Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review article

Strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse: A

critical review and future research agenda
Foad Kiakojouri a,b , Valerio De Biagi a,b ,∗, Bernardino Chiaia a,b , Mohammad Reza Sheidaii c
a
Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering (DISEG) - Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
b
SISCON-Safety of Infrastructures and Constructions, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Abnormal events, that are unforeseeable low-probability and high-impact events, cause local failure(s) to
Progressive collapse structures that can lead to the collapse of other members and, eventually, to a disproportionate progressive
Strengthening collapse. Ordinary design procedures, which are usually limited to gravity and seismic/wind loads, are
Retrofitting
inadequate for preventing the progressive collapse. Therefore, a focus on strengthening and retrofitting
Extreme event
techniques to mitigate progressive collapse is necessary. Parameters such as topology of the structure, nature of
Local failure
the triggering event, size of the initial failure, typology of the collapse and seismic design requirements affect
the strengthening and retrofitting strategy. A discussion on the impact of these parameters on strengthening
strategy is first presented. Then, a comprehensive review on strengthening and retrofitting techniques to
mitigate progressive collapse is provided. The paper concludes with an ambitious comprehensive list of issues
covering different aspects of future research agenda.

1. Introduction erature on progressive collapse and related topic has progressively

The GSA guideline defines progressive collapse as a situation where
local failure of a primary structural component leads to the collapse of
adjoining members which, in turn, leads to additional collapse. Hence,
the total damage is disproportionate to the original cause [1]. While
different definitions are suggested for the phenomenon, the underly-
ing characteristic is the disproportionate nature of the final collapse
compared with the initial local failure. A list of selected definitions of
progressive collapse can be found in [2] and a deeper discussion on the
nomenclature is reported in [3].
Although the term ‘‘progressive collapse’’ was used few times to
dissect the some types of structural failure before 1968 [4–6], the
first special focus on the phenomenon, as generally known until now,
was just after partial collapse of Ronan Point Tower in London [7,8]
in the mentioned year. After 9/11 events, scientists and engineers
have refocused on the phenomenon and related topics. The first re-
search works were case studies devoted to the failure of well-known
structures [9,10]. Thenceforth, different aspects of the phenomenon
have been investigated in different structural systems and initial fail-
ure scenarios. The results have been reflected in modern buildings
codes and newly developed dedicated guidelines [1,11–13]. The lit-
increased and a well-accepted framework for analysis and design under
threat-independent scenarios is available now [14].
Progressive collapse is among the most relevant topics in structural
engineering today. Heretofore, at least four books [15–18] and several
wide-ranging review papers [2,8,14,19,20] are devoted to the topic.
However, as highlighted in [14], there is a real need to focus specifi-
cally on different aspects of the topic, since such a approach can shed
light on future needs more clearly. While several review papers devoted
to the specific aspect of the phenomenon, e.g., experimental inves-
tigation on reinforced concrete (RC) structures [21,22], fire-induced
progressive collapse [23,24], RC slabs subjected to punching shear
failure [25,26], steel beam-to-column connections [27], robustness of
timber buildings [28] and quantitative measures of structural robust-
ness [20], no comprehensive survey has been reported on strengthening
and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse. This review
paper focuses on this shortage. In this regard, initially, discussions on
affecting parameters on strengthening and retrofitting strategy, includ-
ing collapse typology, structural topology, seismic design requirements,
nature of triggering event and initial failure are presented. Then, a
comprehensive review on strengthening and retrofitting techniques to
mitigate progressive collapse is provided. Finally, a future research
agenda is outlined.

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering (DISEG) - Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
E-mail address: valerio.debiagi@polito.it (V. De Biagi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114274
Received 24 December 2021; Received in revised form 15 March 2022; Accepted 10 April 2022
Available online 7 May 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Kiakojouri et al. Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274

2. Factors affecting strengthening and retrofitting strategies

Affecting factors on strengthening and retrofitting strategy are nei-

ther well-understood nor even deeply discussed. The majority of the
available published literature, implicitly or explicitly, focuses on the
redistribution-type collapse under single member loss, i.e., static or
dynamic column removal scenarios. The suggested strengthening and
retrofitting techniques, therefore, are usually effective only for such
scenarios and generalization should be avoided. Some recent studies
reveal that collapse resisting mechanisms can be different for different
structural systems and initial damage regimes [3,14]. In this regard,
in this section, a review of affecting factors on strengthening and
retrofitting strategy is presented. First, the influences of collapse ty-
pology, structural topology, type and size of the initial failure are
discussed. Then, interaction between seismic and progressive collapse
design is highlighted. Finally, unwanted dual effects of some strength-
ening and retrofitting techniques are outlined, since such simple issues
can unleash major problems.

2.1. Collapse typology and structural topology

Interactions between collapse typologies (a widely accepted clas-

sification can be found in [17]) and structural topology have been Fig. 1. Interaction between collapse typology and structural topology; (a) slender
reflected in several publications [3,17]. However, in the majority of mega-structure and (b) non-slender mega structure.

the present literature, as well as in code-based approaches, these inter-

actions are neglected or oversimplified. Code-based design approach
usually considers a member loss as triggering event, which can leads
to redistribution-type progressive collapse. The majority of strength-
ening techniques, explicitly or implicitly, focus on redistribution-type
collapses, in which Alternate Load Paths (ALPs) have a determining
role. Therefore, measures that try to increase the structural robust-
ness by adding new load paths (or strengthening the exiting ones),
namely add roof level truss, improving catenary behavior in beams or
cable strengthening of beams, are usually useful mainly in the case
of redistribution-type collapses. For other scenarios, i.e., impact-type
collapses, effectiveness of these techniques is under question and other
techniques, namely energy absorber devices [29] should be utilized Fig. 2. Impact of building’s configuration on the final collapse status.
instead [3,14,17].
The structural typology and members configuration can affect and
determine the possible failure modes, and therefore the strengthening
careful consideration of collapse typology and structural topology, not
strategy. The structural configuration conducts collapse propagation in only are ineffective, but can also lead to more collapse potential.
the system and affects the final collapse status [30]. Fig. 1 compares Especial care should also be given to the system irregularities.
two structural typologies: slender tall building versus non-slender tall The irregularities of the structure have a meaningful impact on the
building subjected to large initial failure at the mid-height. While in the vulnerability to progressive collapse. Several studies have shed light
former collapse mainly spreads in the vertical downward direction (due to effects of irregularities on the progressive collapse performance,
to topological limitations) and pancaking is predominant mechanism, e.g., plan irregularities [31,32], vertical irregularity [33], torsional
in the later collapse spreads in vertical and horizontal directions via irregularity [34]. Kim et al. in several studies has focused on the tilted
mix-type mechanism. As an example, collapse of WTC 1 and 2 (slender and twisted buildings and has highlighted the differences in progressive
tall buildings, pancake-type collapse) can be compared with WTC 7 collapse response compared with common regular buildings [35–37].
(non-slender tall building, mix-type mechanism). Such issues are very Based on the results, the formation of plastic regions and the increase
important in the strengthening and retrofitting schemes, e.g., configu- in load can extend to other bays in irregular buildings, compared with
ration of the fuse elements or compartmentalization pattern are highly regular buildings in which plastic hinges and overload are usually
dependent on collapse typology and structural topology. Fig. 2 illus- limited to the damaged bay(s). However, especial care should be given
trates another example of the impact of structural topology on the final to threat-dependent progressive collapse, namely fire-induced progres-
collapse status in two frame systems under similar triggering event, sive collapse scenarios, since some inconsistent results are reported
in the literature, i.e., the local and global collapse of regular frames
i.e., single corner column removal at ground level. In Fig. 2(a) short
occur earlier than irregular frames [38]. As reviewed, irregularities
and stiff beams act as a mediating element transmitting the propagating
should be considered in strengthening and retrofitting schemes, since
action of the collapse and, therefore, the initial partial failure leads to
the especial configuration of the structure can affect its progressive
the total progressive collapse of the entire building. On the other hand,
collapse response.
in Fig. 2(b) the plastic region formed in the long beams can act as fuse
elements and mitigate the collapse propagation; therefore, the final col- 2.2. Triggering event and initial failure
lapse is partial. It should be noted that, especial design requirements are
not considered in these examples. This means, although such scenarios While single member removal, namely column removal in building
can occur in real structures, they are not the most frequently occurred structures or cable removal in cable-stayed bridges, is usually recom-
scenarios. Therefore, strengthening and retrofitting measures, without mended as initial failure scenarios both in research and in current

2
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 3. Impact of initial failure size on strengthening strategy.
practice, there is no such a limit in real structural failure. As highlighted
in [3], the size of the initial failure can affect the propagation of
the local collapse and, by consequence, the design strategies. In other
words, while there is no natural limit for the size of the initial ‘‘local
failure’’, there are technical and economical limitations for strengthen-
ing and retrofitting strategies. Moreover, the impact of the initial failure
location, i.e., positions of the column removal in the plan and height, on
progressive collapse response of the frame system is widely investigated
and the results discussed in the term of the affected area, active
alternate load path, redundancy and structural reserve strength [39–
41]. Not only the size and location, but also the possible types should
be carefully checked. While the body of the current literature is devoted
to the column failure as initial damage, few have focused on beam
removal instead [42–44]. Such a phenomenon is observed in several
earthquake and fire scenarios, e.g., it suggested as the most probable
cause of initial local failure in the Plasco Building [45]. It should
also be noted that, such special types of initial failure can lead to
different types of final collapse (pancaking, buckling of the column,
etc.), based on the active mechanisms and topology of the system.
Different triggering events tend to produce different types and sizes of
initial failure, e.g., while the size of the damage is usually limited to
a member (or few members) in a vehicle collision, in fire scenarios an
entire story or even several stories can be involved. Such a situations
were observed during a high-rise fire, namely Plasco Building [46] and
Windsor Tower [47]. Obviously, different strengthening and retrofitting
philosophies (regardless the specific characteristics of the triggering
event, e.g., overload to other members, heat, etc.) should be utilized
for each initial failure scenario.
Fig. 3 compares two well-known strategies, i.e., ALP method and
compartmentalization, referring to the initial failure size. In ALP
method, with the increase in the initial failure size, it becomes progres-
sively difficult to provide alternate paths for the remaining structure. In
a frame system subjected to multiple columns loss, strengthening mea-
sures to provide alternate paths can be very expensive, if technically
possible. With the increase in the number of the failed columns, the
strengthening will be impossible, both technically and economically.
Long spans are very popular from serviceability and architectural point
of view. In this regard, special focus should be put on the special floor
systems, e.g., prestressed or different novel voided biaxial slabs. On the
other hand, compartmentalization measures are very uneconomical for
a small initial failure, namely a column loss. With the increase in the
size of the initial failure, the desirability of the compartmentalization
strategies increase both technically and economically. As suggested and
deeply discussed by Starossek [17], a hybrid methodology can also be
adopted, since the size of the initial failure is depends on the unknown
threat.
Such comparisons can also be adopted for other strengthening and
retrofitting techniques. For example, member-level measures aimed to
prevent or decrease initial damage are usually useful for limited small
triggering event e.g., car impact or small near-field blast. For a larger
3
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
Fig. 4. Vertical cables parallel to columns connected at the ends of the beams and
hanged from a steel braced frame seated on the top of the building, as reported in [54].
event, e.g., debris impact or large far-field external blast, focus on the
overall robustness and integrity of the structure is necessary and global
strengthening schemes should be adopted alternatively.
2.3. Interaction between seismic and progressive collapse design
Mainstream seismic-resistant and progressive collapse-resistant de-
sign procedures follow two different philosophies, while in the former
lateral loads are predominant, in the latter vertical loads are (usually)
uppermost. Recent studies reveal that specific design method for spe-
cific threats may have unwanted effects on the structural resistance
against other threats. Primary design of the majority of structures
focuses on seismic and occasionally wind loads, that are lateral. This ap-
proach leads to some well-established theories such as ‘‘strong column–
weak beam’’ and ‘‘strong joint–weak member’’ theories. However, such
measures can have unwanted effects on progressive collapse resistance.
Effect of seismic resistance capacity on progressive collapse response
is discussed in [48]. Therefore, in strengthening and retrofitting mea-
sures, interactions between seismic and progressive collapse design
should be carefully considered.
Several proposals are suggested to exclude the progressive collapse
resisting system from seismic performance. These proposals can be
categorized in two main groups; the first focuses on load bearing
systems that are not active under normal service and seismic load,
and can be activated mainly under progressive collapse scenarios at
larger (usually vertical) displacements, namely relaxed cable and rope
techniques [49–51]. In the second group, strengthening measures are
applied in a way that have negligible interference to the seismic per-
formance, e.g., providing alternate load path in roof level by cap
truss [52] or horizontal bracing [53]. Another innovative technique
using vertical cables parallel to columns connected at the ends of the
beams and hanged from a steel braced frame on the top of the structure
is suggested in [54,55](Fig. 4). Similar concept in which transfer girder
located at the roof level used instead of braced frame is discussed in
detail in [56].
In RC structures, several especial techniques are suggested to im-
prove the progressive collapse response without interfering seismic
performance. Extra non-flexural catenary reinforcements (Fig. 5(b)),
that are installed at mid-height of the section, are suggested by several
researchers [57,58]. External relaxed cable (Fig. 5(a)) [50] and kinked
rebar configuration (Fig. 5(c)) [59,60] are also reported.
Several strengthening techniques focus on modifying the steel con-
nections or strengthening RC panel zones. For example, beam-to-
column connections strengthened with steel plates [61,62] are sug-
gested for improving progressive collapse response. It should be noted
that, if used in seismic areas, such measures can change the size and
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 5. Strengthening of RC structures without interfering seismic performance;
(a) external relaxed cable, (b) extra catenary reinforcement and (c) kinked rebar
configuration.
Fig. 6. Seismic and progressive collapse resistant composite frame (SPCRCF) as
reported in [64].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
location of the plastic zone, and therefore, affect the overall seismic
performance of the structure. These effects can be useful or harmful to
the structure seismic performance. Therefore, especial care should be
given to such details in earthquake-prone areas.
In recent years, introducing the systems and strategies that simul-
taneously improve the seismic performance and progressive collapse
resistance has become very popular [63–67]. Such systems usually
have self-centering property that leads to low damage and easy repair
compared with conventional frames. Fig. 6 illustrates the details of
such a system as reported in [64]. Novel seismic–progressive collapse
resilient system for super-tall building system is also reported in [67].
2.4. Unwanted effects of strengthening and retrofitting strategy
Disturbing the seismic performance is not the only unwanted influ-
ence of adopted strengthening techniques. Strengthening strategy can
induce unwanted effects on the overall performance of the structure
in many ways. However, these unwanted effects are neither well-
understood nor deeply investigated. For example, different strength-
ening measures can change the forces developed in the catenary and
arching action. Such forces drastically affect the connections capacity
in steel frame structures, and therefore, ignoring or underestimating
such forces may lead to the connection failure [68–70]. When high-
strength cables and tendons are applied in a strengthening scheme,
special care should be given, because such members can serve as a
mediating element transmitting the propagating action of the failure.
4
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
In such cases, adding an extra support system, i.e., fuse-type ele-
ment [71], to control the strengthening device is necessary. Referring
to blast strengthening, increasing the strength and continuity may lead
to wider loading surfaces, and consequently more damages. Moreover,
as illustrated in [72], damaged and connected members can transfer
blast loads to the remaining structure, resulting in larger displacements
even compared with complete sudden column loss. Such details can be
complicated and have not been well investigated so far. Reinforcement
continuity is usually considered as a favorable structural property when
the system is subjected to various threats, namely earthquake and blast.
Several studies reveal that continuity [73] can improve progressive
collapse performance. However, as deeply discussed in [17], structural
continuity can act as double edged sword based on the adopted design
philosophy. More discussion is provided in the Section 3.3.2 in which
compartmentalization ideas are described.
In addition to the structural effects, some strengthening measures
are undesirable from the architectural point of view. Adding horizontal
and vertical trusses, roof level modification and installing heavy energy
absorber devices disturb internal and external architectural design.
Therefore, not only pure structural issues but also architectural and
serviceability aspects should be carefully considered.
3. Strengthening and retrofitting techniques
With strengthening and retrofitting techniques the Authors are
herein referring to any especial measure that is used to improve the
progressive collapse performance of a structure. Such measures can be
applied in design and construction phase, or to an exiting structure.
While in the seismic design of the buildings, almost clear distinction
between the terms strengthening, retrofitting, repair, rehabilitation,
etc., can usually be drawn, such distinctions are ignored in the current
paper and the strengthening and retrofitting techniques refer to any
measure that specially (in addition or in combination to conventional
gravity and lateral design) aims to prevent the progressive collapse or
alleviating its consequences.
The strengthening and retrofitting techniques are categorized based
on the three criteria definition of progressive collapse provided by the
Authors in [3]. Each strengthening and retrofitting measure fundamen-
tally targets or mainly affects on one of the criteria (while can act
on others positively or negatively) to prevent the progressive collapse,
i.e., (i) preventing initial failure, (ii) controlling collapse propagation
and (iii) controlling the final collapse status. While such a classification
can be also performed based on the structural type, triggering event,
etc., the above mentioned rationale is more brightening and helpful.
Referring the categorization of the each applied method to the
subsections of the paper, it should be noted that the herein presented
classification has been preferred by the Authors, although other cat-
egorization approaches can also be adopted. It is not always possible
to classify some strengthening and retrofitting techniques into specific
categories, since they have dual effects, or the performance depends on
the acting threat, the load level or the initial failure size. For example,
some techniques that basically aim at preventing initial damage can
actually provide more strong alternate load path. Moreover, the dis-
tinctions between techniques categorized as ‘‘adding new alternate load
paths’’ and ‘‘improving the exiting ones’’ is not always very clear, since
the performance is related to the loading regime [74]; for some levels
the added member may act as a separated element, while for other
levels it acts as single element with the exiting member. Furthermore,
measures like sagged cable and unbonded bar and strip contribute
only in some resisting mechanisms (mainly catenary action) and not in
others (namely flexural action); therefore, considering these measures
either as ‘‘adding new alternate load paths’’ or as ‘‘improving the exiting
ones’’ is debatable. However, as long as the rationale is understood,
there is no emphasis on the selected classification and some techniques
can actually be included in several categories.
F. Kiakojouri et al. Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274

3.1. Preventing or decreasing initial damage

The methods focusing on the preventing or decreasing the amount

of initial failure are mainly member-based and threat-based. While dif-
ferent threats can lead to initial failure and, consequently, progressive
collapse, in this section the main focus is put on the fire (Section 3.1.1),
impact (Section 3.1.2) and blast (Section 3.1.3), since the available
published literature related to other triggering events is limited. Earth-
quake is also neglected, because excellent reviews on strengthening
and retrofitting techniques are already exist in this discipline, such
as reported in [75–78]. However, more focus on seismic–progressive
collapse and its special characteristics, i.e., as partially discussed in [79,
80], is still needed. Threat-based classification is preferred for measures
aimed to prevent and decrease initial damage, since the triggering Fig. 7. Intumescent coatings thickness evolution against steel temperature as reported
in [95].
event directly acts on the member at this level, while for the two
other groups, namely controlling collapse propagation (Section 3.2)
and controlling the final collapse size (Section 3.3) performance-based
classification is adopted instead, since the overall response is much
more important at those levels. It should be noted that a very rich
literature is available now and several review papers can exclusively
devoted to each mentioned triggering event. However, such a wide
survey is out of the scopes of the present paper and instead the focus
is mainly put on the philosophy and concept for strengthening and
retrofitting against specific threat, and several examples from available
literature are provided.

