Assessment of Progressive Collapse Proneness of

Existing Typical Garment Factory Buildings in Bangladesh

Tanvir Manzur 1; Mohammad Hasan Mahmood 2; Bayezid Baten 3; Md. Jihan Hasan 4;
Md. Raquibul Hossain 5; Munaz Ahmed Noor 6; and Nur Yazdani, F.ASCE 7

Abstract: Concern for structural safety assurance has become more prominent in recent times in developing countries like Bangladesh
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

because of structural failures. The Rana Plaza collapse of 2013 is an example of such structural failure. Based on postdamage analysis,
the root cause of the structural failure of Rana Plaza has been identified as progressive collapse. Given the prevalence of ready-made garment
(RMG) buildings and the large numbers of people associated with these facilities, proper evaluation of the structural safety of these buildings
is essential, especially for signs of progressive collapse. This work aimed to quantitatively evaluate the behavior of typical RMG buildings
with low-to-moderate concrete strength, focusing on progressive collapse. A comprehensive survey was conducted on existing RMG build-
ings to identify the prevalent design parameters. Consequently, a representative sample size was generated based on identified parameters.
Afterward, finite element analysis of randomly selected structures from the generated samples was conducted to determine demand–capacity
ratios (DCRs) of RMG buildings for three limit states corresponding to three cases of column removal. Subsequently, computed DCR values
were organized in developing fragility curves and generalized graphs for each limit case, as simplified indicators of proneness toward
progressive collapse for any relevant structure, without any requirement for complex numerical computations. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.0001496. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Progressive collapse; Vulnerability; Fragility; Demand–capacity ratio (DCR); Ready-made garments (RMG).

Introduction collapse (Dietz 2013; Donaghey and Reinecke 2017; Khandelwal

Structures designed for a certain occupational purpose are often
inappropriately used for other purposes later in their service lives,
due to limited available space and financial limitations. Such alter-
ation in usage pattern in conjunction with lack of proper manage-
ment may result in serious structural safety issues. The collapse of
Rana Plaza in 2013 is one such example, with a death toll that ex-
ceeded thousands (Mahmood 2018). This is one of the instances of
structural failure due to the phenomenon known as progressive
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of Engineer-
ing & Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh; Visiting Scholar/Research
Associate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ryerson Univ., Toronto, ON,
Canada M5B 2M2. Email: tmanzur@ryerson.ca
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of En-
gineering & Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email: hasan_cuet01@
yahoo.com
3 Mosalam and Günay 2015; Qian and Li 2019; Yu et al. 2018), un-
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering
& Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email: bayezid.buet@gmail.com
4
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of En-
gineering & Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email: jihanhasan@
gmail.com
5
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of
Engineering & Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email: hmraquib@
gmail.com
6
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of Engineer-
ing & Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email: munaz.noor@gmail
.com
7
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Arlington, TX
76019 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5637
-0965. Email: yazdani@uta.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 14, 2019; approved on
April 10, 2020; published online on June 26, 2020. Discussion period open
until November 26, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Con-
structed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
and Sherif 2005; Lee et al. 2009; Marjanishvili and Agnew 2006;
McGuire 1974; Whearty et al. 2014). Instigation of this phenome-
non is often triggered by accidental events such as gas explosion,
fire hazard, faults in structural design, overloading, and environ-
mental threats (Li et al. 2016; Mosalam and Günay 2015; Wang
et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2018). The structural discrepancy usually ini-
tiates within a localized zone (Izzuddin et al. 2008; Li et al. 2016;
Mosalam and Günay 2015; Vlassis et al. 2008; Yu et al. 2018) and
then propagates rapidly from the initial failure zone. This leads to
eventual collapse of the whole or large disproportionate portion of
the structure (Li et al. 2016; Stephen et al. 2019; Taylor 1975;
Yagob 2007; Yu et al. 2018). Progressive collapse accounts for
the prompt escalation of contributing load pattern (Yokel et al.
1989) on adjacent structural members of the failed component.
Consequently, this phenomenon triggers a chain reaction (Abruzzo
et al. 2006; Ellingwood and Leyendecker 1978; Li et al. 2016;
less the supporting members with the additional load arrest the
propagation of failure (Mahmood 2018). This failure mode is a
safety concern for any type of structure but is most prominent
in structures with higher occupancies, like the ready-made garment
(RMG) factory buildings of Bangladesh. It has been found from
previous studies that there is a common tendency in Bangladesh
to develop RMG works in buildings that were initially designed
for general or commercial purposes, but were later converted to
garment production; this practice represents a major change in us-
age patterns (Barua and Ansary 2017; Rahman et al. 2017).
The General Services Administration (GSA) and Unified Facili-
ties Criteria (UFC) provide guidelines to evaluate the susceptibility
of structures toward progressive collapse (Bilow and Kamamra 2004;
Giriunas 2009; Marjanishvili 2004; Mohamed 2009; Mohamed
2015; Shi et al. 2010; Tsai and Lin 2008; Tsai and Huang 2011).
However, there is no specific local code or guideline available in

