenary Action – CA), are emphasized.
For each numerical model, a nonlinear static push-down analysis is carried out. As stated earlier, a target
displacement (∆) of 50cm is accounted for. The used software package considers that the analysis is completed
when the ultimate stress (fyu) / ultimate strain (εsu) for steel is reached.

3.1. The supplementary load carrying capacity

Expressed in terms of vertical load vs. vertical displacement curves, the load carrying capacity of the investigated
numerical models is illustrated in Fig. 5. Irrespective of the stories number the trend of load-displacement curve is
similar for each model, from NM2 to NM10.

Fig. 5. Vertical load versus vertical displacement of the column removed point.

The elastic-plastic state between points A and B is characterized by concrete cracks in tension in the beam
elements adjacent to the middle column C3. Point B on the curve is associated to the yield load (Fy) which means
that the failure mechanism of three hinge type is attained.
As expected, the NM10 have a more rigid behaviour than the NM2. The yield load limit point (B) is reached at the
same maximum vertical displacement ∆ = 2.26cm for all the numerical models, but for different levels of loading,
which increases with the number of stories, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The B-C section represent the plastic state
characterized by large deformations with small increasing of the load values. Point C on the load-displacement
curve is associated to the collapse initiation. At this step, the ultimate plastic strain εsu=17% considered in the
numerical model is reached in the longitudinal bars from beams ends C2-C3, C3-C4.
Due to the activation of the supplementary resisting mechanisms to progressive collapse (Compressive Arch
Action – CAA and Catenary Action – CA) the peak load value (Fu) which can be sustain by the structural models
without failure is higher than the yield load value (Fy) associated to the activation of the three-hinge failure
mechanism for all numerical models (Table 2). As the number of stories increases from the NM2 to the NM10, a
 Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143 141
6 A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

slightly decrease of the additional load carrying capacity, from 35% to 25%, is identified. For the last two
investigated numerical models, NM8 and NM10, the percent is maintained at 25%.

Table 2. The supplementary load capacity for the investigated model with respect to the number of stories.
Numerical model Yield load - Fy Peak load - Fu Additional capacity Fu-Fy % of additional capacity
[kN] [kN] [kN] (Fu-Fy)/ Fy
NM2 55.67 74.89 19.22 35%
NM4 107.92 138.27 30.35 28%
NM6 161.25 205.15 43.90 27%
NM8 214.34 267.65 53.31 25%
NM10 267.27 333.86 66.59 25%

3.2. The supplementary progressive collapse resisting mechanisms activation

Experimental studies [7, 8, 9, 10] performed on reinforced concrete beam-column sub-assemblages have shown
that the specimens with seismic detailing may develop supplementary resisting mechanisms (Compressive Arch
Action – CAA and Catenary Action – CA) before failure with respect to the specimens with non-seismic detailing.
The obtained results reveal that the peak load value (Fu) corresponding to the collapse initiation stage is increased
with 25÷35% when compared to the yield load value (Fy), due to the activation of the CAA and CA supplementary
resisting mechanisms. The vertical displacement of the removed column (C3) vs. the horizontal displacement of the
adjacent undamaged column (C2/C4) is presented in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Effect of vertical displacement of the damaged column C3 on the horizontal displacement of the undamaged column C2: (a) for the first
story; (b) for the NM10 model.

The curve from the first-story beam for all the investigated numerical models (NM2 to NM10) is illustrated at sub-
point (a), while the sub-point (b) illustrates the curve for the highest model (NM10) highlighting the horizontal
displacement of the column C2 at each story.
The compressive arch action occurs until a maximum vertical displacement ∆=150mm, corresponding to the
removed column C3 is reached; the near undamaged column C2 and C4 tends to move toward to column C3. This
indicates that the loads associated to the failed member (C3) is transferred to the undamaged columns C2, C4 by the
adjacent beams C2-C3, respectively C3-C4 through compressive behavior. As illustrated in Fig. 6.a, the catenary
action activates for all the investigated models when the vertical displacement of the removed column reaches
∆=150mm. At this step, the undamaged columns C2 and C4 tends to move away from the failed element (C3). This
means that the loads are transferred from the damaged column C3 to columns C2 and C4 only through tensile
behavior developed in the adjacent beams C2-C3 and C3-C4.
142 Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143
A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 7

As displayed in Fig. 6.b, the horizontal displacement of C2 increases from 15mm for the first-story to 22mm for
the tenth story. This indicates that, in the final phase of the catenary stage, the axial tension force values in the
adjacent beams C2-C3, respectively C3-C4 increases from the lower to the upper story.

3.3. A simplified approach in assessing the ultimate capacity of RC planar frames

The activation of the catenary action allows for an RC structure to develop large deformations before failure.
Based on the obtained results, it is observed that the peak-load value corresponding to the collapse initiation stage
could be assessed in a simplified manner as illustrated in Fig. 7. The activation of the CA supplementary resisting
mechanism assumes that the load associated to the removed column C3 is transferred to the undamaged columns by
the adjacent beams (C2-C3 and C3-C4) which exhibit only tension behavior. Also, in the catenary stage, large cracks
openings are identified at both beams ends along the entire cross section of the beams. Thus, the contribution of the
concrete in the evaluation of the tensile force of the beam cross-section (Nt) is neglected and only the cross-section
area of the longitudinal rebars is considered. Therefore, Nt could be determined as follows (Eq. 1):

𝑁𝑁𝑡𝑡 = 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 = [(𝜋𝜋 ∙ 122 )/4] ∙ 498 = 112.64 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 (1)

where Arebar is the cross-section area of the longitudinal rebars from the beams and fyu is the ultimate yield stress for
steel.