3.1.1. Fire
Fire effects on the structures are well-known phenomena and fire
protection systems have a long history in structural engineering. How-
ever, especial focus on fire-induced progressive collapse only emerged
after major fire-induced collapse disasters in the last decades. While
some studies suggest that it might be possible, through proper design,
to eliminate fire protection for steel in the system [81], the body
of the literature emphasizes on the fire protecting techniques. In RC
structures, using suitable type and combination of aggregates [82] and
sufficient nominal cover [83] usually provide desirable fire resistance
against large variety of fire scenarios.
Concrete structures are inherently more fire-resistant compared to
their steel equivalents. While numerous research works on member-
level fire response of RC members (e.g., fire-induced spalling [84] or
multi-hazard scenarios such as corrosion-fire [85,86] and blast-fire [87]
scenarios) as well as few studies on fire-induced progressive collapse
of precast or reinforced concrete structure [88] are reported in the
literature, the majority of the published literature is devoted to steel
structures.
Intumescent coating is the most common fire protection system
for steel structures. When exposed to elevated temperature, intumes-
cent material expands due to the formation of gaseous compounds
developed during the decomposition of organic matrix [89](see 7).
The key factors in the intumescent formulations, flame retardants,
fillers, modifiers, nano-dimensional additives, and the weathering that
affects the properties and performance of intumescent coatings are
reported and deeply discussed in [90]. The effects of partial loss of fire
protection on the column have been investigated in several studies [91–
93]. Intumescent fire protection coatings can also play a dual role; as
reported in [94], fiber-reinforced intumescent fire protection coatings
can also provide effective confinement to RC column, achieving ulti-
mate axial strength that are even comparable to those of conventional
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps (see Fig. 8). Such techniques can
potentially be used for other threats, namely blast and impact, however,
to date, no study devoted to this interesting topic.
Other member-based fire protection techniques are fire protection
boards [96,97], full or partial concrete encasement [98–100], mem-
brane protections using board products and thermal insulation blan-
kets [101] and plug-and-play fire protection system [102](see Fig. 9).
Fig. 8. Installation of three different reinforcing meshes in fiber-reinforced intumescent
fire protection coatings as reported in [94].
In choosing the strengthening strategy, some newly discovered phe-
nomena should be carefully considered, namely cooling effect and
fire-induced creep strains. Based on the findings, structures may col-
lapse in the cooling phase of compartment fires or under traveling
fire scenarios [24]. Tension built-up in the fire-exposed column due
to heating-cooling sequence can lead to an overload in the adjacent
columns, and potentially to progressive collapse [103]. Temperature-
induced creep strains affect the onset of instability in frame structures
under fire-induced progressive collapse scenarios. Neglecting these ef-
fects can lead to underestimation of global failure times [104]. Such
effects, also, may have unwanted effects similar to those discussed
in Section 2.3. For example, using strong-column weak-beam theory,
in particular, and adding excessive stiffness, in general, should be
very carefully checked before incorporation into a final strengthening
strategy. In traveling fire, the traveling speed meaningfully affects the
failure sequence of columns, damage range and collapse mode [105];
while a slow traveling fire leads to a partial, the fast one may lead to
global collapse. Moreover, as discussed in [105], high fire protection
may prevent collapse, but may still allow collapse in the cooling phase.
3.1.2. Impact
A rich literature can be found on strengthening and retrofitting of
structures against impact loads. The majority of these research works
are member-based and are not directly devoted to global collapse
aspects, however, the reported results are useful for progressive col-
lapse design. Two main philosophies are used for strengthening and
retrofitting against impact loads: the first focuses on extra strength and
stiffness for the structural members by installing additional material,
e.g., supplemental layer of RC or FRP material. The second philosophy
puts the emphasis on sacrificial elements to protect the main structural
members. Similar approaches can also be applied to the blast scenarios,
as discussed in Section 3.1.3. It should be noted that these philosophies
can be used separately or simultaneously; sacrificial elements can be