© ASCE 04020092-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092

 the country for defining the assessment techniques in analyzing the
fragility of structural components of a building toward progressive
collapse. Such guidelines are essential for assessing the vulnerabil-
ity of existing buildings toward progressive collapse and determin-
ing suitable retrofitting methods prior to any catastrophes (Abruzzo
et al. 2006; Li et al. 2016; Mosalam and Günay 2015). The need for
such assessments is particularly indispensable in Bangladesh,
where the safety of existing RMG buildings needs to be ensured.
A significant number of RMG buildings were constructed in the
late 20th and early 21st centuries (Das et al. 2018), and were
not initially designed as factory buildings. However, due to lack
of proper awareness and inadequate record keeping, the existence
of necessary as-built drawings or records of material properties
is scarce. Hence, assessment of such structures requires more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
conservative considerations of material strength (NTPA 2013).
In this regard, this study analyzed the progressive collapse suscep-
tibility of typical existing RMG buildings with low-to-moderate
concrete strength across the industrial capital sector of the country,
and developed graphical guidelines for aiding in risk assessment for
these existing structures.
A comprehensive survey of existing RMG buildings has
been conducted to investigate their typical structural parameters
(e.g., number of stories, span length, beam and column dimensions,
material strength). Based on the range of structural parameters stud-
ied in the survey, a sample size of 3,500 combinations has been
generated for each category (4-story, 6-story, and 8-story) of RMG
buildings considered. The structural parameters considered were
concrete and steel property, column span, dimension and reinforce-
ment, and beam dimension and reinforcement. From these gener-
alized data, 100 random buildings for each story case were chosen
using MATLAB (2012) functions. These samples were analyzed
for changes in demand–capacity ratio (DCR) under a three-column
removal scenario (Rouhani et al. 2015) using ETABS (2011) soft-
ware. In case of each column removal, three different damage limit
states—ultimate capacities in axial loading in adjacent columns and
ultimate shear and flexural capacity of adjacent beams—were con-
sidered. The developed fragility curves, based on DCR values,
reflect the failure proneness of the RMG buildings for each of the
limit states corresponding to different considered DCR limits.
Although a limiting DCR value of 2.0 is being commonly used
for regular structures (Gagan and Nayak 2019), the fragility analy-
sis has also been performed for different DCR values in this study,
because of the absence of any established DCR limit set for the
construction practice in Bangladesh. In addition, generalized
graphical charts (shown in the section, Development of Generalized
Graphs) were developed to establish a reliable correlation between
DCRs and a dimensionless structural parameter that consists of
various determinants that directly affect the structural capacity of
beams and columns. A separate dimensionless structural parameter
was considered for each limit state with different determinants
(described in the section, Development of Generalized Graphs),
which can be easily obtained from structural drawings or onsite
investigations, and affect the calculation of respective structural
capacities. Variation in the compressive strength of concrete has
also been considered in the development of each graph, which re-
flects the in-situ material property of structures (Khomeni 2018)
and to make it applicable to wide range of structures across the
country. These generalized graphs are intended to provide profes-
sionals with a tool to compare with standard DCR and provide a
preliminary idea of the safety of the considered structure against
progressive collapse, saving both money and time. The methodol-
ogy implies a detailed simplified procedure for easy evaluation of
progressive collapse proneness. The method can be used for evalu-
ation across various regions of the world for similar types of
© ASCE 04020092-2
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092
structures, or can be reproduced in the prescribed way to develop
specific generalized graphs for ubiquitous building types in different
regions. The charts can also serve as an initial buffer zone for prac-
ticing engineers to identify the structures requiring retrofitting on the
basis of vulnerability, while ensuring structural safety assurance.
Field Survey and Sample Generation
Preliminary Investigation
This research involves evaluation of the fragility of typical existing
RMG buildings in Bangladesh when they undergo progressive
collapse. Therefore, extensive field investigations were essential
to collect information on typical RMG buildings of the country.
Initially, a reconnaissance survey was conducted on some typical
RMG buildings to identify their respective story heights. About 45
RMG buildings located at Dhaka, Narayanganj, and Gazipur were
inspected during this study. Per the findings of this preliminary in-
vestigation, the structures were divided into different categories
based on their story heights. Fig. 1 shows the number of buildings
surveyed and their respective story levels. The survey data in Fig. 1
show that there are more 4-, 5-, 6-, and 8-story garment buildings
than other story levels. Hence, an extensive data collection of the
typically used material properties and other design parameters was
performed later for buildings with heights of 4, 6, and 8 stories.
Fig. 1 shows that the number of 6-story buildings was significantly
higher than buildings of other story levels. Although the number of
5-story buildings is not insignificant in the survey, the analysis was
conducted only on 6-story, 4-story, and 8-story buildings.
Comprehensive Data Collection/Detailed Survey and
Sample Generation
Site visits were conducted to take a detailed survey of selected
RMG buildings of 4, 6, and 8 stories. In general, the buildings were
selected based on their construction period and/or material strength
to represent buildings with low-to-moderate concrete strength. No
retrofitted buildings were included. During this thorough evalu-
ation process, 24 garment buildings were visited, and information
on their design details was collected to study the trends and ranges
within different parameters considered during structural design.
The information was collected from the design drawings, if avail-
able. Otherwise, a thorough site investigation was conducted to de-
termine the dimensions of different structural parameters, such as
column size, beam depth, span length, bay numbers, and others.
18
Nos. of RMG buildings surveyed
16
with similar storey level
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11
No. of stories
Fig. 1. Number of RMG buildings surveyed with respect to different
story heights.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 The study findings are documented in the Supplementary Materials
section below. Based on the ranges of different considered struc-
tural parameters obtained from the buildings investigated in field
observations, a generalized database of about 3,500 sample build-
ings was generated by different combinations of magnitude of the
parameters. For example, a particular building member within the
developed database was generated by selecting a particular value of
span length for a particular beam depth, number of stories, column
size, reinforcement amount, and material properties within the
observed range. The range and variation of different structural
parameters were determined considering the obtained survey data,
prevalent construction practices, and previous experience on visual
inspection of existing RMG buildings (Table 1).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Hines et al. 2003). The generalized table of 3,500 datum was
called into MATLAB workspace using the readtable (MATLAB
2012) command from Microsoft Excel (2010) spreadsheet.
Model Generation and Column Removal Techniques
All of the 300 (100 each for 4-story, 6-story, and 8-story) randomly
selected RMG structures were modeled in ETABS modeling soft-
ware, as described in the Analysis section. These data sets are the
combinations of random assortments of typically used sectional
and material properties of reinforced concrete (RC) elements ob-
served during the detailed survey of the RMG buildings. Those de-
veloped models were later analyzed using ETABS for three
different column removal cases. The detailed description of ETABS

modeling and analysis is discussed in the Analysis section:

Model Development and Analysis
Random Selection
To conduct the finite element analysis, 100 structures were ran-
domly selected for each story case from the generalized database
of 3,500 combinations using the MATLAB function, randn
(MATLAB 2012). Random selection is important because it elim-
inates bias by giving all individuals an equal chance to be chosen
• Case I represents the situation where the corner column has been
removed.
• Case II represents the situation where the edge column, situated
at the exterior bay, has been removed.
• Case III represents the condition after removal of an interior
column.
Fig. 2 displays the locations of the columns removed during
ETABS analysis for this study, where the circles 1, 2, and 3 indicate
the three above-mentioned cases, respectively.