Fig. 7. A simplified model to estimate Fu in the catenary stage.

The ultimate load carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete planar frames subjected to column failure can be
estimate using the following equation:

𝐹𝐹𝑢𝑢 = 𝛼𝛼 ∙ 𝑛𝑛 ∙ 𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝑁𝑁𝑡𝑡 ∙ sin 𝜃𝜃 (2)

where, α is a load reduction factor estimated on the obtained results, n is the number of stories, m is the number of
beam elements directly connected to the removed column from the current story, Nt is the tensile force of the beam
cross-section provided by the longitudinal rebars and θ is define as θ = arctg (∆max/L); The average value of the
maximum vertical displacement (∆max) obtained for the numerical models investigated herein is ∆max=0.464m,
respectively the clear bay dimension is L=2.467m. A similar equation to determine the load carrying capacity is
provided by Yi et al. (2008) [11] in his study.
Using the Eq. 1 and considering the peak load values (Fu) obtained for the investigated numerical models, the
values for the load reduction factor (α) can be determined for each frame. The value decreases from 0.90 to 0.80, as
the number of stories increases (Table 3). Thus, the lowest value of 0.80 is proposed for the load reduction factor
such that the ultimate load carrying capacity to progressive collapse will not be overestimated for none of the
investigated cases (Table 3).
 Adrian G. Marchis et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 136–143 143
8 A.G. Marchis, M.D. Botez/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

Table 3. The proposed load reduction factor (α).

Numerical model NM2 NM4 NM6 NM8 NM10
numeric
Peak load - Fu [kN] 74.89 138.27 205.15 267.65 333.86
Load reduction factor (α) 0.90 0.83 0.82 0.80 0.80
Proposed load reduction factor (α) 0.80
Peak load - Fuanalytic [kN] 66.61 133.23 199.84 266.46 333.07

4. Conclusions

In this paper the influence of the number of stories on the progressive collapse resistance of RC planar frames is
numerically investigated. To achieve this goal, five numerical models are developed based on the specimen
experimentally investigated by Yi et al. [11].
As expected, the supplementary load carrying capacity increases with the number of stories from 19.22 kN to
66.59 kN. However, in terms of percentage, with respect to the activation of the three-hinge failure mechanism the
values slightly decrease from 35% to 25% (Table 2). For the last two investigated numerical models (NM8 and
NM10) it is observed that the additional capacity expressed in percentage settles at 25%.
For all the investigated cases, the CAA resisting mechanism occurs until a maximum displacement of 5.5% (≈
L/17.5) of the span length (L) is reached. Beyond this limit, the CA resisting mechanism is activated for all
numerical models. It is also observed that the axial tensile force values in the adjacent beams increases from the
lower to the upper story in each case.
To reduce the computational process associated with the assessment of the ultimate load carrying capacity of RC
planar frames, a simplified approach is proposed by developing an equation capable to account for several structural
parameters (α, n, m, Nt and θ). The applicability of this equation is limited to structures where the CA resisting
mechanism is activated. The proposed load reduction factor is valid only for the investigated numerical models.
Since this study aims to investigate only the influence of the number of stories on the ultimate load carrying capacity
of RC planar framed structures, further research is needed to obtain a general applicability of the proposed equation.

References

[1] Department of Defense (DoD), Design of Building to Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified Facility Criteria, UFC-4-023-03, Washington,
U.S.A, 2013.
[2] General Service Administration (GSA), Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major
Modernization Projects, GSA, Washington, U.S.A, 2003.
[3] M. H. Tsai, B. H. Lin, Investigation of Progressive Collapse Resistance and Inelastic Response for an Earthquake-resistant RC Building
Subjected to Column Failure, Engineering Structures,30 (2008) 3619-3628, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.031.
[4] A. M. Ioani, H. L. Cucu, C. Mircea, Seismic design vs. progressive collapse: a reinforced concrete framed structure case study, Proceedings
of ISEC-4, Melbourne, Australia, (2007).
[5] A. G. Marchis, T.S. Moldovan, A.M. Ioani, The Influence of the Seismic Design on the Progressive Collapse Resistance of Mid-Rise RC
Framed Structures, Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture, 56 (2013) 222-234.
[6] L.A. Bredean, M. D. Botez, The influence of beams design and the slabs effect on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms development
for RC framed structures, Engineering Failure Analysis, 91 (2018), 527-542, DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.04.052.
[7] H. Choi H, J. Kim, Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of RC beam-column sub-assemblage, Magazine of Concrete Research,63 (2011)
297-310, DOI: 10.1680/macr.9.00170.
[8] F. Sadek, J. A. Main, H. S. Lew, Y. Bao Y, Testing and Analysis of Steel and Concrete Beam-Column Assemblies under a Column Removal
Scenario, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137 (2011) 881-892, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000422.
[9] S. L. Yap, B. Li, Experimental Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Exterior Beam-Column Subassemblages for Progressive Collapse, ACI
Structural Journal,108 (2011) 542-552.
[10] J. Yu, K. H. Tan, Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-
assemblages, Engineering Structures, 55 (2013) 90-106, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.08.040.
[11] W. J. Yi, Q. F. He, Y. Xiao, S. K. Kunnath, Experimental study on Progressive Collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame
structures, ACI Structural Journal, 105 (2008) 433-438.
[12] MIDAS FEA, Advanced Nonlinear and Detail Analysis System: Analysis and Algorithm, Midas Information Technology Co., Ltd.
[13] A. G. Marchis, A. M. Ioani, Numerical investigation on the progressive collapse behaviour of the RC frames dependent on the damage cases,
Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture, 59 (2016).