5
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 9. Plug-and-play fire protection system for steel columns as reported in [102].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
designed in a way that increase the system stiffness and strength for
some load levels, before final failure under extreme loads.
Impact-induced damage in structures can be categorized into two
main groups:
• impacts due to the interaction between an external entity (say,
vehicle, airplane, natural hazards, etc.) and structural members;
• impacts of failed structural members when structure undergoes
impact-type collapses, i.e., domino- and pancake-type collapses.
The active mechanisms of these to groups can be completely different,
therefore, different strengthening and retrofitting techniques should be
adopted for each one. In the former, columns are usually considered as
critical members. In the latter, floor system usually receives the impact
loads.
The retrofitting measures to protect from impacts account for the
fact that kinetic energy can be dissipated through large deformations.
For example, foams are well-known for energy dissipation under ex-
treme loading conditions. Experimental studies on the performance of
frame structure strengthened with foamed aluminum under debris flow
impact are reported in [106]. The installation of protective closed-
cell aluminum foam layer on the surfaces of RC columns as well as
utilizing the combination of the closed-cell aluminum foam layer and
ultra-high-performance concrete for important structures is suggested
in [107] (see Fig. 10). For small impact loads, foams usually act as
energy absorbers, for larger impact loads hardened foam can potentially
restrain the concrete and enhances its performance [106].
A new protective structure based on ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced concrete and energy-absorbing member of corrugated steel
tubes to protect bridge columns against vehicle collisions and to reduce
vehicle damage is suggested in [108]. The performance of ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete-strengthened bridge columns
subjected to vehicle collisions reported and discussed in [109]. Ultra-
high performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket is suggested for
column subjected to low-velocity impacts [110]. Superior performances
were observed for the strengthened column with two-end, i.e., plastic
hinge zone under lateral impacts [110].
The application of FRP composites has progressively gained pop-
ularity in rehabilitation and retrofitting of structures against impact
loading over the last two decades [111–113]. A review of concrete
6
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
Fig. 10. Details of the impact tests on a RC column protected by aluminum foam as
reported in [107].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
Fig. 11. The effect of CFRP-shear strengthening on existing circular RC columns under
impact loads as reported in [118].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
structures strengthened with FRP against impact loading is presented
in [114]. The response of carbon FRP-strengthened bridge piers struck
with lightweight and medium-weight vehicles is investigated in [115].
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) strengthened full scale con-
crete filled steel tubular columns subjected to vehicular impact is
reported in [116]. In shear deficient columns, the use of CFRP wrapping
with the same scheme as in seismic application can change the damage
mode from shear- to flexural-dominant [117]. The effect of CFRP-shear
strengthening on existing circular RC columns under impact loads is
reported in [118] (see Fig. 11). The assessment of FRP-strengthened
full-scale circular-hollow-section steel columns subjected to vehicle
collisions is reported in [119].
Sandwich structures are also widely used for impact mitigation. A
review of the recent trends on core structures and impact response of
sandwich panels is reported in [120]. Impact resistance of sandwich
structures with prismatic and foam cores is reviewed in [121]. A survey
on foldcore sandwich structures and their impact behaviors is reported
in [122]. However, studies on real application of sandwich structures as
protective structure, e.g., to protect a structural column, is very limited.
A vehicle collision impact response of bridge pier strengthened with
aluminum foam protection devices is reported in [123]. The damage
mitigation of a steel column subjected to automobile collision using a
honeycomb sandwich panel is reported in [124]. Aluminum foam-filled
circular–triangular nested tube energy absorber under impact loading
is proposed in [125].
In addition to the normal techniques to protect the main structural
members against impact, innovative methods that are widely diffused
in other fields, e.g., defense science and marine structures can also
be considered. Reactive armour [126] can be applied in critical and
exposed members of very important structures in special conditions. In
such cases, local strengthening may be necessary to decrease unwanted
structural damages.
The body of the literature adopts threat-independent approach
(mainly dynamic column removal) for study of impact-induced progres-
sive collapse. The finding of these studies should be very carefully used
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 12. Different sandwich panels that can be used for blast protection.
for strengthening and retrofitting purposes, since as highlighted in sev-
eral studies [127–130], structural response in impact-induced progres-
sive collapse can be very different compared with threat-independent
dynamic column removal. The structures that meet the code-based
requirements may collapse when subjected to impact of a vehicle.
Similar consideration should be given to impact of failed structural
members, namely in pancake- and domino-type progressive collapse,
since our knowledge is mainly limited to simple concentrated drop tests
and reckless generalization should be strongly avoided [14].
3.1.3. Blast
Blasts and explosions are usually considered as primary abnor-
mal extreme events against civil structures. A very rich and prolific
literature has developed in recent decades, especially after terrorist
attacks in late 20th century. An important potion of this literature
devoted to strengthening against blast both at member and at global
level [131]. However, threat-dependent blast-induced progressive col-
lapse study is still an ongoing research field, and different aspects,
including blast response in progressive collapse scenarios, requires
more research focus.
Considering the similar nature of blast and impact, that include
rapid and usually local extreme loading on structure, two basic strate-
gies can also be perceived for blast scenarios, as previously explained
for impact in Section 3.1.2. The first one focuses on extra strength and
stiffness for the structural members by installing additional (usually
high strength) material. The second philosophy puts the emphasis on
sacrificial devices to protect the main structure usually by energy
dissipation mechanism. Obviously, the techniques focus on the over-
all improvement and global strengthening and do not belong to the
preventing or decreasing initial damage strategies; they are discussed
in Section 3.2 as collapse propagation control techniques.
Steel jacketing is repeatedly used for retrofitting of RC members
under blast loading scenarios [132,133] that meaningfully leads to sig-
nificant improvement both at the member and system level. Sandwich
structures are also widely used for blast protection. Different materials
including metals and composites are usually used for sandwich struc-
tures. Blast response and energy dissipation of sandwich structures are
studied and influences of different core, namely I-core [134,135], Y-
core [136,137], honeycomb core [138,139], auxetic core [140,141]
etc., are investigated. Some of these forms are shown in Fig. 12. These
types are sometimes used in foam filled or multilayered [141,142] con-
figurations. Sandwich structures are well-known and usually suggested
for blast protection. However, studies especially focusing on sandwich
structures as scarified element, namely to protect a structural column,
are really limited and the majority of experimental and numerical stud-
ies are devoted to member-level performance of separated sandwich
panels.
FRP materials are commonly applied in retrofitting structures
against blast loads due to the advantages of high strength and light
7
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
Fig. 13. Preventing the failure of RC members under close-in blast loadings; (a)
reinforcement of polyurethane bricks and (b) reinforced polyurethane bricks installed
on the member as reported in [148].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
weight [143]. Several experimental and numerical studies are devoted
to blast response of FRP-retrofitted column [144]. Based on the results,
retrofitting with FRP can effectively mitigate the damage and deforma-
tion of the columns under blast scenarios [145,146]. Blast protection of
concrete columns with thin strips of glass FRP overlay is investigated
in [147]. Based on the results, retrofitting improved the residual com-
pressive strength of the columns. The overall fragmentation/spalling
effects for concrete were also reduced [147].
Sacrificial cladding consisting of reinforced resin panels with an
insulation layer for the reduction of blast damage in reinforced concrete
structures is suggested in [149] (see Fig. 13). 3D printed polylactic
acid sacrificial honeycomb cladding is also suggested and experimen-
tally and numerically investigated in [150]. Hybrid-multi cell tubes
as sacrificial cladding for improving blast performance of reinforced
concrete structures is discussed in [151]. Circular–triangular nested
tube as sacrificial cladding is proposed in [152], which can reduce
transmitted forces by 50.1%–74.3% by employing the energy absorber
mechanism.
Dual effects of strengthening against blast should be carefully
considered. Increasing the connectivity between structural members,
namely between frame and walls, may lead to larger area that accepting
blast pressure and eventually more blast induced damage. Inattentive
increase in member strength, namely a column, may lead to the trans-
mission of the blast loads to other parts of the structure that can cause
larger failure even compared with complete column removal. Such dual
effects should be attentively investigated before implementation of any
strengthening and retrofitting strategy (see Section 2).
3.2. Controlling collapse propagation
Strengthening and retrofitting techniques that especially focus on
controlling collapse propagation can be categorized into two main
groups; either adding new alternate load paths or improving the ex-
iting alternate load paths. In the former, new alternate load paths
are provided for the structure by installing new structural members
(brace, cable, etc.). These new members can be similar (in form and
application) to the original members, or can be completely different
to exiting ones. In the latter, structural members (beam, column and
slab, and occasionally non-structural elements like infill wall) improve
to resist progressive collapse after initial failure.
These methods are categorized here based on the added members
type and performance, e.g., bracing, adding cable, etc. Some strength-
ening techniques, namely bonded FRP are not listed as new load path
provider. While these techniques can modify the sequence and the
importance of the collapse resisting mechanism, i.e., flexural, arch
action, catenary action, etc., they are actually improving the exiting
alternate load paths. On the other hand, unbonded devices, namely
relaxed cables, are discussed as new alternate load paths providing
devices.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 14. Improving progressive collapse behavior of RC Frames through steel bracings. Failure modes of specimens as reported in [153]; (a) SF1, (b) SF2, (c) SF3 and (d) SF4.
Source: Photo by courtesy of Kai Qian (Guilin University of Technology).
Techniques like fuse elements and energy absorber devices can be
listed here, since these techniques can be used for controlling collapse
propagation. However, these techniques are discussed in Section 3.3. In
the Authors’ idea, it is better to categorize such measures in controlling
the final collapse size, since application of such measures to control
collapse propagation is not easy from technical and economical points
of view.
3.2.1. Adding new alternate load paths
Adding new structural members to provide additional alternate load
paths is a classic approach for strengthening structural systems against
progressive collapse. The added members are usually not similar to the
exiting members, e.g., adding bracing for moment-resisting frames. But
also similar member can be used, e.g., extra horizontal bracing for a
braced frame. Adding a new column or wall can theoretically improve
the progressive collapse response, however, it is technically out of scope
and financially expensive. However, retrofit concepts like the ones
suggested in [154] can potentially improve the progressive collapse
performance. Such external/perimeter additional columns not only can
improve stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation of the system, but
also can act as protective structure against direct threat effects, namely
blast and impact loads.
The effectiveness of the potential new load paths must be assessed,
since the same element can behave differently depending on the loads
acting on the structure. The possibility of adding new load paths
essentially depends on the type of loading it is expected following
the initial failure. If it is necessary to provide additional capacity
towards horizontal forces, inserting bracing systems would target the
need. Basically, the load paths are driven by stiffness distribution. If
an additional element does not provide stiffness, its addition does not
change the load paths resulting, thus, ineffective [155].
The mitigation measures aiming at new alternate load paths can
be installed either in the critical regions, namely first story beams,
or far away from the potential damaged area, i.e., through roof level
modifications. A detailed discussion is herein provided.
8
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
Additional beams. Adding new beams, for obvious technical reasons,
is not a suitable approach for progressive collapse strengthening (an
interesting exception can be found in [156]). One important exclusion
is RC flat slab buildings in which addition of perimeter beams as pro-
gressive collapse strengthening method is suggested [157–159]. Based
on the case study, perimeter beams improve the progressive collapse
resistance of the studied structure by reducing demand–capacity ratio
(DCR) of critical columns by up to 67.0% and reducing the vertical
displacements at column removal point by up to 81.0% depending on
the different initial failure scenarios [157].
Bracing. Several progressive collapse studies are devoted to steel braced
frames and the influences of different brace types are assessed. Among
the different types of braces, eccentrically braces usually show higher
strength against progressive collapse [160–162]. However, the use
of additional braces for progressive collapse mitigation is a recent
idea. Considering successful experiences in seismic strengthening and
retrofitting, bracing is now also widely suggested for progressive col-
lapse performance enhancement. Horizontal [53,163], vertical brac-
ing [164] and combined horizontal/hat and vertical bracing [164,165]
are suggested using different type of braces, including inverted-V
bracing [166,167] and X-bracing [168]. In addition to conventional
bracing, buckling restrained braces are also suggested to improve the
progressive collapse performance [169–171]. The results illustrated
that buckling restrained braces can significantly improve catenary
action and progressive collapse behavior. While the majority of the
literature is devoted to the steel structures, a few one focuses on
steel bracing in RC structures [153,172] (see Fig. 14). Although these
research works are mainly threat-independent, some studies are also
devoted to bracing effects in threat-dependent fire-induced progressive
collapse [164,165,173]. In a traveling fire scenarios, application of
bracing, i.e., horizontal, vertical or combined bracing systems, can
prevent collapse of structures under a slow traveling fire, but not for a
fast traveling fire [105].
Roof level modifications. Roof level modifications refer to adding extra
structural members at top story level, such as truss, girder and bracing.
This technique is very efficient for short and mid-rise multi-story build-
ing. For high-rise buildings, the impact of roof level modification on
F. Kiakojouri et al.
the damage occurred in the ground level (or lower floors) is negligible.
Repetition of similar modification at several levels can improve the
progressive collapse performance.
Horizontal top story bracing is one of the most widely suggested
roof level modification [53,163]. Cap truss and steel strut to resist
progressive collapse is also suggested in [52]. Steel truss system added
at the building rooftop level to define an alternative load path is
suggested in [174]. Vierendeel truss is proposed at the top floor level
in a multi-storey building to redistribute the load due to sudden col-
umn loss [175]. Hat truss is repeatedly suggested for fire-induced
progressive collapse mitigation [176,177]. However, hat truss tends to
constrain the thermal expansion of gravity columns and therefore, dur-
ing fire events can lead to premature buckling of gravity columns [178].
Roof level modifications can work with exiting frame member to de-
velop robust load path, or can work with additional members, namely
cable [179] or additional vertical and horizontal bracing [176].
While roof-element usually allow a more uniform distribution of
axial forces in the columns after initial local failure, as well as de-
crease in the dynamic amplification effects [174], the stiffness of the
roof-element should be carefully calibrated in order to provide the
redistribution capacity and also to control the tension forces induced
in columns above the removal region. A very stiff roof-element may
generate a significant increase in axial forces in some columns [174].
As discussed in [180] for roof-truss, this point could potentially turn in
a critical aspect of the roof level modification as retrofit measure.
Cable, strip and rope. Cables, strips and ropes, in different forms
and configurations are repeatedly suggested for progressive collapse
strengthening. Relaxed cables can be used in both steel and RC struc-
tures without interfering the seismic performance as shortly reported
in Section 2.3, and also in company of roof level modifications as
discussed earlier in this section.
Improving progressive collapse resistance of RC beam–column sub-
assemblages using external relaxed steel cables is reported in [50].
Cables are also successfully used for strengthening long-span entrance
of steel moment resisting frames [181]. In addition of steel cables, FRP
strips are also suggested for retrofit of RC frames. In the study reported
in [182], by adding the external CFRP strip cables, the frame structure
sustained the applied gravity load without a transition to catenary
action. To further demonstrate the effects, the CFRP strip cables were
released, causing the frame structure to deflect downward and eventu-
ally to progressively collapse [182]. External unbounded FRP cables
attached to the beam at anchorage locations and deviators/saddle
point(s) only, without being posttensioned is suggested and numerically
investigated in [183]. A straightforward method for progressive col-
lapse design has been proposed using relaxed steel cables underneath
reinforced concrete frame rectangular [50] and T-beams [66] (see
Fig. 15). A modified catenary model with application to the analy-
sis and design of retrofit cables for progressive collapse is reported
in [184]. Progressive collapse strengthening of precast RC frame using
externally anchored (different anchorage techniques are tested) carbon
fiber rope is suggested and discussed in [51].
Dampers. Dampers are well-accepted devices to control and improve
the seismic response of structures. A very wide literature is devoted to
the application of dampers in earthquake engineering field [185,186].
However, application of dampers for progressive collapse mitigation is
limited to handful of papers. Dampers can act as an energy absorber
device, as well as load limiter for compartmentalization. In a more tech-
nical way, the damper first provides a new load path (thus an additional
alternate path is generated). Then, its specific purpose is achieved.
Different types of dampers, including rotational friction dampers [187],
cylindrical friction dampers [188], viscoelastic dampers [189], viscous
dampers [190,191] and magneto-rheological dampers [192] are sug-
gested for improving the progressive collapse performance. Based on
the results, different types of dampers can improve progressive collapse
performance. However, current knowledge on application of damper as
9
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
progressive collapse mitigation devices is very limited and much more
research focus is necessary on different structural systems equipped
with dampers under different initial failure regimes.
3.2.2. Improving the exiting alternate load paths
Improving the exiting alternate load paths is usually preferred com-
pared to adding new members and devices, since this approach does not
interfere with exiting architectural design. Moreover, from a structural
analysis point of view, this approach is usually simpler, focusing on
the exiting members. Direct strengthening of columns is very rarely
suggested for improving the overall progressive performance. However,
in especial condition, strengthening of column may be necessary to help
the main strengthening system works properly. For example, cables
spanning the damaged area may transfer high axial loads to the column.
Roof level modification, e.g., in fire scenarios, can lead to the failure
of columns, especially when the system designed for low seismic force
or does not have seismic design at all. In such cases, strengthen-
ing of column should be considered to ensure the efficiency of main
strengthening system. Although in can be considered as new design
philosophy rather than a strengthening strategy, other structural sys-
tems considering columns as energy absorbers, like multi-layered frame
system with external energy absorber frame are suggested in [193].
Special-shaped multi-partition concrete filled steel tubular column are
also suggested for improving the progressive collapse performance in
high-rise buildings and skyscrapers [194]. The majority of member-
based column strengthening techniques are listed and discussed in
Section 3.1.
Beam strengthening. Beam strengthening is a basic approach for mit-
igating progressive collapse potential in frame systems, since beams,
especially those directly located above failure region, are the first and
usually most important elements that control system collapse behav-
ior. Beam strengthening can be performed at different heights and
locations, based on the height of the structure and purpose of the
strengthening scheme. Increasing strength of the beams, increasing the
stiffness of the beams, and increasing both strength and stiffness of the
beams as retrofitting approaches are techniques suggested in [195].
Adding extra reinforcement bars is a classic technique in RC struc-
tures to improve the progressive collapse behavior. A mitigation scheme
involving the provision of additional reinforcement bars in the mid-
layer of reinforced concrete beams to increase resistance against pro-
gressive collapse is proposed in [49]. The special detailing, say placing
an additional reinforcement layer at the midheight of beam sections,
partially debonding bottom reinforcing bars in the joint region, and
setting partial hinges at one beam depth away from the adjacent joint
interfaces is suggested in [196]. Interactions and connectivity between
beam and slab are also very important in progressive collapse behavior.
Existence of a beam flange could meaningfully enhance the progressive
collapse resistance [197].
In RC structures, Textile-Reinforced Mortar (TRM) and Near-Surface-
Mounted (NSM) reinforcement techniques are suggested for the streng-
thening of existing reinforced concrete frames against progressive
collapse [198]. Strengthening of precast RC frame to mitigate progres-
sive collapse by externally bonded CFRP sheets anchored with hybrid
fiber-reinforced polymer anchors is also reported in [199]. Steel–
FRP composite bar with controllable post-yield stiffness, and hybrid
reinforcements including both steel bars and FRP bars is suggested for
progressive collapse capacity enhancement and the post-yield stiffness
plus compressive arch action is monitored [200]. The use of High-
Performance Ferrocement Laminate and Bond Steel Plate (HPFL-BSP)
techniques is suggested for improving the progressive collapse resis-
tance of multistory RC frames [201]. While the method increases initial
stiffness, crush of mortar and fracture of steel strands happened at a
relatively smaller displacement giving an earlier warning, and much
time to escape [201].
However, unconditional beam strengthening, even directly on the
local damage region, can be harmful to the collapse behavior, and
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 15. Configuration of RC cable frame structure: (a) the whole structure, (b) C-axis facade view, (c) the first floor, and (d) tested specimen as reported in [66].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
such strengthening as a general recommendation should be avoided.
As highlighted in [202], when the governing collapse mode is trig-
gered by a column buckling failure, beam strengthening techniques are
harmful for the progressive collapse capacity of the structures. When
beam strengthening and retrofitting measures are adopted, especial
care should be given to height of the building and active progres-
sive collapse resisting mechanisms, since, the contribution of members
and active mechanism for each member can be different at different
building heights [203]. Moreover, the obtained results on strengthening
and retrofitting of substructures (that include the majority of available
literature) should be very scrupulously generalized [204,205].
Infill walls. Focus on the infill walls contribution on the progressive
collapse resistance of frame structures has recently become very pop-
ular. Different types of infilled, i.e., concrete, masonry and 3D panel
are considered in these studies [206–213]. In some recent studies, more
advanced scenarios are considered including the influence of infill walls
on fire-induced progressive collapse potential [214,215] and the effects
of infilled wall opening on load resisting capacity [212,216,217]. The
infill walls not only changed the load resisting path, but also can
effectively improve the load redistribution ability of the frame [218].
However, in these studies no special measures are taken for strength-
ening the infills against progressive collapse. On the other hand, a rich
literature is available concerning the wall strengthening against blast
and seismic loads. The majority of the literature focuses on out-of-plane
or horizontal loads, while some documents refer to vertical loading due
to loss of gravity support [219].
Although no exclusive research work is devoted to strengthening the
infills against progressive collapse, it can be assumed that techniques
developed against blast and seismic loads, with some modifications,
can also be effective here. A review of different available techniques
is reported in [220]. However, especial care should be given to seismic
design hypothesis and seismic performance of the structures. From the
progressive collapse point of view, continuity between the structural
frame and infill panel can be favorable, since the vertical loads are
predominant. But, this configuration has large shortcomings for seismic
design, especially when disconnections of the infill panels from the
10
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
frame and high ductility of the frame structure were assumed in seismic
design phase. In such a case, the overall seismic strengthening is also
necessary, that is obviously very expensive.
Developing an infill panel system that is seismically isolated under
lateral loads and that can resist large vertical displacement could solve
the problem. In this regard, more experimental and numerical studies
are necessary, because the research is over-focused on masonry infills.
Other infills, like sheathed light-gauge steel walls [221], have not
received adequate attention so far (see Fig. 16). Infill steel panels
technique described in [222] as strengthening method can be merged
with masonry or an innovative infill to provide better performance.
Such infills not only provide more reliable alternate load path, but
hypothetically can act as energy absorber device in impact-type col-
lapses (see Section 3.3.1). Therefore, special focus should be put on
developing innovative infills that possibly improve both progressive
collapse (different mechanisms) and seismic performance.
Impact of the infills located on both sides of the local failure,
i.e., removed column, is usually neglected and the focus is put on the
infills located in upper stories. Since it is assumed that the threats
cause column failure, they can also completely destroy the infills. This
is completely true for threats like blast. However, other threats like
fire and corrosion can cause column failure without any major infill
damage. Therefore, some research focuses for this scenario are also
needed.
Slab strengthening. Contribution of slabs in load distribution and col-
lapse resistance is usually ignored in the earlier progressive collapse
studies in frame structures. However, recent studies have highlighted
the huge beneficial impact of the slabs in the progressive collapse
scenarios [41,223,224]. A comprehensive review of current research
on the slab performance in RC and precast concrete structures to resist
progressive collapse is reported in [225]. Larger area compared to the
beams provides the possibility of diverse and versatile strengthening
schemes. For some structural systems, namely RC flat slabs, strength-
ening the slabs is the only rational way for improving the exiting
alternate load paths, for the others, it is more acceptable technically
and economically. Slab strengthening can serve two purposes: first,
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 16. Failure modes of a sheathed light-gauge steel wall specimen at different stages as reported in [221].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
Fig. 17. GFRP-strengthened RC beam–slab subassemblages in a corner column-removal scenario as reported in [232].
Source: Photo by courtesy of Peng Feng (Tsinghua University).
to develop strong slab against impact type collapses (this strategies is
discussed in Section 3.3.1); second, to improve the load distribution
capacity and provide more reliable load paths. Here, focus is put on
the later.
Enhancing post-punching performance of flat plate–column joints
by different reinforcement configurations is discussed in [226] when
two different reinforcement configurations to enhance flat plate–column
joints were proposed. A review on FRP strengthening of RC slabs
against punching shear failure is reported in [25]. Different types of
FRPs, namely GFRP and CFRP, in different forms including strips,
laminates and bars are usually used in strengthening and retrofitting
schemes. Externally Bonded CFRP laminates for strengthening and
retrofitting of RC flat slabs to mitigate progressive collapse is suggested
in [227]. Strengthening of slab–column connections against punching
shear failure with Near-Surface Mounted (NSM) carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer bars is suggested and experimentally investigated in [228].
Progressive collapse strengthening of slab with NSM glass FRP bars and
engineered cementitious composites (ECC) layer are suggested in [229].
Strengthening of multi-bay reinforced concrete flat slabs to mit-
igate progressive collapse using GFRP strips is suggested and dis-
cussed in [230]. Externally bonded GFRP strips for strengthening and
retrofitting precast concrete buildings to mitigate progressive collapse
is suggested in [231]. Two techniques including externally bonded
GFRP laminates and NSM GFRP bars to strengthen the RC subassem-
blages in column removal scenario is suggested in [232] (see Fig. 17).
The majority of the published research works are devoted to con-
ventional two-way RC slabs. More focus on one-way slabs and possible
strengthening techniques is necessary, especially because hinge bound-
ary conditions are usually adopted in the design phase, and some
strengthening strategies can change this assumption and, consequently,
change the load transferring mechanisms. More emphasis is also needed
for special and less common floor systems, namely hollow-core slab and
voided biaxial slab, such systems usually span larger area, and possibly
are more prone to progressive collapse. The effect of opening should
11
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
also receive more attention, since openings in slabs are very common
in the real constructions. Heretofore, very limited studies focus on this
issue [233]. Moreover, more focus is required on the details of floor
system, e.g., in a recent study the huge impact of transverse beam in
progressive collapse performance is highlighted [234].
Connections and joints region strengthening. Connections and joint area
have a major role in load distribution after initial local failure. Several
studies devoted to the performance of different steel connections in
progressive collapse scenarios [27,70,235,236]. SidePlate connection
is recommended in several literature [27,237] to improve the pro-
gressive collapse performance. In this connection, separation between
the face of the column flange and the end of the beam mitigates
the triaxial stress concentrations and reduces local buckling [238].
Anti-collapse performance and catenary action of reduced web section
connections in progressive collapse scenarios was reported in several re-
cent studies [239,240]. Several strengthening and retrofitting strategies
are suggested to enhance the connections’ performance in progressive
collapse scenarios. Among them, increasing the joint rotation capacity,
energy dissipation concepts and forming alternate load paths within
the connection region are the most effective approach in the current
literature.
For improvement of progressive collapse resistance for steel frame
systems, web opening is recommended to enhance the rotation ca-
pacity, and kinked reinforced bars are suggested in the beam–column
joint to realize a second path [241]. Two retrofit strategies, aiming
at increasing the collapse resistance of simple steel connections by
adding seat angles and steel plates with long-slotted holes, are proposed
in [242] to address the vulnerability of steel frames under column loss
scenarios. Nominally-pinned steel joint equipped with novel structural
details for progressive collapse mitigation that can enhance both the tie
force and the rotational capacity of a vulnerable steel joint is reported
in [243,244] (see Fig. 18). A modified steel frame structure with corru-
gated steel plates based on the partially out-shift plastic zone principle
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 18. Joint configuration for nominally-pinned joints: (a) individual components; (b) assembly for full depth end plates joint; (c) assembly for fin plates joint as reported
in [244].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
is suggested in [245] for improving progressive collapse performance.
Full-scale tests of two different connection details under the progressive
collapse scenario is reported and discussed in [246], and a new con-
nection with slotted holes at the shear tab was developed. A passive
connection concept, based on the moments which are created after
the column removal, is suggested in [247]. This connection enables
the structure to tolerate the added loads after failing of the vertical
element, i.e., columns. Retrofitted moment-resisting connections with
steel strands is proposed and discussed in [248] to enhance the steel
frame buildings robustness by providing a second line of defense.
Self-centering techniques are also suggested for progressive collapse
mitigation in steel frame structures [249] as they are very effective
and, as discussed in Section 2.3, they can potentially improve both
progressive collapse and seismic performance [64]. Retrofitted simple
connections by dampers and bracket-tendon system, that are very
effective in reduction of vertical displacement and enhances the per-
formance, are suggested in [250,251]. A fully welded connection with
energy dissipation cover-plates, which enhances the catenary mecha-
nism and delays the failure of the connection, was proposed in [252].
Novel retrofitting schemes for strengthening the simple steel joints of
existing tall steel frame structures, by changing the partial-strength
shear-resisting joints to the full-strength moment-resisting joints, ensur-
ing the full development of catenary action are suggested and discussed
in [253,254]. While the majority of strengthening techniques for steel
connections are focusing on the stiffness of the beam or the end plate
to improve the connection robustness, in a new approach reported
in [255], the robustness is enhanced by improving the contribution of
the bolts to the rotational capacity of connections. For that purpose,
steel sleeve with a designated length, thickness, and wall curvature
between the end plate and the washer is applied [255]. Such a concept
can be utilized to increase the rotational capacity of the order of three
times the standard connection [256].
In RC structures, additional reinforcement bars in the mid-layer
of beams is suggested for progressive collapse improvement. Similar
philosophy is also discussed for beam strengthening strategies in which
additional bars continue in the full length of the beam, that can be
considered as a beam strengthening strategy. Additional bars can also
be limited to the joint region. Such a configuration usually enhances
catenary actions, as discussed for embedded locally debonded rebars at
the half-height of beams near beam ends [58]. The test result of the
specimen with steel side plates in beam–column joints showed that the
force–displacement curve increased without fracture of re-bars [257].
A novel and interesting approach for enhancing the robustness and im-
proving the progressive collapse performance of RC structures through
local debonding of tensile reinforcing bars at the joints, where sig-
nificant cracking usually occurs after a column removal, is reported
and discussed in [258], in which, an significant improvement in the
peak vertical load-carrying capacity under a column loss scenario is
observed [258].
Some strategies are devoted to the precast concrete frames, such as
new moment-resisting beam–column joints to increase progressive col-
lapse resistance of precast concrete buildings [61,62,259] (see Fig. 19).
12
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
The adoption of innovative FRP/steel hybrid technique using near-
surface mounted steel rebars along with fiber reinforced polymer for
progressive collapse prevention in precast RC beam–column joints is
suggested in [260]. The use of precast dry connections constructed
away from beam–column junction under progressive collapse scenario
is suggested and discussed in [261]. It was concluded that building
having precast elements connected away from the beam–column junc-
tion with adequate connection detailing behaves similar to that of
monolithic construction and can be a sustainable alternative of cast-in-
place construction [261]. Optimized configurations for beam–column
substructures with wet connection, in precast reinforced concrete frame
are suggested and discussed in [262]. These optimizations are applied
to the arrangements of the mechanical sleeves, levels of the unbonded
prestressed strands, and strength of the cast-in-situ concrete, to improve
their performance in resisting progressive collapse [262].
FRP materials in different shapes, namely sheet and warp, are
also widely suggested for retrofitting and strengthening of reinforced
concrete frames [263]. The applied approaches are usually very similar
to well-known techniques that are already used in seismic retrofitting.
Progressive collapse performance of shear strengthened RC frames by
FRP material, i.e., nano CFRP retrofitting beam ends, is experimentally
investigated and reported in [264].
The majority of the discussed literature has threat-independent
approach, i.e, focus on the structural response after a static or dynamic
column loss. However, connections behavior under specific threat is
also widely investigated. Nevertheless, limited numbers of these studies
focus on the progressive collapse aspects. Dynamic performance of
retrofitted steel beam–column connections subjected to impact loadings
is discussed in [265] and the effect of retrofitted methods on transfor-
mation of catenary action under impact load are revealed. A study on
the structural performance of a ductile connection under fire conditions
is reported in [266]. The behavior of slide hinge joints with a symmetric
friction damper under drop weight impact tests is studied in [267].
Dynamic response of monolithic and precast concrete joints with wet
connections (with various wet joint configurations) under impact loads
is numerically and experimentally studied in [268].
Post-tensioning. Post-tensioning is widely adopted in different engineer-
ing fields. However, progressive collapse mechanisms of prestressed
systems are not widely investigated and still not fully understood [269].
Progressive collapse responses of prestressed concrete frames with
bonded and unbonded tendons are reported in [270–272] and ac-
tive mechanisms are discussed. The research works usually conclude
that the ultimate collapse capacity of post-tensioned systems can be
much larger than that of the RC substructures, and the post-tensioned
strands with a larger diameter can improve the ultimate bearing ca-
pacity more than that with a small diameter [269]. Based on a recent
study, compared with RC specimens, post-tensioned concrete specimens
achieved much higher load resistance and strand’s shapes affect the
behavior; the specimen with straight strand profile obtained the highest
load resistance, while the specimen with parabolic profile had higher
deformation capacity [273].
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 19. Precast concrete beam-to-column connections strengthened with steel plates as reported in [62].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
Fig. 20. Double-span beam–column structure with PT connections under a vertical load as reported in [274].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
Some recent researches showed that post-tensioned beam–column
assemblies are able to enhance the structural capacity against progres-
sive collapse [275]. Unbonded post-tensioning strands for RC flat slab
substructures in progressive collapse scenario are suggested in [276].
The idea is also adopted for steel structures, e.g., resilience of post-
tensioned steel frames under column loss scenarios is investigated
in [274] (see Fig. 20).
3.3. Controlling the final collapse size
When initial failure cannot be avoided and collapse propagation is
difficult to control, the rational choice is to limit the final collapse
size; avoiding progressive collapse targeting the third proposed char-
acteristic [3]. In this strategy, initial failure and even partial collapse
are allowed to prevent the final total (or disproportionately large)
collapse. This strategy is usually applicable for impact- or mixed-type
collapses. The best example of such a collapse is pancaking. Fig. 21
shows two possible scenarios; in Fig. 21(a) impacted slab arrested the
impact of upper part and prevented a continued progressive collapse.
In Fig. 21(b) total progressive collapse is observed [277]. The conse-
quences, either in the form of (a) or (b) depend on the capacity of the
structure and the intensity of the impact, the former is usually related
to the seismic design criteria, the latter depends mainly on the weight
of the falling part, i.e., represented by the number of the story above
the initial failure region [278]. However, our knowledge on the topic
is very limited, both for understanding the impact-type collapse mech-
anism and also for developing design/strengthening measures. Based
on [277], the current design standards, that are based on static loading
considerations, do not provide resilience to flat slab connections that
13
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
are subjected to impact loading and therefore cannot prevent progres-
sive collapse scenarios. To understand the entire phenomenon, first,
horizontal collapse propagation of concrete slab should be monitored.
Few studies specifically devoted to this topic [279].
As reviewed, measures focusing on the final collapse size well work
with large initial failure, partial collapse and extreme dynamic effects.
The energy that is released in the impact of several falling stories is
usually far beyond the capacity of the normal structures [14,17]. The
applied impact forces can reach about three to four times the total
weight of the falling floors due to dynamic effects [280,281]. Therefore,
while no comprehensive numerical or experimental study devoted to
this issue are found, it seems that normal strengthening techniques (see
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) are not usually very effective here. Instead, for
controlling the final collapse size, two main strategy can be adopted;
either using energy absorber devices or compartmentalization. The best
outcome, however, occurs when combined strategies are adopted.
3.3.1. Energy absorber devices
As reviewed, measures focusing on improving the collapse per-
formance by adding or strengthening ALPs are not very effective in
impact-type progressive collapses, namely domino and pancake mecha-
nisms. Although the use of energy-absorbing systems is well diffused in
some special structures [283,284], very limited numerical and experi-
mental studies are devoted to impact-type progressive collapses, hardly
any of them is related to strengthening and retrofitting techniques. An
interesting exception can be found in [29], in which a high-efficiency
energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse is introduced.
However, numerous studies on similar devices with different applica-
tions can be found in the literature. In these studies metallic [285,
F. Kiakojouri et al.
Fig. 21. Progressive collapse punching shear failures; (a) partial collapse of the Pipers
Row Car Park at Wolverhampton in 1997 and (b) Harbor Cay Condominium building
collapse in Cocoa Beach Florida in 1981 as reported in [282].
Source: Reprinted with permission.
286], FRP [287,288], foam-filled [289,290] and hybrid [291,292]
tubes are used as energy absorber devices (see Fig. 22). The application
of such devices in larger-scale multi-story buildings requires much
more research focuses. For example, the additional weight, interactions
between device and frame, boundary conditions of the device and
the influences on seismic performance should be carefully considered.
Moreover, the distribution (which story and how many devices for each
story, see Section 3.3.2) in the frame system needs more investigations.
To date, available literature is limited to conceptual and theoretical
publications, e.g., as reported in [17].
In the framework of energy absorber devices, a very rich literature
on impact response of structures, namely beams and slabs, is available.
However, the majority of the current studies have focused on concen-
trated impact scenarios, i.e., a drop hammer. While the requirement
of more realistic scenario are partially discussed in [282,294–297],
distributed impacts are almost completely ignored in the current prac-
tice. Moreover, in a real collapse scenario, floor systems may undergo
repeated impacts, strengthening strategies for such loading regimes
need more research focuses [298,299]. Some strengthening techniques
based on the energy dissipation concepts initially developed for blast
mitigation, can also be used for absorption of impacts energy. An
example of aluminum foam straightened RC slab that reported in [293]
for blast mitigation is shown in Fig. 23.
3.3.2. Compartmentalization
Mother nature uses ‘‘compartmentalization’’ to let the species to
survive. The sacrifice-for-survival mechanisms can be observed in many
living organisms. Examples can be found in [300] and [301], where
the ‘‘triggering events’’ were pathogen ingression and chilling stress,
respectively. Moreover, the concept of structural compartmentalization
is historically very well-known to the builders, e.g., it has been used in
the construction of long walls, and also was suggested for the structures
14
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
Fig. 22. Heavy energy absorber devices; (a) square honeycomb configuration [29], (b)
telescoping tube configuration [17] and (c) heavy floor sandwich panel.
under extreme loading conditions [302,303]. Lin [302] in 1985 stated
that ‘‘A lunar structure could be compartmentalized to prevent catas-
trophic destruction in case of any local damage’’. However, modern
use of this idea for progressive collapse design is related to the several
works by Starossek that finally integrated in [17], in which, the term
‘‘segmentation’’ is used for the concept.
Compartmentalization is originally a design philosophy and has
been successfully used in real constructions, especially for multi-span
bridges [304]. The related literature is very limited and mainly consist
of theoretical studies. Compartmentalization techniques for bridges and
skyscrapers are suggested and discussed in [17]. Zipper-stoppers as
segmentation devices for long-span cable-supported bridge subjected to
sudden rupture of some of its cables are proposed in [305]. Analogy
between redundancy and compartmentalization is discussed in [306].
Quantitative measures of compartmentalization, based on the stiffness
matrix nondimensionalization, is reported in [307]. A framework for
designing for structural robustness in tall timber buildings with especial
focus on compartmentalization is discussed in [308].
Unintentional compartmentalization helped structures (without any
on purpose robustness-oriented design) to survive total collapse in sev-
eral incidents. This is discussed for Siemens Arena in Denmark in [309],
for the Pentagon headquarters building in [17] and for Charles de
Gaulle Airport Terminal 2E (see Fig. 24) in [17]. This concept can
also be used as a strengthening and retrofitting technique to mitigate
progressive collapse, but heretofore, no numerical and experimental
research works are devoted to this field.
For vertical compartmentalization, combination of high strength
materials and energy absorbers (devices and/or materials) can be ap-
plied. It should be noted that, in these approaches, the structure is
not physically separated and segmented. Instead, the systems is com-
partmentalized via the boundaries with different stiffness, strength
and energy dissipation properties. These boundaries, in a building
frame system, can be the floor system or the story. The main con-
cepts are suggested and discussed in [17]. The design philosophy,
originally developed based on the previous observed pancake-type
progressive collapse incidents, is to isolate collapsing section, and
therefore, to limit the extent of final collapse, by means of a vertical
compartmentalization of the overall structure [17].
Two main concepts for vertical compartmentalization are strong
story (floor) and giant sandwich story. In the former, the floor plate is
strengthen in a way that can survive the impact of the upper floor, that
can be achieved either via design of stronger slabs, or with additional
protective materials, or even both of them. Steel plate, rubber, carbon
F. Kiakojouri et al. Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274