Table 1. Range of parameters considered during progressive collapse analysis

Structural parameters Respective range of values
Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) 10.5–28
Yield strength of steel (MPa) 280 and 420
Longitudinal reinforcement in columns 1.0%–3.0%
Longitudinal reinforcement in beams 0.75%–2.0%
Span length (m) 4.6–7.6
Column size (mm) for 4 stories and 4.6-m span length Corner column 250 × 250–250 × 375
Exterior edge column 250 × 250–250 × 375
Interior column 300 × 300–300 × 375
Column size (mm) for 4 stories and 6.1-m span length Corner column 250 × 250–375 × 375
Exterior edge column 250 × 375–300 × 375
Interior column 300 × 500–300 × 600
Column size (mm) for 4 stories and 7.6-m span length Corner column 250 × 250–425 × 425
Exterior edge column 300 × 300–300 × 450
Interior column 300 × 375–375 × 450
Column size (mm) for 6 stories and 4.6-m span length Corner column 250 × 250–300 × 400
Exterior edge column 250 × 300–300 × 500
Interior column 300 × 375–375 × 375
Column size (mm) for 6 stories and 6.1-m span length Corner column 300 × 300–400 × 300
Exterior edge column 300 × 300–375 × 375
Interior column 300 × 300–375 × 375
Column size (mm) for 6 stories and 7.6-m span length Corner column 375 × 375–500 × 500
Exterior edge column 375 × 375–450 × 675
Interior column 375 × 375–600 × 600
Column size (mm) for 8 stories and 4.6-m span length Corner column 250 × 300–375 × 375
Exterior edge column 250 × 300–375 × 375
Interior column 300 × 300–500 × 500
Column size (mm) for 8 stories and 6.1-m span length Corner column 300 × 375–525 × 525
Exterior edge column 300 × 375–525 × 525
Interior column 375 × 450–600 × 600
Column size (mm) for 8 stories and 7.6-m span length Corner column 375 × 375–500 × 500
Exterior edge column 450 × 450–450 × 675
Interior column 600 × 600–625 × 625
Beam size (mm) for 4.6-m span length Depth 300–450
Width 250
Beam size (mm) for 6.1-m span length Depth 450–625
Width 250–375
Beam size (mm) for 7.6-m span length Depth 600–750
Width 300–375

© ASCE 04020092-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092


3 was modeled as thin shell elements. To analyze the progressive col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1 2
Fig. 2. Plan of a building with circles showing the columns that are to
be removed.
Loading Criteria
In progressive collapse analysis, gravity load is being considered as
the main concern. When a column fails or becomes damaged, the
gravity load supported by the column will be distributed to other
parts of the structure in the form of axial load, shear force, or
bending moment. If the adjacent structural elements are not strong
enough to carry such additional loads, the structure will endure
catastrophic collapse in form of progressive failure. Thus, this
study included the impact of gravity load in the analysis. Lateral
loads like wind load and seismic load were not included. The live
load intensity for existing RMG buildings was considered to be
2.87 kN=m2 (60 psf) per National Tripartite Plan of Action (NTPA
2013) and past experience. Nevertheless, there is no designated live
load intensity available for RMG buildings in the local code (BNBC
2006), which led to the use of the load intensity recommended by
NTPA in the detailed engineering assessment (DEA) of existing
RMG buildings. Based on previous research, different load combina-
tions have been used, including a uniform combination of 2.0 DL +
0.5 LL across all the bays (Gagan and Nayak 2019; Rouhani et al.
2015) and increased gravity loads F(DL + 0.5 LL) in areas above the
removed column along with unfactored DL + 0.5 LL in frames away
from column removal locations, where F is the dynamic load increase
factor (Bandyopadhyay and Banik 2016; Rouhani et al. 2015).
However, there are no specifications of any load combination for
linear static analysis in the national code (BNBC) for progressive
collapse analysis. Moreover, most of the RMG infrastructures have
had a considerable service life. Hence, being one of the pioneering
studies in this field in the country, and due to lack of any load com-
binations in the national code, a less stringent uniform combination of
2.0 DL + 0.5 LL is being used in this study for determining DCR of
adjacent structural elements after each case of column removal. The
prime focus of this study is to provide a preliminary understanding of
the progressive collapse vulnerability of existing RMG buildings. The
ultimate aim is to develop generalized guidelines, as part of national
specifications, to assess the progressive collapse vulnerability of
RMG buildings along with the ideal load combination factors, which
is in the purview of future studies.
Analysis
To observe their responses to general collapse, the developed mod-
els of the 300 RMG buildings were analyzed in the ETABS mod-
eling software for each of the aforementioned three cases of column
© ASCE 04020092-4
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092
removal. All the buildings in the analysis were considered to have
frame structures with cast-in-situ monolithic beams with slabs. The
structural members were connected to the frame structure by rigid
connection. The beams and columns of the building models in
ETABS were modeled as beam elements with longitudinal rein-
forcement between 0.75%–2.0% and 1.0%–3.0%, respectively,
based on the observed rebar quantity in the wide range of RMG
buildings surveyed. The dimension variation of beams and columns
included the limits stated in Table 1. The slab of the RMG buildings
lapse vulnerability for a wide range of material properties, strengths
of corresponding concrete and reinforcements were varied in the
analysis, per the survey findings, shown in Table 1. No geometric
nonlinearity was considered in the analysis. Corresponding to each
building model with certain column dimensions, beam depth, span
length, and material strength, linear static analysis was performed.
The buildings were considered to be subjected to 2 DL + 0.5 LL
during analysis. As mentioned in the Loading Criteria section,
buildings were mainly considered to be subjected to gravity load;
no lateral load was considered. Small rectangular elements were
applied for meshing of slabs during the analysis. From the analysis,
the changes in the behavior of the adjacent columns and beams
were observed and quantified in form of DCR for three limit states:
shear force and flexural moment in adjacent beams and axial load in
adjacent columns. Considering the perspective of load transfer
mechanism, failure of slab is not considered as a part of progressive
collapse.
Development of Fragility Curves
This research was primarily intended to perform progressive failure
analysis on existing typical RMG buildings in Bangladesh to evalu-
ate the degree of safety against this mode of structural collapse.
The obtained outcome signifies the probable risk of progressive
failure of the entire structure when any column has failed due to
different plausible reasons, including overloading, inadequate de-
sign, inferior material properties, accidental failures, and other fac-
tors. It does not indicate the probability of a column failure due to
any of the probable reasons mentioned above. The associated risks
of progressive collapse have been portrayed through fragility
curves that signify the probability of structures exceeding a damage
limit state as a function of an engineering demand parameter
(Shinozuka et al. 2000). In each case of progressive collapse analy-
sis, finite element analysis was employed to obtain the DCR of
structural members corresponding to each failure limit state. The
obtained DCR values for the entire sample range were assembled
to develop frequency curves corresponding to each collapse case.
The combined frequency curve generated for each of the three cases
(Case I, Case II, and Case III) has been represented in Fig. 3 for
typical 6-story RMG buildings, corresponding to the limit state of
axial loading in the columns adjacent to the removed column. Sim-
ilar frequency curves have also been developed for each limit state
for 6-story RMG buildings to calculate the probability of exceed-
ance for corresponding DCR values. The developed fragility curves
can be used to better understand progressive collapse proneness of
buildings that have similar structural parameters considered in the
study.
The obtained frequency curves represent the distribution of the
randomly selected 100 RMG buildings within the considered sam-
ple domain of respective story case against each DCR value. For
each column removal case corresponding to a particular limit state
in Fig. 3, the total area under a graph represents the entire set of 100
RMG buildings for that specific analysis. The probability of an
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 RMG building exceeding a particular DCR value was obtained the graph represents the probability of exceedance for a structure to
from the ratio of the area under the graph to the right of the con- have DCR value greater than 2.0 for removal of an interior column
sidered DCR value to the total area under the graph. For example, while considering axial loading of columns as the limit state. The
the ratio of the marked area under the graph to the total area under shape of the frequency curves in Fig. 3 reflects a normal distribu-
tion of the frequency of the surveyed buildings with respect to the
45
obtained DCR values along with insignificant skewness of the bell-
Corner Column Removal shaped curves. Thereby, it signifies that the obtained results from
40
Edge Column Removal the analysis are statistically significant and can be used for further
35 Interior Column Removal interpretations. The probability of exceedance was evaluated for
30 different DCR values based on the aforementioned procedure,
Frequency