Fig. 23. Blast-loaded concrete slab; (a) unstraightened and (b) aluminum foam straightened as reported in [293].
Source: Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 24. Collapsed zone of Terminal 2E at Charles de Gaulle Airport [310].

Source: Reprinted with permission.

FRP layer, and polyurea as protective layer for RC slab against impact is
proposed in [311]. In a recent study [281], the strong floor concept is
further highlighted and a design approach is proposed. It was shown
that the intact lower section in a pancake collapse scenario could Fig. 25. Strong slab concept; selected floor are also equipped with extra protective
potentially has survived in the presence of a strong floor [281]. In the layers.

later, i.e., giant sandwich story, energy absorber devices are installed in
the story, so the impact of the falling floor can be dissipated. Possible
energy absorber devices are shown in Fig. 22. Obviously, these two
concept can be used together at different levels and configurations.
Figs. 25 and 26, show two possible configurations (hybrid ap-
proaches) for vertical compartmentalization. Selection of the story/floor
to act as strong story can be a complicated issue. Special care should
be given to design purposes, interaction with seismic and architectural
design, serviceability aspects and also economy. Moreover, strong slab
capacity and energy absorber devices distribution cannot be equal for
each selected story/floor level, since its related to the falling floor
sizes. For example, as shown in Fig. 26, three giant sandwich stories
are considered in the system, but number of devices are not equal in
all of them; the energy dissipation capacity is highest for the lower
floor. For the highest level, instead of arrangement of heavy energy
absorber devices, floor sandwich panels are utilized, since, the size of
the possible falling upper part, and consequently energy dissipation
demand, are much smaller. Such a concept should also be applied to
strong floor method. However, very limited studies, specially numerical
and experimental studies, are devoted to the topic. More discussion is
provided in [17].
For horizontal compartmentalization, a good placement of con-
struction joints can serve both purposes, and such availability can
be considered in design and construction phase. However, when con-
struction joints cannot be used for compartmentalization, problems
Fig. 26. Giant sandwich story concept.
raise, since compartmentalization of a structure that is intentionally
connected based on the primary design philosophy is difficult, and
can lead to vulnerability with respect of seismic performance and even
serviceability of the building. However, unintentional discontinuity in

15
F. Kiakojouri et al. Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274

Fig. 27. Exterior view of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after partial progressive collapse [312]; the collapse stopped at reinforcement bars’ discontinuity in the main transfer
girder.

the rebars (e.g., in splices or due to construction errors) can save the
structure from total collapse. A famous example of such a scenario is
shown in Fig. 27 in which rebar discontinuity in the transfer girder ar-
rested the collapse propagation. More details and discussion is available
in [17]. However, application of such techniques as design strategy is
not received sufficient research attentions and obviously, much more
research focus should be devoted to this area.
Fuse elements that are mentioned in the previous sections can also
be used for the control of the final collapse size via horizontal com-
partmentalization. The location pattern in the structural assembly and
the strength of the fuse elements determine their application; either as
collapse propagation control elements or final collapse controllers. Sev-
eral studies focus on structural fuses as collapse prevention devices via
Fig. 28. Ideas for horizontal compartmentalization in RC structures; (a) decreasing the
energy dissipation technique. However, application of such elements flexural strength of the section by re-positioning the reinforcement bars and (b) using
in real structures, specially buildings, is questionable, because, fuse fuse-type element in reinforcement bars.
elements are usually installed within the frame systems. In buildings
with slabs, the redistribution is also provided by slabs itself, thus fuses
are less effective.
of strengthening and retrofitting techniques is provided and critically
Fig. 28 illustrates two concepts that hypothetically be used for
discussed.
horizontal compartmentalization in RC beams and slabs. In Fig. 28(a)
Progressive collapse field, in general, and strengthening and
flexural strength of the section is reduced by re-positioning the re-
retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse in particular, are
inforcement bars and in Fig. 28(b), fuse-type element is installed in
young research fields in structural engineering discipline. Therefore,
the steel rebar to control the maximum load. Similar techniques can
also be used for other structures, namely space structures, to control there are points that need developments and more attention. These
the final collapse size. However, the impact of such measures on the points for progressive collapse studies are listed in the Authors’ pre-
shear strength and overall seismic performance should be very carefully vious review paper [14]. That list can be consulted first, since where
contemplated. Obviously, more experimental and numerical research the progressive collapse studies are lacking, obviously, there is a gap in
efforts should be devoted to this techniques before implementation in strengthening and retrofitting techniques too. However, especial focus
real constructions. on future needs in collapse mitigation measures is also useful, therefore,
this review paper concludes with a reasoned list of open questions and
4. Conclusions and future research directions issues that, in the opinion of the Authors, should be addressed in the
near future. For each point, a short discussion is provided.
This review paper deeply discusses strengthening and retrofitting
techniques to prevent progressive collapse. To provide a complete • The majority of reported strengthening and retrofitting tech-
analysis of the available studies, some points are first detailed. Hence, niques focuses on redistribution-type progressive collapses, only
the parameters affecting strengthening and retrofitting approaches, few studies are devoted to impact-type collapses, namely pancak-
i.e., the configuration of the structure, the nature of the triggering ing. In this regard, more emphasis should be put on the possible
event, the size of the initial failure, the typology of the collapse and the techniques to overcome the impact-type progressive collapses,
additional seismic design requirements are deeply debated, since these namely, heavy energy absorbing devices. In particular, strong
parameters can control the overall strengthening strategy. Then, based slab philosophy is introduced theoretically [17,281], however, no
on a three-criterion definition of progressive collapse [3], a detailed list experimental or numerical research is reported on strengthening

16
F. Kiakojouri et al.
exiting slabs to act as strong slabs in impact-type progressive
collapse scenarios.
• Current strengthening techniques to mitigate the progressive col-
lapse, implicitly or explicitly, focus on specific collapse type
(e.g., compare re-distributional collapse with impact-type col-
lapses) and specific collapse mechanism (e.g., catenary mecha-
nism). The development of a new technique that is useful and
effective for wider range of mechanisms and more collapse types
can improve the efficiency of the strengthening techniques, since,
the structures may undergo different threats and subsequently
different collapse types during the service time.
• In a multi-story building, all members above failure region con-
tribute in load distribution after initial failure. However, in the
large number of research works on strengthening and retrofitting
techniques to mitigate progressive collapse, specially in experi-
mental studies, single-story or substructure models are adopted.
The reliability of such models to study progressive collapse be-
havior is under question. As highlighted in [204,205] the load
transfer mechanism of each story is not identical. More research
works are needed to clarify such issues and throw light on the
limitations of substructure models, that can provide safer basis
for the generalization of the results.
• Structures during structural retrofitting are very vulnerable to
structural failure. Hitherto, very limited research works, mainly
case-studies, are consecrated to such a situation [313,314]. In this
regard, the impact of different retrofitting scenarios in different
structural systems (during structural retrofitting phase) on pos-
sible progressive collapse response should be carefully checked.
Such studies provide valuable rules for practitioners in retrofitting
and strengthening industry.
• It is well-known that infill walls can improve the progressive
collapse resistance capacity of building frame structures [207–
210]. However, for considering the infill walls as strengthening
elements in a collapse scenario much more research focus is
necessary. The effects of retrofitting the infills, namely by FRPs,
on the collapse performance of frames are not well-understood.
Moreover, infills can reduce the ductility of system and can
change the failure modes. In this regard, the affecting parameter,
i.e., type of the infill, connections between infill and the frame,
techniques for strengthening the infill and possible influence on
seismic performance, should be addresses more clearly in the
future research works.
• Different type of timber structures are increasing in height, size
and complexity. Recently, it has become no wonder to see tim-
ber buildings with ten or more stories (for example see [315]).
However, the robustness and progressive collapse response of
such systems has not received sufficient attention. Some recent
studies reveal that activating ALPs and collapse resistant mech-
anisms in timber buildings is not the same as in steel and RC
structures [308,309,316]. Therefore, especial strengthening and
retrofitting methods should be developed for these structures.
• Survey of contemporary practices, e.g., as reported in [317] for
disproportionate collapse prevention in buildings, can provide
deeper insight to engineering practice in the real world and can
shed light to the details and possible problems. Such surveys
should focus on different materials, different structural systems
and different regions around the world, since the skill, work-
manship, standards and common practice for strengthening and
retrofitting are different.
• In experimental studies, pseudo-static tests on substructures are
predominant. The obtained results are not necessarily applica-
ble to dynamic column removal (and absolutely not for threat-
dependent progressive collapses) on multi-story multi-span mod-
els. Therefore, more emphasis should be put on strengthening and
retrofitting techniques in dynamic progressive collapse tests and
multi-story models. The results of such experimental programs
may lead to a safer framework for design the strengthening and
retrofitting schemes.
17
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
• Drop and impact tests on RC slabs and beams are usually limited
to single impact on a very concentrated region, such approach
is not a good representative for falling floor impact. Only very
limited recent studies [282,294,295] have focused specially on
falling floor impact and its special requirement. However, the dif-
ferent aspects are not well-understood. Strengthening techniques
for RC slabs under impact loads are usually based on FRPs [318,
319], and cementitious materials [320,321]. The effectiveness of
such techniques against real falling floor scenario is debatable.
Therefore, more research is vital; first to detailed assessment
of distributed impact on floor system, and second to develop a
strengthening measure to improve floor systems performance to
act as strong floor against impact-type progressive collapses.
• Cladding and other façade elements may undergo progressive
collapse [322]. Failure of façade elements usually does not disturb
structural integrity, but it is important from economical and
human safety points of view. Therefore, developing the methods
to prevent the initial failure of façade elements or stop the failure
propagation to other elements can be important.
• Seismic strengthening and retrofitting discipline, being much
older than progressive collapse field, is richer and more ma-
ture. Therefore, concepts and methods can be adopted, modified
and used in progressive collapse strengthening and retrofitting
fields. While several methods, namely using different types and
shapes of FRPs, are widely adopted as progressive collapse mit-
igation measures, other methods received less attentions. For
example, shape-memory alloy is widely suggested and used in
seismic strengthening and also performance enhancement in ex-
treme loading conditions, namely blast scenarios [323,324], can
potentially be useful for progressive collapse performance im-
provement. However, more research emphasis is required to
enlighten the details.
• Construction phase is one of the most critical as regards to struc-
tural safety. Several famous structural failure occurred during
construction, as recently observed in Lagos, Nigeria in the Novem-
ber 2021 [325]. However, limited studies are devoted to the
collapse of buildings under construction [326,327]. A deeper
focus on the progressive collapse of structures under construction
may lead to an upgrade to the buildings code to reflect the real
risk in their acceptance criteria. More focus on the damaged but
survived structures and techniques to retrofit such structures is
also necessary.
• Progressive collapse of temporary structures, e.g., shoring and
scaffolding, is a very common problem in construction sites.
However, research works on these structures and on techniques
for strengthening the temporary structures are very limited. The
load limiter device and fuse-type element for temporary shoring
structures are reported in [328,329]. Special research focus is still
needed in this area, since the collapse of temporary structures is
not only expensive and time-consuming, but also can lead to the
partial or total collapse of the main structure.
• Seismic strengthening and retrofitting is very common in earth-
quake prone areas. However, the effects of seismic retrofitting on
progressive collapse potential neither well-understood nor deeply
investigated, and only very few studies dedicated attention to this
important topic [330]. In this regard, more emphasis should be
put on the impact of the seismic strengthening and retrofitting on
progressive collapse resistance. It is predictable that majority of
the methods that aim at increasing ductility and stiffness can be
useful for both threats. However, special care should be given to
the unwanted effects and special cases in which seismic strength-
ening and retrofitting weaken the structure against progressive
collapse.
• The majority of the current strengthening and retrofitting mea-
sures (except for the methods focused on preventing or decreas-
ing initial damage) are based on the threat-independent design
F. Kiakojouri et al.
philosophy. Only few research work devoted to specific threat,
i.e., fire, and its especial requirements [177]. More focus on
threat-specific strengthening and retrofitting measure is com-
pletely necessary, since the initial failure and collapse propaga-
tion can be different under various threats.
• The majority of threat-dependent progressive collapse studies,
as well as strengthening and retrofitting techniques, focus on
extreme events such as blast, impact and fire. Other triggering
events, namely corrosion, are not deeply investigated. While rich
literature on corrosion and aging effects on different structures
are available, very few studies are put emphasis on progressive
collapse aspects of the phenomenon [331–334]. In this regard,
much more efforts are needed to understand corrosion effects
on collapse resisting mechanisms and techniques to overcome
this problem. Corrosion can solely trigger a progressive collapse,
or can act as a factor in a multi-hazard scenario. For the later,
our knowledge is mainly limited to member-based studies, there-
fore, more focus on the corrosion effects on the global collapse
response, especially in multi-hazard scenarios, is needed. Other
simple problem, such as inefficient hydraulic system as reported
in [335], can lead to more problem and finally to progressive
collapse. While several techniques to overcome such problems can
be found in the literature, special focus on such phenomena as
triggering event is still required.
• Current literature on strengthening of shell-type structural ele-
ments, namely walls and slabs, is limited to idealized geometry
and boundary conditions, i.e., rectangular element without any
openings. In real construction, on the other hand, these elements
can be found in different geometries and including openings in
various sizes at different locations. However, floor openings im-
pact on the response of buildings against progressive collapse has
received less attention [336]. Boundary conditions, also, have de-
cisive impact on the dynamics of such structures. As an example,
freedom of one or more edges, that is common in construction,
can meaningfully change the structural response. To generalize
the current findings on strengthening techniques, more exper-
imental and numerical studies on irregular wall and slabs, to
include opening and boundary effects, are necessary.
• Unwanted and unplanned structural failures are common during
the deconstruction and demolition, and usually lead to casualties,
as recently observed in Didcot power stations [337] in UK and
Saint Petersburg Sports and Concert Complex [338] in Russia. In
demolition and deconstruction programs, temporary and partial
strengthening measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of
the plan. To date, our knowledge in this field is limited to case
studies and obviously more research work is needed.
• More emphasis should be put on progressive collapse strength-
ening of large public buildings. Such structures not only are
the primary target for terrorist attacks, but also are inherently
more vulnerable to local failure, since their span are larger than
residential buildings. An example of long-span entrance problem
in a steel frame and suitable strengthening techniques including
cable and diagonal braces is discussed in [181]. Obviously, the
problem can be more complicated in the case of long-spans in the
entire building. In such cases, it is economically very expensive to
provide alternate paths in the double span after local failure, even
if technically possible. On the other hand, compartmentalization
techniques cannot be easily adopted, since these buildings usually
accommodate a large population, and partial collapse is also
unaccepted. Therefore, more research focus in these fields is vital
to find better strengthening strategies for large public buildings.
• Multi-hazard strengthening and retrofitting techniques are usu-
ally limited to the seismic and threat-independent progressive
collapse hazards. While some recent interesting researches are
published on multi-hazard mitigation techniques, the body of
the literature is lacking in this area. Some new material and
18
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
techniques [94], have potential capability to be used as mitigation
measure for several threats, namely fire, earthquake and blast,
simultaneously. These finding are usually separated and new
focus is necessary to integrate these findings in a multi-hazard
strengthening frameworks.
• Masonry structures are still very common around the world.
While a very rich literature and code-based recommendations on
seismic strengthening and retrofitting techniques are available for
these structure, progressive collapse behavior does not received
much attention [339–343] and especial view on progressive col-
lapse strengthening and retrofitting is really rare [344]. Since
the load bearing mechanisms and initial local failure possibil-
ity are completely different in masonry structures, compared
with steel and RC frame structure, more focus to strengthening
and retrofitting techniques especially developed for masonry is
necessary.
• The majority of the published research works are devoted to
conventional two-way RC slabs or flat slabs. Other floor systems,
namely one-way slab, hollow-core slab, voided biaxial slab, etc.,
received almost no attention. Since the load bearing mechanisms
and fracture modes in these systems are not equal, more ex-
perimental and numerical research works are needed; first to
shed light to these mechanisms, and then, to provided specific
strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive
collapse. In these studies, several aspects should be taken into
account; punching behavior, horizontal spreading of the failure
and impact response.
• Different types of irregularities have a meaningful impact on
the vulnerability to progressive collapse and corresponding struc-
tural response. While several studies shed light to effects of
irregularities on the progressive collapse performance, e.g., plan
irregularities [31,32], vertical irregularity [33], torsional irregu-
larity [34], the focus on strengthening and retrofitting techniques
to mitigate progressive collapse in irregular system is quit limited.
In this regard, more focus on different types of irregular buildings
and specific mitigation measures is required. Especial emphasis
should also put on the strengthening and retrofitting techniques
for irregular structures in threat-dependent damage scenarios.
• Several recent studies are allocated to different types of space
structures in progressive collapse scenarios [345–348]. However,
strengthening and retrofitting techniques that are exclusively de-
voted to the space structures are rare [349]. Since techniques
usually used in frame systems cannot directly adopted in space
structures, more research focus to develop a new method or
modify the exiting ones is necessary. Future studies should also
focus on especial conditions and possible mitigation techniques
such as non-uniform snow loads and buckling of several members
instead of single member loss.
• The absolute majority of available literature on progressive col-
lapse mitigation measures, adopts a well-design model structure
with satisfied gravity and seismic regulations based on the mod-
ern codes. However, significant portion of the exiting structure
are non-code conforming or based on the completely out of
date regulations. Special focus for these types of structures and
dedicated strengthening and retrofitting techniques is required,
since such systems are more prone to initial local failure.
• Additional members and devices used in strengthening and
retrofitting schemes can also suffer failure, either due to reaching
their ultimate capacity, or design and construction errors or even
direct impact of a specific triggering event. The effect of such
a failure on the overall performance of the system should be
carefully checked. However, the current literature is lacking in
this area (an example of damper failure impact on the seismic loss
of retrofitted steel moment-resisting frames is reported in [350])
and more research focus is necessary. The findings of such studies
may lead to an update for definition of the key element in threat-
independent progressive collapse analysis, since such additional
members and devices can also act as critical members.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
• Modular construction is a recent innovatory and game changing
technology. In recent years, more and more researchers have paid
attention to the study on different aspects of modular construc-
tion. However, our knowledge on the robustness and progressive
collapse response of these structure is limited to a handful of re-
cent studies [351–358]. More emphasis should be put on different
failure modes and its specific characteristics, namely inter-module
connections and possible strengthening techniques.
• The majority of available published literature focuses on sin-
gle or few functionally similar (e.g., different types of braces)
strengthening and retrofitting techniques for progressive collapse
mitigation. Therefore, our knowledge is lacking in comparison
of different strengthening and retrofitting techniques in different
structural systems under different initial damage scenarios (an in-
teresting exception is reported in [191]). In addition to structural
aspect, more emphasis should put on economic evaluation [359–
361] of different collapse mitigation measures. To date, very
limited studies are devoted to such important issues.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Foad Kiakojouri: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – origi-
nal draft, Writing – review & editing. Valerio De Biagi: Conceptualiza-
tion, Writing – review & editing. Bernardino Chiaia: Writing – review
& editing. Mohammad Reza Sheidaii: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office
buildings and major modernization projects. Washington, DC: U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA); 2003.
[2] Adam JM, Parisi F, Sagaseta J, Lu X. Research and practice on progressive
collapse and robustness of building structures in the 21st century. Eng Struct
2018;173:122–49.
[3] Kiakojouri F, Sheidaii MR, De Biagi V, Chiaia B. Progressive col-
lapse of structures: A discussion on annotated nomenclature. Structures
2021;29:1417–23.
[4] Freudenthal AM. Safety and the probability of structural failure. Trans Am Soc
Civ Eng 1956;121(1):1337–75.
[5] Edmunds H, Beer F. Notes on incremental collapse in pressure vessels. J Mech
Eng Sci 1961;3(3):187–99.
[6] McFarland Jr R. Hexagonal cell structures under post-buckling axial load. AIAA
J 1963;1(6):1380–5.
[7] Pearson C, Delatte N. Ronan point apartment tower collapse and its effect on
building codes. J Perform Constr Facil 2005;19(2):172–7.
[8] Russell J, Sagaseta J, Cormie D, Jones A. Historical review of prescriptive
design rules for robustness after the collapse of Ronan point. Structures
2019;20:365–73.
[9] Bažant ZP, Zhou Y. Why did the world trade center collapse?—Simple analysis.
J Eng Mech 2002;128(1):2–6.
[10] Usmani AS, Chung Y, Torero JL. How did the WTC towers collapse: a new
theory. Fire Saf J 2003;38(6):501–33.
[11] DoD. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, unified facilities criteria
(UFC) 4-023-03. Washington, DC: Department of Defense; 2009.
[12] GSA. Alternate path analysis & design guidelines for progressive collapse
resistance. Washington, DC: General Services Administration; 2013.
[13] Agrawal A, Ettouney M, Chen X, Li H, Wang H, et al. Steel truss retrofits to
provide alternate load paths for cut, damaged, or destroyed members (FHWA-
HRT-20-055). Technical report, United States. Federal Highway Administration;
2020.
[14] Kiakojouri F, De Biagi V, Chiaia B, Sheidaii MR. Progressive collapse of
framed building structures: Current knowledge and future prospects. Eng Struct
2020;206:110061.
[15] Fu F. Structural analysis and design to prevent disproportionate collapse. CRC
Press; 2016.
19