25 and fragility curves have been developed with corresponding val-

20 ues for each of the three failure limit states under each case of
15 progressive collapse analysis. The standard error has been deter-
mined for each case of column removal by dividing the standard
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10
deviation of each 100 samples with the square root of the sample
5
size (Walpole et al. 2011). Corresponding values of approximately
0
0 1 2 3 4 6.3%, 6.5%, and 6.8% were obtained for standard error in Case I,
DCR Case II and Case III, respectively. In case of a normally distributed
sample, the precision/accuracy level of a sample estimation can be
Fig. 3. Frequency curves corresponding to axial force in adjacent col-
augmented by corresponding standard error from sample mean
umns for Case I: Corner column removal of an exterior bay; Case II:
(Walpole et al. 2011). Lower values of the error (below 10%) in
Edge column removal of an exterior bay; and Case III: Interior column
most of the cases and limit states for all stories justify the accuracy
removal of an interior bay for 6-story buildings.
of the sampling method used in the study.
The combined fragility curve developed for the sample range of
typical 6-story RMG buildings is represented in Fig. 4 for different
column removal cases and failure limit states considered in the
1 study. The developed fragility curves provide a major opportunity
for an overall evaluation and comparison of the vulnerability of
Probability of Exceedance

country’s existing 6-story RMG buildings to progressive collapse

0.5
0 Table 2 that removal or failure of a corner column in a 6-story RMG
0 1 2 3
DCR Limit
Cor. Colm. Removal (Colm. Axial)
Cor. Colm. Removal (Beam Flexure)
Edge Colm. Removal (Beam Shear)
Int. Colm. Removal (Colm. Axial)
Int. Colm. Removal (Beam Flexure)
Fig. 4. Fragility curves for three limit states of 6-story RMG buildings
for Case I: Corner column removal of an exterior bay; Case II: Edge
column removal of an exterior bay; and Case III: Interior column re-
moval of an interior bay.
4
Cor. Colm. Removal (Beam Shear)
Edge Colm. Removal (Colm. Axial)
Edge Colm. Removal (Beam Flexure)
Int. Colm. Removal(Beam Shear)
for different failure limit states corresponding to each possible
column failure. As a measure of the proneness of a 6-story RMG
building to progressive collapse, the probability of exceedance val-
ues for different DCR limit values (2.0, 1.5, and 1.0) are summa-
rized in Table 2 for each condition of limit state and column
removal case.
Considering a limiting DCR value of 2.0, it can be inferred from
building results in 57% chance of collapse for adjacent columns in
axial loading. The corresponding probability of structural collapse
sharply escalates to 82% and declines to 33% in case of flexural and
shear failure of adjacent beams, respectively. However, because
DCR limit acts as a sheer reflection of the prevalent construction
practice, a more conservative limit is essential for developing coun-
tries, like Bangladesh, to include any construction laxity, improper
and insufficient assurance of quality control into consideration.
Hence, progressive collapse vulnerability of structures in this
region shall be evaluated more strictly by considering a lower

Table 2. Summary of probability of exceedance for different DCR limits corresponding to different limit states and column removal cases obtained from
Figure 4 (6-story buildings)
Probability of exceedance
Column removal case Limit state DCR limit: 2.0 DCR limit: 1.5 DCR limit: 1.0
Corner column removal Axial (Column) 0.57 0.84 0.96
Shear (Beam) 0.44 0.63 0.80
Flexure (Beam) 0.82 0.92 0.97
Middle column removal Axial (Column) 0.62 0.86 0.96
Shear (Beam) 0.63 0.77 0.87
Flexure (Beam) 0.81 0.91 0.97
Interior column removal Axial (Column) 0.41 0.69 0.89
Shear (Beam) 0.75 0.89 0.96
Flexure (Beam) 0.88 0.95 0.98