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[16] Isobe D. Progressive collapse analysis of structures: numerical codes and
applications. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-812975-3.01001-X.
[17] Starossek U. Progressive collapse of structures. 2nd ed.. ICE Publishing; 2017,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/pcos.61682.
[18] Yang B, Kang S-B, Tan K, Zhou X-H. Behaviour of building structures subjected
to progressive collapse. 1st ed.. Elsevier; 2022.
[19] Stochino F, Bedon C, Sagaseta J, Honfi D. Robustness and resilience of
structures under extreme loads. Adv Civ Eng 2019;2019.
[20] Jiang J, Zhang Q, Li L, Chen W, Ye J, Li G-Q. Review on quantitative measures
of robustness for building structures against disproportionate collapse. Int J
High-Rise Build 2020;9(2):127–54.
[21] Alshaikh IM, Bakar BA, Alwesabi EA, Akil HM. Experimental investigation of the
progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures: An overview. Structures
2020;25:881–900.
[22] Yi W-J, Yi F, Zhou Y. Experimental studies on progressive collapse behavior of
RC frame structures: Advances and future needs. Int J Concrete Struct Mater
2021;15(1):1–23.
[23] Porcari G-LF, Zalok E, Mekky W. Fire induced progressive collapse of steel
building structures: A review of the mechanisms. Eng Struct 2015;82:261–7.
[24] Jiang J, Li G-Q. Progressive collapse of steel high-rise buildings exposed to fire:
Current state of research. Int J High-Rise Build 2018;7(4):375–87.
[25] Mohamed OA, Kewalramani M, Khattab R. Fiber reinforced polymer laminates
for strengthening of rc slabs against punching shear: A review. Polymers
2020;12(3):685.
[26] Sreevalli IY, et al. A review on progressive collapse of reinforced concrete flat
slab structures. Civ Eng Infrastruct J 2021;54(1):181–94.
[27] Faridmehr I, Hajmohammadian Baghban M. An overview of progressive collapse
behavior of steel beam-to-column connections. Appl Sci 2020;10(17):6003.
[28] Huber JA, Ekevad M, Girhammar UA, Berg S. Structural robustness and timber
buildings–A review. Wood Mater Sci Eng 2019;14(2):107–28.
[29] Zhou Q, Yu T. Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest
progressive collapse of tall building. J Eng Mech 2004;130(10):1177–87.
[30] De Biagi V. Energy redistribution patterns in damaged elastic frames. Int J Mech
Sci 2021;194:106216.
[31] Homaioon Ebrahimi A, Martinez-Vazquez P, Baniotopoulos CC. Numerical
studies on the effect of plan irregularities in the progressive collapse of steel
structures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2017;13(12):1576–83.
[32] Rahnavard R, Fard FFZ, Hosseini A, Suleiman M. Nonlinear analysis on
progressive collapse of tall steel composite buildings. Case Stud Constr Mater
2018;8:359–79.
[33] Gerasimidis S. Analytical assessment of steel frames progressive collapse
vulnerability to corner column loss. J Construct Steel Res 2014;95:1–9.
[34] Yavari H, Ghobadi MS, Yakhchalian M. Progressive collapse potential of
different types of irregular buildings located in diverse seismic sites. Heliyon
2019;5(1):e01137.
[35] Kim J, Hong S. Progressive collapse performance of irregular buildings. Struct
Des Tall Special Build 2011;20(6):721–34.
[36] Kim J, Jung M-K. Progressive collapse resisting capacity of tilted building
structures. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2013;22(18):1359–75.
[37] Kwon K, Kim J. Progressive collapse and seismic performance of twisted diagrid
buildings. Int J High-Rise Build 2014;3(3):223–30.
[38] Heshmati M, Aghakouchak AA. Collapse analysis of regular and irregular
tall steel moment frames under fire loading. Struct Des Tall Special Build
2020;29(3):e1696.
[39] Tavakoli H, Kiakojouri F. Progressive collapse of framed structures: Suggestions
for robustness assessment. Scientia Iran 2014;21(2):329–38.
[40] Kiakojouri F, Sheidaii M. Effects of finite element modeling and analysis
techniques on response of steel moment-resisting frame in dynamic column
removal scenarios. Asian J Civ Eng 2018;19(3):295–307.
[41] Kiakojouri F, Sheidaii M, De Biagi V, Chiaia B. Progressive collapse assessment
of steel moment-resisting frames using static-and dynamic-incremental analyses.
J Perform Constr Facil 2020;34(3):04020025.
[42] Fang C, Izzuddin B, Elghazouli A, Nethercot D. Simplified energy-based robust-
ness assessment for steel-composite car parks under vehicle fire. Eng Struct
2013;49:719–32.
[43] Rezvani FH, Behnam B, Ronagh HR, Alam MS. Failure progression resistance
of a generic steel moment-resisting frame under beam-removal scenarios. Int J
Struct Integr 2017.
[44] Behnam B, Shojaei F, Ronagh HR. Seismic progressive-failure analysis of
tall steel structures under beam-removal scenarios. Front Struct Civ Eng
2019;13(4):904–17.
[45] Yarlagadda T, Hajiloo H, Jiang L, Green M, Usmani A. Preliminary modelling
of lasco tower collapse. Int J High-Rise Build 2018;7(4):397–408.
[46] Wikipedia. Plasco building. 2022, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_
Building. [Accessed 10 March 2022].
[47] Wikipedia. Windsor tower (madrid). 2022, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Windsor_Tower_(Madrid). [Accessed 10 March 2022].
[48] Musavi-Z M, Sheidaii MR. Effect of seismic resistance capacity of moment
frames on progressive collapse response of concentrically braced dual systems.
Asian J Civ Eng 2021;22(1):23–31.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
[49] Alogla K, Weekes L, Augusthus-Nelson L. A new mitigation scheme to resist
progressive collapse of RC structures. Constr Build Mater 2016;125:533–45.
[50] Qiu L, Lin F, Wu K. Improving progressive collapse resistance of RC beam–
column subassemblages using external steel cables. J Perform Constr Facil
2020;34(1):04019079.
[51] Pan J, Wang X, Dong H. Strengthening of precast RC frame to mitigate
progressive collapse by externally anchored carbon fiber ropes. Polymers
2021;13(8):1306.
[52] Zahrai SM, Ezoddin A. Cap truss and steel strut to resist progressive collapse
in RC frame structures. Steel Compos Struct 2018;26(5):635–47.
[53] Naji A, Ommetalab MR. Horizontal bracing to enhance progressive col-
lapse resistance of steel moment frames. Struct Des Tall Special Build
2019;28(5):e1563.
[54] Hadi MN, Alrudaini TMS. A new cable system to prevent progressive collapse of
reinforced concrete buildings. In: Structures congress 2012. American Society of
Civil Engineers; 2012, p. 257–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412367.
024.
[55] Hadi MN, Saeed Alrudaini TM. New building scheme to resist progressive
collapse. J Architect Eng 2012;18(4):324–31.
[56] Schachter Adaros M, Smilowitz R. Challenges and considerations for the
retrofit of existing structures for progressive collapse. J Perform Constr Facil
2015;29(5):B4014001.
[57] Lin K, Lu X, Li Y, Zhuo W, Guan H. A novel structural detailing for the
improvement of seismic and progressive collapse performances of RC frames.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2019;48(13):1451–70.
[58] Yang X-J, Lin F, Gu X-L. Experimental study on a novel method to improve
progressive collapse resistance of RC frames using locally debonded rebars. J
Build Eng 2021;102428.
[59] Feng P, Qiang H, Qin W, Gao M. A novel kinked rebar configuration for
simultaneously improving the seismic performance and progressive collapse
resistance of RC frame structures. Eng Struct 2017;147:752–67.
[60] Qiang H, Yang J, Feng P, Qin W. Kinked rebar configurations for improving
the progressive collapse behaviours of RC frames under middle column removal
scenarios. Eng Struct 2020;211:110425.
[61] Al-Salloum YA, Alrubaidi MA, Elsanadedy HM, Almusallam TH, Iqbal RA.
Strengthening of precast RC beam-column connections for progressive collapse
mitigation using bolted steel plates. Eng Struct 2018;161:146–60.
[62] Elsanadedy HM, Al-Salloum YA, Alrubaidi MA, Almusallam TH, Abbas H.
Finite element analysis for progressive collapse potential of precast con-
crete beam-to-column connections strengthened with steel plates. J Build Eng
2021;34:101875.
[63] Lin K, Lu X, Li Y, Guan H. Experimental study of a novel multi-hazard resistant
prefabricated concrete frame structure. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2019;119:390–407.
[64] Lu X, Zhang L, Lin K, Li Y. Improvement to composite frame systems for seismic
and progressive collapse resistance. Eng Struct 2019;186:227–42.
[65] Tian Y, Lin K, Lu X, Zhang L, Li Y, Guan H. Experimental and theoretical study
of seismic and progressive collapse resilient composite frames. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2020;139:106370.
[66] Qiu L, Lin F, Wu K, Gu X. Progressive collapse resistance of RC T-beam
cable subassemblages under a middle-column-removal scenario. J Build Eng
2021;102814.
[67] Tian Y, Lin K, Zhang L, Lu X, Xue H. Novel seismic–progressive collapse resilient
super-tall building system. J Build Eng 2021;102790.
[68] Galal MA, Bandyopadhyay M, Banik AK. Dual effect of axial tension force
developed in catenary action during progressive collapse of 3D composite
semi-rigid jointed frames. Structures 2019;19:507–19.
[69] Daneshvar H, Oosterhof SA, Driver RG. Arching followed by catenary response
of steel shear connections in disproportionate collapse. Can J Civil Eng
2020;47(8):908–20.
[70] Salmasi A, Sheidaii MR, Tariverdilo S. Performance of fully restrained
welded beam-column connections subjected to column loss. Int J Steel Struct
2021;1–13.
[71] Sarti F, Palermo A, Pampanin S. Fuse-type external replaceable dis-
sipaters: Experimental program and numerical modeling. J Struct Eng
2016;142(12):04016134.
[72] Kiakojouri F, Sheidaii MR, De Biagi V, Chiaia B. Blast-induced progressive
collapse of steel moment-resisting frames: Numerical studies and a framework
for updating the alternate load path method. Eng Struct 2021;242:112541.
[73] Trung HN, Truong TN, Xuan DP. Effects of reinforcement discontinuity on
the collapse behavior of reinforced concrete beam-slab structures subjected to
column removal. J Struct Eng 2019;145(11):04019132.
[74] De Biagi V, Chiaia B. Complexity and robustness of frame structures. Int J Solids
Struct 2013;50(22–23):3723–41.
[75] DesRoches R, Smith B. Shape memory alloys in seismic resistant design and
retrofit: A critical review of their potential and limitations. J Earthq Eng
2004;8(3):415–29.
[76] Di Sarno L, Elnashai A. Innovative strategies for seismic retrofitting of steel and
composite structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2005;7(3):115–35.
[77] Wang C, Sarhosis V, Nikitas N. Strengthening/retrofitting techniques on un-
reinforced masonry structure/element subjected to seismic loads: A literature
review. Open Constr Build Technol J 2018;12(1).
20
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[78] Gkournelos P, Triantafillou T, Bournas D. Seismic upgrading of exist-
ing reinforced concrete buildings: A state-of-the-art review. Eng Struct
2021;240:112273.
[79] Tavakoli HR, Hasani AH. Effect of earthquake characteristics on seismic
progressive collapse potential in steel moment resisting frame. Earthq Struct
2017;12(4):529–41.
[80] Maghroon F, Izadinia M, Solhjoei N, Abadi EIZ. Effects of earthquake com-
ponents on seismic progressive collapse potential of steel frames. Iran J Sci
Technol Trans Civ Eng 2022;1–15.
[81] Wang Y, Kodur V. Research toward use of unprotected steel structures. J Struct
Eng 2000;126(12):1442–50.
[82] Gedam BA. Fire resistance design method for reinforced concrete beams to
evaluate fire-resistance rating. Structures 2021;33:855–77.
[83] Murugan V, Srinivasan SK. Influence of cover thickness in structural frames
exposed to fire and service loads. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021;1–14.
[84] Kodur V, Banerji S. Modeling the fire-induced spalling in concrete struc-
tures incorporating hydro-thermo-mechanical stresses. Cem Concr Compos
2021;117:103902.
[85] Tariq F, Gaikwad M, Bhargava P. Analysis of behaviour of corroded RC beams
exposed to elevated temperatures. J Build Eng 2021;42:102508.
[86] Liu J, Miao J, Ba G, Xiao J, Hou D. Effect of stirrup corrosion and fire on shear
behavior of reinforced concrete beams. KSCE J Civ Eng 2021;1–13.
[87] Roy T, Matsagar V. Mechanics of damage in reinforced concrete member under
post-blast fire scenario. Structures 2021;31:740–60.
[88] Zhou Y, Yang J, Wang Z, Hwang H-J, Huang Y, Deng L, et al. Static load test
on the progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete frame substructure
during and after high temperature. J Struct Eng 2021;147(8):04021110.
[89] Vandersall H. Intumescent coating system, their development and chemistry. J
Fire Flamm 1971;2:97–140.
[90] Mariappan T. Recent developments of intumescent fire protection coatings for
structural steel: A review. J Fire Sci 2016;34(2):120–63.
[91] Ryder NL, Wolin SD, Milke JA. An investigation of the reduction in fire
resistance of steel columns caused by loss of spray-applied fire protection. J
Fire Protect Eng 2002;12(1):31–44.
[92] Wang W-Y, Li G-Q. Behavior of steel columns in a fire with partial damage to
fire protection. J Construct Steel Res 2009;65(6):1392–400.
[93] Jin H, Chun Q. Research on fire-resistance capacities of steel columns with
partial-damaged fire protection coating. KSCE J Civ Eng 2020;24(6):1893–902.
[94] Triantafyllidis Z, Bisby LA. Fibre-reinforced intumescent fire protection coat-
ings as a confining material for concrete columns. Constr Build Mater
2020;231:117085.
[95] de Silva D, Bilotta A, Nigro E. Experimental investigation on steel elements
protected with intumescent coating. Constr Build Mater 2019;205:232–44.
[96] Manzello SL, Gann RG, Kukuck SR, Lenhert DB. Influence of gypsum board
type (X or C) on real fire performance of partition assemblies. Fire Mater: Int
J 2007;31(7):425–42.
[97] Peng Z, Mostafaei H. Fire resistance of Gypsum board protected steel columns
with high load ratios. J Struct Eng 2018;144(11):04018208.
[98] Moss P, Dhakal R, Bong M, Buchanan A. Design of steel portal frame buildings
for fire safety. J Construct Steel Res 2009;65(5):1216–24.
[99] Piquer A, Hernández-Figueirido D. Protected steel columns vs partially encased
columns: Fire resistance and economic considerations. J Construct Steel Res
2016;124:47–56.
[100] Fellouh A, Bougara A, Piloto PA, Benlakehal N. Non-linear buckling analysis of
composite columns made from high and normal strength concrete under fire.
Asian J Civ Eng 2020;21(1):17–27.
[101] Zhang X, Peng L, Ni Z-p, Ni T-x, Huang Y-l, Zhou Y. Experimental study on
the fire performance of tubular steel columns with membrane protections for
prefabricated and modular steel construction. Materials 2018;11(3):437.
[102] Randaxhe J, Popa N, Vassart O, Tondini N. Development of a plug-and-play
fire protection system for steel columns. Fire Saf J 2021;103272.
[103] Gernay T, Gamba A. Progressive collapse triggered by fire induced column loss:
Detrimental effect of thermal forces. Eng Struct 2018;172:483–96.
[104] Venkatachari S, Kodur V. Effect of transient creep on fire induced instability
in steel framed structures. J Construct Steel Res 2021;181:106618.
[105] Jiang J, Lu Y, Dai X, Li G-Q, Chen W, Ye J. Disproportionate col-
lapse of steel-framed gravity buildings under travelling fires. Eng Struct
2021;245:112799.
[106] Lu Z, Rong K, Zhou Z, Du J. Experimental study on performance of frame
structure strengthened with foamed aluminum under debris flow impact. J
Perform Constr Facil 2020;34(2):04020011.
[107] Xu S, Liu Z, Li J, Yang Y, Wu C. Dynamic behaviors of reinforced NSC and
UHPC columns protected by aluminum foam layer against low-velocity impact.
J Build Eng 2021;34:101910.
[108] Fan W, Shen D, Zhang Z, Huang X, Shao X. A novel UHPFRC-based protective
structure for bridge columns against vehicle collisions: Experiment, simulation,
and optimization. Eng Struct 2020;207:110247.
[109] Fan W, Xu X, Zhang Z, Shao X. Performance and sensitivity analysis of
UHPFRC-strengthened bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions. Eng Struct
2018;173:251–68.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
[110] Fan W, Shen D, Yang T, Shao X. Experimental and numerical study on low-
velocity lateral impact behaviors of RC, UHPFRC and UHPFRC-strengthened
columns. Eng Struct 2019;191:509–25.
[111] Kadhim MM, Wu Z, Cunningham LS. Loading rate effects on CFRP strengthened
steel square hollow sections under lateral impact. Eng Struct 2018;171:874–82.
[112] Alam MI, Fawzia S. Numerical studies on CFRP strengthened steel columns
under transverse impact. Compos Struct 2015;120:428–41.
[113] Kadhim MM, Wu Z, Cunningham LS. Numerical study of full-scale CFRP
strengthened open-section steel columns under transverse impact. Thin-Walled
Struct 2019;140:99–113.
[114] Pham TM, Hao H. Review of concrete structures strengthened with FRP against
impact loading. Structures 2016;7:59–70.
[115] Mohammed TA, Parvin A. Vehicle collision impact response of bridge
pier strengthened with composites. Pract Period Struct Des Constr
2020;25(4):04020027.
[116] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Zhao X-L. Numerical investigation of CFRP strength-
ened full scale CFST columns subjected to vehicular impact. Eng Struct
2016;126:292–310.
[117] Xu J, Demartino C, Shan B, Heo Y, Xiao Y. Experimental investigation on
performance of cantilever CFRP-wrapped circular RC columns under lateral
low-velocity impact. Compos Struct 2020;242:112143.
[118] Liu Y, Dong A, Zhao S, Zeng Y, Wang Z. The effect of CFRP-shear strengthening
on existing circular RC columns under impact loads. Constr Build Mater
2021;302:124185.
[119] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Zhao X-L, M. Remennikov A. Numerical modeling and per-
formance assessment of FRP-strengthened full-scale circular-hollow-section steel
columns subjected to vehicle collisions. J Compos Constr 2020;24(3):04020011.
[120] Ma Q, Rejab M, Siregar J, Guan Z. A review of the recent trends on
core structures and impact response of sandwich panels. J Compos Mater
2021;55(18):2513–55.
[121] Xiong J, Du Y, Mousanezhad D, Eydani Asl M, Norato J, Vaziri A. Sand-
wich structures with prismatic and foam cores: A review. Adv Energy Mater
2019;21(1):1800036.
[122] Heimbs S. Foldcore sandwich structures and their impact behaviour: an
overview. In: Dynamic failure of composite and sandwich structures. Springer;
2013, p. 491–544.
[123] Zhang Y, Pan R, Xiao F. Numerical research on impact performance of bridge
columns with aluminum foam protection devices. Int J Distrib Sens Netw
2020;16(11):1550147720974538.
[124] Kang H, Kim J. Damage mitigation of a steel column subjected to
automobile collision using a honeycomb panel. J Perform Constr Facil
2020;34(1):04019107.
[125] Wang Y, Zhang R, Liu S, Zhai X, Zhi X. Energy absorption behaviour of an
aluminium foam-filled circular-triangular nested tube energy absorber under
impact loading. Structures 2021;34:95–104.
[126] Yadav H, Bohra B, Joshi G, Sundaram S, Kamat P. Study on basic mechanism
of reactive armour. Def Sci J 1995;45(3):207.
[127] Kang H, Kim J. Progressive collapse of steel moment frames subjected to vehicle
impact. J Perform Constr Facil 2015;29(6):04014172.
[128] Javidan MM, Kang H, Isobe D, Kim J. Computationally efficient framework for
probabilistic collapse analysis of structures under extreme actions. Eng Struct
2018;172:440–52.
[129] Santos AF, Santiago A, Latour M, Rizzano G. Robustness analysis of steel frames
subjected to vehicle collisions. Structures 2020;25:930–42.
[130] Sadeghi A, Kazemi H, Mehdizadeh K, Jadali F. Fragility analysis of steel
moment-resisting frames subjected to impact actions. J Build Pathol Rehabil
2022;7(1):1–14.
[131] Draganić H, Gazić G, Varevac D. Experimental investigation of design and
retrofit methods for blast load mitigation–A state-of-the-art review. Eng Struct
2019;190:189–209.
[132] Thai D-K, Pham T-H, Nguyen D-L. Damage assessment of reinforced concrete
columns retrofitted by steel jacket under blast loading. Struct Des Tall Special
Build 2020;29(1):e1676.
[133] Hanifehzadeh M, Aryan H, Gencturk B, Akyniyazov D. Structural response of
steel jacket-UHPC retrofitted reinforced concrete columns under blast loading.
Materials 2021;14(6):1521.
[134] Vatani Oskouei A, Kiakojouri F. Non-linear dynamic analysis of steel hol-
low I-core sandwich panel under air blast loading. Civ Eng Infrastruct J
2015;48(2):323–44.
[135] Kiakojouri F, Sheidaii M. Numerical analysis of steel I-Core sandwich panels