© ASCE 04020092-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092

 1 1
Probability of Exceedance
0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3
DCR Limit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cor. Colm. Removal (Colm Axial)
Cor. Colm. Removal (Beam Flex.)
Edge Colm. Removal (Beam Shear)
Int. Colm Removal (Colm. Axial)
Int. Colm Removal (Beam Flex.)
Fig. 5. Fragility curves for three limit states of 4-story RMG buildings
for Case I: Corner column removal of an exterior bay; Case II: Edge
column removal of an exterior bay; and Case III: interior column
removal of an interior bay.
DCR limit. Accordingly, for a lower DCR limit of 1.5 to exhibit
more stringent allowance criteria for progressive collapse, removal
of a corner column results in 84% and 92% chance of progressive
collapse of the adjacent columns in axial loading and adjacent
beams in flexure, respectively. Adjacent beams have shown a rel-
atively higher resistance in shear with failure probability of 63%. In
case of removal of the edge column at the exterior bay, the chance
of progressive collapse for DCR limit of 2.0 is approximately 60%
for columns in axial loading and beams in shear failure, along with
a higher failure chance of 81% for flexural behavior of adjacent
beams. The likelihood of progressive collapse increases marginally
for each limit state with corresponding values of 86%, 77%, and
91% for stringent DCR limit of 1.5. The maximum probability
of progressive collapse failure was evident when the lowest DCR
limit was considered to be 1.0. The removal of the interior column
of an interior bay has a similar pattern regarding the behavior of
adjacent columns and beams. Likewise, the fragility curves can
be used to determine the probability of exceedance for any other
DCR limit as well, which can be determined according to the con-
struction practice within each particular region. The overall effect of
an interior column failure of RMG buildings was more catastrophic
when a more conservative limiting DCR value, such as 1.5 or 1.0,
was considered. A similar combined fragility curve was developed
for the low-rise 4-story buildings (Fig. 5) and 8-story RMG
buildings (Fig. 6) for each case of column removal, to evaluate
quantitatively their effect on progressive collapse of the structures.
It is evident from the developed fragility curves that adjacent
beams are vulnerable to flexural failure largely due to sudden fail-
ure of columns. The higher risk for adjacent beams, attached to the
removed column, is due to the significant increase in span length
after column removal, which causes huge augmentation of mo-
ment. Moreover, removal of a column also changes the mechanism
of beam behavior—that is, the tension zone at the location of the
removed column changes to compression zone, and hence results in
flexural collapse. Meanwhile, the collapse of adjacent columns,
evident by the DCR value of the considered DCR limit, due to
removal of any column of a structure, marks the initiation of
progressive failure of the entire structure, with likely catastrophic
results.
© ASCE
Probability of Exceedance
0.5
4 0 1 2 3 4
DCR Limit
Cor. Colm. Removal (Beam Shear) Cor. Colm. Removal (Colm Axial) Cor. Colm. Removal (Beam Shear)
Edge Colm. Removal (Colm. Axial) Cor. Colm. Removal (Beam Flex.) Edge Colm. Removal (Colm. Axial)
Edge Colm. Removal (Beam Flex) Edge Colm. Removal (Beam Shear) Edge Colm. Removal (Beam Flex)
Int. Colm Removal (Beam Shear) Int. Colm Removal (Colm. Axial) Int. Colm Removal (Beam Shear)
Int. Colm Removal (Beam Flex.)
Fig. 6. Fragility curves for three limit states of 8-story RMG buildings
for Case I: Corner column removal of an exterior bay; Case II: Edge
column removal of an exterior bay; and Case III: Interior column
removal of an interior bay.
Development of Generalized Graphs
Quantifying associated risks of an existing structure based on the
DCR of its structural elements often requires extensive numerical
analysis. Due to time and budget constraints, this procedure is often
disregarded during the process of assessing the quality/health of
infrastructure. However, some generalized tools (graphs, pro-
cedure, etc.) can reduce the difficulty of extensive numerical analy-
sis to a significant extent. The generated fragility curves offer
valuable implications for interpreting likelihood of progressive col-
lapse for existing reinforced concrete RMG structures of the coun-
try. Hence, in this study, a range of generalized graphs were
developed for easy and convenient interpretation of the DCR value
of any structural member from dimensionless parameters, as de-
scribed later, without the necessity of comprehensive computation.
The generalized graphs for corner and interior column removal in
6-story buildings are presented in Figs. 7–9, while others are in-
cluded in the Supplementary Materials section.
Each of the generalized graphs has been developed for a wide
range of concrete mixes of varying compressive strength to incorpo-
rate different types of low-to-moderate-strength concrete common
in the country’s construction sector, because structures of these ma-
terials are more vulnerable to progressive failure. The DCR value
for each limit state has been correlated to a certain dimensionless
parameter that consists of determinants that directly affect the for-
mulation of structural capacity for different limit states of beams
and columns. Being dimensionless, the considered parameter is
easy to use generally for any structure, and is formulated by deter-
minants that can be calculated easily from structural drawings or
on-site investigations. In the case of axial load-carrying capacity
of adjacent columns in Fig. 7, the DCR value is correlated to the
parameter Atrib =ðAg þ As Þ, where Atrib , Ag , and As are the determi-
nants that represent the tributary loading area, gross cross-sectional
area, and rebar area of any adjacent column. The parameter
Atrib =ðAg þ As Þ of a column acts as a direct variant of axial load-
carrying capacity, and can be calculated easily from values of the
determinants from drawings. The parameter can further be used in
inferring the DCR value of the adjacent columns, connected di-
rectly to the removed column by beams, by using the generalized
04020092-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092
 4 4.5

3.5 4

3 3.5

3
2.5
DCR 2.5

DCR
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
fc'=21MPa fc'=17MPa
0.5 0.5 fc'=21MPa fc'=14MPa
fc'=14MPa fc'=10MPa
fc'=17MPa fc'=10MPa
0 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Atrib/(Ag + As) (b) Atrib/(Ag + As)

Fig. 7. Generalized graphs of DCR versus Atrib =ðAg þ As Þ for axial loading behavior of columns due to: (a) corner column removal; and (b) interior
column removal.

6 7

5 6

5
4
4
DCR

DCR

3
3
2
2

1 1 fc'=21MPa fc'=17MPa
fc'=21MPa fc'=17MPa
fc'=14MPa fc'=10MPa fc'=14MPa fc'=10MPa
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

(a) L/(d +As/S) (b) L/(d +As/S)

Fig. 8. Generalized graphs of DCR versus L=ðd þ As =SÞ for shear loading behavior of beams due to: (a) corner column removal; and (b) interior
column removal.

12 7
fc'=21MPa fc'=17MPa fc'=21MPa fc'=17MPa
6 fc'=14MPa fc'=10MPa
10 fc'=14MPa fc'=10MPa
5
8
4
DCR
DCR

6
3
4
2

2 1

0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
(a) L2/pbd (b) L2/pbd

Fig. 9. Generalized graph of DCR versus L2 =pbd for flexural behavior of beams due to: (a) corner column removal; and (b) interior column
removal.

© ASCE 04020092-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092

 Table 3. Sectional properties of the 6-story building
Column size Beam size
Corner Edge column Interior column Percentage Exterior Interior Reinforcement
column of exterior of interior bay of steel in beam beam ratio in beam
(mm) bay (mm) (mm) column (mm) (mm) (p)
300 × 300 300 × 300 375 × 375 1.25% 250 × 450 250 × 450 0.01

Table 4. Comparison of DCR values obtained from ETABS analysis and generalized graphical charts
Bending moment Shear force Axial force
DCR from Actual Deviation DCR from Actual Deviation DCR from Actual Deviation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Case graph DCR (%) Graph DCR (%) graph DCR (%)
Case I 3.2 2.92 8.8 2.1 1.93 8.0 1.5 1.7 13.3
Case II 2.5 2.6 4.0 2.8 2.4 14.2 1.9 1.74 8.4
Case III 3.8 4.02 5.8 2.2 2.18 0.9 1.8 1.88 4.4

graphs for any type of column removal. The load–moment inter-
action could be a factor for corner and exterior columns; however,
this interaction was not considered for simplicity of the calculation
in the case of the generalized graphs. Each of the generalized
graphs has been obtained by drawing the best-fit line among the
various obtained values of DCR corresponding to different values
of specific structural parameter.
The shear capacity of adjacent beams (Fig. 8) is reflected
through the parameter L=ðd þ As =SÞ, where L, d, S, and As are
the determinants that represent span length of the considered ad-
jacent beam, effective depth of adjacent beam, longitudinal spacing
of web reinforcement, and total cross-sectional area of web steel,
respectively. The adjacent beams are the ones that are connected
directly to the removed column. The parameter involves the signifi-
cant factors as determinants that directly affect the shear capacity of
a beam. Based on the parameter, the DCR value of any beam con-
nected to the removed column can be easily evaluated from the
generalized graphs to identify the proneness of the structural
member to progressive collapse. Fig. 9 shows the generalized
graphs developed for flexural behavior of adjacent beams. The
parameter L2 =pbd consists of all determinants that directly affect
the flexural behavior of a beam, where L, p, b, and d represent span
length, reinforcement ratio, width, and effective depth of the con-
sidered adjacent beam, respectively. The DCR value corresponding
to the obtained value of L2 =pbd can be used to determine the
adequacy of the structural elements against progressive collapse
in terms of flexural behavior.
The generalized graphs developed in this study would serve as
essential guidelines in safety assurance of the RMG sector in the
country by evaluating vulnerability to progressive collapse through
estimated DCR. The high values (greater than 0.65 in most of the
cases, along with values of 0.99 for some of the graphs) of the cor-
relation parameter (R-squared value) for the graphs also conform to
a strong correlation between DCR values and different values of
specific dimensionless parameter. The dimensionless parameters,
which determine structural capacity in different limit states, can
be evaluated for each of the structural behaviors of adjacent el-
ements to obtain the corresponding DCR values. The obtained
DCR values can be compared to identify the most critical mode
of progressive collapse failure to which a considered structure is
being subjected, and a tentative quantification of associated risks.
If the obtained critical DCR value is satisfied within the allow-
able limits, it would eliminate the need for further numerical
computations. Elimination of the need for aspects of detailed en-
gineering for a structure could result in significant savings of both
the time and cost associated with finite element analysis. On the
other hand, for any structure with critical DCR value exceeding
the allowable limits, the obtained value would provide a tentative
approximation of the extent of vulnerability of the associated struc-
ture. Moreover, it would infer the degree of necessity of further
comprehensive analysis to obtain more accurate estimation of
the DCR.
Validation of the Generalized Graphs
To validate the developed generalized graphs, an existing 6-story
RMG building was analyzed in ETABS to obtain the numerically
computed DCR value, which was further compared with the value
obtained from the graphical charts in aforementioned section. For
justification of the validation analysis, it was ensured that the struc-
ture has different structural parameters compared with the 100 sam-
ples generated randomly and used in the previous analysis. The
sectional properties of the chosen 6-story building are given
in Table 3. Considering the material properties, concrete with
compressive strength of 21 MPa and steel with yield strength of
420 MPa have been used.
The analysis was performed for all the three cases of column
removal as analyzed in the previous sections. The maximum de-
mand value for axial, shear, and flexural behavior of the adjacent
columns and beams were computed after analysis in ETABS mod-
eling software. Subsequently, the structural parameters and material
characteristics were used to calculate the necessary dimensionless
parameters, L2 =pbd and L=ðd þ As =SÞ, for adjacent beams along
with Atrib =ðAg þ As Þ for adjacent columns. With the aid of the
parameters, tentative DCR values of adjacent beams and column
were determined from the generalized graphs for respective limit
states. The computed DCR values from analysis and the tentative
DCR values obtained from the graphs are represented in Table 4 for
each case of column failure.
It can be inferred from Table 4 that there is an insignificant dif-
ference between the two DCR values obtained, with almost all of
the deviations being less than 10%. Hence, it can be concluded that
the graphical charts act as reliable indicators of tentative DCR val-
ues of a structural member to approximate the degree of vulnerabil-
ity to progressive collapse based on generalized dimensionless
parameters.