subjected to multiple consecutive blast scenarios. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ
Eng 2019;43(1):371–82.
[136] Rubino V, Deshpande V, Fleck N. The dynamic response of clamped rect-
angular Y-frame and corrugated core sandwich plates. Eur J Mech A Solids
2009;28(1):14–24.
[137] St-Pierre L, Fleck N, Deshpande V. The dynamic indentation response
of sandwich panels with a corrugated or Y-frame core. Int J Mech Sci
2015;92:279–89.
[138] Ebrahimi H, Someh LK, Norato J, Vaziri A. Blast-resilience of honeycomb
sandwich panels. Int J Mech Sci 2018;144:1–9.
21
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[139] Ma X, Li X, Li S, Li R, Wang Z, Wu G. Blast response of gradient honeycomb
sandwich panels with basalt fiber metal laminates as skins. Int J Impact Eng
2019;123:126–39.
[140] Wang Y, Zhao W, Zhou G, Wang C. Analysis and parametric optimization of
a novel sandwich panel with double-V auxetic structure core under air blast
loading. Int J Mech Sci 2018;142:245–54.
[141] Chen G, Cheng Y, Zhang P, Cai S, Liu J. Blast resistance of metallic double
arrowhead honeycomb sandwich panels with different core configurations under
the paper tube-guided air blast loading. Int J Mech Sci 2021;201:106457.
[142] Yang L, Sui L, Dong Y, Li X, Zi F, Zhang Z, et al. Quasi-static and dynamic
behavior of sandwich panels with multilayer gradient lattice cores. Compos
Struct 2021;255:112970.
[143] Buchan P, Chen JF. Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer strength-
ened concrete and masonry structures–A state-of-the-art review. Composites B
2007;38(5–6):509–22.
[144] Hu Y, Chen L, Fang Q, Kong X, Shi Y, Cui J. Study of CFRP retrofitted RC
column under close-in explosion. Eng Struct 2021;227:111431.
[145] Dong J, Zhao J, Zhang D. Numerical evaluation of reinforced concrete columns
retrofitted with FRP for blast mitigation. Adv Civ Eng 2020;2020.
[146] Abedini M, Zhang C. Dynamic performance of concrete columns retrofitted with
FRP using segment pressure technique. Compos Struct 2021;260:113473.
[147] Vapper M, Lasn K. Blast protection of concrete columns with thin strips of GFRP
overlay. Structures 2020;25:491–9.
[148] Codina R, Ambrosini D, de Borbón F. Alternatives to prevent the failure of RC
members under close-in blast loadings. Eng Fail Anal 2016;60:96–106.
[149] Codina R, Ambrosini D, de Borbón F. New sacrificial cladding system for the
reduction of blast damage in reinforced concrete structures. Int J Protect Struct
2017;8(2):221–36.
[150] Rebelo H, Lecompte D, Cismasiu C, Jonet A, Belkassem B, Maazoun A. Exper-
imental and numerical investigation on 3D printed PLA sacrificial honeycomb
cladding. Int J Impact Eng 2019;131:162–73.
[151] Abada M, Ibrahim A, Jung S. Improving blast performance of reinforced con-
crete panels using sacrificial cladding with hybrid-multi cell tubes. Modelling
2021;2(1):149–65.
[152] Wang Y, Zhai X, Liu S, Lu J, Zhou H. Energy absorption performance of a
new circular–triangular nested tube and its application as sacrificial cladding.
Thin-Walled Struct 2020;157:106992.
[153] Qian K, Weng Y-H, Li B. Improving behavior of reinforced concrete
frames to resist progressive collapse through steel bracings. J Struct Eng
2019;145(2):04018248.
[154] Ezoddin A, Kheyroddin A, Gholhaki M. Experimental and numerical investiga-
tion on the seismic retrofit of RC frames with linked column frame systems. J
Build Eng 2021;44:102956.
[155] De Biagi V, Chiaia BM. Damage tolerance in parallel systems. Int J Damage
Mech 2016;25(7):1040–59.
[156] Naderi D, Adaros MS, Wood S. Use of ring beams for progressive collapse
retrofit. In: Structures congress 2015. 2015, p. 1183–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/9780784479117.101.
[157] Garg S, Agrawal V, Nagar R. Case study on strengthening methods
for progressive collapse resistance of RC flat slab buildings. Structures
2021;29:1709–22.
[158] Garg S, Agrawal V, Nagar R. Sustainability assessment of methods to prevent
progressive collapse of RC flat slab buildings. Proc CIRP 2021;98:25–30.
[159] Garg S, Agrawal V, Nagar R. Progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced
concrete flat slab buildings subject to column failures in different storeys. Mater
Today: Proc 2021;43:1031–7.
[160] Khandelwal K, El-Tawil S, Sadek F. Progressive collapse analysis of seismically
designed steel braced frames. J Construct Steel Res 2009;65(3):699–708.
[161] Salmasi AC, Sheidaii MR. Assessment of eccentrically braced frames strength
against progressive collapse. Int J Steel Struct 2017;17(2):543–51.
[162] Naji A, Khodaverdi Zadeh M. Progressive collapse analysis of steel braced
frames. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 2019;24(2):04019004.
[163] Chen J, Peng W, Ma R, He M. Strengthening of horizontal bracing on
progressive collapse resistance of multistory steel moment frame. J Perform
Constr Facil 2012;26(5):720–4.
[164] Jiang J, Li G-Q, Usmani A. Effect of bracing systems on fire-induced progressive
collapse of steel structures using OpenSees. Fire Technol 2015;51(5):1249–73.
[165] Jiang J, Li G-q. Mitigation of fire-induced progressive collapse of steel framed
structures using bracing systems. Adv Steel Constr 2019;15(2):192–202.
[166] Rezvani FH, Taghizadeh MAM, Ronagh HR. Effect of inverted-V bracing on
retrofitting against progressive collapse of steel moment resisting frames. Int J
Steel Struct 2017;17(3):1103–13.
[167] Hashemi Rezvani F, Taghizadeh MAM, Reza Ronagh H. Estimating the cross-
sectional area of inverted-V braces required for mitigating the progressive
collapse of Steel Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames. Struct Infrastruct Eng
2019;15(8):1075–86.
[168] Bandyopadhyay M, Banik AK. Improvement of progressive collapse resistance
potential of semi-rigid jointed steel frames through bracings. Int J Protect Struct
2016;7(4):518–46.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
[169] Mashhadiali N, Kheyroddin A. Progressive collapse assessment of new hex-
agrid structural system for tall buildings. Struct Des Tall Special Build
2014;23(12):947–61.
[170] Eletrabi H, Marshall JD. Catenary action in steel framed buildings with buckling
restrained braces. J Construct Steel Res 2015;113:221–33.
[171] Qian K, Lan X, Li Z, Fu F. Effects of steel braces on robustness of steel frames
against progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2021;147(11):04021180.
[172] Yu J, Gan Y-P, Ji J. Behavior and design of reinforced concrete frames
retrofitted with steel bracing against progressive collapse. Struct Des Tall Special
Build 2020;29(12):e1771.
[173] Suwondo R, Cunningham L, Gillie M, Suangga M, Hidayat I. Improving the
robustness of steel frame structures under localised fire conditions. J Struct
Fire Eng 2021.
[174] Freddi F, Ciman L, Tondini N. Retrofit of existing steel structures against
progressive collapse through roof-truss. J Construct Steel Res 2022;188:107037.
[175] Jeyarajan S, Liew JR, Koh C. Progressive collapse mitigation approaches for
steel-concrete composite buildings. Int J Steel Struct 2015;15(1):175–91.
[176] Sun R, Huang Z, Burgess IW. The collapse behaviour of braced steel frames
exposed to fire. J Construct Steel Res 2012;72:130–42.
[177] Abdollahzadeh G, Shalikar R. Retrofitting of steel moment-resisting frames un-
der fire loading against progressive collapse. Int J Steel Struct 2017;17(4):1597–
611.
[178] Agarwal A, Varma AH. Fire induced progressive collapse of steel building
structures: The role of interior gravity columns. Eng Struct 2014;58:129–40.
[179] Izadi IT, Ranjbaran A. Investigation on a mitigation scheme to resist the
progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings. Front Struct Civ Eng
2012;6(4):421–30.
[180] Ciman L, Freddi F, Tondini N. A retrofit method to mitigate progressive collapse
in steel structures. Ce/Papers 2021;4(2–4):1246–54.
[181] Homaioon Ebrahimi A, Ebadi Jamkhaneh M, Shokri Amiri M. 3D finite-
element analysis of steel moment frames including long-span entrance by
strengthening steel cables and diagonal concentrically braced frames under
progressive collapse. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 2018;23(4):04018025.
[182] Liu T, Xiao Y, Yang J, Chen B. CFRP strip cable retrofit of RC frame for collapse
resistance. J Compos Constr 2017;21(1):04016067.
[183] Elkoly S, El-Ariss B. Progressive collapse evaluation of externally mitigated
reinforced concrete beams. Eng Fail Anal 2014;40:33–47.
[184] Deputy LT, Zeinali Y, Story BA. A modified catenary model with application to
the analysis and design of retrofit cables for progressive collapse. Infrastructures
2018;3(3):26.
[185] De Domenico D, Ricciardi G, Takewaki I. Design strategies of viscous dampers
for seismic protection of building structures: A review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2019;118:144–65.
[186] Jaisee S, Yue F, Ooi YH. A state-of-the-art review on passive friction dampers
and their applications. Eng Struct 2021;235:112022.
[187] Kim J, Choi H, Min K-W. Use of rotational friction dampers to enhance seismic
and progressive collapse resisting capacity of structures. Struct Des Tall Special
Build 2011;20(4):515–37.
[188] Mirtaheri M, Omidi Z, Salkhordeh M, Mirzaeefard H. Seismic progressive
collapse mitigation of buildings using cylindrical friction damper. Earthq Struct
2021;20(1):1.
[189] Shahriari A, Birzhandi MS, Zafarani MM. Seismic behavior, blast response and
progressive collapse of RC structures equipped with viscoelastic dampers. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2021;143:106643.
[190] Kim J, Lee S, Choi H. Progressive collapse resisting capacity of moment frames
with viscous dampers. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2013;22(5):399–414.
[191] Ali BH, Mete Güneyisi E, Bigonah M. Assessment of different retrofitting
methods on structural performance of RC buildings against progressive collapse.
Appl Sci 2022;12(3):1045.
[192] Kim J, Lee S, Min K-W. Design of MR dampers to prevent progressive collapse
of moment frames. Struct Eng Mech 2014;52(2):291–306.
[193] Horr A, Safi M. Multi-layered energy absorber frames for tall buildings under
high-speed impact. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2003;12(5):423–50.
[194] Gao S, Guo L, Zhang Z. Anti-collapse performance of composite frame with
special-shaped MCFST columns. Eng Struct 2021;245:112917.
[195] Galal K, El-Sawy T. Effect of retrofit strategies on mitigating progressive collapse
of steel frame structures. J Construct Steel Res 2010;66(4):520–31.
[196] Yu J, Tan KH. Special detailing techniques to improve structural resistance
against progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2014;140(3):04013077.
[197] Gu X-L, Zhang B, Wang Y, Wang X-L. Experimental investigation and numerical
simulation on progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures considering
beam flange effects. J Build Eng 2021;102797.
[198] Vieira AdA, Triantafyllou S, Bournas D. Strengthening of RC frame subassem-
blies against progressive collapse using TRM and NSM reinforcement. Eng Struct
2020;207:110002.
[199] Pan J, Wang X, Wu F. Strengthening of precast RC frame to mitigate progressive
collapse by externally bonded CFRP sheets anchored with HFRP anchors. Adv
Civ Eng 2018;2018.
[200] Qin W, Liu X, Xi Z, Huang Z, Al-Mansour A, Fernand M. Experimental research
on the progressive collapse resistance of concrete beam-column sub-assemblages
reinforced with steel-FRP composite bar. Eng Struct 2021;233:111776.
22
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[201] Huang H, Huang M, Zhang W, Guo M, Chen Z, Li M. Progressive collapse
resistance of multistory RC frame strengthened with HPFL-BSP. J Build Eng
2021;103123.
[202] Gerasimidis S, Baniotopoulos C. Progressive collapse mitigation of 2D steel mo-
ment frames: assessing the effect of different strengthening schemes. Stahlbau
2015;84(5):324–31.
[203] Shan L, Petrone F, Kunnath S. Robustness of RC buildings to progressive
collapse: Influence of building height. Eng Struct 2019;183:690–701.
[204] Qian K, Huang Y-L, Lan D-Q, Deng X-F. Reliability of single-storey substructures
to equivalently investigate behavior of multi-storey frames. In: Structures
congress 2020. American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA; 2020, p. 63–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784482896.007.
[205] Qian K, Weng Y-H, Fu F, Deng X-F. Numerical evaluation of the reliability
of using single-story substructures to study progressive collapse behaviour of
multi-story RC frames. J Build Eng 2021;33:101636.
[206] Zoghi MA, Mirtaheri M. Progressive collapse analysis of steel building
considering effects of infill panels. Struct Eng Mech: Int J 2016;59(1):59–82.
[207] Shan S, Li S, Xu S, Xie L. Experimental study on the progressive collapse
performance of RC frames with infill walls. Eng Struct 2016;111:80–92.
[208] Li S, Shan S, Zhai C, Xie L. Experimental and numerical study on progressive
collapse process of RC frames with full-height infill walls. Eng Fail Anal
2016;59:57–68.
[209] Shan S, Li S, Wang S. Effect of infill walls on mechanisms of steel frames against
progressive collapse. J Construct Steel Res 2019;162:105720.
[210] Buitrago M, Bertolesi E, Sagaseta J, Calderón PA, Adam JM. Robustness of RC
building structures with infill masonry walls: Tests on a purpose-built structure.
Eng Struct 2021;226:111384.
[211] Bigonah M, Soltani H, Zabihi-Samani M, Shyanfar MA. Performance evaluation
on effects of all types of infill against the progressive collapse of reinforced
concrete frames. Asian J Civ Eng 2020;21(3):395–409.
[212] Wang F, Yang J, Nyunn S, Azim I. Effect of concrete infill walls on the
progressive collapse performance of precast concrete framed substructures. J
Build Eng 2020;32:101461.
[213] Shan S, Li S. Progressive collapse mechanisms of post-tensioned reinforced
concrete frames considering effect of infill walls. Eng Struct 2022;250:113451.
[214] Shan S, Li S. Fire-induced progressive collapse mechanisms of steel frames with
partial infill walls. Structures 2020;25:347–59.
[215] Shan S, Li S. Collapse performances of steel frames against fire considering
effect of infill walls. J Construct Steel Res 2021;182:106691.
[216] Qian K, Lan D-Q, Fu F, Li B. Effects of infilled wall opening on load
resisting capacity of RC frames to mitigate progressive collapse risk. Eng Struct
2020;223:111196.
[217] Alrubaidi M, Alhammadi S. Effectiveness of masonry infill walls on steel frames
with different beam-column connections under progressive collapse. Structures
2022;38:202–24.
[218] Qian K, Lan D-Q, Li S-K, Fu F. Effects of infill walls on load resis-
tance of multi-story RC frames to mitigate progressive collapse. Structures
2021;33:2534–45.
[219] Brodsky A, Yankelevsky DZ, Rabinovitch O. Shearing of infill masonry walls
under lateral and vertical loading. J Build Eng 2021;38:102147.
[220] Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H. Experimental tests on strengthening
strategies for masonry infill walls: A literature review. Constr Build Mater
2020;263:120520.
[221] Wang F, Yang J, Wang X-e, Iftikhar A. Study on progressive collapse behaviour
of steel-framed substructures with sheathed CFS stud infill walls. J Build Eng
2021;102720.
[222] Kim J, Lee H. Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of framed structures with
infill steel panels. J Construct Steel Res 2013;89:145–52.
[223] Bredean L, Botez M. The influence of beams design and the slabs effect
on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms development for RC framed
structures. Eng Fail Anal 2018;91:527–42.
[224] Galal MA, Bandyopadhyay M, Banik AK. Vulnerability of three-dimensional
semirigid composite frame subjected to progressive collapse. J Perform Constr
Facil 2019;33(3):04019030.
[225] Pang B, Wang F, Yang J, Nyunn S, Azim I. Performance of slabs in reinforced
concrete structures to resist progressive collapse. Structures 2021;33:4843–56.
[226] Yang Y, Li Y, Guan H, Diao M, Lu X. Enhancing post-punching performance of
flat plate-column joints by different reinforcement configurations. J Build Eng
2021;102855.
[227] Qian K, Li B. Strengthening and retrofitting of RC flat slabs to mitigate
progressive collapse by externally bonded CFRP laminates. J Compos Constr
2013;17(4):554–65.
[228] Akhundzada H, Donchev T, Petkova D. Punching shear resistance of flat
slabs strengthened with near surface–mounted CFRP bars. J Compos Constr
2021;25(4):04021035.
[229] Qin W, Xi Z, Liu X, Feng P, Ou X, Yang J. Experimental and theoretical analyses
of the progressive collapse resistance of NSM strengthening RC frames after the
failure of a corner column. J Build Eng 2022;47:103805.
[230] Qian K, Li B. Strengthening of multibay reinforced concrete flat slabs to mitigate
progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2015;141(6):04014154.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
[231] Qian K, Li B. Strengthening and retrofitting precast concrete buildings to
mitigate progressive collapse using externally bonded GFRP strips. J Compos
Constr 2019;23(3):04019018.
[232] Feng P, Qiang H, Ou X, Qin W, Yang J. Progressive collapse resistance of
GFRP-strengthened RC beam–slab subassemblages in a corner column–removal
scenario. J Compos Constr 2019;23(1):04018076.
[233] Shokoohfar A, Kaafi Siyahestalkhi P. Retrofitting and rehabilitation in steel
moment-resisting frame with prestressed concrete slab against progressive
collapse potential. Int J Eng Trans B: Appl 2022;35(1).
[234] Wang Y, Zhang B, Gu X-L, Lin F. Experimental and numerical investigation on
progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures considering transverse
beam and slab effects. J Build Eng 2022;47:103908.
[235] Lee S-Y, Noh S-Y, Lee D. Comparison of progressive collapse resistance capac-
ities of steel ordinary and intermediate moment frames considering different
connection details. Eng Struct 2021;231:111753.
[236] Zheng L, Wang W-D, Xian W. Experimental and numerical investigation on
the anti-progressive collapse performance of fabricated connection with CFST
column and composite beam. Eng Struct 2022;256:114061.
[237] Faridmehr I, Osman MH, Tahir MBM, Nejad AF, Hodjati R. Seismic and
progressive collapse assessment of SidePlate moment connection system. Struct
Eng Mech 2015;54(1):35–54.
[238] Mirtaheri M, Zoghi MA. Design guides to resist progressive collapse for steel
structures. Steel Compos Struct 2016;20(2):357–78.
[239] Lin S, Qiao H, Wang J, Shi J, Chen Y. Anti-collapse performance of steel
frames with RWS connections under a column removal scenario. Eng Struct
2021;227:111495.
[240] Lin S, Xue X, Qiao H, Chen Y. Prediction model for catenary action of
welded RWS connections using PVM link element. J Construct Steel Res
2022;191:107207.
[241] Qiao H, Xie X, Chen Y. Improvement of progressive collapse resistance for a
steel frame system with beam–web opening. Eng Struct 2022;256:113995.
[242] Zhang L, Li H, Wang W. Retrofit strategies against progressive collapse of steel
gravity frames. Appl Sci 2020;10(13):4600.
[243] Ghorbanzadeh B, Bregoli G, Vasdravellis G, Karavasilis TL. Pilot experimental
and numerical studies on a novel retrofit scheme for steel joints against
progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2019;200:109667.
[244] Bregoli G, Vasdravellis G, Karavasilis TL, Cotsovos DM. Static and dynamic tests
on steel joints equipped with novel structural details for progressive collapse
mitigation. Eng Struct 2021;232:111829.
[245] Wei J-p, Tian L-m, Hao J-p, Li W, Zhang C-b, Li T-j. Novel principle for
improving performance of steel frame structures in column-loss scenario. J
Construct Steel Res 2019;163:105768.
[246] Rong X, Xu X, Du Y. Research on the resistance of modified bolted connection
under progressive collapse scenario. In: Advances in structural engineering, vol.
24, no. 11. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England; 2021, p. 2555–71.
[247] Mirtaheri M, Emami F, Zoghi MA, Salkhordeh M. Mitigation of progressive
collapse in steel structures using a new passive connection. Struct Eng Mech
2019;70(4):381–94.
[248] Wang J, Wang W. Macromodeling approach and robustness enhancement
strategies for steel frame buildings with composite slabs against column loss. J
Struct Eng 2022;148(1):04021238.
[249] Dimopoulos CA, Freddi F, Karavasilis TL, Vasdravellis G. Progressive collapse
resistance of steel self-centering MRFs including the effects of the composite