© ASCE 04020092-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092

 Conclusions
The principal aim of this research work was to evaluate the degree
of vulnerability concomitant to existing typical RMG buildings
(having low-to-moderate concrete strength) in Bangladesh for dif-
ferent limit states of progressive collapse. This work also focused
on developing generalized graphs to serve in the effort to tentatively
identify structures requiring early preventive measures to ensure
structural safety. Based on the results obtained, the following con-
clusions can be drawn:
• Finite element analysis on a sample range of randomly gener-
ated 100 existing RMG buildings was performed to determine
the demand–capacity ratios of the beams and columns of the
considered structures subjected to progressive collapse. The ran-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dom samples were selected from a population size of 3,500
structures having different combinations of typical design
parameters. The variation ranges of these parameters were de-
cided based on an extensive survey of 24 existing RMG build-
ings and previous experience. The number of building stories
considered for this study was finalized based on their prevalence
during preliminary investigations on 45 typical RMG buildings
in Bangladesh.
• The probability of exceedance for each DCR value was used to
develop fragility curves for each limit state and different cases of
column removal. An inverse relationship prevails between the
probability of exceedance and DCR values, which indicates that
the computed vulnerability toward progressive collapse is less-
ened with consideration of higher DCR limits. Collapse prob-
abilities for different DCR values for 4-, 6-, and 8-story existing
RMG buildings can be obtained from the fragility curves devel-
oped in this study.
• The probability of structural failure due to progressive collapse
escalated significantly when a lower DCR limit value was con-
sidered for removal of columns in any structure considered in
this study. A lower DCR limit value was incorporated in the
study to replicate a more stringent criterion for progressive
collapse, which may be necessary in developing regions like
Bangladesh. This also highlights the need to develop progressive
collapse guidelines specific to local construction practices.
• One of the major aims of this research was to develop general-
ized guidelines for tentative quantification of the associated
progressive collapse risks of any existing RMG structure with-
out the requirement for detailed numerical computation. Hence,
in this study, a range of generalized graphs was developed to
infer a tentative DCR value of a considered structure for axial
behavior of adjacent columns, along with shear and flexural
behavior of adjacent beams, for each of the cases of column
removal. The graphs were developed on the basis of a good re-
liable linear correlation between each limit state and a dimen-
sionless parameter that signifies the applicability of these graphs
in the considered region. The dimensionless parameters have
been selected so that they correlate to the structural parameter
under consideration and can easily be obtained from drawings
or on-site investigation.
• The reliability of using the generalized graphs in determining
vulnerability to progressive collapse was further justified by val-
idating the obtained DCR values from the graphs with DCR val-
ues computed from ETABS software for a randomly selected
RMG building. With most of the deviations being less than
10%, the generated graphs provide a major opportunity to obtain
a quick tentative estimation of associated risks of a structure.
Identification of appropriate structural elements for retrofitting
has always been challenging for engineers in the effort to prevent
deterioration toward progressive collapse. The generalized graphs
© ASCE 04020092-9
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092
developed in this study possess great potential for determining ten-
tative DCR values of any element of a typical existing RMG struc-
ture, thereby helping identify when and which elements to retrofit.
As a result, if the obtained DCR values are significantly lower than
DCR limits, engineers gain some understanding of reliability
and scope to decide whether further numerical computations are
needed. The numerical analysis can only be performed in cases
when the DCR value from the graphs is equal to or higher than
the DCR limit and requires further accurate estimation of risk for
the entire structure. Moreover, in further in-depth evaluation of
progressive collapse vulnerability, it will be imperative to perform
dynamic analysis with dynamic implication factor along with static
analysis in future studies, and compare the results obtained.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Supplemental Materials
Figs. S1–S27 are available online in the ASCE Library (www
.ascelibrary.org).
References
Abruzzo, J., A. Matta, and G. Panariello. 2006. “Study of mitigation strat-
egies for progressive collapse of a reinforced concrete commercial
building.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 20 (4): 384–390. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(384).
Bandyopadhyay, M., and K. Banik. 2016. “Progressive collapse of rigid
and semi-rigid jointed steel frames according to GSA 2013 and GSA
2003 guidelines.” Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 6 (3): 211–223.
Barua, U., and M. A. Ansary. 2017. “Workplace safety in Bangladesh
ready-made garment sector: 3 years after the Rana Plaza collapse.”
Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 23 (4): 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10803548.2016.1251150.
Bilow, D. N., and M. Kamamra. 2004. “U.S. general services administration
progressive collapse design guidelines applied to concrete moment-
resisting frame buildings.” In Proc., Structures Congress 2004. Reston,
VA: ASCE. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/40700%282004%29156.
BNBC (Bangladesh National Building Code). 2006. Live loads, Part 6,
Chapter 2, Section 2.3. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Housing and Building
Research Institute.
Das, T., U. Barua, and M. A. Ansary. 2018. “Factors affecting vulnerability
of ready-made garment factory buildings in Bangladesh: An assessment
under vertical and earthquake loads.” Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 9 (2):
207–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0177-6.
Dietz, K. 2013. “Rana Plaza garment factory collapse.” Learning from
building failures: A student project from the University of Texas Archi-
tectural Engineering Program. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Donaghey, J., and J. Reinecke. 2017. “When industrial democracy meets
corporate social responsibility—A comparison of the Bangladesh ac-
cord and alliance as responses to the Rana Plaza disaster.” Br. J.
Ind. Relat. 56 (1): 14–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12242.
Ellingwood, B. R., and E. V. Leyendecker. 1978. “Approaches for design
against progressive collapse.” J. Struct. Div. 104 (3): 413–423.
ETABS–Integrated Analysis. 2011. “Design and drafting of building
systems.” Accessed September 28, 2017. https://www.csiamerica.com
/products/etabs.
Gagan, B. M., and S. G. Nayak. 2019. “Progressive collapse analysis of