floor. Eng Struct 2020;208:109923.
[250] Shirinzadeh M, Haghollahi A, Gomar H. Simple connections retrofitted by
dampers and bracket-tendon system against progressive collapse. Aust J Struct
Eng 2021;1–10.
[251] Shirinzadeh M, Haghollahi A. Retrofit of simple welded connections against
progressive collapse. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Struct Build 2020;173(6):458–68.
[252] Meng B, Li L, Zhong W, Tan Z, Du Q. Improving anti-progressive collapse
capacity of welded connection based on energy dissipation cover-plates. J
Construct Steel Res 2022;188:107051.
[253] Liu J. Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-
column connection, Part 1: Theoretical analysis. J Construct Steel Res
2010;66(2):229–37.
[254] Liu J. Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-
column connection, Part 2: Finite element analysis. J Construct Steel Res
2010;66(2):238–47.
[255] Shaheen MA, Galal MA, Cunningham LS, Foster AS. New technique to im-
prove the ductility of steel beam to column bolted connections: A numerical
investigation. Civil Eng 2021;2(4):929–42.
[256] Shaheen MA, Foster AS, Cunningham LS. A novel device to improve robust-
ness of end plate beam–column connections: Analytical model development.
Thin-Walled Struct 2022;172:108878.
[257] Kim J, Choi H. Monotonic loading tests of RC beam-column subassemblage
strengthened to prevent progressive collapse. Int J Concrete Struct Mater
2015;9(4):401–13.
[258] Sadek F, Bao Y, Main JA, Lew H. Evaluation and enhancement of robustness
for reinforced concrete buildings. J Struct Eng 2022;148(1):04021248.
23
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[259] Elsanadedy HM. New moment-resisting beam-column joints to increase pro-
gressive collapse resistance of precast concrete buildings. J Build Eng
2021;102884.
[260] Elsanadedy HM, Al-Salloum YA, Alrubaidi MA, Almusallam TH, Siddiqui NA,
Abbas H. Upgrading of precast RC beam-column joints using innovative
FRP/steel hybrid technique for progressive collapse prevention. Constr Build
Mater 2021;268:121130.
[261] Joshi DD, Patel PV. Experimental study of precast dry connections constructed
away from beam–column junction under progressive collapse scenario. Asian J
Civ Eng 2019;20(2):209–22.
[262] Liu Y, Zhao Z, Cheng X, Li Y, Diao M, Sun H. Experimental and numerical
investigation of the progressive collapse of precast reinforced concrete frame
substructures with wet connections. Eng Struct 2022;256:114010.
[263] Li S, Shan S, Zhang H, Li Y. Rapid retrofit of reinforced concrete frames after
progressive collapse to increase sustainability. Sustainability 2019;11(15):4195.
[264] Chen W, Lin B, Li D, Zhang J, Cui S. Progressive collapse performance of shear
strengthened RC frames by nano CFRP. Nanotechnol Rev 2022;11(1):811–23.
[265] Wang H, Huo J, Elchalakani M, Liu Y, Zhang S. Dynamic performance of
retrofitted steel beam-column connections subjected to impact loadings. J
Construct Steel Res 2021;183:106732.
[266] Liu Y, Huang S-S, Burgess I. A numerical study on the structural performance of
a ductile connection under fire conditions. Ce/Papers 2021;4(2–4):1196–202.
[267] D’Antimo M, Latour M, Demonceau J-F. Dissipative joints under impact
loadings. Ce/Papers 2021;4(2–4):1377–85.
[268] Li H, Chen W, Huang Z, Hao H, Ngo TT, Pham TM, et al. Dynamic response
of monolithic and precast concrete joint with wet connections under impact
loads. Eng Struct 2022;250:113434.
[269] Zhang W. Progressive collapse of post-tensioned subframes following the
removal of an interior column. Eng Struct 2022;254:113841.
[270] Qian K, Liu Y, Yang T, Li B. Progressive collapse resistance of posttensioned
concrete beam-column subassemblages with unbonded posttensioning strands.
J Struct Eng 2018;144(1):04017182.
[271] Qian K, Zhang X-D, Fu F, Li B. Progressive collapse resisting mechanisms of
planar prestressed concrete frame. ACI Struct J 2019;116(4):77–90.
[272] Huang Y, Tao Y, Yi W, Zhou Y, Deng L. Numerical investigation on compressive
arch action of prestressed concrete beam-column assemblies against progressive
collapse. J Build Eng 2021;44:102991.
[273] Qian K, Lan D-Q, Zhang L, Fu F, Fang Q. Robustness of post-tensioned concrete
beam-column subassemblies under various column removal scenarios. J Struct
Eng 2022;148(5):04022032.
[274] Zhu YF, Chen CH, Keer LM, Huang Y, Yao Y. Structural response and
resilience of posttensioned steel frames under column loss. J Construct Steel
Res 2019;158:107–19.
[275] Husain M, Yu J, Osman BH, Ji J. Progressive collapse resistance of post-
tensioned concrete beam-column assemblies under a middle column removal
scenario. J Build Eng 2021;34:101945.
[276] Yang T, Liu Z, Lian J. Progressive collapse of RC flat slab substructures with
unbonded posttensioning strands after the loss of an exterior column. Eng Struct
2021;234:111989.
[277] Yankelevsky DZ, Karinski YS, Brodsky A, Feldgun VR. Evaluation of punching
shear design criteria to prevent progressive collapse of RC flat slabs. Int J
Protect Struct 2021;12(2):174–205.
[278] Tavakoli H, Kiakojouri F. Threat-independent column removal and fire-induced
progressive collapse: Numerical study and comparison. Civ Eng Infrastruct J
2015;48(1):121–31.
[279] Ulaeto N, Sagaseta J, Chryssanthopoulos M. Horizontal collapse propagation of
concrete flat slabs supported on columns. J Struct Eng 2022;148(2):04021266.
[280] Lalkovski N, Starossek U. Pancake-type collapse—preventing downward pro-
gression. In: IABSE symposium report. International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering; 2014, p. 1642–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/
222137814814068148.
[281] Lalkovski N, Starossek U. The total collapse of the twin towers: What it
would have taken to prevent it once collapse was initiated. J Struct Eng
2022;148(2):04021276.
[282] Yankelevsky D, Karinski Y, Feldgun V. Dynamic punching shear failure of a RC
flat slab-column connection under a collapsing slab impact. Int J Impact Eng
2020;135:103401.
[283] De Biagi V, Marchelli M, Peila D. Reliability analysis and partial safety factors
approach for rockfall protection structures. Eng Struct 2020;213:110553.
[284] Marchelli M, De Biagi V, Peila D. Reliability-based design of rockfall passive
systems height. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2021;139:104664.
[285] Yan J, Yao S, Xu P, Peng Y, Shao H, Zhao S. Theoretical prediction and
numerical studies of expanding circular tubes as energy absorbers. Int J Mech
Sci 2016;105:206–14.
[286] Guan W, Gao G, Yu Y, Zhuo T. Theoretical, experimental and numerical
investigations on the energy absorption of splitting multiple circular tubes under
impact loading. Thin-Walled Struct 2020;155:106916.
[287] Zhu G, Yu Q, Zhao X, Wei L, Chen H. Energy-absorbing mechanisms
and crashworthiness design of CFRP multi-cell structures. Compos Struct
2020;233:111631.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
[288] Liu Q, Fu J, Ma Y, Zhang Y, Li Q. Crushing responses and energy absorption
behaviors of multi-cell CFRP tubes. Thin-Walled Struct 2020;155:106930.
[289] Hu D, Wang Y, Song B, Wang Y. Energy absorption characteristics of a
foam-filled tri-tube under axial quasi-static loading: experiment and numerical
simulation. Int J Crashworthiness 2018;23(4):417–32.
[290] Djamaluddin F, Abdullah S, Ariffin AK, Nopiah ZM. Optimisation and validation
of full and half foam filled double circular tube under multiple load cases. Int
J Crashworthiness 2019;24(4).
[291] Sun G, Wang Z, Yu H, Gong Z, Li Q. Experimental and numerical investigation
into the crashworthiness of metal-foam-composite hybrid structures. Compos
Struct 2019;209:535–47.
[292] Wang Z, Jin X, Li Q, Sun G. On crashworthiness design of hybrid
metal-composite structures. Int J Mech Sci 2020;171:105380.
[293] Wu C, Li J. Structural protective design with innovative concrete material and
retrofitting technology. Procedia Eng 2017;173:49–56.
[294] Wang H, Yang B, Chen K, Elchalakani M. Parametric analysis and simplified
approach for steel-framed subassemblies with reverse channel connection under
falling-debris impact. Eng Struct 2020;225:111263.
[295] Wang H, Tan KH, Yang B. Impact resistance of steel frames with different
beam–column connections subject to falling-floor impact on various locations.
J Struct Eng 2021;147(4):04021017.
[296] Rithanyaa R, Murali G, Salaimanimagudam M, Fediuk R, Abdelgader HS,
Siva A. Impact response of novel layered two stage fibrous composite slabs
with different support type. Structures 2021;29:1–13.
[297] Yankelevsky D, Karinski Y, Brodsky A, Feldgun VR. Dynamic punching shear
of impacting RC flat slabs with drop panels. Eng Fail Anal 2021;105682.
[298] Batarlar B, Hering M, Bracklow F, Kühn T, Beckmann B, Curbach M. Experimen-
tal investigation on reinforced concrete slabs strengthened with carbon textiles
under repeated impact loads. Struct Concr 2021;22(1):120–31.
[299] Prasad N, Murali G, Fediuk R, Vatin N, Karelina M. Response of novel
functionally-graded prepacked aggregate fibrous concrete against low velocity
repeated projectile impacts. Materials 2021;14(2):280.
[300] Noman A, Aqeel M, Qari SH, Al Surhanee AA, Yasin G, Alamri S, et al. Plant
hypersensitive response vs pathogen ingression: Death of few gives life to
others. Microb Pathog 2020;145:104224.
[301] Hong JH, Savina M, Du J, Devendran A, Ramakanth KK, Tian X, et al. A
sacrifice-for-survival mechanism protects root stem cell niche from chilling
stress. Cell 2017;170(1):102–13.
[302] Lin T. Concrete for lunar base construction. In: Lunar bases and space activities
of the 21st century. 1985, p. 381.
[303] Corley WG, Sr PFM, Sozen MA, Thornton CH. The Oklahoma city bombing:
Summary and recommendations for multihazard mitigation. J Perform Constr
Facil 1998;12(3):100–12.
[304] Starossek U. Progressive collapse study of a multi-span bridge. Struct Eng Int
1999;9(2):121–5.
[305] Shoghijavan M, Starossek U. Structural robustness of long-span cable-supported
bridges segmented by zipper-stoppers to prevent progressive collapse. In: IABSE
conference, Kuala Lumpur 2018: engineering the developing world. 2018, p.
593–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/kualalumpur.2018.0593.
[306] Cennamo C, Cennamo GM, Chiaia BM. Robustness-oriented design of a
panel-based shelter system in critical sites. J Architect Eng 2012;18(2):123–39.
[307] Cennamo C, Chiaia B, De Biagi V, Placidi L. Monitoring and compartmentalized
structures. ZAMM Z Angew Math Mech 2015;95(6):638–48.
[308] Voulpiotis K, Köhler J, Jockwer R, Frangi A. A holistic framework for designing
for structural robustness in tall timber buildings. Eng Struct 2021;227:111432.
[309] Voulpiotis K, Frangi A. Robustness design for tall timber buildings. Int J
High-Rise Build 2020;9(3):245–53.
[310] Daou H, Abou Salha W, Raphael W, Chateauneuf A. Explanation of the collapse
of terminal 2E at Roissy–CDG airport by nonlinear deterministic and reliability
analyses. Case Stud Constr Mater 2019;10:e00222.
[311] Yang R, Zhang J. Numerical simulation of various materials for the impact
protection of a reinforced concrete slab. Strength Mater 2021;53(1):145–53.
[312] FEMA. Primer for design of commercial buildings to mitigate terrorist attacks.
Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2003.
[313] Scalvenzi M, Parisi F. Progressive collapse capacity of a gravity-load designed
RC building partially collapsed during structural retrofitting. Eng Fail Anal
2021;121:105164.
[314] Scalvenzi M, Parisi F. Disproportionate collapse resistance of buildings during
retrofitting. In: Life-cycle civil engineering: innovation, theory and practice. CRC
Press; 2021, p. 1618–23.
[315] Ilgın HE, Karjalainen M. Preliminary design proposals for dovetail wood board
elements in multi-story building construction. Architecture 2021;1(1):56–68.
[316] Huber JA, Bita HM, Tannert T, Berg S. Finite element analysis of alternative
load paths to prevent disproportionate collapse in platform-type CLT floor
systems. Eng Struct 2021;240:112362.
[317] Bita HM, Huber JA, Voulpiotis K, Tannert T. Survey of contemporary practices
for disproportionate collapse prevention. Eng Struct 2019;199:109578.
[318] Almusallam T, Al-Salloum Y, Alsayed S, Iqbal R, Abbas H. Effect of CFRP
strengthening on the response of RC slabs to hard projectile impact. Nucl Eng
Des 2015;286:211–26.
24
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[319] Loganaganandan M, Murali G, Salaimanimagudam MP, Haridharan MK,
Karthikeyan K. Experimental study on GFRP strips strengthened new two stage
concrete slabs under falling mass collisions. KSCE J Civ Eng 2021;25(1):235–44.
[320] Elnagar AB, Afefy HM, Baraghith AT, Mahmoud MH. Experimental and nu-
merical investigations on the impact resistance of SHCC-strengthened RC slabs
subjected to drop weight loading. Constr Build Mater 2019;229:116866.
[321] Yoo S-J, Yuan T-F, Hong S-H, Yoon Y-S. Effect of strengthening methods on
two-way slab under low-velocity impact loading. Materials 2020;13(24):5603.
[322] Ivorra S, Garcia-Barba J, Mateo M, Pérez-Carramiñana C, Maciá A. Partial
collapse of a ventilated stone façade: Diagnosis and analysis of the anchorage
system. Eng Fail Anal 2013;31:290–301.
[323] Weli SS, Vigh LG. Blast performance evaluation of steel moment-resisting
frame equipped with smart bolted connection. J Perform Constr Facil
2021;35(5):04021050.
[324] Weli SS, Vigh LG. Blast performance of steel frames equipped with NiTi
SMA bolts: Design procedure and numerical evaluation. J Struct Eng
2022;148(5):04022029.
[325] Wikipedia. 2021 LAgos high-rise collapse. 2021, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/2021_Lagos_high-rise_collapse. [Accessed 08 November 2021].
[326] Buitrago M, Moragues JJ, Calderón PA, Adam JM. Structural failures in cast-in-
place reinforced concrete building structures under construction. In: Handbook
of materials failure analysis. Elsevier; 2018, p. 153–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/B978-0-08-101928-3.00008-2.
[327] Cho C, Kim K, Park J, Cho YK. Data-driven monitoring system for preventing the
collapse of scaffolding structures. J Constr Eng Manag 2018;144(8):04018077.
[328] Buitrago M, Sagaseta J, Adam JM. Avoiding failures during building construc-
tion using structural fuses as load limiters on temporary shoring structures. Eng
Struct 2020;204:109906.
[329] Buitrago M, Calderón PA, Moragues JJ, Alvarado YA, Adam JM. Load limiters
on temporary shoring structures: tests on a full-scale building structure under
construction. J Struct Eng 2021;147(3):04020345.
[330] Scalvenzi M, Gargiulo S, Freddi F, Parisi F. Impact of seismic retrofitting
on progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures. Eng Fail Anal
2021;105840.
[331] Yu X-H, Qian K, Lu D-G, Li B. Progressive collapse behavior of aging rein-
forced concrete structures considering corrosion effects. J Perform Constr Facil
2017;31(4):04017009.
[332] Feng D-C, Xie S-C, Li Y, Jin L. Time-dependent reliability-based redundancy as-
sessment of deteriorated RC structures against progressive collapse considering
corrosion effect. Struct Saf 2021;89:102061.
[333] Zhang L, Wei T, Li H, Zeng J, Deng X. Effects of corrosion on compressive arch
action and catenary action of RC frames to resist progressive collapse based on
numerical analysis. Materials 2021;14(10):2662.
[334] Wang S, Zhang L, Su H, Du J. Time-dependent robustness-based condition
assessment of RC bridges subjected to corrosion. Structures 2021;34:4500–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.10.061.
[335] de Souza RA, de Souza Araújo MJ. The progressive failure of 15 bal-
conies and the engineering techniques for their reconstruction. Eng Fail Anal
2011;18(3):895–906.
[336] Shokoohfar A, Kaafi P. Retrofitting and rehabilitation in steel moment-resisting
frame with prestressed concrete slab against progressive collapse potential. Int
J Eng 2022;35(1):53–72.
[337] Wikipedia. Didcot power stations. 2016, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Didcot_power_stations. [Accessed 08 September 2021].
[338] Wikipedia. Saint Petersburg sports and concert complex. 2019, URL: https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Sports_and_Concert_Complex. [Accessed
08-September-2021].
[339] Felipe T, Haach V. Discussion about progressive collapse of masonry buildings.
Revista IBRACON de Estruturas E Mater 2019;12:479–85.
[340] Grant DN, Dennis J, Sturt R, Milan G, McLennan D, Negrette P, et al.
Explicit modelling of collapse for Dutch unreinforced masonry building typology
fragility functions. Bull Earthq Eng 2020;1–23.
[341] Vallero G, De Biagi V, Barbero M, Castelli M, Napoli ML. A method to quan-
titatively assess the vulnerability of masonry structures subjected to rockfalls.
Nat Hazards 2020;103:1307–25.
[342] Makoond N, Pelà L, Molins C. A risk index for the structural diagnosis of
masonry heritage (RISDiMaH). Constr Build Mater 2021;284:122433.
[343] Kouris E-GS, Kouris L-AS, Konstantinidis AA, Kourkoulis SK, Karayannis CG,
Aifantis EC. Stochastic dynamic analysis of cultural heritage towers up to
collapse. Buildings 2021;11(7):296.
[344] Fathalla E, Salem H. Parametric study on seismic rehabilitation of masonry
buildings using FRP based upon 3D non-linear dynamic analysis. Buildings
2018;8(9):124.
[345] Zhao X, Yan S, Chen Y. Comparison of progressive collapse resistance of
single-layer latticed domes under different loadings. J Construct Steel Res
2017;129:204–14.
[346] Fu F, Parke G. Assessment of the progressive collapse resistance of double-layer
grid space structures using implicit and explicit methods. Int J Steel Struct
2018;18(3):831–42.
F. Kiakojouri et al.
[347] Tian L-m, Li D-y, Li W, Kou Y-f. Progressive collapse resistance of single-layer
latticed domes under different failure conditions at the same joint. J Build Eng
2021;36:102132.
[348] Nie G-b, Zhang C-x, Li D-f, Chen Q, Wang Z-y. Collapse of the spatial
double-layer cylinder shell by experimental study. Eng Struct 2021;245:112862.
[349] Rashidyan S, Sheidaii M-R. Improving double-layer space trusses collapse
behavior by strengthening compression layer and weakening tension layer
members. Adv Struct Eng 2017;20(11):1757–67.
[350] Zhai Z, Guo W, Chen W, Yu Z, Zeng C, Li S. Effect of damper failure on the
seismic loss assessment of retrofitted steel moment-resisting frames. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2021;150:106903.
[351] Luo FJ, Bai Y, Hou J, Huang Y. Progressive collapse analysis and structural
robustness of steel-framed modular buildings. Eng Fail Anal 2019;104:643–56.
[352] Alembagheri M, Sharafi P, Hajirezaei R, Samali B. Collapse capacity of modular
steel buildings subject to module loss scenarios: The role of inter-module
connections. Eng Struct 2020;210:110373.
[353] Alembagheri M, Sharafi P, Hajirezaei R, Tao Z. Anti-collapse resistance mech-
anisms in corner-supported modular steel buildings. J Construct Steel Res
2020;170:106083.
25
Engineering Structures 262 (2022) 114274
[354] Chan T-M, Chung K-F, et al. Effect of inter-module connections on progressive
collapse behaviour of MiC structures. J Construct Steel Res 2021;185:106823.
[355] Thai H-T, Ho QV, Li W, Ngo T. Progressive collapse and robustness of modular
high-rise buildings. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2021;1–13.
[356] Sharafi P, Alembagheri M, Kildashti K, Ganji HT. Gravity-induced progressive
collapse response of precast corner-supported modular buildings. J Architect
Eng 2021;27(4):04021031.
[357] Chua YS, Dai Pang S, Liew JR, Dai Z. Robustness of inter-module connec-
tions and steel modular buildings under column loss scenarios. J Build Eng
2022;47:103888.
[358] Peng J, Hou C, Shen L. Progressive collapse analysis of corner-supported
composite modular buildings. J Build Eng 2022;103977.
[359] Beck AT, da Rosa Ribeiro L, Valdebenito M. Risk-based cost-benefit analysis
of frame structures considering progressive collapse under column removal
scenarios. Eng Struct 2020;225:111295.
[360] Stewart MG. Terrorism risks and economic assessment of infrastructure
protection against progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2021;147(10):04021165.
[361] Beck AT, Ribeiro LdR, Valdebenito M. Cost-benefit analysis of design for pro-
gressive collapse under accidental or malevolent extreme events. In: Engineering
for extremes. Springer; 2022, p. 313–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
85018-0_15.