atypical reinforced concrete framed structure.” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol.
8 (5): 532–535.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Giriunas, K. A. 2009. “Progressive collapse analysis of an existing build-
ing.” Honors thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Geodetic Science, Ohio State Univ.
Hines, W., D. C. Montgomery, D. M. Goldsman, and C. M. Borror. 2003.
Probability and statistics in engineering. Danvers, MA: Wiley.
Izzuddin, B. A., A. G. Vlassis, A. Y. Elghazouli, and D. A. Nethercot. 2008.
“Progressive collapse of multi-story buildings due to sudden column
loss. Part II: Simplified assessment framework.” Eng. Struct. 30 (5):
1308–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.011.
Khandelwal, K., and E. Sherif. 2005. “Progressive collapse of moment
resisting steel frame buildings.” In Proc., Structures Congress 2005,
1–11. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Khomeni, A. 2018. “Experimental investigation and numerical simulation
on effect of drilled cores on axial capacity of column.” M.Sc. thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Technology.
Lee, C., S. Kim, K. H. Han, and K. Lee. 2009. “Simplified nonlinear
progressive collapse analysis of welded steel moment frames.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 65 (5): 1130–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.10.008.
Li, Y., X. Lu, H. Guan, P. Ren, and L. Qian. 2016. “Probability-based
progressive collapse-resistant assessment for reinforced concrete frame
structures.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 19 (11): 1723–1735. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1369433216649385.
Mahmood, M. H. 2018. “Fragility analysis of typical RMG buildings of
Bangladesh for progressive collapse.” M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering and Technology.
Marjanishvili, S., and E. Agnew. 2006. “Comparison of various procedures
for progressive collapse analysis.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 20 (4):
365–374. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(365).
Marjanishvili, S. M. 2004. “Progressive analysis procedure for progressive
collapse.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 8 (2): 79–85. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2004)18:2(79).
MATLAB. 2012. “Accelerating the pace of engineering and science.” Ac-
cessed June 25, 2017. https://www.mathworks.com/product/matlab
.html.
McGuire, D. C. 1974. “Prevention of progressive collapse.” In Proc.,
Regional Conf. on Tall Buildings. Bangkok, Thailand: Asian Institute
of Technology.
Microsoft Excel. 2010. Microsoft office product. Redmond, WA: Microsoft
Corporation.
Mohamed, O. A. 2009. “Assessment of progressive collapse potential in
corner floor panels of reinforced concrete buildings.” Eng. Struct.
31 (3): 749–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.020.
Mohamed, O. A. 2015. “Calculation of load increase factors for assessment
of progressive collapse potential in framed steel structures.” Case Stud.
Struct. Eng. 3 (Jun): 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csse.2015.01.001.
Mosalam, K. M., and S. Günay. 2015. “Progressive collapse analysis of
reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls con-
sidering in-plane/out-of-plane interaction.” Earthquake Spectra 31 (2):
921–943. https://doi.org/10.1193/062113EQS165M.
NTPA (National Tripartite Plan of Action on Fire Safety and Structural
Integrity in the Garment Sector of Bangladesh). 2013. Guidelines for
assessment of structural integrity of existing RMG factory buildings
in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Department of Inspection for
Factories and Establishments.
© ASCE 04020092-10
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(5): 04020092
Qian, K., and B. Li. 2019. “Investigation into resilience of precast concrete
floors against progressive collapse.” ACI Struct. J. 116 (2): 171–182.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51710878.
Rahman, M. T., M. Habibullah, and M. A. Masum. 2017. “Readymade
garment industry in Bangladesh: Growth, contribution and challenges.”
IOSR J. Econ. Finance (IOSR-JEF) 8 (3): 01–07. https://doi.org/10
.9790/5933-0803010107.
Rouhani, F., L. Lin, and K. Galal. 2015. “Vulnerability of RC buildings to
progressive collapse based on 2003 and 2013 GSA guidelines.” In
Proc., Structures Congress, 1195–1205. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Shi, Y., Z. Li, and H. Hao. 2010. “A new method for progressive collapse
analysis of RC frames under blast loading.” Eng. Struct. 32 (6):
1691–1703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.017.
Shinozuka, M., M. Q. Feng, H. Kim, and S. Kim. 2000. “Nonlinear static
procedure for fragility curve development.” J. Eng. Mech. 126 (12):
1287–1295. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12
(1287).
Stephen, D., D. Lam, J. Forth, J. Ye, and K. D. Tsavdaridis. 2019. “An
evaluation of modelling approaches and column removal time on
progressive collapse of building.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 153 (Feb):
243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.07.019.
Taylor, D. A. 1975. “Progressive collapse.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2 (4): 517–
529. https://doi.org/10.1139/l75-047.
Tsai, M. H., and T. C. Huang. 2011. “Numerical investigation on the
progressive collapse resistance of an RC building with brick infills
under column loss.” Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 5 (10): 483–490.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1071150.
Tsai, M. H., and B. H. Lin. 2008. “Investigation of progressive collapse
resistance and inelastic response for an earthquake-resistant RC build-
ing subjected to column failure.” Eng. Struct. 30 (12): 3619–3628.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.031.
Vlassis, A. G., B. A. Izzuddin, A. Y. Elghazouli, and D. A. Nethercot. 2008.
“Progressive collapse of multi-story buildings due to sudden column
loss. Part II: Application.” Eng. Struct. 30 (5): 1424–1438. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.08.011.
Walpole, R. E., R. H. Meyers, L. Meyers, and K. Ye. 2011. Probability &
statistics for engineers & scientists. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Wang, H., A. Zhang, Y. Li, and W. Yan. 2014. “A review on progressive
collapse of building structures.” Open Civ. Eng. J. 8: 183–192. https://
doi.org/10.2174/1874149501408010183.
Whearty, J., Z. Torpie, A. Catania, and T. Terris. 2014. “Rana Plaza engi-
neering disaster.” In Proc., ESG Learning from Disasters. New York:
Stony Brook Univ.
Yagob, O. S. A. 2007. “Vulnerability of buildings to blast loads and
progressive collapse.” M.A.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ.
of Ottawa.
Yokel, F. Y., R. N. Wright, and W. C. Stone. 1989. “Progressive collapse: U.
S. Office building in Moscow.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 3 (1): 57–75.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1989)3:1(57).
Yu, J., L. Lou, and Y. Li. 2018. “Numerical study of progressive collapse
resistance of RC beam-slab substructures under perimeter column re-
moval scenarios.” Eng. Struct. 159 (Mar): 14–27. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.038.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.